Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37459 

www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this 

EASA AD on the EASA website at https://

ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this 

material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products 

Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 

South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. This 

material may be found in the AD docket at 

https://www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2022–0682. 

(2) For more information about this AD, 

contact Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace 

Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, 

International Validation Branch, 2200 South 

216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 

206–231–3229; email vladimir.ulyanov@

faa.gov. 

(3) For Airbus SAS service information 

identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, 

Airworthiness Office—EIAS, Rond-Point 

Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, 

France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 

5 61 93 44 51; email account.airworth-eas@

airbus.com; internet https://www.airbus.com. 

You may view this service information at the 

FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, 

Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th 

St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

206–231–3195. 

Issued on June 16, 2022. 

Christina Underwood, 

Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13306 Filed 6–22–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 21–450; FCC 22–44; FR 

ID 92237] 

Affordable Connectivity Program 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission or FCC) seeks comments 

on the annual collection of data relating 

to price and subscription rates of 

internet service offerings received by 

households enrolled in the Affordable 

Connectivity Program, mechanism for 

collecting such data, and format for the 

data’s publication, as required by 

Section 60502(c) of the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

July 25, 2022 and reply comments are 

due on or before August 8, 2022. If you 

anticipate that you will be submitting 

comments but find it difficult to do so 

within the period of time allowed by 

this document, you should advise the 

listed contact as soon as possible. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 21–450, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the Electronic Comment 

Filing System (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. 

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). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Wu, Wireline Competition Bureau, 202– 

418–7400 or by email at Eric.Wu@

fcc.gov. Requests for accommodations 

should be made as soon as possible in 

order to allow the agency to satisfy such 

requests whenever possible. Send an 

email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC 

Docket No. 21–450; FCC 22–44, adopted 

on June 7, 2022, and released on June 

8, 2022. The full text of this document 

is available for public inspection at the 

following internet address: https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC22-44A1.pdf. 

I. Introduction 

1. On November 15, 2021, the 

President signed the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act (Infrastructure 

Act or Act), which modified and 

extended the Emergency Broadband 

Benefit Program (EBB Program) to a 

longer-term broadband affordability 

program called the Affordable 

Connectivity Program (ACP). The 

Infrastructure Act also mandates that 

the Commission issue final ‘‘broadband 

transparency rules’’ regarding the 

annual collection of information about 

the price and subscription rates of 

internet service offerings received by 

households enrolled in the Affordable 

Connectivity Program. Consistent with 

the directive to adopt rules no later than 

one year after enactment of the Act, the 

Commission herein seek comment on 

the data to be collected, mechanism for 

collecting this data, and format for the 

data’s publication. 

II. Discussion 

2. ACP Transparency Data to be 

Collect—Price and Subscription Rate 

Information. The Act requires an 

‘‘annual collection by the Commission 

of data relating to the price and 

subscription rates of each internet 

service offering of a participating 

provider under the Affordable 

Connectivity Program . . . to which an 

eligible household subscribes.’’ The 

Commission first seeks comment on the 

collection of price information. The 

Commission proposes that the price 

information include the monthly charge 

for the internet service offering that a 

household would be charged absent the 

application of the affordable 

connectivity benefit. How should the 

Commission collect promotional pricing 

or introductory rates? Should other 

price characteristics, such as whether 

the internet service offering is pre-paid 

or post-paid, be collected? Should taxes 

and fees be collected as part of price? If 

so, what price information should be 

included, and how can the Commission 

distinguish between the components of 

the price? For example, should the 

values of promotional discounts such as 

for streaming service (e.g., Disney+, 

Spotify, Netflix, etc.) or modem rental, 

military discounts, or paperless billing 

discounts be collected? Should the 

collected price information reflect any 

discounts provided to households 

receiving a service offering under an 

extended service contract? Should 

whether a plan is designated as a plan 

for a low-income household be 

collected? Should the prices for 

associated equipment, such as modems 

or routers, be collected? How should the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37460 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

price of service bundles (for example, 

voice/broadband or voice/broadband/ 

cable) be collected? For those 

households who exceed their monthly 

data cap, should the cost of additionally 

purchased data be considered? Are there 

any other indicators of price that should 

be collected? 

3. The Commission next seeks 

comment on the collection of 

subscription rates. The Commission 

interprets ‘‘subscription rate’’ as the 

total program subscribership to a unique 

internet service offering over time, and 

seek comment on this approach. In 

other words, the Commission proposes 

to collect the number of ACP 

households that subscribe to each 

unique internet service offering, where 

offerings are differentiated by price and 

service characteristics. Should the 

Commission collect the number of 

households of an internet service 

offering as of a certain moment in time 

(e.g., as of a particular day), or should 

the Commission collect data on the 

number of households receiving the 

offering over a given period of time (e.g., 

over a multiple month period)? What is 

the meaning of the statutory wording 

‘‘subscription rate’’? Should the 

Commission require providers to submit 

annually such subscription rate data 

disaggregated by month or quarter? Will 

either of these approaches better enable 

the Commission to calculate the ‘‘take 

rate’’ (i.e., the fraction of subscribers 

selecting the plan from those who could 

select the plan) and identify changes in 

the rate over time? Should the 

Commission collect any other data 

related to the growth or churn rate, 

which would show the net additions or 

drop-offs from plans over time? The 

Commission seeks comment on other 

interpretations of ‘‘subscription rate.’’ 

4. Some providers offer plans 

nationwide. How should that be taken 

into account when collecting 

subscription rate information? Should 

the subscription rate be for a particular 

geographic location if plans are offered 

nationally or across large geographic 

regions, such as statewide? Are large 

geographic regions (e.g., state) most 

appropriate or would it be beneficial to 

collect this information on a more 

granular geographic level? If so, what 

geographic level (e.g., study areas, 

designated market areas) would be most 

appropriate? What other information 

should the Commission collect about 

the subscription rate? Do providers 

collect and maintain household 

demographic information or information 

on a subscriber’s past internet access, 

and if so should that information be 

collected here? The Commission 

proposes to have providers enrolling 

households in the Affordable 

Connectivity Program through an FCCapproved alternative verification 

process be required to submit 

information about how the household 

qualified for the Affordable 

Connectivity Program, and the 

Commission seek comment on this 

proposal. 

5. Plan Characteristics. In the ACP 

Order, 87 FR 8346 (Feb. 14, 2022), FCC 

22–2 (Jan. 21, 2022), the Commission 

determined that collecting data on 

service plan characteristics, including 

upload and download speeds, data 

allowances, and co-payments could 

help determine the value the Affordable 

Connectivity Program provides to 

households. Given the utility of such 

data, the Commission directed the 

Bureau and the Office of Economics and 

Analytics (OEA), with assistance from 

the program administrator, the 

Universal Service Administrative 

Company (USAC), to determine the 

appropriate way to collect service plan 

characteristics while minimizing the 

burden to service providers. The 

Infrastructure Act also anticipates that 

the Commission may engage in other 

data collection activities, specifically 

including a redundancy avoidance 

provision stating that nothing ‘‘shall be 

construed to require the Commission 

. . . to duplicate an activity that the 

Commission is undertaking as of the 

date of enactment’’ of the Act if ‘‘the 

Commission refers to the activity in the’’ 

final broadband transparency rules 

issued by the Commission, if ‘‘the 

activity meets the requirements of’’ the 

broadband transparency rules, and if 

‘‘the Commission discloses the activity 

to the public.’’ The Commission seeks 

comment on whether and how this 

provision affects the collection of 

service plan characteristic data. Plan 

characteristics data arguably falls within 

the scope of ‘‘data relating to the price 

and subscription rates’’ of internet 

service offerings to which households 

subscribe. The Commission thus seeks 

comment on using this ACP 

transparency annual data collection to 

collect information on plan 

characteristics, as required by the 

Commission in the ACP Order. 

6. The Commission seeks comment on 

what ACP plan characteristics the 

Commission should collect. The 

Commission first proposes to collect 

upload and download speeds. For 

upload and download speeds, should 

the Commission collect the advertised 

or maximum speeds? Are there other 

speed measurements the Commission 

should consider collecting instead? 

Should the Commission collect 

information about ACP service plan data 

caps, including the amount of the data 

cap and the number of subscribers who 

have reached their cap? What about 

information concerning associated 

equipment, including whether or not a 

plan includes or requires a modem or 

router rental? For bundled service plans 

should the Commission collect 

information concerning the 

characteristics of the bundle, including 

whether voice is included in the bundle, 

voice characteristics (e.g., total 

minutes), whether video is included, 

video characteristics (e.g., total 

channels, channels included)? Are there 

other plan characteristics that the 

Commission should collect as part of 

the ACP transparency data collection? 

7. Broadband Consumer Labels. The 

Commission also seeks comment on the 

interplay between the ACP transparency 

data collection and broadband 

consumer labels. The Infrastructure Act 

provides that the Commission ‘‘shall 

rely on the price information displayed 

on the broadband consumer label under 

subsection (a) for any collection of data 

relating to the price and subscription 

rates of each covered broadband internet 

access service under section 60502(c).’’ 

This language may mean that that the 

Commission must incorporate price 

information from broadband consumer 

labels in the section 60502(c) ACP 

transparency data collection but that 

this category of price information data is 

not coterminous with the data related to 

price that is referenced in section 

60502(c). Are there alternative 

interpretations? For example, should the 

Commission interpret the ‘‘shall rely’’ 

language as meaning that the 

Commission should only rely on data 

contained in the broadband labels to 

meet the statutory requirement that the 

Commission collect data relating to 

price? Does the redundancy avoidance 

provision in section 60502(c) support 

this interpretation? The Commission 

seeks comment on this language and 

request that commenters also suggest 

ways in which the Commission can use 

broadband label information as part of 

the ACP transparency data collection. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

whether the redundancy avoidance 

language could be interpreted to mean 

that the Commission could rely on price 

information contained in consumer 

broadband labels. Does USAC collect 

any information about subscription rates 

to satisfy the ACP’s other statutory 

requirements, rather than conducting a 

new data collection? 

8. As proposed, the broadband labels 

may include information concerning 

plan pricing, performance, and data 

caps and will be required to be 

displayed at the point of sale. How 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37461 

should the Commission structure the 

ACP transparency data collection to take 

advantage of information contained in 

the broadband labels? The Broadband 

Labels NPRM (87 FR 6827 (Feb. 7, 

2022)) sought comment about whether 

the Commission should directly collect 

the information contained in the 

broadband labels with each plan having 

a unique identifier, or whether the 

Commission should require all 

participating internet service providers 

to make plan information publicly 

available via an Application 

Programming Interface (API) or other 

machine-readable format. If the 

Commission require labels in a 

machine-readable format, how would 

the Commission be able to match the 

labels to ACP subscribers? As a practical 

matter, is it possible for the information 

included in the broadband labels to 

meet the statutory requirement in 

section 60502(c) to collect price 

information for ‘‘each internet service 

offering of a participating provider . . . 

to which an eligible household 

subscribes?’’ If a provider is to submit 

a unique identifier for each plan, what 

naming convention should be used to 

identify the plan? Should there be a 

standardized naming convention used 

across providers, and if so, what should 

that format be? Absent a data collection 

of broadband labels or required 

availability of plan information via an 

API, can price information be obtained 

from the label on the provider’s 

marketing materials? How could the 

Commission link the price information 

from the provider’s marketing materials 

to the ‘‘eligible household’’? If available, 

would this price information accurately 

reflect the prices applicable to ACP 

subscribers? The Commission seeks 

comment on these approaches to 

leveraging information for the 

broadband labels and alternative 

approaches the Commission should 

consider in this proceeding. Should the 

Commission consider public sources for 

plan information? If so, how should the 

Commission link rate and plan 

characteristic information on a website 

label to an ACP subscriber? 

9. Performance Metrics. The 

Commission proposes to use 

information in the ACP transparency 

data collection for the evaluation of the 

performance of the Affordable 

Connectivity Program in achieving the 

goals set in the ACP Order. Those goals 

are to (1) reduce the digital divide for 

low-income consumers, (2) promote 

awareness and participation in the 

Affordable Connectivity Program, and 

(3) ensure efficient and effective 

administration of the Affordable 

Connectivity Program. The Commission 

seeks comment on this proposal. What 

information should the Commission 

collect in the ACP transparency data 

collection to measure the performance 

of the Affordable Connectivity Program? 

Should the Commission collect 

information about whether a subscriber 

is a first-time subscriber to the provider? 

A first-time subscriber for fixed or 

mobile broadband? Whether a 

household subscribes to another 

broadband service? Should the 

Commission collect data on a 

subscriber’s plan characteristics prior to 

ACP service to help identify the impact 

of the ACP benefit or information from 

providers on how many subscribers 

changed their data usage or plan once 

they received their ACP benefit? Is there 

information about subscribers that is not 

currently collected that would be 

helpful to evaluate the performance of 

the program? Should the Commission 

collect information concerning how a 

customer became aware of the 

Affordable Connectivity Program? What 

other information should the 

Commission to measure effectiveness in 

increasing awareness and participation 

in the Affordable Connectivity Program? 

What information should the 

Commission collect to measure the 

administrative efficacy of the program 

or otherwise help measure the 

performance of the Affordable 

Connectivity Program? 

10. Collection Structure—Data 

Collection Systems. To allow providers 

to efficiently submit information for the 

ACP transparency data collection, the 

Commission proposes using the 

National Lifeline Accountability 

Database (NLAD) or other USAC 

systems to collect subscriber-level data. 

The NLAD is a centralized database 

through which all ACP providers must 

enter information about households to 

enroll them in the Affordable 

Connectivity Program. The Commission 

seeks comment on this approach. For 

example, providers currently submit to 

NLAD information regarding a 

subscriber’s residential address, other 

contact information, whether the 

subscriber is receiving an ACP 

connected device from the provider, 

service type (cable, DSL, fiber, fixed 

wireless, mobile broadband, satellite), 

among other information necessary to 

administer the program and to prohibit 

members of the same household from 

receiving the affordable connectivity 

benefit at the same time. Both USAC 

and providers have experience using 

NLAD to submit and retrieve 

information about households’ ACP 

service, and using this system for the 

collection would prioritize ease-of-use 

for service providers and minimize 

administrative burdens. Given the 

statutory constraints and need to collect 

this information quickly and efficiently 

after the final rules are adopted, using 

a system that is already familiar and that 

already contains information about the 

households enrolled in the Affordable 

Connectivity Program will benefit 

providers, the Commission, and USAC. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

these views and welcome comment on 

other data collection mechanisms. The 

Commission believes it will be less 

burdensome for providers to update 

their connections to NLAD and to 

continue to use a system they are 

familiar with to submit data collection 

information rather than requiring them 

to modify their processes and systems to 

transfer data to a new and unfamiliar 

system. The Commission seeks 

comment on this assumption. 

Additionally, receiving data from NLAD 

will allow the Commission to determine 

the rate of subscriptions of different 

plans, which otherwise could not be 

obtained in a static, aggregate collection. 

Are there alternative USAC-managed 

data upload systems that could be used 

for a subscriber-level collection? Would 

the creation of a new USAC-managed 

system be most appropriate for this data 

collection? 

11. If the Commission was to collect 

the data at an aggregated level, and not 

at the subscriber level, what collection 

mechanism should the Commission 

use? It may be difficult to modify NLAD 

to collect data on an aggregated level 

within the time necessary to launch the 

ACP data collection and, thus, USAC or 

the Commission may have to develop a 

new system. The Commission seeks 

comment on this view. The Commission 

also seeks comment on the ways that 

USAC could modify NLAD or another 

existing system to collect aggregate plan 

data. Are there ways that USAC could 

collect subscriber level information via 

NLAD and aggregate that data? Should 

the Commission collect this aggregated 

data instead of USAC? Developing a 

new system and standing up a 

collection of this magnitude would 

require significant resources, so the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

feasibility of the Commission hosting 

this collection. Finally, the Commission 

seeks comment on how the level of 

aggregation impacts the collection 

mechanism the Commission should 

employ. Commenters are encouraged to 

explain whether their suggested 

collection mechanism is particular to a 

specific level of aggregation, or if it can 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37462 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

accommodate a wide swath of possible 

aggregation levels. 

12. Data Filers. The Commission next 

seeks comment on which providers will 

need to submit data to the ACP 

transparency data collection. The 

Infrastructure Act requires collecting 

data ‘‘relating to the price and 

subscription rates of each internet 

service offering of a participating 

provider under the Affordable 

Connectivity Program . . . to which an 

eligible household subscribes.’’ The 

Commission views the Infrastructure 

Act as requiring every provider 

participating in the Affordable 

Connectivity Program to provide such 

data, regardless of the number of 

enrolled households. The Commission 

seeks comment on that view and the 

benefits of that approach. The 

Commission did not read the 

Infrastructure Act as permitting us to 

limit the number of providers that must 

participate in this data collection. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

interpretation and encourage 

commenters suggesting otherwise to 

explain how to limit participation 

without jeopardizing the integrity of the 

collection and ensuring that sufficient 

information is collected to provide the 

price and subscription rate information 

required by Congress. 

13. Data Updates. Using the existing 

NLAD system will allow us to collect 

data at enrollment for all new 

participants but may not easily allow for 

the collection of newly required 

information about existing ACP 

households. The Commission therefore 

seeks comment on how providers 

should be required to backfill data for 

the millions of existing households that 

have already enrolled in the Affordable 

Connectivity Program. When the rules 

for the ACP transparency data collection 

go into effect, what should providers be 

required to do for these existing 

households? The Commission seeks 

comment on the best ways to obtain 

data from providers about the price and 

subscription rate of existing ACP 

households and on an appropriate 

amount of time to submit information 

into the NLAD system. Are there other 

alternative methods for collecting newly 

required information? For all 

households, should the Commission 

require providers to submit and/or 

update plan information continuously 

throughout the Affordable Connectivity 

Program? What are the benefits of 

requiring providers to continuously 

update this information throughout the 

year rather than collecting it during a 

filing window? Should providers be 

required to update plan information 

when that plan information changes? If 

so, how soon after the plan change 

should providers submit that new 

information? The Commission also 

seeks comment on whether to require 

providers to continue to maintain, 

update, or correct relevant information 

for the ACP transparency data collection 

after a provider exits the Affordable 

Connectivity Program. 

14. Collection Approaches. The 

Commission proposes that information 

about the price and subscription rate of 

internet service offerings to which 

enrolled ACP households subscribe be 

collected at the subscriber level. In a 

subscriber-level approach, data would 

be provided for each household enrolled 

in the Affordable Connectivity Program 

for that provider. The Infrastructure Act 

does not specify the level at which data 

should be collected. Further, by 

prohibiting the Commission from 

‘‘risking the disclosure of personally 

identifiable information’’ when making 

data public, Congress necessarily 

contemplated that the Commission 

might collect subscriber-specific 

information. Recognizing the paramount 

importance of consumer privacy, the 

Commission seeks comment on any 

statutory or regulatory restrictions on 

the collection of subscriber-level data 

beyond what participating providers 

already provide, including privacy 

statutes. 

15. In a subscriber-level collection, 

the provider would submit plan 

information to NLAD for each 

subscriber enrolled in the Affordable 

Connectivity Program. Having plan 

information for each subscriber would 

allow Commission staff to track the 

subscriber take-up rate of different plans 

over time and study how subscriber 

plan choices and preferences for plan 

characteristics vary by geographic area 

and household demographics. 

Subscriber-level information would 

provide insight into whether the 

Affordable Connectivity Program is 

meeting the broadband needs of eligible 

households and how those needs 

change over time, and would assist our 

understanding of whether plan choice is 

influenced by available technologies 

and speeds in a geographic area. For 

example, subscriber-level data would 

allow us to examine the preference for 

fixed versus mobile plans across 

geography and demography. 

16. In addition to helping the 

Commission understand what choices 

subscribers have available to them and 

their preferences, subscriber-level data 

would also help us understand how the 

Affordable Connectivity Program affects 

overall broadband adoption and how 

the program furthers the Commission’s 

efforts to close the digital divide. 

Subscriber-level plan information 

would more easily be combined with 

subscription data already collected by 

the Commission, which could improve 

estimates of ACP subscribers that are 

first time broadband adopters. 

Subscriber-level data may also improve 

consumer outreach efforts, including the 

outreach efforts the Infrastructure Act 

permits the Commission to pursue, as 

described in the ACP Order by targeting 

geographic areas and particular 

demographics that lag behind in ACP 

adoption. Finally, subscriber-level data 

may facilitate analysis of the connection 

between Lifeline and the Affordable 

Connectivity Program. By matching 

subscriber-level plan information across 

the two programs, the Commission 

could study how subscribers are using 

both subsidies to meet their broadband 

needs and whether their plan choices 

take full advantage of the ACP subsidy. 

17. The Commission also seeks 

comment on benefits and drawbacks of 

collecting more aggregated data. If the 

Commission did not collect subscriberlevel data from providers, the 

Commission will need to collect the 

data at some level of aggregation. For an 

aggregated data approach, the 

Commission seeks comment on the level 

of data aggregation and what, if any, 

other information should be collected 

from providers. Should aggregated data 

be the number of individuals in a 

geographic area subscribed to a unique 

plan? And if so, what is the appropriate 

geographic level (e.g., census block, 

census tract, city (census place), county) 

for aggregated data? Is there some way 

other than geographic area that data 

should be aggregated? Should the plan 

characteristics still be collected at the 

subscriber level if collected through the 

ACP transparency data collection? 

Under the aggregated-level approach, 

how should subscribers that are on the 

same plan with respect to service 

characteristics, but who pay different 

amounts, be treated? Under an 

aggregated approach, each field could be 

submitted as an average or by category 

(e.g., speed tier). Are there specific 

fields that would be best suited for 

categorization? Should providers 

aggregate at the price-geographic level, 

the speed-geographic level, or the pricespeed-geographic level? Or some other 

combination of variables? For example, 

should aggregate-level data be 

categorized by census tract, download 

speed, and upload speed, with other 

fields submitted as averages? The 

Commission seeks comment on the key 

fields for aggregation. The Commission 

also seeks comment on how collecting 

aggregated-level data as compared to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37463 

subscriber-level data would impact our 

ability to use this data collection to 

fulfill the requirements in the ACP 

Order to collect service plan 

characteristics and to evaluate the 

performance of the Affordable 

Connectivity Program. 

18. The Commission further seeks 

comment on how useful aggregated data 

of providers’ ACP offerings would be in 

evaluating the performance and 

administration of the Affordable 

Connectivity Program as compared to 

subscriber-level data. For example, at a 

high level of aggregation, such as the 

provider-state level, how could one 

analyze differences between rural and 

urban plan choices or subscription rates 

within a state? Even if aggregation were 

at the census tract level, the 

Commission may not be able to match 

subscribers between Lifeline and the 

Affordable Connectivity Program, and 

would be unable to determine if Lifeline 

subscribers are gaining additional value 

for their ACP subsidy. Would aggregated 

data make it easier for the Commission 

to analyze or publish the data? The 

Commission also seeks comment on the 

relative burdens to providers in 

submitting aggregated data of their ACP 

service offerings as compared with 

subscriber-level data. As discussed 

above, for subscriber-level data, 

providers would be required to input 

additional data in NLAD at enrollment 

in addition to the information already 

required to enroll a household. For 

aggregated data, providers may not need 

to enter additional data into NLAD, but 

they would be required to submit such 

aggregated data to the Commission. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

burdens raised by these data collection 

approaches. Are there specific steps the 

Commission could take to the reduce 

such burdens (e.g., offering tools to 

facilitate the collection)? Are there data 

that USAC already has access to from 

participating providers which could be 

used for aggregation without requiring 

additional data from providers? Are 

there circumstances or reasons where 

aggregated data would be preferred to 

subscriber-level data in evaluating the 

effectiveness of the Affordable 

Connectivity Program? 

19. The Commission also seeks 

comment on other data collection 

alternatives. What about a collection 

that requires the production of a 

combination of both subscriber-level 

data and more aggregated data? What 

would be the benefits and challenges of 

a hybrid approach that collects 

aggregated data and subscriber-level 

information from all ACP subscribers? 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether and in what circumstances a 

hybrid approach assists in evaluating 

the Affordable Connectivity Program. 

20. Collection Impact on 

Stakeholders. The Commission seeks 

comment on what the impacts and costs 

would be to stakeholders (households, 

providers, the Commission, USAC) for 

the collection of subscriber-level data 

and how they compare to the benefits of 

the data and the statutory directive to 

collect and publish data to offer 

transparency about the service offerings 

ACP households receive. What are the 

benefits and burdens associated with 

requiring subscriber-level information 

from providers, and how can the 

Commission reduce burdens associated 

with providing subscriber-level plan 

information in addition to the 

subscriber-level information already 

collected? Are there differences in the 

benefits and burdens associated with 

requiring subscriber-level information 

from small providers? If so, how can the 

Commission structure this collection to 

minimize the economic impact on small 

providers? How should the Commission 

structure a subscriber-level collection to 

minimize the challenges associated with 

making subscriber-level information 

publicly available for analysis? To what 

extent can providers use an API or other 

tool to seamlessly submit and update 

plan information? 

21. The Commission also seeks 

comment on what the impacts and costs 

would be to stakeholders for the 

collection of aggregated data. For 

aggregated data, providers would be 

responsible for collecting all the 

information of their ACP subscribers 

and compiling that information in the 

manner required by the Commission. 

The Commission seeks comment on our 

view that collecting aggregated data, 

especially depending on the level of 

aggregation, may be burdensome for 

providers. Are there any tools or steps 

USAC or the Commission can take to 

reduce burdens? The Commission seeks 

comment on the burdens of this data 

collection on providers. Does the 

burden vary depending on the level of 

data aggregation? Could any other of 

USAC’s systems be modified to allow 

for aggregated data? Should the 

Commission requires providers to give 

us information in specific popular 

machine-readable formats? How could 

the Commission structure an aggregatelevel broadband transparency data 

collection to minimize the burdens 

associated with handling the ACP 

transparency data? For small providers, 

what are the benefits and burdens 

associated with an aggregate level data 

collection? How can the Commission 

structure the collection to minimize any 

economic impact on small providers? 

22. Privacy and Proprietary Interests. 

Congress indicated that the Commission 

should undertake the collection of data 

relating to ACP plan price and 

subscription rates while still protecting 

the privacy interests of individual 

subscribers. The Commission seeks 

comment on any privacy concerns that 

may arise from the collection of 

subscriber-level price, subscription rate, 

and plan characteristic information. As 

part of the ACP enrollment process, the 

Commission already collects, with 

subscriber consent, the subscriber’s 

information. To what extent would a 

subscriber-level collection of price, 

subscription rate, and plan 

characteristics affect privacy interests of 

subscribers? Are there any unique 

privacy concerns related to a subscriberlevel collection in areas or plans with 

low ACP enrollments? Can data masking 

methods be utilized by providers to 

address any privacy concerns? Are there 

alternative measures or safeguards that 

the Commission could adopt for the 

Commission, USAC, or providers to 

mitigate any harm to subscriber privacy? 

To what extent would a subscriber-level 

collection of price, subscription rate, 

and plan characteristics impact 

providers? The Infrastructure Act also 

seeks to ensure that the ACP data 

collection and publication do not harm 

proprietary interests. Would a 

subscriber-level collection of plan 

characteristics or other information raise 

issues related to providers’ proprietary 

information? If so, how can the 

Commission balance these interests 

and/or mitigate the potential harm? 

23. Additionally, the Commission 

seeks comment on the extent to which 

collecting additional subscriber-level 

data through the ACP transparency data 

collection implicates statutory privacy 

regimes, including the Electronic 

Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). 

The Commission concluded a decade 

ago that it had sufficient authority under 

the Communications Act to require 

eligible telecommunications carriers 

(ETCs) to provide Lifeline subscriberspecific information to the NLAD 

notwithstanding ECPA. The 

Commission explained that the 

Communications Act clearly 

demonstrated ‘‘Congress’s intent that 

other provisions of law should not be 

held to override our specific authority to 

access information needed to perform 

oversight, including non-content 

information, which generally is less 

sensitive than the contents of 

communications.’’ The Commission also 

concluded that ETCs could divulge 

information about Lifeline and Link Up 

subscribers to the Commission under an 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37464 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

exception to ECPA that permits 

divulgence that is ‘‘necessarily incident 

to the rendition of the service.’’ Similar 

to our current practice in Lifeline, the 

Commission requires ACP providers to 

obtain consent from subscribers prior to 

transmitting certain subscriber-specific 

information to NLAD. The Commission 

request comment on whether the 

Commission can collect additional 

subscriber-level data regarding ACP 

households consistent with ECPA 

without obtaining additional consent. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

whether participating providers may 

divulge ACP household price and plan 

data to the Commission as necessarily 

incident to the providers’ rendering 

service under the Affordable 

Connectivity Program, given Congress’s 

mandate to collect broadband data and 

the importance that subscriber-level 

data could have in evaluating the 

performance and value of the Affordable 

Connectivity Program. 

24. To ameliorate privacy concerns 

and ensure that subscribers are 

cognizant of the uses of their personal 

information, the Commission currently 

requires subscribers to consent to the 

transmittal of their data to the 

Commission or USAC. In the Affordable 

Connectivity Program, prior to obtaining 

consent, a participating provider must 

describe to the subscriber the ‘‘specific 

information being transmitted, that the 

information is being transmitted the 

Administrator to ensure the proper 

administration of the Affordable 

Connectivity Program and that the 

failure to provide consent will result in 

subscriber being denied the affordable 

connectivity benefit.’’ The Commission 

seeks comment on the need for any 

additional subscriber consent as well as 

how that consent should be obtained. 

25. The Commission further request 

comment on how to best balance the 

burdens for providers and subscribers 

associated with obtaining consent with 

the benefits of a subscriber-level 

collection. How would providers obtain 

such consent from new ACP applicants 

and from existing ACP households? Can 

consent be collected by USAC either 

when consumers complete an 

application in the National Verifier or at 

the time of their recertification? The 

Commission seeks comment on how 

consent can be collected at the time of 

recertification, particularly where a 

subscriber’s eligibility is confirmed by 

querying the appropriate eligibility 

database. If consent can be obtained 

only for a portion of the ACP subscriber 

base, is it worth collecting partial 

subscriber-level data? The Commission 

seeks comment on other ways in which 

providers, the Commission, or USAC 

can obtain a consumer’s consent to 

permit their provider to submit ACP 

service plan information consistent with 

any requirements the Commission adopt 

in this proceeding. How can the 

Commission structures the consent 

process to minimize the cost or burdens 

of consent? What burdens would be 

imposed on participating providers if 

they are required to provide additional 

notice to, and obtain additional consent 

from, existing ACP subscribers? Can the 

Commission collects opt-out consent, or 

should consenting to participation in a 

subscriber-level collection be strictly 

opt-in? For the millions of households 

that are already participating in the 

Affordable Connectivity Program, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

process by which providers, USAC, or 

the Commission would collect consent 

for the subscriber-level data collection? 

Would requiring this additional consent 

from subscribers risk depressing 

subscriber participation in Affordable 

Connectivity Program? What role should 

providers play in obtaining consent 

from their existing ACP subscribers for 

a subscriber-level data collection? What 

is the cost to providers of any 

requirement that they play a part in 

obtaining consent? How long would it 

take for providers to obtain additional 

consents from existing subscribers? If 

subscriber-level information is collected 

outside of NLAD, should the 

Commission require providers to mask 

personally identifiable information? 

Would requesting consent bias the data 

in a way that would substantially 

reduce its usability? 

26. If the Commission were to engage 

in an aggregate-level collection, are 

there any separate privacy concerns that 

would arise from such a collection? Are 

there any privacy concerns with the 

sharing of aggregated information for 

areas or plans with low ACP 

enrollments, including areas or plans 

with only a single subscriber? What is 

the minimum level of geographic data 

specificity (e.g., census tract, census 

block) that can assist the Commission in 

answering questions of program 

performance, digital discrimination, 

digital divide, and other matters of 

importance in judging ACP efficacy 

without overly burdening subscriber 

privacy or provider confidentiality 

interests? 

27. Publication of Data—Public 

Availability of Data. In addition to 

requiring the Commission to collect 

price and subscription rate data, 

Congress directed the Commission ‘‘to 

make data relating to broadband internet 

access service collected’’ in this 

collection ‘‘available to the public in a 

commonly used electronic format 

without risking the disclosure of 

personally identifiable information or 

proprietary information, consistent 

with’’ § 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 

The Commission seeks comment 

generally on what data should be made 

public, how subscriber privacy and 

provider interests can be protected, and 

the method and timing of publication. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

how to best balance the benefits and 

burdens associated with the publication 

of information collected through the 

ACP transparency data collection. How 

should the Commission structure the 

publication of information to minimize 

the challenges in making subscriberlevel information publishable? How 

should the Commission structure the 

publication of information from the ACP 

transparency data collection to 

minimize the challenges in making 

aggregate-level information publishable? 

28. Scope of Information Made Public. 

Commenters should address what data 

collected by the Commission should be 

made public. The Commission did not 

interpret the Infrastructure Act as 

requiring the Commission to make 

publicly available all information 

collected under section 60502(c)(1). The 

Act requires the Commission to make 

‘‘data’’ available, not necessarily all of 

the data collected. The Commission 

proposes that, at a minimum, only 

aggregated or masked data be made 

publicly available, even if subscriberlevel data is collected. The Commission 

seeks comment on what data the 

Commission should make publicly 

available on an aggregated basis and at 

what geographic level (e.g., ZIP code, 

county, state). Should the Commission 

only make price and subscription rate 

data public, because that is the scope of 

section 60502(c)(1) of the Infrastructure 

Act? Should the Commission also make 

public other data proposed to be 

collected, such as plan characteristics or 

program-performance-related data? 

Should the data published pursuant to 

the Infrastructure Act also include 

information collected outside of this 

collection? For example, should the 

Commission make available as part of 

this release data about the availability of 

plans fully covered by the ACP benefit? 

What public information would be most 

useful to consumers, providers, outside 

researchers, advocates, or governmental 

entities? 

29. Personally Identifiable 

Information. The Infrastructure Act 

provides that in making data available 

to the public, the Commission must not 

‘‘risk the disclosure of personally 

identifiable information.’’ The Act does 

not define ‘‘personally identifiable 

information;’’ rather, it requires the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37465 

Commission to define the term via 

notice and comment rulemaking. The 

Commission therefore seeks comment 

on how the Commission should define 

personally identifiable information for 

purposes of making data publicly 

available under section 60502(c) of the 

Infrastructure Act. 

30. The Commission seeks comment 

on definitions of ‘‘personally 

identifiable information’’ that might be 

appropriate in this context. Should the 

Commission borrow a definition from 

another statute, regulation, Executive 

order, or Government-wide guidance? If 

so, which authority and why? For 

instance, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Circular A–130 defines 

‘‘personally identifiable information,’’ 

for purposes of agency information 

resources management activities, as 

‘‘information that can be used to 

distinguish or trace an individual’s 

identity, either alone or when combined 

with other information that is linked or 

linkable to a specific individual.’’ 

Similarly, the E-Government Act of 

2002, defines ‘‘identifiable form’’ as 

‘‘any representation of information that 

permits the identity of an individual to 

whom the information applies to be 

reasonably inferred by either direct or 

indirect means.’’ 

31. Proprietary Information. The 

Infrastructure Act also requires the 

Commission to avoid risking the 

disclosure of ‘‘proprietary information’’ 

when making data public under section 

60502(c)(4). The Act does not define 

‘‘proprietary information,’’ nor does it 

require the Commission to define the 

term. The Commission requests 

comment on how to interpret 

‘‘proprietary information’’ under section 

60502(c)(4). Should the Commission 

define the term at all, given that unlike 

‘‘personally identifiable information,’’ a 

definition is not required? Further, 

whose ‘‘proprietary information’’ needs 

to be protected in this context? If it is 

subscriber proprietary information, how 

is proprietary information different than 

personally identifiable information? Or 

should the term be interpreted as 

meaning the proprietary information of 

participating providers, i.e., proprietary 

business information? Alternatively, 

should the Commission interpret 

‘‘proprietary information’’ to mean 

information covered by section 222 of 

the Communications Act? Under that 

approach, the Commission would need 

to avoid risking the disclosure of the 

proprietary information of subscribers, 

participating providers, and equipment 

manufacturers. 

32. Additionally, regardless of 

whether proprietary information means 

that of subscribers, participating 

providers, or both, commenters should 

address what constitutes proprietary 

information. Should the Commission 

treat ‘‘proprietary information’’ as 

limited to trade secrets and or privileged 

or confidential commercial, financial, or 

technical data? If so, what type of 

participating provider data collected 

under section 60502(c) could be 

considered proprietary? What other 

statutes or regulations might the 

Commission look to in interpreting 

‘‘proprietary information’’ in this 

context? Does aggregate data become 

proprietary, for either a subscriber or a 

participating provider, at a certain level 

of granularity? Is it sufficient if 

subscribers or participating providers 

have an opportunity to request nonpublication of proprietary information 

under procedures such as § 0.459 of the 

Commission’s rules? 

33. Protecting Personally Identifiable 

and Proprietary Information. Because 

the Commission must not ‘‘risk the 

disclosure of personally identifiable 

information or proprietary information,’’ 

the Commission seeks comment on how 

the Commission should minimize the 

risk that such information would be 

disclosed when making data available to 

the public under section 60502(c)(4) of 

the Infrastructure Act. One way to 

protect subscriber personally 

identifiable information is to publish 

only aggregate data. Would doing so 

sufficiently protect personally 

identifiable or proprietary information? 

What level of aggregation would be 

sufficient? For what geographic area 

should data be published? With the EBB 

Program, USAC released information 

first by three-digit ZIP code areas, and 

then by five-digit ZIP code and countylevel areas. For the Affordable 

Connectivity Program, USAC releases 

enrollments by five-digit ZIP code and 

county. What procedures should the 

Commission have in place to ensure that 

there is adequate ‘‘masking’’ for data in 

areas with few subscribers? For data that 

involves plan characteristics or prices, 

should the values be aggregated to 

further address any personally 

identifiable information or proprietary 

issues? For example, should prices be 

grouped into $10 increments with a 

plan costing $55.34 being put in a bin 

with all plans costing between $50 and 

$60? Are there other privacy concerns 

the Commission should consider when 

making data available to the public 

other than personally identifiable 

information and proprietary 

information? 

34. Effect of 47 CFR 0.459. The 

Infrastructure Act states that the 

Commission’s protection of personally 

identifiable and proprietary information 

must be consistent with § 0.459 of the 

Commission’s rules. Section 0.459 of 

title 47 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations provides procedures for 

requesting that information submitted to 

the Commission be withheld from 

public inspection. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether and how 

this rule should be incorporated into the 

Commission’s processes for publishing 

data under section 60502(c)(4) of the 

Act. Does the statute’s reference to 

§ 0.459 mean that a subscriber or 

participating provider should have the 

ability to request non-publication of 

certain collected information by 

submitting a request under § 0.459? If 

so, what provisions of section 0.459 

should be applicable for requests of 

non-publication for purposes of section 

60502(c)(4)? How should such a request 

be submitted, what information would a 

requester need to submit to justify a 

request for non-publication of data, and 

when should a request be submitted visa`-vis the data publication date? That is, 

should a request for nonpublication be 

required to be submitted before a data 

publication date? In other contexts, the 

Commission allows filers of certain 

information to check a box to request 

nondisclosure of privileged or 

confidential information in lieu 

separately requesting confidentiality 

under 47 CFR 0.459. Should the 

Commission consider a similar ‘‘check 

box’’ approach for this data collection? 

If so, how would a checkbox be 

incorporated in the collection process? 

Additionally, should some data be 

deemed presumptively nonpublic, i.e., 

‘‘not routinely available’’ to the public 

under 47 CFR 0.457? If the reference in 

the Infrastructure Act does not mean 

that the procedures of § 0.459 need to be 

incorporated in making data available to 

the public, what meaning should the 

Commission give ‘‘consistent with’’ 

§ 0.459 of the Commission’s rules? 

35. Format of Publication. The 

Commission must make data available 

to the public in a ‘‘commonly used 

electronic format.’’ Further, agencies 

must generally use a machine-readable 

format when making data publicly 

available. The Commission therefore 

seeks comment on what format the 

publisher of the data, whether it be the 

Commission or USAC, should use when 

making it available to the public. How 

should the Commission interpret 

‘‘commonly used electronic format?’’ 

Should the Commission require that the 

data be made public in a machinereadable format with standard, labeled 

fields? Is the OPEN Government Data 

Act of 2018 applicable to our 

publication responsibilities under the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37466 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Infrastructure Act? What file formats 

should the Commission provide the data 

in? Both the Commission and USAC 

make datasets available for viewing in 

Open Data portals and provide 

downloadable data in Comma Separated 

Values (CSV), Extensible Markup 

Language (XML), Tab Separated Values 

(TSV), Resource Description Framework 

(RDF), and Rich Site Summary (RSS) 

formats. Should the Commission use 

different formats for making publicly 

available different types of data? For 

instance, should plan characteristic and 

provider enrollment data be published 

separately or together? Should plan and 

provider enrollment data be published 

at the same geographic level? The 

Commission proposes, at a minimum, 

making aggregated data publicly 

available in CSV format, given that this 

format is already used by the 

Commission and USAC. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. 

36. Method of Publication. The 

Commission also seeks comment on the 

method of making data available to the 

public. That is, who should host the 

data and where? The Infrastructure Act 

requires only that the Commission make 

data publicly available; it does not 

preclude publication via third parties. 

Should the Commission post the data on 

its website or Open Data portal? Or 

should the Commission direct USAC to 

publish the data on its Open Data 

portal? 

37. Timing of Publication. Although 

the Infrastructure Act requires the 

Commission to make data available to 

the public, the Act does not specify 

when publication should occur, other 

than prohibiting publication prior to the 

Commission defining ‘‘personally 

identifiable information.’’ The 

Commission thus seeks comment on the 

timing of publication. Because Congress 

instituted an annual data collection, the 

Commission proposes making data 

publicly available at least annually. If 

data is collected on a more frequent 

basis, such as by participating providers 

providing data to NLAD on a rolling 

basis, should the Comission or USAC 

make data public more frequently than 

annually? If so, how often? Commenters 

should also address how long after 

collection data should be published. 

That is, how long after collection would 

data become ‘‘stale’’ and lack utility for 

consumers or others? Should time be 

built into the publication process to 

allow participating providers to protect 

proprietary information from 

disclosure? The Infrastructure Act is 

also silent as to how long the 

Commission must keep data available to 

the public. For how long should the 

Commission maintain the public-facing 

data? For a set amount of time? Until 

newer data is made public? Further, the 

Commission must revise its data 

collection rules no later than 180 days 

after they are issued. How, and to what 

extent, should the need for rule 

revisions affect the timing of making 

data available to the public? 

38. Proposed Collection Approach. 

After weighing the benefits and burdens 

of the statutorily required data 

collection, the Commission proposes the 

most efficient and least burdensome 

approach is to modify NLAD to 

incorporate new data fields that would 

collect price, subscription rate 

information, and plan characteristics as 

discussed above. The Commission will 

collect subscriber-level data by having 

providers complete the new fields when 

enrolling households, and updating 

fields for households already enrolled in 

the Affordable Connectivity Program on 

a set time schedule. Under this 

approach, all data that is required to be 

collected for the ACP transparency data 

collection would be contained in NLAD, 

which would allow the Commission to 

publish the data in a manner consistent 

with the statute. Taking advantage of 

NLAD for this collection allows us to 

collect the information without 

requiring providers to produce large 

volumes of data each year. The 

Commission views the approach of 

submitting ACP transparency data 

collection information to the NLAD at 

the time of a transaction (e.g., whether 

at the time of enrollment, as an update 

for a previously enrolled subscriber, or 

when necessary to update the fields due 

to a change in service plan) as being less 

burdensome to providers than the 

alternative option of compiling 

information for a bulk production 

during a limited filing window. 

Allowing providers to update the 

necessary fields at the time of the NLAD 

transaction also avoids any duplicitous 

efforts to recreate subscriber-level data 

for a separate submission. The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

views. 

39. Guidance. The Infrastructure Act 

further provides that the Commission 

‘‘may issue such guidance, forms, 

instructions, publications, or technical 

assistance as may be necessary or 

appropriate to carry out the programs, 

projects, or activities authorized under 

this section, including to ensure that 

such programs, project, or activities are 

completed in a timely and effective 

manner.’’ The Commission seeks 

comment on the meaning of this 

provision and what training, support, 

and guidance should be provided to 

support the ACP transparency data 

collection. What resources would be 

helpful to providers to facilitate this 

data collection? 

40. Enforcement. The Commission 

seeks comment on issues related to 

enforcement of the annual data 

collection rules. Should the 

Commission adopt rules specifically 

governing the enforcement of the data 

collection requirement, or should the 

Commission employ the same 

enforcement position that it adopted for 

the Affordable Connectivity Program? 

Consistent with the approach in that 

program and its authorizing statute, the 

Commission proposes to treat failure to 

submit the data necessary for the ACP 

transparency collection, failure to 

respond to the Administrator’s or the 

Commission’s request for data, and 

failure to provide complete and accurate 

data as program rule violations that may 

result in forfeiture penalties pursuant to 

Section 503 of the Act. The Commission 

proposes establishing a base forfeiture 

amount that is proportionate to the level 

of data ultimately adopted, for example 

on a per-subscriber basis or higher level 

of aggregation. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether to assess the 

forfeiture on a per-subscriber basis to 

reflect the number of subscribers for 

which the provider has not submitted 

data. Alternatively, the Commission 

seeks comment on establishing a 

forfeiture amount at the state or study 

area level: that is, for any missing ACP 

data for subscribers within a state or 

study area, a base forfeiture penalty 

amount would be applied. Should the 

Commission consider establishing a 

base forfeiture amount of $50,000 per 

state or study area for which a provider 

is missing ACP transparency data 

collection information by the deadline, 

which is consistent with precedent for 

violations of Commission filing rules? 

The Commission seeks comment on 

other ways to calculate forfeiture 

amounts for failure to comply with the 

rules the Commission establishes for the 

ACP transparency data collection. In 

addition to a base forfeiture for nonfiling, should the Commission impose 

additional fines each day a provider is 

not in compliance pursuant to Section 

503(b)(2) of the Act? Given the 

importance of this congressionally 

mandated data collection, the 

Commission proposes requiring the 

submission of ACP transparency data 

collection information by the deadline 

to be established by the Bureau or the 

Commission. The Commission 

tentatively concludes that failure to 

meet the deadline will constitute a rule 

violation that may result in a monetary 

forfeiture penalty. The Commission 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37467 

proposes to instruct USAC to provide 

the Enforcement Bureau a list of 

providers that have failed to submit 

ACP transparency data collection 

information by the deadline that 

identifies the subscribers, by state and 

study area, for which the data has not 

been properly filed. 

41. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on how to evaluate and 

enforce the accuracy of the information 

presented in the ACP transparency data 

collection. How can the Commission 

verify the accuracy of the information 

that a broadband provider provides? 

How should the Commission protect 

against inaccuracies in the information 

provided? The Commission seeks 

comment on our proposal to require an 

officer of each provider to certify, under 

penalty of perjury, to the accuracy of the 

data and information provided prior to 

the submission of each data collection. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

further certifications and enforcement 

tools the Commission can use to ensure 

full and accurate participation in the 

data collection. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether a failure to 

comply with the rules the Commission 

establishes for the ACP data collection 

could subject a provider to the 

involuntary removal process the 

Commission established in the ACP 

Order. 

42. Timing. The Infrastructure Act 

requires an ‘‘annual collection’’ relating 

to the price and subscription 

information. The Infrastructure Act 

further provides that, ‘‘not later than 

180 days after the date on which rules 

are issued . . . and when determined to 

be necessary by the Commission 

thereafter, the Commission shall revise 

the rules to verify the accuracy of data 

submitted pursuant to the rules.’’ The 

Commission seeks comment on when 

the collection can begin in relation to 

the statutory requirement to revise the 

final rules within six months of 

adoption of final rules. Does this require 

the Commission to collect ACP data 

within a certain period of time? If so, by 

when should the Commission 

commence the inaugural data 

collection? For subsequent data 

collections, should the collection occur 

during the same window as the 

collection? The Commission also seeks 

comment on the filing window for 

collection. Should the Commission 

require providers to submit data for 

subscribers enrolled as of a particular 

date? How long should a filing window 

remain open? 

43. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the statutory requirement 

to revise the rules to verify the accuracy 

of the data within six months from 

when the Commission adopts final rules 

and its impact on this proceeding. What 

is intended by the language providing 

that ‘‘the Commission shall revise the 

rules to verify the accuracy of data 

submitted pursuant to the rules’’? What 

is the purpose of the language limiting 

revisions to the final rules to verify 

accuracy? How should the Commission 

track and verify the accuracy of data 

submitted? What are the outer bounds 

on the period of time when the 

Commission must update its final rules? 

What circumstances should warrant 

revision of the rules? Should the 

updates to the rules include the 

possibility of adding new variables to 

improve or refine the data collected? 

How should the Commission determine 

when it is necessary to update the final 

rules? What other considerations should 

the Commission take into account when 

determining the necessity of updating 

the final rules for this data collection? 

44. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the requirements of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act and the 

timing of the inaugural collection. In 

establishing the EBB Program and the 

Affordable Connectivity Program, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act 

exempted the Commission from certain 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act and the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

this exemption applies to rules 

established in this proceeding. 

Assuming the Paperwork Reduction Act 

requirements do apply to this collection, 

the Commission seeks comment on how 

this impacts the timing of the launch of 

the collection. 

45. Efforts to Promote Digital Equity 

and Inclusion. 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 are or have been historically 

underserved, marginalized, or adversely 

affected by persistent poverty or 

inequality, invites comment on any 

equity-related considerations and 

benefits (if any) that may be associated 

with the proposals and issues discussed 

herein. Specifically, the Commission 

seeks comment on how our proposals 

may promote or inhibit advances in 

diversity, equity, inclusion, and 

accessibility, as well the scope of the 

Commission’s relevant legal authority. 

III. Procedural Matters 

A. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act 

Analysis 

46. This document contains proposed 

new or modified information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to comment on 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), 

the Commission seeks specific comment 

on how the Commission might further 

reduce the information collection 

burden for small business concerns with 

fewer than 25 employees. 

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

47. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in this 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). 

Written comments are requested on this 

IRFA. Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadlines for comments on the 

notice of proposed rulemaking provided 

on the first page of the item. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

a. Ex Parte Rules 

48. This proceeding shall be treated as 

a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making ex parte 

presentations must file a copy of any 

written presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda, or other 

filings in the proceeding, then the 

presenter may provide citations to such 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37468 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

data or arguments in his or her prior 

comments, memoranda, or other filings 

(specifying the relevant page and/or 

paragraph numbers where such data or 

arguments can be found) in lieu of 

summarizing them in the memorandum. 

Documents shown or given to 

Commission staff during ex parte 

meetings are deemed to be written ex 

parte presentations and must be filed 

consistent with 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In 

proceedings governed by 47 CFR 1.49(f), 

or for which the Commission has made 

available a method of electronic filing, 

written ex parte presentations and 

memoranda summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding and must 

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. 

b. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

49. In the Infrastructure Investment 

and Jobs Act (Infrastructure Act), 

Congress established the Affordable 

Connectivity Program (ACP), which is 

designed to promote access to 

broadband internet access services by 

households that meet specified 

eligibility criteria by providing funding 

for participating providers to offer 

certain services and connected devices 

to these households at discounted 

prices. The Affordable Connectivity 

Program provides funds for an 

affordable connectivity benefit 

consisting of a $30.00 per month 

discount on the price of broadband 

internet access services that 

participating providers supply to 

eligible households in most parts of the 

country and a $75.00 per month 

discount on such prices in Tribal areas. 

The Commission established rules 

governing the affordable connectivity 

benefit and related matters in the ACP 

Report and Order, 87 FR 8346 (Feb. 14, 

2022). 

50. The Infrastructure Act also directs 

the Commission to issue ‘‘final rules 

regarding the annual collection by the 

Commission relating to the price and 

subscription rates of each internet 

service offering of a participating 

provider under the Affordable 

Connectivity Program.’’ 

51. This NPRM proposes rules to 

implement section 60502(c) of the 

Infrastructure Act, to provide greater 

transparency into broadband services 

provided by ACP participating 

providers, and to allow the Commission 

to assess its progress towards the ACP 

program goals. Specifically, the NPRM 

proposes establishing a mandatory 

annual data collection, collecting price, 

subscription rate, and plan 

characteristic information at the 

subscriber level through the National 

Lifeline Accountability Database 

(NLAD). 

52. The NPRM seeks comment on 

what plan characteristics, data formats, 

and collection methods and timing 

should be collected or adopted. For 

example, the NPRM seeks comment on 

whether the Commission should collect 

information about plan speed or bundle 

characteristics, and it also seeks 

comment on what common data formats 

the Commission should collect and how 

the Commission should approach 

scheduling the annual collection of ACP 

transparency data. The NPRM also seeks 

comment on the burdens and benefits of 

requiring providers to submit 

information at the subscriber level, 

aggregate level, and alternative 

approaches. 

53. In executing its obligations under 

the Infrastructure Act, the Commission 

intends to establish rules and 

requirements that implement the 

relevant provisions of the Infrastructure 

Act efficiently, with minimal burden on 

participating providers. These actions 

are consistent with our ongoing efforts 

to bridge the digital divide by ensuring 

that low-income households have access 

to affordable, high-quality broadband 

internet access service. 

c. Legal Basis 

54. The proposed actions are 

authorized pursuant to the 

Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. V, sec. 

60502(c). 

d. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

55. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act. A small 

business concern is one that: (1) is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

(3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

56. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, 

may affect small entities that are not 

easily categorized at present. The 

Commission therefore describes here, at 

the outset, three broad groups of small 

entities that could be directly affected 

herein. First, while there are industry 

specific size standards for small 

businesses that are used in the 

regulatory flexibility analysis, according 

to data from the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) Office of 

Advocacy, in general a small business is 

an independent business having fewer 

than 500 employees. These types of 

small businesses represent 99.9% of all 

businesses in the United States, which 

translates to 32.5 million businesses. 

57. 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. 

58. 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 indicates that there were 

90,075 local governmental jurisdictions 

consisting of general purpose 

governments and special purpose 

governments in the United States. Of 

this number there were 36,931 general 

purpose governments (county, 

municipal and town or township) with 

populations of less than 50,000 and 

12,040 special purpose governments— 

independent school districts with 

enrollment populations of less than 

50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017 

U.S. Census of Governments data, the 

Commission estimates that at least 

48,971 entities fall into the category of 

‘‘small governmental jurisdictions.’’ 

59. Wired Broadband Internet Access 

Service Providers. (Wired ISPs). 

Providers of wired broadband internet 

access service include various types of 

providers except dial-up internet access 

providers. Wireline service that 

terminates at an end user location or 

mobile device and enables the end user 

to receive information from and/or send 

information to the internet at 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37469 

information transfer rates exceeding 200 

kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one 

direction is classified as a broadband 

connection under the Commission’s 

rules. Wired broadband internet services 

fall in the Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers industry. The SBA small 

business size standard for this industry 

classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 

employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2017 shows 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, according to Commission 

data on internet access services as of 

December 31, 2018, nationwide there 

were approximately 2,700 providers of 

connections over 200 kbps in at least 

one direction using various wireline 

technologies. The Commission does not 

collect data on the number of employees 

for providers of these services, therefore, 

at this time the Commission is not able 

to estimate the number of providers that 

would qualify as small under the SBA’s 

small business size standard. However, 

in light of the general data on fixed 

technology service providers in the 

Commission’s 2020 Communications 

Marketplace Report, the Commission 

believes that the majority of wireline 

internet access service providers can be 

considered small entities. 

60. Wireless Broadband internet 

Access Service Providers (Wireless ISPs 

or WISPs). Providers of wireless 

broadband internet access service 

include fixed and mobile wireless 

providers. The Commission defines a 

WISP as ‘‘[a] company that provides 

end-users with wireless access to the 

internet[.]’’ Wireless service that 

terminates at an end user location or 

mobile device and enables the end user 

to receive information from and/or send 

information to the internet at 

information transfer rates exceeding 200 

kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one 

direction is classified as a broadband 

connection under the Commission’s 

rules. Neither the SBA nor the 

Commission have developed a size 

standard specifically applicable to 

Wireless Broadband internet Access 

Service Providers. The closest 

applicable industry with an SBA small 

business size standard is Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite). The SBA size standard for this 

industry classifies a business as small if 

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

Census Bureau data for 2017 shows 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, 

according to Commission data on 

internet access services as of December 

31, 2018, nationwide there were 

approximately 1,209 fixed wireless and 

71 mobile wireless providers of 

connections over 200 kbps in at least 

one direction. The Commission does not 

collect data on the number of employees 

for providers of these services, therefore, 

at this time the Commission is not able 

to estimate the number of providers that 

would qualify as small under the SBA’s 

small business size standard. However, 

based on data in the Commission’s 2020 

Communications Marketplace Report on 

the small number of large mobile 

wireless nationwide and regional 

facilities-based providers, the dozens of 

small regional facilities-based providers 

and the number of wireless mobile 

virtual network providers in general, as 

well as on terrestrial fixed wireless 

broadband providers in general, the 

Commission believes that the majority 

of wireless internet access service 

providers can be considered small 

entities. 

e. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

61. In this NPRM, the Commission 

seeks comment on its proposal to 

require providers to provide subscriber 

level price, subscription rate, and plan 

characteristic information to the 

Commission. To the extent the 

Commission imposes an annual data 

collection, participating providers of all 

sizes would be required to maintain and 

report information concerning plan 

prices, subscription rates, and plan 

characteristics. Any recordkeeping or 

reporting requirements adopted in this 

proceeding however will apply only to 

those providers that choose to 

participate in the Affordable 

Connectivity Program. 

62. In assessing the cost of 

compliance for small entities, at this 

time the Commission cannot quantify 

the cost of compliance with the 

potential rule changes that may be 

adopted and is not in a position to 

determine whether the proposals in the 

NPRM will require small entities to hire 

professionals in order to comply. The 

Commission seeks comment on its 

proposals and their likely costs and 

benefits as well as alternative 

approaches. The Commission expects 

the comments received will include 

information on the costs and benefits, 

service impacts, and other relevant 

matters that should help us identify and 

evaluate relevant issues for small 

entities, including compliance costs and 

other burdens (as well as countervailing 

benefits), so that the Commission may 

develop final rules that minimize such 

costs. 

f. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

63. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business, alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its proposed 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities.’’ 

64. The NPRM seeks comments from 

all interested parties. The Commission 

is aware that some of the proposed 

collections under consideration will 

impact small entities. The NPRM does 

seek comment on the impact of its 

proposed rules on providers, and small 

entities are encouraged to bring to the 

Commission’s attention any specific 

concerns that they may have with the 

proposals outlined in the NPRM. 

65. 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 actions 

in this proceeding. 

g. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

66. None. 

IV. Ordering Clauses 

67. It is ordered, pursuant to section 

60502(c) of the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 

117–58, 135 Stat. 429 (2021), that this 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 

hereby adopted. 

68. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to applicable procedures set forth in 

§§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s 

Rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested 

parties may file comments on the notice 

of proposed rulemaking on or before 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register, and reply comments on or 

before 45 days after publication in the 

Federal Register. 

69. It is further ordered that the 

Commission shall send a copy of this 

notice of proposed rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37470 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 120 / Thursday, June 23, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54 

Internet telecommunications, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirement, Telephone. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 54 as follows: 

PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 54 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 

205, 214, 219, 220, 229, 254, 303(r), 403, 

1004, 1302, 1601–1609, and 1752, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 54.1801 by revising 

paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(A) to read as follows: 

§ 54.1801 Participating providers. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) Violations of the rules or 

requirements of the Affordable 

Connectivity Program, including rules 

and requirements related to the 

Affordable Connectivity Program 

transparency data collection, the 

Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, 

the Lifeline program, the Emergency 

Connectivity Fund or successor 

programs, or any of the Commission’s 

Universal Service Fund program. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Add § 54.1813 to read as follows: 

§ 54.1813 Affordable Connectivity Program 

transparency data collection. 

Participating providers shall transmit 

to the National Lifeline Accountability 

Database in a format prescribed by the 

Administrator each new and existing 

Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) 

subscriber’s full name; contact 

information; total monthly charge for 

internet service prior to any discounts 

(including bundled components, 

associated equipment, taxes, and fees); 

itemized breakdown of monthly charge 

including cost of ACP-supported 

service, associated equipment, 

discounts, taxes, and fees; plan 

characteristics, including upload and 

download speeds, average latency and 

packet loss, data caps, associated 

equipment requirements, for bundles, 

voice and video characteristics (e.g., 

number of minutes, number of channels 

offered); and plan coverage by 

geographic level as to be determined by 

the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13438 Filed 6–22–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 203 and 212 

[Docket DARS–2022–0013] 

RIN 0750–AL36 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Prohibition on 

Award to Contractors That Require 

Certain Nondisclosure Agreements 

(DFARS Case 2021–D018) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 

implement a section of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2021 that prohibits the award of 

any DoD contracts to an entity that 

requires its employees to sign internal 

confidentiality agreements or statements 

that would prohibit or otherwise restrict 

its employees from lawfully reporting 

waste, fraud, or abuse related to the 

performance of a DoD contract to a 

designated investigative or law 

enforcement representative of DoD 

authorized to receive such information. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

should be submitted in writing to the 

address shown below on or before 

August 22, 2022, to be considered in the 

formation of the final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by DFARS Case 2021–D018, 

using any of the following methods: 

Æ Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Search for 

‘‘DFARS Case 2021–D018.’’ Select 

‘‘Comment’’ and follow the instructions 

to submit a comment. Please include 

your name, company name (if any), and 

‘‘DFARS Case 2021–D018’’ on any 

attached document. 

Æ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2021–D018 in the subject 

line of the message. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. To 

confirm receipt of your comment(s), 

please check https://

www.regulations.gov, approximately 

two to three days after submission to 

verify posting. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Kimberly R. Ziegler, telephone 703– 

901–3176. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD is proposing to amend DFARS 

subpart 203.9 to implement section 883 

of the National Defense Authorization 

Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 

(Pub. L. 116–283). Section 883 prohibits 

the award of a DoD contract to an entity 

that requires its employees to sign 

internal confidentiality agreements or 

statements that would prohibit or 

otherwise restrict such employees from 

lawfully reporting waste, fraud, or abuse 

related to the performance of a DoD 

contract to a designated investigative or 

law enforcement representative within 

DoD authorized to receive such 

information. The statute also requires 

entities to inform their employees of the 

limitations on confidentiality 

agreements or other statements. Offerors 

are required to represent compliance 

with the statutory restrictions prior to 

submitting an offer or quote. 

The requirements of section 883 

closely resemble those provided in 

section 743 of Division E, Title VII, of 

the Consolidated and Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 

(Pub. L. 113–235), which was 

implemented at Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) 3.909, Prohibition on 

providing funds to an entity that 

requires certain internal confidentiality 

agreements or statements (82 FR 4717, 

dated January 13, 2017). 

Differences between the statutory 

requirements are negligible; the most 

notable is that section 743 applies the 

prohibition to entities who require their 

employees or contractors to sign the 

internal confidentiality agreements or 

statements. Section 883, however, 

applies the prohibition to entities who 

require their employees to sign them. 

Since the prohibition at section 743 

applies Governmentwide, DoD is 

currently complying with section 883 

based on the FAR application of section 

743 to employees and contractors. 

II. Discussion and Analysis 

The proposed rule implements 

section 883 of the NDAA for FY 2021 by 

utilizing the existing Governmentwide 

prohibition at FAR subpart 3.9 and 

clarifies the applicability of 

Governmentwide statutory guidance at 

DFARS 203.900. Section 883 provides 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1