Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

determining whether they qualify for a one or two-year extension?
37. Examination Period. We propose that any criteria we adopt would apply to small voice service provider operations prior to the effective date of our Order released pursuant to this Further Notice. For example, if we adopted a criterion based on the number of calls per line, the relevant time period to determine if the call threshold is met would be the number of calls per line during a period prior to the effective date of such Order. We seek comment on this general approach and what the relevant period should be. For example, should we look at voice service provider operations in the 120
days prior to the date the Order is adopted? Would such an approach give small voice service providers sufficient time to gather the necessary information and ensure that a sufficiently representative sample of these providers operations are examined?
Would another time period be more appropriate? Would tying the relevant time period to the effective date of a later Order permit small voice service providers to game the rule by modifying their behavior after release of this Further Notice? Would such gaming be undesirable if it had the effect that a voice service provider ceased meeting criteria showing it was likely to be the source of illegal robocalls?
38. In addition, we propose that small voice service providers that did not meet the criteria during the examination period would not be subject to a shortened extension if they meet the criteria at a later date. We propose this approach given the limited time between any Order we release subsequent to this Further Notice and the June 30, 2023, end date of the original two-year extension. We seek comment on this proposal.
D. Length of Time: One-Year Reduction 39. We propose to shorten the extension for those small voice service providers that originate an especially large amount of traffic from two years to one year, with a new compliance deadline of June 30, 2022. We seek comment on this proposal. We seek specific comment on whether a one-year extension is a reasonable period of time for this subset of small voice service providers to implement STIR/
SHAKEN given the burdens and barriers to implementation that they face and the likelihood they are the source of illegal robocalls. We anticipate that a one-year extension balances the public interest in reducing unlawful calls while allowing affected providers sufficient time to implement STIR/

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:33 Jun 08, 2021

Jkt 253001

SHAKEN. For example, we note above that affected providers may have a lower burden to implement STIR/SHAKEN
than other small voice service providers.
If so, do such providers face less hardship than other small voice service providers? Even if they do not have a lower burden, do the significant benefits of requiring those small voice service providers most likely to be responsible for illegal robocalls to comply with STIR/SHAKEN mean that a one-year extension for those providers is nevertheless a reasonable period of time?
40. Should we reduce the extension by more or less than our proposal?
Would a shorter reduction in the extension e.g., January 1, 2023 still provide a material benefit in the form of reduced illegal robocalls compared to the current two-year extension? Would a greater reduction in the extension e.g., a compliance deadline of January 1, 2022 be practical, given the timing of any subsequent Order? Would it unduly impact affected providers reliance interests? Does the fact that affected providers could seek a waiver if they meet the Commissions waiver standard ameliorate any identified concerns about whatever implementation deadline we adopt? The Commission may exercise its discretion to waive a rule where the particular facts at issue make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest. In considering whether to grant a waiver, the Commission may take into account considerations of hardship, equity, or more effective implementation of overall policy on an individual basis.
Should we direct the Wireline Competition Bureau to rule on any waiver request within 90 days of submission to address these concerns and any potential reliance interests?
41. We also seek comment on alternative approaches to altering the extension period. For example, instead of measuring the reduction against the June 30, 2021, compliance deadline, should we set the new compliance deadline to a certain interval following the effective date of any Order released pursuant to this Further Notice? Under this approach, affected small voice service providers would be required to implement STIR/SHAKEN in the IP
portions of their networks a certain number of days following the Orders effective date. If we adopt this approach, what should the appropriate interval be?
Are there other approaches we should consider? For example, should we set the end of the extension for affected providers to the later of 1 a specific date e.g., June 30, 2022 or 2 a certain number of days following the effective
PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

30577

date of the Order released pursuant to this Further Notice? In order to have the maximum effect on illegal robocalls, should we terminate the extension upon the effective date of any Order we adopt? Would such an aggressive timeline be impractical or overly burdensome? How relevant is the timing of the Order to the approach we choose?
E. Ensuring Compliance 42. We seek comment on how to monitor and evaluate compliance by the small voice service providers that are subject to the proposed curtailed extension. In particular, we seek comment on small voice service providers duty to notify the Commission of their updated extension status and whether they should submit data demonstrating that status.
43. Notification of Extension Status.
First, we propose relying on the current rule requiring voice service providers to update the Commission on the term and type of their extension and when they have implemented STIR/SHAKEN. By June 30, 2021, voice service providers that have not implemented STIR/
SHAKEN must certify whether they are subject to an extension and state the type of extension e.g., small voice service provider extension. Voice service providers must also update their certifications and filings in the FCCs Robocall Mitigation Database portal within ten business days of any change, including whether an extension no longer applies. This rule, by its terms, would require small voice service providers subject to any shortened extension we adopt to: 1 Within ten business days of the effective date of any Order we adopt, update their certifications and associated filings indicating that they are subject to a shortened extension; and 2 further update their certifications and associated filings within ten business days of completion of STIR/SHAKEN
implementation in the IP portions of their networks. Those small voice service providers not subject to a shortened extension would not have to update their certifications and associated filings. We seek comment on this proposal and whether any clarifications to our rules are necessary.
We also seek comment on whether and how we should modify the existing rule.
For example, should we provide more than ten days following the effective date of any Order we adopt for small voice service providers subject to a shortened extension to update their certifications? Should we adopt a mechanism to notify the public of the results of the certification process? If so, what should that mechanism be? Are
E:FRFM09JNP1.SGM

09JNP1