Implementing the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act, 35406-35411 [2020-10896]
Download as PDF
35406
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules
information collection requirements
contained in this document, contact
Nicole Ongele, Office of Managing
Director, at (202) 418–2991 or
Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov.
Federal Communications Commission.
Ronald T. Repasi,
Acting Chief, Office of Engineering and
Technology.
[FR Doc. 2020–12417 Filed 6–9–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[EB Docket No. 20–22; FCC 20–34]
Implementing the Pallone-Thune
Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal
Enforcement and Deterrence Act
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission invites comment on what
action the Commission should take,
pursuant to the Pallone-Thune
Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal
Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED)
Act, if the registered consortium
contemplated by the TRACED Act
identifies a provider of voice service
subject to a delay of compliance with
the STIR/SHAKEN implementation
mandate as repeatedly originating largescale unlawful robocall campaigns.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
July 10, 2020 and reply comments are
due on or before July 27, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by EB Docket No. 20–22, by
any of the following methods:
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/
ecfs2/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number.
Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• If FCC Headquarters is open to the
public, all hand-delivered or messenger-
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Jun 09, 2020
Jkt 250001
delivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW, Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information on this
proceeding, contact Mason Shefa of the
Competition Policy Division, Wireline
Competition Bureau, at Mason.Shefa@
fcc.gov or (202) 418–2962.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC
20–34, EB Docket No. 20–22, adopted
on March 27, 2020 and released on
March 27, 2020. The full text of this
document is available for public
inspection during regular business
hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445
12th Street SW, Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554, or online at
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/
attachments/FCC-20-34A1.pdf. To
request this document in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (e.g.,
Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format, etc.) or to request
reasonable accommodations (e.g.,
accessible format documents, sign
language interpreters, CART, etc.), send
an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
FCC’s Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530
(voice), (202) 418–0432 (TTY).
Synopsis
I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. In this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Further Notice), the
Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) invites comment on the
interpretation and implementation of
section 4(b)(5)(C)(ii) and (iii) of the
Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall
Abuse Criminal Enforcement Act
(TRACED Act). The TRACED Act
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
mandates the widespread
implementation of STIR/SHAKEN, a
technology that enables voice service
providers to verify that the caller ID
information transmitted with a
particular call matches the caller’s
number, but also contemplates that
some voice service providers facing
barriers to implementation may be
granted a delay of compliance. To keep
such providers from becoming new
sources of unlawful robocalls, the
TRACED Act requires the Commission
to take action if the registered
consortium identifies a provider of
voice service that is subject to a delay
of compliance as repeatedly originating
large-scale unlawful robocall
campaigns.
2. By what standard should the
consortium identify voice service
providers that are originating unlawful
robocall campaigns, and how should the
consortium assess whether a campaign
is ‘‘large-scale’’? What does ‘‘unlawful
robocall campaigns’’ mean? The
TRACED Act defines ‘‘suspected
unlawful robocall’’ as calls that the
Commission or a voice service provider
reasonably believes to violate sections
227(b) or (e) of the Communications
Act. Is the term ‘‘unlawful robocall’’ in
section 4(b)(5)(C) of the TRACED Act
narrower than ‘‘suspected unlawful
robocall,’’ in section 13 of the TRACED
Act, and if so, what level of certainty
does it require? At what point would a
series of unlawful calls become a
‘‘campaign’’? Does ‘‘campaign’’ suggest
a pattern of calls that appear to be
coordinated? How should the
consortium assess whether a campaign
is ‘‘large-scale’’? Should ‘‘large-scale’’
refer only to call volume, or does it
account for other factors such as burden
on networks?
3. Once a provider has been identified
by the registered consortium, the
Commission must require the provider
to take action to ensure that such
provider does not continue to originate
such calls and make reasonable efforts
to minimize the burden of any such
robocall mitigation, which may include
prescribing certain specific robocall
mitigation practices for providers of
voice service that have repeatedly
originated large-scale unlawful robocall
campaigns.
4. What action or actions should we
require of identified providers to ensure
they do not continue to originate
unlawful robocalls? Should we
prescribe specific robocall mitigation
practices, and if so, what practices
should we prescribe? Should we require
an identified provider to submit to close
monitoring of its practices? Should we,
the registered consortium, or some
E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.SGM
10JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules
independent third party monitor these
practices? Should we require the
identified provider to submit a
compliance plan and periodic reports
on its efforts to conform to that plan?
Should we propose that an identified
provider make a point of contact
available to the Commission, the
consortium, and others and to respond
to concerns within a specified period of
time, such as 14 days? Should we
require an identified provider to
implement know-your-customer
obligations—and report the contact
information for each of its customers to
the registered consortium or the
Commission? Should we require
identified providers to implement
internal measures to monitor the traffic
transiting their networks to ensure that
it is consistent with legitimate voice
traffic and to act in response to aberrant
patterns? What are the benefits and
drawbacks of these approaches?
5. Finally, as required by the TRACED
Act, how can we ensure that any
robocall mitigation requirements are not
overly burdensome, but achieve the goal
of mitigating robocalls originated by
voice service providers identified as
originating large-scale unlawful robocall
campaigns? Should we prescribe
specific robocall mitigation practices for
the identified providers? Do
commenters have other suggestions for
how we should address voice service
providers who are identified as
originating unlawful robocall
campaigns? We emphasize that we will
continue to take enforcement action
against perpetrators of unlawful robocall
campaigns.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
6. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. As required by the RFA, the
Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
of the possible significant economic
impact on small entities of the policies
and rules addressed in the Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further
Notice). Written public comments are
requested on the IRFA. Comments must
be filed by the deadlines for comments
on the Further Notice indicated on the
first page of this document and must
have a separate and distinct heading
designating them as responses to the
IRFA. The Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, will send a copy of
this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Jun 09, 2020
Jkt 250001
Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
7. The Further Notice continues the
Commission’s efforts to combat illegal
spoofed robocalls and fulfill its
obligations under the TRACED Act. In
the Further Notice, the Commission
poses questions and issues for
commenters to address which will
shape the final rules adopted in this
proceeding. More specifically, pursuant
to its obligations in section 4(b)(5)(C)(ii)
of the TRACED Act, the Commission
seeks input on standards and on how to
guide a consortium’s identification of
voice service providers that ‘‘repeatedly
originat[e] large-scale unlawful robocall
campaigns.’’ The Commission also seeks
input on what actions we should take
once such providers are identified,
whether to adopt robocall mitigation
practices, what type and whether or not
to require compliance plans and
whether and what type of reporting
obligations should be implemented.
Finally, as required by the TRACED Act,
the Commission inquires how it can
ensure that any robocall mitigation
requirements that are adopted are not
overly burdensome while
simultaneously mitigating robocalls
originated by voice service providers
identified as originating large-scale
unlawful robocall campaigns.
Legal Basis
8. The proposed action is authorized
under sections 4(i), 4(j), 227, and 303(r)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(1), 154(j), 227,
and 303(r), and section 4(b)(5)(C) of the
Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall
Abuse Criminal Enforcement and
Deterrence Act, Public Law 116–105,
133 Stat. 3274.
Description and Estimate of the Number
of Small Entities to Which the Proposed
Rules Will Apply
9. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rules on which the Notice
seeks comment, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small-business concern’’
under the Small Business Act. A ‘‘smallbusiness concern’’ is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2)
is not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35407
Wireline Carriers
10. 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. U.S. Census
Bureau 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.
11. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to
local exchange services. The closest
applicable NAICS Code category is
Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under the applicable SBA size standard,
such a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau
data for 2012 show that 3,117 firms
operated for the entire year. Of that
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than
1,000 employees. Thus under this
category and the associated size
standard, the Commission estimates that
the majority of local exchange carriers
are small entities.
12. Incumbent LECs. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a small-business size standard
specifically for incumbent local
exchange services. The closest
applicable NAICS Code category is
Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under the applicable SBA size standard,
such a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau
data for 2012 indicates that 3,117 firms
operated the entire year. Of this total,
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Consequently, the
E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.SGM
10JNP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
35408
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Commission estimates that most
providers of incumbent local exchange
service are small businesses that may be
affected by our actions. According to
Commission data, 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.
13. Competitive Local Exchange
Carriers (Competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs),
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
Other Local Service Providers. Neither
the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small-business size
standard specifically for these service
providers. The most appropriate NAICS
Code category is Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under
that size standard, such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012
indicate that 3,117 firms operated
during that year. Of that number, 3,083
operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Based on these data, the
Commission concludes that the majority
of Competitive LECS, CAPs, SharedTenant 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.
Additionally, 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.
14. We have included small
incumbent LECs in this present RFA
analysis. As noted above, a ‘‘small
business’’ under the RFA is one that,
inter alia, meets the pertinent smallbusiness size standard (e.g., a telephone
communications business having 1,500
or fewer employees) and ‘‘is not
dominant in its field of operation.’’ The
SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that,
for RFA purposes, small incumbent
LECs are not dominant in their field of
operation because any such dominance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Jun 09, 2020
Jkt 250001
is not ‘‘national’’ in scope. We have
therefore included small incumbent
LECs in this RFA analysis, although we
emphasize that this RFA action has no
effect on Commission analyses and
determinations in other, non-RFA
contexts.
15. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a definition for
Interexchange Carriers. The closest
NAICS Code category is Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. The
applicable size standard under SBA
rules is that such a business is small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate
that 3,117 firms operated for the entire
year. Of that number, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees.
According to internally developed
Commission data, 359 companies
reported that their primary
telecommunications service activity was
the provision of interexchange services.
Of this total, an estimated 317 have
1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of
interexchange service providers are
small entities.
16. 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.’’ As of 2018, there were
approximately 50,504,624 cable video
subscribers in the United States.
Accordingly, an operator serving fewer
than 505,046 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 six incumbent cable
operators are small entities under this
size standard. We note that the
Commission neither requests nor
collects information on whether cable
system operators are affiliated with
entities whose gross annual revenues
exceed $250 million. Therefore, 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.
17. Cable Companies and Systems
(Rate Regulation). The Commission has
also developed its own small business
size standards, for the purpose of cable
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 4,600 active cable systems in
the United States. Of this total, all but
seven 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.
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.
Wireless Carriers
18. 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 Bureau 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
1,000 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.
19. The Commission’s own data—
available in its Universal Licensing
System—indicate that, as of August 31,
2018, there are 265 Cellular licensees
that will be affected by our actions
today. The Commission does not know
how many of these licensees are small,
as the Commission does not collect that
information for these types of entities.
Similarly, according to internally
developed Commission data, 413
carriers reported that they were engaged
in the provision of wireless telephony,
including cellular service, Personal
Communications Service (PCS), and
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
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
E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.SGM
10JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
data, we estimate that the majority of
wireless firms can be considered small.
20. Satellite Telecommunications.
This category comprises firms
‘‘primarily engaged in providing
telecommunications services to other
establishments in the
telecommunications and broadcasting
industries by forwarding and receiving
communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite
telecommunications.’’ Satellite
telecommunications service providers
include satellite and earth station
operators. The category has a small
business size standard of $32.5 million
or less in average annual receipts, under
SBA rules. For this category, U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that
there were a total of 333 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 299 firms had annual receipts of
less than $25 million. Consequently, we
estimate that the majority of satellite
telecommunications providers are small
entities.
Resellers
21. Local Resellers. The SBA has not
developed a small business size
standard specifically for Local Resellers.
The SBA category of
Telecommunications Resellers is the
closest NAICs code category for local
resellers. The Telecommunications
Resellers industry comprises
establishments engaged in purchasing
access and network capacity from
owners and operators of
telecommunications networks and
reselling wired and wireless
telecommunications services (except
satellite) to businesses and households.
Establishments in this industry resell
telecommunications; they do not
operate transmission facilities and
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network
operators (MVNOs) are included in this
industry. Under the SBA’s size
standard, such a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that
1,341 firms provided resale services
during that year. Of that number, all
operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Thus, under this category
and the associated small-business size
standard, the majority of these resellers
can be considered small entities.
According to Commission data, 213
carriers have reported that they are
engaged in the provision of local resale
services. Of these, an estimated 211
have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of Local
Resellers are small entities.
22. Toll Resellers. The Commission
has not developed a definition for Toll
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Jun 09, 2020
Jkt 250001
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. U.S. Census Bureau
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.
23. Prepaid Calling Card Providers.
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business
definition specifically for prepaid
calling card providers. The most
appropriate NAICS code-based category
for defining prepaid calling card
providers is Telecommunications
Resellers. This industry comprises
establishments engaged in purchasing
access and network capacity from
owners and operators of
telecommunications networks and
reselling wired and wireless
telecommunications services (except
satellite) to businesses and households.
Establishments in this industry resell
telecommunications; they do not
operate transmission facilities and
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network
operators (MVNOs) are included in this
industry. Under that size standard, such
a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. 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 prepaid calling card
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35409
providers can be considered small
entities. According to Commission data,
193 carriers have reported that they are
engaged in the provision of prepaid
calling cards. All 193 carriers have
1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of prepaid
calling card providers are small entities
that may be affected by these rules.
24. 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.
U.S. Census Bureau 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.
Other Entities
25. All Other Telecommunications.
The ‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’
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 clientsupplied 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 $35 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
E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.SGM
10JNP1
35410
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
26. New or additional reporting,
recordkeeping and/or other compliance
obligations for small entities and other
providers may result from the rules the
Commission ultimately adopts in this
proceeding. The TRACED Act mandates
widespread implementation of STIR/
SHAKEN, a technology that enables
voice service providers to verify that the
caller ID information transmitted with a
particular call matches the caller’s
number, but also contemplates that
some voice service providers facing
barriers to implementation may be
granted a delay of compliance. The
TRACED Act requires the Commission
to take action if the registered
consortium identifies a provider of
voice service that is subject to a delay
of compliance as repeatedly originating
large-scale unlawful robocall
campaigns. Once a provider is so
identified, the Commission must require
such a provider to take action to ensure
that such provider does not continue to
originate such calls and make
reasonable efforts to minimize the
burden of any robocall mitigation. . . .
which may include prescribing certain
specific robocall mitigation practices for
providers of voice service that have
repeatedly originated large-scale
unlawful robocall campaigns. One of the
potential practices we raise and seek
comment on in the Further Notice to
fulfill these obligations would require
voice service providers that the
registered consortium identifies as
originating large-scale unlawful robocall
campaigns to submit a compliance plan
and file periodic reports on its efforts to
conform to that plan to ensure that these
providers do not continue to originate
such calls. Another potential practice
would require identified voice service
providers to implement know-yourcustomer obligations and report the
contact information for each of its
customers to the registered consortium
or the Commission. The Further Notice
also seeks comment on adopting a
requirement for identified providers to
implement internal measures to monitor
the traffic transiting their networks to
ensure that it is consistent with
legitimate voice traffic and to act in
response to aberrant patterns.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Jun 09, 2020
Jkt 250001
27. If the Commission were to move
forward with these potential
requirements, certain voice service
providers would have new reporting,
recordkeeping, and compliance
requirements. At this time however, the
Commission cannot quantify the cost of
compliance with these potential rule
changes and compliance obligations for
small entities and is not currently in a
position to determine whether small
entities will need to hire attorneys,
engineers, consultants, or other
professionals in order to comply. We
expect the information we receive in
comments including any cost and
benefit analyses, to help the
Commission identify and evaluate
relevant matters for small entities,
including compliance costs and other
burdens that may result from the
matters raised in the Further Notice.
Steps Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered
28. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, specifically
small business, alternatives that it has
considered in reaching its proposed
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements
under the rules for such small entities;
(3) the use of performance rather than
design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part
thereof, for such small entities.
29. Pursuant to the requirements of
the TRACED Act, the Commission is
obligated to minimize burdens for small
entities and other voice service
providers associated with any robocall
mitigation processes and procedures the
Commission adopts. In the Further
Notice we raise questions on the
approach the Commission should take
to address robocall mitigation such as
should we prescribe specific robocall
mitigation practices, and if so, what
practices should we prescribe? Should
we require the identified provider to
submit a compliance plan and periodic
reports on its efforts to conform to that
plan? Should we propose that an
identified provider make a point of
contact available to the Commission, the
consortium, and others and to respond
to concerns within a specified period of
time, such as 14 days? We seek
comment on these matters, including
the benefits and drawbacks of our
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
approach. We also seek comment on
how identified voice service providers
will be impacted and welcome
proposals on how to lessen that impact.
In reaching our final conclusions and
promulgating rules in this proceeding,
the Commission expects to more fully
consider the economic impact and any
alternatives for small entities, as
identified in comments filed in response
to the Further Notice.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
30. None.
III. Other Procedural Matters
31. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding
shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance
with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
Persons making ex parte presentations
must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte was
made, and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda, or other
filing in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meeting are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with section
1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules. In
proceedings governed by section 1.49(f)
of the Commission’s rules or for which
the Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable.pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.SGM
10JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 10, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
32. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act
Analysis of 1995. The Further Notice
contains proposed new information
collection requirements. The
Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens,
invites the general public and the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) to
comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this
document, as required by the paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–
13. In addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:10 Jun 09, 2020
Jkt 250001
Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on
how we might further reduce the
information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.
IV. Ordering Clauses
33. Accordingly, it is ordered,
pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 227, and
303(r) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(1),
154(j), 227, and 303(r), and section
4(b)(5)(C) of the Pallone-Thune
Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal
Enforcement and Deterrence Act, Public
Law 116–105, 133 Stat. 3274, that this
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
35411
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
is adopted.
34. It is further ordered, that a copy
this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA),
SHALL be sent to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA), and published in
the Federal Register.
Federal Communications Commission.
Cecilia Sigmund,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020–10896 Filed 6–9–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.SGM
10JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 10, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35406-35411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10896]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[EB Docket No. 20-22; FCC 20-34]
Implementing the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal
Enforcement and Deterrence Act
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission invites comment on what
action the Commission should take, pursuant to the Pallone-Thune
Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED)
Act, if the registered consortium contemplated by the TRACED Act
identifies a provider of voice service subject to a delay of compliance
with the STIR/SHAKEN implementation mandate as repeatedly originating
large-scale unlawful robocall campaigns.
DATES: Comments are due on or before July 10, 2020 and reply comments
are due on or before July 27, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by EB Docket No. 20-22,
by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[Igr]f FCC Headquarters is open to the public, all hand-
delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's
Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW,
Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands
or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
U.S. Postal Service first class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Mason Shefa of the Competition Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau, at [email protected] or (202) 418-2962.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 20-34, EB Docket No. 20-22,
adopted on March 27, 2020 and released on March 27, 2020. The full text
of this document is available for public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room
CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, or online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-34A1.pdf. To request this document in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (e.g., Braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format, etc.) or to request reasonable
accommodations (e.g., accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.), send an email to [email protected] or call the
FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Synopsis
I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice),
the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) invites comment on
the interpretation and implementation of section 4(b)(5)(C)(ii) and
(iii) of the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal
Enforcement Act (TRACED Act). The TRACED Act mandates the widespread
implementation of STIR/SHAKEN, a technology that enables voice service
providers to verify that the caller ID information transmitted with a
particular call matches the caller's number, but also contemplates that
some voice service providers facing barriers to implementation may be
granted a delay of compliance. To keep such providers from becoming new
sources of unlawful robocalls, the TRACED Act requires the Commission
to take action if the registered consortium identifies a provider of
voice service that is subject to a delay of compliance as repeatedly
originating large-scale unlawful robocall campaigns.
2. By what standard should the consortium identify voice service
providers that are originating unlawful robocall campaigns, and how
should the consortium assess whether a campaign is ``large-scale''?
What does ``unlawful robocall campaigns'' mean? The TRACED Act defines
``suspected unlawful robocall'' as calls that the Commission or a voice
service provider reasonably believes to violate sections 227(b) or (e)
of the Communications Act. Is the term ``unlawful robocall'' in section
4(b)(5)(C) of the TRACED Act narrower than ``suspected unlawful
robocall,'' in section 13 of the TRACED Act, and if so, what level of
certainty does it require? At what point would a series of unlawful
calls become a ``campaign''? Does ``campaign'' suggest a pattern of
calls that appear to be coordinated? How should the consortium assess
whether a campaign is ``large-scale''? Should ``large-scale'' refer
only to call volume, or does it account for other factors such as
burden on networks?
3. Once a provider has been identified by the registered
consortium, the Commission must require the provider to take action to
ensure that such provider does not continue to originate such calls and
make reasonable efforts to minimize the burden of any such robocall
mitigation, which may include prescribing certain specific robocall
mitigation practices for providers of voice service that have
repeatedly originated large-scale unlawful robocall campaigns.
4. What action or actions should we require of identified providers
to ensure they do not continue to originate unlawful robocalls? Should
we prescribe specific robocall mitigation practices, and if so, what
practices should we prescribe? Should we require an identified provider
to submit to close monitoring of its practices? Should we, the
registered consortium, or some
[[Page 35407]]
independent third party monitor these practices? Should we require the
identified provider to submit a compliance plan and periodic reports on
its efforts to conform to that plan? Should we propose that an
identified provider make a point of contact available to the
Commission, the consortium, and others and to respond to concerns
within a specified period of time, such as 14 days? Should we require
an identified provider to implement know-your-customer obligations--and
report the contact information for each of its customers to the
registered consortium or the Commission? Should we require identified
providers to implement internal measures to monitor the traffic
transiting their networks to ensure that it is consistent with
legitimate voice traffic and to act in response to aberrant patterns?
What are the benefits and drawbacks of these approaches?
5. Finally, as required by the TRACED Act, how can we ensure that
any robocall mitigation requirements are not overly burdensome, but
achieve the goal of mitigating robocalls originated by voice service
providers identified as originating large-scale unlawful robocall
campaigns? Should we prescribe specific robocall mitigation practices
for the identified providers? Do commenters have other suggestions for
how we should address voice service providers who are identified as
originating unlawful robocall campaigns? We emphasize that we will
continue to take enforcement action against perpetrators of unlawful
robocall campaigns.
II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
6. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the RFA,
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of
the policies and rules addressed in the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Further Notice). Written public comments are requested on
the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the
Further Notice indicated on the first page of this document and must
have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to
the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
7. The Further Notice continues the Commission's efforts to combat
illegal spoofed robocalls and fulfill its obligations under the TRACED
Act. In the Further Notice, the Commission poses questions and issues
for commenters to address which will shape the final rules adopted in
this proceeding. More specifically, pursuant to its obligations in
section 4(b)(5)(C)(ii) of the TRACED Act, the Commission seeks input on
standards and on how to guide a consortium's identification of voice
service providers that ``repeatedly originat[e] large-scale unlawful
robocall campaigns.'' The Commission also seeks input on what actions
we should take once such providers are identified, whether to adopt
robocall mitigation practices, what type and whether or not to require
compliance plans and whether and what type of reporting obligations
should be implemented. Finally, as required by the TRACED Act, the
Commission inquires how it can ensure that any robocall mitigation
requirements that are adopted are not overly burdensome while
simultaneously mitigating robocalls originated by voice service
providers identified as originating large-scale unlawful robocall
campaigns.
Legal Basis
8. The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 4(j),
227, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 154(1), 154(j), 227, and 303(r), and section 4(b)(5)(C) of the
Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and
Deterrence Act, Public Law 116-105, 133 Stat. 3274.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
9. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules on which the Notice seeks comment, if
adopted. The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having
the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition,
the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small-
business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A ``small-business
concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the SBA.
Wireline Carriers
10. 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. U.S. Census Bureau 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.
11. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS
Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under the
applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 3,117
firms operated for the entire year. Of that total, 3,083 operated with
fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus under this category and the associated
size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of local
exchange carriers are small entities.
12. Incumbent LECs. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small-business size standard specifically for incumbent
local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under the applicable SBA size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicates that 3,117 firms operated
the entire year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Consequently, the
[[Page 35408]]
Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange
service are small businesses that may be affected by our actions.
According to Commission data, 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.
13. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small-business size standard specifically for these
service providers. The most appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that year. Of that
number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Based on these
data, the Commission concludes that the majority of Competitive LECS,
CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service
Providers are small entities. According to Commission data, 1,442
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either
competitive local exchange services or competitive access provider
services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or
fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that they are
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500
or fewer employees. Additionally, 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.
14. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA
analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one
that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small-business size standard
(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer
employees) and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's
Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent
LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such
dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore included
small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that
this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations
in other, non-RFA contexts.
15. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a definition for Interexchange Carriers. The closest
NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The
applicable size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for
2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated for the entire year. Of that
number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. According to
internally developed Commission data, 359 companies reported that their
primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of
interexchange services. Of this total, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or
fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the
majority of interexchange service providers are small entities.
16. 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.'' As of 2018, there were
approximately 50,504,624 cable video subscribers in the United States.
Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 505,046 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
six incumbent cable operators are small entities under this size
standard. We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects
information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with
entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore, 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.
17. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission
has also 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 4,600 active cable
systems in the United States. Of this total, all but seven 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.
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.
Wireless Carriers
18. 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 Bureau 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 1,000 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.
19. The Commission's own data--available in its Universal Licensing
System--indicate that, as of August 31, 2018, there are 265 Cellular
licensees that will be affected by our actions today. The Commission
does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission
does not collect that information for these types of entities.
Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless
telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service
(PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 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
[[Page 35409]]
data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered
small.
20. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth
station operators. The category has a small business size standard of
$32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For
this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a
total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total,
299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently,
we estimate that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers
are small entities.
Resellers
21. Local Resellers. The SBA has not developed a small business
size standard specifically for Local Resellers. The SBA category of
Telecommunications Resellers is the closest NAICs code category for
local resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises
establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from
owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired
and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to
businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell
telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included
in this industry. Under the SBA's size standard, such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for
2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year.
Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus,
under this category and the associated small-business size standard,
the majority of these resellers can be considered small entities.
According to Commission data, 213 carriers have reported that they are
engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these, an
estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority of Local Resellers are small
entities.
22. 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. U.S. Census Bureau 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.
23. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business definition specifically for prepaid
calling card providers. The most appropriate NAICS code-based category
for defining prepaid calling card providers is Telecommunications
Resellers. This industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing
access and network capacity from owners and operators of
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications;
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile
virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. Under
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. 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 prepaid
calling card providers can be considered small entities. According to
Commission data, 193 carriers have reported that they are engaged in
the provision of prepaid calling cards. All 193 carriers have 1,500 or
fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the
majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may
be affected by these rules.
24. 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. U.S. Census Bureau 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.
Other Entities
25. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other
Telecommunications'' 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 $35 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
[[Page 35410]]
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.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
26. New or additional reporting, recordkeeping and/or other
compliance obligations for small entities and other providers may
result from the rules the Commission ultimately adopts in this
proceeding. The TRACED Act mandates widespread implementation of STIR/
SHAKEN, a technology that enables voice service providers to verify
that the caller ID information transmitted with a particular call
matches the caller's number, but also contemplates that some voice
service providers facing barriers to implementation may be granted a
delay of compliance. The TRACED Act requires the Commission to take
action if the registered consortium identifies a provider of voice
service that is subject to a delay of compliance as repeatedly
originating large-scale unlawful robocall campaigns. Once a provider is
so identified, the Commission must require such a provider to take
action to ensure that such provider does not continue to originate such
calls and make reasonable efforts to minimize the burden of any
robocall mitigation. . . . which may include prescribing certain
specific robocall mitigation practices for providers of voice service
that have repeatedly originated large-scale unlawful robocall
campaigns. One of the potential practices we raise and seek comment on
in the Further Notice to fulfill these obligations would require voice
service providers that the registered consortium identifies as
originating large-scale unlawful robocall campaigns to submit a
compliance plan and file periodic reports on its efforts to conform to
that plan to ensure that these providers do not continue to originate
such calls. Another potential practice would require identified voice
service providers to implement know-your-customer obligations and
report the contact information for each of its customers to the
registered consortium or the Commission. The Further Notice also seeks
comment on adopting a requirement for identified providers to implement
internal measures to monitor the traffic transiting their networks to
ensure that it is consistent with legitimate voice traffic and to act
in response to aberrant patterns.
27. If the Commission were to move forward with these potential
requirements, certain voice service providers would have new reporting,
recordkeeping, and compliance requirements. At this time however, the
Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance with these potential
rule changes and compliance obligations for small entities and is not
currently in a position to determine whether small entities will need
to hire attorneys, engineers, consultants, or other professionals in
order to comply. We expect the information we receive in comments
including any cost and benefit analyses, to help the Commission
identify and evaluate relevant matters for small entities, including
compliance costs and other burdens that may result from the matters
raised in the Further Notice.
Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
28. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.
29. Pursuant to the requirements of the TRACED Act, the Commission
is obligated to minimize burdens for small entities and other voice
service providers associated with any robocall mitigation processes and
procedures the Commission adopts. In the Further Notice we raise
questions on the approach the Commission should take to address
robocall mitigation such as should we prescribe specific robocall
mitigation practices, and if so, what practices should we prescribe?
Should we require the identified provider to submit a compliance plan
and periodic reports on its efforts to conform to that plan? Should we
propose that an identified provider make a point of contact available
to the Commission, the consortium, and others and to respond to
concerns within a specified period of time, such as 14 days? We seek
comment on these matters, including the benefits and drawbacks of our
approach. We also seek comment on how identified voice service
providers will be impacted and welcome proposals on how to lessen that
impact. In reaching our final conclusions and promulgating rules in
this proceeding, the Commission expects to more fully consider the
economic impact and any alternatives for small entities, as identified
in comments filed in response to the Further Notice.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
30. None.
III. Other Procedural Matters
31. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-
but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's
written comments, memoranda, or other filing in the proceeding, the
presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her
prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant
page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be
found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown
or given to Commission staff during ex parte meeting are deemed to be
written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with
section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by
section 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for which the Commission
has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable.pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize
[[Page 35411]]
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
32. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis of 1995. The Further
Notice contains proposed new information collection requirements. The
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements
contained in this document, as required by the paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees.
IV. Ordering Clauses
33. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j),
227, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 154(1), 154(j), 227, and 303(r), and section 4(b)(5)(C) of the
Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and
Deterrence Act, Public Law 116-105, 133 Stat. 3274, that this Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
34. It is further ordered, that a copy this Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA), SHALL be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA), and published in the Federal
Register.
Federal Communications Commission.
Cecilia Sigmund,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-10896 Filed 6-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P