Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30571 

enforcement activities, to prevent 

disclosure of investigative techniques, 

to maintain the ability to obtain candid 

and necessary information, to fulfill 

commitments made to sources to protect 

the confidentiality of information, to 

avoid endangering those sources and, 

ultimately, to facilitate proper selection 

or continuance of the best applicants or 

persons for a given position or contract. 

Special note is made of the limitation on 

the extent to which this exemption may 

be asserted. 

(3) Litigation Records. This system is 

exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552(k)(1), (k)(2), 

and (k)(5) from the provisions of 5 

U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1); (e)(4)(G), 

(H), (I); and (f). These exemptions are 

claimed to protect the materials 

required by executive order to be kept 

secret in the interest of national defense 

or foreign policy, to prevent subjects of 

investigation from frustrating the 

investigatory process, to insure the 

proper functioning and integrity of law 

enforcement activities, to prevent 

disclosure of investigative techniques, 

to maintain the ability to obtain candid 

and necessary information, to fulfill 

commitments made to sources to protect 

the confidentiality of information. 

Dated: May 24, 2021. 

Christopher A. Colbow, 

Chief, Information and Records Division, 

FOIA Public Liaison/Agency Records Officer, 

U.S. Agency for International Development. 

[FR Doc. 2021–11381 Filed 6–8–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6116–02–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[WC Docket No. 17–97; FCC 21–62; FR ID 

30569] 

Call Authentication Trust Anchor 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) seeks comment on a 

proposal to shorten by one year the 

STIR/SHAKEN implementation 

extension for small voice service 

providers that originate an especially 

large number of calls, so that such 

providers must implement STIR/ 

SHAKEN in the IP portions of their 

networks no later than June 30, 2022. 

The Commission believes this proposal 

will protect Americans from illegal 

robocalls—especially illegally spoofed 

robocalls—by ensuring that voice 

service providers most likely to be the 

source of illegal robocalls authenticate 

calls sooner, allowing terminating voice 

service providers to know if the caller 

ID is legitimate and take action as 

appropriate, including by blocking or 

labeling suspicious calls. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

how to define which small voice service 

providers should receive a shortened 

extension and on ways to monitor 

compliance. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

July 9, 2021; reply Comments are due on 

or before August 9, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 17–97, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

• Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (March 19, 

2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/ 

fcc-closes-headquarters-open-windowand-changes-hand-delivery-policy. 

In addition to filing comments with 

the Secretary, a copy of any comments 

on the Paperwork Reduction Act 

proposed information collection 

requirements contained herein should 

be submitted to the Federal 

Communications Commission via email 

to PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicole Ongele, 

FCC, via email to Nicole.Ongele@

fcc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, please contact 

Alexander Hobbs, Attorney Advisor, 

Competition Policy Division, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, at 

Alexander.Hobbs@fcc.gov or at (202) 

418–7433. For additional information 

concerning the Paperwork Reduction 

Act proposed information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document, send an email to PRA@

fcc.gov or contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 

418–2991. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Third 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(Further Notice) in WC Docket No. 17– 

97, FCC 21–62, adopted on May 20, 

2021, and released on May 21, 2021. 

The full text of this document is 

available for public inspection at the 

following internet address: https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC21-62A1.pdf. To request materials in 

accessible formats for people with 

disabilities (e.g. braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format, etc.), send 

an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), or 

(202) 418–0432 (TTY). 

Synopsis 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Third Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, we take further 

action to stem the tide of illegal 

robocalls by proposing to accelerate the 

date by which small voice providers 

that originate an especially large amount 

of call traffic must implement the STIR/ 

SHAKEN caller ID authentication 

framework. STIR/SHAKEN combats 

illegally spoofed robocalls by allowing 

voice service providers to verify that the 

caller ID information transmitted with a 

particular call matches the caller’s 

number. In March 2020, pursuant to 

Congressional direction in the PalloneThune Telephone Robocall Abuse 

Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence 

(TRACED) Act, the Commission adopted 

timelines for voice service providers to 

implement STIR/SHAKEN. In 

September 2020, pursuant to the 

TRACED Act, the Commission provided 

a two-year extension of the deadline for 

all small voice service providers to 

implement STIR/SHAKEN. New 

evidence suggests, however, that a 

subset of small voice service providers 

appears to be originating a large and 

increasing quantity of illegal robocalls. 

To better protect Americans from 

illegally spoofed robocalls, we therefore 

propose to shorten that deadline from 

two years to one for the subset of small 

voice providers that are at a heightened 

risk of originating an especially large 

amount of robocall traffic. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
30572 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

II. Background 

2. In March 2020, the Commission 

adopted rules requiring voice service 

providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN 

in the internet Protocol (IP) portions of 

their voice networks by June 30, 2021. 

The STIR/SHAKEN framework relies on 

public-key cryptography to securely 

transmit the information that the 

originating voice service provider 

knows about the identity of the caller 

and its relationship to the phone 

number it is using throughout the entire 

length of the call path, allowing the 

terminating voice service provider to 

verify the information on the other end. 

To implement STIR/SHAKEN in its 

network, a voice service provider must 

update portions of its network 

infrastructure to enable it to 

authenticate and verify caller ID 

information consistent with the 

framework. 

3. Widespread implementation of 

STIR/SHAKEN will provide numerous 

benefits for voice service providers, 

their subscribers, and entities involved 

in enforcement. Because STIR/SHAKEN 

utilizes a three-level attestation to 

signify what a voice service provider 

knows about the calling party, it 

provides vital information that can be 

used by terminating voice service 

providers to block or label illegal 

robocalls before those calls reach their 

subscribers. Indeed, the Commission 

safe harbor for voice service providers 

that offer opt-out call blocking requires 

that providers base their blocking 

decisions on reasonable analytics that 

take into consideration caller ID 

authentication information. STIR/ 

SHAKEN information also promotes 

enforcement by appending information 

about the source of a call into the 

metadata of the call itself, offering 

instantaneous traceback without the 

need to go through the traceback 

process. STIR/SHAKEN implementation 

further restores trust in caller ID 

information and makes call recipients 

more willing to answer the phone, 

reduces disruption to E911 networks, 

reduces providers’ compliance response 

costs, and reduces the government-wide 

costs of enforcement. In total, the 

Commission estimated that the 

monetary benefit from reducing fraud 

and nuisance due to illegal robocalls 

would exceed $13.5 billion per year. 

4. The TRACED Act created a process 

by which the Commission could grant 

extensions of the June 30, 2021, 

implementation deadline for voice 

service providers that the Commission 

determined face ‘‘undue hardship’’ in 

implementing STIR/SHAKEN. After 

assessing the burdens and barriers faced 

by different classes of voice service 

providers, the Commission granted the 

following class-based extensions: (1) A 

two-year extension to small voice 

service providers; (2) an extension to 

voice service providers that cannot 

obtain a ‘‘certificate’’ until such 

provider is able to obtain one; (3) a oneyear extension to services scheduled for 

section 214 discontinuance; and (4) a 

continuing extension for the parts of a 

voice service provider’s network that 

rely on technology that cannot initiate, 

maintain, and terminate SIP calls until 

a solution for such calls is readily 

available. Voice service providers 

seeking the benefit of one of these 

extensions must implement a robocall 

mitigation program and, under new 

rules adopted in the Call Blocking 

Fourth Report and Order, all voice 

service providers must comply with 

requirements to respond fully and in a 

timely manner to all traceback requests 

from certain entities, effectively mitigate 

illegal traffic when notified by the 

Commission, and adopt affirmative, 

effective measures to prevent new and 

renewing customers from using their 

network to originate illegal calls. 

5. The Commission defined small 

voice service providers subject to an 

extension as those with 100,000 or 

fewer voice subscriber lines. It 

determined that an extension for small 

voice service providers until June 30, 

2023, was appropriate because of their 

high implementation costs compared to 

their revenues, the limited STIR/ 

SHAKEN vendor offerings available to 

them, the likelihood that costs will 

decline over time, and because an 

extension will allow small voice service 

providers to spread the costs over time. 

In adopting a blanket extension for 

small voice service providers, the 

Commission rejected arguments that not 

all voice service providers face identical 

hardships and that some of these 

providers may originate illegal 

robocalls. It determined that all small 

voice service providers, as a class, face 

undue hardship and thus a blanket 

extension for such providers is 

necessary to give them time to 

implement STIR/SHAKEN. The 

Commission also determined the 

extension would not unduly undermine 

the effectiveness of STIR/SHAKEN 

because small voice service providers 

must still implement robocall mitigation 

programs and small voice service 

providers serve only a small percentage 

of total voice subscribers, thus limiting 

potential consumer harm of an 

extension. 

6. Following circulation of the Second 

Caller ID Authentication Report and 

Order, but before its adoption, 

USTelecom proposed excluding from 

the definition of ‘‘small voice service 

provider’’ for purposes of this extension 

voice service providers that ‘‘originate a 

disproportionate amount of traffic 

relative to their subscriber base, namely 

providers that serve enterprises and 

other heavy callers through their IP 

networks.’’ USTelecom noted that some 

of these voice service providers serve 

customers that ‘‘often are responsible for 

illegal robocalls.’’ Specifically, 

USTelecom suggested we exclude those 

small voice service providers that either 

(1) receive more than half their revenue 

from customers purchasing services that 

are not mass-market services or (2) 

originate more than 500 calls per day for 

any single line in the normal course of 

business. USTelecom noted that 

‘‘[g]iven the amount of traffic they 

originate, those providers should 

implement STIR/SHAKEN in a timely 

manner consistent with the goal of 

ubiquitous call authentication 

deployment’’ and that ‘‘providers 

serving these types of customers are 

unlikely to have the same resource 

constraints the Commission cited in 

adopting the extension.’’ The 

Commission declined to adopt 

USTelecom’s proposal at the time but 

left open the possibility that it might 

reevaluate it in the future. The 

Commission acknowledged that it saw 

‘‘value in the policy goals that underlie 

USTelecom’s request,’’ but concluded 

that implementing the proposal would 

require a ‘‘difficult-line drawing 

exercise’’ and that it was not ‘‘able to 

identify criteria in the limited time 

available [before adoption] in which we 

have confidence.’’ The Commission 

stated, however, that it was ‘‘open to 

revisiting this issue should we 

determine that the extension creates an 

unreasonable risk of unsigned calls from 

a specific subset of small voice service 

providers.’’ 

III. Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

7. With additional time to consider 

the issue and new evidence indicating 

that certain small voice service 

providers are originating a high and 

increasing share of illegal robocalls 

relative to their subscriber base, we now 

propose to reassess the Commission’s 

earlier determination that all small 

voice service providers should receive a 

two-year extension. Specifically, we 

propose to shorten by one year the 

extension for small voice service 

providers that originate an especially 

large number of calls, so that such 

providers must implement STIR/ 

SHAKEN in the IP portions of their 

networks no later than June 30, 2022. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30573 

We believe this proposal will protect 

Americans from illegal robocalls—and 

especially illegally spoofed robocalls— 

by ensuring that voice service providers 

most likely to be the source of illegal 

robocalls authenticate calls sooner, 

allowing terminating voice service 

providers to know if the caller ID is 

legitimate and take action as 

appropriate, including by blocking or 

labeling suspicious calls. We propose to 

take this action within the framework of 

the TRACED Act, which we interpret to 

require us to balance the hardship of 

compliance faced by voice service 

providers with the benefit to the public 

of implementing STIR/SHAKEN 

expeditiously. We also seek comment 

on how to define which small voice 

service providers should receive a 

shortened extension and on ways to 

monitor compliance. 

A. Basis for Action 

8. We propose concluding that a 

subset of small voice service providers 

is ‘‘often . . . responsible for illegal 

robocalls,’’ is originating an increasingly 

disproportionate amount of such calls 

compared to larger voice service 

providers, and should therefore be 

subject to a shortened extension. 

9. A March 2021 report released by 

Transaction Network Services, a 

provider of call analytics, found that the 

problem of robocalls originated by 

certain smaller voice service providers 

has gotten worse: By the end of 2020, 

‘‘[a]lmost 95% of high risk calls 

originate from non-Tier-1 telephone 

resources, up 3% from last year.’’ We 

seek comment on these data and our 

proposed conclusion that certain small 

voice service providers are a 

disproportionate source of these calls. 

Are commenters able to supply 

additional new data that address to this 

issue? Transaction Network Services 

previously stated in its 2020 comments 

that its data show, through the end of 

2018, ‘‘87% of problematic calls 

originate . . . on non-Tier 1 networks’’ 

even though ‘‘the top 6 carriers 

represent almost 75% of . . . total 

calls.’’ We have now had additional 

time to evaluate this comment and other 

information discussed below that 

predates adoption of the Second Caller 

ID Authentication Report and Order 

compared to the very short time period 

between USTelecom filing its proposal 

and adoption of the Second Caller ID 

Authentication Report and Order. In our 

preliminary view, this information 

supports revisiting the scope of the 

small voice service provider extension. 

We seek comment on this view and on 

how we should now consider relevant 

evidence that predates adoption of the 

Second Caller ID Authentication Report 

and Order. 

10. With additional time to consider 

the issue, we now believe that evidence 

from Commission filings of providers 

subject to government-wide 

enforcement actions also supports a 

finding that a subset of small voice 

service providers are at heightened risk 

of originating a disproportionate 

number of illegal robocalls relative to 

their subscriber base. For example, in 

January 2020, the FTC sent letters to 19 

providers regarding their possible 

involvement in ‘‘assisting and 

facilitating’’ unlawful robocalls. Data 

submitted to the Commission reflect 

that most of these providers appear to 

fall under the Commission definition of 

‘‘small voice service provider.’’ Of the 

19 providers that received letters, five 

submitted FCC Form 477, and of those 

five, only one had more than 100,000 

access lines. Sixteen of the providers 

that received a January 2020 FTC letter 

also submitted an FCC Form 499. These 

forms, on average, showed end-user 

revenues of approximately $3.4 million, 

indicating that most of these 16 

providers had fewer than 100,000 lines. 

(A provider with $3.4 million in 

revenue would be realizing just $2.83 in 

revenue per month per subscriber if it 

had exactly 100,000 subscribers. 

Because we believe $2.83 to be 

unrealistically low, we think it 

reasonable to infer that these providers, 

on average, have fewer than 100,000 

subscribers and a higher revenue per 

subscriber.) This additional information 

supports our proposed conclusion that a 

subset of small voice service providers 

are at heightened risk of 

disproportionately originating robocalls. 

We seek comment on the data and 

assumptions underlying this 

conclusion. Specifically, we seek 

comment on whether we can rely on 

FCC Form 477 line count data to 

determine whether providers fall within 

our 100,000 line small voice service 

provider definition and whether it is 

reasonable to conclude that FCC Form 

499 revenue data is predictive of 

provider line counts. Are there other 

data we should consider? 

11. We also seek comment on whether 

the proportion of robocall traffic 

originated by small voice service 

providers has increased since the 

adoption of the Second Caller ID 

Authentication Report and Order and, if 

so, whether it is because larger voice 

service providers are implementing 

STIR/SHAKEN in anticipation of the 

June 30, 2021, deadline, leading callers 

originating unlawful robocalls to 

migrate to different networks. Several 

larger voice service providers have 

recently submitted statements that they 

are in the process of implementing, or 

have already implemented, STIR/ 

SHAKEN in the IP portions of their 

networks. Is the portion of robocall 

traffic attributable to small voice service 

providers likely to increase further as 

larger voice service providers complete 

STIR/SHAKEN implementation? 

12. Consumer complaints received by 

the Commission make clear that 

unwanted robocalls remain a vexing 

problem. We invite commenters to 

provide other information about trends 

in illegal robocalls. We also seek 

comment on the effect that the 

Commission’s efforts have had on illegal 

robocalling in general and, specifically, 

on illegal robocalls originated by small 

voice service providers. The available 

evidence indicates that, at least in part 

due to the TRACED Act and 

Commission action, the percentage of 

STIR/SHAKEN-attested traffic has 

increased, with Transaction Network 

Services estimating that it had increased 

from 21 percent in January 2020 to 35 

percent in December 2020. We seek 

comment on these data and trends in 

STIR/SHAKEN deployment, particularly 

among small voice service providers. 

B. Proposed Curtailment of Extension 

for Small Voice Service Providers That 

Originate an Especially Large Amount of 

Traffic 

13. In light of the foregoing data and 

additional time to consider 

USTelecom’s submission, we propose 

shortening the small voice service 

provider extension for small voice 

service providers that originate an 

especially large amount of calls. (As 

discussed below, we propose only to 

shorten the small voice service provider 

extension, and not the other extensions 

the Commission previously granted that 

could also apply to certain small voice 

service providers. See infra para. 19.) 

We seek comment on this proposal. 

14. Although the Commission 

previously found that a two-year blanket 

extension for all small voice service 

providers was reasonable in part 

because they only serve a small 

percentage of subscribers, we propose 

revisiting this conclusion and 

determining that it is not a sufficient 

basis for continuing to provide a twoyear extension for all such providers. 

We seek comment on this proposal. In 

particular, given the evidence indicating 

a subset of small voice service providers 

are at heightened risk of originating a 

significant percentage of illegal 

robocalls, in our preliminary view, a 

small quantity of subscribers should not 

alone be a sufficient basis for a two-year 

extension for all small voice service 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
30574 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

providers. We seek comment on this 

view. 

15. We specifically propose 

shortening the extension for small voice 

service providers that originate an 

especially large amount of traffic, and 

we seek comment on this proposal. We 

believe such providers are more likely 

to originate unlawful robocalls because, 

to originate large-scale robocall 

campaigns, it is necessary to originate a 

large number of calls. Further, we 

anticipate that rapid STIR/SHAKEN 

implementation by those small voice 

service providers that originate the most 

traffic is likely to be more beneficial 

than faster implementation by small 

voice service providers that originate 

fewer calls because providers that 

originate more traffic will authenticate 

more calls. In addition, in our 

preliminary view it is appropriate to 

tailor our alteration of the extension as 

narrowly as possible to those small 

voice service providers most likely to 

originate unlawful robocalls to avoid 

unnecessarily burdening small 

providers. We seek comment on this 

initial analysis. Are there additional 

reasons to curtail the extension 

specifically for small voice service 

providers that originate an especially 

large amount of traffic? Are there 

reasons that shortening the extension for 

this specific subset of small voice 

service providers would be especially 

harmful? Should we curtail the 

extension for different or additional 

subsets of small voice service providers? 

16. To what degree would hastening 

STIR/SHAKEN implementation reduce 

unlawful robocalls, and how much 

would Americans benefit? When the 

Commission adopted the STIR/SHAKEN 

implementation mandate, it estimated 

the benefits would exceed $13.5 billion 

per year and noted a host of specific 

benefits to consumers, providers, and 

the government. The data above indicate 

that much of this benefit will not be 

realized if the subset of small voice 

service providers that are most likely to 

originate robocalls does not implement 

STIR/SHAKEN. We believe that such a 

significant public benefit justifies 

shortening the extension for this subset 

of small voice service providers under 

the TRACED Act’s balancing test. We 

seek comment on the size of the benefit 

that will result from shortening the 

extension for such providers and our 

conclusion that the benefit justifies a 

shortened extension pursuant to the 

TRACED Act. We note that several 

third-party robocall monitoring and 

protection services believe there will be 

a substantial benefit to accelerating 

small voice service providers’ STIR/ 

SHAKEN implementation. For example, 

in its March 2021 report, Transaction 

Network Services argues that, given 

their disproportionate role originating 

robocalls, small voice service providers 

need to implement STIR/SHAKEN for 

the Commission’s rules ‘‘to have a 

significant impact.’’ Similarly, 

Robokiller, a spam call and protection 

service, concluded in a February 2021 

report that because ‘‘smaller carriers 

have exemptions lasting . . . until 2023 

. . . [w]ithout a unified front from all 

carriers, STIR/SHAKEN cannot be 

completely effective.’’ We seek 

comment on these assertions. 

17. We also seek comment on the 

burdens and barriers of implementing 

STIR/SHAKEN for the subset of small 

voice service providers for which we 

propose shortening the extension. Do 

these small voice service providers face 

less hardship to implement STIR/ 

SHAKEN than other small voice service 

providers? Have implementation costs 

declined as more providers and vendors 

develop solutions to meet our June 30, 

2021 deadline for larger voice service 

providers? Is accelerated 

implementation feasible? Are many 

small voice service providers already 

implementing STIR/SHAKEN even 

though the deadline is not until June 30, 

2023? As of April 2021, 154 providers 

have obtained certificates from the 

Secure Telephone Identity Governance 

Authority (STI–GA), allowing them to 

participate in the exchange of 

authenticated traffic with other 

providers. Does this number of 

providers with certificates suggest that 

some small voice service providers have 

begun the process of STIR/SHAKEN 

implementation? From 2014–2018, 

providers that make the initial longdistance call path choice for more than 

100,000 domestic retail subscriber lines 

were obligated to file rural call 

completion reports, and 55 providers 

filed such reports in 2017, implying that 

approximately 100 providers with fewer 

than 100,000 lines have already 

obtained certificates from the STI–GA. 

To what extent did small voice service 

providers rely on a two-year extension 

in planning their network costs, and 

would shortening the extension unduly 

harm their reliance interests? Should we 

permit the full two year extension for 

any voice service provider in the subset 

who can document substantial reliance? 

What specific actions might qualify as 

reliance that should factor into our 

decision? We anticipate that reliance 

interests may be minimal because small 

voice service providers were put on 

notice that we might revisit 

USTelecom’s proposal at a later time, 

and we seek comment on this opinion. 

Do any identified burdens outweigh the 

benefits associated with requiring a 

subset of small voice service providers 

that is particularly likely to originate 

unlawful robocalls to implement STIR/ 

SHAKEN more rapidly? 

18. What costs would small voice 

service providers generally, and those 

specifically that originate an especially 

large amount of traffic, incur by 

accelerating their deployment to meet a 

deadline prior to June 30, 2023? 

USTelecom argues that small voice 

service providers that originate a 

‘‘disproportionate’’ amount of traffic 

‘‘are unlikely to have the same resource 

constraints the Commission cited’’ in 

adopting the two-year small voice 

service provider extension. We seek 

comment on this assertion. For example, 

do small voice service providers that 

originate an especially large amount of 

traffic have equipment that is generally 

newer and able to handle greater traffic 

volumes and, therefore, will likely 

require fewer resources to implement 

STIR/SHAKEN? Are their networks 

more streamlined and therefore do not 

require the time and effort to implement 

STIR/SHAKEN across multiple IP 

architectures? Would such providers 

spread their STIR/SHAKEN 

implementation costs over fewer pieces 

of equipment per dollar of revenue? 

19. We propose curtailing only the 

small voice service provider extension 

for entities that originate a substantial 

amount of traffic and not shortening or 

eliminating any other extensions that 

the Commission adopted. We seek 

comment on this proposal. In our 

preliminary view, this approach is 

appropriate because it avoids imposing 

burdens on this subset of small voice 

service providers greater than the 

burdens we impose on the largest voice 

service providers. The TRACED Act 

directs that we ‘‘shall grant’’ an 

extension to a voice service provider 

that materially relies on a non-IP 

network and the extension must extend 

‘‘until a call authentication protocol has 

been developed for calls delivered over 

non-internet protocol networks and is 

reasonably available.’’ Because we have 

not yet made such a finding, we cannot 

curtail the non-IP network extension. 

C. Defining Small Voice Service 

Providers That are Most Likely To Be the 

Source of Unlawful Robocalls 

20. We seek comment on how to 

define small voice service providers that 

originate an especially large amount of 

calls and thus are at heightened risk of 

being a source of unlawful robocalls. In 

considering possible definitions, we 

seek to identify one or more definitional 

prongs that most accurately identify, in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30575 

an administrable manner, those small 

voice service providers most likely to 

originate a significant quantity of 

unlawful robocalls. For each possible 

definitional criterion for which we seek 

comment below, we seek comment on 

whether it should be the sole definition 

or whether it should be one of multiple 

prongs of a definition. If we employ 

multiple prongs in our definition, we 

seek comment on whether a small voice 

service provider that meets any of 

multiple prongs should be excluded 

from the full extension (i.e., we would 

use ‘‘or’’ between multiple prongs), or 

whether only a small voice service 

provider that meets all of the prongs 

should be excluded from the full 

extension (i.e., we would use ‘‘and’’ 

between multiple prongs). 

21. Originates a Significant Number of 

Calls Per Day for Any Single Line on 

Average. We seek comment on whether 

we should exclude from the full 

extension a small voice service provider 

that originates an unusually high 

number of calls per day on a single line. 

For example, USTelecom proposes that 

we exclude from the full extension a 

small voice service provider that 

originates more than 500 calls per day 

for any single line in the normal course 

of business. We seek comment on this 

suggestion and potential alternatives. Is 

a high volume of traffic originating from 

a single line evidence of a heightened 

risk that a provider is likely to be 

originating a high volume of unlawful 

robocalls? Do small voice service 

providers’ customers often originate 

lawful calls at such a high volume from 

a single line? 

22. If we were to set a numerical 

threshold, we seek comment on whether 

the appropriate numerical call threshold 

is 500 calls per day or another 

numerical threshold. USTelecom argues 

that its 500 call threshold is meant to 

distinguish between ‘‘the number of 

calls that a particularly prolific 

subscriber could make in a given day 

and more automated technology’’ 

indicative of illegal robocalling. Does a 

500 call per day threshold accurately 

capture this dividing line? Would an 

alternative call threshold better identify 

those voice service providers most 

likely to be the source of unlawful 

robocalls? For example, would a 1,000 

calls-per-day threshold ensure that 

small voice service providers unlikely to 

be the source of unlawful robocalls 

would continue to benefit from a twoyear extension? Would a lower 

threshold of, for example, 250 calls 

ensure that we capture all small voice 

service providers that are likely to 

originate a significant number of illegal 

robocalls? 

23. We propose that if we adopt a 

definition based on calls per day for a 

single line, we would employ the term 

‘‘on average’’ rather than ‘‘in the normal 

course of business’’ because we 

preliminarily believe the former is more 

precise. We seek comment on this view 

and on the meaning of ‘‘in the normal 

course of business.’’ We seek comment 

on how we should measure the calls per 

day on average. Over what period would 

we require small voice service providers 

to calculate the average? Should the 

average be based on sporadic samples or 

a single continuous period? Should we 

exclude certain time periods, such as 

weekends or holidays? Instead of 

average calls per day, should we 

examine the median number of calls 

each day over a particular period? What 

are the advantages and disadvantages of 

each approach? 

24. Instead of examining the average 

number of calls over time, should we 

look at small voice service providers 

that reach a call threshold on a single 

line on a single day? Would this 

approach provide additional certainty 

and reduce the possibility for gaming? 

Rather than looking at the average 

number of calls on a single line, should 

we look at an average—or other 

measures—across a larger number of 

lines? If so, what call volume metric 

should we use and why? For example, 

could we look at the number of calls per 

line averaged over all lines or those 

lines with more originating than 

terminating calls? Would an approach 

that focuses on the number of calls 

averaged over multiple lines be less 

likely to be subject to manipulation than 

a test that looks at the total number of 

calls over a single line? We also seek 

comment on whether any threshold we 

adopt for a shortened extension that 

relies on ‘‘lines’’ or ‘‘subscriber lines’’ 

needs to take into account the current 

real-world understanding of those terms 

for voice service providers, particularly 

VoIP providers not serving end-users 

over their own or leased last-mile 

facilities. Do these providers’ 

understanding of ‘‘lines’’ differ from 

how we have traditionally measured 

‘‘lines’’ and ‘‘voice subscriber lines?’’ If 

so, how should this understanding 

affect any calls-per-line threshold we 

adopt? 

25. If we adopt a numerical threshold 

of calls, we seek comment on whether 

we should exclude calls from certain 

entities that have a valid business 

reason to make a large number of calls, 

so that certain calls would not count 

toward any numerical threshold we 

establish. For example, should we 

exempt calls from doctor’s offices, 

schools, or businesses such as insurance 

companies? Would a small voice service 

provider be able to determine whether 

its customer fell within any of the 

categories we adopt? We also seek 

comment on whether we should exempt 

from the threshold calls that fall under 

an exemption pursuant to the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 

1991 (TCPA). We seek comment on 

whether calls that meet some or all of 

the TCPA exemptions should not count 

against any numerical call threshold we 

adopt. Are the interests served by the 

TCPA exemptions the same as or similar 

to the interests served by exempting 

such calls from the call threshold? 

26. Receives More than Half Its 

Revenues from Customers Purchasing 

Non-Mass Market Services. We seek 

comment on whether we should shorten 

the extension for small voice service 

providers that receive more than half 

their revenue from customers 

purchasing services that are not massmarket services, as suggested by 

USTelecom. Do commenters agree that 

the proportion of revenue from nonmass market services is a good proxy for 

identifying small voice service 

providers that are likely to originate an 

especially large amount of traffic and, 

therefore, likely to originate unlawful 

robocalls? USTelecom argues that its 

proposal was ‘‘intended to be narrow 

and capture those providers who target 

enterprise and other non-consumer 

customers as a key part of their 

business.’’ This approach assumes that 

small voice service providers that 

mostly sell specialized services, and 

especially business services, are more 

likely to originate an especially large 

amount of traffic and thus are at greater 

risk of originating a high volume of 

unlawful robocalls. Do commenters 

agree with this assumption? 

27. We seek comment on how to 

measure revenue. Should we measure 

only revenue attributable to voice 

service, revenue from all 

telecommunications and information 

services, including wholesale services, 

or some other combination? If only 

revenue attributable to voice service, 

should we measure certain subcategories of voice service such as 

interstate, international, or toll? Are 

robocalls likely to originate out of state 

and, if so, should we exclude intrastate 

revenue if such revenue is unlikely to be 

associated with illegal robocalling? 

28. We seek comment on whether half 

of revenue is an appropriate dividing 

line. For example, should we adopt a 75 

percent non-mass market revenue 

threshold? Would such a threshold 

better balance the interest in shortening 

the extension for those voice service 

providers most likely to initiate 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
30576 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

unlawful robocalls with the harm of 

shortening the extension for those 

providers least likely to do so? Would 

a lower enterprise revenue threshold 

such as 25 percent ensure we capture all 

small voice service providers likely to 

originate a large number of illegal 

robocalls while placing a limited burden 

on other small voice service providers? 

29. In determining a voice service 

provider’s share of non-mass market 

revenue, we seek comment on whether 

it would be more appropriate to 

measure revenue from non-mass market 

customers, non-mass market services, or 

a combination of the two. For example, 

should we only measure revenue from 

non-mass market services attributable to 

non-mass-market customers or 

attributable to all customers? The 

Second Caller ID Authentication Report 

and Order barred voice service 

providers from imposing line item 

charges for STIR/SHAKEN 

implementation on ‘‘consumer 

subscribers’’ (defined as ‘‘residential 

mass-market subscribers’’) and ‘‘small 

business customer subscribers.’’ In 

doing so, it defined mass market 

services as ‘‘services marketed and sold 

on a standardized basis to residential 

customers, small businesses and other 

end-user customers.’’ Should we adopt 

these definitions to measure mass 

market revenue so that if a small voice 

service provider’s mass-market revenue 

was less than 50 percent of total 

revenue, it would meet our proposed 

revenue criterion? Should we instead 

adopt a slightly different definition of 

mass-market customer or service from 

proceedings where we examined voice 

product markets? Would another 

definition be appropriate? 

30. Other Alternative or Additional 

Criteria. We also seek comment on 

adopting criteria other than, or in 

addition to, calls per line and/or 

revenue to determine when a small 

voice service provider is particularly 

likely to be the source of unlawful 

robocalls. Should we shorten the 

extension for those small voice service 

providers that offer certain service 

features to customers commonly used 

for unlawful robocalls, such as the 

ability to display any number in the 

called party’s caller ID, or to upload and 

broadcast a prerecorded message? 

Should we shorten the extension for 

small voice service providers that offer 

specific implementations of customized 

caller ID display, such as area code or 

neighborhood spoofing (i.e., spoofing 

the area code or NXX of the called 

party)? Should we curtail the extension 

for those small voice service providers 

that offer customers autodialing 

functionality or whose call durations are 

very short? If so, what should that 

duration be? (For example, ZipDX 

argues that if originating call duration is 

less than 120 seconds on average, 15 

percent of calls are less than 30 seconds 

and 50 percent of calls are less than 60 

seconds, it is likely that such traffic is 

coming from an autodialer, and asserts 

that ‘‘[t]he legitimate situations where 

auto-dialed calls would come from 

foreign sources using USA telephone 

numbers’’ are limited.) 

31. Is the relative proportion of 

originating to terminating traffic, and 

not just the absolute level of originating 

traffic, relevant to whether a voice 

service provider is likely to be 

originating unlawful robocalls? If so, 

should we shorten the extension for 

small voice service providers that have 

a certain ratio of originating to 

terminating traffic? If so, what should 

that ratio be? 

32. Are ‘‘all-IP’’ small voice service 

providers more likely to be the source 

of unwanted robocalls? If so, should we 

curtail the extension for all-IP small 

voice service providers, particularly if 

their STIR/SHAKEN implementation 

costs are lower? How would we define 

‘‘all-IP’’ under this approach? How 

should we prevent voice service 

providers from gaming such a definition 

by retaining a small TDM network or a 

TDM network element? 

33. Should we shorten the extension 

for possible or actual violations of our 

rules or the law? How would we 

implement such a standard during the 

pendency of the extension period? 

Should we curtail the extension for any 

small voice service providers on the redlight list, which lists entities that are 

delinquent in debts owed to the 

Commission? Should we curtail the 

extension for small voice service 

providers subject to a federal agency 

action or letter related to the origination 

or transmission of unlawful calls? For 

example, should we authorize the 

Enforcement Bureau to curtail the 

extension for small voice service 

providers it notifies of illegal traffic 

under our rules? The two-year extension 

relates to the duties of voice service 

providers as the originators of traffic, 

but a number of providers have been 

subject to inquiries and enforcement 

actions in their role as gateway or 

intermediate providers. We seek 

comment on whether these kinds of 

inquiries and enforcement actions 

should bear on a small voice service 

provider’s extension length, and 

whether that should extend to 

enforcement associated with traffic the 

provider merely transmitted and did not 

originate. Should we shorten the 

extension for those small voice service 

providers that the Commission, in 

consultation with the Industry 

Traceback Group, has determined are 

‘‘uncooperative’’ or subject to a certain 

threshold number of traceback requests? 

How would we implement such an 

approach? For example, should the 

Industry Traceback Group provide the 

Commission with a list of providers that 

meet this criterion by a date certain? 

34. Are voice service providers with 

a higher revenue per customer more 

likely to be the source of unlawful 

robocalls? If so, should we adopt a 

definition, or a prong of a definition, 

based on revenue per customer? If so, 

what should the threshold be? Should 

we examine small voice service 

providers with relatively high 

percentages of revenue in certain 

categories on their FCC Form 499 or 

similar submissions to the Commission? 

Are high levels of interstate, 

international, or toll revenue compared 

to total revenues indicative of small 

voice service providers likely to be the 

source of unlawful robocalls? 

35. Should a certain class or classes 

of voice service providers that are 

unlikely to originate robocalls retain the 

two-year extension while we eliminate 

the extension for all other classes? For 

example, should only small voice 

service providers that are also rural 

local exchange carriers retain a two year 

extension on the basis that such 

providers are ‘‘generally not involved in 

illegal robocalling?’’ Should only those 

rural local exchange carriers that do not 

offer services typically used by illegal 

robocallers retain a two-year extension? 

Are there other classes of providers that 

are unlikely to originate illegal robocalls 

and should therefore retain a two-year 

extension? For example, are providers 

that offer voice service over physical 

lines to end-user customers less likely to 

engage in illegal robocalling and if so, 

should they retain the two-year 

extension? 

36. We seek comment generally on 

whether small voice service providers 

track the information for the definitional 

criteria that we may adopt. For example, 

do voice service providers retain and 

track revenue and calls-per-line data? 

Can the Commission rely on data voice 

service providers track and submit for 

other purposes? Could we rely on 

revenue data from FCC Form 499 and 

line count information from FCC Form 

477 to measure revenue or line-countrelated criteria by market segment? If 

voice service providers do not track data 

necessary to determine whether they fall 

within the criteria we adopt, would it be 

overly burdensome for them to begin to 

track this data solely for the purpose of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30577 

determining whether they qualify for a 

one or two-year extension? 

37. Examination Period. We propose 

that any criteria we adopt would apply 

to small voice service provider 

operations prior to the effective date of 

our Order released pursuant to this 

Further Notice. For example, if we 

adopted a criterion based on the number 

of calls per line, the relevant time 

period to determine if the call threshold 

is met would be the number of calls per 

line during a period prior to the 

effective date of such Order. We seek 

comment on this general approach and 

what the relevant period should be. For 

example, should we look at voice 

service provider operations in the 120 

days prior to the date the Order is 

adopted? Would such an approach give 

small voice service providers sufficient 

time to gather the necessary information 

and ensure that a sufficiently 

representative sample of these 

providers’ operations are examined? 

Would another time period be more 

appropriate? Would tying the relevant 

time period to the effective date of a 

later Order permit small voice service 

providers to game the rule by modifying 

their behavior after release of this 

Further Notice? Would such gaming be 

undesirable if it had the effect that a 

voice service provider ceased meeting 

criteria showing it was likely to be the 

source of illegal robocalls? 

38. In addition, we propose that small 

voice service providers that did not 

meet the criteria during the examination 

period would not be subject to a 

shortened extension if they meet the 

criteria at a later date. We propose this 

approach given the limited time 

between any Order we release 

subsequent to this Further Notice and 

the June 30, 2023, end date of the 

original two-year extension. We seek 

comment on this proposal. 

D. Length of Time: One-Year Reduction 

39. We propose to shorten the 

extension for those small voice service 

providers that originate an especially 

large amount of traffic from two years to 

one year, with a new compliance 

deadline of June 30, 2022. We seek 

comment on this proposal. We seek 

specific comment on whether a one-year 

extension is a ‘‘reasonable period of 

time’’ for this subset of small voice 

service providers to implement STIR/ 

SHAKEN given the ‘‘burdens and 

barriers to implementation’’ that they 

face and the likelihood they are the 

source of illegal robocalls. We anticipate 

that a one-year extension balances the 

public interest in reducing unlawful 

calls while allowing affected providers 

sufficient time to implement STIR/ 

SHAKEN. For example, we note above 

that affected providers may have a lower 

burden to implement STIR/SHAKEN 

than other small voice service providers. 

If so, do such providers face less 

hardship than other small voice service 

providers? Even if they do not have a 

lower burden, do the significant benefits 

of requiring those small voice service 

providers most likely to be responsible 

for illegal robocalls to comply with 

STIR/SHAKEN mean that a one-year 

extension for those providers is 

nevertheless a ‘‘reasonable period of 

time’’? 

40. Should we reduce the extension 

by more or less than our proposal? 

Would a shorter reduction in the 

extension (e.g., January 1, 2023) still 

provide a material benefit in the form of 

reduced illegal robocalls compared to 

the current two-year extension? Would 

a greater reduction in the extension 

(e.g., a compliance deadline of January 

1, 2022) be practical, given the timing of 

any subsequent Order? Would it unduly 

impact affected providers’ reliance 

interests? Does the fact that affected 

providers could seek a waiver if they 

meet the Commission’s waiver standard 

ameliorate any identified concerns 

about whatever implementation 

deadline we adopt? (The Commission 

may exercise its discretion to waive a 

rule where the particular facts at issue 

make strict compliance inconsistent 

with the public interest. In considering 

whether to grant a waiver, the 

Commission may take into account 

considerations of hardship, equity, or 

more effective implementation of 

overall policy on an individual basis.) 

Should we direct the Wireline 

Competition Bureau to rule on any 

waiver request within 90 days of 

submission to address these concerns 

and any potential reliance interests? 

41. We also seek comment on 

alternative approaches to altering the 

extension period. For example, instead 

of measuring the reduction against the 

June 30, 2021, compliance deadline, 

should we set the new compliance 

deadline to a certain interval following 

the effective date of any Order released 

pursuant to this Further Notice? Under 

this approach, affected small voice 

service providers would be required to 

implement STIR/SHAKEN in the IP 

portions of their networks a certain 

number of days following the Order’s 

effective date. If we adopt this approach, 

what should the appropriate interval be? 

Are there other approaches we should 

consider? For example, should we set 

the end of the extension for affected 

providers to the later of (1) a specific 

date (e.g., June 30, 2022) or (2) a certain 

number of days following the effective 

date of the Order released pursuant to 

this Further Notice? In order to have the 

maximum effect on illegal robocalls, 

should we terminate the extension upon 

the effective date of any Order we 

adopt? Would such an aggressive 

timeline be impractical or overly 

burdensome? How relevant is the timing 

of the Order to the approach we choose? 

E. Ensuring Compliance 

42. We seek comment on how to 

monitor and evaluate compliance by the 

small voice service providers that are 

subject to the proposed curtailed 

extension. In particular, we seek 

comment on small voice service 

providers’ duty to notify the 

Commission of their updated extension 

status and whether they should submit 

data demonstrating that status. 

43. Notification of Extension Status. 

First, we propose relying on the current 

rule requiring voice service providers to 

update the Commission on the term and 

type of their extension and when they 

have implemented STIR/SHAKEN. (By 

June 30, 2021, voice service providers 

that have not implemented STIR/ 

SHAKEN must certify whether they are 

subject to an extension and state the 

‘‘type’’ of extension (e.g., small voice 

service provider extension). Voice 

service providers must also update their 

certifications and filings in the FCC’s 

Robocall Mitigation Database portal 

within ten business days of any change, 

including whether an extension no 

longer applies.) This rule, by its terms, 

would require small voice service 

providers subject to any shortened 

extension we adopt to: (1) Within ten 

business days of the effective date of 

any Order we adopt, update their 

certifications and associated filings 

indicating that they are subject to a 

shortened extension; and (2) further 

update their certifications and 

associated filings within ten business 

days of completion of STIR/SHAKEN 

implementation in the IP portions of 

their networks. Those small voice 

service providers not subject to a 

shortened extension would not have to 

update their certifications and 

associated filings. We seek comment on 

this proposal and whether any 

clarifications to our rules are necessary. 

We also seek comment on whether and 

how we should modify the existing rule. 

For example, should we provide more 

than ten days following the effective 

date of any Order we adopt for small 

voice service providers subject to a 

shortened extension to update their 

certifications? Should we adopt a 

mechanism to notify the public of the 

results of the certification process? If so, 

what should that mechanism be? Are 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
30578 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

there any steps that we should take to 

reduce the reporting burden for small 

voice service providers? 

44. Additional Data. We seek 

comment on whether we should require 

some or all small voice service 

providers to submit data demonstrating 

whether they meet the criteria we adopt. 

For example, should we require voice 

service providers to submit data on the 

average number of calls per day or nonmass market revenue if we adopt one or 

both of these criteria? If we adopt 

qualitative criteria such as curtailing the 

extension for those voice service 

providers that offer customers the 

ability to modify the outgoing caller ID 

information, what sort of information 

should we require voice service 

providers to submit? We seek comment 

generally on the benefits and burdens of 

data submission. We are cognizant of 

the importance of minimizing burdens 

on small voice service providers where 

possible. Should we therefore avoid 

requiring voice service providers to 

submit data by relying on data already 

in our possession to monitor 

compliance? For example, should we 

rely on existing line and revenue data, 

e.g., from FCC Forms 477 and 499 for 

those providers? If we rely on already 

submitted data, should we publicly 

release a list of small voice service 

providers that we believe are subject to 

a shortened extension, and provide an 

opportunity for such parties to file 

objections? If we rely on already 

submitted data for at least some voice 

service providers, should these 

providers not be required to submit the 

certification updates described above? 

F. Legal Authority 

45. We believe the Commission has 

authority for curtailing the extension for 

a subset of small voice service providers 

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

TRACED Act. That section gives us 

authority to grant extensions of the 

caller ID authentication implementation 

deadline ‘‘for a reasonable period of 

time’’ upon a finding of undue 

hardship. Under that section, we 

granted the current two-year small voice 

service provider extension that we now 

propose to modify. We believe that, in 

considering whether a hardship is 

‘‘undue’’ under the TRACED Act, as 

well as whether an extension is for a 

‘‘reasonable period of time,’’ it is 

appropriate to balance the hardship of 

compliance due to the ‘‘the burdens and 

barriers to implementation’’ faced by a 

voice service provider or class of voice 

service providers with the benefit to the 

public of implementing STIR/SHAKEN 

expeditiously; and that, consequently, 

we have the authority to grant a shorter 

extension for voice service providers 

that present a higher risk of originating 

illegal robocalls or that may also face a 

lesser hardship than other small voice 

service providers. We seek comment on 

this interpretation as well as any 

alternatives. 

46. Finally, we acknowledge that the 

Commission has a duty under the 

Administrative Procedures Act (APA) 

when it changes direction, as we 

propose to do here, to explain the 

reasons for that change. Specifically, 

while we do not need to demonstrate 

why the reasons for a shortened 

extension for a subset of small voice 

service providers are ‘‘better than the 

reasons’’ for a two year extension for all 

small voice service providers, we must 

show that there are ‘‘good reasons’’ for 

our change, and that the change is 

permissible under the relevant statute; 

in this case, the TRACED Act. As 

explained above, we propose to rely 

both on information that postdates the 

Second Caller ID Authentication Report 

and Order and on our reevaluation of 

preexisting information that the 

Commission had very limited time to 

consider in the short period between 

USTelecom’s proposal and adoption of 

the Second Caller ID Authentication 

Report and Order. The evidence thus far 

indicates that a subset of small voice 

service providers is originating a large 

and increasing quantity of illegal 

robocalls; and in our preliminary view 

a shortened extension for a subset of 

such providers is justified under our 

proposed interpretation of the TRACED 

Act. We seek comment on this analysis 

given the evidence already in the record 

and in light of any additional evidence 

that parties may file. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

47. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis. As required by the RFA, the 

Commission has prepared an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

of the possible significant economic 

impact on small entities of the policies 

and rules addressed in the Third Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further 

Notice). The IRFA is set forth in 

Appendix A. Written public comments 

are requested on the IRFA. Comments 

must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments on the Further Notice 

indicated on the first page of this 

document and must have a separate and 

distinct heading designating them as 

responses to the IRFA. The 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, will send a copy of 

this Call Authentication Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking to the IRFA, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

SBA. 

48. Paperwork Reduction Act. The 

Further Notice contains proposed new 

information collection requirements. 

The Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, invites the general public and 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to comment on the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, as required by the 

paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

we seek specific comment on how we 

might further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

49. Ex Parte Presentations—PermitBut-Disclose. The proceeding this 

Further Notice initiates shall be treated 

as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making ex parte 

presentations must file a copy of any 

written presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b) 

of the Commission’s rules. In 

proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) of the 

Commission’s rules or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30579 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

Appendix A 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

1. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on small 

entities by the policies and rules 

proposed in this Third Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice). 

The Commission requests written public 

comments on this IRFA. Comments 

must be identified as responses to the 

IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines 

for comments provided on the first page 

of the Further Notice. The Commission 

will send a copy of the Further Notice, 

including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, the Further Notice and IRFA 

(or summaries thereof) will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

2. In order to continue the 

Commission’s work combating illegal 

robocalls, the Third Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) 

proposes to accelerate the date by which 

small voice service providers that 

originate an especially large amount of 

call traffic, and thus are at particular 

risk of originating unlawful robocalls, 

must implement STIR/SHAKEN. The 

Further Notice proposes finding that 

shortening the extension is necessary 

because a subset of small voice service 

providers originate a disproportionate 

amount of robocalls and seeks comment 

on how to define this scope of entities. 

The Further Notice proposes shortening 

the STIR/SHAKEN implementation 

extension from two years to one year for 

such entities. The Further Notice seeks 

comment on these proposals, and 

whether we should modify existing 

rules or adopt new rules to monitor 

compliance. 

B. Legal Basis 

3. The Further Notice proposes to find 

authority for the proposed rules under 

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

Act. Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) gives us 

authority to grant extensions of the 

caller ID authentication implementation 

deadline ‘‘for a reasonable period of 

time’’ upon a finding of undue 

hardship. Under that section, we 

granted the small provider extension we 

now propose to curtail, but did not 

explicitly interpret the meaning of the 

term ‘‘reasonable’’ in the context of that 

extension. The Further Notice proposes 

concluding that, under the TRACED 

Act, ‘‘reasonable’’ means that in 

determining the length of any extension, 

we must balance the hardship faced by 

a provider or class of providers with the 

benefit of implementing STIR/SHAKEN 

expeditiously; and that, consequently, 

we have the authority to grant a shorter 

extension for providers that we believe 

present a higher risk of originating 

illegal robocalls, and seeks comment on 

this interpretation. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

4. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules and by the rule 

revisions on which the Notice seeks 

comment, if adopted. The RFA generally 

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as 

having the same meaning as the terms 

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

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ 

In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ 

has the same meaning as the term 

‘‘small-business concern’’ under the 

Small Business Act. A ‘‘small-business 

concern’’ is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. 

1. Wireline Carriers 

5. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 

defines this industry as ‘‘establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired communications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services, wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution, and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry.’’ 

The SBA has developed a small 

business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, which 

consists of all such companies having 

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

Bureau data for 2012 show that there 

were 3,117 firms that operated that year. 

Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer 

than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

size standard, the majority of firms in 

this industry can be considered small. 

6. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a size standard for small 

businesses specifically applicable to 

local exchange services. The closest 

applicable NAICS Code category is 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 

Under the applicable SBA size standard, 

such a business is small if it has 1,500 

or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 

firms that operated for the entire year. 

Of that total, 3,083 operated with fewer 

than 1,000 employees. Thus under this 

category and the associated size 

standard, the Commission estimates that 

the majority of local exchange carriers 

are small entities. 

7. Incumbent LECs. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for incumbent local 

exchange services. The closest 

applicable NAICS Code category is 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 

Under the applicable SBA size standard, 

such a business is small if it has 1,500 

or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms 

operated the entire year. Of this total, 

3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of incumbent local exchange 

service are small businesses that may be 

affected by our actions. According to 

Commission data, one thousand three 

hundred and seven (1,307) Incumbent 

Local Exchange Carriers reported that 

they were incumbent local exchange 

service providers. Of this total, an 

estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Thus, using the SBA’s size 

standard the majority of incumbent 

LECs can be considered small entities. 

8. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers (Competitive LECs), 

Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), 

Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and 

Other Local Service Providers. Neither 

the Commission nor the SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for these service 

providers. The appropriate NAICS Code 

category is Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers and under that size standard, 

such a business is small if it has 1,500 

or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
30580 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

operated during that year. Of that 

number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Based on these data, 

the Commission concludes that the 

majority of Competitive LECS, CAPs, 

Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and 

Other Local Service Providers, are small 

entities. According to Commission data, 

1,442 carriers reported that they were 

engaged in the provision of either 

competitive local exchange services or 

competitive access provider services. Of 

these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. In 

addition, 17 carriers have reported that 

they are Shared-Tenant Service 

Providers, and all 17 are estimated to 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 

carriers have reported that they are 

Other Local Service Providers. Of this 

total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, based on internally 

researched FCC data, the Commission 

estimates that most providers of 

competitive local exchange service, 

competitive access providers, SharedTenant Service Providers, and Other 

Local Service Providers are small 

entities. 

9. We have included small incumbent 

LECs in this present RFA analysis. As 

noted above, a ‘‘small business’’ under 

the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the 

pertinent small-business size standard 

(e.g., a telephone communications 

business having 1,500 or fewer 

employees) and ‘‘is not dominant in its 

field of operation.’’ The SBA’s Office of 

Advocacy contends that, for RFA 

purposes, small incumbent LECs are not 

dominant in their field of operation 

because any such dominance is not 

‘‘national’’ in scope. We have therefore 

included small incumbent LECs in this 

RFA analysis, although we emphasize 

that this RFA action has no effect on 

Commission analyses and 

determinations in other, non-RFA 

contexts. 

10. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a small business size 

standard specifically for Interexchange 

Carriers. The closest applicable NAICS 

Code category is Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers. The 

applicable size standard under SBA 

rules is that such a business is small if 

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

Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate 

that 3,117 firms operated for the entire 

year. Of that number, 3,083 operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. 

According to internally developed 

Commission data, 359 companies 

reported that their primary 

telecommunications service activity was 

the provision of interexchange services. 

Of this total, an estimated 317 have 

1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of 

interexchange service providers are 

small entities. 

11. Cable System Operators (Telecom 

Act Standard). The Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, also contains 

a size standard for small cable system 

operators, which is ‘‘a cable operator 

that, directly or through an affiliate, 

serves in the aggregate fewer than one 

percent of all subscribers in the United 

States and is not affiliated with any 

entity or entities whose gross annual 

revenues in the aggregate exceed 

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

approximately 50,504,624 cable video 

subscribers in the United States. 

Accordingly, an operator serving fewer 

than 505,046 subscribers shall be 

deemed a small operator if its annual 

revenues, when combined with the total 

annual revenues of all its affiliates, do 

not exceed $250 million in the 

aggregate. We note that the Commission 

neither requests nor collects information 

on whether cable system operators are 

affiliated with entities whose gross 

annual revenues exceed $250 million. 

Therefore we are unable at this time to 

estimate with greater precision the 

number of cable system operators that 

would qualify as small cable operators 

under the definition in the 

Communications Act. 

2. Wireless Carriers 

12. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). This industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

operating and maintaining switching 

and transmission facilities to provide 

communications via the airwaves. 

Establishments in this industry have 

spectrum licenses and provide services 

using that spectrum, such as cellular 

services, paging services, wireless 

internet access, and wireless video 

services. The appropriate size standard 

under SBA rules is that such a business 

is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. For this industry, U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 

there were 967 firms that operated for 

the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms 

employed fewer than 1,000 employees 

and 12 firms employed of 1000 

employees or more. Thus under this 

category and the associated size 

standard, the Commission estimates that 

the majority of wireless 

telecommunications carriers (except 

satellite) are small entities. 

13. The Commission’s own data— 

available in its Universal Licensing 

System—indicate that, as of August 31, 

2018 there are 265 Cellular licensees 

that will be affected by our actions. The 

Commission does not know how many 

of these licensees are small, as the 

Commission does not collect that 

information for these types of entities. 

Similarly, according to internally 

developed Commission data, 413 

carriers reported that they were engaged 

in the provision of wireless telephony, 

including cellular service, Personal 

Communications Service (PCS), and 

Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 

Telephony services. Of this total, an 

estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees, and 152 have more than 

1,500 employees. Thus, using available 

data, we estimate that the majority of 

wireless firms can be considered small. 

14. Satellite Telecommunications. 

This category comprises firms 

‘‘primarily engaged in providing 

telecommunications services to other 

establishments in the 

telecommunications and broadcasting 

industries by forwarding and receiving 

communications signals via a system of 

satellites or reselling satellite 

telecommunications.’’ Satellite 

telecommunications service providers 

include satellite and earth station 

operators. The category has a small 

business size standard of $35 million or 

less in average annual receipts, under 

SBA rules. For this category, U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 

there were a total of 333 firms that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 299 firms had annual receipts of 

less than $25 million. Consequently, we 

estimate that the majority of satellite 

telecommunications providers are small 

entities. 

3. Resellers 

15. Local Resellers. The SBA has not 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for Local Resellers. 

The SBA category of 

Telecommunications Resellers is the 

closest NAICs code category for local 

resellers. The Telecommunications 

Resellers industry comprises 

establishments engaged in purchasing 

access and network capacity from 

owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. Mobile virtual network 

operators (MVNOs) are included in this 

industry. Under the SBA’s size 

standard, such a business is small if it 

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

Census Bureau data from 2012 show 

that 1,341 firms provided resale services 

during that year. Of that number, all 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30581 

operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. Thus, under this category 

and the associated small business size 

standard, the majority of these resellers 

can be considered small entities. 

According to Commission data, 213 

carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provision of local resale 

services. Of these, an estimated 211 

have 1,500 or fewer employees and two 

have more than 1,500 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of local 

resellers are small entities. 

16. Toll Resellers. The Commission 

has not developed a definition for Toll 

Resellers. The closest NAICS Code 

Category is Telecommunications 

Resellers. The Telecommunications 

Resellers industry comprises 

establishments engaged in purchasing 

access and network capacity from 

owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. MVNOs are included in 

this industry. The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for the 

category of Telecommunications 

Resellers. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. 2012 Census Bureau 

data show that 1,341 firms provided 

resale services during that year. Of that 

number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

these resellers can be considered small 

entities. According to Commission data, 

881 carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provision of toll resale 

services. Of this total, an estimated 857 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of toll 

resellers are small entities. 

17. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a small business 

definition specifically for prepaid 

calling card providers. The most 

appropriate NAICS code-based category 

for defining prepaid calling card 

providers is Telecommunications 

Resellers. This industry comprises 

establishments engaged in purchasing 

access and network capacity from 

owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. Mobile virtual networks 

operators (MVNOs) are included in this 

industry. Under the applicable SBA size 

standard, such a business is small if it 

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

Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 

1,341 firms provided resale services 

during that year. Of that number, 1,341 

operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. Thus, under this category 

and the associated small business size 

standard, the majority of these prepaid 

calling card providers can be considered 

small entities. According to Commission 

data, 193 carriers have reported that 

they are engaged in the provision of 

prepaid calling cards. All 193 carriers 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of prepaid 

calling card providers are small entities 

that may be affected by these rules. 

4. Other Entities 

18. All Other Telecommunications. 

The ‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’ 

category is comprised of establishments 

primarily engaged in providing 

specialized telecommunications 

services, such as satellite tracking, 

communications telemetry, and radar 

station operation. This industry also 

includes establishments primarily 

engaged in providing satellite terminal 

stations and associated facilities 

connected with one or more terrestrial 

systems and capable of transmitting 

telecommunications to, and receiving 

telecommunications from, satellite 

systems. Establishments providing 

internet services or voice over internet 

protocol (VoIP) services via 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 show that there were 1,442 firms 

that operated for the entire year. Of 

those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual 

receipts less than $25 million and 15 

firms had annual receipts of $25 million 

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

estimates that the majority of ‘‘All Other 

Telecommunications’’ firms potentially 

affected by our action can be considered 

small. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

19. The Further Notice proposes 

shortening the extension for small voice 

service providers that originate an 

especially large amount of traffic from 

two years to one year, which would 

result in a new compliance deadline for 

small providers to implement STIR/ 

SHAKEN by June 1, 2022. The Further 

Notice also proposes to rely on the 

Commission’s existing rule that would 

require small voice service providers 

subject to a shortened extension to (1) 

within ten business days of the effective 

date of any Order we adopt, update their 

certifications and associated filings 

indicating that they are subject to a 

shortened extension; and (2) further 

update their certifications and 

associated filings within ten business 

days of completion of STIR/SHAKEN 

implementation in the IP portions of 

their networks. We seek comment on 

these proposals and whether we should 

adopt alternate requirements to monitor 

compliance. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

20. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rules for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities. 

21. We seek comment on our proposal 

in the Further Notice to shorten the 

extension for small voice service 

providers that originate an especially 

large amount of call traffic and whether 

our proposed rules would impact such 

voice service providers; and on 

proposals to lessen that impact, 

including by modifying the terms of this 

curtailed compliance. The Further 

Notice further seeks comment on ways 

to ease compliance with monitoring 

requirements, including by relying on 

existing rules and data collection 

requirements. We expect to take into 

account the economic impact on small 

entities, as identified in comments filed 

in response to the Further Notice and 

this IRFA, in reaching our final 

conclusions and promulgating rules in 

this proceeding. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
30582 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

22. None. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

23. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 227b 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 

227b, that this Third Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is adopted. 

24. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Third Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12007 Filed 6–8–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 665 

[Docket No. 210603–0120] 

RIN 0648–BK29 

Pacific Island Fisheries; Electronic 

Logbooks for Hawaii and American 

Samoa Pelagic Longline Fisheries 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to require the 

use of electronic logbooks in Hawaii 

pelagic longline fisheries and on Class 

C and D vessels in the American Samoa 

pelagic longline fishery. This proposed 

rule is intended to reduce human error, 

improve data accuracy, save time for 

fishermen and NMFS, and provide more 

rigorous monitoring and forecasting of 

catch limits. 

DATES: NMFS must receive comments 

by July 9, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2021–0014, by either of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://

www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA– 

NMFS–2021–0014 in the Search box, 

click the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, complete the 

required fields, and enter or attach your 

comments. 

• Mail: Send written comments to 

Michael D. Tosatto, Regional 

Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands 

Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 

176, Honolulu, HI 96818. 

Instructions: NMFS may not consider 

comments sent by any other method, to 

any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. All comments received are a 

part of the public record and will 

generally be posted for public viewing 

on www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential 

business information, or otherwise 

sensitive information submitted 

voluntarily by the sender will be 

publicly accessible. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

The Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) 

prepared a regulatory amendment that 

provides additional information and 

analyses that support this proposed 

rule. Copies are available from the 

Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, 

Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808–522–8220, 

or www.wpcouncil.org. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to Michael D. 

Tosatto (see ADDRESSES) and to 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

Find this particular information 

collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 

30-day Review—Open for Public 

Comments’’ or by using the search 

function. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lynn Rassel, NMFS Pacific Islands 

Regional Office Sustainable Fisheries, 

808–725–5184. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS and 

the Council manage the Hawaii 

(shallow-set and deep-set) and America 

Samoa longline fisheries under the 

Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic 

Fisheries of the Western Pacific (FEP). 

The implementing Federal regulations 

for these fisheries include a suite of 

conservation and management 

requirements. Among the requirements 

are limited access permits, carrying atsea observers, vessel monitoring system 

(VMS), daily catch and effort reporting, 

and a host of other gear and operational 

requirements. 

Current regulations require vessel 

operators to record and submit catch 

information in paper logbooks, with the 

option to use electronic logbooks. 

Currently, if using paper logbooks, 

NMFS requires vessel operators to 

record catch information daily and 

submit the logbooks within 72 hours of 

returning to port after a fishing trip. If 

using electronic logbooks, NMFS 

requires vessel operators to record catch 

information daily and submit electronic 

logs within 24 hours after the end of a 

fishing day. In the event of a system 

failure, vessel operators are required to 

submit electronic or paper logbooks 

within 72 hours of returning to port 

after a fishing trip. 

There are approximately 144 active 

vessels in the Hawaii longline fisheries 

(shallow-set and deep-set combined) 

and approximately 12 active Class C and 

D vessels in the American Samoa 

longline fishery. As of March 2021, 

approximately 94 vessels in the Hawaii 

fisheries are voluntarily using electronic 

logbooks. No vessels are using 

electronic logbooks in the American 

Samoa fishery. 

Paper logbooks require manual 

handling and data entry. Collecting, 

collating, storing, and entering data 

manually is costly, inefficient, and 

prone to errors. Additionally, NMFS 

and the Council manage U.S. longline 

bigeye tuna catch limits and allocation 

limits, which require forecasts of bigeye 

tuna catches throughout the fishing 

season to inform in-season management. 

Errors in recording and delay in data 

entry can result in near-term forecasting 

inaccuracy, potentially resulting in 

overages and underages of bigeye tuna 

catch with respect to the Western and 

Central Pacific Fisheries Commission 

(WCPFC) catch limits. Any overage in 

the WCPFC Convention Area would be 

applied to the catch limit in the 

subsequent year, thereby reducing the 

catch limit for the following year. 

Conversely, if forecasting inaccuracy 

leads to an underage, the fishery would 

not be allowed to carry-over the unused 

catch limit to the subsequent year, 

resulting in a reduction in catch 

available to the fishery and the Nation. 

In light of these inefficiencies, the 

Council in October 2018 recommended 

that NMFS implement mandatory 

electronic logbooks in the Hawaii 

pelagic longline fisheries. In June 2019, 

the Council requested that the NMFS 

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

convene an Electronic Technologies 

Steering Committee to address 

electronic logbook implementation 

challenges. In June 2020, the Council 

considered requiring electronic 

logbooks in the Hawaii and American 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1