Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Federal Register/2025-16804
Notice2025-16804

Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Two Periodic TRACED Act Obligations Regarding STIR/SHAKEN Caller ID Authentication

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 3, 2025

Issuing agencies

Federal Communications Commission

Abstract

In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment concerning two recurring statutory obligations under the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act (TRACED Act). First, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the extensions granted by the Commission for implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework should be revised or extended. Second, the Bureau seeks comment to inform the Commission's second triennial assessment of the efficacy of the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework as a tool to combat illegal robocalls.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 168 (Wednesday, September 3, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 168 (Wednesday, September 3, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42578-42580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-16804]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[WC Docket No. 17-97; DA 25-763; FR ID 310677]


Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Two Periodic TRACED 
Act Obligations Regarding STIR/SHAKEN Caller ID Authentication

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) of 
the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment 
concerning two recurring statutory obligations under the Telephone 
Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act (TRACED Act). 
First, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the extensions granted by 
the Commission for implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID 
authentication framework should be revised or extended. Second, the 
Bureau seeks comment to inform the Commission's second triennial 
assessment of the efficacy of the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication 
framework as a tool to combat illegal robocalls.

DATES: Comments are due on or before October 3, 2025, and reply 
comments are due on or before October 20, 2025.

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 on the first page of 
this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS).
    <bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.

[[Page 42579]]

    <bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
    [cir] Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be 
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    [cir] Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the 
Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by 
the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    [cir] Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. 
Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701.
    [cir] Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, 
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street 
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
    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#a3c5c0c0969397e3c5c0c08dc4ccd5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="73151010464347331510105d141c05">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about the 
Public Notice, please contact Janice Gorin, Attorney Advisor, 
Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2f654e41464c4a0168405d46416f494c4c01484059"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="38725956515b5d167f574a5156785e5b5b165f574e">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Bureau's Public 
Notice, DA 25-763, in WC Docket No. 17-97, released on August 27, 2025. 
The complete text of this document is available for download at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/wcb-seeks-comment-two-traced-act-obligations-1">https://www.fcc.gov/document/wcb-seeks-comment-two-traced-act-obligations-1</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 
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 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 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.

Synopsis

I. Comments Sought on Stir/Shaken Implementation Extensions

    In the TRACED Act, Congress instructed the Commission to ``assess 
any burdens or barriers'' to the implementation of STIR/SHAKEN that 
certain providers might face, and ``upon a public finding of undue 
hardship,'' authorized the Commission to delay STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation deadlines ``for a reasonable period of time.'' In its 
initial assessment conducted in 2020 [88 FR 43446-01], the Commission 
granted three categorical implementation extensions based on undue 
hardship, and it added a third undue hardship extension in 2023. 
Pursuant to the TRACED Act, providers also have a continuing extension 
for the portions of their networks that rely on technology that cannot 
initiate, maintain, or terminate session internet protocol (SIP) calls. 
Because this extension was not granted on the basis of undue hardship, 
we do not address it further in this Public Notice. Additionally, 
providers that lack control over the network infrastructure necessary 
to implement STIR/SHAKEN are exempt from implementing STIR/SHAKEN. As 
this is not an undue hardship extension, we also do not address it 
further in this Public Notice. Only two such extensions remain for (1) 
providers that cannot obtain the Service Provider Code (SPC) token 
necessary to participate in STIR/SHAKEN, and (2) small voice service 
providers that originate calls via satellite using North American 
Numbering Plan (NANP) numbers. The extension for services scheduled for 
section 214 discontinuance expired on June 30, 2022, and the extension 
for non-facilities-based and facilities-based small voice service 
providers ended on June 30, 2022, and June 30, 2023, respectively.
    The TRACED Act further instructs the Commission to annually 
``consider revising or extending'' any extension granted due to undue 
hardship, including whether an extension remains necessary. To comply, 
the Commission has directed the Bureau to annually ``reevaluate'' and 
``revise or extend'' any such extension ``as necessary.'' As part of 
this evaluation, the Bureau may lengthen a granted extension and it can 
also decrease, but not expand, the scope of entities that are entitled 
to such an extension.
    Pursuant to the TRACED Act and section 64.6304(f) of the 
Commission's rules, we seek comment to enable our annual reevaluation 
of the remaining STIR/SHAKEN undue hardship implementation extensions. 
When considering whether a hardship is ``undue'' under the TRACED Act, 
and whether an extension is for a ``reasonable amount of time,'' the 
Commission has found it appropriate to balance the hardship of 
compliance due to ``the burdens and barriers to implementation'' faced 
by a provider or class of providers with the benefit to the public of 
implementing STIR/SHAKEN expeditiously. With that in mind, we seek 
comment on whether the Bureau should revise or extend the two remaining 
extensions.
    Extension for Providers That Cannot Obtain an SPC Token. We seek 
comment on the extension for providers that cannot obtain an SPC token. 
To participate in STIR/SHAKEN, a provider must obtain an SPC token 
through the STIR/SHAKEN governance system. Because access to a token is 
necessary for participation in STIR/SHAKEN, the Commission initially 
granted providers unable to obtain a token an indefinite extension 
until they were able to receive a token. In May 2021, the STIR/SHAKEN 
Governance Authority revised the Token Access Policy to enable more 
providers to obtain a token. In its November 2024 Eighth Caller ID 
Authentication Report and Order [90 FR 40241], the Commission required, 
inter alia, that all providers with a STIR/SHAKEN implementation 
obligation obtain an SPC token from the STIR/

[[Page 42580]]

SHAKEN Policy Administrator, but declined to repeal the indefinite SPC 
token extension.
    In its most recent annual evaluation, the Bureau declined to 
terminate or modify the extension so staff could assess the number of 
providers still claiming the extension in their most recent Robocall 
Mitigation Database submissions and the merit of those claims. To 
supplement this assessment, we seek comment on the types and number of 
providers that remain unable to obtain a token and the barriers to 
token access for these providers, in light of the changes to the Token 
Access Policy. Is there anything that can be done to make tokens 
available to these providers? Does the extension remain necessary?
    Extension for Small Voice Service Providers Originating Calls via 
Satellite Using NANP Numbers. We seek comment on the Commission's 
extension for small voice service providers that originate calls via 
satellite using NANP numbers. The Commission adopted this indefinite 
extension concluding that the balance of benefits and burdens counseled 
``against requiring such providers to implement'' STIR/SHAKEN. We seek 
comment on the current benefits, burdens, and barriers to STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation by small voice service providers that originate calls 
via satellite using NANP numbers. Have these benefits, burdens, and 
barriers changed since the Commission adopted the extension and if so, 
how? Do the justifications for the extension still apply? Have any 
abuses occurred due to this extension, or are any abuses likely to 
result if the extension is continued? What impact does the extension 
have on the Commission's longstanding goal of achieving ubiquitous 
deployment of the STIR/SHAKEN framework? Is it necessary for the 
extension to remain indefinite, or would it be more appropriate to 
modify the extension to provide a known end date?

II. Comments Sought on Stir/Shaken Efficacy

    Section 4(b)(4) of the TRACED Act directs the Commission to, every 
three years, ``assess the efficacy of the technologies used for [the] 
call authentication frameworks'' implemented pursuant to the TRACED Act 
and ``based on the assessment . . . revise or replace the call 
authentication frameworks . . . if the Commission determines it is in 
the public interest to do so.'' The Commission must submit to Congress 
``a report on the findings of the assessment'' and any actions taken by 
the Commission ``to revise or replace the call authentication 
frameworks.'' Before conducting the assessment under the TRACED Act, 
the Commission is required to provide public notice and an opportunity 
to comment. The Commission submitted its first such triennial report to 
Congress on December 20, 2022, finding that STIR/SHAKEN is effective at 
authenticating caller ID information. Through this Public Notice, the 
Bureau seeks comment to inform the Commission's second triennial 
assessment on the efficacy of STIR/SHAKEN, which remains the only call 
authentication framework currently implemented pursuant to the TRACED 
Act.
    In the First Triennial Report, the Bureau established a standard 
for conducting its assessment that is based on ``how well [STIR/SHAKEN] 
effectuates the authentication of caller ID information.'' Although the 
Bureau considered applying alternative standards, such as STIR/SHAKEN's 
``impact on preventing illegally spoofed robocalls, or preventing all 
illegal robocalls,'' it agreed with the majority of commenters that 
assessing STIR/SHAKEN under such standards ``would fail to account for 
the fact that, while a critical tool in protecting consumers from 
illegal spoofing, the STIR/SHAKEN framework is only one facet of the 
larger campaign by the Commission and industry to combat illegal 
robocalls.'' The Bureau seeks comment on whether it should maintain, 
revise, or replace this standard for its second assessment of the 
efficacy of STIR/SHAKEN.
    In the three years that have passed since the Commission conducted 
its first triennial assessment, providers have gained more experience 
implementing the STIR/SHAKEN framework. The Commission has also adopted 
rules expanding STIR/SHAKEN implementation obligations to cover gateway 
providers and non-gateway intermediate providers, in addition to voice 
service providers. Gateway providers were required to implement STIR/
SHAKEN by June 30, 2023, and non-gateway intermediate providers that 
receive unauthenticated calls directly from domestic originating 
providers were required to authenticate those calls using STIR/SHAKEN 
as of December 31, 2023. Now, all providers with control over the 
network infrastructure necessary to authenticate calls are required to 
implement STIR/SHAKEN for SIP calls unless subject to an exemption or 
extension. With these developments in mind, we seek comment on how well 
STIR/SHAKEN effectuates the authentication of caller ID information 
today. Are there ways STIR/SHAKEN could be more effective at 
authenticating caller ID information? Do any specific factors limit 
STIR/SHAKEN's efficacy, and what solutions might resolve these issues? 
Have there been other developments, such as industry changes or 
evolution in technologies, that affect the efficacy of STIR/SHAKEN, and 
how should any such developments be factored into our assessment? Do 
any commenters believe the Commission should revise STIR/SHAKEN or 
replace it with a different framework? We also seek comment on the 
efficacy of STIR/SHAKEN under any alternative standard proposed by 
commenters.

Federal Communications Commission.
Joseph Calascione,
Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2025-16804 Filed 9-2-25; 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 3, 2025.

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.