Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, 43489-43502 [2023-13032]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43489-43502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13032]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1 and 64

[CG Docket No. 17-59, FCC 23-37; FR ID 146148]


Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) proposes and seeks comment on a number of actions aimed 
protecting consumers from illegal calls, restore faith in caller ID, 
and hold voice service providers responsible for the calls on their 
networks. Specifically, the notice of proposed rulemaking proposes and 
seeks comment on several options to combat illegal calls, including:

[[Page 43490]]

specific call blocking requirements; the correct way to notify callers 
when calls are blocked based on reasonable analytics; requiring the 
display of caller name information in certain instances and; a base 
forfeiture for failure to adopt affirmative, effective measures to 
prevent new or renewing customers from originating illegal calls. 
Additionally, the Notice of Inquiry seeks broad comment on tools used 
by voice service providers to combat illegal calls, such as honeypots, 
as well as on the status and use of call labeling.

DATES: Comments are due on or before August 9, 2023, and reply comments 
are due on or before September 8, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and 
reply comments on or before the dates indicated in this document. 
Comments and reply comments may be filed using the Commission's 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Interested 
parties may file comments or reply comments, identified by CG Docket 
No. 17-59 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.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please 
contact Jerusha Burnett, Attorney Advisor, Consumer Policy Division, 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at [email protected] or 
at (202) 418-0526. For additional information concerning the Paperwork 
Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements contained in 
this document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Cathy Williams 
at (202) 418-2918.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Eighth 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Eighth FNPRM) and Third Notice 
of Inquiry in CG Docket No. 17-59, FCC 23-37, adopted on May 18, 2023, 
and released on May 19, 2023. The full text of this document is 
available for public inspection at the following internet address: 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-37A1.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).
    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 Cathy 
Williams, FCC, via email to [email protected].

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document contains proposed information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public to comment on the 
information collection requirements contained in this document, as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
Public and agency comments are due September 8, 2023.
    Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) 
way to further reduce the information collection burden on small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant 
to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how 
it might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Synopsis

Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. In the companion final rule (Report and Order), published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, and the 2023 Caller ID 
Authentication Order, 88 FR 40096 (June 21, 2023), the Federal 
Communications Commission (Commission) made clear that all voice 
service providers play a key role in stopping illegal calls by 
extending existing obligations and closing potential loopholes. In this 
Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Eighth FNPRM), the 
Commission proposes and seeks comment on several additional steps that 
could ensure that all consumers have access to call blocking solutions, 
restore trust in caller ID, and hold voice service providers 
responsible for illegal traffic. First, the Commission proposes to 
require that all terminating providers offer, at a minimum, analytics-
based blocking of calls that are highly likely to be illegal on an opt-
out basis, without charge. Second, the Commission proposes to require 
that all voice service providers, rather than just gateway providers, 
block calls based on a reasonable DNO list. Third, the Commission seeks 
comment on the correct SIP Code for providing callers with immediate 
notification of blocked calls on an ongoing basis. Fourth, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether, and if so how, to require 
terminating providers that choose to display an indication as to caller 
ID authentication status to provide some version of caller name to

[[Page 43491]]

call recipients. Finally, the Commission proposes to establish a base 
forfeiture for any violation of the requirement for voice service 
providers to take affirmative, effective measures to prevent new and 
renewing customers from originating illegal calls.

Mandatory Blocking Programs To Protect Consumers From Illegal Calls

Requiring Opt-Out Analytics-Based Blocking of Calls That Are Highly 
Likely To Be Illegal
    2. The Commission proposes to require that terminating providers 
offer analytics-based blocking of calls that are highly likely to be 
illegal on an opt-out basis without charge to consumers. The 
Commission's rules currently permit, but do not require, such blocking. 
As a result, while many terminating providers offer these services, 
they may not be available to all consumers. The Commission believes 
that this requirement will better protect all consumers from illegal 
calls.
    3. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Would the 
Commission's proposal help protect consumers from calls they do not 
want to receive? The Commission has previously provided a non-
exhaustive list of factors that a voice service provider might consider 
when blocking based on reasonable analytics rather than specifically 
defining the categories of ``highly likely to be illegal'' or 
``unwanted.'' If the Commission were to adopt its proposal, should it 
provide further guidance, or does its flexible approach remain 
appropriate? If the Commission should provide further guidance, what 
should it include? What lessons can the Commission take from existing 
analytics-based blocking to ensure any requirement is effective? How 
can the Commission ensure that bad actors cannot use any guidance it 
provides to more easily circumvent blocking? The Commission proposes to 
require terminating providers to offer these blocking services 30 days 
after publication of an Order in the Federal Register; it seeks comment 
on this proposal. Will some providers need more time to implement this 
requirement because they do not already offer any analytics-based 
blocking? If so, how long should the Commission allow for 
implementation?
    4. To minimize the burden to terminating providers, the Commission 
proposes to consider analytics-based blocking of calls that are highly 
likely to be illegal on an opt-out basis to be a minimum standard. 
Terminating providers that already do more, or that choose to do more, 
would therefore be in compliance with this requirement. In particular, 
the Commission recognizes that many terminating providers already offer 
opt-out blocking services. The Commission believes that terminating 
providers that already block calls that are unwanted based on 
reasonable analytics on an opt-out basis, consistent with its existing 
safe harbor at Sec.  64.1200(k)(3), would be in compliance because 
unwanted calls inherently include calls that are highly likely to be 
illegal. The Commission seeks comment on this belief. Is there any 
reason that these terminating providers would not already be in 
compliance? If so, are there any modifications the Commission could 
make to this safe harbor to address this issue? How should the 
Commission handle a situation where a terminating provider only offers 
such blocking on an opt-in basis? The Commission believes that more 
consumers will benefit from blocking that is offered on an opt-out 
basis, because many consumers who would benefit from blocking will not 
opt in. Is this correct? Is there any way the Commission could address 
this issue without requiring terminating providers that offer opt-in 
blocking to switch to opt-out blocking? Alternatively, is the benefit 
of requiring these terminating providers to switch to opt-out blocking 
enough to justify the cost of doing so?
    5. Some terminating providers already block calls that are highly 
likely to be illegal without consumer consent, consistent with the 
Commission's safe harbor under Sec.  64.1200(k)(11). The Commission 
believes that terminating providers that engage in this blocking would 
also be in compliance with the mandate it proposes today. The 
Commission seeks comment on this belief. Is there any reason the 
Commission should not consider these terminating providers in 
compliance? If so, are there any modifications that the Commission 
should make to the safe harbor to address this? Because blocking 
without consumer consent would mean that more consumers would benefit 
than blocking on either an opt-in or opt-out basis, the Commission does 
not believe there is any reason to require terminating providers to 
offer consumers the opportunity to opt out when blocking targets calls 
that are highly likely to be illegal, rather than unwanted. Is this 
correct? Are there any reasons for us to require the terminating 
provider to allow consumers to opt out? If the Commission does so, 
would this create any issues for terminating providers that already 
block under the existing safe harbor? Do any terminating providers that 
would be impacted by this modification not offer opt-out blocking of 
unwanted calls? How might the Commission address these issues if it 
does take this approach?
    6. Terminating providers that block consistent with the 
Commission's existing safe harbors will be protected by those safe 
harbors when blocking under this proposed rule. The Commission believes 
the safe harbors provide sufficient protection. The Commission seeks 
comment on this belief. Is there any reason to modify or expand the 
Commission's existing safe harbors to protect terminating providers 
that block under this rule? If so, what modifications would be 
appropriate? What impact would these modifications have on lawful 
calls? If the Commission does adopt certain modifications to its safe 
harbors, should the Commission modify its rules protecting lawful calls 
and, if so, how? Finally, the Commission believes that its existing 
protections for lawful calls are sufficient and propose to extend them 
to calls blocked under this requirement. The Commission seeks comment 
on this belief and whether there are any other protections it should 
adopt. Are there any other issues the Commission should consider in 
adopting such a requirement?
Requiring Blocking Based on a Reasonable Do-Not-Originate List
    7. The Commission proposes to require all voice service providers 
to block calls using a reasonable DNO list. A DNO list is a list of 
numbers that should never be used to originate calls, and therefore any 
calls that include a listed number in the caller ID field can be 
blocked. Consistent with the Commission's requirement for gateway 
providers for voice calling and mobile wireless providers for text 
messaging, the Commission proposes to allow voice service providers to 
use any DNO list so long as the list is reasonable and not so limited 
in scope that it leaves out obvious numbers that could be included with 
little effort. Specifically, the Commission proposes to limit the 
numbers that can be included on the list to invalid, unallocated, and 
unused numbers, as well as numbers for which the subscriber to the 
number has requested blocking.
    8. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Should the list 
include any additional categories of numbers, or should it exclude any 
particular categories? The Commission notes that the categories it 
proposes to include are consistent both with the requirement for 
gateway providers and the Commission's long-standing authorization of 
this type of blocking, so

[[Page 43492]]

it is reluctant to change this scope unless it provides a clear benefit 
to consumers. The Commission therefore seek specific comment on the 
benefits of any change.
    9. As noted in the Gateway Provider Order, 87 FR 42916 (July 18, 
2022), and Gateway Provider Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(Gateway Provider FNPRM), 87 FR 42670 (July 18, 2022), The Commission 
does not believe every possible number must be included in a DNO list 
in order for such a list to be reasonable. Consistent with the 
Commission's rule for gateway providers, the Commission believe that, 
at a minimum, a reasonable list would need to include any inbound-only 
government numbers where the government entity has requested the number 
be included. Additionally, the Commission believes it should include 
private inbound-only numbers that have been used in imposter scams, 
when a request is made by the private entity assigned such a number. 
The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Is there any reason to 
change the minimum scope of what must be included on a reasonable DNO 
list?
    10. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether it is 
appropriate to require all voice service providers to block based on a 
reasonable DNO list, rather than limiting the requirement to certain 
voice service provider types. Because the Commission does not mandate 
blocking using a specific list, the content of the list may vary from 
one voice service provider to another. The Commission therefore 
believes that broad application of the rule will result in more calls 
that are highly likely to be illegal being blocked before they reach a 
consumer. Is this belief correct? Are there any other factors the 
Commission should consider in determining which voice service providers 
should be required to block? For example, are there technical 
limitations that would make it difficult or impossible for voice 
service providers to implement blocking across the network? If the 
Commission does limit the blocking requirement to only specific types 
of voice service providers, what categories of providers should be 
required to block? For example, should the rule only apply to 
originating providers, along with gateway providers? The Commission 
further seeks comment on the appropriate implementation timeline for 
this requirement. Given that this rule will need to be approved through 
the Paperwork Reduction Act process, does requiring compliance 30 days 
after publication of a notice of that approval in the Federal Register 
suffice, or should the Commission allow additional time? Should the 
Commission consider a different timeline if not all providers are 
covered by the final rule? Are there any other issues that the 
Commission should consider?

Further Strengthening the Requirements To Block Following Commission 
Notification

    11. In the Report and Order, the Commission requires originating 
providers to block illegal traffic when notified by the Commission, as 
gateway providers are already required to do. While the Commission 
believes that, in the vast majority of cases, responsibility for 
blocking illegal calls should fall to originating and gateway 
providers, it is concerned that requiring terminating or non-gateway 
intermediate providers to merely respond with information regarding 
where they received the traffic could leave some loopholes that bad 
actors might attempt to exploit. For this reason, the Commission 
proposes to require blocking by other voice service providers in 
certain situations and seek comment on other steps the Commission could 
take to ensure that bad actors cannot circumvent its rules.
    12. First, the Commission proposes to require a terminating or non-
gateway intermediate provider to block if that provider, upon receipt 
of a Notice of Suspected Illegal Traffic, cannot identify the upstream 
provider from which it received any or all of the calls. The Commission 
proposes that the terminating or non-gateway intermediate provider be 
required to block consistent with the original Notice of Suspected 
illegal traffic, including developing a blocking plan, following the 
same subsequent steps that originating and gateway providers follow 
when they are notified of suspected illegal traffic. Second, the 
Commission proposes to allow the Enforcement Bureau to direct a 
terminating or non-gateway intermediate provider that has received at 
least one prior Notice of Suspected Illegal Traffic to both block 
substantially similar traffic and identify the upstream provider from 
which it received the traffic. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on 
any other scenarios that it should address.
    13. Blocking When Information Regarding the Upstream Provider is 
Unavailable. The Commission proposes to require terminating and non-
gateway intermediate providers to block illegal traffic when notified 
by the Commission if, for any reason, the provider responds to the 
Enforcement Bureau that it cannot identify the upstream provider from 
which it received any or all of the calls identified in the Notice of 
Suspected Illegal Traffic. As part of this requirement, terminating and 
non-gateway intermediate providers would be required to block traffic 
that is substantially similar to the traffic identified in the Notice 
of Suspected Illegal Traffic. The Commission believes that this 
requirement is necessary to ensure that all traffic on the U.S. network 
is subject to blocking when the Enforcement Bureau has determined that 
such traffic is illegal, as well as to avoid situations in which a bad-
actor provider would otherwise be shielded from consequences under the 
Commission's existing rules.
    14. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission 
believes there are two ways the issue could arise. First, a bad-actor 
provider might intentionally discard the information necessary to 
identify the upstream provider so that it cannot provide that 
information to the Enforcement Bureau. Second, a voice service provider 
that is trying to be a good actor in the ecosystem might receive a 
Notice of Suspected Illegal Traffic that includes calls for which it no 
longer has records. Are there any other instances in which a provider 
would be unable to identify the upstream provider from which it 
received traffic? Does extending the requirement to block in these 
cases present a significant burden to terminating or non-gateway 
intermediate providers? How might the Commission reduce these burdens? 
Are there any situations in which the Commission should not require 
blocking even though the notified provider cannot identify the upstream 
provider(s)? How might the Commission address these situations? The 
Commission sees no reason why voice service providers would not be able 
to develop a blocking plan and start blocking in response to the 
initial Notice of Suspected Illegal Traffic, without requiring 
additional action by the Enforcement Bureau. The voice service provider 
will know that it cannot provide the identity of the upstream provider 
from its investigation, and can act on this knowledge more quickly than 
the Enforcement Bureau. The Commission seeks comment on this belief.
    15. The Commission proposes to require blocking of ``substantially 
similar'' traffic, consistent with its rules for originating and 
gateway providers. Is this standard appropriate for use with 
terminating and non-gateway intermediate providers, or should the 
Commission adopt a different standard? Should the Commission provide

[[Page 43493]]

guidance specific to terminating and non-gateway intermediate providers 
on meeting this standard, in recognition of the fact that they are 
further from the source of the call and are not the first point of 
entry onto the U.S. network? If so, what guidance might the Commission 
provide? If the Commission adopts a different standard, what standard 
should it adopt? As the Commission stated in the Report and Order, 
``[a] rule that only requires an originating provider to block the 
traffic specifically identified in the initial notice would arguably 
block no traffic at all, as the Enforcement Bureau cannot identify 
specific illegal traffic before it has been originated.'' The 
Commission therefore thinks that some standard is essential to avoid a 
rule that would allow illegal traffic to continue unimpeded.
    16. Are there other approaches the Commission should take instead 
of, or in addition to, this rule? For example, should the Commission 
require all U.S.-based providers to retain call detail records for a 
set amount of time? How long do voice service providers currently 
retain these records, and what information do they include? Is there an 
industry best practice the Commission could mandate? If so, is that 
retention period sufficient to allow the Enforcement Bureau time to 
investigate before sending a Notice of Suspected Illegal traffic, or is 
it possible that a Notice would be sent after the records are no longer 
retained? How much does it cost voice service providers to retain these 
records? Does the cost to retain records increase substantially the 
longer the records are required to be held? Should the Commission 
require a shorter records retention period that would cover most cases, 
but still require the notified provider to block substantially similar 
traffic if it receives a notice when it can no longer identify the 
upstream provider? Is there anything else the Commission should 
consider in adopting a rule to cover these situations?
    17. Repeated Notifications of Suspected Illegal Traffic to the Same 
Terminating or Non-Gateway Intermediate Provider. The Commission 
proposes to require terminating and non-gateway intermediate providers 
to block when the Enforcement Bureau determines that it is necessary, 
so long as the terminating or non-gateway intermediate provider has 
previously received at least one Notice of Suspected Illegal Traffic. 
Specifically, if the Enforcement Bureau has previously sent a 
Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic to the identified provider, 
it may require that provider to block substantially similar traffic if 
it determines, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the 
terminating or non-gateway intermediate provider is either 
intentionally or negligently allowing illegal traffic onto its network. 
In such a case, the Commission proposes to allow the Enforcement Bureau 
to direct, in a Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic or Initial 
Determination Order, a terminating or non-gateway intermediate provider 
to both identify the upstream provider(s) from which it received the 
identified traffic and block the traffic.
    18. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission 
is concerned that its current rules may not fully address situations in 
which the terminating or non-gateway intermediate provider may respond 
with information regarding the upstream provider from which it received 
identified traffic, but nonetheless is taking steps to shield other 
bad-actor providers or bad-actor callers. For example, a bad actor 
might intentionally set up a chain of voice service providers 
specifically to shield earlier providers in the chain from liability or 
to allow illegal traffic to continue even if one or more provider in 
the chain is removed. Does this rule appropriately address this 
concern? Is requiring at least one Notice of Suspected Illegal Traffic 
an appropriate threshold before the Enforcement Bureau may take this 
step? Should the Commission allow the Enforcement Bureau to take this 
step without having sent a prior Notice of Suspected Illegal Traffic, 
or should it instead adopt greater restrictions on when it can do so? 
The Commission proposes to require the Enforcement Bureau to consider 
both the number of prior Notices of Suspected Illegal Traffic and how 
recently the prior Notices were sent, but not to set specific 
thresholds beyond requiring at least one prior Notice. Is this the 
correct approach? Should the Commission limit the length of time since 
the prior Notice? If so, how long should the Commission allow? Should 
this time vary if the voice service provider has previously received 
multiple Notices of Suspected Illegal Traffic?
    19. Beyond these threshold questions, the Commission expects but 
does not propose to require the Enforcement Bureau to consider specific 
criteria in determining whether a provider is either intentionally or 
negligently allowing illegal traffic onto its network. Such criteria 
could include how frequently the notified provider appears in traceback 
requests, how cooperative the notified provider has been previously, 
what percentage of the notified provider's traffic appears to be 
illegal, evidence that the notified provider is involved in actively 
shielding illegal traffic, and any other evidence that indicates the 
notified provider is a bad actor. Is this the correct approach? Should 
the Commission adopt specific criteria that the Enforcement Bureau must 
consider? If so, what should the Commission include in those criteria? 
The Commission seeks comment on any other issues it should consider.
    20. Other Loopholes. The Commission seeks comment on any other 
potential loopholes to its requirements to block following Commission 
notification. The Commission is concerned about either instances where 
illegal traffic would still reach consumers even after notification 
because no provider would be required to block it or any issues that 
bad-actor providers could exploit to protect themselves or other bad 
actors. Do the two proposals the Commission discusses above 
sufficiently cover these concerns? If not, what is the concern and how 
might the Commission address it? Are there any other issues the 
Commission should consider?

SIP Codes for Immediate Notification of Blocked Calls

    21. The Commission seeks comment on which SIP Code(s) to require 
terminating providers with IP networks to use to notify callers that 
calls have been blocked, consistent with the TRACED Act's directive to 
provide ``transparency and effective redress.'' Specifically, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether it should require use of the newly 
developed SIP Code 603+ for immediate notification, require use of SIP 
Code 608, or require use of SIP Code 603.
    22. Background. In response to the TRACED Act, in December 2020, 
the Commission required that terminating providers blocking calls on an 
IP network use SIP Code 607, ``Unwanted,'' or SIP Code 608, 
``Rejected,'' as appropriate, to notify callers or originating 
providers of a blocked call. Following a petition seeking 
reconsideration from USTelecom, in 2021, the Commission permitted 
terminating providers with IP networks to use existing SIP Code 603, 
``Decline,'' to meet the immediate notification requirement. However, 
the Commission made clear that it viewed this as an ``interim measure 
as industry moves to full implementation of SIP Codes 607 and 608,'' 
and reaffirmed its belief that ``[the Commission] should retain the 
requirement that terminating providers ultimately use only SIP Codes 
607 or 608 in IP networks.'' At the same time, the Commission sought 
comment

[[Page 43494]]

on the status of the implementation of SIP Codes 607 and 608, as well 
as whether and how to best transition away from SIP Code 603 for use as 
a response for call blocking. The Commission also sought comment on 
whether SIP Code 603 provides adequate information to callers and thus 
should not be phased out, or whether SIP Code 603 requires modification 
to make it useful to callers. After the comment period for the 
rulemaking had ended, industry presented a new potential solution for 
the immediate notification problem, generally referred to as SIP Code 
603+, ``Network Blocked,'' which builds on the existing SIP Code 603 to 
provide greater information to callers.
    23. Competing Standards. The Commission believes that either SIP 
Code 608 or SIP Code 603+ has the best potential to provide callers 
with meaningful information when calls are blocked based on reasonable 
analytics, allowing for transparency and effective redress. The 
Commission seeks comment on this belief. The Commission notes that, 
because it has not previously sought comment on SIP Code 603+, it is 
particularly interested in the benefits and disadvantages of that 
particular code relative to SIP Code 608. Are both standards capable of 
satisfying the TRACED Act's requirement that the Commission provide 
transparency and effective redress to callers? What are the advantages 
or disadvantages of each standard? Are either or both of these SIP 
Codes more advantageous than requiring use of SIP Code 603, and if so, 
why? Given that SIP Code 607 is not intended for use when block is 
based on reasonable analytics, the Commission no longer believes that 
it would be appropriate to continue to allow use of SIP Code 607 for 
this purpose, particularly given that there are now two options that 
specifically address this type of blocking available in SIP Codes 603+ 
and 608. Is this belief correct?
    24. Implementation Details and Issues. The Commission seeks comment 
on the implementation process and costs for each code. Voice service 
providers have argued that SIP Code 603+ is easier to implement. Is 
this correct? How long will it take voice service providers to 
implement SIP Codes 603+, 607, or 608, respectively? Would the 
implementation timeline for SIP Code 608 vary if the Commission 
requires the jCard or if it does not, and if so, how? Should the 
Commission require a faster implementation for the code it adopts, 
considering the Commission's directive in the December 2020 Call 
Blocking Order, 86 FR 17726? What should the implementation deadline 
be? How can the Commission ensure it is met? What are the respective 
costs of implementation? Other than amending the Commission's mapping 
rule to reflect whatever SIP Code (or possibly SIP Codes) that the 
Commission requires to be used, does it need to take any additional 
steps to ensure the SIP Code(s) appropriately map to or from ISUP code 
21 when calls transit non-IP networks, or are the Commission's current 
rule sufficient?
    25. Value to Callers. Which SIP Code is most helpful for callers to 
receive and use for immediate notification of blocking based on an 
analytics program, or are the codes comparable for callers? What is the 
cost to callers to adapt their systems to receive SIP Code 603+, 607, 
or 608? Is there any information that would be available under SIP Code 
608, either with or without the jCard, that is not available under SIP 
Code 603+? If so, does the benefit of this information outweigh any 
additional costs that voice service providers might incur to implement 
SIP Code 608 throughout the network? Should the Commission require 
voice service providers to use one of these SIP Codes or continue to 
allow voice service providers to choose from several SIP Codes. and if 
so, which Codes are most appropriate? Should the Commission continue to 
allow use of SIP Code 603? What impact would each approach have on 
callers? What is the timeline for callers to be able to receive SIP 
Code 603+, 607, and 608? Is there anything else the Commission should 
consider?

Increasing Trust in Caller ID by Providing Accurate Caller Name To Call 
Recipients

    26. Caller Name for Voice Calls. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether and how to provide accurate caller name information to call 
recipients when the terminating voice service provider displays an 
indication that the call received A-level attestation. Some terminating 
providers have chosen to display an indication of caller ID 
authentication status to the call recipient, such as through a green 
checkmark. While this may tell an informed consumer that the caller ID 
is either not spoofed or spoofed with authorization, it does not tell 
them anything about the identity of the caller. Mobile phones do not 
routinely display information from caller ID name (CNAM) databases, and 
an unfamiliar number without a display name is still an unfamiliar 
number, even if the recipient knows that it was not spoofed.
    27. The Commission believes that combining the display of caller 
name information with the information that the number itself was not 
spoofed could provide real benefit to consumers, who would then have 
more data to use when deciding whether or not to answer the phone. The 
Commission seeks comment on this belief. Does the caller ID attestation 
information display alone significantly benefit the consumer? If so, 
how does that benefit compare to the benefit of caller name data alone? 
Is the combined information more beneficial than either single piece of 
information? What would the Commission need to do to ensure that these 
benefits are realized?
    28. Caller name information is only valuable if it is accurate. The 
Commission therefore seeks comment on the source of caller name 
information for display. For example, should the Commission rely on 
existing CNAM databases for this purpose? Is it true that the accuracy 
of these databases varies and is impacted by whether the caller 
provides accurate information? How can the Commission ensure that this 
information is more accurate? The Commission believes that a caller 
that provides inaccurate information to populate CNAM databases with 
the intent to defraud, cause harm, or otherwise obtain something of 
value is in violation of the Truth in Caller ID Act. The Commission 
seeks comment on this belief. Are there other steps the Commission 
could take to ensure CNAM accuracy?
    29. Alternatively, are there other sources that would be more 
accurate for caller name display? The Commission knows that industry 
has been working on branded calling options, such as Rich Call Data, 
which makes use of the STIR/SHAKEN framework to provide caller name and 
other branding for display to the consumer. Unlike the traditional CNAM 
databases, Rich Call Data is not widely deployed and may not work on 
some networks; furthermore, the primary use case appears to be for 
enterprise calling, rather than caller name generally. However, its 
incorporation into the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework 
should increase the reliability of the information. Is this a correct 
assumption? Would Rich Call Data, or some other option, be a better 
choice for caller name display data? If so, what limitations and 
strengths do those options have, and how might the Commission craft a 
rule to ensure that the limitations are addressed? How long is it 
likely to take for these tools to be broadly available in the network? 
Given that these technologies are generally focused on enterprise 
callers, how should the Commission handle A-level

[[Page 43495]]

attested calls for which there is no caller name information? Should 
intermediate providers, terminating providers, and/or their analytics 
partners be required to pass without alteration Rich Call Data or other 
authenticated caller identification such as caller name, logo, or 
reason for the call?
    30. Instead of requiring use of a specific technology for the 
caller name display, should the Commission adopt a technology-neutral 
standard? For example, could the Commission simply require any 
terminating provider to display caller name information if it displays 
an indication that the call received A-level attestation? Such a rule 
would mean that, if the database or technology the terminating provider 
chooses to use for this information does not include caller name data 
for a particular caller, the terminating provider would not be 
permitted to display an indication that the caller ID received A-level 
attestation. Are there any issues with this approach? Should the 
Commission set any specific requirements to ensure the accuracy of the 
data? Are there alternative ways to handle this that would benefit 
consumers?
    31. The Commission's understanding is that terminating providers 
that choose to display caller ID authentication information only do so 
when the call receives A-level attestation. Are there terminating 
providers that display an indication when there is a different level of 
attestation? If so, should the Commission also require these 
terminating providers to display caller name information, even though 
there is a risk that the caller ID was spoofed? Are there any other 
issues the Commission should consider, such as the appropriate 
implementation timeline?

Enforcement Against Voice Service Providers That Allow Customers To 
Originate Illegal Calls

    32. The Commission proposes to authorize a base forfeiture of 
$11,000 for any voice service provider that fails to take affirmative, 
effective measures to prevent new and renewing customers from using its 
network to originate illegal calls, including knowing its customers and 
exercising due diligence in ensuring that its services are not used to 
originate illegal traffic. The Commission further proposes to authorize 
this forfeiture to be increased up to the maximum forfeiture that its 
rules allow us to impose on non-common carriers. Additionally, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt a similar 
forfeiture for failure to comply with its requirement to know the 
upstream provider.
    33. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. The Commission 
believes that establishing a base forfeiture well below the maximum is 
appropriate, as it will allow us to adjust the total forfeiture upward 
or downward on a case-by-case basis consistent with section 503 of the 
Act and Sec.  1.80 of the Commission's rules. The Commission seeks 
comment on this belief. Is the base forfeiture the Commission proposes 
sufficient incentive to encourage voice service providers that are not 
actively trying to prevent callers from placing illegal calls to take 
steps to ensure that the measures they take are truly effective? Would 
some other threshold be appropriate? If so, what would be an 
appropriate base forfeiture? Similarly, is the Commission's proposal to 
set the maximum forfeiture amount at the maximum its rules permit for 
non-common carriers appropriate? The Commission does not believe that 
there is any reason to penalize common carriers more harshly than non-
common carriers. The Commission seeks comment on this belief. For this 
purpose, how should the Commission define an individual violation of 
this rule? For example, should the Commission consider each customer 
for which the voice service provider fails to take effective measures a 
single violation? If so, if a voice service provider allows that 
customer to originate illegal calls over the course of several days, 
should the Commission consider this a continuing violation such that it 
may impose a forfeiture of up to $23,727 per day? In general, The 
Commission does not believe that this will interact with the forfeiture 
it adopted earlier this year for failure to block. However, the 
Commission seeks comment on any potential interactions and whether, and 
how, it should address them. Is there anything else the Commission 
should consider in authorizing these forfeitures?
    34. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it would be 
appropriate to impose specific forfeitures for violations of its rules 
requiring a voice service provider to know its upstream provider. 
Should the Commission take the same approach for violations of these 
rules, or would a different approach be appropriate? For example, since 
the know-your-upstream-provider requirements apply to a high volume of 
illegal traffic, rather than the origination of any illegal traffic, 
should the base forfeiture be higher or lower?
    35. The Commission believes that establishing a new base forfeiture 
is appropriate in part because bad-actor voice service providers profit 
from the callers that they protect. The Commission seeks comment on 
this belief. For example, do bad-actor voice service providers profit 
from fees paid by downstream providers, such as CNAM database dip fees? 
Is there some other approach the Commission could take that would 
better address these economic incentives? Is there anything else the 
Commission should consider?

Legal Authority

    36. The Commission proposes to find its legal authority for the 
proposed rules consistent with its authority under sections 201(b), 
202(a), and 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the 
Act) as well as from the Truth in Caller ID Act and its ancillary 
authority. In order for the rules addressing voice calls to provide 
benefit, they must include all voice service providers, including non-
Title II providers. The Commission further proposes to rely on its 
authority under the TRACED Act for establishing a specific SIP Code to 
be used for immediate notification of call blocking. The Act and the 
Truth in Caller ID Act have long formed the basis for the Commission's 
prohibitions on call blocking. The Commission believes that these 
source of authority grant it sufficient authority to adopt the proposed 
rules, and it seeks comment on this belief. The Commission proposes 
that it has authority for some matters it seeks comment on here under 
section 251(e) of the Act, which provides it ``exclusive jurisdiction 
over those portions of the North American Numbering Plan that pertain 
to the United States.'' Are there any other sources of authority the 
Commission should rely on? Do any of these sources of authority not 
apply to the rules the Commission proposes today?

Third Notice of Inquiry

    37. Voice service providers have a wide array of tools they can use 
to fight the ever-changing landscape of illegal calls. While some of 
these tools are mandated or otherwise regulated directly by the 
Commission, some may not be directly subject to its rules. Even where 
the Commission does not directly regulate, it is important for it to be 
aware of the options voice service providers have and whether tools are 
working as intended to benefit and protect consumers. With this Third 
Notice of Inquiry, the Commission seeks information regarding the 
current state of technology for identifying and combating illegal 
calls, as well as the current state of call labeling.

[[Page 43496]]

Technology for Fighting Illegal Calls

    38. The Commission seeks comment on the tools voice service 
providers currently use to identify and combat illegal calls. The 
Commission also seeks comment on tools that are in development that 
show particular promise. What tools do voice service providers use, and 
how do these tools help identify and combat illegal calls? Are there 
any tools that are particularly valuable? If so, is there anything the 
Commission can do to improve or promote these tools? Are voice service 
providers reluctant to use certain tools due to fear of liability?
    39. The Commission is particularly interested in the use of 
honeypots and whether there is any way for us to leverage or facilitate 
the use of honeypots more broadly. A honeypot is an unassigned phone 
number that is used by a voice service provider, researcher, or other 
third party to receive (and, where permissible, record) calls to those 
numbers. It allows the voice service provider (or other holder) to 
``listen in'' on such calls. One potential advantage of a honeypot is 
that it allows ``listening in'' without violating any actual customer's 
privacy. The Commission seeks comment on this anticipated benefit, and 
whether the use of honeypots involves any privacy risk (e.g., the 
receipt of inadvertent calls or voicemails in which the caller reveals 
personally identifiable information (PII)). The Commission additionally 
seeks comment on whether it should take steps to further the use of 
honeypots. Are there any barriers to their use the Commission could 
remove? Can honeypots be utilized lawfully in every state, or are there 
state laws that might restrict or limit their use? Alternatively, 
should the Commission consider implementing a Commission-operated 
honeypot? If so, what benefits would that bring that cannot be realized 
through private-sector use? Are there any privacy or other concerns the 
Commission should be aware of? Alternatively, are there other options 
that fill the same role as honeypots more efficiently, or without those 
concerns?
    40. The Commission recognizes that, in some cases, voice service 
providers may be reluctant to publicly disclose information regarding 
the tools they use to combat illegal calls. Where possible, the 
Commission encourage voice service providers to file public comments. 
If a voice service provider has particular competitive concerns, 
however, or is concerned that their filing may allow bad actors to 
circumvent these tools, the Commission also welcomes confidential 
filings.

Call Labeling

    41. Call labeling, which comes in several forms, is a popular tool 
because it gives call recipients information they can use to decide 
whether to answer a call. Some labels seek to warn the call recipient 
of the level of risk the call presents; these are generally based on 
analytics and may include phrases like ``scam likely'' or ``fraud 
risk.'' Other labels seek to provide information as to the content of 
the call, such as ``telemarketing'' or ``survey.''
    42. The Commission seeks comment on the current state of call 
labeling. Are there any voice service providers that do not offer call 
labeling services to their customers? If so, why not? What labels are 
most commonly used, and how are these labels determined? How is STIR/
SHAKEN caller ID authentication information used in determining the 
correct label? Similarly, what role does crowd feedback play in call 
labeling? Do consumers report satisfaction with these services? How 
often do voice service providers receive complaints about inaccurate 
labels from call recipients? From callers? How often do consumers opt 
out of these services? How have voice service providers responded to 
these issues? How do analytics providers weigh the claims of the call 
originator against crowd feedback indicating a call is unwanted or 
abusive? Is there data regarding how often call recipients answer calls 
with negative labels compared to how often they answer calls that 
display just a number? Do labels ever override a caller name that the 
call recipient has saved to their phone, or does the saved name take 
precedence?
    43. Is there anything the Commission can do to improve the 
availability and accuracy of call labeling, or make it more valuable to 
consumers and accurate for callers? Should the Commission do so? What 
is the Commission's legal authority to do so?

Digital Equity and Inclusion

    44. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance 
digital equity for all, including people of color and others who have 
been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by 
persistent poverty and inequality, invites comment on any equity-
related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be associated 
with the proposals and issues discussed herein. Specifically, the 
Commission seeks comment on how its proposals may promote or inhibit 
advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    45. 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 Eighth 
FNPRM. 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 Eighth 
FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the Eighth FNPRM, including 
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). In addition, the Eighth FNPRM and IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    46. In order to continue the Commission's work of protecting 
American consumers from illegal calls, regardless of their provenance, 
the Eighth FNPRM proposes and seeks comment on several options to 
better protect consumers from illegal calls, restore faith in caller 
ID, and hold voice service providers responsible for the calls they 
carry. First, the Eighth FNPRM proposes to require terminating voice 
service providers to offer, at a minimum, opt-out blocking services of 
calls that are highly likely to be illegal to consumers without charge. 
It also seeks comment on whether the Commission should continue to use 
a non-exhaustive list of factors that voice service providers might 
consider when blocking based on reasonable analytics or whether further 
guidance is needed to define the category ``highly likely to be 
illegal.'' Second, the Eighth FNPRM proposes to require all voice 
service providers, rather than just gateway providers, to block calls 
using a reasonable do-not-originate list. Third, it seeks comment on 
specific instances where the non-gateway intermediate and terminating 
providers may be required to block following Commission notification of 
illegal traffic. Fourth, it seeks comment on the correct SIP Code to 
use for immediate notification of call blocking to callers, so that 
callers placing lawful calls can seek redress, and seeks comment on the 
implementation process and costs for each code. Fifth, it seeks comment 
on whether, and how, to require display of caller name information when 
a

[[Page 43497]]

terminating provider displays an indication that a call received A-
level attestation under the STIR/SHAKEN framework. Combining the 
display of caller name information with the information that the number 
itself was not spoofed may provide real benefit to consumers. Finally, 
it proposes to set a minimum forfeiture of $11,000 for failure to 
comply with one of the existing rules, and would allow that forfeiture 
to be increased up to the maximum for non-common carriers. The Eighth 
FNPRM seeks comment on whether a base forfeiture is appropriate in part 
because bad-actor voice service providers profit from the callers that 
they protect.

Legal Basis

    47. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 
201, 202, 227, 227b 251(e), 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 202, 227, 251(e), 303(r), 
and 403, and section 7 of the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal 
Enforcement and Deterrence Act, Public Law 116-105, 133 Stat. 3274.

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

    48. 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.
    49. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small 
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission 
therefore describes here, at the outset, three broad groups of small 
entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are 
industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in 
the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small 
Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small 
business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. 
These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in 
the United States, which translates to 32.5 million businesses.
    50. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for 
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were 
approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting 
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data 
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
    51. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate that there 
were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United 
States. Of this number there were 36,931 general purpose governments 
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 
50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school 
districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, 
based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission 
estimates that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of 
``small governmental jurisdictions.''

Wireline Carriers

    52. 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. 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline 
carriers or fixed local service providers.
    53. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 providers 
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,737 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    54. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically 
applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services 
include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service 
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry 
with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local 
service providers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 providers 
that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,737 providers have 
1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business 
size standard, most of these providers can be considered small 
entities.
    55. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers is the

[[Page 43498]]

closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA 
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers 
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry 
that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated 
with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data 
in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 
2020, there were 1,227 providers that reported they were incumbent 
local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 929 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local exchange 
carriers can be considered small entities.
    56. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small 
businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. 
Providers of these services include several types of competitive local 
exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the 
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small 
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this 
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with 
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 
2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, 
there were 3,956 providers that reported they were competitive local 
exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 3,808 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.
    57. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for 
Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the 
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small 
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this 
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with 
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 
2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, 
there were 151 providers that reported they were engaged in the 
provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 131 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry 
can be considered small entities.
    58. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a 
``small cable operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that, directly or 
through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of 
all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any 
entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed 
$250,000,000.'' For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the 
Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer 
than 677,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will 
meet the definition of a small cable operator based on the cable 
subscriber count established in a 2001 Public Notice. Based on industry 
data, only six cable system operators have more than 677,000 
subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
cable system operators are small under this size standard. The 
Commission notes however, that it neither requests nor collects 
information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with 
entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore, 
the Commission is unable at this time to estimate with greater 
precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as 
small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.
    59. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to 
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not 
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service 
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, 
or toll resellers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest 
industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small 
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that 
operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with 
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 
2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, 
there were 115 providers that reported they were engaged in the 
provision of other toll services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 113 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.

Wireless Carriers

    60. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show 
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the 
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 797 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 715 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    61. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms 
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other 
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by 
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of 
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite 
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth 
station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies a business with $38.5 million or less in annual 
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms 
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242 
firms

[[Page 43499]]

had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on Commission 
data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 
31, 2020, there were 71 providers that reported they were engaged in 
the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of these 
providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 48 providers 
have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small 
business size standard, a little more than of these providers can be 
considered small entities.

Resellers

    62. Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have 
developed a small business size standard specifically for Local 
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with a 
SBA small business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers 
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and 
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications 
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services 
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) 
are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for 
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire 
year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 293 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of local 
resale services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 289 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    63. Toll Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have 
developed a small business size standard specifically for Toll 
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with an 
SBA small business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers 
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and 
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications 
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services 
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) 
are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for 
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire 
year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 518 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of toll 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 495 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    64. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
prepaid calling card providers. Telecommunications Resellers is the 
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The 
Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged 
in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of 
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless 
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and 
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; 
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile 
virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. The 
SBA small business size standard for Telecommunications Resellers 
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry 
provided resale services for the entire year. Of that number, 1,375 
firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on 
Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2020, there were 58 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of payphone services. Of these providers, the 
Commission estimates that 57 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.

Other Entities

    65. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of 
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of 
internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or voice over internet protocol 
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are 
also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard 
for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million 
or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 
1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of 
those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this 
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.

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

    66. The Eighth FNPRM proposes and seeks comment on imposing several 
obligations that may include recordkeeping or reporting requirements on 
small entity providers. Specifically, the Eighth FNPRM proposes to 
require all terminating voice service providers to offer, at a minimum, 
opt-out blocking of calls that are highly likely to be illegal. The 
Eighth FNPRM also proposes that small and other voice service providers 
block calls using a reasonable do-not-originate (DNO) list. This would 
require voice service providers that do not already engage in this type 
of blocking, either voluntarily or in order to comply with the 
Commission's existing rule for gateway providers, to either obtain or 
create such a list and ensure that the list remains up to date. The 
Eighth FNPRM seeks comment on limiting the SIP code for use for 
immediate notification to callers to a single code, with focus on SIP 
Code 608 or 603+, and seeks comment on the costs and timeline to 
implement and comply with the proposed rule. Additionally, a 
requirement to display caller name information to consumers

[[Page 43500]]

when displaying an indication of A-level attestation may include a 
recordkeeping or reporting requirement. Depending on the exact 
mechanism chosen, small entity and other terminating providers that 
wish to display an indication of attestation may need to access a 
caller name database or other list in order to comply. Finally, the 
Eighth FNPRM proposes specific forfeiture costs to small and other 
providers for failure to comply with call blocking rules. The 
Commission anticipates the information it receives in comments 
including where requested, cost and benefit analyses, will help the 
Commission identify and evaluate relevant compliance matters for small 
entities, including compliance costs and other burdens that may result 
from the proposals and inquiries it makes in the Eighth FNPRM.

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

    67. 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.''
    68. The Eighth FNPRM seeks comment on the burdens that would be 
imposed on small and other voice service providers if the Commission 
adopts rules in the areas where the Commission seeks comment. The 
Commission welcomes comments on any of the issues raised in the Eighth 
FNPRM that will impact small providers. In particular, the Eighth FNPRM 
seeks comment on whether the existing safe harbors for blocking are 
sufficient, or whether additional safe harbor protection is necessary. 
Safe harbor protections are likely to be particularly important to 
smaller providers that may otherwise be concerned about liability if 
they block calls in error. The Eighth FNPRM also seeks comment on 
multiple options for immediate notification of callers and methods for 
providing caller name information to consumers.
    69. Including alternative options to the proposals discussed in the 
Eighth FNPRM ensures that the Commission can appropriately balance the 
burdens to small entity providers, with the benefit to callers placing 
lawful calls and consumers. Among the alternatives considered in the 
Eighth FNPRM is whether there is a benefit to requiring small and other 
terminating providers that currently offer opt-in blocking to switch to 
opt-out blocking. It also considers whether to require all voice 
service providers to block based on a reasonable DNO list, rather than 
limiting the requirement to certain voice service provider types, 
because the content of the list may vary depending on the provider. The 
Eighth FNPRM seeks comment on alternatives to ways small and other 
providers can provide an accurate caller name display, such as using 
Caller ID name (CNAM) databases or other sources for caller 
information, and requiring specific technology for caller name display 
or adopting a technology-neutral standard. Allowing for this 
flexibility may make it easier for small entities that are terminating 
providers to comply with the proposed rules. The Eighth FNPRM also 
seeks alternatives to the proposed base forfeiture amount, such as 
requiring the voice service provider to repay any profits from fees 
paid by downstream providers.
    70. To assist in the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact 
on small entities, as a result of actions that have been proposed in 
the Eighth FNPRM, and to better explore options and alternatives, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether any of the burdens associated with 
the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described above 
can be minimized for small entities. Additionally, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether any of the costs associated with any of the proposed 
requirements to eliminate unlawful robocalls can be alleviated for 
small entities. The Commission expects to more fully consider the 
economic impact and alternatives for small entities based on its review 
of the record and any comments filed in response to the Eighth FNPRM 
and this IRFA.

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    71. None.

Procedural Matters

    72. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 
1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the 
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact 
of the rule and policy changes contained in the Eighth FNPRM. Written 
public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by 
the deadlines for comments on the Eighth FNPRM indicated on the first 
page of this document and must have a separate and distinct heading 
designating them as responses to the IRFA.
    73. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document may contain new or 
modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. Specifically, the rules 
adopted in Sec. Sec.  64.1200(n)(1) and 64.6305(d)(2)(iii) and 
(f)(2)(iii) require modified information collections. All such new or 
modified information collection requirements will be submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) 
of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be 
invited to comment on any new or modified information collection 
requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, the Commission 
notes that, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission 
previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees.
    74. In this document, the Commission has assessed the effects of 
requiring all voice service providers to respond to traceback within 24 
hours and modifying the certification requirement for the Robocall 
Mitigation Database accordingly, and find that small voice service 
providers have had ample time to develop processes to allow them to 
respond within the appropriate time and that providers for which this 
presents a significant burden, either due to their size or for some 
other reason, may request a waiver.
    75. The Eighth FNPRM also contains a proposed revised information 
collection requirement. The Commission, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB 
to comment on the information collection requirement 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,

[[Page 43501]]

Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks 
specific comment on how it might further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.
    76. Ex Parte Presentations--Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding 
this Eighth FNPRM 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 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.

Ordering Clauses

    77. It is ordered that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 201, 202, 227, 
227b 251(e), 303(r), 403, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 202, 227, 251(e), 303(r), 403 and 503, 
and section 7 of the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and 
Deterrence Act, Public Law 116-105,
    78. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the 
Managing Director, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of 
this Eighth FNPRM and Third Notice of Inquiry, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Claims, 
Communications, Communications common carriers, Communications 
equipment, Cuba, Drug abuse, Environmental impact statements, Equal 
access to justice, Equal employment opportunity, Federal buildings and 
facilities, Government employees, Historic preservation, Income taxes, 
Indemnity payments, Individuals with disabilities, Internet, 
Investigations, Lawyers, Metric system, Penalties, Radio, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Satellites, Security measures, 
Telecommunications, Telephone, Television, Wages.

47 CFR Part 64

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

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1 and 64 as 
follows:

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

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

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, 
unless otherwise noted.

Subpart A--General Rules of Practice and Procedure

0
2. In Sec.  1.80, amend table 1 to paragraph (b)(10) by adding the 
entry of ``Failure to prevent customers from originating illegal 
calls'' at the end of the table to read as follows:


Sec.  1.80  Forfeiture proceedings.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (10) * * *

 Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(10)--Base Amounts for Section 503 Forfeitures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Violation
                      Forfeitures                             amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
Failure to prevent customers from originating illegal            11,000
 calls.................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

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

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 
222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 
276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 617, 620, 1401-1473, unless otherwise 
noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.

0
4. Amend Sec.  64.1200 by revising paragraph (n)(5)(i)(B), adding 
paragraph (n)(5)(i)(C), revising paragraph (o), and adding paragraph 
(s) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.1200  Delivery restrictions.

* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) If the provider's investigation determines that the identified 
traffic is not illegal, it shall provide an explanation as to why the 
provider reasonably concluded that the identified traffic is not 
illegal and what steps it took to reach that conclusion. Absent such a 
showing, or if the Enforcement Bureau determines based on the evidence 
that the traffic is illegal despite the provider's assertions, the 
identified traffic will be deemed illegal. If the notified provider 
determines during this investigation that it did not serve as the

[[Page 43502]]

gateway provider or originating provider for any of the identified 
traffic, it shall provide an explanation as to how it reached that 
conclusion, identify the upstream provider(s) from which it received 
the identified traffic, and, if possible, take lawful steps to mitigate 
this traffic. If the provider responds to the Enforcement Bureau that 
it cannot identify any or all of the upstream provider(s) from which it 
received the traffic, it must block substantially similar traffic 
consistent with the obligations of gateway and originating providers in 
paragraph (n)(5)(i)(A) of this section. If the Enforcement Bureau finds 
that an approved plan is not blocking substantially similar traffic, 
the identified provider shall modify its plan to block such traffic. If 
the Enforcement Bureau finds that the identified provider continues to 
allow suspected illegal traffic onto the U.S. network, it may proceed 
under paragraph (n)(5)(ii) or (iii) of this section, as appropriate.
    (C) If the Enforcement Bureau has previously sent a Notification of 
Suspected Illegal Traffic to the identified provider, it may require 
that provider to block substantially similar traffic consistent with 
the obligations of gateway and originating providers in paragraph 
(n)(5)(i)(A) of this section and to identify the upstream provider(s) 
from which it received the identified traffic--if it determines, based 
on the totality of the circumstances, that the terminating or non-
gateway intermediate provider is either intentionally or negligently 
allowing illegal traffic onto its network.
* * * * *
    (o) A voice service provider must block any calls purporting to 
originate from a number on a reasonable do-not-originate list. A list 
so limited in scope that it leaves out obvious numbers that could be 
included with little effort may be deemed unreasonable. The do-not-
originate list may include only:
    (1) Numbers for which the subscriber to the number has requested 
that calls purporting to originate from that number be blocked because 
the number is used for inbound calls only;
    (2) North American Numbering Plan numbers that are not valid;
    (3) Valid North American Numbering Plan Numbers that are not 
allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan 
Administrator; and
    (4) Valid North American Numbering Plan numbers that are allocated 
to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator, but 
are unused, so long as the provider blocking the calls is the allocatee 
of the number and confirms that the number is unused or has obtained 
verification from the allocatee that the number is unused at the time 
of blocking.
* * * * *
    (s) A terminating provider must offer analytics-based blocking of 
calls that are highly likely to be illegal on an opt-out basis without 
charge to consumers. A provider that offers blocking services 
consistent with paragraph (k)(3) or (11) of this section will be deemed 
to be in compliance with paragraph (p) of this section, so long as 
those services are offered without charge.

[FR Doc. 2023-13032 Filed 7-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P