[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 17, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9894-9901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03043]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[WC Docket No. 17-97; FCC 21-15; FRS 17458]


Call Authentication Trust Anchor

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) seeks comment on a proposal to create a limited role for 
the Commission to oversee certificate revocation decisions by the 
private STIR/SHAKEN governance system that would have the effect of 
placing voice service providers in noncompliance with our rules.

DATES: Comments are due on or before March 19, 2021; reply Comments are 
due on or before April 19, 2021. Written comments on the Paperwork 
Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be 
submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and 
other interested parties on or before February 17, 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 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 the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
    <bullet> 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.
    <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.
    <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, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.

In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any 
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection 
requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal 
Communications Commission via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#43131102032520206d242c35"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3f6f6d7e7f595c5c11585049">[email protected]</span></a> and comments should 
be sent to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular 
information collection by selecting ``Currently Under Review--Open for 
Public Comments'' or by using the search function. Your comment must be 
submitted into www.reginfo.gov per the above instructions for it to be 
considered. In addition to submitting in www.reginfo.gov also send a 
copy of your comment on the proposed information collection to Nicole 
Ongele, FCC, via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#471715060721242469202831"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="54040615143237377a333b22">[email protected]</span></a> and to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b9f7d0dad6d5dc97f6d7dedcd5dcf9dfdada97ded6cf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ac4e3e9e5e6efa4c5e4edefe6efcaece9e9a4ede5fc">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Include in the comments the OMB control number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please 
contact Connor Ferraro, Competition Policy Division, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f9ba969797968bd7bf9c8b8b988b96b99f9a9ad79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b2f1dddcdcddc09cf4d7c0c0d3c0ddf2d4d1d19cd5ddc4">[email protected]</span></a> or at (202) 418-1322. For 
additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed 
information collection requirements contained in this document, send an 
email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6c3c3e2d2c0a0f0f420b031a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="14444655547277773a737b62">[email protected]</span></a> or contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 17-97, FCC 21-
15, adopted on January 13, 2021, and released on January 14, 2021. The 
full text of this document is available for public inspection at the 
following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-15A1.pdf. To request materials in accessible formats for people 
with disabilities (e.g., braille, large print, electronic files, audio 
format, etc.) or to request reasonable accommodations (e.g., accessible 
format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.), send an 
email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aec8cdcd9b9e9aeec8cdcd80c9c1d8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ea8c8989dfdadeaa8c8989c48d859c">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 
Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
    This document contains proposed 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. Comments should address: (a) 
Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the

[[Page 9895]]

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. To view a copy of 
this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to 
the web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the 
section of the web page called ``Currently Under Review,'' (3) click on 
the downward-pointing arrow in the ``Select Agency'' box below the 
``Currently Under Review'' heading, (4) select ``Federal Communications 
Commission'' from the list of agencies presented in the ``Select 
Agency'' box, (5) click the ``Submit'' button to the right of the 
``Select Agency'' box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under 
review appears, look for the Title of this ICR and then click on the 
ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be 
displayed.
    OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.
    Title: Secure Telephone Identity Governance Authority Token 
Revocation Review Process.
    Form Number: N/A.
    Type of Review: New information collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.
    Number of Respondents and Responses: 50 respondents; 50 responses.
    Estimated Time per Response: 24 hours.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.
    Obligation to Respond: Mandatory and required to obtain or retain 
benefits. The statutory authority for these collections are contained 
in 47 U.S.C. 227b, 251(e), and 227(e) of the Communications Act of 
1934.
    Total Annual Burden: 1,200 hours.
    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.
    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission will consider 
the potential confidentiality of any information submitted, 
particularly where public release of such information could raise 
security concerns (e.g., granular location information). Respondents 
may request materials or information submitted to the Commission or to 
the Administrator be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 
of the Commission's rules.

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. As part of the Commission's multi-pronged approach to combat 
illegal robocalls, the Commission has promoted the implementation of 
STIR/SHAKEN, a caller ID authentication framework. STIR/SHAKEN is a set 
of industry-created technological standards that help to prevent 
illegally ``spoofed'' calls. Spoofing is a practice that involves the 
falsifying of caller ID information and it is particularly nefarious 
when bad actors spoof calls to trick unsuspecting Americans into 
thinking that calls they make are trustworthy because the caller ID 
information appears as if the call came from a neighbor or a familiar 
or reputable source.
    2. In March, acting pursuant to the Pallone-Thune Telephone 
Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act (TRACED Act), 
the Commission required voice service providers to implement the STIR/
SHAKEN call authentication technology in the internet protocol (IP) 
portions of their phone networks by June 30, 2021. The Commission 
completed implementation of the TRACED Act with respect to STIR/SHAKEN 
in September and required intermediate providers to facilitate caller 
ID authentication.
    3. Today, we propose a limited role for the Commission to oversee 
certificate revocation decisions by the private STIR/SHAKEN Governance 
Authority that would have the effect of placing providers in 
noncompliance with our rules. We anticipate that exercising an 
oversight role would provide necessary due process to parties that may 
be rendered noncompliant with our rules by the actions of a private 
entity without unduly interfering with the well-functioning multi-
stakeholder private STIR/SHAKEN governance processes.

II. Background

    4. To address the issue of illegal caller ID spoofing, 
technologists from the internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the 
Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) developed 
standards to allow for the authentication and verification of caller ID 
information for calls carried over IP networks. The result of their 
efforts is the STIR/SHAKEN call authentication framework, which allows 
for the caller ID information to securely travel with the call itself 
throughout the entire length of the call path. A key component to the 
STIR/SHAKEN framework is the transmission of a digital ``certificate'' 
along with the call. This certificate essentially states that the voice 
service provider authenticating the caller ID information is the voice 
service provider it claims to be, it is authorized to authenticate this 
information and, thus, the voice service provider's claims about the 
caller ID information can be trusted. To maintain trust and 
accountability in the voice service providers that vouch for the caller 
ID information, a neutral governance system issues the certificates.
    5. The STIR/SHAKEN governance system is comprised of several 
different entities fulfilling specialized roles. The Governance 
Authority, managed by a board consisting of representatives from across 
the voice service industry, defines the policies and procedures for 
which entities can issue or acquire certificates. The Policy 
Administrator applies the rules set by the Governance Authority, 
confirms that certification authorities are authorized to issue 
certificates, and confirms that voice service providers are authorized 
to request and receive certificates. Certification Authorities, of 
which there are several, issue the certificates used to authenticate 
and verify calls. And finally, the voice service providers themselves, 
which, when acting as call initiators, select an approved certification 
authority from which to request a certificate, and when acting as call 
recipients, check with certification authorities to ensure that the 
certificates they receive were issued by the correct certification 
authority.
    6. To receive a digital certificate, a voice service provider must 
first apply to the Policy Administrator for a Service Provider Code 
(SPC) token. To obtain an SPC token, the Governance Authority policy 
requires that a voice service provider must (1) have a current FCC Form 
499A on file with the Commission, (2) have been assigned an Operating 
Company Number (OCN), and (3) have direct access to telephone numbers 
from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) and the 
National Pooling Administrator. The SPC token then permits the voice 
service provider to

[[Page 9896]]

obtain the digital certificates it will use to authenticate calls from 
one of the approved Certification Authorities. The SPC token therefore 
is a prerequisite for a voice service provider to participate in the 
STIR/SHAKEN ecosystem, and management of token access is the mechanism 
by which the Policy Administrator and Governance Authority protect the 
system from abuse and misuse. On November 18, 2020, the Governance 
Authority announced an update to its Service Provider Code (SPC) Token 
Access Policy. Under the revised policy, an entity will no longer need 
direct access to telephone numbers; in place of that requirement, an 
entity will need to have certified with the Commission that they have 
implemented STIR/SHAKEN or comply with the Robocall Mitigation Program 
requirements and are listed in the Commission database. The Governance 
Authority provided that the revised policy will be effective upon the 
Commission's Robocall Mitigation Certification filing deadline and 
that, until then, the current SPC Token Access Policy remains in 
effect.
    7. The Policy Administrator grants SPC tokens to eligible voice 
service providers conditioned on the execution of a signed agreement 
with each voice service provider, stating that the voice service 
provider will follow the appropriate standards. This agreement 
establishes that if the Policy Administrator deems the voice service 
provider to be in breach, it has the authority to suspend or revoke a 
voice service provider's SPC token. The Governance Authority possesses 
sole authority to direct the Policy Administrator to revoke an SPC 
token, except in limited circumstances where the Policy Administrator 
may perform such actions on its own initiative, reviewable by the 
Governance Authority. In the Service Provider Token Revocation Policy, 
the Governance Authority lists the reasons for which an SPC token may 
be revoked: (1) In the situation of compromised credentials, i.e., a 
voice service provider's private key has been lost, stolen, or 
compromised, or a certification authority has been compromised; (2) the 
voice service provider exits the ecosystem; (3) the voice service 
provider failed to adhere to the policy and technical requirements of 
the system, including the SPC Token Access Policy, funding 
requirements, or technical specifications regarding the use of STIR/
SHAKEN; or (4) when directed by a court, the Commission, or another 
body with relevant legal authority due to a violation of Federal law 
related to caller ID authentication. When a service provider's 
credentials are compromised or it exits the ecosystem (the former two 
scenarios), the Policy Administrator may revoke a service provider's 
SPC token without prior direction from the Governance Authority because 
in either circumstance there will be no question as to its 
appropriateness. However, when a service provider fails to adhere to a 
policy or technical requirement, or at the direction of a court, the 
Commission, or another relevant legal authority (the latter two 
scenarios), the Governance Authority conducts the revocation process 
according to the process outlined in the Service Provider Token 
Revocation Policy.
    8. Before the Governance Authority revokes an SPC token due to a 
voice service provider's violation of a policy, technical, or legal 
requirement, the Governance Authority follows a multi-step process 
described by the Service Provider Token Revocation Policy, which allows 
the voice service provider to respond to the alleged infraction and 
appeal any adverse decision according to the Governance Authority's 
operating procedures. According to the Service Provider Token 
Revocation Policy, a voice service provider, the Policy Administrator, 
a Certification Authority, or a regulatory agency may report a 
potential issue to the Governance Authority via a complaint. Next, the 
Governance Authority will conduct a formal review of the complaint and 
gather additional information. The Governance Authority Board then 
votes on whether to revoke the token, requiring a two thirds vote of 
the Governance Authority Board to approve the revocation. The affected 
service provider may appeal an adverse decision by the Governance 
Authority through a formal appeal process outlined in the Governance 
Authority's Operating Procedures. In addition to the Governance 
Authority reviewing the complaint and issuing a written response, the 
formal appeal process includes the potential for a hearing before an 
independent panel of three individuals. Following a hearing, the 
appeals panel issues a written decision stating its findings of fact, 
conclusions, and the reasoning for its conclusions. If a voice service 
provider loses the appeal, or chooses not to appeal, it may seek 
reinstatement to the STIR/SHAKEN ecosystem if the Governance Authority 
approves of its plan of action to remedy the issue or issues underlying 
the token revocation. The Commission is aware of the timing discrepancy 
between the appeal process as described in the Reinstatement Policy and 
the STI-GA Operating Procedures, and we encourage the STI-GA to further 
clarify the timing for each.
    9. In the First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and 
Further Notice, the Commission declined to impose new regulations on 
the STIR/SHAKEN governance structure. The Commission reasoned, in part, 
that the Commission did yet not know the nature and scope of the type 
of problems that may arise that would require Commission intervention.

III. Discussion

    10. Although we continue to refrain from unduly intruding upon the 
private STIR/SHAKEN governance structure, in this Further Notice we 
preliminarily conclude that it is important for the Commission to have 
a role in reviewing the Governance Authority's decisions to revoke a 
voice service provider's SPC token because such decisions will have the 
effect of placing the voice service provider out of compliance with our 
rules. Specifically, we propose to establish an oversight role for the 
Commission over the Governance Authority's token revocation decisions 
similar to the one we hold in the context of decisions by the Universal 
Service Administrative Company (USAC). Under our universal service 
appeals rules, after first seeking internal review by USAC, an 
aggrieved party may seek review of USAC's decision by the Commission. 
Our proposed rules would follow this same format and allow review by 
the Wireline Competition Bureau, except for requests for review that 
raise ``novel questions of fact, law or policy,'' which would be 
considered by the full Commission. We seek comment on this proposal.
    11. In more detail, we propose to adopt similar procedural and 
timing requirements as in our universal service rules. We propose that 
any voice service provider that has its SPC token revoked by the 
Governance Authority, must first, before appealing that decision to the 
Commission, exhaust all review of this decision by the Governance 
Authority, including completing the formal appeal process outlined in 
the Governance Authority's Operating Procedures and described above. We 
believe that the Governance Authority's robust review procedures will 
enable the dispute to fully develop before potentially reaching the 
Commission, thereby making it easier for the Commission to identify the 
relevant facts and issues. Do commenters agree? Are there any reasons 
we should allow for appeals of interim or other relief to the 
Commission before the full Governance

[[Page 9897]]

Authority process has been completed? If so, how should such a 
procedure work? Are there any entities other than the affected voice 
service providers that we should allow to take advantage of such appeal 
or other procedures?
    12. We propose to give a voice service provider 60 days after the 
Governance Authority upholds its adverse decision to request review by 
the Commission and to apply the time periods for filing oppositions and 
replies set forth in Sec.  1.45 of our rules. Do commenters agree that 
we should adopt these filing deadlines? Are there reasons relevant to 
the SPC token revocation context to allow service providers more or 
less time than parties are provided under those rules? Should we 
require or allow the Governance Authority to file a statement in 
opposition to the request for review?
    13. We further propose to require requests for review to be filed 
within the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System, in a 
dedicated inbox available to the public and be captioned with the name 
of the party. Accordingly, we propose to direct the Wireline 
Competition Bureau to establish a new docket for these appeals. Next, 
we propose that the request for review, at a minimum, contain: (1) A 
statement setting forth the voice service provider's asserted basis for 
appealing the Governance Authority's decision to revoke the SPC token; 
(2) a full statement of relevant, material facts with supporting 
affidavits and documentation, including any background information the 
voice service provider deems useful to the Commission's review; and (3) 
the question presented for review, with reference, where appropriate, 
to any underlying Commission rule or Governance Authority policy. These 
three criteria closely track our universal service rules. In contrast 
to our universal service rules, however, we propose not to require that 
requests for review include a statement of the relief sought because we 
assume that the relief sought will always be the reversal of the 
Governance Authority's revocation decision. We seek comment on these 
proposed filing requirements and on what other information we should 
require a voice service provider include in a request for review. And 
we propose to require that a copy of the request for review be sent to 
the Governance Authority via <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a6d5d2cf8bc1c7e6c7d2cfd588c9d4c1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d0a3a4b9fdb7b190b1a4b9a3febfa2b7">[email protected]</span></a> or another method 
specified in the Governance Authority's Operating Procedures. We 
further propose to require the Governance Authority, upon receipt of a 
copy of a voice service provider's request for review, to send to the 
Bureau the full record of the SPC token revocation appeal, including 
the written decision. We seek comment on these proposed processes. What 
specific information should the Commission require the Governance 
Authority to provide? How should we address requests for 
confidentiality, and should we treat any filings as presumptively 
confidential by default? Are there any other ways in which we should 
depart from our established process for universal service appeals? We 
believe that the reporting costs imposed upon the Governance Authority 
by the process we propose would be minimal, and we seek comment on this 
view.
    14. We further propose that throughout the period of review, until 
the Commission or Bureau issue an initial decision, a voice service 
provider will not be judged to be in violation of our Sec.  64.6301 
rules or the TRACED Act. We seek comment on these proposals. Is this 
the appropriate status for a voice service provider to maintain 
throughout the review process? Should we allow the voice service 
provider to maintain possession and use of its SPC token until the 
Bureau or Commission has reached a decision? Are there are other 
relevant procedural requirements that we should adopt? We also propose 
that should the Bureau or the Commission uphold or otherwise decide not 
to overturn the Governance Authority's decision, a voice service 
provider will not maintain the right to use its SPC token by filing a 
petition for reconsideration or application for review, in the absence 
of a stay of the action of the Bureau or the Commission. We seek 
comment on this proposal. Given the novelty and potential complexity of 
revocation appeals, at this time we do not propose to impose a time 
limit on Bureau or Commission review, and we seek comment on this 
preliminary view.
    15. We propose that the standard of review by either the Bureau or 
the Commission be de novo. Do commenters agree? We also seek comment on 
the rules or other sources of law the Bureau or the Commission should 
apply when reviewing a revocation. Should we incorporate by reference 
the policies established by the Governance Authority regarding token 
revocation and determine whether the Governance Authority applied those 
policies correctly to the facts of a given appeal? Alternatively, do 
commenters believe we should limit our review merely to specific types 
of procedural or obvious error in the Governance Authority's process?
    16. To establish this process, we propose relying on the authority 
Congress provided to the Commission under section 4(b)(1) of the TRACED 
Act to require the implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN framework. We 
believe that the proposed appeal process would be consistent with this 
authority with minimal cost to the industry. We seek comment on this 
proposal, and whether we have independent authority under section 
251(e) of the Communications Act or under the Truth in Caller ID Act or 
other statutory provisions.

IV. Procedural Matters

    17. 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 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.
    18. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission 
has prepared

[[Page 9898]]

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second 
Further Notice). The Commission requests written public comments on 
this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and 
must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page 
of the Second Further Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the 
Second Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the 
Second Further Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published 
in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    19. The Second Further Notice proposes measures as part of the 
Commission's efforts to combat illegal spoofed robocalls. Specifically, 
the Second Further Notice proposes to establish an oversight role for 
the Commission of the STIR/SHAKEN governance system's token revocation 
process. Under the proposal, any voice service provider that has its 
Service Provider Code token revoked may seek review of this decision by 
the Commission through set procedures. The proposal in the Second 
Further Notice will help promote effective caller ID authentication 
through STIR/SHAKEN.

B. Legal Basis

    20. The Second Further Notice proposes to find authority for these 
proposed rules under TRACED Act. Section 4(b)(1) of the TRACED Act 
provided authority to require the implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN 
framework. We preliminarily believe that to effectively direct the 
implementation of STIR/SHAKEN consistent with the TRACED Act, the 
Commission must have a role in decisions to revoke Service Provider 
Code tokens because the result of such a decision could place the 
service provider in noncompliance with our rules. The Second Further 
Notice seeks comment on whether we have independent authority under 
section 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), 
under the Truth in Caller ID Act, or any other sources of authority.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    21. 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 by the rule revisions on which the 
Notice seeks comment, 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.
1. Wireline Carriers
    22. 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.
    23. 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 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.
    24. Incumbent LECs. Neither the Commission 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 and seven (1,307) Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers 
reported that they were incumbent local exchange service 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.
    25. 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 local exchange services or competitive access 
provider 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

[[Page 9899]]

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.
    26. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA 
analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one 
that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small-business size standard 
(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer 
employees) and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's 
Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent 
LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such 
dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore included 
small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that 
this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations 
in other, non-RFA contexts.
    27. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
Interexchange Carriers. 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.
    28. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard 
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that, 
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 
one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not 
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in 
the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' As of 2018, there were 
approximately 50,504,624 cable video subscribers in the United States. 
Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 505,046 subscribers shall 
be deemed a small operator if its annual revenues, when combined with 
the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 
million in the aggregate. We note that the Commission neither requests 
nor collects information on whether cable system operators are 
affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 
million. Therefore we are unable at this time to estimate with greater 
precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as 
small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.
2. Wireless Carriers
    29. 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 1,000 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.
    30. 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 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.
    31. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms 
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other 
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by 
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of 
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite 
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth 
station operators. The category has a small business size standard of 
$35 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For 
this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a 
total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 
299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, 
we estimate that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers 
are small entities.
3. Resellers
    32. Local Resellers. The SBA has not developed a small business 
size standard specifically for Local Resellers. The SBA category of 
Telecommunications Resellers is the closest NAICs code category for 
local 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 (MVNOs) are included 
in this industry. Under the SBA's size standard, such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data from 
2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. 
Of that number, all 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, 213 carriers have reported that they are 
engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these, an 
estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of local resellers are small entities.
    33. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition 
for Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS Code

[[Page 9900]]

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 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.
    34. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business definition specifically for prepaid 
calling card providers. The most appropriate NAICS code-based category 
for defining prepaid calling card providers is Telecommunications 
Resellers. This 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 networks operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. 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 
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 prepaid calling card providers can be considered small 
entities. According to Commission data, 193 carriers have reported that 
they are engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. All 193 
carriers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of prepaid calling card providers are small 
entities that may be affected by these rules.
4. Other Entities
    35. 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 
voice over internet protocol (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

    36. None.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    37. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
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 and reporting requirements under the rules 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.
    38. The Second Further Notice invites comment on the proposal to 
establish an oversight role for the Commission within the STIR/SHAKEN 
governance system's token revocation process. The Second Further Notice 
proposes specific processes for the appeals process and seeks comment 
on alternatives to these proposed processes.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    39. None.
    40. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document contains proposed new 
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.
    41. Contact person. For further information about this proceeding, 
please contact Connor Ferraro, FCC Wireline Competition Bureau, 
Competition Policy Division at (202) 418-1322 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="492a262727263b672f2c3b3b283b26092f2a2a672e263f">[email protected]</a>.

V. Ordering Clauses

    42. It is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 227(e), 
227b, 251(e), and 303(r), of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201, 
227(e), 227b, 251(e), and 303(r), that that this Second Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    43. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including 
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Carrier equipment, Communications common carriers, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.


[[Page 9901]]


Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

0
1. Amend subpart HH by adding Sec.  64.6308 to read as follows:


Sec.  64.6308   Review of Governance Authority decision to revoke an 
SPC token.

    (a) Parties permitted to seek review of Governance Authority 
decision. (1) Any intermediate provider or voice service provider 
aggrieved by a Governance Authority decision to revoke that 
intermediate provider or voice service provider's Service Provider Code 
(SPC) token, must seek review from the Governance Authority and 
complete the appeals process established by the Governance Authority 
prior to seeking Commission review.
    (2) Any intermediate provider or voice service provider aggrieved 
by an action to revoke its SPC token taken by the Governance Authority, 
after exhausting the appeals process provided by the Governance 
Authority, may then seek review from the Commission, as set forth in 
this section.
    (b) Filing deadlines. (1) An intermediate provider or voice service 
provider requesting Commission review of a Governance Authority 
decision to revoke that intermediate provider or voice service 
provider's SPC token by the Commission, shall file such a request 
electronically in the designated Electronic Comment Filing System 
(ECFS) inbox within sixty days from the date the Governance Authority 
issues its final decision.
    (2) Parties shall adhere to the time periods for filing oppositions 
and replies set forth in Sec.  1.45.
    (c) Filing requirements. (1) A request for review of a Governance 
Authority decision to revoke an intermediate provider or voice service 
provider's SPC token by the Commission shall be filed electronically in 
the designated ECFS inbox. The request for review shall be captioned 
``In the matter of Request for Review by (name of party seeking review) 
of Decision of the Governance Authority to Revoke an SPC Token.''
    (2) A request for review shall contain:
    (i) A statement setting forth the intermediate provider or voice 
service provider's asserted basis for appealing the Governance 
Authority's decision to revoke the SPC token;
    (ii) A full statement of relevant, material facts with supporting 
affidavits and documentation, including any background information the 
intermediate provider or voice service provider deems useful to the 
Commission's review; and
    (iii) The question presented for review, with reference, where 
appropriate, to any underlying Commission rule or Governance Authority 
policy.
    (3) A copy of a request for review that is submitted to the 
Commission shall be served on the Governance Authority via <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#710205185c161031100518025f1e0316"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fa898e93d79d9bba9b8e9389d495889d">[email protected]</span></a> or in accordance with any alternative delivery mechanism 
the Governance Authority may establish in its operating procedures.
    (d) Review by the Wireline Competition Bureau or the Commission. 
(1) Requests for review of a Governance Authority decision to revoke an 
intermediate provider or voice service provider's SPC token that are 
submitted to the Commission shall be considered and acted upon by the 
Wireline Competition Bureau, which shall issue a written decision; 
provided, however, that requests for review that raise novel questions 
of fact, law, or policy shall be considered by the full Commission.
    (2) An affected party may seek review of a decision issued under 
delegated authority by the Wireline Competition Bureau pursuant to the 
rules set forth in Sec.  1.115.
    (e) Standard of review. (1) The Wireline Competition Bureau shall 
conduct de novo review of Governance Authority decisions to revoke an 
intermediate provider or voice service provider's SPC token.
    (2) The Commission shall conduct de novo review of Governance 
Authority decisions to revoke an intermediate provider or voice service 
provider's SPC token that involve novel questions of fact, law, or 
policy; provided, however, that the Commission shall not conduct de 
novo review of decisions issued by the Wireline Competition Bureau 
under delegated authority.
    (f) Status during pendency of a request for review and a Governance 
Authority decision. (1) When an intermediate provider or voice service 
provider has sought timely Commission review of a Governance Authority 
decision to revoke an intermediate provider or voice service provider's 
SPC token under this section, the intermediate provider or voice 
service provider shall not be considered to be in violation of the 
Commission's call authentication rules under Sec.  64.6301 until and 
unless the Wireline Competition Bureau or the Commission, pursuant to 
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, has upheld or otherwise decided not 
to overturn the Governance Authority's decision.
    (2) In accordance with Sec. Sec.  1.102(b) and 1.106(n), the 
effective date of any action pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section 
shall not be stayed absent order by the Wireline Competition Bureau or 
the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2021-03043 Filed 2-16-21; 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>