Truth in Caller ID, 7315-7323 [2019-03721]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 42 (Monday, March 4, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7315-7323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03721]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[WC Docket Nos. 18-335, 11-39; FCC 19-12]


Truth in Caller ID

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes rules to implement 
these recently adopted amendments which expand and clarify the Act's 
prohibition on the use of misleading and inaccurate caller ID 
information. Specifically, this document proposes and seeks comment on 
modifications to the Commission's current Truth in Caller ID rules that 
largely track the language of the recent statutory amendments. The 
document also invites comment on what other changes to our Truth in 
Caller ID rules the Commission can make to better prevent inaccurate or 
misleading caller ID information from harming consumers. In doing so, 
the Commission takes another significant step in its multi-pronged 
approach to ending malicious caller ID spoofing.

DATES: Comments are due on or before April 3, 2019, and reply comments 
are due on or before May 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket Nos. 18-335 
and 11-39, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's website: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section III in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wireline Competition Bureau, 
Competition Policy Division, Alex Espinoza, at (202) 418-0849, or 
alex.espinoza@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's notice 
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in WC Docket Nos. 18-335 and 11-39, 
adopted on February 14, 2019 and released on February 15, 2019. The 
full text of this document is available for public inspection during 
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals 
II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It is 
available on the Commission's website at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-combat-illegal-spoofed-texts-international-calls.

I. Implementing New Statutory Spoofing Prevention Authority

    1. As the Commission did when it initially adopted the Truth in 
Caller ID Act rules, in proposing rules to implement the recent 
amendments to section 227(e) of the Act, we largely track the relevant 
statutory language. We seek comment on our proposals to implement the 
new statutory language in our rules, generally, and with regard to each 
specific issue addressed below.

A. Communications Originating Outside the United States

    2. First, consistent with the recent amendments to section 227(e), 
we propose to extend the reach of our caller ID spoofing rules to 
include communications originating from outside the United States to 
recipients

[[Page 7316]]

within the United States. We seek comment on this proposal. The Truth 
in Caller ID Act was limited to calls made within the United States; 
however, as the 2011 Commission Report to Congress explained, caller ID 
spoofing ``directed by people and entities outside the United States 
can cause great harm.'' Six years later, the 2017 Senate Report 
recognized an increase in fraud committed through caller ID spoofing 
originating from outside the United States. Incorporating this 
statutory change into our Truth in Caller ID rules will allow us to 
bring enforcement actions that allege both statutory and rule 
violations against bad actors who seek out victims in this country, 
regardless of where the communications originate.
    3. We believe that the statutory language is clear and that 
mirroring that language will avoid creating ambiguity from any 
differences between the text of the statute and of our rules. For 
example, we interpret the term ``person'' in amended section 227(e) to 
have the same meaning as the Commission determined ``person'' to have 
in the 2011 Truth in Caller ID Order, 76 FR 43196 (July 20, 2011). Do 
commenters agree? Is there other language we should consider adopting 
to implement this provision of the statute? Are there nuances to the 
statutory language that we should account for? If so, what are they and 
how should we incorporate such nuances into our rules?

B. Expanding Scope of Covered Communications

    4. Also consistent with section 227(e) as amended, we propose to 
amend our rules to incorporate the phrase ``in connection with any 
voice service or text messaging service'' into the prohibition on 
causing ``any caller identification service to transmit or display 
misleading or inaccurate caller identification information.'' We seek 
comment on this proposal.
    5. The current prohibition on caller ID spoofing in Sec.  
64.1604(a) of our rules does not specify that spoofing in connection 
with ``any telecommunications service or interconnected VoIP service'' 
is covered by the rule. However, because we are now proposing to 
include a wider universe of communications services within the 
prohibition on caller ID spoofing, we believe that explicitly 
identifying the services at issue better tracks the language of the 
statute and provides more direct notice to covered entities. Do 
commenters agree with this approach? Are there alternatives that we 
should consider? Does the phrase ``in connection with'' that precedes 
the phrase ``any voice or text messaging service'' warrant 
clarification or interpretation in our revised rules?

C. Definitions

    6. We also propose to adopt definitions of ``text message,'' ``text 
messaging service,'' and ``voice service'' and to revise the 
definitions of ``caller identification information,'' and ``caller 
identification service'' to implement Congress' intent to expand the 
scope of the prohibition on harmful caller ID spoofing. We seek comment 
on each proposed new or revised definition and invite commenters to 
propose different language to better reflect Congress' intent with 
respect to the expanded scope of covered communications. We propose to 
include these definitions in the definitions section of subpart P to 
our part 64 rules. We seek comment on this proposal and invite 
commenters to identify any unidentified consequences of that placement.
    7. Text Message. Section 227(e) as amended defines the term ``text 
message'' as a ``message consisting of text, images, sounds, or other 
information that is transmitted to or from a device that is identified 
as the receiving or transmitting device by means of a 10-digit 
telephone number or N11 service code.'' Congress further clarified that 
the term explicitly includes ``a short message service (SMS) message 
and a multimedia message service (MMS) message'' but excludes ``a real-
time, two-way voice or video communication'' or ``a message sent over 
an IP-enabled messaging service to another user of the same messaging 
service, except for [an SMS or MMS message].'' We propose to adopt a 
definition of ``text message'' that mirrors this statutory language. We 
seek comment on this proposal and on each component of this definition.
    8. Is our proposed definition sufficiently inclusive to capture all 
types of text messages that could be used for prohibited spoofing 
activity (but excluding messages that fall within the express statutory 
exclusions)? The definition would encompass messages that include 
``text, images, sounds, or other information.'' Are commenters aware of 
examples of ``information'' that is not text, images or sounds that 
could comprise the content of a covered text message today, or did 
Congress include the phrase ``other information'' out of an abundance 
of caution to be as inclusive as possible given rapid changes in 
technology? We seek comment on any examples that may now, or in the 
future, exist and whether such examples should be identified and 
included in our rules to clarify the term ``other information.''
    9. The definition of text message in both section 227(e) as amended 
and in our proposed rules specifically include SMS and MMS as types of 
covered text messages. In amending section 227(e), Congress did not 
define SMS or MMS, nor are there definitions of SMS or MMS contained in 
the Commission rules. Should we include definitions of SMS and MMS in 
our Truth in Caller ID rules? In our recent Wireless Messaging Service 
Declaratory Ruling, 84 FR 5008 (Feb. 20, 2019), we described SMS as a 
``wireless messaging service'' that ``enables users to send and receive 
short text messages, typically 160 characters or fewer, to or from 
mobile phones and can support a host of applications.'' At the same 
time, we recognized that MMS is ``an extension of the SMS protocol and 
can deliver a variety of media, and enables users to send pictures, 
videos, and attachments over wireless messaging channels.'' We believe 
that our previous description of SMS and MMS are consistent with 
Congress' use of the terms in amending section 227(e). Do commenters 
agree? If not, why not? Should we adopt specific definitions or are the 
terms sufficiently well understood that we need not adopt definitions? 
If we do adopt definitions for SMS and MMS, should we use the 
descriptions of SMS and MMS set forth in the Wireless Messaging Service 
Declaratory Ruling as the definitions? Are there refinements we should 
make to those descriptions?
    10. Are there other types of text messages besides SMS and MMS that 
we should explicitly include in the definition of text message? For 
instance, Rich Communication Services (RCS), an IP-based asynchronous 
messaging protocol, is the next-generation SMS. Should we explicitly 
include RCS in our definition of ``text message''? If so, should we 
include a definition of RCS in our rules, and what should that 
definition be?
    11. Like section 227(e) as amended, our proposed definition of text 
message is limited to messages that are ``transmitted to or from a 
device that is identified as the receiving or transmitting device by 
means of a 10-digit telephone number or N11 service code.'' The 
Commission has previously described N11 services as ``abbreviated 
dialing arrangements that allow telephone users to connect with a 
particular node in the network by dialing only three digits.'' We 
believe that our previous description of N11 service codes is 
consistent with Congress' use of the term in amending section 227(e). 
Do commenters agree? If

[[Page 7317]]

not, why not? Should we adopt a definition of N11 service code? If so, 
should we codify our previous description? Are there refinements we 
should make to that description?
    12. Section 227(e) as amended excludes from the definition of 
``text message'' ``real-time, two-way voice or video communications.'' 
By proposing to explicitly exclude ``real-time, two-way voice or video 
communications'' in our proposed definition of ``text message,'' we 
track the statutory definition. Should we clarify in our rules what 
``real-time, two-way voice or video communications'' means for the 
purpose of being excluded from the term ``text message''? We invite 
commenters to offer specific clarifying language. We believe that 
``real-time, two-way voice'' communications that are transmitted by 
means of a 10-digit telephone number or N11 service code are excluded 
from the definition of text message because they are included in the 
definition of ``voice service.'' We seek comment on that understanding. 
We also seek comment on whether there are real-time, two-way video 
communications that are transmitted by means of a 10-digit telephone 
number or N11 service code that are excluded from the definition of 
text message and not encompassed by the definition of voice service.
    13. Section 227(e) as amended also excludes from the definition of 
``text message'' ``a message sent over an IP-enabled messaging service 
to another user of the same messaging service.'' By tracking the 
statutory definition of ``text message,'' our proposed definition 
incorporates that exclusion. We believe we should interpret this 
exclusion to include non-MMS or SMS messages sent using IP-enabled 
messaging services such as iMessage, Google Hangouts, WhatsApp, and 
Skype. For instance, a message sent from one computer to another 
computer using WhatsApp, or the ``chat'' function on Google Hangouts 
would appear to be an IP-enabled messaging service between users of the 
same messaging service under the second exclusion in the statutory 
definition of ``Text Message.'' Likewise, text communications between 
or among two or more Skype users or iMessages between or among iPhone 
users would also not appear to be covered. Do commenters agree? If not, 
why not? What other IP-messaging services should we recognize as 
falling within the scope of this exclusion? Should we include specific 
examples in our rules? Will the scope of this exclusion, as we propose 
to interpret it, allow for adequate enforcement against misleading or 
inaccurate text messages or provide a safe harbor for bad actors to 
exploit?
    14. We also seek comment on whether there are other messages 
consisting of forms of text, visual, audio, or other information 
transfer using telephone numbers or N11 codes that we should exclude 
from the definition of ``text message'' beyond those specifically 
excluded in section 227(e) as amended. We invite commenters to identify 
any such text message types, and to explain why we should exclude them. 
Commenters arguing for specific exclusions should explain why, in their 
view, adding exclusions would be consistent with congressional intent.
    15. We do not believe that the new statutory definition of ``text 
message'' or any of the other recent amendments to section 227(e) 
regarding text messages affects the Commission's finding that text 
messages are ``calls'' for purposes of section 227(b) which, among 
other things, places limits on calls made using any automatic telephone 
dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice. Congress placed the 
new definition of ``text message'' in section 227(e) rather than in 
section 227(a), which contains definitions generally applicable 
throughout section 227. We therefore see nothing in section 227(e) as 
amended to suggest that Congress intended to disturb the Commission's 
long-standing treatment of text messages under section 227(b), which 
has been in place since 2003. We seek comment on this view.
    16. Text Messaging Service. Section 227(e) as amended defines a 
``text messaging service'' as ``a service that enables the transmission 
or receipt of a text message, including a service provided as part of 
or in connection with a voice service.'' We propose to adopt this same 
definition as part of our Truth in Caller ID rules and seek comment on 
this proposal. Maintaining consistency with the statutory definition of 
text messaging service for unlawful spoofing prevention is particularly 
important given that it is only text messages ``sent using a text 
messaging service'' that Congress includes within the scope of section 
227(e) as amended. Do commenters agree? If not, why? We also seek 
comment on the meaning of ``as part of or in connection with a voice 
service.'' Should we include clarifying language in our rules for an 
avoidance of doubt? If so, what language do commenters suggest?
    17. In the Wireless Messaging Service Declaratory Ruling, we found 
that SMS and MMS wireless messaging services fall within the statutory 
definition of ``information service'' rather than ``telecommunications 
service.'' We do not believe this classification impacts our proposals 
in this NPRM to implement statutory amendments to section 227(e). Do 
commenters agree? If not, why?
    18. Voice Service. Section 227(e) as amended defines ``voice 
service'' as any service that is interconnected with the public 
switched telephone network and that furnishes voice communications to 
an end user using resources from the North American Numbering Plan or 
any successor to the North American Numbering Plan adopted by the 
Commission under section 251(e)(1). It also explicitly ``includes'' 
``transmissions from a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other 
device to a telephone facsimile machine.'' We propose to adopt the 
identical definition of ``voice service'' for purposes of our Truth in 
Caller ID rules. We seek comment on this proposal. Mirroring the 
definition contained in section 227(e) as amended will avoid potential 
confusion that might otherwise occur if our rules contain different 
wording. Do commenters agree? If not, why not and what alternative 
definition(s) should we consider?
    19. Our existing rules cover calls made using ``telecommunications 
service'' or ``interconnected VoIP service.'' We propose to interpret 
the term ``voice service'' to include and be more expansive than 
``telecommunications service'' and ``interconnected VoIP service'' as 
currently defined. Do commenters agree? What are examples of specific 
voice communications captured by the term ``voice service'' but not by 
the terms ``telecommunications service'' or ``interconnected VoIP 
service''?
    20. Separately, we seek comment on whether we should explicitly 
include the terms ``telecommunications service'' and ``interconnected 
VoIP service'' within the definition of ``voice service.'' Would that 
provide useful clarity to stakeholders? Are there other services we 
should specifically include within the definition of ``voice service''?
    21. We also seek comment on whether we should explicitly include 
within the definition of voice service, ``real-time, two-way voice 
communications'' that are transmitted by means of a 10-digit telephone 
number or N11 service code? Such communications are explicitly excluded 
from the definition of ``text message'' in section 227(e) as amended. 
We think the best way to understand that exclusion is to find that 
those types of voice communications are encompassed by the definition 
of ``voice service.'' Do commenters agree? Should we modify our 
proposed definition of

[[Page 7318]]

``voice service'' to explicitly incorporate that understanding? We 
invite commenters to suggest specific modifications.
    22. Relatedly, section 227(e) as amended specifies that 
communications falling within the ``voice service'' definition must be 
``interconnected'' with the public switched telephone network (PSTN). 
Congress neither defined the term ``interconnected'' for purposes of 
section 227(e) of the Act nor referred to other statutory provisions or 
Commission rules where the word ``interconnected'' is used as part of 
the definition of specific categories of communications. For instance, 
the Act defines ``interconnected VoIP service'' and ``interconnected 
service'' in different sections of the statute to identify specific but 
different services that are covered by such definitions. Similarly, our 
rules contain definitions for each of these terms. Yet Congress uses 
only the word ``interconnected'' in defining the scope of voice 
services covered under amended section 227(e). Indeed, in amending 
section 227(e), Congress specifically removed from the definitions of 
covered voice services the reference to the definition of 
``interconnected VoIP service'' as defined in Sec.  9.3 of the 
Commission's rules. Consequently, we believe Congress no longer intends 
to limit the scope of IP-enabled voice services implicated by the 
section 227(e) prohibition to those meeting the definition of 
``interconnected VoIP service.'' We invite comment on this proposed 
conclusion.
    23. In light of this apparent intent by Congress to broaden the 
definition of voice services subject to the section 227(e) prohibition, 
should we interpret the term ``interconnected'' as used in the 
definition of ``voice service'' to include any service that enables 
voice communications either to the PSTN or from the PSTN, regardless of 
whether it enables both inbound and outbound communications within the 
same service. For example, should we include within the definition of 
``voice services'' any ``one-way'' VoIP service that connects with the 
PSTN and uses telephone numbers that separately enable users to make 
outbound calls to landline or mobile telephones or to receive inbound 
calls from landline or mobile telephones? Such services are not 
``interconnected VoIP'' services because they do not permit users to 
receive calls originating on the PSTN and terminate calls to the PSTN. 
Should we find that section 227(e) as amended, and our proposed 
implementing rules reach these ``one-way'' IP-based voice services and 
any similar IP-based or other technology-based calling capability, 
whether offered by a service provider, or self-provisioned, as long as 
they connect with the PSTN and use NANP resources?
    24. The 2011 Commission Report recognized that real-time two-way 
voice communications between and among closed user groups do not give 
rise to the same degree of caller ID spoofing concern as 
``interconnected VoIP services.'' Because these types of services have 
no connection to the PSTN, we do not believe Congress intends to reach 
these types of voice communications, nor do we believe that they fall 
within the definition of ``voice services.'' We seek comment on this 
view, and whether we should identify and include specific examples of 
voice communications that do not fall within the definition of ``voice 
service'' in our rules.
    25. We seek comment on whether we should interpret 
``interconnected'' to include both direct and indirect interconnection 
to the PSTN to account for different methods of interconnection. Are 
there particular types of voice communications that are susceptive to 
caller ID spoofing that would not be captured by the definition of 
``voice services'' if we fail to interpret ``interconnected'' to 
include voice services that are indirectly connected to the PSTN? What 
are those services? Are there reasons not to interpret 
``interconnected'' to include both direct and indirect connections to 
the PSTN?
    26. Are there other consequences that flow from our proposed 
interpretation of ``interconnected'' to the PSTN, including any 
potential consequences resulting from our use of the term ``voice 
service provider'' in the context of section 227(b), that we should 
consider? If we interpret ``interconnected'' as we propose to do, 
should we expressly include a definition of that interpretation within 
the definition of ``voice service'' in our rules to provide more 
specificity about that interpretation? If so, we invite suggestions on 
how to proceed.
    27. Finally, the definition of ``voice service'' in section 227(e) 
as amended specifically ``includes'' transmissions to a ``telephone 
facsimile machine'' (fax machine) from a computer, fax machine, or 
other device. We propose to incorporate this additional specification 
into our rules. We seek comment on this proposal.
    28. Caller Identification Information and Caller Identification 
Service. Consistent with amended section 227(e)(8), we also propose to 
amend the definition of ``caller identification information'' and 
``caller identification service'' in our rules to mirror the amended 
statutory text. Specifically, we propose to substitute ``voice 
services'' and ``text message sent using a text messaging service'' for 
``telecommunications services'' and ``interconnected VoIP services,'' 
respectively, currently in each of these definitions. We seek comment 
on this proposal
    29. More generally, with respect to all of our proposals to 
implement new or revised definitions of covered communications within 
subpart P of part 64 of our rules, we seek comment on whether there are 
any other uses of these or related terms within this same subpart, or 
in other parts of our rules, that overlap, are changed or otherwise 
affected by the definitions we propose and are not specifically 
addressed above. If so, we invite commenters to identify these other 
rules and explain how such rules are impacted.

D. Other Potential Changes to the Rules

    30. In addition to the proposals we make above to implement the 
statutory amendments to section 227(e) adopted in the RAY BAUM'S Act, 
are there other revisions we should make to our Truth in Caller ID 
rules to effectuate Congress' intent? For example, are there any other 
necessary limitations, exceptions, extensions, or clarifications to the 
proposed rules or our existing rules that we have not addressed that 
are necessary to implement the amendments to section 227(e)? If so, we 
seek comment on any such further changes to our rules and why they are 
necessary. Finally, we do not expect our proposed rules or any 
alternative rules we may adopt in response to this NPRM to impact small 
businesses. Do commenters agree? ZipDX asks us to broaden the scope of 
this NPRM to consider changes to our rules beyond those necessary to 
implement section 503 of the RAY BAUM'S Act, and beyond the scope of 
the section 227(e) as amended. We are committed to attacking deceptive 
robocalls through all the tools at our disposal but limit our proposals 
herein to those necessary to meet Congress' statutory deadline to 
prescribe implementing regulations.

II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    31. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM. The 
Commission requests written public

[[Page 7319]]

comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the 
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the 
first page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    32. RAY BAUM'S Act mandates that the Commission issue rules 
updating the regulations implementing the Truth in Caller ID Act by 
September 2019. The Congressional mandate coincides with the need to 
protect consumers from misleading and inaccurate caller ID spoofing, 
which can contribute to serious fraud and abuse. In this NPRM, we 
propose to update our rules to implement the changes made to the 
Communications Act by Congress, by including within their scope: (1) 
Communications originating outside of the United States and (2) forms 
of communication such as text messaging any interconnected voice 
communication services that use North American Numbering Plan (NANP) 
resources, and fax transmissions.
    33. The proposed rule changes directly adopt the language contained 
in RAY BAUM'S Act: The scope of covered communications now includes 
those originating outside of the United States, so long as they are 
directed at recipients within the United States; and the types of 
services covered are changed from ``telecommunications service'' and 
``interconnected VoIP service'' to the more precisely defined ``voice 
service'' and ``text messaging service,'' with ``voice service'' 
including any service interconnected with the PSTN and that furnishes 
voice communications to an end user using NANP resources. The proposed 
rules do not impose record keeping or reporting obligations on any 
entity.

B. Legal Basis

    34. The proposed action is authorized under the RAY BAUM'S Act, 
Public Law 115-141, Div. P, 132 Stat. 348, and in sections 1, 4(i), 
201(b), 227(e), 251(e) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201(b), 227(e), 251(e) and 303.

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

    35. 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 proposed rules and by the rule revisions on which the 
NPRM seeks comment, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. 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.
    36. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at 
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly 
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size 
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of 
Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having 
fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 
99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8 
million businesses.
    37. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
Nationwide, as of Aug 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small 
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits 
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
    38. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicates that there 
were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United 
States. Of this number there were 37,132 General purpose governments 
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 
50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school 
districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000. 
The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the 
local government category shows that the majority of these governments 
have populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data we estimate 
that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the 
category of ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
    39. 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 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 size 
standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.
    40. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically 
applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS 
Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under the 
applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 
or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that 3,117 
firms operated for the entire year. Of that total, 3,083 operated with 
fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus under this category and the associated 
size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of local 
exchange carriers are small entities.
    41. Incumbent LECs. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent 
local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under the applicable SBA size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500

[[Page 7320]]

or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 
3,117 firms operated the entire 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 that may be affected by our actions. According to Commission 
data, one thousand three hundred and seven (1,307) Incumbent Local 
Exchange Carriers reported that they were incumbent local exchange 
service providers. Of this total, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or 
fewer employees. Thus using the SBA's size standard the majority of 
incumbent LECs can be considered small entities.
    42. 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 NAICS Code category is Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers and under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that 
year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. 
Based on these data, the Commission concludes that the majority of 
Competitive LECS, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other 
Local Service Providers, are small entities. According to Commission 
data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision 
of either competitive local exchange services or competitive access 
provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 
1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that 
they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to 
have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 carriers have reported that 
they are Other Local Service Providers. Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or 
fewer employees. Consequently, based on internally researched FCC data, 
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.
    43. We have 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. We have therefore included 
small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that 
this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations 
in other, non-RFA contexts.
    44. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a definition for Interexchange Carriers. The closest 
NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The 
applicable size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 
2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated for the entire year. Of that 
number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. According to 
internally developed Commission data, 359 companies reported that their 
primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of 
interexchange services. Of this total, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or 
fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of interexchange service providers are small entities.
    45. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for Telecommunications Resellers which includes Local 
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 the SBA's size standard, such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau 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, 213 carriers have reported that they are 
engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these, an 
estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of Local Resellers are small 
entities.
    46. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition 
for Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS Code Category is 
Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry 
comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network 
capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and 
reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except 
satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) 
are included in this industry. The SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under 
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale 
services during that year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer 
than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated 
small business size standard, the majority of these resellers can be 
considered small entities. According to Commission data, 881 carriers 
have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale 
services. Of this total, an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
toll resellers are small entities.
    47. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to 
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not 
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service 
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, 
or toll resellers. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is for 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined above. Under the 
applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 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 category and the associated 
small business size standard, the majority of Other Toll Carriers can 
be considered small. According to internally developed Commission data, 
284 companies reported that their primary telecommunications service 
activity was

[[Page 7321]]

the provision of other toll carriage. Of these, an estimated 279 have 
1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 
most Other Toll Carriers are small entities.
    48. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a 
definition for small businesses within the category of 
Telecommunications Resellers. Under that SBA definition, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the 
Commission's Form 499 Filer Database, 500 companies reported that they 
were engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. The Commission 
does not have data regarding how many of these 500 companies have 1,500 
or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there 
are 500 or fewer prepaid calling card providers that may be affected by 
the proposed rules.
    49. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. 
Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for 
the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or 
fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus 
under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers 
(except satellite) are small entities.
    50. The Commission's own data--available in its Universal Licensing 
System--indicate that, as of October 25, 2016, there are 280 Cellular 
licensees that will be affected by our actions today. The Commission 
does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission 
does not collect that information for these types of 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, 
and Specialized Mobile Radio Telephony services. Of this total, an 
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have more than 
1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the 
majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
    51. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for 
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite 
uses. The Commission defined ``small business'' for the wireless 
communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross 
revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a 
``very small business'' as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 
million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved 
these small business size standards. Wireless Telephony. Wireless 
telephony includes cellular, personal communications services, and 
specialized mobile radio telephony carriers. The closest applicable SBA 
category is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) and 
the appropriate size standard for this category under the SBA rules is 
that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For 
this industry, U.S. Census Bureau 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 and 12 firms had 1,000 employees or 
more. Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the 
Commission estimates that a majority of these entities can be 
considered small. According to Commission data, 413 carriers reported 
that they were engaged in wireless telephony. Of these, an estimated 
261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 
employees. Therefore, more than half of these entities can be 
considered small.
    52. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and 
facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee 
basis. The broadcast programming is typically narrowcast in nature 
(e.g. limited format, such as news, sports, education, or youth-
oriented). These establishments produce programming in their own 
facilities or acquire programming from external sources. The 
programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as 
cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to 
viewers. The SBA size standard for this industry establishes as small, 
any company in this category which has annual receipts of $38.5 million 
or less. According to 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data, 367 firms operated 
for the entire year. Of that number, 319 operated with annual receipts 
of less than $25 million a year and 48 firms operated with annual 
receipts of $25 million or more. Based on this data, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of firms operating in this industry are 
small.
    53. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission 
has developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of 
cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable 
company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. 
Industry data indicate that there are currently 4,600 active cable 
systems in the United States. Of this total, all but eleven cable 
operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber size 
standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a 
``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. 
Current Commission records show 4,600 cable systems nationwide. Of this 
total, 3,900 cable systems have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 700 
systems have 15,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records. 
Thus, under this standard as well, we estimate that most cable systems 
are small entities.
    54. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act, as amended, 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 one percent of 
all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any 
entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed 
$250,000,000.'' 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, we find that all but nine incumbent cable operators 
are small entities under this size standard. 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, we are 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.
    55. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' category is comprised of establishments primarily 
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications

[[Page 7322]]

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 
All Other Telecommunications, which consists of all such firms with 
annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this category, U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were 1,442 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had 
annual receipts less than $25 million and 42 firms had annual receipts 
of $25 million to $49,999,999. Thus, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of ``All Other Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected 
by our action can be considered small.

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

    56. This NPRM proposes changes to, and seeks comment on, the 
Commission's Truth in Caller ID rules. The proposed rules do not 
contain reporting or recordkeeping requirements, and the proposals 
adopt no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

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

    57. 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 and reporting requirements under the rules for such 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 
such small entities.
    58. RAY BAUM'S Act does not distinguish between small entities and 
other entities and individuals. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks 
comment on alternatives to the proposed, rules, and on alternative ways 
of implementing the proposed rules. The revisions proposed to the 
Commission's rules are not expected to result in significant economic 
impact to small entities.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    59. None.

III. Procedural Matters

    60. Comment Filing Procedures. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 
1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested 
parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates 
indicated on the DATES section of this document. Comments may be filed 
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together 
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial 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 must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
     People with Disabilities: To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or 
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
    61. Ex Parte Presentations. This proceeding shall be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy 
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or 
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte 
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with Sec.  1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
Sec.  1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method 
of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
    62. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Pursuant to the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on small entities of the policies and actions 
considered in this notice of proposed rulemaking. The text of the IRFA 
is set forth in section II of this document. Written public comments 
are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to 
the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for

[[Page 7323]]

comment on the notice of proposed rulemaking. The Commission's Consumer 
and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will 
send a copy of this notice of proposed rulemaking, including the IRFA, 
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA).
    63. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document does not propose new or 
modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, 
it does not contain any new or modified information collection burdens 
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to 
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198.
    64. Contact Person. For further information about this proceeding, 
please contact E. Alex Espinoza, FCC Wireline Competition Bureau, 
Competition Policy Division, Room 5-C211, 445 12th Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20554, at (202) 418-0849, or alex.espinoza@fcc.gov.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    65. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 
201(b), 227(e), 251(e) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201(b), 227(e), 251(e) and 303, and 
Public Law 115-141, Div. P, Title V, section 503, 132 Stat. 348 that 
this notice of proposed rulemaking is adopted.
    66. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this notice of proposed rulemaking, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Communications common carriers, Caller identification information, 
Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.

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

Proposed Rules

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

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

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

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 
228, 251(e), 254(k), 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 1401-1473; Sec. 
5103, Pub. L. 115-141, 132 Stat. 348.

0
2. Amend Sec.  64.1600 by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) and adding 
paragraphs (m) through (o) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.1600  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (c) Caller identification information. The term ``caller 
identification information'' means information provided by a caller 
identification service regarding the telephone number of, or other 
information regarding the origination of, a call made using a voice 
service or a text message sent using a text messaging service.
    (d) Caller identification service. The term ``caller identification 
service'' means any service or device designed to provide the user of 
the service or device with the telephone number of, or other 
information regarding the origination of, a call made using a voice 
service or a text message sent using a text messaging service.
* * * * *
    (m) Text message. The term ``text message'':
    (1) Means a message consisting of text, images, sounds, or other 
information that is transmitted to or from a device that is identified 
as the receiving or transmitting device by means of a 10-digit 
telephone number or N11 service code;
    (2) Includes a short message service (SMS) message, and a 
multimedia message service (MMS) message; and
    (3) Does not include:
    (i) A real-time, two-way voice or video communication; or
    (ii) A message sent over an IP-enabled messaging service to another 
user of the same messaging service, except a message described in 
paragraph (2) of this definition.
    (n) Text messaging service. The term ``text messaging service'' 
means a service that enables the transmission or receipt of a text 
message, including a service provided as part of or in connection with 
a voice service.
    (o) Voice service. The term ``voice service'':
    (1) Means any service that is interconnected with the public 
switched telephone network and that furnishes voice communications to 
an end user using resources from the North American Numbering Plan or 
any successor to the North American Numbering Plan adopted by the 
Commission under section 251(e)(1); and
    (2) Includes transmissions from a telephone facsimile machine, 
computer, or other device to a telephone facsimile machine.
0
3. Amend Sec.  64.1604 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.1604  Prohibition on transmission of inaccurate or misleading 
caller identification information.

    (a) No person or entity in the United States, nor any person or 
entity outside the United States if the recipient is within the United 
States, shall, with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully 
obtain anything of value, knowingly cause, directly, or indirectly, any 
caller identification service to transmit or display misleading or 
inaccurate caller identification information in connection with any 
voice service or text messaging service.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-03721 Filed 3-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P