[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2305-2311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28434]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket Nos. 21-450; FCC 22-87; FR ID 120401]


Affordable Connectivity Program; Emergency Broadband Benefit 
Program

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Federal 
Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) seeks comments on the 
statutory requirement to revise Affordable Connectivity Program (or 
ACP) Transparency Data Collection rules, the value of subscriber-level 
data and methods of obtaining and encouraging subscriber consent, and 
whether the Commission should also collect additional data.

DATES: Comments are due on or before February 13, 2023 and reply 
comments are due on or before February 27, 2023. If you anticipate that 
you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within 
the period of time allowed by this document, you should advise the 
listed contact as soon as possible.

ADDRESSES: All documents filed with the Commission pursuant to the 
requirements of this order should refer to WC Docket No. 21-450. Unless 
otherwise specified, such documents may be filed by any of the 
following methods:
     Electronic Filers: You may file documents electronically 
by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) 
at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. Parties that need to submit confidential filings 
to the Commission should follow the instructions provided in the 
Commission's March 31, 2020 public notice regarding the procedures for 
submission of confidential materials. See FCC Provides Further 
Instructions Regarding Submission of Confidential Materials, Public 
Notice, DA 20-361, 35 FCC Rcd 2973 (OMD, March 31, 2000), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-361A1_Rcd.pdf. All filings must 
be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to Federal Communications Commission, 45 L 
Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Wu, Attorney Advisor,

[[Page 2306]]

Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 
at (202) 418-7400 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in WC Docket Nos. 21-450, 
FCC 22-87, adopted on November 15, 2022 and released on November 23, 
2022. The full text of this document is available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-87A1.pdf. The Fourth Report and 
Order that was adopted concurrently with the FNPRM is to be published 
elsewhere in the Federal Register.

I. Discussion

    1. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the 
Commission seeks additional comments on: (1) the statutory requirement 
to revise ACP Transparency Data Collection rules adopted in the Fourth 
Report and Order (Order); (2) the value of subscriber-level data and 
methods of obtaining and encouraging subscriber consent; and (3) 
whether the Commission should also collect additional data, such as 
more granular aggregated data, data related to enrollment processes, 
the digital divide, price, or plan availability or performance.
    2. Data Collection Revisions. The Commission asked about the 
statutory requirement to revise the ACP Transparency Data Collection 
rules to verify the accuracy of the data submitted by providers in the 
ACP Data Collection Notice and received little comment other than from 
ACA Connects. Although the Infrastructure Act could be interpreted as 
requiring the Commission to collect and analyze data before revising 
the Commission rules, it could also be interpreted as not making data 
collection a prerequisite to doing so. The Commission believes that 
Congress' directive to revisit the data collection rules can be 
accomplished by reviewing and beginning to revise the rules of the 
collection, including for data accuracy verification, within the six-
month statutory timeframe. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on 
how the rules in the Order, 87 FR XXXX, month xx, 2022, could be 
improved, such as by reducing burdens on smaller providers or, as set 
forth following, collecting subscriber-level data, more granular 
aggregated data, or data related to the digital divide or plan 
availability. In particular, the Commission seeks comments on how the 
rules set forth in the Order could be revised to verify the accuracy of 
the data to be collected thereunder. How should the Commission track 
and verify the accuracy of data? How should the Commission protect 
against inaccuracies in the data? Should rule revisions contemplate 
adding new collection variables to improve or refine the data 
collected? How can the Commission structure future rule revisions to 
minimize the economic impact on small providers? As noted proceeding, 
the Commission delegates authority to the Bureau to issue a 
supplemental notice seeking comment on these issues, if necessary to 
enhance the record. The Commission also seeks comments on whether this 
approach complies with section 60502(c)(2) of the Infrastructure Act.
    3. Subscriber-Level Data. Additionally, although the Commission is 
not requiring providers to collect and submit via NLAD subscriber-level 
data at this time, the Commission seeks additional comment on the 
benefits and costs of collecting subscriber-level data. Does the 
Commission have authority to collect subscriber-level data under the 
Infrastructure Act or other sources of authority? Would subscriber-
level data on price and a unique plan identifier be more useful 
relative to the aggregated data to be collected under this Order, and, 
if so, how, why, and to what extent? Would subscriber-level data allow 
the Commission to better understand and assess service price and plan 
characteristics? If so, how could the Commission use this better 
understanding to further the Commission performance objectives for the 
Affordable Connectivity Program? For example, as noted in the ACP Data 
Collection Notice, a subscriber-level collection can help to ``study 
how subscriber plan choices and preferences for plan characteristics 
vary by geographic area'' and could also improve consumer outreach 
efforts, which could not be targeted based on a high-level aggregate 
collection. Are there additional benefits of a subscriber-level 
collection in meeting the performance goals of the program? Would 
providing additional fields in NLAD, for example, including price and a 
unique plan identifier, impose significant burdens on providers or 
subscribers?
    4. Collecting subscriber-level data, however, means getting 
subscriber consent, and the Commission seeks additional comments on how 
consent could be obtained. Should providers be required to obtain or 
seek consent upon enrolling new subscribers? What about when 
transferring-in subscribers who are moving the ACP benefit to another 
provider? Additionally, the Commission seeks comments on obtaining 
consent from existing ACP households. Although commenters representing 
providers asserted this would be burdensome in response to the ACP Data 
Collection Notice, the Commission seeks further comments on ways to 
seek consent by using existing systems or other required or voluntary 
contacts with enrolled households. For subscribers already enrolled 
based on a qualified ACP application in the National Verifier, should 
USAC obtain or seek consent from these subscribers? Or is the broadband 
provider better positioned to obtain consent? Should USAC seek or 
obtain consent upon recertification? Are there other touchpoints 
between USAC and subscribers that would permit consent? If consent is 
sought or obtained via USAC in the application or through 
recertification, how should consent be obtained from ACP subscribers 
who do not have their eligibility determined via the National Verifier 
because they qualify via participation in a provider's low-income 
program or are enrolled in Lifeline and do not have to apply again for 
the Affordable Connectivity Program? Is the enrolling provider in the 
best position to obtain consent? Similarly, how could consent be 
obtained from subscribers who are recertified automatically through the 
National Verifier or through their Lifeline recertification?
    5. The Commission seeks further comments on whether consent should 
be mandatory or optional for subscribers. If consent is mandatory, what 
would be the likely effect on ACP enrollment for new subscribers and 
existing subscribers? If consent is optional for subscribers, how would 
this affect the quantity and quality of the resulting data? How could 
the Commission encourage or incentivize subscribers to consent? Should 
the Commission make consent mandatory, that is, a condition for ACP 
participation, for new subscribers or those transferring the affordable 
connectivity benefit, as is the case for the consent required to 
transmit data such as name and address under 47 CFR 54.1806(d), while 
leaving consent optional for existing subscribers to whom providers 
must reach out? Would making consent mandatory for new subscribers upon 
enrollment improve the data collection? Would making consent mandatory 
for existing subscribers upon transferring the affordable connectivity 
benefit improve the data collection? If consent were to be made 
optional for subscribers but requesting consent mandatory for 
providers, how could the Commission

[[Page 2307]]

ensures that providers timely seek and obtain consent?
    6. Other Levels of Aggregation. Although the rules in the Order 
require providers to submit data at the ZIP code level, the Commission 
also seeks comments on whether aggregated data should be collected or 
aggregated on a level smaller than ZIP code, such as by county or 
Census tract, either in addition to or instead of ZIP code. What would 
be the benefits and costs of collecting data aggregated at these 
levels? Do providers have the capability to readily aggregate data by 
county or Census tract? If not, what are the burdens associated with 
aggregating data at these levels? If data is collected or aggregated on 
a level other than by ZIP code, should this effect the level at which 
data is published? How would privacy considerations affect the level at 
which data gets published?
    7. Enrollment Process Data. The Commission also seeks comments on 
whether to collect information about the enrollment process and 
customer interactions with provider representatives. Such information 
could relate to the administrative efficacy of the Affordable 
Connectivity Program. In particular, information about interactions 
between subscribers and provider representatives and the type of 
interaction, such as enrollment assistance in-person, over the phone, 
or via email, could help the Commission combat enrollment misconduct. 
The Commission thus seeks further comments on whether the Commission 
should, in the ACP Transparency Data Collection, collect information 
about the extent to which subscribers enroll in the program using the 
assistance of provider representatives. Should the Commission collect 
data on the type of enrollment interaction--in person, telephonically, 
or via email or other method? Should the Commission collect this 
information at the subscriber-level or aggregate-level? Should the 
Commission require providers to upload to NLAD the type of enrollment 
interaction between subscriber and representative or data relating to 
which representative was involved? Does the Commission have the 
authority collect such information as part of the ACP Transparency Data 
Collection? What burdens on providers or subscribers would be 
associated with collecting enrollment-related interaction data from 
providers?
    8. Digital Divide Performance Metrics. Furthermore, the Commission 
seeks comments on whether to collect data related to the digital 
divide. This information could assist the Commission in determining the 
efficacy of the Affordable Connectivity Program, particularly with 
regard to the Commission accomplishments of the performance goal of 
reducing the digital divide. The Commission therefore seeks further 
comments on whether it should collect information through this 
collection about the extent to which ACP subscribers are new or 
existing broadband subscribers, or are subscribers to multiple 
broadband plans (e.g., fixed and mobile). Should the Commission collect 
this information at the subscriber-level or aggregate-level? Does the 
Commission have the authority to collect such information as part of 
the ACP Transparency Data Collection? What burdens on providers, 
particularly small providers, would such a collection entail? If this 
collection is not the proper venue for such a collection, should the 
Commission collect the information through statistical sampling, 
industry or consumer surveys? Would collection of these data present an 
opportunity to also collect and assess other useful information, for 
example, related to digital equity and inclusion?
    9. Introductory Pricing and Set-up Fees. The Commission also seeks 
comments on whether to make mandatory the submission of information 
concerning the number of ACP households paying introductory prices or 
on introductory or time-limited promotional pricing plans and the total 
number of subscribers who pay set-up fees. In the Order, the Commission 
made the submission of the total number of subscribers on introductory 
rates or who pay set-up fees optional, acknowledging the burden that 
providers face when submitting such granular information. Information 
on introductory pricing could assist in understanding the growth of the 
Affordable Connectivity Program, the number of subscribers who may be 
subject to upcoming price increases, and whether ACP subscribers are 
predominantly new. Information on set-up fees could assist the 
Commission in determining the efficacy of the Affordable Connectivity 
Program, particularly with regard to the accomplishment of the 
performance goal of reducing the digital divide, given that set-up or 
installation fees are a barrier to the adoption of broadband internet 
service. The Commission therefore seeks further comments on whether the 
Commission should make the collection of these two data points 
mandatory. Should the Commission collects this information at the 
subscriber level or aggregate level? Are there other data fields or 
information related to introductory pricing or set-up or activation 
fees that the Commission should collect? Does the Commission have the 
authority to collect such information as part of the ACP Transparency 
Data Collection? What burden on providers, particularly small 
providers, would such a collection entail? Is this collection the 
proper venue for the collection of this information, and if not, where 
and how should the Commission collect this information? Would 
collection of this information help the Commission assess its progress 
towards digital equity and inclusion?
    10. Quality of Service Metrics. In the Broadband Labels Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Broadband Labels FNPRM), FCC 22-86, 
November 17, 2022, the Commission requests comments on whether and how 
the Commission should collect connection reliability or other quality 
of service metrics, such as network availability. This information, if 
collected as part of Broadband Labels, could assist the Commission in 
determining the value that ACP households are obtaining from their 
benefit. The Commission seeks comments on whether, as part of this 
collection, the Commission shall collect any reliability or other 
quality of service information that may be collected as part of 
Broadband Labels.
    11. Plan Characteristics. The Commission also seeks comments on 
whether it should make the collection of all plan characteristics 
included on the broadband labels mandatory for legacy or grandfathered 
plans. In the Order, the Commission made the submission of information 
included on the broadband labels relating to introductory rates, one-
time fees, typical speeds, and typical latency optional for legacy 
service plans, given their unique features (e.g., lower subscribership 
rates, not currently offered, no broadband labels etc.). Collecting 
this information would allow the Commission to ensure that its data set 
is more robust and not skewed or biased as a result of the exclusion of 
certain data fields relating to legacy plans. What are the benefits of 
collecting this information for legacy service plans? What are the 
burdens associated with such a collection and how can burdens on 
providers be minimized? Should the Commission collect this information 
at the subscriber or aggregate level? If the Commission makes the 
submission of these characteristics mandatory, what should the 
timeframe for the collection be? Would collecting this information 
present an opportunity to collect and assess other useful information, 
related to digital equity and inclusion, or reducing the digital 
divide?

[[Page 2308]]

    12. All-in Price. The Commission also seeks comments on whether to 
require the collection of all-in price, net-rate charged, and the 
number of subscribers whose monthly net-rate charged is greater than 
$0. This information would help the Commission determine its progress 
toward the goal of reducing the digital divide, the efficacy of the 
Affordable Connectivity Program, and the value that ACP households are 
obtaining from the federal subsidy. In the Order the Commission made 
the submission of the all-in price, the net-rate charged, and the 
number of subscribers whose monthly net-rate charged is greater than $0 
optional. The Commission seeks comments on whether to make the 
collection of these characteristics mandatory. What are the benefits of 
collecting such information? How would all-in price, net-rate charged, 
or the number of subscribers whose net-rate charge is $0 be helpful for 
groups engaging in targeted outreach? Should the Commission make 
mandatory the collection of any other optional fields? What would the 
burdens of such a collection impose on providers and in particular, 
small providers? If the Commission requires the submission of this 
information, should the Commission collect it at the subscriber or the 
aggregate levels? What are the benefits and burdens associated with 
each approach? Would collecting this information present help assess 
other information, related to digital equity and inclusion, or reducing 
the digital divide?
    13. Additional Plan Metrics. The Commission also seeks comments on 
whether the Commission collects data on additional metrics, including 
but not limited to low-income plan and connected device offerings. This 
information could assist the Commission in determining its progress 
towards the Affordable Connectivity Program goals of reducing the 
digital divide and ensuring the efficient administration of the 
program. The Commission seeks comments on whether, as part of this 
collection, the Commission collects information about the availability 
of restricted or low-income only service plans, or a provider's 
connected device offerings. Should the Commission collect information 
about the availability of low-income plans or connected device such 
offerings at the subscriber or aggregate level? Would the collection of 
such information impose a burden on providers, including small 
providers, or on subscribers? Does the Commission have the authority to 
collect this information? Are there any privacy concerns raised by the 
collection of this information? Would collection of these data present 
an opportunity to also collect and assess other useful information, for 
example, related to digital equity and inclusion?

II. Procedural Matters

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    14. The FNPRM may contain proposed new or modified information 
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on any information 
collection requirements contained in the FNPRM, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(copyright)(4), the Commission seeks 
specific comment on how we might further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    15. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in the FNPRM. Written comments are requested on this IRFA. 
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed 
by the deadlines for comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
provided on the first page of the item. The Commission will send a copy 
of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and 
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
    16. Need For, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. In the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Infrastructure Act), Congress 
established the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which is 
designed to promote access to broadband internet access services by 
households that meet specified eligibility criteria by providing 
funding for participating providers to offer certain services and 
connected devices to these households at discounted prices. The 
Affordable Connectivity Program provides funds for an affordable 
connectivity benefit consisting of a $30.00 per month discount on the 
price of broadband internet access services that participating 
providers supply to eligible households in most parts of the country 
and a $75.00 per month discount on such prices in Tribal areas. The 
Commission established rules governing the affordable connectivity 
benefit and related matters in the ACP Report and Order.
    17. Furthermore, the Infrastructure Act directs the Commission to 
establish an annual mandatory collection of data relating to the price 
and subscription rates of each internet service offering of ACP 
participating providers. The Act also requires the Commission to 
``revise the rules to verify the accuracy of data submitted pursuant to 
the rules'' no later than 180 days after the rules are promulgated.
    18. By way of background, in the ACP Data Collection Notice, the 
Bureau sought comment on the timing requirement, specifically asking 
how to interpret section 60502(c)(2)'s revision mandate. In response, 
the Commission only received one comment from ACA Connects, suggesting 
that its permitted to revise rules in compliance with 60502(c)(2) 
before collecting any data. In the FNPRM, the Commission interprets the 
Infrastructure Act as not requiring it to collect data prior to 
revising its rules.
    19. The FNPRM seeks comment on the Infrastructure Act's rule 
revision requirement. Specifically, the Commission seeks information on 
how to improve the data collection rules, including how to track and 
verify the accuracy of data collected, to protect against inaccuracies, 
and to reduce burdens. Moreover, the FNPRM seeks comment on whether the 
timing of this collection, as proposed, satisfies the requirements of 
the Infrastructure Act to ``revise the accuracy'' of its rules no later 
than 180 days after establishing final rules.
    20. The Commission also seeks comments on the value of subscriber-
level data and how, if the Commission decides to collect such 
information, obtain consent. Specifically, the Commission seeks 
comments on the value and burdens associated with collecting subscriber 
level information, and the methods and merit of collecting consent from 
new and existing ACP subscribers, including whether consent should be 
mandatory or optional.
    21. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether to 
collect information about the Affordable Connectivity Program 
enrollment process as part of this collection, specifically whether the 
Commission authorizes to collect such information, and how to go about 
collecting it.

[[Page 2309]]

    22. The Commission seeks comments on whether to collect information 
to help measure progress towards accomplishing the Affordable 
Connectivity Program goals of reducing the digital divide and ensuring 
effective administration of the program. Specifically, the Commission 
asks whether its authorized to collect such information, collect the 
information as part of this collection, and what methods to use to 
collect it.
    23. The Commission also seeks comments on whether to make the 
collection of the total number of subscribers who are paying 
introductory rates or who pay set-up fees in a data-month mandatory. In 
the Order the Commission permits, but does not require providers to 
submit this information. The Commission specifically ask whether to 
make these optional submissions mandatory, and whether it is authorized 
to collect such information.
    24. Furthermore, the Commission seeks comments on whether to make 
the collection of all-in price, net-rate charged, and the number of 
subscribers for whom net-rate charged is $0 mandatory. In the Order the 
Commission permits, but does not require providers to submit 
information on the all-in price, the net-rate charged, and the number 
of subscribers whose net-rate charges is $0 by ZIP-code and plan 
identifier. The Commission specifically asks whether to make this 
collection mandatory, and what the benefits and burdens are with such 
an approach.
    25. The Commission also seeks comments on whether to collect 
additional quality of service metrics as part of this collection, 
including connection reliability and outages. The Commission 
specifically seeks comments on the benefits and burdens associated with 
collecting additional quality of service metrics, and ask whether to 
collect such information at the subscriber or aggregate level.
    26. The Commission finally, seeks comments on whether to make 
mandatory the collection of latency, one-time fees, introductory rates, 
typical speed, and typical latency. In the Order, providers are not 
required to submit these fields for legacy service plans. The 
Commission specifically seeks comments on what the benefits and burdens 
of submitting this information for all plans would be, in addition to 
whether to collect this information at the subscriber or aggregate 
level.
    27. In executing its obligations under the Infrastructure Act, the 
Commission intends to establish rules and requirements that implement 
the relevant provisions of the ACP efficiently, with minimal burden on 
eligible households and participating providers. These actions are 
consistent with the Commission's ongoing efforts to bridge the digital 
divide by ensuring that low-income households have access to 
affordable, high-quality broadband internet access service.
    28. Legal Basis. The proposed actions are authorized pursuant to 
the Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. V, sec. 60502(c).
    29. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to 
provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number 
of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if 
adopted. The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having 
the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small 
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, 
the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small 
business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A small business 
concern is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is 
not dominant in its field of operation; (3) satisfies any additional 
criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
    30. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. The Commission actions, over time, may affect small 
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission 
therefore describes here, at the outset, three broad groups of small 
entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are 
industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in 
the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small 
Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small 
business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. 
These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in 
the United States, which translates to 32.5 million businesses.
    31. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for 
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were 
approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting 
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data 
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
    32. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate that there 
were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United 
States. Of this number there were 36,931 general purpose governments 
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 
50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school 
districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, 
based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission 
estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of 
``small governmental jurisdictions.''
    33. Wired Broadband internet Access Service Providers. (Wired 
ISPs). Providers of wired broadband internet access service include 
various types of providers except dial-up internet access providers. 
Wireline service that terminates at an end user location or mobile 
device and enables the end user to receive information from and/or send 
information to the internet at information transfer rates exceeding 200 
kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one direction is classified as a 
broadband connection under the Commission's rules. Wired broadband 
internet services fall in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers 
industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry 
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in 
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated 
with fewer than 250 employees.
    34. Additionally, according to Commission data on internet access 
services as of December 31, 2018, nationwide there were approximately 
2,700 providers of connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction 
using various wireline technologies. The Commission does not collect 
data on the number of employees for providers of these services, 
therefore, at this time the Commission is not able to estimate the 
number of providers that would qualify as small under the SBA's small 
business size standard. However, in light of the general data on fixed 
technology service providers in the Commission's 2020 Communications 
Marketplace Report,

[[Page 2310]]

the Commission believes that the majority of wireline internet access 
service providers can be considered small entities.
    35. Wireless Broadband Internet Access Service Providers (Wireless 
ISPs or WISPs). Providers of wireless broadband internet access service 
include fixed and mobile wireless providers. The Commission defines a 
WISP as ``[a] company that provides end-users with wireless access to 
the internet[.]'' Wireless service that terminates at an end user 
location or mobile device and enables the end user to receive 
information from and/or send information to the internet at information 
transfer rates exceeding 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one 
direction is classified as a broadband connection under the 
Commission's rules. Neither the SBA nor the Commission have developed a 
size standard specifically applicable to Wireless Broadband Internet 
Access Service Providers. The closest applicable industry with an SBA 
small business size standard is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except Satellite). The SBA size standard for this industry classifies 
a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this industry 
that operated for the entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed 
fewer than 250 employees.
    36. Additionally, according to Commission data on internet access 
services as of December 31, 2018, nationwide there were approximately 
1,209 fixed wireless and 71 mobile wireless providers of connections 
over 200 kbps in at least one direction. The Commission does not 
collect data on the number of employees for providers of these 
services, therefore, at this time the Commission is not able to 
estimate the number of providers that would qualify as small under the 
SBA's small business size standard. However, based on data in the 
Commission's 2020 Communications Marketplace Report on the small number 
of large mobile wireless nationwide and regional facilities-based 
providers, the dozens of small regional facilities-based providers and 
the number of wireless mobile virtual network providers in general, as 
well as on terrestrial fixed wireless broadband providers in general, 
the Commission believes that the majority of wireless internet access 
service providers can be considered small entities.
    37. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities. In this FNPRM, the 
Commission seeks comment on how to structure its revisions to the rules 
adopted in this Order, as required by the Infrastructure Act, in 
addition to whether and how to collect information relating to 
subscriber-level data, subscriber enrollment, digital divide 
performance metrics, all-in price, one-time set-up fees, quality of 
service metrics, plan characteristics or additional performance 
metrics. To the extent the Commission revises the rules promulgated in 
this Order or decides to collect enrollment information, subscriber 
level data, digital divide metrics, or other metrics, participating 
providers of all sizes may be required to maintain and report 
information concerning plan prices, subscription rates, and plan 
characteristics. Any recordkeeping or reporting requirements adopted in 
this proceeding, however, will apply only to those providers that chose 
to participate in the Affordable Connectivity Program.
    38. In assessing the cost of compliance for small entities, at this 
time the Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance with the 
potential rule changes that may be adopted and is not in a position to 
determine whether the proposals in the FNPRM will require small 
entities to hire professionals in order to comply. The Commission seeks 
comments on its proposals and their likely costs and benefits as well 
as alternative approaches. The Commission expects the comments received 
will include information on the costs and benefits, service impacts, 
and other relevant matters that should help identify and evaluate 
relevant issues for small entities, including compliance costs and 
other burdens (as well as countervailing benefits), so that the 
Commission may develop final rules that minimize such costs.
    39. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on 
Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA 
requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small 
business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed 
approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among 
others): ``(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting 
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources 
available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or 
simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule 
for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design 
standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part 
thereof, for such small entities.''
    40. The FNPRM seeks comments from all interested parties. The 
Commission is aware that some of the proposed collections under 
consideration may impact small entities. The FNPRM does seek comment on 
the impact of its proposed rules on providers, and small entities are 
encouraged to bring to the Commission's attention any specific concerns 
that they may have with the proposals outlined in the FNPRM.
    41. The Commission will evaluate the economic impact on small 
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the FNPRM and 
this IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions and taking actions in this 
proceeding.
    42. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the 
Proposed Rules. None.
    43. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-
but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte 
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any 
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation 
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different 
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making 
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the 
proceeding, then the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
47 CFR 1.49(f), or for which the Commission has made available a method 
of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding and must

[[Page 2311]]

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, 
searchable.pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize 
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-28434 Filed 1-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P