Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Call Authentication Trust Anchor, 71888-71889 [2019-28136]

Download as PDF 71888 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules final rule, to allow for adequate implementation timelines as appropriate. Dated: December 19, 2019. Seema Verma, Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. [FR Doc. 2019–28179 Filed 12–26–19; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4120–01–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket No. 17–59, WC Docket No. 17– 97; DA 19–1312; FRS 16377] Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Call Authentication Trust Anchor Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: In this document, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau), in consultation with the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB), solicits input for the first staff report on call blocking, as directed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission). The Bureau seeks data and other information on the availability and effectiveness of callblocking tools offered to consumers, the impact of FCC actions on illegal calls, the impact of call blocking on 911 services and public safety, and any other information that may inform the Commission’s analysis of the state of deployment of advanced methods and tools to eliminate illegal and unwanted calls. DATES: Comments are due on or before January 29, 2020, and reply comments are due on or before February 28, 2020. 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 FCC’s website: http://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 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Dec 27, 2019 Jkt 250001 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: Karen Schroeder, Consumer Policy Division, CGB, at (202) 418–0654, email: Karen.Schroeder@fcc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission’s Public Notice, in CG Docket No. 17–59, WC Docket No. 17–97; document DA 19– 1312, released on December 20, 2019. 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 memorandum summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance 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). Synopsis 1. In June 2019, the FCC took action to further protect consumers from illegal and unwanted robocalls. The Commission also directed the Bureau, in consultation with WCB and PSHSB, to report on the implementation and effectiveness of blocking measures. The Commission specified that the Bureau address, among other things, the availability to consumers of callblocking solutions, the effectiveness of various categories of call-blocking tools, and the impact of previous Commission rule changes to allow voice service providers to block calls from phone numbers on a Do-Not-Originate list and those that purport to be from invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers. The Commission also asked that the Bureau study information on the impact of call blocking on 911 and public safety. 2. In the Public Notice, the Bureau solicits input for the first staff report on call blocking. PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 3. Availability of Call-Blocking Tools. The Bureau seeks data and other information on the availability of callblocking tools offered to consumers. What tools are available to consumers? Do voice service providers or others offer multiple versions of their tool from which consumers may choose? Are such tools offered on an opt-in basis or optout basis? Do the tools block calls at the network level, the device level, or elsewhere in the call path? Are such tools offered by a third party directly to the consumer or by the service provider? What fees, if any, do providers or third parties charge for these tools? What proportion of consumers subscribe to a provider that offers and/or enables call-blocking tools? How many subscribers avail themselves of the tools? Are new tools under development? 4. Effectiveness of Call-Blocking Tools. The Bureau seeks data and other information on the effectiveness of callblocking tools offered to consumers. What are the most appropriate metrics to measure the effectiveness of callblocking tools, e.g., by fraction of illegal calls blocked? How effective are available tools at blocking illegal and unwanted calls? What tools, if any, send an intercept message for blocked calls? How do blocking tools define false positives? What is the rate of false positives? How do the tools remedy false positives? What is the rate of false negatives (illegal or unwanted calls that reach consumers)? What is the number of illegal robocalls transiting the nation’s phone system? How is that number determined? 5. Impact of FCC Actions. How have voice service providers responded to the Commission’s actions to empower them to protect their customers from illegal calls, such as by blocking calls from phone numbers on a Do-Not-Originate list and those that purport to be from invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers? What initiatives have voice service providers implemented as a result of these and other actions by the Commission? Do voice service providers block Do-Not-Originate calls? Have consumers seen a corresponding reduction in scam calls from numbers on the Do-Not-Originate list, such as Internal Revenue Service and Social Security Administration numbers that unauthorized callers have fraudulently spoofed? Have voice service providers implemented the blocking of calls that purport to be from invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers? Do voice service providers offer opt-out call-blocking programs? If so, how many consumers have opted out? Do voice service providers offer opt-in white-list E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM 30DEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 249 / Monday, December 30, 2019 / Proposed Rules khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS blocking? If so, how many consumers have requested such blocking? 6. Impact on 911 Services and Public Safety. The Bureau seeks data and other information on the impact of call blocking on 911 services and public safety. Are legitimate calls to or from emergency numbers, either 911 or public safety ‘‘administrative numbers,’’ ever blocked? Emergency call centers generally employ protocols by which they will call back a number when a 911 call is dropped or otherwise terminated without a resolution. Do voice service providers or others employ call-blocking tools that may purposefully or inadvertently block a call back from a public safety answering point? Is there a means to ensure call backs from public safety numbers are completed? How are blocked calls reported and resolved? Do public safety entities experience unwanted or illegal calls that interfere VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:53 Dec 27, 2019 Jkt 250001 with their mission? Have voice service providers or others blocked unwanted calls at the request of state or local law enforcement? What processes, manual or automatic, do voice service providers or others use to facilitate blocking harassing calls to 911 or public safety administrative numbers? Do voice service providers or others perceive any legal impediments in the Commission’s rules or otherwise to blocking such calls? 7. Other Relevant Information. Finally, the Bureau seeks comment on any other information that may inform the Commission’s analysis of the state of deployment of advanced methods and tools to eliminate illegal and unwanted calls. 8. Confidential Treatment. Commenters seeking confidential treatment for all or part of their submissions should request such PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 71889 treatment. Where information could be competitively sensitive or could interfere with efforts to enforce compliance with the requirements of the Communications Act or the Commission’s rules (e.g., by allowing unlawful callers to circumvent filtering mechanisms), providers and industry groups may aggregate information without attributing practices or data to individual entities. Commenters may provide links to publicly available data or include Excel spreadsheets when they file their comments. The Bureau requests both data for 2019 and projected data through June 2020, if available. Federal Communications Commission. Eliot Greenwald, Deputy Chief, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau. [FR Doc. 2019–28136 Filed 12–27–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712–01–P E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM 30DEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71888-71889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28136]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 17-59, WC Docket No. 17-97; DA 19-1312; FRS 16377]


Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Call 
Authentication Trust Anchor

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau 
(Bureau), in consultation with the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) 
and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB), solicits input 
for the first staff report on call blocking, as directed by the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC or Commission). The Bureau seeks data 
and other information on the availability and effectiveness of call-
blocking tools offered to consumers, the impact of FCC actions on 
illegal calls, the impact of call blocking on 911 services and public 
safety, and any other information that may inform the Commission's 
analysis of the state of deployment of advanced methods and tools to 
eliminate illegal and unwanted calls.

DATES: Comments are due on or before January 29, 2020, and reply 
comments are due on or before February 28, 2020.

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] FCC's website: http://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: Karen Schroeder, Consumer Policy 
Division, CGB, at (202) 418-0654, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Public 
Notice, in CG Docket No. 17-59, WC Docket No. 17-97; document DA 19-
1312, released on December 20, 2019. 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 memorandum summarizing the 
presentations must contain summaries of the substance 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).

Synopsis

    1. In June 2019, the FCC took action to further protect consumers 
from illegal and unwanted robocalls. The Commission also directed the 
Bureau, in consultation with WCB and PSHSB, to report on the 
implementation and effectiveness of blocking measures. The Commission 
specified that the Bureau address, among other things, the availability 
to consumers of call-blocking solutions, the effectiveness of various 
categories of call-blocking tools, and the impact of previous 
Commission rule changes to allow voice service providers to block calls 
from phone numbers on a Do-Not-Originate list and those that purport to 
be from invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers. The Commission also 
asked that the Bureau study information on the impact of call blocking 
on 911 and public safety.
    2. In the Public Notice, the Bureau solicits input for the first 
staff report on call blocking.
    3. Availability of Call-Blocking Tools. The Bureau seeks data and 
other information on the availability of call-blocking tools offered to 
consumers. What tools are available to consumers? Do voice service 
providers or others offer multiple versions of their tool from which 
consumers may choose? Are such tools offered on an opt-in basis or opt-
out basis? Do the tools block calls at the network level, the device 
level, or elsewhere in the call path? Are such tools offered by a third 
party directly to the consumer or by the service provider? What fees, 
if any, do providers or third parties charge for these tools? What 
proportion of consumers subscribe to a provider that offers and/or 
enables call-blocking tools? How many subscribers avail themselves of 
the tools? Are new tools under development?
    4. Effectiveness of Call-Blocking Tools. The Bureau seeks data and 
other information on the effectiveness of call-blocking tools offered 
to consumers. What are the most appropriate metrics to measure the 
effectiveness of call-blocking tools, e.g., by fraction of illegal 
calls blocked? How effective are available tools at blocking illegal 
and unwanted calls? What tools, if any, send an intercept message for 
blocked calls? How do blocking tools define false positives? What is 
the rate of false positives? How do the tools remedy false positives? 
What is the rate of false negatives (illegal or unwanted calls that 
reach consumers)? What is the number of illegal robocalls transiting 
the nation's phone system? How is that number determined?
    5. Impact of FCC Actions. How have voice service providers 
responded to the Commission's actions to empower them to protect their 
customers from illegal calls, such as by blocking calls from phone 
numbers on a Do-Not-Originate list and those that purport to be from 
invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers? What initiatives have voice 
service providers implemented as a result of these and other actions by 
the Commission? Do voice service providers block Do-Not-Originate 
calls? Have consumers seen a corresponding reduction in scam calls from 
numbers on the Do-Not-Originate list, such as Internal Revenue Service 
and Social Security Administration numbers that unauthorized callers 
have fraudulently spoofed? Have voice service providers implemented the 
blocking of calls that purport to be from invalid, unallocated, or 
unused numbers? Do voice service providers offer opt-out call-blocking 
programs? If so, how many consumers have opted out? Do voice service 
providers offer opt-in white-list

[[Page 71889]]

blocking? If so, how many consumers have requested such blocking?
    6. Impact on 911 Services and Public Safety. The Bureau seeks data 
and other information on the impact of call blocking on 911 services 
and public safety. Are legitimate calls to or from emergency numbers, 
either 911 or public safety ``administrative numbers,'' ever blocked? 
Emergency call centers generally employ protocols by which they will 
call back a number when a 911 call is dropped or otherwise terminated 
without a resolution. Do voice service providers or others employ call-
blocking tools that may purposefully or inadvertently block a call back 
from a public safety answering point? Is there a means to ensure call 
backs from public safety numbers are completed? How are blocked calls 
reported and resolved? Do public safety entities experience unwanted or 
illegal calls that interfere with their mission? Have voice service 
providers or others blocked unwanted calls at the request of state or 
local law enforcement? What processes, manual or automatic, do voice 
service providers or others use to facilitate blocking harassing calls 
to 911 or public safety administrative numbers? Do voice service 
providers or others perceive any legal impediments in the Commission's 
rules or otherwise to blocking such calls?
    7. Other Relevant Information. Finally, the Bureau seeks comment on 
any other information that may inform the Commission's analysis of the 
state of deployment of advanced methods and tools to eliminate illegal 
and unwanted calls.
    8. Confidential Treatment. Commenters seeking confidential 
treatment for all or part of their submissions should request such 
treatment. Where information could be competitively sensitive or could 
interfere with efforts to enforce compliance with the requirements of 
the Communications Act or the Commission's rules (e.g., by allowing 
unlawful callers to circumvent filtering mechanisms), providers and 
industry groups may aggregate information without attributing practices 
or data to individual entities. Commenters may provide links to 
publicly available data or include Excel spreadsheets when they file 
their comments. The Bureau requests both data for 2019 and projected 
data through June 2020, if available.

Federal Communications Commission.
Eliot Greenwald,
Deputy Chief, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2019-28136 Filed 12-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P