Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

48514

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
revocation is appropriate. USTelecom, in contrast with VON, argues that only the token holders should participate in the appeal process. To the extent USTelecom is arguing that third parties should not be able to participate in an appeal in any capacity, we disagree; we see no compelling reason to diverge with our standard procedures and not allow third parties, including voice service providers that rely on delegated tokens, to file oppositions and replies.
We note that any voice service provider that relies on a delegated token from another entity may seek a waiver of our STIR/SHAKEN rules for a limited time period if the token it relies upon is revoked. We agree with USTelecom that in typical cases, a 90-day waiver period, from the date the Governance Authority revokes a providers token in the first instance, should give a voice service provider sufficient time to transfer its delegated token to a new partner and continue to participate in the STIR/SHAKEN framework. This time period balances the need for an affected voice service provider to have adequate time to receive another certificate with the public interest of broad STIR/SHAKEN participation.
However, affected providers are free to request a different waiver period accompanied by an explanation of good cause for such a time period. We direct the Bureau to rule on all such waiver requests. Review of waivers of Commission rules is consistent with the Bureaus authority and will ensure waiver requests are reviewed in a timely and efficient manner to maintain the efficacy of the STIR/SHAKEN
ecosystem.
Filing Deadlines. We establish that aggrieved providers have 60 days to seek Bureau review after the Governance Authority upholds its adverse token revocation decision.
Specifically, a voice service provider requesting Bureau review of a Governance Authority decision to revoke that voice service providers token shall file such a request electronically in ECFS within 60 days from the date the Governance Authority upholds its token revocation decision.
Sixty days will provide sufficient time to an aggrieved voice service provider to receive notice and file a request for review and is equivalent to the time given parties in our Universal Service appeals process. The only commenter to address this issue, INCOMPAS, opposed our proposal and suggested we give aggrieved voice service providers 30
days to request review instead of 60
days in order to expedite the review process because revoking a voice
VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:07 Aug 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

service providers access to SPC tokens will have significant repercussions for the provider and its customers. We disagree with INCOMPASs proposed shorter deadline. Because of the importance of the token to our STIR/
SHAKEN rules we want to ensure providers have sufficient time to request review of any token revocation. Thirty days may not give affected voice service providers enough time to receive notice of the Governance Authority decision and then to prepare and file a request for review with the Bureau. We note that the 60-day deadline does not prevent providers from filing appeals sooner to expedite a review. We also note that 60 days is the same timeframe provided for in our Universal Service appeal process.
We also establish that any commenters shall adhere to the time periods for filing oppositions and replies as set forth in 1.45 of our rules.
This follows the procedure in our USAC
appeals process and was unopposed in the record.
We establish a 180-day shot clock for the Bureaus review period, similar to the procedure used in our pole access complaint resolution proceedings. One hundred eighty days will typically be sufficient time for staff to complete reviews even if they present novel and potentially complex factual issues, and for staff to have time to present followup questions to the appealing party or the Governance Authority if necessary, while also ensuring parties can set expectations for when the review will be completed. As with pole access complaints, we expect the Bureau to meet the shot clock except in extraordinary circumstances.
The record support in favor of establishing a specific time limit for the Bureaus review persuades us to deviate from our proposal not to impose such a limit. VON argues we should impose a time limit on Bureau review since revocation of a token can substantially impact a providers business.
INCOMPAS suggests the Commission adopt a 30-day time limit for the Bureau to complete its review, arguing that speedy resolution is necessary because it will give impacted voice service providers and their customers the information and clarity they need to make plans beyond the Commissions review. And the Governance Authority Board states, it is important that the Commission conclude its review and issue a decision as quickly as reasonably possible. Nonetheless, while we agree with these commenters that prompt review is important, we disagree with INCOMPAS that the review period should be 30 days. INCOMPAS does not
PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

explain how the Bureau can adequately account for the potential novel and complex factual issues each appeal could raise in 30 days. Instead, we think a 180-day period is sufficient to ensure that the Bureau has time to render a carefully considered review for each appeal while also ensuring the review is completed in a timely and reasonable manner. And if an appeal were not to pose novel or complex issues, we think it could be completed well before 180
days.
We establish that the shot clock will start when the request for review is filed in ECFS. This procedure is identical to the one used in our pole access complaint proceedings and will ensure the Bureau and all parties are on notice of when the shot clock begins counting down in order to set expectations of when the review will be completed. We also establish that the Bureau will have discretion to pause the 180-day review period when actions outside the Bureaus control delay the Bureaus review. For example, the Bureau may pause the shot clock if parties need additional time to provide key information requested by the Bureau.
The Bureau will resume the shot clock when the cause for pausing the shot clock has been resolved. We direct the Bureau to provide written notice of any pause in the shot clock, as well as when the shot clock is resumed. This procedure similarly draws from the one we use in pole access complaint review and will ensure the Bureau has adequate time to complete its review if faced with delays outside its control and that all parties are duly informed whenever the shot clock is paused or resumed.
Filing Requirements. We establish that requests for review shall be filed electronically in WC Docket No. 21291, Appeals of the STIR/SHAKEN
Governance Authority Token Revocation Decisions, in ECFS. 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. The request for review shall contain 1 a statement setting forth the voice service providers asserted basis for appealing the Governance Authoritys decision to revoke the 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 Bureaus review; and 3 the question presented for review, with reference, where appropriate, to any underlying Commission rule or Governance Authority policy. Moreover, we establish that requests for review need
E:FRFM31AUR1.SGM

31AUR1