Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6477 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a state program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies 

to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further 

defines the term fair treatment to mean 

that ‘‘no group of people should bear a 

disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The FDEP did not evaluate EJ 

considerations as part of its SIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and 

did not consider EJ in this proposed 

action. Due to the nature of the action 

being proposed here, this proposed 

action is expected to have a neutral to 

positive impact on the air quality of the 

affected area. Consideration of EJ is not 

required as part of this proposed action, 

and there is no information in the 

record inconsistent with the stated goal 

of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for people 

of color, low-income populations, and 

Indigenous peoples. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: January 17, 2024. 

Jeaneanne Gettle, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2024–01670 Filed 1–31–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 0, 1, and 16 

[GN Docket No. 22–69; FCC 23–100; FR ID 

197453] 

Implement the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act: Prevention 

and Elimination of Digital 

Discrimination 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) proposes rules regarding 

affirmative obligations for broadband 

providers, through: annual reports that 

facilitate greater transparency regarding 

substantial broadband projects recently 

completed by providers, and internal 

compliance programs requiring periodic 

evaluation of the demographics of 

communities served—and not served— 

by such recently completed projects, as 

well as pending and planned substantial 

projects. The Commission also seeks 

comment on establishing am Office of 

Civil Rights. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

March 4, 2024, and reply comments are 

due on or before April 1, 2024. Written 

comments on the Paperwork Reduction 

Act proposed information collection 

requirements must be submitted by the 

public and other interested parties on or 

before April 1, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by GN Docket No. 22–69, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Website: http://

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People With Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. Send a copy 

of your comment on the proposed 

information collection to Nicole Ongele, 

FCC, via email to PRA@fcc.gov or 

Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Competition Policy Division, Aure ́lie 

Mathieu, at (202) 418–2194, 

Aurelie.Mathieu@fcc.gov. For additional 

information concerning the Paperwork 

Reduction Act information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document, send an email to PRA@

fcc.gov or contact Nicole Ongele, 

Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further 

Notice) in GN Docket No. 22–69, FCC 

23–100, adopted on November 15, 2023, 

and released on November 20, 2023. 

The full text of this document is 

available for download at https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC23-100A1.pdf. To request materials in 

accessible formats for people with 

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

electronic files, audio format, etc.), send 

an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice) or 

(202) 418–0432 (TTY). 

Providing Accountability Through 

Transparency Act: The Providing 

Accountability Through Transparency 

Act, Public Law 118–9, requires each 

agency, in providing notice of a 

rulemaking, to post online a brief plainlanguage summary of the proposed rule. 

The required summary of this Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 

available at https://www.fcc.gov/ 

proposed-rulemakings. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis: This document contains 

proposed information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6478 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public to comment on the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Public and agency 

comments are due April 1, 2024. 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. 

• 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. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020), 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy. 

People With Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). 

The proceeding this document 

initiates shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-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, 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 rule 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 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 

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. 

This document may contain potential 

new or revised 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 the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13. Public and 

agency comments are due April 1, 2024. 

Comments should address: (a) 

whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; and (e) way to 

further reduce the information 

collection burden on small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

In addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks 

specific comment on how it might 

further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

Synopsis 

1. In this Further Notice we take 

additional steps to fulfill our statutory 

mandate to facilitate equal access to 

broadband internet access service by 

preventing digital discrimination of 

access. We seek further, focused 

comments on affirmative obligations 

that might be undertaken by broadband 

service access providers (providers) to 

expand broadband access and address 

possible digital discrimination of access. 

Our digital discrimination of access 

rules apply to ‘‘covered entities’’ which 

is broader than broadband providers, 

but at this time our proposed annual 

report and compliance program are 

limited to broadband providers as 

defined in 47 CFR 54.1600(b). The 

proposals in this Further Notice 

complement rules we adopt today by 

focusing on providers’ day-to-day 

business practices that might, in some 

instances, differentially impact 

consumers’ access to broadband on 

prohibited bases. Our proposals are 

intended to make fully transparent to 

the public what communities are 

served, and what communities are not 

served, by large-scale broadband 

deployment, upgrade, and maintenance 

projects completed or substantially 

completed by each provider over the 

preceding calendar year. We propose to 

require the reporting of this information 

on a state-by-state or territory-byterritory basis in a yearly supplement to 

the Broadband Data Collection (BDC) so 

the public can see not only where 

broadband service is available, but 

where and how providers are currently 

investing in their broadband networks 

and what communities are benefiting 

from those investments. Our proposals 

would also require providers to 

establish formal compliance programs 

related to digital discrimination of 

access and to conduct regular, internal 

assessments of what communities are 

served (and not served) by recently 

completed, pending, and planned largescale broadband projects and whether 

their relevant policies and practices 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6479 

might differentially impact consumers’ 

access to broadband service. Such 

regular assessments, we believe, will 

help ‘‘smoke out’’ policies and practices 

that might impede equal access to 

broadband service without sufficient 

technical or economic justification as 

providers pressure test the asserted 

justifications for policies and practices 

producing such effects. Affirmative 

obligations such as these are not foreign 

to the Commission. Most recently, for 

example, the Commission has adopted 

affirmative obligations for voice service 

providers to better police their own 

networks against illegal robocalls and 

protect consumers from widespread 

fraud, and we believe that targeted 

affirmative and effective measures can 

similarly combat discriminatory 

practices in the context of our duty 

under section 60506 to prevent and 

identify steps to eliminate digital 

discrimination of access. 

2. In this Further Notice, we propose 

two sets of affirmative obligations for 

broadband providers in furtherance of 

our mandate to facilitate equal access to 

broadband internet access service, 

including by preventing digital 

discrimination of access. Under our 

proposal, each broadband provider 

would be required to: (1) submit an 

annual, publicly-available supplement 

to the BDC describing, on a state-bystate or territory-by-territory basis, any 

large-scale broadband deployment, 

upgrade, and maintenance projects that 

were completed or substantially 

completed during the preceding 

calendar year and the communities 

served by such projects; and (2) 

establish a mandatory internal 

compliance program requiring regular 

internal assessment of (a) what 

communities are served by recent, 

pending, and planned large-scale 

projects and (b) whether the provider’s 

broadband-related policies and practices 

might differentially impact consumers’ 

access to broadband based on a listed 

characteristic and without adequate 

technical or economic justification. 

3. Legal Authority. We seek general 

comment on our authority to require 

providers to implement affirmative 

obligations. Section 60506 directs the 

Commission to adopt rules to prevent 

digital discrimination of access and 

identify necessary steps to eliminate 

such discrimination. Does section 60506 

authorize the Commission to impose 

affirmative obligations on providers? 

Does the Communications Act provide 

the Commission such authority, 

irrespective of whether section 60506 is 

part of the Communications Act? Does 

section 4(i) of the Communications Act 

provide the Commission either direct or 

ancillary authority to do so? Besides 

these legal authorities, are there other 

sources for our authority to implement 

affirmative obligations of the types set 

forth below? 

Annual Report 

4. We propose requiring that 

providers submit an annual, publiclyavailable supplement to the BDC 

describing their recent broadband 

investments in each state and territory. 

This supplemental report would 

identify and describe, on a state-by-state 

or territory-by-territory basis, all fixed or 

mobile broadband deployment, upgrade, 

and maintenance projects completed or 

substantially completed in the 

preceding calendar year, that are 

expected to affect the availability or 

quality of broadband service at 500 or 

more housing units. A ‘‘housing unit’’ is 

defined as a single family house, 

townhome, mobile home or trailer, 

apartment, group of rooms, or single 

room that is occupied as a separate 

living quarters, or, if vacant, is intended 

for occupancy as a separate living 

quarters. The report would categorize 

each such project as a deployment, 

upgrade, or maintenance project (or 

some combination thereof) and would 

identify the number of housing units 

affected by the project through 

numerical bands (such as 500–999, 

1000–4999, 5000–9999, etc.). The report 

would identify through the census tract 

affected by the project, and would 

provide a brief narrative description of 

the project and the geographic area 

served by the project to provide greater 

precision and clarity regarding what the 

project is designed to accomplish and 

what communities are served by the 

project. The primary goal of requiring 

this report would be to increase 

transparency regarding what substantial 

investments providers are currently 

making in their networks, what 

communities are being served—or not 

served—by those investments, and how 

they are being served. The information 

provided in the annual supplement to 

the BDC would allow the Commission, 

state and local broadband regulators, 

public interest organizations, and other 

stakeholders to review on a jurisdictionby-jurisdiction basis what major 

deployment, upgrade, and maintenance 

projects covered entities have 

completed or substantially completed 

within the states and territories of their 

footprint and what communities are and 

are not served by those projects. We 

believe this information would assist in 

the development of broadband policy, 

in the strengthening of advocacy for 

broadband expansion, and in the 

targeting of our efforts to enforce our 

digital discrimination of access rules. 

5. In the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 88 FR 3681, we sought 

comment on what self-assessment or 

reporting obligations we should require 

of providers. In response, the 

Leadership Conference on Civil and 

Human Rights suggested that we look to 

other sources of civil rights law to 

develop affirmative obligations, 

Microsoft recommended that providers 

use Commission data to formulate plans 

to address digital discrimination of 

access, and several commenters 

recommended self-reporting 

requirements. Based on the comments 

received in the record, we believe our 

steps in this Further Notice are 

consistent with recommendations for 

self-reporting and will result in useful 

data to stakeholders. We seek comment 

on this approach. 

Components of the Report 

6. We propose that each annual report 

must address the following components 

to provide a comprehensive picture of 

each major deployment, maintenance, 

and upgrade project completed or 

substantially completed for each state 

and territory within its service area or 

footprint: (1) the nature of each project 

completed or substantially completed in 

the calendar year immediately 

preceding the submission of the report 

(i.e., deployment, upgrade, 

maintenance, or a combination thereof); 

(2) the number of housing units affected 

by the project (i.e., the number of 

housing units whose broadband 

availability or quality is positively 

impacted by the project) by census tract 

(utilizing the system presently used in 

the BDC); and (3) a narrative description 

of the project and of the areas served by 

the project, to allow for greater precision 

and clarity regarding what the project is 

designed to accomplish and what 

communities are served by the project. 

7. We seek general comment on the 

pros and cons of an annual report in the 

context of this proceeding. What are the 

short-term and long-term benefits of this 

proposal? Is there a more appropriate 

way to collect this information other 

than an annual report? Is there a way we 

can utilize existing data in connection 

with or in place of the proposed annual 

report to promote transparency 

regarding broadband investments? How 

could regulators leverage these reports 

to address potential disparities in 

broadband access? Are there other 

stakeholders that would benefit from 

such a report? Are there other uses for 

such a report that would foster the equal 

access policy of section 60506? Are 

there other potential benefits or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6480 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

challenges in implementing an annual 

reporting requirement? 

8. We also invite comment on the 

proposed components of the annual 

report, discussed in turn below. Are 

they sufficient? Are there other 

components that are necessary to meet 

our transparency goal. Are any of the 

proposed components in conflict or 

tension with the equal access goal of 

section 60506? What other reasons or 

justifications might exist for excluding 

one or more of the proposed 

components of the report? Would there 

be challenges in implementing this 

proposal and if so, how can the 

challenges be addressed? We seek 

comment on how to strike the right 

balance between gathering sufficient 

information and avoiding undue 

burdens on reporting entities when 

implementing this annual report 

requirement. 

9. Nature of the projects. In 

identifying the nature of the projects 

completed or substantially completed in 

the report, our proposal would require 

that providers identify any broadband 

deployment, upgrade, or maintenance 

projects undertaken within the specified 

period and affecting 500 or more 

housing units. We believe that 

deployment, maintenance, and upgrade 

projects are the type of investments that 

most broadly and directly affect 

consumer access to broadband service 

and, thus, should be reported in order 

to facilitate greater transparency 

regarding where such investments are 

being made. We seek comment on this 

proposal. We propose to deem a project 

completed when all the tasks and 

objectives have been successfully 

completed, all deliverables have been 

produced, all milestones have been met, 

and there is no outstanding work or 

tasks to be done. We also seek comment 

on what should be considered a 

substantially completed project. For 

example, should we define substantially 

completed as being a project for which, 

at the providers’ discretion, either 85% 

of the impacted locations are covered, or 

for which 85% of the most recent 

budget with commercial approval has 

been spent? Should the difference 

between the definitions of substantially 

completed and completed be based on 

providers expected timeline for a 

project? 

10. Housing units affected. We 

propose that the reporting requirement 

apply to projects affecting 500 or more 

housing units. We propose to use the 

definition of a ‘‘housing unit’’ in 

Commission rule 802.223, which 

defines the term as ‘‘a single family 

house, townhome, mobile home or 

trailer, apartment, group of rooms, or 

single room that is occupied as a 

separate living quarters, or, if vacant, is 

intended for occupancy as a separate 

living quarters.’’ An ‘‘economic unit’’ 

consists of all adult individuals 

contributing to and sharing in the 

income and expenses of a household. 

We seek comment on this definition. 

Based on this proposed definition, we 

seek comment on what number of 

housing units should trigger the 

requirement to report on a particular 

project. Is the number 500 reasonable in 

light of our transparency goal? Should 

the same threshold number of housing 

units apply to deployment, upgrade, 

and maintenance projects? Should 

different thresholds be applied to each 

category? Once the 500 housing unit 

threshold is met, is categorizing housing 

units in metric bands (e.g., 500–999, 

1000–4999, 5000–9999) an effective 

method to report the scope of the 

deployment, maintenance, or upgrade 

projects? We specifically seek comment 

on the potential impacts on rural and 

Tribal areas. Should there be special 

considerations for rural and Tribal 

areas? If so, how can we ensure that 

these areas are being considered? 

11. Geographic area of the project. We 

seek comment on requiring providers to 

report the geographic area of each major 

deployment, upgrade, and maintenance 

project by census tract. Would reporting 

projects at the level of the census tract 

be appropriate? What benefits and 

burdens would be associated with 

reporting data at the census tract level? 

Would census block be too granular? 

Should providers be required or 

permitted to report impacted locations 

in the same manner as they report 

deployed locations in the BDC? Since 

the BDC allows providers to report 

availability data in the form of polygon 

shapefiles, or as broadband serviceable 

location fabric (fabric), would adopting 

either one of these metrics reduce the 

burden on filers? In what format do 

covered entities routinely store data on 

deployments, upgrades, and 

maintenance projects? To the extent 

covered entities do not routinely collect 

and store such information, we seek 

comment on how to specify a single 

methodology for doing so. 

12. We also seek comment on whether 

there are more precise metrics to 

identify the location of projects in rural 

and Tribal areas than the proposed 

census tract metric. Are there any 

additional issues specific to rural and 

Tribal areas that we should consider in 

completion of these annual reports? 

Would a census block requirement be 

workable? Would it encompass rural 

and Tribal areas more efficiently? 

Should providers be required to identify 

whether the impacted area is rural or 

Tribal and, if so, how should they do 

that? Should covered entities be 

required to specifically describe their 

projects in Tribal areas, irrespective of 

the number of housing units served by 

the project? 

13. Narrative description of project. 

We propose that providers use the 

narrative description to provide 

information regarding each project 

sufficient to determine what the project 

was designed to accomplish, why it was 

undertaken, and what communities 

within the designed census tracts it was 

intended to serve. In particular, the 

designation of a project as a 

deployment, upgrade, or maintenance 

project may not sufficiently explain 

what the project was intended to 

accomplish (e.g., upgrade service from 

DSL to fiber) or the specific 

communities within the designated 

census tracts that will be served by the 

project (e.g., naming the neighborhoods 

served or providing the geographic 

boundaries of the project). By requiring 

the narrative description of the project, 

we intend to allow greater precision and 

clarity about the nature of the project 

and the communities served, without 

being overly prescriptive. We seek 

comment on this proposal. Should we 

be more prescriptive about the narrative 

descriptions required? Should we 

require, for example, that providers 

describe the demographics of the 

communities served by these projects 

and/or the dates the projects were 

completed or substantially completed? 

Is there other narrative information we 

should require in order for the reporting 

requirement to serve its intended 

purpose of providing greater 

transparency regarding recent 

broadband investments? More generally, 

is a report of the type we propose 

necessary or helpful in light of the data 

already being collected through the 

BDC? 

Annual Report Filing Timeline 

14. We propose to require providers to 

file their annual report as a supplement 

to the BDC report due in March of each 

year and that it cover projects 

completed or substantially completed in 

the calendar year immediately 

preceding the submission of the report. 

We seek comment on this proposal. We 

seek comment on this filing timetable 

and whether it provides sufficient time 

for providers to gather and review the 

information required in the report. We 

also seek comment on whether 

submitting the annual report as a 

supplement to the year-end BDC filing 

is the most reasonable and efficient 

approach. Should these deadlines be 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6481 

staggered? If so, how much time should 

be allotted between the filing of the 

year-end BDC report and the annual, 

major projects report? 

Availability of Annual Reports 

15. We propose to make the results of 

these annual reports available to the 

public. As discussed above, we 

tentatively conclude that significant 

benefits would flow from making these 

reports public, such as increasing 

transparency regarding substantial 

investments by providers, informing 

broadband policy at the Federal, state 

and local level, strengthening advocacy 

for expanded broadband access, and 

targeting the Commission’s efforts to 

enforce the rules we adopt today. We 

seek comment on our proposal to make 

these reports public. What is the best 

method for releasing these reports to the 

public? Should these reports be easily 

accessible on the provider’s website or 

should they be made available by 

another means? We also seek comment 

on the benefits or burdens of making the 

reports available to the public. Are there 

confidentiality concerns we need to 

consider with respect to the information 

in question? If so, what measures would 

be necessary to protect the legitimate 

confidentiality interests of providers? 

Supplements to Existing CommissionIssues Reports 

16. We also seek comment on whether 

the Commission should publish certain 

data from the proposed annual reports 

in the Commission’s existing reports, 

such as the Communications 

Marketplace Report or the broadband 

progress report required by section 706 

of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 

(Section 706 Report). We note that the 

Commission has already initiated the 

inquiry for the next Section 706 Report. 

Although we propose that the annual 

reports be publicly available, as 

supplements to the annual BDC filings, 

would including certain data in either of 

these existing Commission reports 

provide greater transparency to 

consumers and communities? If so, 

what data should be included? Should 

we include the entirety of the proposed 

annual reports, or limit the data to a 

more narrow set of data points? Should 

we expand the information published in 

the Communications Marketplace 

Report or the Section 706 Report beyond 

the proposed annual reports to include 

summaries of filed digital 

discrimination of access informal 

complaints, any findings of digital 

discrimination of access, or steps the 

Commission has taken to address equal 

access? Would including this additional 

information in either these Commissionissued reports enhance transparency 

and make the proposed annual reports 

fully available and accessible to more 

stakeholders? 

Intersection With Other Broadband 

Data 

17. We seek comment on how 

providers can leverage existing data 

sources, such as the existing BDC, in 

compiling these reports. To the extent 

we can model the requirements for this 

report off the BDC, how would that be 

helpful to providers? We assume that 

providers would prefer to use the same 

criteria and data fields that are used in 

the BDC to the extent possible. We seek 

comment on whether this is true. 

18. Are the relevant criteria and data 

fields used in the BDC too broad or 

narrow for our present purposes? Is 

there a need for additional data to be 

collected or for different metrics to be 

used? Given that providers are aware of 

their deployment and report the impact 

of deployments as part of the BDC, what 

would be the additional burden of 

providing annual reports? Are there 

policies or procedures we can adopt to 

reduce the burden on providers? 

19. We tentatively conclude that the 

annual reports proposed above should 

be certified by the provider as true and 

correct, just as occurs with respect to 

BDC submissions. We propose that the 

same experts who certify the BDC 

submissions also be required to certify 

the proposed annual report: (1) a 

corporate officer, and (2) an engineer. 

We seek comment on this proposal. 

Should we consider a different 

certification process? Is it necessary that 

both a corporate officer and an engineer 

certify reports containing the elements 

we have outlined above? Might other 

officers or employees of the provider be 

better informed to certify the contents of 

this annual report? We seek detailed 

comment on these matters. 

Exceptions 

20. We seek comment on whether any 

providers should be exempted from the 

requirement to submit an annual report 

based on their size, footprint, or service 

area. Should we exempt providers that 

primarily serve consumers at the rural 

and Tribal level and, if so, why? What 

other providers should be exempted 

from submitting an annual report and 

why? 

Record Retention 

21. It is important that records 

sufficient to determine the veracity of 

the proposed annual reports be retained 

for some period of time following 

submission of the reports. We seek 

comment on what records should be 

retained and for how long they should 

be retained in order to accomplish this 

verification purpose. We also seek 

comment on whether records related to 

the proposed annual reports should be 

retained for any purpose other than 

verification of the information 

contained in such reports. 

Compliance Program 

22. In addition to the annual report, 

we propose to require each provider to 

adopt and maintain a formal internal 

compliance program designed to ensure 

regular assessment of whether and how 

the provider’s policies and practices 

advance and impede equal access to 

broadband internet access service in its 

service area. In proposing to require 

such compliance programs, our goals 

are to ensure close internal scrutiny of 

policies and practices that might 

impede equal access to broadband and 

to promote accountability with regard to 

such policies and practices. In order to 

facilitate candid internal evaluation and 

assessment of a provider’s policies and 

practices affecting broadband access, we 

do not propose to require providers to 

make publicly available any reports or 

other documentation of such internal 

evaluations and assessments. However, 

in order to ensure compliance with the 

requirement to conduct such 

evaluations and assessments, and/or in 

connection with a Commission 

investigation into alleged digital 

discrimination of access, the 

Commission reserves the right to require 

production of such reports and 

documentation subject to the 

Commission’s existing confidentiality 

rules. We seek comment on this 

proposal. 

Components of Compliance Program 

23. Effective Compliance Program. We 

propose to model our mandatory 

internal compliance program on 

previously established effective 

compliance programs, while not being 

overly prescriptive regarding how the 

compliance program is designed. Such 

models teach us that effective 

compliance programs should include, at 

a minimum: (1) development and 

implementation of written policies and 

procedures; (2) designation of a 

compliance officer and/or compliance 

committee; (3) conducting effective 

training and education regarding the 

purposes and operation of the 

compliance program; (4) developing 

effective lines of reporting and 

communication; (5) conducting internal 

monitoring and auditing; (6) enforcing 

standards through well-publicized 

disciplinary guidelines; and (7) 

responding promptly to detected 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6482 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

problems through corrective action. We 

seek comment on whether these should 

be mandatory components of the 

compliance programs we propose to 

require. Which of these elements of an 

effective compliance programs should 

we require? Which elements should we 

not require, if any? Are there additional 

elements we should consider adding in 

order to ensure that the compliance 

programs effectively advance their 

intended purpose of facilitating equal 

access to broadband? Although we seek 

comment on each of these elements, we 

note that our goal is to grant each 

broadband provider the flexibility to 

develop and maintain a plan that 

contains the required elements and 

serves our intended purposes without 

prescribing a particular formula as to 

how each required element should be 

implemented. We seek comment on 

whether such flexibility will be 

beneficial or detrimental to the 

implementation of effective internal 

compliance programs by providers. 

24. Implementing Written Policies and 

Procedures. We seek comment on 

requiring providers to implement 

internal written policies and procedures 

with the goal of preventing digital 

discrimination of access and promoting 

equal access to broadband internet 

access service. In the compliance 

program, are written policies and 

procedures necessary? What should 

those internal written policies and 

procedures include? Who should be 

knowledgeable about the rules and 

practices within the organization? How 

often should these written rules and 

procedures be reviewed, revised, and 

updated? Are there any available 

models that providers can look to when 

devising their internal policies and 

procedures to prevent digital 

discrimination of access and promote 

equal access? 

25. Designating a Compliance Officer 

and/or Compliance Committee. We seek 

comment on requiring service providers 

to appoint a designated compliance 

officer or establish a compliance 

committee to ensure compliance with 

the program’s requirements and timely 

cooperation with the Commission upon 

request. Is it necessary to designate a 

compliance officer or establish a 

compliance committee for the 

successful implementation of the 

compliance program? What should the 

qualifications of the selected 

compliance officer and compliance 

committee members be? What should 

the structure of a compliance committee 

be, how often should it meet, and what 

should be its functions? Should the 

designated compliance officer be 

required to provide that certification? 

26. Conducting Effective Training on 

Commission Rules. We seek comment 

on requiring service providers to 

conduct periodic training for relevant 

employees on the Commission’s digital 

discrimination of access rules. Who 

should conduct the training, who 

should be required to take the training, 

and how often should they be required 

to do so? How should the substantive 

content of the training be developed and 

what should it cover? Should the 

content of the training be certified or 

approved by the Commission in some 

manner? If so, how often should such 

certification or approval take place? 

Providers likely already have 

compliance programs and employee 

trainings to maintain compliance with 

regulatory requirements at many levels. 

What would be the additional burden 

for providers to incorporate compliance 

with digital discrimination of access 

rules into their existing compliance 

programs? 

27. Developing Effective Lines of 

Reporting and Communication. We 

propose requiring broadband providers 

to put in place mechanisms and 

processes that: (1) encourage the 

internal reporting of matters that may 

constitute, or lead to, digital 

discrimination of access or otherwise 

impede equal access to broadband 

service; (2) channel those concerns to 

the compliance officer and/or 

compliance committee for evaluation 

and response, if warranted; and (3) 

ensure effective ‘‘up the chain’’ 

reporting by compliance officers and 

committees so senior officers are made 

aware of these matters and can take 

appropriate action to prevent their 

recurrence. We seek comment on this 

proposal. What system(s) can providers 

implement to encourage employees to 

raise concerns about potentially 

problematic conduct? What should be 

the reporting chain above the 

compliance officer and compliance 

committee to ensure that equal access 

concerns are given the highest possible 

priority by the provider? Are there other 

mechanisms and processes that we 

should require to achieve effective lines 

of reporting and communication 

regarding equal-access-related matters? 

28. Conducting Internal Monitoring 

and Auditing. We seek comment on 

requiring broadband providers to 

perform periodic reviews of the 

compliance program and respond 

quickly to correct problems when they 

are detected. Who should conduct such 

periodic reviews and how often should 

they be conducted? What systems can 

providers put in place to evaluate the 

overall effectiveness of the program and 

its compliance with the requirements 

we ultimately adopt for such programs? 

29. Responding Promptly to Detected 

Problems and Undertaking Corrective 

Action. We seek comment on what 

requirements we should adopt regarding 

the handling of problems reported by 

the compliance officer or committee to 

senior management, especially when no 

corrective action has been taken. What 

obligations would a compliance officer 

or committee have under those 

circumstances? What recourse would a 

compliance officer or committee have if 

a provider routinely fails to address 

reported violations of our rules? Should 

we require, in such instances, that the 

compliance officer report the matter to 

the Commission? Could a compliance 

officer truthfully certify that a 

compliance program consistent with our 

rules has been maintained throughout 

the certification period if reported 

violations of our rules are routinely 

ignored by the provider? We seek 

comment on these matters. 

Evaluations of Recently Completed, 

Pending, and Planned Projects 

30. We seek comment on requiring 

providers to conduct annually an 

internal evaluation of recently 

completed, pending, and planned 

deployment, upgrade, and maintenance 

projects affecting 500 or more housing 

units. With respect to each such project, 

the internal evaluation should consist of 

a comparison of the demographics of the 

communities served by that project with 

the demographics of the Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (MSA) encompassing 

those served communities. The Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention 

define MSA as ‘‘a geographic entity 

based on a county or a group of counties 

with at least one urbanized area with a 

population of at least 50,000 and 

adjacent counties with economic ties to 

the central area.’’ While the purpose of 

our proposal to require submission of 

annual reports to the Commission is to 

promote greater transparency regarding 

what communities are served by 

recently completed projects, the goal of 

our proposal to require periodic internal 

evaluation of large-scale projects is to 

facilitate close internal scrutiny of the 

provider’s policies and practices 

affecting broadband access, determine 

whether those policies and practices 

advance or impede equal access to 

broadband service, and promote 

accountability regarding policies and 

practices that impede (or threaten to 

impede) equal access without adequate 

justification. Moreover, while our 

proposal regarding annual reporting 

would apply only to recently completed 

(or substantially completed) projects of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6483 

a certain size, our proposal with respect 

to periodic internal evaluations would 

also apply to pending and planned 

projects. We seek comment on this 

proposal, and we specifically seek 

comment on: (1) how we should define 

‘‘pending’’ projects and ‘‘planned’’ 

projects under this proposal; and (2) 

whether MSAs are the appropriate 

geographic comparator for the internal 

evaluation of covered projects. 

31. We do not propose to prescribe 

the manner in which providers compare 

the demographics of served 

communities with the demographics of 

the MSAs encompassing those 

communities. We would require only 

that such comparisons be conducted 

with analytical rigor and in good faith 

using official data and reports of the 

U.S. Census Bureau, and that they be 

reasonably designed to uncover 

meaningful disparities between the 

reported demographics of served 

communities and the reported 

demographics of the MSAs 

encompassing those served 

communities. According to the Census 

Bureau, an MSA consists of one or more 

counties that contain a city of 50,000 or 

more inhabitants, or contain a Census 

Bureau-defined urbanized area (UA) and 

have a total population of at least 

100,000 (75,000 in New England). While 

we would never expect precise 

numerical alignment with respect to any 

single project, we believe that routinely 

conducting these comparisons will give 

providers a better sense of what 

communities are being served (and not 

served) by their projects over time, and 

will help to ‘‘smoke out’’ policies and 

practices that discriminate without 

adequate justification. We seek 

comment on this proposal. 

Evaluations of Policies and Practices 

32. Evaluation and Assessment of 

Policies and Practices. We seek 

comment on requiring providers to: (1) 

periodically evaluate their policies and 

practices affecting broadband access to 

determine whether they differentially 

impact consumers’ access to broadband 

internet access service based on income 

level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or 

national origin, or otherwise impede 

equal access to broadband internet 

access service; and (2) report to senior 

management annually, and in writing, 

regarding the results of such evaluation. 

As noted above, the proposed 

requirement that providers periodically 

determine the demographics of 

communities served by designated 

broadband projects is intended to 

permit an assessment, over time, of 

whether the provider’s broadbandrelated policies are effectively impeding 

equal access to broadband service. 

Those assessments should lead to 

critical examination of whether any 

policies and practices impeding such 

equal access are necessary and justified 

by legitimate business considerations 

and whether alternative policies and 

practices might reasonably be adopted 

and implemented in their place. We 

propose that compliance officers and/or 

committees be required to conduct such 

annual assessments and report annually 

to senior management, in writing, the 

results of such evaluations and 

assessments. This process will require 

providers to closely scrutinize policies 

and practices producing disparate 

impacts on prohibited bases or 

otherwise impeding equal access to 

broadband service. We believe these 

requirements are necessary to ensure 

that equal access to broadband service 

remains a top priority for providers, in 

fulfillment of Congress’s instruction that 

the Commission ‘‘take steps to ensure 

that all people of the United States 

benefit from equal access to broadband 

internet access service.’’ We seek 

comment on this proposal. 

Certification 

33. Certification of Completion. We 

propose requiring providers to submit, 

in conjunction with the annual report 

proposed above, a certification that a 

compliance program satisfying all 

requirements finally adopted by the 

Commission was in place during the 

calendar year covered by the annual 

report. We propose that the certification 

be attested to by an officer and engineer 

as occurs with respect to the BDC, and 

that the provider’s designated 

compliance officer (or the chair of the 

compliance committee) certify the same 

to the certifying officer and engineer. 

We seek comment on this proposal, 

including whether the designated 

compliance officer (or chair of the 

compliance committee) should be 

required to provide a certification 

directly to the Commission. 

Exemptions 

34. We also seek comment on whether 

any providers should be exempted from 

the proposed requirement to implement 

and maintain an internal compliance 

program meeting specified standards 

based on their size, footprint, or niche 

service area. Should we exempt 

providers that primarily serve 

consumers at the rural and Tribal level 

and, if so, why? What other providers 

should be exempted from these 

requirements, under what 

circumstances, and why? We seek 

comment on requiring providers who 

are entitled to an exemption under our 

rules to file a certification of exemption 

in lieu of a certification of compliance 

in conjunction with the annual report. 

Recording and Retention Requirements 

35. We seek comment on what records 

providers should be required to retain, 

and for how long, relating to the internal 

assessments of the projects described in 

the preceding paragraphs. Once a 

summary report of the internal 

assessment for a specific project is 

completed, should the provider be 

required to retain the underlying 

documents for some period of time? 

Should there be different retention 

periods for the summary reports than for 

the underlying documents? 

Office of Civil Rights 

36. We seek further, focused comment 

on establishing an Office of Civil Rights, 

as both advocates and broadband 

service providers have urged. In 

particular, we seek comment on the 

potential benefits establishing such an 

office. For example, would such an 

office be helpful in developing and 

maintaining the expertise to evaluate 

the effects of Commission policy 

initiatives on historically marginalized 

communities? Could it assist in 

determining when prohibited 

discrimination has occurred and aid in 

developing remedies for such 

discrimination? Might it help in 

evaluating claims and possible patterns 

of digital discrimination of access? And 

could it aid in monitoring informal 

complaints alleging digital 

discrimination of access and other forms 

of prohibited discrimination, as well as 

in the mediation process we have 

outlined in the Order? Why or why not? 

What other benefits might be associated 

with establishing an Office of Civil 

Rights? For example, could it work with 

broadband service providers to 

proactively mitigate potential instances 

of prohibited discrimination? Could 

such an office collaborate with 

broadband service providers and 

Federal and state governments to 

develop broadband adoption and digital 

literacy skills training that could be 

used on a nationwide basis? Could such 

an office be employed to address other 

substantive Commission policy issues 

and processes beyond matters arising 

under section 60506? If so, what other 

issues might an Office of Civil Rights 

oversee or how could it support other 

bureaus and offices in the Commission? 

Finally, what are the potential 

challenges associated with establishing 

an Office of Civil Rights? How should 

the Commission address these 

challenges? What are the costs 

associated with establishing an Office of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6484 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Civil Rights? How should the 

Commission structure and staff such an 

office? What other structural and 

organizational changes would be 

required to establish such an office? 

Other Efforts To Promote Digital Equity 

and Inclusion 

37. Digital Equity. The Commission, 

as part of its continuing effort to 

advance digital equity for all, including 

people of color, persons with 

disabilities, persons who live in rural or 

Tribal areas, and others who have been 

historically underserved, marginalized, 

and adversely affected by persistent 

poverty and inequality, invites 

comments on any equity-related 

considerations and benefits (if any) that 

may be associated with the proposals 

and issues discussed herein. We define 

the term ‘‘equity’’ consistent with 

Executive Order 13985 as the consistent 

and systematic fair, just, and impartial 

treatment of all individuals, including 

individuals who belong to underserved 

communities that have been denied 

such treatment, such as Black, Latino, 

and Indigenous and Native American 

persons, Asian Americans and Pacific 

Islanders and other persons of color; 

members of religious minorities; 

lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and 

queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with 

disabilities; persons who live in rural 

areas; and persons otherwise adversely 

affected by persistent poverty or 

inequality. Specifically, we seek 

comment on how our proposals may 

promote or inhibit advances in 

diversity, equity, inclusion, and 

accessibility, as well as the scope of the 

Commission’s relevant legal authority. 

Procedural Matters 

38. We have also prepared an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

concerning the potential impact of the 

rule and policy changes contained in 

the Further Notice. Comments must be 

filed by the deadlines for comments on 

the Further Notice indicated on the first 

page of this document and must have a 

separate and distinct heading 

designating them as responses to the 

IRFA. 

39. Paperwork Reduction Act. The 

Further Notice also may contain 

proposed new and revised information 

collection requirements. The 

Commission, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork burdens, 

invites the general public and OMB to 

comment on the information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document, 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(c)(4), we seek specific comment on 

how we might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

Ordering Clauses 

40. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Office of the Secretary 

shall send a copy of this Report and 

Order and Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

41. 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 small 

entities by the policies and rules 

proposed in this Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice). 

The Commission requests written public 

comments on this IRFA. Comments 

must be identified as responses to the 

IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines 

for comments provided on the first page 

of the Further Notice. The Commission 

will send a copy of the Further Notice, 

including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, the Further Notice and IRFA 

(or summaries thereof) will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

42. In the Further Notice, the 

Commission takes additional steps to 

advance its efforts to fulfill the 

congressional direction in section 60506 

of the Infrastructure Act to facilitate 

equal access to broadband internet 

access service by preventing digital 

discrimination of access, proposing 

rules that will address disparities in 

broadband availability and service 

offerings. Specifically, the Further 

Notice seeks comment on affirmative 

obligations that might be undertaken by 

broadband providers by complementing 

proposed rules adopted in the Report 

and Order, with a focus on broadband 

providers’ day-to-day business practices 

that might, in some instances, 

differentially impact consumers’ access 

to broadband on prohibited bases. The 

Further Notice also proposes to require 

the reporting of this information on a 

state-by-state or territory-by-territory 

basis in a yearly supplement to the BDC 

so the public can see not only where 

broadband coverage is provided, but 

where and how providers are currently 

investing in their broadband networks 

and what communities are benefiting 

from those investments. Additionally, 

the Further Notice proposes to require 

providers to establish formal 

compliance programs related to digital 

discrimination of access and to conduct 

regular, internal assessments of what 

communities are served (and not served) 

by recently completed, pending, and 

planned large-scale broadband projects 

and whether their relevant policies and 

practices might differentially impact 

consumers’ access to broadband service. 

Legal Basis 

43. The proposed action is authorized 

pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i)–(j), 303(r) 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)–(j), 

303(r), and section 60506 of the 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 

Public Law 117–58, 135 Stat. 429, 1245– 

46 (2021), codified at 47 U.S.C. 1754. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 

Rules Will Apply 

44. 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 and by the rule 

revisions on which the Further Notice 

seeks comment, 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 ‘‘smallbusiness 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. 

45. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, 

may affect small entities that are not 

easily categorized at present. We 

therefore describe, 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6485 

States, which translates to 32.5 million 

businesses. 

46. 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. 

47. 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 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, we 

estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall 

into the category of ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ 

48. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 

defines this industry as establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired communications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services, wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution, and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry. 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers are 

also referred to as wireline carriers or 

fixed local service providers. 

49. The SBA small business size 

standard for Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers 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. 

Additionally, based on Commission 

data in the 2021 Universal Service 

Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 

2020, there were 5,183 providers that 

reported they were engaged in the 

provision of fixed local services. Of 

these providers, the Commission 

estimates that 4,737 providers have 

1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, using the SBA’s small 

business size standard, most of these 

providers can be considered small 

entities. 

50. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a size standard for small 

businesses specifically applicable to 

local exchange services. Providers of 

these services include both incumbent 

and competitive local exchange service 

providers. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers is the closest industry with an 

SBA small business size standard. 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers are 

also referred to as wireline carriers or 

fixed local service providers. The SBA 

small business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers 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. Additionally, based on 

Commission data in the 2021 Universal 

Service Monitoring Report, as of 

December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 

providers that reported they were fixed 

local exchange service providers. Of 

these providers, the Commission 

estimates that 4,737 providers have 

1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, using the SBA’s small 

business size standard, most of these 

providers can be considered small 

entities. 

51. Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA have 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for incumbent 

local exchange carriers. Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers is the 

closest industry with an SBA small 

business size standard. The SBA small 

business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers classifies 

firms having 1,500 or fewer employees 

as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2017 show that there were 3,054 firms 

in this industry that operated for the 

entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms 

operated with fewer than 250 

employees. Additionally, based on 

Commission data in the 2021 Universal 

Service Monitoring Report, as of 

December 31, 2020, there were 1,227 

providers that reported they were 

incumbent local exchange service 

providers. Of these providers, the 

Commission estimates that 929 

providers have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, using the 

SBA’s small business size standard, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of incumbent local exchange carriers 

can be considered small entities. 

52. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission 

nor the SBA has developed a size 

standard for small businesses 

specifically applicable to local exchange 

services. Providers of these services 

include several types of competitive 

local exchange service providers. Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers is the 

closest industry with a SBA small 

business size standard. The SBA small 

business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers 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. Additionally, based on 

Commission data in the 2021 Universal 

Service Monitoring Report, as of 

December 31, 2020, there were 3,956 

providers that reported they were 

competitive local exchange service 

providers. Of these providers, the 

Commission estimates that 3,808 

providers have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, using the 

SBA’s small business size standard, 

most of these providers can be 

considered small entities. 

53. We have included small 

incumbent LECs in this present RFA 

analysis. As noted above, a ‘‘small 

business’’ under the RFA is one that, 

inter alia, meets the pertinent smallbusiness size standard (e.g., a telephone 

communications business having 1,500 

or fewer employees) and ‘‘is not 

dominant in its field of operation.’’ The 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that, 

for RFA purposes, small incumbent 

LECs are not dominant in their field of 

operation because any such dominance 

is not ‘‘national’’ in scope. We have 

therefore included small incumbent 

LECs in this RFA analysis, although we 

emphasize that this RFA action has no 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6486 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does 

not provide a more precise estimate of the number 

of firms that meet the SBA size standard. We also 

note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau 

glossary, the terms receipts and revenues are used 

interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/ 

glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices. 

effect on Commission analyses and 

determinations in other, non-RFA 

contexts. 

54. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

have developed a small business size 

standard specifically for Interexchange 

Carriers. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers is the closest industry with a 

SBA small business size standard. The 

SBA small business size standard for 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers 

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. Additionally, based on 

Commission data in the 2021 Universal 

Service Monitoring Report, as of 

December 31, 2020, there were 151 

providers that reported they were 

engaged in the provision of 

interexchange services. Of these 

providers, the Commission estimates 

that 131 providers have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, using the 

SBA’s small business size standard, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of providers in this industry can be 

considered small entities. 

55. Cable System Operators (Telecom 

Act Standard). The Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size 

standard for a ‘‘small cable operator,’’ 

which is ‘‘a cable operator that, directly 

or through an affiliate, serves in the 

aggregate fewer than one percent of all 

subscribers in the United States and is 

not affiliated with any entity or entities 

whose gross annual revenues in the 

aggregate exceed $250,000,000.’’ For 

purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, 

the Commission determined that a cable 

system operator that serves fewer than 

677,000 subscribers, either directly or 

through affiliates, will meet the 

definition of a small cable operator 

based on the cable subscriber count 

established in a 2001 Public Notice. 

Based on industry data, only six cable 

system operators have more than 

677,000 subscribers. Accordingly, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of cable system operators are small 

under this size standard. We note 

however, that the Commission neither 

requests nor collects information on 

whether cable system operators are 

affiliated with entities whose gross 

annual revenues exceed $250 million. 

Therefore, we are unable at this time to 

estimate with greater precision the 

number of cable system operators that 

would qualify as small cable operators 

under the definition in the 

Communications Act. 

56. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a definition for small businesses 

specifically applicable to Other Toll 

Carriers. This category includes toll 

carriers that do not fall within the 

categories of interexchange carriers, 

operator service providers, prepaid 

calling card providers, satellite service 

carriers, or toll resellers. Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers is the 

closest industry with a SBA small 

business size standard. The SBA small 

business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers classifies 

firms having 1,500 or fewer employees 

as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2017 show that there were 3,054 firms 

in this industry that operated for the 

entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms 

operated with fewer than 250 

employees. Additionally, based on 

Commission data in the 2021 Universal 

Service Monitoring Report, as of 

December 31, 2020, there were 115 

providers that reported they were 

engaged in the provision of other toll 

services. Of these providers, the 

Commission estimates that 113 

providers have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, using the 

SBA’s small business size standard, 

most of these providers can be 

considered small entities. 

57. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). This industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

operating and maintaining switching 

and transmission facilities to provide 

communications via the airwaves. 

Establishments in this industry have 

spectrum licenses and provide services 

using that spectrum, such as cellular 

services, paging services, wireless 

internet access, and wireless video 

services. 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. Additionally, 

based on Commission data in the 2021 

Universal Service Monitoring Report, as 

of December 31, 2020, there were 797 

providers that reported they were 

engaged in the provision of wireless 

services. Of these providers, the 

Commission estimates that 715 

providers have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, using the 

SBA’s small business size standard, 

most of these providers can be 

considered small entities. 

58. Satellite Telecommunications. 

This industry comprises firms 

‘‘primarily engaged in providing 

telecommunications services to other 

establishments in the 

telecommunications and broadcasting 

industries by forwarding and receiving 

communications signals via a system of 

satellites or reselling satellite 

telecommunications.’’ Satellite 

telecommunications service providers 

include satellite and earth station 

operators. The SBA small business size 

standard for this industry classifies a 

business with $38.5 million or less in 

annual receipts as small. U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 

firms in this industry operated for the 

entire year. Of this number, 242 firms 

had revenue of less than $25 million.1

Additionally, based on Commission 

data in the 2021 Universal Service 

Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 

2020, there were 71 providers that 

reported they were engaged in the 

provision of satellite 

telecommunications services. Of these 

providers, the Commission estimates 

that approximately 48 providers have 

1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, using the SBA’s small 

business size standard, a little more 

than of these providers can be 

considered small entities. 

59. Local Resellers. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA have 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for Local Resellers. 

Telecommunications Resellers is the 

closest industry with a SBA small 

business size standard. The 

Telecommunications Resellers industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

purchasing access and network capacity 

from owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. Mobile virtual network 

operators (MVNOs) are included in this 

industry. The SBA small business size 

standard for Telecommunications 

Resellers classifies a business as small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 

1,386 firms in this industry provided 

resale services for the entire year. Of 

that number, 1,375 firms operated with 

fewer than 250 employees. 

Additionally, based on Commission 

data in the 2021 Universal Service 

Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 22 / Thursday, February 1, 2024 / Proposed Rules 6487 

2020, there were 293 providers that 

reported they were engaged in the 

provision of local resale services. Of 

these providers, the Commission 

estimates that 289 providers have 1,500 

or fewer employees. Consequently, 

using the SBA’s small business size 

standard, most of these providers can be 

considered small entities. 

60. Toll Resellers. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA have 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for Toll Resellers. 

Telecommunications Resellers is the 

closest industry with an SBA small 

business size standard. The 

Telecommunications Resellers industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

purchasing access and network capacity 

from owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. Mobile virtual network 

operators (MVNOs) are included in this 

industry. The SBA small business size 

standard for Telecommunications 

Resellers classifies a business as small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 

1,386 firms in this industry provided 

resale services for the entire year. Of 

that number, 1,375 firms operated with 

fewer than 250 employees. 

Additionally, based on Commission 

data in the 2022 Universal Service 

Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 

2021, there were 457 providers that 

reported they were engaged in the 

provision of toll services. Of these 

providers, the Commission estimates 

that 438 providers have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, using the 

SBA’s small business size standard, 

most of these providers can be 

considered small entities. 

61. All Other Telecommunications. 

This industry is comprised of 

establishments primarily engaged in 

providing specialized 

telecommunications services, such as 

satellite tracking, communications 

telemetry, and radar station operation. 

This industry also includes 

establishments primarily engaged in 

providing satellite terminal stations and 

associated facilities connected with one 

or more terrestrial systems and capable 

of transmitting telecommunications to, 

and receiving telecommunications from, 

satellite systems. Providers of internet 

services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or voice over 

internet protocol (VoIP) services, via 

client-supplied telecommunications 

connections are also included in this 

industry. The SBA small business size 

standard for this industry classifies 

firms with annual receipts of $35 

million or less as small. U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2017 show that there 

were 1,079 firms in this industry that 

operated for the entire year. Of those 

firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than 

$25 million. Based on this data, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of ‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’ 

firms can be considered small. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

62. The Further Notice proposes two 

sets of affirmative obligations for 

broadband providers in furtherance of 

our mandate to facilitate equal access to 

broadband internet access service, 

including by preventing digital 

discrimination of access by requiring 

broadband providers to: (1) submit an 

annual, publicly available supplement 

to the Broadband Data Collection (BDC) 

describing, on a state-by-state or 

territory-by-territory basis, any largescale broadband deployment, upgrade, 

and maintenance projects that were 

completed or substantially completed 

during the preceding calendar year and 

the communities served by such 

projects; and (2) establish a mandatory 

internal compliance program requiring 

regular internal assessment of (a) what 

communities are served by recent, 

pending and planned large-scale 

projects and (b) whether the provider’s 

broadband-related policies and practices 

might differentially impact consumers’ 

access to broadband without adequate 

technical or economic justification. 

63. The Further Notice proposes to 

require the annual report as a 

supplement to the year-end BDC, and 

we assume that broadband providers 

would use the same criteria and data 

fields that are used in the BDC. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the experts who certify the BDC 

submissions should also be required to 

certify the proposed annual report. The 

Commission also proposes that each 

provider adopt and maintain a formal 

internal compliance program that 

includes, at a minimum, elements from 

previously effective compliance 

programs: (1) developing and 

implementing written policies and 

procedures; (2) designating a 

compliance officer and/or compliance 

committee; (3) conducting effective 

training and education regarding the 

purposes and operation of the 

compliance program; (4) developing 

effective lines of reporting and 

communication; and (5) conducting 

internal monitoring and auditing. We 

propose to grant each broadband 

provider the flexibility to develop and 

maintain a plan that contains the 

required elements and serves our 

intended purposes without prescribing a 

particular formula as to how each 

required element should be 

implemented. 

Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

64. 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 rules 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.’’ 

65. The Further Notice seeks comment 

on whether any of the proposed filing, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements can be minimized for 

small entities. For example, we request 

comment on whether existing data may 

be used with or in place of the proposed 

annual report to promote transparency 

in broadband investments. We also 

seeks comment on whether any 

broadband providers should be 

exempted from the requirement to 

submit an annual report or to 

implement and maintain an internal 

compliance program based on their size, 

footprint, or service area, including 

rural and Tribal areas. Finally, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

any of the costs associated with our 

digital discrimination of access 

compliance requirements can be 

alleviated for small entities. 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

None. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–01996 Filed 1–31–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1