34974 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1,2,4-triazole-1-ylmethyl)-2-3Hfuranone) in or on the raw agricultural 

commodities tea, dried at 10 parts per 

million (ppm); and tea, instant at 10 

ppm. The analytical methodology 

column chromatography and nitrogen 

-phosphorus detection (NPD) gas 

chromatography detection is used to 

measure and evaluate the chemical 

fenbuconazole. Contact: RD. 

18. PP 8F8661. EPA–HQ–OPP–2018– 

0297. Cheminova A/S, P.O. Box 9, DK– 

7620, Lemvig, Denmark and on behalf of 

FMC Corporation, 2929 Walnut Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19104, requests to 

establish tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 

for residues of the fungicide flutriafol 

[chemical name (±)-a-(2-fluorophenyl-a-

(4-fluorophenyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole1-ethanol] in or on the raw agricultural 

commodities alfalfa, forage at 15 parts 

per million (ppm); alfalfa, hay at 50 

ppm; barley, grain at 1.5 ppm; barley, 

hay at 7.0 ppm; barley, straw at 8.0 

ppm; corn, sweet, forage at 9.0 ppm; 

corn, sweet, kernels plus cobs with 

husks removed at 0.03 ppm; corn, 

sweet, stover at 8 ppm; rice, bran at 0.4 

ppm; rice, grain at 0.5 ppm; rice, hulls 

at 1.5 ppm; and rice, straw at 0.9 ppm. 

The analytical methodology gas 

chromatography (GC) employing mass 

selective (MSD) detection and or HPLC/ 

UPLC employing tandem mass 

spectrometric (MS/MS) detection is 

used to measure and evaluate the 

chemical flutriafol. Contact: RD. 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a. 

Dated: July 10, 2018. 

Hamaad Syed, 

Acting Director, Information Technology and 

Resources Management Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15722 Filed 7–23–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 52 

[WC Docket No. 18–28, CC Docket No. 95– 

155; FCC 18–77] 

Text-Enabled Toll Free Numbers; Toll 

Free Service Access Codes 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission adopts a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

seeking comment to determine how a 

toll free subscriber should make clear its 

authorization to text-enable a toll free 

number. To ensure that a toll free 

subscriber has indeed authorized a toll 

free number to be text-enabled, the 

NPRM proposes requiring a toll free 

subscriber to inform its Responsible 

Organization (RespOrg) of that 

authorization and for the RespOrg to 

update the appropriate records in the 

toll free SMS Database. The NPRM also 

seeks comment on what other 

information, in addition to an SMS 

Database record reflecting that toll free 

number has been text-enabled, if any, 

needs to be captured and centrally 

managed to protect the integrity of the 

toll free numbering system, and whether 

such information should be captured in 

the SMS Database or some other toll free 

registry. The intended effect of this 

NPRM is to clarify and ensure that the 

toll free SMS Database accurately 

reflects which toll free numbers are text 

enabled. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

August 23, 2018, and reply comments 

are due on or before September 7, 2018. 

Written comments on the Paperwork 

Reduction Act proposed information 

collection requirements must be 

submitted by the public, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), and 

other interested parties on or before 

September 24, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by both WC Docket No. 18– 

28, and CC Docket No. 95–155 by any 

of the following methods: 

D Federal Communications 

Commission’s Website: http://

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

D Mail: Parties who choose to file by 

paper must file an original and one copy 

of each filing. If more than one docket 

or rulemaking number appears in the 

caption of this proceeding, filers must 

submit two additional copies for each 

additional docket or rulemaking 

number. Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, 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. All hand-delivered or 

messenger-delivered paper filings for 

the Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW, Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

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 445 12th Street SW, 

Washington DC 20554. 

D People With Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. In addition to 

filing comments with the Secretary, a 

copy of any comments on the 

Paperwork Reduction Act information 

collection requirements contained 

herein should be submitted to the 

Federal Communications Commission 

via email to PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicole 

Ongele, Federal Communications 

Commission, via email to 

Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Competition Policy Division, E. Alex 

Espinoza, at (202) 418–0849, or 

alex.espinoza@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 at (202) 

418–2991. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC 

Docket No. 18–28, and CC Docket No. 

95–155, adopted June 7, 2018, and 

released June 12, 2018. The full text of 

this document is available for public 

inspection during regular business 

hours in the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

It is available on the Commission’s 

website https://www.fcc.gov/document/ 

fcc-takes-steps-prevent-fraud-toll-freetexting-0. 

Synopsis 

1. Introduction. We next turn to how 

a toll free subscriber should make clear 

its authorization to text-enable a toll free 

number. To ensure that a toll free 

subscriber has indeed authorized a toll 

free number to be text-enabled, we 

propose to require a toll free subscriber 

to inform its RespOrg of that 

authorization and for the RespOrg to 

update the appropriate records in the 

toll free SMS Database. This proposal 

will ensure that there is a single, 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34975 

authoritative registry for what toll free 

numbers have been text-enabled by their 

subscribers. We also seek comment on 

what other information, in addition to 

an SMS Database record reflecting that 

the toll free number has been textenabled, if any, needs to be captured 

and centrally managed to protect the 

integrity of the toll free numbering 

system, and whether such information 

should be captured in the SMS Database 

or some other toll free registry. 

2. Toll Free Subscriber Responsibility. 

Our proposal that a toll free subscriber 

notify its RespOrg of its authorization to 

text-enable a toll free number is 

consistent with our Declaratory Ruling 

and will protect the integrity of our toll 

free system, both for traditional voice 

service and more recent texting services. 

Moreover, this requirement will ensure 

that text-enabling information is 

captured by the RespOrg for inclusion 

in the SMS Database, enabling the 

TFNA to protect the integrity of the toll 

free number system. Whether that 

information also should be captured in 

a separate toll free texting registry or 

registries is discussed below. 

3. RespOrg Responsibilities. We seek 

to make recording a subscriber’s 

authorization to text-enable a toll free 

number as simple and efficient as 

possible to further our policy goal of 

promoting the innovative texting feature 

of these numbers, while also protecting 

the use of toll free numbers for 

traditional voice service subscribers. 

Our current rules already establish the 

role and obligations of a RespOrg to 

‘‘manage and administer the appropriate 

records in the toll free Service 

Management System for the toll free 

subscriber.’’ We propose that this duty 

include the duty to update the SMS 

Database as to whether a number has 

been text-enabled, as well as to update 

the database should the subscriber 

choose to no longer use its toll free 

number for texting. Do parties agree 

with this proposed RespOrg obligation 

and the accompanying requirement? 

4. We believe that requiring RespOrgs 

to update the SMS Database when a toll 

free number is text-enabled will help 

alleviate concerns that unassigned toll 

free numbers could be text-enabled 

because the RespOrg, in attempting to 

update the database, would realize if the 

toll free number to be text-enabled is 

reserved by a RespOrg or not. If not, the 

toll free number may not be text-enabled 

as clarified in our Declaratory Ruling. 

Are there other approaches we should 

consider, such as the approach 

recommended by CTIA to allow the 

industry to decide how to implement a 

toll free subscriber’s authorization to 

text-enable a toll free number? What 

impact would such an approach have on 

the existing toll free system? Are there 

pros and cons to this approach and, if 

so, what are they? What other issues 

should we consider with respect to 

documenting a subscriber’s 

authorization to text-enable a toll free 

number? 

5. Text-Enabling Information To Be 

Captured. We also seek comment on 

what other information—beyond the 

subscriber’s authorization to text-enable 

the toll free number—should be 

captured and centrally managed to 

avoid confusion about the status of a toll 

free number and to prevent potential 

abuse, such as spoofing or fraud. Should 

we require inclusion of information 

such as the business name and address 

of the subscriber? Should we also 

require inclusion of a point of contact 

who can make decisions pertaining to 

the number? Should information be 

captured about the messaging provider 

that text-enabled the toll free number, 

such as its name and contact 

information? What about routing 

information? Does that information need 

to be captured in a centrally-managed 

database to ensure that sent text 

messages are properly routed and 

received? Is there any information that 

should be captured to manage the voice 

and texting aspects of a toll free number 

and to ensure that voice services are not 

interrupted by the text-enabling of the 

toll free number and vice versa? What 

other types of information might be 

necessary to protect the integrity of the 

toll free system that should be captured 

in a centrally managed database? 

6. Where To Include Text-Enabling 

Information. Are there reasons the 

Commission should establish a separate 

registry solely to enable and manage toll 

free text messaging, or could all relevant 

information about a text-enabled 

number simply be captured in a 

separate field or fields in the existing 

SMS Database? What would be the 

benefits of a separate registry? We note 

some commenters in the record claim 

that without a centralized toll free 

texting registry, ‘‘the toll-free voice 

industry is itself threatened because all 

toll-free number owners are now at risk 

by having their security, branding, and 

customers compromised by this 

dangerous situation.’’ Are there reasons 

these concerns could not be adequately 

addressed by adding a field to the SMS 

Database to reflect the text-enabling of a 

toll free number? Are there legal or 

administrative issues to including this 

information in the already established 

SMS Database? Would there be benefits 

to having all voice and text-enabled 

numbers registered in the SMS 

Database? 

7. Alternatively, if parties believe a 

separate registry is needed, who should 

have access to such a registry? Should 

it be limited to RespOrgs, or open to 

messaging providers or others (and, if 

so, whom)? Also, should we consider 

multiple registries or would having a 

single registry be more efficient for the 

toll free subscriber to address any issues 

or concerns raised by text-enabling and 

thereby more effectively prevent abuse 

or fraud? Would being able to access a 

single registry rather than multiple 

registries be less burdensome to 

RespOrgs and messaging providers? 

Would multiple registries cause 

confusion for entities that text-enable 

toll free numbers as to which registry to 

use? Would these entities need to know 

all the registries and be required to 

make sure a text-enabled toll free 

number is registered with each one? 

How would the Commission, state 

commissions, or law enforcement 

agencies manage a process that could 

require accessing multiple registries for 

information on a particular text-enabled 

toll free number? Would the sum of the 

costs of multiple registry administrators 

be higher than the costs incurred by a 

single registry administrator? 

8. Alternatively, are there benefits to 

a multi-registry system we should 

consider? CTIA argues that the 

Commission, ‘‘should not assume that 

the approach to selecting a single 

vendor of toll free registry services in 

the context of voice telecommunications 

services should be extended to 

messaging.’’ What are the benefits of a 

multi-registry system? Do they outweigh 

the efficiencies of a single registry? We 

invite interested stakeholders to address 

these questions. 

9. If we determine that a single toll 

free texting registry is appropriate, 

should we make, as recommended by 

some commenters, the TFNA the 

registrar as part of its overall toll free 

number administration responsibilities? 

The TFNA has developed a toll free 

texting registry—the ‘‘TSS Registry’’— 

which is being used by some industry 

members. Some commenters support its 

use as the single registry of text-enabled 

toll free numbers, and maintain that the 

TFNA is the proper entity to operate the 

toll free texting registry; it has already 

been deemed ‘‘impartial’’ by the 

Commission and is required to make toll 

free numbers available ‘‘on an equitable 

basis’’ pursuant to section 251(e)(1) of 

the Act. Would Somos, the current 

TFNA, be neutral in its role as operator 

of the toll free texting registry? 

10. On the other hand, some 

commenters oppose designating the 

current SMS Database or TSS Registry 

as the single authorized text-enabled toll 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
34976 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

free registry. Would such an approach 

‘‘lock the wireless industry into a 

monopoly relationship with Somos’’? 

Would allowing Somos to administer 

both the SMS Database and a separate 

toll free texting registry make the system 

a more likely target for a Denial of 

Service attack? What other concerns, if 

any, do commenters have? Are those 

concerns limited to designating Somos 

to manage the single text-enabling 

registry or do they extend to the 

Commission designating any 

administrator over a single database? 

11. Administration. We seek comment 

on issues that likely would arise should 

we determine, based on the record, to 

require a RespOrg to record a 

subscriber’s authorization to text-enable 

a toll free number in the SMS Database 

or to otherwise require such 

authorization to be recorded in any 

separately managed toll free texting 

registry. Initially, if adopted, our 

proposed rule would require any entity 

that text-enables a toll free number on 

behalf of a business or non-profit 

organization to reflect that number in 

the SMS Database, and we seek 

comment on whether such information 

also should be captured in any separate 

toll free texting registry. To ensure that 

we capture all text-enabled toll free 

numbers in any appropriate database or 

registry, we propose to apply this same 

requirement to those numbers that have 

already been text-enabled. We also 

propose that in order to effectuate this 

requirement, entities would be required 

within six months of the effective date 

of the new rule to enter into the SMS 

Database or any toll free texting registry 

all numbers they had text-enabled. We 

seek comment on these proposals. What 

registration process should be employed 

to enter all these numbers? Is six 

months sufficient time for the 

registration process to be completed? 

Would the benefit of having all textenabled numbers registered outweigh 

the burden of the registration process? 

12. Commission Role. We seek 

comment on what role, if any, the 

Commission should have in choosing a 

toll free texting registrar or registrars 

and in overseeing any toll free texting 

registries. In addition, section 251(e) of 

the Communications Act requires that 

the Commission create or designate one 

or more impartial entities to administer 

telecommunications numbering. The 

neutrality criteria set forth in 

§ 52.12(a)(1) of our rules explains the 

statutory requirement by adopting a test 

to establish neutrality. We expect that 

any entity that administers a toll free 

texting registry must meet the neutrality 

requirements of the Act and our 

implementing rules, just as Somos must 

meet those requirements in 

administering the toll free number 

database. We seek comment on these 

views. 

13. Maintaining Status Quo. Finally, 

we seek comment on the pros and cons 

of maintaining the status quo and not 

mandating that information about toll 

free numbers that have been textenabled be captured in either the SMS 

Database or in a separate toll free textenabling registry or registries. Should 

we take the view that toll free texting is 

a nascent offering which is still 

evolving, such that the Commission 

should not get involved in the registry 

issue at this time? If so, what are the 

advantages and disadvantages to such 

an approach? Are there any other 

potential impacts of our proposals on 

this emerging feature of toll free service? 

14. Legal Authority. As stated above, 

section 251(e)(1) of the Act gives us 

‘‘exclusive jurisdiction over those 

portions of the North American 

Numbering Plan that pertain to the 

United States’’ and provides that 

numbers must be made ‘‘available on an 

equitable basis.’’ Under the 

Commission’s rules implementing that 

section of the Act, a toll free subscriber 

reserves a number in the toll free 

database in order for it to receive calls 

made to that number. Accordingly, we 

retain ‘‘authority to set policy with 

respect to all facets of numbering 

administration in the United States.’’ 

15. In this NPRM, we propose, 

pursuant to that same authority, that a 

toll free subscriber must inform its 

RespOrg of its authorization to textenable a toll free number and that the 

RespOrg must update the appropriate 

records in the SMS Database. We 

believe these additional steps will help 

safeguard the toll free number 

assignment process in general and the 

toll free text-enabling process in 

particular by alleviating confusion about 

the status of a toll free number, and will 

also prevent any potential abuse, such 

as spoofing or fraud. For this reason and 

those previously discussed in this 

NPRM, the proposals herein further our 

statutory mandate to set policy on 

numbering administration in the United 

States. We also seek comment herein on 

a number of additional measures to 

promote these same goals and that, if 

adopted, would also rely upon our 

numbering authority under section 

251(e)(1) of the Act. We invite comment 

on the sources of authority discussed 

above. 

I. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

16. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in this 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM). 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 

in the DATES section of the NPRM. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

17. In this NPRM, we propose that a 

toll free subscriber must inform its 

RespOrg of its authorization to textenable a toll free number and that the 

RespOrg must update the appropriate 

records in the SMS Database. We 

believe this proposal will further 

safeguard the toll free text-enabling 

process, and fulfill our statutory 

mandate that numbers be made 

available on an equitable basis. We also 

believe this additional step are 

necessary to avoid any confusion about 

the status of a toll free number and to 

prevent any potential abuse, such as 

spoofing or fraud. We seek comment by 

interested stakeholders on this proposed 

rule. 

B. Legal Basis 

18. The legal basis for any action that 

may be taken pursuant to this NPRM is 

contained in sections 1, 4(i), 201(b), and 

251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 

201(b), and 251(e)(1). 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

19. 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 rule revisions, 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 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34977 

additional criteria established by the 

SBA. 

20. 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 here, at the outset, 

three comprehensive small entity size 

standards 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 SBA’s Office of 

Advocacy, in general a small business is 

an independent business having fewer 

than 500 employees. These types of 

small businesses represent 99.9% of all 

businesses in the United States which 

translates to 28.8 million businesses. 

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.’’ 

Nationwide, as of 2007, there were 

approximately 1,621,215 small 

organizations. Finally, the small entity 

described as a ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction’’ is defined generally as 

‘‘governments of cities, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts, with a population of 

less than fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census 

Bureau data published in 2012 indicate 

that there were 89,476 local 

governmental jurisdictions in the 

United States. We estimate that, of this 

total, as many as 88,761 entities may 

qualify as ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdictions.’’ Thus, we estimate that 

most governmental jurisdictions are 

small. 

21. 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.’’ 

The SBA has developed a small 

business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, which 

consists of all such companies having 

1,500 or fewer employees. Census data 

for 2012 show that there were 3,117 

firms that operated that year. Of this 

total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this size 

standard, the majority of firms in this 

industry can be considered small. 

22. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a size standard for small 

businesses specifically applicable to 

local exchange services. The closest 

applicable NAICS Code category is 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers as 

defined above. Under the applicable 

SBA size standard, such a business is 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to Commission data, census 

data for 2012 shows that there were 

3,117 firms that operated that year. Of 

this total, 3,083 operated with fewer 

than 1,000 employees. The Commission 

therefore estimates that most providers 

of local exchange carrier service are 

small entities that may be affected by 

the rules adopted. 

23. Incumbent LECs. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for incumbent local 

exchange services. The closest 

applicable NAICS Code category is 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers as 

defined above. Under that size standard, 

such a business is small if it has 1,500 

or fewer employees. According to 

Commission data, 3,117 firms operated 

in that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that most providers of 

incumbent local exchange service are 

small businesses that may be affected by 

the rules and policies adopted. Three 

hundred and seven (307) Incumbent 

Local Exchange Carriers reported that 

they were incumbent local exchange 

service providers. Of this total, an 

estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. 

24. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers (Competitive LECs), 

Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), 

Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and 

Other Local Service Providers. Neither 

the Commission nor the SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for these service 

providers. The appropriate NAICS Code 

category is Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers, as defined above. Under that 

size standard, such a business is small 

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

Census data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 

firms operated during that year. Of that 

number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Based on this data, the 

Commission concludes that the majority 

of Competitive LECS, CAPs, SharedTenant Service Providers, and Other 

Local Service Providers, are small 

entities. According to Commission data, 

1,442 carriers reported that they were 

engaged in the provision of either 

competitive local exchange services or 

competitive access provider services. Of 

these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. In 

addition, 17 carriers have reported that 

they are Shared-Tenant Service 

Providers, and all 17 are estimated to 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 

carriers have reported that they are 

Other Local Service Providers. Of this 

total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, based on internally 

researched FCC data, the Commission 

estimates that most providers of 

competitive local exchange service, 

competitive access providers, SharedTenant Service Providers, and Other 

Local Service Providers are small 

entities. 

25. We have included small 

incumbent LECs in this present RFA 

analysis. As noted above, a ‘‘small 

business’’ under the RFA is one that, 

inter alia, meets the pertinent small 

business size standard (e.g., a telephone 

communications business having 1,500 

or fewer employees), and ‘‘is not 

dominant in its field of operation.’’ The 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that, 

for RFA purposes, small incumbent 

LECs are not dominant in their field of 

operation because any such dominance 

is not ‘‘national’’ in scope. We have 

therefore included small incumbent 

LECs in this RFA analysis, although we 

emphasize that this RFA action has no 

effect on Commission analyses and 

determinations in other, non-RFA 

contexts. 

26. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a definition for 

Interexchange Carriers. The closest 

NAICS Code category is Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers as defined 

above. The applicable size standard 

under SBA rules is that such a business 

is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 

indicates that 3,117 firms operated 

during that year. Of that number, 3,083 

operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. According to internally 

developed Commission data, 359 

companies reported that their primary 

telecommunications service activity was 

the provision of interexchange services. 

Of this total, an estimated 317 have 

1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of IXCs are 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
34978 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

small entities that may be affected by 

our proposed rule. 

27. Local Resellers. The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for the category of 

Telecommunications Resellers. 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. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. Census data for 2012 

show that 1,341 firms provided resale 

services during that year. Of that 

number, all operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

these prepaid calling card providers can 

be considered small entities. 

28. Toll Resellers. The Commission 

has not developed a definition for Toll 

Resellers. The closest NAICS Code 

Category is Telecommunications 

Resellers. 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 has developed a 

small business size standard for the 

category of Telecommunications 

Resellers. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. Census data for 2012 

show that 1,341 firms provided resale 

services during that year. Of that 

number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

these resellers can be considered small 

entities. According to Commission data, 

881 carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provision of toll resale 

services. Of this total, an estimated 857 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of toll 

resellers are small entities. 

29. 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. The closest 

applicable NAICS Code category is for 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers as 

defined above. Under the applicable 

SBA size standard, such a business is 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Census data for 2012 shows that there 

were 3,117 firms that operated that year. 

Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer 

than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

Other Toll Carriers can be considered 

small. According to internally 

developed Commission data, 284 

companies reported that their primary 

telecommunications service activity was 

the provision of other toll carriage. Of 

these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or 

fewer employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most Other 

Toll Carriers are small entities that may 

be affected by the proposed rules, herein 

adopted. 

30. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. 

The SBA has developed a definition for 

small businesses within the category of 

Telecommunications Resellers. Under 

that SBA definition, such a business is 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to the Commission’s Form 

499 Filer Database, 500 companies 

reported that they were engaged in the 

provision of prepaid calling cards. The 

Commission does not have data 

regarding how many of these 500 

companies have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that there are 500 

or fewer prepaid calling card providers 

that may be affected by the rules. 

31. 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 appropriate size standard 

under SBA rules is that such a business 

is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. For this industry, U.S. 

Census data for 2012 show that there 

were 967 firms that operated for the 

entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had 

employment of 999 or fewer employees 

and 12 had employment of 1,000 

employees or more. Thus under this 

category and the associated size 

standard, the Commission estimates that 

the majority of wireless 

telecommunications carriers (except 

satellite) are small entities. 

32. The Commission’s own data— 

available in its Universal Licensing 

System—indicate that, as of October 25, 

2016, there are 280 Cellular licensees 

that will be affected by our actions 

today. The Commission does not know 

how many of these licensees are small, 

as the Commission does not collect that 

information for these types of entities. 

Similarly, according to internally 

developed Commission data, 413 

carriers reported that they were engaged 

in the provision of wireless telephony, 

including cellular service, Personal 

Communications Service, and 

Specialized Mobile Radio Telephony 

services. Of this total, an estimated 261 

have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 

have more than 1,500 employees. Thus, 

using available data, we estimate that 

the majority of wireless firms can be 

considered small. 

33. Wireless Communications 

Services. This service can be used for 

fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital 

audio broadcasting satellite uses. The 

Commission defined ‘‘small business’’ 

for the wireless communications 

services (WCS) auction as an entity with 

average gross revenues of $40 million 

for each of the three preceding years, 

and a ‘‘very small business’’ as an entity 

with average gross revenues of $15 

million for each of the three preceding 

years. The SBA has approved these 

definitions. 

34. Wireless Telephony. Wireless 

telephony includes cellular, personal 

communications services, and 

specialized mobile radio telephony 

carriers. As noted, the SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite). Under the SBA small business 

size standard, a business is small if it 

has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to Commission data, 413 

carriers reported that they were engaged 

in wireless telephony. Of these, an 

estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and 152 have more than 

1,500 employees. Therefore, a little less 

than one third of these entities can be 

considered small. 

35. Cable and Other Subscription 

Programming. This industry comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

operating studios and facilities for the 

broadcasting of programs on a 

subscription or fee basis. The broadcast 

programming is typically narrowcast in 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34979 

nature (e.g., limited format, such as 

news, sports, education, or youthoriented). These establishments produce 

programming in their own facilities or 

acquire programming from external 

sources. The programming material is 

usually delivered to a third party, such 

as cable systems or direct-to-home 

satellite systems, for transmission to 

viewers. The SBA has established a size 

standard for this industry stating that a 

business in this industry is small if it 

has 1,500 or fewer employees. The 2012 

Economic Census indicates that 367 

firms were operational for that entire 

year. Of this total, 357 operated with 

less than 1,000 employees. Accordingly 

we conclude that a substantial majority 

of firms in this industry are small under 

the applicable SBA size standard. 

36. Cable Companies and Systems 

(Rate Regulation). The Commission has 

developed its own small business size 

standards for the purpose of cable rate 

regulation. Under the Commission’s 

rules, a ‘‘small cable company’’ is one 

serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers 

nationwide. Industry data indicate that 

there are currently 4,600 active cable 

systems in the United States. Of this 

total, all but eleven cable operators 

nationwide are small under the 400,000- 

subscriber size standard. In addition, 

under the Commission’s rate regulation 

rules, a ‘‘small system’’ is a cable system 

serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. 

Current Commission records show 4,600 

cable systems nationwide. Of this total, 

3,900 cable systems have fewer than 

15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems 

have 15,000 or more subscribers, based 

on the same records. Thus, under this 

standard as well, we estimate that most 

cable systems are small entities. 

37. Cable System Operators (Telecom 

Act Standard). The Communications 

Act also contains a size standard for 

small cable system operators, which is 

‘‘a cable operator that, directly or 

through an affiliate, serves in the 

aggregate fewer than 1 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.’’ There 

are approximately 52,403,705 cable 

video subscribers in the United States 

today. Accordingly, an operator serving 

fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be 

deemed a small operator if its annual 

revenues, when combined with the total 

annual revenues of all its affiliates, do 

not exceed $250 million in the 

aggregate. Based on available data, we 

find that all but nine incumbent cable 

operators are small entities under this 

size standard. We note that the 

Commission neither requests nor 

collects information on whether cable 

system operators are affiliated with 

entities whose gross annual revenues 

exceed $250 million. Although it seems 

certain that some of these cable system 

operators are affiliated with entities 

whose gross annual revenues exceed 

$250 million, 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. All Other Telecommunications. 

The ‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’ 

industry is comprised of establishments 

that are 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. Establishments providing 

internet services or voice over internet 

protocol (VoIP) services via clientsupplied telecommunications 

connections are also included in this 

industry. The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for ‘‘All 

Other Telecommunications,’’ which 

consists of all such firms with gross 

annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. 

For this category, U.S. Census data for 

2012 show that there were 1,442 firms 

that operated for the entire year. Of 

these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross 

annual receipts of less than $25 million. 

Thus a majority of ‘‘All Other 

Telecommunications’’ firms potentially 

affected by our action can be considered 

small. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

39. The NPRM proposes and seeks 

comment on a rule change that will 

affect toll free text-enablement. In 

particular, we propose a revised 

definition for the Service Management 

System Database § 52.101(d). The NPRM 

seeks comment on this proposal. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

40. 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. 

41. In this NPRM, we propose that a 

toll free subscriber must inform its 

RespOrg of its authorization to textenable a toll free number and that the 

RespOrg must update the appropriate 

records in the SMS Database. We 

believe this proposal will further 

safeguard the toll free text-enabling 

process, and fulfill our statutory 

mandate that numbers be made 

available on an equitable basis. The 

NPRM also seeks comment on 

administrative issues to implement the 

proposed registry that would not be 

overly burdensome on RespOrgs and 

messaging providers. For example, we 

seek comment on whether toll free 

texting information should be included 

in the SMS Database or if there should 

be a single toll free texting registry, as 

opposed to multiple registries, to limit 

burden on RespOrgs and messaging 

providers some of which may be small 

entities. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

42. None. 

II. Procedural Matters 

A. Comment Filing Procedures 

43. 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 in the DATES

section of this document in Dockets WC 

17–192, and CC 95–155. 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. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
34980 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW, Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

• 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 445 12th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• 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). 

44. This proceeding shall be treated as 

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

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making ex parte 

presentations must file a copy of any 

written presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, 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 

§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

§ 1.49(f) or for which the Commission 

has made available a method of 

electronic filing, written ex parte 

presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

45. Pursuant to the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission 

has prepared an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

small entities of the policies and actions 

considered in this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. The text of the IRFA is set 

forth above. Written public comments 

are requested on this IRFA. Comments 

must be identified as responses to the 

IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines 

for comment on the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. The Commission’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, Reference Information Center, 

will send a copy of this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, including the 

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration 

(SBA). 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

46. This document may contain 

proposed new or modified information 

collection requirements. The 

Commission, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork burdens, 

invites the general public and the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) to 

comment on the information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document, as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, we seek specific 

comment on how we might further 

reduce the information collection 

burden for small business concerns with 

fewer than 25 employees. 

D. Contact Person 

47. For further information about this 

proceeding, please contact E. Alex 

Espinoza, FCC Wireline Competition 

Bureau, Competition Policy Division, 

Room 5–C211, 445 12th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20554, at (202) 418– 

0849 or Alex.Espinoza@fcc.gov. 

III. Ordering Clauses 

1. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant 

to sections 1, 4(i), 201(b), and 251(e) of 

the Communication Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201(b), 

and 251(e)(1) that this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is adopted. 

2. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 52 

Numbering. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend part 52 

of title 47 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 52—NUMBERING 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151–55, 

201–05, 207–09, 218, 225–27, 251–52, 271, 

332 unless otherwise noted. 

Subpart D—Toll Free Numbers 

■ 2. Amend § 52.101 by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 52.101 General definitions. 

* * * * * 

(d) Service Management System 

Database (‘‘SMS Database’’). The 

administrative database system for toll 

free numbers. The Service Management 

System is a computer system that 

enables Responsible Organizations to 

enter and amend the data about toll free 

numbers within their control, including 

whether a toll free number has been 

text-enabled. The Service Management 

System shares this information with the 

Service Control Points. The entire 

system is the SMS Database. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–15158 Filed 7–23–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS