Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-13032

Proposed Rule2023-13032

Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls

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

July 10, 2023

Issuing agencies

Federal Communications Commission

Abstract

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes and seeks comment on a number of actions aimed protecting consumers from illegal calls, restore faith in caller ID, and hold voice service providers responsible for the calls on their networks. Specifically, the notice of proposed rulemaking proposes and seeks comment on several options to combat illegal calls, including: specific call blocking requirements; the correct way to notify callers when calls are blocked based on reasonable analytics; requiring the display of caller name information in certain instances and; a base forfeiture for failure to adopt affirmative, effective measures to prevent new or renewing customers from originating illegal calls. Additionally, the Notice of Inquiry seeks broad comment on tools used by voice service providers to combat illegal calls, such as honeypots, as well as on the status and use of call labeling.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43489-43502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13032]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1 and 64

[CG Docket No. 17-59, FCC 23-37; FR ID 146148]

Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) proposes and seeks comment on a number of actions aimed
protecting consumers from illegal calls, restore faith in caller ID,
and hold voice service providers responsible for the calls on their
networks. Specifically, the notice of proposed rulemaking proposes and
seeks comment on several options to combat illegal calls, including:

[[Page 43490]]

specific call blocking requirements; the correct way to notify callers
when calls are blocked based on reasonable analytics; requiring the
display of caller name information in certain instances and; a base
forfeiture for failure to adopt affirmative, effective measures to
prevent new or renewing customers from originating illegal calls.
Additionally, the Notice of Inquiry seeks broad comment on tools used
by voice service providers to combat illegal calls, such as honeypots,
as well as on the status and use of call labeling.

DATES: Comments are due on or before August 9, 2023, and reply comments
are due on or before September 8, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments on or before the dates indicated in this document.
Comments and reply comments may be filed using the Commission's
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Interested
parties may file comments or reply comments, identified by CG Docket
No. 17-59 by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<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, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (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> People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#14525757212420547277773a737b62">[email&#160;protected]</a> or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please
contact Jerusha Burnett, Attorney Advisor, Consumer Policy Division,
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#345e514641475c551a5641465a514040745257571a535b42">[email&#160;protected]</a> or
at (202) 418-0526. For additional information concerning the Paperwork
Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements contained in
this document, send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b2e2e0f3f2d4d1d19cd5ddc4">[email&#160;protected]</a> or contact Cathy Williams
at (202) 418-2918.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Eighth
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Eighth FNPRM) and Third Notice
of Inquiry in CG Docket No. 17-59, FCC 23-37, adopted on May 18, 2023,
and released on May 19, 2023. The full text of this document is
available for public inspection at the following internet address:
<a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-37A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-37A1.pdf</a>. To request
materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (e.g.
braille, large print, electronic files, audio format, etc.), send an
email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3a5c59590f0a0e7a5c5959145d554c">[email&#160;protected]</a> or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection
requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal
Communications Commission via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d282809392b4b1b1fcb5bda4">[email&#160;protected]</a> and to Cathy
Williams, FCC, via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ca89abbea2b3e49da3a6a6a3aba7b98aaca9a9e4ada5bc">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

This document contains proposed information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public to comment on the
information collection requirements contained in this document, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
Public and agency comments are due September 8, 2023.
Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e)
way to further reduce the information collection burden on small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant
to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how
it might further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Synopsis

Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

1. In the companion final rule (Report and Order), published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, and the 2023 Caller ID
Authentication Order, 88 FR 40096 (June 21, 2023), the Federal
Communications Commission (Commission) made clear that all voice
service providers play a key role in stopping illegal calls by
extending existing obligations and closing potential loopholes. In this
Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Eighth FNPRM), the
Commission proposes and seeks comment on several additional steps that
could ensure that all consumers have access to call blocking solutions,
restore trust in caller ID, and hold voice service providers
responsible for illegal traffic. First, the Commission proposes to
require that all terminating providers offer, at a minimum, analytics-
based blocking of calls that are highly likely to be illegal on an opt-
out basis, without charge. Second, the Commission proposes to require
that all voice service providers, rather than just gateway providers,
block calls based on a reasonable DNO list. Third, the Commission seeks
comment on the correct SIP Code for providing callers with immediate
notification of blocked calls on an ongoing basis. Fourth, the
Commission seeks comment on whether, and if so how, to require
terminating providers that choose to display an indication as to caller
ID authentication status to provide some version of caller name to

[[Page 43491]]

call recipients. Finally, the Commission proposes to establish a base
forfeiture for any violation of the requirement for voice service
providers to take affirmative, effective measures to prevent new and
renewing customers from originating illegal calls.

Mandatory Blocking Programs To Protect Consumers From Illegal Calls

Requiring Opt-Out Analytics-Based Blocking of Calls That Are Highly
Likely To Be Illegal
2. The Commission proposes to require that terminating providers
offer analytics-based blocking of calls that are highly likely to be
illegal on an opt-out basis without charge to consumers. The
Commission's rules currently permit, but do not require, such blocking.
As a result, while many terminating providers offer these services,
they may not be available to all consumers. The Commission believes
that this requirement will better protect all consumers from illegal
calls.
3. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Would the
Commission's proposal help protect consumers from calls they do not
want to receive? The Commission has previously provided a non-
exhaustive list of factors that a voice service provider might consider
when blocking based on reasonable analytics rather than specifically
defining the categories of ``highly likely to be illegal'' or
``unwanted.'' If the Commission were to adopt its proposal, should it
provide further guidance, or does its flexible approach remain
appropriate? If the Commission should provide further guidance, what
should it include? What lessons can the Commission take from existing
analytics-based blocking to ensure any requirement is effective? How
can the Commission ensure that bad actors cannot use any guidance it
provides to more easily circumvent blocking? The Commission proposes to
require terminating providers to offer these blocking services 30 days
after publication of an Order in the Federal Register; it seeks comment
on this proposal. Will some providers need more time to implement this
requirement because they do not already offer any analytics-based
blocking? If so, how long should the Commission allow for
implementation?
4. To minimize the burden to terminating providers, the Commission
proposes to consider analytics-based blocking of calls that are highly
likely to be illegal on an opt-out basis to be a minimum standard.
Terminating providers that already do more, or that choose to do more,
would therefore be in compliance with this requirement. In particular,
the Commission recognizes that many terminating providers already offer
opt-out blocking services. The Commission believes that terminating
providers that already block calls that are unwanted based on
reasonable analytics on an opt-out basis, consistent with its existing
safe harbor at Sec. 64.1200(k)(3), would be in compliance because
unwanted calls inherently include calls that are highly likely to be
illegal. The Commission seeks comment on this belief. Is there any
reason that these terminating providers would not already be in
compliance? If so, are there any modifications the Commission could
make to this safe harbor to address this issue? How should the
Commission handle a situation where a terminating provider only offers
such blocking on an opt-in basis? The Commission believes that more
consumers will benefit from blocking that is offered on an opt-out
basis, because many consumers who would benefit from blocking will not
opt in. Is this correct? Is there any way the Commission could address
this issue without requiring terminating providers that offer opt-in
blocking to switch to opt-out blocking? Alternatively, is the benefit
of requiring these terminating providers to switch to opt-out blocking
enough to justify the cost of doing so?
5. Some terminating providers already block calls that are highly
likely to be illegal without consumer consent, consistent with the
Commission's safe harbor under Sec. 64.1200(k)(11). The Commission
believes that terminating providers that engage in this blocking would
also be in compliance with the mandate it proposes today. The
Commission seeks comment on this belief. Is there any reason the
Commission should not consider these terminating providers in
compliance? If so, are there any modifications that the Commission
should make to the safe harbor to address this? Because blocking
without consumer consent would mean that more consumers would benefit
than blocking on either an opt-in or opt-out basis, the Commission does
not believe there is any reason to require terminating providers to
offer consumers the opportunity to opt out when blocking targets calls
that are highly likely to be illegal, rather than unwanted. Is this
correct? Are there any reasons for us to require the terminating
provider to allow consumers to opt out? If the Commission does so,
would this create any issues for terminating providers that already
block under the existing safe harbor? Do any terminating providers that
would be impacted by this modification not offer opt-out blocking of
unwanted calls? How might the Commission address these issues if it
does take this approach?
6. Terminating providers that block consistent with the
Commission's existing safe harbors will be protected by those safe
harbors when blocking under this proposed rule. The Commission believes
the safe harbors provide sufficient protection. The Commission seeks
comment on this belief. Is there any reason to modify or expand the
Commission's existing safe harbors to protect terminating providers
that block under this rule? If so, what modifications would be
appropriate? What impact would these modifications have on lawful
calls? If the Commission does adopt certain modifications to its safe
harbors, should the Commission modify its rules protecting lawful calls
and, if so, how? Finally, the Commission believes that its existing
protections for lawful calls are sufficient and propose to extend them
to calls blocked under this requirement. The Commission seeks comment
on this belief and whether there are any other protections it should
adopt. Are there any other issues the Commission should consider in
adopting such a requirement?
Requiring Blocking Based on a Reasonable Do-Not-Originate List
7. The Commission proposes to require all voice service providers
to block calls using a reasonable DNO list. A DNO list is a list of
numbers that should never be used to originate calls, and therefore any
calls that include a listed number in the caller ID field can be
blocked. Consistent with the Commission's requirement for gateway
providers for voice calling and mobile wireless providers for text
messaging, the Commission proposes to allow voice service providers to
use any DNO list so long as the list is reasonable and not so limited
in scope that it leaves out obvious numbers that could be included with
little effort. Specifically, the Commission proposes to limit the
numbers that can be included on the list to invalid, unallocated, and
unused numbers, as well as numbers for which the subscriber to the
number has requested blocking.
8. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Should the list
include any additional categories of numbers, or should it exclude any
particular categories? The Commission notes that the categories it
proposes to include are consistent both with the requirement for
gateway providers and the Commission's long-standing authorization of
this type of blocking, so

[[Page 43492]]

it is reluctant to change this scope unless it provides a clear benefit
to consumers. The Commission therefore seek specific comment on the
benefits of any change.
9. As noted in the Gateway Provider Order, 87 FR 42916 (July 18,
2022), and Gateway Provider Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Gateway Provider FNPRM), 87 FR 42670 (July 18, 2022), The Commission
does not believe every possible number must be included in a DNO list
in order for such a list to be reasonable. Consistent with the
Commission's rule for gateway providers, the Commission believe that,
at a minimum, a reasonable list would need to include any inbound-only
government numbers where the government entity has requested the number
be included. Additionally, the Commission believes it should include
private inbound-only numbers that have been used in imposter scams,
when a request is made by the private entity assigned such a number.
The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Is there any reason to
change the minimum scope of what must be included on a reasonable DNO
list?
10. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether it is
appropriate to require all voice service providers to block based on a
reasonable DNO list, rather than limiting the requirement to certain
voice service provider types. Because the Commission does not mandate
blocking using a specific list, the content of the list may vary from
one voice service provider to another. The Commission therefore
believes that broad application of the rule will result in more calls
that are highly likely to be illegal being blocked before they reach a
consumer. Is this belief correct? Are there any other factors the
Commission should consider in determining which voice service providers
should be required to block? For example, are there technical
limitations that would make it difficult or impossible for voice
service providers to implement blocking across the network? If the
Commission does limit the blocking requirement to only specific types
of voice service providers, what categories of providers should be
required to block? For example, should the rule only apply to
originating providers, along with gateway providers? The Commission
further seeks comment on the appropriate implementation timeline for
this requirement. Given that this rule will need to be approved through
the Paperwork Reduction Act process, does requiring compliance 30 days
after publication of a notice of that approval in the Federal Register
suffice, or should the Commission allow additional time? Should the
Commission consider a different timeline if not all providers are
covered by the final rule? Are there any other issues that the
Commission should consider?

Further Strengthening the Requirements To Block Following Commission
Notification

11. In the Report and Order, the Commission requires originating
providers to block illegal traffic when notified by the Commission, as
gateway providers are already required to do. While the Commission
believes that, in the vast majority of cases, responsibility for
blocking illegal calls should fall to originating and gateway
providers, it is concerned that requiring terminating or non-gateway
intermediate providers to merely respond with information regarding
where they received the traffic could leave some loopholes that bad
actors might attempt to exploit. For this reason, the Commission
proposes to require blocking by other voice service providers in
certain situations and seek comment on other steps the Commission could
take to ensure that bad actors cannot circumvent its rules.
12. First, the Commission proposes to require a terminating or non-
gateway intermediate provider to block if that provider, upon receipt
of a Notice of Suspected Illegal Traffic, cannot identify the upstream
provider from which it received any or all of the calls. The Commission
proposes that the terminating or non-gateway intermediate provider be
required to block consistent with the original Notice of Suspected
illegal traffic, including developing a blocking plan, following the
same subsequent steps that originating and gateway providers follow
when they are notified of suspected illegal traffic. Second, the
Commission proposes to allow the Enforcement Bureau to direct a
terminating or non-gateway intermediate provider that has received at
least one prior Notice of Suspected Illegal Traffic to both block
substantially similar traffic and identify the upstream provider from
which it received the traffic. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on
any other scenarios that it should address.
13. Blocking When Information Regarding the Upstream Provider is
Unavailable. The Commission proposes to require terminating and non-
gateway intermediate providers to block illegal traffic when notified
by the Commission if, for any reason, the provider responds to the
Enforcement Bureau that it cannot identify the upstream provider from
which it received any or all of the calls identified in the Notice of
Suspected Illegal Traffic. As part of this requirement, terminating and
non-gateway intermediate providers would be required to block traffic
that is substantially similar to the traffic identified in the Notice
of Suspected Illegal Traffic. The Commission believes that this
requirement is necessary to ensure that all traffic on the U.S. network
is subject to blocking when the Enforcement Bureau has determined that
such traffic is illegal, as well as to avoid situations in which a bad-
actor provider would otherwise be shielded from consequences under the
Commission's existing rules.
14. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission
believes there are two ways the issue could arise. First, a bad-actor
provider might intentionally discard the information necessary to
identify the upstream provider so that it cannot provide that
information to the Enforcement Bureau. Second, a voice service provider
that is trying to be a good actor in the ecosystem might receive a
Notice of Suspected Illegal Traffic that includes calls for which it no
longer has records. Are there any other instances in which a provider
would be unable to identify the upstream provider from which it
received traffic? Does extending the requirement to block in these
cases present a significant burden to terminating or non-gateway
intermediate providers? How might the Commission reduce these burdens?
Are there any situations in which the Commission should not require
blocking even though the notified provider cannot identify the upstream
provider(s)? How might the Commission address these situations? The
Commission sees no reason why voice service providers would not be able
to develop a blocking plan and start blocking in response to the
initial Notice of Suspected Illegal Traffic, without requiring
additional action by the Enforcement Bureau. The voice service provider
will know that it cannot provide the identity of the upstream provider
from its investigation, and can act on this knowledge more quickly than
the Enforcement Bureau. The Commission seeks comment on this belief.
15. The Commission proposes to require blocking of ``substantially
similar'' traffic, consistent with its rules for originating and
gateway providers. Is this standard appropriate for use with
terminating and non-gateway intermediate providers, or should the
Commission adopt a different standard? Should the Commission provide

[[Page 43493]]

guidance specific to terminating and non-gateway intermediate providers
on meeting this standard, in recognition of the fact that they are
further from the source of the call and are not the first point of
entry onto the U.S. network? If so, what guidance might the Commission
provide? If the Commission adopts a different standard, what standard
should it adopt? As the Commission stated in the Report and Order,
``[a] rule that only requires an originating provider to block the
traffic specifically identified in the initial notice would arguably
block no traffic at all, as the Enforcement Bureau cannot identify
specific illegal traffic before it has been originated.'' The
Commission therefore thinks that some standard is essential to avoid a
rule that would allow illegal traffic to continue unimpeded.
16. Are there other approaches the Commission should take instead
of, or in addition to, this rule? For example, should the Commission
require all U.S.-based providers to retain call detail records for a
set amount of time? How long do voice service providers currently
retain these records, and what information do they include? Is there an
industry best practice the Commission could mandate? If so, is that
retention period sufficient to allow the Enforcement Bureau time to
investigate before sending a Notice of Suspected Illegal traffic, or is
it possible that a Notice would be sent after the records are no longer
retained? How much does it cost voice service providers to retain these
records? Does the cost to retain records increase substantially the
longer the records are required to be held? Should the Commission
require a shorter records retention period that would cover most cases,
but still require the notified provider to block substantially similar
traffic if it receives a notice when it can no longer identify the
upstream provider? Is there anything else the Commission should
consider in adopting a rule to cover these situations?
17. Repeated Notifications of Suspected Illegal Traffic to the Same
Terminating or Non-Gateway Intermediate Provider. The Commission
proposes to require terminating and non-gateway intermediate providers
to block when the Enforcement Bureau determines that it is necessary,
so long as the terminating or non-gateway intermediate provider has
previously received at least one Notice of Suspected Illegal Traffic.
Specifically, if the Enforcement Bureau has previously sent a
Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic to the identified provider,
it may require that provider to block substantially similar traffic if
it determines, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the
terminating or non-gateway intermediate provider is either
intentionally or negligently allowing illegal traffic onto its network.
In such a case, the Commission proposes to allow the Enforcement Bureau
to direct, in a Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic or Initial
Determination Order, a terminating or non-gateway intermediate provider
to both identify the upstream provider(s) from which it received the
identified traffic and block the traffic.
18. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission
is concerned that its current rules may not fully address situations in
which the terminating or non-gateway intermediate provider may respond
with information regarding the upstream provider from which it received
identified traffic, but nonetheless is taking steps to shield other
bad-actor providers or bad-actor callers. For example, a bad actor
might intentionally set up a chain of voice service providers
specifically to shield earlier providers in the chain from liability or
to allow illegal traffic to continue even if one or more provider in
the chain is removed. Does this rule appropriately address this
concern? Is requiring at least one Notice of Suspected Illegal Traffic
an appropriate threshold before the Enforcement Bureau may take this
step? Should the Commission allow the Enforcement Bureau to take this
step without having sent a prior Notice of Suspected Illegal Traffic,
or should it instead adopt greater restrictions on when it can do so?
The Commission proposes to require the Enforcement Bureau to consider
both the number of prior Notices of Suspected Illegal Traffic and how
recently the prior Notices were sent, but not to set specific
thresholds beyond requiring at least one prior Notice. Is this the
correct approach? Should the Commission limit the length of time since
the prior Notice? If so, how long should the Commission allow? Should
this time vary if the voice service provider has previously received
multiple Notices of Suspected Illegal Traffic?
19. Beyond these threshold questions, the Commission expects but
does not propose to require the Enforcement Bureau to consider specific
criteria in determining whether a provider is either intentionally or
negligently allowing illegal traffic onto its network. Such criteria
could include how frequently the notified provider appears in traceback
requests, how cooperative the notified provider has been previously,
what percentage of the notified provider's traffic appears to be
illegal, evidence that the notified provider is involved in actively
shielding illegal traffic, and any other evidence that indicates the
notified provider is a bad actor. Is this the correct approach? Should
the Commission adopt specific criteria that the Enforcement Bureau must
consider? If so, what should the Commission include in those criteria?
The Commission seeks comment on any other issues it should consider.
20. Other Loopholes. The Commission seeks comment on any other
potential loopholes to its requirements to block following Commission
notification. The Commission is concerned about either instances where
illegal traffic would still reach consumers even after notification
because no provider would be required to block it or any issues that
bad-actor providers could exploit to protect themselves or other bad
actors. Do the two proposals the Commission discusses above
sufficiently cover these concerns? If not, what is the concern and how
might the Commission address it? Are there any other issues the
Commission should consider?

SIP Codes for Immediate Notification of Blocked Calls

21. The Commission seeks comment on which SIP Code(s) to require
terminating providers with IP networks to use to notify callers that
calls have been blocked, consistent with the TRACED Act's directive to
provide ``transparency and effective redress.'' Specifically, the
Commission seeks comment on whether it should require use of the newly
developed SIP Code 603+ for immediate notification, require use of SIP
Code 608, or require use of SIP Code 603.
22. Background. In response to the TRACED Act, in December 2020,
the Commission required that terminating providers blocking calls on an
IP network use SIP Code 607, ``Unwanted,'' or SIP Code 608,
``Rejected,'' as appropriate, to notify callers or originating
providers of a blocked call. Following a petition seeking
reconsideration from USTelecom, in 2021, the Commission permitted
terminating providers with IP networks to use existing SIP Code 603,
``Decline,'' to meet the immediate notification requirement. However,
the Commission made clear that it viewed this as an ``interim measure
as industry moves to full implementation of SIP Codes 607 and 608,''
and reaffirmed its belief that ``[the Commission] should retain the
requirement that terminating providers ultimately use only SIP Codes
607 or 608 in IP networks.'' At the same time, the Commission sought
comment

[[Page 43494]]

on the status of the implementation of SIP Codes 607 and 608, as well
as whether and how to best transition away from SIP Code 603 for use as
a response for call blocking. The Commission also sought comment on
whether SIP Code 603 provides adequate information to callers and thus
should not be phased out, or whether SIP Code 603 requires modification
to make it useful to callers. After the comment period for the
rulemaking had ended, industry presented a new potential solution for
the immediate notification problem, generally referred to as SIP Code
603+, ``Network Blocked,'' which builds on the existing SIP Code 603 to
provide greater information to callers.
23. Competing Standards. The Commission believes that either SIP
Code 608 or SIP Code 603+ has the best potential to provide callers
with meaningful information when calls are blocked based on reasonable
analytics, allowing for transparency and effective redress. The
Commission seeks comment on this belief. The Commission notes that,
because it has not previously sought comment on SIP Code 603+, it is
particularly interested in the benefits and disadvantages of that
particular code relative to SIP Code 608. Are both standards capable of
satisfying the TRACED Act's requirement that the Commission provide
transparency and effective redress to callers? What are the advantages
or disadvantages of each standard? Are either or both of these SIP
Codes more advantageous than requiring use of SIP Code 603, and if so,
why? Given that SIP Code 607 is not intended for use when block is
based on reasonable analytics, the Commission no longer believes that
it would be appropriate to continue to allow use of SIP Code 607 for
this purpose, particularly given that there are now two options that
specifically address this type of blocking available in SIP Codes 603+
and 608. Is this belief correct?
24. Implementation Details and Issues. The Commission seeks comment
on the implementation process and costs for each code. Voice service
providers have argued that SIP Code 603+ is easier to implement. Is
this correct? How long will it take voice service providers to
implement SIP Codes 603+, 607, or 608, respectively? Would the
implementation timeline for SIP Code 608 vary if the Commission
requires the jCard or if it does not, and if so, how? Should the
Commission require a faster implementation for the code it adopts,
considering the Commission's directive in the December 2020 Call
Blocking Order, 86 FR 17726? What should the implementation deadline
be? How can the Commission ensure it is met? What are the respective
costs of implementation? Other than amending the Commission's mapping
rule to reflect whatever SIP Code (or possibly SIP Codes) that the
Commission requires to be used, does it need to take any additional
steps to ensure the SIP Code(s) appropriately map to or from ISUP code
21 when calls transit non-IP networks, or are the Commission's current
rule sufficient?
25. Value to Callers. Which SIP Code is most helpful for callers to
receive and use for immediate notification of blocking based on an
analytics program, or are the codes comparable for callers? What is the
cost to callers to adapt their systems to receive SIP Code 603+, 607,
or 608? Is there any information that would be available under SIP Code
608, either with or without the jCard, that is not available under SIP
Code 603+? If so, does the benefit of this information outweigh any
additional costs that voice service providers might incur to implement
SIP Code 608 throughout the network? Should the Commission require
voice service providers to use one of these SIP Codes or continue to
allow voice service providers to choose from several SIP Codes. and if
so, which Codes are most appropriate? Should the Commission continue to
allow use of SIP Code 603? What impact would each approach have on
callers? What is the timeline for callers to be able to receive SIP
Code 603+, 607, and 608? Is there anything else the Commission should
consider?

Increasing Trust in Caller ID by Providing Accurate Caller Name To Call
Recipients

26. Caller Name for Voice Calls. The Commission seeks comment on
whether and how to provide accurate caller name information to call
recipients when the terminating voice service provider displays an
indication that the call received A-level attestation. Some terminating
providers have chosen to display an indication of caller ID
authentication status to the call recipient, such as through a green
checkmark. While this may tell an informed consumer that the caller ID
is either not spoofed or spoofed with authorization, it does not tell
them anything about the identity of the caller. Mobile phones do not
routinely display information from caller ID name (CNAM) databases, and
an unfamiliar number without a display name is still an unfamiliar
number, even if the recipient knows that it was not spoofed.
27. The Commission believes that combining the display of caller
name information with the information that the number itself was not
spoofed could provide real benefit to consumers, who would then have
more data to use when deciding whether or not to answer the phone. The
Commission seeks comment on this belief. Does the caller ID attestation
information display alone significantly benefit the consumer? If so,
how does that benefit compare to the benefit of caller name data alone?
Is the combined information more beneficial than either single piece of
information? What would the Commission need to do to ensure that these
benefits are realized?
28. Caller name information is only valuable if it is accurate. The
Commission therefore seeks comment on the source of caller name
information for display. For example, should the Commission rely on
existing CNAM databases for this purpose? Is it true that the accuracy
of these databases varies and is impacted by whether the caller
provides accurate information? How can the Commission ensure that this
information is more accurate? The Commission believes that a caller
that provides inaccurate information to populate CNAM databases with
the intent to defraud, cause harm, or otherwise obtain something of
value is in violation of the Truth in Caller ID Act. The Commission
seeks comment on this belief. Are there other steps the Commission
could take to ensure CNAM accuracy?
29. Alternatively, are there other sources that would be more
accurate for caller name display? The Commission knows that industry
has been working on branded calling options, such as Rich Call Data,
which makes use of the STIR/SHAKEN framework to provide caller name and
other branding for display to the consumer. Unlike the traditional CNAM
databases, Rich Call Data is not widely deployed and may not work on
some networks; furthermore, the primary use case appears to be for
enterprise calling, rather than caller name generally. However, its
incorporation into the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework
should increase the reliability of the information. Is this a correct
assumption? Would Rich Call Data, or some other option, be a better
choice for caller name display data? If so, what limitations and
strengths do those options have, and how might the Commission craft a
rule to ensure that the limitations are addressed? How long is it
likely to take for these tools to be broadly available in the network?
Given that these technologies are generally focused on enterprise
callers, how should the Commission handle A-level

[[Page 43495]]

attested calls for which there is no caller name information? Should
intermediate providers, terminating providers, and/or their analytics
partners be required to pass without alteration Rich Call Data or other
authenticated caller identification such as caller name, logo, or
reason for the call?
30. Instead of requiring use of a specific technology for the
caller name display, should the Commission adopt a technology-neutral
standard? For example, could the Commission simply require any
terminating provider to display caller name information if it displays
an indication that the call received A-level attestation? Such a rule
would mean that, if the database or technology the terminating provider
chooses to use for this information does not include caller name data
for a particular caller, the terminating provider would not be
permitted to display an indication that the caller ID received A-level
attestation. Are there any issues with this approach? Should the
Commission set any specific requirements to ensure the accuracy of the
data? Are there alternative ways to handle this that would benefit
consumers?
31. The Commission's understanding is that terminating providers
that choose to display caller ID authentication information only do so
when the call receives A-level attestation. Are there terminating
providers that display an indication when there is a different level of
attestation? If so, should the Commission also require these
terminating providers to display caller name information, even though
there is a risk that the caller ID was spoofed? Are there any other
issues the Commission should consider, such as the appropriate
implementation timeline?

Enforcement Against Voice Service Providers That Allow Customers To
Originate Illegal Calls

32. The Commission proposes to authorize a base forfeiture of
$11,000 for any voice service provider that fails to take affirmative,
effective measures to prevent new and renewing customers from using its
network to originate illegal calls, including knowing its customers and
exercising due diligence in ensuring that its services are not used to
originate illegal traffic. The Commission further proposes to authorize
this forfeiture to be increased up to the maximum forfeiture that its
rules allow us to impose on non-common carriers. Additionally, the
Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt a similar
forfeiture for failure to comply with its requirement to know the
upstream provider.
33. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. The Commission
believes that establishing a base forfeiture well below the maximum is
appropriate, as it will allow us to adjust the total forfeiture upward
or downward on a case-by-case basis consistent with section 503 of the
Act and Sec. 1.80 of the Commission's rules. The Commission seeks
comment on this belief. Is the base forfeiture the Commission proposes
sufficient incentive to encourage voice service providers that are not
actively trying to prevent callers from placing illegal calls to take
steps to ensure that the measures they take are truly effective? Would
some other threshold be appropriate? If so, what would be an
appropriate base forfeiture? Similarly, is the Commission's proposal to
set the maximum forfeiture amount at the maximum its rules permit for
non-common carriers appropriate? The Commission does not believe that
there is any reason to penalize common carriers more harshly than non-
common carriers. The Commission seeks comment on this belief. For this
purpose, how should the Commission define an individual violation of
this rule? For example, should the Commission consider each customer
for which the voice service provider fails to take effective measures a
single violation? If so, if a voice service provider allows that
customer to originate illegal calls over the course of several days,
should the Commission consider this a continuing violation such that it
may impose a forfeiture of up to $23,727 per day? In general, The
Commission does not believe that this will interact with the forfeiture
it adopted earlier this year for failure to block. However, the
Commission seeks comment on any potential interactions and whether, and
how, it should address them. Is there anything else the Commission
should consider in authorizing these forfeitures?
34. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it would be
appropriate to impose specific forfeitures for violations of its rules
requiring a voice service provider to know its upstream provider.
Should the Commission take the same approach for violations of these
rules, or would a different approach be appropriate? For example, since
the know-your-upstream-provider requirements apply to a high volume of
illegal traffic, rather than the origination of any illegal traffic,
should the base forfeiture be higher or lower?
35. The Commission believes that establishing a new base forfeiture
is appropriate in part because bad-actor voice service providers profit
from the callers that they protect. The Commission seeks comment on
this belief. For example, do bad-actor voice service providers profit
from fees paid by downstream providers, such as CNAM database dip fees?
Is there some other approach the Commission could take that would
better address these economic incentives? Is there anything else the
Commission should consider?

Legal Authority

36. The Commission proposes to find its legal authority for the
proposed rules consistent with its authority under sections 201(b),
202(a), and 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the
Act) as well as from the Truth in Caller ID Act and its ancillary
authority. In order for the rules addressing voice calls to provide
benefit, they must include all voice service providers, including non-
Title II providers. The Commission further proposes to rely on its
authority under the TRACED Act for establishing a specific SIP Code to
be used for immediate notification of call blocking. The Act and the
Truth in Caller ID Act have long formed the basis for the Commission's
prohibitions on call blocking. The Commission believes that these
source of authority grant it sufficient authority to adopt the proposed
rules, and it seeks comment on this belief. The Commission proposes
that it has authority for some matters it seeks comment on here under
section 251(e) of the Act, which provides it ``exclusive jurisdiction
over those portions of the North American Numbering Plan that pertain
to the United States.'' Are there any other sources of authority the
Commission should rely on? Do any of these sources of authority not
apply to the rules the Commission proposes today?

Third Notice of Inquiry

37. Voice service providers have a wide array of tools they can use
to fight the ever-changing landscape of illegal calls. While some of
these tools are mandated or otherwise regulated directly by the
Commission, some may not be directly subject to its rules. Even where
the Commission does not directly regulate, it is important for it to be
aware of the options voice service providers have and whether tools are
working as intended to benefit and protect consumers. With this Third
Notice of Inquiry, the Commission seeks information regarding the
current state of technology for identifying and combating illegal
calls, as well as the current state of call labeling.

[[Page 43496]]

Technology for Fighting Illegal Calls

38. The Commission seeks comment on the tools voice service
providers currently use to identify and combat illegal calls. The
Commission also seeks comment on tools that are in development that
show particular promise. What tools do voice service providers use, and
how do these tools help identify and combat illegal calls? Are there
any tools that are particularly valuable? If so, is there anything the
Commission can do to improve or promote these tools? Are voice service
providers reluctant to use certain tools due to fear of liability?
39. The Commission is particularly interested in the use of
honeypots and whether there is any way for us to leverage or facilitate
the use of honeypots more broadly. A honeypot is an unassigned phone
number that is used by a voice service provider, researcher, or other
third party to receive (and, where permissible, record) calls to those
numbers. It allows the voice service provider (or other holder) to
``listen in'' on such calls. One potential advantage of a honeypot is
that it allows ``listening in'' without violating any actual customer's
privacy. The Commission seeks comment on this anticipated benefit, and
whether the use of honeypots involves any privacy risk (e.g., the
receipt of inadvertent calls or voicemails in which the caller reveals
personally identifiable information (PII)). The Commission additionally
seeks comment on whether it should take steps to further the use of
honeypots. Are there any barriers to their use the Commission could
remove? Can honeypots be utilized lawfully in every state, or are there
state laws that might restrict or limit their use? Alternatively,
should the Commission consider implementing a Commission-operated
honeypot? If so, what benefits would that bring that cannot be realized
through private-sector use? Are there any privacy or other concerns the
Commission should be aware of? Alternatively, are there other options
that fill the same role as honeypots more efficiently, or without those
concerns?
40. The Commission recognizes that, in some cases, voice service
providers may be reluctant to publicly disclose information regarding
the tools they use to combat illegal calls. Where possible, the
Commission encourage voice service providers to file public comments.
If a voice service provider has particular competitive concerns,
however, or is concerned that their filing may allow bad actors to
circumvent these tools, the Commission also welcomes confidential
filings.

Call Labeling

41. Call labeling, which comes in several forms, is a popular tool
because it gives call recipients information they can use to decide
whether to answer a call. Some labels seek to warn the call recipient
of the level of risk the call presents; these are generally based on
analytics and may include phrases like ``scam likely'' or ``fraud
risk.'' Other labels seek to provide information as to the content of
the call, such as ``telemarketing'' or ``survey.''
42. The Commission seeks comment on the current state of call
labeling. Are there any voice service providers that do not offer call
labeling services to their customers? If so, why not? What labels are
most commonly used, and how are these labels determined? How is STIR/
SHAKEN caller ID authentication information used in determining the
correct label? Similarly, what role does crowd feedback play in call
labeling? Do consumers report satisfaction with these services? How
often do voice service providers receive complaints about inaccurate
labels from call recipients? From callers? How often do consumers opt
out of these services? How have voice service providers responded to
these issues? How do analytics providers weigh the claims of the call
originator against crowd feedback indicating a call is unwanted or
abusive? Is there data regarding how often call recipients answer calls
with negative labels compared to how often they answer calls that
display just a number? Do labels ever override a caller name that the
call recipient has saved to their phone, or does the saved name take
precedence?
43. Is there anything the Commission can do to improve the
availability and accuracy of call labeling, or make it more valuable to
consumers and accurate for callers? Should the Commission do so? What
is the Commission's legal authority to do so?

Digital Equity and Inclusion

44. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance
digital equity for all, including people of color and others who have
been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by
persistent poverty and 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 its proposals may promote or inhibit
advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

45. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Eighth
FNPRM. The Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page of the Eighth
FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the Eighth FNPRM, including
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA). In addition, the Eighth FNPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

46. In order to continue the Commission's work of protecting
American consumers from illegal calls, regardless of their provenance,
the Eighth FNPRM proposes and seeks comment on several options to
better protect consumers from illegal calls, restore faith in caller
ID, and hold voice service providers responsible for the calls they
carry. First, the Eighth FNPRM proposes to require terminating voice
service providers to offer, at a minimum, opt-out blocking services of
calls that are highly likely to be illegal to consumers without charge.
It also seeks comment on whether the Commission should continue to use
a non-exhaustive list of factors that voice service providers might
consider when blocking based on reasonable analytics or whether further
guidance is needed to define the category ``highly likely to be
illegal.'' Second, the Eighth FNPRM proposes to require all voice
service providers, rather than just gateway providers, to block calls
using a reasonable do-not-originate list. Third, it seeks comment on
specific instances where the non-gateway intermediate and terminating
providers may be required to block following Commission notification of
illegal traffic. Fourth, it seeks comment on the correct SIP Code to
use for immediate notification of call blocking to callers, so that
callers placing lawful calls can seek redress, and seeks comment on the
implementation process and costs for each code. Fifth, it seeks comment
on whether, and how, to require display of caller name information when
a

[[Page 43497]]

terminating provider displays an indication that a call received A-
level attestation under the STIR/SHAKEN framework. Combining the
display of caller name information with the information that the number
itself was not spoofed may provide real benefit to consumers. Finally,
it proposes to set a minimum forfeiture of $11,000 for failure to
comply with one of the existing rules, and would allow that forfeiture
to be increased up to the maximum for non-common carriers. The Eighth
FNPRM seeks comment on whether a base forfeiture is appropriate in part
because bad-actor voice service providers profit from the callers that
they protect.

Legal Basis

47. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i),
201, 202, 227, 227b 251(e), 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 202, 227, 251(e), 303(r),
and 403, and section 7 of the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal
Enforcement and Deterrence Act, Public Law 116-105, 133 Stat. 3274.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply

48. 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 by the rule revisions on which the
Notice seeks comment, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small-business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
49. 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 Small
Business Administration's (SBA) 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 32.5 million businesses.
50. 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.''
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were
approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
51. 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 2017 Census of Governments indicate that there
were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United
States. Of this number there were 36,931 general purpose governments
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than
50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school
districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly,
based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission
estimates that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of
``small governmental jurisdictions.''

Wireline Carriers

52. 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.
Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline
carriers or fixed local service providers.
53. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 providers
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,737
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
54. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services
include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry
with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local
service providers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 providers
that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,737 providers have
1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business
size standard, most of these providers can be considered small
entities.
55. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired
Telecommunications Carriers is the

[[Page 43498]]

closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry
that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated
with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data
in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31,
2020, there were 1,227 providers that reported they were incumbent
local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 929 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local exchange
carriers can be considered small entities.
56. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services.
Providers of these services include several types of competitive local
exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020,
there were 3,956 providers that reported they were competitive local
exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 3,808 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of
these providers can be considered small entities.
57. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for
Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020,
there were 151 providers that reported they were engaged in the
provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 131 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry
can be considered small entities.
58. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a
``small cable operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that, directly or
through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of
all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any
entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.'' For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the
Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer
than 677,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will
meet the definition of a small cable operator based on the cable
subscriber count established in a 2001 Public Notice. Based on industry
data, only six cable system operators have more than 677,000
subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of
cable system operators are small under this size standard. The
Commission notes however, that it neither requests nor collects
information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with
entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore,
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.
59. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition 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. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest
industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that
operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020,
there were 115 providers that reported they were engaged in the
provision of other toll services. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 113 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of
these providers can be considered small entities.

Wireless Carriers

60. 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
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 797
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 715
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
61. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth
station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies a business with $38.5 million or less in annual
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242
firms

[[Page 43499]]

had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on Commission
data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December
31, 2020, there were 71 providers that reported they were engaged in
the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of these
providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 48 providers
have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small
business size standard, a little more than of these providers can be
considered small entities.

Resellers

62. Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have
developed a small business size standard specifically for Local
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with a
SBA small business size standard. 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 small business size standard for
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire
year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 293
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of local
resale services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 289
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
63. Toll Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have
developed a small business size standard specifically for Toll
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with an
SBA small business size standard. 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 small business size standard for
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire
year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 518
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of toll
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 495
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
64. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
prepaid calling card providers. Telecommunications Resellers is the
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. 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 small business size standard for Telecommunications Resellers
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry
provided resale services for the entire year. Of that number, 1,375
firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2020, there were 58 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of payphone services. Of these providers, the
Commission estimates that 57 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of
these providers can be considered small entities.

Other Entities

65. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of
internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or voice over internet protocol
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are
also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard
for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million
or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were
1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities

66. The Eighth FNPRM proposes and seeks comment on imposing several
obligations that may include recordkeeping or reporting requirements on
small entity providers. Specifically, the Eighth FNPRM proposes to
require all terminating voice service providers to offer, at a minimum,
opt-out blocking of calls that are highly likely to be illegal. The
Eighth FNPRM also proposes that small and other voice service providers
block calls using a reasonable do-not-originate (DNO) list. This would
require voice service providers that do not already engage in this type
of blocking, either voluntarily or in order to comply with the
Commission's existing rule for gateway providers, to either obtain or
create such a list and ensure that the list remains up to date. The
Eighth FNPRM seeks comment on limiting the SIP code for use for
immediate notification to callers to a single code, with focus on SIP
Code 608 or 603+, and seeks comment on the costs and timeline to
implement and comply with the proposed rule. Additionally, a
requirement to display caller name information to consumers

[[Page 43500]]

when displaying an indication of A-level attestation may include a
recordkeeping or reporting requirement. Depending on the exact
mechanism chosen, small entity and other terminating providers that
wish to display an indication of attestation may need to access a
caller name database or other list in order to comply. Finally, the
Eighth FNPRM proposes specific forfeiture costs to small and other
providers for failure to comply with call blocking rules. The
Commission anticipates the information it receives in comments
including where requested, cost and benefit analyses, will help the
Commission identify and evaluate relevant compliance matters for small
entities, including compliance costs and other burdens that may result
from the proposals and inquiries it makes in the Eighth FNPRM.

Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

67. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): ``(1)
the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements under the rules for such small
entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and
(4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for
such small entities.''
68. The Eighth FNPRM seeks comment on the burdens that would be
imposed on small and other voice service providers if the Commission
adopts rules in the areas where the Commission seeks comment. The
Commission welcomes comments on any of the issues raised in the Eighth
FNPRM that will impact small providers. In particular, the Eighth FNPRM
seeks comment on whether the existing safe harbors for blocking are
sufficient, or whether additional safe harbor protection is necessary.
Safe harbor protections are likely to be particularly important to
smaller providers that may otherwise be concerned about liability if
they block calls in error. The Eighth FNPRM also seeks comment on
multiple options for immediate notification of callers and methods for
providing caller name information to consumers.
69. Including alternative options to the proposals discussed in the
Eighth FNPRM ensures that the Commission can appropriately balance the
burdens to small entity providers, with the benefit to callers placing
lawful calls and consumers. Among the alternatives considered in the
Eighth FNPRM is whether there is a benefit to requiring small and other
terminating providers that currently offer opt-in blocking to switch to
opt-out blocking. It also considers whether to require all voice
service providers to block based on a reasonable DNO list, rather than
limiting the requirement to certain voice service provider types,
because the content of the list may vary depending on the provider. The
Eighth FNPRM seeks comment on alternatives to ways small and other
providers can provide an accurate caller name display, such as using
Caller ID name (CNAM) databases or other sources for caller
information, and requiring specific technology for caller name display
or adopting a technology-neutral standard. Allowing for this
flexibility may make it easier for small entities that are terminating
providers to comply with the proposed rules. The Eighth FNPRM also
seeks alternatives to the proposed base forfeiture amount, such as
requiring the voice service provider to repay any profits from fees
paid by downstream providers.
70. To assist in the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact
on small entities, as a result of actions that have been proposed in
the Eighth FNPRM, and to better explore options and alternatives, the
Commission seeks comment on whether any of the burdens associated with
the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described above
can be minimized for small entities. Additionally, the Commission seeks
comment on whether any of the costs associated with any of the proposed
requirements to eliminate unlawful robocalls can be alleviated for
small entities. The Commission expects to more fully consider the
economic impact and alternatives for small entities based on its review
of the record and any comments filed in response to the Eighth FNPRM
and this IRFA.

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules

71. None.

Procedural Matters

72. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact
of the rule and policy changes contained in the Eighth FNPRM. Written
public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by
the deadlines for comments on the Eighth FNPRM indicated on the first
page of this document and must have a separate and distinct heading
designating them as responses to the IRFA.
73. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document may contain new or
modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. Specifically, the rules
adopted in Sec. Sec. 64.1200(n)(1) and 64.6305(d)(2)(iii) and
(f)(2)(iii) require modified information collections. All such new or
modified information collection requirements will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d)
of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be
invited to comment on any new or modified information collection
requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, the Commission
notes that, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission
previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees.
74. In this document, the Commission has assessed the effects of
requiring all voice service providers to respond to traceback within 24
hours and modifying the certification requirement for the Robocall
Mitigation Database accordingly, and find that small voice service
providers have had ample time to develop processes to allow them to
respond within the appropriate time and that providers for which this
presents a significant burden, either due to their size or for some
other reason, may request a waiver.
75. The Eighth FNPRM also contains a proposed revised information
collection requirement. The Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB
to comment on the information collection requirement contained in this
document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
Relief Act of 2002,

[[Page 43501]]

Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks
specific comment on how it might further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.
76. Ex Parte Presentations--Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding
this Eighth FNPRM initiates shall be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In
proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for
which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Ordering Clauses

77. It is ordered that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 201, 202, 227,
227b 251(e), 303(r), 403, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 202, 227, 251(e), 303(r), 403 and 503,
and section 7 of the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and
Deterrence Act, Public Law 116-105,
78. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Managing Director, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Eighth FNPRM and Third Notice of Inquiry, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 1

Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Claims,
Communications, Communications common carriers, Communications
equipment, Cuba, Drug abuse, Environmental impact statements, Equal
access to justice, Equal employment opportunity, Federal buildings and
facilities, Government employees, Historic preservation, Income taxes,
Indemnity payments, Individuals with disabilities, Internet,
Investigations, Lawyers, Metric system, Penalties, Radio, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Satellites, Security measures,
Telecommunications, Telephone, Television, Wages.

47 CFR Part 64

Carrier equipment, Communications common carriers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1 and 64 as
follows:

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note,
unless otherwise noted.

Subpart A--General Rules of Practice and Procedure

0
2. In Sec. 1.80, amend table 1 to paragraph (b)(10) by adding the
entry of ``Failure to prevent customers from originating illegal
calls'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec. 1.80 Forfeiture proceedings.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(10) * * *

Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(10)--Base Amounts for Section 503 Forfeitures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Violation
Forfeitures amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Failure to prevent customers from originating illegal 11,000
calls.................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

0
3. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220,
222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262,
276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 617, 620, 1401-1473, unless otherwise
noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.

0
4. Amend Sec. 64.1200 by revising paragraph (n)(5)(i)(B), adding
paragraph (n)(5)(i)(C), revising paragraph (o), and adding paragraph
(s) to read as follows:

Sec. 64.1200 Delivery restrictions.

* * * * *
(n) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) If the provider's investigation determines that the identified
traffic is not illegal, it shall provide an explanation as to why the
provider reasonably concluded that the identified traffic is not
illegal and what steps it took to reach that conclusion. Absent such a
showing, or if the Enforcement Bureau determines based on the evidence
that the traffic is illegal despite the provider's assertions, the
identified traffic will be deemed illegal. If the notified provider
determines during this investigation that it did not serve as the

[[Page 43502]]

gateway provider or originating provider for any of the identified
traffic, it shall provide an explanation as to how it reached that
conclusion, identify the upstream provider(s) from which it received
the identified traffic, and, if possible, take lawful steps to mitigate
this traffic. If the provider responds to the Enforcement Bureau that
it cannot identify any or all of the upstream provider(s) from which it
received the traffic, it must block substantially similar traffic
consistent with the obligations of gateway and originating providers in
paragraph (n)(5)(i)(A) of this section. If the Enforcement Bureau finds
that an approved plan is not blocking substantially similar traffic,
the identified provider shall modify its plan to block such traffic. If
the Enforcement Bureau finds that the identified provider continues to
allow suspected illegal traffic onto the U.S. network, it may proceed
under paragraph (n)(5)(ii) or (iii) of this section, as appropriate.
(C) If the Enforcement Bureau has previously sent a Notification of
Suspected Illegal Traffic to the identified provider, it may require
that provider to block substantially similar traffic consistent with
the obligations of gateway and originating providers in paragraph
(n)(5)(i)(A) of this section and to identify the upstream provider(s)
from which it received the identified traffic--if it determines, based
on the totality of the circumstances, that the terminating or non-
gateway intermediate provider is either intentionally or negligently
allowing illegal traffic onto its network.
* * * * *
(o) A voice service provider must block any calls purporting to
originate from a number on a reasonable do-not-originate list. A list
so limited in scope that it leaves out obvious numbers that could be
included with little effort may be deemed unreasonable. The do-not-
originate list may include only:
(1) Numbers for which the subscriber to the number has requested
that calls purporting to originate from that number be blocked because
the number is used for inbound calls only;
(2) North American Numbering Plan numbers that are not valid;
(3) Valid North American Numbering Plan Numbers that are not
allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan
Administrator; and
(4) Valid North American Numbering Plan numbers that are allocated
to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator, but
are 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 blocking.
* * * * *
(s) A terminating provider must offer analytics-based blocking of
calls that are highly likely to be illegal on an opt-out basis without
charge to consumers. A provider that offers blocking services
consistent with paragraph (k)(3) or (11) of this section will be deemed
to be in compliance with paragraph (p) of this section, so long as
those services are offered without charge.

[FR Doc. 2023-13032 Filed 7-7-23; 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>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on July 10, 2023.

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.