Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 63853 

12Ordinarily, FCC Form 327, Schedule A, Item 7 

requires the applicant ‘‘[f]or a new station or major 

change, (e.g., a change in azimuth or transmit 

antenna or an increase in power or frequency, etc.)’’ 

to attach as Exhibit A–4 a statement or showing 

detailing the results of a frequency coordination 

study performed pursuant to 47 CFR 78.36. 

13See Freeze Public Notice at *2. 

14See 47 CFR 74.5(a)(4), 1.946, 1.953, 1.955. 

15 Id. § 78.30(a). 

16 Id. § 78.30(b). 

• Select the appropriate option. 

Æ In situations where online records 

reference paper filings (e.g., ‘‘See File’’ 

is displayed instead of paths, 

frequencies, or other information; or 

information available online is simply 

blank), the filing fee for the modification 

application as well as the freeze on the 

filing of modification applications will 

be waived to allow the licensee to enter 

data from paper filings to COALS. To 

request a waiver of the filing fee, select 

‘‘Request Waiver of Filing Fee’’ for 

Major Modifications option and provide 

a short explanation of the reason the fee 

should be waived (e.g., that data in the 

online system references prior paper 

filings and the instant application is 

limited to entering accurate data from 

paper filings to COALS). Additionally, 

while helpful, where filers are providing 

missing information, Exhibit A–4, the 

‘‘Result of a Frequency Coordination 

Study,’’ is not required and a statement 

that the paper license that is being 

entered into COALS has been 

previously coordinated will suffice.12

Æ Licenses which contain incorrect 

information as a result of subsequent 

changes to the operations of the CARS 

license are not eligible for a waiver of 

the application processing fee and the 

licensee must request a waiver of the 

filing freeze (see below) for the 

modification application necessary to 

make the license accurate and complete. 

Æ All technical information must be 

entered into COALS for the CARS 

license to be eligible for incumbent 

status. 

• Supply the information requested 

by FCC Form 327. To request a waiver 

of the filing freeze for applications 

where more than the mere completion 

of online records is taking place, append 

a short statement to Exhibit A–3, the 

‘‘Statement of Eligibility,’’ establishing 

the reasoning for the waiver (i.e., that 

demonstrates that waiving the filing 

freeze for your application would serve 

the public interest and not undermine 

the objectives of the freeze).13 Complete 

the relevant certifications and submit 

the modification to complete the 

process. 

6. License Cancellations 

BAS licenses are subject to 

termination following a discontinuance 

of service or failure to meet construction 

or coverage requirements.14 If a BAS 

license has terminated automatically the 

licensee should cancel it in ULS. CARS 

licenses are forfeited in whole or in part 

upon the voluntary removal or 

alteration of their facilities so as to 

render them not operational for a period 

of 30 days or more.15 CARS licensee 

stations that have not operated for one 

year or more are considered to have 

been permanently discontinued and are 

required to cancel their license in 

COALS.16

Federal Communications Commission. 

Blaise Scinto, 

Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20089 Filed 9–15–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 8 

[CG Docket No. 22–2; FCC 23–68; FR ID 

170837] 

Empowering Broadband Consumers 

Through Transparency 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) addresses three petitions 

requesting that the Commission clarify 

and/or reconsider certain of its 

broadband consumer label 

requirements. Specifically, we affirm 

our determinations that providers must 

itemize monthly discretionary fees on 

the label and state how much data is 

provided with the service plan, as 

outlined by the label template. We also 

clarify that E-Rate and Rural Health Care 

(RHC) Program service providers are not 

required to include a broadband label 

for enterprise and special access 

services provided through those 

programs. In addition, we revise the 

Commission’s requirement to document 

each instance when a provider directs a 

consumer to a label at an alternative 

sales channel and to retain such 

documentation for two years. And we 

make clear that providers that opt to 

include government taxes in their 

monthly base price may state on the 

label that government taxes are 

included. Our actions preserve 

consumer access to clear, easy-tounderstand, and accurate information 

about the cost for broadband services 

and will empower consumers to choose 

services that best meet their needs and 

match their budgets. 

DATES: 

Effective date: September 18, 2023. 

Compliance date: FCC will announce 

compliance dates for the amendments to 

47 CFR 8.1(a)(1) and (2) and (b) by 

publication of a document in the 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Erica H. McMahon, Erica.McMahon@

fcc.gov or (202) 418–0346, of the 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, Consumer Policy Division. For 

information regarding the PRA 

information collection requirements 

contained in the PRA, contact Cathy 

Williams, Office of Managing Director, 

at (202) 418–2918, or Cathy.Williams@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order on 

Reconsideration, FCC 23–68, in CG 

Docket No. 22–2, adopted on August 25, 

2023 and released on August 29, 2023, 

which amends the Commission’s 

broadband consumer label 

requirements. The full text of this 

document is available online at https:// 

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC23-68A1.pdf. To request this document 

in accessible formats for people with 

disabilities (e.g., Braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format) or to 

request reasonable accommodations 

(e.g., accessible format documents, sign 

language interpreters, CART), send an 

email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

FCC’s Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 

(voice). 

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

This document may contain new or 

modified information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. All such new or modified 

information collection requirements 

will be submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under section 3507(d) of the 

PRA. OMB, the general public, and 

other Federal agencies will be invited to 

comment on any new or modified 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proceeding. 

In addition, we note that pursuant to 

the Small Business Paperwork Relief 

Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought 

specific comment on how the 

Commission might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
63854 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

employees, and we received no 

comment. In this present document, we 

have assessed the effects of permitting 

providers to establish the business 

practices and processes it will follow in 

distributing the label through alternative 

sales channels in lieu of documenting 

each instance they direct consumers to 

the label and to note on the label that 

government taxes are included in the 

monthly price, and find that there are 

no additional burdens for small 

businesses with fewer than 25 

employees. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Commission sent a copy of 

document FCC 23–68 to Congress and 

the Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

Synopsis 

1. On reconsideration of the 

Empowering Broadband Consumers 

Through Transparency Report and 

Order, CG Docket No. 22–2, Report and 

Order, published at 87 FR 76959 (Dec. 

16, 2022) (Broadband Label Order), we 

amend the Commission’s broadband 

consumer label rules to address three 

petitions requesting that the 

Commission clarify and/or reconsider 

certain label requirements. 

A. Identifying Additional Monthly 

Provider Fees on Labels 

2. We affirm that broadband internet 

access service providers (ISPs or 

providers) must itemize the fees they 

add to base monthly prices, including 

fees related to government programs 

they choose to ‘‘pass through’’ to 

consumers, such as fees related to 

universal service or regulatory fees. We 

thus affirm that consumers should know 

both the total cost of service and what 

goes into that cost to both budget and 

comparison shop between plans and 

providers. Clear itemization of all fees— 

including those related to regulatory 

programs—is essential to our goal of 

empowering consumers to make good 

purchase decisions. 

3. We therefore reject ACA 

Connects—America’s Communications 

Association (ACA Connects) et al.’s 

request that providers simply state on 

the label that additional fees may apply 

and that these fees may vary depending 

on location. We also reject their 

alternative proposal that providers 

identify ‘‘generally the maximum dollar 

figure that could be passed through to 

the consumer per month, rather than 

requiring providers to itemize each and 

every fee.’’ Neither would accomplish 

the label goal of empowering good 

consumer decisions because they leave 

consumers unable to reliably predict the 

cost of particular plans for purposes of 

comparison shopping. Providing 

specific fee amounts also accords with 

the approach reflected in the 2016 

Public Notice (Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs, Wireline 

Competition, and Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureaus Approve 

Open internet Broadband Consumer 

Labels, GN Docket No. 14–28, Public 

Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 3358 (CGB/WCB/ 

WTB 2016)), that Congress directed the 

Commission to consider in adopting the 

label, and we are not persuaded to 

depart from that approach in this regard. 

4. We also disagree that clear 

disclosure of these fees ‘‘has the 

potential to cause significant confusion 

for consumers and add unnecessary 

complexity for providers’’ due to the 

‘‘huge variety and quantity of fees on 

broadband providers.’’ Providers must 

itemize the fees on consumer bills, and 

we see no reason why consumers cannot 

assess the fees at the point-of-sale any 

less than they can when they receive a 

bill. Providers are free, of course, to not 

pass these fees through to consumers to 

differentiate their pricing and simplify 

their label display if they believe it will 

make their service more attractive to 

consumers and ensure that consumers 

are not surprised by unexpected 

charges. 

5. Further, we are not persuaded that 

it will be burdensome for ISPs to 

itemize on the label those fees they opt 

to pass along to consumers above the 

monthly price, particularly since 

providers acknowledge being able to 

describe such fees to a consumer over 

the phone and on a consumer’s bill once 

the consumer subscribes to service. We 

also find that any such burdens are far 

outweighed by the benefits to 

consumers when they are shopping for 

service. And, ISPs could alternatively 

roll such discretionary fees into the base 

monthly price, thereby eliminating the 

need to itemize them on the label. 

6. Moreover, we are not persuaded 

that a provider will be forced to list on 

the label ‘‘potentially hundreds of fees 

for all jurisdictions in its footprint,’’ 

when only a subset of fees listed would 

actually apply to an individual 

customer. We do agree, however, that 

such a practice would ‘‘make the labels 

very lengthy and unwieldy, diminishing 

their utility to consumers and 

undermining their purpose.’’ We, 

therefore, reiterate that labels must be 

accurate based on the consumer’s 

location. Identifying fees that do not 

apply to a consumer in a particular 

geographic location would effectively 

render comparison shopping 

impossible—a primary purpose of the 

label. And burying the fees that do 

apply on a lengthy list of those that do 

not risks displaying a label that is 

simply inaccurate. Thus, we find that 

listing fees on the label that are 

irrelevant to a particular consumer 

shopping for broadband service is 

inconsistent with the goals of the 

Infrastructure Act. 

7. Finally, we disagree, for the reasons 

above, that identifying the maximum 

out-of-pocket fees a prospective 

customer may be responsible for if they 

subscribe to the service ‘‘gives the 

customer critical information about the 

service they are considering in a much 

more efficient and effective manner than 

attempting to itemize fees on a 

jurisdiction-specific basis.’’ We believe 

that identifying a maximum dollar 

figure that a customer would pay in 

additional provider fees per month does 

not sufficiently disclose to consumers 

what they will be charged for and how 

those fees compare to another provider’s 

service offerings. 

8. We also emphasize, however, that 

if the provider does not impose 

additional discretionary fees on top of 

the base monthly price, but instead 

incorporates them into the monthly 

price, the provider can state ‘‘None’’ on 

the label template. 

B. Describing Data Allowances on 

Labels 

9. We affirm that providers should 

keep their descriptions of any data 

allowances simple on the label and 

should only describe data allowance 

details in their more complete service 

descriptions in their advertising 

materials and on websites. Our 

conclusion supports a main goal of the 

label, to require providers to simply, 

clearly, and consistently describe their 

services to enable consumers to 

comparison shop. 

10. We therefore deny CTIA—The 

Wireless Association’s (CTIA) request 

that wireless providers be able to use 

multiple lines of data allowance 

descriptions on the label. CTIA states 

that wireless providers offer consumers 

data allowance options that differ from 

those offered by wireline providers and 

that such data allowance options may 

vary between handsets and hotspots. We 

agree that consumers may want to see 

these details before purchase, but 

believe consumers are best served by a 

high-level description of data 

allowances on the label, and that 

allowing providers to clutter the label 

with detail about those allowances 

would undermine its simplicity and 

utility. 

11. Our conclusion is consistent with 

the Broadband Label Order, where we 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 63855 

required providers to identify the 

amount of data included with the 

monthly price in the label template. We 

explained that providers must disclose 

any charges or reductions in service for 

any data used in excess of the amount 

included in the plan. We also concluded 

that providers must identify the 

increment of additional data, e.g., ‘‘each 

additional 50GB,’’ if applicable, and 

disclose any additional charges once the 

consumer exceeds the monthly data 

allowance. We clarify here that the 

increment of additional data and the 

additional charges should be associated 

with the data tier of the data cap on the 

label. We further stated that limits on 

data usage are critical pieces of 

information for consumers, along with 

any additional charges the provider may 

assess once a consumer exceeds such a 

cap. But we emphasized that it is 

important to keep the label information 

as simple as possible for consumers and 

to require providers to comply by 

including links to their websites for 

more detailed information about data 

allowances. 

12. Finally, we disagree with 

commenters that suggest that wireless 

providers will have to modify or 

otherwise limit their competitive service 

offerings to fit the label framework. 

Instead, we reiterate that, if providers 

wish to provide more detailed 

information about their data allowances, 

including different allowances for 

handsets and hotspots, they may do so 

through links to their websites. We also 

conclude that the link must be included 

in the ‘‘Data Included with Monthly 

Price’’ section of the label such that 

‘‘Data Included’’ would appear as a 

hyperlink to more information on the 

provider’s website regarding its data 

allowance options. 

C. Labels for E-Rate and Rural Health 

Care (RHC) Programs 

13. We grant the Cincinnati Bell 

Telephone Company LLC Joint Petition 

and affirm our determination in the 

Broadband Label Order that ‘‘enterprise 

service offerings or special access 

services are not ‘mass-market retail 

services,’ and therefore, not covered by 

our label requirement.’’ As explained in 

the Broadband Label Order, the 

Infrastructure Act requires the display 

of labels for ‘‘broadband internet access 

service plans.’’ Broadband internet 

access service is currently defined in 

§ 8.1(b) of our rules as ‘‘a mass-market 

retail service by wire or radio that 

provides the capability to transmit data 

to and receive data from all or 

substantially all internet endpoints, 

including any capabilities that are 

incidental to and enable the operation of 

the communications service, but 

excluding dial-up internet access 

service.’’ We confirmed in the 

Broadband Label Order that ‘‘massmarket retail services’’ do not include 

enterprise service offerings or special 

access services, which are typically 

offered to larger organizations through 

customized or individually negotiated 

arrangements, and that such services are 

not covered by the label disclosure 

requirements. 

14. Based on the petition and 

commenters’ filings, we recognize that 

footnote 36 of the Broadband Label 

Order, which stated that ‘‘we require ERate and RHC providers to provide a 

label along with any competitive bids 

submitted pursuant to the E-Rate or 

RHC competitive bidding processes, 

whether or not such provider defines 

their offered service as an ‘enterprise’ 

service,’’ may have resulted in some 

confusion. We agree that, to the extent 

that broadband label requirements 

generally exclude enterprise/special 

access service offerings, it makes most 

sense in this context to take a uniform 

approach, including with respect to 

services in the E-Rate and RHC 

programs. As Petitioners point out, 

paragraph 18 of the Broadband Label 

Order stated that ‘‘[t]he Infrastructure 

Act expressly defines ‘broadband 

internet access service’ by reference to 

the definition in section 8.1(b) of our 

rules, and the Commission previously 

had interpreted that rule to include ERate and RHC services.’’ We reconsider 

the implications of that language in this 

context, making clear the uniform 

treatment of enterprise/special access 

service offerings for purposes of our 

broadband label requirements. 

15. Thus, we clarify that footnote 36 

does not contradict our determination 

regarding enterprise service offerings or 

require broadband labels for all 

broadband services in the E-Rate and 

RHC programs. Rather, we emphasize 

that, regardless of how the provider 

names or defines its offering, the 

manner in which the service is offered 

is dispositive of whether the labeling 

requirements apply. We therefore affirm 

here that the enterprise/special access 

‘‘exemption’’ discussed in the 

Broadband Label Order typically 

applies when the service offering is 

customized for the beneficiary through 

individually negotiated agreements. 

While we clarify that service offerings to 

large customers (or other entities) that 

are not mass-market retail services are 

not covered by the disclosure 

requirements here, we do not do so for 

all the reasons petitioners and 

commenters raise. For example, we are 

not persuaded that it would be overly 

burdensome for wholesalers and 

resellers to create labels for their larger 

customers or that the labels would be 

confusing for the customers themselves. 

16. We also reiterate, however, that 

the label requirements continue to apply 

to mass-market broadband services 

offered in the E-Rate and RHC programs 

and agree with commenters that ‘‘such 

disclosures would especially benefit the 

smaller and more rural schools, libraries 

and rural health care providers that 

often purchase standard ‘off-the-shelf’ 

internet access service.’’ We see no 

reason why the E-Rate and RHC bidding 

processes means that such consumers 

would not benefit from the label. The 

definition in § 8.1(b) of the 

Commission’s rules includes ISPs 

participating in the E-Rate and RHC 

programs and, thus, they must provide 

labels to prospective customers during 

the competitive bidding process, during 

which time customers define the 

services that they need and providers 

put forward bids. 

D. Documenting Interactions With 

Consumers at Alternate Sales Channels 

17. In response to the ACA Connects 

Joint Petition, we reconsider the 

requirement that a provider must 

document each instance when it directs 

a consumer to a label at an alternative 

sales channel (e.g., retail stores, kiosks, 

and over the phone) and retain such 

documentation for two years. In doing 

so, we grant ACA Connects’ request and 

clarify in accordance with such request 

that the requirement will be deemed 

satisfied if: (1) the provider establishes 

the business practices and processes it 

will follow in distributing the label 

through alternative sales channels; (2) 

retains training materials and related 

business practice documentation for two 

years; and (3) provides such information 

to the Commission upon request, within 

30 days. Providers may also comply 

with the requirement as described in the 

Broadband Label Order instead (i.e., 

that they document each instance when 

a consumer is provided a label at an 

alternative sales channel and retain 

such documentation for a period of two 

years). No commenter opposed 

Petitioners’ request. 

18. We agree with petitioners that this 

clarification will avoid unnecessary 

burdens and costs on providers that may 

risk diverting resources to otherwise 

assist consumers with making 

broadband purchases at alternative sales 

channels. We share their concerns that 

creating an additional system by which 

customer-facing employees are required 

to record the details of when and how 

they share the label in every customer 

interaction may impose significant costs 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
63856 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

on providers. We are persuaded by 

petitioners that providers deal with 

millions of customers and prospective 

customers by phone, in retail locations, 

and at ‘‘pop-up’’ sales outlets such as 

fairs or exhibitions, and that it may be 

challenging for providers to capture and 

retain such documentation when 

consumers are provided with access to 

the labels at each and every point of 

sale. 

19. We believe that permitting 

providers to alternatively establish 

business practices and training 

materials to ensure labels are distributed 

consistently and accurately in retail 

stores and other sales channels will 

sufficiently protect consumers. It is also 

consistent with our online point-of-sale 

requirements, whereby providers need 

not document each time a consumer 

views a label on their websites; they 

must instead archive all labels after they 

are removed from their websites and 

maintain such archive for at least two 

years after the service plan is no longer 

offered to new customers. As with 

archived labels, which must be 

provided to the Commission, upon 

request, within 30 days, we also find 

that, should the Commission request a 

provider’s training materials and 

business practice documentation for 

alternate sales channels, ISPs must 

provide such information within 30 

days. As a result, we amend § 8.1(a)(2) 

of the Commission’s rules to clarify that 

the requirement to document 

interactions with consumers at alternate 

sales channels will be deemed satisfied 

if, instead, the provider: (1) establishes 

the business practices and processes it 

will follow in distributing the label 

through alternative sales channels; (2) 

retains training materials and related 

business practice documentation for two 

years; and (3) provides such information 

to the Commission upon request, within 

30 days. 

E. Identifying Government Taxes on 

Labels 

20. We grant CTIA’s request to clarify 

that wireless providers have the 

flexibility to state ‘‘taxes included’’ or 

add similar language to the label 

template when the provider has chosen 

to include taxes as part of its base price. 

CTIA contends that some wireless 

providers have chosen to build taxes 

into the monthly prices that they 

advertise. No party opposed this 

request. 

21. We agree with CTIA that the labels 

should accommodate tax-included 

pricing in keeping with the fundamental 

purpose of providing consumers with 

clear and accurate information, and that 

this was the Broadband Label Order’s 

intent. We believe our clarification will 

benefit consumers by helping them 

understand the total price for a 

provider’s service at the point of sale. 

And, unlike the discretionary provider 

fees we address above, providers must 

assess a specific amount of taxes on 

consumers; thus, consumers generally 

are not comparison shopping based on 

such taxes and how they are identified 

on the label. We therefore agree that 

providers may modify the label template 

to accommodate this practice. 

Specifically, they may include a 

statement on the label that government 

taxes are ‘‘included’’ in the monthly rate 

or some similar language in place of the 

statement that the amount of 

government taxes ‘‘varies by location.’’ 

22. We also agree with CTIA that 

‘‘[s]tating that ‘taxes will apply’ or that 

they ‘vary by location’ where [taxes] 

have already been factored into the 

quoted prices would not be accurate and 

would confuse consumers, not help 

them, which is a result the Commission 

surely did not intend.’’ We therefore 

make clear that providers may only 

avail themselves of our clarification 

when they have included all taxes in 

their monthly base price and may not 

rely on general statements that taxes 

may apply if such taxes are not included 

in the base price. 

I. Supplemental Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis 

23. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the 

Empowering Broadband Consumers 

Through Transparency, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 

22–2, 87 FR 6827 (Feb. 7, 2022) 

(Broadband Label NPRM). The 

Commission sought written public 

comment on the proposals in the 

Broadband Label NPRM, including 

comment on the IRFA. The Commission 

subsequently incorporated a Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

in the Broadband Label Order. This 

Supplemental Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental 

FRFA) incorporates by reference the 

FRFA in the Broadband Label Order and 

reflects changes to the Commission’s 

rules arising from actions taken in the 

Order on Reconsideration in response to 

three Petitions for Reconsideration of 

the Broadband Label Order filed by 

ACA Connects et al., Cincinnati Bell et 

al., and CTIA and conforms to the RFA. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Order on Reconsideration 

24. The Order on Reconsideration 

addresses issues resulting from the 

Commission’s efforts to implement the 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

(Infrastructure Act) which directs the 

Commission ‘‘[n]ot later than 1 year 

after the date of enactment of th[e] Act, 

to promulgate regulations to require the 

display of broadband consumer labels, 

as described in the Public Notice of the 

Commission issued on April 4, 2016 

(DA 16–357), to disclose to consumers 

information regarding broadband 

internet access service plans.’’ In 

response to the Infrastructure Act, the 

Commission adopted the Broadband 

Label Order, requiring broadband labels 

so that consumers have access to clear, 

easy-to-understand, and accurate 

information about broadband services 

that encourages competition, 

innovation, low prices, and high-quality 

services. The information broadband 

internet service providers (ISPs) are 

required to include in the labels 

empowers consumers to choose services 

that best meet their needs and match 

their budgets and ensures that they are 

not surprised by unexpected charges or 

service quality that falls short of their 

expectations. The Order on 

Reconsideration grants some of 

petitioners’ requests and denies other 

requests to ensure that the labels the 

Commission adopted remain a simple 

and clear means to disclose information 

about broadband services and to ensure 

consumers have the information they 

need to make educated decisions about 

purchasing broadband internet access 

service. The Order on Reconsideration 

therefore affirms some of the 

Commission’s determinations in the 

Broadband Label Order and reconsiders 

some others, so the labels do not 

overwhelm consumers with too much 

information or overburden providers. 

25. Specifically, the Commission 

grants the Cincinnati Bell Joint Petition 

and affirms the determination in the 

Broadband Label Order that ‘‘enterprise 

service offerings or special access 

services are not ‘mass-market retail 

services,’ and therefore, not covered by 

our label requirement.’’ The Order on 

Reconsideration clarifies that footnote 

36 of the Broadband Label Order, which 

stated that the Commission requires ‘‘ERate and RHC providers to provide a 

label along with any competitive bids 

submitted pursuant to the E-Rate or 

RHC competitive bidding processes, 

whether or not such provider defines 

their offered service as an ‘enterprise’ 

service,’’ was not intended to contradict 

the Commission’s determination 

regarding enterprise service offerings or 

to require broadband labels for all 

broadband services in the E-Rate and 

RHC programs. Rather, the Commission 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 63857 

emphasizes in the Order on 

Reconsideration that regardless of how 

the provider names or defines its 

offering, the manner in which the 

service is offered is dispositive of 

whether the labeling requirements 

apply. 

26. The Commission also reconsiders 

the requirement that a provider must 

document each instance when it directs 

a consumer to a label at an alternative 

sales channel (e.g., retail stores, kiosks, 

and over the phone) and retain such 

documentation for two years. In doing 

so, the Commission grants ACA 

Connects et al.’s request and clarifies 

that the requirement will be satisfied if 

the provider instead: (1) establishes the 

business practices and processes it will 

follow in distributing the label through 

alternative sales channels; (2) retains 

training materials and related business 

practice documentation for two years; 

and (3) provides such information to the 

Commission upon request, within thirty 

days. The Commission agrees with 

petitioners that this clarification will 

avoid unnecessary burdens and costs on 

providers that may risk diverting 

resources to otherwise assist consumers 

with making broadband purchases at 

alternative sales channels. 

27. Additionally, in the Order on 

Reconsideration the Commission 

clarifies that wireless providers have the 

flexibility to make clear on the labels 

whether government taxes will be added 

to the monthly base price by adding 

‘‘taxes included’’ or similar language as 

appropriate to the label template. The 

Commission agrees that some providers 

include government taxes in their 

monthly base price and that doing so 

could benefit consumers in helping 

them understand the total price for a 

provider’s service at the point of sale. 

Therefore we determined that providers 

may modify the label template to 

accommodate this practice. 

28. The Order on Reconsideration 

declines, however, to reconsider the 

requirement that providers identify and 

list on the label any additional fees that 

they charge consumers each month on 

top of the monthly base price. As stated 

in the Broadband Label Order, the 

Commission believes requiring that the 

labels clearly itemize any additional 

discretionary fees and state that 

additional government taxes will apply 

to each plan will provide consumers 

with a more complete understanding of 

the total cost for broadband service. 

Further, the requirement will allow 

consumers to more meaningfully 

compare providers’ rates and service 

packages, and to make more informed 

decisions when purchasing broadband 

services. The Commission explains that 

providers must list fees such as monthly 

charges associated with regulatory 

programs and fees for the rental or 

leasing of modem and other network 

connection equipment. 

29. The Order on Reconsideration also 

denies CTIA’s request to clarify that 

wireless providers have the flexibility to 

describe their data allowances on the 

label in ways that may be inconsistent 

with the adopted label template. The 

Commission continues to believe that 

consumers will be best served by simple 

labels that are comparable across 

providers. Permitting wireless providers 

to independently describe data 

allowances in various ways may hinder 

comparison shopping and may lead to 

an unwieldy or complicated label. 

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

by Public Comments in Response to the 

IRFA and FRFA 

30. In the Broadband Label Order, the 

Commission solicited comments on how 

to minimize the economic impact of the 

new rules on small businesses. The 

FRFA addressed the concerns of 

commenters who argued that smaller 

entities would face challenges in 

complying with the proposed label 

requirements given their small staffs 

and limited resources. The Cincinnati 

Bell Joint Petition, ACA Connects Joint 

Petition, and the CTIA Petition 

addressed in the Order of 

Reconsideration, and associated 

comments, did not raise any concerns 

with the FRFA. 

C. Response to Comments by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration 

31. Pursuant to the Small Business 

Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the 

RFA, the Commission is required to 

respond to any comments filed by the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA), and to 

provide a detailed statement of any 

change made to the proposed rules as a 

result of those comments. 

32. The Chief Counsel did not file any 

comments in response to the rules 

adopted in this proceeding. 

D. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Rules Will Apply 

33. The RFA directs the Commission 

to provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that will be affected by the 

rules adopted herein. The RFA generally 

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as 

having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business,’’ small organization,’’ 

and ‘‘small government 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 which: (1) is independently 

owned and operated; (2) is not 

dominant in its field of operation; and 

(3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. 

34. As noted above, the Commission 

incorporated a FRFA into the 

Broadband Label Order. In that analysis, 

the Commission described in detail the 

various small business entities that may 

be affected by the final rules. The Order 

on Reconsideration amends the final 

rules adopted in the Broadband Label 

Order affecting broadband internet 

access service providers. Accordingly, 

in this Supplemental FRFA, we hereby 

incorporate by reference the 

descriptions and estimates of the 

number of small entities that might be 

significantly affected by the Order on 

Reconsideration from the Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis in the Broadband 

Label Order. 

E. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

35. In the Order on Reconsideration, 

the Commission modifies rules adopted 

in the Broadband Label Order to 

reconsider the requirement that a 

provider must document each instance 

when it directs a consumer to a label at 

an alternative sales channel (e.g., retail 

stores, kiosks, and over the phone) and 

retain such documentation for two 

years. In doing so, the Commission 

clarifies that the requirement will be 

deemed satisfied if instead: (1) the 

provider establishes the business 

practices and processes it will follow in 

distributing the label through alternative 

sales channels; (2) retains training 

materials and related business practice 

documentation for two years; and (3) 

provides such information to the 

Commission upon request, within thirty 

days. 

36. The Commission does not have 

sufficient information on the record to 

determine whether small entities will be 

required to hire professionals to comply 

with its decisions to or to quantify the 

cost of compliance for small entities. 

The Commission, however, anticipates 

the approaches it has taken to 

implement the requirements will have 

minimal or de minimis cost 

implications and should significantly 

reduce compliance requirements for 

small entities that may have smaller 

staff and fewer resources. As the 

Commission emphasizes in the Order on 

Reconsideration, the clarification will 

avoid unnecessary burdens and costs on 

providers that may risk diverting 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
63858 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

resources to otherwise assist consumers 

with making broadband purchases at 

alternative sales channels. The 

Commission agrees that requiring 

providers to create an additional system 

by which customer-facing employees 

are required to record the details of 

when and how they share the label in 

every customer interaction may impose 

significant costs on providers. 

F. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

37. The RFA requires an agency to 

provide ‘‘a description of the steps the 

agency has taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities . . . including a statement of 

the factual, policy, and legal reasons for 

selecting the alternative adopted in the 

final rule and why each one of the other 

significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the agency which affect 

the impact on small entities was 

rejected.’’ 

38. The Commission considered 

feedback in response to the Cincinnati 

Bell Joint Petition, ACA Connects Joint 

Petition, and CTIA Petition and 

evaluated it with the goal of giving 

broadband providers some flexibility in 

how they document their employees’ 

interactions with consumers in alternate 

sales channels and how they ensure the 

broadband labels are displayed for 

consumers. Instead of documenting 

each instance when a consumer is 

provided a label at an alternative sales 

channel in the original rule, the 

Commission believes requiring 

providers to develop business practices 

and training materials for their 

employees and to retain and make those 

documents available to the Commission 

upon request within thirty days is an 

alternative that will minimize the 

impact on small entities and continue to 

protect the interests of consumers for 

whom the label provides critical 

information about broadband services. 

This should significantly minimize any 

compliance costs and burdens on small 

entities that are subject to the label 

requirements. 

39. The Commission considered the 

Petitioners’ request but declined to 

reconsider the requirement that 

providers identify and list on the label 

any additional fees that they charge 

consumers each month on top of the 

monthly base price. The Commission 

was not persuaded that it will be 

burdensome for providers to itemize on 

the label those fees that they opt to pass 

along to consumers above the monthly 

price, particularly since providers 

acknowledge being able to describe such 

fees to a consumer over the phone and 

on a consumer’s bill once he/she 

subscribes to service. Further, the 

Commission found that any such 

burdens are far outweighed by the 

benefits to consumers. 

II. Ordering Clauses 

40. It is ordered, pursuant to sections 

4(i), 4(j), 13, 201(b), 254, 257, 301, 303, 

316, and 332 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 

154(i), 154(j), 163, 201(b), 254, 257, 301, 

303, 316, 332, section 60504 of the 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 

Public Law 117–58, 135 Stat. 429 

(2021), and section 904 of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, 

Public Law 116–260, 134 Stat. 1182 

(2020), as amended, that the Order on 

Reconsideration is adopted, and that 

part 8 of the Commission’s rules, 47 

CFR part 8, is amended as set forth 

below. 

41. It is further ordered that the Order 

on Reconsideration shall be effective 

upon publication in the Federal 

Register. Compliance with the 

amendments to § 8.1(a)(1) of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 8.1(a)(1), 

which may contain new or modified 

information collection requirements, 

will not be required until the later of: (i) 

the compliance dates for the 

amendments to § 8.1(a)(1) effected in 

FCC 22–86, to be announced by the 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, which will be one year after 

OMB completes its review of 

requirements the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau has 

determined are subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act for providers with 

100,000 or fewer subscribers and six 

months after OMB completes its review 

of the requirements the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau has 

determined are subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act for all other providers; or 

(ii) completion of OMB review of any 

information collection requirements in 

the amendments to § 8.1(a)(1) in the 

Order on Reconsideration that the 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau determines is required under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. Compliance 

with the amendments to § 8.1(a)(2) of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

8.1(a)(2), which may contain new or 

modified information collection 

requirements, will not be required until 

the later of: (i) the compliance dates for 

the amendments to § 8.1(a)(2) (other 

than the requirement to make labels 

accessible in online account portals) 

effected in FCC 22–86, to be announced 

by the Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau, which will be one year 

after OMB completes its review of the 

requirements the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau has 

determined are subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act for providers with 

100,000 or fewer subscribers and six 

months after OMB completes its review 

of the requirements the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau has 

determined are subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act for all other providers; or 

(ii) completion of OMB review of any 

information collection requirements in 

the amendments to § 8.1(a)(2) in the 

Order on Reconsideration that the 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau determines is required under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. The 

Commission directs the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau to 

announce the compliance dates for 

§ 8.1(a)(1) and (2) by subsequent Public 

Notice and to cause § 8.1(a)(1) and (2) to 

be revised accordingly. 

42. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1), the period for filing 

petitions for reconsideration or petitions 

for judicial review of any aspect of the 

Order on Reconsideration will 

commence on the date that a summary 

of the Order on Reconsideration is 

published in the Federal Register. 

43. It is further ordered that the 

Petitions for Reconsideration filed by 

ACA Connects et al., Cincinnati Bell et 

al., and CTIA in CG Docket No. 22–2 on 

January 17, 2023, are granted in part 

and otherwise denied. 

44. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Office of the Managing 

Director, Reference Information Center, 

shall send a copy of the Order on 

Reconsideration, including the 

Supplemental Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

45. It is further ordered that the Office 

of the Managing Director, Performance 

Evaluation and Records Management, 

shall send a copy of the Order on 

Reconsideration in a report to be sent to 

Congress and to the Governmental 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 8 

Cable television, Common carriers, 

Communications common carriers, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Satellites, 

Telecommunications, Telephone, Radio. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 63859 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the 

Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 8 as 

follows: 

PART 8—INTERNET FREEDOM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 8 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 201(b), 257, 

303(r), and 1753. 

■ 2. Amend § 8.1 by revising paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (2) and (b) to read as follows: 

§ 8.1 Transparency. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Any person providing broadband 

internet access service shall create and 

display an accurate broadband 

consumer label for each stand-alone 

broadband internet access service it 

currently offers for purchase. The label 

must be prominently displayed, 

publicly available, and easily accessible 

to consumers, including consumers 

with disabilities, at the point of sale 

with the content and in the format 

prescribed by the Commission in 

‘‘[Fixed or Mobile] Broadband 

Consumer Disclosure,’’ in figure 1 to 

this paragraph (a)(1). 

Figure 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)—[Fixed or 

Mobile] Broadband Consumer 

Disclosure Label 

BILLING CODE 67128–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
63860 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 67128–01–C (2) Broadband internet access service 

providers shall display the label 

required under paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section at each point of sale. Point of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1ER18SE23.198</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 179 / Monday, September 18, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 63861 

sale is defined to mean a provider’s 

website and any alternate sales channels 

through which the provider’s broadband 

internet access service is sold, including 

a provider-owned retail location, thirdparty retail location, and over the 

phone. For labels displayed on provider 

websites, the label must be displayed in 

close proximity to the associated 

advertised service plan. Point of sale 

also means the time a consumer begins 

investigating and comparing broadband 

service offerings available to them at 

their location. For alternate sales 

channels, providers must document 

each instance when it directs a 

consumer to a label and retain such 

documentation for two years. This 

requirement will be deemed satisfied if, 

instead, the provider: establishes the 

business practices and processes it will 

follow in distributing the label through 

alternative sales channels; retains 

training materials and related business 

practice documentation for two years; 

and provides such information to the 

Commission upon request, within thirty 

days. Point of sale for purposes of the 

E-Rate and Rural Health Care programs 

is defined as the time a service provider 

submits its bid to a program participant. 

Providers participating in the E-Rate 

and Rural Health Care programs must 

provide their labels to program 

participants when they submit their 

bids to participants. Broadband internet 

access service providers that offer 

online account portals to their 

customers shall also make each 

customer’s label easily accessible to the 

customer in such portals. 

* * * * * 

(b) Broadband internet access service 

is a mass-market retail service by wire 

or radio that provides the capability to 

transmit data to and receive data from 

all or substantially all internet 

endpoints, including any capabilities 

that are incidental to and enable the 

operation of the communications 

service, but excluding dial-up internet 

access service. This term also 

encompasses any service that the 

Commission finds to be providing a 

functional equivalent of the service 

described in the previous sentence or 

that is used to evade the protections set 

forth in this part. For purposes of 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this 

section, ‘‘mass-market’’ services exclude 

service offerings customized for the 

customer through individually 

negotiated agreements even when the 

services are supported by federal 

universal service support. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2023–20115 Filed 9–15–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 221223–0282; RTID 0648– 

XD368] 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Summer Flounder Fishery; 

Quota Transfer From NC to MA 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notification of quota transfer. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

State of North Carolina is transferring a 

portion of its 2023 commercial summer 

flounder quota to the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts. This adjustment to the 

2023 fishing year quota is necessary to 

comply with the Summer Flounder, 

Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery 

Management Plan quota transfer 

provisions. This announcement informs 

the public of the revised 2023 

commercial quotas for North Carolina 

and Massachusetts. 

DATES: Effective September 15, 2023, 

through December 31, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Deighan, Fishery Management 

Specialist, (978) 281–9184. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations governing the summer 

flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 

648.100 through 648.111. These 

regulations require annual specification 

of a commercial quota that is 

apportioned among the coastal states 

from Maine through North Carolina. The 

process to set the annual commercial 

quota and the percent allocated to each 

state is described in § 648.102 and final 

2023 allocations were published on 

January 3, 2023 (88 FR 11). 

The final rule implementing 

Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP), as 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 17, 1993 (58 FR 65936), 

provided a mechanism for transferring 

summer flounder commercial quota 

from one state to another. Two or more 

states, under mutual agreement and 

with the concurrence of the NMFS 

Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator, 

can transfer or combine summer 

flounder commercial quota under 

§ 648.102(c)(2). The Regional 

Administrator is required to consider 

three criteria in the evaluation of 

requests for quota transfers or 

combinations: the transfer or 

combinations would not preclude the 

overall annual quota from being fully 

harvested; the transfer addresses an 

unforeseen variation or contingency in 

the fishery; and the transfer is consistent 

with the objectives of the FMP and the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Regional 

Administrator has determined these 

three criteria have been met for the 

transfer approved in this notification. 

North Carolina is transferring 529 lb 

(240 kg) to Massachusetts through a 

mutual agreement between the States. 

This transfer was requested to repay 

landings made by an out-of-state 

permitted vessel under a safe harbor 

agreement. The revised summer 

flounder quotas for 2023 are North 

Carolina, 3,301,524 lb (1,497,546 kg), 

and Massachusetts, 1,359,363 lb 

(616,597 kg). 

Classification 

NMFS issues this action pursuant to 

section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 

648.102(c)(2)(i) through (iv), which was 

issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is 

exempted from review under Executive 

Order 12866. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: September 12, 2023. 

Jennifer M. Wallace, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–20064 Filed 9–15–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1