Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, 17631-17641 [2018-08376]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 17–59; FCC 18–31]
Advanced Methods To Target and
Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission invites comment on
proposed changes to its rules. The
Commission proposes rules to ensure
that one or more databases are available
to provide callers with the
comprehensive and timely information
they need to discover potential number
reassignments before making a call. It
seeks comment on the specific
information that callers need from a
reassigned numbers database; and the
best way to make that information
available to callers that want it, as well
as related issues.
DATES: Comments are due on June 7,
2018, and reply comments are due on
July 9, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by CG Docket No. 17–59 and/
or FCC Number 18–31, 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 website: https://
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow
the instructions provided on the website
for submitting comments. For ECFS
filers, in completing the transmittal
screen, filers should include their full
name, U.S. Postal service mailing
address, and CG Docket No. 17–59.
• Mail: Parties who choose to file by
paper must file an original and one copy
of each filing. 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: Josh
Zeldis, Consumer Policy Division,
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:33 Apr 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
Bureau (CGB), at (202) 418- 0715, email:
Josh.Zeldis@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Second FNPRM), document FCC 18–31,
adopted on March 22, 2018, and
released on March 23, 2018. The full
text of document FCC 18–31 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 18–31 and any
subsequently filed documents in this
matter may also be found by searching
ECFS at: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (insert
CG Docket No. 17–59 into the
Proceeding block).
Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419,
interested parties may file comments
and reply comments on or before the
dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed
using ECFS. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW, Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
• Commercial Mail sent by overnight
mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be
sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
• 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17631
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). The
Second FNPRM can also be downloaded
in Word or Portable Document Format
(PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov/
document/fcc-seeks-address-robocallsreassigned-phone-numbers-0.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis
The Second FNPRM 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. The Commission, as part of its
multiple-front battle against unwanted
calls, proposes and seeks comment on
ways to address the problem of
unwanted calls to reassigned numbers.
This problem subjects the recipient of
the reassigned number to annoyance
and wastes the time and effort of the
caller while potentially subjecting the
caller to liability.
2. Consumer groups and callers alike
have asked for a solution to this
problem. The Commission therefore
proposes in document FCC 18–31 to
ensure that one or more databases are
available to provide callers with the
comprehensive and timely information
they need to discover potential number
reassignments before making a call. To
that end, the Commission seeks further
comment on, among other issues: (1)
The specific information that callers
need from a reassigned numbers
database; and (2) the best way to make
that information available to callers that
want it. Making a reassigned numbers
database available to callers that want it
will benefit consumers by reducing
unwanted calls intended for another
consumer while helping callers avoid
the costs of calling the wrong consumer,
including potential violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
17632
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Background
3. As required by the Commission’s
rules, voice service providers ensure the
efficient use of telephone numbers by
reassigning a telephone number to a
new consumer after it is disconnected
by the previous subscriber.
Approximately 35 million numbers are
disconnected and made available for
reassignment to new consumers each
year. Consumers disconnect their old
numbers and change to new telephone
numbers for a variety of reasons,
including switching wireless providers
without porting numbers and getting
new wireline telephone numbers when
they move. Upon disconnecting his or
her phone number, a consumer may not
update all parties who have called him/
her in the past, including businesses to
which the consumer gave prior express
consent to call and other callers from
which the consumer expects to receive
calls. When that number is reassigned,
the new subscriber of that number may
receive unwanted calls intended for the
previous subscriber.
4. The problem of unwanted calls to
reassigned numbers can have important
consequences for both consumers and
callers. Beyond annoying the new
subscriber of the reassigned number, a
misdirected call can deprive the
previous subscriber of the number of a
desired call from, for example, his/her
school, health care provider, or financial
institution. In the case of prerecorded or
automated voice calls (robocalls) to
reassigned numbers, a good-faith caller
may be subject to liability for violations
of the TCPA. That threat can have a
chilling effect, causing some callers to
be overly cautious and stop making
wanted, lawful calls out of concern over
potential liability for calling a
reassigned number.
5. While existing tools can help
callers identify number reassignments,
‘‘callers lack guaranteed methods to
discover all reassignments’’ in a timely
manner. Accordingly, in the July 2017
Reassigned Numbers NOI (NOI), the
Commission launched an inquiry to
explore ways to reduce unwanted calls
to reassigned numbers. The Commission
sought comment on, among other issues,
the best ways for service providers to
report information about number
reassignments and how that information
can most effectively be made available
to callers. Thirty-three parties filed
comments and fourteen parties
submitted reply comments.
6. The majority of commenters on the
NOI support a comprehensive and
timely database that allows callers to
verify whether a number has been
reassigned before making a call.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:33 Apr 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
Specifically, a broad range of
commenters, including callers and
associated trade organizations,
consumer groups, cable and VoIP
service providers, and data aggregators,
support establishing a database where
service providers can report reassigned
number data and callers can access that
data. Legislators have also encouraged
the Commission to proceed with a
rulemaking to create a comprehensive
reassigned numbers database.
7. Several commenters nonetheless
raise concerns about this approach. For
example, the United States Chamber of
Commerce express concern about the
costs associated with using a reassigned
numbers database and note that the
Commission cannot mandate that callers
use a reassigned numbers database in
order to comply with the TCPA. Several
other commenters contend that
establishing a reassigned numbers
database is too costly as compared to the
likely benefit. Alternatively, CTIA and
others contend that if the Commission
decides to address the reassigned
numbers problem, it should adopt a safe
harbor from TCPA violations for callers
that use existing commercial solutions
and thereby encourage broader adoption
and improvement of those solutions.
Discussion
8. The Commission proposes to
ensure that one or more databases are
available to provide callers with the
comprehensive and timely information
they need to avoid calling reassigned
numbers. The Commission therefore
seek comment below on, among other
things: (1) The information that callers
who choose to use a reassigned numbers
database need from such a database; (2)
how to ensure that the information is
reported to a database; and (3) the best
approach to making that information
available to callers.
9. The Commission believes that its
proposal will benefit legitimate callers
and consumers alike. While some
commenters argued that a reassigned
numbers database would not reduce
unwanted calls from bad actors, the
Commission notes that a reassigned
numbers database is only one important
part of its broader policy and
enforcement efforts to combat unwanted
calls, including illegal robocalls. The
Commission seeks comment on how its
approach in the Second FNPRM fits
within these broader efforts.
10. The Commission believes its legal
authority for the potential requirements
and alternatives stems directly from
section 251(e) of the Act. More
specifically, it believes that the
Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction
over North American Numbering Plan
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(NANP) numbering resources provides
ample authority to adopt any
requirements that recipients of NANP
numbers report reassignment or other
information about those numbers,
including the mechanism through
which such information must be
reported. The Commission seeks
comment on these views and on the
nature and scope of its legal authority
under section 251(e) of the Act to adopt
the potential requirements and
alternatives.
Database Information, Access, and Use
11. Based on the NOI comments, an
effective reassigned numbers database
should contain both comprehensive and
timely data for callers to discover
potential reassignments before they
occur. A reassigned numbers database
should also be easy to use and costeffective for callers while minimizing
the burden on service providers
supplying the data. With these goals in
mind, the Commission seeks comment
below on the operational aspects of a
reassigned numbers database, namely
the type and format of information that
callers need from such a database, how
comprehensive and timely the data
needs to be in order for the database to
be effective, any restrictions or
limitations on callers’ access to and
usage of the database, and the best ways
to ensure that callers’ costs to use a
reassigned numbers database are
minimized. The Commission also
emphasizes that usage of a reassigned
numbers database would be wholly
voluntary for callers.
12. Type of Information Needed By
Callers. The Commission seeks
comment on the information that a
legitimate caller needs from a reassigned
numbers database, and it seeks to
understand how callers expect an
efficient and effective database to work.
To that end, the Commission seeks
comment on the following issues. First,
the Commission seeks comment on the
information a legitimate caller would
have on hand when seeking to search or
query a reassigned numbers database.
The Commission expects that such a
caller would possess, at a minimum, the
following information: (1) The name of
the consumer the caller wants to reach;
(2) a telephone number associated with
that consumer; and (3) a date on which
the caller could be confident that the
consumer was still associated with that
number (e.g., the last date the caller
made contact with the consumer at that
number; the date the consumer last
provided that number to the caller; or
the date the caller obtained consent to
call the consumer). The Commission
seeks comment on this view. What other
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
information, if any, should the
Commission expect a legitimate caller to
already possess before making a call?
13. Second, the Commission seeks
comment on the information a caller
would need to submit to a reassigned
numbers database and the information
the caller seeks to generate from a
search or query of the database. The
Commission believes that, at a
minimum, the database should be able
to indicate (e.g., by providing a ‘‘yes’’ or
‘‘no’’ response) whether a number has
been reassigned since a date entered by
the caller. That information could then
be used by a legitimate caller to
determine whether a number has been
reassigned since the caller last had a
reasonable expectation that a particular
person could be reached at the number.
The Commission seeks comment on this
view. Do callers need any additional
information beyond an indication of
whether a particular number has been
reassigned since a particular date? For
example, do callers need the actual date
on which the number was reassigned? If
so, why? Do callers need the name of
the individual currently associated with
the number? Why or why not? What are
the privacy implications of allowing
callers to obtain such information and
how should they be addressed? Or to
phrase the question differently, how can
the Commission minimize the
information provided by the database
(to protect a consumer’s information
from being unnecessarily disclosed)
while it maximizes the effectiveness of
the database (to protect a consumer from
receiving unwanted calls)?
14. Third, if a reassigned numbers
database should indicate whether a
number has been reassigned, then how
should the Commission define when a
number is reassigned for this purpose?
Typically, the reassignment process
consists of four steps: A number
currently in use is first disconnected,
then aged, then made available for
assignment, and finally assigned to a
new subscriber. Determining the
appropriate step in the reassignment
process to cull information from service
providers and pass it to callers requires
considering the needs of callers as well
as the administrative feasibility and cost
of reporting to service providers.
15. The Commission proposes to
provide callers with information about
when NANP numbers are disconnected.
Because disconnection is a first step in
the reassignment process, the
Commission believes that a database
containing information on when a
number has been disconnected will best
allow callers to identify, at the earliest
possible point, when a subscriber can
no longer be reached at that number.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:33 Apr 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
With timely access to such data, callers
will be best positioned to rid their
calling lists of reassigned numbers
before calling them. Access to
disconnection information would be
preferable to new assignment
information because, as one commenter
notes, tracking new assignments ‘‘would
provide little to no lead time for callers
to update their dialing lists to avoid
calling consumers with newly
reassigned numbers.’’ Do commenters
agree with these views? Why or why
not? The Commission also understands
that service providers routinely track
disconnection information and it seeks
comment on this view. Do service
providers use consistent criteria to track
and record disconnects or does each
service provider set its own criteria?
16. Should an effective reassigned
numbers database contain information
in addition to or in lieu of
disconnection information?
Commenters should discuss the
advantages and disadvantages of their
preferred approach relative to other
approaches.
17. The Commission also seeks
comment on information that callers
believe should be excluded from a
reassigned numbers database in order to
ensure accurate and reliable data and
prevent false positives. For example, if
the database includes information about
disconnections, should the database
exclude information on when a number
has been temporarily disconnected, thus
excluding, for example, when a number
is in a temporary suspension status (e.g.,
for non-payment)? Is it feasible for
service providers to exclude such
information from their reporting? What
are the costs of differentiating
disconnections for service providers?
How should the Commission weigh
those costs against the risk that the
reassigned numbers database might be
overinclusive—stating that certain
numbers have been reassigned more
recently than they actually have been—
and thus may unnecessarily discourage
legitimate calls from being made.
18. Comprehensiveness of Database
Information. The Commission seeks
comment on how comprehensive a
reassigned numbers database needs to
be. It believes that when callers use
such a database, they should reasonably
expect that the database is sufficiently
comprehensive such that they do not
need to rely on any other databases. The
Commission seeks comment on this
view.
19. To ensure a comprehensive
database, do callers need data from all
types of voice service providers,
including wireless, wireline,
interconnected VoIP, and non-
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17633
interconnected VoIP providers? Or
would data from only certain types of
providers be sufficient? Nearly all NOI
commenters on this issue argue that an
effective reassigned numbers solution
must contain data from all service
providers. For example, one commenter
contends that without data from all
voice service providers, a reassigned
numbers database ‘‘would contain
insufficient . . . information about a
potentially large set of numbers, and
thus likely would not be any more
‘comprehensive’ than existing tools.’’ Do
commenters agree? Why or why not?
And do texters need reassignment
information from text message providers
to the extent that such providers do not
also provide voice service? Are there
significant occurrences of misdirected
texts to reassigned numbers such that
texters need this information?
20. The Commission also seeks
comment on the universe of numbers
that a reassigned numbers database
should contain. For example, should
such a database contain all numbers
allocated by a numbering administrator
to a service provider or only a subset of
such numbers (e.g., only numbers that
have been disconnected since the
commencement of the database)? If a
reassigned numbers database contains
only a subset of allocated numbers, the
Commission notes that a caller may be
unable to determine the status of a given
number. On the other hand, a database
containing all allocated numbers may be
unwieldy. The Commission seeks
comment on these views and on the best
approach for making comprehensive
data available to callers while
minimizing the burdens on those
reporting and managing the data.
21. Finally, the Commission seeks
comment on whether there is any reason
to limit the reported reassignment
information to a specific timeframe. For
instance, if the most recent
reassignment of a number occurred five
or ten years ago, do callers need that
information?
22. Timeliness of Database
Information. The Commission seeks
comment on how timely the information
contained in a reassigned numbers
database must be. How frequently
should the data be reported to maximize
callers’ ability to remove reassigned
numbers from their calling lists before
placing calls? Some NOI commenters
argue that data should be reported on a
daily basis while others contend that it
should be updated in realtime or as
close to realtime as practicable. CTIA
cautions, however, that real-time
updates would result in greater costs,
while potentially not measurably
reducing unwanted calls compared to
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
17634
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
less frequent updates. Tatango argues
that data should be reported based on
how long a service provider ages its
numbers, with those providers that age
their numbers quickly (e.g., after two
days) being required to report on a daily
basis and those providers that age their
numbers for at least 45 days being
allowed to report on a monthly basis.
The Commission seeks comment on
these approaches, any alternatives, and
their costs and benefits.
23. Additionally, the Commission
seeks comment on how long service
providers currently age numbers before
making them available again for
assignment. The Commission notes that
the Commission’s rules limit the aging
period for disconnected residential
numbers to a maximum of 90 days.
Should the Commission adopt a
minimum aging period for disconnected
numbers so that service providers could
report data to a reassigned numbers
database less frequently? If so, would 30
days be a reasonable minimum aging
period? Would 60 days? What are the
costs and benefits to service providers of
having to comply with a minimum
aging requirement? Would the costs
outweigh any benefit of being able to
report data to a reassigned numbers
database less frequently?
24. Format of Database Information.
The Commission seeks comment on the
format in which callers need the
relevant data. For example, several NOI
commenters argue that callers need this
information in an easily accessible,
usable, and consistent file format such
as comma-separated values (CSV) or
eXtensible Markup Language (XML)
format. Do commenters agree or believe
that alternative formats should be used,
and if so, which formats? Does the
Commission need to specify the format
of such information by rule, or should
the Commission allow the database
administrator to determine it?
25. User Access to Database
Information. The Commission
anticipates that callers may use the
database directly or may wish to have
entities that are not callers (such as data
aggregators or entities that manage
callers’ call lists) use the database. The
Commission seeks comment on this
view and any associated impacts on
implementation.
26. Additionally, the Commission
seeks comment on any specific criteria
or requirements that an entity must
satisfy to become an eligible user. Most
commenters on the NOI argue that some
restrictions are necessary to prevent
misuse of data. The Commission is
particularly mindful that the database
information may be business- and
market-sensitive, especially as it relates
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:33 Apr 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
to customer churn. The Commission
also seeks to mitigate any risk that the
data could be used by fraudulent
robocallers or other bad actors for
spoofing or other purposes. At the same
time, the Commission seeks to minimize
the administrative and cost burden on
callers so as not to discourage their use
of a reassigned numbers database. With
these goals in mind, the Commission
seeks comment on the potential
requirements for eligible users
discussed below and any other
requirements that commenters believe
are necessary. The Commission also
seek comment on how to enforce these
requirements to ensure database
security and integrity.
27. The Commission seeks comment
on whether users should be required to
certify the purpose for which they seek
access to the information and, if so, how
that purpose should be defined. In the
NOI, the Commission asked whether
entities seeking access should be
required to certify that the information
will be used only for purposes of TCPA
compliance, and many commenters
favor such a restriction. However, the
Commission notes that all callers
seeking to reduce unwanted calls to
reassigned numbers—not merely callers
seeking to ensure compliance with the
TCPA—should be permitted to access a
reassigned numbers database. The
Commission seeks comment on this
view. If commenters agree that user
access should be permitted for this
broader purpose (and not for any other
purpose, such as marketing), what
specific language should be used in any
required certification?
28. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether and how to track
relevant information about those who
access a reassigned numbers database.
Several commenters on the NOI argue
that database users should be subject to
a registration requirement. Do
commenters agree? If users are required
to set up an account that identifies the
party obtaining the data, what
information should they be required to
provide? The Commission also seeks
comment on whether database users
should be subject to audits or other
reviews, and if so, the components and
frequency of such audits. Additionally,
the Commission seeks comment on
what recourse, if any, an entity denied
access should have.
29. Cost to Use Database. The
Commission seeks comment on any
ways it can minimize the cost of using
a reassigned numbers database so as to
encourage usage, including by small
business callers. The Commission notes
that commenters on the NOI largely
agree that service providers should be
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
compensated for the costs of reporting
data to a reassigned numbers database,
but callers argue that any cost recovery
mechanism should be reasonable so that
access to the data will be affordable.
How should the Commission balance
these interests?
30. Database Use and TCPA
Compliance. The Commission seeks
comment on how use of a reassigned
numbers database should intersect with
TCPA compliance. In response to
comments filed on the NOI by the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the Commission
makes clear that it is not proposing to
mandate that callers use a reassigned
numbers database in order to comply
with the TCPA.
31. Rather, the Commission seeks
comment on whether it should adopt a
safe harbor from TCPA liability for those
callers that choose to use a reassigned
numbers database, including under any
of the three approaches to database
administration discussed below. Some
commenters, for example, urge the
Commission to adopt a safe harbor from
TCPA violations for robocallers that
inadvertently make calls to reassigned
numbers after checking a
comprehensive reassigned numbers
database. Other commenters argue that
the Commission should instead adopt a
safe harbor for callers using existing
commercial solutions. The Commission
seeks comment on these views. If the
Commission were to adopt a safe harbor
from TCPA violations, under what
circumstances should callers be
permitted to avail themselves of the safe
harbor? For example, how often would
a caller need to check a reassigned
numbers database under a safe harbor?
The Commission also seeks detailed
comment on whether section 227 of the
Act or other sections of the Act provide
it with authority to adopt such a safe
harbor—what provisions, precisely,
would allow the agency to create a safe
harbor? If the Commission were to adopt
a safe harbor under the TCPA, how does
the D.C. Circuit’s recent ruling in ACA
International v. FCC impact its ability to
adopt a safe harbor, if at all? Does the
Commission have more authority to
craft a safe harbor from its own
enforcement authority than from the
private right of action contained in the
TCPA? Does section 251(e) of the Act
provide independent or additional
authority for such a safe harbor? If the
Commission were to establish such a
safe harbor, what precisely would it
protect a caller from? Liability from all
reassigned-number calls? Liability from
good-faith reassigned-number calls?
Liability from reassigned-number calls
but only when the database’s
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
information was either untimely or
inaccurate?
Approaches to Database
Administration
32. In the NOI, the Commission
suggested four potential mechanisms for
service providers to report reassigned
number information and for callers to
access that information. Most
commenters addressing this issue
favored a single, FCC-designated
database, while others favored making
the data available through commercial
data aggregators. The Commission seeks
further comment on these options
below. Specifically, the Commission
seeks comment on whether it should: (1)
Require service providers to report
reassigned number information to a
single, FCC-designated database; (2)
require service providers to report such
information to one or more commercial
data aggregators; or (3) allow service
providers to report such information to
commercial data aggregators on a
voluntary basis. The Commission also
seeks comment on any alternative
approaches that commenters believe it
should consider. Regardless of the
approach, the Commission seeks to
balance callers’ need for comprehensive
and timely reassigned number
information with the need to minimize
the reporting burden placed on service
providers.
33. Recently, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recognized
that the Commission has ‘‘consistently
adopted a ‘reasonable reliance’
approach’’ to the TCPA, including in
cases ‘‘when a consenting party’s
number is reassigned.’’ The court
highlighted that the Commission is
‘‘considering creating a comprehensive
repository of information about
reassigned wireless numbers’’ and
‘‘whether to provide a safe harbor for
callers that inadvertently reach
reassigned numbers after consulting the
most recently updated information’’—
and the court noted a reassigned
numbers database ‘‘would naturally bear
on the reasonableness of calling
numbers that have in fact been
reassigned.’’ The Commission seeks
comment on the impact that decision
and possible Commission action in
response to that decision could have on
the costs and benefits of the database
options discussed herein. Does that
decision strengthen the need for a
timely and comprehensive reassigned
numbers database? Or does it suggest
that existing, commercially available
databases provide callers with sufficient
resources, diminishing the need for a
new database or a mandatory reporting
requirement?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:33 Apr 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
Mandatory Reporting to Single
Database
34. The Commission seeks detailed
comment on whether it should establish
and select an administrator of a single
reassigned numbers database. Under
this approach, the Commission would
mandate that service providers report
reassigned number information to the
database, and allow eligible users to
query the database for such information.
As discussed below, the Commission
seeks comment on how the single
database should be established, who
should administer it, and how it should
be funded. The Commission also seeks
comment on which service providers
should be required to report
information, the requirements that
should apply to such providers, and
whether and how they should be able to
recover their reporting costs. Finally,
the Commission seeks comment on the
effectiveness, costs, and benefits of the
single database approach.
35. Establishment and Administration
of Single Database. The Commission
seeks comment on how complicated it
would be to establish a single reassigned
numbers database. Would it be
necessary to develop a completely new
database or would it be possible to
expand or modify one of the existing
numbering databases overseen by the
Commission to accommodate the data
that callers need? Are there any
economies of scale or scope that could
be achieved under the latter approach?
36. One possibility would be to
modify the Number Portability
Administration Center (NPAC), which is
used to facilitate local number
portability. In response to the NOI,
however, iconectiv explains that the
NPAC currently lacks information about
all number reassignments and therefore
cautions that the ‘‘suitability of
extending the NPAC to serve as a
reassigned number database warrants a
great deal more consideration prior to
making such a decision.’’ What factors
should the Commission consider in
making such a decision and what
processes should it follow in
establishing a single database? For
example, should the Commission
consult with the North American
Numbering Council (NANC), as some
commenters suggest?
37. The Commission also seeks
comment on which entities have the
expertise to serve as the administrator of
a central reassigned numbers database.
Could the LNPA or a different
numbering administrator (such as the
NANPA or the Pooling Administrator)
serve such a role? Or could an entirely
different vendor serve this role? What
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17635
factors should the Commission take into
account in selecting a reassigned
numbers database administrator?
38. Funding. How should an FCCdesignated reassigned numbers database
be funded? For example, should the
Commission establish a charge to
database users to help cover the costs of
establishing and maintaining the
database? If so, how should the charge
be set (e.g., per query, a flat fee or some
other basis) and how should the billing
and collection process work? To the
extent that such fees do not cover all of
the costs of establishing and
maintaining the database, should the
Commission recover the remaining costs
from reporting service providers? The
Commission notes that section 251 of
the Act provides that the ‘‘cost of
establishing telecommunications
numbering administration arrangements
. . . shall be borne by all
telecommunications carriers on a
competitively neutral basis as
determined by the Commission.’’ How
would this statutory provision affect the
Commission’s approach? To the extent
that fees collected from database users
exceed the costs of establishing and
maintaining the reassigned numbers
database, the Commission seeks
comment on whether such fees could be
used to offset the costs of numbering
administration more generally.
39. Covered Service Providers. The
Commission seeks comment on which
service providers should be required to
report data to a single, FCC-designated
reassigned numbers database. Should all
service providers—including wireless,
wireline, interconnected VoIP, and noninterconnected VoIP providers—be
required to report data? Should the
reporting requirements also apply to
text messaging providers to the extent
that they do not also provide voice
service?
40. Alternatively, should the
Commission require all service
providers that receive numbers directly
from the NANPA to report data on those
numbers? In response to the NOI,
several commenters note that some
service providers, such as resellers and
interconnected VoIP providers that do
not obtain numbers directly from the
NANPA, might not have knowledge of
certain changes in the status of a
number if they do not have control over
the provision of the number. Tatango
therefore argues that, consistent with
the Commission’s existing number
utilization reporting requirements, the
obligation to report data about a number
to a reassigned numbers database
should be imposed on the entity that
obtained the number directly from the
NANPA. The Commission seeks
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
17636
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
comment on this view. The Commission
also seeks comment on whether to
afford covered service providers the
flexibility to contractually delegate
those requirements to the service
provider that indirectly receives
numbers.
41. Additionally, the Commission
seeks comment on whether it should
exempt certain service providers from
the obligation to report data to an FCCdesignated reassigned numbers database
without undermining its overall
comprehensiveness. For example,
NTCA asks that the Commission exempt
rural service providers from this
requirement, at least initially, because of
their limitations in resources and staff.
Are there other types of providers, such
as those offering only
telecommunications relay services, that
should be exempted from mandatory
reporting? The Commission seeks
comment on whether it should adopt
any such exemptions, the relevant
eligibility criteria, and the effect of the
exemption on the goal of providing
comprehensive numbering information
to callers that want it. Are there other
measures short of an exemption that
would lessen the reporting burden,
while still achieving that goal?
42. Requirements for Covered Service
Providers. The Commission seeks
comment on the reporting requirements
that should apply to covered service
providers under a single database
approach. In particular, it seeks
comment on: (1) The specific data that
covered service providers should be
required to report; (2) how often they
should be required to report such
information; and (3) the format in which
they should be required to report it. In
adopting such requirements, the
Commission seeks to balance callers’
need for comprehensive and timely
reassigned number data with the need to
minimize the reporting burden on
service providers. The Commission also
seeks comment on the costs and benefits
of these reporting requirements,
including specific cost estimates.
Additionally, are there any unique
reporting burdens faced by small and/or
rural service providers, and if so, how
should they be addressed? For example,
should the Commission permit small
providers to report data less frequently
than larger providers, as NTCA
suggests? Or start reporting at a later
time? Furthermore, are there other
requirements for covered service
providers that the Commission should
adopt? For example, is there a risk that
customer proprietary network
information (CPNI) could be disclosed
without customer consent, and if so,
how could that risk be addressed?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:33 Apr 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
43. Cost Recovery for Covered Service
Providers. Should covered service
providers be compensated for some or
all of their costs of reporting
information to an FCC-designated
reassigned numbers database?
Commenters recognize that service
providers will incur operational costs to
provide the required data. For example,
CTIA emphasizes that its members may
need to develop new database solutions
and/or incur operational expenses
associated with modifying existing
systems. Would service providers’ costs
ultimately be borne by their subscribers,
as NCLC suggests? If covered service
providers should be permitted to
recover some or all of their costs of
reporting data, how should they be
compensated and what limits, if any,
should be set on such compensation?
44. Other Implementation Issues and
Implementation Timeline. The
Commission seeks comment on any
other issues related to the feasibility or
implementation of a single, FCCdesignated reassigned numbers
database. The Commission also seeks
comment on an implementation
timeline for establishing such a
database. What steps would need to be
taken and approximately how long
would they take?
45. Costs and Benefits. The
Commission seek comment on the
effectiveness, costs (including specific
cost estimates), and benefits of the
single database approach. The
Commission also seeks comment on its
advantages and disadvantages compared
to existing solutions and the alternatives
discussed below. Would, as many
commenters argue, a single database
approach be more comprehensive and
therefore, more effective, in addressing
the reassigned numbers problem, than
existing commercial solutions?
Additionally, requiring service
providers to report to, and allowing
eligible users to query from, a single,
centralized database would likely be
more efficient and cost-effective than an
approach that involves multiple
commercial data aggregators. Some
commenters contend that a single
database would also serve as an
‘‘authoritative source’’ of reassigned
number information and could better
facilitate establishment of a safe harbor
from TCPA violations. Another
commenter points out that in contrast to
commercial databases that might cease
operations, a single, FCC-designated
database would better enable the
Commission to oversee quality of and
access to the data. At the same time,
however, developing such a database
could require substantially more time
and expenditures than an approach that
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
relies on commercial data aggregators.
The Commission seeks comment on
these views and on any other factors
that commenters believe the
Commission should consider when
evaluating a single, FCC-designated
database as a solution to the reassigned
numbers problem.
Mandatory Reporting to Commercial
Data Aggregators
46. As an alternative to the single
database approach discussed above, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
it should require service providers to
report reassigned number information to
commercial data aggregators. Under this
approach, the Commission expects that
service providers would enter into
bilateral agreements with data
aggregators for purposes of reporting
data, and as a result, there would be
multiple reassigned numbers databases
that callers could query. The
Commission seeks comment on the
criteria and process for becoming a
qualifying data aggregator to which
service providers would report data;
which service providers should be
required to report data, the requirements
they should be subject to, and the
appropriate cost recovery for these
covered service providers; contractual
and other issues that might arise
between data aggregators and service
providers; and the feasibility and
implementation issues associated with
this approach. The Commission also
seeks comment on the costs and benefits
of this approach.
47. Qualifying Data Aggregators. The
Commission believes that service
providers should be required to report
reassigned number data only to those
commercial data aggregators that meet
specific eligibility or qualification
criteria (e.g., certain baseline or
operational standards). The Commission
seeks comment on this view. If
commenters agree, how should the
Commission define a ‘‘qualifying data
aggregator’’ for this purpose and what
criteria should such an entity satisfy?
For example, should a data aggregator
be required to: (1) Establish internal
controls to ensure that the data it
receives will be used solely to respond
to callers’ queries and not for any
marketing or other commercial purpose;
(2) maintain records of callers’ queries;
(3) ensure data security and privacy;
and (4) establish internal controls to
accurately respond to such queries? The
Commission seeks comment on these
potential criteria and any others that
commenters believe are necessary to
ensure reliable and secure databases.
48. The Commission also seeks
comment on the process for becoming a
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
qualifying data aggregator. For instance,
should a data aggregator be required to
register with or seek approval from the
Commission? Additionally, the
Commission seeks comment on how to
ensure compliance with the
qualification criteria. For example,
should service providers require that
any criteria placed on the qualifying
data aggregator, such as those referenced
above, be addressed within the bilateral
contract between the parties? Are there
other ways that the Commission can
ensure that a qualifying data aggregator
meets the requisite criteria? Should a
qualifying data aggregator be required to
undergo regular audits and file with the
Commission an auditor’s certification
that it complies with the required
criteria? Further, how should service
providers be expected to know which
data aggregators are qualifying data
aggregators? Should the Commission
maintain a list or registry of such
entities and if so, how and when should
it be updated?
49. Covered Service Providers. The
Commission seeks comment on which
service providers should be required to
report reassigned number data to
commercial data aggregators. Should the
same universe of providers be subject to
reporting regardless of whether the
Commission requires reporting to
commercial data aggregators or to a
single, FCC-designated database? Why
or why not?
50. Reporting to Single or Multiple
Data Aggregators. Under this approach,
should covered service providers be
required to report reassigned number
data to some or all qualifying data
aggregators, and how would this
requirement work in practice?
Alternatively, should the Commission
require covered service providers to
report information to only one
qualifying data aggregator which would
in turn share the information with other
qualifying data aggregators? What would
be the parameters of such required datasharing arrangements? What are the
potential benefits and drawbacks of
such an approach and how would it
work in practice?
51. Other Requirements for Covered
Service Providers. The Commission
seeks comment on the other
requirements that should apply to
covered service providers under this
approach. Should the same reporting
and other requirements that would
apply under the single database
approach discussed above apply under
this approach as well? Are there
different or additional requirements for
covered service providers that the
Commission should adopt under
mandatory reporting to data aggregators?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:33 Apr 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
52. Cost Recovery for Covered Service
Providers. The Commission seeks
comment on whether covered service
providers should be permitted to
recover some or all of their reporting
costs under this approach. If so, how
should they be compensated and what
limits, if any, should be set on such
compensation?
53. Contractual Issues. As discussed
above, under this approach, the
Commission anticipates that service
providers would enter into bilateral
agreements with data aggregators for
purposes of reporting data. The
Commission seeks comment on how
negotiation of these agreements would
work in practice. Are there contractual,
business, or other concerns that would
need to be addressed in order to rely on
this approach as a solution to the
reassigned numbers problem?
54. Other Feasibility or
Implementation Issues and
Implementation Timeline. The
Commission seeks comment on any
other issues related to the feasibility or
implementation of mandatory reporting
to commercial data aggregators that
commenters believe it should consider.
For example, how should callers be
expected to learn about the multiple
reassigned numbers databases that
would result from this approach? The
Commission also seeks comment on a
timeline for implementing this
approach. What steps would need to be
taken and approximately how long
would they take?
55. Costs and Benefits. The
Commission seeks comment on the
effectiveness, costs (including specific
cost estimates), and benefits of
mandatory reporting to commercial data
aggregators as well as its advantages and
disadvantages compared to the other
approaches discussed herein and
compared to existing commercial
solutions. For example, an approach
involving commercial data aggregators
would enable those entities to leverage
their existing infrastructure and services
and likely make reassigned numbers
databases available more quickly and
with less upfront expenditures than a
single, FCC-designated database
approach. On the other hand,
mandatory reporting to multiple data
aggregators may be less efficient and
cost-effective for both service providers
and callers than a single database
approach. The Commission seeks
comment on these views and on any
other factors that commenters believe it
should consider in evaluating
mandatory reporting to data aggregators
as a solution to the reassigned numbers
problem.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17637
Voluntary Reporting to Commercial
Data Aggregators
56. The Commission seeks comment
on whether, as a second alternative, it
should allow service providers to report
reassigned number data to commercial
data aggregators on a voluntary basis.
Under this approach, callers could then
use commercial data aggregators to
determine whether a phone number has
been reassigned. As discussed below,
the Commission seeks comment on
whether, and if so, how a voluntary
reporting approach could be structured
to be more effective than existing
solutions at addressing the reassigned
numbers problem.
57. Incentives to Encourage Effective
Databases. As discussed above, the
Commission believes that an effective
reassigned numbers database must
contain information that is both
comprehensive and timely. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
reassigned number solutions that are
available in the marketplace today are
comprehensive and timely, and, if not,
what efforts the FCC could undertake to
incentivize improvement of these
solutions. For example, CTIA and others
argue that the Commission should adopt
a safe harbor from TCPA violations for
those callers that use existing
commercial solutions. They further
suggest that the safe harbor would lead
to widespread use of existing solutions
by callers, which would in turn create
more competition among commercial
data aggregators, spur those data
aggregators to pay service providers to
induce them to report data, and result
in more comprehensive and reliable
databases. Do commenters agree with
this view? Commenters that advocate
adoption of a safe harbor should explain
in detail the Commission’s legal
authority to take such action. If the
Commission were to adopt a safe harbor,
under what circumstances should
callers be allowed to avail themselves of
the safe harbor? For example, how often
would a caller need to check a
reassigned numbers database under a
safe harbor? And what parameters, in
terms of comprehensiveness and
timeliness of the data, would a
reassigned numbers database used by
such a caller need to satisfy? For
instance, would a database need to have
a certain percentage of service
providers’ data before a caller could use
it under the safe harbor? Would
coverage of 90 percent of allocated
numbers be sufficient? 95 percent? 99
percent? Would, as with the mandatory
reporting approach, a data aggregator
need to meet specific qualifying criteria,
including certification? The
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
17638
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Commission also seeks comment on
whether there are there other incentives,
along with or in addition to a safe
harbor, that the Commission could
create to encourage the development of
comprehensive and timely reassigned
numbers databases under a voluntary
reporting approach.
58. Reporting. Under a voluntary
reporting approach, the Commission
anticipates that service providers would
enter into bilateral commercial
agreements with data aggregators for
purposes of reporting data. Are there
ways to improve the reporting
infrastructure, including reducing
administrative costs and increasing
confidence in query results, such as by
using distributed ledger technology?
What other actions could the
Commission take to better facilitate
more widespread reporting by service
providers without mandating reporting?
59. Cost Recovery. Under this
voluntary approach, the Commission
expects that service providers would
recover their reporting costs from data
aggregators and those data aggregators
would in turn pass those costs on to
callers seeking to query their databases.
The Commission seeks comment on this
view and on any related issues. In
particular, the Commission seeks
comment on how best to ensure that
small service providers recover their
costs and are able to have their
reassigned number data included in
these databases.
60. Costs and Benefits. The
Commission seeks comment on the
effectiveness, costs (including specific
cost estimates), and benefits of
voluntary reporting to commercial data
aggregators relative to the other
approaches discussed above. For
example, the Commission anticipates
that while a voluntary approach would
give service providers more flexibility
than a mandatory approach, it would
nevertheless result in less
comprehensive databases and would
therefore be less effective in addressing
the reassigned numbers problem than
the alternatives discussed above. The
Commission seeks comment on this
view. Additionally, would callers have
to pay more or less for database access
under a voluntary approach than under
the approaches discussed above or
under existing commercial solutions?
The Commission seeks comment on
these issues and on any other factors
that commenters believe it should
consider in evaluating a voluntary
reporting approach as a solution to the
reassigned numbers problem.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:33 Apr 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
including potential violations of the
TCPA.
61. As required by section 603 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended, (RFA) the Commission has
prepared the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
expected impact on small entities of the
proposals contained in the Second
FNPRM. 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 on the Second FNPRM. The
Commission will send a copy of the
Second FNPRM, including the IRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
Legal Basis
Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
62. The Second FNPRM seeks to
reduce unwanted calls to reassigned
numbers by proposing to ensure that
one or more databases are available to
provide callers with the comprehensive
and timely information they need to
avoid calling reassigned numbers.
Despite existing tools that can help
callers identify number reassignments,
callers lack guaranteed methods to
discover all reassignments in a timely
manner. Beyond annoying the new
subscriber of the reassigned number, a
misdirected call can deprive the
previous subscriber of the number of a
desired call from, for example, his/her
school, health care provider, or financial
institution. In the case of robocalls to
reassigned numbers, a good-faith caller
may be subject to liability for violations
of the TCPA. That threat can have a
chilling effect, causing some callers to
be overly cautious and stop making
wanted, lawful calls out of concern over
potential liability for calling a
reassigned number.
63. The Second FNPRM seeks to
reduce the number comment on various
aspects of a reassigned numbers
database. The Second FNPRM also seeks
comment on three alternatives for
service providers to report reassigned
number information and for callers to
access that information. Finally, the
Second FNPRM seeks comment on
whether, and if so, how the Commission
should adopt a safe harbor from liability
under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act for those callers that
choose to use a reassigned numbers
database. Making a reassigned numbers
database available to callers that want it
will benefit consumers by reducing
unwanted calls intended for another
consumer while helping callers avoid
the costs of calling the wrong consumer,
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64. The proposed and anticipated
rules are authorized under sections 201,
227, and 251(e) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201,
227, 251(e).
Description and Estimate of the Number
of Small Entities to Which the Proposed
Rules Will Apply
65. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the rules adopted herein. The RFA
generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small-business concern’’
under the Small Business Act. A ‘‘smallbusiness concern’’ is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2)
is not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA.
66. The proposed safe harbor from
liability for violating the prohibitions
relating to telephone solicitations using
autodialers, artificial and/or
prerecorded messages applies to a wide
range of entities, including potentially
all entities that use the telephone to
advertise. Thus, the Commission
expects that the safe harbor proposal
could have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. For instance, funeral homes,
mortgage brokers, automobile dealers,
newspapers and telecommunications
companies could all be affected.
67. In 2013, there were approximately
28.8 million small business firms in the
United States, according to SBA data.
Determining a precise number of small
entities that would be subject to the
requirements proposed in this NPRM is
not readily feasible. Therefore, the
Commission invites comment about the
number of small business entities that
would be subject to the proposed safe
harbor in this proceeding. After
evaluating the comments, the
Commission will examine further the
effect the proposed safe harbor might
have on small entities, and will set forth
its findings in the final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis.
68. The descriptions and estimates of
small entities affected by the remaining
proposed rules is detailed below.
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Wireline Carriers
69. 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.
70. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:33 Apr 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
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.
71. 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.
72. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17639
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.
73. 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.
74. Interexchange Carriers. Neither
the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size
standard specifically for providers of
interexchange services. The appropriate
size standard under SBA rules is for the
category Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ‘‘establishments
primarily engaged in operating and/or
providing access to transmission
facilities and infrastructure that they
own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using
wired communications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of
services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services, wired
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
17640
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
(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
interexchange carriers are small entities.
75. Cable System Operators (Telecom
Act Standard). The Communications
Act also contains a size standard for
small cable system operators, which is
‘‘a cable operator that, directly or
through an affiliate, serves in the
aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all
subscribers in the United States and is
not affiliated with any entity or entities
whose gross annual revenues in the
aggregate exceed $250,000,000.’’ There
are approximately 52,403,705 cable
video subscribers in the United States
today. Accordingly, an operator serving
fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be
deemed a small operator if its annual
revenues, when combined with the total
annual revenues of all its affiliates, do
not exceed $250 million in the
aggregate. Based on available data, the
Commission finds that all but nine
incumbent cable operators are small
entities under this size standard. Note
that the Commission neither requests
nor collects information on whether
cable system operators are affiliated
with entities whose gross annual
revenues exceed $250 million. Although
it seems certain that some of these cable
system operators are affiliated with
entities whose gross annual revenues
exceed $250 million, the Commission is
unable at this time to estimate with
greater precision the number of cable
system operators that would qualify as
small cable operators under the
definition in the Communications Act.
76. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:33 Apr 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
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
77. 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.
78. Satellite Telecommunications
Providers. The category of Satellite
Telecommunications ‘‘comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
providing telecommunications services
to other establishments in the
telecommunications and broadcasting
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
79. 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 voice over internet
protocol (VoIP) services via clientsupplied 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
80. 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
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 78 / Monday, April 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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, all operated with fewer than
1,000 employees. Thus, under this
category and the associated small
business size standard, the majority of
these resellers can be considered small
entities. According to Commission data,
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.
81. 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 local resellers can be considered
small entities.
82. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:33 Apr 20, 2018
Jkt 244001
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
83. As indicated above, the Second
FNPRM seeks comment on its proposal
to make one or more databases available
to provide callers with the
comprehensive and timely information
they need to avoid calling reassigned
numbers. The Commission seeks to
minimize the burden associated with
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements for the
proposal. The proposal under
consideration could result in additional
costs to regulated entities. This proposal
would necessitate that some voice
service providers create new processes
or make changes to their existing
processes that would impose some
additional costs to those service
providers. The Commission believes
that service providers already track
phone number status information, and it
therefore does not anticipate that these
costs will be excessive. In addition, as
indicated in more detail below, the
Second FNPRM also contemplates a cost
recovery mechanism for expenses
incurred by service providers.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
84. 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.
85. As indicated above, the Second
FNPRM seeks comment on a proposal to
make one or more databases available so
that callers can discover reassignments
prior to making a call. The Commission
has examined both the economic burden
this proposal may have on callers and
service providers and the considerable
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
17641
benefits to consumers and callers
provide by a solution of a reassigned
numbers database. Consumers are
currently receiving a significant number
of unwanted calls that are an annoyance
and expend wasted time while other
consumers are not getting the
information that they solicited. In
addition, callers are wasting
considerable resources calling the
wrong number and incurring potential
TCPA liability. The Second FNPRM
seeks to significantly reduce the number
of unwanted calls to those that receive
reassigned numbers by informing callers
that use a database solution of the
change in assignment. The Second
FNPRM also seeks comment on
potential ways to allow service
providers to recoup their costs
associated with reporting number
reassignment information. If adopted,
this cost-recovery mechanism could
negate any service provider costs
associated with the provisioning of
phone number reassignment data. The
Commission seeks comment on the
specific costs of the measures we
discuss in the Second FNPRM, and ways
the Commission might further mitigate
any implementation costs, including by
making allowances for small and rural
voice service providers and small
business callers that might choose to use
a reassigned number solution.
86. The Commission will consider
ways to reduce the impact on small
businesses, such as establishment of
different compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities based on the record in response
to the Second FNPRM. The Commission
has requested feedback from small
businesses in the Second FNPRM and
seeks comment on ways to make a
challenge mechanism and reporting less
costly. The Commission seeks comment
on how to minimize the economic
impact of these potential requirements.
87. The Commission expects to
consider the economic impact on small
entities, as identified in comments filed
in response to the Second FNPRM, in
reaching its final conclusions and taking
action in this proceeding.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
88. None.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018–08376 Filed 4–20–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\23APP1.SGM
23APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17631-17641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08376]
[[Page 17631]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 18-31]
Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission invites comment on proposed
changes to its rules. The Commission proposes rules to ensure that one
or more databases are available to provide callers with the
comprehensive and timely information they need to discover potential
number reassignments before making a call. It seeks comment on the
specific information that callers need from a reassigned numbers
database; and the best way to make that information available to
callers that want it, as well as related issues.
DATES: Comments are due on June 7, 2018, and reply comments are due on
July 9, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by CG Docket No. 17-59
and/or FCC Number 18-31, 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 website: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on
the website for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing the
transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal
service mailing address, and CG Docket No. 17-59.
Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
original and one copy of each filing. 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: Josh Zeldis, Consumer Policy Division,
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), at (202) 418- 0715,
email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM), document FCC 18-
31, adopted on March 22, 2018, and released on March 23, 2018. The full
text of document FCC 18-31 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 18-31 and any
subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be found by
searching ECFS at: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (insert CG Docket No. 17-
59 into the Proceeding block).
Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the
first page of this document. Comments may be filed using ECFS. See
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121
(1998).
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th Street SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S.
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
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: [email protected] or call CGB at: (202) 418-0530
(voice), or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). The Second FNPRM can also be
downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-address-robocalls-reassigned-phone-numbers-0.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
The Second FNPRM 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. The Commission, as part of its multiple-front battle against
unwanted calls, proposes and seeks comment on ways to address the
problem of unwanted calls to reassigned numbers. This problem subjects
the recipient of the reassigned number to annoyance and wastes the time
and effort of the caller while potentially subjecting the caller to
liability.
2. Consumer groups and callers alike have asked for a solution to
this problem. The Commission therefore proposes in document FCC 18-31
to ensure that one or more databases are available to provide callers
with the comprehensive and timely information they need to discover
potential number reassignments before making a call. To that end, the
Commission seeks further comment on, among other issues: (1) The
specific information that callers need from a reassigned numbers
database; and (2) the best way to make that information available to
callers that want it. Making a reassigned numbers database available to
callers that want it will benefit consumers by reducing unwanted calls
intended for another consumer while helping callers avoid the costs of
calling the wrong consumer, including potential violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
[[Page 17632]]
Background
3. As required by the Commission's rules, voice service providers
ensure the efficient use of telephone numbers by reassigning a
telephone number to a new consumer after it is disconnected by the
previous subscriber. Approximately 35 million numbers are disconnected
and made available for reassignment to new consumers each year.
Consumers disconnect their old numbers and change to new telephone
numbers for a variety of reasons, including switching wireless
providers without porting numbers and getting new wireline telephone
numbers when they move. Upon disconnecting his or her phone number, a
consumer may not update all parties who have called him/her in the
past, including businesses to which the consumer gave prior express
consent to call and other callers from which the consumer expects to
receive calls. When that number is reassigned, the new subscriber of
that number may receive unwanted calls intended for the previous
subscriber.
4. The problem of unwanted calls to reassigned numbers can have
important consequences for both consumers and callers. Beyond annoying
the new subscriber of the reassigned number, a misdirected call can
deprive the previous subscriber of the number of a desired call from,
for example, his/her school, health care provider, or financial
institution. In the case of prerecorded or automated voice calls
(robocalls) to reassigned numbers, a good-faith caller may be subject
to liability for violations of the TCPA. That threat can have a
chilling effect, causing some callers to be overly cautious and stop
making wanted, lawful calls out of concern over potential liability for
calling a reassigned number.
5. While existing tools can help callers identify number
reassignments, ``callers lack guaranteed methods to discover all
reassignments'' in a timely manner. Accordingly, in the July 2017
Reassigned Numbers NOI (NOI), the Commission launched an inquiry to
explore ways to reduce unwanted calls to reassigned numbers. The
Commission sought comment on, among other issues, the best ways for
service providers to report information about number reassignments and
how that information can most effectively be made available to callers.
Thirty-three parties filed comments and fourteen parties submitted
reply comments.
6. The majority of commenters on the NOI support a comprehensive
and timely database that allows callers to verify whether a number has
been reassigned before making a call. Specifically, a broad range of
commenters, including callers and associated trade organizations,
consumer groups, cable and VoIP service providers, and data
aggregators, support establishing a database where service providers
can report reassigned number data and callers can access that data.
Legislators have also encouraged the Commission to proceed with a
rulemaking to create a comprehensive reassigned numbers database.
7. Several commenters nonetheless raise concerns about this
approach. For example, the United States Chamber of Commerce express
concern about the costs associated with using a reassigned numbers
database and note that the Commission cannot mandate that callers use a
reassigned numbers database in order to comply with the TCPA. Several
other commenters contend that establishing a reassigned numbers
database is too costly as compared to the likely benefit.
Alternatively, CTIA and others contend that if the Commission decides
to address the reassigned numbers problem, it should adopt a safe
harbor from TCPA violations for callers that use existing commercial
solutions and thereby encourage broader adoption and improvement of
those solutions.
Discussion
8. The Commission proposes to ensure that one or more databases are
available to provide callers with the comprehensive and timely
information they need to avoid calling reassigned numbers. The
Commission therefore seek comment below on, among other things: (1) The
information that callers who choose to use a reassigned numbers
database need from such a database; (2) how to ensure that the
information is reported to a database; and (3) the best approach to
making that information available to callers.
9. The Commission believes that its proposal will benefit
legitimate callers and consumers alike. While some commenters argued
that a reassigned numbers database would not reduce unwanted calls from
bad actors, the Commission notes that a reassigned numbers database is
only one important part of its broader policy and enforcement efforts
to combat unwanted calls, including illegal robocalls. The Commission
seeks comment on how its approach in the Second FNPRM fits within these
broader efforts.
10. The Commission believes its legal authority for the potential
requirements and alternatives stems directly from section 251(e) of the
Act. More specifically, it believes that the Commission's exclusive
jurisdiction over North American Numbering Plan (NANP) numbering
resources provides ample authority to adopt any requirements that
recipients of NANP numbers report reassignment or other information
about those numbers, including the mechanism through which such
information must be reported. The Commission seeks comment on these
views and on the nature and scope of its legal authority under section
251(e) of the Act to adopt the potential requirements and alternatives.
Database Information, Access, and Use
11. Based on the NOI comments, an effective reassigned numbers
database should contain both comprehensive and timely data for callers
to discover potential reassignments before they occur. A reassigned
numbers database should also be easy to use and cost-effective for
callers while minimizing the burden on service providers supplying the
data. With these goals in mind, the Commission seeks comment below on
the operational aspects of a reassigned numbers database, namely the
type and format of information that callers need from such a database,
how comprehensive and timely the data needs to be in order for the
database to be effective, any restrictions or limitations on callers'
access to and usage of the database, and the best ways to ensure that
callers' costs to use a reassigned numbers database are minimized. The
Commission also emphasizes that usage of a reassigned numbers database
would be wholly voluntary for callers.
12. Type of Information Needed By Callers. The Commission seeks
comment on the information that a legitimate caller needs from a
reassigned numbers database, and it seeks to understand how callers
expect an efficient and effective database to work. To that end, the
Commission seeks comment on the following issues. First, the Commission
seeks comment on the information a legitimate caller would have on hand
when seeking to search or query a reassigned numbers database. The
Commission expects that such a caller would possess, at a minimum, the
following information: (1) The name of the consumer the caller wants to
reach; (2) a telephone number associated with that consumer; and (3) a
date on which the caller could be confident that the consumer was still
associated with that number (e.g., the last date the caller made
contact with the consumer at that number; the date the consumer last
provided that number to the caller; or the date the caller obtained
consent to call the consumer). The Commission seeks comment on this
view. What other
[[Page 17633]]
information, if any, should the Commission expect a legitimate caller
to already possess before making a call?
13. Second, the Commission seeks comment on the information a
caller would need to submit to a reassigned numbers database and the
information the caller seeks to generate from a search or query of the
database. The Commission believes that, at a minimum, the database
should be able to indicate (e.g., by providing a ``yes'' or ``no''
response) whether a number has been reassigned since a date entered by
the caller. That information could then be used by a legitimate caller
to determine whether a number has been reassigned since the caller last
had a reasonable expectation that a particular person could be reached
at the number. The Commission seeks comment on this view. Do callers
need any additional information beyond an indication of whether a
particular number has been reassigned since a particular date? For
example, do callers need the actual date on which the number was
reassigned? If so, why? Do callers need the name of the individual
currently associated with the number? Why or why not? What are the
privacy implications of allowing callers to obtain such information and
how should they be addressed? Or to phrase the question differently,
how can the Commission minimize the information provided by the
database (to protect a consumer's information from being unnecessarily
disclosed) while it maximizes the effectiveness of the database (to
protect a consumer from receiving unwanted calls)?
14. Third, if a reassigned numbers database should indicate whether
a number has been reassigned, then how should the Commission define
when a number is reassigned for this purpose? Typically, the
reassignment process consists of four steps: A number currently in use
is first disconnected, then aged, then made available for assignment,
and finally assigned to a new subscriber. Determining the appropriate
step in the reassignment process to cull information from service
providers and pass it to callers requires considering the needs of
callers as well as the administrative feasibility and cost of reporting
to service providers.
15. The Commission proposes to provide callers with information
about when NANP numbers are disconnected. Because disconnection is a
first step in the reassignment process, the Commission believes that a
database containing information on when a number has been disconnected
will best allow callers to identify, at the earliest possible point,
when a subscriber can no longer be reached at that number. With timely
access to such data, callers will be best positioned to rid their
calling lists of reassigned numbers before calling them. Access to
disconnection information would be preferable to new assignment
information because, as one commenter notes, tracking new assignments
``would provide little to no lead time for callers to update their
dialing lists to avoid calling consumers with newly reassigned
numbers.'' Do commenters agree with these views? Why or why not? The
Commission also understands that service providers routinely track
disconnection information and it seeks comment on this view. Do service
providers use consistent criteria to track and record disconnects or
does each service provider set its own criteria?
16. Should an effective reassigned numbers database contain
information in addition to or in lieu of disconnection information?
Commenters should discuss the advantages and disadvantages of their
preferred approach relative to other approaches.
17. The Commission also seeks comment on information that callers
believe should be excluded from a reassigned numbers database in order
to ensure accurate and reliable data and prevent false positives. For
example, if the database includes information about disconnections,
should the database exclude information on when a number has been
temporarily disconnected, thus excluding, for example, when a number is
in a temporary suspension status (e.g., for non-payment)? Is it
feasible for service providers to exclude such information from their
reporting? What are the costs of differentiating disconnections for
service providers? How should the Commission weigh those costs against
the risk that the reassigned numbers database might be overinclusive--
stating that certain numbers have been reassigned more recently than
they actually have been--and thus may unnecessarily discourage
legitimate calls from being made.
18. Comprehensiveness of Database Information. The Commission seeks
comment on how comprehensive a reassigned numbers database needs to be.
It believes that when callers use such a database, they should
reasonably expect that the database is sufficiently comprehensive such
that they do not need to rely on any other databases. The Commission
seeks comment on this view.
19. To ensure a comprehensive database, do callers need data from
all types of voice service providers, including wireless, wireline,
interconnected VoIP, and non-interconnected VoIP providers? Or would
data from only certain types of providers be sufficient? Nearly all NOI
commenters on this issue argue that an effective reassigned numbers
solution must contain data from all service providers. For example, one
commenter contends that without data from all voice service providers,
a reassigned numbers database ``would contain insufficient . . .
information about a potentially large set of numbers, and thus likely
would not be any more `comprehensive' than existing tools.'' Do
commenters agree? Why or why not? And do texters need reassignment
information from text message providers to the extent that such
providers do not also provide voice service? Are there significant
occurrences of misdirected texts to reassigned numbers such that
texters need this information?
20. The Commission also seeks comment on the universe of numbers
that a reassigned numbers database should contain. For example, should
such a database contain all numbers allocated by a numbering
administrator to a service provider or only a subset of such numbers
(e.g., only numbers that have been disconnected since the commencement
of the database)? If a reassigned numbers database contains only a
subset of allocated numbers, the Commission notes that a caller may be
unable to determine the status of a given number. On the other hand, a
database containing all allocated numbers may be unwieldy. The
Commission seeks comment on these views and on the best approach for
making comprehensive data available to callers while minimizing the
burdens on those reporting and managing the data.
21. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether there is any
reason to limit the reported reassignment information to a specific
timeframe. For instance, if the most recent reassignment of a number
occurred five or ten years ago, do callers need that information?
22. Timeliness of Database Information. The Commission seeks
comment on how timely the information contained in a reassigned numbers
database must be. How frequently should the data be reported to
maximize callers' ability to remove reassigned numbers from their
calling lists before placing calls? Some NOI commenters argue that data
should be reported on a daily basis while others contend that it should
be updated in realtime or as close to realtime as practicable. CTIA
cautions, however, that real-time updates would result in greater
costs, while potentially not measurably reducing unwanted calls
compared to
[[Page 17634]]
less frequent updates. Tatango argues that data should be reported
based on how long a service provider ages its numbers, with those
providers that age their numbers quickly (e.g., after two days) being
required to report on a daily basis and those providers that age their
numbers for at least 45 days being allowed to report on a monthly
basis. The Commission seeks comment on these approaches, any
alternatives, and their costs and benefits.
23. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on how long service
providers currently age numbers before making them available again for
assignment. The Commission notes that the Commission's rules limit the
aging period for disconnected residential numbers to a maximum of 90
days. Should the Commission adopt a minimum aging period for
disconnected numbers so that service providers could report data to a
reassigned numbers database less frequently? If so, would 30 days be a
reasonable minimum aging period? Would 60 days? What are the costs and
benefits to service providers of having to comply with a minimum aging
requirement? Would the costs outweigh any benefit of being able to
report data to a reassigned numbers database less frequently?
24. Format of Database Information. The Commission seeks comment on
the format in which callers need the relevant data. For example,
several NOI commenters argue that callers need this information in an
easily accessible, usable, and consistent file format such as comma-
separated values (CSV) or eXtensible Markup Language (XML) format. Do
commenters agree or believe that alternative formats should be used,
and if so, which formats? Does the Commission need to specify the
format of such information by rule, or should the Commission allow the
database administrator to determine it?
25. User Access to Database Information. The Commission anticipates
that callers may use the database directly or may wish to have entities
that are not callers (such as data aggregators or entities that manage
callers' call lists) use the database. The Commission seeks comment on
this view and any associated impacts on implementation.
26. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on any specific
criteria or requirements that an entity must satisfy to become an
eligible user. Most commenters on the NOI argue that some restrictions
are necessary to prevent misuse of data. The Commission is particularly
mindful that the database information may be business- and market-
sensitive, especially as it relates to customer churn. The Commission
also seeks to mitigate any risk that the data could be used by
fraudulent robocallers or other bad actors for spoofing or other
purposes. At the same time, the Commission seeks to minimize the
administrative and cost burden on callers so as not to discourage their
use of a reassigned numbers database. With these goals in mind, the
Commission seeks comment on the potential requirements for eligible
users discussed below and any other requirements that commenters
believe are necessary. The Commission also seek comment on how to
enforce these requirements to ensure database security and integrity.
27. The Commission seeks comment on whether users should be
required to certify the purpose for which they seek access to the
information and, if so, how that purpose should be defined. In the NOI,
the Commission asked whether entities seeking access should be required
to certify that the information will be used only for purposes of TCPA
compliance, and many commenters favor such a restriction. However, the
Commission notes that all callers seeking to reduce unwanted calls to
reassigned numbers--not merely callers seeking to ensure compliance
with the TCPA--should be permitted to access a reassigned numbers
database. The Commission seeks comment on this view. If commenters
agree that user access should be permitted for this broader purpose
(and not for any other purpose, such as marketing), what specific
language should be used in any required certification?
28. The Commission also seeks comment on whether and how to track
relevant information about those who access a reassigned numbers
database. Several commenters on the NOI argue that database users
should be subject to a registration requirement. Do commenters agree?
If users are required to set up an account that identifies the party
obtaining the data, what information should they be required to
provide? The Commission also seeks comment on whether database users
should be subject to audits or other reviews, and if so, the components
and frequency of such audits. Additionally, the Commission seeks
comment on what recourse, if any, an entity denied access should have.
29. Cost to Use Database. The Commission seeks comment on any ways
it can minimize the cost of using a reassigned numbers database so as
to encourage usage, including by small business callers. The Commission
notes that commenters on the NOI largely agree that service providers
should be compensated for the costs of reporting data to a reassigned
numbers database, but callers argue that any cost recovery mechanism
should be reasonable so that access to the data will be affordable. How
should the Commission balance these interests?
30. Database Use and TCPA Compliance. The Commission seeks comment
on how use of a reassigned numbers database should intersect with TCPA
compliance. In response to comments filed on the NOI by the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the Commission makes clear that it is not
proposing to mandate that callers use a reassigned numbers database in
order to comply with the TCPA.
31. Rather, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt
a safe harbor from TCPA liability for those callers that choose to use
a reassigned numbers database, including under any of the three
approaches to database administration discussed below. Some commenters,
for example, urge the Commission to adopt a safe harbor from TCPA
violations for robocallers that inadvertently make calls to reassigned
numbers after checking a comprehensive reassigned numbers database.
Other commenters argue that the Commission should instead adopt a safe
harbor for callers using existing commercial solutions. The Commission
seeks comment on these views. If the Commission were to adopt a safe
harbor from TCPA violations, under what circumstances should callers be
permitted to avail themselves of the safe harbor? For example, how
often would a caller need to check a reassigned numbers database under
a safe harbor? The Commission also seeks detailed comment on whether
section 227 of the Act or other sections of the Act provide it with
authority to adopt such a safe harbor--what provisions, precisely,
would allow the agency to create a safe harbor? If the Commission were
to adopt a safe harbor under the TCPA, how does the D.C. Circuit's
recent ruling in ACA International v. FCC impact its ability to adopt a
safe harbor, if at all? Does the Commission have more authority to
craft a safe harbor from its own enforcement authority than from the
private right of action contained in the TCPA? Does section 251(e) of
the Act provide independent or additional authority for such a safe
harbor? If the Commission were to establish such a safe harbor, what
precisely would it protect a caller from? Liability from all
reassigned-number calls? Liability from good-faith reassigned-number
calls? Liability from reassigned-number calls but only when the
database's
[[Page 17635]]
information was either untimely or inaccurate?
Approaches to Database Administration
32. In the NOI, the Commission suggested four potential mechanisms
for service providers to report reassigned number information and for
callers to access that information. Most commenters addressing this
issue favored a single, FCC-designated database, while others favored
making the data available through commercial data aggregators. The
Commission seeks further comment on these options below. Specifically,
the Commission seeks comment on whether it should: (1) Require service
providers to report reassigned number information to a single, FCC-
designated database; (2) require service providers to report such
information to one or more commercial data aggregators; or (3) allow
service providers to report such information to commercial data
aggregators on a voluntary basis. The Commission also seeks comment on
any alternative approaches that commenters believe it should consider.
Regardless of the approach, the Commission seeks to balance callers'
need for comprehensive and timely reassigned number information with
the need to minimize the reporting burden placed on service providers.
33. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
recognized that the Commission has ``consistently adopted a `reasonable
reliance' approach'' to the TCPA, including in cases ``when a
consenting party's number is reassigned.'' The court highlighted that
the Commission is ``considering creating a comprehensive repository of
information about reassigned wireless numbers'' and ``whether to
provide a safe harbor for callers that inadvertently reach reassigned
numbers after consulting the most recently updated information''--and
the court noted a reassigned numbers database ``would naturally bear on
the reasonableness of calling numbers that have in fact been
reassigned.'' The Commission seeks comment on the impact that decision
and possible Commission action in response to that decision could have
on the costs and benefits of the database options discussed herein.
Does that decision strengthen the need for a timely and comprehensive
reassigned numbers database? Or does it suggest that existing,
commercially available databases provide callers with sufficient
resources, diminishing the need for a new database or a mandatory
reporting requirement?
Mandatory Reporting to Single Database
34. The Commission seeks detailed comment on whether it should
establish and select an administrator of a single reassigned numbers
database. Under this approach, the Commission would mandate that
service providers report reassigned number information to the database,
and allow eligible users to query the database for such information. As
discussed below, the Commission seeks comment on how the single
database should be established, who should administer it, and how it
should be funded. The Commission also seeks comment on which service
providers should be required to report information, the requirements
that should apply to such providers, and whether and how they should be
able to recover their reporting costs. Finally, the Commission seeks
comment on the effectiveness, costs, and benefits of the single
database approach.
35. Establishment and Administration of Single Database. The
Commission seeks comment on how complicated it would be to establish a
single reassigned numbers database. Would it be necessary to develop a
completely new database or would it be possible to expand or modify one
of the existing numbering databases overseen by the Commission to
accommodate the data that callers need? Are there any economies of
scale or scope that could be achieved under the latter approach?
36. One possibility would be to modify the Number Portability
Administration Center (NPAC), which is used to facilitate local number
portability. In response to the NOI, however, iconectiv explains that
the NPAC currently lacks information about all number reassignments and
therefore cautions that the ``suitability of extending the NPAC to
serve as a reassigned number database warrants a great deal more
consideration prior to making such a decision.'' What factors should
the Commission consider in making such a decision and what processes
should it follow in establishing a single database? For example, should
the Commission consult with the North American Numbering Council
(NANC), as some commenters suggest?
37. The Commission also seeks comment on which entities have the
expertise to serve as the administrator of a central reassigned numbers
database. Could the LNPA or a different numbering administrator (such
as the NANPA or the Pooling Administrator) serve such a role? Or could
an entirely different vendor serve this role? What factors should the
Commission take into account in selecting a reassigned numbers database
administrator?
38. Funding. How should an FCC-designated reassigned numbers
database be funded? For example, should the Commission establish a
charge to database users to help cover the costs of establishing and
maintaining the database? If so, how should the charge be set (e.g.,
per query, a flat fee or some other basis) and how should the billing
and collection process work? To the extent that such fees do not cover
all of the costs of establishing and maintaining the database, should
the Commission recover the remaining costs from reporting service
providers? The Commission notes that section 251 of the Act provides
that the ``cost of establishing telecommunications numbering
administration arrangements . . . shall be borne by all
telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as
determined by the Commission.'' How would this statutory provision
affect the Commission's approach? To the extent that fees collected
from database users exceed the costs of establishing and maintaining
the reassigned numbers database, the Commission seeks comment on
whether such fees could be used to offset the costs of numbering
administration more generally.
39. Covered Service Providers. The Commission seeks comment on
which service providers should be required to report data to a single,
FCC-designated reassigned numbers database. Should all service
providers--including wireless, wireline, interconnected VoIP, and non-
interconnected VoIP providers--be required to report data? Should the
reporting requirements also apply to text messaging providers to the
extent that they do not also provide voice service?
40. Alternatively, should the Commission require all service
providers that receive numbers directly from the NANPA to report data
on those numbers? In response to the NOI, several commenters note that
some service providers, such as resellers and interconnected VoIP
providers that do not obtain numbers directly from the NANPA, might not
have knowledge of certain changes in the status of a number if they do
not have control over the provision of the number. Tatango therefore
argues that, consistent with the Commission's existing number
utilization reporting requirements, the obligation to report data about
a number to a reassigned numbers database should be imposed on the
entity that obtained the number directly from the NANPA. The Commission
seeks
[[Page 17636]]
comment on this view. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to
afford covered service providers the flexibility to contractually
delegate those requirements to the service provider that indirectly
receives numbers.
41. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should
exempt certain service providers from the obligation to report data to
an FCC-designated reassigned numbers database without undermining its
overall comprehensiveness. For example, NTCA asks that the Commission
exempt rural service providers from this requirement, at least
initially, because of their limitations in resources and staff. Are
there other types of providers, such as those offering only
telecommunications relay services, that should be exempted from
mandatory reporting? The Commission seeks comment on whether it should
adopt any such exemptions, the relevant eligibility criteria, and the
effect of the exemption on the goal of providing comprehensive
numbering information to callers that want it. Are there other measures
short of an exemption that would lessen the reporting burden, while
still achieving that goal?
42. Requirements for Covered Service Providers. The Commission
seeks comment on the reporting requirements that should apply to
covered service providers under a single database approach. In
particular, it seeks comment on: (1) The specific data that covered
service providers should be required to report; (2) how often they
should be required to report such information; and (3) the format in
which they should be required to report it. In adopting such
requirements, the Commission seeks to balance callers' need for
comprehensive and timely reassigned number data with the need to
minimize the reporting burden on service providers. The Commission also
seeks comment on the costs and benefits of these reporting
requirements, including specific cost estimates. Additionally, are
there any unique reporting burdens faced by small and/or rural service
providers, and if so, how should they be addressed? For example, should
the Commission permit small providers to report data less frequently
than larger providers, as NTCA suggests? Or start reporting at a later
time? Furthermore, are there other requirements for covered service
providers that the Commission should adopt? For example, is there a
risk that customer proprietary network information (CPNI) could be
disclosed without customer consent, and if so, how could that risk be
addressed?
43. Cost Recovery for Covered Service Providers. Should covered
service providers be compensated for some or all of their costs of
reporting information to an FCC-designated reassigned numbers database?
Commenters recognize that service providers will incur operational
costs to provide the required data. For example, CTIA emphasizes that
its members may need to develop new database solutions and/or incur
operational expenses associated with modifying existing systems. Would
service providers' costs ultimately be borne by their subscribers, as
NCLC suggests? If covered service providers should be permitted to
recover some or all of their costs of reporting data, how should they
be compensated and what limits, if any, should be set on such
compensation?
44. Other Implementation Issues and Implementation Timeline. The
Commission seeks comment on any other issues related to the feasibility
or implementation of a single, FCC-designated reassigned numbers
database. The Commission also seeks comment on an implementation
timeline for establishing such a database. What steps would need to be
taken and approximately how long would they take?
45. Costs and Benefits. The Commission seek comment on the
effectiveness, costs (including specific cost estimates), and benefits
of the single database approach. The Commission also seeks comment on
its advantages and disadvantages compared to existing solutions and the
alternatives discussed below. Would, as many commenters argue, a single
database approach be more comprehensive and therefore, more effective,
in addressing the reassigned numbers problem, than existing commercial
solutions? Additionally, requiring service providers to report to, and
allowing eligible users to query from, a single, centralized database
would likely be more efficient and cost-effective than an approach that
involves multiple commercial data aggregators. Some commenters contend
that a single database would also serve as an ``authoritative source''
of reassigned number information and could better facilitate
establishment of a safe harbor from TCPA violations. Another commenter
points out that in contrast to commercial databases that might cease
operations, a single, FCC-designated database would better enable the
Commission to oversee quality of and access to the data. At the same
time, however, developing such a database could require substantially
more time and expenditures than an approach that relies on commercial
data aggregators. The Commission seeks comment on these views and on
any other factors that commenters believe the Commission should
consider when evaluating a single, FCC-designated database as a
solution to the reassigned numbers problem.
Mandatory Reporting to Commercial Data Aggregators
46. As an alternative to the single database approach discussed
above, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should require
service providers to report reassigned number information to commercial
data aggregators. Under this approach, the Commission expects that
service providers would enter into bilateral agreements with data
aggregators for purposes of reporting data, and as a result, there
would be multiple reassigned numbers databases that callers could
query. The Commission seeks comment on the criteria and process for
becoming a qualifying data aggregator to which service providers would
report data; which service providers should be required to report data,
the requirements they should be subject to, and the appropriate cost
recovery for these covered service providers; contractual and other
issues that might arise between data aggregators and service providers;
and the feasibility and implementation issues associated with this
approach. The Commission also seeks comment on the costs and benefits
of this approach.
47. Qualifying Data Aggregators. The Commission believes that
service providers should be required to report reassigned number data
only to those commercial data aggregators that meet specific
eligibility or qualification criteria (e.g., certain baseline or
operational standards). The Commission seeks comment on this view. If
commenters agree, how should the Commission define a ``qualifying data
aggregator'' for this purpose and what criteria should such an entity
satisfy? For example, should a data aggregator be required to: (1)
Establish internal controls to ensure that the data it receives will be
used solely to respond to callers' queries and not for any marketing or
other commercial purpose; (2) maintain records of callers' queries; (3)
ensure data security and privacy; and (4) establish internal controls
to accurately respond to such queries? The Commission seeks comment on
these potential criteria and any others that commenters believe are
necessary to ensure reliable and secure databases.
48. The Commission also seeks comment on the process for becoming a
[[Page 17637]]
qualifying data aggregator. For instance, should a data aggregator be
required to register with or seek approval from the Commission?
Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on how to ensure compliance
with the qualification criteria. For example, should service providers
require that any criteria placed on the qualifying data aggregator,
such as those referenced above, be addressed within the bilateral
contract between the parties? Are there other ways that the Commission
can ensure that a qualifying data aggregator meets the requisite
criteria? Should a qualifying data aggregator be required to undergo
regular audits and file with the Commission an auditor's certification
that it complies with the required criteria? Further, how should
service providers be expected to know which data aggregators are
qualifying data aggregators? Should the Commission maintain a list or
registry of such entities and if so, how and when should it be updated?
49. Covered Service Providers. The Commission seeks comment on
which service providers should be required to report reassigned number
data to commercial data aggregators. Should the same universe of
providers be subject to reporting regardless of whether the Commission
requires reporting to commercial data aggregators or to a single, FCC-
designated database? Why or why not?
50. Reporting to Single or Multiple Data Aggregators. Under this
approach, should covered service providers be required to report
reassigned number data to some or all qualifying data aggregators, and
how would this requirement work in practice? Alternatively, should the
Commission require covered service providers to report information to
only one qualifying data aggregator which would in turn share the
information with other qualifying data aggregators? What would be the
parameters of such required data-sharing arrangements? What are the
potential benefits and drawbacks of such an approach and how would it
work in practice?
51. Other Requirements for Covered Service Providers. The
Commission seeks comment on the other requirements that should apply to
covered service providers under this approach. Should the same
reporting and other requirements that would apply under the single
database approach discussed above apply under this approach as well?
Are there different or additional requirements for covered service
providers that the Commission should adopt under mandatory reporting to
data aggregators?
52. Cost Recovery for Covered Service Providers. The Commission
seeks comment on whether covered service providers should be permitted
to recover some or all of their reporting costs under this approach. If
so, how should they be compensated and what limits, if any, should be
set on such compensation?
53. Contractual Issues. As discussed above, under this approach,
the Commission anticipates that service providers would enter into
bilateral agreements with data aggregators for purposes of reporting
data. The Commission seeks comment on how negotiation of these
agreements would work in practice. Are there contractual, business, or
other concerns that would need to be addressed in order to rely on this
approach as a solution to the reassigned numbers problem?
54. Other Feasibility or Implementation Issues and Implementation
Timeline. The Commission seeks comment on any other issues related to
the feasibility or implementation of mandatory reporting to commercial
data aggregators that commenters believe it should consider. For
example, how should callers be expected to learn about the multiple
reassigned numbers databases that would result from this approach? The
Commission also seeks comment on a timeline for implementing this
approach. What steps would need to be taken and approximately how long
would they take?
55. Costs and Benefits. The Commission seeks comment on the
effectiveness, costs (including specific cost estimates), and benefits
of mandatory reporting to commercial data aggregators as well as its
advantages and disadvantages compared to the other approaches discussed
herein and compared to existing commercial solutions. For example, an
approach involving commercial data aggregators would enable those
entities to leverage their existing infrastructure and services and
likely make reassigned numbers databases available more quickly and
with less upfront expenditures than a single, FCC-designated database
approach. On the other hand, mandatory reporting to multiple data
aggregators may be less efficient and cost-effective for both service
providers and callers than a single database approach. The Commission
seeks comment on these views and on any other factors that commenters
believe it should consider in evaluating mandatory reporting to data
aggregators as a solution to the reassigned numbers problem.
Voluntary Reporting to Commercial Data Aggregators
56. The Commission seeks comment on whether, as a second
alternative, it should allow service providers to report reassigned
number data to commercial data aggregators on a voluntary basis. Under
this approach, callers could then use commercial data aggregators to
determine whether a phone number has been reassigned. As discussed
below, the Commission seeks comment on whether, and if so, how a
voluntary reporting approach could be structured to be more effective
than existing solutions at addressing the reassigned numbers problem.
57. Incentives to Encourage Effective Databases. As discussed
above, the Commission believes that an effective reassigned numbers
database must contain information that is both comprehensive and
timely. The Commission seeks comment on whether reassigned number
solutions that are available in the marketplace today are comprehensive
and timely, and, if not, what efforts the FCC could undertake to
incentivize improvement of these solutions. For example, CTIA and
others argue that the Commission should adopt a safe harbor from TCPA
violations for those callers that use existing commercial solutions.
They further suggest that the safe harbor would lead to widespread use
of existing solutions by callers, which would in turn create more
competition among commercial data aggregators, spur those data
aggregators to pay service providers to induce them to report data, and
result in more comprehensive and reliable databases. Do commenters
agree with this view? Commenters that advocate adoption of a safe
harbor should explain in detail the Commission's legal authority to
take such action. If the Commission were to adopt a safe harbor, under
what circumstances should callers be allowed to avail themselves of the
safe harbor? For example, how often would a caller need to check a
reassigned numbers database under a safe harbor? And what parameters,
in terms of comprehensiveness and timeliness of the data, would a
reassigned numbers database used by such a caller need to satisfy? For
instance, would a database need to have a certain percentage of service
providers' data before a caller could use it under the safe harbor?
Would coverage of 90 percent of allocated numbers be sufficient? 95
percent? 99 percent? Would, as with the mandatory reporting approach, a
data aggregator need to meet specific qualifying criteria, including
certification? The
[[Page 17638]]
Commission also seeks comment on whether there are there other
incentives, along with or in addition to a safe harbor, that the
Commission could create to encourage the development of comprehensive
and timely reassigned numbers databases under a voluntary reporting
approach.
58. Reporting. Under a voluntary reporting approach, the Commission
anticipates that service providers would enter into bilateral
commercial agreements with data aggregators for purposes of reporting
data. Are there ways to improve the reporting infrastructure, including
reducing administrative costs and increasing confidence in query
results, such as by using distributed ledger technology? What other
actions could the Commission take to better facilitate more widespread
reporting by service providers without mandating reporting?
59. Cost Recovery. Under this voluntary approach, the Commission
expects that service providers would recover their reporting costs from
data aggregators and those data aggregators would in turn pass those
costs on to callers seeking to query their databases. The Commission
seeks comment on this view and on any related issues. In particular,
the Commission seeks comment on how best to ensure that small service
providers recover their costs and are able to have their reassigned
number data included in these databases.
60. Costs and Benefits. The Commission seeks comment on the
effectiveness, costs (including specific cost estimates), and benefits
of voluntary reporting to commercial data aggregators relative to the
other approaches discussed above. For example, the Commission
anticipates that while a voluntary approach would give service
providers more flexibility than a mandatory approach, it would
nevertheless result in less comprehensive databases and would therefore
be less effective in addressing the reassigned numbers problem than the
alternatives discussed above. The Commission seeks comment on this
view. Additionally, would callers have to pay more or less for database
access under a voluntary approach than under the approaches discussed
above or under existing commercial solutions? The Commission seeks
comment on these issues and on any other factors that commenters
believe it should consider in evaluating a voluntary reporting approach
as a solution to the reassigned numbers problem.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
61. As required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as amended, (RFA) the Commission has prepared the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected impact on small
entities of the proposals contained in the Second FNPRM. 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
on the Second FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the Second
FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
62. The Second FNPRM seeks to reduce unwanted calls to reassigned
numbers by proposing to ensure that one or more databases are available
to provide callers with the comprehensive and timely information they
need to avoid calling reassigned numbers. Despite existing tools that
can help callers identify number reassignments, callers lack guaranteed
methods to discover all reassignments in a timely manner. Beyond
annoying the new subscriber of the reassigned number, a misdirected
call can deprive the previous subscriber of the number of a desired
call from, for example, his/her school, health care provider, or
financial institution. In the case of robocalls to reassigned numbers,
a good-faith caller may be subject to liability for violations of the
TCPA. That threat can have a chilling effect, causing some callers to
be overly cautious and stop making wanted, lawful calls out of concern
over potential liability for calling a reassigned number.
63. The Second FNPRM seeks to reduce the number comment on various
aspects of a reassigned numbers database. The Second FNPRM also seeks
comment on three alternatives for service providers to report
reassigned number information and for callers to access that
information. Finally, the Second FNPRM seeks comment on whether, and if
so, how the Commission should adopt a safe harbor from liability under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for those callers that choose to
use a reassigned numbers database. Making a reassigned numbers database
available to callers that want it will benefit consumers by reducing
unwanted calls intended for another consumer while helping callers
avoid the costs of calling the wrong consumer, including potential
violations of the TCPA.
Legal Basis
64. The proposed and anticipated rules are authorized under
sections 201, 227, and 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 227, 251(e).
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
65. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small-business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
66. The proposed safe harbor from liability for violating the
prohibitions relating to telephone solicitations using autodialers,
artificial and/or prerecorded messages applies to a wide range of
entities, including potentially all entities that use the telephone to
advertise. Thus, the Commission expects that the safe harbor proposal
could have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. For instance, funeral homes, mortgage brokers,
automobile dealers, newspapers and telecommunications companies could
all be affected.
67. In 2013, there were approximately 28.8 million small business
firms in the United States, according to SBA data. Determining a
precise number of small entities that would be subject to the
requirements proposed in this NPRM is not readily feasible. Therefore,
the Commission invites comment about the number of small business
entities that would be subject to the proposed safe harbor in this
proceeding. After evaluating the comments, the Commission will examine
further the effect the proposed safe harbor might have on small
entities, and will set forth its findings in the final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis.
68. The descriptions and estimates of small entities affected by
the remaining proposed rules is detailed below.
[[Page 17639]]
Wireline Carriers
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of
interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules
is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census
Bureau defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services,
including VoIP services, wired
[[Page 17640]]
(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
interexchange carriers are small entities.
75. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act also contains a size standard for small cable system
operators, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through an
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.'' There are approximately 52,403,705 cable video
subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator
serving fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator
if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of
all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based
on available data, the Commission finds that all but nine incumbent
cable operators are small entities under this size standard. Note that
the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether
cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual
revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of
these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million, the Commission is unable at this
time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system
operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the
definition in the Communications Act.
76. 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
77. 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.
78. 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.
79. 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 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
80. 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
[[Page 17641]]
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, all operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the
associated small business size standard, the majority of these
resellers can be considered small entities. According to Commission
data, 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.
81. 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 local resellers can be
considered small entities.
82. 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
83. As indicated above, the Second FNPRM seeks comment on its
proposal to make one or more databases available to provide callers
with the comprehensive and timely information they need to avoid
calling reassigned numbers. The Commission seeks to minimize the burden
associated with reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements for the proposal. The proposal under consideration could
result in additional costs to regulated entities. This proposal would
necessitate that some voice service providers create new processes or
make changes to their existing processes that would impose some
additional costs to those service providers. The Commission believes
that service providers already track phone number status information,
and it therefore does not anticipate that these costs will be
excessive. In addition, as indicated in more detail below, the Second
FNPRM also contemplates a cost recovery mechanism for expenses incurred
by service providers.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered
84. 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.
85. As indicated above, the Second FNPRM seeks comment on a
proposal to make one or more databases available so that callers can
discover reassignments prior to making a call. The Commission has
examined both the economic burden this proposal may have on callers and
service providers and the considerable benefits to consumers and
callers provide by a solution of a reassigned numbers database.
Consumers are currently receiving a significant number of unwanted
calls that are an annoyance and expend wasted time while other
consumers are not getting the information that they solicited. In
addition, callers are wasting considerable resources calling the wrong
number and incurring potential TCPA liability. The Second FNPRM seeks
to significantly reduce the number of unwanted calls to those that
receive reassigned numbers by informing callers that use a database
solution of the change in assignment. The Second FNPRM also seeks
comment on potential ways to allow service providers to recoup their
costs associated with reporting number reassignment information. If
adopted, this cost-recovery mechanism could negate any service provider
costs associated with the provisioning of phone number reassignment
data. The Commission seeks comment on the specific costs of the
measures we discuss in the Second FNPRM, and ways the Commission might
further mitigate any implementation costs, including by making
allowances for small and rural voice service providers and small
business callers that might choose to use a reassigned number solution.
86. The Commission will consider ways to reduce the impact on small
businesses, such as establishment of different compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources
available to small entities based on the record in response to the
Second FNPRM. The Commission has requested feedback from small
businesses in the Second FNPRM and seeks comment on ways to make a
challenge mechanism and reporting less costly. The Commission seeks
comment on how to minimize the economic impact of these potential
requirements.
87. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the Second
FNPRM, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this
proceeding.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
88. None.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-08376 Filed 4-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P