Proposed Rule2022-22049
Targeting and Eliminating Unlawful Text Messages
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 11, 2022
Effective
November 10, 2022
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 195 (Tuesday, October 11, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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:
<bullet> Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> 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), <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy</a>.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> People with Disabilities. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#375154540207037751545419505841"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a1c7c2c2949195e1c7c2c28fc6ced7">[email protected]</span></a> 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
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bbd6d2d0da95c8dacdd2c9fbddd8d895dcd4cd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="462b2f2d27683527302f340620252568212930">[email protected]</span></a> 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 <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-blocking-illegal-text-messages">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-blocking-illegal-text-messages</a>.
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
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 11, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.