Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6827 

training, Pesticide worker safety, 

Pesticides and pests, Restricted use 

pesticides. 

Michal Freedhoff, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

Therefore, for the reasons set forth in 

the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 

40 CFR chapter I as follows: 

PART 171—CERTIFICATION OF 

PESTICIDE APPLICATORS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 171 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136–136y. 

§ 171.5 Effective Date. 

■ 2. Amend § 171.5 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

* * * * * 

(c) Extension of an existing plan 

during EPA review of proposed 

revisions. If by March 4, 2020, a 

certifying authority has submitted to 

EPA a proposed modification of its 

certification plan pursuant to subpart D 

of this part, its certification plan 

approved by EPA before March 6, 2017 

will remain in effect until EPA has 

approved or rejected the modified plan 

pursuant to § 171.309(a)(4) or November 

4, 2024, whichever is earlier, except as 

provided in paragraph (d) of this section 

and § 171.309(b). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–02543 Filed 2–4–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 8 

[CG Docket No. 22–2; FCC 22–7; FR ID 

69891] 

Empowering Broadband Consumers 

Through Transparency 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission proposes measures to 

implement certain provisions of the 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

(Infrastructure Act). Specifically, the 

Commission proposes to require that 

broadband internet access service 

providers (ISPs) display, at the point of 

sale, labels to disclose to consumers 

certain information about prices, 

introductory rates, data allowances, 

broadband speeds, and management 

practices, among other things. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

March 9, 2022, and reply comments are 

due on or before March 24, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by CG Docket No. 22–2, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: https://

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. 

In the event that the Commission 

announces the lifting of COVID–19 

restrictions, a filing window will be 

opened at the Commission’s office 

located at 9050 Junction Drive, 

Annapolis, MD 20701. 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 and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Erica H. McMahon of the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0346 or Erica.McMahon@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in CG 

Docket No. 22–2, FCC 22–7, adopted 

and released on January 27, 2022. The 

full text of the document is available for 

public inspection and copying via the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS). 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 and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice). 

This matter shall be treated as a 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 through 

1.1216. Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substances of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one or two 

sentence description of the views and 

arguments presented is generally 

required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other 

rules pertaining to oral and written ex 

parte presentations in permit-butdisclose proceedings are set forth in 

§ 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules, 

47 CFR 1.1206(b). 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

The NPRM proposes rule amendments 

that may result in modified information 

collection requirements. If the 

Commission adopts any modified 

information collection requirements, the 

Commission will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register inviting the public to 

comment on the requirements, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. Public Law 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 

3501–3520. In addition, pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, the Commission seeks comment 

on how it might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. Public Law 107–198; 44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 

Synopsis 

1. In 2021, Congress enacted and the 

President signed the Infrastructure Act, 

which, in relevant part, 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.’’ See 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 

Public Law 117–58, 135 Stat. 429, 

section 60504(a) (2021) (Infrastructure 

Act). Further, the Infrastructure Act 

requires that any broadband consumer 

label adopted by the Commission ‘‘shall 

include information regarding whether 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6828 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

the offered price is an introductory rate 

and, if so, the price the consumer will 

be required to pay following the 

introductory period.’’ 

2. The Infrastructure Act also directs 

the Commission to conduct a series of 

public hearings to assess: (1) How 

consumers evaluate broadband internet 

access service plans; and (2) whether 

disclosures to consumers of information 

regarding broadband internet access 

service plans, including the disclosures 

required under 47 CFR 8.1, are 

available, effective, and sufficient. The 

Commission will announce the dates of 

such hearings, which will inform the 

Commission’s conclusions in this 

proceeding, in a forthcoming Public 

Notice and will provide notice of the 

hearings separately in the Federal 

Register as soon as such dates are 

determined. 

3. In this NPRM, the Commission 

initiates a proceeding to implement 

section 60504 of the Infrastructure Act, 

and proposes to require ISPs to display 

the labels approved in 2016 as part of 

a safe harbor, with any necessary 

modifications. The Commission seeks 

comment on the extent to which the 

Infrastructure Act requires or permits 

the Commission to depart from the 

labels described in its 2016 Public 

Notice. See 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). 

A. Proposed Broadband Consumer 

Labels 

4. In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposes to adopt the 2016 labels 

subject to appropriate modifications and 

asks whether anything has changed 

since the Consumer Advisory 

Committee (CAC) developed the labels 

in 2016 that suggests the Commission 

should consider updating the labels in 

terms of content and format, and 

providing new guidance about where 

ISPs must display such labels. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

how consumers evaluate broadband 

service plans and whether the 2016 

labels will assist consumers with the 

purchase process. Should the 

Commission consider updating the 

labels to assist consumers with: (1) 

Selecting a broadband provider; (2) 

selecting a broadband service plan; (3) 

managing use of a broadband service 

plan; and (4) deciding whether and 

when to switch an existing broadband 

provider or plan? The Commission also 

seeks comment on how ISPs currently 

disclose information about their 

broadband services. How should their 

current practices inform the 

Commission’s decisions about the labels 

adopted going forward? Additionally, 

the Commission seeks comment on the 

scope of broadband service plans to 

which the labels requirement should 

apply. For example, how should 

providers treat plans that are not 

currently available for purchase by 

consumers, such as legacy or 

grandfathered plans? 

Content 

5. The Commission proposes to adopt 

the content of the 2016 labels, both for 

fixed and mobile broadband services, 

with appropriate modifications. As 

reflected below, the 2016 labels for fixed 

broadband service include the following 

content: (1) Pricing; (2) monthly data 

allowance; (3) overage charges; (4) 

equipment fees; (5) other monthly fees; 

(6) one-time fees; and (7) early 

termination fees. The 2016 labels also 

include information on performance 

(speed, latency, and packet loss) and on 

network management practices. The 

2016 labels for mobile broadband 

service include information on: (1) 

Pricing; (2) when you exceed data 

allowance; (3) other included services/ 

features; (4) other monthly fees; (5) onetime fees; (6) service contract terms; (7) 

early termination fees; and (8) ‘‘bring 

your own device’’ information. The 

mobile broadband labels also include 

performance information (speed, 

latency, and other services on the 

network) and network management 

practices. Both the fixed and mobile 

broadband labels include a link to the 

provider’s privacy policy and a link to 

how to file complaints and inquiries. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether the 2016 labels’ content 

sufficiently includes all the information 

consumers need to make informed 

decisions. Conversely, is there 

information contained in the 2016 labels 

that is no longer necessary to serve the 

goals of the Infrastructure Act or the 

Commission, or might overwhelm 

consumers with too much information? 

For example, in regard to mobile 

broadband, do reporting obligations 

related to packet loss provide enough 

consumer benefit relative to any 

reporting costs? 

6. Introductory Rates. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the 2016 labels satisfy the Infrastructure 

Act’s requirement that any label make 

clear whether the price offered is an 

introductory rate and what the price 

will be when the introductory period 

ends. Further, is the information related 

to introductory rates and subscription 

rates contained in the labels readily 

available to consumers and easy to 

understand? 

7. Service Levels and Bundles. The 

Commission recognizes that broadband 

service offerings can include numerous 

characteristics based on differing service 

levels, features, add-ons, consumer 

location, and other factors. Is flexibility 

in the labels’ content necessary or wise 

to avoid the possibility that consumers 

could be overwhelmed with 

information? Should labels include 

services bundled with broadband such 

as video, telephony, or mobile services? 

Should such information include any 

information about the quality of the 

bundled services, e.g., whether video is 

limited to 480i or allows 1080p or 4K 

quality? 

8. Additional Content. Is there 

additional content the Commission 

should consider, given changes in the 

broadband marketplace, that providers 

were not required to include in the 2016 

labels? For example, in 2017, the 

Commission required broadband 

providers to disclose whether they 

engage in blocking, throttling, or paid 

prioritization. Should the labels include 

information about whether there are any 

limitations when consumers use 

multiple devices on the same broadband 

plan? Should the labels make clear 

when the offered rate is contingent on 

consumer consent to particular 

restrictions, e.g., paperless billing, 

electronic payment, rental of 

equipment, and/or enrollment in related 

services? The Commission seeks 

comment on whether such information 

or other content should be added to the 

broadband consumer labels and, if so, 

how and where it should be presented. 

9. Affordable Connectivity Program. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether and how to include 

information about the Affordable 

Connectivity Program (ACP) in the 

broadband labels. The Infrastructure Act 

requires providers to notify consumers 

about the existence of the ACP and how 

to enroll in the program ‘‘when a 

customer subscribes to, or renews a 

subscription to, an internet service 

offering of a participating provider.’’ In 

the ACP Public Notice, the Wireline 

Competition Bureau asked for comment 

on the type of disclosures the 

Commission should require providers to 

make regarding the ACP to consumers. 

See FCC Seeks Comment on the New 

Affordable Connectivity Program, WC 

Docket No. 21–450, Public Notice, DA 

21–1453 (WCB 2021). Should the 

Commission require that the broadband 

labels include information about the 

ACP? To what extent can broadband 

labels be used to promote awareness of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6829 

the ACP and how to enroll? How might 

those disclosures be presented on the 

labels? 

10. Direct Notification of Term 

Changes. Should the Commission adopt 

a ‘‘direct notification’’ requirement for 

changes to terms in the labels? If so, 

how should providers notify consumers 

directly of any changes in terms of 

service or of any other changes to the 

information contained in the labels 

displayed to consumers when they 

purchased service? Should the 

Commission adopt a timeframe within 

which providers must make such 

notifications? Should the Commission 

require that the notifications be sent in 

advance of the changes taking affect? If 

so, how far in advance? The 

Commission also seeks comment on the 

costs and benefits of a direct notification 

requirement and any alternative 

approaches that should be considered. 

Format 

11. The Commission also proposes to 

adopt the format of the 2016 labels, 

which resemble the nutrition labels the 

United States Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) has prescribed for 

food products, and seeks comment on 

whether the format sufficiently displays 

information to consumers in an effective 

and helpful way. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. Are there 

any changes the Commission should 

consider to the format? Should the 

Commission allow ISPs any flexibility 

in displaying the label contents to 

reflect the variety of formats consumers 

use to learn about and subscribe to 

broadband services? How can the 

Commission provide this flexibility 

without weakening the effectiveness of 

the preferred format of the 2016 labels? 

How can the Commission ensure that 

any such flexibility would not 

undermine consumers’ ability to 

comparison shop between services and 

providers? Should the Commission 

require that the labels be provided in a 

machine-readable format with standard, 

labeled fields to ensure that third parties 

and consumers can more readily 

compare across multiple providers? The 

term ‘‘machine-readable,’’ when used 

with respect to data, means ‘‘data in a 

format that can be easily processed by 

a computer without human intervention 

while ensuring no semantic meaning is 

lost.’’ See 44 U.S.C. 3502(18). 

12. The Commission will be 

undertaking a separate rulemaking to 

implement section 60502(c) of the 

Infrastructure Act, which requires the 

Commission to conduct an ‘‘annual 

collection . . . of data relating to the 

price and subscription rates of each 

internet service offering of a 

participating provider under the 

Affordable Connectivity Program.’’ See 

Infrastructure Act, section 60502(c)(1). 

The Infrastructure Act further requires 

that the Commission ‘‘shall rely on the 

price information displayed on the 

broadband consumer label . . . for any 

collection of data . . . under section 

60502(c)’’ See Infrastructure Act, section 

60504(b)(2). In order to rely on such 

data, the Commission will need a means 

by which to associate the broadbandlabel information with the data 

collected under section 60502(c). One 

means of making that association would 

be for the Commission to collect all the 

broadband-label data, with each plan 

having a unique identifier that could be 

referenced in the section 60502(c) data 

collection. Another approach would be 

for the Commission to require all ISPs 

to make information about each plan 

available in a machine-readable format 

via an Application Program Interface 

(API) so that the Commission could 

access the broadband-label information 

for any plan included in the ISP’s 

submission to the section 60502(c) 

collection. The Commission seeks 

comment on these two alternative 

approaches and their relative burdens 

on ISPs. The Commission also seeks 

comment on other approaches that 

should be considered to fulfill the 

statutory requirements of section 

60502(c). 

Display Location 

13. The Commission proposes to 

require ISPs to display the labels at the 

point of sale. Specifically, the 

Commission proposes to require 

providers to prominently display the 

labels in a manner that is easily 

accessible to consumers and in the 

format prescribed by the Commission. 

The Commission proposes to require 

providers, at a minimum, to disclose the 

labels of any broadband service 

presented to consumers on an ISP’s 

website when a consumer browses 

service options. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. In addition, 

the Commission asks for comments on 

exactly how the labels should be 

disclosed on ISPs’ websites. For 

instance, is including a link to the label 

sufficient? If so, how should the link be 

presented to consumers? Where else on 

the ISP’s website should the labels be 

displayed and/or disclosed and how 

should ISPs’ websites be configured for 

search engine optimization? The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

how the labels should be displayed at 

other points of sale, such as at retail 

locations, on apps, on online platforms, 

on other digital locations, and on 

telemarketing calls. Should ISPs provide 

hardcopies of the labels in retail 

locations? Should their telemarketing 

representatives email, or otherwise 

make available to, consumers labels 

before consumers make a purchase? Are 

there other marketing channels the 

Commission should consider in 

developing this requirement? Should 

these be included in bills or other 

communications about changes in 

service? 

Accessibility 

14. In 2015, the Commission 

stipulated that ISPs that wished to avail 

themselves of the transparency safe 

harbor needed to ensure that the 

broadband consumer label was 

accessible to persons with disabilities. 

The CAC determined that participating 

ISPs can best ensure accessibility to 

printed and online information by 

relying on well-established legal 

requirements included in the Americans 

with Disabilities Act and by following 

the guidance developed by the Web 

Accessibility Initiative. The CAC found 

that relying on these guidelines 

provides the best likelihood of ensuring 

that consumers with disabilities will be 

able to access necessary information 

about broadband services. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

such guidelines remain accurate today 

and how best to ensure that any 

required labels are accessible to persons 

with disabilities. 

B. Relationship to Transparency Rule 

15. The Commission seeks comment 

on the interplay between the existing 

transparency rule and the proposed 

broadband labels. See 47 CFR 8.1. There 

may be differences between the 

information required by the 

transparency rule and the proposed 

broadband labels. The Commission 

therefore seeks comment on the 

interplay between the two. Should 

display of the proposed labels fully 

satisfy the current transparency rule? In 

what ways does the transparency rule 

require disclosures beyond those in the 

proposed labels? Alternatively, do the 

broadband consumer labels require 

disclosures beyond the scope of the 

existing transparency rule? Will the 

broadband consumer labels’ 

requirements necessitate further 

changes to the Commission’s 

transparency rule? If so, how should the 

Commission resolve potential 

inconsistencies? The draft proposed rule 

reflects the view that display of the 

broadband labels would be necessary for 

compliance with the general 

transparency rule. The Commission 

nevertheless seeks comment on 

alternative rule formulations that would 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6830 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

reflect different possible approaches to 

the relationship between the two and 

that sufficiently satisfy the objectives 

outlined in this NPRM. 

C. Enforcement Issues 

16. The Commission seeks comment 

on issues related to enforcement of the 

proposed broadband labels. What is the 

extent of the Commission’s authority 

under the Infrastructure Act to enforce 

the broadband consumer labels as an 

entirely separate requirement from the 

transparency rule, or as an adjunct of 

the transparency rule, which was 

promulgated pursuant to the 

Commission’s authority under the 

Communications Act? The Commission 

asks that commenters address the scope 

of the Commission’s enforcement 

authority, particularly in light of 

Commission precedent in this area. 

Should the Commission adopt rules 

specifically governing enforcement of 

the broadband label requirement, or 

should the Commission employ the 

same enforcement rules and 

requirements that it relies on in other 

contexts? 

17. The Commission seeks comment 

on how to evaluate and enforce the 

accuracy of the information presented in 

the broadband consumer labels. How 

can the Commission verify the accuracy 

of the information that a broadband 

provider uses in a broadband consumer 

label? How best can the Commission 

confirm that any variance between the 

disclosed performance metrics and 

actual performance as experienced by 

individual consumers is or is not 

consistent with normal network 

variation? How should the Commission 

enforce against inaccuracies in the 

provided information? 

D. Implementation and Other Issues 

18. The Commission seeks comment 

on the best ways for providers to 

implement the proposed labels, 

including the timelines within which 

they should implement them. The 

Commission expects providers to 

develop and implement procedures 

reasonably designed to ensure 

compliance with the proposed labels’ 

requirements and, as part of that 

process, to notify employees, subcontractors, agents or other persons 

acting on behalf of the provider in 

marketing the provider’s services of 

these disclosure requirements. The 

Commission proposes to adopt rules in 

that regard, including specifying that 

the provider will bear the burden to 

demonstrate that it has made all 

reasonable efforts to ensure compliance 

should a complaint arise or other 

information is brought to the 

Commission’s attention regarding the 

label disclosure practices of a third 

party acting on the provider’s behalf. 

The Commission seeks comment on that 

proposal and on any alternatives. 

19. In order to allow sufficient time 

for providers to implement the measures 

necessary to comply with these 

requirements, the Commission proposes 

to make these rules effective six months 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of the Office of Management 

and Budget’s (OMB’s) approval of the 

adopted rules. Is six months sufficient 

for both large and smaller providers? 

Should the Commission adopt a 

different implementation timeline or 

temporary exemption for smaller 

providers to allow them more time to 

come into compliance with the labels’ 

requirements, and does the Commission 

have the discretion to do so? The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

proposed implementation period(s) 

generally. Finally, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether there are 

alternative ways, other than different 

implementation timeframes, to 

minimize the economic impact on 

smaller service providers while 

achieving the Commission’s 

transparency objectives. 

20. As part of the Commission’s 

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 are or have been historically 

underserved, marginalized, or adversely 

affected by persistent poverty or 

inequality, the Commission invites 

comment on how any broadband 

consumer labels can advance equity in 

the provision of and access to digital 

communications services and products 

for all people of the United States, 

without discrimination on the basis of 

race, color, religion, national origin, sex, 

or disability. See 47 U.S.C. 151. 

Specifically, the Commission seeks 

comment on how the NPRM’s proposals 

may promote or inhibit advances in 

diversity, equity, inclusion, and 

accessibility, as well the scope of the 

Commission’s relevant legal authority. 

21. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether and how the 

broadband consumer labels can be used 

to facilitate equal access to broadband 

internet access services. Are there 

particular label requirements that would 

support Commission efforts in this 

regard? In implementing the broadband 

consumer labels requirement, the 

Commission seeks comment on the cost 

effectiveness of the proposals viewed as 

a whole. Are the costs to ISPs of adding 

extra information to labels at the point 

of sale relatively small, when 

considered against the benefits 

additional labeling would provide 

consumers? What are the most costeffective ways of making labels available 

to consumers? 

E. Legal Authority 

22. The Commission believes the 

Infrastructure Act affords the 

Commission legal authority to adopt the 

proposed labels’ requirements for ISPs. 

In addition, the Commission notes that 

the D.C. Circuit severed and upheld the 

Commission’s 2010 transparency rule in 

Verizon v. FCC. See Verizon v. FCC, 740 

F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014). While the 

majority did not expressly opine on the 

legal authority for the Commission’s 

prior transparency rule, the Commission 

believes that, like the 2010 transparency 

rule, the labels proposed fall well 

within multiple, independent sources of 

the Commission’s authority. The D.C. 

Circuit also affirmed the Commission’s 

reliance on statutory authority under 

prior section 257 of the 

Communications Act (now moved in 

part to section 13 of the Act) for the 

transparency rule adopted there. The 

Commission also seeks comment on the 

use of Title III authority, insofar as the 

broadband label requirements apply to 

wireless licensees. Do the proposed 

broadband labeling requirements also 

advance other statutory goals? If so, 

what are those? 

23. When the Commission has 

adopted disclosure requirements in the 

past, such as the transparency rule and 

its truth-in-billing requirements, it has 

evaluated its approach to ensure it was 

consistent with the First Amendment. 

The Commission thus likewise seeks 

comment on any First Amendment 

considerations relevant here. The 

Infrastructure Act directs the 

Commission to promulgate rules to 

require the display of broadband 

consumer labels, and the Commission’s 

other statutory obligations include 

protecting consumers from unjust or 

unreasonable charges and practices. See 

47 U.S.C. 201(b). The Commission 

believes the proposed regulations are 

designed to directly advance the 

government’s substantial interest by 

providing consumers with the basic 

tools necessary to understand the 

broadband services they are purchasing 

and the prices for those services. In 

addition, they are designed to protect 

consumers from contracting for service 

where the terms of service are either 

unexplained or presented in a confusing 

manner. The Commission encourages 

parties to address First Amendment 

issues in their comments, particularly 

with respect to the specific labels 

proposed. Parties are asked to address 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6831 

how the proposed regulation in the area 

of consumer disclosures meets the 

requirements of Zauderer and the three 

prongs of the Central Hudson test. See 

Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary 

Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985); Cent. 

Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. 

Comm’n of New York, 447 U.S. 557 

(1980). Parties should address 

specifically how the proposals 

harmonize with Commission precedent 

in this area and relevant case law. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

24. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) of the possible significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities by the policies 

and rules proposed in the NPRM. 

Written public comments are requested 

on the IRFA. Comments must be 

identified as responses to the IRFA and 

must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments on the NPRM provided. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

25. The NPRM proposes rules to 

implement section 60504 of the 

Infrastructure Act to ensure that 

consumers have an easy way to 

understand ISPs’ prices, performance, 

and network practices in a simple-tounderstand format that does not 

overwhelm consumers with too much 

information. 

26. The NPRM proposes rules to meet 

its statutory obligations under section 

60504 of the Infrastructure Act. 

Specifically, the NPRM proposes to 

amend 47 CFR 8.1(a) of the 

Commission’s rules to require ISPs to 

display labels at the point of sale to 

disclose to consumers certain 

information about prices, introductory 

rates, data allowances, broadband 

speeds, and management practices, 

among other things. The labels proposed 

are modified versions of those 

recommended by the Commission’s 

Consumer Advisory Committee (CAC) 

in 2015, which are similar to the 

nutrition labels required by the United 

States Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) on food products, and which the 

Commission incorporated as part of a 

safe harbor from the transparency 

requirements in 2016. 

27. The NPRM proposes broadband 

consumer labels that contain, at a 

minimum, the same content contained 

in the 2016 labels, both for fixed and 

mobile broadband services. To ensure 

that broadband consumers have the 

information they need to make informed 

decisions, the NPRM proposes to adopt 

the content of the 2016 labels, both for 

fixed and mobile broadband services, 

with appropriate modifications. The 

2016 labels for fixed broadband service 

include the following content: (1) 

Pricing; (2) monthly data allowance; (3) 

overage charges; (4) equipment fees; (5) 

other monthly fees; (6) one-time fees; 

and 7) early termination fees. In 

addition, the 2016 labels also include 

information on performance (speed, 

latency, and packet loss) and on 

network management practices. The 

2016 labels for mobile broadband 

service include information on: (1) 

Pricing; (2) when you exceed data 

allowance; (3) other included services/ 

features; (4) other monthly fees; (5) onetime fees; 6) service contract terms; (7) 

early termination fees; and (8) ‘‘bring 

your own device’’ information. The 

mobile broadband labels also include 

performance information (speed, 

latency, and other services on the 

network) and network management 

practices. Both the fixed and mobile 

broadband labels include a link to the 

provider’s privacy policy and a link to 

how to file complaints and inquiries. 

28. The NPRM seeks comment on 

whether there is other content beyond 

what is in the 2016 labels that should 

be considered. For example, should the 

labels include information about 

whether there are any limitations when 

consumers use multiple devices on the 

same broadband plan? Should the labels 

make clear when the offered rate is 

contingent on consumer consent to 

particular restrictions, e.g., paperless 

billing, electronic payment, rental of 

equipment, and/or enrollment in related 

services? 

29. The NPRM proposes to adopt the 

format of the 2016 labels and require it 

for broadband consumer labels based on 

its success as a nutrition label format 

and the considerable work the CAC did 

in adapting the format to broadband 

service. In addition, the NPRM proposes 

to require ISPs to display the labels at 

the point of sale. This means disclosing 

the labels of any broadband service 

presented to consumers on an ISP’s 

website when a consumer browses 

service options. Finally, the NPRM 

proposes to ensure that any required 

labels are accessible to persons with 

disabilities and that any broadband 

consumer label advances equity in the 

provision of and access to digital 

communications services and products 

for all people of the United States, 

without discrimination on the basis of 

race, color, religion, national origin, sex, 

or disability. 

B. Legal Basis 

30. The proposed rules are authorized 

under sections 4(i), 4(j), 13, 201(b), 257, 

and 303(r) of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 

154(j), 163, 201(b), 257, 303(r), and 

section 60504 of the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 

117–58, 135 Stat. 429. 

C. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

31. The NPRM proposes to require 

ISPs to disclose, through a label similar 

in format to the required FDA-approved 

nutrition labels, certain information 

about the provider’s performance 

characteristics, network practices, and 

commercial terms. 

32. The NPRM proposes to adopt the 

content of the Commission’s 2016 safe 

harbor labels, both for fixed and mobile 

broadband services, and to make any 

appropriate modifications to the labels 

so that they ‘‘include information 

regarding whether the offered price is an 

introductory rate and, if so, the price the 

consumer will be required to pay 

following the introductory period,’’ as 

required by the Infrastructure Act. 

33. The Commission proposes that the 

labels be provided at the point of sale 

and that, at a minimum, the ISPs should 

disclose the label on any website an ISP 

uses to market broadband internet 

access services. The NPRM also seeks 

comment on how the labels should be 

displayed at other points of sale, such 

as retail locations, on apps, on online 

platforms, on other digital locations, 

and on telemarketing calls and asks 

whether providers should provide 

hardcopies of the labels in retail 

locations. In addition, the NPRM 

considers whether a provider’s 

telemarketing representative should 

email, or otherwise make available to, 

consumers labels before consumers 

make a purchase and whether there are 

other marketing channels to consider in 

developing this point-of-sale 

requirement. The Commission also 

considers whether the labels should be 

provided in a machine-readable format 

with standard, labeled fields to ensure 

that third parties and consumers can 

more readily compare across multiple 

providers. Further, the NPRM seeks 

comment on whether ISPs should be 

required to make direct notifications to 

consumers if any terms of service 

change after the labels are provided to 

consumers at the time of purchase. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6832 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

D. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

34. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant 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 or reporting requirements 

under the rule for 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 small entities. 

35. The NPRM specifically considers 

the impact of the proposed label 

requirements on smaller broadband 

service providers. To address any 

concerns about compliance with the 

proposed rules by smaller broadband 

providers, the NPRM seeks comment on 

appropriate timeframes for smaller 

providers to implement the new 

requirements and asks whether there are 

any alternative ways, other than 

different implementation timeframes, to 

minimize the economic impact on 

smaller service providers while 

achieving the objectives set forth in the 

NPRM. 

36. The Commission will evaluate the 

economic impact on small entities, as 

identified in comments filed in response 

to the NPRM and this IRFA, in reaching 

its final conclusions and taking action 

in this proceeding. 

E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

37. None. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 8 

Cable Television, Common Carriers, 

Communications common carriers, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Satellites, 

Telecommunications, Telephone, Radio. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 8 as follows: 

PART 8—INTERNET FREEDOM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 8 is 

revised to read as follows: 

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

303(r), and the Infrastructure Investment and 

Jobs Act, Pub. L. 117–58 (2021). 

■ 2. Amend § 8.1 by revising paragraph 

(a) to read as follows: 

§ 8.1 Transparency. 

(a) Any person providing broadband 

internet access service shall publicly 

disclose accurate information regarding 

the network management practices, 

performance characteristics, and 

commercial terms of its broadband 

internet access services sufficient to 

enable consumers to make informed 

choices regarding the purchase and use 

of such services and entrepreneurs and 

other small businesses to develop, 

market, and maintain internet offerings. 

Such disclosure shall be made via a 

broadband consumer label that is 

prominently displayed, publicly 

available, and easily accessible at the 

point of sale in the format prescribed by 

the Commission: 

(1) For fixed broadband, as described 

in ‘‘Fixed Broadband Consumer 

Disclosure Label’’; 

(2) For mobile broadband, as 

described in ‘‘Mobile Broadband 

Consumer Disclosure Label.’’ 

BILLING CODE 67112–01–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6833 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP07FE22.000</GPH>
6834 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP07FE22.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6835 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP07FE22.002</GPH>
6836 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP07FE22.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6837 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP07FE22.004</GPH>
6838 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

[FR Doc. 2022–02483 Filed 2–4–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–C 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP07FE22.005</GPH>