Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, 22625-22634 [2017-09463]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules
standards provided in §§ 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, regarding
civil justice reform.
Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order
13132, the proposed rule does not have
sufficient Federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment. Title VIII of ANILCA
precludes the State from exercising
subsistence management authority over
fish and wildlife resources on Federal
lands unless it meets certain
requirements.
Executive Order 13175
The Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act, Title VIII, does not
provide specific rights to tribes for the
subsistence taking of wildlife, fish, and
shellfish. However, the Secretaries,
through the Board, will provide
Federally recognized Tribes and Alaska
Native corporations an opportunity to
consult on this proposed rule.
Consultation with Alaska Native
corporations are based on Public Law
108–199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 2004,
118 Stat. 452, as amended by Public
Law 108–447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518,
Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267, which
provides that: ‘‘The Director of the
Office of Management and Budget and
all Federal agencies shall hereafter
consult with Alaska Native corporations
on the same basis as Indian tribes under
Executive Order No. 13175.’’
The Secretaries, through the Board,
will provide a variety of opportunities
for consultation: Commenting on
proposed changes to the existing rule;
engaging in dialogue at the Regional
Council meetings; engaging in dialogue
at the Board’s meetings; and providing
input in person, by mail, email, or
phone at any time during the
rulemaking process.
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 13211
This Executive Order requires
agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain
actions. However, this proposed rule is
not a significant regulatory action under
E.O. 13211, affecting energy supply,
distribution, or use, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
Drafting Information
Theo Matuskowitz drafted these
regulations under the guidance of
Eugene R. Peltola, Jr. of the Office of
Subsistence Management, Alaska
Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Additional
assistance was provided by:
• Daniel Sharp, Alaska State Office,
Bureau of Land Management;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:26 May 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
• Mary McBurney, Alaska Regional
Office, National Park Service;
• Dr. Glenn Chen, Alaska Regional
Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs;
• Trevor T. Fox, Alaska Regional
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
and
• Thomas Whitford, Alaska Regional
Office, U.S. Forest Service.
List of Subjects
36 CFR Part 242
Administrative practice and
procedure, Alaska, Fish, National
forests, Public lands, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
50 CFR Part 100
Administrative practice and
procedure, Alaska, Fish, National
forests, Public lands, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the Federal Subsistence
Board proposes to amend 36 CFR part
242 and 50 CFR part 100 for the 2018–
19 and 2019–20 regulatory years.
The text of the proposed amendments
to 36 CFR 242.24 and 242.26 and 50
CFR 100.24 and 100.26 is the final rule
for the 2016–2018 regulatory period for
wildlife (81 FR 52528; August 8, 2016).
The text of the proposed amendments
to 36 CFR 242.25 and 50 CFR 100.25 is
the final rule for the 2015–17 regulatory
period for fish (80 FR 28187; May 18,
2015).
Dated: March 22, 2017.
Eugene R. Peltola, Jr.,
Assistant Regional Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Acting Chair, Federal
Subsistence Board.
Dated: March 27, 2017.
Thomas Whitford,
Subsistence Program Leader, USDA–Forest
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–09967 Filed 5–16–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11; 4333–15–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 17–59; FCC 17–24]
Advanced Methods To Target and
Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission invites comment on
proposed changes to its rules
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22625
implementing the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and to its call completion
rules. The Commission proposes rules
to codify the clarification contained in
the 2016 Guidance PN that providers
may block calls when the subscriber to
a particular telephone number requests
that calls originating from that number
be blocked; permit providers to block
calls originating from invalid numbers;
permit providers to block calls
originating from valid numbers that are
not allocated to a voice service provider;
and permit providers to block calls
originating from valid numbers that are
allocated but not assigned to a
subscriber. In addition, the Commission
seeks comment on the possibility of
permitting providers to block calls in
other situations where the calls to be
blocked are reasonably likely to be
illegal based upon objective criteria.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
July 3, 2017, and reply comments are
due on or before July 31, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by CG Docket 17–59 by any
of the following methods:
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the Commission’s Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), through
the Commission’s Web site: https://
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow
the instructions provided on the Web
site for submitting comments. For ECFS
filers, in completing the transmittal
screen, filers should include their full
name, U.S. Postal service mailing
address, and CG Docket No. 17–59.
• Mail: Parties who choose to file by
paper must file an original and one copy
of each filing. Filers must submit two
additional copies for each additional
docket or rulemaking number. Filings
can be sent by hand or messenger
delivery, by commercial overnight
courier, or by first-class or overnight
U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings
must be addressed to the Commission’s
Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jerusha Burnett, Consumer Policy
Division, Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 by
email at jerusha.burnett@fcc.gov or by
phone at (202) 418–0526.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
22626
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Inquiry in CG Docket No. 17–59,
adopted on March 23, 2017, and
released March 23, 2017. A copy of
document FCC 17–24 and any
subsequently filed documents in this
matter will be available during regular
business hours at the FCC Reference
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554,
(202) 418–0270. The full text of
document FCC 17–24 will be available
for public inspection and copying via
ECFS, and during regular business
hours at the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
A copy of document FCC 17–24 and any
subsequently filed documents in this
matter may also be found by searching
ECFS at: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (insert
CG Docket No. 17–59 into the
Proceeding block).
Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419,
interested parties may file comments
and reply comments on or before the
dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed
using ECFS. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
• Commercial Mail sent by overnight
mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be
sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,
Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail should be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
Pursuant to § 1.1200 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1200, this
matter shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance
with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentations must contain summaries
of the substances of the presentations
and not merely a listing of the subjects
discussed. More than a one or two
sentence description of the views and
arguments presented is generally
required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other
rules pertaining to oral and written ex
parte presentations in permit-butdisclose proceedings are set forth in
§ 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules,
47 CFR 1.1206(b).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:26 May 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities
(braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), send an email to fcc504@
fcc.gov or call the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY). Document FCC 17–24 can also be
downloaded in Word or Portable
Document Format (PDF) at: https://
www.fcc.gov/document/robocallblocking-nprm-and-noi.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis
Document FCC 17–24 seeks comment
on proposed rule amendments that may
result in modified information
collection requirements. If the
Commission adopts any modified
information collection requirements, the
Commission will publish another notice
in the Federal Register inviting the
public to comment on the requirements,
as required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act. Public Law 104–13, 109 Stat. 163;
44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the
Commission seeks comment on how it
might further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Public Law 107–198, 116 Stat. 729; 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
1. In the document FCC 17–24, the
Commission begins a process to
facilitate voice service providers’
blocking of illegal robocalls. Providers
have been active in identifying such
robocalls, and consumer groups and
others have asked the Commission to
encourage better call blocking.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
2. The Commission believes that it is
in the best interest of achieving the goal
of eliminating illegal robocalls to
collaborate with industry—government
can remove regulatory roadblocks and
ensure that industry has the flexibility
to use robust tools to address illegal
traffic. It is also important for the
Commission to protect the reliability of
the nation’s communications network
and to protect consumers from providerinitiated blocking that harms, rather
than helps, consumers. The Commission
therefore must balance competing
policy considerations—some favoring
blocking and others disfavoring
blocking—to arrive at an effective
solution that maximizes consumer
protection and network reliability. The
Commission therefore seek comment on
several proposals that the Commission
believes strike the correct balance.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3. Specifically, the Commission
proposes that voice service providers
may block telephone calls in certain
circumstances to protect subscribers
from illegal robocalls. First, the
Commission proposes to codify the
clarification contained in the 2016
Guidance PN that providers may block
calls when the subscriber to a particular
telephone number requests that calls
originating from that number be
blocked. Second, the Commission seeks
comment on proposed rules authorizing
providers to block calls from three
categories of numbers: Invalid numbers,
valid numbers that are not allocated to
a voice service provider, and valid
numbers that are allocated but not
assigned to a subscriber.
4. The Commission’s legal authority
for these rules stems from sections 201
and 202 of the Communications Act (the
Act), which prohibit unjust and
unreasonable practices and unjust and
unreasonable discrimination—and thus
have formed the basis for the
Commission’s historic prohibitions on
call blocking. Here, the Commission
believes that blocking a call from a
spoofed number is not, by definition, an
unjust or unreasonable practice or
unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory
practice, and the Commission invokes
authority stemming from sections 201
and 202 of the Act in making that
determination. The Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991
(TCPA), as codified in section 227(b)(2)
of the Act, also states that the
Commission ‘‘shall prescribe regulations
to implement’’ the TCPA’s restrictions
on robocalls in subsection 227(b) of the
Act. As discussed below, the
Commission’s proposed rules are
intended to facilitate blocking of illegal
robocalls by voice service providers,
with the ultimate goal of ensuring that
consumers receive fewer robocalls that
violate section 227(b) of the Act, while
also preserving effective call completion
obligations. In addition, the
Commission is charged with prescribing
regulations to implement the Truth in
Caller ID Act, which made unlawful the
spoofing of Caller IDs ‘‘in connection
with any telecommunications service or
IP-enabled voice service . . . . with the
intent to defraud, cause harm, or
wrongfully obtain anything of value
. . . .’’ Given the continuing and everevolving schemes by illegitimate callers
to harm and defraud consumers using
spoofed Caller IDs, these proposals are
necessary to allow service providers to
help prevent these unlawful acts and
protect voice service subscribers.
Finally, section 251(e) of the Act gives
the Commission authority over the use
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
and allocation of numbering resources
in the United States, including the use
of the unassigned numbers at issue in
the proposed rules. The Commission
seeks comment on the nature and scope
of the Commission’s authority to adopt
rules as proposed herein.
5. As a threshold matter, the
Commission seek comment on how to
define the term ‘‘illegal robocall’’ for
purposes of this proceeding. Based on
the Strike Force’s recommendation, the
Commission tentatively concludes that
an ‘‘illegal robocall’’ is one that violates
the requirements of the TCPA, the
related Commission regulations
implementing the Act, or the
Telemarketing Sales Rule, as well as any
call made for the purpose of defrauding
a consumer, as prohibited under a
variety of federal and state laws and
regulations, including the federal Truth
in Caller ID Act. Is this definition
sufficient to capture all robocalls that
should be subject to provider-initiated
blocking? If not, how might the
definition be expanded to serve the
Commission’s goals in this proceeding?
For example, would this definition
preclude voice service providers from
blocking calls that are not lawful for
other reasons, such as calls prohibited
by an anti-stalking law or a court order,
or preclude providers from blocking
calls that violate a law but are not
autodialed or prerecorded? Conversely,
is this definition insufficiently precise
so that it could lead to lawful calls being
blocked? If so, what types of calls and
how should the Commission change this
definition?
A. Blocking at the Request of the
Subscriber to the Originating Number
6. The 2016 Guidance PN made clear
that voice service providers (whether
providing such service through TimeDivision Multiplexing, Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP), or Commercial
Mobile Radio Service) may block calls
from a number if the subscriber to that
telephone number requests such
blocking in order to prevent its
telephone number from being spoofed.
The Bureau concluded that, where the
subscriber did not consent to the
number being spoofed, the call was very
likely made with the intent to defraud,
and therefore that no reasonable
consumer would wish to receive such a
call. Such calls are deemed to be
presumptively spoofed and likely to
violate the Commission’s anti-spoofing
rules, and have the potential to cause
harm both to the called party and to the
subscriber who uses the number. The
Commission agrees with the Bureau’s
conclusions and propose to amend the
Commission’s rules to codify them, so
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:26 May 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
as to provide increased certainty to
providers. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal.
7. The 2016 Guidance PN did not
directly address issues related to
providers sharing information about
such subscriber requests. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
there are roadblocks to sharing
information among providers necessary
to effectuate subscriber requests for
blocking and what, if any, rule changes
or other measures are needed to ensure
that such requests can be honored
efficiently and effectively. Particularly,
the Commission seeks comment on
what measures, if any, the Commission
should consider to facilitate the sharing
of such requests among providers
where, for example, the subscriber asks
the provider that serves the number at
issue to disseminate its request
throughout the industry. The
Commission notes that subscribers
might not be readily able to identify
each and every provider and to submit
such a request to each provider
individually. Although such
information sharing at the subscriber’s
request appears to be consistent with
the Commission’s Customer Proprietary
Network Information (CPNI) rules, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
there are remaining concerns that have
not already been adequately addressed.
Would such concerns, if any, be
resolved by further clarification about
the lawfulness of disclosing information
to protect consumers and the network,
and to prevent fraud? Are subscribers
who request such blocking, absent
instructions to the contrary, inherently
requesting that that information be
shared among providers, and does such
sharing occur routinely, or are
subscribers making multiple individual
requests to multiple providers? Are
there any particular concerns regarding
the entity through which sharing
occurs? For example, are there any
specific concerns regarding sharing
through an industry information or an
entity involved in administering
telephone numbers? The Commission
notes especially that by seeking
comment on these issues, and during
the pendency of this proceeding, the
Commission does not stall, interrupt, or
prevent information sharing that is
already occurring lawfully. Instead, the
Commission asks whether the
Commission can provide a better
framework to facilitate and encourage
sharing, and if so, how the Commission
might do so.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22627
B. Calls Originating From Unassigned
Numbers
8. In the Strike Force Report, the
Strike Force asked the Commission to
further clarify that provider-initiated
blocking is permissible where the call
purports to originate from a number that
the provider knows to be unassigned. As
discussed in more detail below, use of
an unassigned number is a strong
indication that the calling party is
spoofing the Caller ID to potentially
defraud and harm a voice service
subscriber. The Commission can readily
identify three categories of unassigned
numbers. Those categories are: (1)
Numbers that are invalid under the
North American Numbering Plan
(NANP), including numbers with
unassigned area codes; (2) numbers that
have not been allocated by the North
American Numbering Plan
Administrator (NANPA) or the National
Number Pool Administrator (PA) to any
provider; and (3) numbers that the
NANPA or PA has allocated to a
provider, but are not currently assigned
to a subscriber. The Commission seeks
comment on rules to codify that
providers may block numbers that fall
into each of these three categories. The
Commission seeks comment on how
and when such blocking should be
permitted and on whether there are
other categories of numbers that should
be considered to be unassigned.
C. Calls Originating From Invalid
Numbers
9. The Commission proposes to adopt
a rule allowing provider-initiated
blocking of calls purportedly originating
from numbers that are not valid under
the NANP. Examples of such numbers
include numbers that use an unassigned
area code; that use an N11 code, such
as 911 or 411, in place of an area code;
that do not contain the requisite number
of digits; and that are a single digit
repeated, such as 000–000–0000. Can
providers, because of their intimate
knowledge of the North American
Numbering Plan, easily identify
numbers that fall into this category?
Further, because these numbers are not
valid, there is no possibility that a
subscriber legitimately could be
originating calls from such numbers.
Nor do the Commission foresee any
reasonable possibility that a caller
would spoof such a number for any
legitimate, lawful purpose; for example,
unlike a business spoofing Caller ID on
outgoing calls to show its main call-back
number, invalid numbers cannot be
called back. The Commission therefore
does not see a significant risk to
network reliability in allowing
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
22628
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
providers to block this category of calls.
The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal.
10. More generally, the Commission
seeks comment on whether, for
purposes of this rule, to define invalid
numbers more specifically than already
described above. Further, the
Commission seeks comment on what, if
anything, the Commission can do to
assist providers in correctly identifying
invalid numbers. With regard to smaller
providers, are there any particular
measures the Commission or the
numbering administrators can
implement to assist them in more
readily identifying or blocking calls
originating from invalid numbers?
Finally, the Commission seeks comment
on any additional issues concerning the
blocking of calls purportedly originating
from invalid numbers.
D. Calls Originating From Numbers Not
Allocated to Any Provider
11. The Commission also proposes to
allow provider-initiated blocking of
calls from numbers that are valid but
have not yet been allocated by NANPA
or the PA to any provider. Though these
numbers are valid under the North
American Numbering Plan, the
Commission believes that they are
similar to invalid numbers in that no
subscriber can actually originate a call
from any of them, and the Commission
can foresee no legitimate, lawful reason
to spoof such a number because they
cannot be called back. The Commission
seeks comment on this proposal.
12. Unlike the category of calls
described above, numbers in this
category are not presumptively invalid.
Instead, the provider must have
knowledge that a certain block of
numbers has not been allocated to any
provider and therefore that the number
being blocked could not have been
assigned to a subscriber. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
providers can readily identify numbers
that have yet to be allocated to any
provider and, if not, whether the
NANPA or PA could assist by providing
this information in a timely, effective
way. If there are difficulties in
identifying unallocated numbers, the
Commission asks commenters to
provide specific descriptions and/or
examples of any of those difficulties,
and to offer any proposed solutions to
overcome these difficulties. Can
providers identify a subset of such
number blocks, e.g., those shown as
‘‘available’’ by the PA? If providers can
identify these number blocks, is there
any delay in that information being
updated or other factors that likely
would result in calls from allocated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:26 May 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
numbers being blocked? If so, the
Commission seeks comment on what
steps are necessary to mitigate or
eliminate the possibility of such calls
being blocked. The Commission seeks
comment on what further steps the
Commission can take to assist providers,
especially small providers, in
identifying and blocking calls
originating from numbers that have not
been allocated to any provider and on
any other relevant issues.
E. Calls Originating From Numbers That
Are Allocated to a Provider, But Not
Assigned to a Subscriber
13. The Commission proposes to
allow provider-initiated blocking of
calls from numbers that have been
allocated to a provider but are not
assigned to a subscriber at the time of
the call. Like the two categories of
unassigned numbers discussed above, a
subscriber cannot originate a call from
such a number, and the Commission
foresees no legitimate, lawful purpose
for intentionally spoofing a number that
is not assigned to a subscriber and thus
cannot be called back. The Commission
seeks comment on this proposal.
14. Specifically, the Commission
seeks comment on the ability of
providers to accurately and timely
identify numbers that fall within this
category. The Commission believes that
the provider to which a telephone
number is allocated will know whether
that telephone number is currently
assigned to a subscriber. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
other providers can also determine, in a
timely way, whether a specific
telephone number is assigned to a
subscriber at the time a specific call is
made. Do providers currently share
information about which numbers are
assigned to a subscriber, and, if so, is
such information shared in close to real
time? Can the number portability
database administered by the Number
Portability Administration Center
(NPAC) provide such information for a
subset of numbers? Are there ways the
Commission can facilitate or improve
the sharing of information about
numbers in this category? Should the
Commission mandate the sharing of
information about unassigned numbers
to facilitate appropriate robocall
blocking? If so, what is the most
appropriate means to facilitate such
information sharing?
15. If there are reasons that
information about such numbers cannot
be shared in an accurate and timely
way, the Commission also seeks
comment on whether a rule explicitly
authorizing provider-initiated blocking
of calls purportedly from numbers that
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
are allocated to a provider but not
assigned to a subscriber should apply
only to the provider to which the
number is allocated. Are there other
factors that support or disfavor
explicitly authorizing all providers to
block calls purporting to originate from
numbers in this category? Are there
concerns for small providers, which
presumably have a smaller set of
allocated numbers than the larger
providers? Finally, the Commission
seeks comment on any issues not
already raised that may arise by
allowing providers to block allocated,
but unassigned, telephone numbers.
F. Related Issues
16. Internationally Originated Calls.
The Commission notes that
internationally originated calls may
require special treatment. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
an internationally originated call
purportedly originated from a NANP
number should be subject to these rules,
whereas an internationally originated
call showing an international number
would be beyond the scope of this rule.
Are there any other special rules the
Commission should consider with
respect to internationally originated
calls?
17. Subscriber Consent. The
Commission believes that no reasonable
consumer would want to receive these
calls. As a result, the Commission
proposes not to require providers to
obtain an opt-in from subscribers in
order to block calls as described above.
Obtaining opt-in consent from
subscribers would add unnecessary
burdens and complexity, and may not
be technically feasible for some
providers. The Commission seeks
comment on this issue.
18. Call Completion Rates. The Strike
Force specifically requested that the
Commission amend its rules to ensure
that providers can block illegal calls
without violating the call completion
rules. Specifically, the Strike Force
asked that these blocked calls not be
counted for purposes of calculating a
providers’ call completion rate. The
Commission proposes to exclude calls
blocked in accordance with the rules the
Commission adopts in this proceeding
from calculation of providers’ call
completion rates and seek comment on
that proposal.
Notice of Inquiry
19. In the Strike Force Report, the
Strike Force asked the Commission to
clarify that providers are permitted to
block ‘‘presumptively illegal’’ calls.
Although the Commission agrees that no
reasonable consumer would want to
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules
receive calls that are illegal, the
Commission’s call completion policies
demand care in identifying such calls.
The Commission believes that the
criteria used to identify such calls must
be objective, minimally intrusive on the
legitimate privacy interests of the
calling party, and must indicate with a
reasonably high degree of certainty that
a particular call is illegal. The
Commission therefore seeks information
on explicitly authorizing providers to
block calls that are reasonably likely to
be illegal based upon objective criteria
in addition to the categories of
unassigned numbers discussed above.
20. The Commission believes that the
categories of unassigned numbers
discussed above exemplify objective
standards for determining whether a
specific call is illegal to a reasonably
high degree of certainty. The
Commission is aware, however, that
there could be a variety of other
objective standards that could indicate
to a reasonably high degree of certainty
that a call is illegal. Consequently, the
Commission seeks comment on
objective standards that would indicate
to a reasonably high degree of certainty
that a call is illegal and whether to
adopt a safe harbor to give providers
certainty that they will not be found in
violation of the call completion and
other Commission rules when they
block calls based upon an application of
objective standards. The Commission
also seeks comment on ways that callers
who make legitimate calls can guard
against being blocked and to ensure that
legitimate callers whose calls are
blocked by mistake can prevent further
blocking.
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Objective Standards To Identify
Illegal Calls
21. The Commission seeks comment
on provider-initiated blocking based on
objective criteria. The Commission
seeks comment on what methods
providers and third-party call blocking
service providers employ in order to
determine that a certain call is illegal.
The Strike Force Report states that
‘‘[e]xamples of reasonable efforts
include but are not limited to, soliciting
and reviewing information from other
carriers, performing historical and real
time call analytics, making test calls,
contacting the subscriber of the spoofed
number, inspecting the media for a call
(audio play back of the Real Time
Protocol stream to understand the
context of the call), and checking
customer complaint sites.’’ The
Commission seeks more specific
information regarding these and other
methods or standards that can be used
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:26 May 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
to identify illegal calls to a reasonably
high degree of certainty.
22. What other methods can be or are
used? In particular, the Commission
seeks comment on the extent to which
information obtained through traceback
efforts is, can, and should be used to
identify future calls that are illegal to a
reasonably high degree of certainty? The
Commission asks commenters to submit
information on whether some methods
more accurately identify illegal calls in
comparison to other methods, and
whether some methods can identify
unwanted calls but are less accurate in
identifying illegal calls. Do certain
methods work best in combination? Are
some methods acceptable when used in
the context of an informed consumer
choosing to implement call blocking
with knowledge of the risks of false
positives, but might be less acceptable
when used in the context of providerinitiated blocking? What can the
Commission do to help providers
minimize the possibility for false
positives when blocking calls based on
such methods?
23. Does provider size, geographic
location, or other factors have an impact
on which methods provide the most
accurate results or which methods are
feasible? What can the Commission do
to provide support for smaller providers
that wish to adopt these methods? Are
some methods more likely to result in
providers blocking legitimate calls in a
manner that might violate the Act or the
Commission’s rules or polices related to
call completion or that are more likely
to contravene the policy goals
underlying those rules? Calls that
originate domestically may have
differences from those which originate
internationally, thus requiring
consideration of different objective
criteria. Are there any differences in
how providers do, or should, handle
calls originating outside of the United
States in comparison to those
originating domestically? If so, are there
any limitations to a provider’s ability to
accurately identify the true origination
point of a call?
24. The Commission recognizes that
standards bodies have made significant
progress on Caller ID Authentication
Standards. The Commission applauds
this progress, and encourages the
industry to implement these standards
as soon as they are capable of doing so.
The Commission seeks comment on
whether, once there is wide adoption of
the protocols and specifications
established by the Internet Engineering
Task Force’s (IETF) Secure Telephony
Identity Revisited (STIR) working group
and the Signature-based Handling of
Asserted information using toKENs
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22629
(SHAKEN) framework established in the
joint Alliance for Telecommunications
and Industry Solutions (ATIS) and
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) forum
Network-to-Network Interconnection
(NNI) Task Force, providers should then
be permitted to block calls for which the
Caller ID has not been authenticated.
Should unauthenticated Caller ID alone
be sufficient grounds for a provider to
block a call, or should it be used only
in combination with other methods? To
what extent can these standards be
implemented on networks using various
types of technology? For example, will
these standards work on VoIP calls and
traditional wireline calls equally well? If
not, how does that impact the propriety
of blocking calls based on whether the
Caller ID has been authenticated in
accordance with these standards?
Would it be possible to consider the
lack of authenticated Caller ID only for
those calls to which these industry
standards can be applied? Are there
special considerations related to
implementing these standards on
networks operated by small providers or
in rural areas? What other factors should
the Commission consider with regard to
blocking calls based upon whether
Caller ID has been authenticated in
accordance with these standards?
25. The Commission seeks comment
on whether sharing of information
among providers can increase the
effectiveness of call blocking
methodologies and could enable small
providers to benefit from the greater
resources of larger providers that might
be better able to create and implement
more sophisticated methods of
identifying illegal calls. The
Commission seeks comment on these
and any other impacts, positive and
negative, of such information sharing
and on what the Commission can do to
encourage and facilitate such sharing of
information in a manner most likely to
result in accurate and timely
identification of illegal calls. Again, the
Commission notes that by seeking
comment on these issues, the
Commission does not stall, interrupt, or
prevent information sharing that is
already occurring lawfully. The
Commission notes that section 222(d)(2)
of the Act makes clear that CPNI may be
shared ‘‘to protect users of those
services and other carriers from
fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of
. . . such services.’’ The Commission
seek comment on what other
clarifications or rules changes, if any,
would help to improve industry efforts
to combat illegal robocalls and improve
traceback efforts.
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
22630
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Safe Harbor for the Blocking of Calls
Identified Using Objective Standards
26. The Commission also seeks
comment on a broader safe harbor to
provide certainty to providers that
blocking calls in accordance with the
rules the Commission adopts in this
proceeding will not be deemed a
violation of the Commission’s rules and
the Act, or counted for purposes of
evaluating a provider’s call completion
rates. The Commission seeks comment
on the appropriate scope of such a safe
harbor.
27. The Commission seeks comment
on what blocking practices and
objective standards should be covered
by any safe harbor. Are there any
methods, practices, or objective
standards that should expressly be
excluded from the safe harbor? Are
there methods, practices, or objective
standards that warrant some protection,
such as a rebuttable presumption that
their use does not violate the call
completion rules, but do not warrant the
full protection of a safe harbor? What
are they?
28. The Commission further seeks
comment on how to formulate a safe
harbor that avoids providing a roadmap
enabling makers of illegal robocalls to
circumvent call blocking by providers.
Are there ways to provide both certainty
to providers without providing a level of
detail that would enable makers of
illegal robocalls to circumvent blocking
efforts? Should the Commission
distinguish between standards that are
general, e.g., regarding the presence or
absence of Caller ID signatures, versus
standards that involve patterns and
statistics? Would it be workable to
provide a safe harbor covering specific
objective standards or specific objective
standards implemented at some high
threshold level but only a rebuttable
presumption covering other objective
standards or objective standards
implemented at some low threshold?
For example, what if the safe harbor
applied when a provider blocks calls
originating from a single number when
the calls originating from that number
per minute exceed a fairly high
threshold, while a provider that applies
a lower, non-public threshold would
qualify only for a rebuttable
presumption? Finally, should the safe
harbor be the same for both large and
small providers, and are there any
considerations specific to small
providers?
C. Protections for Legitimate Callers
29. Even if providers use objective
standards, there might be some
situations in which legitimate calls
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:26 May 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
would be blocked. For example, highvolume callers that properly obtain
prior express consent might run afoul of
call-per-minute restrictions even though
all calls made are legal. This might
occur if a call center lawfully spoofs the
Caller ID on outgoing calls to utilize the
business’s toll-free number that
consumers can use to call back or that
might be familiar to consumers in a way
that helps to identify the caller. The
Commission seeks to avoid the blocking
of such legitimate calls and, instead,
seek to ensure that legitimate calls are
completed. The Commission thus seeks
comment on protections for legitimate
callers. Specifically, should the
Commission require providers to ‘‘white
list’’ legitimate callers who give them
advance notice? Should the Commission
establish a challenge mechanism for
callers who may have been blocked in
error?
30. First, the Commission seeks
comment on establishing a mechanism,
such as a white list, to enable legitimate
callers to proactively avoid having their
calls blocked. Should the Commission
specify the mechanism or mechanisms
to be used or administrative details,
such as the type of evidence providers
might require of such legitimate callers?
If so, what should the Commission
require? Should the Commission specify
a timeframe within which providers
must add a legitimate caller to its white
list? How should white list information
be shared by providers? Is there
anything the Commission can do to
ensure that white list information is
shared in a timely fashion such that
legitimate callers need not contact each
and every provider separately? Is
Commission action needed to guard
against white lists being accessed or
obtained by makers of illegal robocalls?
What is the risk that a caller could
circumvent efforts to block illegal
robocalls by spoofing numbers on the
white list? Is this risk mitigated by the
SHAKEN and STIR standards for
authenticating Caller ID if, for example,
the white list requires that all calls from
the white listed telephone number be
signed—once those standards have been
implemented? Finally, the Commission
seeks comment on any other relevant
issues.
31. Second, the Commission seeks
comment on implementing a process to
allow legitimate callers to notify
providers when their calls are blocked
and to require providers immediately to
cease blocking calls when they learn
that the calls are legitimate. How
rapidly must a provider respond to a
request to cease blocking, and should
the Commission specify the information
that providers must accept as proof that
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
a caller is legitimate? Should the
Commission require specific
procedures, or allow providers
discretion in how to develop processes,
including processes for sharing and
safeguarding this information? If
provider discretion is allowed, should
the Commission require providers to
submit their procedures for staff review
along with their objective standards?
Are there procedures that would reduce
any potentially undue burdens on
smaller providers? The Commission
believes most callers will contact their
own provider first when their calls are
being blocked. That provider, however,
may not be the provider that is actually
blocking the calls. The Commission
seeks comment on how to facilitate
information sharing so that the
challenge reaches the provider actually
blocking the calls. Finally, the
Commission seeks comment on any
other relevant issues.
Lastly, the Commission seeks
comment on whether providers should
designate an officer or other authorized
point of contact for legitimate callers
seeking to proactively avoid having
their calls blocked or to stop blocking of
their calls. Would such a requirement
represent an undue burden on smaller
providers and, if so, what alternative
should be available to legitimate callers?
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
32. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended,
(RFA) the Commission has prepared this
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities by the policies
and rules proposed in document FCC
17–24. Written public comments are
requested on this IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA
and must be filed by the deadlines for
comments specified in the DATES
section. The Commission will send a
copy of document FCC 17–24, including
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
33. Document FCC 17–24 begins a
process to facilitate voice service
providers’ blocking of illegal robocalls,
which represent an annoyance—and
often worse—for consumers. Document
FCC 17–24 proposes rules that would
allow providers to—on their customers’
behalf—block the illegal robocalls that
can bombard their phones at all hours
of the day. Providers have been active
in identifying such robocalls, and
consumer groups and others have asked
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
the Commission to encourage better call
blocking. Document FCC 17–24 suggests
it is in the best interest of achieving the
goal of eliminating illegal robocalls for
government to collaborate with industry
to crack the problem of illegal
robocalling—government can remove
regulatory roadblocks and ensure that
industry has the flexibility to use robust
tools to address illegal traffic. It is also
important for the Commission to protect
the reliability of the nation’s
communications network and to protect
consumers from provider-initiated
blocking that harms, rather than helps,
consumers. The Commission therefore
must balance competing policy
considerations—some favoring blocking
and others disfavoring blocking—to
arrive at an effective solution that
maximizes consumer protection and
network reliability. Document FCC 17–
24 seeks comment on several proposals
that the Commission believes strikes the
correct balance.
34. Document FCC 17–24 seeks
comment on proposed rules to codify
that voice service providers may block
telephone calls in certain circumstances
to protect subscribers from illegal
robocalls. First, document FCC 17–24
proposes to codify the clarification
contained in the 2016 Guidance PN that
providers may block calls when the
subscriber to a particular telephone
number requests that calls originating
from that number be blocked. Second,
the document FCC 17–24 seeks
comment on proposed rules authorizing
providers to block calls from three
categories of numbers: Invalid numbers,
valid numbers that are not allocated,
and valid numbers that are allocated but
not assigned. Third, document FCC 17–
24 seeks comment on related issues,
such as the treatment of internationally
originated calls, subscriber consent to
call blocking, and the impact on call
completion rate rules. The document
FCC 17–24 also includes a Notice of
Inquiry that seeks comments on further
actions that may be taken in the future,
including establishment of objective
standards to indicate that a call is likely
to be illegal, creation of a safe harbor for
providers, and creation of safeguards to
minimize blocking of lawful calls.
B. Legal Basis
35. The proposed and anticipated
rules are authorized under sections 201,
202, 227, 251(e) and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 227,
251(e), 403.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:26 May 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
36. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that will be affected by the
proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small business concern’’
under the Small Business Act. Under
the Small Business Act, a ‘‘small
business concern’’ is one that: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2)
is not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) meets any additional criteria
established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA). Nationwide,
there are a total of approximately 28.8
million small businesses, according to
the SBA.
37. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ‘‘establishments
primarily engaged in operating and/or
providing access to transmission
facilities and infrastructure that they
own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using
wired communications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of
services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services, wired
(cable) audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband
internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite
television distribution services using
facilities and infrastructure that they
operate are included in this industry.’’
The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which
consists of all such companies having
1,500 or fewer employees. Census data
for 2012 shows that there were 3,117
firms that operated that year. Of this
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than
1,000 employees. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms in this
industry can be considered small.
38. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business size
standard specifically for local exchange
services. The closest applicable size
standard under SBA rules is for the
category Wired Telecommunications
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22631
Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ‘‘establishments
primarily engaged in operating and/or
providing access to transmission
facilities and infrastructure that they
own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using
wired communications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of
services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services, wired
(cable) audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband
internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite
television distribution services using
facilities and infrastructure that they
operate are included in this industry.’’
Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2012 show
that there were 3,117 firms that operated
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most providers of local
exchange service are small businesses.
39. Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local
exchange services. The closest
applicable size standard under SBA
rules is for the category Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S.
Census Bureau defines this industry as
‘‘establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to
transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the
transmission of voice, data, text, sound,
and video using wired communications
networks. Transmission facilities may
be based on a single technology or a
combination of technologies.
Establishments in this industry use the
wired telecommunications network
facilities that they operate to provide a
variety of services, such as wired
telephony services, including VoIP
services, wired (cable) audio and video
programming distribution, and wired
broadband internet services. By
exception, establishments providing
satellite television distribution services
using facilities and infrastructure that
they operate are included in this
industry.’’ Under that size standard,
such a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. Census data for
2012 show that there were 3,117 firms
that operated that year. Of this total,
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
22632
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most
providers of incumbent local exchange
service are small businesses.
40. Competitive Local Exchange
Carriers (Competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs),
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
Other Local Service Providers. Neither
the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size
standard specifically for these service
providers. The appropriate size standard
under SBA rules is for the category
Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
The U.S. Census Bureau defines this
industry as ‘‘establishments primarily
engaged in operating and/or providing
access to transmission facilities and
infrastructure that they own and/or
lease for the transmission of voice, data,
text, sound, and video using wired
communications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of
services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services, wired
(cable) audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband
internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite
television distribution services using
facilities and infrastructure that they
operate are included in this industry.’’
Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2012 show
that there were 3,117 firms that operated
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most providers of
competitive local exchange service,
competitive access providers, SharedTenant Service Providers, and other
local service providers are small
entities.
41. The Commission has included
small incumbent LECs in this present
RFA analysis. As noted above, a ‘‘small
business’’ under the RFA is one that,
inter alia, meets the pertinent small
business size standard (e.g., a telephone
communications business having 1,500
or fewer employees), and ‘‘is not
dominant in its field of operation.’’ The
SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that,
for RFA purposes, small incumbent
LECs are not dominant in their field of
operation because any such dominance
is not ‘‘national’’ in scope. The
Commission has therefore included
small incumbent LECs in this RFA
analysis, although the Commission
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:26 May 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
emphasizes that this RFA action has no
effect on Commission analyses and
determinations in other, non-RFA
contexts.
42. Interexchange Carriers. Neither
the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size
standard specifically for providers of
interexchange services. The appropriate
size standard under SBA rules is for the
category Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ‘‘establishments
primarily engaged in operating and/or
providing access to transmission
facilities and infrastructure that they
own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using
wired communications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of
services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services, wired
(cable) audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband
internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite
television distribution services using
facilities and infrastructure that they
operate are included in this industry.’’
Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2012 show
that there were 3,117 firms that operated
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of IXCs are
small entities.
43. Cable System Operators (Telecom
Act Standard). The Communications
Act also contains a size standard for
small cable system operators, which is
‘‘a cable operator that, directly or
through an affiliate, serves in the
aggregate fewer than 1 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.’’ There
are approximately 52,403,705 cable
video subscribers in the United States
today. Accordingly, an operator serving
fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be
deemed a small operator if its annual
revenues, when combined with the total
annual revenues of all its affiliates, do
not exceed $250 million in the
aggregate. Based on available data, the
Commission finds that all but nine
incumbent cable operators are small
entities under this size standard. The
Commission notes that the Commission
neither requests nor collects information
on whether cable system operators are
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million.
Although it seems certain that some of
these cable system operators are
affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million,
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.
44. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a size standard for small businesses
specifically applicable to Other Toll
Carriers. This category includes toll
carriers that do not fall within the
categories of interexchange carriers,
operator service providers, prepaid
calling card providers, satellite service
carriers, or toll resellers. The closest
applicable size standard under SBA
rules is for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ‘‘establishments
primarily engaged in operating and/or
providing access to transmission
facilities and infrastructure that they
own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using
wired communications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of
services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services, wired
(cable) audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband
internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite
television distribution services using
facilities and infrastructure that they
operate are included in this industry.’’
Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2012 show
that there were 3,117 firms that operated
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus,
under this category and the associated
small business size standard, the
majority of Other Toll Carriers can be
considered small.
45. Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007,
the Census Bureau has placed wireless
firms within this new, broad, economic
census category. Under the present and
prior categories, the SBA has deemed a
wireless business to be small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. For the
category of Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite), Census data for 2012 show
that there were 967 firms that operated
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules
for the entire year. Of this total, 955
firms had fewer than 1,000 employees.
Thus under this category and the
associated size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority
of wireless telecommunications carriers
(except satellite) are small entities.
Similarly, according to internally
developed Commission data, 413
carriers reported that they were engaged
in the provision of wireless telephony,
including cellular service, Personal
Communications Service (PCS), and
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
services. Of this total, an estimated 261
have 1,500 or fewer employees. Thus,
using available data, the Commission
estimates that the majority of wireless
firms can be considered small.
46. Satellite Telecommunications
Providers. The category of Satellite
Telecommunications ‘‘comprises
establishments 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.’’ This category has
a small business size standard of $32.5
million or less in average annual
receipts, under SBA rules. For this
category, Census Bureau data for 2012
show that there were a total of 333 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 299 firms had annual receipts of
under $25 million. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority
of Satellite Telecommunications firms
are small entities.
47. All Other Telecommunications.
All Other Telecommunications
comprises, inter alia, ‘‘establishments
primarily engaged in providing
specialized telecommunications
services, such as satellite tracking,
communications telemetry, and radar
station operation. This industry also
includes establishments primarily
engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities
connected with one or more terrestrial
systems and capable of transmitting
telecommunications to, and receiving
telecommunications from, satellite
systems. Establishments providing
Internet services or VoIP services via
client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this
industry.’’ For this category, Census
Bureau data for 2012 show that there
were a total of 1,442 firms that operated
for the entire year. Of this total, 1,400
had annual receipts below $25 million
per year. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of All Other
Telecommunications firms are small
entities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 May 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
48. Toll Resellers. The Commission
has not developed a definition for Toll
Resellers. The closest NAICS Code
Category is Telecommunications
Resellers. The Telecommunications
Resellers industry comprises
establishments engaged in purchasing
access and network capacity from
owners and operators of
telecommunications networks and
reselling wired and wireless
telecommunications services (except
satellite) to businesses and households.
Establishments in this industry resell
telecommunications; they do not
operate transmission facilities and
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network
operators (MVNOs) are included in this
industry. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for the
category of Telecommunications
Resellers. Under that size standard, such
a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. Census data for 2012
show that 1,341 firms provided resale
services during that year. Of that
number, 1,341 operated with fewer than
1,000 employees. Thus, under this
category and the associated small
business size standard, the majority of
these resellers can be considered small
entities. According to Commission data,
881 carriers have reported that they are
engaged in the provision of toll resale
services. Of this total, an estimated 857
have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of toll
resellers are small entities.
49. Local Resellers. The SBA has
developed a small business size
standard for the category of
Telecommunications Resellers. The
Telecommunications Resellers industry
comprises establishments engaged in
purchasing access and network capacity
from owners and operators of
telecommunications networks and
reselling wired and wireless
telecommunications services (except
satellite) to businesses and households.
Establishments in this industry resell
telecommunications; they do not
operate transmission facilities and
infrastructure. MVNOs are included in
this industry. Under that size standard,
such a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. Census data for
2012 show that 1,341 firms provided
resale services during that year. Of that
number, all operated with fewer than
1,000 employees. Thus, under this
category and the associated small
business size standard, the majority of
these prepaid calling card providers can
be considered small entities.
50. Prepaid Calling Card Providers.
The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for the category
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22633
of Telecommunications Resellers. The
Telecommunications Resellers industry
comprises establishments engaged in
purchasing access and network capacity
from owners and operators of
telecommunications networks and
reselling wired and wireless
telecommunications services (except
satellite) to businesses and households.
Establishments in this industry resell
telecommunications; they do not
operate transmission facilities and
infrastructure. MVNOs are included in
this industry. Under that size standard,
such a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. Census data for
2012 show that 1,341 firms provided
resale services during that year. Of that
number, all operated with fewer than
1,000 employees. Thus, under this
category and the associated small
business size standard, the majority of
these prepaid calling card providers can
be considered small entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
51. As indicated above, document
FCC 17–24 seeks comment on proposed
rules to codify that voice service
providers may block telephone calls in
certain circumstances to protect
subscribers from illegal robocalls. Until
these requirements are defined in full, it
is not possible to predict with certainty
whether the costs of compliance will be
proportionate between small and large
providers. The Commission seeks to
minimize the burden associated with
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements for the
proposed rules, such as modifying
software, developing procedures, and
training staff.
52. Under the proposed rules,
providers may need to record requests
from subscribers to block certain
numbers, as well as identify invalid
numbers, valid numbers that are not
allocated, and valid numbers that are
allocated but not assigned. In addition,
they may need to set up communication
with other providers to share
information about numbers to be
blocked. Finally, providers may need to
exclude calls that are blocked pursuant
to the proposed rules when calculating
their call completion rates.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
53. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
22634
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.
54. It should be noted that these
proposed rules to codify that voice
service providers may block telephone
calls in certain circumstances to protect
subscribers from illegal robocalls are
permissive and not mandatory. Small
businesses may avoid compliance costs
entirely by declining to block robocalls,
or may delay their implementation of
robocall blocking to allow for more time
to come into compliance with the rules.
However, the Commission intends to
craft rules that encourage all carriers,
including small businesses, to block
illegal robocalls and therefore seeks
comment from small businesses on how
to minimize costs associated with
implementing the proposed rules.
Document FCC 17–24 poses specific
requests for comment from small
businesses regarding how the proposed
rules affect them and what could be
done to minimize any disproportionate
impact on small businesses.
55. The Commission has proposed
rules regarding blocking calls at the
request of the subscriber to the
originating number and blocking calls
originating from unassigned numbers.
The Commission has requested feedback
from small businesses in the Notice and
seek comment on ways to make the
proposed rules less costly. The
Commission has proposed not to require
providers to obtain an opt-in from
subscribers in order to block calls as a
way of reducing costs to all providers,
including small businesses. The
Commission seeks comment on how to
minimize the economic impact of the
Commission’s proposals.
56. The Commission has also initiated
a Notice of Inquiry in document FCC
17–24 to consider a range of alternatives
to expand the proposed rules, including
establishment of objective standards to
indicate that a call is likely to be illegal,
creation of a safe harbor for providers,
and creation of safeguards to minimize
blocking of lawful calls. These are not
yet proposed rules. They show the
Commission is proceeding with caution
and seeking comment from small
businesses and others before developing
rules in this complex area. The
Commission will assess how to proceed
in light of the record in response to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:26 May 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
document FCC 17–24, including any
comments from small businesses.
57. The Commission expects to
consider the economic impact on small
entities, as identified in comments filed
in response to the document FCC 17–24
and this IRFA, in reaching its final
conclusions and taking action in this
proceeding.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
58. None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Claims, Communications common
carriers, Computer technology, Credit,
Foreign relations, Individuals with
disabilities, Political candidates, Radio,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telecommunications,
Telegraph, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 64 as follows:
PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES
RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
1. The authority citation for part 64
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 225, 254(k),
403(b)(2)(B), (c), 715, Pub. L. 104–104, 110
Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201,
218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620,
and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112–96, unless
otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 64.1200 by adding and
reserving paragraphs (i) and (j), and
adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:
■
§ 64.1200
Delivery restrictions.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) [Reserved]
(j) [Reserved]
(k) Voice service providers may block
calls so that they do not reach a called
party as follows:
(1) Providers may block calls when
the subscriber to which the originating
number is assigned has requested that
calls originating from that number be
blocked. Calls may be blocked based
upon the originating number shown in
the Caller ID without regard to whether
the calls in fact originate from that
number.
(2) Providers may block calls
originating from the following numbers:
(i) A number that is not a valid North
American Numbering Plan number;
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
(ii) A valid North American
Numbering Plan number that is not
allocated to a provider by the North
American Numbering Plan
Administrator or the Pooling
Administrator; and
(iii) A valid North American
Numbering Plan number that is
allocated to a provider by the North
American Numbering Plan
Administrator or Pooling Administrator,
but is not assigned to a subscriber.
(3) For purposes of blocking calls
based upon the originating number
under this paragraph (k), a provider may
rely on Caller ID information to
determine the originating number.
■ 3. Amend § 64.2103 by revising
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 64.2103
records.
Retention of call attempt
*
*
*
*
*
(e) The following calls are excluded
from these requirements:
(1) IntraLATA toll calls carried
entirely over the covered provider’s
network or handed off by the covered
provider directly to the terminating
local exchange carrier or directly to the
tandem switch that the terminating local
exchange carrier’s end office subtends
(terminating tandem); and
(2) Calls blocked pursuant to
§ 64.1200(k) of the Commission’s rules.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Amend § 64.2105 by revising
paragraph (e) to read:
§ 64.2105
Reporting requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) The following calls are excluded
from these requirements:
(1) IntraLATA toll calls carried
entirely over the covered provider’s
network or handed off by the covered
provider directly to the terminating
local exchange carrier or directly to the
tandem switch that the terminating local
exchange carrier’s end office subtends
(terminating tandem); and
(2) calls blocked pursuant to
§ 64.1200(k) of the Commission’s rules.
[FR Doc. 2017–09463 Filed 5–16–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM
17MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 17, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22625-22634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09463]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 17-24]
Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission invites comment on proposed
changes to its rules implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and to its call completion rules. The Commission proposes rules to
codify the clarification contained in the 2016 Guidance PN that
providers may block calls when the subscriber to a particular telephone
number requests that calls originating from that number be blocked;
permit providers to block calls originating from invalid numbers;
permit providers to block calls originating from valid numbers that are
not allocated to a voice service provider; and permit providers to
block calls originating from valid numbers that are allocated but not
assigned to a subscriber. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on
the possibility of permitting providers to block calls in other
situations where the calls to be blocked are reasonably likely to be
illegal based upon objective criteria.
DATES: Comments are due on or before July 3, 2017, and reply comments
are due on or before July 31, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket 17-59 by
any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on
the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing
the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S.
Postal service mailing address, and CG Docket No. 17-59.
Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
original and one copy of each filing. Filers must submit two additional
copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be
sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or
by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must
be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerusha Burnett, Consumer Policy
Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 by
email at jerusha.burnett@fcc.gov or by phone at (202) 418-0526.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of
[[Page 22626]]
Inquiry in CG Docket No. 17-59, adopted on March 23, 2017, and released
March 23, 2017. A copy of document FCC 17-24 and any subsequently filed
documents in this matter will be available during regular business
hours at the FCC Reference Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270. The full text of
document FCC 17-24 will be available for public inspection and copying
via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554. A copy of document FCC 17-24 and any subsequently
filed documents in this matter may also be found by searching ECFS at:
https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (insert CG Docket No. 17-59 into the
Proceeding block).
Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the
first page of this document. Comments may be filed using ECFS. See
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121
(1998).
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S.
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Pursuant to Sec. 1.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1200,
this matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in
accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentations must contain summaries of the substances of the
presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More
than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments
presented is generally required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules
pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-
disclose proceedings are set forth in Sec. 1.1206(b) of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Document FCC 17-24 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document
Format (PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/robocall-blocking-nprm-and-noi.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
Document FCC 17-24 seeks comment on proposed rule amendments that
may result in modified information collection requirements. If the
Commission adopts any modified information collection requirements, the
Commission will publish another notice in the Federal Register inviting
the public to comment on the requirements, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat. 163; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, the Commission seeks comment on how it might further reduce the
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees. Public Law 107-198, 116 Stat. 729; 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
1. In the document FCC 17-24, the Commission begins a process to
facilitate voice service providers' blocking of illegal robocalls.
Providers have been active in identifying such robocalls, and consumer
groups and others have asked the Commission to encourage better call
blocking.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
2. The Commission believes that it is in the best interest of
achieving the goal of eliminating illegal robocalls to collaborate with
industry--government can remove regulatory roadblocks and ensure that
industry has the flexibility to use robust tools to address illegal
traffic. It is also important for the Commission to protect the
reliability of the nation's communications network and to protect
consumers from provider-initiated blocking that harms, rather than
helps, consumers. The Commission therefore must balance competing
policy considerations--some favoring blocking and others disfavoring
blocking--to arrive at an effective solution that maximizes consumer
protection and network reliability. The Commission therefore seek
comment on several proposals that the Commission believes strike the
correct balance.
3. Specifically, the Commission proposes that voice service
providers may block telephone calls in certain circumstances to protect
subscribers from illegal robocalls. First, the Commission proposes to
codify the clarification contained in the 2016 Guidance PN that
providers may block calls when the subscriber to a particular telephone
number requests that calls originating from that number be blocked.
Second, the Commission seeks comment on proposed rules authorizing
providers to block calls from three categories of numbers: Invalid
numbers, valid numbers that are not allocated to a voice service
provider, and valid numbers that are allocated but not assigned to a
subscriber.
4. The Commission's legal authority for these rules stems from
sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act (the Act), which
prohibit unjust and unreasonable practices and unjust and unreasonable
discrimination--and thus have formed the basis for the Commission's
historic prohibitions on call blocking. Here, the Commission believes
that blocking a call from a spoofed number is not, by definition, an
unjust or unreasonable practice or unjustly or unreasonably
discriminatory practice, and the Commission invokes authority stemming
from sections 201 and 202 of the Act in making that determination. The
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), as codified in
section 227(b)(2) of the Act, also states that the Commission ``shall
prescribe regulations to implement'' the TCPA's restrictions on
robocalls in subsection 227(b) of the Act. As discussed below, the
Commission's proposed rules are intended to facilitate blocking of
illegal robocalls by voice service providers, with the ultimate goal of
ensuring that consumers receive fewer robocalls that violate section
227(b) of the Act, while also preserving effective call completion
obligations. In addition, the Commission is charged with prescribing
regulations to implement the Truth in Caller ID Act, which made
unlawful the spoofing of Caller IDs ``in connection with any
telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service . . . . with the
intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value .
. . .'' Given the continuing and ever-evolving schemes by illegitimate
callers to harm and defraud consumers using spoofed Caller IDs, these
proposals are necessary to allow service providers to help prevent
these unlawful acts and protect voice service subscribers. Finally,
section 251(e) of the Act gives the Commission authority over the use
[[Page 22627]]
and allocation of numbering resources in the United States, including
the use of the unassigned numbers at issue in the proposed rules. The
Commission seeks comment on the nature and scope of the Commission's
authority to adopt rules as proposed herein.
5. As a threshold matter, the Commission seek comment on how to
define the term ``illegal robocall'' for purposes of this proceeding.
Based on the Strike Force's recommendation, the Commission tentatively
concludes that an ``illegal robocall'' is one that violates the
requirements of the TCPA, the related Commission regulations
implementing the Act, or the Telemarketing Sales Rule, as well as any
call made for the purpose of defrauding a consumer, as prohibited under
a variety of federal and state laws and regulations, including the
federal Truth in Caller ID Act. Is this definition sufficient to
capture all robocalls that should be subject to provider-initiated
blocking? If not, how might the definition be expanded to serve the
Commission's goals in this proceeding? For example, would this
definition preclude voice service providers from blocking calls that
are not lawful for other reasons, such as calls prohibited by an anti-
stalking law or a court order, or preclude providers from blocking
calls that violate a law but are not autodialed or prerecorded?
Conversely, is this definition insufficiently precise so that it could
lead to lawful calls being blocked? If so, what types of calls and how
should the Commission change this definition?
A. Blocking at the Request of the Subscriber to the Originating Number
6. The 2016 Guidance PN made clear that voice service providers
(whether providing such service through Time-Division Multiplexing,
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), or Commercial Mobile Radio
Service) may block calls from a number if the subscriber to that
telephone number requests such blocking in order to prevent its
telephone number from being spoofed. The Bureau concluded that, where
the subscriber did not consent to the number being spoofed, the call
was very likely made with the intent to defraud, and therefore that no
reasonable consumer would wish to receive such a call. Such calls are
deemed to be presumptively spoofed and likely to violate the
Commission's anti-spoofing rules, and have the potential to cause harm
both to the called party and to the subscriber who uses the number. The
Commission agrees with the Bureau's conclusions and propose to amend
the Commission's rules to codify them, so as to provide increased
certainty to providers. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
7. The 2016 Guidance PN did not directly address issues related to
providers sharing information about such subscriber requests. The
Commission seeks comment on whether there are roadblocks to sharing
information among providers necessary to effectuate subscriber requests
for blocking and what, if any, rule changes or other measures are
needed to ensure that such requests can be honored efficiently and
effectively. Particularly, the Commission seeks comment on what
measures, if any, the Commission should consider to facilitate the
sharing of such requests among providers where, for example, the
subscriber asks the provider that serves the number at issue to
disseminate its request throughout the industry. The Commission notes
that subscribers might not be readily able to identify each and every
provider and to submit such a request to each provider individually.
Although such information sharing at the subscriber's request appears
to be consistent with the Commission's Customer Proprietary Network
Information (CPNI) rules, the Commission seeks comment on whether there
are remaining concerns that have not already been adequately addressed.
Would such concerns, if any, be resolved by further clarification about
the lawfulness of disclosing information to protect consumers and the
network, and to prevent fraud? Are subscribers who request such
blocking, absent instructions to the contrary, inherently requesting
that that information be shared among providers, and does such sharing
occur routinely, or are subscribers making multiple individual requests
to multiple providers? Are there any particular concerns regarding the
entity through which sharing occurs? For example, are there any
specific concerns regarding sharing through an industry information or
an entity involved in administering telephone numbers? The Commission
notes especially that by seeking comment on these issues, and during
the pendency of this proceeding, the Commission does not stall,
interrupt, or prevent information sharing that is already occurring
lawfully. Instead, the Commission asks whether the Commission can
provide a better framework to facilitate and encourage sharing, and if
so, how the Commission might do so.
B. Calls Originating From Unassigned Numbers
8. In the Strike Force Report, the Strike Force asked the
Commission to further clarify that provider-initiated blocking is
permissible where the call purports to originate from a number that the
provider knows to be unassigned. As discussed in more detail below, use
of an unassigned number is a strong indication that the calling party
is spoofing the Caller ID to potentially defraud and harm a voice
service subscriber. The Commission can readily identify three
categories of unassigned numbers. Those categories are: (1) Numbers
that are invalid under the North American Numbering Plan (NANP),
including numbers with unassigned area codes; (2) numbers that have not
been allocated by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator
(NANPA) or the National Number Pool Administrator (PA) to any provider;
and (3) numbers that the NANPA or PA has allocated to a provider, but
are not currently assigned to a subscriber. The Commission seeks
comment on rules to codify that providers may block numbers that fall
into each of these three categories. The Commission seeks comment on
how and when such blocking should be permitted and on whether there are
other categories of numbers that should be considered to be unassigned.
C. Calls Originating From Invalid Numbers
9. The Commission proposes to adopt a rule allowing provider-
initiated blocking of calls purportedly originating from numbers that
are not valid under the NANP. Examples of such numbers include numbers
that use an unassigned area code; that use an N11 code, such as 911 or
411, in place of an area code; that do not contain the requisite number
of digits; and that are a single digit repeated, such as 000-000-0000.
Can providers, because of their intimate knowledge of the North
American Numbering Plan, easily identify numbers that fall into this
category? Further, because these numbers are not valid, there is no
possibility that a subscriber legitimately could be originating calls
from such numbers. Nor do the Commission foresee any reasonable
possibility that a caller would spoof such a number for any legitimate,
lawful purpose; for example, unlike a business spoofing Caller ID on
outgoing calls to show its main call-back number, invalid numbers
cannot be called back. The Commission therefore does not see a
significant risk to network reliability in allowing
[[Page 22628]]
providers to block this category of calls. The Commission seeks comment
on this proposal.
10. More generally, the Commission seeks comment on whether, for
purposes of this rule, to define invalid numbers more specifically than
already described above. Further, the Commission seeks comment on what,
if anything, the Commission can do to assist providers in correctly
identifying invalid numbers. With regard to smaller providers, are
there any particular measures the Commission or the numbering
administrators can implement to assist them in more readily identifying
or blocking calls originating from invalid numbers? Finally, the
Commission seeks comment on any additional issues concerning the
blocking of calls purportedly originating from invalid numbers.
D. Calls Originating From Numbers Not Allocated to Any Provider
11. The Commission also proposes to allow provider-initiated
blocking of calls from numbers that are valid but have not yet been
allocated by NANPA or the PA to any provider. Though these numbers are
valid under the North American Numbering Plan, the Commission believes
that they are similar to invalid numbers in that no subscriber can
actually originate a call from any of them, and the Commission can
foresee no legitimate, lawful reason to spoof such a number because
they cannot be called back. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal.
12. Unlike the category of calls described above, numbers in this
category are not presumptively invalid. Instead, the provider must have
knowledge that a certain block of numbers has not been allocated to any
provider and therefore that the number being blocked could not have
been assigned to a subscriber. The Commission seeks comment on whether
providers can readily identify numbers that have yet to be allocated to
any provider and, if not, whether the NANPA or PA could assist by
providing this information in a timely, effective way. If there are
difficulties in identifying unallocated numbers, the Commission asks
commenters to provide specific descriptions and/or examples of any of
those difficulties, and to offer any proposed solutions to overcome
these difficulties. Can providers identify a subset of such number
blocks, e.g., those shown as ``available'' by the PA? If providers can
identify these number blocks, is there any delay in that information
being updated or other factors that likely would result in calls from
allocated numbers being blocked? If so, the Commission seeks comment on
what steps are necessary to mitigate or eliminate the possibility of
such calls being blocked. The Commission seeks comment on what further
steps the Commission can take to assist providers, especially small
providers, in identifying and blocking calls originating from numbers
that have not been allocated to any provider and on any other relevant
issues.
E. Calls Originating From Numbers That Are Allocated to a Provider, But
Not Assigned to a Subscriber
13. The Commission proposes to allow provider-initiated blocking of
calls from numbers that have been allocated to a provider but are not
assigned to a subscriber at the time of the call. Like the two
categories of unassigned numbers discussed above, a subscriber cannot
originate a call from such a number, and the Commission foresees no
legitimate, lawful purpose for intentionally spoofing a number that is
not assigned to a subscriber and thus cannot be called back. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
14. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the ability of
providers to accurately and timely identify numbers that fall within
this category. The Commission believes that the provider to which a
telephone number is allocated will know whether that telephone number
is currently assigned to a subscriber. The Commission seeks comment on
whether other providers can also determine, in a timely way, whether a
specific telephone number is assigned to a subscriber at the time a
specific call is made. Do providers currently share information about
which numbers are assigned to a subscriber, and, if so, is such
information shared in close to real time? Can the number portability
database administered by the Number Portability Administration Center
(NPAC) provide such information for a subset of numbers? Are there ways
the Commission can facilitate or improve the sharing of information
about numbers in this category? Should the Commission mandate the
sharing of information about unassigned numbers to facilitate
appropriate robocall blocking? If so, what is the most appropriate
means to facilitate such information sharing?
15. If there are reasons that information about such numbers cannot
be shared in an accurate and timely way, the Commission also seeks
comment on whether a rule explicitly authorizing provider-initiated
blocking of calls purportedly from numbers that are allocated to a
provider but not assigned to a subscriber should apply only to the
provider to which the number is allocated. Are there other factors that
support or disfavor explicitly authorizing all providers to block calls
purporting to originate from numbers in this category? Are there
concerns for small providers, which presumably have a smaller set of
allocated numbers than the larger providers? Finally, the Commission
seeks comment on any issues not already raised that may arise by
allowing providers to block allocated, but unassigned, telephone
numbers.
F. Related Issues
16. Internationally Originated Calls. The Commission notes that
internationally originated calls may require special treatment. The
Commission seeks comment on whether an internationally originated call
purportedly originated from a NANP number should be subject to these
rules, whereas an internationally originated call showing an
international number would be beyond the scope of this rule. Are there
any other special rules the Commission should consider with respect to
internationally originated calls?
17. Subscriber Consent. The Commission believes that no reasonable
consumer would want to receive these calls. As a result, the Commission
proposes not to require providers to obtain an opt-in from subscribers
in order to block calls as described above. Obtaining opt-in consent
from subscribers would add unnecessary burdens and complexity, and may
not be technically feasible for some providers. The Commission seeks
comment on this issue.
18. Call Completion Rates. The Strike Force specifically requested
that the Commission amend its rules to ensure that providers can block
illegal calls without violating the call completion rules.
Specifically, the Strike Force asked that these blocked calls not be
counted for purposes of calculating a providers' call completion rate.
The Commission proposes to exclude calls blocked in accordance with the
rules the Commission adopts in this proceeding from calculation of
providers' call completion rates and seek comment on that proposal.
Notice of Inquiry
19. In the Strike Force Report, the Strike Force asked the
Commission to clarify that providers are permitted to block
``presumptively illegal'' calls. Although the Commission agrees that no
reasonable consumer would want to
[[Page 22629]]
receive calls that are illegal, the Commission's call completion
policies demand care in identifying such calls. The Commission believes
that the criteria used to identify such calls must be objective,
minimally intrusive on the legitimate privacy interests of the calling
party, and must indicate with a reasonably high degree of certainty
that a particular call is illegal. The Commission therefore seeks
information on explicitly authorizing providers to block calls that are
reasonably likely to be illegal based upon objective criteria in
addition to the categories of unassigned numbers discussed above.
20. The Commission believes that the categories of unassigned
numbers discussed above exemplify objective standards for determining
whether a specific call is illegal to a reasonably high degree of
certainty. The Commission is aware, however, that there could be a
variety of other objective standards that could indicate to a
reasonably high degree of certainty that a call is illegal.
Consequently, the Commission seeks comment on objective standards that
would indicate to a reasonably high degree of certainty that a call is
illegal and whether to adopt a safe harbor to give providers certainty
that they will not be found in violation of the call completion and
other Commission rules when they block calls based upon an application
of objective standards. The Commission also seeks comment on ways that
callers who make legitimate calls can guard against being blocked and
to ensure that legitimate callers whose calls are blocked by mistake
can prevent further blocking.
A. Objective Standards To Identify Illegal Calls
21. The Commission seeks comment on provider-initiated blocking
based on objective criteria. The Commission seeks comment on what
methods providers and third-party call blocking service providers
employ in order to determine that a certain call is illegal. The Strike
Force Report states that ``[e]xamples of reasonable efforts include but
are not limited to, soliciting and reviewing information from other
carriers, performing historical and real time call analytics, making
test calls, contacting the subscriber of the spoofed number, inspecting
the media for a call (audio play back of the Real Time Protocol stream
to understand the context of the call), and checking customer complaint
sites.'' The Commission seeks more specific information regarding these
and other methods or standards that can be used to identify illegal
calls to a reasonably high degree of certainty.
22. What other methods can be or are used? In particular, the
Commission seeks comment on the extent to which information obtained
through traceback efforts is, can, and should be used to identify
future calls that are illegal to a reasonably high degree of certainty?
The Commission asks commenters to submit information on whether some
methods more accurately identify illegal calls in comparison to other
methods, and whether some methods can identify unwanted calls but are
less accurate in identifying illegal calls. Do certain methods work
best in combination? Are some methods acceptable when used in the
context of an informed consumer choosing to implement call blocking
with knowledge of the risks of false positives, but might be less
acceptable when used in the context of provider-initiated blocking?
What can the Commission do to help providers minimize the possibility
for false positives when blocking calls based on such methods?
23. Does provider size, geographic location, or other factors have
an impact on which methods provide the most accurate results or which
methods are feasible? What can the Commission do to provide support for
smaller providers that wish to adopt these methods? Are some methods
more likely to result in providers blocking legitimate calls in a
manner that might violate the Act or the Commission's rules or polices
related to call completion or that are more likely to contravene the
policy goals underlying those rules? Calls that originate domestically
may have differences from those which originate internationally, thus
requiring consideration of different objective criteria. Are there any
differences in how providers do, or should, handle calls originating
outside of the United States in comparison to those originating
domestically? If so, are there any limitations to a provider's ability
to accurately identify the true origination point of a call?
24. The Commission recognizes that standards bodies have made
significant progress on Caller ID Authentication Standards. The
Commission applauds this progress, and encourages the industry to
implement these standards as soon as they are capable of doing so. The
Commission seeks comment on whether, once there is wide adoption of the
protocols and specifications established by the Internet Engineering
Task Force's (IETF) Secure Telephony Identity Revisited (STIR) working
group and the Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using
toKENs (SHAKEN) framework established in the joint Alliance for
Telecommunications and Industry Solutions (ATIS) and Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) forum Network-to-Network Interconnection (NNI) Task
Force, providers should then be permitted to block calls for which the
Caller ID has not been authenticated. Should unauthenticated Caller ID
alone be sufficient grounds for a provider to block a call, or should
it be used only in combination with other methods? To what extent can
these standards be implemented on networks using various types of
technology? For example, will these standards work on VoIP calls and
traditional wireline calls equally well? If not, how does that impact
the propriety of blocking calls based on whether the Caller ID has been
authenticated in accordance with these standards? Would it be possible
to consider the lack of authenticated Caller ID only for those calls to
which these industry standards can be applied? Are there special
considerations related to implementing these standards on networks
operated by small providers or in rural areas? What other factors
should the Commission consider with regard to blocking calls based upon
whether Caller ID has been authenticated in accordance with these
standards?
25. The Commission seeks comment on whether sharing of information
among providers can increase the effectiveness of call blocking
methodologies and could enable small providers to benefit from the
greater resources of larger providers that might be better able to
create and implement more sophisticated methods of identifying illegal
calls. The Commission seeks comment on these and any other impacts,
positive and negative, of such information sharing and on what the
Commission can do to encourage and facilitate such sharing of
information in a manner most likely to result in accurate and timely
identification of illegal calls. Again, the Commission notes that by
seeking comment on these issues, the Commission does not stall,
interrupt, or prevent information sharing that is already occurring
lawfully. The Commission notes that section 222(d)(2) of the Act makes
clear that CPNI may be shared ``to protect users of those services and
other carriers from fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of . . . such
services.'' The Commission seek comment on what other clarifications or
rules changes, if any, would help to improve industry efforts to combat
illegal robocalls and improve traceback efforts.
[[Page 22630]]
B. Safe Harbor for the Blocking of Calls Identified Using Objective
Standards
26. The Commission also seeks comment on a broader safe harbor to
provide certainty to providers that blocking calls in accordance with
the rules the Commission adopts in this proceeding will not be deemed a
violation of the Commission's rules and the Act, or counted for
purposes of evaluating a provider's call completion rates. The
Commission seeks comment on the appropriate scope of such a safe
harbor.
27. The Commission seeks comment on what blocking practices and
objective standards should be covered by any safe harbor. Are there any
methods, practices, or objective standards that should expressly be
excluded from the safe harbor? Are there methods, practices, or
objective standards that warrant some protection, such as a rebuttable
presumption that their use does not violate the call completion rules,
but do not warrant the full protection of a safe harbor? What are they?
28. The Commission further seeks comment on how to formulate a safe
harbor that avoids providing a roadmap enabling makers of illegal
robocalls to circumvent call blocking by providers. Are there ways to
provide both certainty to providers without providing a level of detail
that would enable makers of illegal robocalls to circumvent blocking
efforts? Should the Commission distinguish between standards that are
general, e.g., regarding the presence or absence of Caller ID
signatures, versus standards that involve patterns and statistics?
Would it be workable to provide a safe harbor covering specific
objective standards or specific objective standards implemented at some
high threshold level but only a rebuttable presumption covering other
objective standards or objective standards implemented at some low
threshold? For example, what if the safe harbor applied when a provider
blocks calls originating from a single number when the calls
originating from that number per minute exceed a fairly high threshold,
while a provider that applies a lower, non-public threshold would
qualify only for a rebuttable presumption? Finally, should the safe
harbor be the same for both large and small providers, and are there
any considerations specific to small providers?
C. Protections for Legitimate Callers
29. Even if providers use objective standards, there might be some
situations in which legitimate calls would be blocked. For example,
high-volume callers that properly obtain prior express consent might
run afoul of call-per-minute restrictions even though all calls made
are legal. This might occur if a call center lawfully spoofs the Caller
ID on outgoing calls to utilize the business's toll-free number that
consumers can use to call back or that might be familiar to consumers
in a way that helps to identify the caller. The Commission seeks to
avoid the blocking of such legitimate calls and, instead, seek to
ensure that legitimate calls are completed. The Commission thus seeks
comment on protections for legitimate callers. Specifically, should the
Commission require providers to ``white list'' legitimate callers who
give them advance notice? Should the Commission establish a challenge
mechanism for callers who may have been blocked in error?
30. First, the Commission seeks comment on establishing a
mechanism, such as a white list, to enable legitimate callers to
proactively avoid having their calls blocked. Should the Commission
specify the mechanism or mechanisms to be used or administrative
details, such as the type of evidence providers might require of such
legitimate callers? If so, what should the Commission require? Should
the Commission specify a timeframe within which providers must add a
legitimate caller to its white list? How should white list information
be shared by providers? Is there anything the Commission can do to
ensure that white list information is shared in a timely fashion such
that legitimate callers need not contact each and every provider
separately? Is Commission action needed to guard against white lists
being accessed or obtained by makers of illegal robocalls? What is the
risk that a caller could circumvent efforts to block illegal robocalls
by spoofing numbers on the white list? Is this risk mitigated by the
SHAKEN and STIR standards for authenticating Caller ID if, for example,
the white list requires that all calls from the white listed telephone
number be signed--once those standards have been implemented? Finally,
the Commission seeks comment on any other relevant issues.
31. Second, the Commission seeks comment on implementing a process
to allow legitimate callers to notify providers when their calls are
blocked and to require providers immediately to cease blocking calls
when they learn that the calls are legitimate. How rapidly must a
provider respond to a request to cease blocking, and should the
Commission specify the information that providers must accept as proof
that a caller is legitimate? Should the Commission require specific
procedures, or allow providers discretion in how to develop processes,
including processes for sharing and safeguarding this information? If
provider discretion is allowed, should the Commission require providers
to submit their procedures for staff review along with their objective
standards? Are there procedures that would reduce any potentially undue
burdens on smaller providers? The Commission believes most callers will
contact their own provider first when their calls are being blocked.
That provider, however, may not be the provider that is actually
blocking the calls. The Commission seeks comment on how to facilitate
information sharing so that the challenge reaches the provider actually
blocking the calls. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on any other
relevant issues.
Lastly, the Commission seeks comment on whether providers should
designate an officer or other authorized point of contact for
legitimate callers seeking to proactively avoid having their calls
blocked or to stop blocking of their calls. Would such a requirement
represent an undue burden on smaller providers and, if so, what
alternative should be available to legitimate callers?
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
32. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended, (RFA) the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in document FCC 17-24. Written public comments are requested
on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and
must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified in the DATES
section. The Commission will send a copy of document FCC 17-24,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
33. Document FCC 17-24 begins a process to facilitate voice service
providers' blocking of illegal robocalls, which represent an
annoyance--and often worse--for consumers. Document FCC 17-24 proposes
rules that would allow providers to--on their customers' behalf--block
the illegal robocalls that can bombard their phones at all hours of the
day. Providers have been active in identifying such robocalls, and
consumer groups and others have asked
[[Page 22631]]
the Commission to encourage better call blocking. Document FCC 17-24
suggests it is in the best interest of achieving the goal of
eliminating illegal robocalls for government to collaborate with
industry to crack the problem of illegal robocalling--government can
remove regulatory roadblocks and ensure that industry has the
flexibility to use robust tools to address illegal traffic. It is also
important for the Commission to protect the reliability of the nation's
communications network and to protect consumers from provider-initiated
blocking that harms, rather than helps, consumers. The Commission
therefore must balance competing policy considerations--some favoring
blocking and others disfavoring blocking--to arrive at an effective
solution that maximizes consumer protection and network reliability.
Document FCC 17-24 seeks comment on several proposals that the
Commission believes strikes the correct balance.
34. Document FCC 17-24 seeks comment on proposed rules to codify
that voice service providers may block telephone calls in certain
circumstances to protect subscribers from illegal robocalls. First,
document FCC 17-24 proposes to codify the clarification contained in
the 2016 Guidance PN that providers may block calls when the subscriber
to a particular telephone number requests that calls originating from
that number be blocked. Second, the document FCC 17-24 seeks comment on
proposed rules authorizing providers to block calls from three
categories of numbers: Invalid numbers, valid numbers that are not
allocated, and valid numbers that are allocated but not assigned.
Third, document FCC 17-24 seeks comment on related issues, such as the
treatment of internationally originated calls, subscriber consent to
call blocking, and the impact on call completion rate rules. The
document FCC 17-24 also includes a Notice of Inquiry that seeks
comments on further actions that may be taken in the future, including
establishment of objective standards to indicate that a call is likely
to be illegal, creation of a safe harbor for providers, and creation of
safeguards to minimize blocking of lawful calls.
B. Legal Basis
35. The proposed and anticipated rules are authorized under
sections 201, 202, 227, 251(e) and 403 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 227, 251(e), 403.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
36. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. Under the Small Business Act, a ``small business concern'' is one
that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in
its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Nationwide,
there are a total of approximately 28.8 million small businesses,
according to the SBA.
37. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services,
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite television distribution services
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in
this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such
companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 shows
that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total,
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered
small.
38. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for local
exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules
is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census
Bureau defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services,
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite television distribution services
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in
this industry.'' Under that size standard, such a business is small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there
were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates
that most providers of local exchange service are small businesses.
39. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest
applicable size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this
industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or
providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that
they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound,
and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities
may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.
Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications
network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services,
such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired
(cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband
internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite
television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure
that they operate are included in this industry.'' Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated
that year. Of this total,
[[Page 22632]]
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange
service are small businesses.
40. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these
service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for
the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services,
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite television distribution services
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in
this industry.'' Under that size standard, such a business is small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there
were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates
that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive
access providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and other local
service providers are small entities.
41. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this
present RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the
RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size
standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or
fewer employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.''
The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small
incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any
such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. The Commission has
therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although
the Commission emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on
Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
42. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of
interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules
is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census
Bureau defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services,
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite television distribution services
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in
this industry.'' Under that size standard, such a business is small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there
were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates
that the majority of IXCs are small entities.
43. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act also contains a size standard for small cable system
operators, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through an
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 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.'' There are approximately 52,403,705 cable video
subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator
serving fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator
if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of
all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based
on available data, the Commission finds that all but nine incumbent
cable operators are small entities under this size standard. The
Commission notes that the Commission neither requests nor collects
information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with
entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although it
seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated
with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, 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.
44. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable
to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do
not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator
service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service
carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under
SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census
Bureau defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services,
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite television distribution services
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in
this industry.'' Under that size standard, such a business is small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there
were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the
associated small business size standard, the majority of Other Toll
Carriers can be considered small.
45. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since
2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new,
broad, economic census category. Under the present and prior
categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the category of Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), Census data for 2012
show that there were 967 firms that operated
[[Page 22633]]
for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000
employees. Thus under this category and the associated size standard,
the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless
telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities.
Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless
telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service
(PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) services. Of this total, an
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Thus, using available
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless firms can
be considered small.
46. Satellite Telecommunications Providers. The category of
Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises establishments 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.'' This category
has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average
annual receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, Census Bureau data
for 2012 show that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual receipts of under
$25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority
of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities.
47. All Other Telecommunications. All Other Telecommunications
comprises, inter alia, ``establishments primarily engaged in providing
specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking,
communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry
also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite
terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.
Establishments providing Internet services or VoIP services via client-
supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this
industry.'' For this category, Census Bureau data for 2012 show that
there were a total of 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of
this total, 1,400 had annual receipts below $25 million per year.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of All Other
Telecommunications firms are small entities.
48. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition
for Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS Code Category is
Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry
comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network
capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and
reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except
satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs)
are included in this industry. The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale
services during that year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer
than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated
small business size standard, the majority of these resellers can be
considered small entities. According to Commission data, 881 carriers
have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale
services. Of this total, an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
toll resellers are small entities.
49. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. The
Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged
in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications;
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. MVNOs
are included in this industry. Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for
2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year.
Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus,
under this category and the associated small business size standard,
the majority of these prepaid calling card providers can be considered
small entities.
50. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for the category of Telecommunications
Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises
establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from
owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired
and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to
businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell
telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and
infrastructure. MVNOs are included in this industry. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services
during that year. Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business
size standard, the majority of these prepaid calling card providers can
be considered small entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
51. As indicated above, document FCC 17-24 seeks comment on
proposed rules to codify that voice service providers may block
telephone calls in certain circumstances to protect subscribers from
illegal robocalls. Until these requirements are defined in full, it is
not possible to predict with certainty whether the costs of compliance
will be proportionate between small and large providers. The Commission
seeks to minimize the burden associated with reporting, recordkeeping,
and other compliance requirements for the proposed rules, such as
modifying software, developing procedures, and training staff.
52. Under the proposed rules, providers may need to record requests
from subscribers to block certain numbers, as well as identify invalid
numbers, valid numbers that are not allocated, and valid numbers that
are allocated but not assigned. In addition, they may need to set up
communication with other providers to share information about numbers
to be blocked. Finally, providers may need to exclude calls that are
blocked pursuant to the proposed rules when calculating their call
completion rates.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
53. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
The establishment of
[[Page 22634]]
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
54. It should be noted that these proposed rules to codify that
voice service providers may block telephone calls in certain
circumstances to protect subscribers from illegal robocalls are
permissive and not mandatory. Small businesses may avoid compliance
costs entirely by declining to block robocalls, or may delay their
implementation of robocall blocking to allow for more time to come into
compliance with the rules. However, the Commission intends to craft
rules that encourage all carriers, including small businesses, to block
illegal robocalls and therefore seeks comment from small businesses on
how to minimize costs associated with implementing the proposed rules.
Document FCC 17-24 poses specific requests for comment from small
businesses regarding how the proposed rules affect them and what could
be done to minimize any disproportionate impact on small businesses.
55. The Commission has proposed rules regarding blocking calls at
the request of the subscriber to the originating number and blocking
calls originating from unassigned numbers. The Commission has requested
feedback from small businesses in the Notice and seek comment on ways
to make the proposed rules less costly. The Commission has proposed not
to require providers to obtain an opt-in from subscribers in order to
block calls as a way of reducing costs to all providers, including
small businesses. The Commission seeks comment on how to minimize the
economic impact of the Commission's proposals.
56. The Commission has also initiated a Notice of Inquiry in
document FCC 17-24 to consider a range of alternatives to expand the
proposed rules, including establishment of objective standards to
indicate that a call is likely to be illegal, creation of a safe harbor
for providers, and creation of safeguards to minimize blocking of
lawful calls. These are not yet proposed rules. They show the
Commission is proceeding with caution and seeking comment from small
businesses and others before developing rules in this complex area. The
Commission will assess how to proceed in light of the record in
response to the document FCC 17-24, including any comments from small
businesses.
57. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the document
FCC 17-24 and this IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions and taking
action in this proceeding.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
58. None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Claims, Communications common carriers, Computer technology,
Credit, Foreign relations, Individuals with disabilities, Political
candidates, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Telecommunications, Telegraph, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 64 as follows:
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 225, 254(k), 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 715,
Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201,
218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 64.1200 by adding and reserving paragraphs (i) and (j),
and adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.1200 Delivery restrictions.
* * * * *
(i) [Reserved]
(j) [Reserved]
(k) Voice service providers may block calls so that they do not
reach a called party as follows:
(1) Providers may block calls when the subscriber to which the
originating number is assigned has requested that calls originating
from that number be blocked. Calls may be blocked based upon the
originating number shown in the Caller ID without regard to whether the
calls in fact originate from that number.
(2) Providers may block calls originating from the following
numbers:
(i) A number that is not a valid North American Numbering Plan
number;
(ii) A valid North American Numbering Plan number that is not
allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan
Administrator or the Pooling Administrator; and
(iii) A valid North American Numbering Plan number that is
allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan
Administrator or Pooling Administrator, but is not assigned to a
subscriber.
(3) For purposes of blocking calls based upon the originating
number under this paragraph (k), a provider may rely on Caller ID
information to determine the originating number.
0
3. Amend Sec. 64.2103 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.2103 Retention of call attempt records.
* * * * *
(e) The following calls are excluded from these requirements:
(1) IntraLATA toll calls carried entirely over the covered
provider's network or handed off by the covered provider directly to
the terminating local exchange carrier or directly to the tandem switch
that the terminating local exchange carrier's end office subtends
(terminating tandem); and
(2) Calls blocked pursuant to Sec. 64.1200(k) of the Commission's
rules.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 64.2105 by revising paragraph (e) to read:
Sec. 64.2105 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(e) The following calls are excluded from these requirements:
(1) IntraLATA toll calls carried entirely over the covered
provider's network or handed off by the covered provider directly to
the terminating local exchange carrier or directly to the tandem switch
that the terminating local exchange carrier's end office subtends
(terminating tandem); and
(2) calls blocked pursuant to Sec. 64.1200(k) of the Commission's
rules.
[FR Doc. 2017-09463 Filed 5-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P