Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 47669 

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. 

III. Ordering Clauses 

37. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r), and 710 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and 

610, that this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is hereby adopted. 

38. It is further ordered that pursuant 

to applicable procedures set forth in 

sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on or before [thirty days 

after the date of publication in the 

Federal Register], and reply comments 

on or before [forty-five days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register]. 

39. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20 

Communications common carriers, 

Communications equipment, Radio. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend part 20 

of title 47 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 20—COMMERCIAL MOBILE 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 20 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a) 154(i), 

157, 160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 

303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316, 

316(a), 332, 610, 615, 615a, 615b, 615c, 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Section 20.19 is amended by 

revising paragraph (i)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 20.19 Hearing aid-compatible mobile 

handsets. 

* * * * * 

(i) Reporting requirements—(1) 

Reporting dates. Manufacturers shall 

submit reports on efforts toward 

compliance with the requirements of 

this section on an annual basis on July 

15. Tier I carriers shall submit reports 

on an annual basis on January 15. 

Service providers that are not Tier I 

carriers are not required to submit 

reports. Information in the reports must 

be up-to-date as of the last day of the 

calendar month preceding the due date 

of the report. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–22189 Filed 10–12–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 52 

[WC Docket No. 17–192, CC Docket No. 95– 

155; FCC 17–124] 

Toll Free Assignment Modernization; 

Toll Free Service Access Codes 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeks 

comment on allowing the Commission 

to assign numbers by auction, on a firstcome, first-served basis, by an 

alternative assignment methodology, or 

by a combination of methodologies. The 

NPRM seeks comment on allowing a 

secondary market for toll free numbers 

and on setting aside toll free numbers 

necessary to promote health and safety 

for use, without cost, by government 

agencies and non-profit health and 

safety organizations. The NPRM also 

seeks comment on whether to consider 

changes to overall toll free number 

administration. The intended effect of 

this NPRM is to make toll free numbers 

available on a more equitable and 

efficient basis by assigning mutually 

exclusive toll free numbers to the 

parties that value them most. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

November 13, 2017, and reply 

comments are due on or before 

December 12, 2017. 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 December 12, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by both WC Docket No. 17– 

192, and CC Docket No. 95–155 by any 

of the following methods: 

D Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: 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 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
47670 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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. 17–192, and CC Docket No. 

95–155, adopted September 26, 2017, 

and released September 28, 2017. 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 Web site at https://

www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposesmodernize-toll-free-number-assignment. 

Pursuant to sections 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), http://www.fcc.gov/ 

Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1998/ 

fcc98056.pdf. 

D Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. 

D 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 

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. 

D 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. 

D 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). 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. Toll free calling originated in 1967, 

and to this day remains an important 

feature of the communications system. 

Even with the growth of e-commerce, 

many businesses, large and small, 

continue to use toll free numbers for 

sales and customer service, as well as 

for advertising and marketing purposes. 

Government organizations and nonprofit health, safety, educational, or 

other non-profit public interest 

organizations also use toll free numbers 

to provide vital health and safety 

services to the public. While the 

Commission’s current rule uses a firstcome, first-served approach to the 

assignment of toll free numbers, to help 

ensure the continued usefulness and 

availability of this finite resource, we 

now examine alternative assignment 

methodologies. Specifically, we propose 

amending our rules to allow for use of 

an auction to assign certain toll free 

numbers—such as vanity and repeater 

numbers—in order to better promote the 

equitable and efficient use of numbers. 

With the opportunity afforded by the 

opening of the 833 toll free code, we 

propose to use an auction for assigning 

numbers for which mutually exclusive 

interest has been expressed. Mutually 

exclusive numbers are those toll free 

numbers for which there are two or 

more requests for assignment. In this 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(Notice), we also consider a variety of 

other means to modernize toll free 

number assignments that are consistent 

with our statutory mandate to make 

‘‘numbers available on an equitable 

basis.’’ 

II. Background 

2. Since mandating the porting of toll 

free numbers and introducing the 

second toll free code, 888, to relieve 

exhaust of the original 800 code, the 

Commission has sought to assign 

numbers in a manner that is equitable 

and efficient, and that fosters a smooth 

introduction of a new code. Doing so 

required the Commission to address the 

treatment of vanity numbers, those 

numbers that spell a name or word of 

value to the number holder (e.g., 1–800– 

FLOWERS), as well as repeater numbers 

that are easy to remember (e.g., 1–800– 

222–2222), as new codes open. 

Attempting to assign these desirable 

numbers equitably, the Commission in 

1997 initially permitted 800 number 

subscribers the right of first refusal to 

reserve corresponding numbers in the 

new 888 code. After the 888 code 

opening, however, the Commission 

adopted in 1998 the current first-come, 

first-served rule, codified in section 

52.111 of the Commission’s rules. 

Although the Commission considered 

auctions to be ‘‘generally efficient,’’ the 

Commission concluded at that time the 

first-come, first-served rule was a 

preferable mechanism for toll free 

number assignment. The Commission 

followed the first-come, first-served 

rule, with slight modifications made by 

the Wireline Competition Bureau 

(Bureau), for the next four code 

openings (877, 866, 855, and 844), as 

well as for those instances in which toll 

free numbers are released back into the 

pool of available numbers. For the 855 

and 844 code openings, as well as the 

release of valuable 800 numbers that 

had been disconnected, the Bureau 

limited Responsible Organizations to 

obtaining 100 numbers per day for the 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 47671 

first 30 days of the code opening to 

better ensure an efficient and equitable 

distribution of high value numbers in 

those two codes. 

3. In an attempt to extend the life of 

each toll free code, the Commission also 

prohibited warehousing, hoarding, and 

brokering of toll free numbers. Thus, the 

Commission’s current rules prohibit 

‘‘warehousing’’ of a toll free number, 

defined as the practice in which a 

Responsible Organization (RespOrg), an 

‘‘entity chosen by a toll free subscriber 

to manage and administer the 

appropriate records in the toll free 

Service Management System for the toll 

free subscriber,’’ 47 CFR 52.101(b) either 

directly or indirectly through an 

affiliate, reserves a number from the toll 

free database without having an end 

user subscriber for whom the number is 

being reserved. Similarly, the 

Commission’s rules prohibit the practice 

of ‘‘hoarding’’—the acquisition by a toll 

free subscriber from a RespOrg of more 

toll free numbers than the toll free 

subscriber intends to use for the 

provision of toll free service. And, 

finally, the definition of hoarding also 

prohibits number brokering, which is 

the selling of a toll free number by a 

private entity for a fee. 

4. Almost 20 years ago, the 

Commission considered an auction 

approach to toll free number assignment 

in the 1998 Toll Free Order. In doing so, 

the Commission recognized that 

auctions ‘‘offer all participants an equal 

opportunity to obtain a particular vanity 

number.’’ The order also determined 

that although auctions are ‘‘generally 

efficient,’’ it could not ‘‘say on the 

present record that auctions of vanity 

numbers would produce efficiencies 

that would outweigh the practical 

difficulties,’’ such as cost, 

administration, and impact on the 

international membership of the North 

American Numbering Plan (NANP). 

Recently, however, with the opening of 

the 833 toll free code, the Commission 

took steps to reevaluate number 

assignment by establishing a series of 

pre-opening procedures to identify toll 

free numbers that could be part of an 

auction or other alternative assignment 

methodology. Specifically, the Bureau 

directed each RespOrg to ‘‘submit a 

single request for up to 2,000 individual 

preferred 833 toll numbers.’’ The 

Bureau then directed Somos, Inc., the 

Toll Free Numbering Administrator 

(TFNA), to review all 833 number 

requests and identify mutually 

exclusive numbers—those numbers for 

which there are two or more requests for 

assignment. Somos identified 

approximately 17,000 mutually 

exclusive numbers and placed these 

numbers in unavailable status pending 

the outcome of this proceeding. These 

mutually exclusive numbers include 

repeaters numbers (e.g., 833–333–333 

and 833–888–8888) as well as numbers 

that spell memorable words and phrases 

(e.g., 833–DENTIST, 833–DIVORCE, 

833–DOCTORS, 833–FLOWERS, 833– 

HOLIDAY, 833–INJURED, and 833– 

LAWYERS). Somos notes that 147 

RespOrgs participated in the pre-code 

opening process and the top ten 

mutually exclusive toll free numbers 

were requested by 65 or more RespOrgs. 

The top 25 numbers were requested by 

48 or more RespOrgs, and the top 50 

numbers were requested by 43 or more 

RespOrgs. The remaining numbers were 

assigned as established in the 

Commission’s existing rule, that is, on a 

first-come, first-served basis. 

III. Discussion 

A. Distribution of Toll Free Numbers 

5. We propose expanding the existing 

toll free number assignment rule to 

permit use of an auction methodology, 

among other assignment mechanisms, to 

assign toll free numbers. To do so, we 

propose to revise section 52.111 of our 

rules to allow the Commission to assign 

numbers in a manner that is equitable, 

including by auction, on a first-come, 

first-served basis, an alternative 

assignment methodology, or by a 

combination of the forgoing as 

circumstances require. We seek 

comment on this proposal. 

6. We also seek comment on 

conducting a single round, sealed-bid 

Vickrey auction for the roughly 17,000 

numbers set aside, pursuant to the 833 

Code Opening Order, for which there 

were mutually exclusive requests. If 

adopted, we intend to consider the 

outcome of the 833 auction to determine 

if changes need to be made to future 

code opening assignments. In addition, 

we propose—and seek comment on— 

revising our rules to promote 

development of a secondary market for 

toll free numbers. 

7. Equity Considerations. Section 

251(e)(1) of the Communications Act 

directs the Commission to make 

numbers available on an equitable basis. 

The Commission has adopted rules to 

implement this obligation, as well as to 

serve the broader public interest in 

telephone number administration. We 

believe that toll free numbers generally 

can be made available equitably via an 

auction—under which RespOrgs bid for 

numbers valuable to them—and that in 

many cases, including with respect to 

the mutually exclusive 833 toll free 

numbers, such an auction approach 

would be more equitable than under the 

Commission’s current first-come, firstserved assignment rule. Parties who 

want particular toll free numbers often 

will have a better opportunity of 

acquiring those numbers, albeit for a 

price, in an auction than under the 

Commission’s current rule, which does 

not take into account the need for or the 

value placed on particular numbers. As 

discussed above, with respect to 833 

numbers, there are at least 65 RespOrgs 

that want the top-ten mutually exclusive 

numbers. This demonstrates that there 

is demand for certain mutually 

exclusive numbers, and thus we believe 

that auctioning these numbers would be 

a more equitable assignment mechanism 

than assigning them on a first-come, 

first-basis. We note that although a firstcome, first-served system may randomly 

assign mutually exclusive numbers, it 

may also less equitably reward actors 

that invest in systems to increase their 

chances that their choices are received 

first by the TFNA. Moreover, if we allow 

for a secondary market for toll free 

numbers, it would be inequitable for a 

RespOrg or subscriber to get a valuable 

public resource for free, but then later 

be able to profit from it even when 

others would have paid for it initially. 

8. We note that the first-come, firstserved rule has raised questions about 

whether recent toll free code openings 

were equitable because certain RespOrgs 

had enhanced connectivity to the toll 

free database that allowed them to 

quickly reserve desirable numbers. To 

address these concerns for the 855 and 

844 toll free code openings, the Bureau 

directed the TFNA to limit the quantity 

of toll free numbers a RespOrg may 

reserve to 100 per day for the first 30 

days. The Bureau found that this limited 

allocation would distribute desirable 

numbers more equitably. If the 

Commission adopts an auction 

approach for toll free numbers, such 

rationing of numbers would not be 

necessary. All bidders would have the 

same access to numbers in a new toll 

free code. We seek comment on whether 

this market-based auction approach 

would yield a more equitable outcome 

by allowing any RespOrg an opportunity 

to bid for numbers based on their 

valuations. 

9. Efficiency and Public Interest 

Considerations. In addition to meeting 

the statutory mandate of making 

numbers available on an equitable basis, 

an auction method of assigning toll free 

numbers is more efficient and serves the 

public interest in toll free number 

conservation. An auction assignment 

mechanism for mutually exclusive toll 

free numbers will promote efficiency by 

assigning these numbers to the parties 

that value them most. Moreover, toll 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
47672 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

free numbers are a limited resource that 

are often used inefficiently because 

there is no real cost associated with 

obtaining that resource. If subscribers 

and RespOrgs are required to pay for toll 

free numbers, they are more likely to 

acquire only the numbers they or their 

customers need; they will have no 

incentive to acquire numbers beyond 

those needed. Thus, we believe that a 

toll free number auction will help limit 

exhaust of toll free numbers and further 

the public interest. We seek comment 

on our analysis. 

1. Costs and Benefits of an Auction 

10. The investment by RespOrgs in 

enhanced connectivity to the database 

discussed above is evidence of strong 

competing demand among RespOrgs for 

toll free numbers. And the fact that the 

Commission places constraints on how 

many numbers a RespOrg can obtain at 

any point, and also on hoarding, 

suggests that certain toll free numbers 

are currently underpriced. We therefore 

believe that assignment via auction 

would more equitably and efficiently 

address this source of excess demand. 

Moreover, to the extent that, with the 

current assignment method, transaction 

costs impede or restrict the efficient 

assignment of toll free numbers, the 

public interest gains from implementing 

an efficient auction mechanism would 

be substantial. Thus, we believe that the 

equity and efficiency gains of an auction 

of mutually exclusive toll free numbers 

outweigh any costs of implementing an 

auction. We seek comment on this 

analysis. Also, if any commenters assert 

that an auction approach is inequitable, 

they should clearly explain why an 

auction approach would be inequitable, 

as well as how the current means of 

assignment, or some other means, 

would be more equitable. 

11. In arriving at our 833 number 

auction proposal, the Commission has 

considered the experience of the 

Australian Communications and Media 

Authority (ACMA) in auctioning toll 

free numbers. Between 2005 and 2015, 

the ACMA attempted to auction 1.8 

million unreleased ‘‘freephone’’ (toll 

free) and ‘‘local-rate numbers,’’ 

considered desirable (as vanity numbers 

or repeaters), which were branded as 

‘‘smartnumbers®.’’ The results of the 

auction show that the most desirable 

smartnumbers® were sold in highly 

competitive auctions early in the 

process. However, after the initial 

auctions within the first year of the most 

desirable numbers, the vast majority of 

smartnumbers® were uncontested and 

thus auctioned at set reserve prices. In 

reviewing the outcome of the ACMA 

auction, we propose, at least for the 833 

code, to auction only mutually 

exclusive toll free numbers for which 

there is some demonstration of demand, 

and to assign the rest on a first-come, 

first-served basis. We seek comment on 

how the Commission has considered the 

results of the ACMA experience in 

developing our own auction model. 

2. Auction Procedures for 833 

12. As discussed above, the 

Commission proposes to assign toll free 

numbers in a manner that is equitable, 

including by auction, on a first-come, 

first-served basis, by alternative 

assignment methodologies, or by a 

combination of these methods, as 

circumstances require. In this section, 

we seek comment on certain auction 

procedures for the roughly 17,000 

mutually exclusive numbers, which 

were set-aside in our 833 Code Opening 

Procedures Order. Specifically, we 

propose to use a single round, sealedbid Vickrey auction, as discussed below. 

We emphasize that our proposal 

discussed herein is limited to the setaside 833 mutually exclusive toll free 

numbers. If adopted, we intend to 

consider the 833 auction process and 

outcomes in deciding how to make 

future toll free assignments. In 

particular, we may decide whether to 

use the single round, sealed-bid Vickrey 

auction model or another auction 

model, to employ the current first-come, 

first-served policy, or an alternative 

assignment method, or combination of 

these methods, as circumstances 

require. We seek comment on these 

proposals. 

a. Single Round, Sealed-Bid Vickrey 

Auction 

13. Single Round, Sealed-Bid Auction. 

We propose to assign numbers using a 

single round, sealed-bid auction. This 

methodology would be used for the 

roughly 17,000 numbers set aside in the 

833 code. In such an auction, a bidder 

submits bids for individual numbers 

privately to the auctioneer. We propose 

use of a single round, sealed-bid auction 

here because such auctions are 

relatively easy to implement and to bid 

in and, therefore, less costly to both the 

auctioneer and participants than more 

complex multi-round auctions. 

14. We further propose an auction in 

which participants simultaneously 

submit separate bids for each number 

they are interested in, with the winning 

bid for each number being determined 

solely by bids for that number, 

independent of the bids for any other 

number. Thus, the proposed auction 

will not allow for package bids—bids for 

combinations of numbers. Thus, if a 

bidder values one number at, say $10, 

and another at $20, and the two together 

at $50, the bidder cannot place three 

bids, one of $10 for the first number, a 

second of $20 for the second, and a 

third of $50 for both. Instead, only two 

bids can be placed, one for each of the 

two numbers, with no guarantee both 

numbers will be won. While it is likely 

that some bidders may demand more 

than one number in an auction, we do 

not believe valuation synergies, to the 

extent they exist, warrant allowing 

package bids. We seek comment on this 

proposal. We further seek comment on 

other advantages or disadvantages of 

allowing package bids. 

15. Vickrey (Single Round, SealedBid) Auction. To assign 833 mutually 

exclusive toll free numbers, we also 

propose to incorporate a Vickrey 

auction into the 833 auction procedures. 

In a Vickrey auction, the highest bidder 

for a number wins and pays the secondhighest bid for the number. If we 

determine that package bids are allowed 

in an auction, then the bidders who 

maximize overall revenue from the 

auction win and pay the opportunity 

costs (highest alternative value) of their 

bids as discussed in more detail in 

section IV below. 

16. A Vickrey auction could result in 

an equitable and efficient assignment of 

mutually exclusive toll free numbers. 

For example, in a Vickrey auction for 

one object, such as a toll free number, 

because the winner pays the second 

highest bid, the winner’s surplus (the 

winner’s value minus the amount paid), 

does not depend on the winner’s bid. 

Since the amount paid is not a function 

of the winner’s bid, it is optimal for 

bidders in this type of auction to bid 

their valuation. This result rests on the 

assumption that bidder values are 

independent, i.e., a bidder’s payoff is 

only a function of that bidder’s 

estimates of value, and not a function of 

the opponents’ estimates of value. With 

interdependent valuations, bidding 

one’s value is typically not optimal. 

Independence implies bidders do not 

interact in a future circumstance, where 

any information gained by observing the 

auction’s outcomes (notably, if bid 

amounts are later made public) could be 

used. The result also assumes the 

auction’s rules are enforced. Similarly, 

bidders in a Vickrey auction with 

package bidding can do no better in 

equilibrium than to bid their valuations. 

As a consequence of truthful bidding, a 

Vickrey auction allocates the numbers 

efficiently to the bidders who hold the 

highest valuations. We do note that 

although a Vickrey auction may lead to 

an efficient outcome, are there 

disadvantages or costs to this approach? 

Furthermore, it might be undesirable for 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 47673 

bidders in a Vickrey auction to fully 

reveal their valuations in the auction, 

particularly when some bids become 

public information. We seek comment 

on using the Vickrey auction 

methodology for the 833 mutually 

exclusive numbers and ask parties to 

elaborate on the advantages and 

disadvantages of this proposal. 

17. Reserve Prices. Reserve prices (or 

minimum acceptable bids for a number) 

can help to improve revenue in an 

auction. However, our objective is 

primarily to increase the efficiency of 

toll-free number assignments. Since the 

numbers that are not auctioned are 

offered on a first-come, first-served basis 

at zero price, we recognize that an 

equitable assignment of numbers in the 

auction may be inconsistent with the 

imposition of a reserve price. 

Furthermore, establishing a level of the 

reserve price that is in the public 

interest may require precise information 

that is unavailable prior to running a 

first auction for toll free numbers. We 

seek comment on whether a reserve 

price should be imposed in the auction, 

and generally on the potential 

advantages and disadvantages of reserve 

prices in an auction of toll-free 

numbers. If a reserve price is imposed 

in the auction, what factors should we 

consider in determining a level of the 

reserve price that is in the public 

interest? 

b. Alternative Auction Methodologies 

18. Pay-Your-Bid Auction. An 

alternative methodology is a pay-yourbid auction whereby the highest bidder 

wins and pays his or her bid. A payyour-bid auction also has benefits. This 

type of auction is generally 

straightforward because, as the name 

suggests, the highest bidder for a 

number wins the auction and pays his 

or her bid. Moreover, the pay-your-bid 

auction may yield significantly higher 

revenues than the generalized Vickrey 

second-price auction. On the other 

hand, the pay-your-bid auction may give 

rise to an inefficient toll free number 

assignment because in a pay-your-bid 

auction, bidding to reflect true 

valuations is not usually optimal. 

Bidding one’s valuation in a pay-yourbid auction guarantees zero payoff: the 

difference between value and bid (the 

bidder’s surplus) is equal to zero 

whether one wins or not. As a result, to 

ensure a positive expected payoff, 

bidding below one’s value is optimal in 

the pay-your-bid auction. 

19. Open Auction. Although we 

propose a Vickrey auction, we seek 

comment on the use of an open auction. 

Open auctions can help bidders form 

more accurate expectations of the value 

of an object in environments in which 

bidders possess different and uncertain 

information about the objects for sale. 

Examples of open auctions include the 

traditional English auction where the 

auctioneer calls increasing prices, eBay 

auctions where ascending bids are 

placed over a period of time, and the 

simultaneous multi-round auction 

employed by the Commission for the 

allocation of electromagnetic spectrum. 

Open auctions offer bidders the 

opportunity for price discovery and can 

lead to more efficient outcomes. 

However, these types of auctions may be 

more costly to implement, and we 

expect the bidders’ valuations for toll 

free numbers will not be subject to 

significant uncertainty, as discussed in 

more detail in section IV below. 

Idiosyncratic is a term of art. An 

example of idiosyncratic valuations is 

where one person values a painting 

because it evokes certain memories, 

another values it because of the artist’s 

composition and technique, and a third 

values the painting because it fits well 

in a pre-selected space. The valuation 

that each person attaches to the painting 

is not changed by knowing whether or 

why the other persons like it. We seek 

comment on this issue. Would bidders 

change their valuations if they knew 

more about other bidders’ valuations? 

Would this new information be central 

to an increase in the efficiency of the 

auction? Are there other advantages and 

disadvantages of an open auction that 

we should consider? 

20. Other Auction Designs. Other than 

the auction designs and procedures 

discussed above, we seek comment on 

whether there are other auction designs 

we should consider. We believe that the 

auction design best suited to yield an 

outcome that is in the public interest 

depends in large measure on the 

institutional details of the toll free 

number market. We therefore seek 

comment from industry and interested 

stakeholders about the essential 

characteristics of the toll free number 

market that might be helpful to develop 

an auction design most suitable to serve 

that market and the broader public 

interest. We invite parties to provide 

any alternatives or offer further 

economic, legal, or logistical insights 

about these and other auction designs 

and procedures. 

3. Auction Eligibility 

21. We propose to allow only 

RespOrgs to bid in an auction; potential 

subscribers seeking mutually exclusive 

toll free numbers would need to 

approach one or more RespOrgs about 

placing a bid on their behalf. We seek 

comment on this proposal. We think our 

proposal is consistent with the 

RespOrg’s role as manager and 

administrator of toll free records in the 

TFNA database. Our proposal also 

reflects in part the importance of 

RespOrgs as market makers. Further, 

RespOrgs may have strengths in 

maximizing the valuation of certain 

numbers, for example, by piecing 

together geographic coalitions of 

subscribers who may be unable to 

coordinate by themselves. We seek 

comment on this proposal. We also seek 

comment on whether we should 

consider allowing subscribers to directly 

participate in an auction. Are there 

benefits to allowing their participation? 

Would an auction that includes both 

subscribers and RespOrgs be difficult to 

implement? Assuming we use an 

auction methodology for future code 

openings or other toll free assignments 

and identify mutually exclusive 

numbers, how should we define mutual 

exclusivity? Should we consider 

mutually exclusive numbers those 

numbers which two or more RespOrgs 

have requested, or numbers that have 

been requested by two or more 

subscribers? If mutual exclusivity means 

toll free numbers requested by two or 

more RespOrgs, is there a way to 

determine how many of these numbers 

are sought by more than one subscriber? 

Are there legal restrictions to allowing 

subscribers to circumvent their 

relationship with RespOrgs to 

participate directly in an auction, and 

would other provisions in our existing 

toll free rules need to be revised to 

allow participation by subscribers? 

22. The greater the number of auction 

participants, the more effective the 833 

number auction and subsequent toll free 

number auctions will be. We seek 

comment on ways to notify potential 

subscribers about auctions and 

encourage their participation through 

their chosen RespOrg(s). Should we 

consider including subscriber 

information in the TFNA database? 

Currently, the TFNA can notify 

RespOrgs about auctions—because the 

toll free database identifies the RespOrg 

for each number assigned—but it cannot 

notify subscribers potentially interested 

in bidding for a number because the 

database does not contain subscriber 

information. Would inclusion of 

subscriber information in the toll free 

database provide greater market 

transparency for auction bidders, 

improving the efficiency of the auction? 

Are the costs of including this 

information in the database significant? 

Would having subscriber information in 

the database be useful for other reasons, 

such as helping the TFNA and the 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
47674 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

Commission resolve disputes over the 

use of a toll free number or helping law 

enforcement agencies identify the 

subscriber for a number being used for 

unlawful purposes? Are there privacy or 

other considerations that would militate 

against including subscriber information 

in the database that would be visible to 

other bidders (as opposed to being 

visible just to TFNA)? 

23. We propose not to limit the 

quantity of toll free numbers RespOrgs 

can acquire through the auction and 

seek comment on this proposal. We 

think that limiting the number of bids 

that can be placed by a RespOrg in the 

auction may hamper efficiency because 

it may constrain primarily the bidders 

who hold the highest valuations. Do 

parties agree with this belief? If 

subscribers are allowed to bid for 

numbers, should we impose limits on 

the quantity of 833 numbers they can 

acquire in the auction? 

4. Auctioneer 

24. We seek comment on the 

characteristics of an auctioneer who 

would be able to put in practice the 

auction process we propose above at the 

lowest cost. Should we designate the 

TFNA as the auctioneer? 

5. Treatment of Auction Funds 

25. We propose that the net proceeds 

from any toll free number auction 

proposed in this Notice be directed to 

defray the costs of number 

administration. Specifically, we propose 

that auction funds be applied to offset 

the costs of toll free numbering 

administration by the TFNA within the 

NANP for the benefit of all RespOrgs 

and subscribers. This approach would 

include the administrative costs of 

implementing numbering auctions 

should the Commission designate the 

responsibility to the TFNA. The TFNA 

administers toll free numbers, which are 

part of the NANP numbering resources. 

The NANP is comprised of 20 member 

countries. We propose that the auction 

proceeds from any toll free auction be 

applied to offset the costs of the TFNA 

to equally benefit RespOrgs and 

subscribers in those member countries 

to the extent they pay fees to the TFNA. 

Commenters should address whether 

this approach is the best method of 

applying the proceeds from the auction, 

or whether alternative methods are 

preferable. We also seek comment on 

any legal, logistical, or international 

implications of this proposal, given the 

international composition of the NANP. 

Further, we do not believe that applying 

auction funds to offset the TFNA costs, 

within the NANP, implicates any U.S. 

fiscal statutes. Pursuant to our authority 

under section 251(e), the Commission 

has used a number of different 

approaches to collect funds to defray the 

costs of numbering administration 

without implicating, for example, the 

Miscellaneous Receipts Act (MRA). 

None of these cost recovery mechanisms 

implicated the MRA, and we do not 

believe that applying auction funds to 

offset the TFNA costs, within the 

NANP, would implicate the MRA, due 

to the Commission’s authority under 

section 251(e). We seek comment on 

this view. 

26. We also seek comment on 

implementation issues from applying 

auction funds to offset the TFNA. We 

currently require that the TFNA’s 

tariffed rates charged to RespOrgs be 

based on the cost of providing its 

services, determined on a year-by-year 

basis. What is the best way to factor in 

auction revenues? Because the TFNA is 

limited to recovering its revenue 

requirement, and must budget and 

adjust its fees accordingly each year, 

how should it account for additional 

revenues from a number auction? 

Should we create a system whereby 

auction proceeds realized in a given 

calendar year are held and remitted to 

the TFNA in the beginning of the 

following year (early January)? Or, are 

there alternative remittance systems that 

are preferable? 

27. If an auction generates more 

revenue than the TFNA revenue 

requirement for a particular year, parties 

should comment on how to allocate 

those additional funds. Should the 

TFNA retain any excess auction 

revenues, and apply them to the 

revenue requirements of future years? 

Alternatively, should such remaining 

auction proceeds instead be remitted to 

the NANP Administrator (NANPA) to 

defray the general costs of administering 

it? Would directing any excess proceeds 

in this manner benefit all users of the 

NANP across the 20 countries that 

comprise it? Are any of the federal 

statutes discussed above implicated if 

we handle additional auctions proceeds 

in this manner? 

6. Alternative Assignment 

Methodologies 

28. The Commission seeks comment 

on the costs and benefits of other 

possible assignment approaches for 

desirable 833 numbers. We classify 

assignment approaches as either marketbased, such as an auction, or 

administrative, such as a lottery or firstcome, first-served. Notwithstanding our 

proposal to adopt the market-based 

auction approach described above, an 

administrative approach may also have 

value. Therefore, we also seek comment 

on possible benefits and drawbacks of 

administrative assignments. 

29. We wish to use any 833 auction 

as an experiment to ensure that we 

develop well-tested rules going forward. 

After we review the record in response 

to this Notice, we anticipate adopting 

rules for auctioning the 833 mutually 

exclusive numbers. Upon completion of 

any 833 auction, the Bureau will report 

to the Commission on the outcomes of 

the auction and lessons learned. As we 

draw on the experience of the 833 

auction, the Bureau will refresh the 

record in this proceeding before the 

Commission considers adopting final 

rules for the distribution of other toll 

free numbers going forward. 

B. Secondary Markets for Toll Free 

Numbers 

30. Consistent with the market-based 

approach for assigning mutually 

exclusive toll free numbers, we seek 

comment on revising our current rules 

to promote development of a secondary 

market for toll free numbers generally. 

A secondary market would allow 

subscribers to reassign their toll free 

numbers to other subscribers for a fee 

(or other compensation) the parties 

negotiate. Under the Commission’s 

rules, RespOrgs are responsible for 

managing and administering toll free 

records on behalf of subscribers. See 47 

CFR 52.101(b). We do not propose to 

change those responsibilities in this 

Notice. We are mindful of long-standing 

Commission and legal precedent that a 

telephone number is a public resource 

that is not privately owned and cannot 

be sold. We seek comment, however, on 

whether we should change our rules so 

that even though a subscriber does not 

own a toll free number, he or she may 

reassign the right to use that number for 

a fee. For example, in a secondary 

market, a business owner who wants to 

sell his or her business may sell the 

right to use the toll free number 

associated with the business. This 

reassignment would benefit both the 

seller and buyer of the business. 

Therefore, a secondary market may be 

more equitable and promote economic 

efficiencies as the number would be 

better utilized by the new business 

owner than if it were returned to the 

pool of available toll free numbers and 

subject to first-come, first-served 

assignment. 

31. Current market realities appear to 

support a secondary market as an 

efficient and productive use of numbers. 

Despite the fact that toll free numbers 

are a public resource and neither 

carriers nor subscribers ‘‘own’’ their 

numbers, it takes little effort to find toll 

free numbers advertised for sale. An 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 47675 

Internet search for ‘‘toll free numbers for 

sale’’ produces numerous options to 

presumably buy and sell toll free 

numbers, as do online auction site 

searches for ‘‘toll free number.’’ Indeed, 

the Enforcement Bureau has taken 

action against an individual who, 

through his company, engaged in 

multiple rule violations, including 

brokering ‘‘15 toll free numbers for fees 

ranging from $10,000 to $17,500 per 

number’’ to a pharmaceutical company. 

The fact that some parties are willing to 

take the risk of participating in a black 

market to obtain toll free numbers 

suggests that there is significant demand 

for such numbers. We believe that 

creating a framework for lawful 

transactions in these secondary markets 

would be beneficial by permitting 

subscribers to legally obtain numbers 

which they value. Even outside the 

context of a business ownership change, 

RespOrgs and subscribers may wish to 

buy and sell toll free numbers among 

themselves based on the usefulness of 

the numbers. We seek comment on our 

proposal, and in particular, the impact 

of a rule change on our public resource 

precedent. 

32. We also seek comment on whether 

the TFNA should receive any 

transaction proceeds or charge any fees 

to offset number administration costs. 

Such funds could be used for the same 

purpose as we propose for auction 

funds: to offset the costs of toll free 

numbering administration by the TFNA 

within the NANP for the benefit of all 

RespOrgs and subscribers. Would this 

be an efficient use of funds? If we did 

charge a transaction fee for the transfer 

of toll free numbers in the secondary 

market, what amount should be 

charged? Are there legal constraints in 

charging a transaction fee for the 

transfer of toll free numbers? Are there 

international concerns if such fees went 

to offset costs of the NANP? 

Additionally, we seek comment on 

whether a RespOrg should be able to 

charge a fee for such transfers, and on 

whether such fees, if charged, should be 

regulated. Or, should we put in place 

some other mechanisms to prevent the 

abuse of any market power RespOrgs 

might have? Would a secondary market 

have an impact on settling trademark or 

branding disputes in desirable toll free 

numbers? 

33. Interested parties should further 

comment on what types of information 

the TFNA would need from the buyer 

and seller to document a reassignment. 

Would the TFNA need to develop an 

online system to record any 

reassignments in the secondary market? 

How will parties know when a number 

is available for reassignment, i.e., when 

a RespOrg or subscriber wishes to sell 

it? Should the Commission or the TFNA 

maintain a database that potential 

buyers could check, or should buyers be 

responsible for their own advertising of 

numbers for sale? How could the 

Commission or the TFNA help ensure 

members of the public are able to verify 

that an entity is in fact a RespOrg? Are 

there additional roles or functions the 

TFNA could perform or provide that 

would benefit functioning of a 

secondary market or market 

participants? 

C. Toll Free Number Administration 

1. Toll Free Number Rule Revisions 

34. We propose revising certain toll 

free number rules to support our market 

approach to assigning certain toll free 

numbers for new code openings, 

recovered toll free numbers, and in the 

secondary market. Specifically, we 

propose revising the first-come, firstserved rule, and seek comment on 

eliminating the brokering rule entirely. 

We also seek comment on revising the 

warehousing and hoarding rules. 

35. First-Come, First-Served Rule. We 

propose revising section 52.111 of our 

rules to allow for the assignment of toll 

free telephone numbers to RespOrgs and 

subscribers on an equitable basis by 

auction, on a first-come, first-served 

basis, by using an alternative 

assignment methodology, or by a 

combination of these approaches as 

circumstances require. We seek 

comment on this proposal. Are different 

or more specific parameters needed? It 

has been nearly 20 years since the 

adoption of the first-come, first-served 

rule. Are there other revisions to that 

rule we should consider? 

36. Brokering Rule. The Commission’s 

brokering rule prohibits RespOrgs and 

subscribers from selling a toll free 

number for a fee. We seek comment on 

eliminating the brokering rule as it 

directly precludes a secondary market 

for toll free numbers. Alternatively, we 

seek comment on whether the 

Commission should relax or suspend 

the brokering rule in any way. 

Commenters should address whether 

these approaches are consistent with the 

public resource nature of toll free 

numbers, while still promoting the 

economic efficiencies of a secondary 

market in toll free numbers. The 

brokering rule was adopted with the 

intention of equitably assigning 

numbers and minimizing number 

exhaust. However, we now question 

whether the brokering rule was a useful 

way to achieve those ends. We seek 

comment on whether there are any other 

modifications we should make to the 

rule in lieu of eliminating it to avoid 

any undesirable or unforeseen 

outcomes. 

37. Warehousing and Hoarding 

Prohibitions. The warehousing and 

hoarding prohibitions are intended to 

limit exhaust of toll free numbers by 

ensuring that numbers, once removed 

from the pool of available numbers, are 

used efficiently. We seek comment on 

whether these rules effectively serve 

their purpose or whether we should 

revise or eliminate these rules. If 

numbers could be stored, and traded, 

would market forces ensure their 

efficient assignment? Without these 

rules, will RespOrgs and subscribers 

hold numbers they no longer need, 

hoping to sell them later at higher 

prices? If they were to do so, could we 

discourage this practice by limiting the 

amount of time a RespOrg or subscriber 

may hold a toll free number without 

either using or selling it? That is, should 

we require that a number be ‘‘in use’’ 

within a certain time after it is obtained? 

What constitutes number ‘‘use’’ in this 

context? What time limit should we 

impose and how should we enforce that 

limitation? Should we consider 

increasing administrative fees on 

RespOrgs (which would be passed on to 

subscribers) to limit the amount of time 

a number is held? In the alternative, 

should the Commission eliminate these 

warehousing and hoarding prohibitions, 

along with the brokering prohibition, 

and rely instead on market forces to 

determine if and when toll free numbers 

are sold in the secondary market? 

38. Other Rule Revisions. We also 

seek comment on whether the 

Commission should eliminate or revise 

any other toll free rules. For example, 

should the Commission revise the 

definition of the Service Management 

System (SMS) Database in section 

52.101(d) to include subscriber 

information as discussed above? 

Moreover, section 52.103 of the rules 

contains a number of definitions and 

rules pertaining to the ‘‘status’’ of toll 

free numbers in the database and when 

these numbers are available for 

assignment to subscribers. The term 

‘‘status’’ refers to whether and how a 

toll free number is being used. What 

revisions, if any, to these categories 

should we consider to promote a 

secondary market? 

2. Toll Free Numbers Used for Public 

Purposes 

39. We seek comment on whether 

certain desirable toll free numbers 

necessary to promote health, safety, 

education, and other public interest 

goals should be set aside for use, 

without cost, by government (federal, 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
47676 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

state, local and Tribal) agencies as well 

as by non-profit health, safety, 

education, or other non-profit public 

interest organizations. Numerous 

organizations use desirable toll free 

numbers for a variety of purposes, such 

as for contacting the organization for 

information or assistance and for 

fundraising. For example, the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services uses 800–SUICIDE to support a 

network of suicide prevention hotlines. 

Parties should address the advantages 

and disadvantages of granting an 

exemption for certain governmental and 

non-profit health, safety, education, and 

other non-profit public interest 

purposes. How would such a system be 

implemented and administered? Would 

this system raise any First Amendment, 

statutory, or other legal issues? For 

example, how should such non-profit 

health, safety, education, and other nonprofit public interest organizations be 

defined; should definitions from other 

sections of the Act or the Commission’s 

rules be used? Should entities other 

than the ones described above—nonprofit health, safety, education, or other 

non-profit public interest 

organizations—be included in this 

definition or receive similar treatment? 

Should the Commission treat these 

purposes differently from other 

purposes for which desirable numbers 

are used? What are the pros and cons of 

each approach? 

3. Abuse of Toll Free Numbers 

40. We also seek comment on ways 

the Commission may address possible 

abuse of toll free numbers after they 

have been assigned to a non-profit 

health, safety, education, or other nonprofit public interest organizations or 

any purchaser in an auction or in the 

secondary market? Should the 

Commission propose a rule stating its 

ability to reclaim any toll free number 

that is used for fraudulent or otherwise 

unlawful purposes? Also, should the 

Commission create, or direct the TFNA 

to create, any terms and conditions for 

use of a toll free number purchased in 

an auction or the secondary market? 

Should the Commission codify its 

authority to reassign a number to 

another subscriber if there is a strong 

public interest need to use the number 

for another purpose. For example, 

following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the 

Commission reassigned 800–RED– 

CROSS from a for-profit corporation to 

the American Red Cross so it could 

facilitate the Nation’s response to the 

disaster wrought by Hurricane Katrina. 

4. Toll Free Number Assignment 

Management 

41. In light of the proposed changes 

to the toll free number assignment 

methodology in this Notice, we seek 

comment on whether the Commission 

should consider changes to overall toll 

free number administration. Since the 

Commission required designation of an 

impartial entity to administer toll free 

numbers, the TFNA has evolved from a 

Bell Operating Company operated 

organization, to a non-profit 

membership corporation. Somos, Inc., 

the TFNA—organized as an 

independent, non-profit corporation— 

administers the toll free SMS. Somos 

provides access to the SMS pursuant to 

the SMS Tariff that sets forth the 

regulations, rates, and charges 

applicable to SMS services, and 

describes the features and functions of 

the SMS. 

42. SMS 800 Tariff. Should we 

consider a different mechanism for toll 

free number administration than the 

tariff mechanism described above? The 

TFNA currently files a tariff that 

outlines the features and functions of 

the SMS, establishes RespOrg 

responsibilities and eligibility criteria, 

and sets forth the rates for service. The 

tariff also lists both the monthly and 

non-recurring charges for database 

access and other SMS services. In the 

1993 CompTel Declaratory Ruling, the 

Commission declared that RespOrg 

access to the SMS database ‘‘is a Title 

II common carrier service and shall be 

provided subject to tariff.’’ 

Subsequently, in 2013, the Commission 

found that the reorganized toll free 

administrator, now Somos, met the 

neutrality requirements required by 

section 251(e) of the Act and the 

Commission’s rules, so long as it files 

and maintains the tariff. 

43. Should the Commission consider 

a different regulatory treatment for SMS 

service? How, given the central role of 

the TFNA in the administration of toll 

free numbers, would we ensure the 

public is protected from unreasonable 

rates, terms, and conditions? 

Alternatively, if the Commission 

adheres to the current TFNA model, 

including its filing of a tariff, should the 

Commission require more transparency 

in Somos’s operations and budget? Are 

there other ways to make Somos’s 

financial information more transparent? 

Although the public tariff outlines 

Somos’s general operating procedures, 

certain information may be difficult to 

discern and other information is 

provided to the Commission under 

confidential cover. As a non-profit 

organization, Somos is only allowed to 

recover operating costs. Part of the 

Commission’s rationale in allowing 

Somos to reorganize as a non-profit 

membership was ‘‘any savings realized 

as a result of SMS/800, Inc.’s corporate 

restructuring is likely to be reflected in 

lower tariffed rates for RespOrgs, which 

should in turn lead to lower charges for 

toll free subscribers.’’ Would a more 

transparent, or itemized accounting of 

Somos’s costs further this goal and also 

better inform RespOrgs and subscribers 

of the costs of acquiring toll free 

numbers? We seek comment and ideas 

from industry on the roles of the TFNA 

and tariff as an important means to help 

us modernize toll free number 

assignment. 

D. Legal Authority 

44. The Commission has consistently 

found that the Act requires the 

Commission to ensure the equitable, 

efficient, and orderly assignment of toll 

free numbers. As noted above, section 

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

Commission ‘‘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.’’ Accordingly, the 

Commission retains ‘‘authority to set 

policy with respect to all facets of 

numbering administration in the United 

States.’’ In addition, the Commission 

has stated that sections 201(b) and 

251(e)(1) of the Act ‘‘empower the 

Commission to ensure that toll free 

numbers, which are a scarce and 

valuable national public resource, are 

allocated in an equitable and orderly 

manner that serves the public interest.’’ 

This exclusive jurisdiction over 

numbering policy enables the 

Commission to act flexibly and 

expeditiously on important numbering 

matters. We note the Commission has 

also relied on sections 1 and 4(i) of the 

Act to assign toll free numbers on an 

equitable and efficient basis. 

45. The Commission has promulgated 

toll free number rules to satisfy these 

congressional mandates. The proposed 

actions in this Notice—including the 

proposal to use a new simple, low-cost 

auction method of assigning toll free 

numbers; and modifications to our 

current rules to allow a secondary 

market for toll free numbers that would 

support market forces after a code 

opening—are intended to further and 

better satisfy these mandates. 

46. As we noted in the background 

section of this Notice, in 1998, the 

Commission previously considered 

using an auction approach to toll free 

number assignment. In the 1998 Toll 

Free Order, the Commission recognized 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 47677 

that auctions are both an equitable and 

a ‘‘generally efficient’’ assignment 

mechanism.’’ At that time, however, the 

Commission could not say ‘‘based on 

the present record that auctions of 

vanity numbers would produce 

efficiencies that would outweigh the 

practical difficulties,’’ such as cost, 

administration, and impact on the 

international membership of the NANP. 

Our proposal to implement auctions for 

mutually exclusive toll free numbers is 

consistent with the Commission’s 

previous finding that auctions are 

generally equitable and efficient. We 

believe that auctions would now be a 

more equitable and efficient approach to 

assignment of mutually exclusive toll 

free numbers and that the benefits of 

such auctions would outweigh any 

practical difficulties. We seek comment 

on this assessment. With nearly two 

more decades of experience and 

increased demand for toll free numbers, 

we seek to develop a new record which 

we believe will show that the 

efficiencies produced by the proposed 

auction will outweigh any practical 

difficulties. 

47. For the reasons previously 

discussed in this Notice, we believe the 

proposals herein are consistent with and 

further the Commission’s statutory 

mandate to make ‘‘numbers available on 

an equitable basis.’’ These proposals 

include a more efficient and marketdriven approach to assigning toll free 

numbers, better promote productive use 

of numbers, and reflect current market 

realities. We invite comment on the 

sources of authority discussed above. 

IV. Toll Free Auction Design 

48. In this Appendix, to assist 

interested stakeholders in preparing 

focused and detailed comments on the 

Notice, the Commission provides 

additional information on our interest in 

how potential bidders determine the 

value of toll free numbers, and on the 

Vickrey auction. 

Toll Free Number Valuations 

49. The way potential bidders in our 

proposed auction determine their 

valuations of coveted numbers, such as 

1–833–FLOWERS, can determine 

whether there are benefits from having 

a multi-round auction. One possibility 

is individuals’ valuations are 

idiosyncratic, that is, are inherent to the 

specific bidder, without commonalities 

or interdependencies in how subscriber 

valuations are determined. For example, 

potential bidders may develop their 

valuations based on the size of their 

merchant network, and their business 

models, and these valuations would not 

be changed if they were to discover a 

different bidder valued the same 

number differently. 

50. RespOrgs act as intermediaries in 

the toll free market. RespOrgs’ gains or 

surpluses from supplying a toll free 

number may be characterized by 

significant commonalities or 

interdependencies, that is, RespOrg 

valuations of toll free numbers may not 

be idiosyncratic. Instead, a RespOrg that 

observed another RespOrg with a 

significantly higher or lower valuation 

than its own might wonder if it was 

misinformed, and the other RespOrg 

knows something about the value of the 

number that it does not. A RespOrg 

derives surplus from acquiring a toll 

free number only to the extent that it 

can profitably supply it to a subscriber. 

This surplus is equal to the difference 

between the price the RespOrg obtains 

for the number, and the cost of 

supplying it. Differences in the 

technologies RespOrgs use to supply 

numbers, for example, to provide 

geographic-based calling, or in the 

markets the RespOrgs address may give 

rise to idiosyncratic differences in cost. 

However, if RespOrgs generally compete 

with other similar RespOrgs using the 

same technologies, seeking to supply 

the same subscribers with largely the 

same service, then the key factor that 

might lead such RespOrgs’ valuations of 

a number to differ is their assessment of 

the highest price that a subscriber is 

willing to pay for the number (since the 

relevant RespOrg’s have similar costs, 

and are supplying essentially the same 

service). While the Commission 

recognizes many RespOrgs have 

different business models, it also 

considers that in general RespOrgs 

largely use the same technologies to 

supply the same services to customers 

with a demand for certain types of 

valuable toll free numbers. For any such 

RespOrgs, the Commission does not 

view differences in the cost of supplying 

toll free number or their business 

models as giving rise to significant 

differences in competing RespOrgs’ 

surpluses from supplying a given toll 

free number. The Notice seeks comment 

on the extent to which this conclusion 

is correct, that is, on whether 

differences in the cost structure or 

business plans of various RespOrgs 

competing for the same customers using 

similar technologies may cause their 

surpluses from supplying a given toll 

free number to vary idiosyncratically. 

51. If the Commission is right about 

competing RespOrgs largely using the 

same technologies to satisfy the same 

business models, then the surpluses of 

different RespOrgs from supplying a toll 

free number are not likely to differ 

significantly ex post. However, the 

RespOrgs’ ex ante valuations of a toll 

free number may be uncertain. In 

particular, while many RespOrgs likely 

have a deep understanding of the 

market for toll free number, and, 

consequently, their valuations of a given 

toll free number might be fairly precise, 

other competing RespOrgs may not have 

a similar understanding of the market, 

and their valuations of a given number 

might be uncertain to some degree. If it 

is true that at least some competing 

RespOrgs have materially different 

estimates of customers’ valuations of 

certain toll free numbers than others, 

then an open auction might allow 

bidding RespOrgs to refine their value of 

the number or numbers they are 

bidding. However, the Commission 

believes that, overall, the RespOrgs’ 

valuations of a toll-free number are only 

slightly affected by uncertainty. We seek 

to understand the degree to which 

uncertainty affects some of the 

RespOrgs’ valuations of a toll-free 

number. 

The Vickrey Auction 

52. To formulate their views on a 

Vickrey auction with no package bids, 

as proposed in the Notice, commenters 

may find this example helpful. Suppose 

there are two bidders, A and B, and two 

toll free numbers to be assigned Number 

1 and Number 2. Bids are indicated by 

the dollar amounts in the table below. 

These bids should not be treated as 

indicative in any way of the expected 

value of any of the numbers auctioned, 

and are provided only as an example. 

BIDDING EXAMPLE TABLE

Bidder/No. 1 2 {1,2} 

A ....................... $10 $20 $32 

B ....................... 16 8 25 

53. In a Vickrey auction without 

package bids, but which allows 

simultaneous bidding over more than 

one number, only columns 1 and 2 are 

relevant. Bidder A obtains Number 2 

because it bid the highest amount ($20). 

Bidder A pays the highest non-winning 

bid for Number 2 ($8). Bidder B obtains 

Number 1, because it bid the highest 

amount ($16). Bidder 2 pays the highest 

non-winning bid for Number 1 ($10). 

Moreover, our expectation is that the 

four bids reflect the bidders’ true 

valuation of each number. This is 

because regardless of what other bids 

are made, a bidder can always do better 

by bidding its true value. If instead the 

bidder underbids, it may lose when it 

could have won by paying no more and 

potentially less than his value. If it 

overbids, it may win and potentially pay 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
47678 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

more than the object is worth to it. 

Therefore, it is optimal to bid his value. 

This assumes the rules of the auction 

are fully enforceable, and truth 

revelation in this auction would not be 

harmful to the bidders in other contexts. 

Consequently, if each number’s 

valuation was independent of the other, 

the auction would be economically 

efficient. It would assign the numbers to 

maximize value to the bidders. 

54. In a generalized Vickrey auction 

with package bids, given the bids found 

in the table, the numbers are also 

assigned as in in the non-package 

generalized Vickrey auction. A different 

allocation would emerge, for example, if 

Bidder A valued both numbers at 37. 

Then Bidder A would get both numbers. 

In this case, however, the payments 

required of the winning bidders change. 

As in the case of the non-package 

auction, the payments in the generalized 

Vickrey auction are equal to the 

opportunity cost (highest alternative 

value) of the items won by each bidder. 

However, as is the case in the table, this 

changes the opportunity cost of the bid. 

The payments required in the package 

auction are determined as follows: 

If Number 2 is assigned to Bidder B instead 

of Bidder A, then Bidder B would realize a 

value of $25 (because Bidder B would have 

obtained both numbers). By assigning 

Number 2 to Bidder A, the (opportunity) cost 

for Bidder B is $9 ($25 minus $16, the value 

for Bidder B from obtaining Number 1). If 

Number 1 is assigned to Bidder A instead of 

Bidder B, then Bidder A would realize a 

value of $32. By assigning Number 1 to 

Bidder B, the (opportunity) cost for Bidder A 

is $12 ($32 minus $20). Thus, the outcome 

of the generalized Vickrey auction is as 

follows: Bidder A obtains Number 2, for 

which it pays $9. Bidder B obtains Number 

1, for which it pays $12. 

55. Further, in such auctions, by 

similar reasoning to that provided for 

the non-package auction, the bidders 

best strategy is to bid their valuations. 

Accordingly, the highest value can be 

realized by assigning Number 2 to 

Bidder A and Number 1 to Bidder B. In 

this case, that value is $36: $20 for 

Bidder A and $16 for Bidder B. If 

Number 1 is assigned to Bidder A, and 

Number 2 to Bidder B, then the value 

of the assignment is $18. If both 

numbers are assigned to Bidder A, the 

value of the assignment is $32. If both 

numbers are assigned to Bidder B, the 

value of the assignment is $25. The 

generalized Vickrey auction assigns the 

two numbers to maximize value. 

Accordingly, the generalized Vickrey 

auction assigns Number 2 to Bidder A 

and Number 1 to Bidder B. Thus, the 

generalized Vickrey auction with 

package bids is economically efficient 

allocating the numbers to maximize the 

value to bidders. 

V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

56. 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 

(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 Notice. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, the Notice and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

57. In this Notice, we propose changes 

to, and seek comment on, our toll free 

number administration and assignment 

rules. While the Commission’s current 

rule uses a first-come, first-served 

approach to the assignment of toll free 

numbers, to help ensure the continued 

usefulness and availability of this finite 

resource, we now examine alternative 

assignment methodologies. The 

objective of the proposed rules is to 

create a more efficient method of toll 

free number assignment that is 

consistent with our statutory mandate to 

make ‘‘numbers available on an 

equitable basis.’’ Specifically, we 

propose amending our rules to allow for 

use of an auction to assign certain toll 

free numbers—such as vanity and 

repeater numbers—in order to better 

promote the equitable and efficient, use 

of numbers. With the opportunity 

afforded by the opening of the 833 toll 

free code, we propose to use an auction 

for assigning numbers for which 

mutually exclusive interest has been 

expressed. We seek comment on 

repealing or relaxing the prohibition on 

number brokering, thereby allowing toll 

free number secondary markets, and 

consider a variety of other means to 

modernize toll free number 

assignments. 

B. Legal Basis 

58. The legal basis for any action that 

may be taken pursuant to this Notice 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 

59. 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 

additional criteria established by the 

SBA. 

60. 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. 

61. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 47679 

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. 

62. 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. 

63. 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. 

64. 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. 

65. 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. 

66. 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 

small entities that may be affected by 

our proposed rules. 

67. 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. 

68. 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 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
47680 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

69. 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 rules adopted pursuant to 

the Second Further Notice. 

70. 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. 

71. 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 1000 

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. 

72. 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. 

73. 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. 

74. 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. 

75. 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 

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. 

76. 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. 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 47681 

77. 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. 

78. 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 

79. The Notice proposes and seeks 

comment on rule changes that will 

affect toll free number assignment and 

administration. In particular, we 

propose expanding the existing toll free 

number assignment rule to permit use of 

an auction methodology, among other 

assignment mechanisms, to assign toll 

free numbers. To do so, we propose to 

revise section 52.111 of our rules to 

allow the Commission to assign 

numbers in a manner that is equitable, 

including by auction, on a first-come, 

first-served basis, an alternative 

assignment methodology, or by a 

combination of the forgoing as 

circumstances require. We also seek 

comment on conducting a sealed, single 

round, sealed-bid Vickrey auction for 

the roughly 17,000 numbers set aside, 

pursuant to the 833 Code Opening 

Order, for which there were mutually 

exclusive requests. Auction procedure 

compliance will affect the toll free 

auction administrator and all RespOrgs, 

including those considered small 

entities, as described above. 

80. In addition, we seek comment on 

revising our rules to promote 

development of a secondary market for 

toll free numbers. We seek comment on 

what types of information would be 

needed from the buyer and seller to 

document a reassignment, whether an 

online recording system is needed to 

record reassignments in the secondary 

market, and whether there should be a 

database for potential buyers. The 

Notice also seeks comment on whether 

the Toll Free Numbering Administrator 

(TFNA) should keep toll free number 

subscriber records and whether we 

should consider including subscriber 

information in a TFNA database. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

81. 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. 

82. This Notice invites comment on a 

number of proposals and alternatives to 

modify the present toll free number 

administration and assignment method 

rules. The Notice proposes expanding 

the existing toll free number assignment 

rule to permit use of an auction 

methodology, among other assignment 

mechanisms, to assign toll free numbers. 

To do so, we propose to revise section 

52.111 of our rules to allow the 

Commission to assign numbers in a 

manner that is equitable, including by 

auction, on a first-come, first-served 

basis, an alternative assignment 

methodology, or by a combination of the 

forgoing as circumstances require. The 

Notice also seeks comment on types of 

auction methods that should be 

employed and on the advantages and 

disadvantages of these auction methods. 

83. The Notice also seeks comment on 

repealing or relaxing the prohibition 

against brokering and open number 

distribution to secondary markets. 

Theses proposal could minimize 

burdens on current and future toll free 

subscribers, some of which may be 

small entities. Finally, in the Notice, we 

seek comment on whether certain 

desirable toll free numbers necessary to 

promote health and safety be set aside 

for use, without cost, by government 

(federal, state, local and Tribal) agencies 

as well as by non-profit health, safety, 

educational, or other non-profit public 

interest. We also seek comment on 

whether other entities such as nonprofit educational and charitable 

organizations be included in this 

definition or receive similar treatment. 

These organizations could include small 

entities and such set asides would 

ensure that these organizations could 

receive certain numbers with minimal 

effort. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

84. None. 

VI. Procedural Matters 

A. Comment Filing Procedures 

85. Pursuant to sections 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 in Dockets WC 

17–192, and CC 95–155. Comments may 

be filed using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
47682 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

D Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. 

D 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 

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. 

D 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. 

D 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. 

D 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). 

86. 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 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. 

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

87. 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 in section V 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 

88. This document contains proposed 

new 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 

89. 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. 

VII. Ordering Clauses 

90. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 201(b), and 

251(e)(1) 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. 

91. 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 

Telephone. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 52 as follows: 

PART 52—NUMBERING 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 48 Stat. 1066, 

as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154 and 155 

unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply 

secs. 3, 4, 201–05, 207–09, 218, 225–27, 251– 

52, 271 and 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 

1077; 47 U.S.C. 153, 154, 201–05, 207–09, 

218, 225–27, 251–52, 271 and 332 unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Section 52.111 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.111 Toll free number assignment. 

Toll free telephone numbers must be 

made available to Responsible 

Organizations and subscribers on an 

equitable basis. The Commission will 

assign toll free numbers by auction, on 

a first-come, first-served basis, by an 

alternative assignment methodology, or 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 47683 

1 47 CFR 74.769. 

2 47 CFR 74.1269. 

3Amendment of Part 74 and Other Parts of the 

Commission’s Rules and Regulations Pertaining to 

Television Broadcast Translator Stations, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC 2d 94, para. 1 (1971) 

(proposing to revise and harmonize rules governing 

FM and television translator stations). See also id. 

at 98, para. 12 (adopting section 74.769); id. at 101, 

Appendix, para. 8 (same); Amendment of Part 74 

of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations to 

Permit the Operation of Low Power FM Broadcast 

Translator and Booster Stations, Report and Order, 

35 FR 15383, 15388 (1970) (adopting section 

74.1269). 

4NAB Comments at 23–24. 

5 Id. at 24. 

6 47 CFR 76.1714(a). The requirements of section 

76.1714(a) do not apply to any cable television 

system serving fewer than 1000 subscribers. 47 CFR 

76.1714(b). 

7 47 CFR 11.15. 

8 47 CFR 76.1714(c), 78.67. 

9Amendment of Part 74, Subpart K, of the 

Commission’s Rules and Regulations Relative to 

Community Antenna Television Systems, Cable 

Television Report and Order, 36 FCC 2d 141, 242, 

Appendix A (1972) (adopting a requirement that 

cable television system operators maintain a copy 

of Part 76 of the Commission’s rules). See also id. 

at 257, Appendix A (adopting section 78.67 of the 

Commission’s rules). 

10ACA Comments at 12. 

by a combination of the foregoing 

options, as circumstances require. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22187 Filed 10–12–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 74, 76, 78 

[MB Docket No. 17–231; FCC 17–121] 

Amendment of the Commission’s 

Rules Regarding Maintenance of 

Copies of FCC Rules 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) proposes to eliminate 

rules that require certain broadcast and 

cable entities to maintain paper copies 

of Commission regulations. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

November 13, 2017; reply comments are 

due on or before November 27, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB Docket No. 17–231, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: 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. 

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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Raelynn Remy of 

the Policy Division, Media Bureau at 

Raelynn.Remy@fcc.gov, or (202) 418– 

2120. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 17–121, 

adopted and released on September 26, 

2017. The full text is available for public 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room 

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. This 

document will also be available via 

ECFS at https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/ 

0926156892954/FCC-17-121A1.pdf. 

Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, 

and/or Adobe Acrobat. The complete 

text may be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. Alternative 

formats are available for people with 

disabilities (Braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format), by 

sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or 

calling the Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Synopsis 

1. We propose to eliminate the 

requirement, set forth in section 74.769 

of our rules, that licensees or permittees 

of low power TV, TV translator, and TV 

booster stations maintain ‘‘a current 

copy of Volume I and Volume III of the 

Commission’s rules.’’ 1 In addition, we 

propose to eliminate a similar 

requirement, codified in section 74.1269 

of our rules, that licensees or permittees 

of FM translator and FM booster stations 

maintain ‘‘a current copy of Volumes I 

(parts 0, 1, 2 and 17) and III (parts 73 

and 74) of the Commission’s rules.’’ 2

The Commission adopted these 

requirements more than forty years ago 

as part of its regulation of then recently 

established broadcast translator 

services.3 As NAB asserts, such 

obligations no longer appear necessary 

given the immediate availability of 

Commission rules online.4 NAB 

maintains that ‘‘[b]roadcasters can easily 

access and review the rules online, and 

download and print copies of any rules 

as needed.’’ 5 We agree with NAB and 

tentatively conclude that the 

requirement to maintain paper copies of 

rules, which the publisher of the CFR 

updates annually, no longer remains 

necessary. We seek comment on this 

tentative conclusion. 

2. We also tentatively conclude that 

we should eliminate the requirement, 

set forth in section 76.1714(a), that 

certain cable operators maintain a 

current copy of part 76 of the 

Commission’s rules and, if subject to the 

Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules 

contained in part 11 of those rules, an 

EAS Operating Handbook.6 Although 

we recognize the public safety 

importance of having the EAS 

Handbook in close proximity, we note 

that section 11.15 requires that a copy 

of the handbook ‘‘be located at normal 

duty positions or EAS equipment 

locations when an operator is required 

to be on duty and be immediately 

available to staff responsible for 

authenticating messages and initiating 

actions.’’ 7 Given this separate 

requirement, we see no need for a 

duplicate EAS requirement in section 

76.1714(a). We seek comment on this 

tentative conclusion. In addition, we 

tentatively conclude that we should 

eliminate from sections 76.1714(c) and 

78.67 of the Commission’s rules the 

requirement that CARS licensees 

maintain a current copy of part 78 of the 

Commission’s rules and, in cases where 

aeronautical obstruction markings of 

antennas are required, part 17 of such 

rules.8 The Commission adopted these 

requirements decades ago when it 

established a comprehensive regulatory 

framework to govern then-nascent cable 

television service.9 Like the rules 

applicable to broadcasters discussed 

above, we believe these rules have 

outlived their usefulness and no longer 

serve the public interest because, as 

ACA notes, the Commission’s rules are 

available online in the electronic CFR.10

Thus, we tentatively conclude that these 

obligations are no longer necessary. We 

seek comment on this tentative 

conclusion. 

3. Parties opposing elimination of any 

rules discussed in this NPRM should 

explain how the benefits derived from 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS