[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 17, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73360-73397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24904]



[[Page 73359]]

Vol. 85

Tuesday,

No. 222

November 17, 2020

Part II





Federal Communications Commission





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





47 CFR Part 64





Call Authentication Trust Anchor; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 222 / Tuesday, November 17, 2020 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 73360]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[WC Docket No. 17-97; FCC 20-136; FRS 17172]


Call Authentication Trust Anchor

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) adopts rules implementing the Pallone-Thune Telephone 
Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act (TRACED Act), 
promoting the deployment of caller ID authentication technology, and 
combatting the practice of illegal caller ID spoofing. In doing so, the 
Second Report and Order adopts rules governing intermediate providers 
and caller ID authentication in non-IP networks, implementing the 
exceptions and extensions established by the TRACED Act, and 
prohibiting line-item charges for caller ID authentication.

DATES: Effective December 17, 2020, except for instruction 10 (Sec.  
64.6306) which is effective November 17, 2020 and instruction 6 (Sec.  
64.6303(b)), instruction 9 (Sec.  64.6305(b) and (c)), and instruction 
11 (Sec.  64.6306(e)) which are delayed indefinitely. The Commission 
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the 
effective date of these instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please 
contact Mason Shefa, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Report and Order in WC Docket Nos. 17-97, FCC 20-136, adopted on 
September 29, 2020, and released on October 1, 2020. The full text of 
this document is available for public inspection on the Commission's 
website at: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-136A1.pdf.
    The Commission received approval from the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) on November 2, 2020, for a period of six months, of the 
information collection requirements relating to the voluntary 
implementation exemption certification rules contained in Sec.  
64.6306, which shall be effective upon publication in the Federal 
Register pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). The OMB Control Number is 
3060-1278. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of 
the effective date of the rules. The total number of respondents and 
total annual responses are 817, the total annual burden hours are 2,451 
and no costs are associated with this information collection. At a 
later time, the Commission will seek OMB approval of Sec. Sec.  
64.6303(b), 64.6305(b), and 64.6306(e) and the information collection 
requirements contained therein.

I. Introduction

    1. Protecting Americans from the dangers of unwanted and illegal 
robocalls is our top consumer protection priority. More than just an 
annoyance, these calls are a tool for scammers to take advantage of 
unsuspecting Americans. Bad actors often ``spoof'' or falsify caller ID 
information and deceive call recipients into believing they are 
trustworthy. Even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, bad actors 
have continued their attempts to use illegal spoofing to target 
American consumers, once again illustrating the pervasiveness of this 
problem.
    2. As part of our multi-pronged approach to combat this vexing 
issue, we have made it a priority to stop the practice of illegal 
caller ID spoofing. For instance, we have issued hundreds of millions 
of dollars in fines for violations of our Truth in Caller ID rules. We 
recently proposed a forfeiture of $225 million--the largest in the 
Commission's history--for a company that made approximately one billion 
spoofed robocalls, and we proposed two forfeiture actions of almost $13 
million and $10 million apiece against other entities for apparent 
spoofing violations. We have expanded our Truth in Caller ID rules to 
reach foreign calls and text messages. Pursuant to the TRACED Act, we 
have selected a consortium to conduct private-led traceback efforts of 
suspected illegal robocalls, which is particularly useful in instances 
where the caller ID information transmitted with a call has been 
maliciously spoofed. We have clarified and bolstered our call blocking 
rules to give voice service providers new latitude to block calls, 
including spoofed calls.
    3. One key part of our broad efforts to thwart illegal caller ID 
spoofing has been our work to promote implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN 
caller ID authentication framework. The STIR/SHAKEN framework allows 
voice service providers to verify that the caller ID information 
transmitted with a particular call matches the caller's number, while 
protecting consumer privacy and promoting the ability to complete 
lawful calls. Widespread implementation of STIR/SHAKEN will reduce the 
effectiveness of illegal spoofing, allow law enforcement to identify 
bad actors more easily, and help voice service providers identify calls 
with illegally spoofed caller ID information before those calls reach 
their subscribers. We have worked over the course of multiple years to 
promote caller ID authentication, and in 2019 Congress amplified our 
efforts by passing the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal 
Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act, which directs the Commission 
to take numerous steps to promote and require STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation. In March of this year, building on the foundation laid 
by our prior work and by Congress, we adopted rules requiring voice 
service providers to implement the STIR/SHAKEN call authentication 
technology in the internet protocol (IP) portions of their phone 
networks by June 30, 2021 (85 FR 22029, April 21, 2020).
    4. In this document, we continue our work to promote the deployment 
of caller ID authentication technology and to implement the TRACED Act. 
After consideration of the record, we adopt rules implementing many of 
the proposals we made in the First Caller ID Authentication Report and 
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) (85 FR 22029, 
April 21, 2020 and 85 FR 22099, April 21, 2020). Among other things, we 
adopt rules governing intermediate providers and caller ID 
authentication in non-IP networks, we implement the exceptions and 
extensions established by the TRACED Act, and we prohibit line-item 
charges for caller ID authentication.

II. Background

    5. As the telecommunications industry has advanced and expanded 
into IP-based telephony, costs have decreased as competition increased, 
benefitting consumers greatly. These benefits, however, have eroded the 
chains of trust that previously bound voice service providers together. 
Partly due to the rise of the Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) 
software, the telephony industry no longer consists only of a limited 
number of carriers that all trusted each other to provide accurate 
caller ID information. Because there are now a multitude of voice 
service providers and entities originating and transiting calls, bad 
actors can more easily take advantage of these weakened chains of trust 
to target consumers with illegally spoofed calls.
    6. Recognizing this vulnerability, technologists from the internet 
Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Alliance for Telecommunications

[[Page 73361]]

Industry Solutions (ATIS) developed standards to allow the 
authentication and verification of caller ID information for calls 
carried over IP networks using the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). 
Since voice service providers could no longer count on the multitude of 
entities in each call path to accurately pass the caller ID 
information, the goal was to create a system that allowed the 
identification information to safely and securely travel with the call 
itself. The result is the STIR/SHAKEN call authentication framework.
    7. The framework is comprised of several different standards and 
protocols. The Secure Telephony Identity Revisited (STIR) working 
group, formed by the IETF, has produced several protocols for 
authenticating caller ID information. ATIS, together with the SIP 
Forum, produced the Signature-based Handling of Asserted information 
using toKENs (SHAKEN) specification, which standardizes how the 
protocols produced by STIR are implemented across the industry using 
digital ``certificates.'' At a high-level, the STIR/SHAKEN framework 
consists of two components: (1) The technical process of authenticating 
and verifying caller ID information; and (2) the certificate governance 
process that maintains trust in the caller ID authentication 
information transmitted along with a call.
    8. Technology. The STIR/SHAKEN technical authentication and 
verification processes rely on public key cryptography to securely 
transmit the information that the originating voice service provider 
knows about the identity of the caller and its relationship to the 
phone number it is using throughout the entire length of the call path, 
allowing the terminating voice service provider to verify the 
information on the other end. In this Report and Order, we use the term 
``caller'' to broadly refer to the person or entity originating a voice 
call. We recognize that for the purpose of industry standards or other 
technical documents, this relationship may be described using more 
exact language suited to the specific technical scenarios described. 
The encrypted caller ID information is contained within a unique header 
to the message used to initiate a SIP call (the SIP INVITE message), 
called an ``Identity'' header. While there is no technical mechanism 
within the STIR/SHAKEN framework that ensures this Identity header 
travels the entire length of the call path unaltered, the unbroken 
transmission of an unaltered Identity header from the originating voice 
service provider, through each intermediate provider, to the 
terminating voice service provider is critical to creating the end-to-
end chain of trust that allows a terminating provider to know it has 
received accurate caller ID information.
    9. Because providers transmit the Identity header in a SIP INVITE 
and because SIP is IP-based, STIR/SHAKEN only operates in the IP 
portions of a provider's network. If a call originates on a non-IP 
network, that voice service provider cannot authenticate the caller ID 
information; if it terminates on a non-IP network, that voice service 
provider cannot verify the caller ID authentication information. And if 
a call is routed at any point over an interconnection point or 
intermediate provider network that does not support the transmission of 
SIP calls, the Identity header will be lost. While standards bodies are 
currently working on non-IP call authentication solutions, and some 
vendors are developing potential non-IP solutions, there is yet to be 
an industry consensus on the path forward.
    10. In the STIR/SHAKEN framework, the provider adding the Identity 
header to the SIP INVITE can use three different levels of attestation 
to signify what it knows about the identity of the calling party. The 
highest level of attestation is called full or A-level attestation. A 
provider assigns an A-level attestation when it is the entry point of 
the call onto the IP network, it can confirm the identity of the 
subscriber making the call, and the subscriber is using its associated 
telephone number. The method or process a provider uses to determine 
the legitimacy of the caller's use of a telephone number is specific to 
each provider. As a result, a provider's reputation is tied to the 
rigor of its evaluation process. The middle level of attestation is 
called partial or B-level attestation. A provider uses a B-level 
attestation to indicate that it is the entry point of the call onto the 
IP network and can confirm the identity of the subscriber but not the 
telephone number. The lowest level of attestation is called gateway or 
C-level attestation. A provider uses a C-level attestation when it is 
the point of entry to the IP network for a call that originated 
elsewhere but has no relationship with the initiator of a call, such as 
when a provider is acting as an international gateway. A downstream 
provider can make use of a C-level attestation to trace a call back to 
an interconnecting service provider or the call's entry point into the 
IP network. The STIR/SHAKEN standards envision these various 
attestation levels as information that can facilitate traceback and to 
enhance the spam identification solutions that terminating voice 
service providers enable for their customers.
    11. Governance. The STIR/SHAKEN framework relies on digital 
``certificates'' to ensure trust. The voice service provider adding the 
Identity header includes its assigned certificate which says, in 
essence, that the voice service provider is the entity it claims to be 
and that it has the right to authenticate the caller ID information. To 
maintain trust and accountability in the voice service providers that 
vouch for the caller ID information, a neutral governance system issues 
the certificates. The STIR/SHAKEN governance model requires several 
roles in order to operate: (1) A Governance Authority, which defines 
the policies and procedures for which entities can issue or acquire 
certificates; (2) a Policy Administrator, which applies the rules set 
by the Governance Authority, confirms that certification authorities 
are authorized to issue certificates, and confirms that voice service 
providers are authorized to request and receive certificates; (3) 
Certification Authorities, which issue the certificates used to 
authenticate and verify calls; and (4) the voice service providers 
themselves, which, as call initiators, select an approved certification 
authority from which to request a certificate, and which, as call 
recipients, check with certification authorities to ensure that the 
certificates they receive were issued by the correct certification 
authority. Voice service providers use the digital certificates to 
indicate that they are trusted members of the ecosystem and their 
assertions to a calling party's identity should be accepted.
    12. Under the current Governance Authority rules, a voice service 
provider must meet certain requirements to receive a certificate. 
Specifically, a voice service provider must have a current FCC Form 
499A on file with the Commission, have been assigned an Operating 
Company Number (OCN), and have direct access to telephone numbers from 
the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) and the 
National Pooling Administrator. The Governance Authority reviews this 
policy ``at least on a quarterly basis,'' or as needed.
    13. Commission Action to Promote STIR/SHAKEN. In 2017, the 
Commission released a Notice of Inquiry into STIR/SHAKEN, launching a 
broad examination of how to expedite its development and 
implementation. The Commission directed its expert advisory committee 
on numbering, the North American Numbering Council (NANC), to recommend 
``criteria by which a

[[Page 73362]]

[Governance Authority] should be selected'' and ``a reasonable timeline 
or set of milestones for adoption and deployment'' of STIR/SHAKEN. In 
its May 2018 report, the NANC made a number of recommendations 
regarding establishing and organizing a governance system and promoting 
STIR/SHAKEN implementation, which Chairman Pai then accepted. In 
November 2018, Chairman Pai sent letters to 14 major voice service 
providers urging them to implement a robust caller ID authentication 
framework by the end of 2019, asking providers for specific details on 
their progress and plans. In June 2019, the Commission adopted a 
Declaratory Ruling and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (84 
FR 29387, June 24, 2019, and 84 FR 29478, June 24, 2019) that proposed 
and sought comment on mandating implementation of STIR/SHAKEN in the 
event that major voice service providers did not voluntarily implement 
the framework by the end of 2019. Commission staff closely tracked the 
implementation progress of major voice service providers. In December 
2019, Congress enacted the TRACED Act, which contains numerous 
provisions directed at addressing robocalls, including through 
implementation of STIR/SHAKEN. Among other provisions regarding caller 
ID authentication, the TRACED Act directed the Commission to require, 
no later than 18 months from enactment, all voice service providers to 
implement STIR/SHAKEN in the IP portions of their networks and 
implement an effective caller ID authentication framework in the non-IP 
portions of their networks.
    14. In March of this year, we released the First Caller ID 
Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM in which we adopted rules 
requiring voice service providers to implement the STIR/SHAKEN caller 
ID authentication framework in the IP portions of their networks by 
June 30, 2021. We also proposed and sought comment on requirements to 
strengthen STIR/SHAKEN to implement the TRACED Act. First, we proposed 
to extend the STIR/SHAKEN implementation mandate to intermediate 
providers and require them to both pass authenticated caller ID 
information unaltered and to authenticate unauthenticated calls they 
receive. Second, turning to TRACED Act implementation, we proposed to 
grant an extension for compliance with the implementation mandate for 
certain categories of voice service providers, specifically small voice 
service providers and voice service providers that materially rely on 
non-IP networks. Third, we proposed to require voice service providers 
using non-IP technology, which cannot support STIR/SHAKEN, to either 
(i) upgrade their networks to IP to enable STIR/SHAKEN implementation 
or (ii) work to develop non-IP caller ID authentication technology. 
Fourth, we proposed to implement a process, as directed by the TRACED 
Act, pursuant to which voice service providers may become exempt from 
the STIR/SHAKEN implementation mandate if we determine that they have 
achieved certain implementation benchmarks. Fifth, we proposed to 
prohibit voice service providers from imposing additional line item 
charges on consumer and small business subscribers for caller ID 
authentication. Sixth, we sought comment on how to address consumer 
confusion or competition issues related to call labeling. We are 
continuing to monitor when and how terminating voice service providers 
label calls based on STIR/SHAKEN information and will not act on this 
matter at this time. Finally, we sought comment, as directed by the 
TRACED Act, on whether and how to modify our policies regarding access 
to numbering resources to help reduce illegal robocallers' access. We 
are continuing to review the record regarding access to numbering 
resources and will not act on this matter at this time.
    15. Implementation Progress. As reported previously, major voice 
service providers fell into one of three categories regarding their 
implementation progress by the end of 2019: (1) Voice service providers 
that upgraded their networks to support STIR/SHAKEN and began 
exchanging authenticated traffic with other voice service providers; 
(2) voice service providers that upgraded their networks to support 
STIR/SHAKEN but had not yet begun exchanging authenticated traffic with 
other voice service providers; and (3) voice service providers that had 
achieved limited, if any, progress towards upgrading their networks to 
support STIR/SHAKEN. Since the end of 2019, several major voice service 
providers have announced further progress in STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation. In February 2020, T-Mobile announced that it began 
exchanging authenticated traffic with Sprint, and in March 2020, 
Bandwidth announced that it has begun exchanging authenticated traffic 
with T-Mobile. In addition to the 14 major voice service providers 
discussed in detail in the First Caller ID Authentication Report and 
Order and FNPRM, other voice service providers and intermediate 
providers have made progress toward STIR/SHAKEN implementation as well. 
The Governance Authority reports that 34 voice service providers have 
been approved to participate in the STIR/SHAKEN framework through the 
governance system; 9 providers have completed the testing process and 
are finalizing their approval; and 52 providers have begun registration 
and are in some stage of the testing process.

III. Second Report and Order

    16. In this document, we take the next steps to promote the 
widespread deployment of caller ID authentication technology and 
implement the TRACED Act. In the Report and Order, we first address the 
definitions and scope of several terms used in the TRACED Act. Next, we 
adopt rules on caller ID authentication in non-IP networks. We assess 
the burdens and barriers to implementation faced by various categories 
of voice service providers and adopt extensions to the STIR/SHAKEN 
mandate based on our assessment. We also establish the required 
robocall mitigation program that voice service providers with an 
extension must implement and elaborate on the annual reevaluation 
process for extensions required by the TRACED Act. We then adopt rules 
implementing the exemption mechanism established by the TRACED Act for 
voice service providers that meet certain criteria regarding early 
STIR/SHAKEN implementation. We prohibit voice service providers from 
imposing additional line item charges for call authentication 
technology. Finally, to avoid gaps in a call path that could lead to 
the loss of caller ID authentication information, we expand our STIR/
SHAKEN implementation mandate to encompass intermediate providers.

A. TRACED Act Definitions and Scope

    17. In the First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and 
FNPRM, we adopted definitions of several terms used in the TRACED Act. 
Specifically, we adopted definitions of ``STIR/SHAKEN authentication 
framework'' and ``voice service'' that closely align with the statutory 
language enacted by Congress. To provide an opportunity for further 
refinement of the definitions we adopted, we sought comment in the 
FNPRM on whether to alter or add to them. We also proposed in the FNPRM 
to interpret ``providers of voice service'' on a call-by-call basis 
rather than a provider-by-provider basis in order to best effectuate 
Congressional direction. In other words, we proposed

[[Page 73363]]

evaluating whether a specific entity is a voice service provider (i.e., 
``provider of voice service'') within the meaning of the TRACED Act on 
the basis of the entity's role with respect to a particular call, 
rather than based on the entity's characteristics as a whole. In this 
document, we reaffirm our definitions of ``STIR/SHAKEN authentication 
framework'' and ``voice service,'' and adopt a rule codifying our 
proposed interpretation of ``providers of voice service.''
    18. Definition of ``STIR/SHAKEN Authentication Framework.'' The 
definition of ``STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework'' that we adopted 
in the First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM 
closely tracks the language Congress used in the TRACED Act. In the 
Report and Order, we defined ``STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework'' 
as ``the secure telephone identity revisited and signature-based 
handling of asserted information using tokens standards.'' We did not 
receive any comments in the record seeking clarification, so we 
reaffirm the definition we adopted previously.
    19. Definition of ``Voice Service.'' We next reaffirm the 
definition of ``voice service'' that we adopted in the First Caller ID 
Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM. Specifically, we defined 
``voice service'' as a service ``that is interconnected with the public 
switched telephone network and that furnishes voice communications to 
an end user,'' and which includes ``without limitation, any service 
that enables real-time, two-way voice communications, including any 
service that requires [IP]-compatible customer premises equipment . . . 
and permits out-bound calling, whether or not the service is one-way or 
two-way voice over [IP].'' The definition we adopted is identical to 
the language Congress included in the TRACED Act. We explained in the 
First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM that, based 
on the definition of ``voice service'' we adopted, our STIR/SHAKEN 
rules apply to ``all types of voice service providers--wireline, 
wireless, and Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) providers,'' 
including both two-way and one-way interconnected VoIP providers. And 
we clarified that voice service providers which lack control over the 
network infrastructure necessary to implement STIR/SHAKEN are not 
subject to our implementation requirements. Commenters that address the 
issues nearly unanimously support our definition and interpretation of 
``voice service,'' though several commenters seek further 
clarification. Noble Systems argues that the Commission should 
interpret our definition of ``voice service'' broadly to encompass 
intermediate providers. We maintain our belief that the statutory 
language of the TRACED Act forecloses this interpretation by specifying 
that ``voice service'' means a service that ``furnishes voice 
communications to an end user.''
    20. First, NCTA and CenturyLink advocate for us to interpret our 
rules to apply to ``over-the-top (OTT) service that possess technical 
control over the origination of calls on their platforms.'' No 
commenter opposed these requests. We reiterate our belief that for 
STIR/SHAKEN to be successful, every service provider capable of 
implementing the framework must participate. We therefore conclude that 
to the extent a provider of OTT service provides ``voice service,'' and 
has control of the relevant network infrastructure to implement STIR/
SHAKEN, it is subject to our rules.
    21. NCTA further encourages us to revise the current definition of 
``interconnected VoIP'' found in Sec.  9.3 of our rules in order to 
``harmonize'' it with our caller ID authentication regulations. Section 
9.3 generally limits ``interconnected VoIP service'' to two-way 
interconnected VoIP and only includes one-way VoIP as ``interconnected 
VoIP'' in the context of the Commission's 911 obligations. We 
understand the definition of ``voice service'' that Congress adopted in 
the TRACED Act to encompass both two-way and one-way interconnected 
VoIP. Because we rely on the statutory term ``voice service'' and 
because the meaning of that term is not limited by the definition of 
``interconnected VoIP'' in Sec.  9.3 of our rules, we see no reason to 
revisit of the definition of interconnected VoIP in Sec.  9.3 in this 
proceeding.
    22. Second, Microsoft argues that the definition of ``voice 
service'' should be read to exclude inbound-only VoIP service. 
Microsoft argues that this service is outside the scope of the STIR/
SHAKEN standards, and that the reference to service that ``permits out-
bound calling'' in the TRACED Act definition precludes application of 
our requirement to inbound-only VoIP service. We disagree. We 
understand the TRACED Act--which defines ``voice service'' to mean 
``any service that is interconnected with the public switched telephone 
network and that furnishes voice communications to an end user'' and 
includes, ``without limitation, any service that enables real-time, 
two-way voice communications, including any service that . . . permits 
out-bound calling''--to establish a broad concept of voice service. We 
read the phrase ``without limitation'' as indicating that the 
subsequent phrase ``permits out-bound calling'' is not a limitation on 
the initial, general definition of ``voice service,'' which encompasses 
in-bound VoIP. Similarly, in the context of our Truth in Caller ID 
rules, we interpreted the term ``interconnected'' as used in a 
substantially similar definition of ``voice service'' in the RAY BAUM's 
Act to include any service that allows voice communications either to 
or from the public switched telephone network (PSTN), regardless of 
whether inbound and outbound communications are both enabled within the 
same service. Because our STIR/SHAKEN rules impose obligations on both 
the originating and terminating side of a call, we believe that this 
broad reading of ``interconnected'' is also appropriate here. Further, 
reaching in-bound VoIP advances the purposes of the TRACED Act and 
widespread caller ID authentication. Our rules, consistent with the 
ATIS standards, require a voice service provider terminating a call 
with authenticated caller ID information to verify that information 
according to the STIR/SHAKEN framework. We thus reject Microsoft's 
argument that reaching in-bound VoIP is unnecessary because the 
standards comprising STIR/SHAKEN do not assign actions to be taken when 
terminating a call.
    23. Definition of ``Providers of Voice Service''--Call-by-Call 
Basis. Congress directed many of the TRACED Act caller ID 
authentication requirements to ``providers of voice service.'' We 
proposed in the First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and 
FNPRM to interpret ``providers of voice service'' on a call-by-call--
rather than entity-by-entity--basis. Under this interpretation, a 
provider of voice service is not subject to TRACED Act requirements for 
all services simply because some of its services fall under the 
definition of ``voice service.'' Instead, only those services that meet 
the TRACED Act definition of ``voice service'' are subject to TRACED 
Act obligations. We adopt our proposal. Both commenters that addressed 
the issue support our proposal. We find that the call-by-call approach 
best fits the TRACED Act's structure because it gives meaning to 
Congress's inclusion of a definition for ``voice service'' and because 
it best comports with the TRACED Act's allocation of duties on the 
basis of call technology, e.g., differentiating duties between calls 
over IP and non-IP networks.

[[Page 73364]]

B. Caller ID Authentication in Non-IP Networks

    24. The TRACED Act directs us, not later than June 30, 2021, to 
require voice service providers to take ``reasonable measures'' to 
implement an effective caller ID authentication framework in the non-IP 
portions of their networks. Given the large proportion of TDM-based 
networks still in use, we expect a significant number of calls to be 
outside the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework in the near term. In 
light of this, it is critically important that we take strong action to 
address the issue of caller ID authentication in non-IP networks. To 
that end, we interpret the TRACED Act's requirement that a voice 
service provider take ``reasonable measures'' to implement an effective 
caller ID authentication framework in the non-IP portions of its 
network as being satisfied only if the voice service provider is 
actively working to implement a caller ID authentication framework on 
those portions of its network. A voice service provider satisfies this 
obligation by either (1) completely upgrading its non-IP networks to IP 
and implementing the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework on its entire 
network, or (2) working to develop a non-IP authentication solution. We 
adopt rules accordingly, and find that this approach best balances our 
goal of promoting the IP transition while simultaneously encouraging 
the development of a non-IP authentication solution for the benefit of 
those networks that cannot be speedily or easily transitioned. By 
adopting rules that are not overly burdensome, we leave voice service 
providers free to prioritize transitioning to IP, and we strongly 
encourage voice service providers to take advantage of this opportunity 
to do so.
    25. In the First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and 
FNPRM, we proposed that a voice service provider satisfies the 
``reasonable measures'' requirement under section 4(b)(1)(B) of the 
TRACED Act if it is able to provide us, upon request, with documented 
proof that it is participating, either on its own or through a 
representative, as a member of a working group, industry standards 
group, or consortium that is working to develop a non-IP solution, or 
actively testing such a solution. We explained that this proposal was 
consistent with our proposed approach to assessing whether a voice 
service provider is making ``reasonable efforts'' to develop a caller 
ID authentication protocol in the context of determining whether to 
limit or terminate an extension of compliance granted under section 
4(b)(5)(B) for non-IP networks. We adopt a new rule reflecting this 
proposal and clarify its specific requirements.
    26. Under our rule, a voice service provider satisfies its 
obligations if it participates through a third-party representative, 
such as a trade association of which it is a member or vendor. While 
our proposal did not include mention of trade associations or vendors, 
we agree with CCA that it would be best to broaden the scope of this 
requirement by including such representatives within the bounds of our 
requirement. Some industry groups have already established working 
groups dedicated to examining potential non-IP call authentication 
technologies. Allowing for such representatives will reduce the burden 
of this obligation on individual voice service providers and minimize 
the potential negative impact of broad and inexpert participation 
identified in the record, while ensuring that all voice service 
providers remain invested in developing a solution for non-IP caller ID 
authentication. A wider range of efforts will encourage a greater 
number of industry partnerships, increasing resource and information 
sharing and speeding the development of a non-IP solution.
    27. We expect the benefits of this approach to be numerous, and the 
costs to voice service providers comparatively small. While some 
commenters provided estimates of the cost of replacing their non-IP 
networks, none provided estimates of the cost of working to develop a 
caller ID authentication solution for non-IP networks. Given that our 
firm but flexible approach permits voice service providers to satisfy 
this obligation by participating either on their own or through a 
representative, as members of a working group or consortium that is 
working to develop or actively testing a non-IP solution, we expect 
that any related compliance costs will be quite limited. By comparison, 
the benefits of voice service providers either upgrading their non-IP 
networks to IP to support STIR/SHAKEN or working to develop a caller ID 
authentication solution for non-IP networks will be considerable, not 
only in the less tangible benefits they will have for consumers by 
reducing the waste and frustration resulting from illegal robocalls, 
but in terms of actual monetary savings. Indeed, as we found in the 
First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM, the monetary 
benefits of STIR/SHAKEN are likely to be in the billions of dollars. 
The greater the number of voice service providers that implement an 
effective caller ID authentication framework--either by upgrading their 
non-IP networks to IP and implementing STIR/SHAKEN, or by developing 
and implementing an effective non-IP solution--the more effective these 
frameworks will be in combatting illegal robocalls, and the more of the 
expected benefits will be realized. Thus, the rules we adopt in this 
document will help achieve these savings while simultaneously 
minimizing the cost of compliance.
    28. We disagree with ATIS's contention that we should not adopt 
rules governing non-IP caller ID authentication until the joint ATIS/
SIP Forum IP-NNI Task Force concludes its work investigating the 
viability of non-IP caller ID authentication frameworks. Given that 
this task force is precisely the kind expressly contemplated, and 
indeed, mandated, by our order in this document, we see no reason to 
delay these rules. Indeed, the Task Force's existence is confirmation 
that we have construed the ``reasonable measures'' standard in a manner 
that appropriately dovetails with current industry efforts to develop a 
non-IP solution. Further, the rules we adopt in this document are 
required by Congressional direction to mandate voice service providers 
to take ``reasonable measures'' to implement a non-internet Protocol no 
later than June 30, 2021; we have no discretion to wait until a given 
task force has concluded its work to adopt rules.
    29. Although CTIA argues that requiring voice service providers to 
participate in industry standards groups committed to developing or 
actively testing a non-IP solution ``may not improve the development'' 
of such solutions, and would in fact ``divert resources from STIR/
SHAKEN deployment and other robocalls mitigation efforts,'' it offers 
no alternative interpretation of the ``reasonable measures'' standard 
mandated by Congress in the TRACED Act. We must impose a meaningful 
mandate to fulfill Congress's direction to require ``reasonable 
measures to implement'' a non-IP caller ID authentication solution. 
Requiring voice service providers that choose not to upgrade their non-
IP networks to IP to contribute to groups and organizations that are 
working to test or develop a non-IP solution strikes a balance between 
promoting caller ID authentication solutions for TDM networks, as 
required by the TRACED Act, and leaving resources free to invest in IP 
networks. By allowing participation through a working group, 
consortium, or trade association, we allow voice service providers to 
efficiently pool their expertise and

[[Page 73365]]

resources with the goal of not replicating one another's efforts and 
more efficiently developing a non-IP solution. We therefore are not 
convinced by CTIA's arguments that the requirement we adopt will unduly 
stunt STIR/SHAKEN deployment or that voice service providers will have 
``few resources left to dedicate to industry standards groups.''
    30. We are likewise unconvinced by TransNexus's conclusory claim 
that participating in a working group would not constitute a 
``reasonable effort'' to implement an effective caller ID 
authentication framework on non-IP networks. Contributing to an 
industry-led body dedicated to pooling expertise and resources in the 
hopes of developing and/or testing non-IP solutions is a reasonable and 
efficient strategy for encouraging the creation and deployment of such 
solutions.
    31. Out-of-Band STIR. We decline to mandate out-of-band STIR for 
non-IP networks. Out-of-band STIR is a proposed non-IP solution whereby 
caller ID authentication information is sent across the internet, out-
of-band from the call path. Commenters have widely divergent views as 
to the viability of out-of-band STIR as a method of effective caller ID 
authentication in non-IP networks. While a handful advocate for the 
implementation of out-of-band STIR as the best method of ensuring 
effective call authentication in non-IP networks, with Neustar even 
claiming that this solution should be widely available in advance of 
the June 30, 2021 implementation deadline, many others contend that 
out-of-band STIR is not yet a viable solution. Comcast claims that out-
of-band STIR is an untested, time-consuming, and costly solution that 
would require the re-creation of multiple network functions in parallel 
to IP networks. Given the undeniably sharp divide between commenters 
and the absence of sufficient testing and implementation to demonstrate 
the viability of out-of-band STIR as an industrywide solution, we find 
that it is not possible to conclude, based on the record before us, 
that out-of-band STIR is an effective non-IP solution. We find that 
significant industry consensus is an important predicate to deeming a 
non-IP solution ``effective,'' given that cross-network exchange of 
authenticated caller ID information is a central component to caller ID 
authentication. Thus, we cannot at this time mandate adoption of out-
of-band STIR by voice service providers in the non-IP portions of their 
networks. At the same time, we observe that opponents of this 
technology have offered no meaningful alternative solutions. To those 
that would oppose this possible solution without mention of an 
alternative, we take this opportunity to note that standards work 
requires both constructive input and compromise on the part of all 
parties and stakeholders.
    32. Effective Non-IP Caller ID Authentication Framework. As we 
explain in the context of the extension of the implementation deadline 
for certain non-IP networks, we will continue to evaluate whether an 
effective non-IP caller ID authentication framework emerges from the 
ongoing work that we require. Consistent with that section, we will 
consider a non-IP caller ID authentication framework to be effective 
only if it is: (1) Fully developed and finalized by industry standards; 
and (2) reasonably available such that the underlying equipment and 
software necessary to implement such protocol is available on the 
commercial market. An effective framework would exist when the 
fundamental aspects of the protocol are standardized and implementable 
by industry and the equipment and software necessary for implementation 
is commercially available. If and when we identify an effective 
framework, we expect to revisit our ``reasonable measures'' requirement 
and shift it from focusing on development to focusing on 
implementation. We encourage voice service providers and others to put 
forward a framework they view as effective for our consideration. We 
also will continue to monitor progress in developing a non-IP 
authentication solution and may revisit our approach to the TRACED 
Act's ``reasonable measures'' requirement if we find that industry has 
failed to make sufficient progress in either transitioning to IP or 
developing a consensus non-IP authentication solution. We stand ready 
to pursue additional steps to ensure more fulsome caller ID 
authentication in non-IP networks, including by revisiting our non-
prescriptive development-based approach if needed.
    33. Legal Authority. We find authority for these rules under 
section 4(b)(1)(B) of the TRACED Act. That section expressly directs us 
to obligate voice service providers to take ``reasonable measures'' to 
implement an effective caller ID authentication framework in the non-IP 
portions of their networks and is a clear source of authority for these 
non-IP obligations.
    34. We also conclude that section 251(e) of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended (the Act), provides additional independent 
authority to adopt these rules. Section 251(e) provides us ``exclusive 
jurisdiction over those portions of the North American Numbering Plan 
(NANP) that pertain to the United States.'' Pursuant to this provision, 
we retain ``authority to set policy with respect to all facets of 
numbering administration in the United States.'' Our exclusive 
jurisdiction over numbering policy enables us to act flexibly and 
expeditiously with regard to important numbering matters. When bad 
actors unlawfully falsify or spoof the caller ID that appears on a 
subscriber's phone, they are using numbering resources to advance an 
illegal scheme. Mandating that voice service providers take 
``reasonable measures'' to deploy an effective caller ID authentication 
framework in the non-IP portions of their networks will help to prevent 
the fraudulent exploitation of NANP resources by permitting those 
providers and their subscribers to identify when caller ID information 
has been spoofed. Section 251(e) thus grants us authority to mandate 
that voice service providers take ``reasonable measures'' to implement 
an effective caller ID authentication framework in the non-IP portions 
of their networks in order to prevent the fraudulent exploitation of 
numbering resources. Moreover, as the Commission has previously found, 
section 251(e) extends to ``the use of . . . unallocated and unused 
numbers''; it thus gives us authority to mandate that voice service 
providers implement an effective caller ID authentication framework to 
address the spoofing of unallocated and unused numbers.
    35. Finally, we find authority under the Truth in Caller ID Act. 
Congress charged us with prescribing regulations to implement that Act, 
which made unlawful the spoofing of caller ID information ``in 
connection with any voice service or text messaging service . . . with 
the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of 
value.'' Given the constantly evolving tactics by malicious callers to 
use spoofed caller ID information to commit fraud, we find that the 
rules we adopt in this document are necessary to enable voice service 
providers to help prevent these unlawful acts and to protect voice 
service subscribers from scammers and bad actors. Thus, section 227(e) 
provides additional independent authority for these rules.

C. Extension of Implementation Deadline

    36. The TRACED Act includes two provisions for extension of the 
June 30, 2021 implementation date for caller ID authentication 
frameworks. First, the TRACED Act states that we ``may, upon a public 
finding of undue hardship,

[[Page 73366]]

delay required compliance'' with the June 30, 2021 date for caller ID 
authentication framework implementation for a ``reasonable period of 
time.'' Second, we ``shall grant a delay of required compliance'' with 
the June 30, 2021 implementation date ``to the extent that . . . a 
provider or class of providers of voice services, or type of voice 
calls, materially relies on a non-[IP] network for the provision of 
such service or calls'' ``until a call authentication protocol has been 
developed for calls developed over non-[IP] networks and is reasonably 
available.''
    37. Under either extension provision, an extension may be provider-
specific or apply to a ``class of providers of voice service, or type 
of voice calls.'' We must annually reevaluate any granted extension for 
compliance. When granting an extension of the implementation deadline 
under either provision, we must require impacted voice service 
providers to ``implement an appropriate robocall mitigation program to 
prevent unlawful robocalls from originating on the network of the 
provider.''
    38. Based on these directives and for the reasons discussed below, 
we grant the following extensions from implementation of caller ID 
authentication: (1) A two-year extension to small, including small 
rural, voice service providers; (2) an extension to voice service 
providers that cannot obtain a certificate due to the Governance 
Authority's token access policy until such provider is able to obtain a 
certificate; (3) a one-year extension to services scheduled for section 
214 discontinuance; and (4) as required by the TRACED Act, an extension 
for the parts of a voice service provider's network that rely on 
technology that cannot initiate, maintain, and terminate SIP calls 
until a solution for such calls is reasonably available. If at any 
point after receiving an extension a voice service provider no longer 
meets the extension criteria set for in this Second Report and Order, 
the extension will terminate. Upon termination of an extension, a voice 
service provider will be required to comply with our STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation mandate immediately. We further direct the Wireline 
Competition Bureau (Bureau) to reevaluate extensions annually, and we 
require any voice service provider that receives an extension to 
implement and certify that it has implemented a robocall mitigation 
program by June 30, 2021.
1. Assessment of Burdens and Barriers to Implementation and Extensions 
for Undue Hardship
    39. The TRACED Act grants us the discretion to extend a voice 
service provider's obligation to comply with the June 30, 2021 caller 
ID authentication implementation mandate upon a public finding of undue 
hardship. It states that the extension may be ``for a reasonable period 
of time . . . as necessary . . . to address the identified burdens and 
barriers.'' In connection with our determination of whether to grant an 
extension, the TRACED Act specifically directs us, not later than 
December 30, 2020 ``and as appropriate thereafter,'' to assess any 
burdens and barriers to implementation of caller ID authentication 
technology by (1) voice service providers that use time-division 
multiplexing network technology (TDM), a non-IP network technology; (2) 
small voice service providers; and (3) rural voice service providers. 
It further directs us to assess burdens and barriers created by the 
``inability to purchase or upgrade equipment to support the call 
authentication frameworks . . . or lack of availability of such 
equipment.'' The TRACED Act does not require us to grant undue hardship 
extensions to the categories of entities for which we must evaluate 
burdens and barriers to implementation, nor does it limit us to 
granting undue hardship extensions to entities within the categories 
for evaluation that it identifies. Based upon our review of the record, 
including our evaluation of burdens and barriers to implementation by 
certain categories of entities as directed by the TRACED Act, we grant 
extensions to: (1) Small, including small rural, voice service 
providers; (2) voice service providers that cannot obtain the 
certificate necessary for STIR/SHAKEN; and (3) services subject to a 
discontinuance application. We decline to grant requested extensions 
for non-IP services, for larger rural voice service providers, due to 
equipment unavailability, for enterprise calls, for intra-network 
calls, or due to compatibility issues.
    40. Extension for Small Voice Service Providers. The TRACED Act 
specifically directs us to evaluate whether to grant an extension based 
on undue hardship for small voice service providers. In the First 
Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM, we proposed 
granting a one-year implementation extension due to undue hardship for 
small, including small rural, voice service providers. After reviewing 
the record, we grant a two-year extension for small voice service 
providers, which we define as those with 100,000 or fewer voice 
subscriber lines.
    41. The record reflects that a barrier to STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation for small voice service providers is the substantial 
cost, despite resource constraints, to implement STIR/SHAKEN. For 
instance, according to CTIA, ``many small providers face financial and 
resource constraints that other providers do not'' as ``[s]mall 
providers are driving toward the mandate deadline, but with fewer 
employees and smaller budgets, they may require more time to transition 
to STIR/SHAKEN.'' Small voice service providers must also balance 
limited resources and expenses with other required technology 
transitions. Most recently, commenters explain that the COVID-19 
pandemic has monopolized substantial available resources, increasing 
the burden on small voice service providers.
    42. Relatedly, the record demonstrates that equipment availability 
issues specifically impact small voice service providers. Such 
providers rely on third-party vendor solutions, particularly software 
solutions, to implement STIR/SHAKEN, and these solutions may be 
prohibitively expensive for some small voice service providers. For 
instance, WISPA asserts that ``[s]ome vendor's minimum fees could 
exceed a small provider's entire voice revenues.'' WTA agrees that the 
upfront expenses ``could cause a budget shortage for small providers 
that have a limited, set multi-year budget that is already dedicated to 
new deployments, staff, etc.'' Further, ACA Connects expresses concern 
over a lack of transparency regarding the costs and relative advantages 
of available vendor solutions as its smaller voice service provider 
members, with limited budgets, must carefully apportion funds for STIR/
SHAKEN deployment. Indeed, small voice service providers report they 
have ``been quoted annual rates from different vendors that range from 
the low five figures to the low six figures, not including any upfront 
costs to install the solution,'' with no explanation for the rate 
disparity. The record reflects that as medium and large voice service 
providers start to widely deploy STIR/SHAKEN, new and improved 
solutions will emerge, increasing competition among vendors and 
decreasing costs. In addition, multiple commenters contend that small 
voice service providers are unable ``to procure ready-to-install 
solutions'' from a variety of vendors ``on the same timeframe as the 
nation's largest voice service providers.'' According to NTCA, its 
members ``are typically `at the mercy' of vendors that respond to the 
larger

[[Page 73367]]

operator community muc[h] faster, likely based on the latter's market 
share and buying power.'' As a result, timing and availability of these 
vendor solutions may be out of the control and reach of small voice 
service providers. Further, commenters contend that these vendor 
solutions remain at an early stage of development and ``far from `ready 
to install' solutions.''
    43. We are convinced by this record that an extension is 
appropriate for small voice service providers. The record largely 
supports our proposal for an implementation extension for small voice 
service providers, and we agree with these commenters that an extension 
is warranted to allow small providers sufficient time to address 
challenges such as equipment cost and availability. For instance, 
according to ACA Connects, NTCA, WISPA, and WTA, vendor costs may be 
prohibitively expensive for small voice service providers and could 
result in budget shortages. Additional time will allow voice service 
providers confronted with budget shortages to spread costs over a 
longer time horizon. Further, small voice service providers claim 
vendor solutions are still in nascent stages of development, and an 
extension will allow vendors that work with small voice service 
providers more time to develop solutions and offer those solutions at a 
lower cost as the market matures. Some small voice service providers 
also describe the inability to exchange traffic at non-IP 
interconnection points as a barrier to the exchange of calls with 
authenticated caller ID information after implementation of STIR/
SHAKEN. In addition, to the extent that it uses TDM technology, a small 
voice service provider must contend with the associated technical and 
resource constraints to implementation. We address these issues 
separately.
    44. Transaction Network Services and AT&T contend that we should 
not grant a blanket extension for small voice service providers. These 
commenters claim that such an extension would be overinclusive because 
not all small voice service providers face identical hardships, and 
allege that illegal robocalls may originate from these providers. We 
disagree. The overwhelming record support persuades us that small voice 
service providers, as a class, face undue hardship, and supports the 
need for a blanket implementation extension for such providers to give 
them the necessary time to implement STIR/SHAKEN. The TRACED Act also 
identifies small voice service providers as a class for which the 
Commission should assess burdens and barriers to implementation. 
Further, as ACA Connects contends, granting extensions on a case-by-
case basis for small voice service providers would ``inundate the 
Commission with extension requests from a multitude of small providers, 
many of them presenting evidence of the same or similar implementation 
burdens'' and ``consume funds that would be better spent working 
towards implementation of STIR/SHAKEN.'' We do not find that this 
extension will unduly undermine the effectiveness of STIR/SHAKEN. As 
small voice service providers account for only a small percentage of 
voice subscribers, an extension covering these providers will account 
for the unique burdens they face while ensuring that many subscribers 
benefit from STIR/SHAKEN. Further, the prevalence of STIR/SHAKEN will 
encourage small voice service providers that can afford to do so to 
implement the framework as soon as possible to provide the protections 
it offers to their subscribers. And small voice service providers--like 
all providers subject to an extension--are obligated to implement a 
robocall mitigation program to combat the origination of illegal 
robocalls during the course of the extension.
    45. We conclude that the extension we grant should run for two 
years, subject to possible extension pursuant to the evaluation 
discussed below. Multiple commenters advocated for an extension longer 
than one year. For instance, WISPA and Atheral contend that small voice 
service providers require an extension of at least two years beyond the 
implementation deadline to ``budget for and absorb the cost of needed 
upgrades'' and to ``allow for the development of vendor solutions and 
reduction in cost to more affordable levels as volume scales.'' We 
expect this extension for small voice service providers will drive down 
implementation costs by allowing these providers to benefit from a more 
mature market for equipment and software solutions necessary to 
implement STIR/SHAKEN. Small voice service providers have also filed 
estimates of the cost of implementing STIR/SHAKEN on their networks. 
The additional implementation time will allow these providers to spread 
the cost of implementation across a longer time horizon. We find that 
an implementation deadline of two-years allows for sufficient time--but 
no more than necessary--for small voice service providers to meet the 
challenges of implementing STIR/SHAKEN on their networks. Our guiding 
principle in setting this deadline is to achieve ubiquitous STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation to combat the scourge of illegal caller ID spoofing as 
quickly as possible. This extension should also ease the additional 
burdens placed on small voice service providers by the COVID-19 
pandemic, which has consumed significant resources.
    46. We decline at this time NTCA's requests to tie an 
implementation extension until June 30, 2023 to ``the vendor community 
delivering solutions in 2020,'' and to grant additional implementation 
time for small voice service providers ``unable to obtain vendor 
solutions by the end of 2020.'' NTCA contends that the two-year 
extension may be insufficient to resolve the issues presented by the 
lack of IP interconnection if vendor solutions are not available to 
small voice service providers by the end of 2020. We separately address 
the issue of non-IP interconnection. In the interest of promoting 
ubiquitous STIR/SHAKEN implementation, we decline at this time to grant 
a longer extension for small voice service providers that may face 
continued implementation challenges in the future. We find that a 
longer extension would discourage the swift development of effective 
vendor solutions and slow the deployment of STIR/SHAKEN to the 
detriment of consumers. We also find that a longer extension would 
unnecessarily rely on speculation about marketplace realities several 
years from now. The Bureau may grant a further extension if it 
determines such an extension is appropriate in its annual reevaluation.
    47. Finally, we establish that, as proposed in the First Caller ID 
Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM, a provider is a ``small 
provider[] of voice service'' for purposes of this extension if it has 
100,000 or fewer voice subscriber lines (counting the total of all 
business and residential fixed subscriber lines and mobile phones and 
aggregated over all of a provider's affiliates). In the First Rural 
Call Completion Order (78 FR 76218, Dec. 17, 2013), the Commission 
determined that the 100,000-subscriber-line threshold ensured that many 
subscribers would continue to benefit from our rules while also 
limiting the burden on smaller voice service providers. Similarly, we 
find that, in the caller ID authentication context, limiting the 
implementation extension for small voice service providers to those 
that have 100,000 or fewer voice subscriber lines balances the needs of 
these providers and the importance of widespread and effective STIR/
SHAKEN implementation. We received

[[Page 73368]]

support in the record for this definition of ``small providers of voice 
service.''
    48. We decline at this time USTelecom's post-circulation request to 
exclude voice service providers within the 100,000-subscriber-line 
threshold that ``originate a disproportionate amount of traffic 
relative to their subscriber base, namely voice service providers that 
serve enterprises and other heavy callers through their IP networks.'' 
While we see value in the policy goals that underlie USTelecom's 
request, implementing its suggestion would require a difficult line-
drawing exercise. USTelecom did not offer any support for its proposed 
criteria to identify parties that originate a disproportionate amount 
of traffic, nor are we able to identify criteria in the limited time 
available in which we have confidence. We are open to revisiting this 
issue should we determine that the extension creates an unreasonable 
risk of unsigned calls from a specific subset of small voice service 
providers.
    49. Extension for Voice Service Providers That Cannot Obtain a 
Certificate. In the First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order, we 
acknowledged the concerns raised by Cloud Communications Alliance 
regarding whether all voice service providers are able to obtain the 
certificates used for the intercarrier exchange of authenticated caller 
ID information under the Governance Authority's current policies. And 
in the FNPRM, we asked whether we should grant an implementation 
extension for any other voice service providers or classes of voice 
service providers, or types of calls. In response, commenters advocated 
for an extension for voice service providers that cannot obtain a 
certificate because they are ineligible to file FCC Form 499A, obtain 
an Operating Company Number, or obtain direct access to telephone 
numbers--each of which is a prerequisite to obtaining a certificate 
under current Governance Authority policy.
    50. Because it is impossible for a service provider to participate 
in STIR/SHAKEN without access to the required certificate and because 
some voice service providers are unable to obtain a certificate at this 
time, we determine that a limited extension is necessary. Multiple 
commenters contend that the Governance Authority's policy excludes 
voice service providers that lease numbers rather than obtain them 
directly from NANPA. In particular, one-way VoIP voice service 
providers have no means to obtain direct access to numbers, so they 
cannot obtain the certificate necessary to comply with their duty to 
implement STIR/SHAKEN. Only carriers and interconnected VoIP providers 
may obtain direct access to telephone numbers. Therefore, we grant an 
extension to voice service providers that cannot obtain a certificate 
due to the token access policy. We grant this extension until it is 
feasible for a provider to participate in STIR/SHAKEN due either to the 
possibility of compliance with the Governance Authority policy or a 
change in the Governance Authority policy. We recognize that a voice 
service provider may not be able to immediately come into compliance 
with its caller ID authentication obligations after it becomes eligible 
to receive a certificate, and we will not consider a voice service 
provider that diligently pursues a certificate once it is able to 
receive one in violation of our rules. PACE also requests that we 
determine whether a voice service provider subject to this extension 
may comply with our caller ID authentication requirements ``by relying 
on a 3rd party service provider.'' In the absence of a more complete 
record to guide our decision, we decline to accept this request at this 
time. We expect the extension we establish will decrease costs by 
relieving such providers from the obligation to upgrade their networks 
until they can meaningfully participate in STIR/SHAKEN. We recognize 
that industry has made progress on resolving the gap between Governance 
Authority certificate access policies and the scope of duties we have 
established pursuant to the TRACED Act, and we continue to urge speedy 
resolution of these issues. We decline Noble Systems' request for us to 
direct the Governance Authority to ``revisit its policies that were 
defined prior to passage of the TRACED Act'' and ``revisit the makeup 
of the [Governance Authority] membership in light of the broad scope of 
``voice service'' in the TRACED Act.'' In the First Caller ID 
Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM, we declined to intervene in 
or impose new regulations on the STIR/SHAKEN governance structure and 
maintain that position. We reiterate that because the Governance 
Authority is made up of a variety of stakeholders representing many 
perspectives, we have no reason to believe it will not operate on a 
neutral basis.
    51. Extension for Services Scheduled for Section 214 
Discontinuance. In the First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order 
and FNPRM, we also sought comment on whether to consider any additional 
categories of extensions. In response to AT&T's request, we grant a 
one-year extension based on undue hardship to cover services for which 
a provider has filed a pending section 214 discontinuance application 
on or before the June 30, 2021, STIR/SHAKEN implementation deadline. 
Verizon and CenturyLink advocate for removing discontinuance 
obligations that ``require [voice service] providers to obtain 
permission prior to replacing TDM voice services with VoIP'' to ``help 
make network transitions to IP more straightforward and efficient.'' We 
decline to grant this request as it is outside the scope of the current 
proceeding. This extension will allow voice service providers time to 
either complete the discontinuance process and ``avoid incurring 
unnecessary expense and burden to implement STIR/SHAKEN'' for services 
``that are scheduled to sunset,'' or to implement STIR/SHAKEN for any 
such services that are not discontinued. We agree with AT&T that voice 
service provider resources ``are better spent upgrading networks that 
will have the potential to reap the full benefits of the IP transition 
and STIR/SHAKEN.'' We expect that this extension will decrease costs by 
obviating the need to upgrade components of a voice service provider's 
network that will be sunset. We underscore that a one-year extension 
means that voice service providers have until June 30, 2022, to either 
discontinue the legacy service or implement STIR/SHAKEN if the service 
has not actually been discontinued, unless the provider obtains a 
waiver of this requirement for good cause shown. If we determine that a 
voice service provider filed a discontinuance application in bad faith 
to receive this extension, we will terminate the extension and take 
appropriate action.
    52. Voice Service Providers That Use TDM--An Extension Would Be 
Superfluous. The TRACED Act specifically directs us to evaluate whether 
to grant an extension to voice service providers that use TDM network 
technology. The record reflects that a major barrier to implementation 
of a caller ID authentication framework for voice service providers 
that use TDM technology is the lack of a standardized caller ID 
authentication framework for non-IP networks. Because the STIR/SHAKEN 
framework is an IP-only solution, these voice service providers must 
expend substantial resources upgrading network software and hardware to 
be IP compatible in order to implement the only currently available 
standardized caller ID authentication solution. According to 
commenters, voice service providers that use TDM networks also face

[[Page 73369]]

availability and cost issues regarding necessary equipment to upgrade 
the software and hardware to convert their networks to IP. Further, 
small or rural voice service providers that use TDM technology may have 
fewer resources and require additional time for transitioning their 
networks to IP technology. Multiple commenters agree that ``[e]ven if a 
[voice service provider] has upgraded its own network to all-IP 
technology, if that [voice service provider] exchanges substantial 
traffic through legacy TDM tandems, such tandems will similarly present 
obstacles to STIR/SHAKEN deployment.''
    53. Although we proposed in the First Caller ID Authentication 
Report and Order and FNPRM to grant the same extension to voice service 
providers that use TDM technology under the undue hardship standard 
that we grant to providers that materially rely on non-IP technology, 
we conclude that a separate and identical extension is redundant and 
creates administrative duplication. We want to avoid granting two 
separate extensions, with associated filing and review requirements, 
that serve identical purposes. Because the TRACED Act includes a 
required extension for voice service providers that ``materially 
rel[y]'' on non-IP technology, we decline to grant a separate extension 
to voice service providers that use TDM technology under the undue 
hardship standard. This extension (1) applies to those parts of a voice 
service provider's network that materially rely on technology that 
cannot initiate, maintain, and terminate SIP calls; (2) lasts ``until a 
call authentication protocol has been developed for calls delivered 
over non-[IP] networks and is reasonably available''; and (3) may be 
terminated if the Commission determines that a voice service provider 
``is not making reasonable efforts to develop the call authentication 
protocol'' for non-IP networks. Although AT&T contends that ``an 
extension for TDM networks is independently warranted,'' it does not 
explain its position. In fact, AT&T concedes that ``the extension 
outcomes are the same.'' We find the non-IP extension sufficiently 
addresses AT&T's concern that there is not yet a STIR/SHAKEN-equivalent 
solution for TDM networks. To the extent there is any lack of clarity, 
we confirm that TDM networks are included in the non-IP extension 
established below, and subject to its terms.
    54. Rural Voice Service Providers--A Separate Extension Is 
Unnecessary. The TRACED Act specifically directs us to evaluate whether 
to grant an extension based on undue hardship to rural voice service 
providers. The record reflects that the burdens and barriers to STIR/
SHAKEN implementation for rural voice service providers are often 
encompassed by those for small voice service providers or voice service 
providers that use non-IP network technology because these voice 
service providers also tend to be rural. To the extent rural voice 
service providers rely on non-IP technology, which is incompatible with 
STIR/SHAKEN, they encounter the burdens already described for such 
providers. Similarly, the rural voice service providers that describe 
specific burdens to implementation--such as availability of vendor 
solutions that may be prohibitively expensive with few reasonable 
alternatives--are small voice service providers. Although CTIA 
generally states that there are potential financial and resource 
constraints for larger rural voice service providers, it does not 
identify any specific implementation challenges faced by these 
providers. Indeed, at least one larger rural voice service provider, 
TDS Communications, a Wisconsin-based voice service provider that 
serves nearly 900 rural, suburban, and metropolitan communities 
throughout the United States, has begun to invest in STIR/SHAKEN 
deployment.
    55. In the First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and 
FNPRM, we sought comment on our proposed view that it would be 
unnecessary to grant a separate implementation extension for rural 
voice service providers as the challenges faced by these providers are 
already addressed by the small voice service provider extension and the 
extension for voice service providers that materially rely on a non-IP 
network. After review of the record, we adopt our proposal and decline 
to adopt a separate extension for rural providers. While we decline to 
grant an extension to this class of voice service providers, a voice 
service provider that believes that it faces an undue hardship may 
submit a filing that details its specific circumstances. The majority 
of commenters in the record did not differentiate rural voice service 
providers from those that are small and referred to them 
interchangeably. As noted above, the rural voice service providers that 
called for an extension are themselves small voice service providers. 
NCTA contends that a dedicated extension for rural providers is 
``unnecessary'' because ``the vast majority of rural providers will 
qualify for the small provider extension'' or the extension for voice 
service providers that rely on non-IP networks. We agree with NCTA that 
``there does not seem to be a strong basis for granting any form of 
relief'' to rural voice service providers that do not qualify as small 
voice service providers. Further, TDS reports that it had completed 
work in 2019 to evaluate, select, and lab test a vendor solution to 
allow it to integrate STIR/SHAKEN into the IP portions of its network. 
Because one large rural voice service provider has already invested in 
STIR/SHAKEN deployment to best serve its customers, we expect that 
other similarly situated rural voice service providers have also begun 
or would be capable of having begun the implementation process. We 
conclude that it would be improper to reach a blanket finding of undue 
hardship for rural voice service providers because (1) the record does 
not show that larger rural providers face undue hardship; and (2) our 
separate finding of undue hardship for small voice service providers 
relieves small rural voice service providers of the obligation to 
implement, such that they will no longer face undue hardship for the 
duration of the extension. Further, an extension for rural voice 
service providers would not only be unnecessary, but also harmful to 
the goal of widespread implementation.
    56. We also decline the request by CTIA and USTelecom for an 
extension for vaguely-defined ``regional'' voice service providers that 
do not fall within our 100,000 or fewer voice subscriber line 
threshold. CTIA only generally describes potential financial and 
resource constraints for these voice service providers, and neither 
commenter sufficiently defines this class of providers or explains why 
we should grant an extension on the basis of undue hardship to 
providers with the resources that are necessary for serving a large 
number of subscribers. We similarly decline the request by Madison 
Telephone Networks for an extension until 2024 or 2025 for rural 
providers in high cost areas to ``relieve financial pressure.'' We 
decline to grant this extension as Madison Telephone Networks does not 
demonstrate why this is a unique class of providers requiring an 
extension of this length. Further, we expect the majority of these 
voice service providers are also small or materially rely on non-IP 
technology and therefore will be covered by either or both of those 
extensions. If a voice service provider in this category is not covered 
by an extension and requires additional time for STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation, it may file an individual petition requesting an 
extension, as discussed below.

[[Page 73370]]

    57. Equipment Availability--A Separate Extension Is Unnecessary. In 
the First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM, we 
sought comment on Congress's direction to consider whether to grant a 
separate extension on the basis of ``the inability to purchase or 
upgrade equipment to support the call authentication frameworks under 
this section, or lack of availability of such equipment.'' We conclude 
that our extension for small voice service providers adequately 
addresses challenges with regard to obtaining necessary equipment and 
that a separate or additional extension is unnecessary. As discussed 
above, the record reflects that equipment availability specifically 
impacts small voice service providers. This is not a surprise, as it is 
likely that larger voice service providers have the resources and 
negotiating leverage to obtain the equipment they need much more 
quickly than small providers. Granting an extension solely for 
equipment unavailability may discourage larger voice service providers 
from putting forward sufficient effort to obtain necessary equipment. 
Further, no commenter has identified any specific equipment 
availability issue for large voice service providers--commenters merely 
speak in general terms. Granting an ex ante extension on this basis 
would introduce difficult line-drawing questions as to when equipment 
is ``unavailable'' for which the record does not suggest a solution and 
that are not necessary to resolve in light of the extension for small 
voice service providers. We note that under our rules any voice service 
provider--large or otherwise--that encounters a specific equipment 
availability issue may request a waiver of the deadline.
    58. Enterprise Calls--An Extension Would Be Counterproductive. In 
the First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM, we 
sought comment on whether we should grant an extension for undue 
hardship for enterprise calls. We described the concerns of some 
commenters that the standards for attestation do not fully account for 
the situation where an enterprise subscriber places outbound calls 
through a voice service provider other than the voice service provider 
that assigned the telephone number. In such enterprise calling 
scenarios, commenters claimed, it would be difficult for an outbound 
call to receive A-level attestation because the outbound call ``will 
not pass through the authentication service of the [voice] service 
provider that controls th[e] numbering resource.'' To provide A-level 
attestation, the voice service provider must be able to confirm the 
identity of the subscriber making the call, and that the subscriber is 
using its associated telephone number. The record developed in response 
to our Further Notice reflects challenges for voice service providers 
to attest to enterprise calls with A-attestation in this and other 
circumstances, meaning that such calls would be authenticated with B- 
or C-level attestation. Based on these challenges, some commenters 
argue that we should grant an extension in compliance with the STIR/
SHAKEN implementation mandate for enterprise calls so that these calls 
will not receive caller ID authentication until industry standards 
groups resolve the enterprise issue, rather than receiving a lower 
level of attestation in the interim. We agree with the record 
opposition, and we decline to grant an implementation extension to 
enterprise calling cases.
    59. First, we agree with those commenters that argue that an 
implementation extension may discourage the swift development of 
technical solutions for enterprise calls. Although commenters offer 
different perspectives on the timing of a solution that would allow 
enterprise calls to receive A-level attestation, the record reflects 
that industry is ``working hard to achieve authentication with A-level 
attestation this year.'' It is our goal to encourage this work, rather 
than remove the beneficial incentive created by the STIR/SHAKEN 
mandate. We decline, however, to go so far as some commenters suggest 
and ``[r]equir[e] the prompt finalization of standards that will enable 
voice providers that originate enterprise calls to provide an A-level 
attestation.'' As industry stakeholders, standards bodies, and the 
Governance Authority are actively working to finalize standards and 
solutions to complex enterprise calling cases, we do not wish to 
intervene in the process. At the same time, we continue to encourage--
and expect--industry to promptly resolve the outstanding challenges for 
complex enterprise use cases and business models, and we will closely 
monitor progress on this issue.
    60. We are also not persuaded by claims that authenticating 
enterprise calls with B- or C-level attestation poses a major problem. 
These commenters contend that enterprise calls without an A-level 
attestation may be blocked, mislabeled as potentially fraudulent, or 
lead to illegal robocallers authenticating their own calls. However, 
they fail to explain how the alternative--an enterprise call without 
authenticated caller ID information--is preferable to one that receives 
B- or C-level attestation. Cloud Communications Alliance addresses this 
question, but states only that ``[i]t is difficult to answer this 
question in the abstract without knowing the call validation treatment 
of B or C level attestations.'' It adds that if voice service providers 
or the industry ``only value an `A' level attestation when deciding 
call treatment, while wholly discounting a lower level of attestation, 
the ability to sign with a B or C level attestation will be of little 
benefit, perhaps apart from providing information for trace back 
purposes.'' Notably, NCTA reports that ``[i]n [its] members' 
experiences, partial (`B') attestation can be achieved more quickly 
than complete (`A') attestation for enterprise calls,'' and 
accordingly, partial attestation is ``a reasonable implementation 
approach in this context.'' Similarly, Hiya, an analytics company, 
commits that it ``currently has no plans--nor is it aware of any plans 
by other parties in the industry--to either block calls or label them 
as potentially fraudulent solely due to lack of `full' or `A' level 
attestation.'' It also asserts ``that voice service providers and 
analytics engines will not use attestation level as the sole 
determinant for reputation scoring of a caller,'' and instead, 
``attestation information is one of the many data points that inform 
analytics-driven call labeling and call blocking.'' Vonage contends 
that attestation may provide a ``potentially'' ``dispositive data 
point,'' but fails to support this claim. Transaction Network Services 
also explains that ``STIR/SHAKEN attestations--`good' or `bad'--will 
not have the effects that some commenters suggest'' as it ``endeavors 
to incorporate STIR/SHAKEN attestations as one factor in its analysis'' 
and ``does not recommended making call-blocking decisions based on the 
failure of STIR/SHAKEN authentication.'' Indeed, we have previously 
stated that ``a call-blocking program might block calls based on a 
combination of factors.'' In the Third Call Blocking Report and Order 
(85 FR 56530, September 14, 2020), we also explained that ``[i]f the 
terminating voice service provider has identified that calls with `A' 
attestation previously originating from that number are nevertheless 
illegal or unwanted based on reasonable analytics, [it] may block those 
calls despite the attestation level.'' Even assuming that calls with B- 
or C-level attestation will be treated meaningfully worse than calls 
without authenticated caller ID information--a conclusion that, again, 
is not substantiated by the record--concerns over the treatment of 
calls authenticated

[[Page 73371]]

consistent with current STIR/SHAKEN standards does not amount to an 
undue hardship in the implementation of STIR/SHAKEN technology, which 
is the standard by which Congress directed us to evaluate undue 
hardship extension requests. In light of these conclusions and our and 
Congress's goal of ubiquitous STIR/SHAKEN implementation in IP 
networks, we will not grant an extension for enterprise calls.
    61. Intra-Network Calls--An Extension Would Be Counterproductive. 
In the First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM, we 
established distinct authentication requirements for inter-network 
calls and for intra-network calls. In the case of inter-network calls, 
an originating voice service provider must ``authenticate caller [ID] 
information for all SIP calls it originates and that [it] will exchange 
with another voice service provider or intermediate provider.'' This 
duty applies only ``to the extent technically feasible.'' In the First 
Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM we specifically 
recognized this fact, explaining that ``transmission of STIR/SHAKEN 
authentication information over a non-IP interconnection point is not 
technically feasible at this time.'' Because establishing trust between 
providers is not necessary for calls that transit a single network, we 
adopted a different obligation for intra-network calls that solely 
transit the network of the originating voice service provider. 
Specifically, in recognition of the fact that ``certain components of 
the STIR/SHAKEN framework . . . are not necessary for calls that a 
voice service provider originates and terminates on its own network,'' 
we concluded a voice service provider satisfies its intra-network 
authentication obligation so long as it authenticates and verifies ``in 
a manner consistent with the STIR/SHAKEN framework, such as by 
including origination and attestation information in the SIP INVITE 
used to establish the call.''
    62. A number of commenters that exchange all traffic with other 
providers through non-IP interconnection points--and thus have no 
obligation under our rules to implement STIR/SHAKEN with respect to 
inter-network calls--seek an extension from the intra-network 
authentication requirement. These voice service providers seek such 
relief because compliance requires network upgrades, and they would 
prefer to delay investing in these necessary upgrades until they are 
able to participate in STIR/SHAKEN both within their own network and 
with regard to calls exchanged with other voice service providers, 
which require many of the same upgrades.
    63. We decline to grant the requested extension because we do not 
find that it rises to the level of undue hardship. Commenters favoring 
an extension contend that requiring them to invest in compliance solely 
as to intra-network calls would require unreasonably burdensome network 
upgrades that, in their view, produce limited benefits. But these 
commenters fail to explain why implementation would be more burdensome 
for them than for other voice service providers. In fact, 
implementation maybe less costly because our standard for intra-network 
IP calls is only that they are authenticated ``in a manner consistent 
with the STIR/SHAKEN framework'' which does not require those upgrades 
necessary to enable cross-provider authentication and verification. The 
TRACED Act requires an assessment of burdens and barriers, not a cost-
benefit analysis, and parties seeking an extension have failed to show 
that they face atypical burdens and barriers on the basis of the intra-
network authentication requirement. We nonetheless note that the 
benefits of our intra-network requirement are greater than parties 
favoring an extension contend. As we have explained, STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation provides benefits to consumers even at the intra-network 
level. Specifically, implementing STIR/SHAKEN within a voice service 
provider's own network directly benefits consumers as it enables a 
voice service provider to authenticate all calls among its customers. 
To that end, we agree with commenters that while voice service 
providers work toward IP interconnection, ``[t]here is no reason to 
deny consumers'' the ``immediate benefits'' of authenticated caller ID 
information for calls on their voice service provider's own network. 
Further, the record reflects that many providers that face challenges 
regarding IP interconnection are small providers, to which we have 
granted a two-year extension in compliance with the STIR/SHAKEN 
mandate. Providers so situated will therefore have additional time to 
negotiate IP interconnection agreements before being subject to the 
intra-network mandates. Various commenters in the record argue that the 
Commission should more directly resolve the issue of non-IP 
interconnection. While we refrain from directly addressing the issue of 
non-IP interconnection in this Order, which focuses largely on 
completing TRACED Act implementation as to STIR/SHAKEN, we will 
continue to monitor the issue.
    64. Further, granting such an extension would impede the progress 
of the IP transition and further delay STIR/SHAKEN implementation--
contrary to our goal of ubiquitous deployment of caller ID 
authentication technology. Atheral and WISPA request that we establish 
a waiver process for providers with non-IP interconnection points that 
need to upgrade media gateways in order to exchange SIP calls. We 
decline to establish a unique process in this context, as these parties 
do not explain why our existing procedures are insufficient. Parties 
that wish to seek a waiver are free to do so pursuant to our existing 
procedures. We agree with Comcast that it is essential to ``encourage 
the IP transition by, among other things, adopting policies in this 
proceeding that induce providers to prioritize the implementation of 
IP-enabled call authentication through STIR/SHAKEN.'' Comcast proposes 
that we ``consider[ ] a provider's efforts to transition to . . . IP-
to-IP voice interconnection[ ] when determining whether to grant or 
renew a limited extension.'' Because we do not grant an extension for 
the inability to exchange traffic at IP-enabled interconnection points, 
we see no need to adopt this suggestion. As AT&T observes, an extension 
for intra-network calls of providers that do not interconnect in IP 
would ``discourag[e] voice service providers from coming to a 
negotiated resolution and transitioning to IP'' at the interconnection 
point. By denying this extension, we ``increase the[ ] incentive to 
negotiate creative and commercially reasonable interconnection 
agreements'' to ensure that customers receive STIR/SHAKEN benefits.
    65. Provider-Specific Extensions. We decline at this time to grant 
any extensions to individual voice service providers. We recognize, as 
INCOMPAS and CenturyLink suggest, that some providers may face specific 
circumstances in all or part of their IP networks that constitute undue 
hardship. The Commission will be in a better position to evaluate those 
requests, however, in response to specific petitions that establish in 
detail the basis for the requested extension, rather than through 
establishing a general principle in response to the vague and general 
concerns about technology or compatibility issues that INCOMPAS and 
CenturyLink set forth. A voice service provider that believes that it 
faces an undue hardship within the meaning of the TRACED Act may file 
in this docket an individual petition requesting an extension. We 
direct the

[[Page 73372]]

Bureau to seek comment on any such petitions and to issue an order 
determining whether to grant the voice service provider an extension. 
We expect any voice service provider seeking an extension to file its 
request by November 20, 2020, and we direct the Bureau to issue a 
decision no later than March 30, 2021. We find it appropriate to direct 
the Bureau to issue provider-specific extension determinations by March 
30, 2021, so that the Bureau has adequate time to seek comment on and 
consider timely-filed petitions and petitioners have adequate time, 
before the June 30, 2021, implementation deadline, to act in response 
to the Bureau's determination. Although we expect voice service 
providers to file extension requests by November 20, 2020, we note that 
parties seeking additional extensions after this date are free to seek 
a waiver of our deadline under Sec.  1.3 of the Commission's rules. 
This is consistent with the TRACED Act's mandate that the Commission 
consider the burdens and barriers to implementation ``as appropriate'' 
beyond the 12-month period specified in the Act. Of course, in 
determining whether it is ``appropriate'' to consider such late-filed 
requests, we expect that the Commission will not look favorably on 
requests that rely on facts that could have been presented to the 
Commission prior to November 20, 2020 with reasonable diligence. Given 
the importance of widespread STIR/SHAKEN implementation, to be granted 
an extension a voice service provider must demonstrate in detail the 
specific undue hardships, including financial and resource constraints, 
that it has experienced and explain why any challenges it faces meet 
the high standard of undue hardship to STIR/SHAKEN implementation 
within the timeline required by Congress.
2. Extension for Certain Non-Internet Protocol Networks
    66. Section 4(b)(5)(B) of the TRACED Act directs that ``the 
Commission shall grant a delay of required compliance . . . for any 
provider or class of providers of voice service, or type of voice 
calls, only to the extent that such a provider or class of providers of 
voice service, or type of voice calls, materially relies on a non-[IP] 
network for the provision of such service or calls . . . until a call 
authentication protocol has been developed for calls delivered over 
non-[IP] networks and is reasonably available.'' In implementing this 
provision, we impose the same obligations on voice service providers 
that receive the extension as we impose in the mandate requiring voice 
service providers to implement an effective caller ID authentication 
framework in the non-IP portions of their networks. We note that, along 
with the obligations we impose for recipients of the non-IP extension, 
such recipients are also subject to the robocall mitigation 
requirements shared by all other recipients of extensions. We find that 
doing so ensures that all voice service providers with non-IP network 
technology are subject to the same burdens and are working together to 
develop a non-IP solution as envisioned by the TRACED Act. We also find 
that such action most efficiently carries out the goals of protecting 
consumers from illegal robocalls on non-IP networks, and encourages a 
general transition to IP and the wider implementation of STIR/SHAKEN.
    67. Eligibility for This Extension. Under the TRACED Act, we must 
grant an extension for voice service providers or types of voice calls 
that ``materially rel[y] on a non-[IP] network.'' We interpret this 
provision to mean that those portions of a voice service provider's 
network that do not use SIP technology are eligible for an extension of 
the implementation deadline of June 30, 2021. The TRACED Act states 
that we shall grant this extension ``under section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii),'' 
which governs extensions granted upon a public finding of undue 
hardship. We interpret this clause to mean that undue hardship is 
presumed where a voice service provider materially relies on a non-IP 
network for the provision of such service or calls. We also interpret 
``until a call authentication protocol has been developed . . . and is 
reasonably available'' to be a statutorily-defined ``reasonable period 
of time'' for the purposes of this extension. In the First Caller ID 
Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM, we proposed defining ``non-
[IP] network[s]'' as those portions of a voice service provider's 
network that rely on technology that cannot initiate, maintain, and 
terminate SIP calls. We adopt our proposal because we believe this to 
be a straightforward implementation of Congress's direction in the 
TRACED Act, which also provides that extensions may be voice service 
provider-specific or apply to a class of voice service providers or 
type of voice calls. In determining whether a voice service provider or 
type of voice calls ``materially relies'' on such a non-SIP capable 
network, we proposed to interpret ``material[ ]'' to mean ``important 
or having an important effect'' and, consistent with our call-by-call 
interpretation of the TRACED Act, we proposed to read ``reli[ance]'' 
with reference to the particular portion of the network in question. We 
adopt these proposed interpretations, which received no opposition in 
the record, and we therefore consider reliance on a non-IP network as 
material if that portion of the network is incapable of using SIP. 
Comcast argues that we should refrain from ``applying new regulatory 
mandates to the entire voice industry,'' and should instead ``consider[ 
] a provider's efforts to transition to IP . . . when determining 
whether to grant or renew a limited extension of the STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation deadlines.'' We decline to take this approach, as we 
believe the approach we take in this document--imposing a broad mandate 
and granting an extension where necessary--better comports with the 
TRACED Act's mandatory extension for providers that ``materially rely'' 
on non-IP technology. Put another way, if a SIP-incompatible portion of 
a voice service provider's network is used for the provision of voice 
service, that portion of the network is eligible for an extension of 
the implementation deadline. The record reflects support for this 
interpretation. After noting that our definition's scope is consistent 
with the concept of material reliance, AT&T suggests that we add to our 
definition of ``non-[IP] network'' ``all `TDM in the middle' services--
that is, those utilizing TDM switching/transport as well as those 
exchanged over TDM interconnection points.'' We decline to do so 
because we are only obligated under the TRACED Act to provide 
extensions for originating and terminating voice service providers, and 
not intermediate providers. We also note that the rules we adopt in 
this document regarding intermediate providers only apply to networks 
which support SIP signaling. We acknowledge the concerns raised by AT&T 
and others regarding the prevalence of non-IP networks, and find that 
their prevalence only increases the importance of taking action to 
encourage widespread caller ID authentication across all networks while 
the IP transition is ongoing.
    68. Duration of Extension. The TRACED Act directs that the non-IP 
extension shall end once ``a call authentication protocol has been 
developed for calls delivered over non-[IP] networks and is reasonably 
available.'' We also note that the TRACED Act grants us the authority 
to limit or terminate any granted non-IP extension if we determine that 
a voice service provider ``is not making

[[Page 73373]]

reasonable efforts to develop'' a caller ID authentication protocol for 
non-IP networks. As noted later, we interpret ``reasonable efforts'' to 
mean that a voice service provider is participating, either on its own, 
in concert with a vendor, or through a representative, as a member of a 
working group, industry standards group, consortium, or trade 
association that is working to develop a non-IP solution, or actively 
testing such a solution. In determining whether a caller ID 
authentication protocol meets this standard, we adopt the test proposed 
by Alaska Communications, with some modifications. Consistent with 
Alaska Communications' proposal, we conclude that a caller ID 
authentication protocol ``has been developed'' if we determine that the 
protocol is fully developed and finalized by industry standards. By 
``fully developed'' and ``finalized'' we do not require that the 
protocol must have achieved a status whereby no future development or 
progress is possible. Under that interpretation, the STIR/SHAKEN 
framework itself would not meet this standard. Instead, our standard 
does not foreclose the possibility of further development and 
improvement, but would only determine a protocol has been developed if 
at least all fundamental aspects of the protocol which enable its 
effectiveness are standardized by industry, and the protocol is 
implementable by voice service providers. We agree with commenters that 
such a protocol must be standards-based and ready for implementation. 
Although some commenters advocate for mandating out-of-band STIR, we 
find that this solution is not yet standardized. We thus conclude that, 
at this time, no caller ID authentication protocols exist which have 
been developed and are reasonably available for calls delivered over 
non-IP networks. We also find that a caller ID authentication protocol 
is ``reasonably available'' if the underlying equipment and software 
necessary to implement such protocol is available on the commercial 
market. We decline to adopt Alaska Communications' requirement that the 
underlying equipment and software be ``widely available and affordable 
on the commercial market,'' because the terms ``widely'' and 
``affordable,'' in the context of sophisticated businesses negotiating 
for specialized equipment and software, are too broad and indefinite to 
administer readily; and Alaska Communications does not provide enough 
further guidance on these terms to adopt them as part of a workable 
standard. We believe this approach is a workable and clear standard, 
and has support from the record. And as we have explained, we adopt the 
same standard for determining whether a caller ID authentication 
protocol is ``effective'' for purposes of our mandate on non-IP 
networks, ensuring a harmonious approach to our rules regarding non-IP 
caller ID authentication technology. Alaska Communications suggests 
that we adopt an additional requirement for determining whether a 
caller ID authentication protocol is ``reasonably available.'' 
Specifically, Alaska Communications suggests that the ``knowledge, 
training, and expertise necessary to operate the equipment and 
implement the standard [must be] sufficiently widespread among the 
small, rural, and other non-IP service providers'' in receipt of an 
extension in order for the standard to be ``reasonably available.'' We 
decline to adopt this requirement because doing so could create a 
perverse incentive for voice service providers to be willfully ignorant 
of newly developed protocols so as to prolong an extension. It also 
would require an unreasonably complicated inquiry into the knowledge 
and practices of numerous small voice service providers. We further 
find such a requirement to be unnecessary ex ante without a specific 
protocol and associated requirements in front of us.
    69. As we explained in the context of the mandate on non-IP 
networks, we will continue to monitor industry progress towards the 
development of a non-IP caller ID authentication solution. If we find 
after providing notice and an opportunity for comment that a non-IP 
solution meets these criteria, we will both modify the non-IP 
implementation mandate and phase out the non-IP implementation 
extension to account for this new solution. Cooperative Telephone 
Company suggests that we grant a limited five-year extension of the 
June 30, 2021, deadline for implementing a caller ID authentication 
framework ``for those service providers currently using a TDM network 
that have less than 1,000 subscriber lines.'' Cooperative Telephone 
Company argues that such small and rural telephone companies have 
``scarce resources'' which would not cover both the demands of their 
customers and new regulations for non-IP technology. We decline to do 
so given that such an extension would not be consistent with the 
timeframe that Congress established in the TRACED Act for the non-IP 
extension--which is to last until a non-IP solution becomes reasonably 
available--not for a fixed period of years. Alaska Communications 
suggests that we ``grant a permanent exemption for the few non-SS7-
connected switches remaining'' because such switches are unique. We 
find adopting this proposal unnecessary at this time. In the absence of 
a developed solution, we are not yet in a position to determine whether 
any technical exceptions could be necessary and appropriate.
    70. Obligations of Voice Service Providers Receiving an Extension. 
The TRACED Act provides that we should limit or terminate an extension 
of compliance if we determine in a future assessment that a voice 
service provider ``is not making reasonable efforts to develop the call 
authentication protocol'' for non-IP networks. To be consistent with 
our approach in mandating that voice service providers take 
``reasonable measures'' to implement an effective caller ID 
authentication framework in the non-IP portions of their networks, we 
find that a voice service provider satisfies the ``reasonable efforts'' 
requirement under section 4(b)(5)(D) if it is able to provide the 
Commission, upon request, with documented proof that it is 
participating, either on its own, in concert with a vendor, or through 
a representative, as a member of a working group, industry standards 
group, consortium, or trade association that is working to develop a 
non-IP solution, or actively testing such a solution. We also conclude 
this requirement both promotes the IP transition and encourages the 
development of a non-IP authentication solution for the benefit of 
those networks that cannot be speedily or easily transitioned.
3. Reevaluating Granted Extensions
    71. Section 4(b)(5)(F) of the TRACED Act requires us annually to 
reevaluate and revise as necessary any granted extension, and ``to 
issue a public notice with regard to whether such [extension] remains 
necessary, including why such [extension] remains necessary; and when 
the Commission expects to achieve the goal of full participation.'' As 
we proposed in our First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and 
FNPRM, we direct the Bureau to reevaluate the extensions we have 
established annually, and to revise or extend them as necessary. We 
adopt this proposal because the Bureau is in the best position to 
undertake this fact-intensive and case-by-case evaluation, particularly 
in the context of evaluating extensions for undue hardship. Pursuant to 
the TRACED Act, we direct the Bureau to issue a Public Notice seeking 
comment to inform its annual

[[Page 73374]]

review and consider the comments it receives before issuing a Public 
Notice of its decision as to whether to revise or extend an extension. 
The record reflects support, and no opposition, for this reevaluation 
process.
    72. Scope of Bureau's Authority. We permit the Bureau to decrease, 
but not to expand, the scope of entities that are entitled to a class-
based extension based on its assessment of burdens and barriers to 
implementation. Specifically, if the Bureau concludes in its review 
that a class-based extension should be extended beyond the original end 
date set by the Commission, it may choose to do so for all or some 
recipients of the extension, as it deems appropriate, based on its 
assessment and after providing notice and an opportunity for comment. 
As suggested by ACA Connects, we clarify that the Bureau may not, 
however, terminate an extension for some or all recipients prior to the 
extension's originally set or newly extended end date.
    73. Assessment of Burdens and Barriers. The TRACED Act directs the 
Commission to assess burdens and barriers to implementation by December 
30, 2020, and ``as appropriate thereafter.'' We find it appropriate to 
reassess burdens and barriers to implementation by voice service 
providers that we granted an extension in conjunction with evaluating 
whether to maintain, modify, or terminate the extension. Accordingly, 
we direct the Bureau to assess burdens and barriers to implementation 
faced by those categories of voice service providers subject to an 
extension when it reviews those extensions on an annual basis or on 
petition. Coordinating an assessment of burdens and barriers to 
implementation with our extension reevaluations will inform the 
Bureau's decision to extend or revise any granted extensions. It will 
also provide a basis for the Bureau to revise the scope of entities 
that are entitled to an extension. We find that aligning the periodic 
reassessment of burdens and barriers to implementation with any review 
of extensions is the best reading of the relevant statutory language. 
We read ``appropriate'' in this section to tie the timing of our future 
assessments to our annual extension reevaluations. We received no 
comments in the record to our proposal in this regard.
4. Robocall Mitigation Program
    74. Section 4(b)(5)(C)(i) of the TRACED Act directs us to require 
any voice service provider that has been granted an extension to 
implement, during the time of the extension, ``an appropriate robocall 
mitigation program to prevent unlawful robocalls from originating on 
the network of the provider.'' In the First Caller ID Authentication 
Report and Order and FNPRM, we sought comment on USTelecom's proposal 
to obligate voice service providers to file certifications describing 
their robocall mitigation programs in lieu of a prescriptive approach. 
In this Report and Order, we adopt this proposal and give voice service 
providers the flexibility to decide the specific contours of an 
effective robocall mitigation program that best suits the needs of 
their networks and customers. We additionally create a certification 
process and database to aid in enforcement efforts and prohibit 
intermediate providers and terminating voice service providers from 
accepting voice traffic from voice service providers not listed in the 
database. These steps will ensure that the only voice traffic to 
traverse voice networks in the U.S. is from those voice service 
providers that have either fully implemented STIR/SHAKEN on their 
entire networks or that have implemented a robocall mitigation program 
on those portions of their networks that are not STIR/SHAKEN-enabled.
    75. Providers Subject to the TRACED Act's Robocall Mitigation 
Program Requirement. Based on the statutory text, we read the 
requirement to implement a robocall mitigation program to apply to all 
voice service providers that receive an extension on the basis of undue 
hardship or material reliance on a non-IP network. The TRACED Act 
states that extensions for material reliance on a non-IP network are 
``[s]ubject to subparagraphs (C) through (F),'' and paragraph (C)(i) 
sets forth the robocall mitigation program requirement. The record 
reflects support for this approach. Securus argues that we should not 
impose a robocall mitigation program requirement on voice service 
providers--even voice service providers granted an extension--whose 
networks uniquely pose ``nearly zero'' risk of originating high volumes 
of illegal robocalls. We decline to adopt this suggestion because the 
TRACED Act obligates us to require ``any provider subject to such 
[extension to] implement an appropriate robocall mitigation program.'' 
Neustar recommends that we require ``all voice service providers [to] 
utilize robocall mitigation solutions, regardless of whether they 
implement STIR/SHAKEN in their networks,'' and ZipDX argues that 
providers which have implemented STIR/SHAKEN should institute robocall 
mitigation programs for any calls they authenticate with C-level 
attestation. ZipDX also argues that we should require voice service 
providers to document and share with the Commission information on how 
they assign the A-, B-, or C-level attestations. We decline to adopt 
such a reporting requirement at this time, as we have no reason to 
believe the existing mechanisms for policing use of attestation levels 
within the STIR/SHAKEN framework are insufficient. We decline to adopt 
these suggestions. We agree with commenters that under the TRACED Act 
robocall mitigation ``is intended to be an interim approach for 
addressing potential unlawful robocalls until the provider has 
implemented STIR/SHAKEN.'' Consistent with this view, in the case of 
voice service providers that have neither complied with the STIR/SHAKEN 
mandate by June 30, 2021, nor are subject to any extension, we expect 
such noncompliant voice service providers to implement robocall 
mitigation on the non-STIR/SHAKEN-enabled portions of their networks. 
Doing so does not free the provider from enforcement of its violation 
of our STIR/SHAKEN implementation mandate, but will protect consumers 
by ensuring that no portion of the voice network is left without an 
implementation of either caller ID authentication or a robocall 
mitigation program. While USTelecom argues we can find authority under 
other provisions of the Act, we need not reach that issue. First, 
regardless of whether we could rely on an alternative source of 
authority, we find it appropriate to defer to Congress's recent, 
specific guidance on the subject. Moreover, while USTelecom argues that 
such a requirement ``will provide benefits independent of call 
authentication solutions, including before and after full deployment of 
such solutions,'' we find such a requirement to be inappropriate at 
this juncture. We cannot yet know whether requiring voice service 
providers to expend additional resources on robocall mitigation even 
after STIR/SHAKEN implementation would be an efficient use of their 
resources, and we do not wish to place additional burdens on voice 
service providers already working to comply with the June 30, 2021, 
STIR/SHAKEN implementation deadline. We will revisit this conclusion if 
we determine that additional robocall mitigation efforts are necessary 
in addition to STIR/SHAKEN after the caller ID authentication 
technology is more widespread.

[[Page 73375]]

    76. Robocall Mitigation Program Requirements. The TRACED Act 
directs us to require all voice service providers granted an 
extension--whether on the basis of undue hardship or material reliance 
on a non-IP network--to ``implement an appropriate robocall mitigation 
program to prevent unlawful robocalls from originating on the[ir] 
network[s].'' As suggested by USTelecom, we require voice service 
providers subject to an extension to ``take[] reasonable steps to avoid 
originating illegal robocall traffic.'' USTelecom outlines examples of 
such ``reasonable steps,'' which could include ``[a]nalyz[ing] high-
volume voice network traffic to identify and monitor patterns 
consistent with robocall campaigns,'' ``[a]nalyz[ing] traffic for 
patterns indicative of fraudulent calls--for example, identifying short 
duration calls with low completion rates,'' and ``[t]ak[ing] reasonable 
steps to confirm the identity of new commercial VoIP customers by 
collecting information such as physical business location, contact 
person(s), state or country of incorporation, federal tax ID, and the 
general nature of the customer's business.'' We decline to opine at 
this time on whether such practices meet our sufficiency standard, so 
as to promote experimentation with a wide variety of practices by voice 
service providers in their robocall mitigation programs. In a different 
proceeding, we propose requiring voice service providers to respond to 
traceback requests, mitigate illegal traffic when notified of such 
traffic, and take affirmative, effective measures to prevent new and 
renewing customers from using their networks to originate illegal 
calls; we also seek comment on whether we should prescribe specific 
steps. As our action in this proceeding is concerned with implementing 
section 4(b)(5)(C) of the TRACED Act, we do not preclude the 
possibility of requiring all voice service providers to take 
affirmative, effective measures to prevent the origination of unlawful 
calls--whether specific or not--pursuant to different legal authority, 
such as section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 
With one exception noted below, we find that a non-prescriptive 
approach to robocall mitigation requirements gives voice service 
providers ``the flexibility to react to traffic trends they view on 
their own networks and react accordingly.'' This approach also allows 
voice service providers to innovate and ``draw from the growing 
diversity and sophistication of anti-robocall tools and approaches 
available.'' In a separate proceeding, we proposed requiring voice 
service providers to take affirmative, effective measures to prevent 
new and renewing customers from using their networks to originate 
illegal calls, and seek comment on whether we should prescribe specific 
steps. As our analysis here is concerned with implementing section 
4(b)(5)(C) of the TRACED Act, we do not preclude the possibility of 
requiring all voice service providers to take affirmative, effective 
measures to prevent the origination of unlawful calls--whether specific 
or not--pursuant to different legal authority, such as section 201(b) 
of the Act.
    77. We require voice service providers subject to an extension to 
document and publicly certify how they are complying with these 
requirements. We find that such a requirement will encourage voice 
service providers to ensure that they are taking ``reasonable steps.'' 
We have previously found that requiring self-evaluation is an effective 
means of promoting compliance with our rules. In the rural call 
completion context, the Commission adopted a rule requiring covered 
providers to monitor the rural call completion performance of the calls 
they pass on to intermediate providers, and take action to address poor 
performance. We concluded that such a monitoring rule ``will ensure 
better call completion to rural areas by covered providers, . . . 
reduce the necessity for enforcement action, and aid our enforcement 
efforts when needed.'' Such a requirement also enables us to evaluate a 
voice service provider's ``reasonable steps'' to determine whether they 
are sufficient. This public certification requirement will facilitate 
our ability to enforce a prohibition on intermediate providers and 
terminating voice service providers from accepting voice traffic from 
voice service providers with insufficient or ineffective robocall 
mitigation programs.
    78. While we adopt a non-prescriptive approach to voice service 
providers' robocall mitigation programs, we find it necessary to 
articulate general standards, both to guide voice service providers in 
preparing their programs and to ensure that the statutory obligation to 
implement a robocall mitigation program is enforceable. We clarify that 
a robocall mitigation program is sufficient if it includes detailed 
practices that can reasonably be expected to significantly reduce the 
origination of illegal robocalls. This is not to say that a voice 
service provider may not engage in practices, as part of its robocall 
mitigation program, that are experimental or cutting edge, and whose 
effectiveness is not yet proven. Rather, we encourage industry 
experimentation and only require that robocall mitigation programs 
include proven practices alongside experimental ones. In addition, for 
its mitigation program to be sufficient, the voice service provider 
must comply with the practices it describes. We will also consider a 
mitigation program insufficient if a provider knowingly or through 
negligence serves as the originator for unlawful robocall campaigns. We 
decline to adopt ZipDX's proposal that a robocall mitigation program 
merely be ``effective'' because ZipDX provides no elaboration of how to 
define the term, and we think the more detailed requirement we adopt 
will be both clearer and more successful than a non-specific 
``effective'' standard. At the same time, we agree with Verizon that 
``different types of network providers should have different types of 
robocall mitigation programs,'' and we welcome voice service providers 
adopting approaches that are innovative, varied, and adapted to their 
networks.
    79. The record also convinces us that participation in industry 
traceback efforts is of utmost importance in the absence of STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation. To that end, we require voice service providers, as 
part of their robocall mitigation programs, to commit to cooperating 
with the Commission, law enforcement, and the industry traceback 
consortium in investigating and stopping any illegal robocallers that 
it learns are using its service to originate calls. We underscore that 
this requirement does not supersede any existing legal processes. We 
also encourage law enforcement to make traceback requests through the 
industry traceback consortium. We find that this baseline requirement 
to participate in traceback efforts is a necessary aspect of any 
attempt to mitigate illegal robocalls, as it permits voice service 
providers and enforcement agencies to identify illegal robocallers and 
prevent them from further abusing the voice network. Without a means to 
identify and bring enforcement actions against the sources of illegal 
robocalls, such bad actors will continue their operations unchecked and 
emboldened. We underscore that this is a necessary, but not sufficient, 
component of a voice service provider's robocall mitigation program 
which, as we have explained, must include other steps to ensure that a 
provider is not the source of illegal robocalls.
    80. We decline at this time to impose other more prescriptive 
requirements for robocall mitigation programs, such as mandating an 
analytics-based robocall mitigation program, as proposed by Transaction 
Network Services, or know-

[[Page 73376]]

your-customer policies, as suggested by Consumer Groups. While we 
acknowledge that such practices and policies may be effective aspects 
of a robocall mitigation program--and we encourage voice service 
providers to incorporate them into their own robocall mitigation 
programs--we decline specifically to mandate them, as we agree with 
commenters that argue that there is no one-size-fits-all robocall 
mitigation solution that accounts for the variety and scope of voice 
service provider networks. For example, a small voice service provider 
with few subscribers may not have a need to implement comprehensive 
analytics given its small size. Similarly, a voice service provider 
with limited means may choose a solution suited to its budget and 
business model. We also decline Neustar's suggestion that we ``ensure 
that providers implement robocall mitigation solutions for both 
originating and terminating calls.'' The TRACED Act's mandate plainly 
requires only robocall mitigation programs that ``prevent unlawful 
robocalls from originating on the network of the provider.''
    81. Deficient Robocall Mitigation Programs. If we find that our 
non-prescriptive approach to robocall mitigation is not satisfactorily 
stemming the origination of illegal robocalls, we agree with NTCA and 
Verizon that we should be ready to impose more prescriptive obligations 
on any voice service provider whose robocall mitigation program has 
failed to prevent high volumes of illegal robocalls. We thus direct the 
Enforcement Bureau to prescribe more specific robocall mitigation 
obligations for any voice service provider it finds has implemented a 
deficient robocall mitigation program. Such robocall mitigation 
obligations would be chosen as appropriate to resolve the specific 
voice service provider's prior shortcomings. In such instances, the 
Enforcement Bureau will release an order explaining why a particular 
mitigation program is deficient and, among other things, prescribe the 
new obligations needed to rectify those deficiencies, including any 
milestones or deadlines. We find that action by the Enforcement Bureau 
is appropriate in responding to issues on a case-by-case basis. As part 
of the penalties it may impose, the Enforcement Bureau may de-list a 
voice service provider from the robocall mitigation database we 
establish. If we find that our non-prescriptive approach to robocall 
mitigation programs is falling short on a widespread basis, we will not 
hesitate to revisit the obligations we impose through rulemaking at the 
Commission level.
    82. Voice Service Provider Certification and Database. To promote 
transparency and effective robocall mitigation, we require all voice 
service providers--not only those granted an extension--to file 
certifications with the Commission regarding their efforts to stem the 
origination of illegal robocalls on their networks. Specifically, as 
proposed by USTelecom, and with the support of all parties that 
commented on the issue in the record, we require all voice service 
providers to certify that their traffic is either ``signed with STIR/
SHAKEN or . . . subject to a robocall mitigation program'' that 
includes ``tak[ing] reasonable steps to avoid originating illegal 
robocall traffic,'' and committing to cooperating with the Commission, 
law enforcement, and the industry traceback consortium in investigating 
and stopping any illegal robocallers that it learns are using its 
service to originate calls. For those voice service providers that 
certify that some or all of their traffic is ``subject to a robocall 
mitigation program,'' we require such voice service providers to detail 
in their certifications the specific ``reasonable steps'' that they 
have taken ``to avoid originating illegal robocall traffic.'' This 
requirement will promote transparency and accountability in light of 
our non-prescriptive approach to the robocall mitigation program 
requirements. While only voice service providers with an extension will 
be obligated to implement a robocall mitigation program, we impose the 
certification requirement on all voice service providers because doing 
so will help us and others to hold all voice service providers 
accountable for the voice traffic they originate, and give us and 
others a snapshot of the progress of STIR/SHAKEN implementation and the 
variety of robocall mitigation practices adopted by voice service 
providers.
    83. Voice service providers must file certifications via a portal 
on the Commission's website that we will establish for this purpose. We 
will also establish a publicly accessible database in which we will 
list such certifications. Establishing a database will aid in 
monitoring compliance with our robocall mitigation requirement and 
facilitate enforcement action should such action be necessary. We 
direct the Bureau to establish this portal and database, provide 
appropriate filing instructions and training materials, and release a 
Public Notice when voice service providers may begin filing 
certifications. We direct the Bureau to release this Public Notice no 
earlier than March 30, 2021, and to establish a deadline for the filing 
of certifications no earlier than June 30, 2021. Verizon argues that we 
``need not wait until 2021 to establish a registry with a certification 
requirement and issue rules imposing robocall mitigation obligations on 
all traffic originated by any service provider.'' We disagree and 
instead find it appropriate to harmonize this requirement--which is 
tied by statute to receiving an extension from the STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation mandate--to the date the STIR/SHAKEN mandate goes into 
effect. However, we agree with Verizon that ``consumers should get the 
benefits of the registration framework and the robocall mitigation 
rules this year,'' and encourage providers to take efforts toward 
robocall mitigation as soon as possible. We also direct the Bureau to 
issue guidance and a protective order regarding the treatment of any 
confidential and highly confidential information included in 
certifications. We do so to protect voice service providers that are 
worried that public disclosure of their robocall mitigation programs 
may give bad actors the information they need to undermine their 
programs, or necessitate disclosure of competitively sensitive 
information. If we find that a certification is deficient in some way, 
such as if the certification describes a robocall mitigation program 
that is ineffective, or if we find that a provider nonetheless 
knowingly or negligently originates illegal robocall campaigns, we may 
take enforcement action as appropriate. Enforcement actions may 
include, among others, removing a defective certification from the 
database after providing notice to the voice service provider and an 
opportunity to cure the filing, or requiring the voice service provider 
to submit to more specific robocall mitigation requirements, and/or 
imposition of a forfeiture.
    84. We also require voice service providers filing certifications 
to provide the following identification information in the portal on 
the Commission's website:
    (1) The voice service provider's business name(s) and primary 
address;
    (2) other business names in use by the voice service provider;
    (3) all business names previously used by the voice service 
provider;
    (4) whether a voice service provider is a foreign voice service 
provider; and
    (5) the name, title, department, business address, telephone 
number, and email address of a central point of contact within the 
company responsible for addressing robocall-mitigation-related issues.

[[Page 73377]]

    85. This information will be made publicly available in the 
database, and reporting such information presents a minimal burden on 
voice service providers. We find that requiring a voice service 
provider to report contact information for the person responsible for 
addressing robocall-mitigation-related issues will facilitate inter-
provider cooperation and enforcement actions should issues arise. We 
also require voice service providers to submit to the Commission via 
the appropriate portal any necessary updates to the information they 
filed in the certification process within 10 business days. This 
requirement will ensure that we and all voice service providers have 
up-to-date data without overburdening voice service providers with 
unnecessary filings.
    86. Obligations on Intermediate Providers and Terminating Voice 
Service Providers. As suggested by multiple commenters, we prohibit 
intermediate providers and terminating voice service providers from 
accepting voice traffic directly from any voice service provider that 
does not appear in the database, including a foreign voice service 
provider that uses NANP resources that pertain to the United States to 
send voice traffic to residential or business subscribers in the United 
States. ZipDX suggests that we prohibit intermediate providers and 
terminating voice service providers from accepting voice traffic from 
foreign voice service providers using U.S. numbers unless the foreign 
voice service provider is listed in the robocall mitigation database 
and the domestic provider can provide an A-level attestation for the 
call. We decline to take this approach at this time as industry has not 
yet coalesced around an approach to A-level attestations for foreign-
originated calls. Effective 90 days after the deadline for robocall 
mitigation program certifications set forth in the Bureau Public Notice 
establishing the robocall mitigation database and portal, intermediate 
providers and terminating voice service providers are subject to this 
prohibition. The record reflects support for this requirement.
    87. We agree with Verizon that, ``by prohibiting downstream service 
providers from accepting traffic from providers that are not in [the 
database], the Commission can deny a service provider access to the 
regulated U.S. voice network if it determines that the service 
provider's STIR/SHAKEN or robocall mitigation practices are 
inadequate.'' In this way, we can police the voice traffic that voice 
service providers originate by removing or restoring a voice service 
provider's listing on the database, after providing notice of any 
certification defects and providing an opportunity to cure. 
Furthermore, as voice service providers monitor the database to ensure 
they remain compliant with our rules, they must necessarily review the 
listings of voice service providers with which they interconnect to 
ensure that such certifications are sufficient. In so doing, industry 
continually reviews itself to ensure compliance with our rules, 
amplifying the effectiveness of our own review. This rule will further 
encourage all voice service providers to implement meaningful and 
effective robocall mitigation programs on their networks during the 
period of extension from the STIR/SHAKEN mandate. In turn, this rule 
will help prevent illegal robocall traffic from reaching terminating 
voice service providers and their subscribers. To ease compliance with 
this obligation, we will import all listings from the Intermediate 
Provider Registry into the Robocall Mitigation Database on a rolling 
basis so that all registered intermediate providers are represented 
therein. Because intermediate providers that do not originate any 
traffic are not subject to our certification requirements, they would 
not otherwise be listed in the database. By affirmatively adding such 
providers we give intermediate and terminating voice service providers 
confidence that any provider not listed in the Robocall Mitigation 
Database is out of compliance with our rules, rather than leaving the 
potential for uncertainty about whether a provider is noncompliant or 
simply was not required to be included in the database because it does 
not originate traffic. A provider that serves as both an intermediate 
provider and originating voice service provider must file a 
certification with respect to the traffic for which it serves as an 
originating voice service provider, even if its listing has been 
imported from the Intermediate Provider Registry.
    88. NTCA and ACA argue that we should require intermediate 
providers and terminating voice service providers to give notice to an 
originating voice service provider whose traffic they will block 
because it is not listed in the robocall mitigation database. NTCA 
argues that this will ``enable legitimate providers to cure honest 
mistakes on their part or `glitches' in the database.'' We decline to 
adopt this suggestion as we find that the framework we adopt provides 
adequate notice to voice service providers of the need to file 
sufficient certifications, including a 90-day period between the 
deadline for certifications and the prohibition on intermediate and 
terminating voice service providers accepting traffic from originating 
voice service providers not in the database. Second, adopting this 
suggestion would place potentially costly obligations on compliant 
intermediate providers and terminating voice service providers to 
provide adequate notice to noncompliant originating voice service 
providers. Such compliant providers may be unable to provide notice for 
lack of having or being able to obtain a noncompliant provider's 
contact information--opening themselves up to potential enforcement 
action for lack of compliance. Lastly, we will give notice and an 
opportunity to cure to voice service providers whose certifications are 
deficient before we take enforcement action such as de-listing the 
provider from the database.
    89. We decline to adopt to USTelecom's proposal that we require 
intermediate providers to file a certification to their compliance with 
this rule. We see no clear need to impose a burdensome belt-and-
suspenders paperwork requirement on providers that are already subject 
to this obligation by rule. We similarly decline ZipDX's proposal that 
intermediate providers must ``[i]mplement[] a Robocall Mitigation 
Program applicable to calls [they do] not authenticate.'' This includes 
intermediate providers acting as domestic gateway providers for 
foreign-originated calls. Pursuant to the TRACED Act, robocall 
mitigation is meant to stem the origination of illegal robocalls, and 
ZipDX does not explain specifically how an intermediate provider could 
itself prevent the origination of illegal robocalls. We find the rule 
we establish--whereby intermediate providers are prohibited from 
accepting traffic from an originating voice service provider that has 
not certified to a robocall mitigation program--best leverages the role 
of intermediate providers to combat illegal robocalls within our 
greater robocall mitigation scheme.
    90. Foreign Voice Service Providers. In the First Caller ID 
Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM, we sought comment on 
mechanisms to combat robocalls originating abroad. The record contains 
several comments expressing support for combating robocalls originating 
abroad by requiring foreign voice service providers that wish to appear 
in the database to follow the same requirements as domestic voice 
service providers, and we do so in this document. Thus, foreign voice 
service providers that use NANP numbers that pertain to the United 
States to send voice traffic to

[[Page 73378]]

residential and business subscribers in the United States must follow 
the same certification requirements as domestic voice service providers 
in order to be listed in the database. Because we prohibit domestic 
intermediate providers and terminating voice service providers from 
accepting traffic from foreign voice service providers that use NANP 
numbers that pertain to the United States and are not listed in the 
database, we create a strong incentive for such foreign voice service 
providers to file certifications. We note for the sake of clarity, 
however, that we do not require foreign voice service providers to file 
a certification; though intermediate providers and terminating voice 
service providers are prohibited from accepting traffic from foreign 
voice service providers who do not appear in the robocall mitigation 
database.
    91. We find that this result will encourage foreign service 
providers to choose to institute robocall mitigation programs and file 
certifications to be listed in the database and thus have their traffic 
be accepted by domestic intermediate and terminating voice service 
providers. The measures we adopt in this document will also enable 
foreign voice service providers to continue using U.S. telephone 
numbers to send voice traffic to U.S. subscribers under the same 
certification procedures that will apply to U.S. voice service 
providers and thereby help prevent the fraudulent exploitation of NANP 
resources and reduce the volume of illegal voice traffic entering the 
United States. Ensuring that foreign voice service providers using U.S. 
telephone numbers comply with the certification requirements prior to 
being listed in the database is especially important in light of the 
prevalence of foreign-originated illegal robocalls aimed at U.S. 
consumers and the difficulty in eliminating such calls.
    92. We find persuasive the argument by ZipDX that the definition in 
the initially circulated and publicly released draft Order, which 
defined ``foreign voice service provider'' as ``any entity that is 
authorized within a foreign country to provide international voice 
service,'' was unduly narrow and excluded non-U.S. providers that do 
not possess any authorization to provide service from being able to 
file certifications and be listed in the database. In response, we 
revise our rules to establish that an entity is a ``foreign voice 
service provider'' if such entity has the ability to originate voice 
service that terminates in a point outside a foreign country or 
terminate voice service that originates from points outside that 
foreign country. Specifically, we define ``foreign voice service 
provider'' to mean ``any entity providing voice service outside the 
United States that has the ability to originate voice service that 
terminates in a point outside that foreign country or terminate voice 
service that originates from points outside that foreign country.'' We 
find that this approach captures voice traffic originating from a 
broader range of foreign voice service providers than the one that 
initially appeared in the draft.
    93. Under the rules we adopt, foreign voice service providers that 
use U.S. telephone numbers to send voice traffic to U.S. subscribers 
must file the same certification as U.S. voice service providers in 
order to be listed in the database. Specifically, to be listed in the 
database, these providers must certify either that they have 
implemented STIR/SHAKEN or comply with the robocall mitigation program 
requirements outlined above by ``tak[ing] reasonable steps to avoid 
originating illegal robocall traffic'' and committing to cooperating 
with the Commission, U.S. law enforcement, and the industry traceback 
consortium in investigating and stopping any illegal robocallers that 
it learns are using its service to originate calls. If we find that a 
voice service provider's certification is deficient or the provider 
fails to meet the standards of its certification, we will pursue 
enforcement including de-listing the provider from the database. We 
further note that, as discussed above, we require voice service 
providers--including foreign voice service providers that wish to be 
listed in the database--to submit to the Commission any necessary 
updates regarding any of the information they filed in the 
certification process within 10 business days.
    94. Although USTelecom, following circulation and public release of 
a draft of this Order, has changed its position and now suggests 
seeking further comment on this approach, we nevertheless take action 
in this document given the crucial and urgent importance of protecting 
Americans from illegal and fraudulent foreign-originated robocalls. 
USTelecom, along with CTIA, suggest that our action in this document 
could result in unforeseen technical issues, or the blocking of 
legitimate calls. ZipDX disagrees with this suggestion, arguing that 
any impact that could arise would be minimal and could be promptly 
resolved. As our rules related to foreign-originated voice traffic that 
we take in this document will not begin to affect such voice traffic 
until June 2021, we are optimistic that voice service providers will 
have time to resolve any identified issues before the deadline. Should 
voice service providers identify concrete evidence of technical 
problems or likely blocking of legitimate calls, we encourage them to 
provide us such information so that we can consider whether to make any 
modifications to this rule.
5. Alternative Methodologies During an Extension
    95. The TRACED Act directs us to ``identify, in consultation with 
small providers of voice service, and those in rural areas, alternative 
effective methodologies to protect consumers from unauthenticated calls 
during any'' extension from compliance with our STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation mandate. The TRACED Act does not specify that voice 
service providers may substitute such methods for the robocall 
mitigation program that it requires, and we read the TRACED Act as 
merely calling for us to identify additional options for voice service 
providers subject to extension that wish to better serve their 
customers and the public by going above and beyond their legal 
obligations. Given that caller ID authentication frameworks are not yet 
ubiquitous--and thus most calls that transit U.S. voice networks are 
unauthenticated--we understand Congress's concern in this provision to 
be about protecting consumers from unauthenticated, illegally spoofed 
robocalls. We therefore interpret a methodology to be ``effective'' if 
it is likely to substantially reduce the volume of illegal robocalls 
reaching subscribers. In our Third Call Blocking Report and Order, we 
adopted a safe harbor in our call blocking rules for voice service 
providers that use reasonable analytics that include caller ID 
authentication information to inform their call blocking services. We 
find that these types of call blocking services would likely reduce the 
volume of unauthenticated illegal robocalls reaching subscribers, and 
thus include them in this definition. We find that this definition 
tracks the overall purpose of the TRACED Act which is ``to reduce 
illegal and unwanted robocalls'' through various mechanisms. We sought 
comment in the First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and 
FNPRM from small and rural voice service providers on such alternative 
effective methodologies. The record we received in response 
demonstrates that such alternative methodologies either already exist 
or are in development. To fulfill this obligation, we identify the 
following alternative effective methodologies recommended by small

[[Page 73379]]

and rural voice service providers, as well as other commenters:
     Innovative Systems reports that its landline call blocking 
service is ``fully developed and currently installed at 207 landline 
providers'' and, in the last nine years, ``has challenged over 19 
million suspected spam calls and blocked another 12 million calls that 
were from phone numbers off the FCC's weekly robocall and telemarketing 
consumer complaint data reports.'' It states that ``greater consumer 
protection can be achieved by having this alternative methodology 
installed on all landlines using an opt-out strategy at no cost, versus 
a purchase to opt-in by the customer.''
     Neustar reports that its robocall mitigation service 
``helps voice service providers block calls from illegal robocallers 
and helps end users identify robocalls . . . . [b]y combining 
authoritative data . . . with behavior insights.''
     Transaction Network Services reports that ``[c]all 
analytics have proven successful in identifying a large number of the 
problematic calls being transmitted today. . . . Reasonable call 
analytics are widely available from multiple vendors, many of which 
offer low-investment services that can be deployed in smaller networks 
at a reasonable cost.''
    96. Additionally, the recent call blocking report released by the 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau identified various available 
effective methodologies for protecting subscribers from illegal calls, 
a sample of which is reproduced below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Blocking/labeling    Estimate on number of calls    Default, opt-in, or
           Business name                services offered          blocked or labeled              opt-out
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T--Wireless.....................  Network-level blocking  Call Protect and Call        Network-level blocking
                                     Call Protect or Call     Protect Plus, since 2016,    is default.
                                      Protect Basic, free..   blocked fraudulent calls    Call Protect is opt-
                                     Call Protect Plus.....   or labeled suspicious        out, since 2019.
                                                              calls; nearly 1.3 billion   Call Protect Plus is
                                                              suspected fraud and over 3   opt-in.
                                                              billion other calls
                                                              blocked or labeled.
AT&T--VoIP.........................  Network-level blocking  Blocked over 46 million and  Network-level blocking
                                     Digital Phone Call       spam warnings for 36         is default.
                                      Protect, free..         million.                    Digital Phone Call
                                                                                           Protect is opt-in.
Call Control (third-party analytics  Software-based call     Blocked over one billion     N/A.
 company).                            blocking.               calls.
Comcast--Wireline..................  Network-level blocking  Over 158 million calls       Network-level blocking
                                     Anonymous Call           blocked in Dec. 2019.        is default.
                                      Rejection, Selective    Anonymous Call Rejection    Anonymous Call
                                      Call Rejection, free..  blocked nearly 37 million    Rejection is opt-in,
                                     Customers can sign up    calls in Dec. 2019.          but will be offered
                                      for Nomorobo blocking   Selective Call Rejection     opt-out; Selective
                                      service, free..         blocked over five million    Call Rejection is opt-
                                                              calls in Dec. 2019.          in.
                                                                                          Nomorobo is opt-in.
Cox................................  Edge Blocking, free...  14.6% of calls are blocked   Edge Blocking is opt-
                                     Anonymous Call           through one of these         out.
                                      Rejection, Selective    tools; Edge Blocking is     Anonymous Call
                                      Call Rejection, free..  65% of the blocked calls     Rejection and
                                     Customers can sign up    and Anonymous Call           Selective Call
                                      for Nomorobo blocking   Rejection is 29%t.           Rejection are opt-in.
                                      service, free..
First Orion (third-party analytics   Scam ID and Scam Block  Since 2017, identified over  N/A.
 company).                                                    22 billion scam calls.
Hiya (third-party analytics          Call blocking.........  Since 2016, blocked or       N/A.
 company).                                                    labeled nearly 1.3 billion
                                                              suspected fraud calls and
                                                              over 3 billion other
                                                              suspect calls.
Nomorobo (third-party analytics      Call blocking.........  As of April 30, 2020,        N/A.
 company).                                                    blocked over 1.6 billion
                                                              robocalls.
T-Mobile...........................  Scam ID, free.........  Since 2017, identified over  Scam ID is opt-out for
                                     Scam Block, free......   21 billion scam calls and    post-paid customers.
                                     Name ID, free for some   blocked over 5 billion of   Scam Block is opt-in.
                                      plans..                 those calls.
Verizon--Wireless..................  Network-level blocking  Since 2017, blocked          Network-level blocking
                                     Call Filter, free.....   hundreds of millions of      is default.
                                                              calls.                      Call Filter is opt-
                                                                                           out.
Verizon--Wireline..................  Network-level blocking  Since 2017, blocked          Network-level blocking
                                     Spam Alert, free......   hundreds of millions of      is default.
                                     VoIP customers can       calls.                      Spam Alert is default.
                                      sign up for Nomorobo                                Nomorobo is opt-in.
                                      blocking service,
                                      free..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Legal Authority

    97. The TRACED Act expressly directs us to grant extensions for 
compliance with the STIR/SHAKEN implementation mandate, require any 
voice service provider subject to such an extension to implement a 
robocall mitigation program to prevent unlawful robocalls from 
originating on its network, and place unique obligations on providers 
that receive an extension due to material reliance on non-IP network 
technology. The TRACED Act

[[Page 73380]]

thus provides a clear source of authority for the rules we adopt in 
this document.
    98. We conclude that section 251(e) of the Act provides additional, 
independent authority to adopt the extensions and associated 
requirements. That section gives us exclusive jurisdiction over 
numbering policy and enables us to act flexibly and expeditiously with 
regard to important numbering matters. When bad actors unlawfully 
falsify or spoof the caller ID that appears on a subscriber's phone, 
they are using numbering resources to advance an illegal scheme. The 
extensions and associated requirements will help to prevent the 
fraudulent exploitation of NANP resources by permitting those providers 
and their subscribers to identify when caller ID information has been 
spoofed.
    99. We conclude that section 251(e) gives us authority to prohibit 
intermediate providers and voice service providers from accepting 
traffic from both domestic and foreign voice service providers that do 
not appear in our newly established database. We emphasize that the 
rule we adopt in this document does not constitute the exercise of 
jurisdiction over foreign voice service providers. We acknowledge that 
this rule will have an indirect effect on foreign voice service 
providers by incentivizing them to certify to be listed in the 
database. An indirect effect on foreign voice service providers, 
however, ``does not militate against the validity of rules that only 
operate directly on voice service providers within the United States.'' 
As we concluded in the First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order, 
our exclusive jurisdiction over numbering policy provides authority to 
take action to prevent the fraudulent abuse of NANP resources. 
Illegally spoofed calls exploit numbering resources whenever they 
transit any portion of the voice network--including the networks of 
intermediate providers. Our action preventing such calls from entering 
an intermediate provider's or terminating voice service provider's 
network is designed to protect consumers from illegally spoofed calls, 
even while STIR/SHAKEN is not yet ubiquitous. Verizon agrees that 
section 251(e) gives us ample authority to ensure foreign VoIP 
providers ``submit to the proposed registration and certification 
regime by prohibiting regulated U.S. carriers from accepting their 
traffic if they do not.''
    100. We additionally find authority in the Truth in Caller ID Act. 
We find that the rules we adopt in this document are necessary to 
enable voice service providers to help prevent these unlawful acts and 
to protect voice service subscribers from scammers and bad actors, and 
that section 227(e) provides additional independent authority for the 
rules we adopt in this document.

D. Voluntary STIR/SHAKEN Implementation Exemption

    101. While the TRACED Act directs us to require each voice service 
provider to implement STIR/SHAKEN in its IP network, section 4(b)(2) of 
the TRACED Act frees a voice service provider from this requirement if 
we determine, by December 30, 2020, that ``such provider of voice 
service'': (A) ``in [IP] networks''--(i) ``has adopted the STIR/SHAKEN 
authentication framework for calls on the [IP] networks of the provider 
of voice service; (ii) has agreed voluntarily to participate with other 
providers of voice service in the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework; 
(iii) has begun to implement the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework; 
and (iv) will be capable of fully implementing the STIR/SHAKEN 
authentication framework'' not later than June 30, 2021; and (B) ``in 
non-[IP] networks''--(i) ``has taken reasonable measures to implement 
an effective call authentication framework; and (ii) will be capable of 
fully implementing an effective call authentication framework'' not 
later than June 30, 2021.
    102. Below, we read section 4(b)(2) of the TRACED Act as creating 
two exemptions: one for IP calls and one for non-IP calls. To ensure 
that the exemption only applies where warranted and to provide parties 
with adequate guidance, we expand on each of the prongs that a voice 
service provider must meet to obtain an exemption, and adopt rules 
accordingly. We find that the best way to implement the TRACED Act's 
exemption provision in a timely manner is via a certification process 
and thus adopt rules requiring that a voice service provider that 
wishes to receive an exemption submit a certification that it meets the 
criteria for the exemptions that we have established pursuant to 
section 4(b)(2)(A), section 4(b)(2)(B), or both. To guard against the 
risk of gaps and improper claims of the exemption, we require voice 
service providers that receive an exemption to file a second 
certification after June 30, 2021, stating whether they, in fact, 
achieved the implementation goal to which they previously committed in 
their initial certification. Last, we find that the TRACED Act's 
exemption provision does not extend to intermediate providers. We adopt 
these rules pursuant to the authority expressly granted us by section 
4(b)(2) of the TRACED Act.
1. Relationship of IP Networks and Non-IP Networks Provisions
    103. As proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we 
read section 4(b)(2) of the TRACED Act as creating two exemptions: One 
for IP calls and one for non-IP calls. Thus, a voice service provider 
may seek the exemption for its ``IP networks'' if it meets all four 
criteria for all calls it originates or terminates in SIP, and a voice 
service provider may seek the exemption for its ``non-IP networks'' if 
it meets both the criteria for all non-SIP calls it originates or 
terminates. This approach is consistent with the views of the 
commenters that touched upon this issue in the record.
    104. We find that this reading best implements Congress's policy 
and is consistent with principles of statutory construction when 
considering the statute as a whole. As AT&T observes, the structure of 
the TRACED Act ``recognizes that implementation of a caller ID 
authentication framework will differ for IP networks and non-IP 
networks.'' Given the presence of the word ``and'' between the IP and 
non-IP networks criteria, we recognize that the exemption could 
potentially be read as applying only if the voice service provider 
meets both the IP and non-IP networks criteria. Yet such a reading 
would render the exemption an empty set or nearly so because of the 
absence of an effective solution for non-IP caller ID authentication at 
present, such that few, if any, voice service providers will be able to 
claim that they will be capable of ``fully implementing'' an effective 
non-IP caller ID authentication framework by June 30, 2021. Our reading 
cabins the nullity risk more narrowly, thus better effectuating 
Congress's goal of creating a meaningful exemption.
    105. Our approach also further encourages prompt deployment of 
STIR/SHAKEN. We understand the statutory exemption to both encourage 
and reward early progress in deployment. Therefore, by giving voice 
service providers a path to exemption solely for their IP networks--the 
only types of networks on which STIR/SHAKEN can effectively operate--
our approach will effectuate Congress's intent to encourage faster 
progress in STIR/SHAKEN deployment. And by separating IP and non-IP 
calls in this way, we align our exemption process with the call-by-call 
vision of a caller ID authentication implementation mandate that 
subjects different parts of a voice service provider's network to 
different requirements.

[[Page 73381]]

2. Threshold for IP Networks Exemption
    106. To ensure that the exemption only applies where warranted and 
to provide parties with adequate guidance, we expand on each of the 
four substantive prongs laid out in the TRACED Act that a voice service 
provider must meet to obtain an exemption.
    107. Prong (i)--Adoption of STIR/SHAKEN. In the Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, we proposed to interpret the phrase ``has adopted 
the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework for calls on the [IP] networks 
of the provider of voice service'' in prong (A)(i) to mean that the 
voice service provider has publicly committed, via a certification, to 
complete implementation of STIR/SHAKEN by June 30, 2021. In light of 
the comments in the record, we modify this proposal to require that the 
voice service provider has completed the network preparations necessary 
to deploy the STIR/SHAKEN protocols on its network, including, but not 
limited to, by participating in test beds and lab testing, or 
completing commensurate network adjustments to enable the 
authentication and validation of calls on its network consistent with 
the STIR/SHAKEN framework.
    108. We agree with commenters that focusing on network preparations 
will provide significant concrete evidence that a voice service 
provider is taking the necessary steps in its STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation, and will thus offer confirmation that a provider has 
adopted the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework. We further agree with 
AT&T that our original certification-based proposal would not provide 
specific measurable criteria by which to assess a provider's progress. 
Simply issuing a commitment will not do as much to ensure that voice 
service providers are actually doing so as will an obligation to 
undertake the network preparations necessary to operationalize the 
STIR/SHAKEN protocols on their networks. Taking the necessary first 
steps to participate in STIR/SHAKEN more affirmatively demonstrates a 
voice service provider's commitment and preparedness to implement an 
effective caller ID authentication framework than a general declaration 
of intent that may or may not be accompanied by concrete steps. We 
disagree with T-Mobile's unsupported contention that our previous 
proposal would be preferable. While a public commitment to complete 
implementation of STIR/SHAKEN by June 30, 2021 would be a welcome 
initial step, we conclude that the better approach is to require voice 
service providers to undertake the preparations necessary to implement 
this framework, rather than merely issuing a pledge to do so.
    109. Prong (ii)--Participation with Other Providers. In the Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we proposed to read the phrase ``has 
agreed voluntarily to participate with other providers of voice service 
in the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework'' in prong (A)(ii) to 
require that the voice service provider has written, signed agreements 
with at least two other voice service providers to exchange calls with 
authenticated caller ID information. After reviewing the record, we 
revise this proposal to require that the voice service provider has 
demonstrated its voluntary agreement to participate with other voice 
service providers in the STIR/SHAKEN framework by completing formal 
registration (including payment) and testing with the Policy 
Administrator.
    110. We agree with commenters that such an action would signal both 
a public and financial commitment to working with other voice service 
providers sufficient to confirm a provider's coordination efforts. 
Registering with the Policy Administrator is a necessary predicate to 
participation with other voice service providers in the STIR/SHAKEN 
framework, and was formulated by the industry to allow the exchange of 
authenticated traffic without requiring dedicated agreements between 
voice service providers. Completing formal registration and testing 
with the Policy Administrator thus signals both a voice service 
provider's technical readiness and willingness to participate with 
other providers in the STIR/SHAKEN framework. We further agree with 
AT&T, CTIA, and CCA that our initial proposal ignores certain market 
realities by assuming that every provider of voice services will 
require multiple agreements to exchange traffic destined to every point 
on the PSTN. Given that some voice service providers may not require 
two or more interconnection arrangements, let alone multiple agreements 
with other providers, to exchange their IP-based traffic, imposing a 
two-agreement requirement to demonstrate voluntary participation in the 
STIR/SHAKEN framework would be arbitrary and might even inject 
artificial inefficiencies into such arrangements. Our revised 
interpretation of prong (A)(ii) more closely aligns with the language 
and intended purpose of the statute, and better encourages STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation without introducing potential inefficiencies. Exchanging 
traffic using certificates assigned through the governance system is 
exactly the way STIR/SHAKEN is designed to work. Encouraging voice 
service providers to complete formal registration and testing with the 
Policy Administrator is thus the most appropriate and reasonable 
interpretation of the requirement in prong (A)(ii).
    111. Prong (iii)--Begun to Implement. As proposed in the Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we implement the phrase ``has begun to 
implement the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework'' in prong (A)(iii) 
by requiring that the voice service provider has completed the 
necessary network upgrades to at least one network element (e.g., a 
single switch or session border controller) to enable the 
authentication and verification of caller ID information consistent 
with the STIR/SHAKEN standards. This interpretation requires a voice 
service provider to make meaningful progress on implementation by the 
time of certification, while taking into account that voice service 
providers will have limited time between adoption of this Order and the 
December 30, 2020 deadline for exemption determinations. While CCA 
argues that our approach is unachievable and overly prescriptive, we 
disagree. To the contrary, our approach accounts for the abbreviated 
timeframe by giving voice service providers the flexibility to choose 
to complete upgrades on the network element which they can upgrade most 
efficiently.
    112. In this case, we find USTelecom's suggestion that we require 
voice service providers to establish the capability to authenticate 
originated traffic and/or validate such traffic terminating on their 
networks to be excessively vague, and it is unclear how little or how 
much voice service providers would be required to do under such a rule. 
Depending on the voice service provider, simply ``establishing'' the 
capability to authenticate originated traffic and/or validate such 
traffic terminating on their networks could consist of fully 
implementing this capability or merely attaining this capability 
without actually deploying it in one's network. To the extent that 
USTelecom--which does not provide a rationale for its proposal--is 
concerned that the standard we adopt will be too easily met, we are 
confident that the opportunity to verify implementation of an effective 
authentication framework will help identify any voice service providers 
that fail to meet their STIR/

[[Page 73382]]

SHAKEN implementation commitments.
    113. Prong (iv)--Capable of Fully Implementing. Last, and as 
proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we implement the 
obligation to ``be capable of fully implementing the STIR/SHAKEN 
authentication framework'' not later than June 30, 2021, in prong 
(A)(iv) so as to require that the voice service provider reasonably 
foresees that it will have completed all necessary network upgrades to 
its network infrastructure to be able to authenticate and verify caller 
ID information for all SIP calls exchanged with STIR/SHAKEN-enabled 
partners by June 30, 2021. After considering the arguments in the 
record, we agree with T-Mobile that our proposal is preferable to 
USTelecom's narrower alternative of requiring a certification that all 
consumer VoIP and VoLTE traffic originating or terminating on a voice 
service provider's network either is or will be capable of 
authentication and validation by June 30, 2021. This requirement falls 
short of our implementation mandate, which requires that all calls be 
subject to caller ID authentication and verification--not just consumer 
VoIP and VoLTE traffic--except for those subject to the narrow and 
time-limited extensions we adopt in this document. To grant an 
exemption for voice service providers that will be capable of anything 
short of full compliance would indefinitely leave out calls the TRACED 
Act and our rules thereunder require to be subject to caller ID 
authentication. Such an approach also is inconsistent with the statute, 
which requires ``full[] implementation[]'' by June 30, 2021, so it is 
appropriate for us to demand that a provider reasonably foresee that it 
will meet that standard, rather than set a bar that is more easily 
cleared at the twelve-month mark but that heightens the risk of a voice 
service provider ultimately falling short just six months later. While 
we understand AT&T's point that voice service providers with more 
complex, diverse networks will necessarily have more complicated and 
costly STIR/SHAKEN implementation requirements, we do not think that 
our proposal is ``overly rigid'' or ``ambiguous.'' Nor do we agree with 
CCA that it is ``overly prescriptive.'' Rather, we institute a clear 
requirement that voice service providers ``reasonably foresee'' that 
they will be able to meet the standard Congress established by the 
deadline that Congress established. This interpretation gives as much 
latitude to voice service providers as possible to achieve the desired 
benchmarks while still requiring some basis for the claim that a 
provider is ``capable of fully implementing the STIR/SHAKEN 
authentication framework.''

3. Threshold for Non-IP Networks Exemption

    114. Under the TRACED Act, a voice service provider is excused from 
the requirement to take reasonable measures to implement an effective 
caller ID authentication framework in the non-IP portions of its 
network if the Commission finds that it: (1) Has taken reasonable 
measures to implement an effective caller ID authentication framework 
in the non-IP portions of its network; and (2) will be capable of fully 
implementing an effective caller ID authentication framework in the 
non-IP portions of its network not later than June 30, 2021. While we 
anticipate that in the non-IP context few if any voice service 
providers will seek to take advantage of this exemption because of the 
difficulties in ``fully implementing an effective caller ID 
authentication framework'' by June 30, 2021, we nevertheless adopt 
standards for determining whether a voice service provider has met both 
requirements necessary to receive an exemption under section 4(b)(2)(B) 
of the TRACED Act for the non-IP portions of its network, as required 
by the TRACED Act.
    115. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we sought 
comment on section 4(b)(2)(B) and whether there was an ``acceptable 
interpretation of the `fully implementing' prong that would make it 
more achievable for voice service providers to qualify for the 
exemption.'' We further sought comment on what constitutes an 
``effective'' call authentication framework and ``reasonable measures'' 
for purposes of this section. We now find that a voice service provider 
satisfies the first prong--requiring reasonable measures to implement 
an effective caller ID authentication framework--if it can certify that 
it is working to develop a non-IP authentication solution. Because the 
statutory language is similar to that used to establish the non-IP 
mandate, we find it appropriate to harmonize our interpretation of 
these two provisions. Section 4(b)(1)(B) of the TRACED Act requires a 
voice service provider ``to take reasonable measures to implement an 
effective call authentication framework'' in the non-IP portions of its 
networks, while section 4(b)(2)(B)(i) requires that a voice service 
provider ``has taken reasonable measures to implement an effective call 
authentication framework'' in the non-IP portions of its network. While 
we recognize the difference in tenses between the two provisions--one 
refers to taking reasonable measures, while the other states that such 
measures must have already been taken--the remaining language is 
identical. Thus, we find that the two provisions are similar enough to 
implement the same standard in order to quantify what constitutes 
``reasonable measures'' in both instances. Further, adopting a uniform 
approach allows us to avoid creating unnecessarily burdensome 
overlapping, but distinct, requirements. While we harmonize these 
provisions, we do not include the first method of compliance with our 
non-IP mandate, which a provider satisfies by completely upgrading its 
non-IP networks to IP and implementing the STIR/SHAKEN authentication 
framework. A provider that has completely upgraded its non-IP networks 
to IP would be subject to the exemption for IP networks, rather than 
the exemption for non-IP networks, and would be required to satisfy the 
requirements laid out for that exemption.
    116. AT&T supports a proposal to require providers to participate 
in either standards development for a TDM call authentication framework 
or implement a robust robocall mitigation program as two options for 
satisfying the ``reasonable measures'' prong of this section. We agree 
as to the former suggestion, but we find the latter suggestion unduly 
overlaps with the distinct robocall mitigation program requirement 
under the statute.
    117. We implement the provision in section 4(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the 
TRACED Act that voice service providers be ``capable of fully 
implementing an effective caller ID authentication framework in the 
non-IP portions of their networks not later than [June 30, 2021]'' by 
requiring that the voice service provider reasonably foresees that it 
will have completed all necessary network upgrades to its 
infrastructure to be able to authenticate and verify caller ID 
information for all non-IP calls originating or terminating on its 
network as provided by a standardized caller ID authentication 
framework for non-IP networks. This approach is consistent with our 
approach to the fourth prong of the IP network exemption, in which we 
construe ``fully implementing'' to mean that caller ID information is 
able to be authenticated and verified for all calls exchanged with 
technically-able partners. Further, it is consistent with our 
evaluation of when a non-IP caller ID authentication framework is 
``reasonably available,'' and we consistently consider such a framework

[[Page 73383]]

to be ``effective'' only when it is standardized. We find that this 
approach gives as much latitude to voice service providers as possible 
to achieve the desired result within the prescribed timeframe while 
again requiring some basis for the claim--here, that the provider be 
``capable of fully implementing an effective caller ID authentication 
framework.''
4. Compliance Certifications
    118. As proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we 
find that the best way to implement the TRACED Act's exemption 
provision is via a certification process. Specifically, we require a 
voice service provider that seeks to receive an exemption to submit a 
certification that it meets the criteria for the IP networks exemption 
that we have established pursuant to section 4(b)(2)(A), the criteria 
for the non-IP networks exemption that we have established pursuant to 
section 4(b)(2)(B), or both, as appropriate for its network(s). Given 
the inherent and obvious difficulty of making individualized 
determinations of whether providers qualify for the IP networks 
exemption on such a truncated timeframe, we find that a certification 
process is necessary to allow us to meet Congress's deadline for 
completion of exemption determinations by December 30, 2020. This 
approach is unopposed, and both T-Mobile and AT&T support the use of a 
certification process ``as the appropriate vehicle for a voice service 
provider to assert its qualification for either or both of the 
statutory exemptions.''
    119. Each voice service provider that seeks to qualify for either 
the section 4(b)(2)(A) or the section 4(b)(2)(B) exemption, or both, 
must have an officer of the voice service provider sign a compliance 
certificate stating under penalty of perjury that the officer has 
personal knowledge that the company meets each of the stated criteria. 
Such an attestation is necessary to ensure the accuracy of the 
underlying certification. We also require the voice service provider to 
submit an accompanying statement explaining, in detail, how the company 
meets each of the prongs of each applicable exemption so that the 
Commission can verify the accuracy of the certification.
    120. As proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, all 
certifications submitted pursuant to this requirement must be filed no 
later than December 1, 2020. All certifications and supporting 
statements must be filed electronically in WC Docket No. 20-68, 
Exemption from Caller ID Authentication Requirements, in the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). We direct the 
Bureau to provide additional directions and filing information 
regarding the certifications--including issuing protective orders 
governing the submission and review of confidential and highly 
confidential information, where necessary--by November 9, 2020, or in 
the Public Notice announcing Office of Management and Budget approval 
of this process, whichever comes sooner. And we direct the Bureau to 
review the certifications and accompanying documents for completeness 
and to determine whether the certifying party has met the requirements 
we have established. We further direct the Bureau to issue a list of 
parties that have filed complete, valid compliance certifications and 
that will thus receive the exemption(s) on or before December 30, 2020.
    121. Because of the limited time for review of certifications, we 
proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that any voice 
service providers that file inadequate certifications would not receive 
an opportunity to cure and instead would be subject to the general duty 
we established to implement STIR/SHAKEN by June 30, 2021. We adopt this 
proposal here. We find this consequence to be reasonable and 
appropriate because the purpose of the certification is merely to 
determine which voice service providers would, in the absence of the 
STIR/SHAKEN obligation, nonetheless be able to implement STIR/SHAKEN in 
a timely manner. While we are sympathetic to AT&T's suggestion that we 
permit voice service providers a chance to cure and revise their 
certifications should they be found deficient, the extremely truncated 
timeline for review of certifications prevents us from allowing such 
options. Simply put, there is insufficient time to permit voice service 
providers to revise and resubmit certifications that the Bureau has 
deemed deficient and for the Bureau to review such resubmitted 
certifications prior to the statutory December 30, 2020 deadline for 
completion of exemption determinations. Voice service providers must do 
their best to demonstrate in their initial certifications that they 
have met all the statutory requirements necessary to qualify for an 
exemption. Moreover, as stated above, we find the inability of voice 
service providers to ``cure'' deficient certifications to be 
insignificant given the purpose of the certification.
    122. Implementation Verification. The section 4(b)(2)(A) and (B) 
exemptions are, by their nature, based on a voice service provider's 
prediction of its future ability to implement STIR/SHAKEN by June 30, 
2021. As we explained in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we 
believe that Congress intended for us to verify, after the fact, that 
voice service providers claiming the exemption completed full 
implementation in accordance with their commitments. Such a review is 
consistent with the TRACED Act both because the broad structure of 
section 4 aims toward full implementation of caller ID authentication 
and because sections 4(b)(2)(A)(iv) and 4(b)(2)(B)(ii) each state that 
a voice service provider may receive the exemption only if it ``will'' 
be capable of ``fully'' implementing a caller ID authentication 
framework (STIR/SHAKEN or ``an effective call authentication 
framework,'' respectively). This approach is unopposed in the record, 
and T-Mobile correctly notes that without such verification, the 
voluntary exemption could be misused as a loophole by voice service 
providers, thereby diminishing the ultimate effectiveness of STIR/
SHAKEN implementation, the success of which depends on the 
participation of a critical mass of voice service providers. To guard 
against the risk of gaps and abusive claims of the exemption, and as 
proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we therefore 
require voice service providers that receive an exemption to file a 
second certification after June 30, 2021, stating whether they, in 
fact, achieved the implementation goal to which they previously 
committed.
    123. As proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the 
certification must be filed electronically in WC Docket No. 20-68, 
Exemption from Caller ID Authentication Requirements, in ECFS subject 
to the same allowance for confidentiality and requirements for sworn 
signatures and detailed support as the initial certifications. This 
process will not only help the Bureau to verify the accuracy of the 
certification, but will assist it in conducting its review while at the 
same time ensuring that any confidential or proprietary information 
included by filers remains safe from disclosure. We direct the Bureau 
to issue a Public Notice no later than three months after June 30, 
2021, setting a specific deadline for the certifications and providing 
detailed filing requirements. We direct the Bureau to seek public 
comment on these certifications. Following review of the 
certifications, supporting materials, and responsive

[[Page 73384]]

comments, we direct the Bureau to issue a Public Notice, no later than 
four months after the date of filing of the certifications, identifying 
which voice service providers achieved the implementation goal to which 
they previously committed. As suggested in the record, we clarify that 
voice service providers that certified in December of 2020 that they 
have already fully implemented the necessary STIR/SHAKEN requirements, 
and for which the Bureau accepted the certification, need not file a 
second certification. This second filing is required only from those 
voice service providers that have not yet ``fully implemented'' STIR/
SHAKEN by the time of their initial December 2020 certification, but 
have committed to doing so by June 30, 2021.
    124. We disagree with T-Mobile's assertion that there is little 
value is seeking public comment on voice service providers' 
certifications. While T-Mobile is correct that a review of whether a 
voice service provider has conformed to the terms of its exemption 
declarations and implemented STIR/SHAKEN will require a technical 
analysis, we anticipate that the considered comments of market 
participants, technical and trade associations, and industry 
professionals can inform and enrich the Bureau's analysis of any such 
technical issues. Further, allowing comments is critical to maintaining 
a clear and transparent process. Moreover, to the extent that parties 
must submit confidential information, the Bureau will issue protective 
orders governing submission and review akin to those we have employed 
in numerous other contexts. There is thus no risk that any voice 
service provider will be obligated to publicly disclose ``sensitive 
network information'' as part of this certification and comment 
process.
    125. As proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, if a 
voice service provider cannot certify to full implementation upon the 
filing of the second certification but demonstrates to the Bureau that 
(1) it filed its initial certification in good faith--i.e., with a 
reasonable expectation that it would be able to achieve full 
implementation as certified--and (2) made similarly good faith efforts 
to complete implementation, the consequence for such a shortcoming is 
the loss of the exemption and application of the general rule requiring 
full STIR/SHAKEN implementation, effective immediately upon release of 
the Bureau Public Notice identifying which voice service providers 
achieved the implementation goal to which they previously committed. We 
find that an immediate effective date is required to ensure that 
certain voice service providers do not receive an extension not granted 
to similarly situated voice service providers simply because they filed 
a certification they later failed to meet. If the Bureau finds that a 
voice service provider filed its initial certification in bad faith or 
failed to take good faith steps toward implementation, we will not only 
require that voice service provider to fully implement STIR/SHAKEN 
immediately, but will further direct the Bureau to refer the voice 
service provider to the Enforcement Bureau for possible enforcement 
action based on filing a false initial certification.
5. Voice Service Providers Eligible for Exemption
    126. We proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 
interpret the TRACED Act's exemption process to apply only to voice 
service providers and to exclude intermediate providers. We adopt that 
approach here. No commenters addressed this issue in the record. In the 
TRACED Act, Congress directs the Commission to require ``provider[s] of 
voice service'' to implement STIR/SHAKEN in the IP portions of their 
networks. The exemption provisions in section 4(b)(2) of the TRACED Act 
similarly refer to ``provider[s] of voice service.'' Because the 
obligation on intermediate providers to implement the STIR/SHAKEN 
authentication framework is being adopted pursuant to our authority in 
the Truth in Caller ID Act and section 251(e), we do not believe that 
the exemption process, which is mandated under and governed by the 
TRACED Act, needs to apply to such intermediate providers. We do not 
find that there is a compelling policy argument in favor of extending 
the TRACED Act's exemption process to intermediate providers. The 
exemption process as laid out in the TRACED Act will not have long-term 
benefits to providers, since even those that qualify for the exemption 
must be capable of fully implementing either the STIR/SHAKEN 
authentication framework or an effective call authentication framework 
not later than June 30, 2021. Given this, we are disinclined to add 
further administrative and regulatory complication where not required 
by the TRACED Act.

E. Line Item Charges

    127. We adopt our proposal in the First Caller ID Authentication 
Report and Order and FNPRM to prohibit voice service providers from 
imposing additional line item charges on consumer or small business 
subscribers for caller ID authentication. The record reflects support 
for this proposal, and we believe adopting it is a straightforward 
implementation of Congress's direction and authority in the TRACED Act 
to ``prohibit providers of voice service from adding any additional 
line item charges to consumer or small business customer subscribers 
for the effective call authentication technology.''
    128. We are unconvinced by arguments opposed to the rule we adopt 
in this document. MT Networks argues that we should instead 
affirmatively permit voice service providers to list caller ID 
authentication ``as a billable feature on their line.'' Because MT 
Networks fails to explain how such an alternative course of action 
would be consistent with the text of the TRACED Act, we decline to 
adopt such a suggestion. Securus argues that the prohibition on line 
item charges should not apply to inmate calling service providers. We 
similarly decline to adopt such an exemption for these providers, as 
the TRACED Act's prohibition on line item charges extends to all 
``providers of voice service,'' which includes inmate calling service 
providers.
    129. Other commenters argue that we should go even further than the 
TRACED Act and prohibit voice service providers from recouping costs of 
caller ID authentication and other robocall mitigation solutions 
entirely. Some commenters argue that we should also prohibit charges 
for call blocking services. We decline to do so at this time because we 
do not address call blocking-related issues in this Report and Order. 
We decline to take such action because doing so would go beyond the 
directive in the TRACED Act, and because we recognize that 
implementation of caller ID authentication imposes cost on voice 
service providers. Additionally, the record shows that some voice 
service providers may not have enough resources simply to absorb the 
cost of implementing caller ID authentication. By not prohibiting cost 
recovery through alternate means, we promote the investment by all 
voice service providers in caller ID authentication solutions for their 
networks.
    130. As proposed, we interpret ``consumer'' in this context to mean 
residential mass market subscribers, and adopt a rule consistent with 
this interpretation. We interpret ``consumer'' to refer to individual 
subscribers because we believe this interpretation will protect 
individuals from receiving line item charges on their bills. We

[[Page 73385]]

received no opposition in the record to our proposal. We also adopt our 
proposal to interpret ``small business'' to refer to business entities 
that meet the Small Business Administration definition of ``small 
business.'' We adopt this definition of ``small business'' because it 
reflects the judgment of the Small Business Administration, which has 
expertise in this area. We received no opposition in the record for 
this interpretation. We decline to adopt RadNet's proposal that we 
prohibit voice service providers ``from charging healthcare facilities 
and providers, regardless of size, for call authentication 
technology,'' because the TRACED Act establishes the classes of 
entities that Congress intended to protect from additional line item 
charges for caller ID authentication: Consumers and small business 
subscribers. Additionally, healthcare facilities that meet the standard 
for ``small business'' that we establish are covered by our rule, and 
so separate protection for such healthcare facilities would be 
redundant. Healthcare facilities that exceed the definition of ``small 
business'' are in a better position to negotiate billing arrangements 
with voice service providers than small businesses and residential mass 
market subscribers. Thus, providing them with the same protections 
would be unnecessary.
    131. We also adopt our proposal to implement this section of the 
TRACED Act by prohibiting voice service providers from imposing a line 
item charge for the cost of upgrading network elements that are 
necessary to implement caller ID authentication, for any recurring 
costs associated with the authentication and verification of calls, or 
for any display of caller ID authentication information on their 
subscribers' phones. Caller ID authentication solutions work by 
allowing the originating voice service provider to authenticate the 
caller ID information transmitted with a call it originates, and the 
terminating provider to verify that the caller ID information 
transmitted with a call it receives is authentic and act on the 
information provided after verification. The record reflects that voice 
service providers must upgrade their existing network elements to 
enable caller ID authentication, and pay recurring maintenance and 
other operating fees in order to actively authenticate caller ID 
information. And, for caller ID authentication technology to be 
meaningful for subscribers, voice service providers may choose to 
display caller ID authentication information to their end users. We 
find that the prohibition as adopted covers the full scope of costs 
``for'' providing caller ID authentication to consumer and small 
business subscribers.
    132. CenturyLink argues that this is too expansive a reading of the 
TRACED Act's language. Instead, CenturyLink suggests that, to be more 
aligned with the language of the TRACED Act, we only prohibit line 
items for costs ``related to the basic signing of calls and verifying 
of Identity headers.'' We fail to see how costs associated with, for 
example, network upgrades that are necessary to implement caller ID 
authentication are not ``for'' such technology, and CenturyLink does 
not explain why we should read ``for'' in this context so narrowly. We 
also note that we do not prohibit cost recovery for such costs by 
alternative means.

F. Intermediate Providers

    133. To further promote effective, network-wide caller ID 
authentication, we adopt the proposal from our First Caller ID 
Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM to extend our STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation mandate to intermediate providers. The STIR/SHAKEN 
framework enables an end-to-end system for authenticating the identity 
of the caller. For this system to work, the Identity header must travel 
the entire length of the call path--even when a call transits the 
networks of intermediate providers. Thus, intermediate providers play a 
crucial role in this system. In the First Caller ID Authentication 
Report and Order and FNPRM, we proposed imposing obligations on 
intermediate providers for calls they receive with authenticated and 
unauthenticated caller ID information. For calls with authenticated 
caller ID information that an intermediate provider receives and will 
exchange in SIP, we proposed requiring an intermediate provider to pass 
any Identity header associated with that call, unaltered, to the 
subsequent provider in the call path. And for calls an intermediate 
provider receives without authenticated caller ID information that it 
will exchange in SIP, we proposed requiring the intermediate provider 
to authenticate that call with ``gateway'' or ``C''-level attestation 
before passing it to the subsequent intermediate or voice service 
provider in the call path. With modifications, we adopt both of these 
proposals.
1. Authenticated Calls
    134. We adopt our proposal to require intermediate providers to 
pass any Identity header that they receive to the terminating voice 
service provider or subsequent intermediate provider in the call path. 
This means, technically, that the intermediate provider must forward 
the Identity header downstream in the SIP INVITE. By placing this 
requirement on intermediate providers, we ensure that SIP calls can 
benefit from STIR/SHAKEN regardless of what provider transits the call. 
This proposal received wide support, and no opposition, in the record. 
INCOMPAS, which notes that it represents a number of entities that act 
as intermediate providers, agrees that ``[t]he success of STIR/SHAKEN 
ultimately depends on the broad participation of voice service 
providers, including, wherever technically feasible, intermediate 
providers.'' AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon also all confirm the importance 
of adopting this rule. AT&T notes that ``requiring intermediate 
providers to pass through Identity header information is necessary to 
ensure that calls retain authentication information across the entire 
call path.'' Comcast writes that ``[a]chieving truly nationwide call 
authentication requires the participation of all providers involved in 
transmitting voice calls, including intermediate providers.'' And 
Verizon emphasizes that regulatory action is necessary to ensure 
intermediate provider involvement in the system. We agree with these 
assertions.
    135. Additionally, we further adopt our proposal to require 
intermediate providers to pass the Identity header unaltered. We find 
that this requirement is necessary to prevent a downstream provider 
from tampering with the Identity header and thus undermining the end-
to-end chain of trust between the originating and terminating voice 
service providers. Commenters support this approach, with NCTA stating 
that it is necessary to ``maintain the integrity of the authentication 
information and reduce the potential for inadvertent error or 
intentional manipulation,'' and Hiya noting that ``having access to 
untampered identity headers will significantly aid analytics and, as a 
result, the detection of illegal robocalls.'' This requirement ensures 
that all SIP calls benefit from STIR/SHAKEN, increasing the 
effectiveness of STIR/SHAKEN in combating illegally spoofed robocalls 
and fraudulent robocall schemes. And although entities acting as 
intermediate providers will face implementation costs in order to 
forward unaltered Identity headers, they will not face the recurring 
costs necessary to authenticate and verify caller ID information. 
Moreover, we expect these one-time implementation costs to be far less 
than the benefits of

[[Page 73386]]

this intermediate provider requirement because the inclusion of 
intermediate providers is important to achieving the benefits discussed 
in the First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order. Requiring 
intermediate providers to pass the Identity headers that they receive 
to the subsequent intermediate provider in the call path or the 
terminating voice service provider is crucial to ensuring end-to-end 
caller ID authentication and unlocking these benefits for consumers and 
providers alike.
    136. The record convinces us, however, to modify our proposal to 
allow an intermediate provider to strip the Identity header in two 
narrow circumstances: (1) For technical reasons where necessary to 
complete the call, and (2) for security reasons where an intermediate 
provider reasonably believes the Identity header presents a threat to 
its network security. Several commenters explain that these are 
legitimate reasons why an intermediate provider might need to strip the 
Identity header.
    137. In identifying the limited technical reasons an intermediate 
provider may need to strip the Identity header, the industry standards 
group ATIS explains that it may be necessary to strip an Identity 
header for call completion in cases such as Government Emergency 
Telecommunications Service (GETS) call processing; INCOMPAS identifies 
instances where the Identity header may be too large to successfully 
transit the network; and we recognize it may be necessary to strip the 
Identity header before exchanging a call with a non-IP provider or at a 
non-IP interconnection point. We emphasize that the technical necessity 
exception is narrow and limited to circumstances that are necessary to 
complete the call. The technical necessity exception does not extend to 
failures or inadequacies in an intermediate provider's network. As the 
technology supporting STIR/SHAKEN advances and improves, it may be 
possible to transmit headers in circumstances where it previously was 
not. As such, we will continue to monitor the use of this exception and 
adjust its outer limits as needed. Commission staff will not hesitate 
to refer reports of intermediate providers abuse of this exception to 
the Enforcement Bureau.
    138. Regarding the security exception, Verizon advocates that we 
allow intermediate providers to act should Identity headers become ``an 
attack vector used by bad actors.'' We agree and so do not prohibit an 
intermediate provider from stripping the Identity header when it 
reasonably believes the header presents an imminent threat to its 
network security. We do not, however, permit an intermediate provider 
to strip the header if it believes the Identity header has been 
tampered with or is fraudulent short of presenting an imminent security 
threat. This narrow exception does not empower the intermediate 
provider to make determinations on behalf of other providers in the 
call path or to interfere with the verification process defined in the 
SHAKEN standards. Instead, our goal is to permit an intermediate 
provider to act in the face of an imminent security threat to its 
network. We emphasize that intermediate providers must employ this 
exception sparingly, and the exception will not apply where an 
intermediate provider strips Identity headers routinely instead of 
maintaining reasonable network security. Furthermore, since no 
commenter identified a circumstance where an intermediate provider 
would need to alter the Identity header, we specify that intermediate 
providers may not alter Identity headers under any circumstance.
    139. Relatedly, we prohibit an originating voice service provider 
from sending excessively large headers with the goal of evading STIR/
SHAKEN compliance by forcing an intermediate provider to strip the 
header before exchanging the call with a subsequent downstream 
provider. We would consider such conduct a violation of our rule 
requiring an originating voice service provider to authenticate caller 
ID information for calls it originates and exchanges with another voice 
service provider or intermediate provider.
    140. ACA Connects proposes that we prohibit intermediate providers 
from passing a call they have received in SIP to a downstream provider 
in TDM when there is a downstream IP option available. We decline to 
adopt this proposal because, at this early stage, we do not wish to 
interfere with call routing decisions for the sake of promoting STIR/
SHAKEN. Providers must consider a variety of factors when routing 
calls, including cost and reliability, and we do not believe at this 
stage that preserving STIR/SHAKEN headers should swamp all other 
considerations. For the same reason, we decline to adopt USTelecom's 
suggestion to require gateway providers to pass international traffic 
only to downstream providers that have implemented STIR/SHAKEN. 
Finally, while we do not require intermediate providers to append 
duplicative Identity headers to calls that they transit, we decline to 
prohibit this practice at this stage of STIR/SHAKEN deployment across 
the voice network. AT&T contends that, if intermediate providers append 
duplicative Identity headers, it would add additional complexity and 
consume bandwidth for other providers. However, this issue received 
little attention in the record and, at this time, we have no reason to 
think it is a practice industry will adopt widely. We decline to be 
overly prescriptive at this early stage of deployment, and we will 
monitor this issue for any problems that develop.
2. Unauthenticated Calls
    141. We also adopt a modified version of the proposed 
authentication requirement on intermediate providers for 
unauthenticated calls. Specifically, we require that an intermediate 
provider authenticate the caller ID information of a call that it 
receives with unauthenticated caller ID information that it will 
exchange with another intermediate provider or terminating voice 
service provider as a SIP call. However, a provider is relieved of this 
obligation if it (i) cooperatively participates with the industry 
traceback consortium and (ii) responds to all traceback requests it 
receives from the Commission, law enforcement, or the industry 
traceback consortium regarding calls for which it acts as an 
intermediate provider. Our final requirement differs from our proposed 
requirement in two ways. First, we do not require an intermediate 
provider to authenticate with a C-level or gateway attestation. 
Instead, if a provider chooses to authenticate the caller ID 
information of an unauthenticated call that it receives, we require 
only that a provider authenticate the caller ID information consistent 
with industry standards. And second, our modified requirement allows 
participation with the industry traceback consortium as an alternative 
option for compliance.
    142. In the First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and 
FNPRM, we proposed requiring intermediate providers to authenticate 
caller ID information for unauthenticated traffic that they receive 
with a C-level attestation, and tentatively concluded this requirement 
would improve traceback efforts and analytics. Some commenters--
including major voice service providers that have reported substantial 
progress in STIR/SHAKEN implementation--endorse our reasoning that such 
a rule is in compliance with the industry standards, would enhance 
traceback capabilities, and would benefit call analytics. Neustar 
argues that intermediate providers should authenticate caller ID

[[Page 73387]]

information for calls that they transmit that lack such information 
because ``it allows the terminating voice service provider to more 
easily traceback otherwise unauthenticated calls, and provides 
additional information that can be used to facilitate innovation in the 
robocall analytics space.'' And T-Mobile explains that intermediate 
provider authentication would be useful to terminating voice service 
providers because ``[h]aving some information regarding this large 
subset of calls to enable traceback and strengthen analytics is 
preferable to having no information on which to make blocking and 
labeling decisions.'' T-Mobile further explains that even ``C-attested 
calls all contain an origination ID (`origid')'' which is ``a globally 
unique identifier that represents the originating point of the call, 
such as the telephone switch where the call started, or a trunk group, 
which can be useful in tracing back the origin of a call.'' And T-
Mobile notes that ``[w]hile USTelecom's Industry Traceback Group 
(`ITG') can do its work without relying on origid, this does not 
obviate the need for origid, which would further advance ITG's goals.''
    143. We modify our proposal to require attestation consistent with 
industry standards rather than specifically requiring C-level 
attestation because this approach better aligns with our goal of 
promoting implementation of the industry-defined caller ID 
authentication standards rather than interfering with their technical 
application. This modification brings our intermediate provider rules 
in line with the STIR/SHAKEN obligations we imposed on originating and 
terminating voice service providers. In the First Caller ID 
Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM, we explained that for 
compliance with our rules it would be sufficient to adhere to the three 
standards that comprise the foundation of the STIR/SHAKEN framework--
ATIS-1000074, ATIS-1000080, and ATIS-1000084--and all documents 
referenced therein. Recognizing that industry standards are not static, 
we framed the most recent versions of these standards as the baseline 
requirements for compliance. We follow that approach here and establish 
that compliance with the most current version of these three standards 
as of September 30, 2020, including any errata as of that date or 
earlier, represents the minimum requirement for intermediate providers 
to satisfy our rules. We encourage innovation and improvement to the 
STIR/SHAKEN framework, so long as any changes or additions do not 
compromise the baseline call authentication functionality envisioned by 
ATIS-1000074, ATIS-1000080, and ATIS-1000084. An example of such an 
innovation is the recent technical report ATIS and the SIP Forum 
released providing guidelines for originating providers on the 
population of the SHAKEN attestation indicator and origination 
identifier.
    144. Beyond harmonizing our requirements on intermediate providers 
and originating and terminating voice service providers, this 
modification responds to record interest in allowing, where possible, 
intermediate providers to authenticate caller ID information with a 
higher level of attestation than a C-level attestation. It is not our 
intent to preclude or interfere with efforts to accommodate this 
interest; only to ensure the caller ID information for such calls be 
authenticated. To that end, we agree with commenters that argue we 
should not require intermediate providers to authenticate calls with a 
specific level of attestation, and require instead that intermediate 
providers authenticate the caller ID information for unauthenticated 
calls consistent with industry standards as described above. This 
clarification allows for and encourages industry progress, and we look 
forward to seeing progress on the numerous proposals in the record to 
allow for more robust authentication of such calls. We decline to 
require any specific solution, as some commenters suggest, or to impose 
a specific timeline. We encourage interested parties to continue this 
work promptly, but the record does not include enough information on 
which to base a deadline, and industry standards bodies are better-
suited to modify the standards they have created.
    145. Although we establish this requirement, in response to 
arguments that our proposal was unduly burdensome in some cases, we 
allow for an intermediate provider to register and participate with the 
industry traceback consortium as an alternative means of complying with 
our rules. Several commenters claim that a requirement for intermediate 
providers to authenticate the caller ID information of all 
unauthenticated calls that they receive would cause bandwidth problems 
within provider networks. Several commenters also express concern that 
an attestation requirement would undermine the efficacy of STIR/SHAKEN 
by ``pollut[ing] the ecosystem'' with ``billions of useless 
attestations,'' causing customer harm and confusion. Further, some 
commenters contend that such a requirement would not lead to the 
benefits that we proposed would accrue. Other commenters in the record 
push back on these concerns, and because of the potential value of more 
ubiquitous authentication, we do not find that these concerns justify 
the elimination of this requirement entirely. We find that attestation 
of previously unauthenticated calls will provide significant benefits 
in facilitating analytics, blocking, and traceback by offering all 
parties in the call ecosystem more information, and we thus allow 
attestation of unauthenticated calls as one method for compliance. This 
conclusion is consistent with our analysis in the First Caller ID 
Authentication Report and Order, where we found that the benefits of 
requiring providers to authenticate calls will substantially outweigh 
the costs.
    146. While we make this conclusion, we acknowledge record concerns 
about the cost of requiring intermediate provider authentication and 
thus offer an alternative method of compliance that we anticipate will 
be less burdensome and will nonetheless facilitate traceback of calls. 
Specifically, establish that an entity acting as an intermediate 
provider is relieved of the requirement to authenticate the caller ID 
information of unauthenticated calls it receives if it (i) 
cooperatively participates with the industry traceback consortium, and 
(ii) responds to all traceback requests it receives from the 
Commission, law enforcement, or the industry traceback consortium for 
calls for which it acts as an intermediate provider. We again 
underscore that this requirement does not supersede any existing legal 
processes, and we encourage law enforcement to make traceback requests 
through the industry traceback consortium.
    147. Providing this option addresses intermediate provider concerns 
over the burden that an authentication requirement would place on their 
networks. It further allows for continued evaluation of the role 
intermediate providers play in authenticating the caller ID information 
of the unauthenticated calls that they receive amid the continued 
deployment of the STIR/SHAKEN framework. By ensuring that all calls 
which transit the voice network either receive some form of attestation 
or are carried by an intermediate provider that is registered with the 
industry traceback consortium, terminating voice service providers will 
have more data about a call that can be used to support traceback 
efforts and call analytics, and prevent future illegal robocalls--
further increasing the net benefits offered by STIR/SHAKEN. 
Additionally, providing this option for

[[Page 73388]]

intermediate providers aligns with the robocall mitigation requirements 
we adopt in this document. By requiring intermediate providers and many 
originating voice service providers to engage in practices that promote 
traceback, we will ensure broad participation through the entire call 
path to determine the source of illegal robocalls. Although the 
obligation to either authenticate or participate in the industry 
traceback consortium with respect to unauthenticated calls will place 
costs on intermediate providers, we have no reason to believe that our 
additional mandate will fundamentally disturb our cost-benefit calculus 
for STIR/SHAKEN implementation. AT&T argues that ``[t]he initial 
estimates of the major providers' costs to implement STIR/SHAKEN 
grossly underestimate reality,'' and that STIR/SHAKEN implementation 
costs ``easily will exceed hundreds of millions of dollars.'' We are 
not convinced by this assertion as AT&T does not provide concrete 
evidence to support such claims, nor any explanation as to why initial 
estimates were inaccurate.
    148. We find it unnecessary to adopt CTIA's suggestion to require 
intermediate providers serving as international gateways to register 
with the Commission. Under the rules we adopt, such providers are 
required either to authenticate the caller ID information of the 
foreign-originated calls that they receive and will transit on their 
networks or to register with the industry traceback consortium and 
participate in traceback efforts. Both options we adopt address call 
tracing more directly than a mere registration requirement, and we are 
reluctant to create multiple overlapping registration requirements for 
providers that choose the latter option. We can revisit CTIA's 
suggestion should the measures we adopt prove insufficient.
3. Limiting Intermediate Provider Requirements to IP Networks
    149. In the First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and 
FNPRM, we proposed limiting our caller ID authentication obligations on 
intermediate providers to IP calls. We adopt our proposal with 
modifications. First, we adopt this proposal for calls with 
authenticated caller ID information that an intermediate provider 
receives. In so doing, we limit the requirement that intermediate 
providers pass any received Identity header unaltered to IP calls, that 
is, calls that the intermediate provider receives in SIP and exchanges 
with a terminating provider or another intermediate provider in SIP. 
Commenters support limiting our rule to IP calls, and doing so 
harmonizes our rules for intermediate providers with our rules applying 
to originating and terminating voice service providers.
    150. Second, we modify this proposal for calls with unauthenticated 
caller ID information that an intermediate provider receives. To the 
extent that an intermediate provider chooses to comply with the rules 
we adopt in this document by authenticating the caller ID information 
of the unauthenticated calls that it receives, as Comcast suggests, we 
clarify that this requirement applies to all unauthenticated calls an 
intermediate provider receives that it will exchange with a subsequent 
provider in SIP, regardless of whether the intermediate provider 
receives the call in SIP. In other words, if the intermediate provider 
chooses to authenticate the caller ID information of unauthenticated 
calls, the obligation applies if the intermediate provider transmits 
the call downstream in SIP. We make this modification in recognition of 
the fact that calls without authenticated caller ID information may 
have originated on non-IP networks or have been exchanged at non-IP 
interconnection points and thus do not have an existing Identity 
header. In those instances, the obligation to authenticate the caller 
ID information according to industry standards applies whether or not 
the call was received by the intermediate provider in SIP.
    151. We decline to adopt Comcast's proposal that intermediate 
providers exchanging traffic in TDM install TDM-to-VoIP gateways. At 
this time, we believe that such a requirement would be unduly 
burdensome. Furthermore, it would go beyond both Congress's and our 
approach to addressing the issues around non-IP technology and caller 
ID authentication, which aim to strike a balance between encouraging 
the IP transition and the development of non-IP solutions for the 
benefit of those networks that cannot be speedily or easily 
transitioned. We will continue to monitor the development of technical 
solutions to the issue of TDM exchange and are prepared to return to 
this proposal if circumstances warrant.
4. Definition of Intermediate Provider
    152. We adopt our proposal from the First Caller ID Authentication 
Report and Order and FNPRM to use the definition of ``intermediate 
provider'' found in Sec.  64.1600(i) of our rules. This section 
provides that an ``intermediate provider'' is ``any entity that carries 
or processes traffic that traverses or will traverse the [PSTN] at any 
point insofar as that entity neither originates nor terminates that 
traffic.'' We further determine that as with our interpretation of 
``providers of voice service,'' we assess the definition of 
``intermediate provider'' on a call-by-call basis for the purpose of 
our call authentication rules. A single entity therefore may act as a 
voice service provider for some calls on its network and an 
intermediate provider for others. Intermediate providers play a 
critical role in ensuring end-to-end call authentication. We believe 
that this broad definition will best promote the widespread deployment 
of the STIR/SHAKEN framework that is necessary to benefit consumers.
    153. We sought comment in the First Caller ID Authentication Report 
and Order and FNPRM on whether we should use a narrower definition of 
intermediate provider, such as the one we use in the context of rural 
call completion. One commenter advocates for a narrower definition that 
would ``not include in its scope an ISP that is only incidentally 
transmitting voice traffic,'' because this ``could place a substantial 
burden on small, rural ISPs transmitting Non-Interconnected VoIP or 
Interconnected VoIP via a third-party service provider they have no 
relationship with.'' As we explained in the First Caller ID 
Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM, the STIR/SHAKEN framework 
relies on the transmission of information in the Identity header of a 
SIP INVITE. We understand that there are circumstances where a call set 
up using SIP signaling will then use other paths to exchange the media 
packets containing voice data. Because we have limited our rules to the 
exchanging of SIP calls, to the extent that an ISP is only transmitting 
voice traffic of a call that does not involve the exchange of a SIP 
INVITE, we believe it is already excluded from our rules.
5. Legal Authority
    154. We find that we have the authority to place caller ID 
authentication obligations on intermediate providers and alternatively 
to require that they register and participate with the industry 
traceback consortium under section 251(e) of the Act. In the First 
Caller ID Authentication Report and Order, we concluded that our 
exclusive jurisdiction over numbering policy provides authority to 
require voice service providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN in order to 
prevent the fraudulent abuse of NANP resources. In the FNPRM, we 
proposed that this same analysis provides the Commission authority to 
impose STIR/SHAKEN implementation requirements on

[[Page 73389]]

intermediate providers. Several commenters support this view. Calls 
that transit the networks of intermediate providers with illegally 
spoofed caller ID are exploiting numbering resources in the same manner 
as spoofed calls on the networks of originating and terminating 
providers, and so we find authority under section 251(e). Consistent 
with the First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM, we 
adopt our proposal concluding that the section 251(e)(2) requirements 
do not apply in the context of our establishing STIR/SHAKEN 
requirements. Because STIR/SHAKEN implementation is not a ``numbering 
administration arrangement,'' section 251(e)(2), which provides that 
``[t]he cost of establishing telecommunications numbering 
administration arrangements . . . shall be borne by all 
telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis,'' does 
not apply here. Even if section 251(e)(2) does apply, we conclude that 
because each carrier is responsible for bearing its own implementation 
costs, the requirement is satisfied. Each carrier's costs will be 
proportional to the size and quality of its network.
    155. We find additional, independent authority under the Truth in 
Caller ID Act. The Truth in Caller ID Act charged the Commission with 
prescribing rules to make unlawful the spoofing of caller ID 
information ``in connection with any voice service or text messaging 
service . . . with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully 
obtain anything of value.'' We agree with T-Mobile that this provides 
us with authority to mandate that intermediate providers adopt ``a 
framework that will minimize the frequency with which illegally spoofed 
scam calls will reach consumers.'' We found authority in the First 
Caller ID Authentication Report and Order for our STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation mandate on originating and terminating voice service 
providers under the Truth in Caller ID Act. We explained that ``the 
rules we adopt today are necessary to enable voice service providers to 
help prevent these unlawful acts and to protect voice service 
subscribers from scammers and bad actors.'' That same analysis applies 
to intermediate providers that, as noted, play an integral role in the 
success of STIR/SHAKEN across the voice network.
    156. Verizon, the only commenter to challenge our legal authority, 
argues that we lack authority under either section 251(e) or the Truth 
in Caller ID Act to require an intermediate provider to authenticate 
with a C-level attestation the caller ID information for 
unauthenticated calls it receives. It asserts that `` `C' attestations 
do not attest to the accuracy of numbers and indeed have nothing to do 
with numbering resources,'' and consequently that section 251(e) does 
not provide us with authority; it further argues that `` `C' 
attestations have nothing to do with the spoofing problem'' and so 
could not be required under the Truth in Caller ID Act. Verizon also 
argues that we may not ``go beyond the scope of the legal authority 
granted by the TRACED Act,'' but overlooks language in that very Act 
providing that ``[n]othing in this section shall preclude the 
Commission from initiating a rulemaking pursuant to its existing 
statutory authority.'' As an initial matter, Verizon's objections are 
less pressing because of the modifications we made to our final rule--
requiring only authentication consistent with industry standards or 
registration and participation with the industry traceback consortium. 
Furthermore, we do not agree that C-level attestations ``have nothing 
to do with'' numbering resources or spoofing. The STIR/SHAKEN standards 
expressly include the option of C-level attestation, and we think it 
apparent that this component of ``a technology specifically designed to 
counteract misuse of numbering resources'' through spoofing relates 
both to our authority under section 251(e) and the Truth in Caller ID 
Act. When bad actors unlawfully falsify or spoof the caller ID that 
appears on a subscriber's phone, they are using numbering resources to 
advance an illegal scheme. Mandating that intermediate providers 
authenticate unauthenticated calls or participate in traceback efforts 
will help to prevent and remediate the fraudulent exploitation of NANP 
resources and illegal spoofing of caller ID information.

G. Other Issues

    157. No Additional Exceptions from Originating Voice Service 
Provider Caller ID Authentication Mandate. We reject the record 
requests to grant limited exceptions from our caller ID authentication 
rules. We construe these requests, which do not respond to any part of 
the FNPRM, as petitions for reconsideration of the rules adopted in the 
First Caller ID Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM. Verizon 
argues that we should free a voice service provider from our caller ID 
authentication rules in certain circumstances where, in its view, it 
would be ``inadvisable or inappropriate for the originating carrier to 
place a signature on a call.'' Verizon, USTelecom, and CTIA argue that 
these circumstances include ``periods of substantial network 
congestion,'' such as national emergencies or natural disasters, or 
during periods of network maintenance. Verizon further argues that a 
voice service provider should not be required to authenticate caller ID 
information in certain complicated calling cases. We decline to grant 
these categorical exceptions from our mandate. Our goal is ubiquitous 
deployment of caller ID authentication technology, and no commenter 
explains with specificity why its concerns outweigh that goal. To the 
contrary, national emergencies and natural disasters are among the 
times when caller ID authentication is most important. In those 
instances, affected individuals must be able to rely on the caller ID 
information they receive and avoid bad actors taking advantage of an 
ongoing emergency or its aftermath. And while we do not grant an 
exception for complicated calling cases, we underscore that, to the 
extent a certain calling case is not accounted for by industry 
standards, application of caller ID authentication is not called for by 
our rules. We explained in the First Caller ID Authentication Report 
and Order that ``[c]ompliance with the most current versions of . . . 
three standards as of March 31, 2020, including any errata as of that 
date or earlier, represents the minimum requirement to satisfy our 
rules.'' USTelecom and CTIA argue that, because we provide intermediate 
providers limited exceptions to our requirement that they transit 
Identity headers unaltered, we must also provide an exception for 
originating voice service providers from our call authentication 
mandate. But these commenters fail to explain why adopting narrowly 
tailored exceptions for intermediate providers justifies adopting the 
far broader exception that they seek. Beyond generalized concerns over 
network congestion and maintenance, no commenter provides a specific 
technical rationale for when originating voice service providers should 
receive an exception from our caller ID authentication requirements.
    158. Non-Substantive Rule Revision. We revise Sec.  64.6301(a)(2) 
of our rules to make two non-substantive changes. First, the adopted 
rule inadvertently omitted the word ``it.'' Second, the adopted rule 
referred to ``caller ID authentication information,'' inconsistent with 
other terms in the rules. The rule as revised provides that a voice 
service provider shall ``authenticate caller identification information 
for all SIP calls it originates

[[Page 73390]]

and that it will exchange with another voice service provider or 
intermediate provider and, to the extent technically feasible, transmit 
that call with authenticated caller identification information to the 
next voice service provider or intermediate provider in the call 
path.'' We make these revisions without seeking notice and comment 
pursuant to section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 
which states that an agency for good cause may dispense with rulemaking 
if it finds that notice and comment are ``impracticable, unnecessary, 
or contrary to the public interest.'' Here, notice and comment are 
unnecessary because correcting the rule does not have a detrimental 
effect on the parties regulated by rule and does not alter the 
regulatory framework established by the First Caller ID Authentication 
Report and Order.

IV. Procedural Matters

    159. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the First Caller ID 
Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM. The Commission sought 
written public comment on the possible significant economic impact on 
small entities regarding the proposals addressed in the First Caller ID 
Authentication Report and Order and FNPRM, including comments on the 
IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This present Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. The 
Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, will send a copy of this Second Report and Order, 
including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA).

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules

    160. In this Second Report and Order (Order), we continue the 
Commission's efforts to combat illegal spoofed robocalls. Specifically, 
the Order implements the provisions of section 4 of the Pallone-Thune 
Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) 
Act as follows: requiring providers to take ``reasonable measures'' to 
implement an effective caller ID authentication framework in their non-
IP networks by either completely upgrading non-IP networks to IP or by 
actively working to develop a non-IP authentication solution; granting 
extensions of varying lengths from implementation of caller ID 
authentication for (1) small, including small rural, voice service 
providers; (2) voice service providers that cannot obtain a certificate 
due to the Governance Authority's token access policy until such 
provider is able to obtain a certificate; (3) services scheduled for 
section 214 discontinuance; and (4) as required by the TRACED Act, an 
extension for the parts of a voice service provider's network that rely 
on technology that cannot initiate, maintain, and terminate SIP calls 
until a solution for such calls is reasonably available; granting an 
exemption from our implementation mandate for providers which have 
certified that they have reached certain implementation goals; and 
prohibiting providers from imposing additional line item charges on 
consumer and small business subscribers for caller ID authentication 
technology. The Order also adopts rules requiring intermediate 
providers to (1) pass any Identity header that they receive to the 
terminating voice service provider or subsequent intermediate provider 
in the call path; and (2) either (i) authenticate the caller ID 
information of a call that it receives with unauthenticated caller ID 
information that it will exchange with another intermediate provider or 
terminating voice service provider as a SIP call, or (ii) cooperatively 
participate with the Commission-selected consortium to conduct 
traceback efforts. These rules will help promote effective caller ID 
authentication and fulfill our obligations under the TRACED Act.

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

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

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA

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

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

    164. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the final rules adopted pursuant to the Order. The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. A ``small-business concern'' is one which: (1) Is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
SBA.
1. Wireline Carriers
    165. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 
defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in 
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use 
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming 
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, 
establishments providing satellite television distribution services 
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in 
this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard 
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such 
companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 
2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this 
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this 
size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.
    166. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically 
applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS 
Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under the 
applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 
or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there 
were 3,117 firms that operated for the entire year. Of that total, 
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus under this 
category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates 
that the majority of local exchange carriers are small entities.

[[Page 73391]]

    167. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (incumbent LECs). Neither 
the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest 
applicable NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 
Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate 
that 3,117 firms operated the entire year. Of this total, 3,083 
operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are 
small businesses that may be affected by our actions. According to 
Commission data, one thousand three hundred and seven (1,307) Incumbent 
Local Exchange Carriers reported that they were incumbent local 
exchange service providers. Of this total, an estimated 1,006 have 
1,500 or fewer employees. Thus, using the SBA's size standard the 
majority of incumbent LECs can be considered small entities.
    168. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), 
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these 
service providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers and under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that 
year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. 
Based on these data, the Commission concludes that the majority of 
Competitive LECS, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other 
Local Service Providers, are small entities. According to Commission 
data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision 
of either competitive local exchange services or competitive access 
provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 
1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that 
they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to 
have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 carriers have reported that 
they are Other Local Service Providers. Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or 
fewer employees. Consequently, based on internally researched FCC data, 
the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local 
exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service 
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities.
    169. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA 
analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one 
that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small-business size standard 
(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer 
employees) and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's 
Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent 
LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such 
dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore included 
small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that 
this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations 
in other, non-RFA contexts.
    170. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
Interexchange Carriers. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The applicable size standard under 
SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms 
operated for the entire year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer 
than 1,000 employees. According to internally developed Commission 
data, 359 companies reported that their primary telecommunications 
service activity was the provision of interexchange services. Of this 
total, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, 
the Commission estimates that the majority of interexchange service 
providers are small entities.
    171. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard 
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that, 
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 
one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not 
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in 
the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' As of 2019, there were 
approximately 48,646,056 basic cable video subscribers in the United 
States. Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 486,460 subscribers 
shall be deemed a small operator if its annual revenues, when combined 
with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed 
$250 million in the aggregate. Based on available data, we find that 
all but five cable operators are small entities under this size 
standard. We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects 
information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with 
entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore, we 
are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number 
of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators 
under the definition in the Communications Act.
2. Wireless Carriers
    172. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms employed fewer 
than 1,000 employees and 12 firms employed of 1,000 employees or more. 
Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers (except Satellite) are small entities.
    173. The Commission's own data--available in its Universal 
Licensing System--indicate that, as of August 31, 2018 there are 265 
Cellular licensees that will be affected by our actions. The Commission 
does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission 
does not collect that information for these types of entities. 
Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413 
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service 
(PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of this 
total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have 
more than 1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, we estimate that 
the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
    174. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms 
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other 
establishments in the

[[Page 73392]]

telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and 
receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or 
reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite telecommunications 
service providers include satellite and earth station operators. The 
category has a small business size standard of $35 million or less in 
average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 333 firms 
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual 
receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, we estimate that the 
majority of satellite telecommunications providers are small entities.
3. Resellers
    175. Local Resellers. The SBA has not developed a small business 
size standard specifically for Local Resellers. The SBA category of 
Telecommunications Resellers is the closest NAICs code category for 
local resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises 
establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from 
owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired 
and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to 
businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell 
telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and 
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included 
in this industry. Under the SBA's size standard, such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data from 
2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. 
Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
the majority of these resellers can be considered small entities. 
According to Commission data, 213 carriers have reported that they are 
engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these, an 
estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of local resellers are small entities.
    176. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition 
for Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS Code Category is 
Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry 
comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network 
capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and 
reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except 
satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. MVNOs are included in this industry. The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of 
Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 2012 U.S. Census Bureau 
data show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. 
Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
the majority of these resellers can be considered small entities. 
According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported that they are 
engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of this total, an 
estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small 
entities.
    177. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business definition specifically for prepaid 
calling card providers. The most appropriate NAICS code-based category 
for defining prepaid calling card providers is Telecommunications 
Resellers. This industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing 
access and network capacity from owners and operators of 
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless 
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and 
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; 
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile 
virtual networks operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. Under 
the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 
1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 
1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this 
category and the associated small business size standard, the majority 
of these prepaid calling card providers can be considered small 
entities. According to the Commission's Form 499 Filer Database, 86 
active companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of 
prepaid calling cards. The Commission does not have data regarding how 
many of these companies have 1,500 or fewer employees, however, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of the 86 active prepaid calling 
card providers that may be affected by these rules are likely small 
entities.
4. Other Entities
    178. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' category is comprised of establishments primarily 
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as 
satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station 
operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged 
in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities 
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of 
transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications 
from, satellite systems. Establishments providing internet services or 
voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied 
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for ``All Other 
Telecommunications'', which consists of all such firms with annual 
receipts of $35 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau 
data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the 
entire year. Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual receipts less 
than $25 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to 
$49, 999,999. Thus, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All 
Other Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected by our action can 
be considered small.

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

    179. The Order adopts rules that obligate voice service providers 
that use non-IP network technology to be able to provide the 
Commission, upon request, with documented proof that the provider is 
participating, either on its own or through a representative, as a 
member of a working group, industry standards group, or consortium that 
is working to develop a non-IP solution, or actively testing such a 
solution. Under this rule, a voice service provider satisfies its 
obligations if it participates through a third-party representative, 
such as a trade association of which it is a member or vendor.
    180. Section 4(b)(5)(C)(i) of the TRACED Act directs the Commission 
to require any voice service provider that has been granted an 
extension in compliance with the caller ID

[[Page 73393]]

authentication implementation mandates to implement, during the time of 
the extension, ``an appropriate robocall mitigation program to prevent 
unlawful robocalls from originating on the network of the provider.'' 
The Order requires voice service providers to file certifications 
documenting and describing their robocall mitigation programs. 
Specifically, the Order requires all voice service providers--not only 
those granted an extension--to certify on or before June 30, 2021, that 
their traffic is either signed with STIR/SHAKEN or subject to a 
robocall mitigation program that includes taking reasonable steps to 
avoid originating illegal robocall traffic, and committing to 
cooperating with law enforcement and the industry traceback consortium 
in investigating and stopping any illegal robocallers that it learns 
are using its service to originate calls. For those voice service 
providers that certify that some or all of their traffic is subject to 
a robocall mitigation program, the Order requires such voice service 
providers to detail in their certifications the specific ``reasonable 
steps'' that they have taken to avoid originating illegal robocall 
traffic. While only voice service providers with an extension will be 
obligated to implement a robocall mitigation program, the Order imposes 
the certification requirement on all voice service providers because 
doing so will help the Commission and others to hold all voice service 
providers accountable for the voice traffic they originate, and give 
the Commission and others a snapshot of the progress of STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation and the variety of robocall mitigation practices adopted 
by voice service providers.
    181. Voice service providers must file robocall mitigation 
certifications via a portal on the Commission's website that we will 
establish for this purpose. The Order also requires voice service 
providers filing certifications to provide the following identification 
information in the portal on the Commission's website:
    (1) The voice service provider's business name(s) and primary 
address;
    (2) other business names in use by the voice service provider;
    (3) all business names previously used by the voice service 
provider;
    (4) whether a voice service provider is a foreign voice service 
provider; and
    (5) the name, title, department, business address, telephone 
number, and email address of a central point of contact within the 
company responsible for addressing robocall-mitigation-related issues.
    182. The Order also requires voice service providers to submit to 
the Commission any necessary updates regarding any of the information 
they filed in the certification process within 10 business days. The 
Order extends this certification requirement to foreign voice service 
providers that use U.S. North American Numbering Plan numbers that 
pertain to the United States to send voice traffic to residential and 
business subscribers in the United States and wish to be listed in the 
database.
    183. The Order also adopts rules in accordance with our proposal to 
require that, in order to receive a voluntary exemption from our 
implementation mandate, a voice service provider must file a 
certification reflecting that it is in a reasonably foreseeable 
position to meet certain implementation goals, and that, in order to 
maintain that exemption, a provider must make a later filing reflecting 
its achievement of those goals it stated it was in a reasonably 
foreseeable position to meet. The requirement of such certifications 
entails new reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements 
for voice service providers. Specifically, we require that each voice 
service provider that wishes to qualify for the voluntary exemption 
from our implementation mandate must have an officer of the voice 
service provider sign a compliance certificate stating, under penalty 
of perjury, that the officer has personal knowledge that the company 
meets each of the stated criteria. We also require the voice service 
provider to submit an accompanying statement explaining, in detail, how 
the company meets each of the prongs of each applicable exemption so 
that the Commission can verify the accuracy of the certification. We 
also require that these certifications be filed no later than December 
1, 2020, and that all certifications and supporting statements be filed 
electronically in WC Docket No. 20-68, Exemption from Caller ID 
Authentication Requirements, in the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS). Voice service providers that receive an exemption 
are further required to file a second certification by a deadline 
specified in a Public Notice issued by the Wireline Competition Bureau 
no later than three months after June 30, 2021, stating whether they, 
in fact, achieved the implementation goal to which they previously 
committed. The certification must be filed electronically in WC Docket 
No. 20-68, Exemption from Caller ID Authentication Requirements, in 
ECFS subject to the same allowance for confidentiality and requirements 
for sworn signatures and detailed support as the initial 
certifications. Voice service providers that certified in December of 
2020 that they have already fully implemented the necessary STIR/SHAKEN 
requirements, and for which the Bureau accepted the certification, need 
not file a second certification. This second filing is required only 
from those voice service providers that have not yet ``fully 
implemented'' STIR/SHAKEN by the time of their initial December 2020 
certification, but have committed to doing so by June 30, 2021.

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

    184. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its 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 rule 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.''
    185. The rules we adopt in this Order permit providers to satisfy 
the requirement under section 4(b)(1)(B) of the TRACED Act to take 
``reasonable measures'' to implement an effective caller ID 
authentication framework in the non-IP portions of their networks, by 
participating as a member of a working group, industry standards group, 
or consortium that is working to develop a non-IP solution, or actively 
testing such a solution. A voice service provider satisfies this 
obligation if it participates through a third-party representative, 
such as a trade association of which it is a member or vendor. As the 
record in this proceeding shows, some industry groups have already 
established working groups dedicated to examining potential non-IP call 
authentication technologies. Allowing for such representatives will 
reduce the burden of this obligation on individual voice service 
providers, including those which are smaller, and minimize the 
potential negative impact of broad and inexpert participation 
identified in the record, while ensuring that all voice service 
providers remain invested in developing a solution for non-IP caller ID 
authentication.
    186. In addition, the Order grants a two-year extension from

[[Page 73394]]

implementation of caller ID authentication to small, including small 
rural, voice service providers. The Order also grants an exemption from 
our implementation mandate for voice service providers, including small 
providers, which certify that they have reached certain implementation 
goals, and prohibits voice service providers from imposing additional 
line item charges on consumer or small business subscribers for caller 
ID authentication. In these ways, we have taken steps to minimize the 
economic impact of the rules adopted in this Order on small entities.
Report to Congress
    187. The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this 
FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. 
In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including 
this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.
    188. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document contains new or 
modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It 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 the new or modified information 
collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we 
note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-198, we previously sought comment on how the Commission 
might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    189. Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and 
the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, concurs that this rule is ``non-
major'' under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The 
Commission will send a copy of this Second Report and Order to Congress 
and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A).

V. Ordering Clauses

    190. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 
227(e), 227b, 251(e), and 303(r), of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended (the Act), 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 227(e), 227b, 251(e), and 
303(r), that this Second Report and Order is adopted.
    191. It is further ordered that part 64 of the Commission's rules 
is amended as set forth in the Final Rules, and that any such rule 
amendments that contain new or modified information collection 
requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act shall be effective after 
announcement in the Federal Register of Office of Management and Budget 
approval of the rules, and on the effective date announced therein.
    192. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.4(b)(1) 
and 1.103(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1), 1.103(a), 
this Second Report and Order shall be effective 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register, except for the addition of 
Sec. Sec.  64.6303(b) and 64.6305(b), to the Commission's rules that 
have not been approved by OMB. The Federal Communications Commission 
will publish documents in the Federal Register announcing the effective 
dates of these provisions.
    193. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of 
this Report and Order to Congress and to the Government Accountability 
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A).
    194. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Second Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Common carriers.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

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

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

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

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


0
2. Effective December 17, 2020, amend Sec.  64.6300 by redesignating 
paragraphs (e) through (g) as paragraphs (j) through (l) and paragraphs 
(c) and (d) as paragraphs (f) and (h), respectively, and adding new 
paragraphs (c) through (e), (g), and (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.6300   Definitions.

* * * * *
    (c) Foreign voice service provider. The term ``foreign voice 
service provider'' refers to any entity providing voice service outside 
the United States that has the ability to originate voice service that 
terminates in a point outside that foreign country or terminate voice 
service that originates from points outside that foreign country.
    (d) Governance Authority. The term ``Governance Authority'' refers 
to the Secure Telephone Identity Governance Authority, the entity that 
establishes and governs the policies regarding the issuance, 
management, and revocation of Service Provider Code (SPC) tokens to 
intermediate providers and voice service providers.
    (e) Industry traceback consortium. The term ``industry traceback 
consortium'' refers to the consortium that conducts private-led efforts 
to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls as selected by 
the Commission pursuant to Sec.  64.1203.
* * * * *
    (g) Robocall Mitigation Database. The term ``Robocall Mitigation 
Database'' refers to a database accessible via the Commission's website 
that lists all entities that make filings pursuant to Sec.  64.6305(b).
* * * * *
    (i) SPC token. The term ``SPC token'' refers to the Service 
Provider Code token, an authority token validly issued to an 
intermediate provider or voice service provider that allows the 
provider to authenticate and verify caller identification information 
consistent with the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework in the United 
States.
* * * * *

0
3. Effective December 17, 2020, amend Sec.  64.6301 by revising 
paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.6301   Caller ID authentication.

    (a) STIR/SHAKEN implementation by voice service providers. Except 
as provided in Sec. Sec.  64.6304 and 64.6306, not later than June 30, 
2021, a voice service provider shall fully implement the STIR/SHAKEN 
authentication framework in its internet Protocol networks. To fulfill 
this obligation, a voice service provider shall:
* * * * *

[[Page 73395]]

    (2) Authenticate caller identification information for all SIP 
calls it originates and that it will exchange with another voice 
service provider or intermediate provider and, to the extent 
technically feasible, transmit that call with authenticated caller 
identification information to the next voice service provider or 
intermediate provider in the call path; and
* * * * *

0
4. Effective December 17, 2020, add Sec.  64.6302 to read as follows:


Sec.  64.6302   Caller ID authentication by intermediate providers.

    Not later than June 30, 2021, each intermediate provider shall 
fully implement the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework in its 
internet Protocol networks. To fulfill this obligation, an intermediate 
provider shall:
    (a) Pass unaltered to the subsequent intermediate provider or voice 
service provider in the call path any authenticated caller 
identification information it receives with a SIP call, subject to the 
following exceptions under which it may remove the authenticated caller 
identification information:
    (1) Where necessary for technical reasons to complete the call; or
    (2) Where the intermediate provider reasonably believes the caller 
identification authentication information presents an imminent threat 
to its network security; and
    (b) Authenticate caller identification information for all calls it 
receives for which the caller identification information has not been 
authenticated and which it will exchange with another provider as a SIP 
call, except that the intermediate provider is excused from such duty 
to authenticate if it:
    (1) Cooperatively participates with the industry traceback 
consortium; and
    (2) Responds fully and in a timely manner to all traceback requests 
it receives from the Commission, law enforcement, and the industry 
traceback consortium regarding calls for which it acts as an 
intermediate provider.
0
5. Effective December 17, 2020, add Sec.  64.6303 to read as follows:


Sec.  64.6303   Caller ID authentication in non-IP networks.

    Except as provided in Sec. Sec.  64.6304 and 64.6306, not later 
than June 30, 2021, a voice service provider shall:
    (a) Upgrade its entire network to allow for the initiation, 
maintenance, and termination of SIP calls and fully implement the STIR/
SHAKEN framework as required in Sec.  64.6301 throughout its network.
    (b) [Reserved]

0
6. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec.  64.6303 by:
0
a. Adding the word ``either'' at the end of the introductory text;
0
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (a) and adding ``; or'' 
in its place; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  64.6303   Caller ID authentication in non-IP networks.

* * * * *
    (b) Maintain and be ready to provide the Commission on request with 
documented proof that it is participating, either on its own or through 
a representative, including third party representatives, as a member of 
a working group, industry standards group, or consortium that is 
working to develop a non-internet Protocol caller identification 
authentication solution, or actively testing such a solution.

0
7. Effective December 17, 2020, add Sec.  64.6304 to read as follows:


Sec.  64.6304   Extension of implementation deadline.

    (a) Small voice service providers. (1) Small voice service 
providers are exempt from the requirements of Sec.  64.6301 through 
June 30, 2023.
    (2) For purposes of this paragraph (a), ``small voice service 
provider'' means a provider that has 100,000 or fewer voice service 
subscriber lines (counting the total of all business and residential 
fixed subscriber lines and mobile phones and aggregated over all of the 
provider's affiliates).
    (b) Voice service providers that cannot obtain a SPC token. Voice 
service providers that are incapable of obtaining a SPC token due to 
Governance Authority policy are exempt from the requirements of Sec.  
64.6301 until they are capable of obtaining a SPC token.
    (c) Services scheduled for section 214 discontinuance. Services 
which are subject to a pending application for permanent discontinuance 
of service filed as of June 30, 2021, pursuant to the processes 
established in 47 CFR 63.60 through 63.100, as applicable, are exempt 
from the requirements of Sec.  64.6301 through June 30, 2022.
    (d) Non-IP networks. Those portions of a voice service provider's 
network that rely on technology that cannot initiate, maintain, and 
terminate SIP calls are deemed subject to a continuing extension. A 
voice service provider subject to the foregoing extension shall comply 
with the requirements of Sec.  64.6303 as to the portion of its network 
subject to the extension.
    (e) Provider-specific extensions. The Wireline Competition Bureau 
may extend the deadline for compliance with Sec.  64.6301 for voice 
service providers that file individual petitions for extensions by 
November 20, 2020. The Bureau shall seek comment on any such petitions 
and issue an order determining whether to grant the voice service 
provider an extension no later than March 30, 2021.
    (f) Annual reevaluation of granted extensions. The Wireline 
Competition Bureau shall, in conjunction with an assessment of burdens 
and barriers to implementation of caller identification authentication 
technology, annually review the scope of all previously granted 
extensions and, after issuing a Public Notice seeking comment, may 
extend or decline to extend each such extension, and may decrease the 
scope of entities subject to a further extension.

0
8. Effective December 17, 2020, add Sec.  64.6305 to read as follows:


Sec.  64.6305   Robocall mitigation and certification.

    (a) Robocall mitigation program requirements. (1) Any voice service 
provider subject to an extension granted under Sec.  64.6304 that has 
not fully implemented the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework on its 
entire network shall implement an appropriate robocall mitigation 
program as to those portions of its network on which it has not 
implemented the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework.
    (2) Any robocall mitigation program implemented pursuant to 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall include reasonable steps to 
avoid originating illegal robocall traffic and shall include a 
commitment to respond fully and in a timely manner to all traceback 
requests from the Commission, law enforcement, and the industry 
traceback consortium, and to cooperate with such entities in 
investigating and stopping any illegal robocallers that use its service 
to originate calls.
    (b)-(c) [Reserved]

0
9. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec.  64.6305 by adding paragraphs (b) 
and (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.6305   Robocall mitigation and certification.

* * * * *
    (b) Certification and database. (1) Not later than the date 
established in a document released by the Wireline Competition Bureau 
establishing the Robocall Mitigation Database and portal (amending this 
paragraph (b)), a voice service provider, regardless of whether it is 
subject to an extension granted

[[Page 73396]]

under Sec.  64.6304, shall certify to one of the following:
    (i) It has fully implemented the STIR/SHAKEN authentication 
framework across its entire network and all calls it originates are 
compliant with Sec.  64.6301(a)(1) and (2);
    (ii) It has implemented the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework on 
a portion of its network and calls it originates on that portion of its 
network are compliant with Sec.  64.6301(a)(1) and (2), and the 
remainder of the calls that originate on its network are subject to a 
robocall mitigation program consistent with paragraph (a) of this 
section; or
    (iii) It has not implemented the STIR/SHAKEN authentication 
framework on any portion of its network, and all of the calls that 
originate on its network are subject to a robocall mitigation program 
consistent with paragraph (a) of this section.
    (2) A voice service provider that certifies that some or all of the 
calls that originate on its network are subject to a robocall 
mitigation program consistent with paragraph (a) of this section shall 
include the following information in its certification:
    (i) Identification of the type of extension or extensions the voice 
service provider received under Sec.  64.6304, if the voice service 
provider is not a foreign voice service provider;
    (ii) The specific reasonable steps the voice service provider has 
taken to avoid originating illegal robocall traffic as part of its 
robocall mitigation program; and
    (iii) A statement of the voice service provider's commitment to 
respond fully and in a timely manner to all traceback requests from the 
Commission, law enforcement, and the industry traceback consortium, and 
to cooperate with such entities in investigating and stopping any 
illegal robocallers that use its service to originate calls.
    (3) All certifications made pursuant to paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) 
of this section shall:
    (i) Be filed in the appropriate portal on the Commission's website; 
and
    (ii) Be signed by an officer in conformity with 47 CFR 1.16.
    (4) A voice service provider filing a certification shall submit 
the following information in the appropriate portal on the Commission's 
website.
    (i) The voice service provider's business name(s) and primary 
address;
    (ii) Other business names in use by the voice service provider;
    (iii) All business names previously used by the voice service 
provider;
    (iv) Whether the voice service provider is a foreign voice service 
provider; and
    (v) The name, title, department, business address, telephone 
number, and email address of one person within the company responsible 
for addressing robocall mitigation-related issues.
    (5) A voice service provider shall update its filings within 10 
business days of any change to the information it must provide pursuant 
to paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) of this section.
    (c) Intermediate provider and voice service provider obligations. 
Beginning ninety days after the deadline for certifications filed 
pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, intermediate providers and 
voice service providers shall only accept calls directly from a voice 
service provider, including a foreign voice service provider that uses 
North American Numbering Plan resources that pertain to the United 
States to send voice traffic to residential or business subscribers in 
the United States, if that voice service provider's filing appears in 
the Robocall Mitigation Database in accordance with paragraph (b) of 
this section.

0
 10. Effective November 17, 2020, add Sec.  64.6306 to read as follows:


Sec.  64.6306   Exemption.

    (a) Exemption for IP networks. A voice service provider may seek an 
exemption from the requirements of Sec.  64.6301 by certifying on or 
before December 1, 2020, that, for those portions of its network served 
by technology that allows for the transmission of SIP calls, it:
    (1) Has adopted the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework for calls 
on the Internet Protocol networks of the voice service provider, by 
completing the network preparations necessary to deploy the STIR/SHAKEN 
protocols on its network including but not limited to participation in 
test beds and lab testing, or completion of commensurate network 
adjustments to enable the authentication and validation of calls on its 
network consistent with the STIR/SHAKEN framework;
    (2) Has agreed voluntarily to participate with other voice service 
providers in the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework, as demonstrated 
by completing formal registration (including payment) and testing with 
the STI Policy Administrator;
    (3) Has begun to implement the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework 
by completing the necessary network upgrades to at least one network 
element--e.g., a single switch or session border controller--to enable 
the authentication and verification of caller identification 
information consistent with the STIR/SHAKEN standards; and
    (4) Will be capable of fully implementing the STIR/SHAKEN 
authentication framework not later than June 30, 2021, which it may 
only determine if it reasonably foresees that it will have completed 
all necessary network upgrades to its network infrastructure to enable 
the authentication and verification of caller identification 
information for all SIP calls exchanged with STIR/SHAKEN-enabled 
partners by June 30, 2021.
    (b) Exemption for non-IP networks. A voice service provider may 
seek an exemption from the requirement to upgrade its network to allow 
for the initiation, maintenance, and termination of SIP calls and fully 
implement the STIR/SHAKEN framework as required by Sec.  64.6301 
throughout its network by June 30, 2021, and from associated 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, by certifying on or before 
December 1, 2020, that, for those portions of its network that do not 
allow for the transmission of SIP calls, it:
    (1) Has taken reasonable measures to implement an effective call 
authentication framework by either:
    (i) Upgrading its entire network to allow for the initiation, 
maintenance, and termination of SIP calls, and fully implementing the 
STIR/SHAKEN framework as required in Sec.  64.6301 throughout its 
network; or
    (ii) Maintaining and being ready to provide the Commission on 
request with documented proof that it is participating, either on its 
own or through a representative, including third party representatives, 
as a member of a working group, industry standards group, or consortium 
that is working to develop a non-internet Protocol caller 
identification authentication solution, or actively testing such a 
solution; and
    (2) Will be capable of fully implementing an effective call 
authentication framework not later than June 30, 2021, because it 
reasonably foresees that it will have completed all necessary network 
upgrades to its network infrastructure to enable the authentication and 
verification of caller identification information for all non-internet 
Protocol calls originating or terminating on its network as provided by 
a standardized caller identification authentication framework for non-
internet Protocol networks by June 30, 2021.
    (c) Certification submission procedures. All certifications that a 
voice service provider is eligible for exemption shall be:
    (1) Filed in the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System 
(ECFS) in WC Docket No. 20-68, Exemption from Caller ID

[[Page 73397]]

Authentication Requirements, no later than December 1, 2020;
    (2) Signed by an officer in conformity with 47 CFR 1.16; and
    (3) Accompanied by detailed support as to the assertions in the 
certification.
    (d) Determination timing. The Wireline Competition Bureau shall 
determine whether to grant or deny timely requests for exemption on or 
before December 30, 2020.
    (e) [Reserved]

0
11. Effective December 17, 2020, adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  64.6306   Exemption.

* * * * *
    (e) Implementation verification. All voice service providers 
granted an exemption under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall 
file an additional certification consistent with the requirements of 
paragraph (c) of this section on or before a date specified in a 
document issued by the Wireline Competition Bureau (amending this 
paragraph (e)) that attests to whether the voice service provider fully 
implemented the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework because it 
completed all necessary network upgrades to its network infrastructure 
to enable the authentication and verification of caller identification 
information for all SIP calls exchanged with STIR/SHAKEN-enabled 
partners by June 30, 2021. The Wireline Competition Bureau, after 
issuing a Public Notice seeking comment on the certifications, will, 
not later than four months after the deadline for filing of the 
certifications, issue a Public Notice identifying which voice service 
providers achieved complete implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN 
authentication framework.
    (1) If a voice service provider cannot certify to full 
implementation upon the filing of this second certification, but 
demonstrates to the Wireline Competition Bureau that:
    (i) It filed its initial certification in good faith--i.e., with a 
reasonable expectation that it would be able to achieve full 
implementation as initially certified; and
    (ii) It made a good faith effort to complete implementation, the 
consequence for such a shortcoming is the loss of the exemption and the 
application of the implementation requirements of Sec. Sec.  64.6301 
and 64.6303, effective immediately upon release by the Wireline 
Competition Bureau of the Public Notice identifying which voice service 
providers achieved full implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN 
authentication framework.
    (2) If a voice service provider cannot certify to full 
implementation upon the filing of this second certification, and the 
Wireline Competition Bureau finds that the voice service provider filed 
its initial certification in bad faith or failed to make a good faith 
effort to complete implementation, then:
    (i) The voice service provider is required to fully implement the 
STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework immediately upon release by the 
Wireline Competition Bureau of the Public Notice identifying which 
voice service providers achieved full implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN 
authentication framework; and
    (ii) The Wireline Competition Bureau shall refer the voice service 
provider to the Enforcement Bureau for possible enforcement action 
based on filing a false initial certification.

0
12. Effective December 17, 2020, add Sec.  64.6307 to read as follows:


Sec.  64.6307   Line item charges.

    Providers of voice service are prohibited from adding any 
additional line item charges to consumer or small business customer 
subscribers for the effective call authentication technology required 
by Sec. Sec.  64.6301 and 64.6303.
    (a) For purposes of this section, ``consumer subscribers'' means 
residential mass-market subscribers.
    (b) For purposes of this section, ``small business customer 
subscribers'' means subscribers that are business entities that meet 
the size standards established in 13 CFR part 121, subpart A.

[FR Doc. 2020-24904 Filed 11-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P