Call Authentication Trust Anchor
| Published date | 17 February 2021 |
| Citation | 86 FR 9894 |
| Record Number | 2021-03043 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Federal Communications Commission |
9894
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Sherry Kamke, Environmental Engineer,
Corrective Action Section #3,
Remediation Branch (LR–17J), EPA
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–5794,
Kamke.Sherry@epa.gov. Out of an
abundance of caution for members of
the public and our staff, the EPA Region
5 office will be closed to the public to
reduce the risk of transmitting COVID–
19. We encourage the public to submit
comments via https://
www.regulations.gov or via email.
Please call or email the contact listed
above if you need alternative means to
access the material provided in the
docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
: In the
final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State’s
UST program submittal as a direct rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments
are received in response to this action,
no further activity is contemplated. If
EPA receives relevant adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be
withdrawn, and all public comments
received will be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. For additional
information, see the direct final rule
published in the ‘‘Rules and
Regulations’’ section of this Federal
Register.
Authority: This rule is issued under the
authority of Sections 2002(a), 9004, and
7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, and
6991e.
Dated: February 9, 2021.
Cheryl Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2021–03169 Filed 2–16–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[WC Docket No. 17–97; FCC 21–15; FRS
17458]
Call Authentication Trust Anchor
AGENCY
: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION
: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
: In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on a
proposal to create a limited role for the
Commission to oversee certificate
revocation decisions by the private
STIR/SHAKEN governance system that
would have the effect of placing voice
service providers in noncompliance
with our rules.
DATES
: Comments are due on or before
March 19, 2021; reply Comments are
due on or before April 19, 2021. Written
comments on the Paperwork Reduction
Act proposed information collection
requirements must be submitted by the
public, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), and other interested
parties on or before February 17, 2021.
ADDRESSES
: Comments and reply
comments may be filed using the
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Interested parties may file comments or
reply comments, identified by WC
Docket No. 17–97 by any of the
following methods:
•Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
•Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
•Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701.
•U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554.
•Effective March 19, 2020, and until
further notice, the Commission no
longer accepts any hand or messenger
delivered filings. This is a temporary
measure taken to help protect the health
and safety of individuals, and to
mitigate the transmission of COVID–19.
See FCC Announces Closure of FCC
Headquarters Open Window and
Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public
Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020).
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-
closes-headquarters-open-window-and-
changes-hand-delivery-policy.
In addition to filing comments with the
Secretary, a copy of any comments on
the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed
information collection requirements
contained herein should be submitted to
the Federal Communications
Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov
and comments should be sent to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
Find this particular information
collection by selecting ‘‘Currently Under
Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or
by using the search function. Your
comment must be submitted into
www.reginfo.gov per the above
instructions for it to be considered. In
addition to submitting in
www.reginfo.gov also send a copy of
your comment on the proposed
information collection to Nicole Ongele,
FCC, via email to PRA@fcc.gov and to
Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov. Include in the
comments the OMB control number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
: For
further information, please contact
Connor Ferraro, Competition Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau,
at Connor.Ferraro@fcc.gov or at (202)
418–1322. For additional information
concerning the Paperwork Reduction
Act proposed information collection
requirements contained in this
document, send an email to PRA@
fcc.gov or contact Nicole Ongele at (202)
418–2991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
in WC Docket No. 17–97, FCC 21–15,
adopted on January 13, 2021, and
released on January 14, 2021. The full
text of this document is available for
public inspection at the following
internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/
public/attachments/FCC-21-15A1.pdf.
To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (e.g.,
braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format, etc.) or to request
reasonable accommodations (e.g.,
accessible format documents, sign
language interpreters, CART, etc.), send
an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice) or
(202) 418–0432 (TTY).
This document contains proposed
information collection requirements.
The Commission, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, invites the general public and
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to comment on the information
collection requirements contained in
this document, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. Comments should
address: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:07 Feb 16, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM 17FEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
9895
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules
functions of the Commission, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
Commission’s burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information collected; (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on the
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology;
and (e) way to further reduce the
information collection burden on small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on
how we might further reduce the
information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees. To view a copy of this
information collection request (ICR)
submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web
page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the
web page called ‘‘Currently Under
Review,’’ (3) click on the downward-
pointing arrow in the ‘‘Select Agency’’
box below the ‘‘Currently Under
Review’’ heading, (4) select ‘‘Federal
Communications Commission’’ from the
list of agencies presented in the ‘‘Select
Agency’’ box, (5) click the ‘‘Submit’’
button to the right of the ‘‘Select
Agency’’ box, (6) when the list of FCC
ICRs currently under review appears,
look for the Title of this ICR and then
click on the ICR Reference Number. A
copy of the FCC submission to OMB
will be displayed.
OMB Control Number: 3060–XXXX.
Title: Secure Telephone Identity
Governance Authority Token
Revocation Review Process.
Form Number: N/A.
Type of Review: New information
collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-
profit entities.
Number of Respondents and
Responses: 50 respondents; 50
responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 24
hours.
Frequency of Response: On occasion
reporting requirement.
Obligation to Respond: Mandatory
and required to obtain or retain benefits.
The statutory authority for these
collections are contained in 47 U.S.C.
227b, 251(e), and 227(e) of the
Communications Act of 1934.
Total Annual Burden: 1,200 hours.
Total Annual Cost: No Cost.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No
impact(s).
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:
The Commission will consider the
potential confidentiality of any
information submitted, particularly
where public release of such
information could raise security
concerns (e.g., granular location
information). Respondents may request
materials or information submitted to
the Commission or to the Administrator
be withheld from public inspection
under 47 CFR 0.459 of the
Commission’s rules.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. As part of the Commission’s multi-
pronged approach to combat illegal
robocalls, the Commission has
promoted the implementation of STIR/
SHAKEN, a caller ID authentication
framework. STIR/SHAKEN is a set of
industry-created technological
standards that help to prevent illegally
‘‘spoofed’’ calls. Spoofing is a practice
that involves the falsifying of caller ID
information and it is particularly
nefarious when bad actors spoof calls to
trick unsuspecting Americans into
thinking that calls they make are
trustworthy because the caller ID
information appears as if the call came
from a neighbor or a familiar or
reputable source.
2. In March, acting pursuant to the
Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall
Abuse Criminal Enforcement and
Deterrence Act (TRACED Act), the
Commission required voice service
providers to implement the STIR/
SHAKEN call authentication technology
in the internet protocol (IP) portions of
their phone networks by June 30, 2021.
The Commission completed
implementation of the TRACED Act
with respect to STIR/SHAKEN in
September and required intermediate
providers to facilitate caller ID
authentication.
3. Today, we propose a limited role
for the Commission to oversee
certificate revocation decisions by the
private STIR/SHAKEN Governance
Authority that would have the effect of
placing providers in noncompliance
with our rules. We anticipate that
exercising an oversight role would
provide necessary due process to parties
that may be rendered noncompliant
with our rules by the actions of a private
entity without unduly interfering with
the well-functioning multi-stakeholder
private STIR/SHAKEN governance
processes.
II. Background
4. To address the issue of illegal caller
ID spoofing, technologists from the
internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
and the Alliance for
Telecommunications Industry Solutions
(ATIS) developed standards to allow for
the authentication and verification of
caller ID information for calls carried
over IP networks. The result of their
efforts is the STIR/SHAKEN call
authentication framework, which allows
for the caller ID information to securely
travel with the call itself throughout the
entire length of the call path. A key
component to the STIR/SHAKEN
framework is the transmission of a
digital ‘‘certificate’’ along with the call.
This certificate essentially states that the
voice service provider authenticating
the caller ID information is the voice
service provider it claims to be, it is
authorized to authenticate this
information and, thus, the voice service
provider’s claims about the caller ID
information can be trusted. To maintain
trust and accountability in the voice
service providers that vouch for the
caller ID information, a neutral
governance system issues the
certificates.
5. The STIR/SHAKEN governance
system is comprised of several different
entities fulfilling specialized roles. The
Governance Authority, managed by a
board consisting of representatives from
across the voice service industry,
defines the policies and procedures for
which entities can issue or acquire
certificates. The Policy Administrator
applies the rules set by the Governance
Authority, confirms that certification
authorities are authorized to issue
certificates, and confirms that voice
service providers are authorized to
request and receive certificates.
Certification Authorities, of which there
are several, issue the certificates used to
authenticate and verify calls. And
finally, the voice service providers
themselves, which, when acting as call
initiators, select an approved
certification authority from which to
request a certificate, and when acting as
call recipients, check with certification
authorities to ensure that the certificates
they receive were issued by the correct
certification authority.
6. To receive a digital certificate, a
voice service provider must first apply
to the Policy Administrator for a Service
Provider Code (SPC) token. To obtain an
SPC token, the Governance Authority
policy requires that a voice service
provider must (1) have a current FCC
Form 499A on file with the
Commission, (2) have been assigned an
Operating Company Number (OCN), and
(3) have direct access to telephone
numbers from the North American
Numbering Plan Administrator
(NANPA) and the National Pooling
Administrator. The SPC token then
permits the voice service provider to
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:07 Feb 16, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM 17FEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
9896
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules
obtain the digital certificates it will use
to authenticate calls from one of the
approved Certification Authorities. The
SPC token therefore is a prerequisite for
a voice service provider to participate in
the STIR/SHAKEN ecosystem, and
management of token access is the
mechanism by which the Policy
Administrator and Governance
Authority protect the system from abuse
and misuse. On November 18, 2020, the
Governance Authority announced an
update to its Service Provider Code
(SPC) Token Access Policy. Under the
revised policy, an entity will no longer
need direct access to telephone
numbers; in place of that requirement,
an entity will need to have certified
with the Commission that they have
implemented STIR/SHAKEN or comply
with the Robocall Mitigation Program
requirements and are listed in the
Commission database. The Governance
Authority provided that the revised
policy will be effective upon the
Commission’s Robocall Mitigation
Certification filing deadline and that,
until then, the current SPC Token
Access Policy remains in effect.
7. The Policy Administrator grants
SPC tokens to eligible voice service
providers conditioned on the execution
of a signed agreement with each voice
service provider, stating that the voice
service provider will follow the
appropriate standards. This agreement
establishes that if the Policy
Administrator deems the voice service
provider to be in breach, it has the
authority to suspend or revoke a voice
service provider’s SPC token. The
Governance Authority possesses sole
authority to direct the Policy
Administrator to revoke an SPC token,
except in limited circumstances where
the Policy Administrator may perform
such actions on its own initiative,
reviewable by the Governance
Authority. In the Service Provider
Token Revocation Policy, the
Governance Authority lists the reasons
for which an SPC token may be revoked:
(1) In the situation of compromised
credentials, i.e., a voice service
provider’s private key has been lost,
stolen, or compromised, or a
certification authority has been
compromised; (2) the voice service
provider exits the ecosystem; (3) the
voice service provider failed to adhere
to the policy and technical requirements
of the system, including the SPC Token
Access Policy, funding requirements, or
technical specifications regarding the
use of STIR/SHAKEN; or (4) when
directed by a court, the Commission, or
another body with relevant legal
authority due to a violation of Federal
law related to caller ID authentication.
When a service provider’s credentials
are compromised or it exits the
ecosystem (the former two scenarios),
the Policy Administrator may revoke a
service provider’s SPC token without
prior direction from the Governance
Authority because in either
circumstance there will be no question
as to its appropriateness. However,
when a service provider fails to adhere
to a policy or technical requirement, or
at the direction of a court, the
Commission, or another relevant legal
authority (the latter two scenarios), the
Governance Authority conducts the
revocation process according to the
process outlined in the Service Provider
Token Revocation Policy.
8. Before the Governance Authority
revokes an SPC token due to a voice
service provider’s violation of a policy,
technical, or legal requirement, the
Governance Authority follows a multi-
step process described by the Service
Provider Token Revocation Policy,
which allows the voice service provider
to respond to the alleged infraction and
appeal any adverse decision according
to the Governance Authority’s operating
procedures. According to the Service
Provider Token Revocation Policy, a
voice service provider, the Policy
Administrator, a Certification Authority,
or a regulatory agency may report a
potential issue to the Governance
Authority via a complaint. Next, the
Governance Authority will conduct a
formal review of the complaint and
gather additional information. The
Governance Authority Board then votes
on whether to revoke the token,
requiring a two thirds vote of the
Governance Authority Board to approve
the revocation. The affected service
provider may appeal an adverse
decision by the Governance Authority
through a formal appeal process
outlined in the Governance Authority’s
Operating Procedures. In addition to the
Governance Authority reviewing the
complaint and issuing a written
response, the formal appeal process
includes the potential for a hearing
before an independent panel of three
individuals. Following a hearing, the
appeals panel issues a written decision
stating its findings of fact, conclusions,
and the reasoning for its conclusions. If
a voice service provider loses the
appeal, or chooses not to appeal, it may
seek reinstatement to the STIR/SHAKEN
ecosystem if the Governance Authority
approves of its plan of action to remedy
the issue or issues underlying the token
revocation. The Commission is aware of
the timing discrepancy between the
appeal process as described in the
Reinstatement Policy and the STI–GA
Operating Procedures, and we
encourage the STI–GA to further clarify
the timing for each.
9. In the First Caller ID Authentication
Report and Order and Further Notice,
the Commission declined to impose
new regulations on the STIR/SHAKEN
governance structure. The Commission
reasoned, in part, that the Commission
did yet not know the nature and scope
of the type of problems that may arise
that would require Commission
intervention.
III. Discussion
10. Although we continue to refrain
from unduly intruding upon the private
STIR/SHAKEN governance structure, in
this Further Notice we preliminarily
conclude that it is important for the
Commission to have a role in reviewing
the Governance Authority’s decisions to
revoke a voice service provider’s SPC
token because such decisions will have
the effect of placing the voice service
provider out of compliance with our
rules. Specifically, we propose to
establish an oversight role for the
Commission over the Governance
Authority’s token revocation decisions
similar to the one we hold in the context
of decisions by the Universal Service
Administrative Company (USAC).
Under our universal service appeals
rules, after first seeking internal review
by USAC, an aggrieved party may seek
review of USAC’s decision by the
Commission. Our proposed rules would
follow this same format and allow
review by the Wireline Competition
Bureau, except for requests for review
that raise ‘‘novel questions of fact, law
or policy,’’ which would be considered
by the full Commission. We seek
comment on this proposal.
11. In more detail, we propose to
adopt similar procedural and timing
requirements as in our universal service
rules. We propose that any voice service
provider that has its SPC token revoked
by the Governance Authority, must first,
before appealing that decision to the
Commission, exhaust all review of this
decision by the Governance Authority,
including completing the formal appeal
process outlined in the Governance
Authority’s Operating Procedures and
described above. We believe that the
Governance Authority’s robust review
procedures will enable the dispute to
fully develop before potentially
reaching the Commission, thereby
making it easier for the Commission to
identify the relevant facts and issues. Do
commenters agree? Are there any
reasons we should allow for appeals of
interim or other relief to the
Commission before the full Governance
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:07 Feb 16, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM 17FEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
9897
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Authority process has been completed?
If so, how should such a procedure
work? Are there any entities other than
the affected voice service providers that
we should allow to take advantage of
such appeal or other procedures?
12. We propose to give a voice service
provider 60 days after the Governance
Authority upholds its adverse decision
to request review by the Commission
and to apply the time periods for filing
oppositions and replies set forth in
§ 1.45 of our rules. Do commenters agree
that we should adopt these filing
deadlines? Are there reasons relevant to
the SPC token revocation context to
allow service providers more or less
time than parties are provided under
those rules? Should we require or allow
the Governance Authority to file a
statement in opposition to the request
for review?
13. We further propose to require
requests for review to be filed within the
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System, in a dedicated inbox
available to the public and be captioned
with the name of the party. Accordingly,
we propose to direct the Wireline
Competition Bureau to establish a new
docket for these appeals. Next, we
propose that the request for review, at
a minimum, contain: (1) A statement
setting forth the voice service provider’s
asserted basis for appealing the
Governance Authority’s decision to
revoke the SPC token; (2) a full
statement of relevant, material facts
with supporting affidavits and
documentation, including any
background information the voice
service provider deems useful to the
Commission’s review; and (3) the
question presented for review, with
reference, where appropriate, to any
underlying Commission rule or
Governance Authority policy. These
three criteria closely track our universal
service rules. In contrast to our
universal service rules, however, we
propose not to require that requests for
review include a statement of the relief
sought because we assume that the relief
sought will always be the reversal of the
Governance Authority’s revocation
decision. We seek comment on these
proposed filing requirements and on
what other information we should
require a voice service provider include
in a request for review. And we propose
to require that a copy of the request for
review be sent to the Governance
Authority via sti-ga@atis.org or another
method specified in the Governance
Authority’s Operating Procedures. We
further propose to require the
Governance Authority, upon receipt of a
copy of a voice service provider’s
request for review, to send to the Bureau
the full record of the SPC token
revocation appeal, including the written
decision. We seek comment on these
proposed processes. What specific
information should the Commission
require the Governance Authority to
provide? How should we address
requests for confidentiality, and should
we treat any filings as presumptively
confidential by default? Are there any
other ways in which we should depart
from our established process for
universal service appeals? We believe
that the reporting costs imposed upon
the Governance Authority by the
process we propose would be minimal,
and we seek comment on this view.
14. We further propose that
throughout the period of review, until
the Commission or Bureau issue an
initial decision, a voice service provider
will not be judged to be in violation of
our § 64.6301 rules or the TRACED Act.
We seek comment on these proposals. Is
this the appropriate status for a voice
service provider to maintain throughout
the review process? Should we allow
the voice service provider to maintain
possession and use of its SPC token
until the Bureau or Commission has
reached a decision? Are there are other
relevant procedural requirements that
we should adopt? We also propose that
should the Bureau or the Commission
uphold or otherwise decide not to
overturn the Governance Authority’s
decision, a voice service provider will
not maintain the right to use its SPC
token by filing a petition for
reconsideration or application for
review, in the absence of a stay of the
action of the Bureau or the Commission.
We seek comment on this proposal.
Given the novelty and potential
complexity of revocation appeals, at this
time we do not propose to impose a
time limit on Bureau or Commission
review, and we seek comment on this
preliminary view.
15. We propose that the standard of
review by either the Bureau or the
Commission be de novo. Do commenters
agree? We also seek comment on the
rules or other sources of law the Bureau
or the Commission should apply when
reviewing a revocation. Should we
incorporate by reference the policies
established by the Governance
Authority regarding token revocation
and determine whether the Governance
Authority applied those policies
correctly to the facts of a given appeal?
Alternatively, do commenters believe
we should limit our review merely to
specific types of procedural or obvious
error in the Governance Authority’s
process?
16. To establish this process, we
propose relying on the authority
Congress provided to the Commission
under section 4(b)(1) of the TRACED
Act to require the implementation of the
STIR/SHAKEN framework. We believe
that the proposed appeal process would
be consistent with this authority with
minimal cost to the industry. We seek
comment on this proposal, and whether
we have independent authority under
section 251(e) of the Communications
Act or under the Truth in Caller ID Act
or other statutory provisions.
IV. Procedural Matters
17. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding
shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-but-
disclose’’ proceeding in accordance
with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
Persons making ex parte presentations
must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page or paragraph numbers
where such data or arguments can be
found) in lieu of summarizing them in
the memorandum. Documents shown or
given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written
ex parte presentations and must be filed
consistent with Rule 1.1206(b). In
proceedings governed by Rule 1.49(f) or
for which the Commission has made
available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
18. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:07 Feb 16, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM 17FEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
9898
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules
this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on small
entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this Second Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (Second
Further Notice). The Commission
requests written public comments on
this IRFA. Comments must be identified
as responses to the IRFA and must be
filed by the deadlines for comments
provided on the first page of the Second
Further Notice. The Commission will
send a copy of the Second Further
Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). In
addition, the Second Further Notice and
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
19. The Second Further Notice
proposes measures as part of the
Commission’s efforts to combat illegal
spoofed robocalls. Specifically, the
Second Further Notice proposes to
establish an oversight role for the
Commission of the STIR/SHAKEN
governance system’s token revocation
process. Under the proposal, any voice
service provider that has its Service
Provider Code token revoked may seek
review of this decision by the
Commission through set procedures.
The proposal in the Second Further
Notice will help promote effective caller
ID authentication through STIR/
SHAKEN.
B. Legal Basis
20. The Second Further Notice
proposes to find authority for these
proposed rules under TRACED Act.
Section 4(b)(1) of the TRACED Act
provided authority to require the
implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN
framework. We preliminarily believe
that to effectively direct the
implementation of STIR/SHAKEN
consistent with the TRACED Act, the
Commission must have a role in
decisions to revoke Service Provider
Code tokens because the result of such
a decision could place the service
provider in noncompliance with our
rules. The Second Further Notice seeks
comment on whether we have
independent authority under section
251(e) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (the Act), under the
Truth in Caller ID Act, or any other
sources of authority.
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
21. 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 and by the rule
revisions on which the Notice seeks
comment, 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.
1. Wireline Carriers
22. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ‘‘establishments
primarily engaged in operating and/or
providing access to transmission
facilities and infrastructure that they
own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using
wired communications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of
services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services, wired
(cable) audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband
internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite
television distribution services using
facilities and infrastructure that they
operate are included in this industry.’’
The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which
consists of all such companies having
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2012 show that there
were 3,117 firms that operated that year.
Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer
than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms in
this industry can be considered small.
23. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to
local exchange services. The closest
applicable NAICS Code category is
Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under the applicable SBA size standard,
such a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau
data for 2012 show that there were 3,117
firms that operated for the entire year.
Of that total, 3,083 operated with fewer
than 1,000 employees. Thus under this
category and the associated size
standard, the Commission estimates that
the majority of local exchange carriers
are small entities.
24. Incumbent LECs. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local
exchange services. The closest
applicable NAICS Code category is
Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under the applicable SBA size standard,
such a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau
data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms
operated the entire year. Of this total,
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most
providers of incumbent local exchange
service are small businesses that may be
affected by our actions. According to
Commission data, one thousand three
hundred and seven (1,307) Incumbent
Local Exchange Carriers reported that
they were incumbent local exchange
service providers. Of this total, an
estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Thus, using the SBA’s size
standard the majority of incumbent
LECs can be considered small entities.
25. Competitive Local Exchange
Carriers (Competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs),
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
Other Local Service Providers. Neither
the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size
standard specifically for these service
providers. The appropriate NAICS Code
category is Wired Telecommunications
Carriers and under that size standard,
such a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau
data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms
operated during that year. Of that
number, 3,083 operated with fewer than
1,000 employees. Based on these data,
the Commission concludes that the
majority of Competitive LECS, CAPs,
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
Other Local Service Providers, are small
entities. According to Commission data,
1,442 carriers reported that they were
engaged in the provision of either
competitive local exchange services or
competitive access provider services. Of
these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256
have 1,500 or fewer employees. In
addition, 17 carriers have reported that
they are Shared-Tenant Service
Providers, and all 17 are estimated to
have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:07 Feb 16, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM 17FEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
9899
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules
carriers have reported that they are
Other Local Service Providers. Of this
total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, based on internally
researched FCC data, the Commission
estimates that most providers of
competitive local exchange service,
competitive access providers, Shared-
Tenant Service Providers, and Other
Local Service Providers are small
entities.
26. We have included small
incumbent LECs in this present RFA
analysis. As noted above, a ‘‘small
business’’ under the RFA is one that,
inter alia, meets the pertinent small-
business size standard (e.g., a telephone
communications business having 1,500
or fewer employees) and ‘‘is not
dominant in its field of operation.’’ The
SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that,
for RFA purposes, small incumbent
LECs are not dominant in their field of
operation because any such dominance
is not ‘‘national’’ in scope. We have
therefore included small incumbent
LECs in this RFA analysis, although we
emphasize that this RFA action has no
effect on Commission analyses and
determinations in other, non-RFA
contexts.
27. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business size
standard specifically for Interexchange
Carriers. The closest applicable NAICS
Code category is Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. The
applicable size standard under SBA
rules is that such a business is small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate
that 3,117 firms operated for the entire
year. Of that number, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees.
According to internally developed
Commission data, 359 companies
reported that their primary
telecommunications service activity was
the provision of interexchange services.
Of this total, an estimated 317 have
1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of
interexchange service providers are
small entities.
28. Cable System Operators (Telecom
Act Standard). The Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, also contains
a size standard for small cable system
operators, which is ‘‘a cable operator
that, directly or through an affiliate,
serves in the aggregate fewer than 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.’’ As of 2018, there were
approximately 50,504,624 cable video
subscribers in the United States.
Accordingly, an operator serving fewer
than 505,046 subscribers shall be
deemed a small operator if its annual
revenues, when combined with the total
annual revenues of all its affiliates, do
not exceed $250 million in the
aggregate. We note that the Commission
neither requests nor collects information
on whether cable system operators are
affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million.
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.
2. Wireless Carriers
29. Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite). This industry
comprises establishments engaged in
operating and maintaining switching
and transmission facilities to provide
communications via the airwaves.
Establishments in this industry have
spectrum licenses and provide services
using that spectrum, such as cellular
services, paging services, wireless
internet access, and wireless video
services. The appropriate size standard
under SBA rules is that such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For this industry, U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that
there were 967 firms that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms
employed fewer than 1,000 employees
and 12 firms employed of 1,000
employees or more. Thus under this
category and the associated size
standard, the Commission estimates that
the majority of wireless
telecommunications carriers (except
satellite) are small entities.
30. The Commission’s own data—
available in its Universal Licensing
System—indicate that, as of August 31,
2018 there are 265 Cellular licensees
that will be affected by our actions. The
Commission does not know how many
of these licensees are small, as the
Commission does not collect that
information for these types of entities.
Similarly, according to internally
developed Commission data, 413
carriers reported that they were engaged
in the provision of wireless telephony,
including cellular service, Personal
Communications Service (PCS), and
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
Telephony services. Of this total, an
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer
employees, and 152 have more than
1,500 employees. Thus, using available
data, we estimate that the majority of
wireless firms can be considered small.
31. Satellite Telecommunications.
This category 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 category has a small
business size standard of $35 million or
less in average annual receipts, under
SBA rules. For this category, U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that
there were a total of 333 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 299 firms had annual receipts of
less than $25 million. Consequently, we
estimate that the majority of satellite
telecommunications providers are small
entities.
3. Resellers
32. Local Resellers. The SBA has not
developed a small business size
standard specifically for Local Resellers.
The SBA category of
Telecommunications Resellers is the
closest NAICs code category for local
resellers. The Telecommunications
Resellers industry comprises
establishments engaged in purchasing
access and network capacity from
owners and operators of
telecommunications networks and
reselling wired and wireless
telecommunications services (except
satellite) to businesses and households.
Establishments in this industry resell
telecommunications; they do not
operate transmission facilities and
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network
operators (MVNOs) are included in this
industry. Under the SBA’s size
standard, such a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census Bureau data from 2012 show
that 1,341 firms provided resale services
during that year. Of that number, all
operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Thus, under this category
and the associated small business size
standard, the majority of these resellers
can be considered small entities.
According to Commission data, 213
carriers have reported that they are
engaged in the provision of local resale
services. Of these, an estimated 211
have 1,500 or fewer employees and two
have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of local
resellers are small entities.
33. Toll Resellers. The Commission
has not developed a definition for Toll
Resellers. The closest NAICS Code
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:07 Feb 16, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM 17FEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
9900
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Category is Telecommunications
Resellers. The Telecommunications
Resellers industry comprises
establishments engaged in purchasing
access and network capacity from
owners and operators of
telecommunications networks and
reselling wired and wireless
telecommunications services (except
satellite) to businesses and households.
Establishments in this industry resell
telecommunications; they do not
operate transmission facilities and
infrastructure. MVNOs are included in
this industry. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for the
category of Telecommunications
Resellers. Under that size standard, such
a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. 2012 Census Bureau
data show that 1,341 firms provided
resale services during that year. Of that
number, 1,341 operated with fewer than
1,000 employees. Thus, under this
category and the associated small
business size standard, the majority of
these resellers can be considered small
entities. According to Commission data,
881 carriers have reported that they are
engaged in the provision of toll resale
services. Of this total, an estimated 857
have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of toll
resellers are small entities.
34. Prepaid Calling Card Providers.
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business
definition specifically for prepaid
calling card providers. The most
appropriate NAICS code-based category
for defining prepaid calling card
providers is Telecommunications
Resellers. This 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 networks
operators (MVNOs) are included in this
industry. Under the applicable SBA size
standard, such a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that
1,341 firms provided resale services
during that year. Of that number, 1,341
operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Thus, under this category
and the associated small business size
standard, the majority of these prepaid
calling card providers can be considered
small entities. According to Commission
data, 193 carriers have reported that
they are engaged in the provision of
prepaid calling cards. All 193 carriers
have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of prepaid
calling card providers are small entities
that may be affected by these rules.
4. Other Entities
35. All Other Telecommunications.
The ‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’
category 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. Establishments providing
internet services or voice over internet
protocol (VoIP) services via client-
supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this
industry. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for ‘‘All
Other Telecommunications’’, which
consists of all such firms with annual
receipts of $35 million or less. For this
category, U.S. Census Bureau data for
2012 show that there were 1,442 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of
those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual
receipts less than $25 million and 15
firms had annual receipts of $25 million
to $49,999,999. Thus, the Commission
estimates that the majority of ‘‘All Other
Telecommunications’’ firms potentially
affected by our action can be considered
small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
36. None.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered
37. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements
under the rules for such small entities;
(3) the use of performance rather than
design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part
thereof, for such small entities.
38. The Second Further Notice invites
comment on the proposal to establish an
oversight role for the Commission
within the STIR/SHAKEN governance
system’s token revocation process. The
Second Further Notice proposes specific
processes for the appeals process and
seeks comment on alternatives to these
proposed processes.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
39. None.
40. Paperwork Reduction Act. This
document contains proposed new
information collection requirements.
The Commission, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, invites the general public and
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to comment on the information
collection requirements contained in
this document, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198, 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.
41. Contact person. For further
information about this proceeding,
please contact Connor Ferraro, FCC
Wireline Competition Bureau,
Competition Policy Division at (202)
418–1322 or connor.ferraro@fcc.gov.
V. Ordering Clauses
42. It is ordered, pursuant to sections
4(i), 4(j), 201, 227(e), 227b, 251(e), and
303(r), of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 154(i),
154(j), 201, 227(e), 227b, 251(e), and
303(r), that that this Second Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
adopted.
43. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Carrier equipment, Communications
common carriers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Telecommunications, Telephone.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:07 Feb 16, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM 17FEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
9901
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 64 as follows:
PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES
RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
■1. Amend subpart HH by adding
§ 64.6308 to read as follows:
§ 64.6308 Review of Governance Authority
decision to revoke an SPC token.
(a) Parties permitted to seek review of
Governance Authority decision. (1) Any
intermediate provider or voice service
provider aggrieved by a Governance
Authority decision to revoke that
intermediate provider or voice service
provider’s Service Provider Code (SPC)
token, must seek review from the
Governance Authority and complete the
appeals process established by the
Governance Authority prior to seeking
Commission review.
(2) Any intermediate provider or
voice service provider aggrieved by an
action to revoke its SPC token taken by
the Governance Authority, after
exhausting the appeals process provided
by the Governance Authority, may then
seek review from the Commission, as set
forth in this section.
(b) Filing deadlines. (1) An
intermediate provider or voice service
provider requesting Commission review
of a Governance Authority decision to
revoke that intermediate provider or
voice service provider’s SPC token by
the Commission, shall file such a
request electronically in the designated
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS) inbox within sixty days from the
date the Governance Authority issues its
final decision.
(2) Parties shall adhere to the time
periods for filing oppositions and
replies set forth in § 1.45.
(c) Filing requirements. (1) A request
for review of a Governance Authority
decision to revoke an intermediate
provider or voice service provider’s SPC
token by the Commission shall be filed
electronically in the designated ECFS
inbox. The request for review shall be
captioned ‘‘In the matter of Request for
Review by (name of party seeking
review) of Decision of the Governance
Authority to Revoke an SPC Token.’’
(2) A request for review shall contain:
(i) A statement setting forth the
intermediate provider or voice service
provider’s asserted basis for appealing
the Governance Authority’s decision to
revoke the SPC token;
(ii) A full statement of relevant,
material facts with supporting affidavits
and documentation, including any
background information the
intermediate provider or voice service
provider deems useful to the
Commission’s review; and
(iii) The question presented for
review, with reference, where
appropriate, to any underlying
Commission rule or Governance
Authority policy.
(3) A copy of a request for review that
is submitted to the Commission shall be
served on the Governance Authority via
sti-ga@atis.org or in accordance with
any alternative delivery mechanism the
Governance Authority may establish in
its operating procedures.
(d) Review by the Wireline
Competition Bureau or the Commission.
(1) Requests for review of a Governance
Authority decision to revoke an
intermediate provider or voice service
provider’s SPC token that are submitted
to the Commission shall be considered
and acted upon by the Wireline
Competition Bureau, which shall issue
a written decision; provided, however,
that requests for review that raise novel
questions of fact, law, or policy shall be
considered by the full Commission.
(2) An affected party may seek review
of a decision issued under delegated
authority by the Wireline Competition
Bureau pursuant to the rules set forth in
§ 1.115.
(e) Standard of review. (1) The
Wireline Competition Bureau shall
conduct de novo review of Governance
Authority decisions to revoke an
intermediate provider or voice service
provider’s SPC token.
(2) The Commission shall conduct de
novo review of Governance Authority
decisions to revoke an intermediate
provider or voice service provider’s SPC
token that involve novel questions of
fact, law, or policy; provided, however,
that the Commission shall not conduct
de novo review of decisions issued by
the Wireline Competition Bureau under
delegated authority.
(f) Status during pendency of a
request for review and a Governance
Authority decision. (1) When an
intermediate provider or voice service
provider has sought timely Commission
review of a Governance Authority
decision to revoke an intermediate
provider or voice service provider’s SPC
token under this section, the
intermediate provider or voice service
provider shall not be considered to be
in violation of the Commission’s call
authentication rules under § 64.6301
until and unless the Wireline
Competition Bureau or the Commission,
pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, has upheld or otherwise
decided not to overturn the Governance
Authority’s decision.
(2) In accordance with §§ 1.102(b) and
1.106(n), the effective date of any action
pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section
shall not be stayed absent order by the
Wireline Competition Bureau or the
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021–03043 Filed 2–16–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 210208–0016; RTID 0648–
XX065]
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean
Quahog Fisheries; Proposed 2021–
2026 Fishing Quotas
AGENCY
: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION
: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
SUMMARY
: NMFS proposes status quo
commercial quotas for the Atlantic
surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries for
2021 and projected status quo quotas for
2022–2026. This action is necessary to
establish allowable harvest levels of
Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs
that will prevent overfishing and allow
harvesting of optimum yield. This
action would also continue to suspend
the minimum shell size for Atlantic
surfclams for the 2021 fishing year. The
intended effect of this action is to
provide benefit to the industry from
stable quotas to maintain a consistent
market.
DATES
: Comments must be received by
March 4, 2021.
ADDRESSES
: An Environmental
Assessment (EA) was prepared for the
surfclam and ocean quahog
specifications. Copies of the EA are
available on request from Dr.
Christopher M. Moore, Executive
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, Suite 201, 800
North State Street, Dover, DE 19901.
These documents are also accessible via
the internet at http://www.mafmc.org.
You may submit comments on this
document, identified by NOAA–NMFS–
2020–0152, by the following method:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:07 Feb 16, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM 17FEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
