Calling Number Identification Service-Caller ID, 33856-33863 [2017-15303]
Download as PDF
33856
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 139 / Friday, July 21, 2017 / Proposed Rules
decline to comply with the demand,
citing United States ex rel. Touhy v.
Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951). A written
response may be offered to a request, or
to a demand, if permitted by the court
or other competent authority.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 51–11.14
Fees.
(a) Generally. The General Counsel
may condition the production of records
or appearance for testimony upon
advance payment of a reasonable
estimate of the costs to the Committee.
(b) Fees for records. Fees for
producing records will include fees for
searching, reviewing, and duplicating
records, costs of attorney time spent in
reviewing the demand or request, and
expenses generated by materials and
equipment used to search for, produce,
and copy the responsive information.
Costs for employee time will be
calculated on the basis of the hourly pay
of the employee (including all pay,
allowance, and benefits). Fees for
duplication will be the same as those
charged by the Committee in its
Freedom of Information Act regulations
at 41 CFR part 51–8.
(c) Witness fees. Fees for attendance
by a witness will include fees, expenses,
and allowances prescribed by the
court’s rules. If no such fees are
prescribed, witness fees will be
determined based upon the rule of the
Federal district court closest to the
location where the witness will appear.
Such fees will include cost of time spent
by the witness to prepare for testimony,
travel time and expenses, and for
attendance in the legal proceeding.
(d) Payment of fees. Witness fees for
current Committee employees and any
records certification fees shall be paid
by check or money order presented to
the Committee made payable to the
United States Department of Treasury.
Applicable fees for former Committee
employees’ testimony must be paid
directly to the former employee in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1821 or other
applicable statutes.
(e) Certification (authentication) of
copies of records. The Committee
Records Manager may certify that
records are true copies in order to
facilitate their use as evidence.
Certification requests require 45
calendar days for processing and a fee
of $15.00 for each document certified.
(f) Waiver or reduction of fees. The
General Counsel, in his or her sole
discretion, may, upon a showing of
reasonable cause, waive or reduce any
fees in connection with the testimony,
production, or certification of records.
(g) De minimis fees. Fees will not be
assessed if the total charge would be
$10.00 or less.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jul 20, 2017
Jkt 241001
§ 51–11.15
Penalties.
(a) An employee who discloses
official records or information or gives
testimony relating to official
information, except as expressly
authorized by the Committee, or as
ordered by a Federal court after the
Committee has had the opportunity to
be heard, may face the penalties
provided in 18 U.S.C. 641 and other
applicable laws. Additionally, former
Committee employees are subject to the
restrictions and penalties of 18 U.S.C.
207 and 216.
(b) A current Committee employee
who testifies or produces official
records and information in violation of
this part may be subject to disciplinary
action.
Patricia Briscoe,
Deputy Director, Business Operations Pricing
and Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2017–15357 Filed 7–20–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket Nos. 10–51 and 03–123; DA 17–
656]
Petition for Partial Reconsideration, or
in the Alternative, Suspension of
Action in Rulemaking Proceeding
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Petition for partial
reconsideration or suspension.
AGENCY:
A Petition for Partial
Reconsideration, or in the Alternative
Suspension of Compliance Deadline
(Petition), has been filed in the
Commission’s rulemaking proceeding
by Sorenson Communications, LLC.
DATES: Comments to the Petition must
be filed on or before August 7, 2017.
Reply Comments must be filed on or
before July 31, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eliot
Greenwald, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, email:
Eliot.Greenwald@fcc.gov; phone: (202)
418–2235.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s
document DA 17–656, released July 7,
2017. The full text of the Petition is
available for viewing and copying at the
FCC Reference Information Center, 445
12th Street SW., Room CY–A257,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Washington, DC 20554 or may be
accessed online via the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System at:
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/105302
18217172/2017-05-30%20Sorenson%20
Petition%20for%20Reconsideration
%20re%20RUE%20Profile.pdf. The
Commission will not send a
Congressional Review Act (CRA)
submission to Congress or the
Government Accountability Office
Pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. because
no rules are being adopted by the
Commission.
Subject: Structure and Practices of the
Video Relay Service Program;
Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, Report and Order, DA 17–
76, published at 82 FR 19322, April 27,
2017, in CG Docket Nos. 10–51 and 03–
123. This document is being published
pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47
CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).
Number of Petitions Filed: 1.
Federal Communications Commission.
Karen Peltz Strauss,
Deputy Chief, Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2017–15302 Filed 7–20–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CC Docket No. 91–281; FCC 17–76]
Calling Number Identification
Service—Caller ID
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission proposes to amend its
Caller ID rules to allow carriers to
disclose blocked Caller ID information
in the limited case of threatening calls
as an aid to law enforcement
investigations. Media and law
enforcement reports indicate that the
number of threatening calls targeting
schools, religious organizations, and
other entities appears to be increasing
dramatically. In many cases, the
perpetrators block the Caller ID
information, making it difficult to trace
the threatening calls. The Commission’s
current rules require that carriers not
reveal blocked Caller ID information or
use that information to allow the called
party to contact the caller. Recognizing
that threatening callers do not have a
legitimate privacy interest in having
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21JYP1.SGM
21JYP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 139 / Friday, July 21, 2017 / Proposed Rules
blocked Caller ID protected from
disclosure, the Commission seeks to
amend its Caller ID rules to permit
carriers to disclose blocked Caller ID
information in the limited case of
threatening calls as an aid to law
enforcement investigations.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
August 21, 2017, and reply comments
are due on or before September 19,
2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by CC Docket No. 91–281
and/or FCC Number 17–76, 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 CC Docket No. 91–281.
• Mail: Parties who choose to file by
paper must file an original and one copy
of each filing. Filings can be sent by
hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal
Service mail (although the Commission
continues to experience delays in
receiving 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:
Nellie Foosaner, Consumer Policy
Division, Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau (CGB), at: (202) 418–
2925, email: Nellie.Foosaner@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, document FCC
17–76, adopted on June 22, 2017, and
released on June 22, 2017. The full text
of document FCC 17–76 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 17–76 and any
subsequently filed documents in this
matter may also be found by searching
ECFS at: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (insert
CC Docket No. 91–281 into the
Proceeding block).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jul 20, 2017
Jkt 241001
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).
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 CGB at: (202) 418–0530
(voice), or (202) 418–0432 (TTY).
Document FCC 17–76 can also be
downloaded in Word or Portable
Document Format (PDF) at: https://
www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposesrules-aid-investigation-threatening-calls.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis
Document FCC 17–76 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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33857
public to comment on the requirements,
as required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act. Public Law 104–13; 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 17–76, the
Commission proposes to amend its
Caller ID rules to enable called parties
and/or law enforcement to obtain
blocked Caller ID information in
connection with threatening calls. For
purposes of document FCC 17–76, the
Commission defines a ‘‘threatening call’’
as any call that includes a threat of
serious and imminent unlawful action
posing a substantial risk to property,
life, safety, or health.
2. Based on reports of widespread and
increasing numbers of threatening calls
that have targeted schools, religious
organizations and other entities, the
Commission proposes amending
§ 64.1601 of its rules, which provides
that ‘‘[n]o common carrier subscribing
to or offering any service that delivers
[the Calling Party Number (CPN)] may
override the privacy indicator associate
with an interstate call,’’ to ensure that
all parties who receive threatening calls
are not hindered by the Commission’s
rules in gaining timely access to CPN
information that may allow them to
identify threatening callers. Amending
the Commission’s Caller ID rules to
permit threatened parties, law
enforcement and security personnel of
threatened entities to gain access to the
CPN of threatening callers could
promote public safety and provide
administrative efficiencies over the
current process, which necessitates
addressing individual waiver requests
on a case-by-case basis. Even when
threatening calls prove to be a hoax,
they can often result in substantial
disruption and expenditure of public
resources by law enforcement. The
Commission therefore proposes to
amend its rules to recognize an
exemption from the privacy protections
contained in § 64.1601(b) of its rules in
the limited case of threatening calls. The
Commission seeks additional comment
on ways to facilitate the ability of law
enforcement and security personnel to
investigate and identify threatening
callers while protecting the legitimate
privacy interests of non-threatening
callers. In that regard, the Commission
seeks comment on how to define the
term ‘‘security personnel’’ to ensure that
E:\FR\FM\21JYP1.SGM
21JYP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
33858
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 139 / Friday, July 21, 2017 / Proposed Rules
only the appropriate personnel
responsible for the safety of any
threatened entity has access to the
information they require to perform
their duties.
3. Section 64.1601(b) of the
Commission’s rules requires that
carriers must act in accordance with the
customer’s privacy request that CPN not
be passed on interstate calls. The
Commission has recognized, however,
certain exemptions to this requirement.
The Commission has concluded, for
example, that to the extent CPN-based
services are used to deliver emergency
services, privacy requirements should
not apply to delivery of CPN to a public
agency’s emergency lines, a poison
control line, or in conjunction with 911
emergency services. In these instances,
the Commission concluded that Caller
ID blocking mechanisms could
jeopardize emergency services and
therefore pose a serious threat to the
safety of life and property. The
Commission believes that threatening
calls present equally compelling
circumstances in which the need to
ensure public safety, in accordance with
the Commission’s fundamental statutory
mission, outweighs the threatening
caller’s interest in maintaining the
privacy of his or her CPN.
4. Specifically, the Commission
proposes amending § 64.1601 of its rules
to recognize an exemption to
§ 64.1601(b)’s of its rules prohibition on
overriding a privacy indicator
associated with an interstate call when
such call contains a threat of a serious
nature. For purposes of this context, the
Commission proposes defining a
‘‘threatening call’’ as any call that
includes a threat of serious and
imminent unlawful action posing a
substantial risk to property, life, safety,
or health. The Commission seeks
comment on this definition and on any
alternatives. Accordingly, the
Commission proposes adding an
exemption in § 64.1601(d) of its rules to
exclude threatening calls from the
privacy protections afforded by
§ 64.1601(b) of its rules.
5. In this context, the Commission
seeks comment on how evaluations
should be made to determine whether a
threat meets the proposed definition of
a threatening call, including who should
make that evaluation. Should the
Commission require, for example, that
otherwise restricted CPN be made
available only after a law enforcement
agency confirms that it constitutes a
threat of a serious and imminent
unlawful action posing a substantial risk
to property, life, safety, or health?
Would this approach provide sufficient
privacy safeguards to ensure that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jul 20, 2017
Jkt 241001
blocked CPN is released only in those
limited situations? Conversely, to what
extent would involving law enforcement
in this process hinder the ability of
threatened parties to gain timely access
to the CPN of threatening callers?
6. The Commission seeks comment on
this proposal and any additional options
that might aid law enforcement and
threatened parties in obtaining the
information they need to identify
threatening callers. In addition, the
Commission seeks comment on how to
facilitate the provision of CPN to
threatened entities in a manner that
minimizes administrative burdens on
carriers while ensuring that such
information is provided to the
threatened party and law enforcement
in a timely manner. How are carriers
burdened today when law enforcement
uses lawful processes to compel
disclosure of call details? In particular,
the Commission seeks comment on the
potential burdens on small providers
that may be asked to disclose
information upon a report of a
threatening call, including measures
that could mitigate those burdens. The
Commission recognizes that
telecommunications systems utilized by
threatened entities and relationships
with their carriers may vary widely. The
Commission therefore seeks the input of
carriers on how best to facilitate the
process of providing CPN information in
a timely manner to parties that report a
threatening call. Given the existing
exemption for public agencies that
deliver emergency services as noted
above, the Commission also seeks
comment on whether it should extend
that exemption to non-public entities
that provide emergency services such as
private ambulance companies.
7. Privacy. In proposing this
amendment to the Caller ID rules, the
Commission endeavors to ensure that
this exemption is not abused and that
the legitimate privacy interests of nonthreatening callers are not infringed,
particularly when the calling party has
a higher need for CPN blocking
protections to mitigate the risk of
personal injury, such as in the case of
calls made from domestic violence
agencies. When the Commission
adopted the rule in 1994, it concluded
based on an extensive record that ‘‘the
calling public has an interest in
exercising a measure of control over the
dissemination of telephone numbers
that must be reflected in federal policies
governing caller ID services.’’ As a
result, the Commission adopted a rule
requiring carriers to offer per-call
blocking of Caller ID and allowed
carriers to continue offering per-line
blocking as long as they also provided
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
per-call unblocking. Because of this
recognized privacy interest, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
it should require anyone reporting a
threatening call for purposes of
obtaining otherwise restricted CPN to do
so in conjunction with a law
enforcement agency, so as to provide
some assurance that the called party is
not attempting to circumvent the
privacy obligations of the rule by
reporting a false threat. Should access to
restricted CPN be limited only to law
enforcement authorities? Would the risk
of abuse be further reduced by limiting
application of this exemption only to
non-residential entities such as schools,
religious organizations, and other public
and private business and governmental
entities? Would excluding private
individuals who are not typically the
target of mass phone threats limit the
potential for abuse of this exemption?
The Commission notes, for example,
that petitions seeking waivers on the
basis of a pattern of threatening calls,
including most press reports, relate to
threatening calls that target entities such
as these rather than private individuals.
Finally, how would a carrier’s
obligations under section 222 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (the Act)
be affected? Is CPN that a caller intends
to block protected by section 222 of the
Act, and would a rule that requires or
allows carriers to divulge blocked CPN
conflict with section 222 of the Act?
8. Are there other means to ensure
that legitimate privacy protections are
not infringed should the Commissions
exempt threatening calls from the
privacy requirements of § 64.1601(b) of
its rules? The Commission notes, for
example, that CGB, in granting waivers
of the Commission’s rule, has imposed
certain conditions and obligations on
entities granted waivers of § 64.1601(b)
of its rules in the past to ensure that
restricted CPN information is disclosed
only to authorized personnel for
purposes of investigating threatening
calls, and hence, any legitimate
expectation of privacy by nonthreatening callers is adequately
protected. These conditions typically
include: (1) The CPN on incoming
restricted calls not be passed on to the
line called; (2) any system used to
record CPN be operated in a secure way,
limiting access to designated
telecommunications and security
personnel; (3) telecommunications and
security personnel may access restricted
CPN data only when investigating
phone calls of a threatening and serious
nature, and shall document that access
as part of the investigative report; (4)
transmission of restricted CPN
E:\FR\FM\21JYP1.SGM
21JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 139 / Friday, July 21, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
information to law enforcement
agencies must occur only through
secure communications; (5) CPN
information must be destroyed in a
secure manner after a reasonable
retention period; and (6) any violation
of these conditions must be reported
promptly to the Commission. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
similar conditions should be imposed
on any party that obtains restricted CPN
pursuant to the proposed exemption.
The Commission seeks comment on
these and any other proposals to achieve
the Commission’s objective in assisting
threatened parties and law enforcement
officials in identifying threatening
callers in a timely manner.
9. The Commission seeks comment on
whether circumstances have changed
since the Commission originally
adopted § 64.1601 of its rules. At the
time, the Commission rejected
arguments that parts of the rule would
infringe on callers’ expectations of
privacy and anonymity. This was in part
because the rule would allow callers to
choose to block passage of CPN by
choosing either per-call or per-line
blocking. Would this logic hold true if
the Commission were to allow call
recipients to demand that CPN be
revealed by asserting that the call
contained a threat? In concluding that
compelling the transmission of CPN
would not violate any privacy rights
under the Fourth Amendment, the
Commission reasoned that callers have
no reasonable expectation of privacy in
their phone numbers because those
numbers are voluntarily exposed to the
telephone company’s equipment. Does
this hold true today, and would it be
true if callers intending to block CPN
delivery could have it unblocked by a
called party’s assertion that a call
contained a threat?
The JCC Temporary Waiver
10. Based on the large numbers of
recent threats phoned in to the JCCs and
the record compiled in this matter, the
Commission confirms that good cause
continues to exist to maintain the
temporary waiver of § 64.1601(b) of its
rules granted to JCCs and the carriers
who serve them for disclosure of CPN
associated with threatening calls to
JCCs.
11. In the event the Commission
amends its rules to recognize an
exemption for threatening calls as
proposed herein, this waiver, along with
other similar prior waivers, will be
encompassed within the protections
afforded by that exemption. In the
meantime, this temporary waiver
ensures that JCCs are afforded certainty
that they will continue to have the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jul 20, 2017
Jkt 241001
necessary protections from threatening
calls.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
12. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission
has prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on
small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in document FCC 17–76.
Written public comments are requested
on the 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 17–76, including
the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
13. In recent years, media and law
enforcement reports indicate that the
number of threatening calls appears be
increasing dramatically. In the past the
Commission has addressed such
situations on a case-by-case basis via a
waiver process at the request of
individual entities that report receiving
threatening calls. In document FCC 17–
76, the Commission takes steps to
amend the Caller ID rules to ensure that
law enforcement and threatened parties
are not hindered in their ability to
investigate and respond to threatening
phone calls. The Commission
recognizes the privacy interests of nonthreatening callers that may have valid
reasons to block their telephone
numbers by limiting the proposal
strictly to those situations that involve
threatening calls of a serious and
imminent nature while further limiting
access to such restricted CPN
information in the case of threatening
calls only to those parties responsible
for safety and security of the threatened
party. The Commission proposes to
amend the current process that
necessitates addressing individual
waiver requests on a case-by-case basis.
The Commission proposes and seeks
additional comment on ways to
facilitate the ability of law enforcement
and security personnel to investigate
and identify callers while protecting the
legitimate privacy interests of nonthreatening callers.
14. Specifically, the Commission
proposes to amend § 64.1601(d)(4)’s of
its rules current list of exemptions by
adding a new section (iv) to read: (4)
CPN delivery—‘‘(iv) Is made in
connection with a threatening call.
Upon report of such a threatening call,
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33859
the carrier will provide any CPN of the
calling party to the called party and/or
law enforcement for the purpose of
identifying the responsible party.’’ The
Commission proposes defining a
‘‘threatening call’’ as any called that
includes a threat of serious and
imminent unlawful action posing a
substantial risk to property, life, safety,
or health. In addition, the Commission
seeks comment on how to facilitate the
provision of CPN to threatened entities
in a manner that minimizes
administrative burdens on carriers
while ensuring that such information is
provided to the threatened party and
law enforcement in a timely manner.
15. For privacy purposes, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
it should require anyone reporting a
threatening call for purpose of obtaining
otherwise restricted CPN to do so in
conjunction with a law enforcement
agency to provide some assurance that
the called party is not attempting to
circumvent the privacy obligations of
the rule by reporting a false threat. The
Commission also inquiries into the
possibility of excluding private
individuals, who are not typically the
target of mass phone threats, from this
exemption in order to limit the potential
for abuse. The Commission notes, for
example, that CGB has imposed certain
conditions and obligations on entities
granted waivers of § 64.1601(b) of its
rules in the past to ensure that restricted
CPN information is disclosed only to
authorized personnel for purposes of
investigating threatening calls, and
hence, any legitimate expectation of
privacy by non-threatening callers is
adequately protected. The Commission
seeks comment on whether similar
conditions should be imposed on any
party that obtains restricted CPN
pursuant to the proposed exemption.
Legal Basis
16. The proposed and anticipated
rules are authorized under sections 1–4
and 201 of the Act, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151–154, and 201.
Description and Estimate of the Number
of Small Entities To Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
17. 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’’
E:\FR\FM\21JYP1.SGM
21JYP1
33860
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 139 / Friday, July 21, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
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 SBA. Nationwide,
there are a total of approximately 28.8
million small businesses, according to
the SBA.
Wireline Carriers
18. 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 voice over Internet
protocol (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.
19. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jul 20, 2017
Jkt 241001
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.
20. 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,
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most
providers of incumbent local exchange
service are small businesses.
21. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
22. The Commission has included
small incumbent LECs in the 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 the RFA
analysis, although it emphasizes that the
RFA action has no effect on Commission
analyses and determinations in other,
non-RFA contexts.
23. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).
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
E:\FR\FM\21JYP1.SGM
21JYP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 139 / Friday, July 21, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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.
24. 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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jul 20, 2017
Jkt 241001
under this category and the associated
small business size standard, the
majority of Other Toll Carriers can be
considered small.
Wireless Carriers
25. 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
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.
26. 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.
27. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
33861
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.
Resellers
28. 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.
29. 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
E:\FR\FM\21JYP1.SGM
21JYP1
33862
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 139 / Friday, July 21, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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.
30. 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.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
31. As indicated above, document
FCC 17–76 seeks comment on a
proposed amendment to the rules to
require carriers to make available, upon
report of a threatening call from the
called party, any CPN of the calling
party to the called party and/or law
enforcement for the purpose of
identifying the responsible party. 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jul 20, 2017
Jkt 241001
32. Under the proposed rules, carriers
will need to make the CPN of a calling
party available to a threatened recipient
of the call. They may need to work with
law enforcement and the entity called to
ensure there is a genuine threat in order
to protect the privacy of the caller.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
33. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance 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.
34. The Commission has proposed
rules for carriers, upon report of a
threatening call from the called party, to
provide any CPN of the calling party to
the called party and/or law enforcement
for the purpose of identifying the
responsible party. The Commission
requested feedback from small
businesses in document FCC 17–76, and
seeks comment on ways to make the
proposed rules less costly. The
Commission asks how to facilitate the
provision of CPN to threatened entities
in a manner that minimizes the
administrative burdens on carriers
while ensuring that such information is
provided to the threatened party and
law enforcement in a timely manner.
The Commission seeks the input of
carriers on how to best facilitate the
process of providing CPN information in
a timely manner to parties that report a
threatening call. To help carriers protect
privacy interests, the Commission seeks
comment on whether it should require
anyone reporting a threatening call for
purposes of obtaining otherwise
restricted CPN to do so in conjunction
with a law enforcement agency to
provide some assurance that the called
party is not attempting to circumvent
the privacy obligations of the rule by
reporting a false threat. The Commission
also asks whether excluding private
individuals would limit the potential for
abuse. The Commission seeks comment
on how to minimize the economic
impact of its proposals, particularly to
small businesses.
35. The Commission expects to
consider the economic impact on small
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
entities, as identified in comments filed
in response to document FCC 17–76 and
the IRFA, in reaching its final
conclusions and taking action in this
proceeding.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rule
36. 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.
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 § 64.1600 by adding
paragraph (l) to read as follows:
■
§ 64.1600
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(l) Threatening Call. The term
‘‘threatening call’’ means any call that
includes a threat of serious and
imminent unlawful action posing a
substantial risk to property, life, safety,
or health.
■ 3. Amend § 64.1601 by revising
paragraph (d)(4) (ii) through (iv) to read
as follows:
§ 64.1601 Delivery requirements and
privacy restrictions.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) Is used on a public agency’s
emergency telephone line or in
conjunction with 911 emergency
services, or on any entity’s emergency
assistance poison control telephone
line;
(iii) Is provided in connection with
legally authorized call tracing or
trapping procedures specifically
E:\FR\FM\21JYP1.SGM
21JYP1
33863
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 139 / Friday, July 21, 2017 / Proposed Rules
requested by a law enforcement agency;
or
(iv) Is made in connection with a
threatening call. Upon report of such a
threatening call, the carrier will provide
any CPN of the calling party to the
called party and/or law enforcement for
the purpose of identifying the
responsible party.
*
*
*
*
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 Jul 20, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
*
[FR Doc. 2017–15303 Filed 7–20–17; 8:45 am]
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\21JYP1.SGM
21JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 139 (Friday, July 21, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33856-33863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15303]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CC Docket No. 91-281; FCC 17-76]
Calling Number Identification Service--Caller ID
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes to amend its Caller
ID rules to allow carriers to disclose blocked Caller ID information in
the limited case of threatening calls as an aid to law enforcement
investigations. Media and law enforcement reports indicate that the
number of threatening calls targeting schools, religious organizations,
and other entities appears to be increasing dramatically. In many
cases, the perpetrators block the Caller ID information, making it
difficult to trace the threatening calls. The Commission's current
rules require that carriers not reveal blocked Caller ID information or
use that information to allow the called party to contact the caller.
Recognizing that threatening callers do not have a legitimate privacy
interest in having
[[Page 33857]]
blocked Caller ID protected from disclosure, the Commission seeks to
amend its Caller ID rules to permit carriers to disclose blocked Caller
ID information in the limited case of threatening calls as an aid to
law enforcement investigations.
DATES: Comments are due on or before August 21, 2017, and reply
comments are due on or before September 19, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by CC Docket No. 91-281
and/or FCC Number 17-76, 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 CC Docket No. 91-281.
Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class
or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission
continues to experience delays in receiving 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: Nellie Foosaner, Consumer Policy
Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), at: (202)
418-2925, email: Nellie.Foosaner@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, document FCC 17-76, adopted on June 22, 2017,
and released on June 22, 2017. The full text of document FCC 17-76 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 17-76 and any subsequently filed documents in this matter
may also be found by searching ECFS at: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/
(insert CC Docket No. 91-281 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 CGB at: (202) 418-0530
(voice), or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Document FCC 17-76 can also be
downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-rules-aid-investigation-threatening-calls.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
Document FCC 17-76 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; 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 17-76, the Commission proposes to amend its
Caller ID rules to enable called parties and/or law enforcement to
obtain blocked Caller ID information in connection with threatening
calls. For purposes of document FCC 17-76, the Commission defines a
``threatening call'' as any call that includes a threat of serious and
imminent unlawful action posing a substantial risk to property, life,
safety, or health.
2. Based on reports of widespread and increasing numbers of
threatening calls that have targeted schools, religious organizations
and other entities, the Commission proposes amending Sec. 64.1601 of
its rules, which provides that ``[n]o common carrier subscribing to or
offering any service that delivers [the Calling Party Number (CPN)] may
override the privacy indicator associate with an interstate call,'' to
ensure that all parties who receive threatening calls are not hindered
by the Commission's rules in gaining timely access to CPN information
that may allow them to identify threatening callers. Amending the
Commission's Caller ID rules to permit threatened parties, law
enforcement and security personnel of threatened entities to gain
access to the CPN of threatening callers could promote public safety
and provide administrative efficiencies over the current process, which
necessitates addressing individual waiver requests on a case-by-case
basis. Even when threatening calls prove to be a hoax, they can often
result in substantial disruption and expenditure of public resources by
law enforcement. The Commission therefore proposes to amend its rules
to recognize an exemption from the privacy protections contained in
Sec. 64.1601(b) of its rules in the limited case of threatening calls.
The Commission seeks additional comment on ways to facilitate the
ability of law enforcement and security personnel to investigate and
identify threatening callers while protecting the legitimate privacy
interests of non-threatening callers. In that regard, the Commission
seeks comment on how to define the term ``security personnel'' to
ensure that
[[Page 33858]]
only the appropriate personnel responsible for the safety of any
threatened entity has access to the information they require to perform
their duties.
3. Section 64.1601(b) of the Commission's rules requires that
carriers must act in accordance with the customer's privacy request
that CPN not be passed on interstate calls. The Commission has
recognized, however, certain exemptions to this requirement. The
Commission has concluded, for example, that to the extent CPN-based
services are used to deliver emergency services, privacy requirements
should not apply to delivery of CPN to a public agency's emergency
lines, a poison control line, or in conjunction with 911 emergency
services. In these instances, the Commission concluded that Caller ID
blocking mechanisms could jeopardize emergency services and therefore
pose a serious threat to the safety of life and property. The
Commission believes that threatening calls present equally compelling
circumstances in which the need to ensure public safety, in accordance
with the Commission's fundamental statutory mission, outweighs the
threatening caller's interest in maintaining the privacy of his or her
CPN.
4. Specifically, the Commission proposes amending Sec. 64.1601 of
its rules to recognize an exemption to Sec. 64.1601(b)'s of its rules
prohibition on overriding a privacy indicator associated with an
interstate call when such call contains a threat of a serious nature.
For purposes of this context, the Commission proposes defining a
``threatening call'' as any call that includes a threat of serious and
imminent unlawful action posing a substantial risk to property, life,
safety, or health. The Commission seeks comment on this definition and
on any alternatives. Accordingly, the Commission proposes adding an
exemption in Sec. 64.1601(d) of its rules to exclude threatening calls
from the privacy protections afforded by Sec. 64.1601(b) of its rules.
5. In this context, the Commission seeks comment on how evaluations
should be made to determine whether a threat meets the proposed
definition of a threatening call, including who should make that
evaluation. Should the Commission require, for example, that otherwise
restricted CPN be made available only after a law enforcement agency
confirms that it constitutes a threat of a serious and imminent
unlawful action posing a substantial risk to property, life, safety, or
health? Would this approach provide sufficient privacy safeguards to
ensure that blocked CPN is released only in those limited situations?
Conversely, to what extent would involving law enforcement in this
process hinder the ability of threatened parties to gain timely access
to the CPN of threatening callers?
6. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and any additional
options that might aid law enforcement and threatened parties in
obtaining the information they need to identify threatening callers. In
addition, the Commission seeks comment on how to facilitate the
provision of CPN to threatened entities in a manner that minimizes
administrative burdens on carriers while ensuring that such information
is provided to the threatened party and law enforcement in a timely
manner. How are carriers burdened today when law enforcement uses
lawful processes to compel disclosure of call details? In particular,
the Commission seeks comment on the potential burdens on small
providers that may be asked to disclose information upon a report of a
threatening call, including measures that could mitigate those burdens.
The Commission recognizes that telecommunications systems utilized by
threatened entities and relationships with their carriers may vary
widely. The Commission therefore seeks the input of carriers on how
best to facilitate the process of providing CPN information in a timely
manner to parties that report a threatening call. Given the existing
exemption for public agencies that deliver emergency services as noted
above, the Commission also seeks comment on whether it should extend
that exemption to non-public entities that provide emergency services
such as private ambulance companies.
7. Privacy. In proposing this amendment to the Caller ID rules, the
Commission endeavors to ensure that this exemption is not abused and
that the legitimate privacy interests of non-threatening callers are
not infringed, particularly when the calling party has a higher need
for CPN blocking protections to mitigate the risk of personal injury,
such as in the case of calls made from domestic violence agencies. When
the Commission adopted the rule in 1994, it concluded based on an
extensive record that ``the calling public has an interest in
exercising a measure of control over the dissemination of telephone
numbers that must be reflected in federal policies governing caller ID
services.'' As a result, the Commission adopted a rule requiring
carriers to offer per-call blocking of Caller ID and allowed carriers
to continue offering per-line blocking as long as they also provided
per-call unblocking. Because of this recognized privacy interest, the
Commission seeks comment on whether it should require anyone reporting
a threatening call for purposes of obtaining otherwise restricted CPN
to do so in conjunction with a law enforcement agency, so as to provide
some assurance that the called party is not attempting to circumvent
the privacy obligations of the rule by reporting a false threat. Should
access to restricted CPN be limited only to law enforcement
authorities? Would the risk of abuse be further reduced by limiting
application of this exemption only to non-residential entities such as
schools, religious organizations, and other public and private business
and governmental entities? Would excluding private individuals who are
not typically the target of mass phone threats limit the potential for
abuse of this exemption? The Commission notes, for example, that
petitions seeking waivers on the basis of a pattern of threatening
calls, including most press reports, relate to threatening calls that
target entities such as these rather than private individuals. Finally,
how would a carrier's obligations under section 222 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (the Act) be affected? Is CPN that a caller
intends to block protected by section 222 of the Act, and would a rule
that requires or allows carriers to divulge blocked CPN conflict with
section 222 of the Act?
8. Are there other means to ensure that legitimate privacy
protections are not infringed should the Commissions exempt threatening
calls from the privacy requirements of Sec. 64.1601(b) of its rules?
The Commission notes, for example, that CGB, in granting waivers of the
Commission's rule, has imposed certain conditions and obligations on
entities granted waivers of Sec. 64.1601(b) of its rules in the past
to ensure that restricted CPN information is disclosed only to
authorized personnel for purposes of investigating threatening calls,
and hence, any legitimate expectation of privacy by non-threatening
callers is adequately protected. These conditions typically include:
(1) The CPN on incoming restricted calls not be passed on to the line
called; (2) any system used to record CPN be operated in a secure way,
limiting access to designated telecommunications and security
personnel; (3) telecommunications and security personnel may access
restricted CPN data only when investigating phone calls of a
threatening and serious nature, and shall document that access as part
of the investigative report; (4) transmission of restricted CPN
[[Page 33859]]
information to law enforcement agencies must occur only through secure
communications; (5) CPN information must be destroyed in a secure
manner after a reasonable retention period; and (6) any violation of
these conditions must be reported promptly to the Commission. The
Commission seeks comment on whether similar conditions should be
imposed on any party that obtains restricted CPN pursuant to the
proposed exemption. The Commission seeks comment on these and any other
proposals to achieve the Commission's objective in assisting threatened
parties and law enforcement officials in identifying threatening
callers in a timely manner.
9. The Commission seeks comment on whether circumstances have
changed since the Commission originally adopted Sec. 64.1601 of its
rules. At the time, the Commission rejected arguments that parts of the
rule would infringe on callers' expectations of privacy and anonymity.
This was in part because the rule would allow callers to choose to
block passage of CPN by choosing either per-call or per-line blocking.
Would this logic hold true if the Commission were to allow call
recipients to demand that CPN be revealed by asserting that the call
contained a threat? In concluding that compelling the transmission of
CPN would not violate any privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment,
the Commission reasoned that callers have no reasonable expectation of
privacy in their phone numbers because those numbers are voluntarily
exposed to the telephone company's equipment. Does this hold true
today, and would it be true if callers intending to block CPN delivery
could have it unblocked by a called party's assertion that a call
contained a threat?
The JCC Temporary Waiver
10. Based on the large numbers of recent threats phoned in to the
JCCs and the record compiled in this matter, the Commission confirms
that good cause continues to exist to maintain the temporary waiver of
Sec. 64.1601(b) of its rules granted to JCCs and the carriers who
serve them for disclosure of CPN associated with threatening calls to
JCCs.
11. In the event the Commission amends its rules to recognize an
exemption for threatening calls as proposed herein, this waiver, along
with other similar prior waivers, will be encompassed within the
protections afforded by that exemption. In the meantime, this temporary
waiver ensures that JCCs are afforded certainty that they will continue
to have the necessary protections from threatening calls.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
12. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in document FCC 17-76. Written public
comments are requested on the 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 17-76, including the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
13. In recent years, media and law enforcement reports indicate
that the number of threatening calls appears be increasing
dramatically. In the past the Commission has addressed such situations
on a case-by-case basis via a waiver process at the request of
individual entities that report receiving threatening calls. In
document FCC 17-76, the Commission takes steps to amend the Caller ID
rules to ensure that law enforcement and threatened parties are not
hindered in their ability to investigate and respond to threatening
phone calls. The Commission recognizes the privacy interests of non-
threatening callers that may have valid reasons to block their
telephone numbers by limiting the proposal strictly to those situations
that involve threatening calls of a serious and imminent nature while
further limiting access to such restricted CPN information in the case
of threatening calls only to those parties responsible for safety and
security of the threatened party. The Commission proposes to amend the
current process that necessitates addressing individual waiver requests
on a case-by-case basis. The Commission proposes and seeks additional
comment on ways to facilitate the ability of law enforcement and
security personnel to investigate and identify callers while protecting
the legitimate privacy interests of non-threatening callers.
14. Specifically, the Commission proposes to amend Sec.
64.1601(d)(4)'s of its rules current list of exemptions by adding a new
section (iv) to read: (4) CPN delivery--``(iv) Is made in connection
with a threatening call. Upon report of such a threatening call, the
carrier will provide any CPN of the calling party to the called party
and/or law enforcement for the purpose of identifying the responsible
party.'' The Commission proposes defining a ``threatening call'' as any
called that includes a threat of serious and imminent unlawful action
posing a substantial risk to property, life, safety, or health. In
addition, the Commission seeks comment on how to facilitate the
provision of CPN to threatened entities in a manner that minimizes
administrative burdens on carriers while ensuring that such information
is provided to the threatened party and law enforcement in a timely
manner.
15. For privacy purposes, the Commission seeks comment on whether
it should require anyone reporting a threatening call for purpose of
obtaining otherwise restricted CPN to do so in conjunction with a law
enforcement agency to provide some assurance that the called party is
not attempting to circumvent the privacy obligations of the rule by
reporting a false threat. The Commission also inquiries into the
possibility of excluding private individuals, who are not typically the
target of mass phone threats, from this exemption in order to limit the
potential for abuse. The Commission notes, for example, that CGB has
imposed certain conditions and obligations on entities granted waivers
of Sec. 64.1601(b) of its rules in the past to ensure that restricted
CPN information is disclosed only to authorized personnel for purposes
of investigating threatening calls, and hence, any legitimate
expectation of privacy by non-threatening callers is adequately
protected. The Commission seeks comment on whether similar conditions
should be imposed on any party that obtains restricted CPN pursuant to
the proposed exemption.
Legal Basis
16. The proposed and anticipated rules are authorized under
sections 1-4 and 201 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, and
201.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
17. 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''
[[Page 33860]]
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 SBA. Nationwide, there are a
total of approximately 28.8 million small businesses, according to the
SBA.
Wireline Carriers
18. 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 voice over Internet protocol (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.
19. 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.
20. 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, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers
of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses.
21. 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.
22. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in the 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 the RFA analysis, although
it emphasizes that the RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses
and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
23. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). 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
[[Page 33861]]
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.
24. 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.
Wireless Carriers
25. 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 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
Resellers
28. 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.
29. 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
[[Page 33862]]
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.
30. 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.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
31. As indicated above, document FCC 17-76 seeks comment on a
proposed amendment to the rules to require carriers to make available,
upon report of a threatening call from the called party, any CPN of the
calling party to the called party and/or law enforcement for the
purpose of identifying the responsible party. 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.
32. Under the proposed rules, carriers will need to make the CPN of
a calling party available to a threatened recipient of the call. They
may need to work with law enforcement and the entity called to ensure
there is a genuine threat in order to protect the privacy of the
caller.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered
33. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance 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.
34. The Commission has proposed rules for carriers, upon report of
a threatening call from the called party, to provide any CPN of the
calling party to the called party and/or law enforcement for the
purpose of identifying the responsible party. The Commission requested
feedback from small businesses in document FCC 17-76, and seeks comment
on ways to make the proposed rules less costly. The Commission asks how
to facilitate the provision of CPN to threatened entities in a manner
that minimizes the administrative burdens on carriers while ensuring
that such information is provided to the threatened party and law
enforcement in a timely manner. The Commission seeks the input of
carriers on how to best facilitate the process of providing CPN
information in a timely manner to parties that report a threatening
call. To help carriers protect privacy interests, the Commission seeks
comment on whether it should require anyone reporting a threatening
call for purposes of obtaining otherwise restricted CPN to do so in
conjunction with a law enforcement agency to provide some assurance
that the called party is not attempting to circumvent the privacy
obligations of the rule by reporting a false threat. The Commission
also asks whether excluding private individuals would limit the
potential for abuse. The Commission seeks comment on how to minimize
the economic impact of its proposals, particularly to small businesses.
35. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to document FCC
17-76 and the IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action
in this proceeding.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
36. 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.
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. 64.1600 by adding paragraph (l) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.1600 Definitions.
* * * * *
(l) Threatening Call. The term ``threatening call'' means any call
that includes a threat of serious and imminent unlawful action posing a
substantial risk to property, life, safety, or health.
0
3. Amend Sec. 64.1601 by revising paragraph (d)(4) (ii) through (iv)
to read as follows:
Sec. 64.1601 Delivery requirements and privacy restrictions.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) Is used on a public agency's emergency telephone line or in
conjunction with 911 emergency services, or on any entity's emergency
assistance poison control telephone line;
(iii) Is provided in connection with legally authorized call
tracing or trapping procedures specifically
[[Page 33863]]
requested by a law enforcement agency; or
(iv) Is made in connection with a threatening call. Upon report of
such a threatening call, the carrier will provide any CPN of the
calling party to the called party and/or law enforcement for the
purpose of identifying the responsible party.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-15303 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P