Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-23903

Proposed Rule2023-23903

Numbering Policies for Modern Communications

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

October 30, 2023

Issuing agencies

Federal Communications Commission

Abstract

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes rules regarding direct access to numbers by providers of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services. The Commission takes this action in furtherance of Congress' directive in the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act to examine ways to reduce access to telephone numbers by potential perpetrators of illegal robocalls. These proposals aim to safeguard U.S. numbering resources and consumers, protect national security interests, promote public safety, and reduce opportunities for regulatory arbitrage.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 208 (Monday, October 30, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 208 (Monday, October 30, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74098-74107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23903]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52

[WC Docket Nos. 13-97, 07-243, 20-67; IB Docket No. 16-155; FCC 23-75;
FR ID 181538]

Numbering Policies for Modern Communications

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) proposes rules regarding direct access to numbers by
providers of interconnected Voice over Internet

[[Page 74099]]

Protocol (VoIP) services. The Commission takes this action in
furtherance of Congress' directive in the Pallone-Thune Telephone
Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act to
examine ways to reduce access to telephone numbers by potential
perpetrators of illegal robocalls. These proposals aim to safeguard
U.S. numbering resources and consumers, protect national security
interests, promote public safety, and reduce opportunities for
regulatory arbitrage.

DATES: Comments are due on or before November 29, 2023, and reply
comments are due on or before December 29, 2023. Written comments on
the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection
requirements must be submitted by the public and other interested
parties on or before December 29, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 13-97,
by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal Communications Commission's Website: <a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/">http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
<bullet> People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#24626767111410644247470a434b52">[email&#160;protected]</a> 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
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#99c9cbd8d9fffafab7fef6ef">[email&#160;protected]</a> or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a5ebccc6cac9c08beacbc2c0c9c0e5c3c6c68bc2cad3">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wireline Competition Bureau,
Competition Policy Division, Mason Shefa, at (202) 418-2494,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8de0ecfee2e3a3fee5e8ebeccdebeeeea3eae2fb">[email&#160;protected]</a>. For additional information concerning the
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained
in this document, send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#83d3d1c2c3e5e0e0ade4ecf5">[email&#160;protected]</a> or contact Nicole
Ongele, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#84caede7ebe8e1aacbeae3e1e8e1c4e2e7e7aae3ebf2">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second Further Notice) in WC
Docket Nos. 13-97, 07-243, 20-67, and IB Docket No. 16-155, adopted on
September 21, 2023, and released on September 22, 2023. The document is
available for download at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-75A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-75A1.pdf</a>. To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (e.g., Braille, large print, electronic files, audio
format, etc.), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1b5d58582e2b2f5b7d7878357c746d">[email&#160;protected]</a> 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 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking/Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is available at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
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 December 29, 2023.
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 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).
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/">http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> 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. 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), <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy</a>.
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" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="83e5e0e0b6b3b7c3e5e0e0ade4ecf5">[email&#160;protected]</a> 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.

[[Page 74100]]

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 December 29, 2023.
Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e)
way to further reduce the information collection burden on small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant
to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how
it might further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Synopsis

1. In this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second
Further Notice), we seek comment on the duties of existing direct
access authorization holders whose authorizations predate the new
application requirements we adopt today. We also seek comment on
whether direct access applicants should disclose a list of states in
which they seek to provide initial service. Finally, we seek comment on
a proposal to minimize harms that may arise from bad actors that access
numbering resources indirectly by holding their direct access
authorization holder ``partners'' accountable for their actions.

Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

2. By this Second Further Notice, we seek comment on the duties of
existing direct access authorization holders whose authorizations
predate the new application requirements we adopt today. We also seek
comment on whether direct access applicants should disclose a list of
states in which they seek to provide initial service. Finally, we seek
comment on a proposal to minimize harms that may arise from entities
that access numbering resources indirectly by holding their direct
access authorization holder ``partners'' accountable for their actions.

Updating the Duties of Existing Authorization Holders

3. Part III.A of the Second Report and Order focuses on new
applications for direct access to numbering resources. In the VoIP
Direct Access Further Notice, 86 FR 51081 (Sept. 14, 2021), however,
the Commission also asked whether some of the proposed new requirements
should also apply to existing authorization holders (i.e.,
interconnected VoIP providers that were granted direct access
authorization prior to the effective date of this Report and Order and
revised rules). In particular, the Commission asked about requiring
such existing authorization holders to certify compliance with E911 and
CALEA obligations; to certify they are not subject to a Commission, law
enforcement or regulatory agency investigation for failure to comply
with any law, rule, or order, including the Commission's rules
applicable to unlawful robocalls or unlawful spoofing; and to abide by
state numbering requirements and other applicable requirements for
businesses operating in the state. There were very limited comments on
this issue. Further, the VoIP Direct Access Further Notice did not ask
about applying other proposed new requirements, also adopted here, to
existing interconnected VoIP direct access authorization holders.
4. Given the limited record in response to the VoIP Direct Access
Further Notice, 86 FR 51081 (Sept. 14, 2021), about the applicability
of these proposed requirements to existing authorization holders, and
in order to allow the Commission to address at one time whether all of
the new requirements adopted in the Second Report and Order should
apply to existing authorization holders, we propose that the new or
revised certification, acknowledgment, and disclosure obligations set
forth in Part III.A of the Second Report and Order should likewise
apply to existing interconnected VoIP authorization holders.
Specifically, we propose to require existing interconnected VoIP direct
access authorization holders to provide the certifications,
acknowledgments, and disclosures required by the following sections in
Appendix A hereto, specifically Sec. 52.15(g)(3)(ii)(B) through (F),
(I), (K) through (L), (N), and (x)(A), within 30 days after the
effective date of an order adopting such rules for existing
authorization holders. We seek comment on this proposal.
5. The rationales for imposing each of these certification,
acknowledgment, and disclosure obligations on future authorization
holders, discussed in detail above, apply equally to existing
interconnected VoIP direct access authorization holders. Obtaining this
information from existing authorization holders would help the Bureau
more effectively oversee the universe of direct access authorization
holders by better enabling it to identify bad actors and preserve
scarce numbering resources, while also balancing the obligations evenly
for all authorization holders. Similarly, we propose to use the new
information we require existing authorization holders to submit to
determine whether a revocation of authorization, inability to obtain
additional numbers, reclamation of unassigned numbers, or enforcement
action may be warranted, just as if the information had been provided
as part of a new application or an update or correction to their
original application. We seek comment on this proposal.
6. With respect to these proposed requirements, we believe a 30 day
deadline appropriately balances the strong public interest of the
Bureau receiving this information against the burdens we anticipate
these requirements may place on existing authorization holders, and
seek comment on this conclusion. Do commenters agree that this deadline
would strike the right regulatory balance? Would requiring existing
authorization holders to provide the newly required certifications,
acknowledgments, and other information impose an undue burden that
would outweigh the potential benefits? Would requiring existing
authorization holders to provide the newly required certifications,
acknowledgments, and other information be necessary or appropriate to
avoid asymmetrical regulation among interconnected VoIP providers?
Alternatively, is this step necessary to narrow the gap in our
oversight ability to reach potential bad actors with respect to
numbering resources? Would declining to apply the new requirements to
existing authorization holders place the Commission at a disadvantage
in terms of investigating those authorization holders and enforcing the
rules that apply to them? Would relying on Commission enforcement
actions against existing authorization holders be as effective as the
proposed new requirements in combating unlawful

[[Page 74101]]

robocalling and addressing the concerns raised regarding foreign
ownership of entities with access to numbering resources pertaining to
the United States? Are there any legal barriers to requiring existing
authorization holders to provide the required information? Are there
other factors we should consider?
7. Executive Branch agencies' review of corrected information. We
propose to delegate authority to the Bureau to direct the Numbering
Administrator via public notice to suspend all pending and future
requests for numbers if the new information submitted by an existing
authorization holder indicates a material change or discloses new
information such that additional investigation is necessary to confirm
that the authorization continues to serve the public interest. If the
new information leads the Commission to refer the authorization holder
to the Executive Branch agencies, we propose to authorize the Bureau to
direct the Numbering Administrator via public notice to suspend all
pending and future requests for numbers until review is complete and a
determination is made. We seek comment on whether to use this process.
In the alternative, is there another process we should use?
8. Use of numbers after submission of updated or new information.
To avoid a disruption of service to customers during review of updated
or corrected ownership information, we propose to permit authorization
holders to continue to use numbers they obtained pursuant to our
current procedures while submitting updated or corrected ownership
information to the Bureau, unless and until the Bureau determines
otherwise after investigation. We seek comment on this proposal.

Disclosure of Initial Service Area in Direct Access Applications

9. We propose to require new interconnected VoIP applicants to
provide, in their direct access applications, a list of the states
where they initially intend to request numbering resources. This
proposal seeks to create parity with the requirement that other
providers show authorization to provide service in the area(s) for
which numbering resources are requested, which effectively requires
them to identify the states where they initially will request numbers.
It also would formalize the existing practice of the Bureau asking
interconnected VoIP applicants to provide a list of the states where
they intend to request numbers. We seek comment on this proposal. Would
it place an undue burden on interconnected VoIP providers to provide
this information? If so, how, given that all other providers are
required to provide this information? Is it consistent with promoting
symmetrical regulation? We also seek comment on whether requiring this
information will help state commissions be better prepared to address
interconnected VoIP provider applications pending at the Commission and
consequently prepare for new numbering requests in their states. Is
there a better way to help state commissions be aware of applications
that may affect the demand on numbering resources in their states from
new applicants?

Ensuring That Indirect Access Serves the Public Interest

10. We propose to require direct access authorization holders that
sell, lease, or otherwise provide telephone numbers obtained via direct
access to a voice service provider (an ``indirect access recipient'')
to: (1) obtain from the indirect access recipient all the same
certifications, acknowledgments, and disclosures the indirect access
recipient would have had to provide under Sec. 52.15(g)(3), had the
recipient applied for direct access to numbering resources itself; (2)
obtain from the indirect access recipient all subsequent updates or
corrections that would be required of a direct access authorization
holder under Sec. 52.15(g)(3); (3) retain a copy of all such
certifications, acknowledgments, disclosures, and corrections and
updates, to be provided to the Commission upon request; and (4) file
with the Commission a list of the voice service providers to which the
direct access authorization holder sells, leases, or otherwise provides
telephone numbering resources that it obtained directly, and update
that list within 30 days of adding any new indirect access recipient.
We propose to apply these duties on a prospective basis to existing
direct access authorization holders that provide telephone numbering
resources to indirect access recipients after the effective date of the
proposed new rule. We also propose to require future direct access
applicants to certify they will abide by these requirements. We seek
comment on these proposals.
11. As noted in the accompanying Second Report and Order, a key
reason for strengthening the direct access application requirements is
to enhance the Commission's ability to ensure interconnected VoIP
providers comply with regulations targeting illegal robocalls and other
important requirements, and provide information to help the Commission
address potential issues related to foreign ownership. As also noted
above, however, interconnected VoIP providers can obtain numbers
indirectly, such as from a competitive LEC that has a direct access
authorization. Because interconnected VoIP providers' use of finite
telephone numbering resources via indirect means raises the same
potential robocalling, access arbitrage, and other public interest
issues as use of numbers by providers with direct access, we seek
comment on whether it is appropriate for the Commission to apply the
same showings as required from interconnected VoIP providers that
obtain numbering resources directly. We simultaneously refer questions
to the NANC regarding the use and misuse of numbering resources
obtained indirectly in our accompanying Second Report and Order above.
We do so to ensure we have a fulsome record should we decide to take
action on this issue in the future.] We believe that by ensuring all
interconnected VoIP providers that receive access to numbers, whether
directly or indirectly, make the certifications, acknowledgments, and
disclosures required in direct access applications, the Commission can
improve its ability to protect consumers from entities that evade our
robocalling and other rules. In the Access Arbitrage proceeding, we
took steps to strengthen our protection of consumers by requiring that
an entity with direct access to numbers is responsible for the actions
of a provider it subsequently indirectly assigns some or all of its
numbers to. The entity receiving numbers directly is responsible (for
purposes of Access Stimulation traffic ratio calculations) for call
traffic to and from its OCN regardless of whether that entity
subsequently indirectly assigns those telephone numbers to other
providers. We seek comment on this position.
12. Do commenters agree that this process would accrue the benefits
to consumers that we describe? If so, would such benefits outweigh the
potential burdens on direct access authorization holders and indirect
access recipients? What are the negative consequences of this process
for consumers, providers, and competition? Would the proposed
requirements create a disincentive for direct access recipients to
provide numbers to indirect access recipients? If so, is that good or
bad for the public interest and consumers? For example, could this
process incentivize indirect access recipients to seek direct access?
How large is the secondary market for numbers obtained via direct
access?

[[Page 74102]]

Who are the main customers? How are resold numbers being used?
13. We seek comment on the Commission's role to enforce our rules
and obligations pertaining to direct access and numbering. What
enforcement actions could the Commission take, or what penalties could
it impose, on a direct access recipient that fails to obtain, retain,
or provide the Commission with the necessary certifications,
acknowledgments, and disclosures, or that fails to provide and keep
current a list of the indirect access recipients to which it provides
numbers? Could or should enforcement include revisiting or revoking the
direct access authorization holder's authorization? Would the
Commission have authority, if an indirect access recipient were
suspected or convicted of illegal robocalling or spoofing, to direct
the Numbering Administrator to stop providing telephone numbers to the
direct access authorization holder, and/or to prohibit the direct
access authorization holder from providing numbers to the indirect
access recipient? What other consequences, if any, should we consider
for the direct access authorization holder when a recipient on its list
is found to have violated the Commission's numbering rules or other
laws or regulations? We propose to apply the new duties prospectively,
but is there any reason why we should not require existing direct
access authorization holders to gather, retain, and provide the
required information regarding indirect access recipients to which they
have already provided numbering resources? If not, how much time should
we give existing authorization holders to provide information regarding
these indirect access recipients?
14. What other means should we consider to close the gap in our
visibility into the use of numbering resources and related activities
of indirect access recipients? How would these proposals address a
scenario in which an indirect access recipient provides numbers to
another indirect access recipient? Do indirect access recipients
provide numbers that they obtained indirectly to other providers? How
would or should we hold the direct access authorization holders
accountable for indirect access recipients of its numbers that are
further along this chain of providers?
15. Filing process. Regarding the list of indirect access
recipients to which a direct access authorization holder sells, leases,
or otherwise provides numbers it obtained directly, we propose
requiring direct access authorization holders to submit such list and
any required updates to the Commission via the ``Submit a Non-Docketed
Filing'' module in Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) established
for the VoIP Direct Access proceeding (Inbox--52.15 VoIP Numbering
Authorization Application) and via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2f6b6e6e6f494c4c01484059">[email&#160;protected]</a>, our email
alias for interconnected VoIP direct access to numbers applications. We
believe that this approach will facilitate informed and timely review
by interested members of the public and Commission staff, and we seek
comment on this proposal. Should the lists of indirect access
recipients be kept confidential, subject to a protective order, or
otherwise shielded from public access?

Legal Authority

16. We tentatively conclude that section 251(e)(1) of the Act,
which grants us ``exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the
North American Numbering Plan that pertain to the United States,''
provides us with authority to adopt our proposals. We seek comment on
this conclusion. In the VoIP Direct Access Order, 80 FR 66454 (Oct. 29,
2015), the Commission concluded that section 251(e)(1) provided it with
authority ``to extend to interconnected VoIP providers both the rights
and obligations associated with using telephone numbers.'' Consistent
with the Commission's well-established reliance on section 251(e)
numbering authority with respect to carriers and interconnected VoIP
providers, we propose concluding that section 251(e)(1) allows us to
further refine our requirements governing direct access to numbering
resources. We seek comment on this proposal. Consistent with the VoIP
Direct Access Order, 80 FR 66454 (Oct. 29, 2015), we also propose
concluding that refining our application and post-application direct
access requirements would not conflict with Sections 251(b)(2) or
251(e)(2) of the Act. We seek comment on this proposal.
17. We also tentatively conclude that section 6(a) of the TRACED
Act provides us with additional authority to adopt our proposal.
Section 6(a)(1) directs that: [n]ot later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall commence a
proceeding to determine how Commission policies regarding access to
number resources, including number resources for toll free and non-toll
free telephone numbers, could be modified, including by establishing
registration and compliance obligations, and requirements that
providers of voice service given access to number resources take
sufficient steps to know the identity of the customers of such
providers, to help reduce access to numbers by potential perpetrators
of violations of section 227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 227(b)). The Commission commenced the proceeding as required by
section 6(a)(1) of the TRACED Act in March 2020, and this Second
Further Notice expands on those inquiries. Section 6(a)(2) of the
TRACED Act states that ``[i]f the Commission determines under paragraph
(1) that modifying the policies described in that paragraph could help
achieve the goal described in that paragraph, the Commission shall
prescribe regulations to implement those policy modifications.'' We
propose concluding that section 6(a) of the TRACED Act, by directing us
to prescribe regulations implementing policy changes to reduce access
to numbers by potential perpetrators of illegal robocalls, provides an
independent basis to adopt the changes we propose to the direct access
process with respect to fighting unlawful robocalls, and we seek
comment on this proposal. Should we interpret section 6(a) of the
TRACED Act as an independent grant of authority on which we may rely
here? Section 6(b) of the TRACED Act authorizes imposition of
forfeitures on certain parties found in violation ``of a regulation
prescribed under subsection (a),'' which we tentatively conclude
supports our proposal to find that section 6(a) of the TRACED Act is an
independent grant of rulemaking authority. We seek comment on this
position. Should we codify or adopt any regulations to implement the
forfeiture authorization in section 6(b) of the TRACED Act, including
as to indirect access recipients, and if so, what regulations should we
adopt?

Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion

18. 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. Section 1 of
the Act provides that the Commission ``regulat[es] interstate and
foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make [such
service] available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United
States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion,
national origin, or sex.'' The term

[[Page 74103]]

``equity'' is used here 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

19. We have also prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact of the rule and policy
changes contained in the Second Further Notice. The IRFA is set forth
in Appendix C. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA.
Comments must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Second
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.
20. Paperwork Reduction Act. The Second Further Notice also may
contain proposed new and revised information collection requirements.
The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on the
information collection requirements contained in this document, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment
on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Ordering Clauses

21. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Secretary, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this
Second Report and Order and Second 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

22. 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 the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second
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 Second Further Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the
Second Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the
Second Further Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published
in the Federal Register.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

23. In the TRACED Act, Congress directed the Commission to examine
whether and how to modify its policies to reduce access to numbers by
potential perpetrators of illegal robocalls. Consistent with Congress's
direction, the Second Further Notice proposes to update our rules
regarding direct access to numbers by providers of interconnected VoIP
services to help stem the tide of illegal robocalls. Today, widely
available VoIP software allows malicious callers to make spoofed calls
with minimal experience and cost. Therefore, as we continue to refine
our process for allowing VoIP providers direct access to telephone
numbers, we must account both for the benefits of competition and the
potential risks of allowing bad actors to leverage access to numbers to
harm Americans.
24. The Commission first began to allow interconnected VoIP
providers to obtain numbers for customers directly from the Numbering
Administrator rather than relying on a carrier partner in 2015. Based
on our experience since that time, the Second Further Notice proposes
to adopt clarifications and guardrails to better ensure that VoIP
providers that obtain the benefit of direct access to numbers comply
with existing legal obligations and do not facilitate illegal
robocalls, pose national security risks, or evade or abuse intercarrier
compensation requirements.
25. First, we seek comment on a proposal to apply the new
application requirements adopted in the Second Report and Order to
existing authorization holders whose authorizations predate the
effective date of those new requirements. Second, we seek comment on
whether direct access applicants should disclose a list of states in
which they seek to provide initial service. Third, we seek comment on
our proposal to minimize harms that may arise from bad actors that
access numbering resources indirectly (i.e., without a direct access
authorization), by requiring the direct access authorization holders
that supply them with numbering resources to obtain from them the same
certifications, acknowledgments, and disclosures required of direct
access applicants.

Legal Basis

26. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 3, 4,
201-205, 227b-1, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153, 154, 201-205, 227b-1, 251, 303(r), and
section 6(a) of the TRACED Act, Public Law 116-105, 6(a)(1)-(2), 133
Stat. 3274, 3277 (2019).

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

27. 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 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.
28. 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

[[Page 74104]]

99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 32.5
million businesses.
29. 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. The IRS benchmark is similar to the
population of less than 50,000 benchmark in 5 U.S.C. 601(5) that is
used to define a small governmental jurisdiction. Therefore, the IRS
benchmark has been used to estimate the number small organizations in
this small entity description. We note that the IRS data does not
provide information on whether a small exempt organization is
independently owned and operated or dominant in its field. 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.
30. 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.'' This total is derived from the sum of the number of
general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township)
with populations of less than 50,000 (36,931) and the number of special
purpose governments--independent school districts with enrollment
populations of less than 50,000 (12,040), from the 2017 Census of
Governments--Organizations tbls.5, 6 & 10.
31. 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. Fixed Local Service
Providers include the following types of providers: Incumbent Local
Exchange Carriers (ILECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs) and
Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Cable/Coax CLECs,
Interconnected VoIP Providers, Non-Interconnected VoIP Providers,
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, Audio Bridge Service Providers, and
Other Local Service Providers. Local Resellers fall into another U.S.
Census Bureau industry group and therefore data for these providers is
not included in this industry.
32. 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 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146
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.
33. 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. Fixed Local Exchange Service Providers include the
following types of providers: Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers
(ILECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs) and Competitive Local
Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Cable/Coax CLECs, Interconnected VoIP
Providers, Non-Interconnected VoIP Providers, Shared-Tenant Service
Providers, Audio Bridge Service Providers, Local Resellers, and Other
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 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers
that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 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.
34. 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 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 1,212 providers
that reported they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that 916 providers have 1,500
or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority

[[Page 74105]]

of incumbent local exchange carriers can be considered small entities.
35. 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. Competitive Local Exchange Service
Providers include the following types of providers: Competitive Access
Providers (CAPs) and Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs),
Cable/Coax CLECs, Interconnected VoIP Providers, Non-Interconnected
VoIP Providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, Audio Bridge Service
Providers, Local Resellers, and Other Local Service Providers. 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 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 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 3,378 providers
that reported they were competitive local exchange service providers.
Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 3,230 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.
36. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
Interexchange 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 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 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31,
2021, there were 127 providers that reported they were engaged in the
provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 109 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.
37. 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. In this Public
Notice, the Commission determined that there were approximately 67.7
million cable subscribers in the United States at that time using the
most reliable source publicly available. We recognize that the number
of cable subscribers changed since then and that the Commission has
recently estimated the number of cable subscribers to traditional and
telco cable operators to be approximately 49.8 million. However,
because the Commission has not issued a public notice subsequent to the
2001 Subscriber Count Public Notice, the Commission still relies on the
subscriber count threshold established by the 2001 Subscriber Count
Public Notice for purposes of this rule. 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. The Commission does receive such
information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local
franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a
small cable operator pursuant to 76.901(e) of the Commission's rules.
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.
38. 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 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
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021,
there were 90 providers that reported they were engaged in the
provision of other toll services. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 87 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.
39. 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 2022 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511
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.
40. 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

[[Page 74106]]

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 $35 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 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 42
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, a little more than half of these
providers can be considered small entities.
41. 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 2022 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 207
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of local
resale services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 202
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.
42. 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.
43. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
prepaid calling card providers. 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 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2021, there were 62 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of prepaid card services. Of these providers,
the Commission estimates that 61 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.
44. 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

45. If adopted, the proposals in the Second Further Notice may
create new or additional reporting or recordkeeping and/or other
compliance obligations for small entities. Specifically, the Second
Further Notice proposes to apply the new application requirements we
adopt in the Second Report and Order to existing authorization holders
whose authorizations predate the effective date of those new
requirements. This proposal, if adopted, would impose new reporting and
compliance obligations on existing authorization holders. The Second
Further Notice also proposes requiring direct access applicants to
disclose a list of states in which they seek to provide initial
service, formalizing the existing practice of the Bureau. Additionally,
the Second Further Notice seeks comment on a proposal to minimize harms
that may

[[Page 74107]]

arise from bad actors that access numbering resources indirectly (i.e.,
without a direct access authorization), by requiring the direct access
authorization holders that supply them with numbering resources to
obtain from them the same certifications, acknowledgments, and
disclosures required of direct access applicants.
46. The Commission anticipates some of the approaches proposed to
implement the requirements in the Second Report and Order on existing
direct access authorization holders will have minimal or de minimis
cost implications because many of these obligations are required to
comply with existing Commission regulations. At this time however, the
Commission is not in a position to determine whether, if adopted,
proposals and the matters upon which we seek comment will require small
entities to hire professionals to comply, and cannot quantify the cost
of compliance with the potential rule changes discussed herein. We
anticipate the information we receive in comments including where
requested, cost and benefit analyses, will help the Commission identify
and evaluate relevant compliance matters for small entities, including
compliance costs and other burdens that may result from the proposals
and inquiries we make in the Second Further Notice.

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

47. 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.''
48. The Commission considered the possibility that burdens may be
imposed on interconnected VoIP service providers (small or large) if we
adopt rules that propose to strengthen requirements for existing direct
access authorization holders. The Commission welcomes comments on any
of the issues raised in the Second Further Notice that will impact
small providers. In particular, the Second Further Notice considered
and seeks comment on whether requiring existing direct access
authorization holders to meet the new requirements of the Second Report
and Order is necessary, or would be unduly burdensome, and whether the
proposed 30-day timeframe for compliance is sufficient. The Second
Further Notice also requests comment on possible burdens associated
with requiring direct access applicants to provide their initial
proposed service area and the states where they intend to provide
service and whether better options exist. In addition, the Second
Further Notice seeks comment on the potential burdens and impact of
requiring direct access authorization holders that sell, lease, or
otherwise provide telephone numbers to an interconnected VoIP provider
to obtain certifications, acknowledgments, and disclosures from them as
if they were applying for a direct access authorization.
49. The Second Further Notice proposes that authorization holders
be allowed to continue to use numbers they obtained prior to submitting
updated or corrected ownership information to the Bureau unless the
Bureau determines that the authorization must be revoked per the formal
revocation procedure we adopt in the Second Report and Order.
Alternatively, we seek comment on whether this step is necessary to
narrow the gap in our oversight ability to reach bad actors with
respect to numbering resources, and other factors the Commission should
consider to enforce these rules.
50. To assist in the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact
on small entities, as a result of actions that have been proposed in
the Second Further Notice, and to better explore options and
alternatives, the Commission seeks comment on whether any of the
burdens associated with the filing, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements described above can be minimized for small entities.
Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether any of the costs
associated with any of the proposed requirements to eliminate unlawful
robocalls can be alleviated for small entities. The Commission expects
to more fully consider the economic impact and alternatives for small
entities based on its review of the record and any comments filed in
response to the Second Further Notice and this IRFA.

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

None.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-23903 Filed 10-27-23; 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>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on October 30, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.