Numbering Policies for Modern Communications

• Published date: 14 September 2021
• Citation: 86 FR 51081
• Record Number: 2021-18175
• Section: Proposed rules
• Court: Federal Communications Commission

51081

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Dated: September 3, 2021.

J.W. Mauger,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant

Commandant for Prevention Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021–19570 Filed 9–13–21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52

[WC Docket Nos. 13–97, 07–243, 20–67; IB

Docket No. 16–155; FCC 21–94; FR ID

43570]

Numbering Policies for Modern

Communications

AGENCY

: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION

: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

: In this document, the Federal

Communications Commission

(Commission or FCC) proposes to

update rules regarding direct access to

numbers by providers of interconnected

voice over internet Protocol (VoIP)

services. The Pallone-Thune Telephone

Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement

and Deterrence (TRACED) Act directed

the Commission to examine ways to

reduce access to telephone numbers by

potential perpetrators of illegal

robocalls. These proposals aim to

safeguard the numbers and consumers,

protect national security interests,

promote public safety, and reduce

opportunities for regulatory arbitrage.

DATES

: Comments are due on or before

October 14, 2021, and reply comments

are due on or before November 15, 2021.

Written comments on the Paperwork

Reduction Act proposed information

collection requirements must be

submitted by the public and other

interested parties on or before

November 15, 2021.

ADDRESSES

: You may send comments,

identified by WC Docket Nos. 13–97,

07–243, 20–67, and IB Docket No. 16–

155 by any of the following methods:

•Federal Communications

Commission’s Website: http://

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the

instructions for submitting comments.

•Mail: 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.

•Hand Delivery: Effective March 19,

2020, and until further notice, the

Commission no longer accepts any hand

or messenger delivered filings. This is a

temporary measure taken to help protect

the health and safety of individuals, and

to mitigate the transmission of COVID–

19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC

Headquarters Open Window and

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public

Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020).

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

closes-headquarters-open-window-and-

changes-hand-delivery-policy.

•People With Disabilities: Contact

the FCC to request reasonable

accommodations (accessible format

documents, sign language interpreters,

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–

418–0432.

For detailed instructions for

submitting comments and additional

information on the rulemaking process,

see the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

:

Wireline Competition Bureau,

Competition Policy Division, Jordan

Reth, at (202) 418–1418, Jordan.Reth@

fcc.gov. For additional information

concerning the Paperwork Reduction

Act information collection requirements

contained in this document, send an

email to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Nicole

Ongele, Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(FNPRM) in WC Docket Nos. 13–97, 07–

243, 20–67, and IB Docket No. 16–155,

adopted on August 5, 2021, and released

on August 6, 2021. The full text of the

document is available on the

Commission’s website at https://

www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-

updating-numbering-rules-fight-

robocalls. To request materials in

accessible formats for people with

disabilities (e.g., braille, large print,

electronic files, audio format, 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).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 Analysis: This document contains

proposed information collection

requirements. The Commission, as part

of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork burdens, invites the general

public to comment on the information

collection requirements contained in

this document, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. Public and agency

comments are due November 15, 2021.

Comments should address: (a)

Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology; and (e) way to

further reduce the information

collection burden on small business

concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

In addition, pursuant to the Small

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on

how we might further reduce the

information collection burden for small

business concerns with fewer than 25

employees.

Synopsis

I. Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

1. To provide additional guardrails to

safeguard the Nation’s finite numbering

resources, protect consumers, curb

illegal and harmful robocalling, reduce

the opportunity for regulatory arbitrage,

and further promote public safety, we

propose and seek comment on a number

of modifications to our rules governing

the authorization process for

interconnected VoIP providers’ direct

access to numbering resources. First, to

enable Commission staff to have the

necessary information to efficiently

review direct access applications and

continue protecting the public interest,

we propose to require additional

certifications as part of the direct access

application process and clarify existing

requirements. Second, to help address

the risk of providing access to our

numbering resources and databases to

bad actors abroad, we propose clarifying

that applicants must disclose foreign

ownership information. Third, we

propose clarifying that holders of a

Commission direct access authorization

must update the Commission and

applicable states within 30 days of any

change to the ownership information

submitted to the Commission. Fourth,

we seek comment whether any changes

to our rules are necessary to clarify that

holders of a Commission direct access

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:00 Sep 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1

tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with PROPOSALS

51082

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

authorization must comply with state

numbering requirements. Fifth, we

propose to clarify that the Wireline

Competition Bureau (the Bureau) retains

the authority to determine when to

release an Accepted-for-Filing Public

Notice, and we propose to delegate

authority to the Bureau to reject an

application for direct access

authorization if an applicant has

engaged in behavior contrary to the

public interest or has been found to

have originated or transmitted illegal

robocalls. Finally, we seek comment

whether we should expand the direct

access to numbers authorization process

to one-way VoIP providers or other

entities that use numbers.

A. Clarifying and Refining Application

Requirements

2. To help curb illegal robocalls and

improve the ability of Commission staff

to safeguard the public interest and

operate efficiently when reviewing VoIP

direct access to numbers applications,

we propose to require additional

certifications as part of the direct access

application process and clarify existing

requirements. We seek comment on the

burdens of imposing potential

certification requirements, as discussed

below, on applicants for numbering

resources, particularly on small

businesses.

3. Certification Regarding Illegal

Robocalls and/or Illegal Spoofing. We

propose to require a direct access

applicant to certify that it will use

numbering resources lawfully; will not

encourage nor assist and facilitate illegal

robocalls, illegal spoofing, or fraud; and

will take reasonable steps to cease

origination, termination, and/or

transmission of illegal robocalls once

discovered. We seek comment on

whether we should adopt specific

standards for what constitutes ‘‘assisting

and facilitating’’ in this context, and if

so, what would constitute ‘‘reasonable’’

measures for purposes of this proposal.

How would any such specific standards

impact the Commission’s and our

Federal partners’ efforts to curb illegal

robocalls? We also propose to require

direct access applicants to certify that

they will cooperate with the

Commission, Federal and state law

enforcement and regulatory agencies

with relevant jurisdiction, and the

industry-led registered consortium,

regarding efforts to mitigate illegal or

harmful robocalling or spoofing and

tracebacks. A direct access applicant

may already be subject to these or

similar requirements under existing

Commission rule. We believe the

requirements we propose in this

document are appropriate because they

introduce additional trust into the

assignment and use of telephone

numbers; ensure that any entities not

subject to our existing rules that seek

direct access are not the source of illegal

robocalls; and because they add another

avenue for enforcement against bad

actors. We seek comment on these

proposals. Are there specific practices

we should require applicants to address

in their certifications? For example,

should we require applicants to certify

that the applicant will not supply

numbers on a trial basis to new

customers (i.e., use of numbers for free

for the first 30 days, etc.), a practice that

commonly leads to bad actors gaining

temporary control over numbers for the

purposes of including misleading caller

identification (ID) information? Should

we require applicants to certify that they

‘‘know their customer’’ through

customer identity verification, as the

Commission raised previously? Would

such additional certification

requirements place interconnected VoIP

providers at a competitive disadvantage

with respect to their carrier

counterparts?

4. Certification of Robocall Mitigation

Database Filing. The recently-

established Robocall Mitigation

Database serves as another important

resource in the fight against illegal

robocalling. To support this effort, we

propose to require an applicant for

direct access authorization to (1) certify

that it has filed in the Robocall

Mitigation Database and (2) to certify

that it has either (A) fully implemented

the Secure Telephone Identity Revisited

(STIR) and Signature-based Handling of

Asserted Information Using toKENs

(SHAKEN) caller ID authentication

protocols and framework or (B) that it

has implemented either STIR/SHAKEN

caller ID authentication or a robocall

mitigation program for all calls for

which it acts as a voice service provider.

If the applicant relies in part or whole

on a robocall mitigation program, we

further propose to require it to certify

that it has described in the Database the

detailed steps it is taking regarding

number use that can reasonably be

expected to reduce the origination and

transmission of illegal robocalls. We

seek comment on our proposal. We

believe that requiring this certification

as part of a direct access application is

another important step the Commission

can take in protecting consumers from

unwanted robocalls; a provider that is

noncompliant with its Robocall

Mitigation Database obligations may be

more likely to use numbers for improper

purposes, and applying our Robocall

Mitigation Database rules to those

providers not otherwise subject to them

as a prerequisite for number access will

promote trust in the assignment and use

of numbers. Do commenters agree?

Should the Commission require an

applicant to provide any additional

documentation in support of this

certification? What would be the

benefits and costs of doing so? We also

seek comment on whether there are any

additional steps the Commission should

take to help protect against misuse of

numbering resources or other fraudulent

activities involving telephone numbers.

5. In furtherance of our goals of

protecting our numbering resources and

preventing illegal robocalls, we also

propose to require a direct access

applicant or authorization holder to

inform the Commission if the applicant

or authorization holder is subject—

either at the time of its application or

after its filing or its grant—to a

Commission, law enforcement, or

regulatory agency action, investigation,

or inquiry due to its robocall mitigation

plan being deemed insufficient or

problematic, or due to suspected

unlawful robocalling or spoofing, and to

acknowledge this requirement it its

application. We seek comment on our

proposal. We tentatively conclude that

this acknowledgement and post-grant

notification requirement is essential to

ensure that both direct access applicants

and authorization holders are working

with the Commission to fight illegal

robocalling and spoofing. We seek

comment regarding the most effective

way to accomplish the proposed post-

authorization mandatory notification

requirement, including on the

appropriate method by which we

should require notification to

Commission staff.

6. Public Safety Certification—911

and CALEA. The Commission’s rules

require direct access applicants to

certify that they comply with a number

of requirements, including 911

obligations pursuant to our rules. The

Commission’s rules also require

interconnected VoIP providers to

provide Enhanced 911 service, as well

as the ability to provide Public Safety

Answering Points with a caller’s

location and a call-back number for each

911 call. Interconnected VoIP providers

also must comply with the

Communications Assistance for Law

Enforcement Act (CALEA). In

furtherance of our public safety goals

and consistent with these requirements,

we propose to require direct access

applicants to certify that they are

compliant with 911 service and CALEA

requirements, and to provide

documentation to support proof of

compliance. We seek comment on this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:00 Sep 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1

tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with PROPOSALS

51083

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

proposal. We also seek comment on

whether there is additional

documentation or information we

should require. For example, technical

specifications and call-flow diagrams

have been helpful to Commission staff

in assessing direct access applicants’

compliance with 911 service and

CALEA requirements in some cases.

Would requiring such documentation be

unduly burdensome or put

interconnected VoIP providers at a

competitive disadvantage? If so, how?

We also seek comment on whether there

are any additional public safety

certifications or acknowledgements that

we should require as part of the direct

access application process. Finally, we

seek comment on whether and how we

should obtain these proposed

certifications from interconnected VoIP

providers holding an existing

Commission authorization for direct

access to numbers.

7. Access Stimulation

Acknowledgement. To support our

longstanding efforts to combat access

stimulation and other intercarrier

compensation abuses, we seek comment

on any changes we should make to our

direct access authorization rules to help

eliminate access stimulation and other

forms of intercarrier compensation

arbitrage. Access stimulation creates call

congestion, can disrupt

telecommunications networks, and

ultimately results in increased costs to

consumers. In a recent complaint

proceeding, the Commission found that

the subject of the complaint had

inserted an interconnected VoIP

provider ‘‘into the call path for the sole

purpose of avoiding the financial

obligations that accompany the

Commission’s access stimulation rules.’’

We seek comment on any changes to our

VoIP direct access rules that could help

prevent a similar situation from arising.

For example, should we require an

applicant for direct access authorization

to certify that it will not use its

numbering resources to evade our

access stimulation rules? Or should we

require an applicant for direct access

authorization to consent to treatment as

a local exchange carrier serving end

users for purposes of the Commission’s

access stimulation rules? Should we

instead require each applicant to certify

that its traffic will be included in the

call ratio calculations of any local

exchange carrier it delivers traffic to for

purposes of the access stimulation

definition in § 61.3 of the Commission’s

rules? Should direct access to number

applicants certify that the VoIP numbers

they are applying for will only be used

to provide interconnected VoIP services

as opposed to for example, application-

based services? Should we clarify that

interconnected VoIP providers that

receive direct access to numbers must

use those numbers for interconnected

VoIP services? How and for what

services are interconnected VoIP

providers that currently hold a

Commission direct access authorization

using those numbers? What would be

the benefits of any such requirements?

Would there be unintended

consequences of any of these

requirements? What burdens would

these proposals, and other alternatives

commenters may suggest, impose on

interconnected VoIP providers? Would

adoption of rules addressing

interconnected VoIP providers’ role in

access arbitrage schemes put

interconnected VoIP providers at a

competitive disadvantage with respect

to their carrier counterparts?

8. Clarification of Form 477 and 499

Filings. Interconnected VoIP providers

that have qualifying subscribers must

file Forms 477 and 499, and we propose

to clarify that as such, they must file

proof of compliance with these

Commission filing requirements, and

any successor filing requirements, when

applicable, such as the Broadband Data

Collection (BDC), as part of the direct

access application process. Currently,

Commission staff independently check

for compliance and follow-up with non-

compliant applicants on a case-by-case

basis. While this requirement is

referenced in the VoIP Direct Access

Order, 80 FR 66454 (Oct. 29, 2015),

many applicants have expressed

confusion regarding the requirement

and the necessity of filing both forms as

an interconnected VoIP provider with

qualifying subscribers. For this reason,

we propose to make explicit in our rules

that an interconnected VoIP provider

that has qualifying subscribers and is

required to file Forms 477 and 499 must

provide evidence of compliance with

completing these forms, and any

successor filing requirements, when

applicable, in its application.

9. Technical Information for Proof of

Interconnected VoIP Service; Facilities

Readiness Requirement. We propose to

require a direct access applicant to

provide sufficient technical

documentation and information that

clearly demonstrates that it will provide

interconnected VoIP services, as

opposed to one-way or non-

interconnected VoIP services, and seek

comment on our proposal. An

interconnected VoIP service is a service

that: (i) Enables real-time, two-way

voice communications; (ii) requires a

broadband connection from the user’s

location; (iii) requires internet protocol-

compatible customer premises

equipment; and (iv) permits users

generally to receive calls that originate

on the public switched telephone

network and to terminate calls to the

public switched telephone network.

‘‘One-way VoIP’’ differs from

interconnected VoIP in that one-way

VoIP permits users generally to receive

calls that originate on the public

switched telephone network or to

terminate calls to the public switched

telephone network, but not both. Non-

interconnected VoIP is a broader

category than one-way VoIP and

includes both one-way VoIP and

internet-based real-time voice

communication that does not

interconnect with the public switched

telephone network. What specific types

of information should we require? What

burden would requiring submission of

such technical information place on the

applicant? In the alternative or in

addition, should we require a

certification from the applicant that it

provides interconnected VoIP service?

10. Further, as noted above, our rules

require that an applicant seeking direct

access provide proof that it is capable of

providing service within sixty days of

the numbering resource activation date

(‘‘facilities readiness’’). In the VoIP

Direct Access Order, the Commission

explained that applicants can achieve

this through the submission of

commercial agreements, specifically by

(1) providing a combination of an

agreement between the interconnected

VoIP provider and its carrier partner

and an interconnection agreement

between that carrier and the relevant

local exchange carrier (LEC), or (2) proof

that the interconnected VoIP provider

obtains interconnection with the Public

Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)

pursuant to a tariffed offering or a

commercial arrangement (such as a

time-division multiplexing (TDM)-to-

internet Protocol (IP) or a VoIP

interconnection agreement) that

providers access to the PSTN. We have

seen that some applicants do not submit

commercial agreements or contracts that

clearly illustrate their interconnection

with the PSTN. We seek comment on

whether we should dispel any

confusion by specifying the types of

documentation that we permit

applicants to submit in the text of the

rule. Are there other types of documents

or information that we should permit

applicants to file? We emphasize that

unless and until we effect any change to

our rules, VoIP direct access to numbers

applicants must provide the requisite

agreements to demonstrate that they

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:00 Sep 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1

tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with PROPOSALS

51084

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

meet the facilities readiness

requirement.

11. Other. Aside from the categories of

possible certifications and information

discussed above, are there other

certifications or information that we

should consider requiring applicants to

submit as part of the direct access

application process to effectively protect

numbering resources and the public? If

so, what certifications or information

should we require?

12. Truthful Certifications. We remind

applicants that Commission rules

prohibit applicants for any Commission

authorization from intentionally

providing incorrect material factual

information or intentionally omitting

material information that is necessary to

prevent any material factual statement

from being incorrect or misleading. Our

rules also prohibit applicants from

providing material factual information

that is incorrect (or omitting material

information that is necessary to prevent

any material factual statement that is

made from being incorrect of misleading

‘‘without a reasonable basis for

believing that any such material factual

statement is correct and not misleading.

To the extent that there is any doubt, we

propose to clarify that false

certifications or statements made to the

Commission may result in denial of a

direct access application or revocation

of authorization, and we propose to

direct the Bureau to deny an application

or begin the revocation process if it

discovers that an applicant made a false

statement. We seek comment on this

proposal. Should we permit applicants

or authorization holders an opportunity

to correct mistaken certifications or

other statements if made inadvertently

and timely reported to Commission

staff? Would an opportunity to cure a

false certification run counter to the

intent behind making a certification in

the first place? In addition to potential

denial of an application or revocation, a

misrepresentation or lack of candor by

an applicant may result in a forfeiture

and/or other penalties. To further

ensure accuracy, should we require an

officer or responsible official to submit

a declaration under penalty of perjury

pursuant to § 1.16 of our rules attesting

that all statements in the application

and any appendices are true and

accurate?

B. Foreign Ownership

13. Since the 2015 adoption of the

VoIP Direct Access Order, a number of

providers with substantial foreign

ownership have applied to obtain direct

access to numbering resources.

Allowing these providers direct access

to numbers and critical numbering

databases raises a number of potential

risks, including the impact to number

conservation requirements; questions

related to jurisdiction, oversight, and

enforcement of numbering rules;

consideration of assessment of taxes and

fees upon foreign-owned entities; and

potential national security and law

enforcement risks with access to U.S.

telecommunications network

operations. The rules adopted in the

VoIP Direct Access Order do not

specifically require providers to disclose

their ownership in the application

process, nor do they establish specific

procedures or processes by which to

evaluate applications with substantial

foreign ownership. It is vital that our

rules governing VoIP providers’ ability

to obtain direct access to numbering

resources address the risk of providing

access to our numbering resources and

databases to bad actors abroad. The

Commission has, in its discretion,

referred direct access to numbering

applications with substantial foreign

ownership to the relevant executive

branch agencies for their review of and

recommendations on any national

security, law enforcement, foreign

policy, or trade policy concerns related

to the foreign ownership. In this

document, we propose to revise our

rules to formalize that process to remove

applications with reportable foreign

ownership from streamlined processing.

14. To identify which applicants have

foreign owners, we propose to require

applicants for a Commission direct

access authorization to disclose

information, including the name,

address, country of citizenship, and

principal business of every person or

entity that directly or indirectly owns at

least 10 percent of the equity and/or

voting interest, or a controlling interest,

of the applicant, and the percentage of

equity and/or voting interest owned by

each of those entities to the nearest one

percent. We also propose that the

applicant identify any interlocking

directorates with a foreign carrier. We

seek comment on these proposals. We

tentatively conclude that applicants

must disclose any 10 percent or greater

ownership interests, including 10

percent or greater foreign ownership

interests. We believe this is appropriate

because it mirrors the disclosure

required for domestic section 214

transfer of control applications and for

applicants seeking an international

section 214 authorization, as required

by § 63.18 of the Commission’s rules.

Additionally, using the same threshold

here as in the section 214 context serves

the public interest because, in each case,

we must ensure that ownership chains

do not pose national security or law

enforcement risks to the United States

and its communications infrastructure.

We seek comment on this tentative

conclusion. Do commenters agree with

this analysis? If not, what factors render

the direct access to numbering

applications different than applications

to transfer authorizations to provide

domestic common carrier service?

Should the foreign ownership reporting

obligations be triggered at a level lower

than 10 percent or higher than 10

percent? We propose to adopt the

calculations that § 63.18(h) uses for

attribution of indirect ownership

interests for direct access to numbering

applicants. We seek comment on this

proposal. Should we use different

calculations for determining indirect

ownership than those used in

§ 63.18(h)? If so, why, and what

calculations should we use? Should we

use aggregate foreign ownership rather

than individual ownership? If so, at

what level of aggregate foreign

ownership should we require

disclosure? We also specifically seek

comment on the burdens of imposing

these potential requirements on

applicants for numbering resources,

particularly on small businesses.

15. We also propose to require

applicants for direct access to numbers

to certify in their applications ‘‘as to

whether or not the applicant is, or is

affiliated with, a foreign carrier,’’

analogous to the certification required

in § 63.18(i) for applicants for

international section 214 authority. We

seek comment on our proposal. Section

63.18(i) requires the certification to

‘‘state with specificity each foreign

country in which the applicant is, or is

affiliated with, a foreign carrier.’’ Would

a similar certification for numbering

resource applicants be in the public

interest? Would such a certification

provide information or confirmation not

already included in the disclosure

requirement? Would such a requirement

in addition to the disclosure

requirement be unduly burdensome to

applicants?

16. The use of numbering resources

by foreign entities may raise national

security, law enforcement, foreign

policy, or trade policy concerns.

Consequently, we propose to direct the

International Bureau, in coordination

with the Wireline Competition Bureau,

to generally refer applications with

reportable foreign ownership—10

percent or greater direct or indirect

ownership that is not a U.S. citizen or

U.S. business entity—to the executive

branch agencies for their views on any

national security, law enforcement,

foreign policy, or trade policy concerns

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:00 Sep 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1

tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with PROPOSALS

51085

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

related to the foreign ownership of the

applicant consistent with our referral of

other applications. The Commission

released the Process Reform for

Executive Branch Review of Certain FCC

Applications and Petitions Involving

Foreign Ownership (Executive Branch

Review Order), 85 FR 76360 (Nov. 27,

2020), delineating the types of

applications the Commission will refer

to the executive branch agencies and

formalizing the review process and time

frames, consistent with Executive order,

Establishing the Committee for the

Assessment of Foreign Participation in

the United States Telecommunications

Services Sector (Executive Order 13913),

85 FR 19643, April 4, 2020. which

established the Committee for the

Assessment of Foreign Participation in

the United States Telecommunications

Services Sector (the Committee). The

Executive order also established various

procedures, including specific time

frames, for executive branch review of

applications referred by the

Commission. Pursuant to the Executive

Branch Review Order, the Commission,

in its discretion, recently has referred a

number of direct access to numbering

applications where there is substantial

foreign ownership of the applicant to

the Committee. Rather than refer under

the Commission’s discretionary

authority, we propose to revise our rules

and to generally require referral to the

executive branch agencies of all direct

access to numbering applications with

reportable foreign ownership pursuant

to subpart CC of part 1 of the

Commission’s rules. Accordingly, we

propose to revise our rules to remove

applications with reportable foreign

ownership from streamlined processing.

We seek comment on this proposal.

17. We propose that, we use the same

procedures established by the

Commission in the Executive Branch

Review Order when we refer a direct

access to numbering application to the

executive branch agencies, including

the 120-day initial review period, and

90-day secondary review period. As set

forth in Executive Order 13913, the 120-

day review period will begin when the

Attorney General, the Chair of the

Committee, determines that an

applicant’s responses are complete. We

seek comment on this proposal. We also

seek comment on alternative procedures

for executive branch review of direct

access to numbering applications.

Should we consider different review

periods, or no review period, in light of

the fact that executive branch review of

direct access to numbering applications

is less established than executive branch

review of section 214 authorizations or

other types of applications?

18. The International Bureau, as

directed by the Commission in the

Executive Branch Review Order, is

currently in the process of adopting a

standardized set of national security and

law enforcement questions (Standard

Questions) ‘‘that proponents of certain

applications and petitions involving

reportable foreign ownership will be

required to answer as part of the review

process.’’ We seek comment on whether

we should develop Standard Questions

for direct access to numbering

applicants. Should we direct the

International Bureau, in coordination

with the Wireline Competition Bureau,

to draft, update as appropriate, and

make available on a publicly available

website, the Standard Questions that

elicit the information needed by the

Committee within those categories of

information? By having an applicant file

responses to Standard Questions with

the Committee at the same time as the

applicant files its application with the

Commission, the Committee can begin

its review of the application sooner and

complete its review in a more timely

manner. Should we employ the same

procedures as in the Executive Branch

Review Order—adopting the categories

of information that will be required

from applicants, rather than specific

questions? If we were to adopt Standard

Questions, should we require applicants

to file their responses to the Standard

Questions with the Committee prior to

or at the same time they file their

applications with the Commission?

19. We also seek comment on

alternatives to the development and use

of Standard Questions for direct access

to numbering applications. We

recognize that the executive Agencies

may have less experience evaluating

direct access to numbering applications

than other types of applications (such as

section 214 applications), and they may

identify different national security or

law enforcement risks in direct access to

numbering applications than the ones

associated with other types of

applications (such as section 214

applications).

C. Post-Grant Ownership Changes

20. In the VoIP Direct Access Order,

the Commission required each

interconnected VoIP provider that has

obtained direct access to numbers to

maintain the accuracy of all contact

information and certifications in its

application and file a correction with

the Commission and each applicable

state within thirty (30) days of the

change of contact information or

certification. We propose clarifying that

VoIP providers that have received direct

access to numbers must also submit an

update to the Commission and each

applicable state within 30 days of any

change to the ownership information

submitted to the Commission, including

any change to the name, address,

citizenship and/or principal business of

any person or entity that directly or

indirectly owns at least ten percent of

the equity or voting interests, or a

controlling interest of the applicant, or

to the percentage of equity and/or voting

interests held by each of those entities.

We preliminarily believe that obtaining

such updates will help us to ensure that

the ownership does not change post-

authorization in a manner that evades

the purpose of application review, for

instance by introducing a bad actor-

owner that facilitates unlawful

robocalling, poses a threat to national

security, evades or abuses intercarrier

compensation requirements, or

otherwise engages in conduct

detrimental to the public interest. We

seek comment on this proposal. Are

there other benefits to receiving updated

ownership information? What are the

costs to providers or others of updating

the Commission and applicable states,

particularly on small businesses? As

with updated contact and certification

information, we propose to clarify that

the Commission may use updated

ownership information to determine

whether a change in authorization status

is warranted. We seek comment on our

proposal. We also propose to delegate

authority to the Bureau to direct the

Numbering Administrator to suspend

number requests if the Bureau

determines that further review of the

authorization is necessary.

21. We seek comment on whether we

should expand, contract, or alter the

specific scope of information we

propose to require. Should we require

updates on information that does not

appear in the underlying application,

and if so what information? We also

seek comment on whether we should

establish a materiality threshold for

updates so that we do not burden VoIP

providers with submitting updates that

are unlikely to be important. For

instance, should we require providers to

update the ownership percentage of

specific entities whose ownership has

already been disclosed to the

Commission only if that change exceeds

a numerical threshold, such as an

increase or decrease of 10 percent or

more of total ownership interest?

22. We seek comment on whether we

should specify the method of filing or

format for post-authorization updates

regarding changes to contact

information, certifications, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:00 Sep 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1

tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with PROPOSALS

51086

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

ownership information. The VoIP Direct

Access Order and the rules adopted by

the Commission in that Order do not

specify how providers should submit

updates. We propose requiring

providers to submit any required post-

authorization updates to the

Commission via the ‘‘Submit a Non-

Docketed Filing’’ module in the

Electronic Comment Filing System

(ECFS) established for the VoIP Direct

Access proceeding (Inbox—52.15 VoIP

Numbering Authorization Application)

and via email to DAA@fcc.gov, our

email alias for VoIP direct access to

numbers applications. We preliminarily

believe that this approach will facilitate

informed and timely review by

interested members of the public and

Commission staff, and we seek comment

on this proposal. Should we specify the

means by which applicants must update

applicable states, and if so how? Should

we require applicants to submit

diagrams illustrating their ownership

structure with their applications and

with any required post-application

updates?

D. Compliance With State Law

23. As the Commission has explained,

requiring interconnected VoIP providers

that obtain numbers directly from the

Numbering Administrator to comply

with the same numbering requirements

as carriers will help ‘‘ensure

competitive neutrality among providers

of voice services.’’ As a condition of

obtaining a Commission authorization,

interconnected VoIP providers must

‘‘comply with guidelines and

procedures adopted pursuant to

numbering authority delegated to the

states.’’ The 2015 VoIP Direct Access

Order references requiring compliance

with specific forms of numbering

authority delegated to the states with

respect to number reclamation, area

code relief, and thousands-block

pooling. Because of that reference, there

has been some confusion regarding

whether interconnected VoIP providers

with direct access to numbers must

comply with state requirements other

than those specifically identified in the

Order. We seek comment whether we

should revise our existing rules to

clarify that interconnected VoIP

providers holding a Commission

numbering authorization must comply

with state numbering requirements and

other applicable requirements for

businesses operating in the state. Is the

fact that some interconnected VoIP

providers provision non-fixed, or

nomadic, services relevant in

determining compliance with state

requirements? We also seek comment on

whether we should we require minimal

state contacts to obtain numbering

resources in a particular state. Finally,

we seek comment whether it is

necessary to clarify that the Bureau may

direct the Numbering Administrator to

deny requests for numbers from an

interconnected VoIP provider that has

failed to comply with state

requirements. We note that we do not

propose to address classification of

interconnected VoIP services or states’

general authority to regulate

interconnected VoIP service, and we

view these matters as beyond the scope

of this proceeding.

E. Bureau Authority To Review

Applications

24. We also propose to clarify that

even once the procedural requirements

have been met, the Bureau retains the

authority to determine when an

application is ready to be put out on an

Accepted-for-Filing Public Notice based

on public interest considerations,

subject to the limits of the

Administrative Procedure Act. We seek

comment on our proposal. The VoIP

Direct Access Order requires Bureau

staff to review VoIP Numbering

Authorization Applications for

conformance with procedural rules, and

‘‘assuming the applicant satisfies this

initial procedural rule,’’ then directs the

Bureau staff to ‘‘assign the application

its own case-specific docket number and

release an ‘Accepted-For-Filing Public

Notice,’ seeking comment on the

application.’’ The Commission’s rules

permit the Bureau to halt the auto-grant

process for a number of reasons,

including when ‘‘the Bureau determines

that the request requires further analysis

to determine whether a request of

authorization for direct access to

numbers would serve the public

interest.’’ Though we believe the

Commission and the Bureau currently

have the authority to withhold placing

an application on streamlined

processing that meets procedural

requirements if the application raises

public interest concerns, including

concerns regarding illegal robocalling,

arbitrage, and foreign ownership, we

propose to make this authority explicit.

25. The Commission directed and

delegated authority to the Bureau ‘‘to

implement and maintain the

authorization process.’’ The

technological development and

exponential growth of IP-based services

has many potential benefits to

consumers, including the development

of innovative products and services and

competitive pricing for such services.

However, coupled with that innovation

is an increase in the ease with which

bad actors can engage in harmful and

illegal robocalling and other fraudulent

activity. The ease with which bad actors

are able to form new entities, coupled

with the rise in illegal and harmful

robocalling since the adoption of the

VoIP Direct Access Order in 2015,

counsels us to propose clarifying

explicitly that we delegate authority to

the Bureau to determine at its discretion

when it is appropriate to release an

Accepted-For-Filing Public Notice,

based on public interest considerations.

We seek comment on this proposal. We

propose clarifying that the Bureau may

withhold issuance of an Accepted-for-

Filing Public Notice based on, for

instance, concerns regarding an

applicant’s (or an applicant’s principals’

or owners’) involvement in illegal or

harmful robocalling schemes or

regulatory arbitrage. We seek comment

on our proposal.

26. We also propose to explicitly

delegate authority to the Bureau to reject

an application for authorization for

direct access to numbers if any

applicant (or its owners or affiliates) has

engaged in behavior contrary to public

interest or been found to originate or

transmit illegal robocalls by the

Commission, industry-led registered

consortium, or state or Federal

authorities. The Commission has

already found that ‘‘at the Bureau’s

discretion, certain past violations may

serve as a basis for denial of an

application, such as, for example,

repeated or egregious violations or

instances of fraud or misrepresentation

to the Commission.’’ We propose to

clarify the Commission’s existing

delegation to confirm that the Bureau

may reject an application, at its

discretion, by an entity which it has a

reasonable basis to believe has engaged

in behavior contrary to the public

interest, including but not limited to,

entity or entities that have been found

to transmit illegal robocalls by the

Commission, industry-led registered

consortium, or state or Federal

authorities. We seek comment on this

proposal. Should we adopt more

specific rules or standards for when the

Bureau rejects and application based on

these reasons, and if so, what rules or

standards should we adopt? We believe

that this explicit delegation will enable

the Commission to more effectively

guard against bad actors gaining access

to numbering resources, which then

may be ‘‘stranded’’ by the taint of

harmful robocalling and contribute to

number exhaust. Do commenters agree?

27. The VoIP Direct Access Order

states that the Commission may revoke

direct access to numbers for failure to

comply with the Commission’s

numbering rules. We propose clarifying

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:00 Sep 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1

tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with PROPOSALS

51087

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

that the Commission may also revoke

authorization for failure to comply with

any applicable law, where a provider no

longer meets the qualifications that

originally provided the basis for the

grant of direct access to numbers, or

where the authorization no longer

serves the public interest (e.g., due to a

national security risk or risk of

originating numerous unlawful

robocalls), and we seek comment on this

proposal. In our preliminary view,

revoking authorization in such

circumstances is appropriate to protect

the public and preserve the limited pool

of numbers. To facilitate efficient

revocation where necessary, we propose

to delegate authority to the Bureau to

revoke authorizations where warranted

pursuant to the standards we establish.

The Commission’s Bureaus and Offices

have revoked licenses and

authorizations where warranted and

within the scope of their authority. We

propose clarifying that if a provider’s

authorization is revoked, it may not

obtain any new numbers directly from

the Numbering Administrator. Should

we also require the provider to return

numbers that it has already obtained

directly, or would such a requirement

be too disruptive to end-user customers?

To provide VoIP providers subject to

revocation with appropriate due

process, we propose to require the

Bureau to provide a party subject to

revocation with notice setting forth the

proposed basis for revocation and an

opportunity to respond to the

allegations prior to revoking

authorization, consistent with the

requirements in 5 U.S.C. 558(c). We also

propose to clarify that the Bureau may

direct the Numbering Administrator to

defer action on new requests for

numbers by a provider on an interim

basis during the pendency of any

investigation or review of corrections or

updates submitted, or proceeding to

revoke authorization, and we seek

comment on this proposal. We view

such interim authority as necessary to

allow the agency to respond nimbly to

new risks that emerge.

F. Expanding Direct Access to

Numbering Resources

28. We seek comment whether we

should expand the Commission’s

authorization process for direct access

to numbers to one-way VoIP providers

or other entities that use numbers.

Currently, only interconnected VoIP

providers may apply for and thereby

receive a Commission authorization for

direct access to numbers. While the

Commission stated that it ‘‘may

consider permitting other types of

entities to obtain numbers directly from

the Numbering Administrators in the

future,’’ it declined to do so in the VoIP

Direct Access Order, finding that it

lacked an adequate record regarding the

appropriate terms and conditions for

obtaining numbers for entities other

than interconnected VoIP providers. We

seek comment whether there is a need

for direct access to numbering resources

for entities other than interconnected

VoIP providers, including one-way VoIP

providers. How do one-way VoIP

providers and other entities use

numbering resources?

29. We seek comment on the potential

benefits and risks of allowing one-way

VoIP providers and other entities direct

access to numbering resources. Would

enabling such entities to request and

directly access numbering resources

promote competition among providers

and services? What impact would

enabling direct access to numbering

resources for such entities have on

number exhaust? We also seek comment

on whether allowing other entities to

access numbering resources directly

could aid in enforcement efforts against

illegal robocalling. Would enabling such

entities direct access to numbering

resources make it easier or harder to

perform tracebacks and monitor bad

actors? If the Commission were to

permit other entities to apply for

authorization for direct access to

numbers, should the Commission

impose the same conditions and

requirements for access as it does for

interconnected VoIP providers? If not,

what requirements should we adopt?

Our rules require interconnected VoIP

providers, as a condition of maintaining

their authorization for direct access to

numbers to ‘‘continue to provide their

customers the ability to access 911 and

711,’’ and to ‘‘give their customers

access to Commission-designated N11

numbers in use in a given rate center

where an interconnected VoIP provider

has requested numbering resources, to

the extent that the provision of these

dialing arrangements is technically

feasible.’’ Are such requirements

technically feasible for providers of one-

way VoIP and other services? If not,

would enabling such entities direct

access to numbering resources cause

customer confusion with respect to

critical short dialing codes? Are there

additional conditions that would be

necessary to protect against illegal

robocalling, number exhaust, and other

public interest harms for one-way VoIP

providers and other entities?

G. Expected Benefits and Costs

30. The proposals in this FNPRM

generally reflect a mandate from the

TRACED Act. We request comments on

the relative costs and benefits of

different means of achieving the goals

mandated by the statute. With regard to

benefits, the Commission found in the

TRACED Act Section 6(a) Order and

FNPRM, 85 FR 22029 (Apr. 21, 2020)

and 85 FR 22099 (Apr. 21, 2020), that

widespread deployment of STIR/

SHAKEN will increase the effectiveness

of the framework for both voice service

providers and their subscribers,

producing a potential benefit floor of

$13.5 billion due to the reduction in

nuisance calls and fraud. In addition,

that Order identified many non-

quantifiable benefits, such as restoring

confidence in incoming calls and

reliable access to emergency and

healthcare communications. The

proposals in this FNPRM are intended,

consistent with the TRACED Act, to

make progress in unlocking those

expected benefits, among others.

31. With regard to costs, we expect

that the minimal costs imposed on

applicants by our proposed clarification

changes will be far exceeded by the

benefit to consumers, which we

estimate to be a substantial share of the

$13.5 billion annual benefit floor.

Moreover, as the Commission stated in

the TRACED Act Section 6(a) Order and

FNPRM, an overall reduction in

robocalls will greatly lower network

costs by eliminating both the unwanted

traffic and the labor costs of handling

numerous customer complaints. In

addition, the proposed clarifications to

the direct access application process

will minimize staff time and review,

thereby minimizing cost. We therefore

tentatively conclude that the proposals

in this FNPRM will impose only a

minimal cost on direct access applicants

while having the overall effect of

lowering network costs and raising

consumer benefits. We seek comment

on this tentative conclusion. We also

seek detailed comments on the costs of

the proposals in this FNPRM. What are

the costs associated with each proposed

change? Will these costs vary according

to the size of the direct access

applicant? Do the benefits of our

proposals outweigh the costs in each

case?

H. Legal Authority

32. We propose concluding that

section 251(e)(1) of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended (the Act),

which grants us ‘‘exclusive jurisdiction

over those portions of the North

American Numbering Plan that pertain

to the United States,’’ provides us with

authority to adopt our proposals. In the

VoIP Direct Access Order, the

Commission concluded that section

251(e)(1) provided it with authority ‘‘to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:00 Sep 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1

tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with PROPOSALS

51088

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

extend to interconnected VoIP providers

both the rights and obligations

associated with using telephone

numbers.’’ The Commission also has

relied on section 251(e)(1) to require

interconnected and one-way VoIP

providers to (1) implement the STIR/

SHAKEN caller ID authentication

framework and (2) allow customers to

reach the National Suicide Prevention

Lifeline by dialing 988 beginning no

later than July 16, 2022. Consistent with

the Commission’s well-established

reliance on section 251(e) numbering

authority with respect to VoIP

providers, we propose concluding that

section 251(e)(1) allows us to further

refine our processes governing direct

access to numbers by interconnected

VoIP providers, and we seek comment

on this proposal. We similarly propose

concluding that, just as section 251(e)(1)

provides the Commission with authority

to require one-way VoIP providers to

implement 988 and STIR/SHAKEN,

section 251(e)(1) provides us with

authority to authorize and regulate

direct access to numbers by one-way

VoIP providers and other entities that

use numbering resources, and we seek

comment on this proposal. Consistent

with the VoIP Direct Access Order, we

propose concluding that refining our

application and post-application direct

access processes would not conflict

with sections 251(b)(2) or 251(e)(2) of

the Act, and we seek comment on this

proposal.

33. We propose concluding that

section 6(a) of the TRACED Act

provides us with additional authority to

adopt our proposals related to fighting

illegal robocalls. Section 6(a)(1) directs

that not later than 180 days after the

date of the enactment of the Act, the

Commission shall commence a

proceeding to determine how

Commission policies regarding access to

number resources, including number

resources for toll-free and non-toll-free

telephone numbers, could be modified,

including by establishing registration

and compliance obligations, and

requirements that providers of voice

service given access to number

resources take sufficient steps to know

the identity of the customers of such

providers, to help reduce access to

numbers by potential perpetrators of

violations of section 227(b) of the

Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.

227(b)).

The Commission commenced the

proceeding as required in March 2020

(TRACED Act Section 6(a) Order and

FNPRM, 85 FR 22029 (Apr. 21, 2020)

and 85 FR 22099 (Apr. 21, 2020)), and

this FNPRM expands on those inquiries.

Section 6(a)(2) of the TRACED Act states

that ‘‘[i]f the Commission determines

under paragraph (1) that modifying the

policies described in that paragraph

could help achieve the goal described in

that paragraph, the Commission shall

prescribe regulations to implement

those policy modifications.’’ We

propose concluding that section 6(a) of

the TRACED Act, by directing us to

prescribe regulations implementing

policy changes to reduce access to

numbers by potential perpetrators of

illegal robocalls, provides an

independent basis to adopt the changes

we propose to the direct access process

with respect to fighting unlawful

robocalls, and we seek comment on this

proposal. Should we interpret section

6(a) of the TRACED Act as an

independent grant of authority on

which we may rely here? Section 6(b) of

the TRACED Act authorizes imposition

of forfeitures on certain parties found in

violation ‘‘of a regulation prescribed

under subsection (a),’’ which we

preliminarily conclude supports our

proposal to find that section 6(a) of the

TRACED Act is an independent grant of

rulemaking authority. Should we codify

or adopt any regulations to implement

the forfeiture authorization in section

6(b) of the TRACED Act, and if so, what

regulations should we adopt?

II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis

34. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as

amended, the Commission has prepared

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities by

the potential policy and rule changes

that the Commission seeks comment on

in this FNPRM. Written public

comments are requested on this IRFA.

Comments must be identified as

responses to the IRFA and must be filed

by the deadlines for comments as

specified in the FNPRM. The

Commission will send a copy of the

FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration (SBA). In

addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or

summaries thereof) will be published in

the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the

Proposed Rules

35. In the TRACED Act, Congress

directed the Commission to examine

whether and how to modify its policies

to reduce access to numbers by potential

perpetrators of illegal robocalls.

Consistent with Congress’s direction,

the FNPRM proposes to update our rules

regarding direct access to numbers by

providers of interconnected VoIP

services to help stem the tide of illegal

robocalls. Today, widely available VoIP

software allows malicious callers to

make spoofed calls with minimal

experience and cost. Therefore, as we

continue to refine our process for

allowing VoIP providers direct access to

telephone numbers, we must account

both for the benefits of competition and

the potential risks of allowing bad actors

to leverage access to numbers to harm

Americans.

36. The Commission first began to

allow interconnected VoIP providers to

obtain numbers for customers directly

from the Numbering Administrator

rather than relying on a carrier partner

in 2015. Based on our experience since

that time, the FNPRM proposes to adopt

clarifications and guardrails to better

ensure that VoIP providers that obtain

the benefit of direct access to numbers

comply with existing legal obligations

and do not facilitate illegal robocalls,

pose national security risks, or evade or

abuse intercarrier compensation

requirements.

37. To provide additional guardrails

to safeguard the Nation’s finite

numbering resources, protect

consumers, curb illegal and harmful

robocalling, and further promote public

safety, we propose and seek comment

on a number of modifications to our

rules establishing the authorization

process for interconnected VoIP

providers’ direct access to numbering

resources. First, to help curb illegal and

spoofed robocalls and improve the

ability of Commission staff to safeguard

the public interest and operate

efficiently when reviewing VoIP direct

access to numbers applications and

continue protecting the public interest,

the FNPRM proposes to require

additional certifications as part of the

direct access application process and

clarify existing requirements. Second, to

help address the risk of providing access

to our numbering resources and

databases to bad actors abroad, the

FNPRM proposes clarifying that

applicants must disclose foreign

ownership information. Third, we

propose clarifying that holders of a

Commission direct access authorization

must update the Commission and

applicable states within 30 days of any

change to the ownership information

submitted to the Commission. We

preliminarily believe that obtaining

such updates will help us to ensure that

the ownership chain does not change

post-authorization in a manner that

evades the purpose of application

review, for instance by introducing a

bad actor-owner that facilitates unlawful

robocalling, poses a threat to national

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:00 Sep 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1

tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with PROPOSALS

51089

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

security, evades or abuses intercarrier

compensation requirements, or

otherwise engages in conduct

detrimental to the public interest.

38. Fourth, we seek comment on

whether we need to revise our rules to

clarify that holders of a Commission

direct access authorization must comply

with state numbering requirements and

other applicable requirements. Fifth, we

propose to clarify that the Bureau

retains the authority to determine when

to release an Accepted-for-Filing Public

Notice based on public interest

considerations, and we propose to

explicitly delegate authority to the

Bureau to reject an application for direct

access authorization if an applicant has

engaged in behavior contrary to public

interest or been found to originate or

transmit illegal robocalls by the

Commission, Industry Traceback Group,

or state or Federal authorities. The

technological development and

exponential growth of IP-based services

has many potential benefits to

consumers, including the development

of innovative products and services and

competitive pricing for such services.

However, coupled with that innovation

is an increase in the ease with which

bad actors can engage in harmful and

illegal robocalling and other fraudulent

activity. The ease with which bad actors

are able to form new entities, coupled

with the rise in illegal and harmful

robocalling since the adoption of the

VoIP Direct Access Order in 2015,

counsels us to propose clarifying

explicitly that we delegate authority to

the Bureau to determine at its discretion

when it is appropriate to release an

Accepted-For-Filing Public Notice,

based on public interest considerations.

Further, we preliminarily believe that

this explicit delegation will enable the

Commission to more effectively guard

against bad actors gaining access to

numbering resources, which then may

be ‘‘stranded’’ by the taint of harmful

robocalling and contribute to number

exhaust. Finally, we seek comment

whether we should expand the direct

access to numbers authorization process

to one-way VoIP providers or other

entities that use numbers.

B. Legal Basis

39. The legal basis for any action that

may be taken pursuant to this FNPRM

is contained in sections 1, 3, 4, 201–205,

251, and 303(r) of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,

153, 154, 201–205, 251, 303(r), and

section 6(a) of the TRACED Act, Public

Law 116–105, sec. 6(a)(1)–(2), 133 Stat.

3274, 3277 (2019).

C. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities to Which the

Proposed Rules Will Apply

40. 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 policies, 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.

41. Small Businesses, Small

Organizations, Small Governmental

Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time,

may affect small entities that are not

easily categorized at present. We

therefore describe here, at the outset,

three 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 percent of all

businesses in the United States, which

translates to 30.7 million businesses.

42. 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 2018, there were approximately

571,709 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.

43. Finally, the small entity described

as a ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’

is defined generally as ‘‘governments of

cities, counties, towns, townships,

villages, school districts, or special

districts, with a population of less than

fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census Bureau

data from the 2017 Census of

Governments indicate that there were

90,075 local governmental jurisdictions

consisting of general purpose

governments and special purpose

governments in the United States. Of

this number there were 36,931 general

purpose governments (county,

municipal and town or township) with

populations of less than 50,000 and

12,040 special purpose governments—

independent school districts with

enrollment populations of less than

50,000.

1. Wireline Carriers

44. 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.

45. 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 North American Industry

Classification System (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.

46. Incumbent Local Exchange

Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:00 Sep 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1

tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with PROPOSALS

51090

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

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 seven (1,307) incumbent LECs

reported that they were incumbent LEC

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.

47. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).

Neither the Commission nor the SBA

has developed a small business size

standard specifically for IXCs. 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.

48. 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 LEC services or CAP

services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an

estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer

employees. In addition, 17 carriers have

reported that they are shared-tenant

service providers, and all 17 are

estimated to have 1,500 or fewer

employees. Also, 72 carriers have

reported that they are other local service

providers. Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or

fewer employees. Consequently, based

on internally researched FCC data, the

Commission estimates that most

providers of competitive local exchange

service, competitive access providers,

shared-tenant service providers, and

other local service providers are small

entities.

49. Local Resellers. The SBA has not

developed a small business size

standard specifically for local resellers.

The closest NAICS Code Category is

Telecommunications Resellers. The

Telecommunications Resellers industry

comprises establishments engaged in

purchasing access and network capacity

from owners and operators of

telecommunications networks and

reselling wired and wireless

telecommunications services (except

satellite) to businesses and households.

Establishments in this industry resell

telecommunications; they do not

operate transmission facilities and

infrastructure. Mobile virtual network

operators (MVNO) 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 U.S. 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 local resellers are small entities.

50. Toll Resellers. The Commission

has not developed a definition for toll

resellers. The closest NAICS Code

Category is Telecommunications

Resellers. The Telecommunications

Resellers industry comprises

establishments engaged in purchasing

access and network capacity from

owners and operators of

telecommunications networks and

reselling wired and wireless

telecommunications services (except

satellite) to businesses and households.

Establishments in this industry resell

telecommunications; they do not

operate transmission facilities and

infrastructure. 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 U.S. 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.

2. Wireless Carriers

51. 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 1000

employees or more. Thus, under this

category and the associated size

standard, the Commission estimates that

the majority of wireless

telecommunications carriers (except

Satellite) are small entities.

52. 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:00 Sep 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1

tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with PROPOSALS

51091

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

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.

3. Other Entities

53. Internet Service Providers

(Broadband). Broadband internet

service providers include wired (e.g.,

cable, digital subscriber line (DSL)) and

VoIP service providers using their own

operated wired telecommunications

infrastructure fall in the category of

wired telecommunication carriers.

Wired telecommunications carriers are

comprised of 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

telecommunications networks.

Transmission facilities may be based on

a single technology or a combination of

technologies. The SBA size standard for

this category classifies a business as

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

that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated

with fewer than 1,000 employees.

Consequently, under this size standard

the majority of firms in this industry can

be considered small.

54. 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 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

55. The proposals in the FNPRM may

create new or additional reporting or

recordkeeping and/or other compliance

obligations on small entities, if adopted.

Specifically, the FNPRM seeks comment

on proposals to impose additional

certification requirements with respect

to robocall mitigation, 911, CALEA, and

other public safety compliance

requirements, and, if adopted, could

impose additional reporting and

compliance obligations on entities. As

part of the direct access application

process, the FNPRM also proposes to

require applicants to file proof of

compliance with Commission Form 477

and 499 filing requirements, if

applicable, and to provide sufficient

technical information to demonstrate

that it provides interconnected VoIP

services. The FNPRM also proposes to

require a direct access applicant or

authorization holder to inform relevant

Commission staff if the applicant is later

subject to a Commission, law

enforcement, or regulatory agency

action, investigation, or inquiry due to

its robocall mitigation plan being

deemed insufficient or problematic, or

due to suspected unlawful robocalling

or spoofing, and to acknowledge this

requirement it its application. In

addition, the FNPRM seeks comment on

any changes we should make to our

direct access authorization rules to

protect against access stimulation

schemes.

56. The FNPRM proposes to require

applicants for a Commission direct

access authorization to disclose

information, including the name,

address, country of citizenship, and

principal business of every person or

entity that directly or indirectly owns at

least ten percent of the equity of the

applicant, and the percentage of equity

owned by each of those entities to the

nearest one percent, and also to certify

in their applications ‘‘as to whether or

not the applicant is, or is affiliated with,

a foreign carrier.’’ The FNPRM also

proposes to clarify that VoIP providers

that have received direct access to

numbers must also submit an update to

the Commission and each applicable

state within 30 days of any change to

the ownership information submitted to

the Commission, including any change

to the name, address, citizenship and/or

principal business of any person or

entity that directly or indirectly owns at

least ten percent of the equity of the

applicant, or to the percentage of equity

owned by each of those entities. In

addition, the FNPRM seeks comment

whether we should revise our existing

rules to clarify that interconnected VoIP

providers holding a Commission

numbering authorization must comply

with state numbering requirements and

other applicable requirements.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the

Significant Economic Impact on Small

Entities, and Significant Alternatives

Considered

57. The RFA requires an agency to

describe any significant, specifically

small business, alternatives that it has

considered in reaching its proposed

approach, which may include the

following four alternatives (among

others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of

differing compliance or reporting

requirements or timetables that take into

account the resources available to small

entities; (2) the clarification,

consolidation, or simplification of

compliance or 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.’’

58. The FNPRM proposes and seeks

comment on a number of clarifications

to the Commission’s rules establishing

the VoIP direct access to numbering

resources authorization process. We

anticipate that the additional certainty

that these clarifications will provide

will likely benefit small entities through

lowered compliance costs. More

specifically, we anticipate that

clarifying what information must be

included with an application, when

ownership changes must be reported,

and the scope of the Bureau’s review

authority, will better enable small

entities to understand what is required

of them, streamlining the application

process.

59. Regarding the proposals in the

FNPRM, we seek comment on

alternatives that the Commission

consider, the impact of the proposals on

small businesses, as well as the

competitive impact of the proposals on

VoIP providers applying for a

Commission authorization for direct

access to numbering resources. We also

seek comment on how the proposals can

protect the Nation’s numbering

resources and minimize unwanted and

illegal robocalls, both of which we

anticipate would benefit interconnected

VoIP providers. We seek comment on

the costs and benefits associated with

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:00 Sep 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1

tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with PROPOSALS

51092

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules

our proposals in the FNPRM. We expect

to consider the economic impact on

small entities as part of review of

comments filed in response to the

FNPRM and this IFRA.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rules

60. None.

III. Procedural Matters

61. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The

RFA, requires that an agency prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-

and-comment rulemaking proceedings,

unless the agency certifies that ‘‘the rule

will not, if promulgated, have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.’’

Accordingly, the Commission has

prepared an IRFA concerning potential

rule and policy changes contained in

this FNPRM.

62. Paperwork Reduction Act. This

document contains proposed new or

modified information collection

requirements. The Commission, as part

of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork burdens, invites the general

public and the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the

information collection requirements

contained in this document, as required

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition,

pursuant to the Small Business

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public

Law 107–198, 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.

63. Comment Period and Filing

Requirements. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file

comments and reply comments on or

before the dates indicated on the first

page of this document. Comments may

be filed using the Commission’s ECFS.

See Electronic Filing of Documents in

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121

(May 1, 1998).

•Electronic Filers: Comments may be

filed electronically using the internet by

accessing the ECFS: http://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.

64. 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, 35 FCC Rcd 2788, 2788–89 (OS

2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/

fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-

and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.

65. People with Disabilities: To

request materials in accessible formats

for people with disabilities (braille,

large print, electronic files, audio

format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov

or call the Consumer & Governmental

Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice),

202–418–0432 (TTY).

66. The proceeding this FNPRM

initiates shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-

but-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance

with the Commission’s ex parte rules.

Persons making ex parte presentations

must file a copy of any written

presentation or a memorandum

summarizing any oral presentation

within two business days after the

presentation (unless a different deadline

applicable to the Sunshine period

applies). Persons making oral ex parte

presentations are reminded that

memoranda summarizing the

presentation must (1) list all persons

attending or otherwise participating in

the meeting at which the ex parte

presentation was made, and (2)

summarize all data presented and

arguments made during the

presentation. If the presentation

consisted in whole or in part of the

presentation of data or arguments

already reflected in the presenter’s

written comments, memoranda or other

filings in the proceeding, the presenter

may provide citations to such data or

arguments in his or her prior comments,

memoranda, or other filings (specifying

the relevant page and/or paragraph

numbers where such data or arguments

can be found) in lieu of summarizing

them in the memorandum. Documents

shown or given to Commission staff

during ex parte meetings are deemed to

be written ex parte presentations and

must be filed consistent with rule

§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by

rule § 1.49(f) or for which the

Commission has made available a

method of electronic filing, written ex

parte presentations and memoranda

summarizing oral ex parte

presentations, and all attachments

thereto, must be filed through the

electronic comment filing system

available for that proceeding, and must

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

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

in this proceeding should familiarize

themselves with the Commission’s ex

parte rules.

67. Contact Person. For further

information about this proceeding,

please contact Jordan Reth, FCC

Wireline Competition Bureau,

Competition Policy Division, at (202)

418–1418, or Jordan.Reth@fcc.gov.

IV. Ordering Clauses

68. Accordingly, it is ordered that,

pursuant to sections 1, 3, 4, 201–205,

251, and 303(r) of the Communications

Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153, 154,

201–205, 251, 303(r), and section 6(a) of

the TRACED Act, Public Law 116–105,

sec. 6(a)(1)–(2), 133 Stat. 3274, 3277

(2019), this Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking is adopted.

69. It is further ordered that the

Commission’s Consumer and

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference

Information Center, shall send a copy of

this Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, including the Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.

Katura Jackson,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2021–18175 Filed 9–13–21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Parts 531, 533, 536, and 537

[NHTSA–2021–0053, NHTSA–2021–0054]

RIN 2127–AM34

Public Hearing for Corporate Average

Fuel Economy Standards for Model

Years 2024–2026 Passenger Cars and

Light Trucks

AGENCY

: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION

: Notification of public hearing.

SUMMARY

: The National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA) is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:00 Sep 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1

tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with PROPOSALS