[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56705-56707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22106]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[WC Docket No. 17-97; DA 21-1103; FR ID 50347]


Call Authentication Trust Anchor

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) 
addresses a statutory obligation under the Pallone-Thune Telephone 
Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act 
relating to the Commission's caller ID authentication rules. 
Specifically, the Bureau seeks comment on STIR/SHAKEN implementation 
extensions granted by the Commission and associated burdens and 
barriers to the implementation of STIR/SHAKEN.

DATES: Comments are due on or before November 12, 2021; reply comments 
are due on or before November 26, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to sections 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 in this document. 
Comments and reply comments may be filed using the Commission's 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Interested 
parties may file comments or reply comments, identified by WC Docket 
No. 17-97 by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing 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

[[Page 56706]]

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 (March 19, 2020), 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    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.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Bureau's Public 
Notice seeking comment on STIR/SHAKEN implementation extensions granted 
by the Commission and associated burdens and barriers to the 
implementation of STIR/SHAKEN in WC Docket No. 17-97, DA 21-1103, 
released on September 3, 2021. The full text of this document is 
available for public inspection at the following internet address: 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-1103A1.pdf. To request 
materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (e.g. 
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).

Synopsis

    When Congress directed the Commission to mandate implementation of 
STIR/SHAKEN in the TRACED Act, it also required the Commission to 
assess burdens and barriers to implementation, and gave the Commission 
discretion to extend compliance with the implementation mandate upon a 
public finding of undue hardship. The Commission performed this 
assessment and granted three categorical extensions of the STIR/SHAKEN 
mandate on the basis of undue hardship: (1) Small voice service 
providers; (2) voice service providers unable to obtain the ``token'' 
necessary to participate in STIR/SHAKEN; and (3) services scheduled for 
section 214 discontinuance.
    The TRACED Act further requires the Commission to assess burdens 
and barriers to implementation ``as appropriate'' after that initial 
assessment, and directs the Commission to, ``not less frequently than 
annually after the first [extension] is granted,'' reevaluate and 
potentially revise any extensions granted on the basis of undue 
hardship. It requires the Commission to issue a public notice 
explaining ``why such [extension] remains necessary'' and ``when the 
Commission expects to achieve the goal of full participation'' in 
caller ID authentication. To comply with these obligations in the 
TRACED Act, the Commission directed the Bureau to annually assess 
burdens and barriers to implementation and reevaluate the Commission's 
granted extensions and revise or extend them as necessary. In its 
directions to the Bureau, the Commission permitted the Bureau to 
further extend an extension to which voice service providers are 
already subject, but prohibited us from terminating an extension prior 
to the extension's originally set end date. The Commission did not 
permit us to grant extensions to any voice service providers or 
services not already subject to one; should we further extend a granted 
extension, we are permitted to decrease, but not expand, the scope of 
entities entitled to that extension based on our assessment of burdens 
and barriers.
    We now seek comment in turn on the Commission's granted extensions 
and associated burdens and barriers to the implementation of STIR/
SHAKEN.
    Small Voice Service Provider Extension. We seek comment on the 
Commission's extension for small voice service providers. The 
Commission granted a two-year extension for small voice service 
providers, defined as ``a provider that has 100,000 or fewer voice 
service subscriber lines.'' The Commission found that this extension 
was appropriate because small voice service providers may face 
substantial costs to implement STIR/SHAKEN--in addition to resource 
constraints--and that they confront unique equipment availability 
issues. In May, the Commission released a Third Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking proposing to shorten the extension for small voice 
service providers that originate an especially large number of calls by 
one year. It did so due to new evidence indicating that certain small 
voice service providers are originating a high and increasing share of 
illegal robocalls relative to their subscriber base.
    We seek comment on burdens and barriers to small voice service 
provider implementation and whether we should revise or extend their 
extension. Have the burdens or barriers affecting small providers that 
were originally discussed in the Second Caller ID Authentication Report 
and Order changed since adoption, and if so how? Have new burdens or 
barriers to implementation emerged that affect small providers? Should 
the Bureau extend the extension beyond its current June 30, 2023 date? 
If so, why, and is there a reason to extend it at this time and not in 
next year's annual review? Alternatively, is the extension no longer 
necessary and should we recommend that the Commission terminate it? If 
so, why?

[[Page 56707]]

How should the Commission's recent Third Further Notice and any 
subsequent order inform or impact our reevaluation of the small voice 
service provider extension? How close are small voice service providers 
to ``full participation,'' and what steps, if any, could the Commission 
take to promote that goal?
    Extension for Voice Service Providers That Cannot Obtain a SPC 
Token. We seek comment on the Commission's extension for voice service 
providers that cannot obtain the Service Provider Code (SPC) token 
necessary to participate in STIR/SHAKEN. The Commission granted voice 
service providers that are incapable of obtaining a SPC token due to 
Governance Authority policy an extension until they are capable of 
obtaining said token. The Commission granted this extension because 
``it is impossible for a voice service provider to participate in STIR/
SHAKEN without access to [a SPC token] and because some voice service 
providers are unable to obtain [one] at this time.''
    In May, the Governance Authority revised the STI-GA Token Access 
Policy to enable token access by some voice service providers 
previously unable to receive a token. How has this change impacted the 
barrier presented by an inability to access a SPC token? Has it 
resolved the token access barrier? Does this change affect the need for 
the implementation extension and, if so, how? Does the extension remain 
necessary? Conversely, is this extension no longer necessary and should 
we recommend it be terminated or revised by the Commission going 
forward? If so, why? Finally, how does token access affect the TRACED 
Act goal of full participation in caller ID authentication? Are there 
steps the Commission could take regarding token access to better 
promote full participation?
    Extension for Services Scheduled for Section 214 Discontinuance. We 
seek comment on the Commission's extension for services scheduled for 
section 214 discontinuance. The Commission granted an extension to 
services which are subject to a pending application for permanent 
discontinuance of service filed as of June 30, 2021 for one year, until 
June 30, 2022. Under this extension, a voice service provider has until 
June 30, 2022, to either discontinue the service subject to the 
application or, alternatively, implement STIR/SHAKEN on that service. 
The Commission granted this extension to ``obviat[e] the need to 
upgrade components of a voice service provider's network that will be 
sunset.'' Is there any reason we should lengthen this extension and 
give affected voice service providers additional time, beyond June 30, 
2022, to either discontinue the service or implement STIR/SHAKEN? Is it 
reasonable for a voice service provider to take longer than one year to 
complete discontinuance and, if so, how much additional time is 
appropriate? Alternatively, is a protracted discontinuance evidence of 
``bad faith'' and should we decline to grant any additional time before 
a voice service provider is obligated to choose between discontinuance 
and STIR/SHAKEN implementation? To account for bad faith filers while 
acknowledging potential reasonable delays, should we lengthen the 
extension but limit the scope of entities entitled to any further 
extension? Do services scheduled for 214 discontinuance meaningfully 
impact the goal of full participation in caller ID authentication?

Federal Communications Commission.
Pamela Arluk,
Chief, Competition Policy Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-22106 Filed 10-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P