[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43446-43460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13035]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0 and 64

[CG Docket No. 17-59; WC Docket 17-97; FCC 23-37; FR ID 148396]


Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Call 
Authentication Trust Anchor

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) expands several rules previously adopted for gateway 
providers to other categories of voice service providers and modifies 
or removes existing rules consistent with these changes. Specifically, 
the Commission requires all domestic voice service providers to respond 
to traceback requests from the Commission, civil and criminal law 
enforcement, and the industry traceback consortium within 24 hours of 
the receipt of the request. Second, it requires originating providers 
to block substantially similar traffic when the Commission notifies the 
provider of illegal traffic or risk the Commission requiring all 
providers immediately downstream to block all of that provider's 
traffic. This rule is consistent with the rule for gateway providers, 
and requires non-gateway intermediate or terminating providers that 
receive such a notice to promptly inform the Commission that it is not 
the originating or gateway provider for the identified traffic, 
identify the upstream provider(s) from which it received the traffic, 
and, if possible, take lawful step to mitigate the traffic. Third it 
requires all voice service providers to take reasonable and effective 
steps to ensure that the immediate upstream provider is not using it to 
carry or process a high volume of illegal traffic. Finally, it updates 
the Commission's Robocall Mitigation Database certification 
requirements to reflect the 24-hour traceback requirement.

DATES: Effective January 8, 2024, except for the amendments to 47 CFR 
64.6305(d)(2)(ii) and (iii), (e)(2)(ii), and (f)(2)(iii) (amendatory 
instruction 5), which are delayed indefinitely. The amendments to 47 
CFR 64.6305(d)(2)(ii) and (iii), (e)(2)(ii), and (f)(2)(iii) will 
become effective following publication of a document in the Federal 
Register announcing approval of the information collection and the 
relevant effective date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerusha Burnett, Consumer Policy 
Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, email at 
[email protected] or by phone at (202) 418-0526.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, in CG Docket No. 17-59 and WC Docket 17-97, FCC 23-37, 
adopted on May 18, 2023, and released on May 19, 2023. The Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry that was adopted 
concurrently with the Report and Order is published elsewhere in this 
issue of the Federal Register. The document is available for download 
at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-37A1.pdf.
    To request this document in accessible formats for people with

[[Page 43447]]

disabilities (e.g., Braille, large print, electronic files, audio 
format) or to request reasonable accommodations (e.g., accessible 
format documents, sign language interpreters, CART), send an email to 
[email protected] or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau at (202) 418-0530. The amendments to 47 CFR 64.6305(d)(2)(ii) 
and (e)(2)(ii) do not themselves contain information collection 
requirements subject to approval. However, substantive changes made to 
those rules in the 2023 Caller ID Authentication Order, 88 FR 40096 
(June 21, 2023), and that are delayed indefinitely, pending approval of 
information collection requirements associated with that order, must 
become effective at the same time as or before the changes to 47 CFR 
64.6305(d)(2)(ii) and (e)(2)(ii) adopted herein. Therefore, the changes 
in 47 CFR 64.6305(d)(2) and (e)(2) are delayed indefinitely pending the 
effective date of the changes to those rules from the 2023 Caller ID 
Authentication Order.

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document may contain new or modified information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. This document 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.

Congressional Review Act

    The Commission sent a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and 
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Synopsis

    1. In this item, the Commission extends some of the requirements it 
adopted in the Gateway Provider Order, 87 FR 42916 (July 18, 2022), to 
other voice service providers in the call path. First, the Commission 
requires all voice service providers, rather than only gateway 
providers, to respond to traceback requests within 24 hours. Second, 
the Commission extends the requirements to block calls following 
Commission notification. Finally, the Commission expands the know-your-
upstream-provider requirement to cover all voice service providers. The 
Commission also makes other changes to voice service providers' 
Robocall Mitigation Database filing and mitigation obligations to be 
consistent with these new rules. Taken together, the expansion of these 
rules protects consumers from illegal calls, holds voice service 
providers responsible for the calls they carry, and aids in the 
identification of bad actors.

24-Hour Traceback Requirement

    2. The Commission requires all voice service providers, regardless 
of their position in the call path, to fully respond to traceback 
requests from the Commission, civil and criminal law enforcement, and 
the industry traceback consortium within 24 hours of receipt of such a 
request. This extends the rule the Commission previously adopted for 
gateway providers to all voice service providers and replaces the 
existing requirement to respond ``fully and in a timely manner.'' While 
some commenters opposed the 24-hour requirement in general, none argued 
that non-gateway providers are less capable of complying with such a 
requirement.
    3. Rapid traceback is essential to identifying both callers placing 
illegal calls and the voice service providers that facilitate them. 
Time is of the essence in all traceback requests, including domestic-
only tracebacks. While gateway providers play a critical role, they are 
not the only voice service providers with an important role to play. As 
one commenter noted, voice service providers do not retain call detail 
records for a consistent period of time, so the traceback process must 
finish before any voice service providers in the call path seeking to 
shield bad actors dispose of their records. The Commission therefore 
agrees with commenters that argue a general 24-hour traceback 
requirement is a prudent measure, with benefits that outweigh the 
burdens. In particular, the Commission finds that the benefits of 
having a single, clear, equitable rule for all traceback requests 
outweigh the burdens of requiring a response within 24 hours. Further, 
the Commission made clear in adopting the existing requirement to 
respond ``fully and in a timely manner'' that it expected responses 
``within a few hours, and certainly not more than 24 hours absent 
extenuating circumstances.'' As a result, this modification is 
primarily a matter of codifying the Commission's existing expectation, 
rather than significantly modifying the standard.
    4. Out of an abundance of caution, the Commission initially limited 
the strict 24-hour requirement to gateway providers, based on their 
particular position in the call path and the need for especially rapid 
responses in the case of foreign-originated calls. Many calls, however, 
transit multiple U.S.-based intermediate providers' networks after 
passing through a gateway provider's network, and delay by any of the 
intermediate providers in responding to traceback requests has the same 
impact as delay by the gateway provider. When an intermediate provider 
receives a traceback request, it may not know if the call originated 
from outside the United States, making it impossible to apply different 
standards to foreign-originated calls versus domestic calls through the 
entire call path.
    5. The Commission disagrees with commenters that argue against a 
strict 24-hour requirement. While the Commission understands that some 
smaller voice service providers that have not received previous 
traceback requests may be unfamiliar with the process, they will have 
ample time to become familiar before the requirements take effect. 
Additionally, the Commission adopted rules that require a response from 
all voice service providers ``fully and in a timely manner'' in 
December 2020, more than two years ago. In adopting that rule, the 
Commission made clear its expectation that responses would be made 
``within a few hours, and certainly in less than 24 hours absent 
extenuating circumstances.'' Voice service providers have therefore had 
a significant amount of time to improve their processes so that they 
can respond within 24 hours in the vast majority of cases. Similarly, 
voice service providers can identify a clear point of contact for 
traceback requests and provide it to the entities authorized to make 
traceback requests. The Commission will consider limited waivers where 
a voice service provider that normally responds within the 24-hour time 
frame has a truly unexpected or unpredictable issue that leads to a 
delayed response in a particular case or for a short period of time. 
This may, in some instances, include problems with the point of contact 
or other delays caused by the request not being properly received. 
Voice service providers for which this requirement poses a unique and 
significant burden may apply for a waiver of this rule under the ``good 
cause'' standard of Sec.  1.3 of the Commission's rules. Under that 
standard, for example, waivers may be available in the event of sudden 
unforeseen circumstances that prevent compliance for a limited period 
or for a limited number of calls. By doing so, voice service providers 
can significantly reduce the risk that traceback requests will be 
missed or delayed. For those

[[Page 43448]]

voice service providers for which requests outside of business hours 
pose a problem, the Commission adopts the same restrictions on the 24-
hour clock that it imposed for gateway providers. The 24-hour clock, 
consistent with the Commission's proposal to adopt the clock as adopted 
for gateway providers, does not start outside of business hours of the 
local time for the responding office. Requests received outside of 
business hours as defined in the Commission's rules are deemed received 
at 8 a.m. on the next business day. Similarly, if the 24-hour response 
period would end on a non-business day, either a weekend or a Federal 
legal holiday, the 24-hour clock does not run for the weekend or the 
holiday in question, and restarts at 12:01 a.m. on the next business 
day following when the request would otherwise be due. ``Business day'' 
for these purposes is Monday through Friday, excluding Federal legal 
holidays, and ``business hours'' are 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on a business 
day, consistent with the definition of office hours in the Commission's 
rules.
    6. Consistent with that finding, the Commission declines INCOMPAS' 
request that the Commission double the response time to 48 hours or 
allow voice service providers to submit a response indicating that 
responding requires additional time along with assurances that it will 
complete the traceback request ``in a timely manner.'' INCOMPAS offers 
little in the way of support for this proposed doubling of the 
traceback response time and the Commission is not persuaded that the 
narrow reasons it does offer cannot be adequately addressed through the 
Commission's waiver process. Additionally, allowing for a ``request 
received'' response to obtain further time could allow bad-actor 
providers to simply delay traceback responses. The Commission is also 
unpersuaded by other commenters opposing the 24-hour requirement whose 
arguments were vague. Other objections to the requirement were vague 
and unsupported, e.g., the requirement ``will likely result in 
increased enforcement activity and expenses for good actors who for 
legitimate reasons (and on an infrequent basis) may not respond in a 
timely manner'' or is ``unnecessary and unwarranted.''
    7. The Commission further declines to adopt the tiered approach 
that it sought comment on in the Gateway Provider Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), 87 FR 42670 (July 18, 2022). The 
Commission finds that the tiered approach is too complicated; voice 
service providers and other entities would not easily know when each 
response is due with a tiered approach. A uniform rule for all types of 
voice service providers is significantly easier to follow and enforce. 
While a tiered approach might benefit some smaller voice service 
providers that receive few requests, the benefits do not outweigh the 
overall burdens of administering such a complex system. This 24-hour 
requirement is a clear standard that the Commission believes all voice 
service providers will be able to implement because for several years 
they have already complied with the ``timely manner'' requirement.
    8. The Commission is similarly unpersuaded by arguments that the 
current efficiency of the traceback system, where many voice service 
providers do respond rapidly, indicates that a strict rule is 
inappropriate. The Commission applauds the industry for its work at 
improving traceback and recognizes that many, if not most, voice 
service providers already respond in under 24 hours. There are, 
however, a large number of voice service providers, and experience 
indicates that some may not be incentivized to respond without delay. 
The failure of any one voice service provider to do so presents a 
potential bottleneck. For those voice service providers that already 
respond within 24 hours, this requirement presents no new burden; those 
voice service providers can simply continue what they have been doing. 
It is voice service providers that do not respond within that timeframe 
that present a problem, and this requirement puts them clearly on 
notice that any delaying tactics will not be tolerated in a way that a 
``timely'' requirement does not.
    9. Finally, the Commission declines INCOMPAS' request to remove the 
Commission and civil and criminal law enforcement from the list of 
entities authorized to make a traceback request under the Commission's 
rules. The Commission has included these entities on the list since it 
adopted the initial rule in 2020, and voice service providers have not 
provided evidence that requests from these entities present problems. 
The mere fact that ``many companies have established processes'' to 
respond to these entities does not justify excluding them in the rule.

Mandatory Blocking Following Commission Notification

    10. The Commission next extends two of the mandatory blocking 
requirements adopted in the Gateway Provider Order to a wider range of 
voice service providers. First, the Commission modifies the existing 
requirement for voice service providers to effectively mitigate illegal 
traffic; the Commission now requires all originating providers to block 
such traffic when notified by the Commission, consistent with the 
existing requirement for gateway providers. Second, the Commission 
makes it clear that, while terminating and non-gateway intermediate 
providers are not generally required to block, they are required to 
respond and provide accurate information regarding the source from 
which they received the traffic. Finally, the Commission requires voice 
service providers immediately downstream from a bad-actor voice service 
provider that has failed to meet these obligations to block all traffic 
from the identified provider when notified by the Commission that the 
upstream provider failed to meet its obligation to block illegal 
traffic or inform the Commission as to the source of the traffic.
    11. Consistent with the rules the Commission adopted in the Gateway 
Provider Order, the Commission ensures that all voice service providers 
are afforded due process; the rule the Commission adopts here includes 
a clear process that allows ample time for a notified voice service 
provider to remedy the problem and demonstrate that it can be a good 
actor in the calling ecosystem before the Commission directs downstream 
providers to begin blocking. This process, adopted for gateway 
providers in the Gateway Provider Order, includes the following steps: 
(1) the Enforcement Bureau shall provide the voice service provider 
with an initial Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic; (2) the 
provider shall be granted time to investigate and act upon that notice; 
(3) if the provider fails to respond or its response is deemed 
insufficient, the Enforcement Bureau shall issue an Initial 
Determination Order, providing a final opportunity for the provider to 
respond; and (4) if the provider fails to respond or that response is 
deemed insufficient, the Enforcement Bureau shall issue a Final 
Determination Order, directing downstream voice service providers to 
block all traffic from the identified provider. In the Gateway Provider 
FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on extending this process to all 
voice service providers.
    12. Blocking Following Commission Notification of Suspected Illegal 
Traffic. The Commission first extends the requirement to block and 
cease carrying or transmitting illegal traffic when notified of such 
traffic by the Commission through the Enforcement Bureau; in extending 
the rule, the Commission applies it to originating providers as well as 
gateway providers.

[[Page 43449]]

To comply with this requirement, originating providers must block or 
cease accepting traffic that is substantially similar to the identified 
traffic on an ongoing basis. Any voice service provider that is not an 
originating or gateway provider and is notified by the Commission of 
illegal traffic must still identify the upstream voice service 
provider(s) from which it received the identified traffic and, if 
possible, take lawful steps to mitigate this traffic. The Commission 
finds that, in most instances, blocking is the most effective means of 
mitigating illegal traffic and nothing in the record contradicts this 
conclusion. Further, this modification eliminates potential ambiguity 
and provides certainty to voice service providers that may otherwise be 
unsure how to comply.
    13. In expanding this requirement, the Commission makes clear that 
nothing in this rule precludes the originating provider from taking 
steps other than blocking the calls to eliminate this traffic, provided 
it can ensure that the method has the same effect as ongoing blocking. 
For example, if the originating provider stops the calls by terminating 
the customer relationship, it must ensure that it terminates all 
related accounts and does not permit the customer to open a new account 
under the same or a different name in order to resume originating 
illegal calls.
    14. The record supports extending this rule and creating a uniform 
process, rather than treating gateway and originating providers 
differently. A single, clear standard requiring blocking by the first 
domestic voice service provider in the call path eliminates possible 
confusion, better aligns with industry practices, and provides greater 
certainty to voice service providers while also protecting consumers. 
Because voice service providers further down the call path from the 
originator may find it challenging to detect and block illegal traffic, 
the Commission limits the blocking requirement to originating and 
gateway providers but still requires non-gateway intermediate providers 
to play their part by identifying the source of the traffic and taking 
steps, if possible, to mitigate that traffic. By requiring blocking by 
originating and gateway providers, the Commission properly balances the 
burden of identifying and blocking substantially similar traffic on an 
ongoing basis with the benefit to consumers.
    15. With these modifications to the Commission's rules, all traffic 
that transits the U.S. network will be subject to its blocking 
requirements, even if non-gateway intermediate providers are not 
generally required to block. While the Commission agrees with the 51 
State attorneys general (AGs) that no traffic should be exempt from its 
blocking mandate, it does not agree that there should be no variation 
``across provider types or roles.'' The Commission believes the key is 
to ensure that all traffic is subject to the rule so that bad actors 
can be identified and stopped. The rule the Commission adopts in this 
document holds originating providers responsible for the traffic their 
customers originate.
    16. The Commission further declines to remove the requirement to 
block ``substantially similar traffic'' as one commenter asks. A rule 
that only requires an originating provider to block the traffic 
specifically identified in the initial notice would arguably block no 
traffic at all, as the Enforcement Bureau cannot identify specific 
illegal traffic before it has been originated. The requirement to block 
substantially similar traffic is therefore essential to the operation 
of the rule.
    17. Obligations of a Terminating or Non-Gateway Intermediate 
Provider When Notified by the Commission. Any terminating or non-
gateway intermediate provider that is notified under this rule must 
promptly inform the Commission that it is not the originating or 
gateway provider for the identified traffic, specify which upstream 
voice service provider(s) with direct access to the U.S. public 
switched telephone network it received the traffic from, and, if 
possible, take lawful steps to mitigate this traffic. Voice service 
providers that fail to take available steps to effectively mitigate 
illegal traffic may be deemed to have knowingly and willfully engaged 
in transmitting unlawful robocalls. The Commission notes that one 
clearly available tool is its safe harbor that, once the upstream 
provider has been notified of the identified illegal traffic by the 
Commission, permits the downstream provider to block all traffic from 
that upstream provider if the upstream provider fails to effectively 
mitigate the illegal traffic within 48 hours or fails to implement 
effective measures to prevent new and renewing customers from using its 
network to originate illegal calls. Voice service providers are already 
required to take these steps under the Commission's existing rules, 
reflecting their affirmative obligations to identify and mitigate 
traffic when notified by the Commission. However, the Commission is 
concerned that some voice service providers may provide inaccurate 
information, avoid responding, or continue to facilitate illegal 
traffic. The Commission makes clear that failing to respond or 
providing inaccurate information is unacceptable; in such cases, the 
Enforcement Bureau may make use of the downstream provider blocking 
requirement and move to the Initial Determination Order and Final 
Determination Order, consistent with the process the Commission 
discusses further below. The Commission has determined that a uniform 
set of procedures for all voice service providers reduces the burden of 
compliance with these rules and ensures due process in the event the 
Commission pursues enforcement action against providers carrying 
suspected illegal robocall traffic. Nothing in the record opposes this 
conclusion.
    18. Downstream Provider Blocking. The Commission also requires 
blocking by voice service providers immediately downstream from any 
voice service provider when notified by the Commission that the voice 
service provider has failed to satisfy its obligations under these 
rules. This expands the Commission's requirement for voice service 
providers immediately downstream from a gateway provider to block all 
traffic from the identified provider when notified by the Commission 
that the gateway provider failed to block. If the Enforcement Bureau 
determines a voice service provider has failed to satisfy Sec.  
64.1200(n)(2), it shall publish and release an Initial Determination 
Order as described below, giving the provider a final opportunity to 
respond to the Enforcement Bureau's initial determination. If the 
Enforcement Bureau determines that the identified provider continues to 
violate its obligations, the Enforcement Bureau shall release and 
publish a Final Determination Order in EB Docket No. 22-174 to direct 
downstream providers to both block and cease accepting all traffic they 
receive directly from the identified provider starting 30 days from the 
release date of the Final Determination Order.
    19. The record supports extending this requirement. The Commission 
agrees with commenters that urge it to limit this requirement to voice 
service providers immediately downstream from the identified provider. 
This limitation is consistent with the rule adopted in the Gateway 
Provider Order, and the Commission sees no reason to take a different 
approach here. If the voice service provider immediately downstream 
from the identified provider complies with the Commission's rules, then 
the calls should never reach any voice service providers further 
downstream. Further,

[[Page 43450]]

voice service providers more than one step downstream from the 
identified provider may not know in real time that the call came from 
the identified provider, making it unreasonable to require them to 
block the calls. The Commission also agrees that this requirement 
should include the blocking of all traffic from the identified 
provider, rather than requiring the immediate downstream voice service 
provider to determine which calls to block. Because the Commission 
requires the blocking of all traffic from the identified provider, it 
sees no reason to provide detailed information regarding what traffic 
must be blocked.
    20. Process for Issuing a Notification of Suspected Illegal 
Traffic. The Enforcement Bureau shall make an initial determination 
that the voice service provider is originating, carrying, or 
transmitting suspected illegal traffic and notify the provider by 
issuing a written Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic. The 
Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic shall: (1) identify with as 
much particularity as possible the suspected illegal traffic; (2) 
provide the basis for the Enforcement Bureau's reasonable belief that 
the identified traffic is unlawful; (3) cite the statutory or 
regulatory provisions the suspected illegal traffic appears to violate; 
and (4) direct the provider receiving the notice that it must comply 
with Sec.  64.1200(n)(2) of the Commission's rules.
    21. The Enforcement Bureau's Notification of Suspected Illegal 
Traffic shall specify a timeframe of no fewer than 14 days for a 
notified provider to complete its investigation and report its results. 
Upon receiving such notice, the provider must promptly investigate the 
traffic identified in the notice and begin blocking the identified 
traffic within the timeframe specified in the Notification of Suspected 
Illegal Traffic unless its investigation determines that the traffic is 
legal.
    22. The Commission makes clear that the requirement to block on an 
ongoing basis is not tied to the number in the caller ID field or any 
other single criterion. Instead, the Commission requires the notified 
provider to block on a continuing basis any traffic that is 
substantially similar to the identified traffic and provide the 
Enforcement Bureau with a plan as to how it expects to do so. The 
Commission does not define ``substantially similar traffic'' in any 
detail here because that will be a case-specific determination based on 
the traffic at issue. The Commission notes that each calling campaign 
will have unique qualities that are better addressed by tailoring the 
analytics to the particular campaign on a case-by-case basis. The 
Commission nevertheless encourages originating providers to consider 
common indicia of illegal calls including, but not limited to: call 
duration; call completion ratios; large bursts of calls in a short time 
frame; neighbor spoofing patterns; and sequential dialing patterns. If 
the notified provider is an originating provider, the identity of the 
caller may be a material factor in identifying whether the traffic is 
substantially similar. However, an originating provider may not assume, 
without evidence, that the caller only has one subscriber line from 
which it is placing calls and must maintain vigilance to ensure that 
the caller does not use different existing accounts or open new 
accounts, under the same or a different name, to continue to place 
illegal calls. Additionally, the Commission strongly encourages any 
voice service provider that has been previously notified of illegal 
traffic as an originating provider to notify the Commission if it has 
reason to believe that the caller has moved to a different originating 
provider and is continuing to originate illegal calls. If the notified 
provider is a terminating or non-gateway intermediate provider, it must 
promptly inform the Commission that it is not the originating or 
gateway provider for the identified traffic, specify which upstream 
voice service provider(s) with direct access to the U.S. public 
switched telephone network it received the traffic from and, if 
possible, take lawful steps to mitigate this traffic.
    23. Each notified provider will have flexibility to determine the 
correct approach for each particular case, but must provide a detailed 
plan in its response to the Enforcement Bureau so that the Bureau can 
assess the plan's sufficiency. If the Enforcement Bureau determines 
that the plan is insufficient, it shall provide the notified provider 
an opportunity to remedy the deficiencies prior to taking further 
action. The Commission will consider the notified provider to be in 
compliance with the Commission's mandatory blocking rule if it blocks 
traffic in accordance with its approved plan. The Enforcement Bureau 
may require the notified provider to modify its approved plan if it 
determines that the provider is not blocking substantially similar 
traffic. Additionally, if the Enforcement Bureau finds that the 
notified provider continues to allow suspected illegal traffic onto the 
U.S. network, it may proceed to an Initial Determination Order or Final 
Determination Order, as appropriate.
    24. Provider Investigation. Each notified provider must investigate 
the identified traffic and report the results of its investigation to 
the Enforcement Bureau in the timeframe specified in the Notification 
of Suspected Illegal Traffic, as follows:
     If the provider's investigation determines that it served 
as the originating provider or gateway provider for the identified 
traffic, it must block the identified traffic within the timeframe 
specified in the Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic (unless its 
investigation determines that the traffic is not illegal) and include 
in its report to the Enforcement Bureau: (1) a certification that it is 
blocking the identified traffic and will continue to do so; and (2) a 
description of its plan to identify and block substantially similar 
traffic on an ongoing basis.
     If the provider's investigation determines that the 
identified traffic is not illegal, it shall provide an explanation as 
to why the provider reasonably concluded that the identified traffic is 
not illegal and what steps it took to reach that conclusion. Absent 
such a showing, or if the Enforcement Bureau determines based on the 
evidence that the traffic is illegal despite the provider's assertions, 
the identified traffic will be deemed illegal.
     If the provider's investigation determines it did not 
serve as an originating provider or gateway provider for any of the 
identified traffic, it shall provide an explanation as to how it 
reached that conclusion, identify the upstream provider(s) from which 
it received the identified traffic, and, if possible, take lawful steps 
to mitigate this traffic. If the notified provider determines that the 
traffic is not illegal, it must inform the Enforcement Bureau and 
explain its conclusion within the specified timeframe.
    25. Process for Issuing an Initial Determination Order. If the 
notified provider fails to respond to the notice within the specified 
timeframe, the Enforcement Bureau determines that the response is 
insufficient, the Enforcement Bureau determines that the notified 
provider is continuing to originate, carry, or transmit substantially 
similar traffic onto the U.S. network, or the Enforcement Bureau 
determines based on the evidence that the traffic is illegal despite 
the provider's assertions, the Enforcement Bureau shall issue an 
Initial Determination Order to the notified provider stating its 
determination that the provider is not in compliance with Sec.  
64.1200(n)(2). This Initial Determination Order must include the 
Enforcement Bureau's reasoning for its determination and give the 
provider a minimum of 14 days to provide a final response prior to the 
Enforcement

[[Page 43451]]

Bureau's final determination as to whether the provider is in 
compliance with Sec.  64.1200(n)(2).
    26. Process for Issuing a Final Determination Order. If the 
notified provider does not adequately respond to the Initial 
Determination Order or continues to originate substantially similar 
traffic, or the Enforcement Bureau determines based on the evidence 
that the traffic is illegal despite the provider's assertions, the 
Enforcement Bureau shall issue a Final Determination Order. The 
Enforcement Bureau shall publish the Final Determination Order in EB 
Docket No. 22-174 to direct downstream providers to both block and 
cease accepting all traffic they receive directly from the identified 
provider starting 30 days from the release date of the Final 
Determination Order. The Final Determination Order may be adopted up to 
one year after the release date of the Initial Determination Order and 
may be based on either an immediate failure to comply with Sec.  
64.1200(n)(2) or a determination that the provider has failed to meet 
its ongoing obligation to block substantially similar traffic under 
that rule.
    27. Each Final Determination Order shall state the grounds for the 
Enforcement Bureau's determination that the identified provider has 
failed to comply with its obligation to block illegal traffic and 
direct downstream providers to initiate blocking 30 days from the 
release date of the Final Determination Order. A provider that chooses 
to initiate blocking sooner than 30 days from the release date may do 
so, consistent with the Commission's existing safe harbor in Sec.  
64.1200(k)(4).
    28. Safe Harbor. The Commission extends the limited safe harbor 
from liability under the Communications Act or the Commission's rules, 
which it adopted in the Gateway Provider Order, to include any voice 
service provider that inadvertently blocks lawful traffic as part of 
the requirement to block substantially similar traffic in accordance 
with the originating provider's approved plan. The record supports 
extending this safe harbor to protect voice service providers that take 
steps to prevent illegal calls from reaching consumers and the 
Commission sees no reason not to provide this protection.
    29. Protections for Lawful Callers. Consistent with the 
Commission's existing blocking rules, voice service providers must 
never block emergency calls to 911 and must make all reasonable efforts 
to ensure that they do not block calls from public safety answering 
points (PSAPs) and government emergency numbers. The Commission 
declines to adopt additional transparency and redress requirements at 
this time or extend any other existing requirements that would not 
already apply to the blocking mandates it adopts in this document. 
These rules require the Commission to direct which types of calls voice 
service providers should block, so the blocking provider is not in a 
position to provide redress. The Commission did not receive specific 
comment on the need for additional protections for lawful calls.

``Know Your Upstream Provider''

    30. The Commission requires all voice service providers accepting 
traffic from an upstream provider to take steps to ``know'' that 
immediate upstream provider. This extends its existing requirement for 
gateway providers to all voice service providers; it holds all voice 
service providers in the call path responsible for the calls that 
transit their networks. Specifically, the Commission requires every 
voice service provider to take reasonable and effective steps to ensure 
that the immediate upstream provider is not using it to carry or 
process a high volume of illegal traffic. The Commission therefore 
agrees with commenters urging it to adopt a rule that would hold all 
providers in the call path responsible for the traffic that transits 
their network. The Commission agrees with USTelecom that the best 
method to do so is by adopting a know-your-upstream-provider 
requirement.
    31. The Commission finds that, while intermediate providers may be 
unable to identify the calling customer with sufficient accuracy to 
know whether they are placing illegal calls, the Commission cannot 
permit them to ``intentionally or negligently ignore red flags from 
their upstream providers.'' As YouMail noted, ``the goal of every 
network should be to transit only legal calls.'' Extending this 
requirement to every voice service provider that receives traffic from 
an upstream provider, rather than solely to gateway providers, ensures 
that all voice service providers in the call path are responsible for 
keeping illegal traffic off the U.S. network. Consistent with the 
Commission's existing rules, the Commission does not require voice 
service providers to take specific, defined steps to meet this 
requirement, and instead allows each voice service provider flexibility 
to determine the best approach for its network, so long as the steps 
are effective. In general, the Commission expects voice service 
providers will need to exercise due diligence before accepting traffic 
from an upstream provider, and may want to collect information such as 
``obtaining the [voice service provider's] physical business location, 
contact person(s), state or country of incorporation, federal tax ID 
(if applicable), and the nature of the [voice service provider's] 
business.'' The Commission does not find that collecting this 
information is either uniformly necessary or sufficient, and voice 
service providers may need to take additional steps, such as adopting 
contract terms that allow for termination and acting on those terms in 
the event that the upstream provider attempts to use the network to 
carry or process a high volume of illegal traffic. As the Commission 
made clear in the Gateway Provider Order and Gateway Provider FNPRM, it 
does not expect perfection. However, all voice service providers must 
take effective steps, and if a voice service provider carries or 
transmits a high volume of illegal traffic that primarily originates 
from one or more specific upstream providers, the steps that provider 
has taken are not effective and must be modified for that provider to 
be in compliance with the Commission's rules. The Commission encourages 
voice service providers to regularly evaluate and adjust their approach 
so that that it remains effective.
    32. Lastly, in the 2023 Caller ID Authentication Order, 88 FR 40096 
(June 21, 2023), the Commission adopted a requirement that originating, 
terminating, and intermediate providers describe any procedures in 
place to know their upstream providers in their robocall mitigation 
plans. Now that all voice service providers, including intermediate 
providers, will be required to take reasonable and effective steps to 
know their upstream providers, all such providers will also be required 
to describe those steps in their robocall mitigation plans filed in the 
Robocall Mitigation Database, pursuant to the requirement adopted in 
the 2023 Caller ID Authentication Order.

Other Issues

    33. Updating Robocall Mitigation Database Certifications to Include 
Traceback Compliance. In this document, the Commission modifies Sec.  
64.1200(n)(1) to require all voice service providers to respond to 
traceback requests within 24 hours. Consistent with its rule applicable 
to gateway providers, which already were required to respond to 
traceback requests within 24 hours, the Commission now requires voice 
service providers to commit to responding fully and within 24 hours to 
all traceback requests consistent with the

[[Page 43452]]

requirements it adopts in this document in Sec.  64.1200 of its rules, 
and to include a statement in their Robocall Mitigation Database 
filings certifying to this commitment. The Commission concludes that 
these limited rule modifications will ensure that voice service 
providers' mitigation and filing obligations are in line with their 
underlying compliance duties, enhance the usefulness of the Robocall 
Mitigation Database to both the Commission and voice service providers, 
and promote rule uniformity and administrability. While no party 
commented on these specific changes, there was significant support to 
adopt Robocall Mitigation Database filing and mitigation obligations 
for all voice service providers in the call path. The Commission also 
updates cross-references to Sec.  64.1200 in its Robocall Mitigation 
Database certification rules to account for the amendments it adopts in 
the Report and Order.
    34. Effective Measures to Prevent New and Renewing Customers from 
Originating Illegal Calls. The Commission declines to further clarify 
its existing requirement for voice service providers to take 
affirmative, effective measures to prevent new and renewing customers 
from using their networks to originate illegal calls, as some 
commenters request. The Commission agrees with commenters that support 
its existing flexible approach under this rule. Flexibility to adapt to 
changing calling patterns is necessary to avoid giving the ``playbook'' 
to bad actor callers, thus an outcomes-based standard is most 
appropriate. The Commission thus decline to be more prescriptive on the 
steps voice service providers should take to block, as requested by 
some commenters.
    35. The Commission further declines a commenter's request that it 
clarify that ``adopting a know-your-customer or upstream-provider 
standard for new or renewing customers satisfies the effective measures 
standard.'' The commenter did not define ``know-your-customer'' and the 
Commission is not aware of any universally accepted minimum standard in 
the industry. Without such a definition or minimum standard, there is 
no guarantee that a process that an individual voice service provider 
describes as ``know-your-customer'' would be sufficient. The rule 
requires ``effective'' measures; blanket approval of measures voice 
service providers deem ``know-your-customer'' clearly does not satisfy 
this requirement and could lead to voice service providers adopting 
ineffective processes. The Commission also declines to remove the ``new 
and renewing customer'' language, as one commenter requests. This 
limitation will have less impact the longer the rule is in effect; more 
contracts will include the new provision as they are renewed over time. 
This limitation recognizes the challenge of modifying existing, in-
force contracts.
    36. Differential Treatment of Non-Conversational Traffic. The 
Commission declines to adopt a requirement that originating voice 
service providers ensure that customers originating non-conversational 
traffic only seek to originate lawful calls. While many illegal calls 
are of short duration, it does not follow that all calls of short 
duration are inherently suspect. The Commission agrees with commenters 
that argue against such requirements and are persuaded that this sort 
of traffic segmentation is likely to harm wanted, or even essential, 
traffic. In fact, only one commenter urged us to adopt a rule treating 
non-conversational traffic differently from conversational traffic, and 
even that commenter acknowledged that not all non-conversational 
traffic is illegal. Such a rule could, for example, make it impossible 
for medical centers or schools in rural areas with few voice service 
providers to find a provider willing to carry their traffic, which may 
include emergency notifications, appointment reminders, or other 
important notifications; the Commission will not throw the baby out 
with the bathwater.
    37. Moreover, the Commission does not believe that a strict rule 
for non-conversational traffic would lead to any real benefit. To do 
so, the Commission would need to adopt standards for whether calls are 
``non-conversational'' or ``conversational,'' which bad actors could 
use ensure that their traffic does not meet the criteria for stricter 
treatment. As a result, not only is the risk of such a rule 
unacceptably high, but the potential benefit is low.
    38. Strict Liability. The Commission similarly declines to adopt a 
strict liability standard for an originating provider when its customer 
originates illegal calls. The Commission asked about a strict liability 
standard in the Gateway Provider FNPRM in the context of differential 
treatment of non-conversational traffic, which it has declined to 
adopt. The Commission disagrees with commenters that ask it to adopt 
this standard more broadly and agree with those who argue strict 
liability is inappropriate. Protecting consumers from illegal calls 
cannot come at the cost of blocking high volumes of lawful traffic in 
order to avoid the possibility that some of those calls might be 
illegal--which is the behavior many voice service providers would have 
to undertake if the Commission imposed strict liability.
    39. Public Traceback. The Commission declines to require that the 
industry make traceback information publicly available, as one 
commenter asks. The Commission believes this approach places too much 
weight on receipt of traceback requests as an indicator that a voice 
service provider is a bad actor. Voice service providers that handle a 
large volume of calls, especially as intermediate providers, are likely 
to receive a high volume of traceback requests even if they are not bad 
actors. A general rule requiring the publication of traceback 
information could hamper industry efforts by discouraging voice service 
providers from initiating traceback requests without law enforcement 
intervention. Publication of traceback information may be appropriate 
and beneficial in certain instances, particularly when the information 
is published in aggregate, rather than tied to individual, specific 
requests. Nothing here limits the ability of the Commission or another 
entity to publish such information.

Summary of Costs and Benefits

    40. The record in this proceeding supports the Commission's 
conclusion in the Gateway Provider FNPRM that the Commission's proposed 
rules and actions, some of which it addresses in this document, ``will 
account for another large share of the annual $13.5 billion minimum 
benefit we originally estimated'' and that the benefits ``will far 
exceed the costs imposed on providers.''
    41. In this document, the Commission reaffirms that all voice 
service providers are responsible for all calls they originate, carry, 
or transmit. In doing so, the Commission expands several of its rules 
to cover a wider group of voice service providers. First, the 
Commission codifies its existing expectation that voice service 
providers respond to traceback requests within 24 hours by expanding 
the strict 24-hour requirement it adopted for gateway providers to all 
providers in the call path. Requiring rapid response to traceback 
complements the Commission's STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication rules 
by making it easier to identify bad actors even where caller ID 
authentication information is unavailable. This codification is a key 
piece of the Commission's comprehensive approach to combating illegal 
calls and supports the benefits of that approach without incurring a 
significant practical cost when compared to its existing requirements.

[[Page 43453]]

    42. Second, the Commission extends its requirement to block 
following Commission notification to originating providers and makes 
clear that any voice service provider that receives such a notification 
is required to respond to the Commission and, if it is not an 
originating or gateway provider, inform the Commission where it got the 
traffic. If any voice service provider refuses to comply with this 
requirement, all voice service providers immediately downstream from 
the non-compliant provider may be required to block all traffic from 
that provider. Voice service providers must comply with Commission 
rules, and this rule provides clear, immediate consequences for voice 
service providers that refuse to do so, even if that voice service 
provider would be unable to pay a forfeiture. The Commission does not 
expect that originating providers will incur significant costs as a 
result of this rule because action by providers is required only when 
the Commission notifies the provider. Further, because providers 
generally adhere to Commission rules, the Commission expects that 
downstream providers will receive Commission notification to block only 
rarely. If the Commission were to issue such a blocking notification to 
a downstream provider, it would benefit consumers by stopping illegal 
calls while causing disruption to provider relationships and possibly 
stopping some legal calls. While the disruption of legal calls would 
harm consumers, the Commission expects this scenario to arise 
infrequently. The power of this aspect of the rule is that it gives 
providers strong incentives to comply with the Commission's blocking 
rules. Because illegal calls cause large harms to consumers, stopping 
even a small share of illegal calls benefits consumers significantly 
and, as explained above, the Commission expects this rule to have 
minimal costs. Therefore, the Commission finds that the benefits of 
this rule outweigh its costs.
    43. Finally, the Commission expands the know-your-upstream-provider 
requirement to all voice service providers. This expanded requirement 
codifies that all voice service providers, regardless of their position 
in the call path, are responsible for preventing illegal calls. Because 
voice service providers should already be exercising due diligence by 
knowing their upstream call providers, this new rule has small costs. 
It has greater benefits in deterring providers from shirking their due-
diligence responsibility.
    44. These expanded rules will ultimately prevent illegal calls from 
ringing consumers' phones, both by deterring callers from placing them 
in the first instance and by stopping the calls before they reach the 
consumer. The rules also make bad actors, whether callers or voice 
service providers, easier to identify. Taken together, these new and 
expanded rules increase the effectiveness of all of the Commission's 
efforts to combat illegal calls, including its existing affirmative 
obligations and Robocall Mitigation Database filing requirements. These 
rules, together with the Commission's existing rules, make it easier to 
identify and stop illegal calls before they reach consumers. As the 
Commission found previously, an overall reduction in illegal calls will 
lower network costs by eliminating both unwanted traffic congestion and 
the labor costs of handling numerous customer complaints, and these new 
rules contribute to this overall reduction. This reduction in illegal 
calls will also help restore confidence in the U.S. telephone network 
and facilitate reliable access to emergency and healthcare services.
    45. Although sparse in quantitative estimates, the record in this 
proceeding supports the Commission's conclusion that the benefits of 
these rules exceed their costs. A more uniform blocking standard will 
``provide additional benefits and reduce the overall burden'' on 
providers. Extending these rules, originally adopted for gateway 
providers, to all voice service providers will not be overly costly or 
burdensome. The incremental costs of compliance with the Commission's 
new rules is ``relatively small.'' Given that robocalls reduce public 
welfare by billions of dollars annually, even a small percentage 
reduction in robocalls implies benefits that exceed the costs of the 
Commission's new rules.

Legal Authority

    46. The Commission's legal authority to adopt these requirements 
stems from sections 201(b), 202(a), and 251(e) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) as well as from the Truth in Caller 
ID Act and the Commission's ancillary authority. Sections 201(b) and 
202(a) grant the Commission broad authority to adopt rules governing 
just and reasonable practices of common carriers.
    47. The Commission's section 251(e) numbering authority provides 
independent jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of North American 
Numbering Plan (NANP) resources; this particularly applies where 
callers spoof caller ID for fraudulent purposes and therefore exploit 
numbering resources, regardless of whether the voice service provider 
is a common carrier. Similarly, the Truth in Caller ID Act grants the 
Commission authority to prescribe rules to make unlawful the spoofing 
of caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or 
wrongfully obtain something of value. Taken together, section 251(e) of 
the Communications Act and the Truth in Caller ID Act grant the 
Commission authority to prescribe rules to prevent the unlawful 
spoofing of caller ID and abuse of NANP resources by all voice service 
providers.
    48. The Commission further finds that these rules reduce the chance 
of unlawfully spoofed calls reaching consumers and thus are within its 
authority under the statutes referenced above. In particular, the 
requirement to respond to traceback requests within 24 hours directly 
impacts a caller's ability to unlawfully spoof caller ID by making it 
easier to detect the originator of the call. The other requirements are 
aimed at curbing the use of NANP numbers (whether spoofed or not) for 
unlawful purposes as they are focused on mitigating and preventing 
illegal calls.
    49. While the Commission concludes that its direct sources of 
authority provide an ample basis to adopt its proposed rules for all 
voice service providers, the Commission's ancillary authority in 
section 4(i) provides an independent basis to do so with respect to 
providers that have not been classified as common carriers. The 
Commission may exercise ancillary jurisdiction when two conditions are 
satisfied: (1) the Commission's general jurisdictional grant under 
Title I of the Communications Act covers the regulated subject; and (2) 
the regulations are reasonably ancillary to the Commission's effective 
performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities. The 
Commission concludes that the regulations adopted in this document 
satisfy the first prong because providers that interconnect with the 
public switched telephone network and exchange IP traffic clearly offer 
``communication by wire and radio.''
    50. With regard to the second prong, requiring voice service 
providers to comply with the Commission's proposed rules is reasonably 
ancillary to the Commission's effective performance of its statutory 
responsibilities under sections 201(b), 202(a), and 251(e) of the 
Communications Act and the Truth in Caller ID Act as described above. 
With respect to sections 201(b) and 202(a), absent application of the 
Commission's proposed rules to providers that are not classified as 
common carriers, originators of illegal calls could circumvent the 
Commission's proposed scheme by sending calls only via

[[Page 43454]]

providers that have not yet been classified as common carriers.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    51. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as 
amended, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated into the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted in 
May 2022 and published at 87 FR 42670 on July 18, 2022 (May 2022 
FNPRM). The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals 
in the May 2022 FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. This Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Order

    52. The Report and Order takes important steps in the fight against 
illegal robocalls by extending certain requirements to a broader range 
of voice service providers. First, the Report and Order requires all 
domestic voice service providers to respond to traceback requests 
within 24 hours of the request, extending the previous rule applicable 
to gateway providers to all providers. Second, it requires originating 
providers to block illegal traffic when notified of such traffic by the 
Commission and, if they fail to do so, requires all voice service 
providers in the U.S. to block all traffic from the bad-actor voice 
service provider, consistent with the existing rule for gateway 
providers. This modification eliminates potential ambiguity as to how 
providers should effectively mitigate illegal traffic and provides 
certainty to voice service providers that may otherwise be unsure how 
to comply. Finally, it requires all voice service providers accepting 
traffic from an upstream provider to take reasonable and effective 
steps to ensure that the immediate upstream provider is not using them 
to carry or process a high volume of illegal traffic. The expansion of 
these rules protects consumers from illegal calls, holds voice service 
providers responsible for the calls they carry, and aids in the 
identification of bad actors.

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

    53. While no comments specifically addressed the May 2022 FNPRM 
IRFA, the Commission did receive some comments that addressed the 
impact of the proposed rules on small providers. Some commenters raised 
concerns about the 24-hour traceback requirement. In particular, 
commenters noted that the Commission recognized that smaller providers 
may struggle to respond quickly and result in ``significant burdens'' 
to small entities. Still other comments urged us to adopt a tiered 
approach to provide flexibility for smaller providers that receive 
infrequent traceback requests. The Commission acknowledges these 
concerns in the Report and Order, and discusses steps taken to address 
these concerns in Section F of this FRFA. The rule the Commission 
adopts in the Report and Order codifies the expectation of the existing 
rule and provides flexibility to address requests received on evenings, 
weekends, and holidays. The Commission further considered the potential 
impact of the rules proposed in the IRFA on small entities and took 
steps where appropriate and feasible to reduce the compliance and 
economic burden for small entities.

Response To Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    54. 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. The Chief Counsel did not 
file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

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

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

Wireline Carriers

    59. 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

[[Page 43455]]

that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired 
telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and 
video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. 
By exception, establishments providing satellite television 
distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they 
operate are included in this industry. Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local 
service providers.
    60. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 providers 
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,737 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    61. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically 
applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services 
include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service 
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry 
with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local 
service providers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 providers 
that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,737 providers have 
1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business 
size standard, most of these providers can be considered small 
entities.
    62. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small 
business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 1,227 providers 
that reported they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that 929 providers have 1,500 
or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size 
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local 
exchange carriers can be considered small entities.
    63. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small 
businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. 
Providers of these services include several types of competitive local 
exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the 
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small 
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this 
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with 
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 
2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, 
there were 3,956 providers that reported they were competitive local 
exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 3,808 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.
    64. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for 
Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the 
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small 
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this 
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with 
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 
2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, 
there were 151 providers that reported they were engaged in the 
provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 131 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry 
can be considered small entities.
    65. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a 
``small cable operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that, directly or 
through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of 
all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any 
entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed 
$250,000,000.'' For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the 
Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer 
than 677,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will 
meet the definition of a small cable operator based on the cable 
subscriber count established in a 2001 Public Notice. Based on industry 
data, only six cable system operators have more than 677,000 
subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
cable system operators are small under this size standard. The 
Commission notes however, that the Commission neither requests nor 
collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated 
with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. 
Therefore, the Commission is unable at this time to estimate with 
greater precision the number of cable system operators that would 
qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the 
Communications Act.
    66. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to 
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not 
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service 
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service

[[Page 43456]]

carriers, or toll resellers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the 
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small 
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that 
operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with 
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 
2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, 
there were 115 providers that reported they were engaged in the 
provision of other toll services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 113 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.

Wireless Carriers

    67. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show 
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the 
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 797 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 715 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    68. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms 
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other 
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by 
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of 
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite 
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth 
station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies a business with $38.5 million or less in annual 
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms 
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242 
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on 
Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2020, there were 71 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 48 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, a little more than of these providers can 
be considered small entities.

Resellers

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

[[Page 43457]]

data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 
31, 2020, there were 58 providers that reported they were engaged in 
the provision of payphone services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 57 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.

Other Entities

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

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

    73. The Report and Order requires voice service providers to meet 
certain obligations. These changes affect small and large companies and 
apply to all the classes of regulated entities identified above. First, 
all voice service providers must fully respond to traceback requests 
from the Commission, civil and criminal law enforcement, and the 
industry traceback consortium within 24 hours of receipt of such a 
request. The voice service provider should respond with information 
about the provider from which it directly received the call. Small 
entity voice service providers may need to identify dedicated staff of 
other professionals to act as a clear point of contact to respond to 
traceback requests in a timely manner.
    74. Second, originating voice service providers, and any 
intermediate or terminating provider immediately downstream from the 
originate provider, must block calls in certain instances. 
Specifically, the originating provider must block illegal traffic once 
notified of such traffic by the Commission through its Enforcement 
Bureau. In order to comply with this requirement, small entities that 
are originating providers must block traffic that is substantially 
similar to the identified traffic on an ongoing basis. When an 
originating provider fails to comply with this requirement, the 
Commission may require small entity providers immediately downstream 
from an originating provider to block all traffic from the identified 
provider when notified by the Commission. As part of this requirement, 
a notified small entity originating provider must promptly report the 
results of its investigation to the Enforcement Bureau within 14 days, 
including, unless the originating provider determines it is either not 
an originating or gateway provider for any of the identified traffic or 
that the identified traffic is not illegal, both a certification that 
it is blocking the identified traffic and will continue to do so and a 
description of its plan to identify the traffic on an ongoing basis. In 
order to comply with the downstream provider blocking requirement, all 
providers must monitor EB Docket No. 22-174 and initiate blocking 
within 30 days of a Blocking Order being released.

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

    75. The RFA requires an agency to provide, ``a description of the 
steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact 
on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, 
and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final 
rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule 
considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was 
rejected.''
    76. Generally, the decisions the Commission made in the Report and 
Order apply to all providers. Treating small providers differently from 
larger providers would have a significant impact on the success of the 
rules the Commission adopts in this document, meaning that fewer 
consumers would be protected from illegal calls and bad-actor callers 
would have more opportunities to find ways around these restrictions. 
However, the Commission did take steps to ensure that small entity and 
other providers would not be unduly burdened by these requirements. 
Specifically, the Commission allowed flexibility where appropriate to 
ensure that small providers, can determine the best approach for 
compliance based on the needs of their networks. For example, providers 
have the flexibility to determine their proposed approach to blocking 
illegal traffic when notified by the Commission and to determine the 
steps they take to ``know the upstream provider.''

Report to Congress

    77. The Commission will send a copy of the Gateway Provider Report 
and Order and Order on Reconsideration, including this FRFA, in a 
report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. 
In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Gateway Provider 
Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, including this FRFA, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A 
copy of the Gateway Provider Report and Order and Order on 
Reconsideration (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the 
Federal Register.

Ordering Clauses

    78. It is ordered that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 201, 202, 217, 
227, 227b, 251(e), 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 202, 217, 227, 251(e), 303(r), 403, 
the Report and Order is adopted.
    79. It is further ordered that the Report and Order shall be 
effective 180 days after publication in the Federal Register, except 
that the amendments to Sec.  64.6305(d)(2)(iii) and (f)(2)(iii), 47 CFR 
64.6305(d)(2)(iii) and (f)(2)(iii), which may contain new or modified 
information collection requirements, will not become effective until 
the later of: (i) 180 days after publication in the Federal Register; 
or (ii) 30 days after the Office of Management and Budget completes 
review of any information collection requirements that the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau determines is required under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. In addition, the amendments to Sec.  64.6305(d)(2)(ii) 
and (e)(2)(ii), 47 CFR 64.6305(d)(2)(ii) and (e)(2)(ii), will not 
become effective until the later of: (i) 180 days after publication in 
the Federal Register; or (ii) 30 days after the Office of Management 
and Budget completes review of any information collection requirements 
that the Wireline Competition Bureau determines is required under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act for the changes made to these paragraphs in the 
2023 Caller ID Authentication Order. The Commission

[[Page 43458]]

directs the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau and the Wireline 
Competition Bureau, as appropriate, to announce the effective dates for 
Sec.  64.6305(d)(2)(ii) and (iii), (e)(2)(ii), and (f)(2)(iii) by 
subsequent Public Notice.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 0

    Authority delegations (Government agencies), Communications, 
Communications common carriers, Classified information, Freedom of 
information, Government publications, Infants and children, 
Organization and functions (Government agencies), Postal Service, 
Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sunshine Act, 
Telecommunications.

47 CFR Part 64

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

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0 and 64 as follows:

PART 0--COMMISSION ORGANIZATION

Subpart A--Organization

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

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, and 409, 
unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  0.111 by revising paragraph (a)(27) to read as follows:


Sec.  0.111  Functions of the Bureau.

    (a) * * *
    (27) Identify suspected illegal calls and provide written notice to 
voice service providers. The Enforcement Bureau shall:
    (i) Identify with as much particularity as possible the suspected 
traffic;
    (ii) Cite the statutory or regulatory provisions the suspected 
traffic appears to violate;
    (iii) Provide the basis for the Enforcement Bureau's reasonable 
belief that the identified traffic is unlawful, including any relevant 
nonconfidential evidence from credible sources such as the industry 
traceback consortium or law enforcement agencies; and
    (iv) Direct the voice service provider receiving the notice that it 
must comply with Sec.  64.1200(n)(2) of this chapter.
* * * * *

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

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

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


0
4. Amend Sec.  64.1200 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (k)(5) and (6) and (n)(1);
0
b. Removing paragraph (n)(2);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (n)(3), (4), (5), and (6) as paragraphs 
(n)(4), (5), (2), and (3), respectively; and
0
d. Revising newly redesignating paragraphs (n)(2), (3), and (5).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  64.1200  Delivery restrictions.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (5) A provider may not block a voice call under paragraphs (k)(1) 
through (4), paragraph (k)(11), paragraphs (n)(2) and (3), paragraph 
(n)(5), or paragraph (o) of this section if the call is an emergency 
call placed to 911.
    (6) When blocking consistent with paragraphs (k)(1) through (4), 
paragraph (k)(11), paragraphs (n)(2) and (3), paragraph (n)(5), or 
paragraph (o) of this section, a provider must make all reasonable 
efforts to ensure that calls from public safety answering points and 
government emergency numbers are not blocked.
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (1) Upon receipt of a traceback request from the Commission, civil 
law enforcement, criminal law enforcement, or the industry traceback 
consortium, the provider must fully respond to the traceback request 
within 24 hours of receipt of the request. The 24-hour clock does not 
start outside of business hours, and requests received during that time 
are deemed received at 8 a.m. on the next business day. If the 24-hour 
response period would end on a non-business day, either a weekend or a 
Federal legal holiday, the 24-hour clock does not run for the weekend 
or holiday in question, and restarts at 12:01 a.m. on the next business 
day following when the request would otherwise be due. For example, a 
request received at 3 p.m. on a Friday will be due at 3 p.m. on the 
following Monday, assuming that Monday is not a Federal legal holiday. 
For purposes of this paragraph (n)(1), business day is defined as 
Monday through Friday, excluding Federal legal holidays, and business 
hours is defined as 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on a business day. For purposes 
of this paragraph (n)(1), all times are local time for the office that 
is required to respond to the request.
    (2) Upon receipt of a Notice of Suspected Illegal Traffic from the 
Commission through its Enforcement Bureau, take the applicable actions 
with respect to the identified traffic described in paragraphs 
(n)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. The provider will not be held 
liable under the Communications Act or the Commission's rules in this 
chapter for providers that inadvertently block lawful traffic as part 
of the requirement to block substantially similar traffic so long as it 
is blocking consistent with the requirements of paragraphs (n)(2)(i) 
through (iii). For purposes of this paragraph (n)(2), identified 
traffic means the illegal traffic identified in the Notification of 
Suspected Illegal Traffic issued by the Enforcement Bureau. The 
following procedures shall apply:
    (i)(A) The Enforcement Bureau will issue a Notification of 
Suspected Illegal Traffic that identifies with as much particularity as 
possible the suspected illegal traffic; provides the basis for the 
Enforcement Bureau's reasonable belief that the identified traffic is 
unlawful; cites the statutory or regulatory provisions the identified 
traffic appears to violate; and directs the provider receiving the 
notice that it must comply with this section. The Enforcement Bureau's 
Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic shall give the identified 
provider a minimum of 14 days to comply with the notice. Each notified 
provider must promptly investigate the identified traffic and report 
the results of that investigation to the Enforcement Bureau within the 
timeframe specified in the Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic. 
If the provider's investigation determines that it served as the 
gateway or originating provider for the identified traffic, it must 
block or cease accepting the identified traffic and substantially 
similar traffic on an ongoing basis within the timeframe specified in 
the Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic. The provider must 
include in its report to the Enforcement Bureau:
    (1) A certification that it is blocking the identified traffic and 
will continue to do so; and
    (2) A description of its plan to identify and block or cease 
accepting substantially similar traffic on an ongoing basis.
    (B) If the provider's investigation determines that the identified 
traffic is not illegal, it shall provide an explanation as to why the 
provider reasonably concluded that the identified traffic is not 
illegal and what steps it took to reach that conclusion. Absent

[[Page 43459]]

such a showing, or if the Enforcement Bureau determines based on the 
evidence that the traffic is illegal despite the provider's assertions, 
the identified traffic will be deemed illegal. If the notified provider 
determines during this investigation that it did not serve as the 
gateway provider or originating provider for any of the identified 
traffic, it shall provide an explanation as to how it reached that 
conclusion and, if it is a non-gateway intermediate or terminating 
provider for the identified traffic, it must identify the upstream 
provider(s) from which it received the identified traffic and, if 
possible, take lawful steps to mitigate this traffic. If the 
Enforcement Bureau finds that an approved plan is not blocking 
substantially similar traffic, the identified provider shall modify its 
plan to block such traffic. If the Enforcement Bureau finds that the 
identified provider continues to allow suspected illegal traffic onto 
the U.S. network, it may proceed under paragraph (n)(2)(ii) or (iii) of 
this section, as appropriate.
    (ii) If the provider fails to respond to the Notification of 
Suspected Illegal Traffic, the Enforcement Bureau determines that the 
response is insufficient, the Enforcement Bureau determines that the 
provider is continuing to originate substantially similar traffic or 
allow substantially similar traffic onto the U.S. network after the 
timeframe specified in the Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic, 
or the Enforcement Bureau determines based on the evidence that the 
traffic is illegal despite the provider's assertions, the Enforcement 
Bureau shall issue an Initial Determination Order to the provider 
stating the Bureau's initial determination that the provider is not in 
compliance with this section. The Initial Determination Order shall 
include the Enforcement Bureau's reasoning for its determination and 
give the provider a minimum of 14 days to provide a final response 
prior to the Enforcement Bureau making a final determination on whether 
the provider is in compliance with this section.
    (iii) If the provider does not provide an adequate response to the 
Initial Determination Order within the timeframe permitted in that 
Order or continues to originate substantially similar traffic onto the 
U.S. network, the Enforcement Bureau shall issue a Final Determination 
Order finding that the provider is not in compliance with this section. 
The Final Determination Orders shall be published in EB Docket No. 22-
174 at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings. A Final 
Determination Order may be issued up to one year after the release date 
of the Initial Determination Order, and may be based on either an 
immediate failure to comply with this section or a determination that 
the provider has failed to meet its ongoing obligation under this 
section to block substantially similar traffic.
    (3) When notified by the Commission through its Enforcement Bureau 
that a Final Determination Order has been issued finding that an 
upstream provider has failed to comply with paragraph (n)(2) of this 
section, block and cease accepting all traffic received directly from 
the upstream provider beginning 30 days after the release date of the 
Final Determination Order. This paragraph (n)(3) applies to any 
provider immediately downstream from the upstream provider. The 
Enforcement Bureau shall provide notification by publishing the Final 
Determination Order in EB Docket No. 22-174 at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings. Providers must monitor EB Docket No. 22-174 
and initiate blocking no later than 30 days from the release date of 
the Final Determination Order. A provider that chooses to initiate 
blocking sooner than 30 days from the release date may do so consistent 
with paragraph (k)(4) of this section.
* * * * *
    (5) Take reasonable and effective steps to ensure that any 
originating provider or intermediate provider, foreign or domestic, 
from which it directly receives traffic is not using the provider to 
carry or process a high volume of illegal traffic onto the U.S. 
network.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  64.6305 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (c)(2) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  64.6305  Robocall mitigation and certification.

    (a) * * *
    (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 within 24 hours 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.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Any robocall mitigation program implemented pursuant to 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall include reasonable steps to 
avoid carrying or processing illegal robocall traffic and shall include 
a commitment to respond within 24 hours 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 carry or process calls.
* * * * *

0
5. Delayed indefinitely, further amend Sec.  64.6305 by revising 
paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and (iii), (e)(2)(ii), and (f)(2)(iii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  64.6305  Robocall mitigation and certification.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The specific reasonable steps the voice service provider has 
taken to avoid originating illegal robocall traffic as part of its 
robocall mitigation program, including a description of how it complies 
with its obligation to know its customers pursuant to Sec.  
64.1200(n)(4), any procedures in place to know its upstream providers, 
and the analytics system(s) it uses to identify and block illegal 
traffic, including whether it uses any third-party analytics vendor(s) 
and the name(s) of such vendor(s);
    (iii) A statement of the voice service provider's commitment to 
respond within 24 hours 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; and
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The specific reasonable steps the gateway provider has taken 
to avoid carrying or processing illegal robocall traffic as part of its 
robocall mitigation program, including a description of how it complies 
with its obligation to know its upstream providers pursuant to Sec.  
64.1200(n)(5), the analytics system(s) it uses to identify and block 
illegal traffic, and whether it uses any third-party analytics 
vendor(s) and the name(s) of such vendor(s);
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) A statement of the non-gateway intermediate provider's 
commitment to respond within 24 hours to all traceback requests from 
the Commission, law enforcement, and the industry traceback consortium, 
and to cooperate with such entities in investigating and stopping

[[Page 43460]]

any illegal robocallers that use its service to carry or process calls; 
and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-13035 Filed 7-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P