Home/Federal/Federal Register/2021-18175

Proposed Rule2021-18175

Numbering Policies for Modern Communications

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

September 14, 2021

Issuing agencies

Federal Communications Commission

Abstract

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.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 175 (Tuesday, September 14, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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: <a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/">http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>. 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). <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy</a>.
<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">[email&#160;protected]</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">[email&#160;protected]</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">[email&#160;protected]</a> or contact Nicole
Ongele, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#67290e04080b0249280900020b022701040449000811">[email&#160;protected]</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 <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-updating-numbering-rules-fight-robocalls">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-updating-numbering-rules-fight-robocalls</a>. 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">[email&#160;protected]</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">[email&#160;protected]</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: <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/">http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<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),
<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy</a>.
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&#160;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">[email&#160;protected]</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>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on September 14, 2021.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.