Notice2021-22106
Call Authentication Trust Anchor
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
October 12, 2021
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 194 (Tuesday, October 12, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56705-56707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/">https://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
[[Page 56706]]
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.
<bullet> 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),
<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>.
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
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#baf7d3d9d2dbdfd694f4dfd7d9d3d1fadcd9d994ddd5cc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="75381c161d1410195b3b1018161c1e351316165b121a03">[email protected]</span></a>.
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:
<a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-1103A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-1103A1.pdf</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#54323737616460143237377a333b22"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="12747171272226527471713c757d64">[email protected]</span></a> 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
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 12, 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.