[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1566-1577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00457]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 17-151]
Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, Commission issues new rules that protect
consumers from unwanted robocalls by permitting voice service providers
to proactively block telephone calls when the subscriber of a phone
number requests that calls purporting to originate from that number be
blocked, and when calls purport to originate from three categories of
unassigned phone numbers: Invalid numbers, valid numbers that are not
allocated to a voice service provider, and valid numbers that are
allocated but not assigned to a subscriber. While such calls may appear
to be legitimate to those who receive them, they can result in fraud or
identity theft. To combat these scams, the new rules expressly
authorize voice service providers to block these robocalls without
running afoul of the FCC's call completion rules. To minimize blocking
of lawful calls, the Commission encourages voice service providers that
elect to block calls to establish a simple way to identify and fix
blocking errors. The rules also prohibit providers from blocking 911
emergency calls.
DATES: Effective February 12, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen A Schroeder, Consumer Policy
Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), at (202) 418-
0654, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order, in CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 17-151, adopted on November 16,
2017 and released on November 17, 2017. The full text of this document
will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and
during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center,
Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The
full text of this document and any subsequently filed documents in this
matter may also be found by searching ECFS at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (insert CG Docket No. 17-59 into the Proceeding block). The
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that was adopted
concurrently with the Report and Order is published elsewhere in the
Federal Register.
Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
The Report and Order does not contain any new or modified
information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not
contain any new or modified information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
[[Page 1567]]
Congressional Review Act
The Commission sent a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Synopsis
1. In the Report and Order, the Commission takes another important
step in combatting illegal robocalls by enabling voice service
providers to block certain calls before they reach consumers' phones.
Specifically, the Commission adopts rules allowing providers to block
calls from phone numbers on a Do-Not-Originate (DNO) list and those
that purport to be from invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers.
Providers have been active in identifying these calls and there is
broad support for these rules. At the same time, the Commission
establishes safeguards to mitigate the possibility of blocking desired
calls.
2. Caller ID spoofing is often the key to making robocall scams
work. Generally, Caller ID services permit the recipient of an incoming
call to know the telephone number of the calling party, and in some
cases a name associated with the number, before the recipient answers
the call. But Caller ID information can be altered or manipulated,
i.e., spoofed, so that the name or number displayed to the called party
does not match that of the actual subscriber or the actual originating
number. Though callers can use spoofing to mislead or even defraud the
called party, there are legitimate uses for spoofing.
3. Congress passed the 2009 Truth in Caller ID Act to ``address the
growing problem of Caller ID spoofing done for fraudulent or harmful
purposes.'' Congress limited the spoofing prohibition to the knowing
transmission of misleading or inaccurate Caller ID information ``with
the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of
value,'' except where such transmission is determined to be exempt by
the Commission.
4. Despite these protections, consumers still receive an
unacceptably high volume of illegal robocalls. To combat the robocall
problem in a coordinated way, industry established the Robocall Strike
Force (Strike Force) in 2016. The Strike Force includes representatives
from providers of traditional landline, mobile, and Voice over internet
Protocol (VoIP) services, handset manufacturers, operating system
developers, and VoIP gateway providers. The Strike Force has said that
``robocalls are best addressed in a holistic manner through deployment
of a wide variety of tools by a broad range of stakeholders'' that
includes industry blocking of calls. On October 26, 2016, it published
the Robocall Strike Force Report (Strike Force Report). The Strike
Force specifically asked the Commission to provide guidance on when
providers may block a call that the provider believes is illegal.
5. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) addressed
one of the Strike Force's requests in 2016 by clarifying that voice
service providers may block calls using a spoofed Caller ID number if
the number's subscriber requests that they do so. Following that
initial guidance, the Strike Force Report sought additional
clarification regarding the legality of certain provider-initiated call
blocking. Specifically, it sought clarification that: (1) Providers may
block calls where the Caller ID shows an unassigned number; and (2)
providers may block calls that the provider has determined to be
illegal robocalls, so long as the provider takes reasonable steps to
confirm that the calls are illegal.
6. In the March 2017 Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI, document FCC
17-24, published at 82 FR 22625, May 17, 2017, the Commission sought
comment on whether to take certain steps to facilitate voice service
providers' blocking of illegal robocalls. In the Advanced Methods NPRM
and NOI, the Commission proposed rules to allow voice service providers
to block telephone calls when the subscriber of a phone number requests
that calls purporting to originate from that number be blocked, and
when calls purport to originate from three categories of phone numbers:
Invalid numbers, valid numbers that are not allocated to a voice
service provider, and valid numbers that are allocated but not assigned
to a subscriber.
7. Call Completion Considerations. The Commission has generally
found call blocking by voice service providers to be unlawful. The
Commission also made clear that it is unlawful for providers to block
VoIP-Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) traffic, and for
interconnected and one-way VoIP providers to block voice traffic to or
from the PSTN. The Commission has allowed call blocking only in ``rare
and limited circumstances.''
Discussion
8. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopts rules to give
voice service providers the option of blocking illegal robocalls in
certain, well-defined circumstances. By doing so, the Commission
furthers its goal of removing regulatory roadblocks and gives industry
the flexibility to block illegal calls. At the same time, the
Commission affirms its commitment to protect the reliability of the
nation's communications network and ensure that provider-initiated
blocking helps, rather than harms, consumers. These rules outline
specific, well-defined circumstances in which voice service providers
may block calls that are highly likely to be illegitimate because there
is no lawful reason to spoof certain kinds of numbers. Thus, a provider
who blocks calls in accordance with these rules will not violate the
call completion rules. Conversely, a provider that blocks calls that do
not fall within the scope of these rules may be liable for violating
the Commission's call completion rules.
Blocking at the Request of the Subscriber to the Originating Number
9. First, the Commission codifies the Bureau's earlier
clarification that providers may block calls when they receive a
request from the subscriber to which the originating number is
assigned, i.e., a DNO request. The 2016 Guidance Public Notice,
document DA 16-1121, made clear that voice service providers--whether
providing such service through TDM, VoIP, or CMRS--may block calls
purporting to be from a telephone number if the subscriber to that
number requests such blocking in order to prevent its number from being
spoofed. The Bureau concluded that where the subscriber did not consent
to the number being used, the call was very likely made to annoy and
defraud, and therefore, no reasonable consumer would wish to receive
such a call. The Commission agrees and finds such DNO calls highly
likely to be illegal and to violate the Commission's anti-spoofing
rule, with the potential to cause harm, defraud, or wrongfully obtain
something of value.
10. The record shows broad support among consumer groups,
providers, government, and callers for blocking DNO calls. Consumers
Union et. al. emphasizes the urgent need for providers to take action
against spoofed calls, stating, ``DNO is one of several promising tools
that they should implement to help address the problem.'' Several
commenters note the positive results of DNO trials conducted by members
of the Strike Force.
11. ZipDX and others claim that gains from blocking DNO numbers
will be temporary, because those making illegal robocalls will simply
choose other numbers to spoof when their calls are blocked. The
Commission disagrees that this possibility negates the
[[Page 1568]]
demonstrated benefits of such blocking. Allowing providers to block
spoofed calls from high-profile numbers, such as IRS phone numbers,
that are among those most likely to lure consumers into scams will
substantially benefit consumers and help entities that make DNO
requests control the integrity of their phone numbers. The Commission
believes that codifying the Bureau's 2016 guidance in the form of a
rule gives providers greater certainty that blocking calls at the
request of the subscriber is lawful and provides an incentive to engage
in this kind of beneficial blocking.
12. Criteria for Blocking DNO Numbers. In its comments, USTelecom
suggests five criteria used by the Industry Traceback Group (ITB) to
evaluate numbers to determine whether they should be blocked, namely:
a candidate number must: (1) Be inbound-only; (2) be currently
spoofed by a robocaller in order to perpetrate impersonation-focused
fraud; (3) be the source of a substantial volume of calls; (4) have
authorization for participation in the DNO effort from the party to
which the telephone number is assigned; and/or (5) be recognized by
consumers as belonging to a legitimate entity, lending credence to
the impersonators and influencing successful execution of the scam.
The Commission finds that for purposes of the rule, only two of these
criteria are necessary. The number must be used for inbound calls only,
and the subscriber to the number must authorize it to be blocked. The
Commission agrees with the ITB recommendation that both the subscriber
making the request and the provider receiving the request validate that
the number is used for inbound calls only. The Commission will not
require the subscriber or the provider to determine whether the number
is currently being spoofed, is the source of a substantial volume of
calls, or is recognized by consumers. While the Commission believes the
additional criteria may be helpful in some circumstances, they would
impose too high a barrier for inclusion in the DNO list. In addition,
the Commission does not want to impose a potentially burdensome
analysis requirement on providers that might discourage them from
blocking inbound-only numbers at the request of the subscriber.
13. Coordination of Effort. The Commission agrees with Consumers
Union et. al. that ``[m]uch responsibility rests with the providers to
ensure that DNO works as well as possible'' through broad industry
participation. While full industry participation is not required to
achieve positive results, having more providers block a number will
allow fewer calls purporting to be from that number to go through.
Commenters note that providers must coordinate their efforts for this
type of call blocking to be used effectively. For example, Sprint
comments that, while it supports this type of blocking and participated
in the collaborative effort to block spoofed IRS numbers, ``there are
currently no automated systems in place to expand the scale of such
projects industry-wide or to accommodate much larger numbers of
customers requesting blocking.'' USTelecom points out the inefficiency
of requiring subscribers ``requesting DNOs to be forced to make
individual requests to multiple providers.'' ZipDX suggests that the
originating provider is in the best position to block these kinds of
calls.
14. Other commenters, however, suggest that providers expand their
existing ways of sharing information from the test cases and other
initiatives to support this effort. As Comcast comments,
``[p]articipants in the Strike Force have set up an ad hoc shared list
of numbers that should not be originated and can add more for review.''
USTelecom comments that its ``Industry Traceback Group has been
facilitating a targeted, centralized, and coordinated DNO trial and
stands ready to continue to evolve industry efforts on this front going
forward.''
15. The Commission strongly encourages providers to continue to
work cooperatively to share information about any inbound-only numbers
for which the subscriber has requested that the number be blocked. At
this time, the Commission declines to prescribe a sharing mechanism,
especially in light of industry's existing efforts at coordination. The
Commission emphasizes that safeguards must be put in place to prevent
numbers used for outbound calls from being wrongly added to the DNO
list, whether from hacking, honest mistakes, or some other cause,
especially for calls made to emergency services. The Commission
encourages industry to continue developing its methods for implementing
DNO and encourages providers that choose to do such blocking to
establish a mechanism for timely removal of erroneous blocks.
16. Resellers. Finally, the Commission agree with TracFone that
wireless resellers may pass along subscriber requests to the underlying
carrier that the subscriber's inbound-only number be blocked. The
Commission sees no reason on this record to not allow wireless reseller
subscribers to participate in the DNO effort.
Calls Purporting To Originate From Unassigned Numbers
17. The Commission next finds that providers may initiate blocking
where the call purports to originate from a number that is unassigned.
Use of an unassigned number provides a strong indication that the
calling party is spoofing the Caller ID to potentially defraud and harm
a voice service subscriber. Such calls are therefore highly likely to
be illegal. The Commission identifies three categories of unassigned
numbers that it determines can be reasonably subject to blocking: (1)
Numbers that are invalid under the North American Numbering Plan
(NANP); (2) numbers that have not been allocated by the North American
Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) or the Pooling Administrator (PA)
to any provider; and (3) numbers that the NANPA or PA has allocated to
a provider, but are not currently used. Providers may block calls
purporting to be from numbers that fall into any one of these three
categories.
Calls Purporting To Originate From Invalid Numbers
18. Providers may block calls purportedly originating from numbers
that are not valid NANP numbers. Examples of such numbers include those
that use an unassigned area code; that use an abbreviated dialing code,
such as 911 or 411, in place of an area code; that do not contain the
requisite number of digits; and that are a single digit repeated, such
as 000-000-0000, with the exception of 888-888-8888, which is an
assignable number. With a few important exceptions detailed below, the
record generally supports the assumption that, because these numbers
are not valid, a subscriber could not lawfully originate calls from
such numbers and these calls should be blocked. Providers, however,
must take care that they do not block calls that purportedly originate
from valid numbers, especially emergency calls.
19. The record supports the proposal that no caller would spoof an
invalid number for any lawful purpose; for example, unlike a business
spoofing Caller ID on outgoing calls to show its main call-back number,
invalid numbers cannot be called back. Thus, the Commission does not
see a significant risk to network reliability in allowing providers to
block this category of calls. ATIS suggests that benefits will be
temporary because ``widespread blocking of invalid and unallocated
numbers could have an unintended negative consequence by driving bad
actors to focus their efforts on spoofing
[[Page 1569]]
assigned/valid numbers.'' Consumers Union et. al., however, comment
that blocking such calls is imperative, because ``[c]onsumers do not
expect that their phone service would be the means through which
illegal and fraudulent scams enter their homes, and providers should
not be obligated to deliver illegal messages that could cause consumers
harm.'' In addition, blocking calls purporting to be from invalid
numbers ``holds the greatest potential for success in the short term
and likely would be the easiest to implement.''
20. The Commission rejects suggestions that blocking calls
purporting to originate from invalid numbers creates ``significant
possibilities of false positives.'' Although ZipDX claims that ``a
significant number'' of private branch exchanges (PBXs) ``are not
properly configured'' to display an accurate Caller ID and that Caller
ID information could theoretically be ``unintentionally altered''
during a call's transmission, the record belies such claims. Instead,
the record demonstrates that the risk of erroneously blocking such
calls is very low and should not be a barrier to allowing providers to
block calls purporting to be from invalid numbers. Indeed, the
Commission agrees with USTelecom that this small risk simply requires
providers to exercise ``caution when instituting blocking in the
network.'' And the Commission reiterates that caution to businesses
with PBXs: The responsibility to properly configure PBX equipment lies
with the owner, and those spoofing invalid numbers (whether
intentionally or not) have the ability to ensure that their calls go
through by properly reconfiguring that equipment.
21. Identifying Invalid Numbers. Neustar, which currently is the
NANPA and PA, comments that ``information for invalid numbers [is
maintained] within the [NANP], and the industry has other sources to
identify invalid numbers such as ATIS's Industry Numbering Committee. .
. . Thus, service providers already have access to the information they
need'' for this kind of blocking. Comcast similarly states that
``[v]oice providers generally have `intimate knowledge of the [NANP]'
and can `easily identify numbers that fall into this category,'
including numbers that use an N11 code in place of an area code or that
repeat a single digit.'' In light of the industry's assurance that it
can confidently identify invalid numbers, the Commission sees no need
to further define or limit what is meant by ``a number that is not a
valid [NANP] number.'' The Commission encourages providers to conduct
tests or simulations before blocking calls purporting to originate from
invalid numbers to verify their methods.
Calls Purporting To Originate From Numbers Not Allocated to Any
Provider
22. The Commission finds that providers may block calls purportedly
originating from numbers that are valid but have not yet been allocated
by the NANPA or the PA to any provider. Though these numbers are valid
under the NANP, the Commission finds that calls purporting to use
unallocated numbers are similar to calls purporting to use invalid
numbers in that no subscriber can actually originate a call from any of
these numbers, and the Commission sees no lawful reason to spoof such
numbers because they cannot be called back. Calls purporting to
originate from such numbers therefore are highly likely to be illegal.
23. Here, the provider must have knowledge that a certain block of
numbers has not been allocated to any provider and therefore that the
number being blocked could not have been assigned to a subscriber. The
record generally supports allowing permissive blocking of calls
purporting to be from unallocated numbers. For example, ATIS points out
that ``no subscriber can actually originate a call from these
unallocated central office codes and it is unlikely that there is any
legitimate, lawful reason to.''
24. Parties opposing this type of call blocking generally do so
based on implementation difficulties and the risk of blocking legal
calls. For example, NCTA warns that the proposal ``could
unintentionally result in harm to consumers and should not be adopted
at this time,'' and ZipDX cautions that ``[t]he unintended consequences
of these blocks (false positives) are potentially quite troublesome and
far outweigh any good that would result from successful robocall
blocks.'' Several commenters also note that, if providers block
unallocated numbers, then ``illegal robocallers could simply shift to
spoofing assigned numbers.''
25. Commenters do not agree on the potential volume of calls that
might be blocked under this rule. While ZipDX says the ``fraction of
complaints'' from unassigned numbers is ``miniscule,'' USTelecom states
that ``the scale of numbers at issue in the Commission's latter two
proposals [blocking calls from unallocated and unassigned numbers] are
potentially enormous--encompassing 3 billion telephone numbers.''
Transaction Network Services (TNS) attempts to strike a middle ground,
suggesting that ``[w]hile there is a large number of unallocated
telephone numbers (over 33 million) that have been flagged as making
calls, the volume of call activity from these numbers relative to all
negative robocalling is very small.'' TNS concludes that blocking
``this subset of numbers has significant, but limited value.'' In
contrast, a recent Commission enforcement action found that one
robocaller made a staggering 21,582,771 spoofed robocalls in a three-
month period; the caller ID for each of the robocalls examined by the
FCC falsely identified a phone number that was not assigned to any
carrier or subscriber at the time the calls were made. Although the
number of complaints about calls from unassigned numbers may be small,
the Commission agrees with USTelecom that the potential value of
blocking such calls is enormous. Consumers will benefit from this type
of blocking because the calls are highly likely to annoy or defraud.
26. Defining Unallocated Numbers Subject to Blocking. Some
commenters emphasize that a permissive rule does not require providers
to identify and block every unallocated number, but rather simply
allows a provider to block calls purporting to be from those numbers it
can verify are unallocated. The Commission agrees. Providers may block
calls purporting to be from unallocated numbers and should limit
themselves to blocking only those numbers that they can verify are
unallocated. Providers may not be able to identify the complete set of
all unallocated numbers for purposes of call blocking. Accordingly,
voice service providers might be unable to block calls purporting to
originate from every unallocated number, but this shortcoming would not
result in the blocking of legal calls.
27. Obtaining Unallocated Number Information. The Commission does
not prescribe a technical solution for identifying and communicating
information about unallocated numbers at this time. The record shows
consensus that, while information on unallocated numbers is available
to providers, no currently available source identifies all unallocated
numbers in real time and that ``the NANPA does not administer codes
outside the United States, specifically in Canada and Caribbean
countries, or toll-free numbers.'' Many commenters suggest that
providers should use a new, centralized database as a resource for
identification of unallocated numbers.
28. Neustar lists categories of unallocated numbers that should not
initiate calls, including ``telephone numbers in: (1) Unallocated area
codes in the NANP; (2) unallocated geographic
[[Page 1570]]
Central Office (``CO'') codes (NPA-NXX) in the United States; and (3)
unallocated non-contaminated thousands-blocks (NPA-NXX-X) in the United
States.'' ATIS elaborates on the issue of contaminated thousands-
blocks, stating that available thousands-blocks ``publicly posted on
the PA website . . . could contain up to 100 assigned numbers within
those blocks.'' Therefore, providers blocking calls from contaminated
blocks could erroneously block calls purporting to originate from
assigned numbers. Providers that block calls purporting to originate
from assigned numbers may be liable for violating the call completion
rules.
29. Several commenters propose enhancements to the information
provided by the NANPA and the PA. Neustar suggests that the NANPA and
the PA ``provide on their websites: (1) `Blacklists' of unallocated
numbers that should not be making calls; and (2) `Whitelists' of
allocated area codes in the NANP, allocated geographic CO codes in the
United States, and allocated thousands-blocks in the United States.''
Comcast takes a similar approach, suggesting that the databases ``(1)
more clearly identify which numbers have not yet been allocated and (2)
are updated immediately to reflect any new allocations as they occur.''
30. The Commission believes that providers, the NANPA, and the PA
are in the best position to determine how to share information about
unallocated numbers. The Commission encourages these parties to work
together on whether and how to improve the availability of this
information for blocking purposes. At the same time, the Commission
cautions against blocking calls purporting to originate from allocated
numbers and encourages providers to examine their practices carefully
to verify that they are not inadvertently doing so. A provider that
erroneously blocks calls purporting to originate from allocated numbers
may be liable for violating the call completion rules.
Calls Purporting To Originate From Numbers That Are Allocated but
Unused
31. The Commission finds that providers may block calls purportedly
originating from numbers that are allocated to a provider by the NANPA
or PA, but are unused, so long as the provider blocking the calls is
the allocatee of the number or has obtained verification from the
allocatee that the number is unused at the time of the blocking. For
these purposes, an ``unused'' number is a number that is not assigned
to a subscriber or otherwise set aside for outbound call use. As with
invalid numbers and unallocated numbers, calls cannot originate from
such a number, and the Commission foresees no lawful purpose for
intentionally spoofing a number that is unused and thus cannot be
called back.
32. The record shows mixed support for allowing providers to block
these kinds of calls. For example, EPIC points out that ``because they
are not assigned anyone using them without the provider's knowledge is
almost certainly engaging in unlawful activity.'' Many commenters,
however, express concerns about legal calls being blocked, similar to
the concerns about unallocated number call blocking, because ``the
status of numbers is always changing.'' The record also shows
``potentially thorny implementation issues'' for blocking calls from
unused numbers, similar to but greater in scale than those identified
for unallocated numbers. In addition, the argument concerning the
likely reaction of robocallers to the blocking of unallocated numbers
detailed above applies here as well.
33. Obtaining Unused Number Information. The record clearly shows
``an industry-wide recognition that there is currently no technical
solution that allows providers to accurately and promptly identify
numbers that have been allocated to a carrier but not yet assigned to a
subscriber.'' Commenters assert that without such a database, providers
cannot be certain of the status of numbers not assigned to them. The
Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) and other existing
databases do not show the details of provider assignment of numbers and
are not capable of identifying reassigned numbers. Microsoft claims
that such blocking, ``if not supported by use of a 100 percent reliable
real-time database (which does not exist), could prevent outgoing
domestic call completion for consumers who are assigned newly-activated
telephone numbers.''
34. The record reveals that creating such a database would be
difficult. Neustar comments that providers ``often consider such
information to be competitively sensitive.'' In addition, the
information changes very quickly, ``as providers are constantly
assigning new numbers to subscribers or are de-assigning numbers when a
subscriber leaves and decides not to take advantage of number
portability.'' While the FTC encourages providers to share this
information, providers oppose mandatory information sharing. CTIA
cautions that creating a centralized database ``is technically
challenging and would divert resources away from innovative
solutions.''
35. The Commission concludes, however, that a narrowly tailored
rule could be implemented without a database. Noble Systems makes a
distinction between allowing providers to block calls purported to
originate from numbers allocated to that provider, which the provider
knows to be unused, and requiring providers to share information to
block all unused numbers. Regarding their own numbers, ``each
individual service provider certainly knows which telephone numbers it
has been allocated but not yet assigned to subscribers.'' As such, the
rule permits providers to block on this basis. Should the industry
develop more comprehensive information sources that would facilitate
broader blocking of calls purported to originate from unused numbers,
the rule would also permit that kind of blocking.
36. Scope of Rule. The record shows significant obstacles to
implementing a rule requiring all providers to pool their information,
yet where the allocatee of the number in question is the only provider
able to block calls purporting to originate from that number, ``the
value of the initiative would be significantly diminished and would
create a disadvantage for smaller providers.'' With fewer providers
blocking each number, fewer illegal calls will be blocked overall.
37. The Commission will not require providers to share
competitively sensitive information on an industry-wide basis, nor will
it limit providers to blocking only unused numbers they have been
allocated. The Commission therefore defines the scope of this rule to
allow providers to block calls purporting to originate from an unused
number, so long as the provider blocking the call either (1) is the
allocatee of the number and has confirmed the number is unused, or (2)
has verified the unused status of the number with the allocatee at the
time of the blocking. This gives providers the flexibility to share
information if they wish to, and the Commission encourages providers to
do so.
38. In addition, this is a permissive rule. CTIA points out that
such ``[a] voluntary regime will allow carriers that develop the
ability to identify these numbers to block calls originating from them
without forcing carriers to develop capabilities they do not currently
possess.''
39. Types of Used Numbers. Many commenters indicate that legal
calls may be made from what appear to be unassigned numbers. For
example, INCOMPAS points out that ``many
[[Page 1571]]
legitimate callers do not originate calls on the [PSTN] and, therefore,
do not have telephone numbers.'' Commenters identify three specific
kinds of unassigned numbers that should not be blocked because they are
being used to make legal outbound calls: Intermediate numbers,
administrative numbers, and proxy numbers. The Commission acknowledges
this concern and the rule is clear that providers should not block any
type of number that, although it is not assigned to a subscriber, is
used for these lawful purposes. The Commission encourages providers to
examine the status of their numbers before blocking calls that purport
to originate from unused numbers to verify that they are not
inadvertently blocking calls that fall outside the scope of this rule,
which would risk liability for violating the call completion rules.
Other Issues
40. Emergency Calls. The Commission makes clear that the rules do
not authorize the blocking of calls to 911 under any circumstance. The
Commission notes that the NANP itself contemplates certain non-standard
numbers to facilitate emergency calling; the NANP, for example,
``permits the use of `911' as the [Numbering Plan Area code] for
emergency calls from non-initialized mobile devices.'' To make it
abundantly clear, nonetheless, that voice providers should not block
such calls, the Commission makes clear these rules do not permit the
blocking of emergency calls except as otherwise expressly permitted by
the Commission's rules.
41. International Calls. In the Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI, the
Commission sought comment ``on whether an internationally originated
call purportedly originated from a NANP number should be subject to
these rules, whereas an internationally originated call showing an
international number would be beyond the scope of this rule.'' The
Commission adopts this proposal. The Commission agrees with Neustar
that it should apply to international calls purporting to use NANP
numbers ``the same blocking rules applicable to domestic originated
calls.'' Many illegal robocalls originate from overseas call centers,
and excluding such calls that purport to use NANP numbers from the
ambit of the rule would create an exception that threatens to swallow
the rule. In contrast, international calls from purported non-NANP
numbers would not, by definition, follow the NANP numbering scheme and
thus are beyond the scope of this proceeding.
42. The Commission agrees with commenters that internationally
originated calls may have lawful reasons to use a NANP number. VON, for
example, suggests ``a US-based user of a service may be traveling in
Europe but uses their service to make Wi-Fi-based calls (and have their
US caller ID shown).'' And the Commission agrees with Microsoft that it
must ``avoid inadvertently authorizing international call blocking.''
But the Commission disagrees with ZipDX's apparent suggestion that some
possibility of international call blocking means the Commission must
abandon its efforts. Because the Commission authorizes blocking only
for purported NANP numbers, it sees no reason why the actual
origination point of the call would bear on whether it is blocked. In
other words, the Commission finds the likelihood of blocking a
legitimate call is minimal--no matter its origin. And the Commission
reiterates that the rules do not authorize the blocking of any
international call purporting to use a valid NANP number assigned to
that user.
43. Subscriber Consent. The Commission does not require consumer
opt-in for providers to block the specific types of calls addressed
herein. The Commission believes that no reasonable consumer would want
to receive the calls the Commission has determined may be subject to
blocking. For call blocking to be most effective, it must be applied
throughout the calling network. An opt-in requirement would thwart
providers' efforts.
44. The record shows support for allowing providers to block these
specific types of spoofed calls without requiring consent from the
subscriber. Some commenters emphasize the limited scope of calls that
do not require consent. ITTA agrees with the Commission's reasoning
that ``obtaining opt-in consent from subscribers would add unnecessary
burdens and complexity, . . . may not be technically feasible for some
providers'' and ``would also add unnecessary delays.'' EPIC comments
that ``proactive blocking'' would benefit consumers, ``especially those
that rely on landlines, [who] may not have or use caller ID.''
45. Consumers Union et. al. propose that providers should obtain
consent from all consumers before blocking calls other than those
purporting to originate from DNO numbers, but, as stated above, the
Commission does not believe any reasonable consumer would want to
receive these calls. The administrative burden of tracking individual
opt-in responses would likely be a disincentive to blocking.
46. While providers are not required to obtain subscriber consent
before blocking these calls, the Commission emphasizes that the types
of calls that can be blocked are very limited. The Commission agrees
with the recommendation from the Consumer Advisory Committee (CAC) and
encourages providers to inform their customers about the features and
risks of their own call blocking programs.
47. Call Completion Rates. The Strike Force requested that the
Commission amend its call completion rules to ensure that providers can
block illegal calls without those blocked calls being held against them
in calculating call completion rates. The Commission agrees that
providers do not need to count these blocked calls for purposes of
calculating their call completion rates on FCC Form 480 and therefore
the Commission interprets the rules and the form to not require
inclusion of calls blocked in accordance with the rules adopted here.
Reporting carriers may exclude these calls to the extent that they are
able to identify them.
48. The record shows significant support for excluding these calls
from the call completion calculations to ``incentivize carriers to
participate in voluntary blocking when appropriate and consistent with
the rules.'' CenturyLink comments that ``[w]ithout this protection,
carriers may be unwilling to use any of the tools that may be adopted
in the proceeding and the consumer benefits the Commission hopes to
achieve may not be realized.'' Consumers Union et. al. agrees that
``the calls that are blocked according to these guidelines should be
exempt from call completion rates.''
49. Notwithstanding this support for the concept of excluding
blocked calls from call completion rate calculations, it might not
currently be possible for all providers to identify blocked calls.
Originating providers required to file call completion reports have no
standard mechanism to identify calls that are blocked intentionally
under these rules by downstream providers and distinguish them from
calls that are not completed for other reasons. Further, NTCA suggests
that excluding such calls from call completion would be premature
``until the definitions and practical considerations noted above are
addressed and standardized by industry and the Commission.''
50. Given the inability of all providers who must file call
completion reports to identify blocked calls in every instance and the
Commission's revisiting of the rural call completion requirements in a
separate rulemaking proceeding, the Commission does not believe that
[[Page 1572]]
requiring exclusion of these calls is appropriate at this time. The
Commission instead simply notes that providers subject to the call-
completion reporting rules may, but are not required to, exclude
blocked calls from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements to the
extent they can identify such calls.
51. CPNI Rules. In the Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI, the
Commission sought comment on whether there are concerns about sharing
DNO request information and whether any clarifications or rule changes
could be helpful. Some commenters asked the Commission to clarify the
applicability of section 222 of the Act, and the implementing rules, in
order to allow sharing of robocall information for traceback purposes
or sharing of a subscriber's request to block an inbound-only number.
52. USTelecom notes that ``the sharing of CPNI by
telecommunications providers is essential to ensuring accurate and
thorough call traceback efforts in multiple providers' networks related
to suspicious calling events.'' The Commission notes that traceback
efforts are aimed at identifying persons who make illegal robocalls,
including calls that involve fraud in violation of the Truth in Caller
ID Act. The FTC comments that ``information sharing by providers at the
subscriber's request appears to be consistent'' with the CPNI rules.
The Commission agrees. Section 222 of the Act and the implementing
rules explicitly allow telecommunications carriers to use, disclose, or
permit access to CPNI obtained from its customers, either directly or
indirectly through its agents, ``to protect the rights or property of
the carrier, or to protect users of those services and other carriers
from fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of, or subscription to, such
services.'' Furthermore, the Commission agrees with the FTC that when a
subscriber requests that the carrier block calls purporting to be from
the subscriber's inbound-only number, ``the subscriber is almost
certainly seeking to have the number blocked by as many providers as
possible.'' Therefore, such a request should be understood as
authorizing the carrier to share that request with other carriers as
permitted by section 222(c)(1) of the Act. Thus, voice service
providers are free to share DNO requests as necessary to block calls in
the limited circumstances identified in the Report and Order.
53. Removing Blocks on Valid Numbers. A challenge mechanism may be
needed for voice service providers that block calls given the small
possibility of blocking legitimate calls. AARP suggested ``[i]t would
seem to be prudent to have the needed procedures to allow consumers to
quickly counteract inadvertent blocking in place prior to the
commencement of the general robocall blocking program.'' The
Commission's Consumer Advisory Committee similarly states that
providers and consumers should ``work collaboratively to develop
processes and solutions whereby unintended blocking of legitimate
callers can be remedied in a timely and efficient manner.'' The
Commission encourages providers that block calls to establish a means
for a caller whose number is blocked to contact the provider and remedy
the problem. Specifically, the Commission encourages providers that
block calls in accordance with these rules to provide a way for
subscribers to challenge a blocked number using a simple method that is
easy for the average subscriber to understand. The Commission also
encourages providers to quickly resolve the matter so subscribers
making legitimate calls may resume doing so speedily.
54. As a reminder, the call completion rules require voice service
providers to complete calls and they should therefore not block
legitimate calls. The Commission also reminds callers that the
Commission's complaint process is available when calls that fall
outside the scope of these rules are improperly blocked.
55. Definition of ``Illegal Robocall.'' Although the Advanced
Methods NPRM and NOI sought comment on the definition of ``illegal
robocall'' for the purposes of this proceeding, the Commission declines
to adopt a definition here given that none of the rules adopted here
rely on such a definition. Indeed, the record shows confusion regarding
how the proposed definition of ``illegal robocall'' should apply to the
call blocking rules. Sprint comments that providers cannot determine
whether a call meets the definition of an illegal robocall before
blocking it, because ``[u]nlike spam prevention in email, the content
of a call cannot be determined before the call rings through to the
customer's phone.'' First Orion states ``the Commission clearly intends
to give carriers the flexibility to prevent all illegal calls,
regardless of the technology used.'' Similarly, the FTC suggests that
the Commission use the term ``illegal call'' rather than ``illegal
robocall,'' because ``the problematic calls here are not limited to
just robocalls, but also abusive, fraudulent, or unlawful calls that
are `live.' '' Because the Commission makes clear that providers need
not listen to the content of calls or otherwise to determine whether a
particular call is expressly illegal before blocking it, the Commission
sees no reason to define the term at the present moment.
Report on Robocalling
56. To shed additional light on the issue of robocalling and inform
the Commission's actions going forward, the Commission directs the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, in consultation with the
Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection, to prepare a
report on the state of robocalling in the United States and to submit
it to the Commission within one year from publication of the Report and
Order in the Federal Register. This report should encompass both the
progress made by industry, government, and consumers in combatting
illegal robocalls, as well as the remaining challenges to continuing
these important efforts. A focus on quantitative data, including, but
not limited to, calling trends and consumer complaints, will provide
particular insight into the current state of the robocalling problem
and how to target additional measures to help consumers avoid the fraud
and annoyance that they experience.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
57. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as
amended, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated into the Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI. The Commission
sought written public comment on the proposals in the Advanced Methods
NPRM and NOI, including comment on the IRFA. The comments received are
discussed below. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
conforms to the RFA.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Order
58. The Report and Order takes another important step in combatting
illegal robocalls by enabling voice service providers to block certain
calls before they reach consumers' phones. In the year since August 1,
2016, the Commission has received nearly 185,000 complaints about calls
that consumers did not want. Stopping illegal robocalls and the
problems they cause has united industry, government, and consumer
groups. Caller ID spoofing is often the key to making robocall scams
work. Therefore, the rules outline specific, well-defined circumstances
in which voice service providers may block calls that are highly likely
to be illegitimate because
[[Page 1573]]
there is no lawful reason to spoof certain kinds of numbers.
Specifically, the Report and Order adopts rules allowing providers to
block calls from phone numbers on a DNO list and those that purport to
be from invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers. By doing so, the
Commission furthers its goal of removing regulatory roadblocks and
gives industry the flexibility to block illegal calls. At the same
time, the Commission affirms its commitment to protect the reliability
of the nation's communications network and ensure that provider-
initiated blocking helps, rather than harms, consumers. A provider that
blocks calls that do not fall within the scope of these rules may be
liable for violating the Commission's call completion rules.
59. Blocking at the Request of the Subscriber to the Originating
Number. In the Report and Order, the Commission codifies the Bureau's
earlier clarification that voice service providers may block calls
purporting to be from a telephone number if the subscriber to that
number requests such blocking in order to prevent its number from being
spoofed. Where the subscriber did not consent to the number being used,
the call was very likely made with the intent to defraud, and therefore
no reasonable consumer would wish to receive such a call.
60. Calls Supposedly Originating From Invalid Numbers. Similarly,
the Report and Order allows providers to block calls purportedly
originating from numbers that are not valid under the NANP. Examples of
such numbers include those that use an unassigned area code; that use
an abbreviated dialing code, such as 411, in place of an area code;
that do not contain the requisite number of digits; and that are a
single digit repeated, such as 000-000-0000, with the exception of 888-
888-8888, which is an assignable number. No caller would spoof an
invalid number for any lawful purpose; for example, unlike a business
spoofing Caller ID on outgoing calls to show its main call-back number,
invalid numbers cannot be called back. Providers, however, must take
care that they do not block calls that purportedly originate from valid
numbers, especially emergency calls.
61. Calls Supposedly Originating From Numbers Not Allocated to Any
Provider. The Report and Order also allows providers to block calls
purportedly originating from numbers that are valid but have not yet
been allocated by the NANPA or the PA to any provider. Though these
numbers are valid under the North American Numbering Plan, the
Commission finds that calls purporting to use unallocated numbers are
similar to calls purporting to use invalid numbers in that no
subscriber can actually originate a call from any of these numbers, and
the Commission sees no lawful reason to spoof such numbers because they
cannot be called back.
62. Calls Supposedly Originating From Numbers That are Allocated
but Unused. Document FCC 17-151 allows providers to block calls
purportedly originating from numbers that are allocated to a provider
by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator or Pooling
Administrator, but are unused, so long as the provider blocking the
calls is the allocatee of the number or has obtained verification from
the allocatee that the number is unused at the time of the blocking.
For these purposes, an ``unused'' number is a number that is not
assigned to a subscriber or otherwise set aside for legitimate outbound
call use. As with invalid numbers and unallocated numbers, a subscriber
cannot originate a call from such a number, and the Commission foresees
no lawful purpose for intentionally spoofing a number that is unused
and thus cannot be called back.
63. Other Issues. The Report and Order also clarifies that these
rules do not permit the blocking of emergency calls except as otherwise
expressly permitted by the Commission's rules, that all calls
purporting to originate from a NANP number, including international
calls, are subject to these rules, and that international calls from
purported non-NANP numbers would not, by definition, follow the NANP
numbering scheme and thus are beyond the scope of this proceeding. It
confirms that the Commission does not require consumer opt-in for
providers to block these specific types of calls, clarifies that
providers do not need to count these blocked calls for purposes of
calculating their call completion rates, clarifies that voice service
providers are free to share the CPNI necessary to block calls in the
limited circumstances identified in the Report and Order, encourages
providers to establish a means for a caller whose number is blocked to
contact the provider and remedy the problem, and declines to adopt a
definition of the term ``illegal robocall'' at the present moment.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to
the IRFA
64. In the Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI, the Commission solicited
comments on how to minimize the economic impact of the new rules on
small businesses. The Commission received one comment directly
addressing the IRFA and several comments addressing small business
concerns. Two of the comments requested that the call blocking rules be
permissive, rather than mandatory, three pertained to the
administration of a database for unassigned numbers, and two addressed
other issues. In addition, the Commission received two consumer
comments documenting the negative impact of unwanted calls on small
businesses. None of the other comments pointed out any areas where
small businesses would incur a particular hardship in complying with
the rules.
65. Permissive Rules. Both CTIA and ITTA support permissive rules.
CTIA suggests that ``blocking of numbers . . . should be authorized,
but not required.'' ITTA claims that permissive rules give providers
``flexibility in how aggressively they choose to block calls.'' The
rules the Commission adopts here are permissive and not mandatory.
66. Database Administration. INCOMPAS, ITTA, and PACE suggest that
a centralized database of unused numbers be created, and then suggest
ways to minimize disproportionate costs to small businesses in using
such a database. The Commission considered both the technical and cost
issues inherent in the creations of a database and determined not to
require one. Without a database, concerns about its administration are
rendered moot.
67. INCOMPAS requests a mechanism that will ``spare smaller
providers from using additional resources to prove the legitimacy of
its call traffic to other providers.'' In the Report and Order, the
Commission allows a provider to block unused numbers only if the
provider blocking the calls is the allocatee of the number or has
obtained verification from the allocatee that the number is unused at
the time of the blocking. Therefore, if a smaller provider does not
give information to other providers, its call traffic will not be
blocked.
68. Other Issues. Commenters raise three other issues. First,
INCOMPAS requests that the Commission require providers to put a
mechanism in place to remove blocks on valid numbers, and that in doing
so, ``providers should be given discretion to adjust their policies
according to their size and services.'' In the Report and Order, the
Commission urges, but does not require providers to implement such a
mechanism, nor does the Commission provide specific requirements for
how providers might remove blocks on valid numbers, allowing smaller
providers the flexibility they request. Second, NTCA suggests that the
North American
[[Page 1574]]
Numbering Council (NANC) ``may be best positioned to help clarify
practical requirements'' to ``to assess and mitigate the costs of
compliance for smaller firms.'' However, industry has already
established the Robocall Strike Force (Strike Force), which has
produced significant documentation clarifying the practical
requirements for the limited and specific types of call blocking
authorized in the Report and Order. Blocking these calls presents a
very low risk, and NANC participation is not required to move forward
at this time. Third, TNS suggests that providers be permitted to block
unused numbers allocated to other providers to avoid creating ``a
disadvantage for smaller providers.'' The record also shows that many
providers view their unused number data as competitively sensitive
information. In the Report and Order, the Commission balances these
concerns by allowing, but not requiring, providers to block unused
numbers allocated to other providers if they have verified the unused
status of the number.
Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration
69. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the
proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not
file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules
Will Apply
70. 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 rules adopted herein. 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
71. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services,
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite television distribution services
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in
this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such
companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 shows
that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total,
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered
small.
72. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for local
exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules
is for the category 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.'' Under that size standard, such a business is small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there
were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates
that most providers of local exchange service are small businesses.
73. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest
applicable size standard under SBA rules is for the category 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.'' Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers
of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses.
74. 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 appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for
the category 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
[[Page 1575]]
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.''
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms
that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than
1,000 employees. Consequently, 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.
75. The Commission has 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. The Commission has
therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although
it emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses
and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
76. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of
interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules
is for the category 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.'' Under that size standard, such a business is small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there
were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates
that the majority of interexchange carriers are small entities.
77. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act 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 1 percent of all
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.'' There are approximately 52,403,705 cable video
subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator
serving fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator
if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of
all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based
on available data, the Commission finds that all but nine incumbent
cable operators are small entities under this size standard. 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. Although it seems certain that some of
these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million, the Commission is 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.
78. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable
to other toll carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do
not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator
service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service
carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under
SBA rules is for 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.'' Under that size standard, such a business is small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there
were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the
associated small business size standard, the majority of other toll
carriers can be considered small.
Wireless Carriers
79. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since
2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new,
broad, economic census category. Under the present and prior
categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the category of Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), Census data for 2012
show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of
this total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this
category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates
that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except
satellite) are small 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) services. Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Thus, using available data, the Commission estimates that
the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
80. Satellite Telecommunications Providers. The category of
Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises establishments primarily
engaged in providing telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting
[[Page 1576]]
industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a
system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' This
category has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or less in
average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, 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 under $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates
that the majority of satellite telecommunications firms are small
entities.
81. All Other Telecommunications. All other telecommunications
comprise, inter alia, ``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 the category of All Other
Telecommunications. Under that size standard, such a business is small
if it has $32.5 million in annual receipts. For this category, Census
Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 1,442 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,400 had annual receipts
below $25 million per year. Consequently, the Commission estimates that
the majority of all other telecommunications firms are small entities.
Resellers
82. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition
for toll resellers. The closest NAICS Code Category is
Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry
comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network
capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and
reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except
satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs)
are included in this industry. The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale
services during that year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer
than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated
small business size standard, the majority of these resellers can be
considered small entities. According to Commission data, 881 carriers
have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale
services. Of this total, an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
toll resellers are small entities.
83. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for the category of 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. Under
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale
services during that year. Of that number, all operated with fewer than
1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small
business size standard, the majority of these local resellers can be
considered small entities.
84. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for the category of 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. Under that size standard, such a business is small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341
firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 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.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
85. The Report and Order gives voice service providers the option
of blocking illegal robocalls in certain, well-defined circumstances.
These changes affect small and large companies equally, and apply
equally to all of the classes of regulated entities identified above.
86. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements. The Report and Order
clarifies the call completion rules by allowing, but not requiring,
voice service providers to exclude calls blocked under these new rules
from their call completion calculations, to the extent that they are
aware of which calls are blocked. To do so, voice service providers
that choose to exclude such calls may modify their current reporting
and recordkeeping procedures already in place for performing their call
completion calculations on existing FCC Form 480. This is a minor
modification to an existing process, so the Commission anticipates that
the impact will be minimal.
87. Other Compliance Requirements. Voice service providers will be
permitted, but not required, to block calls purportedly originating
from (1) a telephone number if the subscriber to that number requests
such blocking in order to prevent its number from being spoofed; (2)
numbers that purport to be NANP numbers but are not valid under the
NANP; (3) numbers that are valid but have not yet been allocated by the
NANPA or the PA to any provider; (4) numbers that are allocated to a
provider by the NANPA or PA, but are unused, so long as the provider
blocking the calls is the allocatee of the number and or has obtained
verification from the allocatee that the number is unused at the time
of the blocking.
Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
88. 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
[[Page 1577]]
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.
89. The Commission considered feedback from the Advanced Methods
NPRM and NOI in crafting the final order. The Commission evaluated the
comments in light of balancing the goal of removing regulatory
roadblocks and giving industry the flexibility to block illegal calls
with its commitment to protect the reliability of the nation's
communications network. Small businesses supported the proposal to make
the call blocking rules permissive rather than mandatory. While the
Commission considered mandatory rules, it both proposed and implemented
permissive rules to address the concerns of voice service providers,
including small businesses, that the cost and burden of complying with
mandatory rules could be significant and might require implementation
of new technology. The Commission also took small business concerns
into consideration in its determination to not require a database of
unused numbers. While the Commission considered mandating the use of a
database for providers that choose to block unused numbers, such a
database could impose disproportionate costs on small businesses and
would be challenging to create and maintain. Similarly, the Commission
considered the needs of small businesses in its guidance regarding
removing blocks from valid numbers. While the Commission considered
requiring specific processes or dedicated resources, it does not
mandate them at this time to allow small providers to scale their
efforts in accordance with their businesses and to develop a more
robust record on the issue before the Commission addresses this in a
future proceeding.
90. The Commission does not see a need to establish a special
timetable for small entities to reach compliance with the modification
to the rules. No small business has asked for a delay in implementing
the rules. Small businesses may avoid compliance costs entirely by
declining to block robocalls, or may delay implementation of call
blocking indefinitely to allow for more time to come into compliance
with the rules. Similarly, there are no design standards or performance
standards to consider in this rulemaking.
Report to Congress
91. The Commission sent a copy of the Report and Order, including
the FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
Ordering Clauses
92. Pursuant to sections 201, 202, 222, 251(e), and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 222,
251(e), 403, the Report and Order is adopted and that part 64 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 64.1200, is amended.
93. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Report and Order
to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
94. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Report and
Order, including the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends part 64 as follows:
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
0
1. The authority citation for part 64 is amended to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 202, 225, 251(e), 254(k),
403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56.
Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228,
251(e), 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 64.1200, add reserved paragraphs (i) and (j) and paragraph
(k) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.1200 Delivery restrictions.
* * * * *
(i) [Reserved]
(j) [Reserved]
(k) Voice service providers may block calls so that they do not
reach a called party as follows:
(1) A provider may block a voice call when the subscriber to which
the originating number is assigned has requested that calls purporting
to originate from that number be blocked because the number is used for
inbound calls only.
(2) A provider may block a voice call purporting to originate from
any of the following:
(i) A North American Numbering Plan number that is not valid;
(ii) A valid North American Numbering Plan number that is not
allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan
Administrator or the Pooling Administrator; and
(iii) A valid North American Numbering Plan number that is
allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan
Administrator or Pooling Administrator, but is unused, so long as the
provider blocking the calls is the allocatee of the number and confirms
that the number is unused or has obtained verification from the
allocatee that the number is unused at the time of the blocking.
(3) A provider may not block a voice call under paragraph (k)(1) or
(2) of this section if the call is an emergency call placed to 911.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, a provider may rely on Caller
ID information to determine the purported originating number without
regard to whether the call in fact originated from that number.
[FR Doc. 2018-00457 Filed 1-11-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P