Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 51081 

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/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-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-proposesupdating-numbering-rules-fightrobocalls. 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 


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 recentlyestablished 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 postauthorization 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 


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 51083 

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, applicationbased 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 noncompliant 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 noninterconnected 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 protocolcompatible 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. Noninterconnected 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)-tointernet 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 


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 


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 51085 

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 postauthorization in a manner that evades 

the purpose of application review, for 

instance by introducing a bad actorowner 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 


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 postauthorization updates to the 

Commission via the ‘‘Submit a NonDocketed 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-forFiling 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 


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 51087 

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 oneway 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 nonquantifiable 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 


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 


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 51089 

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 


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 


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 14, 2021 / Proposed Rules 51091 

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 


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 noticeand-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-windowand-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 ‘‘permitbut-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 


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with PROPOSALS