Targeting and Eliminating Unlawful Text Messages, 61271-61275 [2022-22049]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 11, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61271-61275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22049]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0 and 64

[CG Docket No. 21-402; FCC 22-72; FR ID 108336]


Targeting and Eliminating Unlawful Text Messages

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) proposes to require mobile wireless providers to block 
texts, at the network level, that purport to be from invalid, 
unallocated, or unused numbers, and numbers on a Do-Not-Originate (DNO) 
list. The document also seeks comment on the extent to which spoofing 
is a problem with regard to text messaging and whether there are 
measures the Commission can take to encourage providers to identify and 
block texts that appear to come from spoofed numbers. In addition, the 
document seeks comment on applying caller ID authentication standards 
to text messaging.

DATES: Comments are due on or before November 10, 2022 and reply 
comments are due on or before November 25, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 21-402, 
by any of the following methods:
     Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
     In the event that the Commission announces the lifting of 
COVID-19 restrictions, a filing window will be opened at the 
Commission's office located at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis, MD 
20701.
     People with Disabilities. To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or 
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 
(voice).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mika Savir of the Consumer Policy 
Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at 
[email protected] or (202) 418-0384.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 22-72, CG Docket No. 21-402, adopted on 
September 23, 2022, and released on September 27, 2022. The full text 
of this document is available online at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-blocking-illegal-text-messages.
    This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR 
1.1200 et seq. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded 
that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of 
the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the 
subjects discussed. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to 
oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose 
proceedings are set forth in Sec.  1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.1206(b).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document does not propose new or modified information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not propose 
any new or modified information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4).

Synopsis

    1. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission 
proposes to require mobile wireless providers to block text messages at 
the network level (i.e., without consumer opt in or opt out) that 
purport to be from invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers, and numbers 
on the Do-Not-Originate (DNO) list. These texts are highly likely to be 
illegal. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, including 
whether these text messages represent a material fraction of unwanted 
text messages. The Commission seeks comment on whether providers are 
blocking these types of messages today and, if so, how that blocking 
may inform the proposal. The Commission seeks comment on additional 
types of text blocking providers are currently doing, (e.g., blocking 
based on reasonable analytics). The Commission seeks comment on whether 
requiring mobile providers to block text messages at the network level 
is necessary or whether the Commission should simply continue to allow 
for such network level blocking. The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether numbers placed on the DNO list are used for illegal texts.
    2. Spoofing is where the caller disguises its number and instead 
shows the number of a neighbor or reputable source in the caller ID 
field in order to trick the recipient into thinking the call is 
trustworthy. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which 
spoofing is a problem with regard to text messaging. The Commission 
also seek comment on whether there are additional measures the 
Commission can take to encourage mobile wireless providers to block 
texts that appear to come from spoofed numbers.
    3. The Commission seeks comment on the need for mandatory blocking. 
The Commission seeks comment on whether increases in illegal texts may 
be a result of blocking unwanted calls and if the Commission should 
bring text blocking more in line with call blocking by requiring 
blocking from invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers, and numbers that 
otherwise appear to be spoofed, and therefore reduce the incentive for 
scammers to migrate to texting.
    4. The Commission seeks comment on the voluntary text blocking that 
providers are currently doing to protect their subscribers. The 
Commission also seeks comment on the effectiveness of device-level or 
application-based text blocking to reduce illegal texts and the 
prevalence of application-based (i.e., over the top, or OTT) text 
messaging and whether there are more or fewer illegal text messages 
sent on OTT services as opposed to through mobile wireless providers. 
The Commission seeks comment on how OTT messages differ in transmission 
characteristics from SMS and MMS texts, including their relationship to 
wireless telephone numbers and how likely the proposed regulations will 
mitigate the problem of illegal texts.
    5. The Commission seeks comment on whether the definition of text 
message

[[Page 61272]]

in the current rules would apply to OTT messages sent to wireless 
telephone numbers, but not to OTT messages sent to other users within 
the same application. The current definition of text message, in the 
Truth in Caller ID rules, includes SMS messages but ``does not include 
. . . a message sent over an IP-enabled messaging service to another 
user of the same messaging service.''
    6. The Commission also proposes that all tools that service 
providers use to determine whether a text is highly likely to be 
illegal be applied in a non-discriminatory, competitively- and content-
neutral manner. For example, blocking by a provider must not be based 
solely or in part on the identity of other providers in the text's 
transmission path. Nor may blocking be based on unfavored content. The 
Commission seeks comment on adopting the same ``highly likely to be 
illegal'' criteria adopted for call blocking and on additional 
standards for blocking that may prevent blocking of legal, legitimate 
(and wanted) texts, particularly in the case of one-to-many text 
messages.
    7. The Commission seeks comment on whether and how to protect 
consumers from erroneous blocking of emergency text messages. 
Commission rules require Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) and 
certain other text messaging providers to send 911 text messages to 
Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) that are capable of receiving 
them. Where the PSAP is not capable of receiving 911 texts, these 
providers must deliver an automatic bounce-back text message to any 
consumer attempting to text 911 stating that text-to-911 service is 
unavailable. The Commission states that it is improbable that text 
messages to 911 will be erroneously blocked and seeks comment on the 
risk of erroneous blocking of texts to 911 and on any mechanisms or 
standards the Commission should adopt to mitigate such risks.
    8. The Commission also seeks comment on whether illegal texting to 
911 poses a problem for PSAPs and, as a result, a threat to public 
safety. In addition, some text-capable PSAPs routinely send outbound 
text messages in response to hang-up calls or erroneously-dialed calls 
to 911. The Commission seeks comment on the risk of erroneous blocking 
of outbound texts from PSAPs and 911 call centers and whether there 
other types of non-911 health and safety text communications, such as 
public health notices, text-based public safety alerts, or texts to 
suicide prevention services such as the National Suicide Prevention 
Lifeline that are at risk of being erroneously blocked.
    9. The Commission has acknowledged that call blocking comes with a 
risk that consumers could miss wanted calls, and recognizes the same 
concerns exist with the text blocking. The Commission states that 
because the proposal is that text messages deemed highly likely to be 
illegal would be subject to blocking, the risk of erroneous blocking 
would be minimal. The Commission seeks comment on whether to apply 
safeguards to any text blocking requirements. For example, should the 
Commission require that each terminating provider that blocks texts 
provide a single point of contact, readily available on the terminating 
provider's public-facing website, for receiving text blocking error 
complaints and verifying the authenticity of the texts of a texting 
party that is adversely affected by information provided by caller ID 
authentication? If so, should the Commission require that the 
terminating provider resolve disputes pertaining to caller ID 
authentication information within a reasonable time and, at a minimum, 
provide a status update within 24 hours? When a texter makes a credible 
claim of erroneous blocking and the terminating provider determines 
that the texts should not have been blocked, or the text delivery 
decision is not appropriate, should the terminating provider be 
required to promptly cease the text treatment for that number unless 
circumstances change? The Commission seeks comment on these issues, any 
alternative ways of addressing disputed or erroneous blocking, and on 
whether the Commission should adopt legal safe harbors for service 
providers.
    10. The Commission seeks comment on whether to require providers to 
implement caller ID authentication for text messages. Industry 
technologists developed caller ID authentication-specifically, the 
STIR/SHAKEN framework for IP networks-to combat spoofing of voice 
calls. SHAKEN, or Signature-based Handling of Asserted information 
using toKENS, and STIR, or Secure Telephony Identity Revisited, uses 
public key cryptography to provide assurances that certain information 
about the transmitted caller ID is accurate. The Commission seeks 
comment on the progress of efforts to extend caller ID authentication 
to text messages. A working group of the internet Engineering Task 
Force (IETF) is currently considering a draft standard regarding 
application of some components of the STIR/SHAKEN framework to text 
messages. The Commission seeks comment on any additional work that 
needs to be done on the draft standard currently under consideration 
and on how long might it take to complete such work. Beyond that 
document, what, if any, additional standards work is necessary before 
authentication for text messages is operational?
    11. The Commission seeks comment on whether the current STIR/SHAKEN 
governance system is able to accommodate authentication for text 
messages, or would it need to be modified or a new governance system 
established. Once standards work is sufficiently complete, what steps 
must providers take to implement authentication for text messages in 
their network? Can existing network upgrades to meet the June 30, 2021, 
STIR/SHAKEN implementation mandate for voice calls be used in whole or 
in part to support authentication for text messages? Or would 
authentication for text messages require more comprehensive 
technological network upgrades? If so, what is the estimated amount of 
time it would take to install the technology and what would be the 
projected costs?
    12. The Commission tentatively concludes that providers should 
implement caller ID authentication for text messages and that such a 
requirement would spur standards groups to complete development of 
standards promptly. The Commission seeks comment on the timeline for 
implementation that accounts for the time needed both to finish 
standards and for providers to perform any necessary network upgrades. 
Would two years be sufficient time to complete standards development 
and implement necessary technology? Should the Commission instead 
require providers to implement caller ID for text messages when 
technically feasible, without setting a time-certain deadline? If so, 
how should the Commission define technically feasible? Alternatively, 
is an implementation requirement premature at this stage of standards 
development? If so, should the Commission instead require providers to 
work to develop text caller ID authentication standards, similar to the 
approach to non-IP caller ID authentication? Would this alternative 
approach sufficiently incentivize completion of new standards and 
deliver the benefits of those standards to Americans?
    13. When it adopted the STIR/SHAKEN mandate, the Commission 
determined the expected benefits of implementing STIR/SHAKEN would far 
exceed estimated costs. How can the Commission quantify the benefit of 
protecting American consumers from spoofed texts through an

[[Page 61273]]

implementation mandate for authentication for text messages? Are there 
any other benefits such a requirement would offer-for example, could 
authentication for text messages protect against malicious conduct 
toward text-to-911 services? What would be the costs of an 
implementation mandate? Will small mobile service providers face 
particular challenges in authenticating text messages? How might the 
Commission accommodate or mitigate such challenges?
    14. The Commission seeks comment on the scope of any implementation 
mandate for authentication for text messages. Could the Commission 
apply the requirement to providers of voice service who are subject to 
the STIR/SHAKEN implementation mandate that also provide text message 
services, on the basis that entities that both provide text messaging 
service and voice services are capable of implementing STIR/SHAKEN? Or 
should the Commission define a new class of providers subject to a 
mandate for authentication for text messages and how would the 
Commission define that class?
    15. What is the Commission's legal authority to create such a class 
and to regulate the members of any proposed class? Should the 
Commission instead follow the definition of text messaging service from 
the Truth in Caller ID Act and apply this obligation to providers of 
such service? Does this definition-which includes SMS messages but 
``does not include . . . a message sent over an IP-enabled messaging 
service to another user of the same messaging service''--adequately 
capture the scope of services Americans understand as ``text message 
service'' and through which bad actors defraud Americans using illegal 
and illegally spoofed robotexts? Should the Commission extend the scope 
of any implementation mandate to include some or all OTT applications 
delivered over IP-based mobile data networks? Rather than apply a 
mandate on a generally-defined class of text message service providers, 
are there any unique types of providers the Commission should focus on 
in particular? Should the Commission include interconnected OTT text 
messaging service providers?
    16. Is there a reason to apply any requirements to intermediate 
text message providers or aggregators, as in the STIR/SHAKEN context 
for voice calls? If the Commission applies requirements to intermediate 
providers, should the requirement apply to intermediate providers who 
are subject to the existing STIR/SHAKEN rules and support text 
messages, or use a new definition? If the Commission adopts a new 
definition for intermediate text message provider, what should that 
definition be?
    17. Should the Commission subject voice service providers and 
intermediate providers (or the equivalent groups established for 
purposes of a rule) to substantially the same obligations as under the 
STIR/SHAKEN rules? Or should the Commission create new obligations 
specific to the text message context? If so, what obligations?
    18. The Commission also seeks comment on other implementation 
issues. For instance, should the Commission allow for extensions of the 
deadline for certain providers or classes of providers, or types of 
text messages? If so, should the Commission simply grant the same 
categorical extensions as the Commission did for the STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation mandate, or are there differences between text message 
service providers and voice service providers that require different 
categories of providers to receive extensions? Alternatively, should 
the Commission follow the undue hardship standard or some other 
standard to evaluate requested extensions?
    19. Should the Commission require providers with non-IP network 
technology to work to develop a non-IP solution to enable the 
authentication for text messages on non-IP networks, or is there a 
different approach to address non-IP network technology? Should the 
Commission prohibit providers from imposing additional line-item 
charges for authentication for text messages? Should the Commission 
establish rules regarding the display on subscriber devices of any 
information produced by authentication for text messages, or continue 
to take a hands-off approach to display?
    20. The Commission seeks comment on other actions to address 
illegal text messages. How can consumer education help to address the 
problem? Are there ways the Commission could encourage consumers to 
file complaints about illegal text messages in order to inform and 
potentially enhance enforcement efforts?
    21. Are there ways the Commission can enhance its spam text message 
consumer education outreach and content? Are there roles advisory 
committees such as the Commission's Consumer Advisory Committee and the 
North American Numbering Council (NANC) could play in further educating 
consumers? The Commission seeks comment on whether text messages are 
more likely to be trusted than a call; if so, are there practices 
consumers and companies can adopt to maintain trust in text messages 
and to ensure they remain an effective tool for communication? The 
Commission seeks comment on how the Commission can educate consumers 
with regard to these practices.
    22. Finally, the Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
advance digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with 
disabilities, persons who live in rural or tribal areas, and others who 
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely 
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any 
equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be 
associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. 
Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how these proposals may 
promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and 
accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal 
authority.
    23. The Commission seeks comment on the authority to adopt the 
measures described in this NPRM. Does the Commission have authority 
under section 251(e) of the Act, which provides ``exclusive 
jurisdiction over those portions of the North American Numbering Plan 
that pertain to the United States?'' The Commission found authority to 
implement STIR/SHAKEN for voice service providers under section 251(e) 
of the Act in order to prevent the fraudulent exploitation of numbering 
resources. Does that section grant authority to mandate implementation 
of authentication for text messages as well, or does it not apply to 
text messages? Similarly, the Commission has relied on section 251(e) 
of the Act to support call blocking. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether that authority extends to text messages. Would exercise of 
ancillary authority, which the Commission relied on in part to apply an 
obligation on providers of interconnected text messaging services when 
it adopted text-to-911 requirements, be necessary or appropriate to 
support the proposed implementation mandate? Is there another relevant 
statute under which the Commission has authority to mandate that 
providers implement authentication for text messages? For example, 
might the TRACED Act or the TCPA provide authority for the proposals? 
Should the Commission seek additional authority from Congress? The 
Commission seeks comment on the impact of the scope of texts subject to 
the TCPA following the Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid decision.
    24. The Commission seeks comment on the authority under the Truth 
in

[[Page 61274]]

Caller ID Act and whether the Truth in Caller ID Act provides authority 
for any implementation mandate adopted pertaining to spoofing. That Act 
makes unlawful the spoofing of caller ID information ``in connection 
with any telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service or text 
messaging service . . . with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or 
wrongfully obtain anything of value.'' The Truth in Caller ID Act 
directed the Commission to adopt rules to implement that section. The 
Commission found authority under this provision to mandate STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation, explaining that it was ``necessary to enable voice 
service providers to help prevent these unlawful acts and to protect 
voice service subscribers from scammers and bad actors.'' The 
Commission seeks comment on whether that same reasoning applies here.
    25. The Commission seeks comment on the scope of authority under 
Title III of the Act to undertake the measures described above. Several 
provisions of Title III of the Act provide the Commission authority to 
establish license conditions in the public interest. For example, 
section 301 of the Act provides the Commission with authority to 
regulate ``radio communications'' and ``transmission of energy by 
radio.'' Under section 303 of the Act, the Commission has the authority 
to establish operational obligations for licensees that further the 
goals and requirements of the Act if the obligations are in the 
``public convenience, interest, or necessity'' and not inconsistent 
with other provisions of law. Section 303 of the Act also authorizes 
the Commission, subject to what the ``public interest, convenience, or 
necessity requires,'' to ``[p]rescribe the nature of the service to be 
rendered by each class of licensed stations and each station within any 
class.'' Section 307(a) of the Act likewise authorizes the issuance of 
licenses ``if public convenience, interest, or necessity will be served 
thereby.'' Section 316 of the Act provides a similar test for new 
conditions on existing licenses, authorizing such modifications if ``in 
the judgment of the Commission such action will promote the public 
interest, convenience, and necessity.'' Would any of these provisions, 
or other provisions in Title III of the Act, furnish the Commission 
with authority to adopt the text blocking proposals? What other 
authority-related issues should the Commission consider? Does the 
public interest benefit of combating illegally spoofed robocalls fall 
within the ``comprehensive mandate'' to manage spectrum ``in the public 
interest''?
    26. The Commission anticipates that the blocking of illegal texts 
would achieve an annual benefit floor of $6.3 billion. RoboKiller 
estimates that Americans are on track to receive more than 86 billion 
spam texts in 2021, a 55% increase from 2020. Assuming a nuisance harm 
of five cents per spam text, the Commission estimates total nuisance 
harm to be $4.3 billion (i.e., 5 cents x 86 billion spam texts). The 
Commission estimates that an additional $2 billion of harm occurs 
annually due to fraud. American citizens lose approximately $10.5 
billion annually in fraudulent robocall offers. Assuming that the 
corresponding loss through fraudulent texts is only 20% of that amount, 
the fraud loss from texts is $2 billion annually. The Commission seeks 
comment on these benefit estimates, whether the underlying assumptions 
are reasonable, and if not, what might be a better estimate of consumer 
harm.
    27. As the Commission concluded in the STIR/SHAKEN Order with 
respect to the long-term cost of blocking illegal robocalls, the 
Commission anticipates that the text blocking requirement would result 
in an overall reduction of costs to text service providers due to this 
expected reduction in network congestion costs. Although the Commission 
will not obtain any detailed cost data until comments are received, the 
Commission tentatively concludes the $6.3 billion annual benefit floor 
expected from such a blocking requirement would far exceed the costs 
imposed on text service providers. The Commission seeks comment on this 
tentative conclusion.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    28. The Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed 
in this NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. 
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed 
by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM. The Commission will send a 
copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    29. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. The NPRM seeks 
comment on requiring mobile wireless providers to protect consumers 
from illegal text messages by blocking at the network level text 
messages that are highly likely to be illegal because they purport to 
be from invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers and numbers on a Do-
Not-Originate (DNO) list.
    30. Legal Basis. This action is authorized under sections (4)(i) 
and (j), 159, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
    31. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
which the Proposed Rules Will Apply: The RFA directs agencies to 
provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number 
of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and 
policies, 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.
    32. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small 
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission 
therefore describes here, at the outset, three broad groups of small 
entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are 
industry-specific size standards for small businesses that are used in 
the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's 
Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent 
business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small 
businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, 
which translates to 28.8 million businesses.
    33. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small 
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits 
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
    34. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicate that there 
were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions, consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose

[[Page 61275]]

governments, in the United States. Of this number, there were 37,132 
General purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) 
with populations of less than 50,000, and 12,184 special purpose 
governments (independent school districts and special districts) with 
populations of less than 50,000. The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for 
most types of governments in the local government category show that 
the majority of these governments have populations of less than 50,000. 
Based on this data the Commission estimates that at least 49,316 local 
government jurisdictions fall in the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
    35. 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 1000 employees or 
more. Thus, under this category and the associated size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications 
carriers (except satellite) are small entities.
    36. All Other Telecommunications. ``All Other Telecommunications'' 
is defined as follows: ``This U.S. industry is comprised of 
establishments that are 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 gross annual receipts of $32.5 
million or less. For this category, census data for 2012 show that 
there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of these 
firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual receipts of less than $25 
million. Thus, a majority of ``All Other Telecommunications'' firms 
potentially affected by the proposals in the NPRM can be considered 
small.
    37. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements. This NPRM does not propose any changes to the 
Commission's current information collection, reporting, recordkeeping, 
or compliance requirements.
    38. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an 
agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 
in reaching its approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives, among others: (1) the establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for 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 small entities.
    39. The NPRM seeks comment on requiring mobile wireless providers 
to block text messages that are highly likely to be illegal. The NPRM 
does not propose any exemptions for small entities. As service 
providers may already block landline and wireless calls that are highly 
likely to be illegal, the Commission does not anticipate that blocking 
such text messages will be burdensome for service providers.
    40. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the 
Proposed Rules. None.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22049 Filed 10-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P