Call Authentication Trust Anchor, 9894-9901 [2021-03043]
Download as PDF
9894
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Authority: This rule is issued under the
authority of Sections 2002(a), 9004, and
7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, and
6991e.
Dated: February 9, 2021.
Cheryl Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2021–03169 Filed 2–16–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
47 CFR Part 64
[WC Docket No. 17–97; FCC 21–15; FRS
17458]
Call Authentication Trust Anchor
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Feb 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
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:
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554.
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until
further notice, the Commission no
longer accepts any hand or messenger
delivered filings. This is a temporary
measure taken to help protect the health
and safety of individuals, and to
mitigate the transmission of COVID–19.
See FCC Announces Closure of FCC
Headquarters Open Window and
Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public
Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020).
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy.
In addition to filing comments with the
Secretary, a copy of any comments on
SUMMARY:
Sherry Kamke, Environmental Engineer,
Corrective Action Section #3,
Remediation Branch (LR–17J), EPA
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–5794,
Kamke.Sherry@epa.gov. Out of an
abundance of caution for members of
the public and our staff, the EPA Region
5 office will be closed to the public to
reduce the risk of transmitting COVID–
19. We encourage the public to submit
comments via https://
www.regulations.gov or via email.
Please call or email the contact listed
above if you need alternative means to
access the material provided in the
docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State’s
UST program submittal as a direct rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments
are received in response to this action,
no further activity is contemplated. If
EPA receives relevant adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be
withdrawn, and all public comments
received will be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. For additional
information, see the direct final rule
published in the ‘‘Rules and
Regulations’’ section of this Federal
Register.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed
information collection requirements
contained herein should be submitted to
the Federal Communications
Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov
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 PRA@fcc.gov and to
Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov. 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 Connor.Ferraro@fcc.gov 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 PRA@
fcc.gov 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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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
E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM
17FEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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 https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the
web page called ‘‘Currently Under
Review,’’ (3) click on the downwardpointing 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 forprofit 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Feb 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
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 multipronged 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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9895
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
E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM
17FEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
9896
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Feb 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
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 multistep 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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM
17FEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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
§ 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 sti-ga@atis.org 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Feb 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9897
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-butdisclose’’ 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
E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM
17FEP1
9898
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Feb 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM
17FEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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, SharedTenant 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 smallbusiness 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Feb 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9899
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
E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM
17FEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
9900
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Feb 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
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 clientsupplied 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;
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(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 connor.ferraro@fcc.gov.
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.
E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM
17FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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
1. Amend subpart HH by adding
§ 64.6308 to read as follows:
■
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 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 § 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;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Feb 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
(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
sti-ga@atis.org 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
§ 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 § 64.6301
until and unless the Wireline
Competition Bureau or the Commission,
pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9901
section, has upheld or otherwise
decided not to overturn the Governance
Authority’s decision.
(2) In accordance with §§ 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
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 210208–0016; RTID 0648–
XX065]
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean
Quahog Fisheries; Proposed 2021–
2026 Fishing Quotas
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS proposes status quo
commercial quotas for the Atlantic
surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries for
2021 and projected status quo quotas for
2022–2026. This action is necessary to
establish allowable harvest levels of
Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs
that will prevent overfishing and allow
harvesting of optimum yield. This
action would also continue to suspend
the minimum shell size for Atlantic
surfclams for the 2021 fishing year. The
intended effect of this action is to
provide benefit to the industry from
stable quotas to maintain a consistent
market.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received by
March 4, 2021.
ADDRESSES: An Environmental
Assessment (EA) was prepared for the
surfclam and ocean quahog
specifications. Copies of the EA are
available on request from Dr.
Christopher M. Moore, Executive
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, Suite 201, 800
North State Street, Dover, DE 19901.
These documents are also accessible via
the internet at https://www.mafmc.org.
You may submit comments on this
document, identified by NOAA–NMFS–
2020–0152, by the following method:
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\17FEP1.SGM
17FEP1
Agencies
[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:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] and to [email protected].
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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 https://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 [email protected] 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
[email protected]
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 [email protected] 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