Numbering Policies for Modern Communications, 74098-74107 [2023-23903]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 208 (Monday, October 30, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74098-74107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23903]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52

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


Numbering Policies for Modern Communications

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

[[Page 74099]]

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

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

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 13-97, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Website: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document. Send a copy of your comment on 
the proposed information collection to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email to 
[email protected] or [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wireline Competition Bureau, 
Competition Policy Division, Mason Shefa, at (202) 418-2494, 
[email protected]. For additional information concerning the 
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained 
in this document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Nicole 
Ongele, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second Further Notice) in WC 
Docket Nos. 13-97, 07-243, 20-67, and IB Docket No. 16-155, adopted on 
September 21, 2023, and released on September 22, 2023. The document is 
available for download at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-75A1.pdf. To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (e.g., Braille, large print, electronic files, audio 
format, etc.), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 
(TTY).
    Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: The Providing 
Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, requires 
each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a 
brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The required summary 
of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking/Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking is available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
    Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis: This document 
contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, 
as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites 
the general public to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments 
are due December 29, 2023.
    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
     Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, 
and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 
20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
    The proceeding this document initiates shall be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy 
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or 
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte 
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of 
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

[[Page 74100]]

    This document may contain potential new or revised information 
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information 
collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency 
comments are due December 29, 2023.
    Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) 
way to further reduce the information collection burden on small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant 
to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how 
it might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Synopsis

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

Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

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

Updating the Duties of Existing Authorization Holders

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

[[Page 74101]]

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

Disclosure of Initial Service Area in Direct Access Applications

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

Ensuring That Indirect Access Serves the Public Interest

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

[[Page 74102]]

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

Legal Authority

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

Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion

    18. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance 
digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with 
disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who 
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely 
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any 
equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be 
associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. Section 1 of 
the Act provides that the Commission ``regulat[es] interstate and 
foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make [such 
service] available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United 
States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, 
national origin, or sex.'' The term

[[Page 74103]]

``equity'' is used here consistent with Executive Order 13985 as the 
consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all 
individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved 
communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, 
Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and 
Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious 
minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) 
persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; 
and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or 
inequality. Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may 
promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and 
accessibility, as well as the scope of the Commission's relevant legal 
authority.

Procedural Matters

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

Ordering Clauses

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

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

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

Legal Basis

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

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

    27. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A ``small-business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    28. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the 
outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly 
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size 
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small business 
is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types 
of small businesses represent

[[Page 74104]]

99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 32.5 
million businesses.
    29. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for 
small exempt organizations. The IRS benchmark is similar to the 
population of less than 50,000 benchmark in 5 U.S.C. 601(5) that is 
used to define a small governmental jurisdiction. Therefore, the IRS 
benchmark has been used to estimate the number small organizations in 
this small entity description. We note that the IRS data does not 
provide information on whether a small exempt organization is 
independently owned and operated or dominant in its field. Nationwide, 
for tax year 2020, there were approximately 447,689 small exempt 
organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less 
according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations 
available from the IRS.
    30. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate there were 
90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose 
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of 
this number there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county, 
municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 
and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school districts 
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on 
the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 
48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.'' This total is derived from the sum of the number of 
general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) 
with populations of less than 50,000 (36,931) and the number of special 
purpose governments--independent school districts with enrollment 
populations of less than 50,000 (12,040), from the 2017 Census of 
Governments--Organizations tbls.5, 6 & 10.
    31. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 
defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating 
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure 
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, 
sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission 
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of 
technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired 
telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a 
variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP 
services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and 
wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments 
providing satellite television distribution services using facilities 
and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry. 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline 
carriers or fixed local service providers. Fixed Local Service 
Providers include the following types of providers: Incumbent Local 
Exchange Carriers (ILECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs) and 
Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Cable/Coax CLECs, 
Interconnected VoIP Providers, Non-Interconnected VoIP Providers, 
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, Audio Bridge Service Providers, and 
Other Local Service Providers. Local Resellers fall into another U.S. 
Census Bureau industry group and therefore data for these providers is 
not included in this industry.
    32. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers 
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    33. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically 
applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services 
include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service 
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry 
with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local 
service providers. Fixed Local Exchange Service Providers include the 
following types of providers: Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers 
(ILECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs) and Competitive Local 
Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Cable/Coax CLECs, Interconnected VoIP 
Providers, Non-Interconnected VoIP Providers, Shared-Tenant Service 
Providers, Audio Bridge Service Providers, Local Resellers, and Other 
Local Service Providers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers 
that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have 
1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business 
size standard, most of these providers can be considered small 
entities.
    34. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small 
business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 1,212 providers 
that reported they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that 916 providers have 1,500 
or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size 
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority

[[Page 74105]]

of incumbent local exchange carriers can be considered small entities.
    35. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small 
businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. 
Providers of these services include several types of competitive local 
exchange service providers. Competitive Local Exchange Service 
Providers include the following types of providers: Competitive Access 
Providers (CAPs) and Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), 
Cable/Coax CLECs, Interconnected VoIP Providers, Non-Interconnected 
VoIP Providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, Audio Bridge Service 
Providers, Local Resellers, and Other Local Service Providers. Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small 
business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 3,378 providers 
that reported they were competitive local exchange service providers. 
Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 3,230 providers have 
1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business 
size standard, most of these providers can be considered small 
entities.
    36. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the 
closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA 
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers 
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in 
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated 
with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data 
in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 
2021, there were 127 providers that reported they were engaged in the 
provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 109 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry 
can be considered small entities.
    37. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a 
``small cable operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that, directly or 
through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of 
all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any 
entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed 
$250,000,000.'' For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the 
Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer 
than 677,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will 
meet the definition of a small cable operator based on the cable 
subscriber count established in a 2001 Public Notice. In this Public 
Notice, the Commission determined that there were approximately 67.7 
million cable subscribers in the United States at that time using the 
most reliable source publicly available. We recognize that the number 
of cable subscribers changed since then and that the Commission has 
recently estimated the number of cable subscribers to traditional and 
telco cable operators to be approximately 49.8 million. However, 
because the Commission has not issued a public notice subsequent to the 
2001 Subscriber Count Public Notice, the Commission still relies on the 
subscriber count threshold established by the 2001 Subscriber Count 
Public Notice for purposes of this rule. Based on industry data, only 
six cable system operators have more than 677,000 subscribers. 
Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of cable system 
operators are small under this size standard. We note however, that the 
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable 
system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual 
revenues exceed $250 million. The Commission does receive such 
information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local 
franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a 
small cable operator pursuant to 76.901(e) of the Commission's rules. 
Therefore, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater 
precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as 
small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.
    38. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to 
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not 
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service 
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, 
or toll resellers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest 
industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA small 
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that 
operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with 
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, 
there were 90 providers that reported they were engaged in the 
provision of other toll services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 87 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.
    39. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show 
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the 
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    40. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms 
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other 
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by 
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of

[[Page 74106]]

satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite 
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth 
station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies a business with $35 million or less in annual 
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms 
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242 
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on 
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 42 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, a little more than half of these 
providers can be considered small entities.
    41. Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have 
developed a small business size standard specifically for Local 
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with a 
SBA small business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers 
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and 
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications 
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services 
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) 
are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for 
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire 
year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 207 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of local 
resale services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 202 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    42. Toll Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have 
developed a small business size standard specifically for Toll 
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with an 
SBA small business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers 
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and 
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications 
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services 
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) 
are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for 
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire 
year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 457 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of toll 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 438 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    43. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
prepaid calling card providers. Telecommunications Resellers is the 
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The 
Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged 
in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of 
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless 
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and 
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; 
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile 
virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. The 
SBA small business size standard for Telecommunications Resellers 
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry 
provided resale services for the entire year. Of that number, 1,375 
firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on 
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2021, there were 62 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of prepaid card services. Of these providers, 
the Commission estimates that 61 providers have 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, 
most of these providers can be considered small entities.
    44. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of 
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of 
internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or voice over internet protocol 
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are 
also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard 
for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million 
or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 
1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of 
those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this 
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.

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

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

[[Page 74107]]

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

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

    47. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''
    48. The Commission considered the possibility that burdens may be 
imposed on interconnected VoIP service providers (small or large) if we 
adopt rules that propose to strengthen requirements for existing direct 
access authorization holders. The Commission welcomes comments on any 
of the issues raised in the Second Further Notice that will impact 
small providers. In particular, the Second Further Notice considered 
and seeks comment on whether requiring existing direct access 
authorization holders to meet the new requirements of the Second Report 
and Order is necessary, or would be unduly burdensome, and whether the 
proposed 30-day timeframe for compliance is sufficient. The Second 
Further Notice also requests comment on possible burdens associated 
with requiring direct access applicants to provide their initial 
proposed service area and the states where they intend to provide 
service and whether better options exist. In addition, the Second 
Further Notice seeks comment on the potential burdens and impact of 
requiring direct access authorization holders that sell, lease, or 
otherwise provide telephone numbers to an interconnected VoIP provider 
to obtain certifications, acknowledgments, and disclosures from them as 
if they were applying for a direct access authorization.
    49. The Second Further Notice proposes that authorization holders 
be allowed to continue to use numbers they obtained prior to submitting 
updated or corrected ownership information to the Bureau unless the 
Bureau determines that the authorization must be revoked per the formal 
revocation procedure we adopt in the Second Report and Order. 
Alternatively, we seek comment on whether this step is necessary to 
narrow the gap in our oversight ability to reach bad actors with 
respect to numbering resources, and other factors the Commission should 
consider to enforce these rules.
    50. To assist in the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact 
on small entities, as a result of actions that have been proposed in 
the Second Further Notice, and to better explore options and 
alternatives, the Commission seeks comment on whether any of the 
burdens associated with the filing, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements described above can be minimized for small entities. 
Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether any of the costs 
associated with any of the proposed requirements to eliminate unlawful 
robocalls can be alleviated for small entities. The Commission expects 
to more fully consider the economic impact and alternatives for small 
entities based on its review of the record and any comments filed in 
response to the Second Further Notice and this IRFA.

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

    None.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-23903 Filed 10-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P