Implement the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Prevention and Elimination of Digital Discrimination

AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes rules regarding affirmative obligations for broadband providers, through: annual reports that facilitate greater transparency regarding substantial broadband projects recently completed by providers, and internal compliance programs requiring periodic evaluation of the demographics of communities served—and not served—by such recently completed projects, as well as pending and planned substantial projects. The Commission also seeks comment on establishing am Office of Civil Rights.

DATES:

Comments are due on or before March 4, 2024, and reply comments are due on or before April 1, 2024. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public and other interested parties on or before April 1, 2024.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 22–69, by any of the following methods:

• Federal Communications Commission's Website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

• People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–418–0432.

For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Send a copy of your comment on the proposed information collection to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email to PRA@fcc.gov or Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, Aurélie Mathieu, at (202) 418–2194, Aurelie.Mathieu@fcc.gov. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, send an email to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Nicole Ongele, Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( Further Notice) in GN Docket No. 22–69, FCC 23–100, adopted on November 15, 2023, and released on November 20, 2023. The full text of this document is available for download at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-100A1.pdf. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities ( e.g., braille, large print, electronic files, audio format, etc.), send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice) or (202) 418–0432 (TTY).

Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118–9, requires each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The required summary of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis: This document contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Public and agency comments are due April 1, 2024.

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,63 FR 24121 (1998).

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.

• Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/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 fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY).

The proceeding this document initiates shall be treated as a “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, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format ( e.g.,.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

This document may contain potential new or revised information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Public and agency comments are due April 1, 2024.

Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) way to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Synopsis

1. In this Further Notice we take additional steps to fulfill our statutory mandate to facilitate equal access to broadband internet access service by preventing digital discrimination of access. We seek further, focused comments on affirmative obligations that might be undertaken by broadband service access providers (providers) to expand broadband access and address possible digital discrimination of access. Our digital discrimination of access rules apply to “covered entities” which is broader than broadband providers, but at this time our proposed annual report and compliance program are limited to broadband providers as defined in 47 CFR 54.1600(b). The proposals in this Further Notice complement rules we adopt today by focusing on providers' day-to-day business practices that might, in some instances, differentially impact consumers' access to broadband on prohibited bases. Our proposals are intended to make fully transparent to the public what communities are served, and what communities are not served, by large-scale broadband deployment, upgrade, and maintenance projects completed or substantially completed by each provider over the preceding calendar year. We propose to require the reporting of this information on a state-by-state or territory-by-territory basis in a yearly supplement to the Broadband Data Collection (BDC) so the public can see not only where broadband service is available, but where and how providers are currently investing in their broadband networks and what communities are benefiting from those investments. Our proposals would also require providers to establish formal compliance programs related to digital discrimination of access and to conduct regular, internal assessments of what communities are served (and not served) by recently completed, pending, and planned large-scale broadband projects and whether their relevant policies and practices might differentially impact consumers' access to broadband service. Such regular assessments, we believe, will help “smoke out” policies and practices that might impede equal access to broadband service without sufficient technical or economic justification as providers pressure test the asserted justifications for policies and practices producing such effects. Affirmative obligations such as these are not foreign to the Commission. Most recently, for example, the Commission has adopted affirmative obligations for voice service providers to better police their own networks against illegal robocalls and protect consumers from widespread fraud, and we believe that targeted affirmative and effective measures can similarly combat discriminatory practices in the context of our duty under section 60506 to prevent and identify steps to eliminate digital discrimination of access.

2. In this Further Notice, we propose two sets of affirmative obligations for broadband providers in furtherance of our mandate to facilitate equal access to broadband internet access service, including by preventing digital discrimination of access. Under our proposal, each broadband provider would be required to: (1) submit an annual, publicly-available supplement to the BDC describing, on a state-by-state or territory-by-territory basis, any large-scale broadband deployment, upgrade, and maintenance projects that were completed or substantially completed during the preceding calendar year and the communities served by such projects; and (2) establish a mandatory internal compliance program requiring regular internal assessment of (a) what communities are served by recent, pending, and planned large-scale projects and (b) whether the provider's broadband-related policies and practices might differentially impact consumers' access to broadband based on a listed characteristic and without adequate technical or economic justification.

3. Legal Authority. We seek general comment on our authority to require providers to implement affirmative obligations. Section 60506 directs the Commission to adopt rules to prevent digital discrimination of access and identify necessary steps to eliminate such discrimination. Does section 60506 authorize the Commission to impose affirmative obligations on providers? Does the Communications Act provide the Commission such authority, irrespective of whether section 60506 is part of the Communications Act? Does section 4(i) of the Communications Act provide the Commission either direct or ancillary authority to do so? Besides these legal authorities, are there other sources for our authority to implement affirmative obligations of the types set forth below?

Annual Report

4. We propose requiring that providers submit an annual, publicly-available supplement to the BDC describing their recent broadband investments in each state and territory. This supplemental report would identify and describe, on a state-by-state or territory-by-territory basis, all fixed or mobile broadband deployment, upgrade, and maintenance projects completed or substantially completed in the preceding calendar year, that are expected to affect the availability or quality of broadband service at 500 or more housing units. A “housing unit” is defined as a single family house, townhome, mobile home or trailer, apartment, group of rooms, or single room that is occupied as a separate living quarters, or, if vacant, is intended for occupancy as a separate living quarters. The report would categorize each such project as a deployment, upgrade, or maintenance project (or some combination thereof) and would identify the number of housing units affected by the project through numerical bands (such as 500–999, 1000–4999, 5000–9999, etc.). The report would identify through the census tract affected by the project, and would provide a brief narrative description of the project and the geographic area served by the project to provide greater precision and clarity regarding what the project is designed to accomplish and what communities are served by the project. The primary goal of requiring this report would be to increase transparency regarding what substantial investments providers are currently making in their networks, what communities are being served—or not served—by those investments, and how they are being served. The information provided in the annual supplement to the BDC would allow the Commission, state and local broadband regulators, public interest organizations, and other stakeholders to review on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis what major deployment, upgrade, and maintenance projects covered entities have completed or substantially completed within the states and territories of their footprint and what communities are and are not served by those projects. We believe this information would assist in the development of broadband policy, in the strengthening of advocacy for broadband expansion, and in the targeting of our efforts to enforce our digital discrimination of access rules.

5. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 88 FR 3681, we sought comment on what self-assessment or reporting obligations we should require of providers. In response, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights suggested that we look to other sources of civil rights law to develop affirmative obligations, Microsoft recommended that providers use Commission data to formulate plans to address digital discrimination of access, and several commenters recommended self-reporting requirements. Based on the comments received in the record, we believe our steps in this Further Notice are consistent with recommendations for self-reporting and will result in useful data to stakeholders. We seek comment on this approach.

Components of the Report

6. We propose that each annual report must address the following components to provide a comprehensive picture of each major deployment, maintenance, and upgrade project completed or substantially completed for each state and territory within its service area or footprint: (1) the nature of each project completed or substantially completed in the calendar year immediately preceding the submission of the report ( i.e., deployment, upgrade, maintenance, or a combination thereof); (2) the number of housing units affected by the project ( i.e., the number of housing units whose broadband availability or quality is positively impacted by the project) by census tract (utilizing the system presently used in the BDC); and (3) a narrative description of the project and of the areas served by the project, to allow for greater precision and clarity regarding what the project is designed to accomplish and what communities are served by the project.

7. We seek general comment on the pros and cons of an annual report in the context of this proceeding. What are the short-term and long-term benefits of this proposal? Is there a more appropriate way to collect this information other than an annual report? Is there a way we can utilize existing data in connection with or in place of the proposed annual report to promote transparency regarding broadband investments? How could regulators leverage these reports to address potential disparities in broadband access? Are there other stakeholders that would benefit from such a report? Are there other uses for such a report that would foster the equal access policy of section 60506? Are there other potential benefits or challenges in implementing an annual reporting requirement?

8. We also invite comment on the proposed components of the annual report, discussed in turn below. Are they sufficient? Are there other components that are necessary to meet our transparency goal. Are any of the proposed components in conflict or tension with the equal access goal of section 60506? What other reasons or justifications might exist for excluding one or more of the proposed components of the report? Would there be challenges in implementing this proposal and if so, how can the challenges be addressed? We seek comment on how to strike the right balance between gathering sufficient information and avoiding undue burdens on reporting entities when implementing this annual report requirement.

9. Nature of the projects. In identifying the nature of the projects completed or substantially completed in the report, our proposal would require that providers identify any broadband deployment, upgrade, or maintenance projects undertaken within the specified period and affecting 500 or more housing units. We believe that deployment, maintenance, and upgrade projects are the type of investments that most broadly and directly affect consumer access to broadband service and, thus, should be reported in order to facilitate greater transparency regarding where such investments are being made. We seek comment on this proposal. We propose to deem a project completed when all the tasks and objectives have been successfully completed, all deliverables have been produced, all milestones have been met, and there is no outstanding work or tasks to be done. We also seek comment on what should be considered a substantially completed project. For example, should we define substantially completed as being a project for which, at the providers' discretion, either 85% of the impacted locations are covered, or for which 85% of the most recent budget with commercial approval has been spent? Should the difference between the definitions of substantially completed and completed be based on providers expected timeline for a project?

10. Housing units affected. We propose that the reporting requirement apply to projects affecting 500 or more housing units. We propose to use the definition of a “housing unit” in Commission rule 802.223, which defines the term as “a single family house, townhome, mobile home or trailer, apartment, group of rooms, or single room that is occupied as a separate living quarters, or, if vacant, is intended for occupancy as a separate living quarters.” An “economic unit” consists of all adult individuals contributing to and sharing in the income and expenses of a household. We seek comment on this definition. Based on this proposed definition, we seek comment on what number of housing units should trigger the requirement to report on a particular project. Is the number 500 reasonable in light of our transparency goal? Should the same threshold number of housing units apply to deployment, upgrade, and maintenance projects? Should different thresholds be applied to each category? Once the 500 housing unit threshold is met, is categorizing housing units in metric bands ( e.g., 500–999, 1000–4999, 5000–9999) an effective method to report the scope of the deployment, maintenance, or upgrade projects? We specifically seek comment on the potential impacts on rural and Tribal areas. Should there be special considerations for rural and Tribal areas? If so, how can we ensure that these areas are being considered?

11. Geographic area of the project. We seek comment on requiring providers to report the geographic area of each major deployment, upgrade, and maintenance project by census tract. Would reporting projects at the level of the census tract be appropriate? What benefits and burdens would be associated with reporting data at the census tract level? Would census block be too granular? Should providers be required or permitted to report impacted locations in the same manner as they report deployed locations in the BDC? Since the BDC allows providers to report availability data in the form of polygon shapefiles, or as broadband serviceable location fabric (fabric), would adopting either one of these metrics reduce the burden on filers? In what format do covered entities routinely store data on deployments, upgrades, and maintenance projects? To the extent covered entities do not routinely collect and store such information, we seek comment on how to specify a single methodology for doing so.

12. We also seek comment on whether there are more precise metrics to identify the location of projects in rural and Tribal areas than the proposed census tract metric. Are there any additional issues specific to rural and Tribal areas that we should consider in completion of these annual reports? Would a census block requirement be workable? Would it encompass rural and Tribal areas more efficiently? Should providers be required to identify whether the impacted area is rural or Tribal and, if so, how should they do that? Should covered entities be required to specifically describe their projects in Tribal areas, irrespective of the number of housing units served by the project?

13. Narrative description of project. We propose that providers use the narrative description to provide information regarding each project sufficient to determine what the project was designed to accomplish, why it was undertaken, and what communities within the designed census tracts it was intended to serve. In particular, the designation of a project as a deployment, upgrade, or maintenance project may not sufficiently explain what the project was intended to accomplish ( e.g., upgrade service from DSL to fiber) or the specific communities within the designated census tracts that will be served by the project ( e.g., naming the neighborhoods served or providing the geographic boundaries of the project). By requiring the narrative description of the project, we intend to allow greater precision and clarity about the nature of the project and the communities served, without being overly prescriptive. We seek comment on this proposal. Should we be more prescriptive about the narrative descriptions required? Should we require, for example, that providers describe the demographics of the communities served by these projects and/or the dates the projects were completed or substantially completed? Is there other narrative information we should require in order for the reporting requirement to serve its intended purpose of providing greater transparency regarding recent broadband investments? More generally, is a report of the type we propose necessary or helpful in light of the data already being collected through the BDC?

Annual Report Filing Timeline

14. We propose to require providers to file their annual report as a supplement to the BDC report due in March of each year and that it cover projects completed or substantially completed in the calendar year immediately preceding the submission of the report. We seek comment on this proposal. We seek comment on this filing timetable and whether it provides sufficient time for providers to gather and review the information required in the report. We also seek comment on whether submitting the annual report as a supplement to the year-end BDC filing is the most reasonable and efficient approach. Should these deadlines be staggered? If so, how much time should be allotted between the filing of the year-end BDC report and the annual, major projects report?

Availability of Annual Reports

15. We propose to make the results of these annual reports available to the public. As discussed above, we tentatively conclude that significant benefits would flow from making these reports public, such as increasing transparency regarding substantial investments by providers, informing broadband policy at the Federal, state and local level, strengthening advocacy for expanded broadband access, and targeting the Commission's efforts to enforce the rules we adopt today. We seek comment on our proposal to make these reports public. What is the best method for releasing these reports to the public? Should these reports be easily accessible on the provider's website or should they be made available by another means? We also seek comment on the benefits or burdens of making the reports available to the public. Are there confidentiality concerns we need to consider with respect to the information in question? If so, what measures would be necessary to protect the legitimate confidentiality interests of providers?

Supplements to Existing Commission-Issues Reports

16. We also seek comment on whether the Commission should publish certain data from the proposed annual reports in the Commission's existing reports, such as the Communications Marketplace Report or the broadband progress report required by section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Section 706 Report). We note that the Commission has already initiated the inquiry for the next Section 706 Report. Although we propose that the annual reports be publicly available, as supplements to the annual BDC filings, would including certain data in either of these existing Commission reports provide greater transparency to consumers and communities? If so, what data should be included? Should we include the entirety of the proposed annual reports, or limit the data to a more narrow set of data points? Should we expand the information published in the Communications Marketplace Report or the Section 706 Report beyond the proposed annual reports to include summaries of filed digital discrimination of access informal complaints, any findings of digital discrimination of access, or steps the Commission has taken to address equal access? Would including this additional information in either these Commission-issued reports enhance transparency and make the proposed annual reports fully available and accessible to more stakeholders?

Intersection With Other Broadband Data

17. We seek comment on how providers can leverage existing data sources, such as the existing BDC, in compiling these reports. To the extent we can model the requirements for this report off the BDC, how would that be helpful to providers? We assume that providers would prefer to use the same criteria and data fields that are used in the BDC to the extent possible. We seek comment on whether this is true.

18. Are the relevant criteria and data fields used in the BDC too broad or narrow for our present purposes? Is there a need for additional data to be collected or for different metrics to be used? Given that providers are aware of their deployment and report the impact of deployments as part of the BDC, what would be the additional burden of providing annual reports? Are there policies or procedures we can adopt to reduce the burden on providers?

19. We tentatively conclude that the annual reports proposed above should be certified by the provider as true and correct, just as occurs with respect to BDC submissions. We propose that the same experts who certify the BDC submissions also be required to certify the proposed annual report: (1) a corporate officer, and (2) an engineer. We seek comment on this proposal. Should we consider a different certification process? Is it necessary that both a corporate officer and an engineer certify reports containing the elements we have outlined above? Might other officers or employees of the provider be better informed to certify the contents of this annual report? We seek detailed comment on these matters.

Exceptions

20. We seek comment on whether any providers should be exempted from the requirement to submit an annual report based on their size, footprint, or service area. Should we exempt providers that primarily serve consumers at the rural and Tribal level and, if so, why? What other providers should be exempted from submitting an annual report and why?

Record Retention

21. It is important that records sufficient to determine the veracity of the proposed annual reports be retained for some period of time following submission of the reports. We seek comment on what records should be retained and for how long they should be retained in order to accomplish this verification purpose. We also seek comment on whether records related to the proposed annual reports should be retained for any purpose other than verification of the information contained in such reports.

Compliance Program

22. In addition to the annual report, we propose to require each provider to adopt and maintain a formal internal compliance program designed to ensure regular assessment of whether and how the provider's policies and practices advance and impede equal access to broadband internet access service in its service area. In proposing to require such compliance programs, our goals are to ensure close internal scrutiny of policies and practices that might impede equal access to broadband and to promote accountability with regard to such policies and practices. In order to facilitate candid internal evaluation and assessment of a provider's policies and practices affecting broadband access, we do not propose to require providers to make publicly available any reports or other documentation of such internal evaluations and assessments. However, in order to ensure compliance with the requirement to conduct such evaluations and assessments, and/or in connection with a Commission investigation into alleged digital discrimination of access, the Commission reserves the right to require production of such reports and documentation subject to the Commission's existing confidentiality rules. We seek comment on this proposal.

Components of Compliance Program

23. Effective Compliance Program. We propose to model our mandatory internal compliance program on previously established effective compliance programs, while not being overly prescriptive regarding how the compliance program is designed. Such models teach us that effective compliance programs should include, at a minimum: (1) development and implementation of written policies and procedures; (2) designation of a compliance officer and/or compliance committee; (3) conducting effective training and education regarding the purposes and operation of the compliance program; (4) developing effective lines of reporting and communication; (5) conducting internal monitoring and auditing; (6) enforcing standards through well-publicized disciplinary guidelines; and (7) responding promptly to detected problems through corrective action. We seek comment on whether these should be mandatory components of the compliance programs we propose to require. Which of these elements of an effective compliance programs should we require? Which elements should we not require, if any? Are there additional elements we should consider adding in order to ensure that the compliance programs effectively advance their intended purpose of facilitating equal access to broadband? Although we seek comment on each of these elements, we note that our goal is to grant each broadband provider the flexibility to develop and maintain a plan that contains the required elements and serves our intended purposes without prescribing a particular formula as to how each required element should be implemented. We seek comment on whether such flexibility will be beneficial or detrimental to the implementation of effective internal compliance programs by providers.

24. Implementing Written Policies and Procedures. We seek comment on requiring providers to implement internal written policies and procedures with the goal of preventing digital discrimination of access and promoting equal access to broadband internet access service. In the compliance program, are written policies and procedures necessary? What should those internal written policies and procedures include? Who should be knowledgeable about the rules and practices within the organization? How often should these written rules and procedures be reviewed, revised, and updated? Are there any available models that providers can look to when devising their internal policies and procedures to prevent digital discrimination of access and promote equal access?

25. Designating a Compliance Officer and/or Compliance Committee. We seek comment on requiring service providers to appoint a designated compliance officer or establish a compliance committee to ensure compliance with the program's requirements and timely cooperation with the Commission upon request. Is it necessary to designate a compliance officer or establish a compliance committee for the successful implementation of the compliance program? What should the qualifications of the selected compliance officer and compliance committee members be? What should the structure of a compliance committee be, how often should it meet, and what should be its functions? Should the designated compliance officer be required to provide that certification?

26. Conducting Effective Training on Commission Rules. We seek comment on requiring service providers to conduct periodic training for relevant employees on the Commission's digital discrimination of access rules. Who should conduct the training, who should be required to take the training, and how often should they be required to do so? How should the substantive content of the training be developed and what should it cover? Should the content of the training be certified or approved by the Commission in some manner? If so, how often should such certification or approval take place? Providers likely already have compliance programs and employee trainings to maintain compliance with regulatory requirements at many levels. What would be the additional burden for providers to incorporate compliance with digital discrimination of access rules into their existing compliance programs?

27. Developing Effective Lines of Reporting and Communication. We propose requiring broadband providers to put in place mechanisms and processes that: (1) encourage the internal reporting of matters that may constitute, or lead to, digital discrimination of access or otherwise impede equal access to broadband service; (2) channel those concerns to the compliance officer and/or compliance committee for evaluation and response, if warranted; and (3) ensure effective “up the chain” reporting by compliance officers and committees so senior officers are made aware of these matters and can take appropriate action to prevent their recurrence. We seek comment on this proposal. What system(s) can providers implement to encourage employees to raise concerns about potentially problematic conduct? What should be the reporting chain above the compliance officer and compliance committee to ensure that equal access concerns are given the highest possible priority by the provider? Are there other mechanisms and processes that we should require to achieve effective lines of reporting and communication regarding equal-access-related matters?

28. Conducting Internal Monitoring and Auditing. We seek comment on requiring broadband providers to perform periodic reviews of the compliance program and respond quickly to correct problems when they are detected. Who should conduct such periodic reviews and how often should they be conducted? What systems can providers put in place to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the program and its compliance with the requirements we ultimately adopt for such programs?

29. Responding Promptly to Detected Problems and Undertaking Corrective Action. We seek comment on what requirements we should adopt regarding the handling of problems reported by the compliance officer or committee to senior management, especially when no corrective action has been taken. What obligations would a compliance officer or committee have under those circumstances? What recourse would a compliance officer or committee have if a provider routinely fails to address reported violations of our rules? Should we require, in such instances, that the compliance officer report the matter to the Commission? Could a compliance officer truthfully certify that a compliance program consistent with our rules has been maintained throughout the certification period if reported violations of our rules are routinely ignored by the provider? We seek comment on these matters.

Evaluations of Recently Completed, Pending, and Planned Projects

30. We seek comment on requiring providers to conduct annually an internal evaluation of recently completed, pending, and planned deployment, upgrade, and maintenance projects affecting 500 or more housing units. With respect to each such project, the internal evaluation should consist of a comparison of the demographics of the communities served by that project with the demographics of the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) encompassing those served communities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention define MSA as “a geographic entity based on a county or a group of counties with at least one urbanized area with a population of at least 50,000 and adjacent counties with economic ties to the central area.” While the purpose of our proposal to require submission of annual reports to the Commission is to promote greater transparency regarding what communities are served by recently completed projects, the goal of our proposal to require periodic internal evaluation of large-scale projects is to facilitate close internal scrutiny of the provider's policies and practices affecting broadband access, determine whether those policies and practices advance or impede equal access to broadband service, and promote accountability regarding policies and practices that impede (or threaten to impede) equal access without adequate justification. Moreover, while our proposal regarding annual reporting would apply only to recently completed (or substantially completed) projects of a certain size, our proposal with respect to periodic internal evaluations would also apply to pending and planned projects. We seek comment on this proposal, and we specifically seek comment on: (1) how we should define “pending” projects and “planned” projects under this proposal; and (2) whether MSAs are the appropriate geographic comparator for the internal evaluation of covered projects.

31. We do not propose to prescribe the manner in which providers compare the demographics of served communities with the demographics of the MSAs encompassing those communities. We would require only that such comparisons be conducted with analytical rigor and in good faith using official data and reports of the U.S. Census Bureau, and that they be reasonably designed to uncover meaningful disparities between the reported demographics of served communities and the reported demographics of the MSAs encompassing those served communities. According to the Census Bureau, an MSA consists of one or more counties that contain a city of 50,000 or more inhabitants, or contain a Census Bureau-defined urbanized area (UA) and have a total population of at least 100,000 (75,000 in New England). While we would never expect precise numerical alignment with respect to any single project, we believe that routinely conducting these comparisons will give providers a better sense of what communities are being served (and not served) by their projects over time, and will help to “smoke out” policies and practices that discriminate without adequate justification. We seek comment on this proposal.

Evaluations of Policies and Practices

32. Evaluation and Assessment of Policies and Practices. We seek comment on requiring providers to: (1) periodically evaluate their policies and practices affecting broadband access to determine whether they differentially impact consumers' access to broadband internet access service based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin, or otherwise impede equal access to broadband internet access service; and (2) report to senior management annually, and in writing, regarding the results of such evaluation. As noted above, the proposed requirement that providers periodically determine the demographics of communities served by designated broadband projects is intended to permit an assessment, over time, of whether the provider's broadband-related policies are effectively impeding equal access to broadband service. Those assessments should lead to critical examination of whether any policies and practices impeding such equal access are necessary and justified by legitimate business considerations and whether alternative policies and practices might reasonably be adopted and implemented in their place. We propose that compliance officers and/or committees be required to conduct such annual assessments and report annually to senior management, in writing, the results of such evaluations and assessments. This process will require providers to closely scrutinize policies and practices producing disparate impacts on prohibited bases or otherwise impeding equal access to broadband service. We believe these requirements are necessary to ensure that equal access to broadband service remains a top priority for providers, in fulfillment of Congress's instruction that the Commission “take steps to ensure that all people of the United States benefit from equal access to broadband internet access service.” We seek comment on this proposal.

Certification

33. Certification of Completion. We propose requiring providers to submit, in conjunction with the annual report proposed above, a certification that a compliance program satisfying all requirements finally adopted by the Commission was in place during the calendar year covered by the annual report. We propose that the certification be attested to by an officer and engineer as occurs with respect to the BDC, and that the provider's designated compliance officer (or the chair of the compliance committee) certify the same to the certifying officer and engineer. We seek comment on this proposal, including whether the designated compliance officer (or chair of the compliance committee) should be required to provide a certification directly to the Commission.

Exemptions

34. We also seek comment on whether any providers should be exempted from the proposed requirement to implement and maintain an internal compliance program meeting specified standards based on their size, footprint, or niche service area. Should we exempt providers that primarily serve consumers at the rural and Tribal level and, if so, why? What other providers should be exempted from these requirements, under what circumstances, and why? We seek comment on requiring providers who are entitled to an exemption under our rules to file a certification of exemption in lieu of a certification of compliance in conjunction with the annual report.

Recording and Retention Requirements

35. We seek comment on what records providers should be required to retain, and for how long, relating to the internal assessments of the projects described in the preceding paragraphs. Once a summary report of the internal assessment for a specific project is completed, should the provider be required to retain the underlying documents for some period of time? Should there be different retention periods for the summary reports than for the underlying documents?

Office of Civil Rights

36. We seek further, focused comment on establishing an Office of Civil Rights, as both advocates and broadband service providers have urged. In particular, we seek comment on the potential benefits establishing such an office. For example, would such an office be helpful in developing and maintaining the expertise to evaluate the effects of Commission policy initiatives on historically marginalized communities? Could it assist in determining when prohibited discrimination has occurred and aid in developing remedies for such discrimination? Might it help in evaluating claims and possible patterns of digital discrimination of access? And could it aid in monitoring informal complaints alleging digital discrimination of access and other forms of prohibited discrimination, as well as in the mediation process we have outlined in the Order? Why or why not? What other benefits might be associated with establishing an Office of Civil Rights? For example, could it work with broadband service providers to proactively mitigate potential instances of prohibited discrimination? Could such an office collaborate with broadband service providers and Federal and state governments to develop broadband adoption and digital literacy skills training that could be used on a nationwide basis? Could such an office be employed to address other substantive Commission policy issues and processes beyond matters arising under section 60506? If so, what other issues might an Office of Civil Rights oversee or how could it support other bureaus and offices in the Commission? Finally, what are the potential challenges associated with establishing an Office of Civil Rights? How should the Commission address these challenges? What are the costs associated with establishing an Office of Civil Rights? How should the Commission structure and staff such an office? What other structural and organizational changes would be required to establish such an office?

Other Efforts To Promote Digital Equity and Inclusion

37. Digital Equity. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality, invites comments on any equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. We define the term “equity” consistent with Executive Order 13985 as the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality. Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well as the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority.

Procedural Matters

38. We have also prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact of the rule and policy changes contained in the Further Notice. Comments must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Further Notice indicated on the first page of this document and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.

39. Paperwork Reduction Act. The Further Notice also may contain proposed new and revised information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Ordering Clauses

40. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the Secretary shall send a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

41. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( Further Notice). The Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page of the Further Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Further Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

42. In the Further Notice, the Commission takes additional steps to advance its efforts to fulfill the congressional direction in section 60506 of the Infrastructure Act to facilitate equal access to broadband internet access service by preventing digital discrimination of access, proposing rules that will address disparities in broadband availability and service offerings. Specifically, the Further Notice seeks comment on affirmative obligations that might be undertaken by broadband providers by complementing proposed rules adopted in the Report and Order, with a focus on broadband providers' day-to-day business practices that might, in some instances, differentially impact consumers' access to broadband on prohibited bases. The Further Notice also proposes to require the reporting of this information on a state-by-state or territory-by-territory basis in a yearly supplement to the BDC so the public can see not only where broadband coverage is provided, but where and how providers are currently investing in their broadband networks and what communities are benefiting from those investments. Additionally, the Further Notice proposes to require providers to establish formal compliance programs related to digital discrimination of access and to conduct regular, internal assessments of what communities are served (and not served) by recently completed, pending, and planned large-scale broadband projects and whether their relevant policies and practices might differentially impact consumers' access to broadband service.

Legal Basis

43. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i)–(j), 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)–(j), 303(r), and section 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117–58, 135 Stat. 429, 1245–46 (2021), codified at 47 U.S.C. 1754.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

44. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and by the rule revisions on which the Further Notice seeks comment, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small-business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

45. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 32.5 million businesses.

46. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.

47. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate there were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number, there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments—independent school districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”

48. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local service providers.

49. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,737 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

50. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local service providers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 providers that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,737 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

51. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 1,227 providers that reported they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 929 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local exchange carriers can be considered small entities.

52. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services include several types of competitive local exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 3,956 providers that reported they were competitive local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 3,808 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

53. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small-business size standard ( e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees) and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

54. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 151 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 131 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry can be considered small entities.

55. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a “small cable operator,” which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer than 677,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will meet the definition of a small cable operator based on the cable subscriber count established in a 2001 Public Notice. Based on industry data, only six cable system operators have more than 677,000 subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of cable system operators are small under this size standard. We note however, that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.

56. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 115 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of other toll services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 113 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

57. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 797 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 715 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

58. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms “primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business with $38.5 million or less in annual receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 71 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 48 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, a little more than of these providers can be considered small entities.

59. Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for Local Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 293 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 289 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

60. Toll Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for Toll Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 457 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of toll services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 438 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

61. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of internet services ( e.g. dial-up ISPs) or voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms can be considered small.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

62. The Further Notice proposes two sets of affirmative obligations for broadband providers in furtherance of our mandate to facilitate equal access to broadband internet access service, including by preventing digital discrimination of access by requiring broadband providers to: (1) submit an annual, publicly available supplement to the Broadband Data Collection (BDC) describing, on a state-by-state or territory-by-territory basis, any large-scale broadband deployment, upgrade, and maintenance projects that were completed or substantially completed during the preceding calendar year and the communities served by such projects; and (2) establish a mandatory internal compliance program requiring regular internal assessment of (a) what communities are served by recent, pending and planned large-scale projects and (b) whether the provider's broadband-related policies and practices might differentially impact consumers' access to broadband without adequate technical or economic justification.

63. The Further Notice proposes to require the annual report as a supplement to the year-end BDC, and we assume that broadband providers would use the same criteria and data fields that are used in the BDC. The Commission seeks comment on whether the experts who certify the BDC submissions should also be required to certify the proposed annual report. The Commission also proposes that each provider adopt and maintain a formal internal compliance program that includes, at a minimum, elements from previously effective compliance programs: (1) developing and implementing written policies and procedures; (2) designating a compliance officer and/or compliance committee; (3) conducting effective training and education regarding the purposes and operation of the compliance program; (4) developing effective lines of reporting and communication; and (5) conducting internal monitoring and auditing. We propose to grant each broadband provider the flexibility to develop and maintain a plan that contains the required elements and serves our intended purposes without prescribing a particular formula as to how each required element should be implemented.

Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

64. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”

65. The Further Notice seeks comment on whether any of the proposed filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements can be minimized for small entities. For example, we request comment on whether existing data may be used with or in place of the proposed annual report to promote transparency in broadband investments. We also seeks comment on whether any broadband providers should be exempted from the requirement to submit an annual report or to implement and maintain an internal compliance program based on their size, footprint, or service area, including rural and Tribal areas. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether any of the costs associated with our digital discrimination of access compliance requirements can be alleviated for small entities.

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

None.