Rule2023-13035
Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, 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
July 10, 2023
Effective
January 8, 2024
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) expands several rules previously adopted for gateway providers to other categories of voice service providers and modifies or removes existing rules consistent with these changes. Specifically, the Commission requires all domestic voice service providers to respond to traceback requests from the Commission, civil and criminal law enforcement, and the industry traceback consortium within 24 hours of the receipt of the request. Second, it requires originating providers to block substantially similar traffic when the Commission notifies the provider of illegal traffic or risk the Commission requiring all providers immediately downstream to block all of that provider's traffic. This rule is consistent with the rule for gateway providers, and requires non-gateway intermediate or terminating providers that receive such a notice to promptly inform the Commission that it is not the originating or gateway provider for the identified traffic, identify the upstream provider(s) from which it received the traffic, and, if possible, take lawful step to mitigate the traffic. Third it requires all voice service providers to take reasonable and effective steps to ensure that the immediate upstream provider is not using it to carry or process a high volume of illegal traffic. Finally, it updates the Commission's Robocall Mitigation Database certification requirements to reflect the 24-hour traceback requirement.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43446-43460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13035]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 0 and 64
[CG Docket No. 17-59; WC Docket 17-97; FCC 23-37; FR ID 148396]
Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Call
Authentication Trust Anchor
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) expands several rules previously adopted for gateway
providers to other categories of voice service providers and modifies
or removes existing rules consistent with these changes. Specifically,
the Commission requires all domestic voice service providers to respond
to traceback requests from the Commission, civil and criminal law
enforcement, and the industry traceback consortium within 24 hours of
the receipt of the request. Second, it requires originating providers
to block substantially similar traffic when the Commission notifies the
provider of illegal traffic or risk the Commission requiring all
providers immediately downstream to block all of that provider's
traffic. This rule is consistent with the rule for gateway providers,
and requires non-gateway intermediate or terminating providers that
receive such a notice to promptly inform the Commission that it is not
the originating or gateway provider for the identified traffic,
identify the upstream provider(s) from which it received the traffic,
and, if possible, take lawful step to mitigate the traffic. Third it
requires all voice service providers to take reasonable and effective
steps to ensure that the immediate upstream provider is not using it to
carry or process a high volume of illegal traffic. Finally, it updates
the Commission's Robocall Mitigation Database certification
requirements to reflect the 24-hour traceback requirement.
DATES: Effective January 8, 2024, except for the amendments to 47 CFR
64.6305(d)(2)(ii) and (iii), (e)(2)(ii), and (f)(2)(iii) (amendatory
instruction 5), which are delayed indefinitely. The amendments to 47
CFR 64.6305(d)(2)(ii) and (iii), (e)(2)(ii), and (f)(2)(iii) will
become effective following publication of a document in the Federal
Register announcing approval of the information collection and the
relevant effective date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerusha Burnett, Consumer Policy
Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fb919e898e88939ad5998e89959e8f8fbb9d9898d59c948d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4e242b3c3b3d262f602c3b3c202b3a3a0e282d2d60292138">[email protected]</span></a> or by phone at (202) 418-0526.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order, in CG Docket No. 17-59 and WC Docket 17-97, FCC 23-37,
adopted on May 18, 2023, and released on May 19, 2023. The Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry that was adopted
concurrently with the Report and Order is published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register. The document is available for download
at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-37A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-37A1.pdf</a>.
To request this document in accessible formats for people with
[[Page 43447]]
disabilities (e.g., Braille, large print, electronic files, audio
format) or to request reasonable accommodations (e.g., accessible
format documents, sign language interpreters, CART), send an email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#30565353050004705653531e575f46"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="52343131676266123431317c353d24">[email protected]</span></a> or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418-0530. The amendments to 47 CFR 64.6305(d)(2)(ii)
and (e)(2)(ii) do not themselves contain information collection
requirements subject to approval. However, substantive changes made to
those rules in the 2023 Caller ID Authentication Order, 88 FR 40096
(June 21, 2023), and that are delayed indefinitely, pending approval of
information collection requirements associated with that order, must
become effective at the same time as or before the changes to 47 CFR
64.6305(d)(2)(ii) and (e)(2)(ii) adopted herein. Therefore, the changes
in 47 CFR 64.6305(d)(2) and (e)(2) are delayed indefinitely pending the
effective date of the changes to those rules from the 2023 Caller ID
Authentication Order.
Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This document may contain new or modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13. This document will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the
PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be
invited to comment on the new or modified information collection
requirements contained in this proceeding.
Congressional Review Act
The Commission sent a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Synopsis
1. In this item, the Commission extends some of the requirements it
adopted in the Gateway Provider Order, 87 FR 42916 (July 18, 2022), to
other voice service providers in the call path. First, the Commission
requires all voice service providers, rather than only gateway
providers, to respond to traceback requests within 24 hours. Second,
the Commission extends the requirements to block calls following
Commission notification. Finally, the Commission expands the know-your-
upstream-provider requirement to cover all voice service providers. The
Commission also makes other changes to voice service providers'
Robocall Mitigation Database filing and mitigation obligations to be
consistent with these new rules. Taken together, the expansion of these
rules protects consumers from illegal calls, holds voice service
providers responsible for the calls they carry, and aids in the
identification of bad actors.
24-Hour Traceback Requirement
2. The Commission requires all voice service providers, regardless
of their position in the call path, to fully respond to traceback
requests from the Commission, civil and criminal law enforcement, and
the industry traceback consortium within 24 hours of receipt of such a
request. This extends the rule the Commission previously adopted for
gateway providers to all voice service providers and replaces the
existing requirement to respond ``fully and in a timely manner.'' While
some commenters opposed the 24-hour requirement in general, none argued
that non-gateway providers are less capable of complying with such a
requirement.
3. Rapid traceback is essential to identifying both callers placing
illegal calls and the voice service providers that facilitate them.
Time is of the essence in all traceback requests, including domestic-
only tracebacks. While gateway providers play a critical role, they are
not the only voice service providers with an important role to play. As
one commenter noted, voice service providers do not retain call detail
records for a consistent period of time, so the traceback process must
finish before any voice service providers in the call path seeking to
shield bad actors dispose of their records. The Commission therefore
agrees with commenters that argue a general 24-hour traceback
requirement is a prudent measure, with benefits that outweigh the
burdens. In particular, the Commission finds that the benefits of
having a single, clear, equitable rule for all traceback requests
outweigh the burdens of requiring a response within 24 hours. Further,
the Commission made clear in adopting the existing requirement to
respond ``fully and in a timely manner'' that it expected responses
``within a few hours, and certainly not more than 24 hours absent
extenuating circumstances.'' As a result, this modification is
primarily a matter of codifying the Commission's existing expectation,
rather than significantly modifying the standard.
4. Out of an abundance of caution, the Commission initially limited
the strict 24-hour requirement to gateway providers, based on their
particular position in the call path and the need for especially rapid
responses in the case of foreign-originated calls. Many calls, however,
transit multiple U.S.-based intermediate providers' networks after
passing through a gateway provider's network, and delay by any of the
intermediate providers in responding to traceback requests has the same
impact as delay by the gateway provider. When an intermediate provider
receives a traceback request, it may not know if the call originated
from outside the United States, making it impossible to apply different
standards to foreign-originated calls versus domestic calls through the
entire call path.
5. The Commission disagrees with commenters that argue against a
strict 24-hour requirement. While the Commission understands that some
smaller voice service providers that have not received previous
traceback requests may be unfamiliar with the process, they will have
ample time to become familiar before the requirements take effect.
Additionally, the Commission adopted rules that require a response from
all voice service providers ``fully and in a timely manner'' in
December 2020, more than two years ago. In adopting that rule, the
Commission made clear its expectation that responses would be made
``within a few hours, and certainly in less than 24 hours absent
extenuating circumstances.'' Voice service providers have therefore had
a significant amount of time to improve their processes so that they
can respond within 24 hours in the vast majority of cases. Similarly,
voice service providers can identify a clear point of contact for
traceback requests and provide it to the entities authorized to make
traceback requests. The Commission will consider limited waivers where
a voice service provider that normally responds within the 24-hour time
frame has a truly unexpected or unpredictable issue that leads to a
delayed response in a particular case or for a short period of time.
This may, in some instances, include problems with the point of contact
or other delays caused by the request not being properly received.
Voice service providers for which this requirement poses a unique and
significant burden may apply for a waiver of this rule under the ``good
cause'' standard of Sec. 1.3 of the Commission's rules. Under that
standard, for example, waivers may be available in the event of sudden
unforeseen circumstances that prevent compliance for a limited period
or for a limited number of calls. By doing so, voice service providers
can significantly reduce the risk that traceback requests will be
missed or delayed. For those
[[Page 43448]]
voice service providers for which requests outside of business hours
pose a problem, the Commission adopts the same restrictions on the 24-
hour clock that it imposed for gateway providers. The 24-hour clock,
consistent with the Commission's proposal to adopt the clock as adopted
for gateway providers, does not start outside of business hours of the
local time for the responding office. Requests received outside of
business hours as defined in the Commission's rules are deemed received
at 8 a.m. on the next business day. Similarly, if the 24-hour response
period would end on a non-business day, either a weekend or a Federal
legal holiday, the 24-hour clock does not run for the weekend or the
holiday in question, and restarts at 12:01 a.m. on the next business
day following when the request would otherwise be due. ``Business day''
for these purposes is Monday through Friday, excluding Federal legal
holidays, and ``business hours'' are 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on a business
day, consistent with the definition of office hours in the Commission's
rules.
6. Consistent with that finding, the Commission declines INCOMPAS'
request that the Commission double the response time to 48 hours or
allow voice service providers to submit a response indicating that
responding requires additional time along with assurances that it will
complete the traceback request ``in a timely manner.'' INCOMPAS offers
little in the way of support for this proposed doubling of the
traceback response time and the Commission is not persuaded that the
narrow reasons it does offer cannot be adequately addressed through the
Commission's waiver process. Additionally, allowing for a ``request
received'' response to obtain further time could allow bad-actor
providers to simply delay traceback responses. The Commission is also
unpersuaded by other commenters opposing the 24-hour requirement whose
arguments were vague. Other objections to the requirement were vague
and unsupported, e.g., the requirement ``will likely result in
increased enforcement activity and expenses for good actors who for
legitimate reasons (and on an infrequent basis) may not respond in a
timely manner'' or is ``unnecessary and unwarranted.''
7. The Commission further declines to adopt the tiered approach
that it sought comment on in the Gateway Provider Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), 87 FR 42670 (July 18, 2022). The
Commission finds that the tiered approach is too complicated; voice
service providers and other entities would not easily know when each
response is due with a tiered approach. A uniform rule for all types of
voice service providers is significantly easier to follow and enforce.
While a tiered approach might benefit some smaller voice service
providers that receive few requests, the benefits do not outweigh the
overall burdens of administering such a complex system. This 24-hour
requirement is a clear standard that the Commission believes all voice
service providers will be able to implement because for several years
they have already complied with the ``timely manner'' requirement.
8. The Commission is similarly unpersuaded by arguments that the
current efficiency of the traceback system, where many voice service
providers do respond rapidly, indicates that a strict rule is
inappropriate. The Commission applauds the industry for its work at
improving traceback and recognizes that many, if not most, voice
service providers already respond in under 24 hours. There are,
however, a large number of voice service providers, and experience
indicates that some may not be incentivized to respond without delay.
The failure of any one voice service provider to do so presents a
potential bottleneck. For those voice service providers that already
respond within 24 hours, this requirement presents no new burden; those
voice service providers can simply continue what they have been doing.
It is voice service providers that do not respond within that timeframe
that present a problem, and this requirement puts them clearly on
notice that any delaying tactics will not be tolerated in a way that a
``timely'' requirement does not.
9. Finally, the Commission declines INCOMPAS' request to remove the
Commission and civil and criminal law enforcement from the list of
entities authorized to make a traceback request under the Commission's
rules. The Commission has included these entities on the list since it
adopted the initial rule in 2020, and voice service providers have not
provided evidence that requests from these entities present problems.
The mere fact that ``many companies have established processes'' to
respond to these entities does not justify excluding them in the rule.
Mandatory Blocking Following Commission Notification
10. The Commission next extends two of the mandatory blocking
requirements adopted in the Gateway Provider Order to a wider range of
voice service providers. First, the Commission modifies the existing
requirement for voice service providers to effectively mitigate illegal
traffic; the Commission now requires all originating providers to block
such traffic when notified by the Commission, consistent with the
existing requirement for gateway providers. Second, the Commission
makes it clear that, while terminating and non-gateway intermediate
providers are not generally required to block, they are required to
respond and provide accurate information regarding the source from
which they received the traffic. Finally, the Commission requires voice
service providers immediately downstream from a bad-actor voice service
provider that has failed to meet these obligations to block all traffic
from the identified provider when notified by the Commission that the
upstream provider failed to meet its obligation to block illegal
traffic or inform the Commission as to the source of the traffic.
11. Consistent with the rules the Commission adopted in the Gateway
Provider Order, the Commission ensures that all voice service providers
are afforded due process; the rule the Commission adopts here includes
a clear process that allows ample time for a notified voice service
provider to remedy the problem and demonstrate that it can be a good
actor in the calling ecosystem before the Commission directs downstream
providers to begin blocking. This process, adopted for gateway
providers in the Gateway Provider Order, includes the following steps:
(1) the Enforcement Bureau shall provide the voice service provider
with an initial Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic; (2) the
provider shall be granted time to investigate and act upon that notice;
(3) if the provider fails to respond or its response is deemed
insufficient, the Enforcement Bureau shall issue an Initial
Determination Order, providing a final opportunity for the provider to
respond; and (4) if the provider fails to respond or that response is
deemed insufficient, the Enforcement Bureau shall issue a Final
Determination Order, directing downstream voice service providers to
block all traffic from the identified provider. In the Gateway Provider
FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on extending this process to all
voice service providers.
12. Blocking Following Commission Notification of Suspected Illegal
Traffic. The Commission first extends the requirement to block and
cease carrying or transmitting illegal traffic when notified of such
traffic by the Commission through the Enforcement Bureau; in extending
the rule, the Commission applies it to originating providers as well as
gateway providers.
[[Page 43449]]
To comply with this requirement, originating providers must block or
cease accepting traffic that is substantially similar to the identified
traffic on an ongoing basis. Any voice service provider that is not an
originating or gateway provider and is notified by the Commission of
illegal traffic must still identify the upstream voice service
provider(s) from which it received the identified traffic and, if
possible, take lawful steps to mitigate this traffic. The Commission
finds that, in most instances, blocking is the most effective means of
mitigating illegal traffic and nothing in the record contradicts this
conclusion. Further, this modification eliminates potential ambiguity
and provides certainty to voice service providers that may otherwise be
unsure how to comply.
13. In expanding this requirement, the Commission makes clear that
nothing in this rule precludes the originating provider from taking
steps other than blocking the calls to eliminate this traffic, provided
it can ensure that the method has the same effect as ongoing blocking.
For example, if the originating provider stops the calls by terminating
the customer relationship, it must ensure that it terminates all
related accounts and does not permit the customer to open a new account
under the same or a different name in order to resume originating
illegal calls.
14. The record supports extending this rule and creating a uniform
process, rather than treating gateway and originating providers
differently. A single, clear standard requiring blocking by the first
domestic voice service provider in the call path eliminates possible
confusion, better aligns with industry practices, and provides greater
certainty to voice service providers while also protecting consumers.
Because voice service providers further down the call path from the
originator may find it challenging to detect and block illegal traffic,
the Commission limits the blocking requirement to originating and
gateway providers but still requires non-gateway intermediate providers
to play their part by identifying the source of the traffic and taking
steps, if possible, to mitigate that traffic. By requiring blocking by
originating and gateway providers, the Commission properly balances the
burden of identifying and blocking substantially similar traffic on an
ongoing basis with the benefit to consumers.
15. With these modifications to the Commission's rules, all traffic
that transits the U.S. network will be subject to its blocking
requirements, even if non-gateway intermediate providers are not
generally required to block. While the Commission agrees with the 51
State attorneys general (AGs) that no traffic should be exempt from its
blocking mandate, it does not agree that there should be no variation
``across provider types or roles.'' The Commission believes the key is
to ensure that all traffic is subject to the rule so that bad actors
can be identified and stopped. The rule the Commission adopts in this
document holds originating providers responsible for the traffic their
customers originate.
16. The Commission further declines to remove the requirement to
block ``substantially similar traffic'' as one commenter asks. A rule
that only requires an originating provider to block the traffic
specifically identified in the initial notice would arguably block no
traffic at all, as the Enforcement Bureau cannot identify specific
illegal traffic before it has been originated. The requirement to block
substantially similar traffic is therefore essential to the operation
of the rule.
17. Obligations of a Terminating or Non-Gateway Intermediate
Provider When Notified by the Commission. Any terminating or non-
gateway intermediate provider that is notified under this rule must
promptly inform the Commission that it is not the originating or
gateway provider for the identified traffic, specify which upstream
voice service provider(s) with direct access to the U.S. public
switched telephone network it received the traffic from, and, if
possible, take lawful steps to mitigate this traffic. Voice service
providers that fail to take available steps to effectively mitigate
illegal traffic may be deemed to have knowingly and willfully engaged
in transmitting unlawful robocalls. The Commission notes that one
clearly available tool is its safe harbor that, once the upstream
provider has been notified of the identified illegal traffic by the
Commission, permits the downstream provider to block all traffic from
that upstream provider if the upstream provider fails to effectively
mitigate the illegal traffic within 48 hours or fails to implement
effective measures to prevent new and renewing customers from using its
network to originate illegal calls. Voice service providers are already
required to take these steps under the Commission's existing rules,
reflecting their affirmative obligations to identify and mitigate
traffic when notified by the Commission. However, the Commission is
concerned that some voice service providers may provide inaccurate
information, avoid responding, or continue to facilitate illegal
traffic. The Commission makes clear that failing to respond or
providing inaccurate information is unacceptable; in such cases, the
Enforcement Bureau may make use of the downstream provider blocking
requirement and move to the Initial Determination Order and Final
Determination Order, consistent with the process the Commission
discusses further below. The Commission has determined that a uniform
set of procedures for all voice service providers reduces the burden of
compliance with these rules and ensures due process in the event the
Commission pursues enforcement action against providers carrying
suspected illegal robocall traffic. Nothing in the record opposes this
conclusion.
18. Downstream Provider Blocking. The Commission also requires
blocking by voice service providers immediately downstream from any
voice service provider when notified by the Commission that the voice
service provider has failed to satisfy its obligations under these
rules. This expands the Commission's requirement for voice service
providers immediately downstream from a gateway provider to block all
traffic from the identified provider when notified by the Commission
that the gateway provider failed to block. If the Enforcement Bureau
determines a voice service provider has failed to satisfy Sec.
64.1200(n)(2), it shall publish and release an Initial Determination
Order as described below, giving the provider a final opportunity to
respond to the Enforcement Bureau's initial determination. If the
Enforcement Bureau determines that the identified provider continues to
violate its obligations, the Enforcement Bureau shall release and
publish a Final Determination Order in EB Docket No. 22-174 to direct
downstream providers to both block and cease accepting all traffic they
receive directly from the identified provider starting 30 days from the
release date of the Final Determination Order.
19. The record supports extending this requirement. The Commission
agrees with commenters that urge it to limit this requirement to voice
service providers immediately downstream from the identified provider.
This limitation is consistent with the rule adopted in the Gateway
Provider Order, and the Commission sees no reason to take a different
approach here. If the voice service provider immediately downstream
from the identified provider complies with the Commission's rules, then
the calls should never reach any voice service providers further
downstream. Further,
[[Page 43450]]
voice service providers more than one step downstream from the
identified provider may not know in real time that the call came from
the identified provider, making it unreasonable to require them to
block the calls. The Commission also agrees that this requirement
should include the blocking of all traffic from the identified
provider, rather than requiring the immediate downstream voice service
provider to determine which calls to block. Because the Commission
requires the blocking of all traffic from the identified provider, it
sees no reason to provide detailed information regarding what traffic
must be blocked.
20. Process for Issuing a Notification of Suspected Illegal
Traffic. The Enforcement Bureau shall make an initial determination
that the voice service provider is originating, carrying, or
transmitting suspected illegal traffic and notify the provider by
issuing a written Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic. The
Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic shall: (1) identify with as
much particularity as possible the suspected illegal traffic; (2)
provide the basis for the Enforcement Bureau's reasonable belief that
the identified traffic is unlawful; (3) cite the statutory or
regulatory provisions the suspected illegal traffic appears to violate;
and (4) direct the provider receiving the notice that it must comply
with Sec. 64.1200(n)(2) of the Commission's rules.
21. The Enforcement Bureau's Notification of Suspected Illegal
Traffic shall specify a timeframe of no fewer than 14 days for a
notified provider to complete its investigation and report its results.
Upon receiving such notice, the provider must promptly investigate the
traffic identified in the notice and begin blocking the identified
traffic within the timeframe specified in the Notification of Suspected
Illegal Traffic unless its investigation determines that the traffic is
legal.
22. The Commission makes clear that the requirement to block on an
ongoing basis is not tied to the number in the caller ID field or any
other single criterion. Instead, the Commission requires the notified
provider to block on a continuing basis any traffic that is
substantially similar to the identified traffic and provide the
Enforcement Bureau with a plan as to how it expects to do so. The
Commission does not define ``substantially similar traffic'' in any
detail here because that will be a case-specific determination based on
the traffic at issue. The Commission notes that each calling campaign
will have unique qualities that are better addressed by tailoring the
analytics to the particular campaign on a case-by-case basis. The
Commission nevertheless encourages originating providers to consider
common indicia of illegal calls including, but not limited to: call
duration; call completion ratios; large bursts of calls in a short time
frame; neighbor spoofing patterns; and sequential dialing patterns. If
the notified provider is an originating provider, the identity of the
caller may be a material factor in identifying whether the traffic is
substantially similar. However, an originating provider may not assume,
without evidence, that the caller only has one subscriber line from
which it is placing calls and must maintain vigilance to ensure that
the caller does not use different existing accounts or open new
accounts, under the same or a different name, to continue to place
illegal calls. Additionally, the Commission strongly encourages any
voice service provider that has been previously notified of illegal
traffic as an originating provider to notify the Commission if it has
reason to believe that the caller has moved to a different originating
provider and is continuing to originate illegal calls. If the notified
provider is a terminating or non-gateway intermediate provider, it must
promptly inform the Commission that it is not the originating or
gateway provider for the identified traffic, specify which upstream
voice service provider(s) with direct access to the U.S. public
switched telephone network it received the traffic from and, if
possible, take lawful steps to mitigate this traffic.
23. Each notified provider will have flexibility to determine the
correct approach for each particular case, but must provide a detailed
plan in its response to the Enforcement Bureau so that the Bureau can
assess the plan's sufficiency. If the Enforcement Bureau determines
that the plan is insufficient, it shall provide the notified provider
an opportunity to remedy the deficiencies prior to taking further
action. The Commission will consider the notified provider to be in
compliance with the Commission's mandatory blocking rule if it blocks
traffic in accordance with its approved plan. The Enforcement Bureau
may require the notified provider to modify its approved plan if it
determines that the provider is not blocking substantially similar
traffic. Additionally, if the Enforcement Bureau finds that the
notified provider continues to allow suspected illegal traffic onto the
U.S. network, it may proceed to an Initial Determination Order or Final
Determination Order, as appropriate.
24. Provider Investigation. Each notified provider must investigate
the identified traffic and report the results of its investigation to
the Enforcement Bureau in the timeframe specified in the Notification
of Suspected Illegal Traffic, as follows:
<bullet> If the provider's investigation determines that it served
as the originating provider or gateway provider for the identified
traffic, it must block the identified traffic within the timeframe
specified in the Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic (unless its
investigation determines that the traffic is not illegal) and include
in its report to the Enforcement Bureau: (1) a certification that it is
blocking the identified traffic and will continue to do so; and (2) a
description of its plan to identify and block substantially similar
traffic on an ongoing basis.
<bullet> If the provider's investigation determines that the
identified traffic is not illegal, it shall provide an explanation as
to why the provider reasonably concluded that the identified traffic is
not illegal and what steps it took to reach that conclusion. Absent
such a showing, or if the Enforcement Bureau determines based on the
evidence that the traffic is illegal despite the provider's assertions,
the identified traffic will be deemed illegal.
<bullet> If the provider's investigation determines it did not
serve as an originating provider or gateway provider for any of the
identified traffic, it shall provide an explanation as to how it
reached that conclusion, identify the upstream provider(s) from which
it received the identified traffic, and, if possible, take lawful steps
to mitigate this traffic. If the notified provider determines that the
traffic is not illegal, it must inform the Enforcement Bureau and
explain its conclusion within the specified timeframe.
25. Process for Issuing an Initial Determination Order. If the
notified provider fails to respond to the notice within the specified
timeframe, the Enforcement Bureau determines that the response is
insufficient, the Enforcement Bureau determines that the notified
provider is continuing to originate, carry, or transmit substantially
similar traffic onto the U.S. network, or the Enforcement Bureau
determines based on the evidence that the traffic is illegal despite
the provider's assertions, the Enforcement Bureau shall issue an
Initial Determination Order to the notified provider stating its
determination that the provider is not in compliance with Sec.
64.1200(n)(2). This Initial Determination Order must include the
Enforcement Bureau's reasoning for its determination and give the
provider a minimum of 14 days to provide a final response prior to the
Enforcement
[[Page 43451]]
Bureau's final determination as to whether the provider is in
compliance with Sec. 64.1200(n)(2).
26. Process for Issuing a Final Determination Order. If the
notified provider does not adequately respond to the Initial
Determination Order or continues to originate substantially similar
traffic, or the Enforcement Bureau determines based on the evidence
that the traffic is illegal despite the provider's assertions, the
Enforcement Bureau shall issue a Final Determination Order. The
Enforcement Bureau shall publish the Final Determination Order in EB
Docket No. 22-174 to direct downstream providers to both block and
cease accepting all traffic they receive directly from the identified
provider starting 30 days from the release date of the Final
Determination Order. The Final Determination Order may be adopted up to
one year after the release date of the Initial Determination Order and
may be based on either an immediate failure to comply with Sec.
64.1200(n)(2) or a determination that the provider has failed to meet
its ongoing obligation to block substantially similar traffic under
that rule.
27. Each Final Determination Order shall state the grounds for the
Enforcement Bureau's determination that the identified provider has
failed to comply with its obligation to block illegal traffic and
direct downstream providers to initiate blocking 30 days from the
release date of the Final Determination Order. A provider that chooses
to initiate blocking sooner than 30 days from the release date may do
so, consistent with the Commission's existing safe harbor in Sec.
64.1200(k)(4).
28. Safe Harbor. The Commission extends the limited safe harbor
from liability under the Communications Act or the Commission's rules,
which it adopted in the Gateway Provider Order, to include any voice
service provider that inadvertently blocks lawful traffic as part of
the requirement to block substantially similar traffic in accordance
with the originating provider's approved plan. The record supports
extending this safe harbor to protect voice service providers that take
steps to prevent illegal calls from reaching consumers and the
Commission sees no reason not to provide this protection.
29. Protections for Lawful Callers. Consistent with the
Commission's existing blocking rules, voice service providers must
never block emergency calls to 911 and must make all reasonable efforts
to ensure that they do not block calls from public safety answering
points (PSAPs) and government emergency numbers. The Commission
declines to adopt additional transparency and redress requirements at
this time or extend any other existing requirements that would not
already apply to the blocking mandates it adopts in this document.
These rules require the Commission to direct which types of calls voice
service providers should block, so the blocking provider is not in a
position to provide redress. The Commission did not receive specific
comment on the need for additional protections for lawful calls.
``Know Your Upstream Provider''
30. The Commission requires all voice service providers accepting
traffic from an upstream provider to take steps to ``know'' that
immediate upstream provider. This extends its existing requirement for
gateway providers to all voice service providers; it holds all voice
service providers in the call path responsible for the calls that
transit their networks. Specifically, the Commission requires every
voice service provider to take reasonable and effective steps to ensure
that the immediate upstream provider is not using it to carry or
process a high volume of illegal traffic. The Commission therefore
agrees with commenters urging it to adopt a rule that would hold all
providers in the call path responsible for the traffic that transits
their network. The Commission agrees with USTelecom that the best
method to do so is by adopting a know-your-upstream-provider
requirement.
31. The Commission finds that, while intermediate providers may be
unable to identify the calling customer with sufficient accuracy to
know whether they are placing illegal calls, the Commission cannot
permit them to ``intentionally or negligently ignore red flags from
their upstream providers.'' As YouMail noted, ``the goal of every
network should be to transit only legal calls.'' Extending this
requirement to every voice service provider that receives traffic from
an upstream provider, rather than solely to gateway providers, ensures
that all voice service providers in the call path are responsible for
keeping illegal traffic off the U.S. network. Consistent with the
Commission's existing rules, the Commission does not require voice
service providers to take specific, defined steps to meet this
requirement, and instead allows each voice service provider flexibility
to determine the best approach for its network, so long as the steps
are effective. In general, the Commission expects voice service
providers will need to exercise due diligence before accepting traffic
from an upstream provider, and may want to collect information such as
``obtaining the [voice service provider's] physical business location,
contact person(s), state or country of incorporation, federal tax ID
(if applicable), and the nature of the [voice service provider's]
business.'' The Commission does not find that collecting this
information is either uniformly necessary or sufficient, and voice
service providers may need to take additional steps, such as adopting
contract terms that allow for termination and acting on those terms in
the event that the upstream provider attempts to use the network to
carry or process a high volume of illegal traffic. As the Commission
made clear in the Gateway Provider Order and Gateway Provider FNPRM, it
does not expect perfection. However, all voice service providers must
take effective steps, and if a voice service provider carries or
transmits a high volume of illegal traffic that primarily originates
from one or more specific upstream providers, the steps that provider
has taken are not effective and must be modified for that provider to
be in compliance with the Commission's rules. The Commission encourages
voice service providers to regularly evaluate and adjust their approach
so that that it remains effective.
32. Lastly, in the 2023 Caller ID Authentication Order, 88 FR 40096
(June 21, 2023), the Commission adopted a requirement that originating,
terminating, and intermediate providers describe any procedures in
place to know their upstream providers in their robocall mitigation
plans. Now that all voice service providers, including intermediate
providers, will be required to take reasonable and effective steps to
know their upstream providers, all such providers will also be required
to describe those steps in their robocall mitigation plans filed in the
Robocall Mitigation Database, pursuant to the requirement adopted in
the 2023 Caller ID Authentication Order.
Other Issues
33. Updating Robocall Mitigation Database Certifications to Include
Traceback Compliance. In this document, the Commission modifies Sec.
64.1200(n)(1) to require all voice service providers to respond to
traceback requests within 24 hours. Consistent with its rule applicable
to gateway providers, which already were required to respond to
traceback requests within 24 hours, the Commission now requires voice
service providers to commit to responding fully and within 24 hours to
all traceback requests consistent with the
[[Page 43452]]
requirements it adopts in this document in Sec. 64.1200 of its rules,
and to include a statement in their Robocall Mitigation Database
filings certifying to this commitment. The Commission concludes that
these limited rule modifications will ensure that voice service
providers' mitigation and filing obligations are in line with their
underlying compliance duties, enhance the usefulness of the Robocall
Mitigation Database to both the Commission and voice service providers,
and promote rule uniformity and administrability. While no party
commented on these specific changes, there was significant support to
adopt Robocall Mitigation Database filing and mitigation obligations
for all voice service providers in the call path. The Commission also
updates cross-references to Sec. 64.1200 in its Robocall Mitigation
Database certification rules to account for the amendments it adopts in
the Report and Order.
34. Effective Measures to Prevent New and Renewing Customers from
Originating Illegal Calls. The Commission declines to further clarify
its existing requirement for voice service providers to take
affirmative, effective measures to prevent new and renewing customers
from using their networks to originate illegal calls, as some
commenters request. The Commission agrees with commenters that support
its existing flexible approach under this rule. Flexibility to adapt to
changing calling patterns is necessary to avoid giving the ``playbook''
to bad actor callers, thus an outcomes-based standard is most
appropriate. The Commission thus decline to be more prescriptive on the
steps voice service providers should take to block, as requested by
some commenters.
35. The Commission further declines a commenter's request that it
clarify that ``adopting a know-your-customer or upstream-provider
standard for new or renewing customers satisfies the effective measures
standard.'' The commenter did not define ``know-your-customer'' and the
Commission is not aware of any universally accepted minimum standard in
the industry. Without such a definition or minimum standard, there is
no guarantee that a process that an individual voice service provider
describes as ``know-your-customer'' would be sufficient. The rule
requires ``effective'' measures; blanket approval of measures voice
service providers deem ``know-your-customer'' clearly does not satisfy
this requirement and could lead to voice service providers adopting
ineffective processes. The Commission also declines to remove the ``new
and renewing customer'' language, as one commenter requests. This
limitation will have less impact the longer the rule is in effect; more
contracts will include the new provision as they are renewed over time.
This limitation recognizes the challenge of modifying existing, in-
force contracts.
36. Differential Treatment of Non-Conversational Traffic. The
Commission declines to adopt a requirement that originating voice
service providers ensure that customers originating non-conversational
traffic only seek to originate lawful calls. While many illegal calls
are of short duration, it does not follow that all calls of short
duration are inherently suspect. The Commission agrees with commenters
that argue against such requirements and are persuaded that this sort
of traffic segmentation is likely to harm wanted, or even essential,
traffic. In fact, only one commenter urged us to adopt a rule treating
non-conversational traffic differently from conversational traffic, and
even that commenter acknowledged that not all non-conversational
traffic is illegal. Such a rule could, for example, make it impossible
for medical centers or schools in rural areas with few voice service
providers to find a provider willing to carry their traffic, which may
include emergency notifications, appointment reminders, or other
important notifications; the Commission will not throw the baby out
with the bathwater.
37. Moreover, the Commission does not believe that a strict rule
for non-conversational traffic would lead to any real benefit. To do
so, the Commission would need to adopt standards for whether calls are
``non-conversational'' or ``conversational,'' which bad actors could
use ensure that their traffic does not meet the criteria for stricter
treatment. As a result, not only is the risk of such a rule
unacceptably high, but the potential benefit is low.
38. Strict Liability. The Commission similarly declines to adopt a
strict liability standard for an originating provider when its customer
originates illegal calls. The Commission asked about a strict liability
standard in the Gateway Provider FNPRM in the context of differential
treatment of non-conversational traffic, which it has declined to
adopt. The Commission disagrees with commenters that ask it to adopt
this standard more broadly and agree with those who argue strict
liability is inappropriate. Protecting consumers from illegal calls
cannot come at the cost of blocking high volumes of lawful traffic in
order to avoid the possibility that some of those calls might be
illegal--which is the behavior many voice service providers would have
to undertake if the Commission imposed strict liability.
39. Public Traceback. The Commission declines to require that the
industry make traceback information publicly available, as one
commenter asks. The Commission believes this approach places too much
weight on receipt of traceback requests as an indicator that a voice
service provider is a bad actor. Voice service providers that handle a
large volume of calls, especially as intermediate providers, are likely
to receive a high volume of traceback requests even if they are not bad
actors. A general rule requiring the publication of traceback
information could hamper industry efforts by discouraging voice service
providers from initiating traceback requests without law enforcement
intervention. Publication of traceback information may be appropriate
and beneficial in certain instances, particularly when the information
is published in aggregate, rather than tied to individual, specific
requests. Nothing here limits the ability of the Commission or another
entity to publish such information.
Summary of Costs and Benefits
40. The record in this proceeding supports the Commission's
conclusion in the Gateway Provider FNPRM that the Commission's proposed
rules and actions, some of which it addresses in this document, ``will
account for another large share of the annual $13.5 billion minimum
benefit we originally estimated'' and that the benefits ``will far
exceed the costs imposed on providers.''
41. In this document, the Commission reaffirms that all voice
service providers are responsible for all calls they originate, carry,
or transmit. In doing so, the Commission expands several of its rules
to cover a wider group of voice service providers. First, the
Commission codifies its existing expectation that voice service
providers respond to traceback requests within 24 hours by expanding
the strict 24-hour requirement it adopted for gateway providers to all
providers in the call path. Requiring rapid response to traceback
complements the Commission's STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication rules
by making it easier to identify bad actors even where caller ID
authentication information is unavailable. This codification is a key
piece of the Commission's comprehensive approach to combating illegal
calls and supports the benefits of that approach without incurring a
significant practical cost when compared to its existing requirements.
[[Page 43453]]
42. Second, the Commission extends its requirement to block
following Commission notification to originating providers and makes
clear that any voice service provider that receives such a notification
is required to respond to the Commission and, if it is not an
originating or gateway provider, inform the Commission where it got the
traffic. If any voice service provider refuses to comply with this
requirement, all voice service providers immediately downstream from
the non-compliant provider may be required to block all traffic from
that provider. Voice service providers must comply with Commission
rules, and this rule provides clear, immediate consequences for voice
service providers that refuse to do so, even if that voice service
provider would be unable to pay a forfeiture. The Commission does not
expect that originating providers will incur significant costs as a
result of this rule because action by providers is required only when
the Commission notifies the provider. Further, because providers
generally adhere to Commission rules, the Commission expects that
downstream providers will receive Commission notification to block only
rarely. If the Commission were to issue such a blocking notification to
a downstream provider, it would benefit consumers by stopping illegal
calls while causing disruption to provider relationships and possibly
stopping some legal calls. While the disruption of legal calls would
harm consumers, the Commission expects this scenario to arise
infrequently. The power of this aspect of the rule is that it gives
providers strong incentives to comply with the Commission's blocking
rules. Because illegal calls cause large harms to consumers, stopping
even a small share of illegal calls benefits consumers significantly
and, as explained above, the Commission expects this rule to have
minimal costs. Therefore, the Commission finds that the benefits of
this rule outweigh its costs.
43. Finally, the Commission expands the know-your-upstream-provider
requirement to all voice service providers. This expanded requirement
codifies that all voice service providers, regardless of their position
in the call path, are responsible for preventing illegal calls. Because
voice service providers should already be exercising due diligence by
knowing their upstream call providers, this new rule has small costs.
It has greater benefits in deterring providers from shirking their due-
diligence responsibility.
44. These expanded rules will ultimately prevent illegal calls from
ringing consumers' phones, both by deterring callers from placing them
in the first instance and by stopping the calls before they reach the
consumer. The rules also make bad actors, whether callers or voice
service providers, easier to identify. Taken together, these new and
expanded rules increase the effectiveness of all of the Commission's
efforts to combat illegal calls, including its existing affirmative
obligations and Robocall Mitigation Database filing requirements. These
rules, together with the Commission's existing rules, make it easier to
identify and stop illegal calls before they reach consumers. As the
Commission found previously, an overall reduction in illegal calls will
lower network costs by eliminating both unwanted traffic congestion and
the labor costs of handling numerous customer complaints, and these new
rules contribute to this overall reduction. This reduction in illegal
calls will also help restore confidence in the U.S. telephone network
and facilitate reliable access to emergency and healthcare services.
45. Although sparse in quantitative estimates, the record in this
proceeding supports the Commission's conclusion that the benefits of
these rules exceed their costs. A more uniform blocking standard will
``provide additional benefits and reduce the overall burden'' on
providers. Extending these rules, originally adopted for gateway
providers, to all voice service providers will not be overly costly or
burdensome. The incremental costs of compliance with the Commission's
new rules is ``relatively small.'' Given that robocalls reduce public
welfare by billions of dollars annually, even a small percentage
reduction in robocalls implies benefits that exceed the costs of the
Commission's new rules.
Legal Authority
46. The Commission's legal authority to adopt these requirements
stems from sections 201(b), 202(a), and 251(e) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) as well as from the Truth in Caller
ID Act and the Commission's ancillary authority. Sections 201(b) and
202(a) grant the Commission broad authority to adopt rules governing
just and reasonable practices of common carriers.
47. The Commission's section 251(e) numbering authority provides
independent jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of North American
Numbering Plan (NANP) resources; this particularly applies where
callers spoof caller ID for fraudulent purposes and therefore exploit
numbering resources, regardless of whether the voice service provider
is a common carrier. Similarly, the Truth in Caller ID Act grants the
Commission authority to prescribe rules to make unlawful the spoofing
of caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or
wrongfully obtain something of value. Taken together, section 251(e) of
the Communications Act and the Truth in Caller ID Act grant the
Commission authority to prescribe rules to prevent the unlawful
spoofing of caller ID and abuse of NANP resources by all voice service
providers.
48. The Commission further finds that these rules reduce the chance
of unlawfully spoofed calls reaching consumers and thus are within its
authority under the statutes referenced above. In particular, the
requirement to respond to traceback requests within 24 hours directly
impacts a caller's ability to unlawfully spoof caller ID by making it
easier to detect the originator of the call. The other requirements are
aimed at curbing the use of NANP numbers (whether spoofed or not) for
unlawful purposes as they are focused on mitigating and preventing
illegal calls.
49. While the Commission concludes that its direct sources of
authority provide an ample basis to adopt its proposed rules for all
voice service providers, the Commission's ancillary authority in
section 4(i) provides an independent basis to do so with respect to
providers that have not been classified as common carriers. The
Commission may exercise ancillary jurisdiction when two conditions are
satisfied: (1) the Commission's general jurisdictional grant under
Title I of the Communications Act covers the regulated subject; and (2)
the regulations are reasonably ancillary to the Commission's effective
performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities. The
Commission concludes that the regulations adopted in this document
satisfy the first prong because providers that interconnect with the
public switched telephone network and exchange IP traffic clearly offer
``communication by wire and radio.''
50. With regard to the second prong, requiring voice service
providers to comply with the Commission's proposed rules is reasonably
ancillary to the Commission's effective performance of its statutory
responsibilities under sections 201(b), 202(a), and 251(e) of the
Communications Act and the Truth in Caller ID Act as described above.
With respect to sections 201(b) and 202(a), absent application of the
Commission's proposed rules to providers that are not classified as
common carriers, originators of illegal calls could circumvent the
Commission's proposed scheme by sending calls only via
[[Page 43454]]
providers that have not yet been classified as common carriers.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
51. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as
amended, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated into the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted in
May 2022 and published at 87 FR 42670 on July 18, 2022 (May 2022
FNPRM). The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals
in the May 2022 FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. This Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Order
52. The Report and Order takes important steps in the fight against
illegal robocalls by extending certain requirements to a broader range
of voice service providers. First, the Report and Order requires all
domestic voice service providers to respond to traceback requests
within 24 hours of the request, extending the previous rule applicable
to gateway providers to all providers. Second, it requires originating
providers to block illegal traffic when notified of such traffic by the
Commission and, if they fail to do so, requires all voice service
providers in the U.S. to block all traffic from the bad-actor voice
service provider, consistent with the existing rule for gateway
providers. This modification eliminates potential ambiguity as to how
providers should effectively mitigate illegal traffic and provides
certainty to voice service providers that may otherwise be unsure how
to comply. Finally, it requires all voice service providers accepting
traffic from an upstream provider to take reasonable and effective
steps to ensure that the immediate upstream provider is not using them
to carry or process a high volume of illegal traffic. The expansion of
these rules protects consumers from illegal calls, holds voice service
providers responsible for the calls they carry, and aids in the
identification of bad actors.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to
the IRFA
53. While no comments specifically addressed the May 2022 FNPRM
IRFA, the Commission did receive some comments that addressed the
impact of the proposed rules on small providers. Some commenters raised
concerns about the 24-hour traceback requirement. In particular,
commenters noted that the Commission recognized that smaller providers
may struggle to respond quickly and result in ``significant burdens''
to small entities. Still other comments urged us to adopt a tiered
approach to provide flexibility for smaller providers that receive
infrequent traceback requests. The Commission acknowledges these
concerns in the Report and Order, and discusses steps taken to address
these concerns in Section F of this FRFA. The rule the Commission
adopts in the Report and Order codifies the expectation of the existing
rule and provides flexibility to address requests received on evenings,
weekends, and holidays. The Commission further considered the potential
impact of the rules proposed in the IRFA on small entities and took
steps where appropriate and feasible to reduce the compliance and
economic burden for small entities.
Response To Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration
54. 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. The Chief Counsel did not
file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules
Will Apply
55. 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 rules adopted herein. 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.
56. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission
therefore describes here, at the outset, three broad groups of small
entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are
industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in
the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small
Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small
business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.
These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in
the United States, which translates to 32.5 million businesses.
57. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were
approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
58. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate that there
were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United
States. Of this number there were 36,931 general purpose governments
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than
50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school
districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly,
based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission
estimates that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of
``small governmental jurisdictions.''
Wireline Carriers
59. 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
[[Page 43455]]
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. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local
service providers.
60. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 providers
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,737
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
61. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services
include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry
with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local
service providers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 providers
that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,737 providers have
1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business
size standard, most of these providers can be considered small
entities.
62. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired
Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small
business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 1,227 providers
that reported they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that 929 providers have 1,500
or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local
exchange carriers can be considered small entities.
63. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services.
Providers of these services include several types of competitive local
exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020,
there were 3,956 providers that reported they were competitive local
exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 3,808 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of
these providers can be considered small entities.
64. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for
Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020,
there were 151 providers that reported they were engaged in the
provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 131 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry
can be considered small entities.
65. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a
``small cable operator,'' 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.'' For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the
Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer
than 677,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will
meet the definition of a small cable operator based on the cable
subscriber count established in a 2001 Public Notice. Based on industry
data, only six cable system operators have more than 677,000
subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of
cable system operators are small under this size standard. The
Commission notes however, 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, the Commission is 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.
66. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service
[[Page 43456]]
carriers, or toll resellers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that
operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020,
there were 115 providers that reported they were engaged in the
provision of other toll services. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 113 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of
these providers can be considered small entities.
Wireless Carriers
67. 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
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 797
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 715
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
68. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry 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 SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies a business with $38.5 million or less in annual
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2020, there were 71 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 48
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, a little more than of these providers can
be considered small entities.
Resellers
69. Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have
developed a small business size standard specifically for Local
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with a
SBA small business size standard. 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. 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 for 2017 show that
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire
year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 293
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of local
resale services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 289
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
70. Toll Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have
developed a small business size standard specifically for Toll
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with a
SBA small business size standard. 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. 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 for 2017 show that
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire
year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 518
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of toll
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 495
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
71. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
prepaid calling card providers. Telecommunications Resellers is the
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. 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. 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 for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry
provided resale services for the entire year. Of that number, 1,375
firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on
Commission
[[Page 43457]]
data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December
31, 2020, there were 58 providers that reported they were engaged in
the provision of payphone services. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 57 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of
these providers can be considered small entities.
Other Entities
72. All Other Telecommunications. This industry 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. Providers of
internet services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or voice over internet protocol
(VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are
also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard
for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million
or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were
1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
73. The Report and Order requires voice service providers to meet
certain obligations. These changes affect small and large companies and
apply to all the classes of regulated entities identified above. First,
all voice service providers must fully respond to traceback requests
from the Commission, civil and criminal law enforcement, and the
industry traceback consortium within 24 hours of receipt of such a
request. The voice service provider should respond with information
about the provider from which it directly received the call. Small
entity voice service providers may need to identify dedicated staff of
other professionals to act as a clear point of contact to respond to
traceback requests in a timely manner.
74. Second, originating voice service providers, and any
intermediate or terminating provider immediately downstream from the
originate provider, must block calls in certain instances.
Specifically, the originating provider must block illegal traffic once
notified of such traffic by the Commission through its Enforcement
Bureau. In order to comply with this requirement, small entities that
are originating providers must block traffic that is substantially
similar to the identified traffic on an ongoing basis. When an
originating provider fails to comply with this requirement, the
Commission may require small entity providers immediately downstream
from an originating provider to block all traffic from the identified
provider when notified by the Commission. As part of this requirement,
a notified small entity originating provider must promptly report the
results of its investigation to the Enforcement Bureau within 14 days,
including, unless the originating provider determines it is either not
an originating or gateway provider for any of the identified traffic or
that the identified traffic is not illegal, both a certification that
it is blocking the identified traffic and will continue to do so and a
description of its plan to identify the traffic on an ongoing basis. In
order to comply with the downstream provider blocking requirement, all
providers must monitor EB Docket No. 22-174 and initiate blocking
within 30 days of a Blocking Order being released.
Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
75. The RFA requires an agency to provide, ``a description of the
steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact
on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy,
and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final
rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule
considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was
rejected.''
76. Generally, the decisions the Commission made in the Report and
Order apply to all providers. Treating small providers differently from
larger providers would have a significant impact on the success of the
rules the Commission adopts in this document, meaning that fewer
consumers would be protected from illegal calls and bad-actor callers
would have more opportunities to find ways around these restrictions.
However, the Commission did take steps to ensure that small entity and
other providers would not be unduly burdened by these requirements.
Specifically, the Commission allowed flexibility where appropriate to
ensure that small providers, can determine the best approach for
compliance based on the needs of their networks. For example, providers
have the flexibility to determine their proposed approach to blocking
illegal traffic when notified by the Commission and to determine the
steps they take to ``know the upstream provider.''
Report to Congress
77. The Commission will send a copy of the Gateway Provider Report
and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 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 Gateway Provider
Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, including this FRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A
copy of the Gateway Provider Report and Order and Order on
Reconsideration (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the
Federal Register.
Ordering Clauses
78. It is ordered that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 201, 202, 217,
227, 227b, 251(e), 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 202, 217, 227, 251(e), 303(r), 403,
the Report and Order is adopted.
79. It is further ordered that the Report and Order shall be
effective 180 days after publication in the Federal Register, except
that the amendments to Sec. 64.6305(d)(2)(iii) and (f)(2)(iii), 47 CFR
64.6305(d)(2)(iii) and (f)(2)(iii), which may contain new or modified
information collection requirements, will not become effective until
the later of: (i) 180 days after publication in the Federal Register;
or (ii) 30 days after the Office of Management and Budget completes
review of any information collection requirements that the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau determines is required under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. In addition, the amendments to Sec. 64.6305(d)(2)(ii)
and (e)(2)(ii), 47 CFR 64.6305(d)(2)(ii) and (e)(2)(ii), will not
become effective until the later of: (i) 180 days after publication in
the Federal Register; or (ii) 30 days after the Office of Management
and Budget completes review of any information collection requirements
that the Wireline Competition Bureau determines is required under the
Paperwork Reduction Act for the changes made to these paragraphs in the
2023 Caller ID Authentication Order. The Commission
[[Page 43458]]
directs the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau and the Wireline
Competition Bureau, as appropriate, to announce the effective dates for
Sec. 64.6305(d)(2)(ii) and (iii), (e)(2)(ii), and (f)(2)(iii) by
subsequent Public Notice.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 0
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Communications,
Communications common carriers, Classified information, Freedom of
information, Government publications, Infants and children,
Organization and functions (Government agencies), Postal Service,
Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sunshine Act,
Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 64
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0 and 64 as follows:
PART 0--COMMISSION ORGANIZATION
Subpart A--Organization
0
1. The authority citation for part 0, subpart A, continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, and 409,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 0.111 by revising paragraph (a)(27) to read as follows:
Sec. 0.111 Functions of the Bureau.
(a) * * *
(27) Identify suspected illegal calls and provide written notice to
voice service providers. The Enforcement Bureau shall:
(i) Identify with as much particularity as possible the suspected
traffic;
(ii) Cite the statutory or regulatory provisions the suspected
traffic appears to violate;
(iii) Provide the basis for the Enforcement Bureau's reasonable
belief that the identified traffic is unlawful, including any relevant
nonconfidential evidence from credible sources such as the industry
traceback consortium or law enforcement agencies; and
(iv) Direct the voice service provider receiving the notice that it
must comply with Sec. 64.1200(n)(2) of this chapter.
* * * * *
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
0
3. 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, 617, 620, 1401-1473, unless otherwise
noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.
0
4. Amend Sec. 64.1200 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (k)(5) and (6) and (n)(1);
0
b. Removing paragraph (n)(2);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (n)(3), (4), (5), and (6) as paragraphs
(n)(4), (5), (2), and (3), respectively; and
0
d. Revising newly redesignating paragraphs (n)(2), (3), and (5).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 64.1200 Delivery restrictions.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(5) A provider may not block a voice call under paragraphs (k)(1)
through (4), paragraph (k)(11), paragraphs (n)(2) and (3), paragraph
(n)(5), or paragraph (o) of this section if the call is an emergency
call placed to 911.
(6) When blocking consistent with paragraphs (k)(1) through (4),
paragraph (k)(11), paragraphs (n)(2) and (3), paragraph (n)(5), or
paragraph (o) of this section, a provider must make all reasonable
efforts to ensure that calls from public safety answering points and
government emergency numbers are not blocked.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(1) Upon receipt of a traceback request from the Commission, civil
law enforcement, criminal law enforcement, or the industry traceback
consortium, the provider must fully respond to the traceback request
within 24 hours of receipt of the request. The 24-hour clock does not
start outside of business hours, and requests received during that time
are deemed received at 8 a.m. on the next business day. If the 24-hour
response period would end on a non-business day, either a weekend or a
Federal legal holiday, the 24-hour clock does not run for the weekend
or holiday in question, and restarts at 12:01 a.m. on the next business
day following when the request would otherwise be due. For example, a
request received at 3 p.m. on a Friday will be due at 3 p.m. on the
following Monday, assuming that Monday is not a Federal legal holiday.
For purposes of this paragraph (n)(1), business day is defined as
Monday through Friday, excluding Federal legal holidays, and business
hours is defined as 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on a business day. For purposes
of this paragraph (n)(1), all times are local time for the office that
is required to respond to the request.
(2) Upon receipt of a Notice of Suspected Illegal Traffic from the
Commission through its Enforcement Bureau, take the applicable actions
with respect to the identified traffic described in paragraphs
(n)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. The provider will not be held
liable under the Communications Act or the Commission's rules in this
chapter for providers that inadvertently block lawful traffic as part
of the requirement to block substantially similar traffic so long as it
is blocking consistent with the requirements of paragraphs (n)(2)(i)
through (iii). For purposes of this paragraph (n)(2), identified
traffic means the illegal traffic identified in the Notification of
Suspected Illegal Traffic issued by the Enforcement Bureau. The
following procedures shall apply:
(i)(A) The Enforcement Bureau will issue a Notification of
Suspected Illegal Traffic that identifies with as much particularity as
possible the suspected illegal traffic; provides the basis for the
Enforcement Bureau's reasonable belief that the identified traffic is
unlawful; cites the statutory or regulatory provisions the identified
traffic appears to violate; and directs the provider receiving the
notice that it must comply with this section. The Enforcement Bureau's
Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic shall give the identified
provider a minimum of 14 days to comply with the notice. Each notified
provider must promptly investigate the identified traffic and report
the results of that investigation to the Enforcement Bureau within the
timeframe specified in the Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic.
If the provider's investigation determines that it served as the
gateway or originating provider for the identified traffic, it must
block or cease accepting the identified traffic and substantially
similar traffic on an ongoing basis within the timeframe specified in
the Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic. The provider must
include in its report to the Enforcement Bureau:
(1) A certification that it is blocking the identified traffic and
will continue to do so; and
(2) A description of its plan to identify and block or cease
accepting substantially similar traffic on an ongoing basis.
(B) If the provider's investigation determines that the identified
traffic is not illegal, it shall provide an explanation as to why the
provider reasonably concluded that the identified traffic is not
illegal and what steps it took to reach that conclusion. Absent
[[Page 43459]]
such a showing, or if the Enforcement Bureau determines based on the
evidence that the traffic is illegal despite the provider's assertions,
the identified traffic will be deemed illegal. If the notified provider
determines during this investigation that it did not serve as the
gateway provider or originating provider for any of the identified
traffic, it shall provide an explanation as to how it reached that
conclusion and, if it is a non-gateway intermediate or terminating
provider for the identified traffic, it must identify the upstream
provider(s) from which it received the identified traffic and, if
possible, take lawful steps to mitigate this traffic. If the
Enforcement Bureau finds that an approved plan is not blocking
substantially similar traffic, the identified provider shall modify its
plan to block such traffic. If the Enforcement Bureau finds that the
identified provider continues to allow suspected illegal traffic onto
the U.S. network, it may proceed under paragraph (n)(2)(ii) or (iii) of
this section, as appropriate.
(ii) If the provider fails to respond to the Notification of
Suspected Illegal Traffic, the Enforcement Bureau determines that the
response is insufficient, the Enforcement Bureau determines that the
provider is continuing to originate substantially similar traffic or
allow substantially similar traffic onto the U.S. network after the
timeframe specified in the Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic,
or the Enforcement Bureau determines based on the evidence that the
traffic is illegal despite the provider's assertions, the Enforcement
Bureau shall issue an Initial Determination Order to the provider
stating the Bureau's initial determination that the provider is not in
compliance with this section. The Initial Determination Order shall
include the Enforcement Bureau's reasoning for its determination and
give the provider a minimum of 14 days to provide a final response
prior to the Enforcement Bureau making a final determination on whether
the provider is in compliance with this section.
(iii) If the provider does not provide an adequate response to the
Initial Determination Order within the timeframe permitted in that
Order or continues to originate substantially similar traffic onto the
U.S. network, the Enforcement Bureau shall issue a Final Determination
Order finding that the provider is not in compliance with this section.
The Final Determination Orders shall be published in EB Docket No. 22-
174 at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings</a>. A Final
Determination Order may be issued up to one year after the release date
of the Initial Determination Order, and may be based on either an
immediate failure to comply with this section or a determination that
the provider has failed to meet its ongoing obligation under this
section to block substantially similar traffic.
(3) When notified by the Commission through its Enforcement Bureau
that a Final Determination Order has been issued finding that an
upstream provider has failed to comply with paragraph (n)(2) of this
section, block and cease accepting all traffic received directly from
the upstream provider beginning 30 days after the release date of the
Final Determination Order. This paragraph (n)(3) applies to any
provider immediately downstream from the upstream provider. The
Enforcement Bureau shall provide notification by publishing the Final
Determination Order in EB Docket No. 22-174 at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings</a>. Providers must monitor EB Docket No. 22-174
and initiate blocking no later than 30 days from the release date of
the Final Determination Order. A provider that chooses to initiate
blocking sooner than 30 days from the release date may do so consistent
with paragraph (k)(4) of this section.
* * * * *
(5) Take reasonable and effective steps to ensure that any
originating provider or intermediate provider, foreign or domestic,
from which it directly receives traffic is not using the provider to
carry or process a high volume of illegal traffic onto the U.S.
network.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 64.6305 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (c)(2) to read
as follows:
Sec. 64.6305 Robocall mitigation and certification.
(a) * * *
(2) Any robocall mitigation program implemented pursuant to
paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall include reasonable steps to
avoid originating illegal robocall traffic and shall include a
commitment to respond within 24 hours to all traceback requests from
the Commission, law enforcement, and the industry traceback consortium,
and to cooperate with such entities in investigating and stopping any
illegal robocallers that use its service to originate calls.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Any robocall mitigation program implemented pursuant to
paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall include reasonable steps to
avoid carrying or processing illegal robocall traffic and shall include
a commitment to respond within 24 hours to all traceback requests from
the Commission, law enforcement, and the industry traceback consortium,
and to cooperate with such entities in investigating and stopping any
illegal robocallers that use its service to carry or process calls.
* * * * *
0
5. Delayed indefinitely, further amend Sec. 64.6305 by revising
paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and (iii), (e)(2)(ii), and (f)(2)(iii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 64.6305 Robocall mitigation and certification.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The specific reasonable steps the voice service provider has
taken to avoid originating illegal robocall traffic as part of its
robocall mitigation program, including a description of how it complies
with its obligation to know its customers pursuant to Sec.
64.1200(n)(4), any procedures in place to know its upstream providers,
and the analytics system(s) it uses to identify and block illegal
traffic, including whether it uses any third-party analytics vendor(s)
and the name(s) of such vendor(s);
(iii) A statement of the voice service provider's commitment to
respond within 24 hours to all traceback requests from the Commission,
law enforcement, and the industry traceback consortium, and to
cooperate with such entities in investigating and stopping any illegal
robocallers that use its service to originate calls; and
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The specific reasonable steps the gateway provider has taken
to avoid carrying or processing illegal robocall traffic as part of its
robocall mitigation program, including a description of how it complies
with its obligation to know its upstream providers pursuant to Sec.
64.1200(n)(5), the analytics system(s) it uses to identify and block
illegal traffic, and whether it uses any third-party analytics
vendor(s) and the name(s) of such vendor(s);
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) A statement of the non-gateway intermediate provider's
commitment to respond within 24 hours to all traceback requests from
the Commission, law enforcement, and the industry traceback consortium,
and to cooperate with such entities in investigating and stopping
[[Page 43460]]
any illegal robocallers that use its service to carry or process calls;
and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-13035 Filed 7-7-23; 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 July 10, 2023.
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.