Je veux savoir à propos de…

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 Commissions 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 providers asserted basis for appealing the Governance Authoritys 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 Commissions 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 Authoritys 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 Authoritys Operating Procedures. We further propose to require the Governance Authority, upon receipt of a copy of a voice service providers 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 Authoritys 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 Authoritys 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 4b1 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 251e 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 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 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 1.1206b. In proceedings governed by Rule 1.49f 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 Commissions 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:FRFM17FEP1.SGM

17FEP1