Call Authentication Trust Anchor, 30571-30582 [2021-12007]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 9, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30571-30582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12007]


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

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-window-and-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 [email protected] and to Nicole 
Ongele, FCC, via email to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please 
contact Alexander Hobbs, Attorney Advisor, Competition Policy Division, 
Wireline Competition Bureau, at [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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/FCC-21-62A1.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 [email protected] 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 Pallone-Thune 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.

[[Page 30572]]

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 one-year 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.

[[Page 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 two-year 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

[[Page 30574]]

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 long-distance 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

[[Page 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 two-year 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 
mass-market services, as suggested by USTelecom. Do commenters agree 
that the proportion of revenue from non-mass 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 sub-categories 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

[[Page 30576]]

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 red-light 
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-count-related 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 30578]]

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 non-mass 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--Permit-But-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 Sec.  1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In 
proceedings governed by Sec.  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

[[Page 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

[[Page 30580]]

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, 
Shared-Tenant 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

[[Page 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 client-supplied 
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for ``All Other 
Telecommunications'', which consists of all such firms with annual 
receipts of $35 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau 
data for 2012 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.

[[Page 30582]]

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