3684 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 3. Amend appendix A to part 282 by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Kentucky’’ to read 

as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 282—State 

Requirements Incorporated by 

Reference in Part 282 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations 

* * * * * 

Kentucky 

(a) The statutory provisions include: 

(1) Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 

Chapter 224. 

224.60–100 Underground storage tanks 

and regulated substances defined. 

224.60–105(1) Registration of 

underground storage tanks—Programs to 

regulate tanks. 

224.60–115 Definitions for KRS 224.60– 

120 to 224.60–150. 

224.60–120 Financial responsibility of 

petroleum storage tank owner or operator— 

Administrative regulations, except (6). 

224.60–135(1) Corrective action for a 

release into the environment from a 

petroleum storage tank, except the second 

sentence in (1). 

(2) [Reserved] 

(b) The regulatory provisions include: 

(1) 401 Kentucky Administrative 

Regulations (KAR) Chapter 42. 

401 KAR 42:005. Definitions for 401 KAR 

Chapter 42. 

401 KAR 42:020. UST system 

requirements, notification, registration, and 

annual fees. 

Section 1. Applicability and Exclusions. 

Section 2. Notification, Registration, and 

Annual Fees, except (1)(b), (2)–(6), and 

certain provisions in (7)(c), (8) and (9). 

Section 3. Temporary Closure, except (1). 

Section 4. Performance Standards for New 

UST Systems. 

Section 5. Upgrading of Existing UST 

Systems. 

Section 6. Double Walled Tanks and Piping 

Requirements. 

Section 8. Spill Containment Devices (Spill 

Buckets and Catch Basins). 

Section 9. Overfill Prevention 

Requirements. 

Section 10. Under-dispenser Containment 

(UDC) and Sump Requirements. 

Section 11. Corrosion Protection Operation 

and Maintenance, except certain language in 

(4) and (9). 

Section 12. Compatibility. 

Section 13. Repairs, except (2). 

Section 14. Noncorrodible Piping. 

Section 15. Release Detection, except (6) 

and (7). 

Section 16. Operator Training 

Requirements. 

Section 17. Walkthrough Inspections. 

Section 19. Recordkeeping. 

Section 20. Financial Responsibility. 

Section 21. Lender Liability. 

Section 23. Incorporation by Reference. 

401 KAR 42:060. UST system release and 

corrective action requirements. 

Section 1. Reporting for Releases, Spills, 

and Overfills. 

Section 3. Off-Site Impacts. 

Section 4. Release Investigation and 

Confirmation. 

Section 5. Release Response and Corrective 

Action. 

Section 6. Permanent Closure or Change in 

Service. 

Section 10. Incorporation by Reference. 

(2) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–01296 Filed 1–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[WC Docket No. 17–97; FCC 21–122, FR 

ID 63445] 

Call Authentication Trust Anchor 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission takes action to further 

combat illegally spoofed robocalls by 

accelerating the date by which small 

voice service providers that are most 

likely to be the source of illegal 

robocalls must implement the STIR/ 

SHAKEN caller ID authentication 

framework. 

DATES: This rule is effective February 

24, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan Lechter, Competition Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

at (202) 418–0984, jonathan.lechter@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Fourth 

Report and Order in WC Docket No. 17– 

97, adopted on December 9, 2021, and 

released on December 10, 2021. The 

document is available for download at 

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ 

attachments/FCC-21-122A1.pdf. To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (Braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), send an email to FCC504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY). 

Synopsis 

I. Fourth Report and Order 

1. In light of the overwhelming record 

support and available evidence showing 

that non-facilities-based small voice 

service providers are originating a large 

and disproportionate amount of 

robocalls, we require this subset of 

providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN 

a year sooner than previously required, 

while maintaining the full extension for 

those small voice service providers that 

are facilities-based. We further require 

any small voice service providers that 

the Enforcement Bureau suspects of 

originating illegal robocalls and that 

fails to mitigate such traffic upon 

Bureau notice or otherwise fails to meet 

its burden under § 64.1200(n)(2) of our 

rules, to implement STIR/SHAKEN 

within 90 days of that determination 

unless sooner implementation is 

otherwise required. Through this action, 

we close a gap in our current STIR/ 

SHAKEN regime and, by targeting those 

providers most likely to be involved in 

illegal robocalling, we reap a substantial 

portion of the benefits offered by STIR/ 

SHAKEN to Americans. 

A. Basis for Shortening Extension for a 

Subset of Small Voice Service Providers 

2. We find that a subset of small voice 

service providers constitute a large and 

increasing source of illegal robocalls 

and should therefore be subject to a 

shortened extension. In the Caller ID 

Authentication Third Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (Small Provider 

FNPRM) (86 FR 30571 (June 9, 2021)), 

we proposed supporting this conclusion 

on the basis of evidence reflecting that 

small voice service providers are 

responsible for a substantial portion of 

the illegal robocall problem. Transaction 

Network Services (TNS), a call analytics 

provider, asserted in a March 2021 

report that given their disproportionate 

role originating robocalls, small voice 

service providers need to implement 

STIR/SHAKEN for the Commissions’ 

rules ‘‘to have a significant impact.’’ 

Similarly, Robokiller, a spam call and 

protection service, concluded in a 

February 2021 report that because 

‘‘smaller carriers have exemptions 

lasting . . . until 2023 . . . [w]ithout a 

unified front from all carriers, STIR/ 

SHAKEN cannot be completely 

effective.’’ The Commission’s analysis 

indicates that small providers are a 

substantial part of the problem. In the 

Small Provider FNPRM, we explained 

that we had reason to believe just one 

of the 19 providers that received letters 

from the Federal Trade Commission 

(FTC) in January 2020 for facilitating 

robocalls had more than 100,000 access 

lines. 

3. No commenter disputed this 

evidence, and additional evidence 

indicating that some small voice service 

providers now are a major source of 

illegal robocalls supports this view. TNS 

released a follow-up report in 

September 2021, stating that ‘‘only 4% 

of the high-risk calls in 1H2021 

originated from the top six carriers . . . 

[reflecting] a significant drop from 11% 

in 2019 and down from 6% in 2020.’’ 

It concludes that the small provider 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 3685 

extension ‘‘has likely resulted in the 

increase of unwanted [voice over 

internet protocol] VoIP calls’’ and, in 

the comments, argues that ‘‘problematic 

robocalls increasingly are shifting to 

small carrier networks . . . [a]s large 

carriers continue to implement STIR/ 

SHAKEN.’’ No commenter disputed 

these conclusions or offered competing 

evidence suggesting a different 

conclusion. 

4. We draw further support for our 

conclusion from the near-unanimous 

consensus in the record for shortening 

the STIR/SHAKEN extension for the 

subset of small voice service providers 

most responsible for illegally spoofed 

robocalls in order to better protect 

Americans. For example, the 

Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) 

argued that the ‘‘Commission has 

reasonably proposed that the subset of 

small providers . . . responsible for a 

disproportionate amount of unlawful 

robocalls should not continue to benefit 

from the . . . extension.’’ Similarly, 

TNS ‘‘supports the Commission’s 

proposal to accelerate the deployment 

deadline’’ for ‘‘those types of providers 

that are most closely associated with 

originating problematic calls.’’ 

INCOMPAS agrees that ‘‘[a]s the 

Commission indicates, it is a ‘subset’ of 

small voice service providers that are at 

a heightened risk of originating a 

significant percentage of illegal 

robocalls,’’ that should be subject to a 

‘‘curtailment of the compliance 

extension.’’ Others agreed the 

Commission should take action, and 

that the benefits of doing so will 

outweigh the costs. These comments 

underscore our conclusion that the 

benefits of a shortened extension for 

those providers at greatest risk of 

originating illegal robocalls far outweigh 

the costs of such action. 

5. We therefore reject WTA-Advocates 

for Rural Broadband’s (WTA) assertion 

that we should not place additional 

obligations on a subset of small voice 

service providers likely to be the source 

of illegal robocalls. WTA argues that 

doing so is ‘‘premature’’ and would lead 

to ‘‘uncertaint[y].’’ However, in a 

comment in response to the Wireline 

Competition Bureau (WCB) Extension 

Public Notice (PN) (86 FR 56705 (Oct. 

12, 2021)) submitted after the comment 

cycle in the Small Provider FNPRM 

closed, WTA expressed support for 

retaining the extension for at least 

facilities-based providers but 

eliminating it for bad actors. We 

disagree. Many voice service providers 

have invested significant resources 

implementing STIR/SHAKEN, a 

technology that, when widely deployed, 

will offer substantial benefits to 

Americans by combating illegally 

spoofed calls. Implementation gaps 

undermine its effectiveness, however, 

especially when providers most likely to 

be the source of illegal robocalls are not 

participating in the framework. As 

Robokiller notes, the trends in illegal 

robocalls have not markedly improved, 

counseling against further delays. 

Indeed, the North American Numbering 

Council (NANC) recently explained that 

the failure of small voice service 

providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN 

‘‘negatively impacts the broader service 

provider ecosystem.’’ Finally, we find 

that the clear rule we adopt today gives 

potentially-affected providers certainty 

as to their STIR/SHAKEN obligations. 

B. Scope of Providers Subject to 

Shortened Extension 

6. As detailed below, we require two 

categories of small voice service 

providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN 

before the June 30, 2023, extended 

implementation deadline: (1) Nonfacilities-based providers, and (2) those 

providers that the Enforcement Bureau 

determined has, upon notice to a 

provider, failed to: Mitigate suspected 

illegal robocall traffic, provide 

information requested by the 

Enforcement Bureau, including credible 

evidence that they are in fact not 

originating such traffic, respond in a 

timely manner, or violated 

§ 64.1200(n)(2) of the Commission’s 

rules. In the Small Provider FNPRM, we 

proposed to shorten the extension for 

small voice service providers that 

‘‘originate an especially large amount of 

calls’’ and therefore, we asserted, ‘‘were 

at a heightened risk of being a source of 

unlawful calls.’’ We sought comment on 

whether we should shorten the 

extension for providers that meet certain 

outgoing call thresholds or, as a proxy 

for originating a significant number of 

calls, meet a certain percentage of 

revenue by market segment. We also 

sought comment on alternative criteria 

for determining whether a provider is 

likely at a heightened risk of originating 

robocalls, including whether a provider 

does not offer voice service over 

physical lines to end-user customers or 

has violated our rules. After review of 

the record, we conclude that subjecting 

small voice service providers that do not 

offer voice service over physical lines to 

end-users or that have violated certain 

rules to a hastened STIR/SHAKEN 

implementation deadline will best 

protect Americans from illegal 

robocalls. 

1. Non-Facilities-Based Small Voice 

Providers 

7. We conclude that non-facilitiesbased small voice service providers are 

at a higher risk of originating illegal 

robocalls than other small voice service 

providers and should be subject to an 

accelerated STIR/SHAKEN 

implementation deadline. ACA 

Connects observes, based on its review 

of ‘‘information that is publicly 

available . . . voice providers targeted 

by the Commission recently for 

facilitating illegal robocalls’’ tend to be 

non-facilities-based providers. As 

ZipDX asserts, most providers 

originating a large number of robocalls 

are not facilities-based. In contrast to 

‘‘providers that deploy physical 

facilities (‘lines’) . . . to human endusers,’’ ZipDX argues that there is a 

‘‘cottage industry of small VoIP 

providers’’ that focus their business on 

calling services associated with illegal 

robocalls. Additional information 

reinforces the near-unanimous 

consensus in the record: All but one of 

the seven interconnected VoIP providers 

that both received letters from the 

Enforcement Bureau or FTC for their 

suspected involvement in illegal 

robocalling and submitted an FCC Form 

477 offered VoIP not sold bundled with 

transmission service. 

8. Conversely, the record convinces us 

that facilities-based small voice service 

providers are less likely than nonfacilities-based providers to be the 

source of illegally spoofed robocalls. 

USTelecom, which established the 

Industry Traceback Group (ITG) that 

currently serves as the registered 

traceback consortium to conduct 

private-led traceback efforts, explains 

that ‘‘[t]racebacks seldom conclude that 

a facilities-based provider, whether a 

large one or small one’’ originate 

robocalls. We agree with NTCA-The 

Rural Broadband Association (NTCA) 

that ‘‘[t]he risk of illegal robocalls being 

generated by [facilities-based] providers 

. . . would appear relatively low,’’ 

because facilities-based providers are 

likely to offer voice and transmission 

services, so they are not focused solely 

on serving customers with services such 

as auto-dialing services used for illegal 

robocalls. In addition, as WTA notes, 

small facilities-based providers are 

‘‘familiar with their relatively small 

group of existing and potential 

customers,’’ making it ‘‘easy for them to 

stop, investigate, discourage or 

disconnect potential illegal robocallers.’’ 

9. We also find that the burden of 

STIR/SHAKEN implementation for nonfacilities-based small voice service 

providers is sufficiently low to make 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
3686 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

earlier implementation by this subset 

appropriate in light of the substantial 

benefits that will flow from shortening 

the extension for these providers. As the 

NANC recently concluded, ‘‘[i]n 

general, there are no significant barriers 

which prevent universal STIR/SHAKEN 

implementation for interconnected and 

non-interconnected VoIP providers 

(regardless of size).’’ USTelecom 

observes that certifications in our 

Robocall Mitigation Database reflect that 

a substantial number of non-facilitiesbased small voice service providers 

have already partially or completely 

implemented the STIR/SHAKEN 

framework. This record evidence and 

conclusion corroborates the 

Commission’s own data, which shows 

that non-facilities-based providers have 

been able to deploy STIR/SHAKEN 

more quickly than other providers. By 

cross-referencing FCC Registration 

Numbers (FRNs) of FCC Form 477 filers 

and Robocall Mitigation Database filers, 

we estimate that 328 out of 1,768 filers 

offer only VoIP voice service not 

bundled with transmission service. Of 

these 328 providers, 106 (32%) report 

complete STIR/SHAKEN 

implementation, 70 (21%) report partial 

implementation, and 152 (46%) report 

no implementation. By comparison, of 

the 1,440 remaining providers out of 

1,768, 167 (12%) report complete 

implementation, 309 (21%) report 

partial implementation and 964 (67%) 

report no implementation. We note that 

it is possible that some providers with 

multiple FRNs may report their data 

differently across both databases. But 

there is no reason to believe that this 

fact would materially affect the 

percentages described above. 

10. We recognize that not all nonfacilities-based small voice service 

providers disproportionately originate 

illegal robocalls, nor are all voice 

service providers that 

disproportionately originate illegal 

robocalls non-facilities-based. 

Nevertheless, based on the undisputed 

evidence in the record, we conclude 

that the approach we adopt is tailored 

to identify only those small voice 

service providers reasonably likely to be 

originating illegal robocalls while also 

providing significant administrative 

advantages over alternative approaches. 

For this reason, we disagree with the 

National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) 

and Electronic Privacy Information 

Center (EPIC) who argued in their 

comments in response to the WCB 

Extension PN, filed after the docket in 

the Small Provider FNPRM closed, that 

we should not adopt a non-facilitiesbased approach because providers that 

are not in fact originating illegal 

robocalls might face a shortened 

extension. For example, as described in 

more detail below, the bright-line 

approach we adopt does not require 

providers to submit additional 

information to show whether they are 

non-facilities-based. Further, we note 

that no commenter has opposed 

shortening the extension for nonfacilities-based providers, and several 

specifically supported this approach or 

supported retaining the extension for 

facilities-based providers. 

11. Definition. We define a voice 

service provider as ‘‘non-facilities 

based’’ if it offers voice service to endusers solely using connections that are 

not sold by the provider or its affiliates. 

We adopt this definition for a ‘‘nonfacilities-based’’ small voice service 

provider because it captures those 

providers that lack facilities-based voice 

connections, provides certainty to both 

affected voice service providers and the 

Commission, and has record support. 

While many commenters supported 

shortening the extension for nonfacilities-based providers, ACA 

Connects suggested as an option the 

particular test we adopt here. A voice 

service provider’s voice service that 

does not use connections sold by the 

provider or its affiliates, by definition, 

‘‘rides atop’’ another provider’s 

transmission service. Therefore, such 

voice service is not offered over the 

voice service provider’s own facilities. 

A voice service provider readily knows 

whether it is offering voice service that 

relies on its own (or its affiliates’) 

facilities or not, and therefore can easily 

determine whether it is subject to this 

definition. 

12. This definition also tracks with 

information collected with respect to 

interconnected VoIP providers in the 

context of our FCC Form 477. In that 

collection, if a provider offers 

interconnected VoIP service, it must 

separately indicate on FCC Form 477 

the number of interconnected VoIP 

service subscriptions (1) sold bundled 

with a transmission service carrying 

underlying VoIP service and (2) voice 

service not bundled for sale with a 

transmission service. We agree with 

ACA Connects that it is beneficial to 

examine such data to assist us in 

identifying ‘‘non-facilities-based’’ 

providers because it would ‘‘enable the 

Commission to rely on resources already 

in its possession to determine which 

providers are subject to an earlier 

deadline and to track compliance.’’ We 

further find that using FCC Form 477 as 

a reference to assist affected 

interconnected VoIP providers in 

determining whether they are subject to 

a reduced extension will ease 

compliance and limit uncertainty for 

affected small interconnected VoIP 

voice service providers. We note that 

one-way interconnected VoIP providers 

are subject to our STIR/SHAKEN rules 

but are not required to file FCC Form 

477 because they do not fall within the 

relevant definition of ‘‘interconnected 

VoIP,’’ and FCC Form 477 data has 

traditionally been used for collecting 

deployment information for purposes 

unrelated to STIR/SHAKEN compliance. 

For these reasons, we believe an 

approach that uses FCC Form 477 data 

as a guide to determine whether a 

provider may be non-facilities-based, 

but not as an automatic trigger for a 

shortened extension, is the appropriate 

use of that data. 

13. We decline to adopt NTCA’s 

proposed new definition of ‘‘facilitiesbased’’ voice service provider, a 

modified version of the definition of 

‘‘facilities-based’’ broadband provider in 

our rules. NTCA’s novel and complex 

definition would place a higher 

compliance obligation on potentiallyaffected small voice service providers to 

determine whether they meet its terms, 

compared to our more straightforward 

definition, and NTCA has not explained 

why each component of its complex 

definition would accurately capture 

facilities-based voice service providers. 

We also decline to adopt ACA 

Connects’s earlier suggestion that we 

base our definition on providing service 

to a ‘‘relatively well-defined geographic 

area.’’ ACA Connects does not explain 

its proposal in sufficient detail to 

evaluate its merits. To the extent ACA 

Connects is proposing to allow a 

provider to continue to receive an 

extension in certain geographic areas 

and not others, ACA Connects does not 

explain, nor can we identify, how to 

administer such a patchwork approach. 

For the same administrability concerns, 

we decline to adopt NCLC and EPIC’s 

recommendation in their comments 

filed in response to the WCB Extension 

PN that we retain a two-year extension 

for a provider’s voice services offered 

over its own facilities, while shortening 

the extension for a provider’s voice 

services not offered over its own 

facilities. 

14. We likewise decline to adopt 

NTCA’s proposal that we require 

providers to file a certification or other 

additional data to demonstrate whether 

they are entitled to a continued 

extension. Mandating in this Order that 

providers certify their compliance 

would require further effort on the 

providers’ part and cause non-facilitiesbased small voice service providers 

subject to the shortened timeline to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 3687 

delay their implementation of the STIR/ 

SHAKEN framework while the 

Commission seeks approval of the 

information collection associated with 

that certification requirement under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. Moreover, 

relying on submitted data increases 

transparency and reduces ambiguity for 

providers and the Commission, 

facilitating administration and 

enforcement. Providers also have 

significant experience with filing FCC 

Form 477 voice data, increasing the 

likelihood that the information 

submitted is a true reflection of 

providers’ operations. Providers have 

been submitting voice data in the same 

or similar format since at least 2013. 

While not all VoIP providers are 

required to file FCC Form 477 (e.g., oneway VoIP providers), we conclude that 

the burden of requiring just those 

providers to submit similar data or 

certifications to take the place of FCC 

Form 477 data would outweigh the 

benefit of doing so. 

15. New Implementation Deadline. 

Non-facilities-based small voice service 

providers must implement STIR/ 

SHAKEN in the IP portions of their 

network by June 30, 2022. We conclude 

that a one-year curtailment is a 

‘‘reasonable period of time’’ for this 

subset of small voice service providers 

to implement STIR/SHAKEN given the 

burdens and barriers to implementation 

they face and the likelihood they are the 

source of illegal robocalls. While we 

provided all small voice providers a 

two-year extension, we believe that this 

is a reasonable period for non-facilitiesbased providers to implement STIR/ 

SHAKEN in light of recent marketplace 

progress to increase the availability of 

STIR/SHAKEN solutions and 

subsequent evidence that non-facilitiesbased providers are at an increased risk 

of originating illegal robocalls. We 

proposed this timeline in the Small 

Provider FNPRM. All commenters 

addressing the issue expressed support 

for this approach and none opposed it. 

16. Updating Extension Status. We 

adopt our proposal in the Small 

Provider FNPRM to rely on the current 

rule requiring voice service providers to 

update their filings in the Robocall 

Mitigation Database. We conclude that 

this approach will limit any additional 

burden on providers while allowing the 

Commission to readily track each 

providers’ extension status. Commenters 

also supported this approach. In the 

Small Provider FNPRM, we explained 

that the requirement, by its terms, 

would require small voice service 

providers subject to any shortened 

extension we adopt to: (1) Within 10 

business days of the effective date of 

any Order we adopt, update their 

certifications and associated filings 

indicating that they are subject to a 

shortened extension; and (2) further 

update their certifications and 

associated filings within 10 business 

days of completion of STIR/SHAKEN 

implementation in the IP portions of 

their networks. Parties supported this 

proposal and did not suggest 

alternatives. Consistent with this 

current rule, non-facilities-based small 

voice service providers must update the 

database within 10 business days of the 

effective date of this Order to indicate 

they are no longer subject to a two-year 

extension and must implement STIR/ 

SHAKEN by June 30, 2022 in the IP 

portions of their networks. For example, 

a provider could indicate in its 

certification that it is subject to a oneyear extension for being a non-facilitiesbased small voice service provider. 

These providers, like other voice service 

providers, must also update their 

certifications and associated filings in 

the Robocall Mitigation Database within 

10 business days of completion of STIR/ 

SHAKEN implementation. Below, we 

make a non-substantive change to 

conform the text of the rule (47 CFR 

64.6305(b)(5)) to paragraph 85 of the 

Second Caller ID Authentication Report 

and Order (85 FR 73360 (Nov. 17, 2020)) 

to make clear that providers have the 

duty to update their STIR/SHAKEN 

implementation status. 

17. In light of the support for our 

proposal to update the Robocall 

Mitigation Database, we also take this 

opportunity to revise § 64.6305(b)(5) of 

our rules to conform its terms with the 

language of the Second Caller ID 

Authentication Report and Order, 

which served as the basis for our 

proposal. Section 64.6305(b)(5) requires 

voice service providers to update their 

certifications in the Robocall Mitigation 

Database when needed for accuracy. 

The adopted rule refers to updating the 

information required by § 64.6305(b)(2)– 

(4), but it inadvertently omitted the 

information that is part of Robocall 

Mitigation Database certification listed 

in § 64.6305(b)(1), which requires the 

voice service provider to certify whether 

it has completely, partially, or not 

implemented the STIR/SHAKEN 

authentication framework. The adopted 

rule is inconsistent with the text of the 

Second Caller ID Authentication Report 

and Order that requires providers to 

‘‘submit to the Commission via the 

appropriate portal any necessary 

updates to the information they filed in 

the certification process within 10 

business days,’’ which includes 

information required by paragraph 

(b)(1). Revised § 64.6305(b)(5) provides 

that a voice service provider must 

update, within 10 busines days of any 

change, all information originally 

submitted with its certification. We 

make this revision to align the rule with 

the text of the Second Caller ID 

Authentication Report and Order 

without seeking notice and comment 

pursuant to section 553(b)(3)(B) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, which 

states that an agency may dispense with 

rulemaking if it finds that notice and 

comment are ‘‘impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest.’’ Here, notice and comment are 

not necessary because aligning 

§ 64.6305(b)(5) with the statement of the 

rule in the Second Caller ID 

Authentication Report and Order does 

not alter the regulatory framework 

adopted by the Second Caller ID 

Authentication Report and Order. 

18. Enforcement. We direct the 

Wireline Competition Bureau to send 

written notice to small voice service 

providers listed in the Robocall 

Mitigation Database (1) for which the 

most recent FCC Form 477 filing 

indicates that it is non-facilities-based 

and (2) that does not update its Robocall 

Mitigation Database certifications in a 

timely manner to indicate that it is no 

longer subject to an extension until June 

2023. The Wireline Competition Bureau 

will also send written notice to those 

providers listed in the Robocall 

Mitigation Database and that did not file 

an FCC Form 477. The written notice 

shall provide the small voice service 

providers an opportunity to explain 

why they are not subject to the 

shortened extension (i.e., they are a 

facilities-based provider). If, as a result 

of its inquiry, the Wireline Competition 

Bureau determines that the provider is 

non-facilities-based, has not complied 

with its duty to update its filings in the 

Robocall Mitigation Database, has not 

implemented STIR/SHAKEN by the 

appropriate deadline (e.g., June 30, 2022 

for non-facilities-based small voice 

service providers), or did not respond to 

the Wireline Competition Bureau’s 

inquiry, we direct the Wireline 

Competition Bureau to refer the 

provider to the Enforcement Bureau, 

which may pursue an enforcement 

action as appropriate. 

2. Small Voice Service Providers Found 

To Be the Source of Illegal Robocalls 

19. We are also convinced by the 

record to require small voice service 

providers found by the Enforcement 

Bureau to have failed to, upon notice: 

Mitigate suspected illegal robocall 

traffic, provide information requested by 

the Enforcement Bureau, including 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
3688 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

credible evidence that they are in fact 

not originating such traffic, respond in 

a timely manner or failed to meet their 

burden under § 64.1200(n)(2), to 

implement STIR/SHAKEN on an 

accelerated timeline. In the Small 

Provider FNPRM, we sought comment 

on whether to shorten the extension for 

those small voice service providers that 

have committed ‘‘possible or actual 

violations of our rules or the law,’’ and 

specifically asked whether we should 

‘‘authorize the Enforcement Bureau to 

curtail the extension for small voice 

service providers it notifies of illegal 

traffic under our rules.’’ There is wide 

support in the record for shortening the 

extension for providers identified as a 

source of illegal robocalls. Commenters 

widely agree that penalizing 

perpetrators of illegal robocalls and 

ensuring that they implement caller ID 

authentication more swiftly than would 

otherwise be required is warranted. No 

party opposed shortening the extension 

for voice service providers the 

Enforcement Bureau finds to be a source 

of illegal robocalls. 

20. We now direct the Enforcement 

Bureau to require an originating voice 

service provider suspected of being the 

source of illegal robocalls to implement 

STIR/SHAKEN on an accelerated 

timeframe if the Enforcement Bureau 

makes certain findings or determines it 

has violated § 64.1200(n)(2) of our rules. 

The Enforcement Bureau is authorized 

pursuant to § 0.111(a)(27) to provide 

written notice to a voice service 

provider identifying suspected illegal 

robocalls originating on the voice 

service provider’s network. Under 

§ 64.1200(n)(2) of our rules, the voice 

service provider must take specific steps 

as directed by the Enforcement Bureau 

in that written notice, including 

mitigating the origination of suspected 

illegal robocalls identified by the 

Enforcement Bureau. We direct the 

Enforcement Bureau to require the voice 

service provider to implement STIR/ 

SHAKEN on an accelerated basis if it 

determines that the provider, following 

notice, fails to: Mitigate suspected 

illegal robocall traffic, provide 

information requested by the 

Enforcement Bureau including credible 

evidence that they are in fact not 

originating such traffic, respond in a 

timely manner or meet its burden under 

§ 64.1200(n)(2) in responding to the 

Enforcement Bureau notice. In their 

comments filed in response to the WCB 

Extension PN, NCLC and EPIC agree 

that we should require voice service 

providers that fail to respond to a notice 

to mitigate suspected illegal robocall 

traffic to implement STIR/SHAKEN. 

However, together with ZipDX, they 

argue that we should go further and 

require voice service providers to 

implement STIR/SHAKEN without 

notice or the opportunity to respond to 

a Commission inquiry. For purposes of 

this rulemaking, we conclude that the 

approach we adopt—whereby we curtail 

the extension following a summary 

process—better captures those providers 

that are most likely to be originating 

unlawful robocalls than suggested 

alternatives that do not include this 

additional process. We do not, however, 

foreclose the possibility of applying this 

obligation when appropriate on a caseby-case basis. The voice service 

provider would be subject to an 

accelerated timeframe if (1) the voice 

service provider fails to respond to the 

notice within the timeframe the 

Enforcement Bureau requests or (2) the 

Enforcement Bureau determines that the 

provider’s response is inadequate. A 

response may be considered inadequate 

if, for example, it does not reflect that 

the provider will ‘‘promptly investigate 

the identified traffic’’ or does not 

indicate that it has taken steps to 

‘‘effectively mitigate [the] illegal traffic.’’ 

Shortening the extension for these 

providers complements and strengthens 

the existing obligations and purpose of 

§ 64.1200(n)(2) to ‘‘hold[] the notified 

voice service provider liable’’ for failing 

to mitigate illegal traffic. 

21. New Implementation Deadline. 

We direct the Enforcement Bureau to 

require a small voice service provider to 

implement STIR/SHAKEN within 90 

days of the date of an Enforcement 

Bureau’s determination described in the 

paragraph above. While an 

approximately six-month period starting 

from the effective date of this Order is 

an appropriate amount of time for nonfacilities-based providers to implement 

STIR/SHAKEN, we require a shorter 

period for these providers identified as 

a source of illegal robocalls. More rapid 

STIR/SHAKEN implementation by these 

providers is likely to produce a greater 

public benefit than implementation by 

non-facilities-based providers that are at 

a higher risk of originating illegal 

robocalls, but have not been shown to 

have actually originated such calls. 

Rapid implementation for such 

providers was supported in the record 

because of the harm these providers 

present. Nevertheless, we decline to 

require implementation within 30 days 

as TNS proposes because of the possible 

practical difficulties providers may face 

in adhering to such an aggressive 

timetable. Requiring implementation of 

STIR/SHAKEN within 90 days of an 

Enforcement Bureau determination, half 

as long as the approximately six months 

given to non-facilities-based providers 

after release of this Order, ensures 

prompt implementation of this 

important technology by those providers 

that have failed to take specific steps to 

stop the origination of illegal robocalls. 

Because we provide a longer 

implementation timetable than TNS 

proposes, we see no need to adopt TNS’ 

suggestion that we give identified 

providers an alternative option of 

‘‘submit[ting] a modified Robocall 

Mitigation Plan for Bureau approval’’ in 

the event that its aggressive 30-day 

implementation timetable is not 

feasible. If the 90-day period would 

extend past an earlier implementation 

deadline (i.e., June 30, 2022 for nonfacilities-based providers and June 30, 

2023 for all other small voice service 

providers), the earlier of the two 

deadlines applies. 

22. Updating Extension Status. 

Consistent with our rule for nonfacilities-based providers, providers 

identified as a source of illegal robocalls 

must, within 10 business days of an 

Enforcement Bureau determination 

described above, update their Robocall 

Mitigation Database filing indicating 

that they are subject to a shortened 

extension and update the database again 

once they have implemented STIR/ 

SHAKEN. For example, a provider 

could indicate that it is subject to a 90- 

day extension because it was found to 

be the source of illegal robocalls. This 

approach limits providers’ burden while 

allowing the Commission to track 

providers’ extension status and was 

supported by commenters. 

3. Alternative Approaches 

23. We decline to adopt other criteria 

to identify those small voice service 

providers that will be subject to an 

accelerated STIR/SHAKEN 

implementation deadline. Though we 

proposed doing so in the Small Provider 

FNPRM, the record convinces us not to 

adopt criteria tied to the volume of calls 

originated by a small voice service 

provider or revenue by market segment. 

We do not adopt our original proposal 

to shorten the extension for those 

providers originating a large number of 

calls because we conclude that our 

chosen criteria better capture those 

providers at greatest risk of originating 

robocalls and because of the 

administrative benefits of our chosen 

approach. We agree with CCA that 

criteria based on calls-per-line and 

revenue ‘‘require difficult line drawing’’ 

and we have been unable to identify a 

readily administrable way to implement 

such an approach without ‘‘risk[ing] 

sweeping in providers that are not the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 3689 

intended target.’’ As TNS notes, ‘‘bad 

actors are adept at evading simple 

numerical thresholds’’ and are 

increasingly doing so. We also fear that 

a volume-based approach could be 

subject to manipulation or evasion by 

bad actors. While INCOMPAS and WTA 

argue that the Commission should 

consider a volume-based approach, both 

concede that drawing a clear line would 

be difficult—and we find that the 

approach we adopt is more readily 

administrable and more likely to 

accurately capture voice service 

providers at heightened risk of 

originating illegal robocalls. 

24. We sought comment in the Small 

Provider FNPRM on whether to shorten 

the extension for small voice service 

providers that offer certain services, 

such as caller ID spoofing or the ability 

to broadcast a pre-recorded message that 

illegal robocallers typically use to make 

large amounts of calls. While several 

commenters supported such an 

approach, no party suggested—nor are 

we able to identify—an administrable 

approach to distinguish between 

providers that offer such services for the 

purpose of illegal calling and those that 

do not. 

25. We decline to adopt ACA 

Connects’s suggestion that we shorten 

the extension only for non-facilitiesbased providers that have business 

models that correlate with origination of 

high volumes of illegal robocalls. ACA 

Connects does not explain with 

specificity how we would identify such 

business models, nor are we able to 

identify a reliable method of doing so. 

As a result, there is significant risk that 

any definition we adopt would exclude 

providers at heightened risk of 

originating illegal robocalls. We further 

do not adopt TNS’s proposal or ACA 

Connects’s suggestion to adopt a 

providers’ offering of ‘‘all-IP’’ service as 

either one factor among several which 

alone would justify a shortened 

extension or one factor justifying a 

shortened extension only when present 

with other factors. While the evidence 

indicates that most robocalls come from 

providers offering IP voice service, the 

STIR/SHAKEN rules already apply only 

to IP-based voice service, and we do not 

wish to discourage the transition to allIP networks. As NTCA notes, shortening 

the extension for all-IP providers would 

‘‘capture large numbers of small 

providers delivering lawful service to 

legitimate customers.’’ Neither TNS nor 

ACA Connects explain how relying on 

an ‘‘all-IP’’ factor in combination with 

other factors in a single criterion would 

avoid these shortcomings. Indeed, ACA 

Connects notes that an ‘‘all IP provider’’ 

criterion ‘‘is completely removed from 

any consideration of a voice providers’ 

business practices and, as such, is even 

more likely to be overbroad than’’ 

quantitative factors such as calls-perline. 

26. We do not adopt ‘‘carve-outs’’ or 

backstops to our non-facilities-based test 

as some commenters suggest. For the 

same reason we do not adopt a calls-perline test in the first instance, we decline 

to adopt NTCA’s alternative test to 

allow providers that are ‘‘non-facilitiesbased’’ to demonstrate that they meet a 

‘‘calls-per-line’’ criterion to maintain 

their current extension; it would require 

the Commission to engage in difficult 

line-drawing. We find it unnecessary to 

consider carving out incumbent local 

exchange carriers (LECs) (or a subset of 

incumbent LECs) from the reduced 

extension for non-facilities-based 

providers because all incumbent LECs 

offer facilities-based service. We further 

see no need to adopt a specific 

procedural mechanism to allow 

providers subject to the accelerated 

implementation deadline to argue that 

they should nonetheless retain the full 

two-year extension. No party suggesting 

such a procedure identified why our 

existing processes are inadequate other 

than a conclusory assertion that a 

‘‘compressed time period’’ makes such a 

process necessary. We disagree and note 

that voice service providers subject to a 

shortened extension may submit a 

waiver request. The Commission may 

exercise its discretion to waive a rule 

where the particular facts at issue make 

strict compliance inconsistent with the 

public interest. In considering whether 

to grant a waiver, the Commission may 

take into account considerations of 

hardship, equity, or more effective 

implementation of overall policy on an 

individual basis. We direct the Wireline 

Competition Bureau to act on any such 

requests expeditiously. 

C. Legal Authority 

27. We conclude that we have 

authority to curtail the extension for a 

subset of small voice service providers 

under section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the 

TRACED Act. That section gives us 

authority to grant extensions of the 

caller ID authentication implementation 

deadline ‘‘for a reasonable period of 

time’’ upon a finding of ‘‘undue 

hardship,’’ and was the source of 

authority for the small voice service 

provider extension we today curtail for 

some providers. In the Small Provider 

FNPRM, we proposed to find authority 

under this section, and no party filed 

comments opposing our authority to do 

so. As proposed in the Small Provider 

FNPRM, we find that, in considering 

whether the hardship is ‘‘undue’’ under 

the TRACED Act—as well as whether an 

extension is for a ‘‘reasonable period of 

time’’—it is appropriate to balance the 

hardship of compliance due to the ‘‘the 

burdens and barriers to 

implementation’’ faced by a voice 

service provider or class of voice service 

providers with the benefit to the public 

of implementing STIR/SHAKEN 

expeditiously. We find we have the 

authority to grant a shorter extension for 

small voice service providers that 

present a higher risk of originating 

illegal robocalls or providers that may 

also face a lesser hardship than other 

small voice service providers. We 

further find revising the small provider 

extension in this way is consistent with 

our authority under section 4(b)(5)(F) of 

the TRACED Act, which expressly 

directs the Commission to consider 

revising or extending any granted 

extensions. Although the Commission 

directed the Wireline Competition 

Bureau to engage in an annual review of 

granted extensions, that delegation of 

authority does not prevent the 

Commission from separately exercising 

the authority granted to it under section 

4(b)(5)(F) to ‘‘consider revising or 

extending any delay of compliance.’’ 

II. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

28. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into 

the Caller ID Authentication Third 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(Small Provider FNPRM). The 

Commission sought written public 

comments on the proposals in the Small 

Provider FNPRM, including comments 

on the IRFA. No comments were filed 

addressing the IRFA. This present Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

conforms to the RFA. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules 

29. The Fourth Report and Order 

continues the Commission’s efforts to 

combat illegal spoofed robocalls. 

Specifically, the Fourth Report and 

Order takes action to combat illegally 

spoofed robocalls by accelerating the 

date by which small voice service 

providers that are most likely to be the 

source of illegal robocalls must 

implement the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID 

authentication framework. We require 

non-facilities-based small voice 

providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN 

by June 30, 2022. We also require small 

voice service providers suspected of 

originating illegal robocalls to 

implement STIR/SHAKEN within 90 

days of an Enforcement Bureau 

determination following a summary 

process. The procedures in the Fourth 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
3690 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Report and Order will help promote 

effective caller ID authentication 

through STIR/SHAKEN. 

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

by Public Comments in Response to the 

IRFA 

30. There were no comments filed 

that specifically addressed the proposed 

rules and policies presented in the 

IRFA. 

C. Response to Comments by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration 

31. Pursuant to the Small Business 

Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the 

RFA, the Commission is required to 

respond to any comments filed by the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA), and to 

provide a detailed statement of any 

change made to the proposed rules as a 

result of those comments. 

32. The Chief Counsel did not file any 

comments in response to the proposed 

rules in this proceeding. 

D. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Rules Will Apply 

33. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules and by the rule 

revisions on which the proposal seeks 

comment, if adopted. The RFA generally 

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as 

having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ 

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ 

In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ 

has the same meaning as the term 

‘‘small-business concern’’ under the 

Small Business Act. A ‘‘small-business 

concern’’ is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. 

1. Wireline Carriers 

34. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 

defines this industry as ‘‘establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired communications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services, wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution, and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry.’’ 

The SBA has developed a small 

business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, which 

consists of all such companies having 

1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2012 shows that there 

were 3,117 firms that operated that year. 

Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer 

than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

size standard, the majority of firms in 

this industry can be considered small. 

35. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a size standard for small 

businesses specifically applicable to 

local exchange services. The closest 

applicable North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) Code 

category is Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. Under the applicable SBA size 

standard, such a business is small if it 

has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that 

there were 3,117 firms that operated for 

the entire year. Of that total, 3,083 

operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. Thus, under this category 

and the associated size standard, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of local exchange carriers are small 

entities. 

36. Incumbent LECs. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for incumbent local 

exchange services. The closest 

applicable NAICS Code category is 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 

Under the applicable SBA size standard, 

such a business is small if it has 1,500 

or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2012 indicates that 3,117 firms 

operated the entire year. Of this total, 

3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of incumbent local exchange 

service are small businesses that may be 

affected by our actions. According to 

Commission data, one thousand three 

hundred and seven (1,307) Incumbent 

Local Exchange Carriers reported that 

they were incumbent local exchange 

service providers. Of this total, an 

estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Thus, using the SBA’s size 

standard the majority of incumbent 

LECs can be considered small entities. 

37. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers (Competitive LECs), 

Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), 

Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and 

Other Local Service Providers. Neither 

the Commission nor the SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for these service 

providers. The appropriate NAICS Code 

category is Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. Under the applicable SBA size 

standard, such a business is small if it 

has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 indicates 

that 3,117 firms operated for the entire 

year. Of that number, 3,083 operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. Based 

on these data, the Commission 

concludes that the majority of 

Competitive LECS, CAPs, SharedTenant Service Providers, and Other 

Local Service Providers, are small 

entities. According to Commission data, 

1,442 carriers reported that they were 

engaged in the provision of either 

competitive local exchange services or 

competitive access provider services. Of 

these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. In 

addition, 17 carriers have reported that 

they are Shared-Tenant Service 

Providers, and all 17 are estimated to 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 

carriers have reported that they are 

Other Local Service Providers. Of this 

total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, based on internally 

researched FCC data, the Commission 

estimates that most providers of 

competitive local exchange service, 

competitive access providers, SharedTenant Service Providers, and Other 

Local Service Providers are small 

entities. 

38. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a small business size 

standard specifically for Interexchange 

Carriers. The closest applicable NAICS 

Code category is Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers. The 

applicable size standard under SBA 

rules is that such a business is small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 indicates 

that 3,117 firms operated for the entire 

year. Of that number, 3,083 operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. 

According to internally developed 

Commission data, 359 companies 

reported that their primary 

telecommunications service activity was 

the provision of interexchange services. 

Of this total, an estimated 317 have 

1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of 

interexchange service providers are 

small entities. 

39. Cable System Operators (Telecom 

Act Standard). The Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, also contains 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 3691 

a size standard for small cable system 

operators, which is ‘‘a cable operator 

that, directly or through an affiliate, 

serves in the aggregate fewer than one 

percent of all subscribers in the United 

States and is not affiliated with any 

entity or entities whose gross annual 

revenues in the aggregate exceed 

$250,000,000.’’ As of 2018, there were 

approximately 50,504,624 cable video 

subscribers in the United States. 

Accordingly, an operator serving fewer 

than 505,046 subscribers shall be 

deemed a small operator if its annual 

revenues, when combined with the total 

annual revenues of all its affiliates, do 

not exceed $250 million in the 

aggregate. We note that the Commission 

neither requests nor collects information 

on whether cable system operators are 

affiliated with entities whose gross 

annual revenues exceed $250 million. 

Therefore, we are unable at this time to 

estimate with greater precision the 

number of cable system operators that 

would qualify as small cable operators 

under the definition in the 

Communications Act. 

2. Wireless Carriers 

40. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). This industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

operating and maintaining switching 

and transmission facilities to provide 

communications via the airwaves. 

Establishments in this industry have 

spectrum licenses and provide services 

using that spectrum, such as cellular 

services, paging services, wireless 

internet access, and wireless video 

services. The appropriate size standard 

under SBA rules is that such a business 

is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. For this industry, U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that 

there were 967 firms that operated for 

the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms 

employed fewer than 1,000 employees 

and 12 firms employed of 1,000 

employees or more. Thus, under this 

category and the associated size 

standard, the Commission estimates that 

the majority of wireless 

telecommunications carriers (except 

satellite) are small entities. 

41. The Commission’s own data— 

available in its Universal Licensing 

System—indicate that, as of August 31, 

2018 there are 265 Cellular licensees 

that will be affected by our actions. The 

Commission does not know how many 

of these licensees are small, as the 

Commission does not collect that 

information for these types of entities. 

Similarly, according to internally 

developed Commission data, 413 

carriers reported that they were engaged 

in the provision of wireless telephony, 

including cellular service, Personal 

Communications Service (PCS), and 

Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 

Telephony services. Of this total, an 

estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees, and 152 have more than 

1,500 employees. Thus, using available 

data, we estimate that the majority of 

wireless firms can be considered small. 

42. Satellite Telecommunications. 

This category comprises firms 

‘‘primarily engaged in providing 

telecommunications services to other 

establishments in the 

telecommunications and broadcasting 

industries by forwarding and receiving 

communications signals via a system of 

satellites or reselling satellite 

telecommunications.’’ Satellite 

telecommunications service providers 

include satellite and earth station 

operators. The category has a small 

business size standard of $35 million or 

less in average annual receipts, under 

SBA rules. For this category, U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that 

there were a total of 333 firms that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 299 firms had annual receipts of 

less than $25 million. Consequently, we 

estimate that the majority of satellite 

telecommunications providers are small 

entities. 

3. Resellers 

43. Local Resellers. The SBA has not 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for Local Resellers. 

The SBA category of 

Telecommunications Resellers is the 

closest NAICS code category for local 

resellers. The Telecommunications 

Resellers industry comprises 

establishments engaged in purchasing 

access and network capacity from 

owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications. They do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. Mobile virtual network 

operators (MVNOs) are included in this 

industry. Under the SBA’s size 

standard, such a business is small if it 

has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 

Census Bureau data from 2012 shows 

that 1,341 firms provided resale services 

for the entire year. Of that number, all 

of the firms operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

category and the associated SBA small 

business size standard, the majority of 

these resellers can be considered small 

entities. According to Commission data, 

213 carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provision of local resale 

services. Of these, an estimated 211 

have 1,500 or fewer employees and two 

have more than 1,500 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of local 

resellers are small entities. 

44. Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS 

Code category is Telecommunications 

Resellers. The Telecommunications 

Resellers industry comprises 

establishments engaged in purchasing 

access and network capacity from 

owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. MVNOs are included in 

this industry. The SBA small business 

size standard for Telecommunications 

Resellers classifies a business as small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 

Census Bureau data from 2012 shows 

that 1,341 firms provided resale services 

for the entire year. Of that number, 

1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. Thus, under this category 

and the associated SBA small business 

size standard, the majority of these 

resellers can be considered small 

entities. According to Commission data, 

881 carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provision of toll resale 

services. Of this total, an estimated 857 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of toll 

resellers are small entities. 

45. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. 

The most appropriate NAICS codebased category for defining prepaid 

calling card providers is 

Telecommunications Resellers. This 

industry comprises establishments 

engaged in purchasing access and 

network capacity from owners and 

operators of telecommunications 

networks and reselling wired and 

wireless telecommunications services 

(except satellite) to businesses and 

households. Establishments in this 

industry resell telecommunications; 

they do not operate transmission 

facilities and infrastructure. Mobile 

virtual networks operators (MVNOs) are 

included in this industry. Under the 

applicable SBA size standard, such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2012 shows that 1,341 firms provided 

resale services during that year. Of that 

number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

these prepaid calling card providers can 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
3692 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

be considered small entities. According 

to the Commission’s Form 499 Filer 

Database, 86 active companies reported 

that they were engaged in the provision 

of prepaid calling cards. The 

Commission does not have data 

regarding how many of these companies 

have 1,500 or fewer employees, 

however, the Commission estimates that 

the majority of the 86 active prepaid 

calling card providers that may be 

affected by these rules are likely small 

entities. 

4. Other Entities 

46. All Other Telecommunications. 

The ‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’ 

category is comprised of establishments 

primarily engaged in providing 

specialized telecommunications 

services, such as satellite tracking, 

communications telemetry, and radar 

station operation. This industry also 

includes establishments primarily 

engaged in providing satellite terminal 

stations and associated facilities 

connected with one or more terrestrial 

systems and capable of transmitting 

telecommunications to, and receiving 

telecommunications from, satellite 

systems. Establishments providing 

internet services or voice over internet 

protocol (VoIP) services via clientsupplied telecommunications 

connections are also included in this 

industry. The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for ‘‘All 

Other Telecommunications’’, which 

consists of all such firms with annual 

receipts of $35 million or less. For this 

category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2012 shows that there were 1,442 firms 

that operated for the entire year. Of 

those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual 

receipts less than $25 million and 15 

firms had annual receipts of $25 million 

to $49,999,999. Thus, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of ‘‘All Other 

Telecommunications’’ firms potentially 

affected by our action can be considered 

small. 

E. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

47. None. 

F. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

48. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rules for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities. 

49. The Commission considered the 

record submitted in response to the 

Small Provider FNPRM in crafting the 

final order. We evaluated comments 

with the goal of protecting consumers 

from illegal robocalls while minimizing 

the burden on small entities; 

specifically, small voice service 

providers. There was strong record 

support for shortening the extension to 

implement STIR/SHAKEN caller ID 

authentication for non-facilities-based 

small voice service providers and small 

voice service providers likely to be 

involved with originating illegal 

robocalls, and no party specifically 

opposed doing so. We conclude that, 

consistent with the TRACED Act, the 

public benefit of curtailing the two-year 

extension for these providers outweighs 

the burden. 

50. We address the concerns of small 

entities by allowing facilities-based 

small voice service providers that are 

not likely to be involved with 

originating illegal robocalls to continue 

to benefit from a two-year extension, 

until June 30, 2023, to implement STIR/ 

SHAKEN. We also decline to adopt 

criteria for shortening the extension that 

would have increased the burden on all 

small voice service providers. Nor do 

we require implementation of STIR/ 

SHAKEN within 30 days after an 

Enforcement Bureau determination that 

a small voice service provider did not 

take the necessary steps in response to 

the Enforcement Bureau’s notice or that 

the provider violated § 64.1200(n)(2) of 

our rules. 

G. Report to Congress 

51. The Commission will send a copy 

of the Fourth Report and Order, 

including this FRFA, in a report to be 

sent to Congress pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act. In addition, 

the Commission will send a copy of the 

Fourth Report and Order, including the 

FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the 

Fourth Report and Order and FRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will also be 

published in the Federal Register. 

Procedural Matters 

52. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis. This document does not 

contain proposed information 

collection(s) subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it 

does not contain any new or modified 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

53. Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

was incorporated in the Small Provider 

FNPRM. The Commission sought 

written public comment on the possible 

significant economic impact on small 

entities regarding proposals addressed 

in the Small Provider FNPRM, including 

comments on the IRFA. Pursuant to the 

RFA, a Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis is set forth in Appendix B of 

the Fourth Report and Order. The 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, will send a copy of 

the Fourth Report and Order, including 

the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

54. Congressional Review Act. The 

Commission has determined, and the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

concurs, that this rule is ‘‘non-major’’ 

under the Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will 

send a copy of the Fourth Report and 

Order to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

55. People with Disabilities. To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov 

or call the Consumer & Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 

(voice), 202–418–0432 (tty). 

56. Contact Person. For further 

information about the Fourth Report 

and Order, contact Jonathan Lechter, 

Attorney Advisor, Competition Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

at (202) 418–0984 or jonathan.lechter@

fcc.gov. 

III. Ordering Clauses 

57. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 

227b, and 303(r) of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 

154(i), 154(j), 201(b) 227b, and 303(r), 

that the Fourth Report and Order is 

adopted. 

58. It is further ordered that pursuant 

to §§ 1.4(b)(1) and 1.103(a) of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1), 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 3693 

1.103(a), the Fourth Report and Order 

shall be effective 30 days after 

publication of the Fourth Report and 

Order in the Federal Register. 

59. It is further ordered that part 64 

of the Commission’s rules is amended as 

set forth in Appendix A of the Fourth 

Report and Order. 

60. It is further ordered that the 

Commission shall send a copy of the 

Fourth Report and Order to Congress 

and to the Government Accountability 

Office pursuant to the Congressional 

Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

61. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

the Fourth Report and Order, including 

the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(FRFA), to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 

Carrier equipment, Communications 

common carriers, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Telecommunications, Telephone. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as 

follows: 

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 64 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 

202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 

228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 276, 

403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401–1473, 

unless otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115–141, Div. 

P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091. 

Subpart HH—Caller ID Identification 

■ 2. Section 64.6300 is amended by 

redesignating paragraphs (g) through (l) 

as paragraphs (h) through (m) and 

adding new paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 64.6300 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(g) Non-facilities-based small voice 

service provider. The term ‘‘nonfacilities-based small voice service 

provider’’ means a small voice service 

provider that is offering voice service to 

end-users solely using connections that 

are not sold by the provider or its 

affiliates. 

* * * * * 

■ 2. Section 64.6304 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 64.6304 Extension of implementation 

deadline. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Small voice service providers are 

exempt from the requirements of 

§ 64.6301 through June 30, 2023, except 

that: 

(i) A non-facilities-based small voice 

service provider is exempt from the 

requirements of § 64.6301 only until 

June 30, 2022; and 

(ii) A small voice service provider 

notified by the Enforcement Bureau 

pursuant to § 0.111(a)(27) of this chapter 

that fails to respond in a timely manner, 

fails to respond with the information 

requested by the Enforcement Bureau, 

including credible evidence that the 

robocall traffic identified in the 

notification is not illegal, fails to 

demonstrate that it taken steps to 

effectively mitigate the traffic, or if the 

Enforcement Bureau determines the 

provider violates § 64.1200(n)(2), will 

no longer be exempt from the 

requirements of § 64.6301 beginning 90 

days following the date of the 

Enforcement Bureau’s determination, 

unless the extension would otherwise 

terminate earlier pursuant to paragraph 

(a)(1) introductory text or (a)(1)(i), in 

which case the earlier deadline applies. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 63.6305 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(5) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 64.6305 Robocall mitigation and 

certification. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) A voice service provider shall 

update its filings within 10 business 

days of any change to the information it 

must provide pursuant to paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (4) of this section. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–01244 Filed 1–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 21–130; RM–11897; DA 22– 

33; FR ID 67663] 

Television Broadcasting Services 

Portland, Oregon 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On July 16, 2021, the Media 

Bureau, Video Division (Bureau) issued 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) in response to a petition for 

rulemaking filed by KPTV Broadcasting 

Corporation (Petitioner), the licensee of 

KPTV, channel 12, Portland, Oregon, 

requesting the substitution of channel 

21 for channel 12 at Portland in the 

Table of Allotments. For the reasons set 

forth in the Report and Order referenced 

below, the Bureau amends FCC 

regulations to substitute channel 21 for 

channel 12 at Portland. 

DATES: Effective January 25, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 

418–1647 or Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposed rule was published at 86 FR 

43470 on August 9, 2021. The Petitioner 

filed comments in support of the 

petition reaffirming its commitment to 

apply for channel 21. Gray Television, 

Inc., which acquired the station, also 

filed comments in support of the 

petition and stating its commitment to 

apply for channel 21. In support of its 

channel substitution request, the 

Petitioner states that the Commission 

has recognized that VHF channels have 

certain characteristics that pose 

challenges for their use in providing 

digital television service. In addition, 

the Petitioner has received numerous 

complaints of poor or no reception from 

viewers. Finally, the Petitioner 

demonstrated that the channel 21 noise 

limited contour would fully encompass 

the existing channel 12 contour, and an 

analysis using the Commission’s 

TVStudy software indicates that 

Petitioner’s proposal would result in an 

increase of 39,677 persons predicted to 

receive KPTV service and 499 persons 

that would gain a second over the air 

signal. 

This is a synopsis of the 

Commission’s Report and Order, MB 

Docket No. 21–130; RM–11897; DA 22– 

33, adopted January 12, 2022, and 

released January 12, 2022. The full text 

of this document is available for 

download at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to fcc504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (tty). 

This document does not contain 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

proposed information collection burden 

‘‘for small business concerns with fewer 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES