Quiero saber acerca de...

30578

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

there any steps that we should take to reduce the reporting burden for small voice service providers?
44. Additional Data. We seek comment on whether we should require some or all small voice service providers to submit data demonstrating whether they meet the criteria we adopt.
For example, should we require voice service providers to submit data on the average number of calls per day or nonmass market revenue if we adopt one or both of these criteria? If we adopt qualitative criteria such as curtailing the extension for those voice service providers that offer customers the ability to modify the outgoing caller ID
information, what sort of information should we require voice service providers to submit? We seek comment generally on the benefits and burdens of data submission. We are cognizant of the importance of minimizing burdens on small voice service providers where possible. Should we therefore avoid requiring voice service providers to submit data by relying on data already in our possession to monitor compliance? For example, should we rely on existing line and revenue data, e.g., from FCC Forms 477 and 499 for those providers? If we rely on already submitted data, should we publicly release a list of small voice service providers that we believe are subject to a shortened extension, and provide an opportunity for such parties to file objections? If we rely on already submitted data for at least some voice service providers, should these providers not be required to submit the certification updates described above?
F. Legal Authority 45. We believe the Commission has authority for curtailing the extension for a subset of small voice service providers under section 4b5Aii of the TRACED Act. That section gives us authority to grant extensions of the caller ID authentication implementation deadline for a reasonable period of time upon a finding of undue hardship. Under that section, we granted the current two-year small voice service provider extension that we now propose to modify. We believe that, in considering whether a hardship is undue under the TRACED Act, as well as whether an extension is for a reasonable period of time, it is appropriate to balance the hardship of compliance due to the the burdens and barriers to implementation faced by a voice service provider or class of voice service providers with the benefit to the public of implementing STIR/SHAKEN
expeditiously; and that, consequently, we have the authority to grant a shorter
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:33 Jun 08, 2021

Jkt 253001

extension for voice service providers that present a higher risk of originating illegal robocalls or that may also face a lesser hardship than other small voice service providers. We seek comment on this interpretation as well as any alternatives.
46. Finally, we acknowledge that the Commission has a duty under the Administrative Procedures Act APA
when it changes direction, as we propose to do here, to explain the reasons for that change. Specifically, while we do not need to demonstrate why the reasons for a shortened extension for a subset of small voice service providers are better than the reasons for a two year extension for all small voice service providers, we must show that there are good reasons for our change, and that the change is permissible under the relevant statute;
in this case, the TRACED Act. As explained above, we propose to rely both on information that postdates the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and on our reevaluation of preexisting information that the Commission had very limited time to consider in the short period between USTelecoms proposal and adoption of the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order. The evidence thus far indicates that a subset of small voice service providers is originating a large and increasing quantity of illegal robocalls; and in our preliminary view a shortened extension for a subset of such providers is justified under our proposed interpretation of the TRACED
Act. We seek comment on this analysis given the evidence already in the record and in light of any additional evidence that parties may file.
IV. Procedural Matters 47. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the RFA, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis IRFA
of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Further Notice. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Further Notice indicated on the first page of this document and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commissions Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Call Authentication Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the IRFA, to
PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.
48. Paperwork Reduction Act. The Further Notice 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 10413. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506c4, we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
49. Ex Parte PresentationsPermitBut-Disclose. The proceeding this Further Notice initiates shall be treated as a permit-but-disclose proceeding in accordance with the Commissions 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 1.1206b of the Commissions rules. In proceedings governed by 1.49f of the Commissions 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
E:FRFM09JNP1.SGM

09JNP1