Je veux savoir à propos de…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations not include a statement of the relief sought. We assume that the relief sought will always be the reversal of the Governance Authoritys revocation decision. We establish that the party seeking review shall send a copy of the request for review to the Governance Authority via sti-ga@atis.org or another method specified in the Governance Authoritys Operating Procedures. Filers may request confidential treatment for filings pursuant to 0.459 of our rules.
These proposals were all unopposed in the record. In the Second Further Notice we proposed that filers would submit requests for review to the Commissions non-docketed inbox where they would not be viewable by the public. We deviate from this proposal and require filers to submit their requests to ECFS
in order to allow public notice and opportunity to comment by third parties.
Governance Authority Record. We encourage the Governance Authority to submit to the Bureau the full record of a token revocation appeal within five days of receiving notice of a voice service providers request for Bureau review. We ask the Governance Authority to file the record materials in WC Docket No. 21291, Appeals of the STIR/SHAKEN Governance Authority Token Revocation Decisions, in ECFS.
Governance Authority submission of such materials to the Bureau will increase efficiency and fairness of the Bureaus review process. The full record should include, as suggested by the Governance Authority Board, the completed SPC token Complaint Submission Form, the notice of complaint that was sent to the Governance Authority Board, written responses from the provider at issue, the final written decision of the Governance Authority Board, any materials provided by the service provider as part of an appeal of the decision under the Governance Authority Operating Procedures, as well as the written decision by the Governance Authority Board regarding the appeal. We agree with the Governance Authority Board that it does not need to submit drafts of the required documents or Board discussions to protect the confidentiality of its internal deliberations. We also recognize the Governance Authority Boards concern that the materials submitted by the Governance Authority Board merit confidential treatment and should be treated as such because they are likely to contain privileged or confidential provider-specific commercial information. Accordingly, the Governance Authority may request
VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:07 Aug 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

confidential treatment for its submissions pursuant to 0.459 of our rules as set forth in our rules, the Governance Authority Board would need to identify the specific information for which it is requesting confidential treatment. The Governance Authority Board also would need to submit a version of the filing that can be made public with the confidential material redacted. We encourage the Governance Authority Board to work with the voice service provider seeking review to determine which information is confidential or to put procedures in place that will require voice service providers to identify confidential information when submitting information to the Governance Authority Board and to identify any categories of internal documents it considers confidential..
We do not expect the Governance Authority to submit a statement in opposition to the request for review. We will rely on the entirety of the record developed by the Governance Authority during its review process and will only engage the Governance Authority in an appeal to the extent necessary to understand Governance Authoritys policies and procedures and the Governance Authoritys interpretations of them. USTelecom argues that requiring the Governance Authority to file a statement in opposition to the FCC review request would needlessly make the Governance Authority a party to the proceeding rather than a neutral, independent arbiter in its own right. USTelecom also notes that in the USAC appeals process USAC does not file a statement in opposition to the review request. We agree with USTelecom that the Governance Authority should remain a neutral party in the appeals process.
However, we do not affirmatively prohibit the Governance Authority from participating beyond submission of the record should it find it appropriate to do so.
Wireline Competition Bureau Review.
We establish that the Wireline Competition Bureau will review and issue decisions in the first instance in all appeals of decisions from the Governance Authority in the Second Caller ID Authentication Further Notice the Commission proposed that the Bureau would review all appeals with one exception: the Commission would review appeals that presented novel questions of fact, law, or policy. That approach followed our USAC appeals procedure. We deviate from our USAC
appeals procedure because, after further consideration, we expect most, if not all, appeals to present fact-specific and
PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

48515

technically complicated issues; the Bureau is best situated to review such appeals in the first instance in a speedy manner.. Accordingly, we direct the Bureau to review all requests for review in the first instance, with applications for review to the Commission available after the Bureau issues a final decision.
We direct the Bureau to ensure its decisions maintain the integrity and efficacy of the STIR/SHAKEN ecosystem to protect the public from unlawfully spoofed calls and unlawful robocalls. By directing the Bureau to review all appeals in the first instance we ensure voice service providers receive speedy resolution of their disputes by agency experts and those voice service providers whose tokens are determined to be rightfully revoked are promptly required to update their Robocall Mitigation Database certifications. We reiterate that, as with any decision adopted on delegated authority, an affected party may seek review by the full Commission of a decision issued by the Bureau, thus ensuring Commission oversight of all decision-making and availability to any interested party. No party addressed the appropriate scope of review by the Bureau in the record.
Standard of Review. We establish that the standard of review by the Bureau will be de novo. Specifically, we direct the Bureau to conduct de novo review of Governance Authority decisions to revoke a voice service providers token.
We agree with the Governance Authority Board that de novo review will allow the Commission to independently verify the Governance Authority Boards decisions and better ensure that the SHAKEN ecosystem continues to operate in a fair and equitable manner. Such an approach also avoids the concern expressed by VON that anything more deferential than de novo review would inevitably result in Governance Authority decisions receiving precedential treatment, and would turn the STIGA
into a de facto policymaking body in place of the FCC. A de novo standard of review was unopposed in the record and commenters all agreed a de novo standard is appropriate.
Status During Pendency of Appeals.
We adopt a new rule establishing that throughout the review period, starting from when the Governance Authority revokes a voice service providers token and including the duration of the Governance Authoritys formal appeals process, until the Bureau issues a decision on the appeal, a voice service provider will not be judged to be in violation of the Commissions STIR/
SHAKEN rules as a result of the revocation. We agree with USTelecom
E:FRFM31AUR1.SGM

31AUR1