[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 98 (Monday, May 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27848-27850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10879]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[WC Docket No. 17-97; DA 21-546; FRS 27843]


Call Authentication Trust Anchor

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) 
provides information and seeks comment on adopting a Protective Order 
similar to that used by the Bureau in other proceedings, with 
modifications appropriate in the context of the Robocall Mitigation 
Database. It does so pursuant to direction from the Federal 
Communications Commission (Commission) to establish a publicly 
accessible database in which robocall mitigation certifications can be 
listed, and to issue a protective order regarding the treatment of any 
confidential and highly confidential information included in said 
certifications.

DATES: Comments are due on or before June 3, 2021; reply Comments are 
due on or before June 8, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply comments may be filed using the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic 
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking

[[Page 27849]]

Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Interested parties may file comments 
or reply comments, identified by WC Docket No. 17-97 by any of the 
following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
     Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (Mar. 19, 2020), 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please 
contact Michael Nemcik, Competition Policy Division, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, at [email protected] or at (202) 418-2343.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Bureau's Public 
Notice seeking comment on a Protective Order for the Robocall 
Mitigation Database collection in WC Docket No. 17-97, DA 21-546, 
released on May 10, 2021. The full document is available for public 
inspection at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-546A1.pdf. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format, etc.) send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or 
(202) 418-0432 (TTY).
    Introduction. On September 29, 2020, in its continuing effort to 
combat illegal robocalls, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) adopted a Second Report and Order which, among other 
things, required all voice service providers to file certifications 
with the Commission regarding their efforts to stem the origination of 
illegal robocalls on their networks. The Commission further directed 
the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) to establish a publicly 
accessible database in which such certifications would be listed, and 
to issue a protective order regarding the treatment of any confidential 
and highly confidential information included in said certifications. 
Consistent with this direction, the Bureau now provides information and 
seeks comment on adopting a Protective Order similar to that used by 
the Bureau in other proceedings, with modifications appropriate in the 
context of the Robocall Mitigation Database.
    The Commission's rules require voice service providers to certify 
that their traffic is either signed with STIR/SHAKEN caller ID 
authentication technology or subject to a robocall mitigation program. 
Voice service providers that certify that some or all of their traffic 
is subject to a robocall mitigation program are also required to detail 
in their certifications the reasonable steps they have taken to avoid 
originating illegal robocall traffic. In establishing this public 
database, the Commission stated its goals were to promote transparency 
and to allow and encourage industry to self-police by making robocall 
mitigation plans visible to other voice service providers and the 
public at large. A party could, for example, review a robocall 
mitigation plan to determine whether it wishes to do business with the 
voice service provider or to report insufficient robocall mitigation 
efforts to the Commission. At the same time, recognizing the potential 
sensitivity of this information, the Commission directed the Bureau to 
adopt a Protective Order governing submission of and access to 
confidential and highly confidential information included with the 
certifications. We seek comment below on the procedures for submitting 
and accessing confidential and highly confidential information 
submitted in conjunction with this proceeding.
    Submission of Information. We propose to adopt in the Protective 
Order a process for submitting confidential information described in 
the Public Notice announcing the Robocall Mitigation Database. In that 
Public Notice, we explained that filers are ``able to request that any 
materials or information submitted to the Commission in their 
certifications be withheld from public inspection.'' We further 
explained that, to submit a confidential filing, a voice service 
provider ``must first submit a confidentiality request in WC Docket No 
17-97 through the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System 
(ECFS)'' and ``will then be able to submit redacted (i.e., public) and 
unredacted (i.e., non-public) copies of its robocall mitigation program 
description via the Commission's portal.'' Having considered the issue 
further, we propose formalizing this approach in the Protective Order. 
Rather than ask for redacted copies of confidential and highly 
confidential documents to be filed through the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS), our proposed Protective Order would 
direct voice service providers to file a request for confidentiality in 
ECFS and then submit any redacted copies of documents directly through 
the portal accompanying the database. This proposed Protective Order 
would also direct providers to file unredacted copies of confidential 
and highly confidential documents through the database's portal, which 
differs from the typical Protective Order process of submitting these 
documents to the Secretary's Office and designated Bureau staff. We 
seek comment on these proposals and whether we should modify the 
process described in the earlier Public Notice.
    Access to Information. We seek comment on which parties should and 
should not ultimately be granted access to the confidential and highly 
confidential information included by voice service providers in their 
certifications. We propose only allowing access to limited categories 
of entities and individuals and only after such entities or individuals 
complete an appropriate process. We propose that entities or 
individuals that may seek to obtain access include: Federal, state, 
local, and Tribal governmental entities involved in robocall 
enforcement; the registered industry traceback consortium; the STIR/
SHAKEN Governance Authority; and intermediate providers and voice 
service providers who accept call traffic directly from a voice service 
provider listed in the database and request to review what actions that 
provider is taking to combat the origination of illegal robocalls. For 
this final group, we propose limiting access to the requesting party's 
outside counsel and consultants, as well as the employees and support 
personnel of these outside firms. We propose limiting

[[Page 27850]]

access to these groups to balance the Commission's goals of promoting 
transparency in robocall mitigation efforts and protecting providers' 
sensitive information from competitors and bad actors attempting to 
circumvent these mitigation efforts. We seek comment on this proposed 
scope of eligible reviewing parties, and whether a broader or narrower 
group would better balance the goals of promoting transparency and 
protecting sensitive information. We also propose adopting the standard 
process for obtaining access to confidential and highly confidential 
information used by the Bureau in other proceedings. This process would 
require any person other than support personnel seeking access to 
confidential or highly confidential information pursuant to the 
Protective Order to sign and date an Acknowledgement of Confidentiality 
agreeing to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Protective 
Order, and to file the Acknowledgment with the Commission and deliver a 
copy to the filing provider.
    Other Protective Order Provisions. Beyond the changes proposed 
above, we propose adopting the standard provisions found in other 
Commission Protective Orders. For example, we propose adopting standard 
provisions governing the designation of information as confidential or 
highly confidential, challenges to designations, the procedure for 
objecting to the disclosure of confidential or highly confidential 
information, and the review of confidential and highly confidential 
documents. Additionally, we propose adopting similar appendices, 
including one which contains an Acknowledgement of Confidentiality, and 
another which details what information and documents can be designated 
as highly confidential. We seek comment on whether and how we should 
modify these provisions or appendices in the context of the Robocall 
Mitigation Database.
    Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding 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 
presenters 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 section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. 
In proceedings governed by section 1.49(f) of the rules 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.

Federal Communications Commission.
Pamela Arluk,
Chief, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2021-10879 Filed 5-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P