Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Call Authentication Trust Anchor, 29478-29482 [2019-13320]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
29478
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
EPA is proposing that the TCEQ’s
maintenance plan adequately addresses
the five basic components of a
maintenance plan: Attainment
inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring network, verification of
continued attainment, and a
contingency plan. Thus, the
maintenance plan SIP revision proposed
by the TCEQ meets the requirements of
CAA section 175A and EPA proposes to
approve it as a revision to the Texas SIP.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
The DFW maintenance plan
submission includes motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the last
year of the maintenance plan (in this
case 2032). MVEBs are used to conduct
regional emissions analyses for
transportation conformity purposes. See
40 CFR 93.118. The MVEB is the portion
of the total allowable emissions in the
maintenance demonstration that is
allocated to highway and transit vehicle
use and emissions. See 40 CFR 93.101.
As part of the interagency consultation
process on setting MVEBs, TCEQ held
discussions to determine what years to
set MVEBs for the DFW area
maintenance plan.
We note the DFW area already has
adequate NOX and VOC MVEBs for the
2008 ozone NAAQS (81 FR 88124,
December 7, 2016). Therefore, the DFW
area can continue to make conformity
determinations for transportation plans,
transportation improvement programs,
and projects based on budgets for the
2008 ozone NAAQS as it has been
doing, according to the requirements of
the transportation conformity
regulations at 40 CFR part 93.13 The
DFW area currently demonstrates
conformity to the 2008 and 2015 ozone
NAAQS using MVEBs contained in the
area’s 2008 ozone NAAQS Reasonable
Further Progress SIP revision (81 FR
88124). Therefore, EPA is not proposing
to approve the submitted 2032 NOx and
VOC MVEBs for transportation
conformity purposes. As noted above,
EPA is proposing to find that the
projected emissions inventory which
reflects these budgets are consistent
with maintenance of the 1-hour and 8hour standard.
IV. Proposed Action
We are proposing to determine that
the DFW area is continuing to attain the
1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
and that Texas has met the CAA criteria
13 Transportation Conformity Guidance for the
South Coast II Court Decision, EPA–420–B–18–050.
November 2018, available on EPA’s web page at
https://www.epa.gov/state-and-localtransportation/policy-and-technical-guidance-stateand-local-transportation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jun 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
for redesignation of this area. Therefore,
the EPA is proposing to terminate all the
Serious area classification’s antibacksliding obligations for the DFW area
for the 1-hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS.
We are also proposing to approve the
plan for maintaining the 1-hour and
1997 ozone NAAQS through 2032 in the
DFW area.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
The actions in this proposal terminate
statutory and regulatory requirements
associated with prior federal revoked
ozone standards and do not impose any
additional regulatory requirements on
sources beyond those imposed by state
law. Therefore, this action does not in
and of itself create any new
requirements. Moreover, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the CAA. For that reason,
these actions:
• Are not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Are not an Executive Order 13771
(82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017)
regulatory action because they are not
‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under
Executive Order 12866;
• Do not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Are certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Do not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Do not have federalism implications
as specified in Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Are not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not a significant regulatory
action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Do not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does
not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 14, 2019.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2019–13126 Filed 6–21–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 17–59, WC Docket No. 17–
97; FCC 19–51]
Advanced Methods To Target and
Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Call
Authentication Trust Anchor
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC or
Commission) invites comments on
proposed revisions to its rules
implementing the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and seeks comment on
issues pertaining to the implementation
of SHAKEN/STIR. The Commission
proposes: A safe harbor for call-blocking
programs targeting unauthenticated
calls, which may be potentially spoofed;
safeguards to ensure that the most
important calls are not blocked; and to
require voice service providers to
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM
24JNP1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
implement the SHAKEN/STIR Caller ID
Authentication framework, in the event
major voice service providers have
failed to do so by the end of this year.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
July 24, 2019, and reply comments are
due on or before August 23, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by CG Docket No. 17–59 and
WC Docket No. 17–97, by any of the
following methods:
D Federal Communications
Commission’s website: https://
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
D Paper Mail: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. Filers must
submit two additional copies for each
additional docket or rulemaking
number. Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
D 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 the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jerusha Burnett, Consumer Policy
Division, Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, email at
jerusha.burnett@fcc.gov or by phone at
(202) 418–0526.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(TFNPRM), in CG Docket No. 17–59, WC
Docket No. 17–97; FCC 19–51, adopted
on June 6, 2019 and released on June 7,
2019. The Declaratory Ruling that was
adopted concurrently with the TFNPRM
is published elsewhere in this issue of
the Federal Register. The full text of
document FCC 19–51 is available for
public inspection and copying via the
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS), and during
regular business hours at the FCC
Reference Information Center, Portals II,
445 12th Street SW, Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jun 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
the Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (TTY).
This matter shall be treated as a
‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in
accordance with the Commission’s ex
parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.
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).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis
The TFNPRM in document FCC 19–51
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; 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
1. In the TFNPRM, the Commission
takes additional steps to protect
consumers from illegal calls and ensure
the effectiveness and integrity of the
SHAKEN/STIR Caller ID authentication
framework by proposing rules to allow
voice service providers to block calls
based on Caller ID authentication in
certain instances. The Commission
further proposes protections to ensure
that the most important calls are not
blocked. The Commission also proposes
to require voice service providers to
implement the SHAKEN/STIR Caller ID
authentication framework in the event
that major voice service providers have
not met Chairman’s Pai’s deadline for
doing so by the end of 2019.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29479
Safe Harbor for Call-Blocking Programs
Based on Potentially Spoofed Calls
2. The Commission proposes a narrow
safe harbor for voice service providers
that offer call-blocking programs that
take into account whether a call has
been properly authenticated under the
SHAKEN/STIR framework and may
potentially be spoofed.
3. First, the Commission proposes a
safe harbor for voice service providers
that choose to block calls (or a subset of
calls) that fail Caller ID authentication
under the SHAKEN/STIR framework. A
call would fail authentication when the
attestation header has been maliciously
altered or inserted—in other words,
where a malicious actor has tried to
inappropriately spoof another number
and attempted to circumvent the
protection provided by SHAKEN/STIR.
Accordingly, the Commission would
expect the vast majority of calls blocked
in such circumstances to be illegitimate
and call-blocking programs targeting
such calls to be deserving of safe harbor.
The Commission seeks comment on this
view.
4. Are there other instances where
authentication would fail? Would a safe
harbor for such a call-blocking program
provide a strong incentive to
participating SHAKEN/STIR providers
to ensure their public key infrastructure
is up to date, as well as bolster the value
of a failed authentication as a strong
indicator of an illegal call? As SHAKEN/
STIR deployment becomes more
widespread, will failed authentication
be a good proxy for illegal calls? To the
extent it is overbroad, how should the
Commission address false positives? Are
there specific notification or other
procedures that are most appropriate for
use to enable callers to correct such
false positives quickly?
5. Second, the Commission seeks
comment on whether it should create a
safe harbor for blocking unsigned calls
from particular categories of voice
service providers. Many larger voice
service providers have committed to
deploying SHAKEN/STIR in 2019. If
other large voice service providers fail
to do so, should blocking unsigned calls
from such voice service providers, after
a reasonable transition period, fall
within the safe harbor? Alternatively,
should a safe harbor target those voice
service providers that are most likely to
facilitate unlawful robocallers?
6. How can the Commission ensure
that any safe harbor does not impose
undue costs on eligible
telecommunications carriers
participating in the Commission’s highcost program? And how can the
Commission ensure any such carve-out
E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM
24JNP1
29480
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
does not protect those few voice service
providers that actively facilitate
unlawful spoofing and robocalling,
often from foreign countries?
7. Can downstream providers reliably
determine on which network a
particular unsigned call originated? Are
there concerns regarding a call that was
initially signed transiting a non-IP
network? Should the Commission set a
date certain for when this type of
blocking is permissible?
8. Are there any particular protections
the Commission should establish for a
safe harbor to ensure that wanted calls
are not blocked? The Commission seeks
comment on whether to require
providers seeking a safe harbor to
provide for identifying and remedying
the blocking of wanted calls.
9. Compliance with Rural Call
Completion Rules. The Commission also
seeks comment on how its proposal
intersects with the Commission’s rural
call completion rules, including those
implementing the Rural Call Quality
and Reliability Act of 2017 (RCC Act),
and whether to include additional
criteria related to these rules. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
Caller ID authentication provides
sufficient justification to permit a
downstream provider to block calls from
an upstream provider.
10. Use of SHAKEN/STIR-Based
Analytics. SHAKEN/STIR’s ability to
determine the source of robocalls will
be a significant contribution to the
quality of these analytics. The
Commission therefore seeks comment
on the use of SHAKEN/STIR-based
analytics once this technology is
implemented.
Protections for Critical Calls
11. Certain emergency calls must
never be blocked. Accordingly, the
Commission considers requiring any
voice service provider that offers callblocking to maintain a ‘‘Critical Calls
List’’ of numbers it may not block. Such
lists would include at least the
outbound numbers of 911 call centers
(i.e., PSAPs) and government emergency
outbound numbers. The prohibition on
call blocking would only apply to
authenticated calls. The Commission
seeks comment on this proposal.
12. The Commission seeks comment
on what numbers should be required on
a Critical Calls List. How should the
Commission define outbound numbers
of 911 call centers (i.e., PSAPs)? How
should the Commission define
government emergency outbound
numbers? How can the Commission
mitigate the burden of administering a
Critical Calls List? Should a Critical
Calls List be centrally maintained, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jun 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
should each voice service provider
instead maintain its own list? If
centrally, what entity should maintain
the list and how should voice service
providers access the list? Does the
Commission’s proposal capture the most
important numbers to avoid blocking?
13. The Commission also seeks
comment on limiting Critical Calls List
protections to only those calls for which
the Caller ID is authenticated. Does this
provide protection against illegal callers
spoofing these crucial numbers? The
Commission seeks comment on whether
voice service providers should be
required to complete calls where any
level of attestation is present so long as
the Caller ID authenticates, or whether
the Commission should limit this
requirement.
14. How can the Commission ensure
that a Critical Calls List is sufficiently
protected from abuse by unscrupulous
callers? Should the list be kept nonpublic to avoid unlawful spoofing of
listed numbers? The Commission seeks
comment on whether there are any
benefits to making the list public that
outweigh these risks. If not public, who
should be able to access it? The
Commission invites comment on any
other critical details. The Commission
further seeks comment on the associated
costs and benefits of implementing such
a Critical Calls List.
15. Calls Placed to 911. The
Commission see no reason that the rule
prohibiting blocking of calls to 911
should not apply to the blocking
proposed herein. The Commission seeks
comment on the extent to which PSAPs
have received calls with a spoofed
Caller ID reporting a false emergency.
16. The Commission seeks comment
on other ways to protect callers from
erroneous blocking. Should the
Commission consider other bases for
blocking unwanted, illegal calls?
Mandating Caller ID Authentication
17. If major voice service providers
fail to meet an end of 2019 deadline for
voluntary implementation of the
SHAKEN/STIR Caller ID authentication
framework, the Commission proposes to
require them to implement that
framework. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal.
18. Implementation of the SHAKEN/
STIR framework across voice networks
is important in the fight against
unwanted, including illegal, robocalls.
Should major voice service providers
fail to meet this end-of-year deadline,
the Commission proposes to take
appropriate regulatory action to ensure
that voice service providers implement
SHAKEN/STIR. If major voice service
providers meet the end-of-year deadline,
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
what steps should the Commission take
to ensure that other voice service
providers implement SHAKEN/STIR?
19. Determining whether it is
necessary to mandate implementation
of SHAKEN/STIR. The Commission
seeks comment on how best to define
‘‘major voice service providers’’ for the
purpose of evaluating the progress made
by such providers in implementing
SHAKEN/STIR by the end of this year.
20. The Commission seeks comment
on how best to evaluate whether major
voice service providers have met the
end of year deadline for implementation
set by Chairman Pai. In discussing
SHAKEN/STIR, providers often refer to
signing calls on an intercarrier basis and
using signature information they receive
to enhance the consumer experience.
Should this be the standard the
Commission uses to measure
implementation? The Commission
invites comment on this approach and
on specific alternatives. Should the
Commission require certifications
documenting compliance?
21. Voice service providers covered by
the SHAKEN/STIR implementation
requirement. If the Commission
mandates provider implementation of
SHAKEN/STIR, the Commission
proposes to require implementation by
all voice service providers—wireline,
wireless, and Voice over internet
Protocol (VoIP) providers. The
Commission seeks comment on this
proposal. Are there other voice service
providers the Commission should
include? Are there any exceptions to an
implementation requirement?
22. Implementation. If the
Commission mandates implementation
of SHAKEN/STIR, what should the
Commission require providers to
accomplish to meet the requirement?
Should it require providers to sign calls
on an intercarrier basis and use
signature information they receive to
enhance the consumer experience?
Should the Commission impose other or
different requirements?
23. For example, if the Commission
mandates SHAKEN/STIR
implementation, should the
Commission require providers to adopt
a uniform display showing consumers
whether a call has been authenticated?
Or should the Commission encourage
provider experimentation to develop the
most useful display for consumers?
24. Timing of the requirement. If the
Commission mandates implementation
of SHAKEN/STIR, how much
implementation time should the
Commission give voice service
providers? The Commission invites
commenters to propose specific
categories of voice service providers,
E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM
24JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
specify how the Commission should
distinguish between or among them,
explain why the Commission should do
so for purposes of setting
implementation deadlines, and propose
specific implementation deadlines for
each proposed specific category of voice
service providers.
25. Governance. What role should the
Commission have in SHAKEN/STIR
governance? Industry has taken steps to
establish a governance regime. Are there
aspects of the governance authority that
the Commission should handle itself or
should its role be formal oversight? Are
there other functions that the
Commission should undertake to ensure
the adoption and implementation of
SHAKEN/STIR?
26. Legacy Networks. The
Commission recognizes that there are
challenges for smaller and rural carriers.
The Commission seeks comment on
how to encourage Caller ID
authentication for carriers that maintain
some portion of their network on legacy
technology. Are there technologies
available to enable legacy networks to
participate in Caller ID authentication?
27. Illegal calls originating outside the
United States. The Commission seeks
comment on how the Commission and
the industry can best leverage Caller ID
authentication technology and
specifically SHAKEN/STIR to combat
illegal calls originating outside the
United States.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Measuring the Effectiveness of Robocall
Solutions
28. Should the Commission create a
mechanism to provide information to
consumers about the effectiveness of
providers’ robocall solutions? If so, how
should ‘‘effectiveness’’ be defined? How
would the Commission obtain the
information needed to evaluate the
effectiveness of the robocall solutions?
Legal Authority
29. The Commission seeks comment
on its authority to adopt new rules here.
Sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the
Communications Act (the Act) have
formed the basis for the Commission’s
traditional prohibitions on call blocking.
The Commission also is charged with
prescribing regulations to implement
the Truth in Caller ID Act, which made
unlawful the spoofing of Caller ID ‘‘in
connection with any
telecommunications service or IPenabled voice service . . . with the
intent to defraud, cause harm, or
wrongfully obtain anything of value
. . . .’’ And section 251(e) of the Act
gives the Commission authority over the
use and allocation of numbering
resources in the United States,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jun 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
including the use of unallocated and
unused numbers.
30. The Commission seeks comment
on whether these statutory provisions—
or any others—confer on the
Commission sufficient authority to
adopt rules to create a safe harbor for
certain call-blocking programs and
require voice service providers that offer
call-blocking programs to maintain a
Critical Calls List. Is creating a safe
harbor equivalent to declaring certain
practices presumptively just and
reasonable? Is encouraging providers to
adopt SHAKEN/STIR consistent with
the Commission’s authority under the
Truth in Caller ID Act? Does the
Commission’s plenary authority over
numbering extend to requiring that calls
from certain numbers be sacrosanct?
Does the Commission’s authority
depend, in part or at all, on whether the
calls considered in a call-blocking
program are in fact illegal under federal
law or merely unwanted by consumers?
Are these proposals necessary to allow
voice service providers to help prevent
unlawful acts and protect voice service
subscribers? Would any of these
proposals be limited only to calls
purporting to use North American
Numbering Plan (NANP) numbers?
31. The Commission believes section
251(e) of the Act, which grants the
Commission plenary jurisdiction over
the NANP resources in the United States
and the authority to administer
numbering resources, provides the
Commission the authority to mandate
Caller ID authentication and specifically
SHAKEN/STIR. By permitting voice
providers and consumers to identify
when a Caller ID number has been
spoofed, mandating SHAKEN/STIR
would prevent NANP resources from
being fraudulently exploited. The
Commission concludes that section
251(e) provides it sufficient authority to
adopt such rules. Do commenters agree?
Are there any other statutory provisions
or other sources of authority the
Commission should consider?
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
32. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, the
Commission has prepared the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
of the possible significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities by the policies and rules
proposed in the TFNPRM. 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
TFNPRM provided.
33. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29481
The TFNPRM proposes rules to
permit voice service providers, on their
own initiative, to block calls based on
Caller ID authentication, specifically
where the Caller ID is eligible for
authentication but fails. The TFNPRM
also proposes to require a ‘‘Critical Calls
List’’ of numbers that must never be
blocked so long as the Caller ID is
authenticated. The TFNPRM further
proposes and seeks comment on
requiring voice service providers to
implement the SHAKEN/STIR call
authentication framework if major voice
service providers fail to voluntarily
implement it by the end of 2019.
Legal Basis
34. The proposed and anticipated
rules are authorized under sections 201,
202, 227, 251(e), and 403 of the Act, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 227,
251(e), 403.
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
35. As indicated above, the TFNPRM
seeks comment on proposed rules to
codify that voice service providers may
block telephone calls in certain
circumstances to protect subscribers
from illegal calls, as well as on proposed
rules to prevent the blocking of lawful
calls. Until these requirements are
defined in full, it is not possible to
predict with certainty whether the costs
of compliance will be proportional
between small and large voice service
providers. In the TRNPRM, the
Commission seeks to minimize the
burden associated with reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements for the proposed rules,
such as modifying software, developing
procedures, and training staff.
36. Under the proposed rules, the
Commission tentatively concludes that
voice service providers will need to
keep records of Caller ID authentication
information. In addition, voice service
providers may need to set up
communication with other voice service
providers to share information about
failed authentication. Voice service
providers will also be required to
maintain a ‘‘Critical Calls List’’ of
numbers that should not be blocked.
37. The TFNPRM also proposes to
require voice service providers to
implement SHAKEN/STIR if major
voice service providers have not
voluntarily implemented the framework
by the end of 2019. At this time, the
Commission is not in a position to
determine whether, if adopted, the
Commission’s proposals will require
small entities to hire attorneys,
engineers, consultants, or other
E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM
24JNP1
29482
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 121 / Monday, June 24, 2019 / Proposed Rules
professionals and cannot quantify the
cost of compliance with the potential
rule changes discussed herein. The
TFNPRM proposes to require
implementation by all voice service
providers—wireline, wireless, and VoIP
providers.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
38. These proposed rules to codify
that voice service providers may block
telephone calls in certain circumstances
to protect subscribers from illegal and
unwanted calls are permissive and not
mandatory. Small businesses may avoid
compliance costs entirely by declining
to block calls, or may delay their
implementation of call blocking to allow
for more time to come into compliance
with the rules. However, the
Commission intends to craft rules that
encourage all carriers, including small
businesses, to block such calls and the
TFNPRM therefore seeks comment from
small businesses on how to minimize
costs associated with implementing the
proposed rules. The TFNPRM poses
specific requests for comment from
small businesses regarding how the
proposed rules affect them and what
could be done to minimize any
disproportionate impact on small
businesses.
39. The Commission’s proposed rules
allow voice service providers to block
calls based on certain criteria, including
where the Caller ID fails authentication.
In addition, the proposed rules protect
callers from the risk of their calls being
blocked erroneously. The TFNPRM
requests feedback from small businesses
and seeks comment on ways to make the
proposed rules less costly and minimize
the economic impact of the
Commission’s proposals.
40. The TFNPRM also seeks comment
on the length of time the Commission
should allow voice service providers to
implement SHAKEN/STIR, whether
smaller and medium-sized voice
providers should be given additional
time to implement this framework, and
how to qualify and quantify voice
providers’ sizes. Moreover, the
Commission seeks updated information
for entities of all sizes, including small
entities, regarding the upfront and
recurring costs to providers of
implementing SHAKEN/STIR.
41. The Commission expects to
consider the economic impact on small
entities, as identified in comments filed
in response to the TFNPRM and the
IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions
and taking action in this proceeding.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jun 21, 2019
Jkt 247001
Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
[FR Doc. 2019–13320 Filed 6–21–19; 8:45 am]
42. None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Communications common carriers,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telecommunications,
Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Cecilia Sigmund,
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 part
64 as follows:
PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES
RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
1. The authority citation for part 64
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 217
218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 251(a),
251(e), 254(k), 262, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620,
1401–1473, unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 64.1200 by
a. Redesignating paragraph (k)(2) as
paragraph (k)(5);
■ b. Redesignating paragraph (k)(4) as
paragraph (k)(2);
■ c. Redesignating paragraph (k)(1) as
paragraph (k)(4);
■ d. Redesignating paragraph (k)(3) as
paragraph (k)(1); and
■ e. Adding new paragraphs (k)(3) and
(k)(6).
The additions to read as follows:
■
■
§ 64.1200
Delivery restrictions
*
*
*
*
*
(k) * * *
(3) Any provider blocking pursuant to
this subsection must maintain a list of
numbers from which calls will not be
blocked where the Caller ID is
authenticated on a call purporting to
originate from the number. Providers
must include on their lists only
numbers used for outbound calls by
Public Safety Answering Points or other
emergency services; governmentoriginated calls, such as calls from local
authorities generated during
emergencies; and outbound calls from
schools and similar educational
institutions to provide school-related
emergency notifications, such as
weather-related closures or the
existence of an emergency affecting the
school or students.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) A provider may block a call that
is eligible for authentication of Caller ID
PO 00000
Frm 00084
and for which authentication by the
terminating provider has failed.
*
*
*
*
*
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 1, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 19,
22, 25, 30, 50, and 52
[FAR Case 2018–007; Docket No. 2018–
0007, Sequence No. 1]
RIN 9000–AN67
Federal Acquisition Regulation:
Applicability of Inflation Adjustments
of Acquisition-Related Thresholds
Department of Defense (DoD),
General Services Administration (GSA),
and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
DoD, GSA, and NASA are
proposing to amend the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to
implement a section of the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 to make inflation
adjustments of statutory acquisitionrelated thresholds applicable to existing
contracts and subcontracts in effect on
the date of the adjustment that contain
the revised clauses as proposed in this
rulemaking.
DATES: Interested parties should submit
written comments to the Regulatory
Secretariat Division at one of the
addresses shown below on or before
August 23, 2019 to be considered in the
formation of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in
response to FAR Case 2018–007 by any
of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov: https://
www.regulations.gov. Submit comments
via the Federal eRulemaking portal by
searching for ‘‘FAR Case 2018–007’’.
Select the link ‘‘Comment Now’’ that
corresponds with ‘‘FAR Case 2018–
007’’. Follow the instructions provided
on the screen. Please include your
name, company name (if any), and
‘‘FAR Case 2018–007’’ on your attached
document.
• Mail: General Services
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat
Division (MVCB), ATTN: Lois Mandell,
1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor,
Washington, DC 20405.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM
24JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29478-29482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13320]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 17-59, WC Docket No. 17-97; FCC 19-51]
Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Call
Authentication Trust Anchor
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or
Commission) invites comments on proposed revisions to its rules
implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and seeks comment on
issues pertaining to the implementation of SHAKEN/STIR. The Commission
proposes: A safe harbor for call-blocking programs targeting
unauthenticated calls, which may be potentially spoofed; safeguards to
ensure that the most important calls are not blocked; and to require
voice service providers to
[[Page 29479]]
implement the SHAKEN/STIR Caller ID Authentication framework, in the
event major voice service providers have failed to do so by the end of
this year.
DATES: Comments are due on or before July 24, 2019, and reply comments
are due on or before August 23, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 17-59
and WC Docket No. 17-97, by any of the following methods:
[ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's website: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[ssquf] Paper Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. Filers must submit two
additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerusha Burnett, Consumer Policy
Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, email at
[email protected] or by phone at (202) 418-0526.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (TFNPRM), in CG Docket No. 17-59,
WC Docket No. 17-97; FCC 19-51, adopted on June 6, 2019 and released on
June 7, 2019. The Declaratory Ruling that was adopted concurrently with
the TFNPRM is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register. The full text of document FCC 19-51 is available for public
inspection and copying via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing
System (ECFS), and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554. 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 the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432
(TTY).
This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR
1.1200 et seq. 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).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
The TFNPRM in document FCC 19-51 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; 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
1. In the TFNPRM, the Commission takes additional steps to protect
consumers from illegal calls and ensure the effectiveness and integrity
of the SHAKEN/STIR Caller ID authentication framework by proposing
rules to allow voice service providers to block calls based on Caller
ID authentication in certain instances. The Commission further proposes
protections to ensure that the most important calls are not blocked.
The Commission also proposes to require voice service providers to
implement the SHAKEN/STIR Caller ID authentication framework in the
event that major voice service providers have not met Chairman's Pai's
deadline for doing so by the end of 2019.
Safe Harbor for Call-Blocking Programs Based on Potentially Spoofed
Calls
2. The Commission proposes a narrow safe harbor for voice service
providers that offer call-blocking programs that take into account
whether a call has been properly authenticated under the SHAKEN/STIR
framework and may potentially be spoofed.
3. First, the Commission proposes a safe harbor for voice service
providers that choose to block calls (or a subset of calls) that fail
Caller ID authentication under the SHAKEN/STIR framework. A call would
fail authentication when the attestation header has been maliciously
altered or inserted--in other words, where a malicious actor has tried
to inappropriately spoof another number and attempted to circumvent the
protection provided by SHAKEN/STIR. Accordingly, the Commission would
expect the vast majority of calls blocked in such circumstances to be
illegitimate and call-blocking programs targeting such calls to be
deserving of safe harbor. The Commission seeks comment on this view.
4. Are there other instances where authentication would fail? Would
a safe harbor for such a call-blocking program provide a strong
incentive to participating SHAKEN/STIR providers to ensure their public
key infrastructure is up to date, as well as bolster the value of a
failed authentication as a strong indicator of an illegal call? As
SHAKEN/STIR deployment becomes more widespread, will failed
authentication be a good proxy for illegal calls? To the extent it is
overbroad, how should the Commission address false positives? Are there
specific notification or other procedures that are most appropriate for
use to enable callers to correct such false positives quickly?
5. Second, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should create
a safe harbor for blocking unsigned calls from particular categories of
voice service providers. Many larger voice service providers have
committed to deploying SHAKEN/STIR in 2019. If other large voice
service providers fail to do so, should blocking unsigned calls from
such voice service providers, after a reasonable transition period,
fall within the safe harbor? Alternatively, should a safe harbor target
those voice service providers that are most likely to facilitate
unlawful robocallers?
6. How can the Commission ensure that any safe harbor does not
impose undue costs on eligible telecommunications carriers
participating in the Commission's high-cost program? And how can the
Commission ensure any such carve-out
[[Page 29480]]
does not protect those few voice service providers that actively
facilitate unlawful spoofing and robocalling, often from foreign
countries?
7. Can downstream providers reliably determine on which network a
particular unsigned call originated? Are there concerns regarding a
call that was initially signed transiting a non-IP network? Should the
Commission set a date certain for when this type of blocking is
permissible?
8. Are there any particular protections the Commission should
establish for a safe harbor to ensure that wanted calls are not
blocked? The Commission seeks comment on whether to require providers
seeking a safe harbor to provide for identifying and remedying the
blocking of wanted calls.
9. Compliance with Rural Call Completion Rules. The Commission also
seeks comment on how its proposal intersects with the Commission's
rural call completion rules, including those implementing the Rural
Call Quality and Reliability Act of 2017 (RCC Act), and whether to
include additional criteria related to these rules. The Commission
seeks comment on whether Caller ID authentication provides sufficient
justification to permit a downstream provider to block calls from an
upstream provider.
10. Use of SHAKEN/STIR-Based Analytics. SHAKEN/STIR's ability to
determine the source of robocalls will be a significant contribution to
the quality of these analytics. The Commission therefore seeks comment
on the use of SHAKEN/STIR-based analytics once this technology is
implemented.
Protections for Critical Calls
11. Certain emergency calls must never be blocked. Accordingly, the
Commission considers requiring any voice service provider that offers
call-blocking to maintain a ``Critical Calls List'' of numbers it may
not block. Such lists would include at least the outbound numbers of
911 call centers (i.e., PSAPs) and government emergency outbound
numbers. The prohibition on call blocking would only apply to
authenticated calls. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
12. The Commission seeks comment on what numbers should be required
on a Critical Calls List. How should the Commission define outbound
numbers of 911 call centers (i.e., PSAPs)? How should the Commission
define government emergency outbound numbers? How can the Commission
mitigate the burden of administering a Critical Calls List? Should a
Critical Calls List be centrally maintained, or should each voice
service provider instead maintain its own list? If centrally, what
entity should maintain the list and how should voice service providers
access the list? Does the Commission's proposal capture the most
important numbers to avoid blocking?
13. The Commission also seeks comment on limiting Critical Calls
List protections to only those calls for which the Caller ID is
authenticated. Does this provide protection against illegal callers
spoofing these crucial numbers? The Commission seeks comment on whether
voice service providers should be required to complete calls where any
level of attestation is present so long as the Caller ID authenticates,
or whether the Commission should limit this requirement.
14. How can the Commission ensure that a Critical Calls List is
sufficiently protected from abuse by unscrupulous callers? Should the
list be kept non-public to avoid unlawful spoofing of listed numbers?
The Commission seeks comment on whether there are any benefits to
making the list public that outweigh these risks. If not public, who
should be able to access it? The Commission invites comment on any
other critical details. The Commission further seeks comment on the
associated costs and benefits of implementing such a Critical Calls
List.
15. Calls Placed to 911. The Commission see no reason that the rule
prohibiting blocking of calls to 911 should not apply to the blocking
proposed herein. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which
PSAPs have received calls with a spoofed Caller ID reporting a false
emergency.
16. The Commission seeks comment on other ways to protect callers
from erroneous blocking. Should the Commission consider other bases for
blocking unwanted, illegal calls?
Mandating Caller ID Authentication
17. If major voice service providers fail to meet an end of 2019
deadline for voluntary implementation of the SHAKEN/STIR Caller ID
authentication framework, the Commission proposes to require them to
implement that framework. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal.
18. Implementation of the SHAKEN/STIR framework across voice
networks is important in the fight against unwanted, including illegal,
robocalls. Should major voice service providers fail to meet this end-
of-year deadline, the Commission proposes to take appropriate
regulatory action to ensure that voice service providers implement
SHAKEN/STIR. If major voice service providers meet the end-of-year
deadline, what steps should the Commission take to ensure that other
voice service providers implement SHAKEN/STIR?
19. Determining whether it is necessary to mandate implementation
of SHAKEN/STIR. The Commission seeks comment on how best to define
``major voice service providers'' for the purpose of evaluating the
progress made by such providers in implementing SHAKEN/STIR by the end
of this year.
20. The Commission seeks comment on how best to evaluate whether
major voice service providers have met the end of year deadline for
implementation set by Chairman Pai. In discussing SHAKEN/STIR,
providers often refer to signing calls on an intercarrier basis and
using signature information they receive to enhance the consumer
experience. Should this be the standard the Commission uses to measure
implementation? The Commission invites comment on this approach and on
specific alternatives. Should the Commission require certifications
documenting compliance?
21. Voice service providers covered by the SHAKEN/STIR
implementation requirement. If the Commission mandates provider
implementation of SHAKEN/STIR, the Commission proposes to require
implementation by all voice service providers--wireline, wireless, and
Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) providers. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal. Are there other voice service providers the
Commission should include? Are there any exceptions to an
implementation requirement?
22. Implementation. If the Commission mandates implementation of
SHAKEN/STIR, what should the Commission require providers to accomplish
to meet the requirement? Should it require providers to sign calls on
an intercarrier basis and use signature information they receive to
enhance the consumer experience? Should the Commission impose other or
different requirements?
23. For example, if the Commission mandates SHAKEN/STIR
implementation, should the Commission require providers to adopt a
uniform display showing consumers whether a call has been
authenticated? Or should the Commission encourage provider
experimentation to develop the most useful display for consumers?
24. Timing of the requirement. If the Commission mandates
implementation of SHAKEN/STIR, how much implementation time should the
Commission give voice service providers? The Commission invites
commenters to propose specific categories of voice service providers,
[[Page 29481]]
specify how the Commission should distinguish between or among them,
explain why the Commission should do so for purposes of setting
implementation deadlines, and propose specific implementation deadlines
for each proposed specific category of voice service providers.
25. Governance. What role should the Commission have in SHAKEN/STIR
governance? Industry has taken steps to establish a governance regime.
Are there aspects of the governance authority that the Commission
should handle itself or should its role be formal oversight? Are there
other functions that the Commission should undertake to ensure the
adoption and implementation of SHAKEN/STIR?
26. Legacy Networks. The Commission recognizes that there are
challenges for smaller and rural carriers. The Commission seeks comment
on how to encourage Caller ID authentication for carriers that maintain
some portion of their network on legacy technology. Are there
technologies available to enable legacy networks to participate in
Caller ID authentication?
27. Illegal calls originating outside the United States. The
Commission seeks comment on how the Commission and the industry can
best leverage Caller ID authentication technology and specifically
SHAKEN/STIR to combat illegal calls originating outside the United
States.
Measuring the Effectiveness of Robocall Solutions
28. Should the Commission create a mechanism to provide information
to consumers about the effectiveness of providers' robocall solutions?
If so, how should ``effectiveness'' be defined? How would the
Commission obtain the information needed to evaluate the effectiveness
of the robocall solutions?
Legal Authority
29. The Commission seeks comment on its authority to adopt new
rules here. Sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Communications Act (the
Act) have formed the basis for the Commission's traditional
prohibitions on call blocking. The Commission also is charged with
prescribing regulations to implement the Truth in Caller ID Act, which
made unlawful the spoofing of Caller ID ``in connection with any
telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service . . . with the
intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value .
. . .'' And section 251(e) of the Act gives the Commission authority
over the use and allocation of numbering resources in the United
States, including the use of unallocated and unused numbers.
30. The Commission seeks comment on whether these statutory
provisions--or any others--confer on the Commission sufficient
authority to adopt rules to create a safe harbor for certain call-
blocking programs and require voice service providers that offer call-
blocking programs to maintain a Critical Calls List. Is creating a safe
harbor equivalent to declaring certain practices presumptively just and
reasonable? Is encouraging providers to adopt SHAKEN/STIR consistent
with the Commission's authority under the Truth in Caller ID Act? Does
the Commission's plenary authority over numbering extend to requiring
that calls from certain numbers be sacrosanct? Does the Commission's
authority depend, in part or at all, on whether the calls considered in
a call-blocking program are in fact illegal under federal law or merely
unwanted by consumers? Are these proposals necessary to allow voice
service providers to help prevent unlawful acts and protect voice
service subscribers? Would any of these proposals be limited only to
calls purporting to use North American Numbering Plan (NANP) numbers?
31. The Commission believes section 251(e) of the Act, which grants
the Commission plenary jurisdiction over the NANP resources in the
United States and the authority to administer numbering resources,
provides the Commission the authority to mandate Caller ID
authentication and specifically SHAKEN/STIR. By permitting voice
providers and consumers to identify when a Caller ID number has been
spoofed, mandating SHAKEN/STIR would prevent NANP resources from being
fraudulently exploited. The Commission concludes that section 251(e)
provides it sufficient authority to adopt such rules. Do commenters
agree? Are there any other statutory provisions or other sources of
authority the Commission should consider?
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
32. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended, the Commission has prepared the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed
in the TFNPRM. 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 TFNPRM provided.
33. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
The TFNPRM proposes rules to permit voice service providers, on
their own initiative, to block calls based on Caller ID authentication,
specifically where the Caller ID is eligible for authentication but
fails. The TFNPRM also proposes to require a ``Critical Calls List'' of
numbers that must never be blocked so long as the Caller ID is
authenticated. The TFNPRM further proposes and seeks comment on
requiring voice service providers to implement the SHAKEN/STIR call
authentication framework if major voice service providers fail to
voluntarily implement it by the end of 2019.
Legal Basis
34. The proposed and anticipated rules are authorized under
sections 201, 202, 227, 251(e), and 403 of the Act, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 201, 202, 227, 251(e), 403.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
35. As indicated above, the TFNPRM seeks comment on proposed rules
to codify that voice service providers may block telephone calls in
certain circumstances to protect subscribers from illegal calls, as
well as on proposed rules to prevent the blocking of lawful calls.
Until these requirements are defined in full, it is not possible to
predict with certainty whether the costs of compliance will be
proportional between small and large voice service providers. In the
TRNPRM, the Commission seeks to minimize the burden associated with
reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for the
proposed rules, such as modifying software, developing procedures, and
training staff.
36. Under the proposed rules, the Commission tentatively concludes
that voice service providers will need to keep records of Caller ID
authentication information. In addition, voice service providers may
need to set up communication with other voice service providers to
share information about failed authentication. Voice service providers
will also be required to maintain a ``Critical Calls List'' of numbers
that should not be blocked.
37. The TFNPRM also proposes to require voice service providers to
implement SHAKEN/STIR if major voice service providers have not
voluntarily implemented the framework by the end of 2019. At this time,
the Commission is not in a position to determine whether, if adopted,
the Commission's proposals will require small entities to hire
attorneys, engineers, consultants, or other
[[Page 29482]]
professionals and cannot quantify the cost of compliance with the
potential rule changes discussed herein. The TFNPRM proposes to require
implementation by all voice service providers--wireline, wireless, and
VoIP providers.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered
38. These proposed rules to codify that voice service providers may
block telephone calls in certain circumstances to protect subscribers
from illegal and unwanted calls are permissive and not mandatory. Small
businesses may avoid compliance costs entirely by declining to block
calls, or may delay their implementation of call blocking to allow for
more time to come into compliance with the rules. However, the
Commission intends to craft rules that encourage all carriers,
including small businesses, to block such calls and the TFNPRM
therefore seeks comment from small businesses on how to minimize costs
associated with implementing the proposed rules. The TFNPRM poses
specific requests for comment from small businesses regarding how the
proposed rules affect them and what could be done to minimize any
disproportionate impact on small businesses.
39. The Commission's proposed rules allow voice service providers
to block calls based on certain criteria, including where the Caller ID
fails authentication. In addition, the proposed rules protect callers
from the risk of their calls being blocked erroneously. The TFNPRM
requests feedback from small businesses and seeks comment on ways to
make the proposed rules less costly and minimize the economic impact of
the Commission's proposals.
40. The TFNPRM also seeks comment on the length of time the
Commission should allow voice service providers to implement SHAKEN/
STIR, whether smaller and medium-sized voice providers should be given
additional time to implement this framework, and how to qualify and
quantify voice providers' sizes. Moreover, the Commission seeks updated
information for entities of all sizes, including small entities,
regarding the upfront and recurring costs to providers of implementing
SHAKEN/STIR.
41. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the TFNPRM and
the IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this
proceeding.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
42. None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Cecilia Sigmund,
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 part 64 as follows:
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 217 218, 220, 222, 225,
226, 227, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 262, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616,
620, 1401-1473, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 64.1200 by
0
a. Redesignating paragraph (k)(2) as paragraph (k)(5);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (k)(4) as paragraph (k)(2);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (k)(1) as paragraph (k)(4);
0
d. Redesignating paragraph (k)(3) as paragraph (k)(1); and
0
e. Adding new paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(6).
The additions to read as follows:
Sec. 64.1200 Delivery restrictions
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(3) Any provider blocking pursuant to this subsection must maintain
a list of numbers from which calls will not be blocked where the Caller
ID is authenticated on a call purporting to originate from the number.
Providers must include on their lists only numbers used for outbound
calls by Public Safety Answering Points or other emergency services;
government-originated calls, such as calls from local authorities
generated during emergencies; and outbound calls from schools and
similar educational institutions to provide school-related emergency
notifications, such as weather-related closures or the existence of an
emergency affecting the school or students.
* * * * *
(6) A provider may block a call that is eligible for authentication
of Caller ID and for which authentication by the terminating provider
has failed.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-13320 Filed 6-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
