Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

48516

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
that it would be unreasonable for the agency to judge a voice service provider as noncompliant during the pendency of an appeal before it evaluates a revocation decision. USTelecom and NCTA supported this proposal. We find it necessary to satisfy due process for a party to have the opportunity to appeal the decision of the private Governance Authority and, if it appeals, to obtain a decision by the Bureau before being judged noncompliant. VON argues that we also not judge delegated certificate customers of a voice service provider that has its token revoked noncompliant during the pendency of an appeal. We disagree with VON. Establishing that a voice service provider that relies on a delegated token not be judged in violation of our rules during the pendency of an appeal would be redundant because such a provider may seek a waiver of our rules if the token it relies upon is revoked.
More specifically, we clarify that a provider subject to a revocation will not be in violation of our STIR/SHAKEN
rules as a result of the revocation during 1 the time period in which it may file an appeal to the Governance Authority;
2 the pendency of any appeal before the Governance Authority; 3 the time period in which it may file an appeal to the Bureau; and 4 if it files an appeal with the Bureau, until the Bureau releases a final decision regarding the appeal should the Bureau uphold or otherwise decide not to overturn the Governance Authoritys decision, an aggrieved voice service provider may file a petition for reconsideration or application for review within the time periods permitted by our rules, but such filing will not protect the provider from a finding of noncompliance while the petition or application is pending.. The exclusion from liability applies specifically to rule 64.6301, which requires implementation of STIR/
SHAKEN. In addition, because a voice service provider that has been aggrieved by an adverse Governance Authority service token revocation decision is not considered in violation of 64.6301
during the pendency of its appeal to the Bureau, it will not need to submit an amended filing to the Robocall Mitigation Database until its window to appeal to the Governance Authority or the Bureau lapses or, if it appeals, until the Bureau issues a final decision regarding its appeal. Specifically, while a voice service provider has the opportunity to appeal and while a filed appeal is pending, the voice service provider will not be judged in violation of the requirement to file an updated filing within 10 business days of any
VerDate Sep<11>2014

19:07 Aug 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

change to the information it must provide to the Commission pursuant to 64.6305 of our rules. After the Bureau issues its decision, the voice service provider must update its Robocall Mitigation Database filing within 10
business days, if necessary if the Bureau upholds a token revocation decision, the affected provider will be in violation of the 64.6301a requirement to participate in STIR/SHAKEN
because, without a token, the provider will not be able to authenticate calls it originates consistent with the STIR/
SHAKEN standards. A voice service provider that has its token revoked will not be eligible for the extension for voice service providers that cannot obtain a SPC token. The Commission established the extension for voice service providers for whom it is unfeasible to obtain a token in the first instance under the Governance Authoritys Token Access Policy, not for providers that are subject to token revocation..
In the Second Caller ID
Authentication Further Notice, the Commission proposed that a voice service provider would not be judged in violation of the TRACED Act during the pendency of an appeal. We decline to adopt this proposal. The TRACED Act contains no STIR/SHAKEN
implementation obligation for voice service providers; rather it directs the Commission to require voice service providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN.
There is therefore no need to establish that voice providers will not be judged in violation of the TRACED Act during the pendency of an appeal.
We conclude that after revocation by the Governance Authority, a voice service provider may not maintain possession and use of its token regardless of whether it files an appeal to the Bureau. In effect, this means that although a voice service provider will not be judged in violation of our rules it will not be able to continue to exchange STIR/SHAKEN-authenticated traffic during the pendency of an appeal. The only commenter to address the subject supports the approach we adopt, and we agree that we do not want to create an incentive for bad-actor voice service providers to appeal the Governance Authority decision for the sole purpose of delaying revocation of their tokens. For the same reason, should the Bureau uphold or otherwise decide not to overturn the Governance Authoritys decision, a voice service provider will not regain the right to use its token by filing a petition for reconsideration or application for review. This proposal was unopposed in the record.

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

B. Legal Authority We conclude that section 4b1 of the TRACED Act grants us authority to establish an oversight role for the Commission to review token revocation decisions made by the Governance Authority. Section 4b1 directs the Commission to require the implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN
framework. Establishing an oversight role for the Commission is consistent with the TRACED Acts caller ID
authentication implementation mandate because it will make revocation decisions by the Governance Authority that have the effect of putting entities outside of our STIR/SHAKEN
implementation rules reviewable by the Commission. We also conclude we have authority to establish an oversight role for the Commission under section 251e of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Section 251e grants the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over North American Numbering Plan resources in the United States and, within that broad grant, provides us with authority to mandate caller ID
authentication. We find that section 251e grants us the corresponding authority to review decisions that have the impact of preventing a voice service provider from complying with our caller ID authentication rules. No party opposed our assertion of legal authority.
IV. Procedural Matters Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 RFA, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis IRFA
was incorporated in the Second Caller ID Authentication Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission sought written public comment on the possible significant economic impact on small entities regarding proposals addressed in the Second Caller ID
Authentication Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including comments on the IRFA. Pursuant to the RFA, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is set forth in Appendix B. The Commissions Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Third Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration SBA.
Paperwork Reduction Act. This document contains new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 PRA, Public Law 10413.
These requirements have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget OMB

E:FRFM31AUR1.SGM

31AUR1