[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 14, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51081-51092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18175]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
    <bullet> Federal Communications Commission's Website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> Hand Delivery: Effective March 19, 2020, and until further 
notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger 
delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect 
the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission 
of COVID-19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window 
and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 
2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    <bullet> People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#33757070060307735550501d545c45"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="abede8e89e9b9febcdc8c885ccc4dd">[email protected]</span></a> 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, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#da90b5a8bebbb4f488bfaeb29abcb9b9f4bdb5ac"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f1bb9e8395909fdfa3948599b1979292df969e87">[email protected]</span></a>. For additional information concerning the 
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained 
in this document, send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ca9a988b8aaca9a9e4ada5bc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6c3c3e2d2c0a0f0f420b031a">[email protected]</span></a> or contact Nicole 
Ongele, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#67290e04080b0249280900020b022701040449000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1d53747e7271783352737a7871785d7b7e7e337a726b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in WC Docket Nos. 13-97, 
07-243, 20-67, and IB Docket No. 16-155, adopted on August 5, 2021, and 
released on August 6, 2021. The full text of the document is available 
on the Commission's website at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-updating-numbering-rules-fight-robocalls. To request materials 
in accessible formats for people with disabilities (e.g., braille, 
large print, electronic files, audio format, etc.), send an email to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ebada8a8dedbdfab8d8888c58c849d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dd9b9e9ee8ede99dbbbebef3bab2ab">[email protected]</span></a> 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

[[Page 51082]]

authorization must comply with state numbering requirements. Fifth, we 
propose to clarify that the Wireline Competition Bureau (the Bureau) 
retains the authority to determine when to release an Accepted-for-
Filing Public Notice, and we propose to delegate authority to the 
Bureau to reject an application for direct access authorization if an 
applicant has engaged in behavior contrary to the public interest or 
has been found to have originated or transmitted illegal robocalls. 
Finally, we seek comment whether we should expand the direct access to 
numbers authorization process to one-way VoIP providers or other 
entities that use numbers.

A. Clarifying and Refining Application Requirements

    2. To help curb illegal robocalls and improve the ability of 
Commission staff to safeguard the public interest and operate 
efficiently when reviewing VoIP direct access to numbers applications, 
we propose to require additional certifications as part of the direct 
access application process and clarify existing requirements. We seek 
comment on the burdens of imposing potential certification 
requirements, as discussed below, on applicants for numbering 
resources, particularly on small businesses.
    3. Certification Regarding Illegal Robocalls and/or Illegal 
Spoofing. We propose to require a direct access applicant to certify 
that it will use numbering resources lawfully; will not encourage nor 
assist and facilitate illegal robocalls, illegal spoofing, or fraud; 
and will take reasonable steps to cease origination, termination, and/
or transmission of illegal robocalls once discovered. We seek comment 
on whether we should adopt specific standards for what constitutes 
``assisting and facilitating'' in this context, and if so, what would 
constitute ``reasonable'' measures for purposes of this proposal. How 
would any such specific standards impact the Commission's and our 
Federal partners' efforts to curb illegal robocalls? We also propose to 
require direct access applicants to certify that they will cooperate 
with the Commission, Federal and state law enforcement and regulatory 
agencies with relevant jurisdiction, and the industry-led registered 
consortium, regarding efforts to mitigate illegal or harmful 
robocalling or spoofing and tracebacks. A direct access applicant may 
already be subject to these or similar requirements under existing 
Commission rule. We believe the requirements we propose in this 
document are appropriate because they introduce additional trust into 
the assignment and use of telephone numbers; ensure that any entities 
not subject to our existing rules that seek direct access are not the 
source of illegal robocalls; and because they add another avenue for 
enforcement against bad actors. We seek comment on these proposals. Are 
there specific practices we should require applicants to address in 
their certifications? For example, should we require applicants to 
certify that the applicant will not supply numbers on a trial basis to 
new customers (i.e., use of numbers for free for the first 30 days, 
etc.), a practice that commonly leads to bad actors gaining temporary 
control over numbers for the purposes of including misleading caller 
identification (ID) information? Should we require applicants to 
certify that they ``know their customer'' through customer identity 
verification, as the Commission raised previously? Would such 
additional certification requirements place interconnected VoIP 
providers at a competitive disadvantage with respect to their carrier 
counterparts?
    4. Certification of Robocall Mitigation Database Filing. The 
recently-established Robocall Mitigation Database serves as another 
important resource in the fight against illegal robocalling. To support 
this effort, we propose to require an applicant for direct access 
authorization to (1) certify that it has filed in the Robocall 
Mitigation Database and (2) to certify that it has either (A) fully 
implemented the Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR) and 
Signature-based Handling of Asserted Information Using toKENs (SHAKEN) 
caller ID authentication protocols and framework or (B) that it has 
implemented either STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication or a robocall 
mitigation program for all calls for which it acts as a voice service 
provider. If the applicant relies in part or whole on a robocall 
mitigation program, we further propose to require it to certify that it 
has described in the Database the detailed steps it is taking regarding 
number use that can reasonably be expected to reduce the origination 
and transmission of illegal robocalls. We seek comment on our proposal. 
We believe that requiring this certification as part of a direct access 
application is another important step the Commission can take in 
protecting consumers from unwanted robocalls; a provider that is 
noncompliant with its Robocall Mitigation Database obligations may be 
more likely to use numbers for improper purposes, and applying our 
Robocall Mitigation Database rules to those providers not otherwise 
subject to them as a prerequisite for number access will promote trust 
in the assignment and use of numbers. Do commenters agree? Should the 
Commission require an applicant to provide any additional documentation 
in support of this certification? What would be the benefits and costs 
of doing so? We also seek comment on whether there are any additional 
steps the Commission should take to help protect against misuse of 
numbering resources or other fraudulent activities involving telephone 
numbers.
    5. In furtherance of our goals of protecting our numbering 
resources and preventing illegal robocalls, we also propose to require 
a direct access applicant or authorization holder to inform the 
Commission if the applicant or authorization holder is subject--either 
at the time of its application or after its filing or its grant--to a 
Commission, law enforcement, or regulatory agency action, 
investigation, or inquiry due to its robocall mitigation plan being 
deemed insufficient or problematic, or due to suspected unlawful 
robocalling or spoofing, and to acknowledge this requirement it its 
application. We seek comment on our proposal. We tentatively conclude 
that this acknowledgement and post-grant notification requirement is 
essential to ensure that both direct access applicants and 
authorization holders are working with the Commission to fight illegal 
robocalling and spoofing. We seek comment regarding the most effective 
way to accomplish the proposed post-authorization mandatory 
notification requirement, including on the appropriate method by which 
we should require notification to Commission staff.
    6. Public Safety Certification--911 and CALEA. The Commission's 
rules require direct access applicants to certify that they comply with 
a number of requirements, including 911 obligations pursuant to our 
rules. The Commission's rules also require interconnected VoIP 
providers to provide Enhanced 911 service, as well as the ability to 
provide Public Safety Answering Points with a caller's location and a 
call-back number for each 911 call. Interconnected VoIP providers also 
must comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act 
(CALEA). In furtherance of our public safety goals and consistent with 
these requirements, we propose to require direct access applicants to 
certify that they are compliant with 911 service and CALEA 
requirements, and to provide documentation to support proof of 
compliance. We seek comment on this

[[Page 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 Sec.  61.3 of the 
Commission's rules? Should direct access to number applicants certify 
that the VoIP numbers they are applying for will only be used to 
provide interconnected VoIP services as opposed to for example, 
application-based services? Should we clarify that interconnected VoIP 
providers that receive direct access to numbers must use those numbers 
for interconnected VoIP services? How and for what services are 
interconnected VoIP providers that currently hold a Commission direct 
access authorization using those numbers? What would be the benefits of 
any such requirements? Would there be unintended consequences of any of 
these requirements? What burdens would these proposals, and other 
alternatives commenters may suggest, impose on interconnected VoIP 
providers? Would adoption of rules addressing interconnected VoIP 
providers' role in access arbitrage schemes put interconnected VoIP 
providers at a competitive disadvantage with respect to their carrier 
counterparts?
    8. Clarification of Form 477 and 499 Filings. Interconnected VoIP 
providers that have qualifying subscribers must file Forms 477 and 499, 
and we propose to clarify that as such, they must file proof of 
compliance with these Commission filing requirements, and any successor 
filing requirements, when applicable, such as the Broadband Data 
Collection (BDC), as part of the direct access application process. 
Currently, Commission staff independently check for compliance and 
follow-up with non-compliant applicants on a case-by-case basis. While 
this requirement is referenced in the VoIP Direct Access Order, 80 FR 
66454 (Oct. 29, 2015), many applicants have expressed confusion 
regarding the requirement and the necessity of filing both forms as an 
interconnected VoIP provider with qualifying subscribers. For this 
reason, we propose to make explicit in our rules that an interconnected 
VoIP provider that has qualifying subscribers and is required to file 
Forms 477 and 499 must provide evidence of compliance with completing 
these forms, and any successor filing requirements, when applicable, in 
its application.
    9. Technical Information for Proof of Interconnected VoIP Service; 
Facilities Readiness Requirement. We propose to require a direct access 
applicant to provide sufficient technical documentation and information 
that clearly demonstrates that it will provide interconnected VoIP 
services, as opposed to one-way or non-interconnected VoIP services, 
and seek comment on our proposal. An interconnected VoIP service is a 
service that: (i) Enables real-time, two-way voice communications; (ii) 
requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (iii) 
requires internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment; and 
(iv) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the 
public switched telephone network and to terminate calls to the public 
switched telephone network. ``One-way VoIP'' differs from 
interconnected VoIP in that one-way VoIP permits users generally to 
receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network 
or to terminate calls to the public switched telephone network, but not 
both. Non-interconnected VoIP is a broader category than one-way VoIP 
and includes both one-way VoIP and internet-based real-time voice 
communication that does not interconnect with the public switched 
telephone network. What specific types of information should we 
require? What burden would requiring submission of such technical 
information place on the applicant? In the alternative or in addition, 
should we require a certification from the applicant that it provides 
interconnected VoIP service?
    10. Further, as noted above, our rules require that an applicant 
seeking direct access provide proof that it is capable of providing 
service within sixty days of the numbering resource activation date 
(``facilities readiness''). In the VoIP Direct Access Order, the 
Commission explained that applicants can achieve this through the 
submission of commercial agreements, specifically by (1) providing a 
combination of an agreement between the interconnected VoIP provider 
and its carrier partner and an interconnection agreement between that 
carrier and the relevant local exchange carrier (LEC), or (2) proof 
that the interconnected VoIP provider obtains interconnection with the 
Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) pursuant to a tariffed 
offering or a commercial arrangement (such as a time-division 
multiplexing (TDM)-to-internet Protocol (IP) or a VoIP interconnection 
agreement) that providers access to the PSTN. We have seen that some 
applicants do not submit commercial agreements or contracts that 
clearly illustrate their interconnection with the PSTN. We seek comment 
on whether we should dispel any confusion by specifying the types of 
documentation that we permit applicants to submit in the text of the 
rule. Are there other types of documents or information that we should 
permit applicants to file? We emphasize that unless and until we effect 
any change to our rules, VoIP direct access to numbers applicants must 
provide the requisite agreements to demonstrate that they

[[Page 51084]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 post-authorization in a manner that evades the purpose of 
application review, for instance by introducing a bad actor-owner that 
facilitates unlawful robocalling, poses a threat to national security, 
evades or abuses intercarrier compensation requirements, or otherwise 
engages in conduct detrimental to the public interest. We seek comment 
on this proposal. Are there other benefits to receiving updated 
ownership information? What are the costs to providers or others of 
updating the Commission and applicable states, particularly on small 
businesses? As with updated contact and certification information, we 
propose to clarify that the Commission may use updated ownership 
information to determine whether a change in authorization status is 
warranted. We seek comment on our proposal. We also propose to delegate 
authority to the Bureau to direct the Numbering Administrator to 
suspend number requests if the Bureau determines that further review of 
the authorization is necessary.
    21. We seek comment on whether we should expand, contract, or alter 
the specific scope of information we propose to require. Should we 
require updates on information that does not appear in the underlying 
application, and if so what information? We also seek comment on 
whether we should establish a materiality threshold for updates so that 
we do not burden VoIP providers with submitting updates that are 
unlikely to be important. For instance, should we require providers to 
update the ownership percentage of specific entities whose ownership 
has already been disclosed to the Commission only if that change 
exceeds a numerical threshold, such as an increase or decrease of 10 
percent or more of total ownership interest?
    22. We seek comment on whether we should specify the method of 
filing or format for post-authorization updates regarding changes to 
contact information, certifications, and

[[Page 51086]]

ownership information. The VoIP Direct Access Order and the rules 
adopted by the Commission in that Order do not specify how providers 
should submit updates. We propose requiring providers to submit any 
required post-authorization updates to the Commission via the ``Submit 
a Non-Docketed Filing'' module in the Electronic Comment Filing System 
(ECFS) established for the VoIP Direct Access proceeding (Inbox--52.15 
VoIP Numbering Authorization Application) and via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#97d3d6d6d7f1f4f4b9f0f8e1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e6a2a7a7a6808585c8818990">[email protected]</span></a>, 
our email alias for VoIP direct access to numbers applications. We 
preliminarily believe that this approach will facilitate informed and 
timely review by interested members of the public and Commission staff, 
and we seek comment on this proposal. Should we specify the means by 
which applicants must update applicable states, and if so how? Should 
we require applicants to submit diagrams illustrating their ownership 
structure with their applications and with any required post-
application updates?

D. Compliance With State Law

    23. As the Commission has explained, requiring interconnected VoIP 
providers that obtain numbers directly from the Numbering Administrator 
to comply with the same numbering requirements as carriers will help 
``ensure competitive neutrality among providers of voice services.'' As 
a condition of obtaining a Commission authorization, interconnected 
VoIP providers must ``comply with guidelines and procedures adopted 
pursuant to numbering authority delegated to the states.'' The 2015 
VoIP Direct Access Order references requiring compliance with specific 
forms of numbering authority delegated to the states with respect to 
number reclamation, area code relief, and thousands-block pooling. 
Because of that reference, there has been some confusion regarding 
whether interconnected VoIP providers with direct access to numbers 
must comply with state requirements other than those specifically 
identified in the Order. We seek comment whether we should revise our 
existing rules to clarify that interconnected VoIP providers holding a 
Commission numbering authorization must comply with state numbering 
requirements and other applicable requirements for businesses operating 
in the state. Is the fact that some interconnected VoIP providers 
provision non-fixed, or nomadic, services relevant in determining 
compliance with state requirements? We also seek comment on whether we 
should we require minimal state contacts to obtain numbering resources 
in a particular state. Finally, we seek comment whether it is necessary 
to clarify that the Bureau may direct the Numbering Administrator to 
deny requests for numbers from an interconnected VoIP provider that has 
failed to comply with state requirements. We note that we do not 
propose to address classification of interconnected VoIP services or 
states' general authority to regulate interconnected VoIP service, and 
we view these matters as beyond the scope of this proceeding.

E. Bureau Authority To Review Applications

    24. We also propose to clarify that even once the procedural 
requirements have been met, the Bureau retains the authority to 
determine when an application is ready to be put out on an Accepted-
for-Filing Public Notice based on public interest considerations, 
subject to the limits of the Administrative Procedure Act. We seek 
comment on our proposal. The VoIP Direct Access Order requires Bureau 
staff to review VoIP Numbering Authorization Applications for 
conformance with procedural rules, and ``assuming the applicant 
satisfies this initial procedural rule,'' then directs the Bureau staff 
to ``assign the application its own case-specific docket number and 
release an `Accepted-For-Filing Public Notice,' seeking comment on the 
application.'' The Commission's rules permit the Bureau to halt the 
auto-grant process for a number of reasons, including when ``the Bureau 
determines that the request requires further analysis to determine 
whether a request of authorization for direct access to numbers would 
serve the public interest.'' Though we believe the Commission and the 
Bureau currently have the authority to withhold placing an application 
on streamlined processing that meets procedural requirements if the 
application raises public interest concerns, including concerns 
regarding illegal robocalling, arbitrage, and foreign ownership, we 
propose to make this authority explicit.
    25. The Commission directed and delegated authority to the Bureau 
``to implement and maintain the authorization process.'' The 
technological development and exponential growth of IP-based services 
has many potential benefits to consumers, including the development of 
innovative products and services and competitive pricing for such 
services. However, coupled with that innovation is an increase in the 
ease with which bad actors can engage in harmful and illegal 
robocalling and other fraudulent activity. The ease with which bad 
actors are able to form new entities, coupled with the rise in illegal 
and harmful robocalling since the adoption of the VoIP Direct Access 
Order in 2015, counsels us to propose clarifying explicitly that we 
delegate authority to the Bureau to determine at its discretion when it 
is appropriate to release an Accepted-For-Filing Public Notice, based 
on public interest considerations. We seek comment on this proposal. We 
propose clarifying that the Bureau may withhold issuance of an 
Accepted-for-Filing Public Notice based on, for instance, concerns 
regarding an applicant's (or an applicant's principals' or owners') 
involvement in illegal or harmful robocalling schemes or regulatory 
arbitrage. We seek comment on our proposal.
    26. We also propose to explicitly delegate authority to the Bureau 
to reject an application for authorization for direct access to numbers 
if any applicant (or its owners or affiliates) has engaged in behavior 
contrary to public interest or been found to originate or transmit 
illegal robocalls by the Commission, industry-led registered 
consortium, or state or Federal authorities. The Commission has already 
found that ``at the Bureau's discretion, certain past violations may 
serve as a basis for denial of an application, such as, for example, 
repeated or egregious violations or instances of fraud or 
misrepresentation to the Commission.'' We propose to clarify the 
Commission's existing delegation to confirm that the Bureau may reject 
an application, at its discretion, by an entity which it has a 
reasonable basis to believe has engaged in behavior contrary to the 
public interest, including but not limited to, entity or entities that 
have been found to transmit illegal robocalls by the Commission, 
industry-led registered consortium, or state or Federal authorities. We 
seek comment on this proposal. Should we adopt more specific rules or 
standards for when the Bureau rejects and application based on these 
reasons, and if so, what rules or standards should we adopt? We believe 
that this explicit delegation will enable the Commission to more 
effectively guard against bad actors gaining access to numbering 
resources, which then may be ``stranded'' by the taint of harmful 
robocalling and contribute to number exhaust. Do commenters agree?
    27. The VoIP Direct Access Order states that the Commission may 
revoke direct access to numbers for failure to comply with the 
Commission's numbering rules. We propose clarifying

[[Page 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 one-way VoIP and other services? 
If not, would enabling such entities direct access to numbering 
resources cause customer confusion with respect to critical short 
dialing codes? Are there additional conditions that would be necessary 
to protect against illegal robocalling, number exhaust, and other 
public interest harms for one-way VoIP providers and other entities?

G. Expected Benefits and Costs

    30. The proposals in this FNPRM generally reflect a mandate from 
the TRACED Act. We request comments on the relative costs and benefits 
of different means of achieving the goals mandated by the statute. With 
regard to benefits, the Commission found in the TRACED Act Section 6(a) 
Order and FNPRM, 85 FR 22029 (Apr. 21, 2020) and 85 FR 22099 (Apr. 21, 
2020), that widespread deployment of STIR/SHAKEN will increase the 
effectiveness of the framework for both voice service providers and 
their subscribers, producing a potential benefit floor of $13.5 billion 
due to the reduction in nuisance calls and fraud. In addition, that 
Order identified many non-quantifiable benefits, such as restoring 
confidence in incoming calls and reliable access to emergency and 
healthcare communications. The proposals in this FNPRM are intended, 
consistent with the TRACED Act, to make progress in unlocking those 
expected benefits, among others.
    31. With regard to costs, we expect that the minimal costs imposed 
on applicants by our proposed clarification changes will be far 
exceeded by the benefit to consumers, which we estimate to be a 
substantial share of the $13.5 billion annual benefit floor. Moreover, 
as the Commission stated in the TRACED Act Section 6(a) Order and 
FNPRM, an overall reduction in robocalls will greatly lower network 
costs by eliminating both the unwanted traffic and the labor costs of 
handling numerous customer complaints. In addition, the proposed 
clarifications to the direct access application process will minimize 
staff time and review, thereby minimizing cost. We therefore 
tentatively conclude that the proposals in this FNPRM will impose only 
a minimal cost on direct access applicants while having the overall 
effect of lowering network costs and raising consumer benefits. We seek 
comment on this tentative conclusion. We also seek detailed comments on 
the costs of the proposals in this FNPRM. What are the costs associated 
with each proposed change? Will these costs vary according to the size 
of the direct access applicant? Do the benefits of our proposals 
outweigh the costs in each case?

H. Legal Authority

    32. We propose concluding that section 251(e)(1) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), which grants us 
``exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the North American 
Numbering Plan that pertain to the United States,'' provides us with 
authority to adopt our proposals. In the VoIP Direct Access Order, the 
Commission concluded that section 251(e)(1) provided it with authority 
``to

[[Page 51088]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 51090]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 51092]]

our proposals in the FNPRM. We expect to consider the economic impact 
on small entities as part of review of comments filed in response to 
the FNPRM and this IFRA.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    60. None.

III. Procedural Matters

    61. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The RFA, requires that an agency 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment 
rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule 
will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has 
prepared an IRFA concerning potential rule and policy changes contained 
in this FNPRM.
    62. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document contains proposed new or 
modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part 
of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the 
general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment 
on the information collection requirements contained in this document, 
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific 
comment on how we might further reduce the information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    63. Comment Period and Filing Requirements. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  
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).
    <bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
    <bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
    64. Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788, 2788-89 (OS 2020), 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    65. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a4c2c7c7919490e4c2c7c78ac3cbd2">[email protected]</a> or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY).
    66. The proceeding this FNPRM initiates shall be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy 
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or 
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte 
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule Sec.  1.1206(b). In proceedings governed 
by rule Sec.  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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9e3c6dbcdc8c787fbccddc1e9cfcaca87cec6df"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8f2d7cadcd9d696eaddccd0f8dedbdb96dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>.

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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>