[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 120 (Thursday, June 23, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37459-37470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13438]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
    <bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the Electronic Comment Filing System 
(ECFS): https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
    <bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
    Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
    <bullet> Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
    <bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
    <bullet> Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020) (https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#066065653336324660656528616970"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="93f5f0f0a6a3a7d3f5f0f0bdf4fce5">[email protected]</span></a> 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a1e4d3c8c28ff6d4e1c7c2c28fc6ced7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f4a7d666c21587a4f696c6c21686079">[email protected]</span></a>. 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dcbabfbfe9ece89cbabfbff2bbb3aa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3b5d58580e0b0f7b5d5858155c544d">[email protected]</span></a> 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/FCC-22-44A1.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

[[Page 37460]]

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 FCC-approved 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 37462]]

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 
subscriber-level 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 price-speed-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

[[Page 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 aggregate-level 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 subscriber-level 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 subscriber-specific 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

[[Page 37464]]

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'' Sec.  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 subscriber-level 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 subscriber-level 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

[[Page 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 non-publication of proprietary information under 
procedures such as Sec.  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 county-level 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 vis-
[agrave]-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 Sec.  0.459 need to be 
incorporated in making data available to the public, what meaning 
should the Commission give ``consistent with'' Sec.  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 machine-readable 
format with standard, labeled fields? Is the OPEN Government Data Act 
of 2018 applicable to our publication responsibilities under the

[[Page 37466]]

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 non-filing, 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 37468]]

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

[[Page 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 Sec. Sec.  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

[[Page 37470]]

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

0
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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  54.1801 by revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(A) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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.
* * * * *
0
3. Add Sec.  54.1813 to read as follows:


Sec.  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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>