Truth in Caller ID Rules, 45669-45678 [2019-18229]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45669-45678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18229]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[WC Docket Nos. 18-335, 11-39; FCC 19-73]


Truth in Caller ID Rules

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) takes the next step in our multi-pronged approach to 
putting an end to unlawful caller ID spoofing. Specifically, we amend 
our Truth in Caller ID rules to implement the amendments to section 
227(e) of the Communications Act adopted by Congress last year as part 
of the RAY BAUM'S Act. Consistent with these statutory amendments, we 
amend our rules to encompass malicious spoofing activities directed at 
consumers in the United States from actors outside of our country and 
reach caller ID spoofing using alternative voice and text messaging 
services. This actions advance our goal of ending the malicious caller 
ID spoofing that causes billions of dollars of harm to millions of 
American consumers each year.

DATES: Effective February 5, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annick Banoun, FCC Wireline 
Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, 445 12th Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20554, at (202) 418-1521, or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Report and Order, in WC Docket Nos. 18-335 and 11-39, adopted August 1, 
2019 and released August 5, 2019. A full text version of this document 
may be obtained at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-73A1.pdf.

[[Page 45670]]

Synopsis

I. Implementing New Statutory Spoofing Prevention Authority

    1. This Second Report and Order advances our goal of ending the 
malicious caller ID spoofing that causes billions of dollars of harm to 
millions of American consumers each year. In section 503 of the 2018 
RAY BAUM'S Act, Congress amended section 227(e) of the Act to expand 
the reach of covered entities from ``any person within the United 
States'' to include ``any person outside the United States if the 
recipient is within the United States.'' It also changed the scope of 
covered communications from any ``telecommunications service or IP-
enabled voice service'' to a ``voice service or a text message sent 
using a text messaging service.'' The RAY BAUM'S Act directs the 
Commission to prescribe rules implementing these amendments to section 
227(e) within 18 months of enactment, and makes the statutory 
amendments effective six months after the Commission prescribes its 
regulations. Earlier this year, we released a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) (84 FR 7315, March 4, 2019) in which we proposed and 
sought comment on modifications to our current Truth in Caller ID rules 
that largely track the language of the recent statutory amendments. 
Consistent with these statutory amendments, we amend our rules to 
encompass malicious spoofing activities directed at consumers in the 
United States from actors outside of our country and reach caller ID 
spoofing using alternative voice and text messaging services.

A. Communications Originating Outside the United States

    2. We revise our caller ID spoofing rules to cover communications 
originating outside the United States directed at recipients within the 
United States, consistent with revised section 227(e). As Congress 
recognized, the threat to consumers from overseas fraudulent spoofing 
continues to grow. We therefore agree with the 42 State Attorneys 
General and other commenters that expanding our rules to cover bad 
actors reaching into the United States is a ``necessary and important 
step in the continued fight against robocalls,'' and that implementing 
the RAY BAUM'S Act changes will strengthen the Commission's ability to 
enforce its rules against fraudulent and other harmful spoofing.
    3. To implement the prohibition on caller ID spoofing directed at 
the United States from callers outside our country, we revise Sec.  
64.1604 to provide that no person in the United States, nor any person 
outside the United States if the recipient is in 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. While the current Truth in Caller ID rules 
uses the phrase ``person or entity,'' we use the language of the 
statute, which is limited to ``person.'' At the same time, consistent 
with congressional intent and Commission precedent, we make clear that 
``person'' includes both natural persons and non-natural persons, e.g., 
corporations, associations, and partnerships.
    4. Finally, we reject Yaana Technologies' suggestion that we cannot 
exercise the extraterritorial jurisdiction that Congress expressly 
provided in section 503 of the RAY BAUM'S Act, which applies only to 
communications received in the United States. Yaana Technologies cites 
no specific treaty obligation that the statutory language contravenes, 
nor other legal barrier to the Commission's exercise of the legal 
authority given it by Congress, and we are aware of none. Moreover, the 
Commission's ongoing work with our international counterparts on caller 
ID spoofing issues in various fora is not inconsistent with the 
jurisdictional framework set forth in the statute. The Commission 
collaborates with our international counterparts on a bilateral, 
regional, and multilateral basis. For example, the Enforcement Bureau 
has executed a bilateral Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with the 
Commission's Canadian counterpart, the Canadian Radio-television and 
Telecommunications Commission. The Enforcement Bureau is also a member 
of UCENet, which is an international organization that brings together 
law enforcement entities across the globe to coordinate and assist each 
other's efforts to combat telecommunications fraud, spam, phishing, and 
the dissemination of computer viruses. Additionally, the Commission 
works with its international counterparts in the course of U.S. 
engagement in relevant regional and multilateral fora, such as the 
International Telecommunication Union (ITU).

B. Expanding the Scope of Covered Communications

    5. We also expand the scope of communications covered by our caller 
ID spoofing rules, consistent with amended section 227(e) and as 
proposed in the NPRM. Specifically, we incorporate the phrase ``in 
connection with any voice service or text messaging service'' into the 
prohibition on causing ``directly, or indirectly, any caller 
identification service to transmit or display misleading or inaccurate 
caller identification information.'' We find, consistent with our 
proposal, that amending our rules to explicitly identify the services 
within Sec.  64.1604's prohibition on unlawful spoofing better tracks 
the language of the statute and provides more direct notice to covered 
entities as to which services the prohibitions apply. As one commenter 
explains, the inclusion of the statutory phrase ``in connection with 
any voice service or text messaging service'' is not strictly 
necessary, because the phrase is encompassed by the definitions of 
``caller identification service'' and ``caller identification 
information'' to which the prohibition applies. Amended section 
227(e)(8) defines ``caller identification service'' as 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. Such term includes automatic number identification 
services. However, the statutory language is clear, and we find that 
mirroring the statutory language ```will avoid creating ambiguity' or 
deviating from Congress's choices.''

C. Definitions

    6. To implement Congress' intent to expand the scope of the 
prohibition on harmful caller ID spoofing, we adopt definitions of 
``text message,'' ``text messaging service,'' and ``voice service'' and 
revise the definitions of ``caller identification information,'' and 
``caller identification service'' in accordance with section 503 of the 
RAY BAUM'S Act. We also adopt definitions of ``short message service 
(SMS)'' and ``multimedia message service (MMS).'' These definitions 
will be included in the definitions section of subpart P to our part 64 
rules. We also take this opportunity to put in alphabetical order the 
definitions in subpart P of part 64 of our rules.
    7. Text Message. We adopt a definition of ``text message'' that 
mirrors the statutory language. We clarify that this definition of 
``text message'' is limited for the purpose of addressing malicious 
caller ID spoofing. Amended section 227(e) defines the term ``text 
message'' as a message consisting of text, images, sounds, or other

[[Page 45671]]

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. One commenter proposes to replace 
``a 10-digit telephone number'' with ``a telephone number'' in the 
definition of ``text message'' because ``a telephone number may contain 
only seven digits if the call is within the same area code.'' We find 
these concerns are misplaced because even when a consumer is only 
required to dial seven digits of a phone number, there is a 3-digit 
area code associated with the 7-digit number the consumer has dialed. 
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 find that this definition is sufficiently 
inclusive to capture the current universe of text messages that could 
be used for prohibited spoofing activity and will avoid ambiguity as to 
Congress' intent. We also believe, and no commenters argue otherwise, 
that Congress likely included the phrase `` `other information' out of 
an abundance of caution to allow for the inclusion of future 
technological advances given the rapid pace of new developments in 
technology.''
    8. For purposes of our Truth in Caller ID rules, we define ``N11 
service code'' as an abbreviated dialing code that allows telephone 
users to connect with a particular node in the network by dialing only 
three digits, of which the first digit is any digit other than `1' or 
`0,' and each of the last two digits is `1.' No commenters offered 
substantive suggestions on how to define ``N11 service code,'' so we 
looked to the language the Commission used nearly two decades ago when 
it 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,'' as well as the definition of ``N11 
service code'' found in the recently-enacted National Suicide Hotline 
Prevention Act. The definition we adopt in this document is similar to 
the Commission's previous description but provides more specificity by 
clarifying that the first digit of an N11 code is any digit other than 
``1'' or ``0'', and that the second two digits are ``1,'' consistent 
with the National Suicide Hotline Prevention Act.
    9. For purposes of our Truth in Caller ID rules, we adopt 
definitions of SMS and MMS that are consistent with our descriptions of 
those terms in the Commission's 2018 Wireless Messaging Service 
Declaratory Ruling (84 FR 5008, Feb. 20, 2019). To that end, we define 
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. And we 
define MMS as a wireless messaging service that 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 find that adopting definitions of those terms will provide 
clarity to interested parties given that Congress expressly defined 
``text message'' to include ``a [SMS] message and a [MMS] message'' but 
it did not define those terms.
    10. We also clarify that for purposes of our Truth in Caller ID 
rules, the definition of ``text message'' includes messages sent to or 
from a person or entity using Common Short Codes (Short Codes). Short 
Codes are ``5- to 6-digit codes typically used by enterprises for 
communicating with consumers at high volume.'' Short Codes are an 
addressing mechanism using the SMS and MMS protocols. Like other SMS 
and MMS messages, messages sent from a person or entity using Short 
Codes are directed to devices using 10-digit telephone numbers. As a 
convenience to consumers and to facilitate the delivery of high-volume 
traffic, wireless providers developed Short Codes, which are 
administered by the Common Short Code Administration and leased to 
enterprises. Once a Short Code is assigned to an applicant and before 
it can be used, each mobile provider must provision that code to the 
customer, usually through a third-party ``aggregator'' that handles the 
provisioning across multiple providers.
    11. While, as Twilio explains, Short Codes may be less likely to be 
used by a person or entity sending messages in connection with 
malicious caller ID spoofing because the registration and 
administration process make ``the sender of a short code SMS [ ] far 
easier to identify than the user of a 10-digit number,'' this 
protection is not absolute. Twilio itself admits that it is not 
impossible to spoof a Short Code. Consumers have complained about 
possible Short Code spoofing, and some reporting indicates that Short 
Codes can be hacked which could lead to spoofing. Nonetheless, CTIA 
expresses concern about the Commission finding that the definition of 
``text message'' for purposes of our Truth in Caller ID rules includes 
messages sent to or from a person or entity using Short Codes. CTIA 
argues that there is no technical evidence in the record that spoofing 
of Short Codes is possible or has occurred. CTIA also argues that an 
absence of notice under the Administrative Procedure Act for including 
Short Codes in the definition of text message and an absence of 
reference to Short Codes in the RAY BAUM'S Act counsel in favor of not 
including messages sent from a person or entity using Short Codes in 
the definition of text message. We find CTIA's arguments to be 
misplaced. The NPRM sought comment on the definition of text message 
that we adopt in this document, which includes SMS and MMS messages, 
and the record demonstrates that messages sent and received using Short 
Codes are SMS or MMS messages. The record demonstrates that messages 
sent and received using Short Codes are SMS or MMS messages, and there 
is nothing in the record that would allow us to conclude that Caller ID 
associated with a Short Code message cannot be spoofed. We are mindful 
of Congressional intent to protect against spoofing of SMS and MMS text 
messages for nefarious purposes, and therefore, because Short Codes are 
used by a person or entity sending SMS or MMS messages to 10-digit 
number identified devices, and could be used to perpetrate malicious 
spoofing, we conclude that the definition of ``text message'' in 
section 503 of the RAY BAUM'S Act and in our Truth in Caller ID rules 
is best interpreted as including messages sent to or from a person or 
entity using Short Codes. We make clear, however, that our decision 
only interprets section 503 of RAY BAUM'S Act in the context of 
Congress' specific intent to broadly expand our anti-spoofing rules to 
encompass other forms of spoofing sent via SMS and MMS, and we make no 
finding with respect to any other Commission jurisdiction over Short 
Codes. We also affirm that nothing in this Second Report and Order 
affects our decision in the Wireless Messaging Service Declaratory 
Ruling to refrain from ``decid[ing] whether short-code provisioning is 
a `component' of wireless messaging.''
    12. Exclusions. Section 227(e) as amended excludes from the 
definition of ``text message'' ``real-time, two-way voice or video 
communications'' and ``a message sent over an IP-enabled messaging 
service to another user of the same messaging service, except for [an 
SMS or MMS message].'' Accordingly,

[[Page 45672]]

we adopt both exclusions in our rules. We conclude that ``real-time, 
two-way'' 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 intended by Congress to be 
included in the definition of ``voice service.'' We interpret the 
latter exclusion to include non-MMS or SMS messages sent using IP-
enabled messaging services such as iMessage, Google hangouts, WhatsApp, 
and Skype to other users of the same service. As we explained in the 
NPRM, ``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.' '' Accordingly, we exclude them from the definition of ``text 
message'' in our rules. Similarly, ``text communications between or 
among two or more Skype users or iMessages between or among iPhone 
users'' are also excluded from the definition of ``text message.''
    13. We also clarify that messages sent over other IP-enabled 
messaging services that are not SMS or MMS--such as Rich Communications 
Services (RCS)--are excluded from amended section 227(e) of the Act and 
our implementing rules to the extent such messages are sent to other 
users of the same messaging service. RCS and similar services may well 
enable users to send messages that would meet the first prong of the 
statutory definition of ``text message''--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.'' 
But the inquiry does not end there. As noted above, while section 
227(e) of the Act makes clear that SMS and MMS are included within the 
definition of ``text message,'' it simultaneously makes clear that any 
``message sent over an IP-enabled messaging service to another user of 
the same messaging service'' that is not SMS or MMS is excluded. RCS 
fits comfortably within this exclusion. It is an IP-based asynchronous 
messaging protocol, and it therefore enables users to send messages 
``over an IP-enabled messaging service.'' Also, RCS enables messages to 
be sent between users of the same messaging service--that is, other 
users with RCS-enabled devices. RCS messages sent to other users are 
thus excluded so long as RCS is not SMS or MMS--which it is not. While 
RCS has been described as a ``successor protocol'' to SMS or a ``next-
generation'' SMS, it is not the same thing as SMS or MMS. Rather, as 
the Commission has previously concluded, RCS has ``advanced messaging 
features'' that ``allow users to, among other things, use mobile 
banking services, share high-resolution photos and files, track 
locations and interact with chatbots.'' Congress was plainly aware of 
RCS--a protocol that was first conceived in 2007--when it amended 
section 227(e) through the RAY BAUM'S Act last year. Yet, Congress 
chose to exempt from the definition of ``text message'' any message 
sent over an IP-enabled messaging service that is not SMS or MMS to 
another user of the same service, which would include RCS and any other 
potential successor protocols. Regardless of whether RCS may bear 
functional similarity to MMS and SMS, the Commission cannot disturb the 
policy judgment made by Congress to exclude such services from section 
227 (a policy judgment perhaps reflecting that the potential for or 
record of malicious spoofing for such protocols has not yet been 
established). We therefore agree with Twilio and EZ Texting to the 
extent they argue that RCS should be excluded from the definition of 
``text message.'' Our determination in this document that RCS is 
excluded from the definition of ``text message'' under amended section 
227(e) should not be read as determinative of any future decision by 
the Commission to classify RCS pursuant to other provisions of the 
Communications Act.
    14. As we explained in the NPRM, we also find that the new 
statutory definition of ``text message,'' and other amendments to 
section 227(e) under the RAY BAUM'S Act regarding text messages, do not 
affect the Commission's finding that text messages are ``calls'' for 
purposes of section 227(b). Section 227(b), among other things, places 
limits on calls made using any automatic telephone dialing system or an 
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. 
Consequently, we conclude that there is 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.
    15. Text Messaging Service. We adopt the statutory definition of 
``text messaging service'' as part of our Truth in Caller ID rules. 
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.'' As we explained in the NPRM, ``[m]aintaining 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.'' One commenter 
supports this approach and no commenters oppose it.
    16. Voice Service. We adopt the definition of ``voice service'' 
contained in amended section 227(e) for purposes of our Truth in Caller 
ID rules. 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.''
    17. We interpret the term ``voice service'' for the purpose of our 
Truth in Caller ID rules to both include and be more expansive than 
``telecommunications service'' and ``interconnected VoIP service'' as 
currently defined in our rules. Our existing rules cover calls made 
using ``telecommunications service'' or ``interconnected VoIP 
service.'' 47 CFR 64.1600(c), (d). Because we received no comments from 
stakeholders in support of explicitly including the terms 
``telecommunications service'' and ``interconnected VoIP service'' 
within the definition of ``voice service,'' we refrain from doing so at 
this time. The statutory language requires that communications 
encompassed by the definition of ``voice service'' must be 
``interconnected'' with the public switched telephone network (PSTN). 
We interpret the term ``interconnected'' as it is 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. To this end, we interpret the definition of ``voice 
service'' to include one-way VoIP service and any similar IP-based or 
other technology-

[[Page 45673]]

based calling capability 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).''
    18. We also clarify that the requirement to ``us[e] resources from 
the North American Numbering Plan'' in the definition of ``voice 
service'' includes one-way VoIP services that allow customers of such 
services to send voice communications to any end user who uses NANP 
resources. It does not require the provision of NANP resources directly 
to the customer of the service (i.e., the spoofer). We therefore 
disagree with INCOMPAS' assertion that the definition of ``voice 
service'' should exclude one-way VoIP services because such services 
(1) are not capable of transmitting calls to and receiving calls from 
the PSTN, and (2) do not require NANP resources to furnish voice 
communications to an end user. Adopting the INCOMPAS approach could 
exclude significant amounts of unlawful spoofing accomplished through 
one-way VoIP services and third-party spoofing platforms, which we find 
to be contrary to the Congressional intent in section 503 of the RAY 
BAUM'S Act. We observe that in amending section 227(e), Congress 
neither defined the term ``interconnected'' for the purposes of section 
227(e) nor referenced other statutory provisions or Commission rules 
where ``interconnected'' is used as part of the definition of specific 
categories of communications. In other statutory contexts, the focus in 
defining the scope of a covered ``service'' is on the nature or 
capabilities of an offering made by a provider to members of the 
public, and not on prohibited uses of communications services by a 
person whose identity and means of engaging in unlawful conduct are 
likely unknown to the consumer. This difference in statutory text and 
purpose counsels for a broader construction of interconnected service 
in this context. We further observe that amended section 227(e) 
specifically removed from the definition of covered voice services the 
reference to the definition of ``interconnected VoIP service'' in Sec.  
9.3 of the Commission rules. We find that these actions lend support to 
our conclusion that Congress intended to broaden the scope of IP-
enabled voice services subject to the prohibition on unlawful spoofing 
in section 227(e). This expanded interpretation of ``voice service,'' 
however, is limited to our Truth in Caller ID rules, and does not 
implicate the definitions of ``interconnected VoIP'' and 
``interconnected service'' elsewhere in the Act and our rules.
    19. In the NPRM, we sought comment on ``whether we should interpret 
`interconnected' to include both direct and indirect interconnection to 
the PSTN to account for different methods of interconnection.'' In past 
Commission investigations, we have found that malicious caller ID 
spoofing often relies on ``dialing platforms'' or ``third party 
platforms.'' These platforms provide dialing software that can be used 
for sending either live or pre-recorded robocalls. Not all of these 
platforms are directly interconnected to the PSTN, however, as they may 
require a VoIP or local exchange carrier to connect their customers to 
the PSTN. Therefore, to ensure that our rules address malicious caller 
ID spoofing made with the aid of these platforms, and in light of the 
specific statutory context and purpose of the amended section 227(e), 
which is directed at persons who ``knowingly transmit misleading or 
inaccurate caller identification information,'' we clarify that for the 
purposes of our Truth in Caller ID rules, ``interconnected'' includes 
indirect, as well as direct, interconnection.
    20. We conclude that ``voice services'' include ``real-time, two-
way voice communications'' that are transmitted by means of a 10-digit 
telephone number or N11 service code. Congress explicitly excluded such 
communications from the definition of ``text message'' in section 
227(e) as amended. Twilio argues that the phrase `` `real-time, two-way 
voice communications' that use `a 10-digit telephone number or N11 
service code' '' is vague and expansive and should not be considered 
part of the definition of ``voice service'' for the purpose of our 
Truth in Caller ID rules because Congress could have easily 
incorporated that phrase into the definition of ``voice service'' had 
it intended such service to be included. Contrary to Twilio's 
arguments, we find that phrase to be concrete and specific and we think 
that it is useful in providing clear boundaries around what types of 
services are covered by the term ``voice services.'' As such, we find 
that such real-time, two way voice communications that are transmitted 
by means of a 10-digit telephone number or N11 service code are covered 
by the amended definition of ``voice services,'' i.e., services 
``interconnected with the public switched telephone network . . . that 
furnish[ ] voice communications to an end user using resources for the 
North American Numbering Plan. . . .''
    21. We decline to include real-time, two-way voice communications 
between and among closed user groups that do not use 10-digit telephone 
numbers or N11 service codes in the definition of ``voice service,'' as 
such communications do not meet the statutory definition of ``voice 
services.'' In the 2011 Commission Report, the Commission acknowledged 
that these communications do not present the same degree of caller ID 
spoofing concern as ``interconnected VoIP services.'' One notable 
example of real-time voice communications that do not give rise to such 
caller ID spoofing concerns is voice communications between players in 
online games such as Fortnite. Since such services ``have no connection 
to the PSTN,'' we find that Congress did not intend to reach these 
types of voice communications, nor do they fall within the definition 
of ``voice services'' for purposes of the rules we adopt in this 
document.
    22. Finally, tracking the language of section 227(e) as amended, we 
conclude that the definition of ``voice service'' includes 
transmissions to ``a telephone facsimile machine (fax machine) from a 
computer, fax machine, or other device.'' We believe that Congress 
intended the inclusion of telephone facsimile machine transmissions 
within the definition of ``voice service'' to be narrow in scope, and 
therefore, decline to expand that definition to encompass ``a computer 
or other device whose purpose is to store an image that could have been 
sent to a telephone facsimile machine,'' as suggested by commenter John 
Shaw. We believe it is necessary to incorporate this additional 
specification into our rules to ensure consistency with the RAY BAUM'S 
Act and avoid confusion as to the scope of the prohibition. Indeed, in 
response to the NPRM, one commenter emphasized that its fax line 
``routinely receives unsolicited material promising treasures if 
certain steps are taken.''
    23. Caller Identification Information and Caller Identification 
Service. We revise the existing definitions of ``caller identification 
information'' and ``caller identification service'' in our rules to be 
consistent with section 227(e)(8) as amended. In doing so, we mirror 
the amended statutory text by substituting ``voice service or a text 
message sent using a text messaging service'' for ``telecommunications 
service or interconnected VoIP service.'' One commenter supports our 
proposal to adopt these definitions and no commenters oppose it.

[[Page 45674]]

D. Other Changes to the Rules

    24. While numerous commenters took the opportunity to advocate for 
the adoption of the SHAKEN/STIR call authentication framework and for 
other issues beyond the scope of this proceeding, we decline to make 
other changes to our Truth in Caller ID rules, or other rules beyond 
the scope of this proceeding, at this time.

II. Procedural Matters

    25. Effective Date. Pursuant to section 503 of the RAY BAUM'S Act, 
the statutory amendments to section 227(e) will be effective six months 
after the Commission prescribes its implementing rules. Because the 
Commission's rules implementing the amendments to section 227(e) cannot 
be effective until the statutory amendments themselves are effective, 
we make the rules adopted here effective six months after adoption and 
release of this Report and Order, or 30 days after publication in the 
Federal Register, whichever is later.
    26. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document does not contain 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 burden 
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to 
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198.
    27. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of 
this Second Report and Order to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    28. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the notice 
of proposed rulemaking Implementing Section 503 of RAY BAUM'S Act, 
Rules and Regulation Implementing the Truth in Caller ID (NPRM), 
released February 2019 (84 FR 7315). The Commission sought written 
public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the 
IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This present Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules

    29. Nefarious schemes that manipulate caller ID information to 
deceive consumers about the name and phone number of the party that is 
calling them, in order to facilitate fraudulent and other harmful 
activities, continue to plague American consumers. Last year, as part 
of the RAY BAUM'S Act, Congress amended section 227(e) of the 
Communications Act to (1) extend its scope to encompass malicious 
spoofing activities directed at consumers in the United States from 
actors outside the United States; and (2) extend its reach to caller ID 
spoofing using alternative voice and text messaging services. In this 
Report and Order (Order), we implement these recently adopted 
amendments to expand and clarify the Act's prohibition on the use of 
misleading and inaccurate caller ID information. The amended Truth in 
Caller ID rules largely adopt the language contained in the RAY BAUM'S 
Act. The amended rules do not impose record keeping or reporting 
obligations on any entity.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    30. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the 
proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA

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

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

    33. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the final rules adopted pursuant to the Order. 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. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory 
definition of a small business applies ``unless an agency, after 
consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes 
one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the 
activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the 
Federal Register.'' 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.
    34. 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.
    35. 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 August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small 
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits 
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Reports generated using the 
NCCS online database indicated that as of August 2016 there were 
356,494 registered nonprofits with total revenues of less than 
$100,000. Of this number, 326,897 entities filed tax returns with 
65,113 registered nonprofits reporting total revenues of $50,000 or 
less on the IRS Form 990-N for Small Exempt Organizations and 261,784 
nonprofits reporting total revenues of $100,000 or less on some other 
version of the IRS Form 990 within 24 months of the August 2016 data 
release date.
    36. 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. Local governmental jurisdictions are classified in two 
categories--General purpose governments (county, municipal and

[[Page 45675]]

town or township) and Special purpose governments (special districts 
and independent school districts). Of this number there were 37,132 
General purpose governments (county (there were 2,114 county 
governments with populations less than 50,000), municipal and town or 
township (there were 18,811 municipal and 16,207 town and township 
governments with populations less than 50,000) with populations of less 
than 50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school 
districts (there were 12,184 independent school districts with 
enrollment populations less than 50,000) 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.''
    37. 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.
    38. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses applicable to 
local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is 
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as defined in paragraph 10 of 
this FRFA. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 
3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with 
fewer than 1,000 employees. The Commission therefore estimates that 
most providers of local exchange carrier service are small entities.
    39. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (incumbent LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard for 
incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS Code 
category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined in paragraph 
10 of this FRFA. Under that size standard, such a business is small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 3,117 
firms operated in that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer 
than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most 
providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that 
may be affected by the rules and policies adopted. 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.
    40. 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 for these service 
providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers, as defined in paragraph 10 of this FRFA. 
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. U.S. Census 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 this 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. In addition, 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.
    41. 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 as defined in 
paragraph 10 of this FRFA. The applicable size standard under SBA rules 
is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to 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 
and 42 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of interexchange service providers are 
small entities that may be affected by the adopted rules.
    42. 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

[[Page 45676]]

estimates that the majority of Local Resellers are small entities.
    43. 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.
    44. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a size standard for small businesses 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 in paragraph 10 of this FRFA. 
Under that 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 Commission data, 284 companies reported 
that their primary telecommunications service activity was 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 that may be affected by our rules are small 
entities.
    45. 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. 
Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the 
number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the 
largest category provided is for firms with ``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.
    46. 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 in this document. For 
the purposes of this FRFA, consistent with Commission practice for 
wireless services, the Commission estimates the number of licensees 
based on the number of unique FCC Registration Numbers. 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.
    47. 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.
    48. 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 1000 employees or more. Available 
census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of 
firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest 
category provided is for firms with ``1000 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.
    49. 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.

[[Page 45677]]

Available census data does not provide a more precise estimate of the 
number of firms that have receipts of $38.5 million or less. Based on 
this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of firms 
operating in this industry are small.
    50. 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 nine 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.
    51. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, 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. We clarify 
that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on 
whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross 
annual revenues exceed $250 million. The Commission does receive such 
information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local 
franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a 
small cable operator pursuant to Sec.  76.901(f) of the Commission's 
rules. Although it seems certain that some of these cable system 
operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues 
exceed $250,000,000, 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.
    52. All Other Telecommunications. This category is comprised of 
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. 
Establishments providing internet services or voice over internet 
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications 
connections are also included in this industry. The SBA has developed a 
small business size standard for 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.

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

    53. This Order modifies the Commission's Truth in Caller ID rules 
by adopting in large part the language in section 227(e) as amended. 
The amended rules adopted in the Order do not contain reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    54. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): ``(1) The establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements 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 rule 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.''
    55. The relevant portions of the RAY BAUM'S Act do not distinguish 
between small entities and other entities and individuals. This Order 
largely tracks the statutory language and, as a result, the adopted 
revisions to the Commission's rules do not result in significant 
economic impact to small entities.

G. Report to Congress

    56. The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this 
FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. 
In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including 
this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the 
Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the 
Federal Register.

III. Ordering Clauses

    57. 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 
section 503(a)(5), Public Law 115-141, 132 Stat. 348, 1092 (2018), that 
this Second Report and Order is adopted.
    58. It is further ordered that part 64 of the Commission's rules 
are amended as set forth in the Final Rules.
    59. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.4(b)(1) 
and 1.103(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1), 1.103(a), and 
section 503(a)(5), Public Law 115-141, 132 Stat. 348, 1092 (2018), this 
Second Report and Order shall be effective six months after adoption 
and release of this Second Report and Order, or 30 days after 
publication of this Second Report and Order in the Federal Register, 
whichever is later.
    60. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of 
this Second Report and Order to Congress and to the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    61. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Second Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration.

[[Page 45678]]

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

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

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    The Federal Communications Commission amends part 64 of title 47 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations 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, 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; sec. 503, Pub. L. 115-141, 
132 Stat. 348.


0
2. Amend Sec.  64.1600 by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) and (f) 
through (l) and adding paragraphs (m) through (r) 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.
* * * * *
    (f) Charge number. The term ``charge number'' refers to the 
delivery of the calling party's billing number in a Signaling System 7 
environment by a local exchange carrier to any interconnecting carrier 
for billing or routing purposes, and to the subsequent delivery of such 
number to end users.
    (g) Information regarding the origination. The term ``information 
regarding the origination'' means any:
    (1) Telephone number;
    (2) Portion of a telephone number, such as an area code;
    (3) Name;
    (4) Location information;
    (5) Billing number information, including charge number, ANI, or 
pseudo-ANI; or
    (6) Other information regarding the source or apparent source of a 
telephone call.
    (h) Interconnected VoIP service. The term ``interconnected VoIP 
service'' has the same meaning given the term ``interconnected VoIP 
service'' in 47 CFR 9.3 as it currently exists or may hereafter be 
amended.
    (i) Intermediate provider. The term ``intermediate provider'' means 
any entity that carries or processes traffic that traverses or will 
traverse the public switched telephone network (PSTN) at any point 
insofar as that entity neither originates nor terminates that traffic.
    (j) N11 service code. For purposes of this subpart, the term ``N11 
service code'' means an abbreviated dialing code that allows telephone 
users to connect with a particular node in the network by dialing only 
three digits, of which the first digit is any digit other than `1' or 
`0', and each of the last two digits is `1'.
    (k) Multimedia message service (MMS). The term ``multimedia message 
service'' or MMS refers to a wireless messaging service that 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.
    (l) Privacy indicator. The term ``privacy indicator'' refers to 
information, contained in the calling party number parameter of the 
call set-up message associated with an interstate call on an Signaling 
System 7 network, that indicates whether the calling party authorizes 
presentation of the calling party number to the called party.
    (m) Short message service (SMS). The term ``short message service'' 
or SMS refers to 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.
    (n) Signaling System 7. The term ``Signaling System 7'' (SS7) 
refers to a carrier to carrier out-of-band signaling network used for 
call routing, billing and management.
    (o) 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 (o)(2) of this section.
    (p) 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.
    (q) Threatening call. The term ``threatening call'' is any call 
that conveys an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical 
injury to any person requiring disclosure without delay of information 
relating to the emergency.
    (r) 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) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended; 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) and removing the 
heading from paragraph (b) 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. 2019-18229 Filed 8-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P