Comments Invited

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2025-0925; Project Identifier MCAI-2024-00671-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Emma Copeland, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 847-294-8068; email: emma.m.copeland@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2022-18-01, Amendment 39-22152 (87 FR 54355, September 6, 2022) (AD 2022-18-01), for certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200 series airplanes, A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, A330-300 series airplanes, A330-800 series airplanes, and A330-900 series airplanes. AD 2022-18-01 was prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued AD 2021-0246, dated November 17, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0246) (which corresponds to FAA AD 2022-18-01), to correct an unsafe condition.

AD 2022-18-01 requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2022-18-01 to address fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and possible failure of certain life-limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2022-18-01.

Since the FAA issued AD 2022-18-01, EASA superseded AD 2021-0246R1, dated October 12, 2022 (which superseded EASA AD 2021-0246), and issued EASA AD 2024-0213, dated November 14, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0213) (also referred to as the MCAI), for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 series airplanes, A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, A330-300 series airplanes, A330-800 series airplanes, and A330-900 series airplanes. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

Airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after October 1, 2024, must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet; this proposed AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.

The FAA is proposing this AD to address fatigue cracking, accidental damage, or corrosion in principal structural elements, and possible failure of certain life-limited parts. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0925.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0213. This material specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.

This proposed AD would also require EASA AD 2021-0246, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of October 11, 2022 (87 FR 54355, September 6, 2022).

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2022-18-01. This proposed AD would also require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD 2024-0213 already described, as proposed for incorporation by reference. Any differences with EASA AD 2024-0213 are identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions ( e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) according to paragraph (m)(1) of this proposed AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to retain the incorporation by reference (IBR) of EASA AD 2021-0246 and incorporate EASA AD 2024-0213 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2021-0246 and EASA AD 2024-0213 through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2021-0246 or EASA AD 2024-0213 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this proposed AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2021-0246 or EASA AD 2024-0213. Material required by EASA AD 2021-0246 and EASA AD 2024-0213 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2025-0925 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.

For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged. Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).

The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a paragraph that specified that no alternative actions ( e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions and intervals are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in the AMOCs paragraph under “Additional AD Provisions.” This new format includes a “New Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals” paragraph that does not specifically refer to AMOCs, but operators may still request an AMOC to use an alternative action or interval.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 138 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2022-18-01 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2025-1103; Project Identifier AD-2024-00141-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Courtney Tuck, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3986; email: Courtney.K.Tuck@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2024-01-01, Amendment 39-22652 (89 FR 6422, February 1, 2024) (AD 2024-01-01), for The Boeing Company Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes with certain line numbers. AD 2024-01-01 was prompted by reports of undetected water leaks from the FCM migrating below the passenger floor in multiple lavatory locations during flight, and into the electronic equipment bay(s). AD 2024-01-01 requires repetitive GVIs of the area under all lavatory washbasins for evidence of intermittent and active leaks at the FCM. If there are leaks, AD 2024-01-01 requires replacing the FCM with a new or serviceable FCM and doing a leak test. The agency issued AD 2024-01-01 to address undetected water leaks, which could damage flight critical equipment.

Investigation identified the o-ring seal at the top of the FCM mixing chamber as the source of the leaking. As a result, Boeing developed an FCM with an improved design that is not susceptible to leaking. The FAA has determined that replacing FCM part number (P/N) AFUT000200A0001 or AFUT000200A0002 with the new FCM P/N AFUT000200A0004 is necessary to address the unsafe condition and would be terminating action for the GVIs required by AD 2024-01-01.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB250290-00 RB, Issue 002, dated January 31, 2025. This material specifies procedures for a repetitive general visual inspection of the area under all lavatory washbasins for evidence of intermittent and active leaks at the FCM and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include replacing the affected FCM with new or serviceable FCM at affected lavatory washbasin(s) and performing a leak test. If a leak is found during the leak test, this material specifies completing applicable corrective action, repeating the leak test, and making sure no leak is found.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB250291-00 RB, Issue 002, dated November 22, 2024. This material specifies procedures for replacing the FCM, performing a leak test and repairing any leaks, and installing moisture management devices if not previously installed. This material also specifies procedures for reviewing and updating, if necessary, the existing maintenance program documentation to include Maintenance Review Board Report item number 38-025-00. This material specifies that replacement of the FCM terminates the repetitive inspections (which are required by AD 2024-01-01).

This proposed AD would also require Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB250290-00 RB, Issue 001, dated November 1, 2022, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of March 7, 2024 (89 FR 6422, February 1, 2024).

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This proposed AD would retain the repetitive inspections and all other requirements in AD 2024-01-01. This proposed AD would also require replacing the FCM as specified in the material already described, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. The FCM replacement would be terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this material at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-1103.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 155 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program would take an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the average total cost per operator would be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2025-1105; Project Identifier AD-2024-00721-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Luis Cortez-Muniz, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3958; email: luis.a.cortez-muniz@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2013-08-11, Amendment 39-17428 (78 FR 24338, April 25, 2013) (AD 2013-08-11), for The Boeing Company Model 737-900 and -900ER series airplanes with certain line numbers. AD 2013-08-11 was prompted by reports of early fatigue cracks at chem-mill areas on the crown skin panels. AD 2013-08-11 requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin along chem-mill steps at certain crown skin and shear wrinkle areas, as applicable, and repair if necessary. AD 2013-08-11 requires the initial inspections before the airplane accumulates 43,000 total flight cycles. AD 2013-08-11 also provides modification of the inspection areas as an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. The agency issued AD 2013-08-11 to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the skin panel at the specified chem-mill step locations, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane.

Since the FAA issued AD 2013-08-11, the FAA received reports of three suspected fuselage fatigue cracks found adjacent to non-chem-mill skin bays on Model 737-700 airplanes with between 40,000 and 43,000 total flight cycles—earlier than the inspection thresholds specified by AD 2013-08-11. Boeing has reported that the inspection compliance times and repetitive intervals in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1312, Revision 1, dated March 14, 2012, are not adequate. The reports indicate that crack growth is faster and cracks are more distributed along the chem-mill steps between the tear straps, resulting in longer cracks than initially observed in the test data that prompted Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1312, Revision 1, dated March 14, 2012. As a result of these findings, the FAA has determined that reduced inspection thresholds and intervals for the chem-mill areas and the post modification inspections (for airplanes on which the optional terminating action is accomplished) are now necessary to address the unsafe condition.

The FAA is considering superseding similar ADs for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, and -800 series airplanes, which have crown skin panels that are of a similar design as those on Model 737-900 and -900ER series airplanes and may be subject to the same unsafe condition.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1312, Revision 2, dated May 22, 2024. This material specifies procedures for repetitive external detailed inspections and either (1) external medium frequency eddy current (MFEC), magneto optic imager (MOI), or C-scan inspections or (2) external ultrasonic phased array (UTPA) inspections, and repairing any cracks. This material also describes procedures for installing modification doublers in certain locations, which involves an external detailed inspection and an external non-destructive (MFEC, MOI, C-Scan, or UTPA) inspection for any cracking of the area to be modified prior to the doubler being placed on that area, and a high frequency eddy current inspection of all existing holes for cracking. This material specifies that accomplishment of the modification terminates the repetitive inspections provided post-modification inspections are performed for the modified areas.

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the material already described, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this material at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-1105.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 56 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The extent of cracking found during the inspections could vary significantly from airplane to airplane. The FAA has no way of determining which conditions may be found on each airplane, the cost to correct or repair each airplane, or the number of airplanes that may require repair.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the National Airspace System as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see ADDRESSES section for address, phone number, and hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11J, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

NAV CANADA, which operates Canada's civil air navigation service, is implementing changes to Canada's instrument flight rules (IFR) navigation infrastructure as part of their NAVAID Modernization Program. This modernization program is designed to enhance the efficiency of Canada's flying operations. The relocation of the Wiarton, ON, Canada, VOR/DME being accomplished by NAV CANADA in August 2025 affects VOR Federal Airway V-300 that extends across the United States (U.S.)/Canada border.

NAV CANADA is planning to relocate the Wiarton, ON, Canada, VOR/DME approximately 80 feet West of the current NAVAID location. As a result, the V-300 ground track and associated points where the airway crosses the U.S./Canada border will also change. Additionally, the FAA is replacing the Computer Navigation Fixes (CNFs) where the airway currently crosses the U.S./Canada border with named Fixes where the amended V-300 will cross the U.S./Canada border due to the Wiarton VOR/DME being relocated.

The FAA is proposing to amend 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal Airway V-300 due to the planned relocation of the Wiarton, ON, Canada, VOR/DME by NAV CANADA as part of their NAVAID Modernization Program. The proposed ATS route action is described below.

V-300: V-300 currently extends between the Sault Ste Marie, MI, VOR/DME and the Wiarton, ON, Canada, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. The FAA proposes to amend the airway to describe the two airway segments within U.S. airspace. The first segment extends between the Sault Ste Marie, MI, VOR/DME and the intersection of the Sault Ste Marie VOR/DME 125° True (T)/129° Magnetic (M) and Pellston, MI, VORTAC 029° (T)/035° (M) radials (RIBIR Fix). The second segment extends between the intersection of the Sault Ste Marie VOR/DME 125° (T)/129° (M) and Pellston VORTAC 054° (T)/060° (M) radials (IILND Fix) replacing the “CFNKB” CNF on the U.S./Canada border and the intersection of the Sault Ste Marie VOR/DME 125° (T)/129° (M) and Pellston VORTAC 067° (T)/073° (M) radials (MRUCI Fix) replacing the “MKPDG” CNF on the U.S./Canada border. The new airway segments within U.S. airspace would continue to provide route continuity and cross-border connectivity with the V-300 airway segments being established by NAV CANADA within Canadian airspace.

The NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal Airway V-300 description in the proposed regulatory text of this NPRM are stated in degrees True and Magnetic north.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

SMCRA allows states with federally approved programs to regulate surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal, non-Indian lands within their borders. See, e.g., 30 U.S.C. 1253. Once a State program is approved, “the State's laws and regulations implementing the program become operative for the regulation of surface coal mining, and the State officials administer the program, giving the State `exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of surface coal mining' within its borders . . . .” Bragg v. W. Va. Coal Ass'n, 248 F.3d 275, 288 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted). After a state receives primary jurisdiction (“primacy”) to administer SMCRA, the statute provides the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary) with oversight of the State regulatory programs and limited ongoing enforcement authority in two separate scenarios: (1) when the Secretary has reason to believe there have been violations of SMCRA and; (2) where the Secretary has reason to believe that violations of an approved State program are due to a State regulatory authority not properly enforcing its State program. 30 U.S.C. 1271(a) and (b).

In the first scenario, for a non-imminent harm situation, the Secretary can issue a notice, known as a “ten-day notice” (TDN), to a State regulatory authority if the Secretary has a “reason to believe” that “any person is in violation of any requirement of [SMCRA].” Id. § 1271(a) (emphasis added). SMCRA directs the Secretary to determine whether there is a potential violation “on the basis of any information available to him.” Id. (emphasis added). If so, SMCRA provides that the Secretary, acting through the Director of OSMRE, will issue a TDN to the State regulatory authority. A TDN gives the State regulatory authority ten days to respond to OSMRE to show that it either has taken “appropriate action” to “cause said violation to be corrected” or to show “good cause” for not doing so. Id. SMCRA directs the Secretary to then determine whether there is a violation “on the basis of any information available to him.” Id. (emphasis added). Under certain circumstances, such as if the State regulatory authority fails to respond in ten days or if OSMRE disagrees with the State's response to the TDN, the Secretary is authorized to conduct a Federal inspection. For imminent harm situations, the TDN process is waived when there is adequate proof of an imminent harm and the State's failure to take action, and OSMRE would conduct a Federal inspection. Id.

In the second scenario, SMCRA provides a separate enforcement process if the Secretary suspects a violation of an approved State program is due to a failure on the part of the State to properly enforce its approved program. Id. § 1271(b). Here, the Secretary must issue “public notice” and “hold a hearing thereon in the State within thirty days of such notice.” Id. If the Secretary finds that there are violations stemming from the State's failure to enforce its own State program effectively and the State “has not adequately demonstrated its capability and intent to enforce such State program,” the Secretary must take over the enforcement and issuance of permits. Id.; see also 30 U.S.C. 1254(a).

Before the 2024 Rule, the Department's implementing regulations regarding the information that the Secretary can consider when determining whether a potential violation exists mirrored the statutory language providing for consideration of “any information available to him,” 30 U.S.C. 1271(a)(1); the Secretary could determine whether there was a violation by looking to “any information readily available to him or her, from any source[.]” 30 CFR 842.11(b)(1)(i) (2021 version). Despite SMCRA's direction to the Secretary to base his determination on “any information available to him,” the 2024 Rule artificially limited the types of information that OSMRE can consider before issuing a TDN to: (i) “information received from a citizen complaint”; (ii) “information available in OSMRE files at the time that OSMRE is notified of the possible violation”; (iii) “and publicly available electronic information.” 30 CFR 842.11(b)(1)(i). The 2024 Rule made similar changes to §§ 842.11(b)(2) and 842.12(a). As such, the 2024 Rule narrowed OSMRE's investigatory sources in a manner that is inconsistent with the best reading of SMCRA, including by, for example, directing OSMRE to ignore other information that may be readily available from State regulatory authorities, who have primacy, or operators. See Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). Therefore, we propose to return to the language that was in the rule prior to the 2024 Rule and that better implements the best reading of SMCRA.

We propose to return the text of 30 CFR 842.11(b)(1)(i), 842.11(b)(2), and 842.12(a) to the text that existed before the 2024 Rule, which would, in part, remove references to the phrase “citizen complaint” across these subsections. The 2024 Rule added an unnecessary definition of “citizen complaint” at 30 CFR 842.5, a term that is not used anywhere in SMCRA. See 30 U.S.C. 1271(h)(1). The 2024 Rule then used the filing of “citizen complaint[s]” to short-circuit the longstanding requirement that citizens request a Federal inspection by modifying the regulations so that “[a]ll citizen complaints [are] considered as requests for a Federal inspection.” 30 CFR 842.11(b)(2), 842.12(a). When the automatic treatment of all citizen complaints as requests for a Federal inspection is read together with the 2024 Rule's restrictions on the types of information that OSMRE can consider when deciding whether to issue a TDN, the 2024 Rule violates principles of cooperative federalism and is inconsistent with the statutory structure of SMCRA. For example, SMCRA gives States with approved programs primacy and assigns OSMRE an oversight role with limited enforcement authority to ensure SMCRA compliance, but the 2024 Rule pushes OSMRE to conduct unnecessary inspections while disallowing OSMRE from considering all available information when deciding whether it has reason to believe a possible violation may exist.

Similarly, reverting the text of 30 CFR 842.12(a) to the language that existed before the 2024 Rule will reestablish the requirement that a person requesting a Federal inspection notify both the OSMRE authorized representative and the State regulatory authority, if any, which better aligns the regulations with the statutory structure of SMCRA and the goals of cooperative federalism. It also ensures that both OSMRE and the State regulatory authority have the opportunity to understand and, if appropriate, address the concerns raised in a complaint.

Furthermore, and in line with this Administration's deregulatory agenda, we propose rescinding the newly created “ten-day notice” definition because it is unnecessary. As the 2024 Rule explains, “SMCRA section 521(a)(1) [ ] provides that, after OSMRE notifies [a State regulatory authority] of a possible violation, the State must take `appropriate action' or `show good cause' for not doing so `within ten days.' ” 89 FR 24714, 24716. All regulated entities understand that this is the ten-day notice process. A definition is not necessary.

The 2024 Rule also found that a State regulatory authority can be a “ person ” in a manner that is inconsistent with SMCRA. 30 U.S.C. 1271(a) (emphasis added). The preamble to the 2024 Rule also included a statement that OSMRE would treat a State regulatory authority as a person for purposes of finding a potential violation that warranted issuing a TDN to the State. 89 FR at 24716. This direction goes beyond the text of SMCRA, which excludes a State regulatory authority from its definition of “person.” SMCRA defines “person” as an “individual, partnership, association, society, joint stock company, firm, company, corporation, or other business organization,” and separately defines “State regulatory authority” as “the department or agency in each State which has primary responsibility at the State level for administering this Act.” Compare 30 U.S.C. 1291(26) with 1291(19). Properly understood, a State regulatory authority can only be a “person” that could “be in violation of any requirement of the Act” in order to trigger a TDN if the State is acting as a business organization of some type, such as a permit holder operating a surface coal mining operation. Because the 2024 Rule's direction in the preamble announced its intention to treat a State regulatory authority as a “person” for purposes of the TDN process, which is not in accordance with the best reading of SMCRA, OSMRE is proposing to return to its prior understanding of who can be found in violation of the SMCRA and its implementing regulations for purposes of a TDN. See Loper Bright, 603 U.S. 369.

The 2024 Rule sought to ensure that “all possible violations, except those that create an imminent harm,” would be subject to the TDN process, including those that result from a State regulatory authority issuing a defective permit, which has commonly been called a permit defect. 89 FR at 24716. As mentioned, section 521(a) of SMCRA says that the Secretary can issue a TDN when “any person is in violation of any requirement of this Act.” 30 U.S.C. 1271(a). And as noted above, SMCRA defines “person” as an “individual, partnership, association, society, joint stock company, firm, company, corporation, or other business organization,” 30 U.S.C. 1291(19), and that does not include a State regulatory authority, unless it is itself acting as a business organization. Consequently, the TDN process is not a permissible way under SMCRA for OSMRE to review the actions of a State regulatory authority. Instead, section 521(b) of SMCRA creates a separate enforcement process for programmatic violations where “the Secretary has reason to believe that the violations of all or any part of an approved State program result from a failure of the State to enforce such State program or any part thereof effectively.” 30 U.S.C. 1271(b) (emphasis added). The latter enforcement mechanism exists for circumstances where, for example, a State regulatory authority uses its approved State program to issue defective permits. To the extent that the 2024 Rule subjected a State regulatory authority to the TDN process for “violations of all or any part of an approved State program,” it was inconsistent with SMCRA and offends principles of cooperative federalism by funneling such violations into the TDN process by allowing OSMRE to use that process as an avenue for regulatory oversight of a State regulatory authority that is not contemplated for such violations in SMCRA. If it were true that programmatic violations were subject to the TDN process laid out in 30 U.S.C. 1271(a), it would render 30 U.S.C. 1271(b) duplicative. And it is a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation to assume every word or subsection in a statute has a purpose and should not be rendered superfluous. This interpretation also accords with OSMRE's interpretation of this issue over the years. See, e.g., Letter from Assistant Secretary Rebecca Watson to Joseph M. Lovett, Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment (Oct. 21, 2005). This proposed rule would therefore restore SMCRA's statutory dichotomy between OSMRE's oversight of violations through the TDN process as reflected in 30 CFR 842.12 and OSMRE's oversight of programmatic violations through a separate review process for approved State programs, as reflected in 30 CFR part 733.

In the 2024 Rule, OSMRE created deadlines for itself to develop and approve an action plan within 60 days of identifying a State regulatory program issue and instituted a 10-business-day deadline following identification of a State regulatory program issue for OSMRE and the State regulatory authority to develop interim remedial measures to abate the existing issue. 30 CFR 733.12(b). The Department does not normally regulate its bureaus and offices in its regulations, and it is unnecessary and arbitrary to do so here. Depending on the nature and extent of the State regulatory program issue identified and the other competing agency priorities, it may take more or less time than 60 days to develop an action plan or the 10 days to develop interim remedial measures in consultation with the State regulatory authority. Thus, the timeframes are both too restrictive, because some of the State regulatory program issues could be of a type that those timeframes are not long enough to take the necessary action, and too generous, because some State regulatory program issues should not take that long to develop an action plan or develop interim remedial measures, yet Parkinson's Law, the theory that work expands to fill the time available for its completion, suggests that OSMRE and the State will use all of the time allotted. In addition, these administrative deadlines are not necessary for, and might even inhibit, achieving the end-goal of these processes, which is to arrive at a thoughtful and durable resolution of a State regulatory program issue.

Therefore, we are instead proposing to return to instructing OSMRE to “take action to make sure the identified State regulatory program issue is corrected as soon as possible . . .” and “ensure that the State regulatory authority corrects a State regulatory program issue in a timely and effective manner,” and to give a State regulatory authority the discretion to resolve a State regulatory program issue without an action plan, unless the Director determines that resolving the issue is likely to take more than 180 days or result in a violation of the approved State program. This process allows for greater coordination and better flexibility in how OSMRE and the State regulatory authority address the State regulatory program issue. Years of administering SMCRA and this Administration's deregulatory agenda counsel us to decrease the number of administrative deadlines and prescriptive practices in regulations that are not mandated by statute and that could stifle productive, informal discussion and resolution between OSMRE and State regulatory authorities of State program issues.

The 2024 Rule codified the longstanding practice of OSMRE issuing a single TDN for a group of substantively similar possible violations. In line with this Administration's deregulatory agenda, we do not believe it is necessary to include this longstanding practice in the regulations because nothing in SMCRA or the pre-2024 regulations prohibits OSMRE from grouping similar violations into a single TDN if it is more effective to do so, even without a regulatory provision. Therefore, we are proposing to remove this codification and return the regulation to the version that was in place before the 2024 Rule.

The 2024 Rule removed regulatory language from 30 CFR 842.12(a) that required a person who requests a Federal inspection under § 842.11(b) to include in his or her statement “the basis for the person's assertion that the State regulatory authority has not taken action with respect to the possible violation.” The 2024 Rule preamble mischaracterized this pre-existing language, stating that the person seeking a Federal inspection “should not need to state their allegation in statutory or regulatory language.” 89 FR at 24718. The regulatory language we are proposing to restore does not require the person who is requesting a Federal inspection to provide citations to statutes or regulations but merely to provide the basis for the assertion that the State regulatory authority has not taken action with respect to a possible violation. This is not a high bar. Any information the citizen can provide to OSMRE about the State regulatory authority's response would be very helpful in OSMRE's efforts to efficiently determine whether there is reason to believe that a violation exists. The preamble to the 2020 TDN Rule affirms that OSMRE “is merely asking the requester of the Federal inspection to provide any information he or she may have about the State regulatory authority's action or inaction.” 85 FR 75150, 75160. For these reasons, the Department is proposing in revised § 842.12(a) to require the citizen to include in his or her complaint the basis for the assertion that the State regulatory authority has not taken action with respect to the possible violation.

If OSMRE issues a TDN, the State regulatory authority must respond within ten days by either taking “appropriate action” to cause the possible violation to be corrected or showing “good cause” for not taking action. The 2024 TDN rule removed corrective action plans associated with a State regulatory program issue as a possible “appropriate action” in response to a TDN, asserting that an action plan to remedy a state regulatory program issue does not remedy violations. However, that is a misstatement. The action plan process in § 733.12 that was in place before the 2024 Rule was not a vehicle to avoid Federal enforcement or avoid the correction of any violation; instead, the action plan process was and is a tool for OSMRE, in collaboration with a State regulatory authority, to address State regulatory program issues promptly, which would include the correction of any violations of SMCRA on any permit identified. Thus, an action plan “will cause said violation to be corrected” so the development of an action plan is better characterized as “appropriate action.” This is also consistent with the fact that OSMRE has historically allowed programmatic resolution of State regulatory program issues, such as implementation of remedies under 30 CFR part 732, to constitute “appropriate action” in a given situation. To avoid confusion or uncertainty for the regulated community, State regulatory authorities, and the public at large, the proposed rule in § 733.12 seeks to remove ambiguity and definitively states that “appropriate action” may include corrective action to resolve State regulatory program issues.

Consistent with Section 4.b. of Secretary's Order 3418, OSMRE has determined that the foregoing reasons together justify rescission of the 2024 Rule and a return to the regulations that were in effect immediately before the promulgation of that rule. Regardless of any benefits of that rule, OSMRE must not maintain regulations that are inconsistent with the statutory authority. See Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 591 U.S. 1, 32 (2020). Moreover, regardless of the inconsistency, OSMRE has no interest in maintaining a rule that subjects a State regulatory authority to more requirements than are mandated by statute. To do otherwise would be against the cooperative federalism structure of SMCRA.

To the extent there is any uncertainty about the costs and benefits of the 2024 Rule, it is the policy of OSMRE to err on the side of deregulation. We therefore propose to rescind the 2024 Rule in full, revert to the pre-existing regulations, and seek comment on that proposal. We especially seek comment on whether there are any portions of the 2024 Rule that are consistent with the best reading of the statute and would be beneficial to retain, especially the 2024's language on the Similar Possible Violations mentioned above, or whether any portions of the preexisting regulations could be improved to better meet this Administration's objectives as set out in an Executive Orders (E.O.), such as E.O. 14154 “Unleashing American Energy,” E.O. 14219 “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative” (Feb. 19, 2025), and the Presidential Memorandum “Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations” (Apr. 9, 2025).

This rule does not result in a taking of private property or otherwise have regulatory takings implications under E.O. 12630. The rule rescinds a regulation that OSMRE determined does not represent the best reading of SMCRA and is inconsistent with principles of cooperative federalism but does not impact any property rights; therefore, the rule will not result in private property being taken for public use without just compensation. A takings implication assessment is not required.

E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that agencies must base regulations on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Department developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

This proposed rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Among other things, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation;

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

Under the criteria of section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. While revising the existing regulations governing the TDN process would have a direct effect on the States and the Federal Government's relationship with the States, this effect would not be significant, as it would neither impose substantial unreimbursed compliance costs on States nor preempt State law. Furthermore, this final rule does not have a significant effect on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The final rule would not significantly increase burdens on State regulatory authorities to address and resolve underlying issues. As such, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. OSMRE has evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and determined that it does not have substantial direct effects on Federally recognized Tribes and that consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policy is not required. Moreover, no Tribes have yet achieved primacy. Thus, this rule will not impact the regulation of surface coal mining operations on Indian lands as that term is defined under SMCRA.

This direct final rule is not a significant energy action as defined in E.O. 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion. Specifically, OSMRE has determined that the final rule is administrative or procedural in nature in accordance with the Department of the Interior's NEPA regulations at 43 CFR 46.210(i). OSMRE has also determined that the final rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

This rule does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 1029-0118. This rule does not impose an information collection burden because OSMRE is not making any changes to the information collection requirements. OSMRE estimates that the number of burden hours associated with TDN processing will stay the same as what is currently authorized by OMB control number 1029-0118.

OSMRE certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). OSMRE previously evaluated the impact of the regulatory changes at the time that the 2020 Rule was promulgated and determined that the rule changes would not induce, cause, or create any unnecessary burdens on the public, State regulatory authorities, or small businesses; would not discourage innovation or entrepreneurial enterprises; and would be consistent with SMCRA, from which the regulations draw their implementing authority.

This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Specifically, the direct final rule: (a) will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove an obsolete provision that is no longer used. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior proposes to revise 30 CFR parts 733 and 842 to read as as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations COTP Captain of the Port, Sector Virginia CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section SLR Special Local Regulation U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

A Captain of the Port, after approving plans for the holding of a “regatta or marine parade” (an organized water event of limited duration which is conducted according to a prearranged schedule, 33 CFR 100.05(a)) within his or her Captain of the Port Zone, is authorized to promulgate such special local regulations (SLRs) as he or she deems necessary to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the approved regatta or marine parade. 33 CFR 100.35. Each year, the Chincoteague Volunteer Fire Company notifies the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a pony round up and auction which requires closure of the Assateague Channel for a “pony swim,” the passage of the animals from Assateague Island to Chincoteague Island and submits a permit under 33 CFR 100.15. To provide for the closure of the Assateague Channel and to reserve sufficient space to designate spectator areas around the event, a permanent Special Local Regulation (SLR) was created in table 3 to paragraph (i)(3) to 33 CFR 100.501 to support this recurring Permitted Marine Event.

This year's event is the 100th of its kind and it is therefore expected to draw many more spectators than in previous years. Due to the expected increased number of spectators, increased vessel traffic, and an increased population on and around Chincoteague Island, the Captain of the Port, Sector Virginia (COTP) has determined this year's event will present safety concerns over a significantly larger area than the regulated area of the permanent SLR. We are therefore proposing this temporary rule to allow for supervision over a larger area and more specific traffic control measures than the permanent regulation covers. The Coast Guard is proposing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041.

The COTP is proposing to establish an SLR which would be in effect and subject to enforcement from 6 a.m. on July 26th, 2025 to 10 p.m. on August 1, 2025. The SLR would create a buffer zone, a neutral area that surrounds the perimeter of the regulated area, covering all navigable waters within the boundary of a perimeter drawn from points: 37 57′ N, 075 27′ W; 37 57′ N, 075 21′ W; 37 52′ N, 075 21′ W; 37 52′ N, 075 27′ W. It would extend to persons and vessels transiting through the waters around Chincoteague Island, Assateague Island and the North shores of Wallops Island, on the week of the event.

This proposed rulemaking would prevent persons and vessels from impacting the movement of emergency services in the regulated area and provide traffic control measures in the buffer zone when directed by the COTP or a designated representative. The proposed enforcement period for the rule and the size of the special local regulation's regulated area and buffer zone have been chosen to ensure the safety of life on these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled multi-day event. The rule would allow vessels to operate using conventional navigational rules within the buffer zone unless unsafe conditions or vessel concentrations are identified. The COTP and Coast Guard Event Patrol Commander (PATCOM) would, however, control the movement of all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the buffer zone and regulated area, and could forbid such movement, as warranted by the circumstances.

Because unsafe conditions are most likely to occur in the vicinity of channel narrowing bridges, and because the proper functioning the roadways into and out of the island will be significantly impacted by the increase in vessels attending the event, specific regulations around the movement of vessels around bridges has been prescribed within the regulation. These will be broadcast during the week of the event to aid in managing the congestion expected. The Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the enforcement of the SLR. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We are providing a comment period of 14 days on the assumption we will have enough time to receive comments, consider them, make any appropriate changes, and publish a temporary final rule by July 26, 2025, when the event begins.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analysis based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the SLR. Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit normally though this buffer zone and regulated area during the evenings, when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, within the buffer zone, beyond the immediate vicinity of the Pony Swim, the Coast Guard will only be controlling traffic when there are unsafe concentrations of marine traffic, or where the concentration of marine traffic would impact the safe transit of emergency services.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves an SLR lasting approximately 6 days that would supplement existing Coast Guard authorities to manage traffic and existing navigation rules for the expected vessel concentrations associated with a high spectator marine event. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision-Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2025-0463 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate instructions.

Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. Also, if you click on the Dockets tab and then the proposed rule, you should see a “Subscribe” option for email alerts. The option will notify you when comments are posted, or a final rule is published.

We review all comments received, but we will only post comments in the docket that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.

Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

In October of 2024, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Pilkington North America, Inc. (PNA), Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) began discussions to explore establishing a Regulated Navigation Area for Operable Unit 2 (OU2) of the Ottawa Township Flat Glass (OTFG) Superfund Alternative Site (the Site; EPA ID: ILD005468616) along the Illinois River. The purpose of this Regulated Navigation Area is to prevent disturbance of riverbed sediment in OU2 that has been contaminated with arsenic due to historic Site operations. In 2000, PNA characterized arsenic contamination in Illinois River sediment, collecting sediment samples and conducting bathymetric surveys with EPA oversight. Sampling results indicated that arsenic concentrations in sediment adjacent to the Site and Original Sand Pond source area on the north side of the Illinois River were above background levels. PNA performed additional work in 2002 to determine if sediment deposits within OU2 were stable and to evaluate whether arsenic exceedances had an adverse impact on benthic organisms living in the sediment. Through various sampling efforts, radioisotope, and bioassay studies conducted by the State of Illinois and PNA, EPA concluded that contaminated arsenic sediment deposits in OU2 were stable, not prone to washout by yearly flood events, and has negligible effect on river water quality or toxicity to aquatic organisms. As part of the 2023 Five-Year Review for the Site, EPA recommended that a no anchorage area be established along the OU2 portion of the Illinois River to prohibit the disturbance of contaminated sediment. In December of 2024, EPA identified for the Coast Guard the appropriate area for a Regulated Navigation Area. The Ninth District Commander has determined that the protection provided by this remedy will also protect human health and the environment.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy for OU2, as outlined in the 2008 EPA Record of Decision for the OTFG Site, by prohibiting anchoring or pushing a vessel onto the bank within the Regulated Navigation Area except as otherwise set forth herein. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.

The Ninth District Commander is proposing to establish a Regulated Navigation Area to protect the integrity of the OTFG Site remedy. The Regulated Navigation Area would cover the Illinois River Operable Unit (OU2). Specific coordinates are included in the supplemental regulatory text. All vessels and persons are prohibited from activities that would disturb the integrity of the riverbed to limit disturbance of contaminated sediments within the Regulated Navigation Area. Activities may include, but are not limited to: anchoring, dragging, spudding, or dredging. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the necessity to avoid disrupting contaminated soils on the Illinois Riverbed under most circumstances and preserve the health of the humans and the environment. In the event of an emergency, anchoring and other actions will be authorized.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Regulated Navigation Area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A. above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves all vessels conducting operations potentially disturbing contaminated seabed in the regulated area to include, but not limited to: anchoring, dragging, spudding, or dredging. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[60a] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision-Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2025-0320 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate instructions.

Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. Also, if you click on the Dockets tab and then the proposed rule, you should see a “Subscribe” option for email alerts. The option will notify you when comments are posted, or a final rule is published.

We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.

Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

In the Federal Register of May 30, 2025, in FR Doc. 2025-09819 make the following correction, in the DATES section. On page 22891, in the third column, remove the date “June 24, 2025” and add, in its place, “June 26, 2025”.

This is a summary of the Commission's NPRM, FCC 25-25, in WC Docket No. 17-97, adopted on April 28, 2025, and released on April 29, 2025. The complete text of this document is available for download at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-25A1.pdf.

Paperwork Reduction Act: The NPRM 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 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements described 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.

Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: Consistent with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, a summary of this document will be available on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

Ex Parte Rules: The proceeding the NPRM 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 Section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by Section 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules 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, when feasible, 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.

We propose to conclude that effective non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks are developed and reasonably available, and therefore propose to mandate that voice service providers, gateway providers, and non-gateway intermediate providers that have not upgraded their networks to IP implement one or more non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks in their non-IP networks by a date certain. Although § 4(b)(1)(B) of the TRACED Act applies to “provider[s] of voice service” and defines “voice service” to include any service that is “interconnected with the public switched telephone network and that furnishes voice communications to an end user,” 47 U.S.C. 227b(a)(2), the Commission has adopted rules that also apply caller ID authentication obligations to gateway providers and non-gateway intermediate providers, relying on its authority under sections 251(e) and 227(e) of the Communications Act. In this item, we propose amending certain rules that are currently applicable to these three categories of providers. For purposes of this item, we will use the general term “providers” to encompass the three categories of providers covered by our caller ID authentication rules, unless otherwise specified. Under the TRACED Act, the Commission must mandate that providers that continue to rely on non-IP technology “take reasonable measures to implement an effective call authentication framework in [their] non-[IP] networks.” We propose to conclude that a “call authentication framework” under section 227b(b)(1)(B) consists of any standards or other structures that define how to authenticate calls. This is supported by the TRACED Act's requirement that the Commission mandate implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN framework, which consists of the STIR and SHAKEN standards. To fulfill this “reasonable measures” requirement, the Commission requires that voice service providers either upgrade their entire network to IP or participate in efforts to develop a non-IP caller ID authentication solution, and said that it “will continue to evaluate whether an effective non-IP caller ID authentication framework emerges.” We propose to clarify that the Commission's rules requiring providers with non-IP networks to either upgrade their networks to IP or participate in efforts “to develop a non-IP solution,” refer to the development of a “call authentication framework” for non-IP networks under section 227b(b)(1)(B) of the TRACED Act. This is consistent with the Commission's description when it established these rules in the First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (85 FR 22029, Apr. 21, 2020). There, the Commission made clear that it was implementing the “reasonable measures” requirement in section 227b(b)(1)(B) and it referred to the STIR/SHAKEN framework as a “SIP-based solution.” The TRACED Act requires the Commission to “grant a delay of required compliance” with the implementation deadline for non-IP caller ID authentication for voice service providers materially reliant on non-IP networks “until a call authentication protocol has been developed for calls delivered over non-[IP] networks and is reasonably available.” The Commission issued this continuing extension in the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order (85 FR 73360, Nov. 17, 2020). We propose to conclude, under the best reading of the statute, that the phrase “call authentication protocol” in section 227b(b)(5)(B) refers to the technical procedures underlying the standards or other procedures developed for authenticating calls.

In light of the record developed in response to the Notice of Inquiry and marketplace developments, we propose to conclude that certain non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks meet the TRACED Act's requirements. This proposed conclusion is based upon the application of criteria we propose to establish for evaluating whether a given framework is first, developed and reasonably available, and second, effective. In turn, we propose to repeal the continuing extension from caller ID authentication requirements granted to providers that rely on non-IP technology and modify our rule interpreting the TRACED Act's “reasonable measures” requirement to mandate that providers either upgrade their networks to IP or implement non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks. Continuing to allow providers to complete their IP transitions rather than implement non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks enables them to avoid the additional obligation associated with the new requirement. We propose to give providers a reasonable transition period to either complete their IP transitions or implement one or more non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks in their non-IP networks. The Cloud Communications Alliance et al. asks that we seek comment on requiring all providers to convert their networks to IP by a date certain. We support providers' completing their transition to IP, which is a key goal of the Commission, but this proposal is outside the scope of this proceeding. We propose to rely on the TRACED Act and other Commission authority to implement this mandate. Below, we seek comment on these proposals and any other considerations not addressed or specifically asked about herein.

Below we propose criteria for evaluating whether non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks meet TRACED Act requirements to first, be developed and reasonably available, and second, be effective and, applying that criteria, propose to conclude that certain standards promulgated by Alliance for Telecommunication Industry Solutions (ATIS) constitute frameworks meeting those requirements. We seek comment on these proposals.

We propose to establish criteria for evaluating whether a given non-IP caller ID authentication framework meets the TRACED Act's requirements. Consistent with the TRACED Act, we propose to apply the criteria in two steps. First, the Commission must determine whether any frameworks are “developed” and “reasonably available” to meet the TRACED Act's requirements for repealing the continuing extension from caller ID authentication requirements for providers materially reliant on non-IP networks. Second, the Commission must determine whether any such frameworks meet the TRACED Act's requirement to be “effective,” in connection with the TRACED Act's requirement that providers “take reasonable measures to implement an effective call authentication framework” in their non-IP networks. We discuss each step below.

Criteria for repealing the continuing extension for non-IP networks. We propose to establish criteria, based on the plain meaning of the TRACED Act, for determining whether a given non-IP caller ID authentication framework meets the TRACED Act's requirements for repealing the continuing extension. Section 4(b)(5)(B) of the TRACED Act requires the Commission to provide a continuing extension from implementing non-IP caller ID authentication for providers materially reliant on non-IP networks “until a call authentication protocol has been developed for calls delivered over non-[IP] networks and is reasonably available.” The terms “developed,” and “available” are not defined in the TRACED Act, so we propose to rely on the ordinary meaning of these terms. “Developed” or “develop” means “starts to exist” or “to make more available or usable,” while “available” means “able to be used or obtained” or “usable.”

Considering these definitions, we propose to retain the two criteria the Commission established in the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order (85 FR 73360, Nov. 17, 2020) for evaluating whether a non-IP caller ID authentication framework satisfies the requirements in the TRACED Act for repealing the continuing extension. Specifically, the Commission determined that a framework must be: (1) “fully developed and finalized by industry standards,” and (2) reasonably available such that “the underlying equipment and software necessary to implement such protocol is available on the commercial market.” We believe that these criteria reflect a logical and straightforward understanding of the plain meaning of the statutory text. We seek comment on our proposal and any alternative interpretations of the TRACED Act's requirements. We also propose and seek comment on a set of non-exhaustive factors for each criterion, no one of which is determinative, that we should consider when evaluating whether a given non-IP caller ID authentication framework satisfies those criteria, as well as any other factors we should take into account. We believe these factors will enable the Commission to reach well-reasoned conclusions about whether a framework meets the criteria within the ordinary meaning of the statutory language.

For the first criterion, we propose to consider a set of factors to determine whether a framework is “fully developed and finalized by industry standards.” Consistent with the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order (85 FR 73360, Nov. 17, 2020), we propose to evaluate whether a framework is standards-based, including whether “all fundamental aspects of the protocol which enable its effectiveness are standardized by industry.” Relatedly, we propose to consider whether the technical elements of the framework have been published and are accessible by providers or vendors that make frameworks commercially available. As further consistent with the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order (85 FR 73360, Nov. 17, 2020), we propose to consider whether a framework is “ready for implementation,” including whether “the protocol is implementable” by providers. We also propose to consider whether the framework is undergoing further development or improvement. Given that Commission rules obligate providers using non-IP network technology to participate in industry efforts to develop a non-IP caller ID authentication solution, we further propose to consider the extent to which industry was involved in the development and approval of a framework and the standards upon which the framework is based. We seek comment on these factors and whether the Commission should consider any other factors when evaluating whether a framework is fully developed and finalized by industry standards.

For the second criterion, we propose to consider a set of factors to determine whether a framework is reasonably available such that “the underlying equipment and software necessary to implement such protocol is available on the commercial market.” We propose to consider evidence that a framework is being marketed or otherwise offered to providers. We also propose to consider evidence that a framework has been implemented by providers or whether providers are waiting for the Commission to mandate frameworks before investing in implementing available frameworks. Additionally, we propose to consider a framework's cost and evidence that the cost can be reasonably borne by providers. We also propose to consider the need to set up a governance structure for a framework to operate and whether any changes to Commission process or rules are necessary to implement such a structure. We seek comment on these factors and whether the Commission should consider any other factors when evaluating whether a framework is reasonably available such that the underlying equipment and software necessary to implement such protocol is available on the commercial market. For instance, should we consider the extent to which a framework can scale to serve a greater number of providers, and if so, how important is this factor if we determine that multiple frameworks meet the TRACED Act's requirements? Similarly, how, if at all, should we consider whether products implementing a framework are only offered by one or a few vendors? Should we consider whether a product relies on proprietary elements not outlined in the framework and the extent to which a provider must use such proprietary elements for the product to work?

Criteria for modifying the requirement to take reasonable measures to implement effective non-IP caller ID authentication. We propose to establish criteria, based on the structure and plain meaning of the TRACED Act, for determining whether a given non-IP caller ID authentication framework meets the TRACED Act's requirement to be “effective.”

First, we propose to conclude that for a framework to be “effective” under the TRACED Act, it must at least satisfy the two requirements for repealing the continuing extension in section 4(b)(5)(B) of the TRACED Act ( i.e., “developed” and “reasonably available”). Incorporating these two baseline requirements ensures that providers cannot rely on the continuing extension to avoid implementing frameworks the Commission has concluded are effective. This understanding is also consistent with the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order (85 FR 73360, Nov. 17, 2020), wherein the Commission said it “will consider a non-IP caller ID authentication framework to be effective only if it is: (1) fully developed and finalized by industry standards; and (2) reasonably available such that the underlying equipment and software necessary to implement such protocol is available on the commercial market.” The Commission acknowledged, however, that while these criteria may be necessary for determining whether a solution is effective, they may not be sufficient. Were we to read the TRACED Act as not incorporating the two baseline requirements, the Commission could find that a caller ID authentication framework is effective under section 4(b)(1)(B), but a provider would not have an obligation to implement that framework if the Commission did not also find that the framework satisfies the requirements for removing the continuing extension under section 4(b)(5)(B). Similarly, the Commission could find that a solution is developed and reasonably available, satisfying the requirements for repealing the continuing extension under Section 4(b)(5)(B) and thereby triggering the requirement in section 4(b)(1)(B) for providers to take reasonable measures to implement an effective non-IP caller ID authentication solution. However, a provider would not be able to implement an effective non-IP caller ID authentication solution if the Commission had not determined at the same time or earlier that such a solution exists. The best reading of the statute and its structure therefore ties the continuing extension from complying with the non-IP caller ID authentication obligation to the obligation to implement an effective non-IP caller ID authentication framework. We seek comment on this view and any alternative interpretations.

Next, we propose to evaluate effectiveness based on the plain meaning of the text in the TRACED Act. The TRACED Act does not define “effective,” and so we propose to rely on the ordinary meaning of the word. “Effective” is defined to mean “producing a desired or intended result,” “operative,” or “performing within the range of normal and expected standards.” In applying these definitions, we propose to conclude that an “effective” non-IP caller ID authentication framework must operate to produce the intended result of authenticating calls as described in the applicable standards. That is, when the standards are properly applied under the conditions specified in the standards, the provider is able to authenticate calls. This meaning is consistent with the Commission's understanding of its requirement under the TRACED Act to assess the efficacy of the technologies used for call authentication frameworks implemented under the statute every three years. In its Triennial Report, “the [Wireline Competition Bureau] assesses the efficacy of the STIR/SHAKEN framework herein based on the proposed standard of how well it effectuates the authentication of caller ID information,” and its finding “is predicated . . . on STIR/SHAKEN technical standards and protocols being executed as required by the three ATIS standards that establish them.” Additionally, we believe that interpreting “effective” to mean more than just “developed” and “reasonably available” is consistent with the canon of statutory construction against surplusage, by ensuring that each word is operative. We do not believe that “effectiveness” requires that a solution operate to authenticate calls in all instances. We believe our understanding is supported by the TRACED Act requirement that the Commission assess the efficacy of implemented call authentication frameworks every three years. Because Congress in the TRACED Act required the Commission to mandate that providers use STIR/SHAKEN in their IP networks, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that Congress deemed STIR/SHAKEN to be an effective caller ID authentication solution. By requiring the Commission to evaluate the efficacy of call authentication frameworks, including STIR/SHAKEN, we believe Congress acknowledged that even effective caller ID authentication solutions— e.g., STIR/SHAKEN—may not result in perfect call authentication in all instances. Indeed, in conducting the triennial review of the efficacy of call authentication technologies, perfection is not the standard the Commission itself has applied to STIR/SHAKEN. We seek comment on our proposed understanding of “effective,” and on any alternative interpretations.

We seek comment on whether the best reading of the TRACED Act requires us to consider specific factors for evaluating whether a non-IP caller ID authentication framework is “effective” under the ordinary meaning of the word, and if so, what those factors are.

In particular, we invite commenters to address whether we must consider factors concerning the feasibility for providers to implement frameworks. For example, must we evaluate the need for providers to enter into bilateral or multilateral agreements to implement certain frameworks? Are we required to consider the extent to which a framework will only work for providers using certain network equipment or facilities, or whether a provider would need to make changes or upgrades to their existing network before implementing a framework? Must we take into account a framework's implementation costs and burdens or its cost effectiveness in determining whether it is effective? If so, how should the Commission evaluate cost-effectiveness? Can a framework still be considered effective if it is not cost-effective for all providers or the cost is burdensome for some providers to implement? Are there other implementation challenges we must or should consider? We note that the Commission recently required all providers with a STIR/SHAKEN obligation to obtain an STI certificate.

We also invite commenters to explain whether we are required to evaluate factors concerning the inherent features and functions of each framework. To what extent must we consider technical limitations of a framework that otherwise authenticates calls as described by the standard? For example, must we evaluate whether and the extent to which a framework's ability to authenticate calls provides functional parity with STIR/SHAKEN? Is it necessary to consider whether a framework is technically futureproof, including whether it would continue to function and be able to incorporate additional functionality as providers make changes and upgrades to their networks? To what extent must we consider the security of a framework and whether it may enable bad actors to transmit false authentication information or otherwise undermine the effectiveness of STIR/SHAKEN? Must we consider a framework's resilience to Denial of Service attacks aimed at different components of the framework? Are we required to consider whether there are single-points-of-failure embedded within the design of certain frameworks and their impact? We also seek comment on whether we must consider any impacts that these frameworks' implementation may have on E911 and emergency services, and their bearing on the frameworks' effectiveness. ATIS released two reports concerning the impact of non-IP standards on 911 services. The first, ATIS-0500046, Analysis of Non-IP Call Authentication Mechanisms in Support of Emergency Services, “discusses call authentication [including In-Band Authentication and Out-of-Band Multiple STI-CPS Authentication] in the context of emergency services” using “legacy” E911, while ATIS-1000097.v003, Appendix B describes a broader set of issues related to all three non-IP standards and their interaction with different types of 911 systems.

We seek comment on whether the best reading of the statute requires us to take into account any other factors when evaluating a framework's effectiveness. For example, in the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order (85 FR 73360, Nov. 17, 2020), the Commission said that “significant industry consensus is an important predicate to deeming a non-IP framework `effective,' given that cross-network exchange of authenticated caller ID information is a central component to caller ID authentication.” Must we consider whether and the extent to which industry consensus exists on the merits of a framework and the standards upon which the framework is based? Does presence or lack of consensus bear on a framework's effectiveness? If so, how should we evaluate whether there is sufficient consensus? Should we consider whether any industry participants are withholding such consensus for reasons other than the effectiveness of the framework, such as an unwillingness to compromise on which frameworks are best or a desire to avoid having to invest in implementing a framework?

In this section, we propose to conclude that frameworks using two of the three ATIS-adopted non-IP caller ID authentication standards satisfy the TRACED Act's requirement using the Commission's proposed criteria for evaluating non-IP frameworks. Specifically, we propose to conclude that In-Band Authentication (ATIS-1000095.v002) and Out-of-Band Multiple STI-CPS Authentication (ATIS-1000096) are both developed and reasonably available, and therefore satisfy the requirements for repealing the non-IP caller ID authentication continuing extension. We also propose to conclude that these two standards are effective, and therefore satisfy the requirement for providers to take reasonable measures to implement effective non-IP caller ID authentication. We seek comment on whether the newest standard, Out-of-Band Agreed STI-CPS Authentication (ATIS-1000105) also satisfies the TRACED Act's requirements using the criteria. We also seek comment on whether any other non-IP frameworks have been developed that meet the TRACED Act's requirements using the criteria. Additionally, we propose a streamlined process for evaluating non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks in the future.

We propose to conclude that frameworks using all three ATIS non-IP standards meet the first criterion for repealing the continuing extension because they are “fully developed and finalized by industry standards.” Specifically, we propose to conclude that because ATIS is a well-established standards development organization, frameworks using all three standards are standards-based and their fundamental aspects are standardized. We propose to recognize that the technical elements of all three frameworks have been published and are accessible by providers and vendors that make frameworks commercially available. We further propose to conclude that there is consensus within the industry that all three frameworks are developed, given that final versions of all three standards have been approved by ATIS, an industry standards organization. Additionally, we propose to conclude that because record evidence indicates that both In-Band Authentication and Out-of-Band Multiple STI-CPS Authentication have been implemented by at least some providers, they qualify as fully developed and finalized. We seek comment on these proposed conclusions. We also seek comment on whether Out-of-Band Agreed STI-CPS Authentication is ready for implementation, and whether it has been implemented by any providers. We seek comment on whether there are any ongoing efforts to further develop or improve any of the standards either inside or outside of ATIS. WTA explained in 2022 that it believes that “there is no open or ongoing ATIS proceeding regarding further refinement or revision of the In-Band standard . . . .” If there are ongoing efforts to further develop or improve any of the standards, what are the substance of such revisions and what problems or shortcomings in the standards are they designed to solve? What progress is industry making to complete any further development? Have all fundamental aspects of each standard which enable their effectiveness been standardized by industry? Are there any other factors we should consider when evaluating whether each of the standards is fully developed and finalized by industry standards?

Next, we propose to conclude that frameworks using In-Band Authentication and Out-of-Band Multiple STI-CPS Authentication are reasonably available such that the underlying equipment and software necessary to implement those frameworks are commercially available, and therefore meet the second criterion for repealing the continuing extension. Record evidence (from December 2022 and January 2023) indicates that frameworks using In-Band Authentication and Out-of-Band Multiple STI-CPS Authentication have been implemented by some providers, which suggests that the necessary equipment and software is commercially available. For instance, we note that TelcoBridges explained it “offers technology solutions for both” standards. Regarding In-Band Authentication, NCTA noted that at least two providers “have successfully demonstrated an in-band solution.” With respect to Out-of-Band Multiple STI-CPS Authentication, the Cloud Communications Alliance stated that Neustar “offers an out-of-band solution” and its members “have undertaken the expense of enabling out-of-band solutions for their networks. . . .” TransNexus explained that it knows “of about 50 providers currently using Out-of-Band [Multiple STI-CPS],” and appears to continue to offer an out-of-band solution, as does TransUnion. We seek additional information concerning the commercial availability, marketing, and deployment of frameworks based on these standards. Have there been increases or decreases in deployments of such frameworks since the Notice of Inquiry? If so, are such increases or decreases relevant to their “commercial availability”? We also seek comment on whether some or all current in-band and out-of-band deployments rely on proprietary elements not outlined in the standard and whether the use of or need to use proprietary elements bear on whether we should conclude that frameworks based on either standard are reasonably available. Are any of the frameworks or associated standards subject to patents or other intellectual property restrictions? We propose to conclude that the governance structure required by Out-of-Band Multiple STI-CPS Authentication does not affect our proposed conclusion that frameworks using this standard are reasonably available. We believe that existing governance structures utilized under STIR/SHAKEN can be expanded to fulfill Out-of-Band Multiple STI-CPS Authentication requirements without unreasonable burden on the existing governance structures or the Commission. We seek comment on this proposed conclusion. Additionally, we seek comment on the cost and burdens of implementing these frameworks, including whether they can be reasonably borne by providers and their relevance to a framework's “commercial availability.” Does the reasonability depend on the size and type of provider and structure and location of its network? How many voice service providers with 100,000 or fewer voice service subscriber lines have implemented frameworks using each of these standards? If a framework is not cost effective in some cases or for some providers, can it still be considered reasonably available? Should the Commission consider any other factors when evaluating whether a framework is reasonably available?

We seek comment on whether frameworks using Out-of-Band Agreed STI-CPS Authentication are reasonably available such that the underlying equipment and software necessary to implement them are commercially available, as we do not believe we have sufficient information yet to evaluate their availability. In particular, we seek comment on any pending or current implementation of frameworks using Out-of-Band Agreed STI-CPS Authentication by vendors or providers. Have vendors and providers had sufficient time to develop software and equipment based on the standard? If not, do they plan to do so and how long will it take? Do vendors and providers believe that it will be easier or more difficult than the other non-IP standards to implement frameworks based on Out-of-Band Agreed STI-CPS Authentication in their equipment and networks? If frameworks based on Out-of-Band Agreed STI-CPS Authentication have been developed, are there any proprietary elements to any such frameworks? Is the standard or any associated frameworks subject to patents or other intellectual property restrictions? Are frameworks being offered and marketed to providers? What are the costs of these frameworks and can those costs be reasonably borne by providers?

We propose to conclude that frameworks using In-Band Authentication and Out-of-Band Multiple STI-CPS Authentication satisfy the proposed criteria for determining whether a non-IP caller ID authentication framework is effective. First, we propose to conclude that these frameworks satisfy the first two criteria of effectiveness—developed and reasonably available—based on our proposed conclusion above that they satisfy these TRACED Act requirements. Second, we propose to conclude that these frameworks are effective under the plain meaning of the TRACED Act because they operate to produce the intended result of authenticating calls as described in the applicable standard. We believe that record evidence of deployments of In-Band Authentication and Out-of-Band Multiple STI-CPS Authentication frameworks in the marketplace are prima facie evidence that these frameworks are in fact operating to authenticate calls as described in each standard, as providers would otherwise be unlikely to implement them in the absence of a mandate. We also note record evidence indicating that the two standards are interoperable, i.e., that they will continue to operate to authenticate calls even if other providers in the call path are using frameworks based on the other standard. We seek comment on our proposed conclusion. Do commenters have additional evidence concerning testing or real-world deployments showing whether these frameworks, when implemented as designed, successfully authenticate calls? What is the experience of those who have implemented these two types of frameworks? Are there any other bases for concluding that frameworks using In-Band Authentication and Out-of-Band Multiple STI-CPS Authentication do or do not authenticate calls as intended under the standards based on the plain meaning of the TRACED Act?

We also seek comment regarding whether frameworks using Out-of-Band Agreed STI-CPS Authentication are effective under the TRACED Act. We note that we propose to conclude above that, although we believe frameworks using Out-of-Band Agreed STI-CPS Authentication are developed, we do not have sufficient evidence to determine whether they are reasonably available, and we sought comment on that criterion. We similarly do not believe we have sufficient evidence to determine whether these frameworks are effective under the ordinary meaning of the word, and seek comment on that criterion. Is there any evidence of testing or marketplace deployments that would show that Out-of-Band Agreed STI-CPS Authentication frameworks operate to produce the intended result of authenticating calls as described in the standard? Will Out-of-Band Agreed STI-CPS Authentication undermine the effectiveness of frameworks based on the other standards or will use of those other frameworks impact the effectiveness of Out-of-Band Agreed STI-CPS Authentication? Are there other factors relevant under the plain meaning of the TRACED Act that we should consider? Can and should we preclude use of certain frameworks even if a framework is otherwise effective in order to prevent interoperability issues?

Other non-IP caller ID Authentication frameworks. We seek comment on whether there are any other non-IP frameworks that we should evaluate using our criteria. For instance, are there any other standards either ratified or in development by ATIS, IETF, or any other standards organization that we should consider? Are there proprietary frameworks that we should consider or be aware of that might meet the TRACED Act requirements? For example, the Commission noted in the Notice of Inquiry that AB Handshake has previously submitted a proprietary solution for consideration. At least two commenters explained that the AB Handshake solution, “meets the Commission's standards for effectiveness.” Should we consider AB Handshake or other providers' solutions? We also note that IETF appears to be developing a new out-of-band standard. We seek comment on its development status and how it may differ from the three ATIS standards discussed above. If there are other frameworks that commenters believe we should consider, we seek comment on the application of the criteria and factors described above to those frameworks, as well as other considerations we should take into account when evaluating the frameworks. Some commenters responding to the Notice of Inquiry discussed alternative IP voice traffic delivery methods, such as transmission over the public internet. We do not believe these alternatives bear on whether non-IP caller ID authentication solutions meet the TRACED Act's requirements and warrant mandating non-IP caller ID authentication, but commenters are invited to provide information otherwise.

Streamlined evaluation process. We propose to create a streamlined process the Commission can use going forward to determine whether other non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks are “effective” under the criteria we propose to adopt with the NPRM. Specifically, we propose to delegate to the Wireline Competition Bureau the authority to seek comment on whether a non-IP caller ID authentication framework is effective under the Commission-established criteria, evaluate the framework using the criteria, and make final determinations about a framework's effectiveness. We believe this approach will ensure that providers can rapidly take advantage of such frameworks. We seek comment on this proposal, including any implementation issues we should consider. We also propose, consistent with the approach we took with STIR/SHAKEN, to permit providers continuing to rely on non-IP networks to adopt improved versions of any approved standards or frameworks as they become available in the future. We note that the Commission previously delegated to the Bureau the authority to seek comment on requiring providers to comply with new versions of the existing STIR/SHAKEN standards and to require use of such standards.

We propose to conclude that the development and availability of effective non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks warrants mandating that providers that continue to maintain non-IP infrastructure to either upgrade their networks to IP or to implement one or more non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks in their non-IP networks. To effectuate this mandate, we believe the Commission must, pursuant to the TRACED Act, repeal the continuing extension from caller ID authentication obligations for providers relying on non-IP network infrastructure in Section 64.6304(d) of our rules and modify Section 64.6303 (the “reasonable measures” rule) to require that such providers either upgrade their networks to IP or implement one or more non-IP caller ID authentication solutions. We seek comment on this proposed conclusion. Below we discuss and seek comment on repeal of the continuing extension and modification of the “reasonable measures” rule. We also propose and seek comment on conforming modifications to the rules governing Robocall Mitigation Database filing requirements to account for the proposed non-IP caller ID authentication mandate.

Repealing the continuing extension. In connection with our proposed determination above that non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks are developed and reasonably available, we propose to repeal the continuing extension from robocall mitigation obligations granted to providers that rely on non-IP technology. Section 4(b)(5)(B) of the TRACED Act requires the Commission to “grant a delay of required compliance” with the implementation deadline for non-IP caller ID authentication for voice service providers materially reliant on non-IP networks “until a call authentication protocol has been developed for calls delivered over non-[IP] networks and is reasonably available.” The Commission issued this continuing extension in the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order (85 FR 73360, Nov. 17, 2020). Providers reliant on non-IP technology therefore “are deemed subject to a continuing extension” under the Commission's rules. As explained above, we believe that frameworks based on certain ATIS standards qualify as developed and reasonably available and therefore justify repeal of the continuing extension. Are there other factors the Commission must or should consider before repealing the continuing extension? If the Commission determines that non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks have been developed and are reasonably available, does it have any discretion under the TRACED Act to maintain the continuing extension?

We also propose additional changes to our caller ID authentication rules to remove obsolete rules and make non-substantive corrections. First, we propose to delete rules in § 64.6304 that pertain to extensions for small voice service providers (except for small voice service providers that originate calls via satellite using North American Numbering Plan numbers), services scheduled for section 214 discontinuance, and provider-specific extensions, as those extensions were time-limited and have since expired. Second, we propose to delete all of § 64.6306, which we do not believe is necessary any longer, as it implemented the TRACED Act's requirement to provide an exemption from call authentication obligations for providers who certified by a date that has since passed that they were implementing call authentication. Third, we propose to make a non-substantive correction to § 64.6302 concerning intermediate providers' attestation-level decisions regarding the caller ID information of each SIP call they receive. We seek comment on these proposals.

Modifying the “reasonable measures” rule. In connection with our proposed determination above that available non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks are effective, we propose to modify Section 64.6303 of our rules, which implements the TRACED Act's “reasonable measures” requirement, to mandate that providers either upgrade their networks to IP or implement one or more non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks. Under section 4(b)(1)(B) of the TRACED Act, voice service providers must “take reasonable measures to implement an effective call authentication framework in [their] non-internet protocol networks.” In the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order (85 FR 73360, Nov. 17, 2020), the Commission concluded that “[a] voice service provider satisfies this obligation by either (1) completely upgrading its non-IP networks to IP and implementing the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework on its entire network, or (2) working to develop a non-IP authentication solution.” At the time, the Commission stated that “[i]f and when we identify an effective framework, we expect to revisit our `reasonable measures' requirement and shift it from focusing on development to focusing on implementation.” Since we propose to conclude that available non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks are effective, we propose to modify this rule to state that a provider with a non-IP network satisfies the “reasonable measures” requirement by either (1) completely upgrading its non-IP networks to IP and implementing the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework on its entire network, or (2) implementing one or more effective non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks. We propose to make similar modifications in § 64.6303 for gateway providers and non-gateway intermediate providers receiving calls directly from an originating provider. We believe this approach would continue to promote the IP transition, which is the most effective method for achieving caller ID authentication on phone networks and obviates the need for providers to implement non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks. Additionally, we propose to add a provision in § 64.6303 to make clear that intermediate providers, including gateway providers, must pass unaltered to the subsequent intermediate provider or voice service provider in the call path any non-IP caller ID authentication information it receives, except where necessary for technical reasons to complete the call and where the intermediate provider reasonably believes the non-IP caller ID authentication information presents an imminent threat to its network security, mirroring the requirement on intermediate providers for STIR/SHAKEN authentication information. We seek comment on whether additional rule revisions are necessary to ensure that both STIR/SHAKEN and non-IP caller ID authentication information are passed to the next provider in the call path regardless of whether the network is IP or non-IP. We also propose to add a definition for “effective non-IP caller ID authentication framework” in § 64.6300, to mean a non-internet Protocol caller identification authentication framework that the Commission has determined to be effective under 47 U.S.C. 227b(b)(1)(B).

We seek comment on these proposals and their implications. What are the costs and benefits of requiring providers to either complete their IP transitions or implement a non-IP caller ID authentication framework? Would removing the option allowing providers to meet the “reasonable measures” requirement by working to develop a non-IP caller ID authentication solution disincentivize providers from participating in efforts to develop other non-IP caller ID authentication solutions that may be more effective or to improve the non-IP caller ID authentication solutions that have already been developed so that they are more effective? Should we require that providers who do not upgrade their networks to IP both implement non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks and continue to work to develop or improve non-IP caller ID authentication solutions? Are there any other issues or alternative approaches we should consider?

Conforming Robocall Mitigation Database rules. We propose changes to the Commission's Robocall Mitigation Database rules to conform them with the proposed non-IP caller ID authentication mandate. Specifically, we propose a new requirement for providers to certify in the Robocall Mitigation Database whether they have implemented a non-IP caller ID authentication framework in their non-IP networks. We seek comment on this proposal and whether we should take a different approach implementing the requirement in our rules. Should we further require such providers to certify which Commission-approved non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks they have implemented? What would be the benefits and costs of such additional requirement? We also seek comment on whether and to what extent we should modify any other Robocall Mitigation Database filing requirements or rules to account for our non-IP caller ID authentication requirement. In providing such feedback, we encourage providers to consider how we would implement any rule changes in the Robocall Mitigation Database submission form.

We propose a two-year timeline for providers that continue to maintain non-IP infrastructure to either complete their IP transitions or fully implement one or more of the available non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks in their non-IP networks. Under our proposal, the two-year timeline would commence from the effective date of any implementing rules we adopt. We seek comment on this proposal. In the Notice of Inquiry, the Commission sought comment on a reasonable implementation timeline for deployment of one or both non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks. Several commenters agreed the Commission should set a deadline for providers to implement a non-IP framework if they have not completed their IP transition by that date, and others proposed a specific date, which has since passed.

In the TRACED Act, Congress made clear its intention for all calls to be authenticated, and that it did not intend for the non-IP implementation extension to last indefinitely. Four years have passed since caller ID authentication obligations have been in effect, during which time advancements in the IP transition have occurred while providers continuing to rely on non-IP technology have certified that they have participated in efforts to develop non-IP caller ID authentication solutions. As proposed above, we believe there are now non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks that meet the requirements in the TRACED Act and Commission rules. Given subsequent industry progress in the IP transition and in the development and deployment of non-IP frameworks, we believe that a two-year compliance timeline appropriately balances the strong public interest in closing the non-IP caller ID authentication gap as soon as possible with the need for providers to have sufficient time to implement the approach that makes the most sense for their networks and business models. Congress directed the Commission in the TRACED Act to “enable as promptly as reasonable full participation of all classes of providers of voice service and types of voice calls to receive the highest level of trust.” We seek comment on this proposed compliance timeline.

Specifically, we ask that commenters address how any remaining technical, financial, or other obstacles may affect the time needed to implement any of the discussed non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks. We note that the Commission previously adopted compliance timelines of roughly 15 months for voice service providers, 13 months for gateway providers, and 10 months for certain non-gateway intermediate providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN in their IP networks, and providers were generally able to meet those deadlines. Our rules adopted pursuant to the TRACED Act granted certain providers extensions from this deadline and permitted providers to request exemptions. Given those compliance timelines, would the significantly longer two-year compliance timeline we propose here be necessary to reasonably account for any additional burdens providers may face in implementing one of the non-IP frameworks? Both TransNexus and TelcoBridges say that deployment time depends on the existing network capabilities, but can be as short as a few days. Is a shorter timeline warranted given that some providers have already begun to implement one or both of the commercially available non-IP frameworks? Is two years adequate time for providers to make adjustments to any existing contractual arrangements that may be impacted by implementing one or more of the non-IP frameworks? Are there any technical or operational hurdles unique to the non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks that require additional time for providers to comply? If commenters believe that more or less time is needed to implement one or more of the commercially available non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks, they should discuss specific reasons why our proposed two-year timeline is insufficient or too long, propose an alternative timeline, and provide detail on why their proposed alternative is appropriate.

Above, we seek comment on whether the costs and operational hurdles associated with implementing non-IP frameworks vary depending on the size and type of provider and the structure and location of a provider's network. If they do, should we modify our proposed timeline for certain classes of providers? Or would doing so undermine the value of any requirements we adopt? For example, the Commission previously granted an extension of the STIR/SHAKEN implementation deadline for voice service providers with 100,000 or fewer subscriber lines, including small rural providers, and subsequently accelerated the extended deadline by one year for non-facilities-based small voice service providers. Should we similarly adopt an extension for small providers to implement a non-IP caller ID authentication framework? If so, should we adopt different extensions for facilities and non-facilities-based small providers? Do certain classes of small providers, such as rural or intermediate providers, face unique challenges to implementing non-IP caller ID authentication? For purposes of the STIR/SHAKEN implementation extension for small voice service providers, the Commission considers a “small voice service provider” to be “a provider that has 100,000 or fewer voice service subscriber lines (counting the total of all business and residential fixed subscriber lines and mobile phones and aggregated over all of the provider's affiliates).” Would a similar approach be appropriate in the non-IP caller ID authentication context, or should we adopt a different threshold? If so, why? Are there certain gateway and non-gateway intermediate providers that warrant an extension, such that the extension should not be tied to the number of subscriber lines? If so, how should we determine the class or classes of such providers subject to an extension? If we grant an extension to some providers, how much additional time would be appropriate in light of the public interest in promptly closing the non-IP caller ID authentication gap? How would any extension account for the importance of ubiquitous caller ID authentication? Instead of a categorical approach, should we instead rely on individualized waiver requests pursuant to the Commission's longstanding waiver standard? The Commission may exercise its discretion to waive a rule where the particular facts at issue make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest. In considering whether to grant a waiver, the Commission may take into account considerations of hardship, equity, or more effective implementation of overall policy on an individual basis.

We invite commenters to address how our proposed compliance timeline relates to providers' efforts to transition their networks to IP technology. In the Notice of Inquiry, we sought comment on the status of providers' efforts to fully transition their networks to all-IP technology and the effect that a non-IP caller ID authentication requirement would have on the IP transition's progress. We seek additional comment on this issue in light of our proposed mandate of non-IP caller ID authentication and the Commission's recent efforts to ease regulatory barriers to IP transitions. For example, should any compliance timeline take into account providers' assertions about the time it would take to transition their networks to all IP? Do providers opting to fully upgrade their networks to IP face unique challenges that counsel for a longer compliance timeline? Would two years give providers adequate time to adjust existing contractual arrangements, or to negotiate new ones, as a result of upgrading their networks to all IP? What, if any, technical or financial circumstances affect providers' ability to transition to all-IP technology that our proposed timeline does not account for? To the extent that providers believe that transitioning their networks to IP warrants a longer compliance timeline, they should propose a specific alternative compliance timeline, and discuss in detail the reasons that such providers need additional time to comply.

We seek comment on the costs and benefits associated with requiring providers to implement a non-IP caller ID authentication framework. As explained above, the TRACED Act requires that the Commission provide a continuing extension from implementing a non-IP caller ID authentication framework to providers materially reliant on non-IP networks “until a call authentication protocol has been developed for calls delivered over non-[IP] networks and is reasonably available.” Thereafter, providers must take reasonable measures to implement an effective caller ID authentication framework in their non-IP networks, which we propose to mean implementing a non-IP caller ID authentication framework for providers that continue to rely on non-IP networks by the end of the proposed two-year transition period. Because implementation of a non-IP framework and its accompanying costs must be incurred at some point, we propose to focus our cost-effectiveness analysis on timing, rather than the implementation requirement. Under that proposed focus, we believe the Commission must weigh the costs and benefits of imminent action versus further delay.

We believe that the potential cost of mandating one or more non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks at a particular point in time is that a more effective or efficient framework meeting the TRACED Act's requirements could become available after providers have already incurred implementation costs for any approved frameworks. Given that we propose that two commercially available non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks meet the TRACED Act's requirements, propose to allow providers to use later versions of those frameworks if any are released, and propose a streamlined process for the Bureau to evaluate going forward whether other non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks meet the TRACED Act's requirements, we believe that this potential cost is small. We seek comment on the size of this potential cost and on measures we might adopt to avoid or minimize this cost. Additionally, we seek comment on the nature and magnitude of other possible costs of requiring implementation of non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks on the timeline we propose.

We believe that the benefits of mandating implementation of non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks on the timeline we propose are vast. Reducing the billions of dollars robocalls cost from wasted time, nuisance, and fraud, which totaled $13.5 billion in 2020 alone, hinges on closing loopholes that enable robocallers to evade detection. Some large portion of that savings must be attributed to closing the non-IP caller ID authentication gap. Moreover, the Commission previously estimated that unchecked robocalls could reduce public welfare by billions of dollars annually, meaning even a small percentage reduction in those calls could confer tens of millions in benefits annually. Each type of benefit is lost every year the Commission delays implementing a non-IP fix. To better refine our benefits estimate, we seek comment on the magnitude—in both absolute and relative terms—of robocall volume originating on or transiting non-IP networks. More broadly, we seek comment on our benefit estimates and the data and methods underlying those estimates, as well as additional information that may inform our estimates. We seek comment on the nature and magnitude of any possible benefits not included in our analysis.

We seek comment on the Commission's legal authority to adopt the proposals outlined above. In particular, we propose that the TRACED Act, the Truth in Caller ID Act, and section 251(e) of the Communications Act provide the Commission with ample authority to adopt the rules implementing the proposals discussed herein. We note that the Commission has long invoked these same statutory provisions to adopt caller ID authentication obligations. For example, in the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order (85 FR 73360, Nov. 17, 2020), the Commission found that the text of the TRACED Act provided authority to adopt rules implementing Section 4(b)(1)(B) for originating and terminating providers, while section 251(e) and the Truth in Caller ID Act provided further, independent sources of authority for rules applying to intermediate providers, as well as originating and terminating providers. We seek comment on this proposal, and on any alternative sources of legal authority upon which we could rely.

As the Commission observed in the Notice of Inquiry, section 4(b)(1)(B) of the TRACED Act directs the Commission to require voice service providers to take “reasonable measures to implement” a non-IP caller ID authentication framework in their non-IP networks. This language appears to contemplate Commission rules requiring voice service providers to implement one or more non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks. Do the statutory provisions discussed above continue to provide us authority to require voice service providers to implement one or more non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks? Do commenters read the language of section 4(b)(1)(B) as containing any limits on our ability to mandate implementation of a non-IP caller ID authentication framework by voice service providers? Are there other potential sources of authority we should consider?

In addition to its authority under the TRACED Act, the Commission has consistently found independent authority for caller ID authentication requirements, including those applicable to intermediate providers, in section 251(e) of the Act and the Truth in Caller ID Act. As the Commission explained in the First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (85 FR 22029, Apr. 21, 2020), section 251(e) provides the Commission with exclusive, independent jurisdiction over numbering issues in the United States and “enables us to act flexibly and expeditiously with regard to important numbering matters[,]” including “[w]hen bad actors unlawfully spoof the caller ID that appears on a subscriber's phone[.]” The Truth in Caller ID Act provides us with further authority to adopt rules that are “necessary to . . . protect voice service subscribers from scammers and bad actors.” Beginning with the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order (85 FR 73360, Nov. 17, 2020), the Commission has repeatedly found both provisions to provide authority to impose caller ID authentication obligations on voice service providers and intermediate providers alike. We seek comment on whether these provisions grant us sufficient authority to require intermediate providers to adopt a non-IP caller ID authentication framework.

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM assessing the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 specified on the first page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

To protect the American public from illegally spoofed robocalls, the NPRM seeks comment on proposals that would address gaps in the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework, which works to provide trust that a calling party is who they claim to be. Although the STIR/SHAKEN framework mandated by Congress is effective, it relies on IP technology, resulting in critical information being stripped out when a call path includes non-IP networks. To address this problem, the Commission proposes to: conclude that effective non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks have been developed and are reasonably available; repeal the continuing extension from caller ID authentication requirements granted to providers that rely on non-IP technology; modify our rules concerning providers' obligation to take reasonable measures to implement effective caller ID authentication in their non-IP networks to require that providers implement one or more non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks; and require that providers certify in the Robocall Mitigation Database that they have implemented a non-IP caller ID authentication framework. The Commission proposes to give providers a two-year transition period to implement one or more non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks in their non-IP networks, with a possible extension of this transition period for providers with 100,000 or fewer voice service subscriber lines. The Commission proposes to rely on the TRACED Act and other Commission authority to implement these mandates.

The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202, 217, 227, 227b, 251(e), 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201, 202, 217, 227, 227b, 251(e), 303(r), and 403.

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.

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 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 34.75 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.” 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. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were approximately 530,109 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.

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 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were 90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts) with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”

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 498,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will meet the definition of a small cable operator. Based on industry data, only six cable system operators have more than 498,000 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. 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.

Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs). 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. 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 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.

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 of incumbent local exchange carriers can be considered small entities.

Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA have 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.

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. 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.

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 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 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.

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.

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 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. 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.

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 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 $44 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. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard most satellite telecommunications service providers can be considered small entities. The Commission notes however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications industry definition. Additionally, the Commission neither requests nor collects annual revenue information from satellite telecommunications providers, and is therefore unable to more accurately estimate the number of satellite telecommunications providers that would be classified as a small business under the SBA size standard.

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. 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.

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 Voice over internet Protocol (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.

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.

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.

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 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 $40 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.

The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.

In the NPRM, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on imposing reporting, recordkeeping and compliance obligations on various providers, many of whom may be small entities. Specifically, the Commission proposes introducing a new requirement for providers to certify in the Robocall Mitigation Database whether they have implemented a non-IP caller ID authentication framework in their non-IP networks. Additionally, the Commission proposes to require all providers using non-IP technology in their networks to implement one or more non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks within two years, and seeks comment on whether additional time for compliance should be allowed for providers that have 100,000 or fewer voice service subscriber lines. The Commission proposes that these frameworks be based on two non-IP caller ID authentication standards promulgated by the Alliance for Telecommunication Industry Solutions (ATIS): In-Band Authentication (ATIS-1000095.v002) and Out-of-Band Multiple STI-CPS Authentication (ATIS-1000096). The NPRM seeks comment on whether frameworks based on a third ATIS standard, Out-of-Band Agreed STI-CPS Authentication (ATIS-1000105), or other non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks satisfy the proposed criteria to meet the TRACED Act's requirements to first, be developed and reasonably available, and second, to be “effective.”

The NPRM seeks comment on the costs and benefits of its proposals and inquiries, which we anticipate 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. Specifically, the Commission proposes an analysis of the costs and benefits with respect to the timing of any mandate in the NPRM and seeks comment thereon. Further, the NPRM specifically seeks comment on the costs of requiring providers to either implement a non-IP caller ID authentication framework or upgrade their networks to all IP, the costs for providers to actually implement a non-IP caller ID authentication framework in their networks, and the costs for the providers to certify that they have implemented a non-IP caller ID authentication framework in the Robocall Mitigation Database. The NPRM also seeks comment on how many small voice service providers have implemented each of these frameworks. We seek comment from small and other entities about these costs.

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is required to include alternatives such as: (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 rule 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.

The NPRM seeks comment on proposals and alternatives that may have a significant impact on small entities. In particular, it seeks comment on the benefits and burdens of requiring all providers, including small and other entities, to implement a non-IP caller ID authentication framework. The NPRM specifically asks about frameworks based on standards promulgated by ATIS, as well as whether alternative non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks exist that satisfy the TRACED Act's requirements to first, be “developed” and “reasonably available,” and second, be “effective.” This includes whether the Commission should use proposed criteria to evaluate whether non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks meet the TRACED Act's requirements, or if any alternative criteria for how to evaluate any such frameworks should be considered. Additionally, the NPRM seeks comment on whether providers, including small and other entities, possess the resources necessary to implement these changes in the proposed two-year timeframe. The NPRM also solicits comment on whether additional time may be needed to implement these frameworks, or whether extensions should be granted for certain providers including providers that have 100,000 or fewer voice service subscriber lines. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the proposed analysis of the costs and benefits with respect to the timing of any mandate and any alternatives that may avoid or minimize those costs.

None.

Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202, 217, 227, 227b, 251(e), 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201, 202, 217, 227, 227b, 251(e), 303(r), and 403, the NPRM is adopted.

It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the Secretary, shall send a copy of the NPRM, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 part 64 as follows: