Call Authentication Trust Anchor, 53705-53708 [2022-18380]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
53705
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 169 / Thursday, September 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTA) because this
rulemaking does not involve technical
standards; and
• This action does not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority populations, low-income
populations and/or indigenous peoples,
as specified in Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
basis for this determination is contained
in section VII of this action,
‘‘Environmental Justice Concerns.’’
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not
have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: August 24, 2022.
Meghan A. McCollister,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart AA—Missouri
2. In § 52.1320, the table in paragraph
(d) is amended by adding the entry
‘‘(37)’’ in numerical order to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.1320
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS AND ORDERS
Name of source
*
*
(37) Ameren Missouri—Sioux
Energy Center.
*
*
*
*
*
Consent
Agreement
APCP–2021–018.
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
47 CFR Part 64
[WC Docket No. 17–97; DA 22–831; FR ID
100507]
Call Authentication Trust Anchor
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
16:46 Aug 31, 2022
No.
*
3/31/2022
EPA approval date
*
*
[Date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], [Federal Register citation of
the final rule].
In this document, the
Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau)
of the Federal Communications
Commission (Commission) addresses
two recurring statutory obligations
under the TRACED Act relating to the
Commission’s caller ID authentication
rules. First, the Bureau seeks comment
for its annual reevaluation of the STIR/
SHAKEN implementation extensions
granted by the Commission for
implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN
call authentication framework. Second,
the Bureau seeks comment for its first
triennial assessment of the efficacy of
STIR/SHAKEN call authentication
framework as a tool in our work
combating illegal robocalls.
SUMMARY:
[FR Doc. 2022–18724 Filed 8–31–22; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
State
effective
date
Order/permit No.
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Explanation
*
Comments are due on or before
October 3, 2022; reply comments are
due on or before October 21, 2022.
DATES:
Pursuant to sections 1.415
and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may
file comments and reply comments on
or before the dates indicated in this
document. Comments and reply
comments may be filed using the
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Interested parties may file comments or
reply comments, identified by WC
Docket No. 17–97 by any of the
following methods:
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\01SEP1.SGM
01SEP1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
53706
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 169 / Thursday, September 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/
ecfs/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing.
• Filings can be sent by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554.
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until
further notice, the Commission no
longer accepts any hand or messenger
delivered filings. This is a temporary
measure taken to help protect the health
and safety of individuals, and to
mitigate the transmission of COVID–19.
See FCC Announces Closure of FCC
Headquarters Open Window and
Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public
Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (March 19,
2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/
fcc-closes-headquarters-open-windowand-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall
be treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’
proceeding in accordance with the
Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file
a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine
period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must: (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made; and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenters
written comments, memoranda, or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Aug 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with section
1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules. In
proceedings governed by section 1.49(f)
of the rules or for which the
Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml., .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information, please contact
Jonathan Lechter, Competition Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau,
at (202) 418–2343 or by email at
Jonathan.Lechter@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Bureau’s Public Notice
seeking comment on two recurring
statutory obligations under the TRACED
Act in WC Docket No. 17–97, DA 22–
831, released on August 5, 2022. The
full text of this document is available for
public inspection at the following
internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/
public/attachments/DA-22-831A1.pdf.
To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (e.g.,
braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format, etc.), send an email to
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), or (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
Synopsis
I. Comments Sought on STIR/SHAKEN
Implementation Extensions for Annual
Review, Pursuant to Section 4(b)(5) of
the TRACED Act
When Congress directed the
Commission to mandate
implementation of STIR/SHAKEN in the
TRACED Act, it also required the
Commission to assess burdens and
barriers to implementation, and it gave
the Commission discretion to extend
compliance with the implementation
mandate upon a public finding of undue
hardship. The Commission performed
this assessment and granted three
categorical extensions of the STIR/
SHAKEN mandate on the basis of undue
hardship: (1) small voice service
providers; (2) voice service providers
unable to obtain the ‘‘token’’ necessary
to participate in STIR/SHAKEN; and (3)
services scheduled for section 214
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
discontinuance. See Second Caller ID
Authentication Report and Order, 85 FR
73360 (Nov. 17, 2020). (As directed by
a separate provision of the TRACED Act,
TRACED Act § 4(b)(5)(B), the
Commission also granted an extension
for those portions of the network that
rely on technology that cannot initiate,
maintain, and terminate SIP calls.
Because this extension was not granted
on the basis of undue hardship, we do
not seek comment on it in this Public
Notice.)
The TRACED Act further requires the
Commission to assess burdens and
barriers to implementation ‘‘as
appropriate’’ after that initial
assessment, and directs the Commission
to, ‘‘not less frequently than annually
after the first [extension] is granted,’’
reevaluate and potentially revise any
extensions granted on the basis of
undue hardship. It requires the
Commission to issue a public notice
explaining ‘‘why such [extension]
remains necessary’’ and ‘‘when the
Commission expects to achieve the goal
of full participation’’ in caller ID
authentication. To comply with these
obligations, the Commission directed
the Bureau in the Second Caller ID
Authentication Report and Order to
annually reevaluate the Commission’s
granted extensions for undue hardship
and revise or extend those extensions as
necessary. (The Commission determined
that the Bureau is in the best position
to undertake this fact-intensive, case-bycase evaluation.) In its directions to the
Bureau, the Commission permitted the
Bureau to further extend an extension to
which voice service providers are
already subject, but prohibited the
Bureau from terminating an extension
prior to the extension’s originally set
end date. The Commission did not
permit the Bureau to grant extensions to
any voice service providers or services
not already subject to one. Should we
further extend a granted extension, we
are permitted to decrease, but not
expand, the scope of entities entitled to
that extension based on our assessment
of burdens and barriers.
In September 2021, we released a
Public Notice seeking comment on the
Commission’s three granted extensions
and any associated burdens and barriers
to the implementation of STIR/
SHAKEN. 86 FR 56705 (Oct. 12, 2021).
In December 2021, we issued our first
annual reevaluation and declined to
modify any of the existing extensions.
The extension for services scheduled for
section 214 discontinuance ended on
June 30, 2022. We now seek comment
to enable our second annual
reevaluation of the two remaining STIR/
SHAKEN implementation extensions—
E:\FR\FM\01SEP1.SGM
01SEP1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 169 / Thursday, September 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
for small voice service providers and for
providers unable to obtain the required
token—granted based on undue
hardship.
Small Voice Service Provider
Extension. We seek comment on the
Commission’s extension for facilitiesbased small voice service providers. In
September 2020, the Commission
granted a two-year extension for all
small voice service providers, defined as
‘‘a provider that has 100,000 or fewer
voice service subscriber lines.’’ Second
Caller ID Authentication Report and
Order. Under this extension, small voice
service providers were given until June
30, 2023 to implement STIR/SHAKEN.
The Commission found that this
extension was appropriate because
small voice service providers may face
substantial costs—in addition to
resource constraints—to implement
STIR/SHAKEN and confront unique
equipment availability issues. In
December 2021, the Commission
shortened the extension for a subset of
small voice service providers likely to
be the source of illegal robocalls. 87 FR
3684 (Jan. 25, 2022) It shortened the
extension to one year—until June 30,
2022—for non-facilities-based small
voice service providers based on
overwhelming record support and
available evidence showing that this
subset of providers were originating a
large and disproportionate amount of
robocalls. It also required small voice
service providers suspected of
originating illegal robocalls to
implement STIR/SHAKEN on an
accelerated timeline. The Commission
maintained the two-year extension for
facilities-based small voice service
providers because it found they were
less likely to be the source of illegal
robocalls. When we considered this
remaining extension in the 2021 annual
reevaluation, we declined to lengthen it
beyond June 30, 2023, noting that the
Commission’s guiding principle in
establishing the extension was ‘‘to
achieve ubiquitous STIR/SHAKEN
implementation to combat the scourge
of illegal caller ID spoofing as quickly as
possible.’’
We seek comment on the burdens and
barriers to facilities-based small voice
service provider implementation and
whether we should revise their STIR/
SHAKEN extension. Have the burdens
or barriers affecting small providers
originally discussed in the Second
Caller ID Authentication Report and
Order, changed since last year’s
evaluation and, if so, how? Should any
Commission actions in the previous
year inform or impact our reevaluation
of the small voice service provider
extension? Have any new burdens or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Aug 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
barriers emerged that the Commission
did not consider or could not have been
aware of when it initially gave small
voice service providers a two-year
extension? If so, do these burdens or
barriers warrant an extension beyond
the current June 30, 2023 date, and if so,
how long of an extension is necessary
and appropriate? How would any
additional extension be consistent with
the Commission’s goal of ubiquitous
STIR/SHAKEN implementation?
In response to our Public Notice
seeking comment for the 2021 annual
extension reevaluation, the Satellite
Industry Association (SIA) requested an
‘‘indefinite’’ extension for satellite voice
service providers’’ in light of the
‘‘challenging circumstances facing small
satellite VSPs, combined with their
unique economic, operational, and
technical characteristics.’’ The Bureau
determined that the record was
insufficient to evaluate SIA’s request at
that time, but stated it would seek
further comment on the request as part
of the instant 2022 reevaluation. In the
interim, as part of its May 2022 Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 87 FR
42670 (July 18, 2022), the Commission
sought comment on the larger questions
of the applicability of the TRACED Act
to small satellite providers and whether
it should grant such providers an
extension for implementing STIR/
SHAKEN.
Should the Bureau further extend the
small provider implementation
extension just for small satellite voice
service providers as part of this inquiry
or should we leave this issue to the full
Commission to consider more generally?
Do small satellite voice service
providers face unique challenges in
implementing STIR/SHAKEN? What are
these challenges? How do they impact
this subset of providers’ ability to
implement STIR/SHAKEN? What is a
realistic time frame for any extension
we grant? What impact would an
extension for small satellite voice
service providers have on other
providers or the public? What impact
would such an extension have on the
Commission’s longstanding goal of
ubiquitous deployment of STIR/
SHAKEN?
Extension for Voice Service Providers
That Cannot Obtain a SPC Token. We
seek comment on the Commission’s
extension for voice service providers
that cannot obtain the Service Provider
Code (SPC) token necessary to
participate in STIR/SHAKEN. In the
Second Caller ID Authentication Report
and Order, the Commission granted
voice service providers that are
incapable of obtaining a SPC token due
to Governance Authority policy an
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53707
extension until they are capable of
obtaining said token. (Recognizing that
‘‘a voice service provider may not be
able to immediately come into
compliance with its caller ID
authentication obligations after it
becomes eligible to receive’’ a SPC
token, the Commission stated that it
‘‘will not consider a voice service
provider that diligently pursues a
certificate once it is able to receive one
in violation of [its] rules.’’). In May
2021, the Governance Authority revised
the STI–GA Token Access Policy to
enable token access by some voice
service providers previously unable to
receive a token. In the 2021 annual
reevaluation, we found that this policy
revision had resolved the main practical
concern underlying this extension and
that token access no longer stood as a
significant barrier to full participation in
STIR/SHAKEN. We nonetheless
declined to revise this extension on the
basis that it remains necessary for the
reason the Commission previously
identified: ‘‘[A]n entity that meets the
definition of a provider of ‘voice service’
cannot comply with the STIR/SHAKEN
rules if it is unable to receive a token.’’
We seek comment on this extension
and whether it remains necessary. Is it
still true that a provider cannot comply
with the STIR/SHAKEN rules if it is
unable to receive a token? Has anything
changed that has made a token
unnecessary to participate in STIR/
SHAKEN, making this extension no
longer needed? Even if it remains
theoretically necessary, are all practical
impediments presented by token access
resolved, such that we should consider
recommending terminating this
extension? If we did recommend
terminating this extension, when is an
appropriate end date? If the extension
remains necessary, is token access an
impediment to ubiquitous STIR/
SHAKEN? Are there steps the
Commission or the Governance
Authority could take regarding token
access to better promote full
participation in STIR/SHAKEN?
II. Comments Sought on STIR/SHAKEN
Efficacy, Pursuant to Section 4(b)(4) of
the TRACED Act
When Congress mandated that the
Commission require voice service
providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN
in the TRACED Act, it also directed the
Commission to ‘‘assess the efficacy of
the technologies used for [the] call
authentication frameworks’’ no later
than three years after the December 30,
2019 enactment date of the Act. The
Commission was also directed to ‘‘revise
or replace the call authentication
frameworks’’ if the Commission
E:\FR\FM\01SEP1.SGM
01SEP1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS
53708
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 169 / Thursday, September 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules
determines it is in the public interest to
do so based on the assessment and to
submit a report to Congress ‘‘on the
findings of the assessment . . . and on
any actions to revise or replace the call
authentication frameworks.’’
Pursuant to this Congressional
mandate, we seek comment to inform
our analysis of the efficacy of the STIR/
SHAKEN caller ID authentication
framework that the Commission
required voice service providers to
implement on their IP networks. (We do
not, in this Public Notification, seek
comment on caller ID authentication in
non-IP networks. In the September 2020
Second Caller ID Authentication Report
and Order, the Commission determined
that no standardized framework for nonIP networks existed and consequently
required providers to work to develop a
solution rather than implement a
framework. The Commission recently
sought comment on whether we should
require providers to implement a non-IP
caller ID authentication solution.
Because the Commission has not yet
mandated providers implement any
particular non-IP caller ID
authentication technology, there is no
implemented technology to assess in
this required reevaluation.) We start by
seeking comment on the standard by
which we should assess the efficacy of
STIR/SHAKEN. We propose to assess
the efficacy of STIR/SHAKEN based on
how well it effectuates the
authentication of caller ID information.
We believe this is the best standard
because it evaluates the effectiveness of
the STIR/SHAKEN framework at
executing the function of the technology
mandated under section 4: performing
caller ID authentication. We seek
comment on this proposal. Is there
another way to interpret this statutory
language and assess the STIR/SHAKEN
framework? For example, should we
measure the impact of STIR/SHAKEN
on preventing illegally spoofed
robocalls, or preventing all illegal
robocalls, to determine its efficacy? How
would such an approach be consistent
with the text of the statute? Would it be
an appropriate measure of STIR/
SHAKEN’s effectiveness as a caller ID
authentication framework? Or would
such an approach only measure the
impact and limitations of caller ID
authentication generally, regardless of
‘‘the technologies used’’? Could
different caller ID authentication
frameworks more or less effectively
combat illegally spoofed or all illegal
robocalls?
We next seek comment on the efficacy
of the STIR/SHAKEN framework under
this standard. Has STIR/SHAKEN
proven to effectively authenticate caller
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Aug 31, 2022
Jkt 256001
ID information? Are there ways it could
be more effective at that task and, if so,
how? Do any specific factors limit its
efficacy, and what solutions might
resolve those issues? Will any identified
concerns be addressed by further
deployment across the voice network?
In the Bureau’s December 2020 Report
to Congress, we stated that, without
widespread implementation, it was
‘‘premature to assess the efficacy of
STIR/SHAKEN in practice’’ at that time.
(The TRACED Act required the
Commission to submit that report ‘‘not
later than 12 months after’’ enactment.)
Since that date, many voice service
providers have been required to
implement, and have implemented,
STIR/SHAKEN. Is it still premature to
evaluate the efficacy of STIR/SHAKEN
in practice? If so, we seek comment on
whether commenters continue to
believe that the framework is effective
as designed. And if commenters believe
we should evaluate STIR/SHAKEN
under a different or additional standard,
we seek comment on the efficacy of
STIR/SHAKEN under any alternative
standards proposed. Under any
standard, we seek comment on whether
the efficacy of STIR/SHAKEN would
improve when the framework is paired
with other tools or if there are
additional steps that the Bureau,
Commission, or stakeholders such as
voice service providers or the
Governance Authority could take to
improve the efficacy of STIR/SHAKEN.
(Recognizing the benefits of pairing
caller ID authentication with call
analytics, the Commission adopted a
safe harbor enabling voice service
providers to block unwanted calls by
default based on reasonable analytics
that incorporate caller ID authentication
information, so long as consumers are
given the opportunity to opt out.)
Should the Commission consider
whether it is in the public interest to
revise or replace the STIR/SHAKEN
framework? Would revising or replacing
the framework at this time be
premature, as providers continue to take
steps to implement the technology
consistent with the Commission’s efforts
to bolster its caller ID authentication
rule scheme? How would the costs of
such revision or replacement compare
to the benefits? We ask that any
comments indicating that the STIR/
SHAKEN framework is ineffective at
authenticating caller ID information
identify alternatives that would more
effectively authenticate caller ID
information.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Federal Communications Commission.
Pamela Arluk,
Chief, Competition Policy Division.
[FR Doc. 2022–18380 Filed 8–31–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Parts 23 and 26
[Docket No. DOT–OST–2022–0051]
RIN 2105–AE98
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
and Airport Concession
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
Program Implementation Modifications
Office of the Secretary (OST),
U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
extension of comment period.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Transportation is extending the
comment period for its Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport
Concession DBE (ACDBE) notice of
proposed rulemaking. The original
comment period was scheduled to close
on September 19, 2022. The extension is
granted in response to requests received
from stakeholders, who have stated the
September 19 closing date does not
provide sufficient time for them to
prepare and submit of comments to the
docket. The Department agrees to
extend the comment period by 60 days.
Therefore, the closing date for
submission of comments is extended to
October 31, 2022, which will provide
those entities interested in commenting
on the proposed rulemaking additional
time to submit comments to the docket.
DATES: The comment period for the
proposed rule published July 21, 2022,
at 87 FR 43620 is extended. Comments
must be received on or before October
31, 2022.
ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not
duplicate your docket submissions,
please submit them by only one of the
following means:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/
DOT-OST-2022-0051/document and
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building
Ground Floor Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery: West Building
Ground Floor, Room W–12–140, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE, between 9 a.m. and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\01SEP1.SGM
01SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 169 (Thursday, September 1, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53705-53708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18380]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[WC Docket No. 17-97; DA 22-831; FR ID 100507]
Call Authentication Trust Anchor
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) of
the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) addresses two
recurring statutory obligations under the TRACED Act relating to the
Commission's caller ID authentication rules. First, the Bureau seeks
comment for its annual reevaluation of the STIR/SHAKEN implementation
extensions granted by the Commission for implementation of the STIR/
SHAKEN call authentication framework. Second, the Bureau seeks comment
for its first triennial assessment of the efficacy of STIR/SHAKEN call
authentication framework as a tool in our work combating illegal
robocalls.
DATES: Comments are due on or before October 3, 2022; reply comments
are due on or before October 21, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments on or before the dates indicated in this document.
Comments and reply comments may be filed using the Commission's
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Interested
parties may file comments or reply comments, identified by WC Docket
No. 17-97 by any of the following methods:
[[Page 53706]]
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (March 19, 2020),
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must: (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made; and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenters written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.
In proceedings governed by section 1.49(f) of the rules or for which
the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml., .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please
contact Jonathan Lechter, Competition Policy Division, Wireline
Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-2343 or by email at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Bureau's Public
Notice seeking comment on two recurring statutory obligations under the
TRACED Act in WC Docket No. 17-97, DA 22-831, released on August 5,
2022. The full text of this document is available for public inspection
at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-831A1.pdf. To request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities (e.g., braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format, etc.), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), or
(202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Synopsis
I. Comments Sought on STIR/SHAKEN Implementation Extensions for Annual
Review, Pursuant to Section 4(b)(5) of the TRACED Act
When Congress directed the Commission to mandate implementation of
STIR/SHAKEN in the TRACED Act, it also required the Commission to
assess burdens and barriers to implementation, and it gave the
Commission discretion to extend compliance with the implementation
mandate upon a public finding of undue hardship. The Commission
performed this assessment and granted three categorical extensions of
the STIR/SHAKEN mandate on the basis of undue hardship: (1) small voice
service providers; (2) voice service providers unable to obtain the
``token'' necessary to participate in STIR/SHAKEN; and (3) services
scheduled for section 214 discontinuance. See Second Caller ID
Authentication Report and Order, 85 FR 73360 (Nov. 17, 2020). (As
directed by a separate provision of the TRACED Act, TRACED Act Sec.
4(b)(5)(B), the Commission also granted an extension for those portions
of the network that rely on technology that cannot initiate, maintain,
and terminate SIP calls. Because this extension was not granted on the
basis of undue hardship, we do not seek comment on it in this Public
Notice.)
The TRACED Act further requires the Commission to assess burdens
and barriers to implementation ``as appropriate'' after that initial
assessment, and directs the Commission to, ``not less frequently than
annually after the first [extension] is granted,'' reevaluate and
potentially revise any extensions granted on the basis of undue
hardship. It requires the Commission to issue a public notice
explaining ``why such [extension] remains necessary'' and ``when the
Commission expects to achieve the goal of full participation'' in
caller ID authentication. To comply with these obligations, the
Commission directed the Bureau in the Second Caller ID Authentication
Report and Order to annually reevaluate the Commission's granted
extensions for undue hardship and revise or extend those extensions as
necessary. (The Commission determined that the Bureau is in the best
position to undertake this fact-intensive, case-by-case evaluation.) In
its directions to the Bureau, the Commission permitted the Bureau to
further extend an extension to which voice service providers are
already subject, but prohibited the Bureau from terminating an
extension prior to the extension's originally set end date. The
Commission did not permit the Bureau to grant extensions to any voice
service providers or services not already subject to one. Should we
further extend a granted extension, we are permitted to decrease, but
not expand, the scope of entities entitled to that extension based on
our assessment of burdens and barriers.
In September 2021, we released a Public Notice seeking comment on
the Commission's three granted extensions and any associated burdens
and barriers to the implementation of STIR/SHAKEN. 86 FR 56705 (Oct.
12, 2021). In December 2021, we issued our first annual reevaluation
and declined to modify any of the existing extensions. The extension
for services scheduled for section 214 discontinuance ended on June 30,
2022. We now seek comment to enable our second annual reevaluation of
the two remaining STIR/SHAKEN implementation extensions--
[[Page 53707]]
for small voice service providers and for providers unable to obtain
the required token--granted based on undue hardship.
Small Voice Service Provider Extension. We seek comment on the
Commission's extension for facilities-based small voice service
providers. In September 2020, the Commission granted a two-year
extension for all small voice service providers, defined as ``a
provider that has 100,000 or fewer voice service subscriber lines.''
Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order. Under this extension,
small voice service providers were given until June 30, 2023 to
implement STIR/SHAKEN. The Commission found that this extension was
appropriate because small voice service providers may face substantial
costs--in addition to resource constraints--to implement STIR/SHAKEN
and confront unique equipment availability issues. In December 2021,
the Commission shortened the extension for a subset of small voice
service providers likely to be the source of illegal robocalls. 87 FR
3684 (Jan. 25, 2022) It shortened the extension to one year--until June
30, 2022--for non-facilities-based small voice service providers based
on overwhelming record support and available evidence showing that this
subset of providers were originating a large and disproportionate
amount of robocalls. It also required small voice service providers
suspected of originating illegal robocalls to implement STIR/SHAKEN on
an accelerated timeline. The Commission maintained the two-year
extension for facilities-based small voice service providers because it
found they were less likely to be the source of illegal robocalls. When
we considered this remaining extension in the 2021 annual reevaluation,
we declined to lengthen it beyond June 30, 2023, noting that the
Commission's guiding principle in establishing the extension was ``to
achieve ubiquitous STIR/SHAKEN implementation to combat the scourge of
illegal caller ID spoofing as quickly as possible.''
We seek comment on the burdens and barriers to facilities-based
small voice service provider implementation and whether we should
revise their STIR/SHAKEN extension. Have the burdens or barriers
affecting small providers originally discussed in the Second Caller ID
Authentication Report and Order, changed since last year's evaluation
and, if so, how? Should any Commission actions in the previous year
inform or impact our reevaluation of the small voice service provider
extension? Have any new burdens or barriers emerged that the Commission
did not consider or could not have been aware of when it initially gave
small voice service providers a two-year extension? If so, do these
burdens or barriers warrant an extension beyond the current June 30,
2023 date, and if so, how long of an extension is necessary and
appropriate? How would any additional extension be consistent with the
Commission's goal of ubiquitous STIR/SHAKEN implementation?
In response to our Public Notice seeking comment for the 2021
annual extension reevaluation, the Satellite Industry Association (SIA)
requested an ``indefinite'' extension for satellite voice service
providers'' in light of the ``challenging circumstances facing small
satellite VSPs, combined with their unique economic, operational, and
technical characteristics.'' The Bureau determined that the record was
insufficient to evaluate SIA's request at that time, but stated it
would seek further comment on the request as part of the instant 2022
reevaluation. In the interim, as part of its May 2022 Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 87 FR 42670 (July 18, 2022), the Commission sought
comment on the larger questions of the applicability of the TRACED Act
to small satellite providers and whether it should grant such providers
an extension for implementing STIR/SHAKEN.
Should the Bureau further extend the small provider implementation
extension just for small satellite voice service providers as part of
this inquiry or should we leave this issue to the full Commission to
consider more generally? Do small satellite voice service providers
face unique challenges in implementing STIR/SHAKEN? What are these
challenges? How do they impact this subset of providers' ability to
implement STIR/SHAKEN? What is a realistic time frame for any extension
we grant? What impact would an extension for small satellite voice
service providers have on other providers or the public? What impact
would such an extension have on the Commission's longstanding goal of
ubiquitous deployment of STIR/SHAKEN?
Extension for Voice Service Providers That Cannot Obtain a SPC
Token. We seek comment on the Commission's extension for voice service
providers that cannot obtain the Service Provider Code (SPC) token
necessary to participate in STIR/SHAKEN. In the Second Caller ID
Authentication Report and Order, the Commission granted voice service
providers that are incapable of obtaining a SPC token due to Governance
Authority policy an extension until they are capable of obtaining said
token. (Recognizing that ``a voice service provider may not be able to
immediately come into compliance with its caller ID authentication
obligations after it becomes eligible to receive'' a SPC token, the
Commission stated that it ``will not consider a voice service provider
that diligently pursues a certificate once it is able to receive one in
violation of [its] rules.''). In May 2021, the Governance Authority
revised the STI-GA Token Access Policy to enable token access by some
voice service providers previously unable to receive a token. In the
2021 annual reevaluation, we found that this policy revision had
resolved the main practical concern underlying this extension and that
token access no longer stood as a significant barrier to full
participation in STIR/SHAKEN. We nonetheless declined to revise this
extension on the basis that it remains necessary for the reason the
Commission previously identified: ``[A]n entity that meets the
definition of a provider of `voice service' cannot comply with the
STIR/SHAKEN rules if it is unable to receive a token.''
We seek comment on this extension and whether it remains necessary.
Is it still true that a provider cannot comply with the STIR/SHAKEN
rules if it is unable to receive a token? Has anything changed that has
made a token unnecessary to participate in STIR/SHAKEN, making this
extension no longer needed? Even if it remains theoretically necessary,
are all practical impediments presented by token access resolved, such
that we should consider recommending terminating this extension? If we
did recommend terminating this extension, when is an appropriate end
date? If the extension remains necessary, is token access an impediment
to ubiquitous STIR/SHAKEN? Are there steps the Commission or the
Governance Authority could take regarding token access to better
promote full participation in STIR/SHAKEN?
II. Comments Sought on STIR/SHAKEN Efficacy, Pursuant to Section
4(b)(4) of the TRACED Act
When Congress mandated that the Commission require voice service
providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN in the TRACED Act, it also directed
the Commission to ``assess the efficacy of the technologies used for
[the] call authentication frameworks'' no later than three years after
the December 30, 2019 enactment date of the Act. The Commission was
also directed to ``revise or replace the call authentication
frameworks'' if the Commission
[[Page 53708]]
determines it is in the public interest to do so based on the
assessment and to submit a report to Congress ``on the findings of the
assessment . . . and on any actions to revise or replace the call
authentication frameworks.''
Pursuant to this Congressional mandate, we seek comment to inform
our analysis of the efficacy of the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID
authentication framework that the Commission required voice service
providers to implement on their IP networks. (We do not, in this Public
Notification, seek comment on caller ID authentication in non-IP
networks. In the September 2020 Second Caller ID Authentication Report
and Order, the Commission determined that no standardized framework for
non-IP networks existed and consequently required providers to work to
develop a solution rather than implement a framework. The Commission
recently sought comment on whether we should require providers to
implement a non-IP caller ID authentication solution. Because the
Commission has not yet mandated providers implement any particular non-
IP caller ID authentication technology, there is no implemented
technology to assess in this required reevaluation.) We start by
seeking comment on the standard by which we should assess the efficacy
of STIR/SHAKEN. We propose to assess the efficacy of STIR/SHAKEN based
on how well it effectuates the authentication of caller ID information.
We believe this is the best standard because it evaluates the
effectiveness of the STIR/SHAKEN framework at executing the function of
the technology mandated under section 4: performing caller ID
authentication. We seek comment on this proposal. Is there another way
to interpret this statutory language and assess the STIR/SHAKEN
framework? For example, should we measure the impact of STIR/SHAKEN on
preventing illegally spoofed robocalls, or preventing all illegal
robocalls, to determine its efficacy? How would such an approach be
consistent with the text of the statute? Would it be an appropriate
measure of STIR/SHAKEN's effectiveness as a caller ID authentication
framework? Or would such an approach only measure the impact and
limitations of caller ID authentication generally, regardless of ``the
technologies used''? Could different caller ID authentication
frameworks more or less effectively combat illegally spoofed or all
illegal robocalls?
We next seek comment on the efficacy of the STIR/SHAKEN framework
under this standard. Has STIR/SHAKEN proven to effectively authenticate
caller ID information? Are there ways it could be more effective at
that task and, if so, how? Do any specific factors limit its efficacy,
and what solutions might resolve those issues? Will any identified
concerns be addressed by further deployment across the voice network?
In the Bureau's December 2020 Report to Congress, we stated that,
without widespread implementation, it was ``premature to assess the
efficacy of STIR/SHAKEN in practice'' at that time. (The TRACED Act
required the Commission to submit that report ``not later than 12
months after'' enactment.) Since that date, many voice service
providers have been required to implement, and have implemented, STIR/
SHAKEN. Is it still premature to evaluate the efficacy of STIR/SHAKEN
in practice? If so, we seek comment on whether commenters continue to
believe that the framework is effective as designed. And if commenters
believe we should evaluate STIR/SHAKEN under a different or additional
standard, we seek comment on the efficacy of STIR/SHAKEN under any
alternative standards proposed. Under any standard, we seek comment on
whether the efficacy of STIR/SHAKEN would improve when the framework is
paired with other tools or if there are additional steps that the
Bureau, Commission, or stakeholders such as voice service providers or
the Governance Authority could take to improve the efficacy of STIR/
SHAKEN. (Recognizing the benefits of pairing caller ID authentication
with call analytics, the Commission adopted a safe harbor enabling
voice service providers to block unwanted calls by default based on
reasonable analytics that incorporate caller ID authentication
information, so long as consumers are given the opportunity to opt
out.)
Should the Commission consider whether it is in the public interest
to revise or replace the STIR/SHAKEN framework? Would revising or
replacing the framework at this time be premature, as providers
continue to take steps to implement the technology consistent with the
Commission's efforts to bolster its caller ID authentication rule
scheme? How would the costs of such revision or replacement compare to
the benefits? We ask that any comments indicating that the STIR/SHAKEN
framework is ineffective at authenticating caller ID information
identify alternatives that would more effectively authenticate caller
ID information.
Federal Communications Commission.
Pamela Arluk,
Chief, Competition Policy Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-18380 Filed 8-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
