74098 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1 Modernizing and Expanding Access to the 70/ 

80/90 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 20–133, Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 6039 (2020), 

85 FR 40168 (Jul. 6, 2020) (70/80/90 GHz NPRM); 

47 CFR 2.106; see also 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 

FCC Rcd at 6040 through 41 paragraph 2 (providing 

additional details on existing Federal and nonFederal allocations in co- and adjacent bands and 

protections). 

2 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6040, para. 

1; see also id. at 6041, 6055 through 58, paragraphs 

2, 40, 42–45 (seeking comment—if the Commission 

authorizes links to endpoints in motion—on 

technical rules and interference mitigation 

measures such as restrictions or unique operating 

parameters that might be necessary to protect, inter 

alia, co-primary and adjacent Federal operations 

including vehicular radars, passive services, and 

Radio Astronomy Services). 

3 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6049 

through 58, paragraphs 22 through 45. 

4 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, 35 FCC Rcd at 6045 

through 48, paragraphs 10 through 17 (‘‘Antenna 

Rules’’); id. at 6048 through49 paragraphs 18 

through 21 (‘‘Link Registration Process’’); id. at 

6058 through 59, paragraphs 46 through49 

(‘‘Channelization Plan’’). In October 2021 the 

Bureau issued a document seeking to further 

develop the record on the use of High Altitude 

Platform Stations (HAPS) or other stratosphericbased platform services in the 70/80/90 band. 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks to 

Supplement the Record on 70/80/90 GHz Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 20–133, 

Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 14375 (WTB 2021), 86 

FR 60436 (Nov. 2, 2021). 

5Letter from Charles Cooper, Associate 

Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, 

National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, to Ronald T. Repasi, Chief, Office 

of Engineering and Technology, Federal 

Communications Commission, and Joel 

Taubenblatt, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, WT 

Docket No. 20–133 (filed October 17, 2023) (NTIA 

October 17 Filing). Attachment A to the NTIA 

Filing summarizes suggested interference 

mitigations based on collaboration between NTIA 

and the Federal operators identified in footnote 6, 

infra; Attachment B details the technical analyses 

performed by the same; and Attachment C proposes 

rule text for the Commission to consider. 

6Specifically, the TIG included representatives 

from the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, the National Science 

Foundation, the Department of the Air Force, and 

NTIA itself. Commission staff participated in 

regular information exchange meetings with the 

TIG. NTIA October 17 Filing at 2. 

planned Federal operations in these 

frequencies and in adjacent bands. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

November 8, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WT Docket No. 20–133, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties that 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. 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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 (Mar. 19, 2020), 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-windowandchanges-hand-delivery-policy. 

People with Disabilities. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Tignor, Broadband Division, 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

at (202) 418–0530 or Jeffrey.Tignor@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Public 

Notice, DA 23–988, rel. October 17, 

2023 in WT Docket No. 20–133. The full 

text of the document is available on the 

Commission’s website at: https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23- 

988A1.pdf. Text and Microsoft Word 

formats are also available (replace 

‘‘.pdf’’ in the link with ‘‘.txt’’ or ‘‘.docx’’, 

respectively). Alternative formats are 

available for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), by sending an email to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). 

Providing Accountability Through 

Transparency Act. A summary of this 

document is available at https://

www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings. 

Synopsis. With this document, the 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

(Bureau) seeks to refresh the overall 

record in WT Docket No. 20–133 and 

seeks comment, in particular, on the 

proposals in the NTIA October 17 

Filing. In its 70/80/90 GHz NPRM, the 

Commission proposed new and updated 

rules to further enable non-Federal uses 

of the 71–76 GHz, 81–86 GHz, 92–94 

GHz, and 94.1–95 GHz bands 

(collectively, the 70/80/90 GHz bands), 

which are currently allocated on a coprimary basis for Federal and nonFederal use.1 The Commission 

specifically committed to ‘‘coordinate 

any proposed rule changes with the 

affected agencies and the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration,’’ noting the need to 

‘‘work with NTIA to evaluate potential 

impacts associated with any new or 

expanded non-Federal use of shared 

allocations.’’ 2

The 70/80/90 GHz NPRM sought 

comment on a range of issues, including 

proposals by Aeronet Global 

Communications, Inc. (Aeronet) to use 

the bands to provide broadband service 

to aircraft and ships in motion.3 The 

Commission also made proposals and 

solicited comment in part relating to 

applicable antenna standards, the extant 

link registration process, and possible 

band channelization.4 Among other 

developments in this proceeding, on 

October 17, 2023, NTIA submitted a 

filing to supplement the record— 

comprised of a cover letter and three 

attachments—proposing technical rules 

and interference mitigation measures, 

including operating parameters for links 

to endpoints in motion in 71–76 GHz 

and 81–86 GHz, to protect current or 

planned Federal operations in these 

frequencies and in adjacent bands.5 The 

NTIA October 17 Filing is based on the 

work of a technical interchange group 

(TIG) comprised of representatives from 

affected Federal agencies.6

Federal Communications Commission. 

Blaise Scinto, 

Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23738 Filed 10–27–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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: 

• 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, Mason 

Shefa, at (202) 418–2494, mason.shefa@

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 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 https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC23-75A1.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 plainlanguage summary of the proposed rule. 

The required summary of this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking/Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is available at 

https://www.fcc.gov/proposedrulemakings. 

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 §§ 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/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). 

The proceeding this document 

initiates shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
74100 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Proposed 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 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 

§ 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 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 

§ 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? 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
74102 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 DAA@

fcc.gov, 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 ‘‘smallbusiness 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
74104 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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, NonInterconnected VoIP Providers, SharedTenant 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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, NonInterconnected VoIP Providers, SharedTenant 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
74106 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 208 / Monday, October 30, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

49 CFR Part 675 

[Docket No. FTA–2023–0018] 

RIN 2132–AB46 

Transit Worker Hours of Service and 

Fatigue Risk Management 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), Department of Transportation 

(DOT). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) is considering 

proposing minimum safety standards to 

provide protections for transit workers 

to obtain adequate rest thereby reducing 

the risk of fatigue-related safety 

incidents. FTA seeks public input in 

two areas: hours of service; and fatigue 

risk management programs. FTA seeks 

information to understand better current 

industry practices, priorities, 

requirements, and the costs and benefits 

of Federal requirements. The 

information received in response to this 

ANPRM will assist FTA as it considers 

potential regulatory requirements. 

DATES: Comments should be filed by 

December 29, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by docket number FTA– 

2023–0018, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for sending comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: Dockets Operations, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Dockets 

Operations, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) for this 

rulemaking. All comments received will 

be posted without change to https:// 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS