[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 25, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3684-3693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01244]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[WC Docket No. 17-97; FCC 21-122, FR ID 63445]


Call Authentication Trust Anchor

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission takes action to further 
combat illegally spoofed robocalls by accelerating the date by which 
small voice service providers that are most likely to be the source of 
illegal robocalls must implement the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID 
authentication framework.

DATES: This rule is effective February 24, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Lechter, Competition Policy 
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-0984, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8be1e4e5eaffe3eae5a5e7eee8e3ffeef9cbede8e8a5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ef8580818e9b878e81c1838a8c879b8a9daf898c8cc1888099">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fourth 
Report and Order in WC Docket No. 17-97, adopted on December 9, 2021, 
and released on December 10, 2021. The document is available for 
download at 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#662025255356522600050548010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="12545151272226527471713c757d64">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 
202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Synopsis

I. Fourth Report and Order

    1. In light of the overwhelming record support and available 
evidence showing that non-facilities-based small voice service 
providers are originating a large and disproportionate amount of 
robocalls, we require this subset of providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN 
a year sooner than previously required, while maintaining the full 
extension for those small voice service providers that are facilities-
based. We further require any small voice service providers that the 
Enforcement Bureau suspects of originating illegal robocalls and that 
fails to mitigate such traffic upon Bureau notice or otherwise fails to 
meet its burden under Sec.  64.1200(n)(2) of our rules, to implement 
STIR/SHAKEN within 90 days of that determination unless sooner 
implementation is otherwise required. Through this action, we close a 
gap in our current STIR/SHAKEN regime and, by targeting those providers 
most likely to be involved in illegal robocalling, we reap a 
substantial portion of the benefits offered by STIR/SHAKEN to 
Americans.

A. Basis for Shortening Extension for a Subset of Small Voice Service 
Providers

    2. We find that a subset of small voice service providers 
constitute a large and increasing source of illegal robocalls and 
should therefore be subject to a shortened extension. In the Caller ID 
Authentication Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Small 
Provider FNPRM) (86 FR 30571 (June 9, 2021)), we proposed supporting 
this conclusion on the basis of evidence reflecting that small voice 
service providers are responsible for a substantial portion of the 
illegal robocall problem. Transaction Network Services (TNS), a call 
analytics provider, asserted in a March 2021 report that given their 
disproportionate role originating robocalls, small voice service 
providers need to implement STIR/SHAKEN for the Commissions' rules ``to 
have a significant impact.'' Similarly, Robokiller, a spam call and 
protection service, concluded in a February 2021 report that because 
``smaller carriers have exemptions lasting . . . until 2023 . . . 
[w]ithout a unified front from all carriers, STIR/SHAKEN cannot be 
completely effective.'' The Commission's analysis indicates that small 
providers are a substantial part of the problem. In the Small Provider 
FNPRM, we explained that we had reason to believe just one of the 19 
providers that received letters from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 
in January 2020 for facilitating robocalls had more than 100,000 access 
lines.
    3. No commenter disputed this evidence, and additional evidence 
indicating that some small voice service providers now are a major 
source of illegal robocalls supports this view. TNS released a follow-
up report in September 2021, stating that ``only 4% of the high-risk 
calls in 1H2021 originated from the top six carriers . . . [reflecting] 
a significant drop from 11% in 2019 and down from 6% in 2020.'' It 
concludes that the small provider

[[Page 3685]]

extension ``has likely resulted in the increase of unwanted [voice over 
internet protocol] VoIP calls'' and, in the comments, argues that 
``problematic robocalls increasingly are shifting to small carrier 
networks . . . [a]s large carriers continue to implement STIR/SHAKEN.'' 
No commenter disputed these conclusions or offered competing evidence 
suggesting a different conclusion.
    4. We draw further support for our conclusion from the near-
unanimous consensus in the record for shortening the STIR/SHAKEN 
extension for the subset of small voice service providers most 
responsible for illegally spoofed robocalls in order to better protect 
Americans. For example, the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) 
argued that the ``Commission has reasonably proposed that the subset of 
small providers . . . responsible for a disproportionate amount of 
unlawful robocalls should not continue to benefit from the . . . 
extension.'' Similarly, TNS ``supports the Commission's proposal to 
accelerate the deployment deadline'' for ``those types of providers 
that are most closely associated with originating problematic calls.'' 
INCOMPAS agrees that ``[a]s the Commission indicates, it is a `subset' 
of small voice service providers that are at a heightened risk of 
originating a significant percentage of illegal robocalls,'' that 
should be subject to a ``curtailment of the compliance extension.'' 
Others agreed the Commission should take action, and that the benefits 
of doing so will outweigh the costs. These comments underscore our 
conclusion that the benefits of a shortened extension for those 
providers at greatest risk of originating illegal robocalls far 
outweigh the costs of such action.
    5. We therefore reject WTA-Advocates for Rural Broadband's (WTA) 
assertion that we should not place additional obligations on a subset 
of small voice service providers likely to be the source of illegal 
robocalls. WTA argues that doing so is ``premature'' and would lead to 
``uncertaint[y].'' However, in a comment in response to the Wireline 
Competition Bureau (WCB) Extension Public Notice (PN) (86 FR 56705 
(Oct. 12, 2021)) submitted after the comment cycle in the Small 
Provider FNPRM closed, WTA expressed support for retaining the 
extension for at least facilities-based providers but eliminating it 
for bad actors. We disagree. Many voice service providers have invested 
significant resources implementing STIR/SHAKEN, a technology that, when 
widely deployed, will offer substantial benefits to Americans by 
combating illegally spoofed calls. Implementation gaps undermine its 
effectiveness, however, especially when providers most likely to be the 
source of illegal robocalls are not participating in the framework. As 
Robokiller notes, the trends in illegal robocalls have not markedly 
improved, counseling against further delays. Indeed, the North American 
Numbering Council (NANC) recently explained that the failure of small 
voice service providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN ``negatively impacts 
the broader service provider ecosystem.'' Finally, we find that the 
clear rule we adopt today gives potentially-affected providers 
certainty as to their STIR/SHAKEN obligations.

B. Scope of Providers Subject to Shortened Extension

    6. As detailed below, we require two categories of small voice 
service providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN before the June 30, 2023, 
extended implementation deadline: (1) Non-facilities-based providers, 
and (2) those providers that the Enforcement Bureau determined has, 
upon notice to a provider, failed to: Mitigate suspected illegal 
robocall traffic, provide information requested by the Enforcement 
Bureau, including credible evidence that they are in fact not 
originating such traffic, respond in a timely manner, or violated Sec.  
64.1200(n)(2) of the Commission's rules. In the Small Provider FNPRM, 
we proposed to shorten the extension for small voice service providers 
that ``originate an especially large amount of calls'' and therefore, 
we asserted, ``were at a heightened risk of being a source of unlawful 
calls.'' We sought comment on whether we should shorten the extension 
for providers that meet certain outgoing call thresholds or, as a proxy 
for originating a significant number of calls, meet a certain 
percentage of revenue by market segment. We also sought comment on 
alternative criteria for determining whether a provider is likely at a 
heightened risk of originating robocalls, including whether a provider 
does not offer voice service over physical lines to end-user customers 
or has violated our rules. After review of the record, we conclude that 
subjecting small voice service providers that do not offer voice 
service over physical lines to end-users or that have violated certain 
rules to a hastened STIR/SHAKEN implementation deadline will best 
protect Americans from illegal robocalls.
1. Non-Facilities-Based Small Voice Providers
    7. We conclude that non-facilities-based small voice service 
providers are at a higher risk of originating illegal robocalls than 
other small voice service providers and should be subject to an 
accelerated STIR/SHAKEN implementation deadline. ACA Connects observes, 
based on its review of ``information that is publicly available . . . 
voice providers targeted by the Commission recently for facilitating 
illegal robocalls'' tend to be non-facilities-based providers. As ZipDX 
asserts, most providers originating a large number of robocalls are not 
facilities-based. In contrast to ``providers that deploy physical 
facilities (`lines') . . . to human end-users,'' ZipDX argues that 
there is a ``cottage industry of small VoIP providers'' that focus 
their business on calling services associated with illegal robocalls. 
Additional information reinforces the near-unanimous consensus in the 
record: All but one of the seven interconnected VoIP providers that 
both received letters from the Enforcement Bureau or FTC for their 
suspected involvement in illegal robocalling and submitted an FCC Form 
477 offered VoIP not sold bundled with transmission service.
    8. Conversely, the record convinces us that facilities-based small 
voice service providers are less likely than non-facilities-based 
providers to be the source of illegally spoofed robocalls. USTelecom, 
which established the Industry Traceback Group (ITG) that currently 
serves as the registered traceback consortium to conduct private-led 
traceback efforts, explains that ``[t]racebacks seldom conclude that a 
facilities-based provider, whether a large one or small one'' originate 
robocalls. We agree with NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association (NTCA) 
that ``[t]he risk of illegal robocalls being generated by [facilities-
based] providers . . . would appear relatively low,'' because 
facilities-based providers are likely to offer voice and transmission 
services, so they are not focused solely on serving customers with 
services such as auto-dialing services used for illegal robocalls. In 
addition, as WTA notes, small facilities-based providers are ``familiar 
with their relatively small group of existing and potential 
customers,'' making it ``easy for them to stop, investigate, discourage 
or disconnect potential illegal robocallers.''
    9. We also find that the burden of STIR/SHAKEN implementation for 
non-facilities-based small voice service providers is sufficiently low 
to make

[[Page 3686]]

earlier implementation by this subset appropriate in light of the 
substantial benefits that will flow from shortening the extension for 
these providers. As the NANC recently concluded, ``[i]n general, there 
are no significant barriers which prevent universal STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation for interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP providers 
(regardless of size).'' USTelecom observes that certifications in our 
Robocall Mitigation Database reflect that a substantial number of non-
facilities-based small voice service providers have already partially 
or completely implemented the STIR/SHAKEN framework. This record 
evidence and conclusion corroborates the Commission's own data, which 
shows that non-facilities-based providers have been able to deploy 
STIR/SHAKEN more quickly than other providers. By cross-referencing FCC 
Registration Numbers (FRNs) of FCC Form 477 filers and Robocall 
Mitigation Database filers, we estimate that 328 out of 1,768 filers 
offer only VoIP voice service not bundled with transmission service. Of 
these 328 providers, 106 (32%) report complete STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation, 70 (21%) report partial implementation, and 152 (46%) 
report no implementation. By comparison, of the 1,440 remaining 
providers out of 1,768, 167 (12%) report complete implementation, 309 
(21%) report partial implementation and 964 (67%) report no 
implementation. We note that it is possible that some providers with 
multiple FRNs may report their data differently across both databases. 
But there is no reason to believe that this fact would materially 
affect the percentages described above.
    10. We recognize that not all non-facilities-based small voice 
service providers disproportionately originate illegal robocalls, nor 
are all voice service providers that disproportionately originate 
illegal robocalls non-facilities-based. Nevertheless, based on the 
undisputed evidence in the record, we conclude that the approach we 
adopt is tailored to identify only those small voice service providers 
reasonably likely to be originating illegal robocalls while also 
providing significant administrative advantages over alternative 
approaches. For this reason, we disagree with the National Consumer Law 
Center (NCLC) and Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) who 
argued in their comments in response to the WCB Extension PN, filed 
after the docket in the Small Provider FNPRM closed, that we should not 
adopt a non-facilities-based approach because providers that are not in 
fact originating illegal robocalls might face a shortened extension. 
For example, as described in more detail below, the bright-line 
approach we adopt does not require providers to submit additional 
information to show whether they are non-facilities-based. Further, we 
note that no commenter has opposed shortening the extension for non-
facilities-based providers, and several specifically supported this 
approach or supported retaining the extension for facilities-based 
providers.
    11. Definition. We define a voice service provider as ``non-
facilities based'' if it offers voice service to end-users solely using 
connections that are not sold by the provider or its affiliates. We 
adopt this definition for a ``non-facilities-based'' small voice 
service provider because it captures those providers that lack 
facilities-based voice connections, provides certainty to both affected 
voice service providers and the Commission, and has record support. 
While many commenters supported shortening the extension for non-
facilities-based providers, ACA Connects suggested as an option the 
particular test we adopt here. A voice service provider's voice service 
that does not use connections sold by the provider or its affiliates, 
by definition, ``rides atop'' another provider's transmission service. 
Therefore, such voice service is not offered over the voice service 
provider's own facilities. A voice service provider readily knows 
whether it is offering voice service that relies on its own (or its 
affiliates') facilities or not, and therefore can easily determine 
whether it is subject to this definition.
    12. This definition also tracks with information collected with 
respect to interconnected VoIP providers in the context of our FCC Form 
477. In that collection, if a provider offers interconnected VoIP 
service, it must separately indicate on FCC Form 477 the number of 
interconnected VoIP service subscriptions (1) sold bundled with a 
transmission service carrying underlying VoIP service and (2) voice 
service not bundled for sale with a transmission service. We agree with 
ACA Connects that it is beneficial to examine such data to assist us in 
identifying ``non-facilities-based'' providers because it would 
``enable the Commission to rely on resources already in its possession 
to determine which providers are subject to an earlier deadline and to 
track compliance.'' We further find that using FCC Form 477 as a 
reference to assist affected interconnected VoIP providers in 
determining whether they are subject to a reduced extension will ease 
compliance and limit uncertainty for affected small interconnected VoIP 
voice service providers. We note that one-way interconnected VoIP 
providers are subject to our STIR/SHAKEN rules but are not required to 
file FCC Form 477 because they do not fall within the relevant 
definition of ``interconnected VoIP,'' and FCC Form 477 data has 
traditionally been used for collecting deployment information for 
purposes unrelated to STIR/SHAKEN compliance. For these reasons, we 
believe an approach that uses FCC Form 477 data as a guide to determine 
whether a provider may be non-facilities-based, but not as an automatic 
trigger for a shortened extension, is the appropriate use of that data.
    13. We decline to adopt NTCA's proposed new definition of 
``facilities-based'' voice service provider, a modified version of the 
definition of ``facilities-based'' broadband provider in our rules. 
NTCA's novel and complex definition would place a higher compliance 
obligation on potentially-affected small voice service providers to 
determine whether they meet its terms, compared to our more 
straightforward definition, and NTCA has not explained why each 
component of its complex definition would accurately capture 
facilities-based voice service providers. We also decline to adopt ACA 
Connects's earlier suggestion that we base our definition on providing 
service to a ``relatively well-defined geographic area.'' ACA Connects 
does not explain its proposal in sufficient detail to evaluate its 
merits. To the extent ACA Connects is proposing to allow a provider to 
continue to receive an extension in certain geographic areas and not 
others, ACA Connects does not explain, nor can we identify, how to 
administer such a patchwork approach. For the same administrability 
concerns, we decline to adopt NCLC and EPIC's recommendation in their 
comments filed in response to the WCB Extension PN that we retain a 
two-year extension for a provider's voice services offered over its own 
facilities, while shortening the extension for a provider's voice 
services not offered over its own facilities.
    14. We likewise decline to adopt NTCA's proposal that we require 
providers to file a certification or other additional data to 
demonstrate whether they are entitled to a continued extension. 
Mandating in this Order that providers certify their compliance would 
require further effort on the providers' part and cause non-facilities-
based small voice service providers subject to the shortened timeline 
to

[[Page 3687]]

delay their implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN framework while the 
Commission seeks approval of the information collection associated with 
that certification requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 
Moreover, relying on submitted data increases transparency and reduces 
ambiguity for providers and the Commission, facilitating administration 
and enforcement. Providers also have significant experience with filing 
FCC Form 477 voice data, increasing the likelihood that the information 
submitted is a true reflection of providers' operations. Providers have 
been submitting voice data in the same or similar format since at least 
2013. While not all VoIP providers are required to file FCC Form 477 
(e.g., one-way VoIP providers), we conclude that the burden of 
requiring just those providers to submit similar data or certifications 
to take the place of FCC Form 477 data would outweigh the benefit of 
doing so.
    15. New Implementation Deadline. Non-facilities-based small voice 
service providers must implement STIR/SHAKEN in the IP portions of 
their network by June 30, 2022. We conclude that a one-year curtailment 
is a ``reasonable period of time'' for this subset of small voice 
service providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN given the burdens and 
barriers to implementation they face and the likelihood they are the 
source of illegal robocalls. While we provided all small voice 
providers a two-year extension, we believe that this is a reasonable 
period for non-facilities-based providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN in 
light of recent marketplace progress to increase the availability of 
STIR/SHAKEN solutions and subsequent evidence that non-facilities-based 
providers are at an increased risk of originating illegal robocalls. We 
proposed this timeline in the Small Provider FNPRM. All commenters 
addressing the issue expressed support for this approach and none 
opposed it.
    16. Updating Extension Status. We adopt our proposal in the Small 
Provider FNPRM to rely on the current rule requiring voice service 
providers to update their filings in the Robocall Mitigation Database. 
We conclude that this approach will limit any additional burden on 
providers while allowing the Commission to readily track each 
providers' extension status. Commenters also supported this approach. 
In the Small Provider FNPRM, we explained that the requirement, by its 
terms, would require small voice service providers subject to any 
shortened extension we adopt to: (1) Within 10 business days of the 
effective date of any Order we adopt, update their certifications and 
associated filings indicating that they are subject to a shortened 
extension; and (2) further update their certifications and associated 
filings within 10 business days of completion of STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation in the IP portions of their networks. Parties supported 
this proposal and did not suggest alternatives. Consistent with this 
current rule, non-facilities-based small voice service providers must 
update the database within 10 business days of the effective date of 
this Order to indicate they are no longer subject to a two-year 
extension and must implement STIR/SHAKEN by June 30, 2022 in the IP 
portions of their networks. For example, a provider could indicate in 
its certification that it is subject to a one-year extension for being 
a non-facilities-based small voice service provider. These providers, 
like other voice service providers, must also update their 
certifications and associated filings in the Robocall Mitigation 
Database within 10 business days of completion of STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation. Below, we make a non-substantive change to conform the 
text of the rule (47 CFR 64.6305(b)(5)) to paragraph 85 of the Second 
Caller ID Authentication Report and Order (85 FR 73360 (Nov. 17, 2020)) 
to make clear that providers have the duty to update their STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation status.
    17. In light of the support for our proposal to update the Robocall 
Mitigation Database, we also take this opportunity to revise Sec.  
64.6305(b)(5) of our rules to conform its terms with the language of 
the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order, which served as 
the basis for our proposal. Section 64.6305(b)(5) requires voice 
service providers to update their certifications in the Robocall 
Mitigation Database when needed for accuracy. The adopted rule refers 
to updating the information required by Sec.  64.6305(b)(2)-(4), but it 
inadvertently omitted the information that is part of Robocall 
Mitigation Database certification listed in Sec.  64.6305(b)(1), which 
requires the voice service provider to certify whether it has 
completely, partially, or not implemented the STIR/SHAKEN 
authentication framework. The adopted rule is inconsistent with the 
text of the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order that 
requires providers to ``submit to the Commission via the appropriate 
portal any necessary updates to the information they filed in the 
certification process within 10 business days,'' which includes 
information required by paragraph (b)(1). Revised Sec.  64.6305(b)(5) 
provides that a voice service provider must update, within 10 busines 
days of any change, all information originally submitted with its 
certification. We make this revision to align the rule with the text of 
the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order without seeking 
notice and comment pursuant to section 553(b)(3)(B) of the 
Administrative Procedure Act, which states that an agency may dispense 
with rulemaking if it finds that notice and comment are 
``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' 
Here, notice and comment are not necessary because aligning Sec.  
64.6305(b)(5) with the statement of the rule in the Second Caller ID 
Authentication Report and Order does not alter the regulatory framework 
adopted by the Second Caller ID Authentication Report and Order.
    18. Enforcement. We direct the Wireline Competition Bureau to send 
written notice to small voice service providers listed in the Robocall 
Mitigation Database (1) for which the most recent FCC Form 477 filing 
indicates that it is non-facilities-based and (2) that does not update 
its Robocall Mitigation Database certifications in a timely manner to 
indicate that it is no longer subject to an extension until June 2023. 
The Wireline Competition Bureau will also send written notice to those 
providers listed in the Robocall Mitigation Database and that did not 
file an FCC Form 477. The written notice shall provide the small voice 
service providers an opportunity to explain why they are not subject to 
the shortened extension (i.e., they are a facilities-based provider). 
If, as a result of its inquiry, the Wireline Competition Bureau 
determines that the provider is non-facilities-based, has not complied 
with its duty to update its filings in the Robocall Mitigation 
Database, has not implemented STIR/SHAKEN by the appropriate deadline 
(e.g., June 30, 2022 for non-facilities-based small voice service 
providers), or did not respond to the Wireline Competition Bureau's 
inquiry, we direct the Wireline Competition Bureau to refer the 
provider to the Enforcement Bureau, which may pursue an enforcement 
action as appropriate.
2. Small Voice Service Providers Found To Be the Source of Illegal 
Robocalls
    19. We are also convinced by the record to require small voice 
service providers found by the Enforcement Bureau to have failed to, 
upon notice: Mitigate suspected illegal robocall traffic, provide 
information requested by the Enforcement Bureau, including

[[Page 3688]]

credible evidence that they are in fact not originating such traffic, 
respond in a timely manner or failed to meet their burden under Sec.  
64.1200(n)(2), to implement STIR/SHAKEN on an accelerated timeline. In 
the Small Provider FNPRM, we sought comment on whether to shorten the 
extension for those small voice service providers that have committed 
``possible or actual violations of our rules or the law,'' and 
specifically asked whether we should ``authorize the Enforcement Bureau 
to curtail the extension for small voice service providers it notifies 
of illegal traffic under our rules.'' There is wide support in the 
record for shortening the extension for providers identified as a 
source of illegal robocalls. Commenters widely agree that penalizing 
perpetrators of illegal robocalls and ensuring that they implement 
caller ID authentication more swiftly than would otherwise be required 
is warranted. No party opposed shortening the extension for voice 
service providers the Enforcement Bureau finds to be a source of 
illegal robocalls.
    20. We now direct the Enforcement Bureau to require an originating 
voice service provider suspected of being the source of illegal 
robocalls to implement STIR/SHAKEN on an accelerated timeframe if the 
Enforcement Bureau makes certain findings or determines it has violated 
Sec.  64.1200(n)(2) of our rules. The Enforcement Bureau is authorized 
pursuant to Sec.  0.111(a)(27) to provide written notice to a voice 
service provider identifying suspected illegal robocalls originating on 
the voice service provider's network. Under Sec.  64.1200(n)(2) of our 
rules, the voice service provider must take specific steps as directed 
by the Enforcement Bureau in that written notice, including mitigating 
the origination of suspected illegal robocalls identified by the 
Enforcement Bureau. We direct the Enforcement Bureau to require the 
voice service provider to implement STIR/SHAKEN on an accelerated basis 
if it determines that the provider, following notice, fails to: 
Mitigate suspected illegal robocall traffic, provide information 
requested by the Enforcement Bureau including credible evidence that 
they are in fact not originating such traffic, respond in a timely 
manner or meet its burden under Sec.  64.1200(n)(2) in responding to 
the Enforcement Bureau notice. In their comments filed in response to 
the WCB Extension PN, NCLC and EPIC agree that we should require voice 
service providers that fail to respond to a notice to mitigate 
suspected illegal robocall traffic to implement STIR/SHAKEN. However, 
together with ZipDX, they argue that we should go further and require 
voice service providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN without notice or the 
opportunity to respond to a Commission inquiry. For purposes of this 
rulemaking, we conclude that the approach we adopt--whereby we curtail 
the extension following a summary process--better captures those 
providers that are most likely to be originating unlawful robocalls 
than suggested alternatives that do not include this additional 
process. We do not, however, foreclose the possibility of applying this 
obligation when appropriate on a case-by-case basis. The voice service 
provider would be subject to an accelerated timeframe if (1) the voice 
service provider fails to respond to the notice within the timeframe 
the Enforcement Bureau requests or (2) the Enforcement Bureau 
determines that the provider's response is inadequate. A response may 
be considered inadequate if, for example, it does not reflect that the 
provider will ``promptly investigate the identified traffic'' or does 
not indicate that it has taken steps to ``effectively mitigate [the] 
illegal traffic.'' Shortening the extension for these providers 
complements and strengthens the existing obligations and purpose of 
Sec.  64.1200(n)(2) to ``hold[] the notified voice service provider 
liable'' for failing to mitigate illegal traffic.
    21. New Implementation Deadline. We direct the Enforcement Bureau 
to require a small voice service provider to implement STIR/SHAKEN 
within 90 days of the date of an Enforcement Bureau's determination 
described in the paragraph above. While an approximately six-month 
period starting from the effective date of this Order is an appropriate 
amount of time for non-facilities-based providers to implement STIR/
SHAKEN, we require a shorter period for these providers identified as a 
source of illegal robocalls. More rapid STIR/SHAKEN implementation by 
these providers is likely to produce a greater public benefit than 
implementation by non-facilities-based providers that are at a higher 
risk of originating illegal robocalls, but have not been shown to have 
actually originated such calls. Rapid implementation for such providers 
was supported in the record because of the harm these providers 
present. Nevertheless, we decline to require implementation within 30 
days as TNS proposes because of the possible practical difficulties 
providers may face in adhering to such an aggressive timetable. 
Requiring implementation of STIR/SHAKEN within 90 days of an 
Enforcement Bureau determination, half as long as the approximately six 
months given to non-facilities-based providers after release of this 
Order, ensures prompt implementation of this important technology by 
those providers that have failed to take specific steps to stop the 
origination of illegal robocalls. Because we provide a longer 
implementation timetable than TNS proposes, we see no need to adopt 
TNS' suggestion that we give identified providers an alternative option 
of ``submit[ting] a modified Robocall Mitigation Plan for Bureau 
approval'' in the event that its aggressive 30-day implementation 
timetable is not feasible. If the 90-day period would extend past an 
earlier implementation deadline (i.e., June 30, 2022 for non-
facilities-based providers and June 30, 2023 for all other small voice 
service providers), the earlier of the two deadlines applies.
    22. Updating Extension Status. Consistent with our rule for non-
facilities-based providers, providers identified as a source of illegal 
robocalls must, within 10 business days of an Enforcement Bureau 
determination described above, update their Robocall Mitigation 
Database filing indicating that they are subject to a shortened 
extension and update the database again once they have implemented 
STIR/SHAKEN. For example, a provider could indicate that it is subject 
to a 90-day extension because it was found to be the source of illegal 
robocalls. This approach limits providers' burden while allowing the 
Commission to track providers' extension status and was supported by 
commenters.
3. Alternative Approaches
    23. We decline to adopt other criteria to identify those small 
voice service providers that will be subject to an accelerated STIR/
SHAKEN implementation deadline. Though we proposed doing so in the 
Small Provider FNPRM, the record convinces us not to adopt criteria 
tied to the volume of calls originated by a small voice service 
provider or revenue by market segment. We do not adopt our original 
proposal to shorten the extension for those providers originating a 
large number of calls because we conclude that our chosen criteria 
better capture those providers at greatest risk of originating 
robocalls and because of the administrative benefits of our chosen 
approach. We agree with CCA that criteria based on calls-per-line and 
revenue ``require difficult line drawing'' and we have been unable to 
identify a readily administrable way to implement such an approach 
without ``risk[ing] sweeping in providers that are not the

[[Page 3689]]

intended target.'' As TNS notes, ``bad actors are adept at evading 
simple numerical thresholds'' and are increasingly doing so. We also 
fear that a volume-based approach could be subject to manipulation or 
evasion by bad actors. While INCOMPAS and WTA argue that the Commission 
should consider a volume-based approach, both concede that drawing a 
clear line would be difficult--and we find that the approach we adopt 
is more readily administrable and more likely to accurately capture 
voice service providers at heightened risk of originating illegal 
robocalls.
    24. We sought comment in the Small Provider FNPRM on whether to 
shorten the extension for small voice service providers that offer 
certain services, such as caller ID spoofing or the ability to 
broadcast a pre-recorded message that illegal robocallers typically use 
to make large amounts of calls. While several commenters supported such 
an approach, no party suggested--nor are we able to identify--an 
administrable approach to distinguish between providers that offer such 
services for the purpose of illegal calling and those that do not.
    25. We decline to adopt ACA Connects's suggestion that we shorten 
the extension only for non-facilities-based providers that have 
business models that correlate with origination of high volumes of 
illegal robocalls. ACA Connects does not explain with specificity how 
we would identify such business models, nor are we able to identify a 
reliable method of doing so. As a result, there is significant risk 
that any definition we adopt would exclude providers at heightened risk 
of originating illegal robocalls. We further do not adopt TNS's 
proposal or ACA Connects's suggestion to adopt a providers' offering of 
``all-IP'' service as either one factor among several which alone would 
justify a shortened extension or one factor justifying a shortened 
extension only when present with other factors. While the evidence 
indicates that most robocalls come from providers offering IP voice 
service, the STIR/SHAKEN rules already apply only to IP-based voice 
service, and we do not wish to discourage the transition to all-IP 
networks. As NTCA notes, shortening the extension for all-IP providers 
would ``capture large numbers of small providers delivering lawful 
service to legitimate customers.'' Neither TNS nor ACA Connects explain 
how relying on an ``all-IP'' factor in combination with other factors 
in a single criterion would avoid these shortcomings. Indeed, ACA 
Connects notes that an ``all IP provider'' criterion ``is completely 
removed from any consideration of a voice providers' business practices 
and, as such, is even more likely to be overbroad than'' quantitative 
factors such as calls-per-line.
    26. We do not adopt ``carve-outs'' or backstops to our non-
facilities-based test as some commenters suggest. For the same reason 
we do not adopt a calls-per-line test in the first instance, we decline 
to adopt NTCA's alternative test to allow providers that are ``non-
facilities-based'' to demonstrate that they meet a ``calls-per-line'' 
criterion to maintain their current extension; it would require the 
Commission to engage in difficult line-drawing. We find it unnecessary 
to consider carving out incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) (or a 
subset of incumbent LECs) from the reduced extension for non-
facilities-based providers because all incumbent LECs offer facilities-
based service. We further see no need to adopt a specific procedural 
mechanism to allow providers subject to the accelerated implementation 
deadline to argue that they should nonetheless retain the full two-year 
extension. No party suggesting such a procedure identified why our 
existing processes are inadequate other than a conclusory assertion 
that a ``compressed time period'' makes such a process necessary. We 
disagree and note that voice service providers subject to a shortened 
extension may submit a waiver request. The Commission may exercise its 
discretion to waive a rule where the particular facts at issue make 
strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest. In considering 
whether to grant a waiver, the Commission may take into account 
considerations of hardship, equity, or more effective implementation of 
overall policy on an individual basis. We direct the Wireline 
Competition Bureau to act on any such requests expeditiously.

C. Legal Authority

    27. We conclude that we have authority to curtail the extension for 
a subset of small voice service providers under section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) 
of the TRACED Act. That section gives us authority to grant extensions 
of the caller ID authentication implementation deadline ``for a 
reasonable period of time'' upon a finding of ``undue hardship,'' and 
was the source of authority for the small voice service provider 
extension we today curtail for some providers. In the Small Provider 
FNPRM, we proposed to find authority under this section, and no party 
filed comments opposing our authority to do so. As proposed in the 
Small Provider FNPRM, we find that, in considering whether the hardship 
is ``undue'' under the TRACED Act--as well as whether an extension is 
for a ``reasonable period of time''--it is appropriate to balance the 
hardship of compliance due to the ``the burdens and barriers to 
implementation'' faced by a voice service provider or class of voice 
service providers with the benefit to the public of implementing STIR/
SHAKEN expeditiously. We find we have the authority to grant a shorter 
extension for small voice service providers that present a higher risk 
of originating illegal robocalls or providers that may also face a 
lesser hardship than other small voice service providers. We further 
find revising the small provider extension in this way is consistent 
with our authority under section 4(b)(5)(F) of the TRACED Act, which 
expressly directs the Commission to consider revising or extending any 
granted extensions. Although the Commission directed the Wireline 
Competition Bureau to engage in an annual review of granted extensions, 
that delegation of authority does not prevent the Commission from 
separately exercising the authority granted to it under section 
4(b)(5)(F) to ``consider revising or extending any delay of 
compliance.''

II. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    28. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated into the Caller ID Authentication Third Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (Small Provider FNPRM). The Commission sought 
written public comments on the proposals in the Small Provider FNPRM, 
including comments on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the 
IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 
conforms to the RFA.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules

    29. The Fourth Report and Order continues the Commission's efforts 
to combat illegal spoofed robocalls. Specifically, the Fourth Report 
and Order takes action to combat illegally spoofed robocalls by 
accelerating the date by which small voice service providers that are 
most likely to be the source of illegal robocalls must implement the 
STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework. We require non-
facilities-based small voice providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN by June 
30, 2022. We also require small voice service providers suspected of 
originating illegal robocalls to implement STIR/SHAKEN within 90 days 
of an Enforcement Bureau determination following a summary process. The 
procedures in the Fourth

[[Page 3690]]

Report and Order will help promote effective caller ID authentication 
through STIR/SHAKEN.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    30. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the 
proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    31. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended 
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the 
proposed rules as a result of those comments.
    32. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the 
proposed rules in this proceeding.

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

    33. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules and by the rule revisions on which the 
proposal seeks comment, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A ``small-business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
1. Wireline Carriers
    34. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 
defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in 
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use 
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming 
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, 
establishments providing satellite television distribution services 
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in 
this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard 
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such 
companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 
2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this 
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this 
size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.
    35. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically 
applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code category is Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. Under the applicable SBA size standard, 
such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of that total, 3,083 operated with fewer 
than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated size 
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of local exchange 
carriers are small entities.
    36. Incumbent LECs. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent 
local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under the applicable SBA size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicates that 3,117 firms operated 
the entire year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers 
of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be 
affected by our actions. According to Commission data, one thousand 
three hundred and seven (1,307) Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers 
reported that they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of 
this total, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Thus, 
using the SBA's size standard the majority of incumbent LECs can be 
considered small entities.
    37. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), 
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these 
service providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. Under the applicable SBA size standard, 
such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 indicates that 3,117 firms operated for the 
entire year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees. Based on these data, the Commission concludes that the 
majority of Competitive LECS, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and Other Local Service Providers, are small entities. According to 
Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of either competitive local exchange services or competitive 
access provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 
have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported 
that they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated 
to have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 carriers have reported that 
they are Other Local Service Providers. Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or 
fewer employees. Consequently, based on internally researched FCC data, 
the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local 
exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service 
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities.
    38. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
Interexchange Carriers. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The applicable size standard under 
SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicates that 3,117 firms 
operated for the entire year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer 
than 1,000 employees. According to internally developed Commission 
data, 359 companies reported that their primary telecommunications 
service activity was the provision of interexchange services. Of this 
total, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, 
the Commission estimates that the majority of interexchange service 
providers are small entities.
    39. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains

[[Page 3691]]

a size standard for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable 
operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the 
aggregate fewer than one percent of all subscribers in the United 
States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross 
annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' As of 2018, 
there were approximately 50,504,624 cable video subscribers in the 
United States. Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 505,046 
subscribers shall be deemed a small operator if its annual revenues, 
when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do 
not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. We note that the Commission 
neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system 
operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues 
exceed $250 million. Therefore, we are unable at this time to estimate 
with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would 
qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the 
Communications Act.
2. Wireless Carriers
    40. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were 967 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms employed fewer 
than 1,000 employees and 12 firms employed of 1,000 employees or more. 
Thus, under this category and the associated size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications 
carriers (except satellite) are small entities.
    41. The Commission's own data--available in its Universal Licensing 
System--indicate that, as of August 31, 2018 there are 265 Cellular 
licensees that will be affected by our actions. The Commission does not 
know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission does not 
collect that information for these types of entities. Similarly, 
according to internally developed Commission data, 413 carriers 
reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, 
including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and 
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of this total, an 
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have more than 
1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the 
majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
    42. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms 
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other 
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by 
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of 
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite 
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth 
station operators. The category has a small business size standard of 
$35 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For 
this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were a 
total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 
299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, 
we estimate that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers 
are small entities.
3. Resellers
    43. Local Resellers. The SBA has not developed a small business 
size standard specifically for Local Resellers. The SBA category of 
Telecommunications Resellers is the closest NAICS code category for 
local resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises 
establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from 
owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired 
and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to 
businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell 
telecommunications. They do not operate transmission facilities and 
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included 
in this industry. Under the SBA's size standard, such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data from 
2012 shows that 1,341 firms provided resale services for the entire 
year. Of that number, all of the firms operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees. Thus, under this category and the associated SBA small 
business size standard, the majority of these resellers can be 
considered small entities. According to Commission data, 213 carriers 
have reported that they are engaged in the provision of local resale 
services. Of these, an estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 
two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of local resellers are small entities.
    44. Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS Code category is 
Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry 
comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network 
capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and 
reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except 
satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. MVNOs are included in this industry. The 
SBA small business size standard for Telecommunications Resellers 
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data from 2012 shows that 1,341 firms provided resale 
services for the entire year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer 
than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated SBA 
small business size standard, the majority of these resellers can be 
considered small entities. According to Commission data, 881 carriers 
have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale 
services. Of this total, an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
toll resellers are small entities.
    45. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The most appropriate NAICS 
code-based category for defining prepaid calling card providers is 
Telecommunications Resellers. This industry comprises establishments 
engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and 
operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and 
wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses 
and households. Establishments in this industry resell 
telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and 
infrastructure. Mobile virtual networks operators (MVNOs) are included 
in this industry. Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 shows that 1,341 firms provided resale services 
during that year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business 
size standard, the majority of these prepaid calling card providers can

[[Page 3692]]

be considered small entities. According to the Commission's Form 499 
Filer Database, 86 active companies reported that they were engaged in 
the provision of prepaid calling cards. The Commission does not have 
data regarding how many of these companies have 1,500 or fewer 
employees, however, the Commission estimates that the majority of the 
86 active prepaid calling card providers that may be affected by these 
rules are likely small entities.
4. Other Entities
    46. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' category is comprised of establishments primarily 
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as 
satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station 
operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged 
in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities 
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of 
transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications 
from, satellite systems. Establishments providing internet services or 
voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied 
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for ``All Other 
Telecommunications'', which consists of all such firms with annual 
receipts of $35 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau 
data for 2012 shows that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the 
entire year. Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual receipts less 
than $25 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to 
$49,999,999. Thus, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All 
Other Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected by our action can 
be considered small.

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

    47. None.

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

    48. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) 
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance and reporting requirements under the rules for such small 
entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and 
(4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for 
such small entities.
    49. The Commission considered the record submitted in response to 
the Small Provider FNPRM in crafting the final order. We evaluated 
comments with the goal of protecting consumers from illegal robocalls 
while minimizing the burden on small entities; specifically, small 
voice service providers. There was strong record support for shortening 
the extension to implement STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication for 
non-facilities-based small voice service providers and small voice 
service providers likely to be involved with originating illegal 
robocalls, and no party specifically opposed doing so. We conclude 
that, consistent with the TRACED Act, the public benefit of curtailing 
the two-year extension for these providers outweighs the burden.
    50. We address the concerns of small entities by allowing 
facilities-based small voice service providers that are not likely to 
be involved with originating illegal robocalls to continue to benefit 
from a two-year extension, until June 30, 2023, to implement STIR/
SHAKEN. We also decline to adopt criteria for shortening the extension 
that would have increased the burden on all small voice service 
providers. Nor do we require implementation of STIR/SHAKEN within 30 
days after an Enforcement Bureau determination that a small voice 
service provider did not take the necessary steps in response to the 
Enforcement Bureau's notice or that the provider violated Sec.  
64.1200(n)(2) of our rules.

G. Report to Congress

    51. The Commission will send a copy of the Fourth Report and Order, 
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy 
of the Fourth Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Fourth Report and Order 
and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal 
Register.

Procedural Matters

    52. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This document does 
not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, 
it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden 
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to 
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
    53. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Small Provider 
FNPRM. The Commission sought written public comment on the possible 
significant economic impact on small entities regarding proposals 
addressed in the Small Provider FNPRM, including comments on the IRFA. 
Pursuant to the RFA, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is set 
forth in Appendix B of the Fourth Report and Order. The Commission's 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, 
will send a copy of the Fourth Report and Order, including the FRFA, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA).
    54. Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and 
the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is ``non-
major'' under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The 
Commission will send a copy of the Fourth Report and Order to Congress 
and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A).
    55. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3b5d58580e0b0f7b5d5858155c544d">[email protected]</a> or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
    56. Contact Person. For further information about the Fourth Report 
and Order, contact Jonathan Lechter, Attorney Advisor, Competition 
Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-0984 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#32585d5c53465a535c1c5e57515a465740725451511c555d44"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d7bdb8b9b6a3bfb6b9f9bbb2b4bfa3b2a597b1b4b4f9b0b8a1">[email protected]</span></a>.

III. Ordering Clauses

    57. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 
201(b), 227b, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201(b) 227b, and 303(r), that the Fourth 
Report and Order is adopted.
    58. It is further ordered that pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.4(b)(1) and 
1.103(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1),

[[Page 3693]]

1.103(a), the Fourth Report and Order shall be effective 30 days after 
publication of the Fourth Report and Order in the Federal Register.
    59. It is further ordered that part 64 of the Commission's rules is 
amended as set forth in Appendix A of the Fourth Report and Order.
    60. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of 
the Fourth Report and Order to Congress and to the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    61. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of the Fourth Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Carrier equipment, Communications common carriers, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 
222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 
276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401-1473, unless otherwise 
noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.

Subpart HH--Caller ID Identification

0
2. Section 64.6300 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (g) through 
(l) as paragraphs (h) through (m) and adding new paragraph (g) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  64.6300   Definitions.

* * * * *
    (g) Non-facilities-based small voice service provider. The term 
``non-facilities-based small voice service provider'' means a small 
voice service provider that is offering voice service to end-users 
solely using connections that are not sold by the provider or its 
affiliates.
* * * * *

0
2. Section 64.6304 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  64.6304   Extension of implementation deadline.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Small voice service providers are exempt from the requirements 
of Sec.  64.6301 through June 30, 2023, except that:
    (i) A non-facilities-based small voice service provider is exempt 
from the requirements of Sec.  64.6301 only until June 30, 2022; and
    (ii) A small voice service provider notified by the Enforcement 
Bureau pursuant to Sec.  0.111(a)(27) of this chapter that fails to 
respond in a timely manner, fails to respond with the information 
requested by the Enforcement Bureau, including credible evidence that 
the robocall traffic identified in the notification is not illegal, 
fails to demonstrate that it taken steps to effectively mitigate the 
traffic, or if the Enforcement Bureau determines the provider violates 
Sec.  64.1200(n)(2), will no longer be exempt from the requirements of 
Sec.  64.6301 beginning 90 days following the date of the Enforcement 
Bureau's determination, unless the extension would otherwise terminate 
earlier pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) introductory text or (a)(1)(i), in 
which case the earlier deadline applies.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 63.6305 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(5) introductory 
text to read as follows:


Sec.  64.6305   Robocall mitigation and certification.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) A voice service provider shall update its filings within 10 
business days of any change to the information it must provide pursuant 
to paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-01244 Filed 1-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


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