9894 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sherry Kamke, Environmental Engineer, 

Corrective Action Section #3, 

Remediation Branch (LR–17J), EPA 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–5794, 

Kamke.Sherry@epa.gov. Out of an 

abundance of caution for members of 

the public and our staff, the EPA Region 

5 office will be closed to the public to 

reduce the risk of transmitting COVID– 

19. We encourage the public to submit 

comments via https://

www.regulations.gov or via email. 

Please call or email the contact listed 

above if you need alternative means to 

access the material provided in the 

docket. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

UST program submittal as a direct rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no relevant adverse comments 

are received in response to this action, 

no further activity is contemplated. If 

EPA receives relevant adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn, and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. For additional 

information, see the direct final rule 

published in the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register. 

Authority: This rule is issued under the 

authority of Sections 2002(a), 9004, and 

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, and 

6991e. 

Dated: February 9, 2021. 

Cheryl Newton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03169 Filed 2–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[WC Docket No. 17–97; FCC 21–15; FRS 

17458] 

Call Authentication Trust Anchor 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) seeks comment on a 

proposal to create a limited role for the 

Commission to oversee certificate 

revocation decisions by the private 

STIR/SHAKEN governance system that 

would have the effect of placing voice 

service providers in noncompliance 

with our rules. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

March 19, 2021; reply Comments are 

due on or before April 19, 2021. Written 

comments on the Paperwork Reduction 

Act proposed information collection 

requirements must be submitted by the 

public, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), and other interested 

parties on or before February 17, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply 

comments may be filed using the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic 

Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 

Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). 

Interested parties may file comments or 

reply comments, identified by WC 

Docket No. 17–97 by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020). 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy. 

In addition to filing comments with the 

Secretary, a copy of any comments on 

the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed 

information collection requirements 

contained herein should be submitted to 

the Federal Communications 

Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov 

and comments should be sent to 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

Find this particular information 

collection by selecting ‘‘Currently Under 

Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or 

by using the search function. Your 

comment must be submitted into 

www.reginfo.gov per the above 

instructions for it to be considered. In 

addition to submitting in 

www.reginfo.gov also send a copy of 

your comment on the proposed 

information collection to Nicole Ongele, 

FCC, via email to PRA@fcc.gov and to 

Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov. Include in the 

comments the OMB control number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, please contact 

Connor Ferraro, Competition Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

at Connor.Ferraro@fcc.gov or at (202) 

418–1322. For additional information 

concerning the Paperwork Reduction 

Act proposed information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document, send an email to PRA@

fcc.gov or contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 

418–2991. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Second 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

in WC Docket No. 17–97, FCC 21–15, 

adopted on January 13, 2021, and 

released on January 14, 2021. The full 

text of this document is available for 

public inspection at the following 

internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/ 

public/attachments/FCC-21-15A1.pdf. 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities (e.g., 

braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format, etc.) or to request 

reasonable accommodations (e.g., 

accessible format documents, sign 

language interpreters, CART, etc.), send 

an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice) or 

(202) 418–0432 (TTY). 

This document contains proposed 

information collection requirements. 

The Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, invites the general public and 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to comment on the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Comments should 

address: (a) Whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules 9895 

functions of the Commission, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

Commission’s burden estimates; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information collected; (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on the 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology; 

and (e) way to further reduce the 

information collection burden on small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. In addition, pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

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

how we might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. To view a copy of this 

information collection request (ICR) 

submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web 

page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the 

web page called ‘‘Currently Under 

Review,’’ (3) click on the downwardpointing arrow in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ 

box below the ‘‘Currently Under 

Review’’ heading, (4) select ‘‘Federal 

Communications Commission’’ from the 

list of agencies presented in the ‘‘Select 

Agency’’ box, (5) click the ‘‘Submit’’ 

button to the right of the ‘‘Select 

Agency’’ box, (6) when the list of FCC 

ICRs currently under review appears, 

look for the Title of this ICR and then 

click on the ICR Reference Number. A 

copy of the FCC submission to OMB 

will be displayed. 

OMB Control Number: 3060–XXXX. 

Title: Secure Telephone Identity 

Governance Authority Token 

Revocation Review Process. 

Form Number: N/A. 

Type of Review: New information 

collection. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 50 respondents; 50 

responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 24 

hours. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion 

reporting requirement. 

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory 

and required to obtain or retain benefits. 

The statutory authority for these 

collections are contained in 47 U.S.C. 

227b, 251(e), and 227(e) of the 

Communications Act of 1934. 

Total Annual Burden: 1,200 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: No Cost. 

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No 

impact(s). 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

The Commission will consider the 

potential confidentiality of any 

information submitted, particularly 

where public release of such 

information could raise security 

concerns (e.g., granular location 

information). Respondents may request 

materials or information submitted to 

the Commission or to the Administrator 

be withheld from public inspection 

under 47 CFR 0.459 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. As part of the Commission’s multipronged approach to combat illegal 

robocalls, the Commission has 

promoted the implementation of STIR/ 

SHAKEN, a caller ID authentication 

framework. STIR/SHAKEN is a set of 

industry-created technological 

standards that help to prevent illegally 

‘‘spoofed’’ calls. Spoofing is a practice 

that involves the falsifying of caller ID 

information and it is particularly 

nefarious when bad actors spoof calls to 

trick unsuspecting Americans into 

thinking that calls they make are 

trustworthy because the caller ID 

information appears as if the call came 

from a neighbor or a familiar or 

reputable source. 

2. In March, acting pursuant to the 

Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall 

Abuse Criminal Enforcement and 

Deterrence Act (TRACED Act), the 

Commission required voice service 

providers to implement the STIR/ 

SHAKEN call authentication technology 

in the internet protocol (IP) portions of 

their phone networks by June 30, 2021. 

The Commission completed 

implementation of the TRACED Act 

with respect to STIR/SHAKEN in 

September and required intermediate 

providers to facilitate caller ID 

authentication. 

3. Today, we propose a limited role 

for the Commission to oversee 

certificate revocation decisions by the 

private STIR/SHAKEN Governance 

Authority that would have the effect of 

placing providers in noncompliance 

with our rules. We anticipate that 

exercising an oversight role would 

provide necessary due process to parties 

that may be rendered noncompliant 

with our rules by the actions of a private 

entity without unduly interfering with 

the well-functioning multi-stakeholder 

private STIR/SHAKEN governance 

processes. 

II. Background 

4. To address the issue of illegal caller 

ID spoofing, technologists from the 

internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 

and the Alliance for 

Telecommunications Industry Solutions 

(ATIS) developed standards to allow for 

the authentication and verification of 

caller ID information for calls carried 

over IP networks. The result of their 

efforts is the STIR/SHAKEN call 

authentication framework, which allows 

for the caller ID information to securely 

travel with the call itself throughout the 

entire length of the call path. A key 

component to the STIR/SHAKEN 

framework is the transmission of a 

digital ‘‘certificate’’ along with the call. 

This certificate essentially states that the 

voice service provider authenticating 

the caller ID information is the voice 

service provider it claims to be, it is 

authorized to authenticate this 

information and, thus, the voice service 

provider’s claims about the caller ID 

information can be trusted. To maintain 

trust and accountability in the voice 

service providers that vouch for the 

caller ID information, a neutral 

governance system issues the 

certificates. 

5. The STIR/SHAKEN governance 

system is comprised of several different 

entities fulfilling specialized roles. The 

Governance Authority, managed by a 

board consisting of representatives from 

across the voice service industry, 

defines the policies and procedures for 

which entities can issue or acquire 

certificates. The Policy Administrator 

applies the rules set by the Governance 

Authority, confirms that certification 

authorities are authorized to issue 

certificates, and confirms that voice 

service providers are authorized to 

request and receive certificates. 

Certification Authorities, of which there 

are several, issue the certificates used to 

authenticate and verify calls. And 

finally, the voice service providers 

themselves, which, when acting as call 

initiators, select an approved 

certification authority from which to 

request a certificate, and when acting as 

call recipients, check with certification 

authorities to ensure that the certificates 

they receive were issued by the correct 

certification authority. 

6. To receive a digital certificate, a 

voice service provider must first apply 

to the Policy Administrator for a Service 

Provider Code (SPC) token. To obtain an 

SPC token, the Governance Authority 

policy requires that a voice service 

provider must (1) have a current FCC 

Form 499A on file with the 

Commission, (2) have been assigned an 

Operating Company Number (OCN), and 

(3) have direct access to telephone 

numbers from the North American 

Numbering Plan Administrator 

(NANPA) and the National Pooling 

Administrator. The SPC token then 

permits the voice service provider to 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
9896 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

obtain the digital certificates it will use 

to authenticate calls from one of the 

approved Certification Authorities. The 

SPC token therefore is a prerequisite for 

a voice service provider to participate in 

the STIR/SHAKEN ecosystem, and 

management of token access is the 

mechanism by which the Policy 

Administrator and Governance 

Authority protect the system from abuse 

and misuse. On November 18, 2020, the 

Governance Authority announced an 

update to its Service Provider Code 

(SPC) Token Access Policy. Under the 

revised policy, an entity will no longer 

need direct access to telephone 

numbers; in place of that requirement, 

an entity will need to have certified 

with the Commission that they have 

implemented STIR/SHAKEN or comply 

with the Robocall Mitigation Program 

requirements and are listed in the 

Commission database. The Governance 

Authority provided that the revised 

policy will be effective upon the 

Commission’s Robocall Mitigation 

Certification filing deadline and that, 

until then, the current SPC Token 

Access Policy remains in effect. 

7. The Policy Administrator grants 

SPC tokens to eligible voice service 

providers conditioned on the execution 

of a signed agreement with each voice 

service provider, stating that the voice 

service provider will follow the 

appropriate standards. This agreement 

establishes that if the Policy 

Administrator deems the voice service 

provider to be in breach, it has the 

authority to suspend or revoke a voice 

service provider’s SPC token. The 

Governance Authority possesses sole 

authority to direct the Policy 

Administrator to revoke an SPC token, 

except in limited circumstances where 

the Policy Administrator may perform 

such actions on its own initiative, 

reviewable by the Governance 

Authority. In the Service Provider 

Token Revocation Policy, the 

Governance Authority lists the reasons 

for which an SPC token may be revoked: 

(1) In the situation of compromised 

credentials, i.e., a voice service 

provider’s private key has been lost, 

stolen, or compromised, or a 

certification authority has been 

compromised; (2) the voice service 

provider exits the ecosystem; (3) the 

voice service provider failed to adhere 

to the policy and technical requirements 

of the system, including the SPC Token 

Access Policy, funding requirements, or 

technical specifications regarding the 

use of STIR/SHAKEN; or (4) when 

directed by a court, the Commission, or 

another body with relevant legal 

authority due to a violation of Federal 

law related to caller ID authentication. 

When a service provider’s credentials 

are compromised or it exits the 

ecosystem (the former two scenarios), 

the Policy Administrator may revoke a 

service provider’s SPC token without 

prior direction from the Governance 

Authority because in either 

circumstance there will be no question 

as to its appropriateness. However, 

when a service provider fails to adhere 

to a policy or technical requirement, or 

at the direction of a court, the 

Commission, or another relevant legal 

authority (the latter two scenarios), the 

Governance Authority conducts the 

revocation process according to the 

process outlined in the Service Provider 

Token Revocation Policy. 

8. Before the Governance Authority 

revokes an SPC token due to a voice 

service provider’s violation of a policy, 

technical, or legal requirement, the 

Governance Authority follows a multistep process described by the Service 

Provider Token Revocation Policy, 

which allows the voice service provider 

to respond to the alleged infraction and 

appeal any adverse decision according 

to the Governance Authority’s operating 

procedures. According to the Service 

Provider Token Revocation Policy, a 

voice service provider, the Policy 

Administrator, a Certification Authority, 

or a regulatory agency may report a 

potential issue to the Governance 

Authority via a complaint. Next, the 

Governance Authority will conduct a 

formal review of the complaint and 

gather additional information. The 

Governance Authority Board then votes 

on whether to revoke the token, 

requiring a two thirds vote of the 

Governance Authority Board to approve 

the revocation. The affected service 

provider may appeal an adverse 

decision by the Governance Authority 

through a formal appeal process 

outlined in the Governance Authority’s 

Operating Procedures. In addition to the 

Governance Authority reviewing the 

complaint and issuing a written 

response, the formal appeal process 

includes the potential for a hearing 

before an independent panel of three 

individuals. Following a hearing, the 

appeals panel issues a written decision 

stating its findings of fact, conclusions, 

and the reasoning for its conclusions. If 

a voice service provider loses the 

appeal, or chooses not to appeal, it may 

seek reinstatement to the STIR/SHAKEN 

ecosystem if the Governance Authority 

approves of its plan of action to remedy 

the issue or issues underlying the token 

revocation. The Commission is aware of 

the timing discrepancy between the 

appeal process as described in the 

Reinstatement Policy and the STI–GA 

Operating Procedures, and we 

encourage the STI–GA to further clarify 

the timing for each. 

9. In the First Caller ID Authentication 

Report and Order and Further Notice, 

the Commission declined to impose 

new regulations on the STIR/SHAKEN 

governance structure. The Commission 

reasoned, in part, that the Commission 

did yet not know the nature and scope 

of the type of problems that may arise 

that would require Commission 

intervention. 

III. Discussion 

10. Although we continue to refrain 

from unduly intruding upon the private 

STIR/SHAKEN governance structure, in 

this Further Notice we preliminarily 

conclude that it is important for the 

Commission to have a role in reviewing 

the Governance Authority’s decisions to 

revoke a voice service provider’s SPC 

token because such decisions will have 

the effect of placing the voice service 

provider out of compliance with our 

rules. Specifically, we propose to 

establish an oversight role for the 

Commission over the Governance 

Authority’s token revocation decisions 

similar to the one we hold in the context 

of decisions by the Universal Service 

Administrative Company (USAC). 

Under our universal service appeals 

rules, after first seeking internal review 

by USAC, an aggrieved party may seek 

review of USAC’s decision by the 

Commission. Our proposed rules would 

follow this same format and allow 

review by the Wireline Competition 

Bureau, except for requests for review 

that raise ‘‘novel questions of fact, law 

or policy,’’ which would be considered 

by the full Commission. We seek 

comment on this proposal. 

11. In more detail, we propose to 

adopt similar procedural and timing 

requirements as in our universal service 

rules. We propose that any voice service 

provider that has its SPC token revoked 

by the Governance Authority, must first, 

before appealing that decision to the 

Commission, exhaust all review of this 

decision by the Governance Authority, 

including completing the formal appeal 

process outlined in the Governance 

Authority’s Operating Procedures and 

described above. We believe that the 

Governance Authority’s robust review 

procedures will enable the dispute to 

fully develop before potentially 

reaching the Commission, thereby 

making it easier for the Commission to 

identify the relevant facts and issues. Do 

commenters agree? Are there any 

reasons we should allow for appeals of 

interim or other relief to the 

Commission before the full Governance 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules 9897 

Authority process has been completed? 

If so, how should such a procedure 

work? Are there any entities other than 

the affected voice service providers that 

we should allow to take advantage of 

such appeal or other procedures? 

12. We propose to give a voice service 

provider 60 days after the Governance 

Authority upholds its adverse decision 

to request review by the Commission 

and to apply the time periods for filing 

oppositions and replies set forth in 

§ 1.45 of our rules. Do commenters agree 

that we should adopt these filing 

deadlines? Are there reasons relevant to 

the SPC token revocation context to 

allow service providers more or less 

time than parties are provided under 

those rules? Should we require or allow 

the Governance Authority to file a 

statement in opposition to the request 

for review? 

13. We further propose to require 

requests for review to be filed within the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System, in a dedicated inbox 

available to the public and be captioned 

with the name of the party. Accordingly, 

we propose to direct the Wireline 

Competition Bureau to establish a new 

docket for these appeals. Next, we 

propose that the request for review, at 

a minimum, contain: (1) A statement 

setting forth the voice service provider’s 

asserted basis for appealing the 

Governance Authority’s decision to 

revoke the SPC token; (2) a full 

statement of relevant, material facts 

with supporting affidavits and 

documentation, including any 

background information the voice 

service provider deems useful to the 

Commission’s review; and (3) the 

question presented for review, with 

reference, where appropriate, to any 

underlying Commission rule or 

Governance Authority policy. These 

three criteria closely track our universal 

service rules. In contrast to our 

universal service rules, however, we 

propose not to require that requests for 

review include a statement of the relief 

sought because we assume that the relief 

sought will always be the reversal of the 

Governance Authority’s revocation 

decision. We seek comment on these 

proposed filing requirements and on 

what other information we should 

require a voice service provider include 

in a request for review. And we propose 

to require that a copy of the request for 

review be sent to the Governance 

Authority via sti-ga@atis.org or another 

method specified in the Governance 

Authority’s Operating Procedures. We 

further propose to require the 

Governance Authority, upon receipt of a 

copy of a voice service provider’s 

request for review, to send to the Bureau 

the full record of the SPC token 

revocation appeal, including the written 

decision. We seek comment on these 

proposed processes. What specific 

information should the Commission 

require the Governance Authority to 

provide? How should we address 

requests for confidentiality, and should 

we treat any filings as presumptively 

confidential by default? Are there any 

other ways in which we should depart 

from our established process for 

universal service appeals? We believe 

that the reporting costs imposed upon 

the Governance Authority by the 

process we propose would be minimal, 

and we seek comment on this view. 

14. We further propose that 

throughout the period of review, until 

the Commission or Bureau issue an 

initial decision, a voice service provider 

will not be judged to be in violation of 

our § 64.6301 rules or the TRACED Act. 

We seek comment on these proposals. Is 

this the appropriate status for a voice 

service provider to maintain throughout 

the review process? Should we allow 

the voice service provider to maintain 

possession and use of its SPC token 

until the Bureau or Commission has 

reached a decision? Are there are other 

relevant procedural requirements that 

we should adopt? We also propose that 

should the Bureau or the Commission 

uphold or otherwise decide not to 

overturn the Governance Authority’s 

decision, a voice service provider will 

not maintain the right to use its SPC 

token by filing a petition for 

reconsideration or application for 

review, in the absence of a stay of the 

action of the Bureau or the Commission. 

We seek comment on this proposal. 

Given the novelty and potential 

complexity of revocation appeals, at this 

time we do not propose to impose a 

time limit on Bureau or Commission 

review, and we seek comment on this 

preliminary view. 

15. We propose that the standard of 

review by either the Bureau or the 

Commission be de novo. Do commenters 

agree? We also seek comment on the 

rules or other sources of law the Bureau 

or the Commission should apply when 

reviewing a revocation. Should we 

incorporate by reference the policies 

established by the Governance 

Authority regarding token revocation 

and determine whether the Governance 

Authority applied those policies 

correctly to the facts of a given appeal? 

Alternatively, do commenters believe 

we should limit our review merely to 

specific types of procedural or obvious 

error in the Governance Authority’s 

process? 

16. To establish this process, we 

propose relying on the authority 

Congress provided to the Commission 

under section 4(b)(1) of the TRACED 

Act to require the implementation of the 

STIR/SHAKEN framework. We believe 

that the proposed appeal process would 

be consistent with this authority with 

minimal cost to the industry. We seek 

comment on this proposal, and whether 

we have independent authority under 

section 251(e) of the Communications 

Act or under the Truth in Caller ID Act 

or other statutory provisions. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

17. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding 

shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance 

with the Commission’s ex parte rules. 

Persons making ex parte presentations 

must file a copy of any written 

presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page or paragraph numbers 

where such data or arguments can be 

found) in lieu of summarizing them in 

the memorandum. Documents shown or 

given to Commission staff during ex 

parte meetings are deemed to be written 

ex parte presentations and must be filed 

consistent with Rule 1.1206(b). In 

proceedings governed by Rule 1.49(f) or 

for which the Commission has made 

available a method of electronic filing, 

written ex parte presentations and 

memoranda summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

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

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

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

18. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
9898 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on small 

entities by the policies and rules 

proposed in this Second Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (Second 

Further Notice). The Commission 

requests written public comments on 

this IRFA. Comments must be identified 

as responses to the IRFA and must be 

filed by the deadlines for comments 

provided on the first page of the Second 

Further Notice. The Commission will 

send a copy of the Second Further 

Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, the Second Further Notice and 

IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

19. The Second Further Notice 

proposes measures as part of the 

Commission’s efforts to combat illegal 

spoofed robocalls. Specifically, the 

Second Further Notice proposes to 

establish an oversight role for the 

Commission of the STIR/SHAKEN 

governance system’s token revocation 

process. Under the proposal, any voice 

service provider that has its Service 

Provider Code token revoked may seek 

review of this decision by the 

Commission through set procedures. 

The proposal in the Second Further 

Notice will help promote effective caller 

ID authentication through STIR/ 

SHAKEN. 

B. Legal Basis 

20. The Second Further Notice 

proposes to find authority for these 

proposed rules under TRACED Act. 

Section 4(b)(1) of the TRACED Act 

provided authority to require the 

implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN 

framework. We preliminarily believe 

that to effectively direct the 

implementation of STIR/SHAKEN 

consistent with the TRACED Act, the 

Commission must have a role in 

decisions to revoke Service Provider 

Code tokens because the result of such 

a decision could place the service 

provider in noncompliance with our 

rules. The Second Further Notice seeks 

comment on whether we have 

independent authority under section 

251(e) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended (the Act), under the 

Truth in Caller ID Act, or any other 

sources of authority. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

21. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules and by the rule 

revisions on which the Notice seeks 

comment, if adopted. The RFA generally 

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as 

having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ 

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ 

In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ 

has the same meaning as the term 

‘‘small-business concern’’ under the 

Small Business Act. A ‘‘small-business 

concern’’ is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. 

1. Wireline Carriers 

22. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 

defines this industry as ‘‘establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired communications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services, wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution, and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry.’’ 

The SBA has developed a small 

business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, which 

consists of all such companies having 

1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2012 show that there 

were 3,117 firms that operated that year. 

Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer 

than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

size standard, the majority of firms in 

this industry can be considered small. 

23. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a size standard for small 

businesses specifically applicable to 

local exchange services. The closest 

applicable NAICS Code category is 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 

Under the applicable SBA size standard, 

such a business is small if it has 1,500 

or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 

firms that operated for the entire year. 

Of that total, 3,083 operated with fewer 

than 1,000 employees. Thus under this 

category and the associated size 

standard, the Commission estimates that 

the majority of local exchange carriers 

are small entities. 

24. Incumbent LECs. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for incumbent local 

exchange services. The closest 

applicable NAICS Code category is 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 

Under the applicable SBA size standard, 

such a business is small if it has 1,500 

or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms 

operated the entire year. Of this total, 

3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of incumbent local exchange 

service are small businesses that may be 

affected by our actions. According to 

Commission data, one thousand three 

hundred and seven (1,307) Incumbent 

Local Exchange Carriers reported that 

they were incumbent local exchange 

service providers. Of this total, an 

estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Thus, using the SBA’s size 

standard the majority of incumbent 

LECs can be considered small entities. 

25. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers (Competitive LECs), 

Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), 

Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and 

Other Local Service Providers. Neither 

the Commission nor the SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for these service 

providers. The appropriate NAICS Code 

category is Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers and under that size standard, 

such a business is small if it has 1,500 

or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms 

operated during that year. Of that 

number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Based on these data, 

the Commission concludes that the 

majority of Competitive LECS, CAPs, 

Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and 

Other Local Service Providers, are small 

entities. According to Commission data, 

1,442 carriers reported that they were 

engaged in the provision of either 

competitive local exchange services or 

competitive access provider services. Of 

these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. In 

addition, 17 carriers have reported that 

they are Shared-Tenant Service 

Providers, and all 17 are estimated to 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules 9899 

carriers have reported that they are 

Other Local Service Providers. Of this 

total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, based on internally 

researched FCC data, the Commission 

estimates that most providers of 

competitive local exchange service, 

competitive access providers, SharedTenant Service Providers, and Other 

Local Service Providers are small 

entities. 

26. We have included small 

incumbent LECs in this present RFA 

analysis. As noted above, a ‘‘small 

business’’ under the RFA is one that, 

inter alia, meets the pertinent smallbusiness size standard (e.g., a telephone 

communications business having 1,500 

or fewer employees) and ‘‘is not 

dominant in its field of operation.’’ The 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that, 

for RFA purposes, small incumbent 

LECs are not dominant in their field of 

operation because any such dominance 

is not ‘‘national’’ in scope. We have 

therefore included small incumbent 

LECs in this RFA analysis, although we 

emphasize that this RFA action has no 

effect on Commission analyses and 

determinations in other, non-RFA 

contexts. 

27. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a small business size 

standard specifically for Interexchange 

Carriers. The closest applicable NAICS 

Code category is Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers. The 

applicable size standard under SBA 

rules is that such a business is small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate 

that 3,117 firms operated for the entire 

year. Of that number, 3,083 operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. 

According to internally developed 

Commission data, 359 companies 

reported that their primary 

telecommunications service activity was 

the provision of interexchange services. 

Of this total, an estimated 317 have 

1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of 

interexchange service providers are 

small entities. 

28. Cable System Operators (Telecom 

Act Standard). The Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, also contains 

a size standard for small cable system 

operators, which is ‘‘a cable operator 

that, directly or through an affiliate, 

serves in the aggregate fewer than one 

percent of all subscribers in the United 

States and is not affiliated with any 

entity or entities whose gross annual 

revenues in the aggregate exceed 

$250,000,000.’’ As of 2018, there were 

approximately 50,504,624 cable video 

subscribers in the United States. 

Accordingly, an operator serving fewer 

than 505,046 subscribers shall be 

deemed a small operator if its annual 

revenues, when combined with the total 

annual revenues of all its affiliates, do 

not exceed $250 million in the 

aggregate. We note that the Commission 

neither requests nor collects information 

on whether cable system operators are 

affiliated with entities whose gross 

annual revenues exceed $250 million. 

Therefore we are unable at this time to 

estimate with greater precision the 

number of cable system operators that 

would qualify as small cable operators 

under the definition in the 

Communications Act. 

2. Wireless Carriers 

29. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). This industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

operating and maintaining switching 

and transmission facilities to provide 

communications via the airwaves. 

Establishments in this industry have 

spectrum licenses and provide services 

using that spectrum, such as cellular 

services, paging services, wireless 

internet access, and wireless video 

services. The appropriate size standard 

under SBA rules is that such a business 

is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. For this industry, U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 

there were 967 firms that operated for 

the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms 

employed fewer than 1,000 employees 

and 12 firms employed of 1,000 

employees or more. Thus under this 

category and the associated size 

standard, the Commission estimates that 

the majority of wireless 

telecommunications carriers (except 

satellite) are small entities. 

30. The Commission’s own data— 

available in its Universal Licensing 

System—indicate that, as of August 31, 

2018 there are 265 Cellular licensees 

that will be affected by our actions. The 

Commission does not know how many 

of these licensees are small, as the 

Commission does not collect that 

information for these types of entities. 

Similarly, according to internally 

developed Commission data, 413 

carriers reported that they were engaged 

in the provision of wireless telephony, 

including cellular service, Personal 

Communications Service (PCS), and 

Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 

Telephony services. Of this total, an 

estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees, and 152 have more than 

1,500 employees. Thus, using available 

data, we estimate that the majority of 

wireless firms can be considered small. 

31. Satellite Telecommunications. 

This category comprises firms 

‘‘primarily engaged in providing 

telecommunications services to other 

establishments in the 

telecommunications and broadcasting 

industries by forwarding and receiving 

communications signals via a system of 

satellites or reselling satellite 

telecommunications.’’ Satellite 

telecommunications service providers 

include satellite and earth station 

operators. The category has a small 

business size standard of $35 million or 

less in average annual receipts, under 

SBA rules. For this category, U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 

there were a total of 333 firms that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 299 firms had annual receipts of 

less than $25 million. Consequently, we 

estimate that the majority of satellite 

telecommunications providers are small 

entities. 

3. Resellers 

32. Local Resellers. The SBA has not 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for Local Resellers. 

The SBA category of 

Telecommunications Resellers is the 

closest NAICs code category for local 

resellers. The Telecommunications 

Resellers industry comprises 

establishments engaged in purchasing 

access and network capacity from 

owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. Mobile virtual network 

operators (MVNOs) are included in this 

industry. Under the SBA’s size 

standard, such a business is small if it 

has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 

Census Bureau data from 2012 show 

that 1,341 firms provided resale services 

during that year. Of that number, all 

operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. Thus, under this category 

and the associated small business size 

standard, the majority of these resellers 

can be considered small entities. 

According to Commission data, 213 

carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provision of local resale 

services. Of these, an estimated 211 

have 1,500 or fewer employees and two 

have more than 1,500 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of local 

resellers are small entities. 

33. Toll Resellers. The Commission 

has not developed a definition for Toll 

Resellers. The closest NAICS Code 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
9900 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Category is Telecommunications 

Resellers. The Telecommunications 

Resellers industry comprises 

establishments engaged in purchasing 

access and network capacity from 

owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. MVNOs are included in 

this industry. The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for the 

category of Telecommunications 

Resellers. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. 2012 Census Bureau 

data show that 1,341 firms provided 

resale services during that year. Of that 

number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

these resellers can be considered small 

entities. According to Commission data, 

881 carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provision of toll resale 

services. Of this total, an estimated 857 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of toll 

resellers are small entities. 

34. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a small business 

definition specifically for prepaid 

calling card providers. The most 

appropriate NAICS code-based category 

for defining prepaid calling card 

providers is Telecommunications 

Resellers. This industry comprises 

establishments engaged in purchasing 

access and network capacity from 

owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. Mobile virtual networks 

operators (MVNOs) are included in this 

industry. Under the applicable SBA size 

standard, such a business is small if it 

has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 

1,341 firms provided resale services 

during that year. Of that number, 1,341 

operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. Thus, under this category 

and the associated small business size 

standard, the majority of these prepaid 

calling card providers can be considered 

small entities. According to Commission 

data, 193 carriers have reported that 

they are engaged in the provision of 

prepaid calling cards. All 193 carriers 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of prepaid 

calling card providers are small entities 

that may be affected by these rules. 

4. Other Entities 

35. All Other Telecommunications. 

The ‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’ 

category is comprised of establishments 

primarily engaged in providing 

specialized telecommunications 

services, such as satellite tracking, 

communications telemetry, and radar 

station operation. This industry also 

includes establishments primarily 

engaged in providing satellite terminal 

stations and associated facilities 

connected with one or more terrestrial 

systems and capable of transmitting 

telecommunications to, and receiving 

telecommunications from, satellite 

systems. Establishments providing 

internet services or voice over internet 

protocol (VoIP) services via clientsupplied telecommunications 

connections are also included in this 

industry. The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for ‘‘All 

Other Telecommunications’’, which 

consists of all such firms with annual 

receipts of $35 million or less. For this 

category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2012 show that there were 1,442 firms 

that operated for the entire year. Of 

those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual 

receipts less than $25 million and 15 

firms had annual receipts of $25 million 

to $49,999,999. Thus, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of ‘‘All Other 

Telecommunications’’ firms potentially 

affected by our action can be considered 

small. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

36. None. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

37. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rules for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities. 

38. The Second Further Notice invites 

comment on the proposal to establish an 

oversight role for the Commission 

within the STIR/SHAKEN governance 

system’s token revocation process. The 

Second Further Notice proposes specific 

processes for the appeals process and 

seeks comment on alternatives to these 

proposed processes. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

39. None. 

40. Paperwork Reduction Act. This 

document contains proposed new 

information collection requirements. 

The Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, invites the general public and 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to comment on the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

we seek specific comment on how we 

might further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

41. Contact person. For further 

information about this proceeding, 

please contact Connor Ferraro, FCC 

Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Competition Policy Division at (202) 

418–1322 or connor.ferraro@fcc.gov. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

42. It is ordered, pursuant to sections 

4(i), 4(j), 201, 227(e), 227b, 251(e), and 

303(r), of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 

154(j), 201, 227(e), 227b, 251(e), and 

303(r), that that this Second Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 

adopted. 

43. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Second Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 

Carrier equipment, Communications 

common carriers, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Telecommunications, Telephone. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules 9901 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 64 as follows: 

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 

■ 1. Amend subpart HH by adding 

§ 64.6308 to read as follows: 

§ 64.6308 Review of Governance Authority 

decision to revoke an SPC token. 

(a) Parties permitted to seek review of 

Governance Authority decision. (1) Any 

intermediate provider or voice service 

provider aggrieved by a Governance 

Authority decision to revoke that 

intermediate provider or voice service 

provider’s Service Provider Code (SPC) 

token, must seek review from the 

Governance Authority and complete the 

appeals process established by the 

Governance Authority prior to seeking 

Commission review. 

(2) Any intermediate provider or 

voice service provider aggrieved by an 

action to revoke its SPC token taken by 

the Governance Authority, after 

exhausting the appeals process provided 

by the Governance Authority, may then 

seek review from the Commission, as set 

forth in this section. 

(b) Filing deadlines. (1) An 

intermediate provider or voice service 

provider requesting Commission review 

of a Governance Authority decision to 

revoke that intermediate provider or 

voice service provider’s SPC token by 

the Commission, shall file such a 

request electronically in the designated 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS) inbox within sixty days from the 

date the Governance Authority issues its 

final decision. 

(2) Parties shall adhere to the time 

periods for filing oppositions and 

replies set forth in § 1.45. 

(c) Filing requirements. (1) A request 

for review of a Governance Authority 

decision to revoke an intermediate 

provider or voice service provider’s SPC 

token by the Commission shall be filed 

electronically in the designated ECFS 

inbox. The request for review shall be 

captioned ‘‘In the matter of Request for 

Review by (name of party seeking 

review) of Decision of the Governance 

Authority to Revoke an SPC Token.’’ 

(2) A request for review shall contain: 

(i) A statement setting forth the 

intermediate provider or voice service 

provider’s asserted basis for appealing 

the Governance Authority’s decision to 

revoke the SPC token; 

(ii) A full statement of relevant, 

material facts with supporting affidavits 

and documentation, including any 

background information the 

intermediate provider or voice service 

provider deems useful to the 

Commission’s review; and 

(iii) The question presented for 

review, with reference, where 

appropriate, to any underlying 

Commission rule or Governance 

Authority policy. 

(3) A copy of a request for review that 

is submitted to the Commission shall be 

served on the Governance Authority via 

sti-ga@atis.org or in accordance with 

any alternative delivery mechanism the 

Governance Authority may establish in 

its operating procedures. 

(d) Review by the Wireline 

Competition Bureau or the Commission. 

(1) Requests for review of a Governance 

Authority decision to revoke an 

intermediate provider or voice service 

provider’s SPC token that are submitted 

to the Commission shall be considered 

and acted upon by the Wireline 

Competition Bureau, which shall issue 

a written decision; provided, however, 

that requests for review that raise novel 

questions of fact, law, or policy shall be 

considered by the full Commission. 

(2) An affected party may seek review 

of a decision issued under delegated 

authority by the Wireline Competition 

Bureau pursuant to the rules set forth in 

§ 1.115. 

(e) Standard of review. (1) The 

Wireline Competition Bureau shall 

conduct de novo review of Governance 

Authority decisions to revoke an 

intermediate provider or voice service 

provider’s SPC token. 

(2) The Commission shall conduct de 

novo review of Governance Authority 

decisions to revoke an intermediate 

provider or voice service provider’s SPC 

token that involve novel questions of 

fact, law, or policy; provided, however, 

that the Commission shall not conduct 

de novo review of decisions issued by 

the Wireline Competition Bureau under 

delegated authority. 

(f) Status during pendency of a 

request for review and a Governance 

Authority decision. (1) When an 

intermediate provider or voice service 

provider has sought timely Commission 

review of a Governance Authority 

decision to revoke an intermediate 

provider or voice service provider’s SPC 

token under this section, the 

intermediate provider or voice service 

provider shall not be considered to be 

in violation of the Commission’s call 

authentication rules under § 64.6301 

until and unless the Wireline 

Competition Bureau or the Commission, 

pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section, has upheld or otherwise 

decided not to overturn the Governance 

Authority’s decision. 

(2) In accordance with §§ 1.102(b) and 

1.106(n), the effective date of any action 

pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section 

shall not be stayed absent order by the 

Wireline Competition Bureau or the 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03043 Filed 2–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 210208–0016; RTID 0648– 

XX065] 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean 

Quahog Fisheries; Proposed 2021– 

2026 Fishing Quotas 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes status quo 

commercial quotas for the Atlantic 

surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries for 

2021 and projected status quo quotas for 

2022–2026. This action is necessary to 

establish allowable harvest levels of 

Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs 

that will prevent overfishing and allow 

harvesting of optimum yield. This 

action would also continue to suspend 

the minimum shell size for Atlantic 

surfclams for the 2021 fishing year. The 

intended effect of this action is to 

provide benefit to the industry from 

stable quotas to maintain a consistent 

market. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

March 4, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: An Environmental 

Assessment (EA) was prepared for the 

surfclam and ocean quahog 

specifications. Copies of the EA are 

available on request from Dr. 

Christopher M. Moore, Executive 

Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, Suite 201, 800 

North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. 

These documents are also accessible via 

the internet at http://www.mafmc.org. 

You may submit comments on this 

document, identified by NOAA–NMFS– 

2020–0152, by the following method: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS