Rule2022-01244
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
January 25, 2022
Effective
February 24, 2022
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Commission takes action to further combat illegally spoofed robocalls by accelerating the date by which small voice service providers that are most likely to be the source of illegal robocalls must implement the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 16 (Tuesday, January 25, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 25, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3684-3693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01244]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[WC Docket No. 17-97; FCC 21-122, FR ID 63445]
Call Authentication Trust Anchor
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission takes action to further
combat illegally spoofed robocalls by accelerating the date by which
small voice service providers that are most likely to be the source of
illegal robocalls must implement the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID
authentication framework.
DATES: This rule is effective February 24, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Lechter, Competition Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-0984,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8be1e4e5eaffe3eae5a5e7eee8e3ffeef9cbede8e8a5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ef8580818e9b878e81c1838a8c879b8a9daf898c8cc1888099">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fourth
Report and Order in WC Docket No. 17-97, adopted on December 9, 2021,
and released on December 10, 2021. The document is available for
download at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-122A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-122A1.pdf</a>.
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#662025255356522600050548010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="12545151272226527471713c757d64">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at
202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Synopsis
I. Fourth Report and Order
1. In light of the overwhelming record support and available
evidence showing that non-facilities-based small voice service
providers are originating a large and disproportionate amount of
robocalls, we require this subset of providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN
a year sooner than previously required, while maintaining the full
extension for those small voice service providers that are facilities-
based. We further require any small voice service providers that the
Enforcement Bureau suspects of originating illegal robocalls and that
fails to mitigate such traffic upon Bureau notice or otherwise fails to
meet its burden under Sec. 64.1200(n)(2) of our rules, to implement
STIR/SHAKEN within 90 days of that determination unless sooner
implementation is otherwise required. Through this action, we close a
gap in our current STIR/SHAKEN regime and, by targeting those providers
most likely to be involved in illegal robocalling, we reap a
substantial portion of the benefits offered by STIR/SHAKEN to
Americans.
A. Basis for Shortening Extension for a Subset of Small Voice Service
Providers
2. We find that a subset of small voice service providers
constitute a large and increasing source of illegal robocalls and
should therefore be subject to a shortened extension. In the Caller ID
Authentication Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Small
Provider FNPRM) (86 FR 30571 (June 9, 2021)), we proposed supporting
this conclusion on the basis of evidence reflecting that small voice
service providers are responsible for a substantial portion of the
illegal robocall problem. Transaction Network Services (TNS), a call
analytics provider, asserted in a March 2021 report that given their
disproportionate role originating robocalls, small voice service
providers need to implement STIR/SHAKEN for the Commissions' 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.'' The Commission's analysis indicates that small
providers are a substantial part of the problem. In the Small Provider
FNPRM, we explained that we had reason to believe just one of the 19
providers that received letters from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
in January 2020 for facilitating robocalls had more than 100,000 access
lines.
3. No commenter disputed this evidence, and additional evidence
indicating that some small voice service providers now are a major
source of illegal robocalls supports this view. TNS released a follow-
up report in September 2021, stating that ``only 4% of the high-risk
calls in 1H2021 originated from the top six carriers . . . [reflecting]
a significant drop from 11% in 2019 and down from 6% in 2020.'' It
concludes that the small provider
[[Page 3685]]
extension ``has likely resulted in the increase of unwanted [voice over
internet protocol] VoIP calls'' and, in the comments, argues that
``problematic robocalls increasingly are shifting to small carrier
networks . . . [a]s large carriers continue to implement STIR/SHAKEN.''
No commenter disputed these conclusions or offered competing evidence
suggesting a different conclusion.
4. We draw further support for our conclusion from the near-
unanimous consensus in the record for shortening the STIR/SHAKEN
extension for the subset of small voice service providers most
responsible for illegally spoofed robocalls in order to better protect
Americans. For example, the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA)
argued that the ``Commission has reasonably proposed that the subset of
small providers . . . responsible for a disproportionate amount of
unlawful robocalls should not continue to benefit from the . . .
extension.'' Similarly, TNS ``supports the Commission's proposal to
accelerate the deployment deadline'' for ``those types of providers
that are most closely associated with originating problematic calls.''
INCOMPAS agrees that ``[a]s the Commission indicates, it is a `subset'
of small voice service providers that are at a heightened risk of
originating a significant percentage of illegal robocalls,'' that
should be subject to a ``curtailment of the compliance extension.''
Others agreed the Commission should take action, and that the benefits
of doing so will outweigh the costs. These comments underscore our
conclusion that the benefits of a shortened extension for those
providers at greatest risk of originating illegal robocalls far
outweigh the costs of such action.
5. We therefore reject WTA-Advocates for Rural Broadband's (WTA)
assertion that we should not place additional obligations on a subset
of small voice service providers likely to be the source of illegal
robocalls. WTA argues that doing so is ``premature'' and would lead to
``uncertaint[y].'' However, in a comment in response to the Wireline
Competition Bureau (WCB) Extension Public Notice (PN) (86 FR 56705
(Oct. 12, 2021)) submitted after the comment cycle in the Small
Provider FNPRM closed, WTA expressed support for retaining the
extension for at least facilities-based providers but eliminating it
for bad actors. We disagree. Many voice service providers have invested
significant resources implementing STIR/SHAKEN, a technology that, when
widely deployed, will offer substantial benefits to Americans by
combating illegally spoofed calls. Implementation gaps undermine its
effectiveness, however, especially when providers most likely to be the
source of illegal robocalls are not participating in the framework. As
Robokiller notes, the trends in illegal robocalls have not markedly
improved, counseling against further delays. Indeed, the North American
Numbering Council (NANC) recently explained that the failure of small
voice service providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN ``negatively impacts
the broader service provider ecosystem.'' Finally, we find that the
clear rule we adopt today gives potentially-affected providers
certainty as to their STIR/SHAKEN obligations.
B. Scope of Providers Subject to Shortened Extension
6. As detailed below, we require two categories of small voice
service providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN before the June 30, 2023,
extended implementation deadline: (1) Non-facilities-based providers,
and (2) those providers that the Enforcement Bureau determined has,
upon notice to a provider, failed to: Mitigate suspected illegal
robocall traffic, provide information requested by the Enforcement
Bureau, including credible evidence that they are in fact not
originating such traffic, respond in a timely manner, or violated Sec.
64.1200(n)(2) of the Commission's rules. In the Small Provider FNPRM,
we proposed to shorten the extension for small voice service providers
that ``originate an especially large amount of calls'' and therefore,
we asserted, ``were at a heightened risk of being a source of unlawful
calls.'' We sought comment on whether we should shorten the extension
for providers that meet certain outgoing call thresholds or, as a proxy
for originating a significant number of calls, meet a certain
percentage of revenue by market segment. We also sought comment on
alternative criteria for determining whether a provider is likely at a
heightened risk of originating robocalls, including whether a provider
does not offer voice service over physical lines to end-user customers
or has violated our rules. After review of the record, we conclude that
subjecting small voice service providers that do not offer voice
service over physical lines to end-users or that have violated certain
rules to a hastened STIR/SHAKEN implementation deadline will best
protect Americans from illegal robocalls.
1. Non-Facilities-Based Small Voice Providers
7. We conclude that non-facilities-based small voice service
providers are at a higher risk of originating illegal robocalls than
other small voice service providers and should be subject to an
accelerated STIR/SHAKEN implementation deadline. ACA Connects observes,
based on its review of ``information that is publicly available . . .
voice providers targeted by the Commission recently for facilitating
illegal robocalls'' tend to be non-facilities-based providers. As ZipDX
asserts, most providers originating a large number of robocalls are not
facilities-based. In contrast to ``providers that deploy physical
facilities (`lines') . . . to human end-users,'' ZipDX argues that
there is a ``cottage industry of small VoIP providers'' that focus
their business on calling services associated with illegal robocalls.
Additional information reinforces the near-unanimous consensus in the
record: All but one of the seven interconnected VoIP providers that
both received letters from the Enforcement Bureau or FTC for their
suspected involvement in illegal robocalling and submitted an FCC Form
477 offered VoIP not sold bundled with transmission service.
8. Conversely, the record convinces us that facilities-based small
voice service providers are less likely than non-facilities-based
providers to be the source of illegally spoofed robocalls. USTelecom,
which established the Industry Traceback Group (ITG) that currently
serves as the registered traceback consortium to conduct private-led
traceback efforts, explains that ``[t]racebacks seldom conclude that a
facilities-based provider, whether a large one or small one'' originate
robocalls. We agree with NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association (NTCA)
that ``[t]he risk of illegal robocalls being generated by [facilities-
based] providers . . . would appear relatively low,'' because
facilities-based providers are likely to offer voice and transmission
services, so they are not focused solely on serving customers with
services such as auto-dialing services used for illegal robocalls. In
addition, as WTA notes, small facilities-based providers are ``familiar
with their relatively small group of existing and potential
customers,'' making it ``easy for them to stop, investigate, discourage
or disconnect potential illegal robocallers.''
9. We also find that the burden of STIR/SHAKEN implementation for
non-facilities-based small voice service providers is sufficiently low
to make
[[Page 3686]]
earlier implementation by this subset appropriate in light of the
substantial benefits that will flow from shortening the extension for
these providers. As the NANC recently concluded, ``[i]n general, there
are no significant barriers which prevent universal STIR/SHAKEN
implementation for interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP providers
(regardless of size).'' USTelecom observes that certifications in our
Robocall Mitigation Database reflect that a substantial number of non-
facilities-based small voice service providers have already partially
or completely implemented the STIR/SHAKEN framework. This record
evidence and conclusion corroborates the Commission's own data, which
shows that non-facilities-based providers have been able to deploy
STIR/SHAKEN more quickly than other providers. By cross-referencing FCC
Registration Numbers (FRNs) of FCC Form 477 filers and Robocall
Mitigation Database filers, we estimate that 328 out of 1,768 filers
offer only VoIP voice service not bundled with transmission service. Of
these 328 providers, 106 (32%) report complete STIR/SHAKEN
implementation, 70 (21%) report partial implementation, and 152 (46%)
report no implementation. By comparison, of the 1,440 remaining
providers out of 1,768, 167 (12%) report complete implementation, 309
(21%) report partial implementation and 964 (67%) report no
implementation. We note that it is possible that some providers with
multiple FRNs may report their data differently across both databases.
But there is no reason to believe that this fact would materially
affect the percentages described above.
10. We recognize that not all non-facilities-based small voice
service providers disproportionately originate illegal robocalls, nor
are all voice service providers that disproportionately originate
illegal robocalls non-facilities-based. Nevertheless, based on the
undisputed evidence in the record, we conclude that the approach we
adopt is tailored to identify only those small voice service providers
reasonably likely to be originating illegal robocalls while also
providing significant administrative advantages over alternative
approaches. For this reason, we disagree with the National Consumer Law
Center (NCLC) and Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) who
argued in their comments in response to the WCB Extension PN, filed
after the docket in the Small Provider FNPRM closed, that we should not
adopt a non-facilities-based approach because providers that are not in
fact originating illegal robocalls might face a shortened extension.
For example, as described in more detail below, the bright-line
approach we adopt does not require providers to submit additional
information to show whether they are non-facilities-based. Further, we
note that no commenter has opposed shortening the extension for non-
facilities-based providers, and several specifically supported this
approach or supported retaining the extension for facilities-based
providers.
11. Definition. We define a voice service provider as ``non-
facilities based'' if it offers voice service to end-users solely using
connections that are not sold by the provider or its affiliates. We
adopt this definition for a ``non-facilities-based'' small voice
service provider because it captures those providers that lack
facilities-based voice connections, provides certainty to both affected
voice service providers and the Commission, and has record support.
While many commenters supported shortening the extension for non-
facilities-based providers, ACA Connects suggested as an option the
particular test we adopt here. A voice service provider's voice service
that does not use connections sold by the provider or its affiliates,
by definition, ``rides atop'' another provider's transmission service.
Therefore, such voice service is not offered over the voice service
provider's own facilities. A voice service provider readily knows
whether it is offering voice service that relies on its own (or its
affiliates') facilities or not, and therefore can easily determine
whether it is subject to this definition.
12. This definition also tracks with information collected with
respect to interconnected VoIP providers in the context of our FCC Form
477. In that collection, if a provider offers interconnected VoIP
service, it must separately indicate on FCC Form 477 the number of
interconnected VoIP service subscriptions (1) sold bundled with a
transmission service carrying underlying VoIP service and (2) voice
service not bundled for sale with a transmission service. We agree with
ACA Connects that it is beneficial to examine such data to assist us in
identifying ``non-facilities-based'' providers because it would
``enable the Commission to rely on resources already in its possession
to determine which providers are subject to an earlier deadline and to
track compliance.'' We further find that using FCC Form 477 as a
reference to assist affected interconnected VoIP providers in
determining whether they are subject to a reduced extension will ease
compliance and limit uncertainty for affected small interconnected VoIP
voice service providers. We note that one-way interconnected VoIP
providers are subject to our STIR/SHAKEN rules but are not required to
file FCC Form 477 because they do not fall within the relevant
definition of ``interconnected VoIP,'' and FCC Form 477 data has
traditionally been used for collecting deployment information for
purposes unrelated to STIR/SHAKEN compliance. For these reasons, we
believe an approach that uses FCC Form 477 data as a guide to determine
whether a provider may be non-facilities-based, but not as an automatic
trigger for a shortened extension, is the appropriate use of that data.
13. We decline to adopt NTCA's proposed new definition of
``facilities-based'' voice service provider, a modified version of the
definition of ``facilities-based'' broadband provider in our rules.
NTCA's novel and complex definition would place a higher compliance
obligation on potentially-affected small voice service providers to
determine whether they meet its terms, compared to our more
straightforward definition, and NTCA has not explained why each
component of its complex definition would accurately capture
facilities-based voice service providers. We also decline to adopt ACA
Connects's earlier suggestion that we base our definition on providing
service to a ``relatively well-defined geographic area.'' ACA Connects
does not explain its proposal in sufficient detail to evaluate its
merits. To the extent ACA Connects is proposing to allow a provider to
continue to receive an extension in certain geographic areas and not
others, ACA Connects does not explain, nor can we identify, how to
administer such a patchwork approach. For the same administrability
concerns, we decline to adopt NCLC and EPIC's recommendation in their
comments filed in response to the WCB Extension PN that we retain a
two-year extension for a provider's voice services offered over its own
facilities, while shortening the extension for a provider's voice
services not offered over its own facilities.
14. We likewise decline to adopt NTCA's proposal that we require
providers to file a certification or other additional data to
demonstrate whether they are entitled to a continued extension.
Mandating in this Order that providers certify their compliance would
require further effort on the providers' part and cause non-facilities-
based small voice service providers subject to the shortened timeline
to
[[Page 3687]]
delay their implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN framework while the
Commission seeks approval of the information collection associated with
that certification requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Moreover, relying on submitted data increases transparency and reduces
ambiguity for providers and the Commission, facilitating administration
and enforcement. Providers also have significant experience with filing
FCC Form 477 voice data, increasing the likelihood that the information
submitted is a true reflection of providers' operations. Providers have
been submitting voice data in the same or similar format since at least
2013. While not all VoIP providers are required to file FCC Form 477
(e.g., one-way VoIP providers), we conclude that the burden of
requiring just those providers to submit similar data or certifications
to take the place of FCC Form 477 data would outweigh the benefit of
doing so.
15. New Implementation Deadline. Non-facilities-based small voice
service providers must implement STIR/SHAKEN in the IP portions of
their network by June 30, 2022. We conclude that a one-year curtailment
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 they face and the likelihood they are the
source of illegal robocalls. While we provided all small voice
providers a two-year extension, we believe that this is a reasonable
period for non-facilities-based providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN in
light of recent marketplace progress to increase the availability of
STIR/SHAKEN solutions and subsequent evidence that non-facilities-based
providers are at an increased risk of originating illegal robocalls. We
proposed this timeline in the Small Provider FNPRM. All commenters
addressing the issue expressed support for this approach and none
opposed it.
16. Updating Extension Status. We adopt our proposal in the Small
Provider FNPRM to rely on the current rule requiring voice service
providers to update their filings in the Robocall Mitigation Database.
We conclude that this approach will limit any additional burden on
providers while allowing the Commission to readily track each
providers' extension status. Commenters also supported this approach.
In the Small Provider FNPRM, we explained that the requirement, by its
terms, would require small voice service providers subject to any
shortened extension we adopt to: (1) Within 10 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 10 business days of completion of STIR/SHAKEN
implementation in the IP portions of their networks. Parties supported
this proposal and did not suggest alternatives. Consistent with this
current rule, non-facilities-based small voice service providers must
update the database within 10 business days of the effective date of
this Order to indicate they are no longer subject to a two-year
extension and must implement STIR/SHAKEN by June 30, 2022 in the IP
portions of their networks. For example, a provider could indicate in
its certification that it is subject to a one-year extension for being
a non-facilities-based small voice service provider. These providers,
like other voice service providers, must also update their
certifications and associated filings in the Robocall Mitigation
Database within 10 business days of completion of STIR/SHAKEN
implementation. Below, we make a non-substantive change to conform the
text of the rule (47 CFR 64.6305(b)(5)) to paragraph 85 of the Second
Caller ID Authentication Report and Order (85 FR 73360 (Nov. 17, 2020))
to make clear that providers have the duty to update their STIR/SHAKEN
implementation status.
17. In light of the support for our proposal to update the Robocall
Mitigation Database, we also take this opportunity to revise Sec.
64.6305(b)(5) of our rules to conform its terms with the language of
the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order, which served as
the basis for our proposal. Section 64.6305(b)(5) requires voice
service providers to update their certifications in the Robocall
Mitigation Database when needed for accuracy. The adopted rule refers
to updating the information required by Sec. 64.6305(b)(2)-(4), but it
inadvertently omitted the information that is part of Robocall
Mitigation Database certification listed in Sec. 64.6305(b)(1), which
requires the voice service provider to certify whether it has
completely, partially, or not implemented the STIR/SHAKEN
authentication framework. The adopted rule is inconsistent with the
text of the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order that
requires providers to ``submit to the Commission via the appropriate
portal any necessary updates to the information they filed in the
certification process within 10 business days,'' which includes
information required by paragraph (b)(1). Revised Sec. 64.6305(b)(5)
provides that a voice service provider must update, within 10 busines
days of any change, all information originally submitted with its
certification. We make this revision to align the rule with the text of
the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order without seeking
notice and comment pursuant to section 553(b)(3)(B) of the
Administrative Procedure Act, which states that an agency may dispense
with rulemaking if it finds that notice and comment are
``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.''
Here, notice and comment are not necessary because aligning Sec.
64.6305(b)(5) with the statement of the rule in the Second Caller ID
Authentication Report and Order does not alter the regulatory framework
adopted by the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order.
18. Enforcement. We direct the Wireline Competition Bureau to send
written notice to small voice service providers listed in the Robocall
Mitigation Database (1) for which the most recent FCC Form 477 filing
indicates that it is non-facilities-based and (2) that does not update
its Robocall Mitigation Database certifications in a timely manner to
indicate that it is no longer subject to an extension until June 2023.
The Wireline Competition Bureau will also send written notice to those
providers listed in the Robocall Mitigation Database and that did not
file an FCC Form 477. The written notice shall provide the small voice
service providers an opportunity to explain why they are not subject to
the shortened extension (i.e., they are a facilities-based provider).
If, as a result of its inquiry, the Wireline Competition Bureau
determines that the provider is non-facilities-based, has not complied
with its duty to update its filings in the Robocall Mitigation
Database, has not implemented STIR/SHAKEN by the appropriate deadline
(e.g., June 30, 2022 for non-facilities-based small voice service
providers), or did not respond to the Wireline Competition Bureau's
inquiry, we direct the Wireline Competition Bureau to refer the
provider to the Enforcement Bureau, which may pursue an enforcement
action as appropriate.
2. Small Voice Service Providers Found To Be the Source of Illegal
Robocalls
19. We are also convinced by the record to require small voice
service providers found by the Enforcement Bureau to have failed to,
upon notice: Mitigate suspected illegal robocall traffic, provide
information requested by the Enforcement Bureau, including
[[Page 3688]]
credible evidence that they are in fact not originating such traffic,
respond in a timely manner or failed to meet their burden under Sec.
64.1200(n)(2), to implement STIR/SHAKEN on an accelerated timeline. In
the Small Provider FNPRM, we sought comment on whether to shorten the
extension for those small voice service providers that have committed
``possible or actual violations of our rules or the law,'' and
specifically asked whether we should ``authorize the Enforcement Bureau
to curtail the extension for small voice service providers it notifies
of illegal traffic under our rules.'' There is wide support in the
record for shortening the extension for providers identified as a
source of illegal robocalls. Commenters widely agree that penalizing
perpetrators of illegal robocalls and ensuring that they implement
caller ID authentication more swiftly than would otherwise be required
is warranted. No party opposed shortening the extension for voice
service providers the Enforcement Bureau finds to be a source of
illegal robocalls.
20. We now direct the Enforcement Bureau to require an originating
voice service provider suspected of being the source of illegal
robocalls to implement STIR/SHAKEN on an accelerated timeframe if the
Enforcement Bureau makes certain findings or determines it has violated
Sec. 64.1200(n)(2) of our rules. The Enforcement Bureau is authorized
pursuant to Sec. 0.111(a)(27) to provide written notice to a voice
service provider identifying suspected illegal robocalls originating on
the voice service provider's network. Under Sec. 64.1200(n)(2) of our
rules, the voice service provider must take specific steps as directed
by the Enforcement Bureau in that written notice, including mitigating
the origination of suspected illegal robocalls identified by the
Enforcement Bureau. We direct the Enforcement Bureau to require the
voice service provider to implement STIR/SHAKEN on an accelerated basis
if it determines that the provider, following notice, fails to:
Mitigate suspected illegal robocall traffic, provide information
requested by the Enforcement Bureau including credible evidence that
they are in fact not originating such traffic, respond in a timely
manner or meet its burden under Sec. 64.1200(n)(2) in responding to
the Enforcement Bureau notice. In their comments filed in response to
the WCB Extension PN, NCLC and EPIC agree that we should require voice
service providers that fail to respond to a notice to mitigate
suspected illegal robocall traffic to implement STIR/SHAKEN. However,
together with ZipDX, they argue that we should go further and require
voice service providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN without notice or the
opportunity to respond to a Commission inquiry. For purposes of this
rulemaking, we conclude that the approach we adopt--whereby we curtail
the extension following a summary process--better captures those
providers that are most likely to be originating unlawful robocalls
than suggested alternatives that do not include this additional
process. We do not, however, foreclose the possibility of applying this
obligation when appropriate on a case-by-case basis. The voice service
provider would be subject to an accelerated timeframe if (1) the voice
service provider fails to respond to the notice within the timeframe
the Enforcement Bureau requests or (2) the Enforcement Bureau
determines that the provider's response is inadequate. A response may
be considered inadequate if, for example, it does not reflect that the
provider will ``promptly investigate the identified traffic'' or does
not indicate that it has taken steps to ``effectively mitigate [the]
illegal traffic.'' Shortening the extension for these providers
complements and strengthens the existing obligations and purpose of
Sec. 64.1200(n)(2) to ``hold[] the notified voice service provider
liable'' for failing to mitigate illegal traffic.
21. New Implementation Deadline. We direct the Enforcement Bureau
to require a small voice service provider to implement STIR/SHAKEN
within 90 days of the date of an Enforcement Bureau's determination
described in the paragraph above. While an approximately six-month
period starting from the effective date of this Order is an appropriate
amount of time for non-facilities-based providers to implement STIR/
SHAKEN, we require a shorter period for these providers identified as a
source of illegal robocalls. More rapid STIR/SHAKEN implementation by
these providers is likely to produce a greater public benefit than
implementation by non-facilities-based providers that are at a higher
risk of originating illegal robocalls, but have not been shown to have
actually originated such calls. Rapid implementation for such providers
was supported in the record because of the harm these providers
present. Nevertheless, we decline to require implementation within 30
days as TNS proposes because of the possible practical difficulties
providers may face in adhering to such an aggressive timetable.
Requiring implementation of STIR/SHAKEN within 90 days of an
Enforcement Bureau determination, half as long as the approximately six
months given to non-facilities-based providers after release of this
Order, ensures prompt implementation of this important technology by
those providers that have failed to take specific steps to stop the
origination of illegal robocalls. Because we provide a longer
implementation timetable than TNS proposes, we see no need to adopt
TNS' suggestion that we give identified providers an alternative option
of ``submit[ting] a modified Robocall Mitigation Plan for Bureau
approval'' in the event that its aggressive 30-day implementation
timetable is not feasible. If the 90-day period would extend past an
earlier implementation deadline (i.e., June 30, 2022 for non-
facilities-based providers and June 30, 2023 for all other small voice
service providers), the earlier of the two deadlines applies.
22. Updating Extension Status. Consistent with our rule for non-
facilities-based providers, providers identified as a source of illegal
robocalls must, within 10 business days of an Enforcement Bureau
determination described above, update their Robocall Mitigation
Database filing indicating that they are subject to a shortened
extension and update the database again once they have implemented
STIR/SHAKEN. For example, a provider could indicate that it is subject
to a 90-day extension because it was found to be the source of illegal
robocalls. This approach limits providers' burden while allowing the
Commission to track providers' extension status and was supported by
commenters.
3. Alternative Approaches
23. We decline to adopt other criteria to identify those small
voice service providers that will be subject to an accelerated STIR/
SHAKEN implementation deadline. Though we proposed doing so in the
Small Provider FNPRM, the record convinces us not to adopt criteria
tied to the volume of calls originated by a small voice service
provider or revenue by market segment. We do not adopt our original
proposal to shorten the extension for those providers originating a
large number of calls because we conclude that our chosen criteria
better capture those providers at greatest risk of originating
robocalls and because of the administrative benefits of our chosen
approach. We agree with CCA that criteria based on calls-per-line and
revenue ``require difficult line drawing'' and we have been unable to
identify a readily administrable way to implement such an approach
without ``risk[ing] sweeping in providers that are not the
[[Page 3689]]
intended target.'' As TNS notes, ``bad actors are adept at evading
simple numerical thresholds'' and are increasingly doing so. We also
fear that a volume-based approach could be subject to manipulation or
evasion by bad actors. While INCOMPAS and WTA argue that the Commission
should consider a volume-based approach, both concede that drawing a
clear line would be difficult--and we find that the approach we adopt
is more readily administrable and more likely to accurately capture
voice service providers at heightened risk of originating illegal
robocalls.
24. We sought comment in the Small Provider FNPRM on whether to
shorten the extension for small voice service providers that offer
certain services, such as caller ID spoofing or the ability to
broadcast a pre-recorded message that illegal robocallers typically use
to make large amounts of calls. While several commenters supported such
an approach, no party suggested--nor are we able to identify--an
administrable approach to distinguish between providers that offer such
services for the purpose of illegal calling and those that do not.
25. We decline to adopt ACA Connects's suggestion that we shorten
the extension only for non-facilities-based providers that have
business models that correlate with origination of high volumes of
illegal robocalls. ACA Connects does not explain with specificity how
we would identify such business models, nor are we able to identify a
reliable method of doing so. As a result, there is significant risk
that any definition we adopt would exclude providers at heightened risk
of originating illegal robocalls. We further do not adopt TNS's
proposal or ACA Connects's suggestion to adopt a providers' offering of
``all-IP'' service as either one factor among several which alone would
justify a shortened extension or one factor justifying a shortened
extension only when present with other factors. While the evidence
indicates that most robocalls come from providers offering IP voice
service, the STIR/SHAKEN rules already apply only to IP-based voice
service, and we do not wish to discourage the transition to all-IP
networks. As NTCA notes, shortening the extension for all-IP providers
would ``capture large numbers of small providers delivering lawful
service to legitimate customers.'' Neither TNS nor ACA Connects explain
how relying on an ``all-IP'' factor in combination with other factors
in a single criterion would avoid these shortcomings. Indeed, ACA
Connects notes that an ``all IP provider'' criterion ``is completely
removed from any consideration of a voice providers' business practices
and, as such, is even more likely to be overbroad than'' quantitative
factors such as calls-per-line.
26. We do not adopt ``carve-outs'' or backstops to our non-
facilities-based test as some commenters suggest. For the same reason
we do not adopt a calls-per-line test in the first instance, we decline
to adopt NTCA's alternative test to allow providers that are ``non-
facilities-based'' to demonstrate that they meet a ``calls-per-line''
criterion to maintain their current extension; it would require the
Commission to engage in difficult line-drawing. We find it unnecessary
to consider carving out incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) (or a
subset of incumbent LECs) from the reduced extension for non-
facilities-based providers because all incumbent LECs offer facilities-
based service. We further see no need to adopt a specific procedural
mechanism to allow providers subject to the accelerated implementation
deadline to argue that they should nonetheless retain the full two-year
extension. No party suggesting such a procedure identified why our
existing processes are inadequate other than a conclusory assertion
that a ``compressed time period'' makes such a process necessary. We
disagree and note that voice service providers subject to a shortened
extension may submit a waiver request. 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. We direct the Wireline
Competition Bureau to act on any such requests expeditiously.
C. Legal Authority
27. We conclude that we have authority to curtail 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,'' and
was the source of authority for the small voice service provider
extension we today curtail for some providers. In the Small Provider
FNPRM, we proposed to find authority under this section, and no party
filed comments opposing our authority to do so. As proposed in the
Small Provider FNPRM, we find that, in considering whether the 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. We find we have the authority to grant a shorter
extension for small voice service providers that present a higher risk
of originating illegal robocalls or providers that may also face a
lesser hardship than other small voice service providers. We further
find revising the small provider extension in this way is consistent
with our authority under section 4(b)(5)(F) of the TRACED Act, which
expressly directs the Commission to consider revising or extending any
granted extensions. Although the Commission directed the Wireline
Competition Bureau to engage in an annual review of granted extensions,
that delegation of authority does not prevent the Commission from
separately exercising the authority granted to it under section
4(b)(5)(F) to ``consider revising or extending any delay of
compliance.''
II. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
28. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated into the Caller ID Authentication Third Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (Small Provider FNPRM). The Commission sought
written public comments on the proposals in the Small Provider FNPRM,
including comments on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the
IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
conforms to the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules
29. The Fourth Report and Order continues the Commission's efforts
to combat illegal spoofed robocalls. Specifically, the Fourth Report
and Order takes action to combat illegally spoofed robocalls by
accelerating the date by which small voice service providers that are
most likely to be the source of illegal robocalls must implement the
STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework. We require non-
facilities-based small voice providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN by June
30, 2022. We also require small voice service providers suspected of
originating illegal robocalls to implement STIR/SHAKEN within 90 days
of an Enforcement Bureau determination following a summary process. The
procedures in the Fourth
[[Page 3690]]
Report and Order will help promote effective caller ID authentication
through STIR/SHAKEN.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA
30. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the
proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration
31. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the
proposed rules as a result of those comments.
32. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the
proposed rules in this proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Rules Will Apply
33. 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
proposal 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
34. 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 shows 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.
35. 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 North
American Industry Classification System (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 shows 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.
36. 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 indicates 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.
37. 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. 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 indicates that 3,117 firms operated for the
entire 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.
38. 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 indicates 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.
39. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains
[[Page 3691]]
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
40. 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 shows 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 1,000 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.
41. 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.
42. 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 shows 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
43. 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 shows that 1,341 firms provided resale services for the entire
year. Of that number, all of the firms operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Thus, under this category and the associated SBA 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.
44. 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 small business size standard for Telecommunications Resellers
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census Bureau data from 2012 shows that 1,341 firms provided resale
services for the entire year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer
than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated SBA
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.
45. 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 shows 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
[[Page 3692]]
be considered small entities. According to the Commission's Form 499
Filer Database, 86 active companies reported that they were engaged in
the provision of prepaid calling cards. The Commission does not have
data regarding how many of these companies have 1,500 or fewer
employees, however, the Commission estimates that the majority of the
86 active prepaid calling card providers that may be affected by these
rules are likely small entities.
4. Other Entities
46. 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 shows 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.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
47. None.
F. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
48. 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.
49. The Commission considered the record submitted in response to
the Small Provider FNPRM in crafting the final order. We evaluated
comments with the goal of protecting consumers from illegal robocalls
while minimizing the burden on small entities; specifically, small
voice service providers. There was strong record support for shortening
the extension to implement STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication for
non-facilities-based small voice service providers and small voice
service providers likely to be involved with originating illegal
robocalls, and no party specifically opposed doing so. We conclude
that, consistent with the TRACED Act, the public benefit of curtailing
the two-year extension for these providers outweighs the burden.
50. We address the concerns of small entities by allowing
facilities-based small voice service providers that are not likely to
be involved with originating illegal robocalls to continue to benefit
from a two-year extension, until June 30, 2023, to implement STIR/
SHAKEN. We also decline to adopt criteria for shortening the extension
that would have increased the burden on all small voice service
providers. Nor do we require implementation of STIR/SHAKEN within 30
days after an Enforcement Bureau determination that a small voice
service provider did not take the necessary steps in response to the
Enforcement Bureau's notice or that the provider violated Sec.
64.1200(n)(2) of our rules.
G. Report to Congress
51. The Commission will send a copy of the Fourth Report and Order,
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy
of the Fourth Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Fourth Report and Order
and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal
Register.
Procedural Matters
52. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This document does
not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore,
it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
53. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Small Provider
FNPRM. The Commission sought written public comment on the possible
significant economic impact on small entities regarding proposals
addressed in the Small Provider FNPRM, including comments on the IRFA.
Pursuant to the RFA, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is set
forth in Appendix B of the Fourth Report and Order. The Commission's
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center,
will send a copy of the Fourth Report and Order, including the FRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA).
54. Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and
the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is ``non-
major'' under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The
Commission will send a copy of the Fourth Report and Order to Congress
and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A).
55. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3b5d58580e0b0f7b5d5858155c544d">[email protected]</a> or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
56. Contact Person. For further information about the Fourth Report
and Order, contact Jonathan Lechter, Attorney Advisor, Competition
Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-0984 or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#32585d5c53465a535c1c5e57515a465740725451511c555d44"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d7bdb8b9b6a3bfb6b9f9bbb2b4bfa3b2a597b1b4b4f9b0b8a1">[email protected]</span></a>.
III. Ordering Clauses
57. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j),
201(b), 227b, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201(b) 227b, and 303(r), that the Fourth
Report and Order is adopted.
58. It is further ordered that pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.4(b)(1) and
1.103(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1),
[[Page 3693]]
1.103(a), the Fourth Report and Order shall be effective 30 days after
publication of the Fourth Report and Order in the Federal Register.
59. It is further ordered that part 64 of the Commission's rules is
amended as set forth in Appendix A of the Fourth Report and Order.
60. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of
the Fourth Report and Order to Congress and to the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
61. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of the Fourth Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Carrier equipment, Communications common carriers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220,
222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262,
276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401-1473, unless otherwise
noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.
Subpart HH--Caller ID Identification
0
2. Section 64.6300 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (g) through
(l) as paragraphs (h) through (m) and adding new paragraph (g) to read
as follows:
Sec. 64.6300 Definitions.
* * * * *
(g) Non-facilities-based small voice service provider. The term
``non-facilities-based small voice service provider'' means a small
voice service provider that is offering voice service to end-users
solely using connections that are not sold by the provider or its
affiliates.
* * * * *
0
2. Section 64.6304 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 64.6304 Extension of implementation deadline.
(a) * * *
(1) Small voice service providers are exempt from the requirements
of Sec. 64.6301 through June 30, 2023, except that:
(i) A non-facilities-based small voice service provider is exempt
from the requirements of Sec. 64.6301 only until June 30, 2022; and
(ii) A small voice service provider notified by the Enforcement
Bureau pursuant to Sec. 0.111(a)(27) of this chapter that fails to
respond in a timely manner, fails to respond with the information
requested by the Enforcement Bureau, including credible evidence that
the robocall traffic identified in the notification is not illegal,
fails to demonstrate that it taken steps to effectively mitigate the
traffic, or if the Enforcement Bureau determines the provider violates
Sec. 64.1200(n)(2), will no longer be exempt from the requirements of
Sec. 64.6301 beginning 90 days following the date of the Enforcement
Bureau's determination, unless the extension would otherwise terminate
earlier pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) introductory text or (a)(1)(i), in
which case the earlier deadline applies.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 63.6305 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(5) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 64.6305 Robocall mitigation and certification.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) A voice service provider shall update its filings within 10
business days of any change to the information it must provide pursuant
to paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-01244 Filed 1-24-22; 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>Indexed from Federal Register on January 25, 2022.
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.