Proposed Rule2022-28434
Affordable Connectivity Program; Emergency Broadband Benefit Program
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 13, 2023
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 9 (Friday, January 13, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: You may file documents electronically
by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS)
at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings</a>.
<bullet> 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), <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-361A1_Rcd.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-361A1_Rcd.pdf</a>. All filings must
be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to Federal Communications Commission, 45 L
Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> 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), <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy</a>.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d2b4b1b1e7e2e692b4b1b1fcb5bda4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4c2a2f2f797c780c2a2f2f622b233a">[email protected]</span></a> 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2d485f444e035a586d4b4e4e034a425b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d9bcabb0baf7aeac99bfbabaf7beb6af">[email protected]</span></a>.
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 <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-87A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-87A1.pdf</a>. 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
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 13, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.