Home/Federal/Federal Register/2021-12007

Proposed Rule2021-12007

Call Authentication Trust Anchor

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

June 9, 2021

Effective

July 9, 2021

Issuing agencies

Federal Communications Commission

Abstract

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on a proposal to shorten by one year the STIR/SHAKEN implementation extension for small voice service providers that originate an especially large number of calls, so that such providers must implement STIR/SHAKEN in the IP portions of their networks no later than June 30, 2022. The Commission believes this proposal will protect Americans from illegal robocalls--especially illegally spoofed robocalls--by ensuring that voice service providers most likely to be the source of illegal robocalls authenticate calls sooner, allowing terminating voice service providers to know if the caller ID is legitimate and take action as appropriate, including by blocking or labeling suspicious calls. The Commission also seeks comment on how to define which small voice service providers should receive a shortened extension and on ways to monitor compliance.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 109 (Wednesday, June 9, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 9, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30571-30582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12007]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[WC Docket No. 17-97; FCC 21-62; FR ID 30569]

Call Authentication Trust Anchor

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on a proposal to shorten by one year the
STIR/SHAKEN implementation extension for small voice service providers
that originate an especially large number of calls, so that such
providers must implement STIR/SHAKEN in the IP portions of their
networks no later than June 30, 2022. The Commission believes this
proposal will protect Americans from illegal robocalls--especially
illegally spoofed robocalls--by ensuring that voice service providers
most likely to be the source of illegal robocalls authenticate calls
sooner, allowing terminating voice service providers to know if the
caller ID is legitimate and take action as appropriate, including by
blocking or labeling suspicious calls. The Commission also seeks
comment on how to define which small voice service providers should
receive a shortened extension and on ways to monitor compliance.

DATES: Comments are due on or before July 9, 2021; reply Comments are
due on or before August 9, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 17-97,
by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (March 19, 2020),
<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy</a>.
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection
requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal
Communications Commission via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a2a283b3a1c1919541d150c">[email&#160;protected]</a> and to Nicole
Ongele, FCC, via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#88c6e1ebe7e4eda6c7e6efede4edc8eeebeba6efe7fe">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please
contact Alexander Hobbs, Attorney Advisor, Competition Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#febf929b869f909a9b8cd0b6919c9c8dbe989d9dd0999188">[email&#160;protected]</a> or at (202)
418-7433. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction
Act proposed information collection requirements contained in this
document, send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6b3b392a2b0d0808450c041d">[email&#160;protected]</a> or contact Nicole Ongele at
(202) 418-2991.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) in WC Docket No.
17-97, FCC 21-62, adopted on May 20, 2021, and released on May 21,
2021. The full text of this document is available for public inspection
at the following internet address: <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-62A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-62A1.pdf</a>. To request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities (e.g. braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format, etc.), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ef898c8cdadfdbaf898c8cc1888099">[email&#160;protected]</a> or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), or
(202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Synopsis

I. Introduction

1. In this Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we take
further action to stem the tide of illegal robocalls by proposing to
accelerate the date by which small voice providers that originate an
especially large amount of call traffic must implement the STIR/SHAKEN
caller ID authentication framework. STIR/SHAKEN combats illegally
spoofed robocalls by allowing voice service providers to verify that
the caller ID information transmitted with a particular call matches
the caller's number. In March 2020, pursuant to Congressional direction
in the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and
Deterrence (TRACED) Act, the Commission adopted timelines for voice
service providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN. In September 2020, pursuant
to the TRACED Act, the Commission provided a two-year extension of the
deadline for all small voice service providers to implement STIR/
SHAKEN. New evidence suggests, however, that a subset of small voice
service providers appears to be originating a large and increasing
quantity of illegal robocalls. To better protect Americans from
illegally spoofed robocalls, we therefore propose to shorten that
deadline from two years to one for the subset of small voice providers
that are at a heightened risk of originating an especially large amount
of robocall traffic.

[[Page 30572]]

II. Background

2. In March 2020, the Commission adopted rules requiring voice
service providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN in the internet Protocol
(IP) portions of their voice networks by June 30, 2021. The STIR/SHAKEN
framework relies on public-key cryptography to securely transmit the
information that the originating voice service provider knows about the
identity of the caller and its relationship to the phone number it is
using throughout the entire length of the call path, allowing the
terminating voice service provider to verify the information on the
other end. To implement STIR/SHAKEN in its network, a voice service
provider must update portions of its network infrastructure to enable
it to authenticate and verify caller ID information consistent with the
framework.
3. Widespread implementation of STIR/SHAKEN will provide numerous
benefits for voice service providers, their subscribers, and entities
involved in enforcement. Because STIR/SHAKEN utilizes a three-level
attestation to signify what a voice service provider knows about the
calling party, it provides vital information that can be used by
terminating voice service providers to block or label illegal robocalls
before those calls reach their subscribers. Indeed, the Commission safe
harbor for voice service providers that offer opt-out call blocking
requires that providers base their blocking decisions on reasonable
analytics that take into consideration caller ID authentication
information. STIR/SHAKEN information also promotes enforcement by
appending information about the source of a call into the metadata of
the call itself, offering instantaneous traceback without the need to
go through the traceback process. STIR/SHAKEN implementation further
restores trust in caller ID information and makes call recipients more
willing to answer the phone, reduces disruption to E911 networks,
reduces providers' compliance response costs, and reduces the
government-wide costs of enforcement. In total, the Commission
estimated that the monetary benefit from reducing fraud and nuisance
due to illegal robocalls would exceed $13.5 billion per year.
4. The TRACED Act created a process by which the Commission could
grant extensions of the June 30, 2021, implementation deadline for
voice service providers that the Commission determined face ``undue
hardship'' in implementing STIR/SHAKEN. After assessing the burdens and
barriers faced by different classes of voice service providers, the
Commission granted the following class-based extensions: (1) A two-year
extension to small voice service providers; (2) an extension to voice
service providers that cannot obtain a ``certificate'' until such
provider is able to obtain one; (3) a one-year extension to services
scheduled for section 214 discontinuance; and (4) a continuing
extension for the parts of a voice service provider's network that rely
on technology that cannot initiate, maintain, and terminate SIP calls
until a solution for such calls is readily available. Voice service
providers seeking the benefit of one of these extensions must implement
a robocall mitigation program and, under new rules adopted in the Call
Blocking Fourth Report and Order, all voice service providers must
comply with requirements to respond fully and in a timely manner to all
traceback requests from certain entities, effectively mitigate illegal
traffic when notified by the Commission, and adopt affirmative,
effective measures to prevent new and renewing customers from using
their network to originate illegal calls.
5. The Commission defined small voice service providers subject to
an extension as those with 100,000 or fewer voice subscriber lines. It
determined that an extension for small voice service providers until
June 30, 2023, was appropriate because of their high implementation
costs compared to their revenues, the limited STIR/SHAKEN vendor
offerings available to them, the likelihood that costs will decline
over time, and because an extension will allow small voice service
providers to spread the costs over time. In adopting a blanket
extension for small voice service providers, the Commission rejected
arguments that not all voice service providers face identical hardships
and that some of these providers may originate illegal robocalls. It
determined that all small voice service providers, as a class, face
undue hardship and thus a blanket extension for such providers is
necessary to give them time to implement STIR/SHAKEN. The Commission
also determined the extension would not unduly undermine the
effectiveness of STIR/SHAKEN because small voice service providers must
still implement robocall mitigation programs and small voice service
providers serve only a small percentage of total voice subscribers,
thus limiting potential consumer harm of an extension.
6. Following circulation of the Second Caller ID Authentication
Report and Order, but before its adoption, USTelecom proposed excluding
from the definition of ``small voice service provider'' for purposes of
this extension voice service providers that ``originate a
disproportionate amount of traffic relative to their subscriber base,
namely providers that serve enterprises and other heavy callers through
their IP networks.'' USTelecom noted that some of these voice service
providers serve customers that ``often are responsible for illegal
robocalls.'' Specifically, USTelecom suggested we exclude those small
voice service providers that either (1) receive more than half their
revenue from customers purchasing services that are not mass-market
services or (2) originate more than 500 calls per day for any single
line in the normal course of business. USTelecom noted that ``[g]iven
the amount of traffic they originate, those providers should implement
STIR/SHAKEN in a timely manner consistent with the goal of ubiquitous
call authentication deployment'' and that ``providers serving these
types of customers are unlikely to have the same resource constraints
the Commission cited in adopting the extension.'' The Commission
declined to adopt USTelecom's proposal at the time but left open the
possibility that it might reevaluate it in the future. The Commission
acknowledged that it saw ``value in the policy goals that underlie
USTelecom's request,'' but concluded that implementing the proposal
would require a ``difficult-line drawing exercise'' and that it was not
``able to identify criteria in the limited time available [before
adoption] in which we have confidence.'' The Commission stated,
however, that it was ``open to revisiting this issue should we
determine that the extension creates an unreasonable risk of unsigned
calls from a specific subset of small voice service providers.''

III. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

7. With additional time to consider the issue and new evidence
indicating that certain small voice service providers are originating a
high and increasing share of illegal robocalls relative to their
subscriber base, we now propose to reassess the Commission's earlier
determination that all small voice service providers should receive a
two-year extension. Specifically, we propose to shorten by one year the
extension for small voice service providers that originate an
especially large number of calls, so that such providers must implement
STIR/SHAKEN in the IP portions of their networks no later than June 30,
2022.

[[Page 30573]]

We believe this proposal will protect Americans from illegal
robocalls--and especially illegally spoofed robocalls--by ensuring that
voice service providers most likely to be the source of illegal
robocalls authenticate calls sooner, allowing terminating voice service
providers to know if the caller ID is legitimate and take action as
appropriate, including by blocking or labeling suspicious calls. We
propose to take this action within the framework of the TRACED Act,
which we interpret to require us to balance the hardship of compliance
faced by voice service providers with the benefit to the public of
implementing STIR/SHAKEN expeditiously. We also seek comment on how to
define which small voice service providers should receive a shortened
extension and on ways to monitor compliance.

A. Basis for Action

8. We propose concluding that a subset of small voice service
providers is ``often . . . responsible for illegal robocalls,'' is
originating an increasingly disproportionate amount of such calls
compared to larger voice service providers, and should therefore be
subject to a shortened extension.
9. A March 2021 report released by Transaction Network Services, a
provider of call analytics, found that the problem of robocalls
originated by certain smaller voice service providers has gotten worse:
By the end of 2020, ``[a]lmost 95% of high risk calls originate from
non-Tier-1 telephone resources, up 3% from last year.'' We seek comment
on these data and our proposed conclusion that certain small voice
service providers are a disproportionate source of these calls. Are
commenters able to supply additional new data that address to this
issue? Transaction Network Services previously stated in its 2020
comments that its data show, through the end of 2018, ``87% of
problematic calls originate . . . on non-Tier 1 networks'' even though
``the top 6 carriers represent almost 75% of . . . total calls.'' We
have now had additional time to evaluate this comment and other
information discussed below that predates adoption of the Second Caller
ID Authentication Report and Order compared to the very short time
period between USTelecom filing its proposal and adoption of the Second
Caller ID Authentication Report and Order. In our preliminary view,
this information supports revisiting the scope of the small voice
service provider extension. We seek comment on this view and on how we
should now consider relevant evidence that predates adoption of the
Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order.
10. With additional time to consider the issue, we now believe that
evidence from Commission filings of providers subject to government-
wide enforcement actions also supports a finding that a subset of small
voice service providers are at heightened risk of originating a
disproportionate number of illegal robocalls relative to their
subscriber base. For example, in January 2020, the FTC sent letters to
19 providers regarding their possible involvement in ``assisting and
facilitating'' unlawful robocalls. Data submitted to the Commission
reflect that most of these providers appear to fall under the
Commission definition of ``small voice service provider.'' Of the 19
providers that received letters, five submitted FCC Form 477, and of
those five, only one had more than 100,000 access lines. Sixteen of the
providers that received a January 2020 FTC letter also submitted an FCC
Form 499. These forms, on average, showed end-user revenues of
approximately $3.4 million, indicating that most of these 16 providers
had fewer than 100,000 lines. (A provider with $3.4 million in revenue
would be realizing just $2.83 in revenue per month per subscriber if it
had exactly 100,000 subscribers. Because we believe $2.83 to be
unrealistically low, we think it reasonable to infer that these
providers, on average, have fewer than 100,000 subscribers and a higher
revenue per subscriber.) This additional information supports our
proposed conclusion that a subset of small voice service providers are
at heightened risk of disproportionately originating robocalls. We seek
comment on the data and assumptions underlying this conclusion.
Specifically, we seek comment on whether we can rely on FCC Form 477
line count data to determine whether providers fall within our 100,000
line small voice service provider definition and whether it is
reasonable to conclude that FCC Form 499 revenue data is predictive of
provider line counts. Are there other data we should consider?
11. We also seek comment on whether the proportion of robocall
traffic originated by small voice service providers has increased since
the adoption of the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order
and, if so, whether it is because larger voice service providers are
implementing STIR/SHAKEN in anticipation of the June 30, 2021,
deadline, leading callers originating unlawful robocalls to migrate to
different networks. Several larger voice service providers have
recently submitted statements that they are in the process of
implementing, or have already implemented, STIR/SHAKEN in the IP
portions of their networks. Is the portion of robocall traffic
attributable to small voice service providers likely to increase
further as larger voice service providers complete STIR/SHAKEN
implementation?
12. Consumer complaints received by the Commission make clear that
unwanted robocalls remain a vexing problem. We invite commenters to
provide other information about trends in illegal robocalls. We also
seek comment on the effect that the Commission's efforts have had on
illegal robocalling in general and, specifically, on illegal robocalls
originated by small voice service providers. The available evidence
indicates that, at least in part due to the TRACED Act and Commission
action, the percentage of STIR/SHAKEN-attested traffic has increased,
with Transaction Network Services estimating that it had increased from
21 percent in January 2020 to 35 percent in December 2020. We seek
comment on these data and trends in STIR/SHAKEN deployment,
particularly among small voice service providers.

B. Proposed Curtailment of Extension for Small Voice Service Providers
That Originate an Especially Large Amount of Traffic

13. In light of the foregoing data and additional time to consider
USTelecom's submission, we propose shortening the small voice service
provider extension for small voice service providers that originate an
especially large amount of calls. (As discussed below, we propose only
to shorten the small voice service provider extension, and not the
other extensions the Commission previously granted that could also
apply to certain small voice service providers. See infra para. 19.) We
seek comment on this proposal.
14. Although the Commission previously found that a two-year
blanket extension for all small voice service providers was reasonable
in part because they only serve a small percentage of subscribers, we
propose revisiting this conclusion and determining that it is not a
sufficient basis for continuing to provide a two-year extension for all
such providers. We seek comment on this proposal. In particular, given
the evidence indicating a subset of small voice service providers are
at heightened risk of originating a significant percentage of illegal
robocalls, in our preliminary view, a small quantity of subscribers
should not alone be a sufficient basis for a two-year extension for all
small voice service

[[Page 30574]]

providers. We seek comment on this view.
15. We specifically propose shortening the extension for small
voice service providers that originate an especially large amount of
traffic, and we seek comment on this proposal. We believe such
providers are more likely to originate unlawful robocalls because, to
originate large-scale robocall campaigns, it is necessary to originate
a large number of calls. Further, we anticipate that rapid STIR/SHAKEN
implementation by those small voice service providers that originate
the most traffic is likely to be more beneficial than faster
implementation by small voice service providers that originate fewer
calls because providers that originate more traffic will authenticate
more calls. In addition, in our preliminary view it is appropriate to
tailor our alteration of the extension as narrowly as possible to those
small voice service providers most likely to originate unlawful
robocalls to avoid unnecessarily burdening small providers. We seek
comment on this initial analysis. Are there additional reasons to
curtail the extension specifically for small voice service providers
that originate an especially large amount of traffic? Are there reasons
that shortening the extension for this specific subset of small voice
service providers would be especially harmful? Should we curtail the
extension for different or additional subsets of small voice service
providers?
16. To what degree would hastening STIR/SHAKEN implementation
reduce unlawful robocalls, and how much would Americans benefit? When
the Commission adopted the STIR/SHAKEN implementation mandate, it
estimated the benefits would exceed $13.5 billion per year and noted a
host of specific benefits to consumers, providers, and the government.
The data above indicate that much of this benefit will not be realized
if the subset of small voice service providers that are most likely to
originate robocalls does not implement STIR/SHAKEN. We believe that
such a significant public benefit justifies shortening the extension
for this subset of small voice service providers under the TRACED Act's
balancing test. We seek comment on the size of the benefit that will
result from shortening the extension for such providers and our
conclusion that the benefit justifies a shortened extension pursuant to
the TRACED Act. We note that several third-party robocall monitoring
and protection services believe there will be a substantial benefit to
accelerating small voice service providers' STIR/SHAKEN implementation.
For example, in its March 2021 report, Transaction Network Services
argues that, given their disproportionate role originating robocalls,
small voice service providers need to implement STIR/SHAKEN for the
Commission's rules ``to have a significant impact.'' Similarly,
Robokiller, a spam call and protection service, concluded in a February
2021 report that because ``smaller carriers have exemptions lasting . .
. until 2023 . . . [w]ithout a unified front from all carriers, STIR/
SHAKEN cannot be completely effective.'' We seek comment on these
assertions.
17. We also seek comment on the burdens and barriers of
implementing STIR/SHAKEN for the subset of small voice service
providers for which we propose shortening the extension. Do these small
voice service providers face less hardship to implement STIR/SHAKEN
than other small voice service providers? Have implementation costs
declined as more providers and vendors develop solutions to meet our
June 30, 2021 deadline for larger voice service providers? Is
accelerated implementation feasible? Are many small voice service
providers already implementing STIR/SHAKEN even though the deadline is
not until June 30, 2023? As of April 2021, 154 providers have obtained
certificates from the Secure Telephone Identity Governance Authority
(STI-GA), allowing them to participate in the exchange of authenticated
traffic with other providers. Does this number of providers with
certificates suggest that some small voice service providers have begun
the process of STIR/SHAKEN implementation? From 2014-2018, providers
that make the initial long-distance call path choice for more than
100,000 domestic retail subscriber lines were obligated to file rural
call completion reports, and 55 providers filed such reports in 2017,
implying that approximately 100 providers with fewer than 100,000 lines
have already obtained certificates from the STI-GA. To what extent did
small voice service providers rely on a two-year extension in planning
their network costs, and would shortening the extension unduly harm
their reliance interests? Should we permit the full two year extension
for any voice service provider in the subset who can document
substantial reliance? What specific actions might qualify as reliance
that should factor into our decision? We anticipate that reliance
interests may be minimal because small voice service providers were put
on notice that we might revisit USTelecom's proposal at a later time,
and we seek comment on this opinion. Do any identified burdens outweigh
the benefits associated with requiring a subset of small voice service
providers that is particularly likely to originate unlawful robocalls
to implement STIR/SHAKEN more rapidly?
18. What costs would small voice service providers generally, and
those specifically that originate an especially large amount of
traffic, incur by accelerating their deployment to meet a deadline
prior to June 30, 2023? USTelecom argues that small voice service
providers that originate a ``disproportionate'' amount of traffic ``are
unlikely to have the same resource constraints the Commission cited''
in adopting the two-year small voice service provider extension. We
seek comment on this assertion. For example, do small voice service
providers that originate an especially large amount of traffic have
equipment that is generally newer and able to handle greater traffic
volumes and, therefore, will likely require fewer resources to
implement STIR/SHAKEN? Are their networks more streamlined and
therefore do not require the time and effort to implement STIR/SHAKEN
across multiple IP architectures? Would such providers spread their
STIR/SHAKEN implementation costs over fewer pieces of equipment per
dollar of revenue?
19. We propose curtailing only the small voice service provider
extension for entities that originate a substantial amount of traffic
and not shortening or eliminating any other extensions that the
Commission adopted. We seek comment on this proposal. In our
preliminary view, this approach is appropriate because it avoids
imposing burdens on this subset of small voice service providers
greater than the burdens we impose on the largest voice service
providers. The TRACED Act directs that we ``shall grant'' an extension
to a voice service provider that materially relies on a non-IP network
and the extension must extend ``until a call authentication protocol
has been developed for calls delivered over non-internet protocol
networks and is reasonably available.'' Because we have not yet made
such a finding, we cannot curtail the non-IP network extension.

C. Defining Small Voice Service Providers That are Most Likely To Be
the Source of Unlawful Robocalls

20. We seek comment on how to define small voice service providers
that originate an especially large amount of calls and thus are at
heightened risk of being a source of unlawful robocalls. In considering
possible definitions, we seek to identify one or more definitional
prongs that most accurately identify, in

[[Page 30575]]

an administrable manner, those small voice service providers most
likely to originate a significant quantity of unlawful robocalls. For
each possible definitional criterion for which we seek comment below,
we seek comment on whether it should be the sole definition or whether
it should be one of multiple prongs of a definition. If we employ
multiple prongs in our definition, we seek comment on whether a small
voice service provider that meets any of multiple prongs should be
excluded from the full extension (i.e., we would use ``or'' between
multiple prongs), or whether only a small voice service provider that
meets all of the prongs should be excluded from the full extension
(i.e., we would use ``and'' between multiple prongs).
21. Originates a Significant Number of Calls Per Day for Any Single
Line on Average. We seek comment on whether we should exclude from the
full extension a small voice service provider that originates an
unusually high number of calls per day on a single line. For example,
USTelecom proposes that we exclude from the full extension a small
voice service provider that originates more than 500 calls per day for
any single line in the normal course of business. We seek comment on
this suggestion and potential alternatives. Is a high volume of traffic
originating from a single line evidence of a heightened risk that a
provider is likely to be originating a high volume of unlawful
robocalls? Do small voice service providers' customers often originate
lawful calls at such a high volume from a single line?
22. If we were to set a numerical threshold, we seek comment on
whether the appropriate numerical call threshold is 500 calls per day
or another numerical threshold. USTelecom argues that its 500 call
threshold is meant to distinguish between ``the number of calls that a
particularly prolific subscriber could make in a given day and more
automated technology'' indicative of illegal robocalling. Does a 500
call per day threshold accurately capture this dividing line? Would an
alternative call threshold better identify those voice service
providers most likely to be the source of unlawful robocalls? For
example, would a 1,000 calls-per-day threshold ensure that small voice
service providers unlikely to be the source of unlawful robocalls would
continue to benefit from a two-year extension? Would a lower threshold
of, for example, 250 calls ensure that we capture all small voice
service providers that are likely to originate a significant number of
illegal robocalls?
23. We propose that if we adopt a definition based on calls per day
for a single line, we would employ the term ``on average'' rather than
``in the normal course of business'' because we preliminarily believe
the former is more precise. We seek comment on this view and on the
meaning of ``in the normal course of business.'' We seek comment on how
we should measure the calls per day on average. Over what period would
we require small voice service providers to calculate the average?
Should the average be based on sporadic samples or a single continuous
period? Should we exclude certain time periods, such as weekends or
holidays? Instead of average calls per day, should we examine the
median number of calls each day over a particular period? What are the
advantages and disadvantages of each approach?
24. Instead of examining the average number of calls over time,
should we look at small voice service providers that reach a call
threshold on a single line on a single day? Would this approach provide
additional certainty and reduce the possibility for gaming? Rather than
looking at the average number of calls on a single line, should we look
at an average--or other measures--across a larger number of lines? If
so, what call volume metric should we use and why? For example, could
we look at the number of calls per line averaged over all lines or
those lines with more originating than terminating calls? Would an
approach that focuses on the number of calls averaged over multiple
lines be less likely to be subject to manipulation than a test that
looks at the total number of calls over a single line? We also seek
comment on whether any threshold we adopt for a shortened extension
that relies on ``lines'' or ``subscriber lines'' needs to take into
account the current real-world understanding of those terms for voice
service providers, particularly VoIP providers not serving end-users
over their own or leased last-mile facilities. Do these providers'
understanding of ``lines'' differ from how we have traditionally
measured ``lines'' and ``voice subscriber lines?'' If so, how should
this understanding affect any calls-per-line threshold we adopt?
25. If we adopt a numerical threshold of calls, we seek comment on
whether we should exclude calls from certain entities that have a valid
business reason to make a large number of calls, so that certain calls
would not count toward any numerical threshold we establish. For
example, should we exempt calls from doctor's offices, schools, or
businesses such as insurance companies? Would a small voice service
provider be able to determine whether its customer fell within any of
the categories we adopt? We also seek comment on whether we should
exempt from the threshold calls that fall under an exemption pursuant
to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). We seek
comment on whether calls that meet some or all of the TCPA exemptions
should not count against any numerical call threshold we adopt. Are the
interests served by the TCPA exemptions the same as or similar to the
interests served by exempting such calls from the call threshold?
26. Receives More than Half Its Revenues from Customers Purchasing
Non-Mass Market Services. We seek comment on whether we should shorten
the extension for small voice service providers that receive more than
half their revenue from customers purchasing services that are not
mass-market services, as suggested by USTelecom. Do commenters agree
that the proportion of revenue from non-mass market services is a good
proxy for identifying small voice service providers that are likely to
originate an especially large amount of traffic and, therefore, likely
to originate unlawful robocalls? USTelecom argues that its proposal was
``intended to be narrow and capture those providers who target
enterprise and other non-consumer customers as a key part of their
business.'' This approach assumes that small voice service providers
that mostly sell specialized services, and especially business
services, are more likely to originate an especially large amount of
traffic and thus are at greater risk of originating a high volume of
unlawful robocalls. Do commenters agree with this assumption?
27. We seek comment on how to measure revenue. Should we measure
only revenue attributable to voice service, revenue from all
telecommunications and information services, including wholesale
services, or some other combination? If only revenue attributable to
voice service, should we measure certain sub-categories of voice
service such as interstate, international, or toll? Are robocalls
likely to originate out of state and, if so, should we exclude
intrastate revenue if such revenue is unlikely to be associated with
illegal robocalling?
28. We seek comment on whether half of revenue is an appropriate
dividing line. For example, should we adopt a 75 percent non-mass
market revenue threshold? Would such a threshold better balance the
interest in shortening the extension for those voice service providers
most likely to initiate

[[Page 30576]]

unlawful robocalls with the harm of shortening the extension for those
providers least likely to do so? Would a lower enterprise revenue
threshold such as 25 percent ensure we capture all small voice service
providers likely to originate a large number of illegal robocalls while
placing a limited burden on other small voice service providers?
29. In determining a voice service provider's share of non-mass
market revenue, we seek comment on whether it would be more appropriate
to measure revenue from non-mass market customers, non-mass market
services, or a combination of the two. For example, should we only
measure revenue from non-mass market services attributable to non-mass-
market customers or attributable to all customers? The Second Caller ID
Authentication Report and Order barred voice service providers from
imposing line item charges for STIR/SHAKEN implementation on ``consumer
subscribers'' (defined as ``residential mass-market subscribers'') and
``small business customer subscribers.'' In doing so, it defined mass
market services as ``services marketed and sold on a standardized basis
to residential customers, small businesses and other end-user
customers.'' Should we adopt these definitions to measure mass market
revenue so that if a small voice service provider's mass-market revenue
was less than 50 percent of total revenue, it would meet our proposed
revenue criterion? Should we instead adopt a slightly different
definition of mass-market customer or service from proceedings where we
examined voice product markets? Would another definition be
appropriate?
30. Other Alternative or Additional Criteria. We also seek comment
on adopting criteria other than, or in addition to, calls per line and/
or revenue to determine when a small voice service provider is
particularly likely to be the source of unlawful robocalls. Should we
shorten the extension for those small voice service providers that
offer certain service features to customers commonly used for unlawful
robocalls, such as the ability to display any number in the called
party's caller ID, or to upload and broadcast a prerecorded message?
Should we shorten the extension for small voice service providers that
offer specific implementations of customized caller ID display, such as
area code or neighborhood spoofing (i.e., spoofing the area code or NXX
of the called party)? Should we curtail the extension for those small
voice service providers that offer customers autodialing functionality
or whose call durations are very short? If so, what should that
duration be? (For example, ZipDX argues that if originating call
duration is less than 120 seconds on average, 15 percent of calls are
less than 30 seconds and 50 percent of calls are less than 60 seconds,
it is likely that such traffic is coming from an autodialer, and
asserts that ``[t]he legitimate situations where auto-dialed calls
would come from foreign sources using USA telephone numbers'' are
limited.)
31. Is the relative proportion of originating to terminating
traffic, and not just the absolute level of originating traffic,
relevant to whether a voice service provider is likely to be
originating unlawful robocalls? If so, should we shorten the extension
for small voice service providers that have a certain ratio of
originating to terminating traffic? If so, what should that ratio be?
32. Are ``all-IP'' small voice service providers more likely to be
the source of unwanted robocalls? If so, should we curtail the
extension for all-IP small voice service providers, particularly if
their STIR/SHAKEN implementation costs are lower? How would we define
``all-IP'' under this approach? How should we prevent voice service
providers from gaming such a definition by retaining a small TDM
network or a TDM network element?
33. Should we shorten the extension for possible or actual
violations of our rules or the law? How would we implement such a
standard during the pendency of the extension period? Should we curtail
the extension for any small voice service providers on the red-light
list, which lists entities that are delinquent in debts owed to the
Commission? Should we curtail the extension for small voice service
providers subject to a federal agency action or letter related to the
origination or transmission of unlawful calls? For example, should we
authorize the Enforcement Bureau to curtail the extension for small
voice service providers it notifies of illegal traffic under our rules?
The two-year extension relates to the duties of voice service providers
as the originators of traffic, but a number of providers have been
subject to inquiries and enforcement actions in their role as gateway
or intermediate providers. We seek comment on whether these kinds of
inquiries and enforcement actions should bear on a small voice service
provider's extension length, and whether that should extend to
enforcement associated with traffic the provider merely transmitted and
did not originate. Should we shorten the extension for those small
voice service providers that the Commission, in consultation with the
Industry Traceback Group, has determined are ``uncooperative'' or
subject to a certain threshold number of traceback requests? How would
we implement such an approach? For example, should the Industry
Traceback Group provide the Commission with a list of providers that
meet this criterion by a date certain?
34. Are voice service providers with a higher revenue per customer
more likely to be the source of unlawful robocalls? If so, should we
adopt a definition, or a prong of a definition, based on revenue per
customer? If so, what should the threshold be? Should we examine small
voice service providers with relatively high percentages of revenue in
certain categories on their FCC Form 499 or similar submissions to the
Commission? Are high levels of interstate, international, or toll
revenue compared to total revenues indicative of small voice service
providers likely to be the source of unlawful robocalls?
35. Should a certain class or classes of voice service providers
that are unlikely to originate robocalls retain the two-year extension
while we eliminate the extension for all other classes? For example,
should only small voice service providers that are also rural local
exchange carriers retain a two year extension on the basis that such
providers are ``generally not involved in illegal robocalling?'' Should
only those rural local exchange carriers that do not offer services
typically used by illegal robocallers retain a two-year extension? Are
there other classes of providers that are unlikely to originate illegal
robocalls and should therefore retain a two-year extension? For
example, are providers that offer voice service over physical lines to
end-user customers less likely to engage in illegal robocalling and if
so, should they retain the two-year extension?
36. We seek comment generally on whether small voice service
providers track the information for the definitional criteria that we
may adopt. For example, do voice service providers retain and track
revenue and calls-per-line data? Can the Commission rely on data voice
service providers track and submit for other purposes? Could we rely on
revenue data from FCC Form 499 and line count information from FCC Form
477 to measure revenue or line-count-related criteria by market
segment? If voice service providers do not track data necessary to
determine whether they fall within the criteria we adopt, would it be
overly burdensome for them to begin to track this data solely for the
purpose of

[[Page 30577]]

determining whether they qualify for a one or two-year extension?
37. Examination Period. We propose that any criteria we adopt would
apply to small voice service provider operations prior to the effective
date of our Order released pursuant to this Further Notice. For
example, if we adopted a criterion based on the number of calls per
line, the relevant time period to determine if the call threshold is
met would be the number of calls per line during a period prior to the
effective date of such Order. We seek comment on this general approach
and what the relevant period should be. For example, should we look at
voice service provider operations in the 120 days prior to the date the
Order is adopted? Would such an approach give small voice service
providers sufficient time to gather the necessary information and
ensure that a sufficiently representative sample of these providers'
operations are examined? Would another time period be more appropriate?
Would tying the relevant time period to the effective date of a later
Order permit small voice service providers to game the rule by
modifying their behavior after release of this Further Notice? Would
such gaming be undesirable if it had the effect that a voice service
provider ceased meeting criteria showing it was likely to be the source
of illegal robocalls?
38. In addition, we propose that small voice service providers that
did not meet the criteria during the examination period would not be
subject to a shortened extension if they meet the criteria at a later
date. We propose this approach given the limited time between any Order
we release subsequent to this Further Notice and the June 30, 2023, end
date of the original two-year extension. We seek comment on this
proposal.

D. Length of Time: One-Year Reduction

39. We propose to shorten the extension for those small voice
service providers that originate an especially large amount of traffic
from two years to one year, with a new compliance deadline of June 30,
2022. We seek comment on this proposal. We seek specific comment on
whether a one-year extension is a ``reasonable period of time'' for
this subset of small voice service providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN
given the ``burdens and barriers to implementation'' that they face and
the likelihood they are the source of illegal robocalls. We anticipate
that a one-year extension balances the public interest in reducing
unlawful calls while allowing affected providers sufficient time to
implement STIR/SHAKEN. For example, we note above that affected
providers may have a lower burden to implement STIR/SHAKEN than other
small voice service providers. If so, do such providers face less
hardship than other small voice service providers? Even if they do not
have a lower burden, do the significant benefits of requiring those
small voice service providers most likely to be responsible for illegal
robocalls to comply with STIR/SHAKEN mean that a one-year extension for
those providers is nevertheless a ``reasonable period of time''?
40. Should we reduce the extension by more or less than our
proposal? Would a shorter reduction in the extension (e.g., January 1,
2023) still provide a material benefit in the form of reduced illegal
robocalls compared to the current two-year extension? Would a greater
reduction in the extension (e.g., a compliance deadline of January 1,
2022) be practical, given the timing of any subsequent Order? Would it
unduly impact affected providers' reliance interests? Does the fact
that affected providers could seek a waiver if they meet the
Commission's waiver standard ameliorate any identified concerns about
whatever implementation deadline we adopt? (The Commission may exercise
its discretion to waive a rule where the particular facts at issue make
strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest. In considering
whether to grant a waiver, the Commission may take into account
considerations of hardship, equity, or more effective implementation of
overall policy on an individual basis.) Should we direct the Wireline
Competition Bureau to rule on any waiver request within 90 days of
submission to address these concerns and any potential reliance
interests?
41. We also seek comment on alternative approaches to altering the
extension period. For example, instead of measuring the reduction
against the June 30, 2021, compliance deadline, should we set the new
compliance deadline to a certain interval following the effective date
of any Order released pursuant to this Further Notice? Under this
approach, affected small voice service providers would be required to
implement STIR/SHAKEN in the IP portions of their networks a certain
number of days following the Order's effective date. If we adopt this
approach, what should the appropriate interval be? Are there other
approaches we should consider? For example, should we set the end of
the extension for affected providers to the later of (1) a specific
date (e.g., June 30, 2022) or (2) a certain number of days following
the effective date of the Order released pursuant to this Further
Notice? In order to have the maximum effect on illegal robocalls,
should we terminate the extension upon the effective date of any Order
we adopt? Would such an aggressive timeline be impractical or overly
burdensome? How relevant is the timing of the Order to the approach we
choose?

E. Ensuring Compliance

42. We seek comment on how to monitor and evaluate compliance by
the small voice service providers that are subject to the proposed
curtailed extension. In particular, we seek comment on small voice
service providers' duty to notify the Commission of their updated
extension status and whether they should submit data demonstrating that
status.
43. Notification of Extension Status. First, we propose relying on
the current rule requiring voice service providers to update the
Commission on the term and type of their extension and when they have
implemented STIR/SHAKEN. (By June 30, 2021, voice service providers
that have not implemented STIR/SHAKEN must certify whether they are
subject to an extension and state the ``type'' of extension (e.g.,
small voice service provider extension). Voice service providers must
also update their certifications and filings in the FCC's Robocall
Mitigation Database portal within ten business days of any change,
including whether an extension no longer applies.) This rule, by its
terms, would require small voice service providers subject to any
shortened extension we adopt to: (1) Within ten business days of the
effective date of any Order we adopt, update their certifications and
associated filings indicating that they are subject to a shortened
extension; and (2) further update their certifications and associated
filings within ten business days of completion of STIR/SHAKEN
implementation in the IP portions of their networks. Those small voice
service providers not subject to a shortened extension would not have
to update their certifications and associated filings. We seek comment
on this proposal and whether any clarifications to our rules are
necessary. We also seek comment on whether and how we should modify the
existing rule. For example, should we provide more than ten days
following the effective date of any Order we adopt for small voice
service providers subject to a shortened extension to update their
certifications? Should we adopt a mechanism to notify the public of the
results of the certification process? If so, what should that mechanism
be? Are

[[Page 30578]]

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 non-mass 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
4(b)(5)(A)(ii) 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 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 USTelecom's 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 Commission's 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
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 104-13. In
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 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 Presentations--Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding
this Further Notice initiates shall be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 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
presenter's 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 Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In
proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) of the Commission's 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

[[Page 30579]]

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 Commission's ex parte
rules.

Appendix A

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice). The Commission
requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be
identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines
for comments provided on the first page of the Further Notice. The
Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice, including this IRFA,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA). In addition, the Further Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof)
will be published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

2. In order to continue the Commission's work combating illegal
robocalls, the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further
Notice) proposes to accelerate the date by which small voice service
providers that originate an especially large amount of call traffic,
and thus are at particular risk of originating unlawful robocalls, must
implement STIR/SHAKEN. The Further Notice proposes finding that
shortening the extension is necessary because a subset of small voice
service providers originate a disproportionate amount of robocalls and
seeks comment on how to define this scope of entities. The Further
Notice proposes shortening the STIR/SHAKEN implementation extension
from two years to one year for such entities. The Further Notice seeks
comment on these proposals, and whether we should modify existing rules
or adopt new rules to monitor compliance.

B. Legal Basis

3. The Further Notice proposes to find authority for the proposed
rules under section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the TRACED Act. Section
4(b)(5)(A)(ii) 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 small provider extension we now propose to curtail, but did not
explicitly interpret the meaning of the term ``reasonable'' in the
context of that extension. The Further Notice proposes concluding that,
under the TRACED Act, ``reasonable'' means that in determining the
length of any extension, we must balance the hardship faced by a
provider or class of providers with the benefit of implementing STIR/
SHAKEN expeditiously; and that, consequently, we have the authority to
grant a shorter extension for providers that we believe present a
higher risk of originating illegal robocalls, and seeks comment on this
interpretation.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules and by the rule revisions on which the
Notice seeks comment, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small-business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
1. Wireline Carriers
5. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services,
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite television distribution services
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in
this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such
companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for
2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered
small.
6. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS
Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under the
applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there
were 3,117 firms that operated for the entire year. Of that total,
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus under this
category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates
that the majority of local exchange carriers are small entities.
7. Incumbent LECs. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed
a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local
exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under the applicable SBA size standard,
such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated the
entire year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers
of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be
affected by our actions. According to Commission data, one thousand
three hundred and seven (1,307) Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers
reported that they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of
this total, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Thus,
using the SBA's size standard the majority of incumbent LECs can be
considered small entities.
8. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these
service providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired
Telecommunications Carriers and under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms

[[Page 30580]]

operated during that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer
than 1,000 employees. Based on these data, the Commission concludes
that the majority of Competitive LECS, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers, are small entities.
According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were
engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange services
or competitive access provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an
estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers
have reported that they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17
are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 carriers have
reported that they are Other Local Service Providers. Of this total, 70
have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, based on internally
researched FCC data, the Commission estimates that most providers of
competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers,
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are
small entities.
9. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA
analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one
that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small-business size standard
(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer
employees) and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's
Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent
LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such
dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore included
small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that
this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations
in other, non-RFA contexts.
10. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
Interexchange Carriers. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The applicable size standard under
SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms
operated for the entire year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer
than 1,000 employees. According to internally developed Commission
data, 359 companies reported that their primary telecommunications
service activity was the provision of interexchange services. Of this
total, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that the majority of interexchange service
providers are small entities.
11. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that,
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than
one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in
the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' As of 2018, there were
approximately 50,504,624 cable video subscribers in the United States.
Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 505,046 subscribers shall
be deemed a small operator if its annual revenues, when combined with
the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250
million in the aggregate. We note that the Commission neither requests
nor collects information on whether cable system operators are
affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250
million. Therefore we are unable at this time to estimate with greater
precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as
small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.
2. Wireless Carriers
12. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms employed fewer
than 1,000 employees and 12 firms employed of 1000 employees or more.
Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications
carriers (except satellite) are small entities.
13. The Commission's own data--available in its Universal Licensing
System--indicate that, as of August 31, 2018 there are 265 Cellular
licensees that will be affected by our actions. The Commission does not
know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission does not
collect that information for these types of entities. Similarly,
according to internally developed Commission data, 413 carriers
reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony,
including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of this total, an
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have more than
1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the
majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
14. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth
station operators. The category has a small business size standard of
$35 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For
this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a
total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total,
299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently,
we estimate that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers
are small entities.
3. Resellers
15. Local Resellers. The SBA has not developed a small business
size standard specifically for Local Resellers. The SBA category of
Telecommunications Resellers is the closest NAICs code category for
local resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises
establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from
owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired
and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to
businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell
telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included
in this industry. Under the SBA's size standard, such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data from
2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year.
Of that number, all

[[Page 30581]]

operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and
the associated small business size standard, the majority of these
resellers can be considered small entities. According to Commission
data, 213 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision
of local resale services. Of these, an estimated 211 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that the majority of local resellers are small
entities.
16. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition
for Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS Code Category is
Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry
comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network
capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and
reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except
satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission
facilities and infrastructure. MVNOs are included in this industry. The
SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of
Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 2012 Census Bureau data
show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of
that number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus,
under this category and the associated small business size standard,
the majority of these resellers can be considered small entities.
According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported that they are
engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of this total, an
estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small
entities.
17. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business definition specifically for prepaid
calling card providers. The most appropriate NAICS code-based category
for defining prepaid calling card providers is Telecommunications
Resellers. This industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing
access and network capacity from owners and operators of
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications;
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile
virtual networks operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. Under
the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that
1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number,
1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this
category and the associated small business size standard, the majority
of these prepaid calling card providers can be considered small
entities. According to Commission data, 193 carriers have reported that
they are engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. All 193
carriers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of prepaid calling card providers are small
entities that may be affected by these rules.
4. Other Entities
18. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other
Telecommunications'' category is comprised of establishments primarily
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as
satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station
operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged
in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of
transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications
from, satellite systems. Establishments providing internet services or
voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The
SBA has developed a small business size standard for ``All Other
Telecommunications'', which consists of all such firms with annual
receipts of $35 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau
data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the
entire year. Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual receipts less
than $25 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to
$49,999,999. Thus, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All
Other Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected by our action can
be considered small.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

19. The Further Notice proposes shortening the extension for small
voice service providers that originate an especially large amount of
traffic from two years to one year, which would result in a new
compliance deadline for small providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN by
June 1, 2022. The Further Notice also proposes to rely on the
Commission's existing rule that would require small voice service
providers subject to a shortened extension to (1) within ten business
days of the effective date of any Order we adopt, update their
certifications and associated filings indicating that they are subject
to a shortened extension; and (2) further update their certifications
and associated filings within ten business days of completion of STIR/
SHAKEN implementation in the IP portions of their networks. We seek
comment on these proposals and whether we should adopt alternate
requirements to monitor compliance.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

20. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements under the rules for such small
entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and
(4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for
such small entities.
21. We seek comment on our proposal in the Further Notice to
shorten the extension for small voice service providers that originate
an especially large amount of call traffic and whether our proposed
rules would impact such voice service providers; and on proposals to
lessen that impact, including by modifying the terms of this curtailed
compliance. The Further Notice further seeks comment on ways to ease
compliance with monitoring requirements, including by relying on
existing rules and data collection requirements. We expect to take into
account the economic impact on small entities, as identified in
comments filed in response to the Further Notice and this IRFA, in
reaching our final conclusions and promulgating rules in this
proceeding.

[[Page 30582]]

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules

22. None.

V. Ordering Clauses

23. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j),
and 227b of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
154(i), 154(j), and 227b, that this Third Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is adopted.
24. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference information Center, shall send a
copy of this Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-12007 Filed 6-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on June 9, 2021.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.