Calling Number Identification Service-Caller ID, 56909-56917 [2017-25917]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 230 (Friday, December 1, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56909-56917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25917]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 91-281; FCC 17-132]


Calling Number Identification Service--Caller ID

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission amends its Caller 
Identification (Caller ID) privacy rules to allow law enforcement and 
security personnel, as directed by law enforcement, to obtain quick 
access to blocked Caller ID information needed to identify and thwart 
threatening callers. The Commission exempts threatening calls from 
blocked numbers from its caller privacy rules. Studies and reports show 
a disturbing increase in threatening calls in recent years. Many 
threatening calls come from blocked numbers. It directs carries that 
upon report of such a threatening call by law enforcement on behalf of 
the threatened party, the carrier will provide any CPN of the calling 
party to law enforcement and, as directed by law enforcement, to 
security personnel for the called party for the purpose of identifying 
the party responsible for the threatening call. The Commission also 
amends its rules to allow non-public emergency services to obtain 
blocked Caller ID information associated with calls requesting 
assistance.

DATES: Effective January 2, 2018, except for 47 CFR 64.1601(d)(4)(ii) 
and (f), which contain new or modified information collection 
requirements that require review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), shall become effective 
30 days after the Commission's publication of a document in the Federal 
Register, which will announce approval by OMB under the PRA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nellie A. 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 Report 
and Order, FCC 17-132, CC Docket No. 91-281, adopted on October 24, 
2017, and released on October 25, 2017. The full text of this document 
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. 
The full text of this document 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).

Congressional Review Act

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

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document contains modified information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public to comment on 
the information collection requirements contained in Report and Order 
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 
104-13. In addition, the Commission notes that, pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought comment on how the 
Commission might ``further reduce the information burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''

Synopsis

    1. In Report and Order, the Commission helps security and law 
enforcement personnel obtain quick access to blocked Caller ID 
information needed to identify and thwart threatening callers. It also 
amends its rules to allow non-public emergency services to obtain 
blocked Caller ID information associated with calls requesting 
assistance.
    2. The number of threatening phone calls has increased dramatically 
in recent years. These calls traumatize communities and result in 
substantial disruption to schools, religious organizations, and other 
entities. They also drain public resources by requiring the deployment 
of police and bomb units. Schools and others receiving threats have 
suggested that blocked Caller ID information hinders a rapid response. 
The Commission's action moves away from case-by-case waivers to a 
streamlined approach that will help protect the safety of threatened 
parties in a timely way.

Caller ID Exemption for Threatening Calls

    3. The Need for an Exemption. The Commission Modifies its Caller ID 
rules

[[Page 56910]]

to exempt threatening calls from the Calling Party Number (CPN) privacy 
rules so that security personnel and law enforcement have quick access 
to information they need to aid their investigations. The Commission 
agrees with the vast majority of commenters that the exemption promotes 
public safety.
    4. This new exemption is consistent with the Commission's prior 
approach in this area. The Commission has previously concluded, for 
example, that to the extent Caller ID 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 
safety. 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 any CPN privacy interest of the threatening caller.
    5. The Commission disagrees with the sole commenter who urges it to 
not adopt an exemption but instead continue to issue case-by-case 
waivers, albeit on a streamlined basis. The waiver process, even if 
streamlined, would not provide equivalent benefits in combatting 
threatening calls. Investigation of these cases can depend on immediate 
action to stop a potentially catastrophic event. An exemption would 
allow for virtually immediate access to blocked Caller ID information 
upon proper request in threatening situations. The Commission thus 
agrees with the commenters who point out that threatening calls should 
be addressed immediately through an exemption in the Commission's rules 
rather than a case-by-case waiver process.
    6. The Commission also disagrees with commenters who urge that 
carriers should have discretion to decline law enforcement requests to 
get Caller ID information. CTIA--The Wireless Association claims that a 
mandate is not necessary, noting both the industry's long and 
successful track record of cooperation with law enforcement and that 
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) utilizes a voluntary 
disclosure provision. While the Commission believes that the industry's 
record may indeed be laudatory, the Commission concludes that mandatory 
disclosure is essential to its exemption. The Commission declines to 
define a ``valid request'' from law enforcement, as suggested by 
CenturyLink, because CTIA states carriers have an excellent track 
record of complying with law enforcement requests under ECPA. The 
Commission declines at this time to create a new law enforcement 
request process because the record reveals no evidence that law 
enforcement requests for this information have been ineffective or 
unreliable in the past. The record reveals no scenarios where a request 
for Caller ID by law enforcement, as the Commission describes below, 
should give carriers reason to question the validity of the emergency. 
Further, the imminent and grave nature of threatening calls, as defined 
below, leave little time for the exercise of discretion in whether to 
disclose information after law enforcement has become involved. As 
discussed below, the Commission adopts the ECPA standard for disclosure 
of information. The Commission does not find that standard to be 
inconsistent with a mandatory disclosure requirement. Carriers that are 
required to make disclosures in the very specific, narrowly defined 
scenario covered by the Commission's new exemption will not violate the 
more flexible ECPA standard by complying with the Commission's 
requirement. Moreover, the Commission believes that a law enforcement 
request based on the possibility of death or serious injury can satisfy 
ECPA's ``good faith'' standard to justify a carrier's voluntary 
disclosure of such information.
    7. The Commission agrees with AT&T that carriers should not be 
subject to liability for violation of its Caller ID privacy rules if 
they disclose blocked Caller ID pursuant to the new exemption. As CTIA 
notes, ``[l]aw enforcement has the experience and the thousands of 
officers in communities throughout the country who are already 
positioned to evaluate whether a threat is genuine.'' Law enforcement's 
determination of a threatening call coupled with the mandatory nature 
of the disclosure removes any justification for placing liability on 
carriers who comply with a proper request for blocked Caller ID. CTIA 
suggests that the Commission adopts a provision in its rule Sec.  
64.1601(b)'s stating that prohibition on overriding a privacy indicator 
does not apply when ``CPN delivery . . . (iv) Is provided in connection 
with any lawful request by a law enforcement agency for assistance in 
an emergency.'' Such a provision is unnecessary in light of the 
Commission's existing rule, Sec.  64.1601(d)(4)(iii), exempting 
``legally authorized call tracing or trapping procedures specifically 
requested by a law enforcement agency.'' To the extent that AT&T and 
NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association ask the Commission to somehow 
exempt carriers from any other legal liability, the Commission declines 
to do so. The Commission's concern is only with ensuring that its rules 
do not interfere with the ability of carriers to respond to law 
enforcement requests as allowed under law.
    8. Definition of ``Threatening Call.'' The Commission defines the 
term ``threatening call,'' which triggers the application of the new 
exemption, as ``any call that conveys an emergency involving danger of 
death or serious physical injury to any person requiring disclosure 
without delay of information relating to the emergency.'' Typically, a 
call from a person simply reporting a threat, where the facts of the 
call indicate that the caller wishes to remain anonymous, would not be 
subject to disclosure because disclosure would not be necessary to 
prevent death or serious bodily injury. In the event disclosure is 
necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury, however, the rule 
would allow disclosure only to law enforcement. The Commission thinks 
this is appropriate and permitted by ECPA's emergency exception. The 
Commission does not wish to deter anonymous tips made to law 
enforcement. This definition ensures consistency with the emergency-
disclosure provision of ECPA, as urged by several commenters, and 
because it satisfies the Commission's goal of targeting the most 
threatening calls. NCTA states that the Commission ``should define a 
threatening call under Sec.  64.1600 of its rules as `any call that 
includes a threat involving danger of death or serious physical injury 
to any person.' '' The Commission declines to use NCTA's definition 
because referring to ``emergency'' rather than to ``threat'' 
encompasses more situations where immediate disclosure is necessary to 
address an emergency. Additionally, its proposed definition is 
consistent with ECPA. Finally, the Commission includes ``disclosure 
without delay'' within the definition to further align its disclosure 
requirement under circumstances where ECPA allows it.
    9. Because carriers are already familiar with the ECPA standard and 
ECPA covers the imminent nature of the dangers envisioned by the Caller 
ID NPRM, published at 82 FR 33856, July 21, 2017, and commenters, the 
Commission tailors its rule to align with the ECPA definition for 
purposes of this new exemption. The Commission agrees

[[Page 56911]]

that it makes sense to align its definition of a threatening call with 
existing federal law to ensure that carriers have consistent legal 
standards to apply in situations where both the Commission's rules and 
ECPA apply. The Commission also agrees with commenters that the ECPA 
definition would sufficiently cover the types of calls it seeks to 
exempt from the Caller ID blocking rule, without being either over- or 
under-inclusive, or including terms that could be ambiguous.
    10. Law Enforcement Involvement. The Commission finds that, to 
ensure the exemption is not abused, a request for blocked Caller ID 
information associated with a threatening call must be made by law 
enforcement on behalf of the threatened party. The Commission believes 
that this requirement will, among other things, ensure that such 
requests concern a bona fide threatening call and will not be a pretext 
for obtaining blocked Caller ID for other purposes. As CTIA commented, 
such a requirement will ensure there is no ambiguity regarding the 
necessary level of law enforcement involvement.
    11. The Commission agrees with commenters that law enforcement 
involvement at this stage of the process is essential to avoid having 
carriers make a determination on what constitutes a threatening call. 
AT&T avers that the involvement of law enforcement would help ensure 
compliance with the ECPA disclosure requirements, and would help 
prevent overbroad disclosures of blocked caller ID information that may 
harm the privacy of non-threatening callers. According to AT&T, law 
enforcement officials are ``indisputably better qualified to validate 
the existence of emergency circumstances than carrier personnel,'' and 
are likely more familiar with the facts giving rise to a requested 
disclosure. CTIA adds that requiring law enforcement involvement when 
restricted Caller ID information is requested would deter parties from 
manipulating the unblocking process. The Commission agrees with 
commenters that law enforcement personnel are in the best position to 
determine the existence of a credible threat that necessitates 
revealing CPN to investigate the threatening call.
    12. Likewise, the Commission finds that only law enforcement 
personnel and, as directed by law enforcement, others directly 
responsible for the safety and security of the threatened party should 
receive the otherwise protected Caller ID information in the case of 
threatening calls. Security personnel may only receive the blocked 
Caller ID information from the providers as directed by law enforcement 
because law enforcement will generally be in a better position than 
providers to determine who qualifies as security personnel. The 
Commission limits the disclosure of the blocked Caller ID information 
to prevent abuse, and to protect the privacy interests of parties who 
may block their Caller ID for valid privacy interests, such as domestic 
violence victims. By limiting the disclosure to law enforcement or, as 
directed by law enforcement, to security personnel for purposes of 
investigating a threat, the Commission seeks to prevent exploitations 
of the amended rule, such as an abuser tracking down a victim. The 
Commission defines security personnel as ``those individuals directly 
responsible for maintaining safety of the threatened entity consistent 
with the nature of the threat.'' For example, employees whose duties 
include security at an institution would qualify as security personnel; 
by contrast, an employee who merely answered the threatening phone or 
an individual homeowner would not. Security personnel may include, but 
are not limited to, corporate and government agency security personnel, 
and school or university security staff acting within the scope of 
their duties. In the case of an individual homeowner, law enforcement 
can take reasonable action to protect the homeowner as it conducts its 
investigation of a threatening call. The Commission allows disclosure 
to security personnel as directed by law enforcement to encompass 
situations where security personnel need access to the blocked Caller 
ID information for investigative purposes, as in instances when a large 
institution with its own security force, like a university or 
government agency, receives a threat.
    13. The Commission agrees with CTIA's recommendation that ``called 
parties should not be the recipients of information,'' and the ``use of 
disclosed CPN should be restricted--by rule--in a manner consistent 
with prior waivers.'' In its reply comments, NTCA asserts that, in 
times of exigency or in remote or insular areas, Caller ID information 
should be available to volunteer rescuers and similar non-law 
enforcement personnel with a safe harbor provision for carriers. The 
rules the Commission adopts here make Caller ID information available 
to ``security personnel,'' as directed by law enforcement, as well as 
law enforcement, and the Commission's definition of ``security 
personnel'' does not necessarily exclude the types of situations NTCA 
describes. The determination NTCA urges would dependent on the facts of 
a specific situation, and is, therefore, not appropriate for the 
general exemption the Commission adopts here. Accordingly, the 
Commission includes the following conditions in its rule for law 
enforcement or, as directed by law enforcement, security personnel of 
the called party investigating the threat: (1) The CPN on incoming 
restricted calls may not be passed on to the line called; (2) any 
system used to record CPN must be operated in a secure way, limiting 
access to designated telecommunications and security personnel, as 
directed by law enforcement; (3) telecommunications and security 
personnel, as directed by law enforcement, may access restricted CPN 
data only when investigating calls involving danger of death or serious 
physical injury to any person requiring disclosure without delay of 
information relating to the emergency, and shall document that access 
as part of the investigative report; (4) carriers transmitting 
restricted CPN information must take reasonable measures to ensure the 
security of such 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 expects that these boundaries on how the 
disclosed Caller ID information must be treated will advance public 
safety efforts while protecting valid privacy interests. The Commission 
has imposed these conditions on waivers both to ensure that the Caller 
ID information in question is accessible only to persons with direct 
involvement in investigating the threatening calls and to ensure that 
the information is used only for that purpose. The Commission has no 
indication that these conditions did not properly protect privacy 
interests in the cases underlying the waivers, and the record does not 
reveal any reason to doubt their efficacy more generally.
    14. Carrier Obligations Under Section 222 of the Act. The 
Commission finds that the disclosure required by the new exemption the 
Commission adopts here is consistent with section 222 of the Act. 
Section 222(a) of the Act states that ``[e]very telecommunications 
carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary 
information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, 
equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication 
carriers reselling telecommunications services provided

[[Page 56912]]

by a telecommunications carrier.'' The Commission's amended rule 
requiring carriers to disclose blocked Caller ID information when law 
enforcement requests it to investigate threatening calls does not 
contravene carriers' obligations under section 222 of the Act.
    15. In addressing the threatening calls recently received by Jewish 
Community Centers, the Bureau discussed section 222 of the Act in 
connection with the statutory protection of customer proprietary 
network information. The Commission agrees with the Bureau's view that 
section 222(d) of the Act allows for carriers to disclose blocked 
Caller ID in the case of unlawful activity because section 222(d) of 
the Act states, ``[n]othing in this section prohibits a 
telecommunications carrier from using, disclosing, or permitting access 
to customer proprietary network information obtained from its 
customers, either directly or indirectly through its agents . . . to 
protect users of those services and other carriers from fraudulent, 
abusive, or unlawful use of, or subscription to, such services.'' As 
described above, the Commission defines a ``threatening call'' as ``any 
call that conveys an emergency involving danger of death or serious 
physical injury to any person requiring disclosure without delay of 
information relating to the emergency.'' By limiting the disclosure of 
blocked Caller ID to narrowly defined cases of threatening calls that 
raise the ``danger of death or serious physical injury to any person,'' 
the Commission ensures that carriers are within their obligations under 
section 222 of the Act.

The Jewish Community Centers' Temporary Waiver

    16. On February 28, 2017, Senator Charles E. Schumer submitted a 
letter to the Commission expressing concern regarding recent bomb 
threats made via phone against various Jewish Community Centers (JCCs) 
in New York and across the nation. Senator Schumer noted that the 
Commission has played a valuable role in ensuring law enforcement and 
others are not hindered in their access to the caller information of 
threatening calls and suggested consideration of the grant of a waiver. 
On March 3, 2017, CGB granted to JCCs, and any carriers that serve 
JCCs, a temporary, emergency waiver of Sec.  64.1601(b) of the 
Commission's rules. In so doing, CGB indicated that this temporary 
waiver would remain in effect until the Commission determined whether 
the waiver should be made permanent. In addition, CGB sought comment on 
whether to make this waiver permanent. Comments filed in response 
support the waiver and note the public interest in promoting efforts to 
identify and thwart individuals making threatening calls to JCCs. No 
commenter opposed the waiver.
    17. In the Caller ID NPRM, the Commission confirmed that good cause 
continued to exist to maintain the temporary waiver of Sec.  64.1601(b) 
of the Commission's rules granted to JCCs and the carriers who serve 
them for disclosure of CPN associated with threatening calls. The 
Caller ID NPRM stated that in the event the Commission were to amend 
its rules to recognize a more general exemption for threatening calls, 
the JCC waiver would be encompassed within the protections afforded by 
that exemption. In Report and Order, the Commission recognizes an 
exemption for threatening calls thereby encompassing the JCC waiver. 
Accordingly, the JCC waiver is no longer necessary, and is superseded 
by document FCC 17-32 and terminated as of the effective date of the 
rule changes adopted herein.

Exemption for Non-Public Entities Providing Emergency Services

    18. The Commission also amends its rules to allow non-public 
emergency services to receive the CPN of all incoming calls from 
blocked numbers requesting assistance. The Commission believes amending 
its rules to allow non-public emergency services access to blocked 
Caller ID promotes the public interest by ensuring timely provision of 
emergency services without undermining any countervailing privacy 
interests.
    19. The Commission previously concluded that ``[t]o the extent that 
CPN-based services are used to deliver emergency services, the 
Commission finds that privacy requirements for CPN-based services 
should not apply to delivery of the CPN to a public agency's emergency 
line, a poison control line, or in conjunction with 911 emergency 
services'' and has noted that ``in an emergency, a caller is not likely 
to remember to dial or even know to dial an unblocking code.'' Here the 
Commission takes its previous conclusions a logical step further by 
amending the rules to allow non-public emergency services to retrieve 
from carriers the blocked Caller ID of callers seeking assistance. The 
Commission believes these callers would want an emergency service, 
whether a public agency or non-public entity, to be able to quickly and 
easily contact or locate them using their phone number to provide 
assistance.
    20. The Bureau previously waived the Caller ID privacy rule for a 
private ambulance service, Chevrah Hatzalah Volunteer Ambulance Corps 
Inc. (Hatzalah). In granting the waiver, the Bureau noted that 
Hatzalah's automatic dial retrieval system ``. . . is disrupted when 
the incoming call comes from a caller who has requested that his/her 
number not be revealed to the called party. In this circumstance, 
Hatzalah states that the inability to automatically identify callers 
creates several problems that can delay or even prevent the timely 
provision of emergency care.'' In its petition, Hatzalah further argued 
that allowing it to access blocked Caller ID information ``would not 
frustrate [the] purpose [of the Commission's rule] because the 
Commission has recognized that a caller's privacy interest should not 
interfere with the delivery of emergency services.''
    21. The Bureau found that the waiver served the public interest 
``because Hatzalah will be better able to respond to emergency 
situations by saving the crucial time taken when requesting phone 
number and location information from the caller.'' The Bureau also 
noted, ``. . . people seeking emergency services are often under great 
stress when they call, which can lead to difficulty in accurately 
communicating the vital telephone number and location information.'' 
Finally, the Bureau agreed with Hatzalah ``that a caller seeking 
emergency services has an interest in the number becoming known to the 
emergency provider to speed the provision of emergency services and, 
therefore, any privacy concerns are minimized in this context.''
    22. In the Caller ID NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether 
it should extend the proposed exemption to non-public entities that 
provide emergency services such as private ambulance companies. 
Hatzalah urges us to amend its rules for the same reasons the Bureau 
granted it a waiver so that other non-public emergency services will 
also have access to blocked Caller ID to provide the requested 
assistance. The Commission agrees that the Hatzalah Order's reasoning 
should apply more generally and find that allowing non-public emergency 
services to access blocked Caller ID promotes public safety and does 
not undermine any countervailing privacy interests associated with 
revealing CPN. Petition of Chevrah Hatzalah Volunteer Ambulance Corps 
Inc. for Waiver of Section 1601(b) of the Commission's Rules--Blocked 
Telephone Numbers, CC Docket No. 91-281, Order, 28 FCC Rcd 1253 (CGB 
2013) (order was not published in the Federal Register). In

[[Page 56913]]

order to facilitate the public safety goals of non-public emergency 
services, the Commission amends its Caller ID privacy rules to allow 
such services to obtain blocked Caller ID from carriers.
    23. Consistent with the Hatzalah Order, entities providing 
emergency services must be licensed by a state or municipality to 
provide such services to qualify for this exemption. Unlike the 
threatened callers discussed above, non-public emergency services do 
not have to act in conjunction with law enforcement to obtain blocked 
Caller ID information from carriers. Involving public emergency 
services in this scenario would undermine the goal of allowing 
providers of emergency services to provide quick and effective 
assistance to individuals seeking such assistance.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    24. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended, (RFA), the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) into the Caller ID NPRM. The Commission 
sought written comment on the proposals in the Caller ID NPRM, 
including comment on the IRFA. No comments were received on the IRFA.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Order

    25. The Report and Order takes an important step to help security 
and law enforcement personnel responsible for the safety of parties 
receiving certain threatening calls obtain quick access to the Caller 
ID information needed to identify and thwart threatening callers. The 
Report and Order moves away from case-by-case waivers to the 
streamlined approach necessary to help protect the safety of threatened 
parties in a timely way. Specifically, Report and Order clears the way 
for carriers to disclose blocked Caller ID information associated with 
threatening calls to facilitate the investigation of such threats and 
amends the Commission's rules to allow non-public emergency services to 
obtain blocked Caller ID information associated with calls requesting 
assistance.
    26. Caller ID Exemption for Threatening Calls. The Report and Order 
modifies the Commission's Caller ID rules to exempt threatening calls 
from the CPN privacy rules, so that security personnel and associated 
law enforcement have quick access to information they need to aid their 
investigations. The Report and Order defines the term ``threatening 
call,'' which triggers the application of the new exemption, as ``any 
call that conveys an emergency involving danger of death or serious 
physical injury to any person requiring disclosure without delay of 
information relating to the emergency.'' This definition is consistent 
with the emergency-disclosure provision of ECPA, and it satisfies the 
Commission's goal of targeting the most threatening calls.
    27. Law Enforcement Involvement. To ensure the exemption is not 
abused, a request for blocked Caller ID associated with a threatening 
call must be made by law enforcement on behalf of the threatened party. 
The Commission believes that this requirement will, among other things, 
ensure that such requests concern a bona fide threatening call and will 
not be a pretext for obtaining blocked Caller ID for other purposes.
    28. Only Law Enforcement and Security Personnel Receive Blocked 
Caller ID. Only law enforcement personnel and others responsible for 
the safety and, as directed by law enforcement, security personnel of 
the threatened party should receive the otherwise protected Caller ID 
information in the case of threatening calls. The Report and Order 
limits the disclosure of the blocked Caller ID information to prevent 
abuse of the disclosure process, and to protect the privacy interests 
of parties who may block their Caller ID for valid privacy interests, 
such as domestic violence victims. The Report and Order defines 
security personnel as ``those individuals directly responsible for 
maintaining safety of the threatened entity consistent with the nature 
of the threat.''
    29. Conditions on Receipt of Blocked Caller ID Information. The 
Report and Order includes the following conditions in the Commission's 
rule for law enforcement or security personnel of the called party 
investigating the threat: (1) The CPN on incoming restricted calls may 
not be passed on to the line called; (2) any system used to record CPN 
must be operated in a secure way, limiting access to designated 
telecommunications and, as directed by law enforcement, security 
personnel; (3) telecommunications and, as directed by law enforcement, 
security personnel may access restricted CPN data only when 
investigating calls involving danger of death or serious physical 
injury to any person requiring disclosure without delay of information 
relating to the emergency, and shall document that access as part of 
the investigative report; (4) carriers transmitting restricted CPN 
information must take reasonable measures to ensure the security of 
such 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.
    30. Carrier Obligations Under Section 222 of the Act. The 
disclosure required by the new exemption adopted in the Report and 
Order is consistent with section 222 of the Act. Section 222(a) of the 
Act states that ``[e]very telecommunications carrier has a duty to 
protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating 
to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and 
customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling 
telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.'' 
The Commission's amended rule requiring carriers to disclose blocked 
Caller ID information when law enforcement requests it does not 
contravene carriers' obligations under section 222 of the Act.
    31. Jewish Community Center Temporary Waiver. The Report and Order 
recognizes an exemption for threatening calls thereby encompassing the 
JCC waiver. Accordingly, the JCC waiver is no longer necessary, and is 
superseded by the Report and Order.
    32. Non-Public Emergency Services. The Report and Order also amends 
the Commission's rules to allow non-public emergency services to 
receive the CPN of all incoming calls from blocked numbers requesting 
assistance. Amending the Commission's rules to allow non-public 
emergency services access to blocked Caller ID promotes the public 
interest by ensuring timely provision of emergency services without 
undermining any countervailing privacy interests.

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

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

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

    34. 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

[[Page 56914]]

the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. Under the Small Business Act, a ``small business 
concern'' is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is 
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional 
criteria established by the Small Business Administration. Nationwide, 
there are a total of approximately 28.8 million small businesses, 
according to the SBA.

Wireline Carriers

    35. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 
defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in 
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use 
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming 
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, 
establishments providing satellite television distribution services 
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in 
this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard 
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such 
companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 shows 
that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this size 
standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.
    36. 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.
    37. 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.
    38. 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.
    39. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this 
present RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the 
RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size 
standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or 
fewer employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' 
The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small 
incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any 
such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. The Commission has 
therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although 
it emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses 
and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    40. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of 
interexchange services (IXCs). The appropriate size standard under SBA 
rules is for the category wired

[[Page 56915]]

telecommunications carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this 
industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or 
providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that 
they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, 
and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities 
may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. 
Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications 
network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, 
such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired 
(cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband 
internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite 
television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure 
that they operate are included in this industry.'' Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated 
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
IXCs are small entities.
    41. 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

    42. 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 telecommunications carriers can be considered 
small.
    43. 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.
    44. All Other Telecommunications. All other telecommunications 
comprise, 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 voice over Internet 
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications 
connections are also included in this industry.'' The SBA has developed 
a small business size standard for the category of All Other 
Telecommunications. Under that size standard, such a business is small 
if it has $32.5 million in annual receipts. 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

    45. 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

[[Page 56916]]

estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small entities.
    46. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for the category of telecommunications resellers. The 
telecommunications resellers industry comprises establishments engaged 
in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of 
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless 
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and 
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; 
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile 
virtual network operators (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.
    47. 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. Mobile virtual network operators (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 for Small Entities

    48. The Report and Order creates an exemption for threatening calls 
and calls to non-public emergency services from the Commission's Caller 
ID privacy rules. These changes affect small and large companies 
equally, and apply equally to all classes of regulated entities 
identified above.
    49. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements. There are no new 
reporting requirements. The Report and Order amends the caller privacy 
rules to exempt threatening calls from the CPN privacy rules, so that 
associated law enforcement and, as directed by law enforcement, 
security personnel have quick access to information they need to aid 
their investigations. Voice service providers do not need to change 
their current recordkeeping as they have been able to provide CPN when 
requested in the past.
    50. The Report and Order adds a recordkeeping requirement. The 
Commission amends its rules to allow non-public emergency services to 
obtain blocked Caller ID information associated with calls requesting 
assistance. Voice service providers will need to keep a record of when 
they provide blocked Caller ID associated with calls requesting 
assistance to non-public emergency services providers.
    51. Other Compliance Requirements. Voice service providers will be 
required to release blocked Caller ID information when it is requested 
by law enforcement in conjunction with circumstances amounting to a 
threatening call and when a non-public emergency service requests 
blocked Caller ID. To do so, voice service providers must comply with 
law enforcement requests for CPN as they currently do under ECPA. The 
Commission anticipates the impact will be small because of the 
statutory requirements already in place.

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

    52. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may 
include the following four alternatives, among others: (1) the 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements 
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.
    53. The Commission considered feedback from the Caller ID NPRM in 
crafting the final order. The Commission evaluated the comments in 
light of the goal of removing regulatory roadblocks to help security 
and law enforcement personnel responsible for the safety of parties 
receiving certain threatening calls obtain quick access to the Caller 
ID information needed to identify and thwart threatening callers. While 
a commenter suggested permissive rules, the Commission implemented 
mandatory rules in light of public safety concerns. The Commission 
adopts an exemption instead of simply streamlining the waiver process 
to allow for virtually immediate access to blocked Caller ID 
information upon proper request in threatening situations. The 
Commission considered continuing the waiver process, but inherent 
delays in the waiver process do not meet the goal of streamlining 
access to information needed to investigate threatening calls. In 
addition, the Commission reduced uncertainty, burdens and costs on 
small business providers that seek to relay the blocked Caller ID 
information, by putting the identification of ``security personnel'' in 
the hands of law enforcement as opposed to providers.
    54. The Commission does not see a need to establish a special 
timetable for small entities to reach compliance with the modification 
to the rules. No small business has asked for a delay in implementing 
the rules. In considering the burden on small business, the Commission 
notes that they already have responsibilities under ECPA, and the 
Commission aligns its threatening call definition with that of ECPA. 
Similarly, there are no design standards or performance standards to 
consider in this rulemaking.

Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the 
Commission's Rules

    55. None.

Ordering Clauses

    56. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4, 201 and 
222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 
201, 222, This Report and Order IS ADOPTED and that part 64 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 64.1600, 64.1601, are amended.
    57. The Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, sent a copy of the Report and Order to 
Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

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


[[Page 56917]]


Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

Final Rules

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

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

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

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 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'' is any call 
that conveys an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical 
injury to any person requiring disclosure without delay of information 
relating to the emergency.


0
3. Amend Sec.  64.1601 by revising paragraph (d)(4)(ii) and by adding 
paragraphs (f) and (g) 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, on a telephone line to contact 
non-public emergency services licensed by the state or municipality, or 
on any entity's emergency assistance poison control telephone line; or
* * * * *
    (f) Paragraph (b) of this section shall not apply when CPN delivery 
is made in connection with a threatening call. Upon report of such a 
threatening call by law enforcement on behalf of the threatened party, 
the carrier will provide any CPN of the calling party to law 
enforcement and, as directed by law enforcement, to security personnel 
for the called party for the purpose of identifying the party 
responsible for the threatening call.
    (g) For law enforcement or security personnel of the called party 
investigating the threat:
    (1) The CPN on incoming restricted calls may not be passed on to 
the line called;
    (2) Any system used to record CPN must be operated in a secure way, 
limiting access to designated telecommunications and security 
personnel, as directed by law enforcement;
    (3) Telecommunications and security personnel, as directed by law 
enforcement, 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) Carriers transmitting restricted CPN information must take 
reasonable measures to ensure security of such 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.
[FR Doc. 2017-25917 Filed 11-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P