[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 17, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22625-22634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09463]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 17-24]


Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission invites comment on proposed 
changes to its rules implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 
and to its call completion rules. The Commission proposes rules to 
codify the clarification contained in the 2016 Guidance PN that 
providers may block calls when the subscriber to a particular telephone 
number requests that calls originating from that number be blocked; 
permit providers to block calls originating from invalid numbers; 
permit providers to block calls originating from valid numbers that are 
not allocated to a voice service provider; and permit providers to 
block calls originating from valid numbers that are allocated but not 
assigned to a subscriber. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on 
the possibility of permitting providers to block calls in other 
situations where the calls to be blocked are reasonably likely to be 
illegal based upon objective criteria.

DATES: Comments are due on or before July 3, 2017, and reply comments 
are due on or before July 31, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket 17-59 by 
any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on 
the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing 
the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. 
Postal service mailing address, and CG Docket No. 17-59.
     Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and one copy of each filing. Filers must submit two additional 
copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be 
sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or 
by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must 
be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
    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: Jerusha Burnett, Consumer Policy 
Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 by 
email at [email protected] or by phone at (202) 418-0526.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of

[[Page 22626]]

Inquiry in CG Docket No. 17-59, adopted on March 23, 2017, and released 
March 23, 2017. A copy of document FCC 17-24 and any subsequently filed 
documents in this matter will be available during regular business 
hours at the FCC Reference Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., 
Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270. The full text of 
document FCC 17-24 will be available for public inspection and copying 
via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference 
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554. A copy of document FCC 17-24 and any subsequently 
filed documents in this matter may also be found by searching ECFS at: 
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (insert CG Docket No. 17-59 into the 
Proceeding block).
    Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 
comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the 
first page of this document. Comments may be filed using ECFS. See 
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 
(1998).
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand 
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 
envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. 
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    Pursuant to Sec.  1.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1200, 
this matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in 
accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex 
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentations must contain summaries of the substances of the 
presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More 
than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments 
presented is generally required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules 
pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-
disclose proceedings are set forth in Sec.  1.1206(b) of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
    To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). 
Document FCC 17-24 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document 
Format (PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/robocall-blocking-nprm-and-noi.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    Document FCC 17-24 seeks comment on proposed rule amendments that 
may result in modified information collection requirements. If the 
Commission adopts any modified information collection requirements, the 
Commission will publish another notice in the Federal Register inviting 
the public to comment on the requirements, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat. 163; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. 
In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002, the Commission seeks comment on how it might further reduce the 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees. Public Law 107-198, 116 Stat. 729; 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4).

Synopsis

    1. In the document FCC 17-24, the Commission begins a process to 
facilitate voice service providers' blocking of illegal robocalls. 
Providers have been active in identifying such robocalls, and consumer 
groups and others have asked the Commission to encourage better call 
blocking.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    2. The Commission believes that it is in the best interest of 
achieving the goal of eliminating illegal robocalls to collaborate with 
industry--government can remove regulatory roadblocks and ensure that 
industry has the flexibility to use robust tools to address illegal 
traffic. It is also important for the Commission to protect the 
reliability of the nation's communications network and to protect 
consumers from provider-initiated blocking that harms, rather than 
helps, consumers. The Commission therefore must balance competing 
policy considerations--some favoring blocking and others disfavoring 
blocking--to arrive at an effective solution that maximizes consumer 
protection and network reliability. The Commission therefore seek 
comment on several proposals that the Commission believes strike the 
correct balance.
    3. Specifically, the Commission proposes that voice service 
providers may block telephone calls in certain circumstances to protect 
subscribers from illegal robocalls. First, the Commission proposes to 
codify the clarification contained in the 2016 Guidance PN that 
providers may block calls when the subscriber to a particular telephone 
number requests that calls originating from that number be blocked. 
Second, the Commission seeks comment on proposed rules authorizing 
providers to block calls from three categories of numbers: Invalid 
numbers, valid numbers that are not allocated to a voice service 
provider, and valid numbers that are allocated but not assigned to a 
subscriber.
    4. The Commission's legal authority for these rules stems from 
sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act (the Act), which 
prohibit unjust and unreasonable practices and unjust and unreasonable 
discrimination--and thus have formed the basis for the Commission's 
historic prohibitions on call blocking. Here, the Commission believes 
that blocking a call from a spoofed number is not, by definition, an 
unjust or unreasonable practice or unjustly or unreasonably 
discriminatory practice, and the Commission invokes authority stemming 
from sections 201 and 202 of the Act in making that determination. The 
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), as codified in 
section 227(b)(2) of the Act, also states that the Commission ``shall 
prescribe regulations to implement'' the TCPA's restrictions on 
robocalls in subsection 227(b) of the Act. As discussed below, the 
Commission's proposed rules are intended to facilitate blocking of 
illegal robocalls by voice service providers, with the ultimate goal of 
ensuring that consumers receive fewer robocalls that violate section 
227(b) of the Act, while also preserving effective call completion 
obligations. In addition, the Commission is charged with prescribing 
regulations to implement the Truth in Caller ID Act, which made 
unlawful the spoofing of Caller IDs ``in connection with any 
telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service . . . . with the 
intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value . 
. . .'' Given the continuing and ever-evolving schemes by illegitimate 
callers to harm and defraud consumers using spoofed Caller IDs, these 
proposals are necessary to allow service providers to help prevent 
these unlawful acts and protect voice service subscribers. Finally, 
section 251(e) of the Act gives the Commission authority over the use

[[Page 22627]]

and allocation of numbering resources in the United States, including 
the use of the unassigned numbers at issue in the proposed rules. The 
Commission seeks comment on the nature and scope of the Commission's 
authority to adopt rules as proposed herein.
    5. As a threshold matter, the Commission seek comment on how to 
define the term ``illegal robocall'' for purposes of this proceeding. 
Based on the Strike Force's recommendation, the Commission tentatively 
concludes that an ``illegal robocall'' is one that violates the 
requirements of the TCPA, the related Commission regulations 
implementing the Act, or the Telemarketing Sales Rule, as well as any 
call made for the purpose of defrauding a consumer, as prohibited under 
a variety of federal and state laws and regulations, including the 
federal Truth in Caller ID Act. Is this definition sufficient to 
capture all robocalls that should be subject to provider-initiated 
blocking? If not, how might the definition be expanded to serve the 
Commission's goals in this proceeding? For example, would this 
definition preclude voice service providers from blocking calls that 
are not lawful for other reasons, such as calls prohibited by an anti-
stalking law or a court order, or preclude providers from blocking 
calls that violate a law but are not autodialed or prerecorded? 
Conversely, is this definition insufficiently precise so that it could 
lead to lawful calls being blocked? If so, what types of calls and how 
should the Commission change this definition?

A. Blocking at the Request of the Subscriber to the Originating Number

    6. The 2016 Guidance PN made clear that voice service providers 
(whether providing such service through Time-Division Multiplexing, 
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), or Commercial Mobile Radio 
Service) may block calls from a number if the subscriber to that 
telephone number requests such blocking in order to prevent its 
telephone number from being spoofed. The Bureau concluded that, where 
the subscriber did not consent to the number being spoofed, the call 
was very likely made with the intent to defraud, and therefore that no 
reasonable consumer would wish to receive such a call. Such calls are 
deemed to be presumptively spoofed and likely to violate the 
Commission's anti-spoofing rules, and have the potential to cause harm 
both to the called party and to the subscriber who uses the number. The 
Commission agrees with the Bureau's conclusions and propose to amend 
the Commission's rules to codify them, so as to provide increased 
certainty to providers. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    7. The 2016 Guidance PN did not directly address issues related to 
providers sharing information about such subscriber requests. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether there are roadblocks to sharing 
information among providers necessary to effectuate subscriber requests 
for blocking and what, if any, rule changes or other measures are 
needed to ensure that such requests can be honored efficiently and 
effectively. Particularly, the Commission seeks comment on what 
measures, if any, the Commission should consider to facilitate the 
sharing of such requests among providers where, for example, the 
subscriber asks the provider that serves the number at issue to 
disseminate its request throughout the industry. The Commission notes 
that subscribers might not be readily able to identify each and every 
provider and to submit such a request to each provider individually. 
Although such information sharing at the subscriber's request appears 
to be consistent with the Commission's Customer Proprietary Network 
Information (CPNI) rules, the Commission seeks comment on whether there 
are remaining concerns that have not already been adequately addressed. 
Would such concerns, if any, be resolved by further clarification about 
the lawfulness of disclosing information to protect consumers and the 
network, and to prevent fraud? Are subscribers who request such 
blocking, absent instructions to the contrary, inherently requesting 
that that information be shared among providers, and does such sharing 
occur routinely, or are subscribers making multiple individual requests 
to multiple providers? Are there any particular concerns regarding the 
entity through which sharing occurs? For example, are there any 
specific concerns regarding sharing through an industry information or 
an entity involved in administering telephone numbers? The Commission 
notes especially that by seeking comment on these issues, and during 
the pendency of this proceeding, the Commission does not stall, 
interrupt, or prevent information sharing that is already occurring 
lawfully. Instead, the Commission asks whether the Commission can 
provide a better framework to facilitate and encourage sharing, and if 
so, how the Commission might do so.

B. Calls Originating From Unassigned Numbers

    8. In the Strike Force Report, the Strike Force asked the 
Commission to further clarify that provider-initiated blocking is 
permissible where the call purports to originate from a number that the 
provider knows to be unassigned. As discussed in more detail below, use 
of an unassigned number is a strong indication that the calling party 
is spoofing the Caller ID to potentially defraud and harm a voice 
service subscriber. The Commission can readily identify three 
categories of unassigned numbers. Those categories are: (1) Numbers 
that are invalid under the North American Numbering Plan (NANP), 
including numbers with unassigned area codes; (2) numbers that have not 
been allocated by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator 
(NANPA) or the National Number Pool Administrator (PA) to any provider; 
and (3) numbers that the NANPA or PA has allocated to a provider, but 
are not currently assigned to a subscriber. The Commission seeks 
comment on rules to codify that providers may block numbers that fall 
into each of these three categories. The Commission seeks comment on 
how and when such blocking should be permitted and on whether there are 
other categories of numbers that should be considered to be unassigned.

C. Calls Originating From Invalid Numbers

    9. The Commission proposes to adopt a rule allowing provider-
initiated blocking of calls purportedly originating from numbers that 
are not valid under the NANP. Examples of such numbers include numbers 
that use an unassigned area code; that use an N11 code, such as 911 or 
411, in place of an area code; that do not contain the requisite number 
of digits; and that are a single digit repeated, such as 000-000-0000. 
Can providers, because of their intimate knowledge of the North 
American Numbering Plan, easily identify numbers that fall into this 
category? Further, because these numbers are not valid, there is no 
possibility that a subscriber legitimately could be originating calls 
from such numbers. Nor do the Commission foresee any reasonable 
possibility that a caller would spoof such a number for any legitimate, 
lawful purpose; for example, unlike a business spoofing Caller ID on 
outgoing calls to show its main call-back number, invalid numbers 
cannot be called back. The Commission therefore does not see a 
significant risk to network reliability in allowing

[[Page 22628]]

providers to block this category of calls. The Commission seeks comment 
on this proposal.
    10. More generally, the Commission seeks comment on whether, for 
purposes of this rule, to define invalid numbers more specifically than 
already described above. Further, the Commission seeks comment on what, 
if anything, the Commission can do to assist providers in correctly 
identifying invalid numbers. With regard to smaller providers, are 
there any particular measures the Commission or the numbering 
administrators can implement to assist them in more readily identifying 
or blocking calls originating from invalid numbers? Finally, the 
Commission seeks comment on any additional issues concerning the 
blocking of calls purportedly originating from invalid numbers.

D. Calls Originating From Numbers Not Allocated to Any Provider

    11. The Commission also proposes to allow provider-initiated 
blocking of calls from numbers that are valid but have not yet been 
allocated by NANPA or the PA to any provider. Though these numbers are 
valid under the North American Numbering Plan, the Commission believes 
that they are similar to invalid numbers in that no subscriber can 
actually originate a call from any of them, and the Commission can 
foresee no legitimate, lawful reason to spoof such a number because 
they cannot be called back. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal.
    12. Unlike the category of calls described above, numbers in this 
category are not presumptively invalid. Instead, the provider must have 
knowledge that a certain block of numbers has not been allocated to any 
provider and therefore that the number being blocked could not have 
been assigned to a subscriber. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
providers can readily identify numbers that have yet to be allocated to 
any provider and, if not, whether the NANPA or PA could assist by 
providing this information in a timely, effective way. If there are 
difficulties in identifying unallocated numbers, the Commission asks 
commenters to provide specific descriptions and/or examples of any of 
those difficulties, and to offer any proposed solutions to overcome 
these difficulties. Can providers identify a subset of such number 
blocks, e.g., those shown as ``available'' by the PA? If providers can 
identify these number blocks, is there any delay in that information 
being updated or other factors that likely would result in calls from 
allocated numbers being blocked? If so, the Commission seeks comment on 
what steps are necessary to mitigate or eliminate the possibility of 
such calls being blocked. The Commission seeks comment on what further 
steps the Commission can take to assist providers, especially small 
providers, in identifying and blocking calls originating from numbers 
that have not been allocated to any provider and on any other relevant 
issues.

E. Calls Originating From Numbers That Are Allocated to a Provider, But 
Not Assigned to a Subscriber

    13. The Commission proposes to allow provider-initiated blocking of 
calls from numbers that have been allocated to a provider but are not 
assigned to a subscriber at the time of the call. Like the two 
categories of unassigned numbers discussed above, a subscriber cannot 
originate a call from such a number, and the Commission foresees no 
legitimate, lawful purpose for intentionally spoofing a number that is 
not assigned to a subscriber and thus cannot be called back. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    14. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the ability of 
providers to accurately and timely identify numbers that fall within 
this category. The Commission believes that the provider to which a 
telephone number is allocated will know whether that telephone number 
is currently assigned to a subscriber. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether other providers can also determine, in a timely way, whether a 
specific telephone number is assigned to a subscriber at the time a 
specific call is made. Do providers currently share information about 
which numbers are assigned to a subscriber, and, if so, is such 
information shared in close to real time? Can the number portability 
database administered by the Number Portability Administration Center 
(NPAC) provide such information for a subset of numbers? Are there ways 
the Commission can facilitate or improve the sharing of information 
about numbers in this category? Should the Commission mandate the 
sharing of information about unassigned numbers to facilitate 
appropriate robocall blocking? If so, what is the most appropriate 
means to facilitate such information sharing?
    15. If there are reasons that information about such numbers cannot 
be shared in an accurate and timely way, the Commission also seeks 
comment on whether a rule explicitly authorizing provider-initiated 
blocking of calls purportedly from numbers that are allocated to a 
provider but not assigned to a subscriber should apply only to the 
provider to which the number is allocated. Are there other factors that 
support or disfavor explicitly authorizing all providers to block calls 
purporting to originate from numbers in this category? Are there 
concerns for small providers, which presumably have a smaller set of 
allocated numbers than the larger providers? Finally, the Commission 
seeks comment on any issues not already raised that may arise by 
allowing providers to block allocated, but unassigned, telephone 
numbers.

F. Related Issues

    16. Internationally Originated Calls. The Commission notes that 
internationally originated calls may require special treatment. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether an internationally originated call 
purportedly originated from a NANP number should be subject to these 
rules, whereas an internationally originated call showing an 
international number would be beyond the scope of this rule. Are there 
any other special rules the Commission should consider with respect to 
internationally originated calls?
    17. Subscriber Consent. The Commission believes that no reasonable 
consumer would want to receive these calls. As a result, the Commission 
proposes not to require providers to obtain an opt-in from subscribers 
in order to block calls as described above. Obtaining opt-in consent 
from subscribers would add unnecessary burdens and complexity, and may 
not be technically feasible for some providers. The Commission seeks 
comment on this issue.
    18. Call Completion Rates. The Strike Force specifically requested 
that the Commission amend its rules to ensure that providers can block 
illegal calls without violating the call completion rules. 
Specifically, the Strike Force asked that these blocked calls not be 
counted for purposes of calculating a providers' call completion rate. 
The Commission proposes to exclude calls blocked in accordance with the 
rules the Commission adopts in this proceeding from calculation of 
providers' call completion rates and seek comment on that proposal.

Notice of Inquiry

    19. In the Strike Force Report, the Strike Force asked the 
Commission to clarify that providers are permitted to block 
``presumptively illegal'' calls. Although the Commission agrees that no 
reasonable consumer would want to

[[Page 22629]]

receive calls that are illegal, the Commission's call completion 
policies demand care in identifying such calls. The Commission believes 
that the criteria used to identify such calls must be objective, 
minimally intrusive on the legitimate privacy interests of the calling 
party, and must indicate with a reasonably high degree of certainty 
that a particular call is illegal. The Commission therefore seeks 
information on explicitly authorizing providers to block calls that are 
reasonably likely to be illegal based upon objective criteria in 
addition to the categories of unassigned numbers discussed above.
    20. The Commission believes that the categories of unassigned 
numbers discussed above exemplify objective standards for determining 
whether a specific call is illegal to a reasonably high degree of 
certainty. The Commission is aware, however, that there could be a 
variety of other objective standards that could indicate to a 
reasonably high degree of certainty that a call is illegal. 
Consequently, the Commission seeks comment on objective standards that 
would indicate to a reasonably high degree of certainty that a call is 
illegal and whether to adopt a safe harbor to give providers certainty 
that they will not be found in violation of the call completion and 
other Commission rules when they block calls based upon an application 
of objective standards. The Commission also seeks comment on ways that 
callers who make legitimate calls can guard against being blocked and 
to ensure that legitimate callers whose calls are blocked by mistake 
can prevent further blocking.

A. Objective Standards To Identify Illegal Calls

    21. The Commission seeks comment on provider-initiated blocking 
based on objective criteria. The Commission seeks comment on what 
methods providers and third-party call blocking service providers 
employ in order to determine that a certain call is illegal. The Strike 
Force Report states that ``[e]xamples of reasonable efforts include but 
are not limited to, soliciting and reviewing information from other 
carriers, performing historical and real time call analytics, making 
test calls, contacting the subscriber of the spoofed number, inspecting 
the media for a call (audio play back of the Real Time Protocol stream 
to understand the context of the call), and checking customer complaint 
sites.'' The Commission seeks more specific information regarding these 
and other methods or standards that can be used to identify illegal 
calls to a reasonably high degree of certainty.
    22. What other methods can be or are used? In particular, the 
Commission seeks comment on the extent to which information obtained 
through traceback efforts is, can, and should be used to identify 
future calls that are illegal to a reasonably high degree of certainty? 
The Commission asks commenters to submit information on whether some 
methods more accurately identify illegal calls in comparison to other 
methods, and whether some methods can identify unwanted calls but are 
less accurate in identifying illegal calls. Do certain methods work 
best in combination? Are some methods acceptable when used in the 
context of an informed consumer choosing to implement call blocking 
with knowledge of the risks of false positives, but might be less 
acceptable when used in the context of provider-initiated blocking? 
What can the Commission do to help providers minimize the possibility 
for false positives when blocking calls based on such methods?
    23. Does provider size, geographic location, or other factors have 
an impact on which methods provide the most accurate results or which 
methods are feasible? What can the Commission do to provide support for 
smaller providers that wish to adopt these methods? Are some methods 
more likely to result in providers blocking legitimate calls in a 
manner that might violate the Act or the Commission's rules or polices 
related to call completion or that are more likely to contravene the 
policy goals underlying those rules? Calls that originate domestically 
may have differences from those which originate internationally, thus 
requiring consideration of different objective criteria. Are there any 
differences in how providers do, or should, handle calls originating 
outside of the United States in comparison to those originating 
domestically? If so, are there any limitations to a provider's ability 
to accurately identify the true origination point of a call?
    24. The Commission recognizes that standards bodies have made 
significant progress on Caller ID Authentication Standards. The 
Commission applauds this progress, and encourages the industry to 
implement these standards as soon as they are capable of doing so. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether, once there is wide adoption of the 
protocols and specifications established by the Internet Engineering 
Task Force's (IETF) Secure Telephony Identity Revisited (STIR) working 
group and the Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using 
toKENs (SHAKEN) framework established in the joint Alliance for 
Telecommunications and Industry Solutions (ATIS) and Session Initiation 
Protocol (SIP) forum Network-to-Network Interconnection (NNI) Task 
Force, providers should then be permitted to block calls for which the 
Caller ID has not been authenticated. Should unauthenticated Caller ID 
alone be sufficient grounds for a provider to block a call, or should 
it be used only in combination with other methods? To what extent can 
these standards be implemented on networks using various types of 
technology? For example, will these standards work on VoIP calls and 
traditional wireline calls equally well? If not, how does that impact 
the propriety of blocking calls based on whether the Caller ID has been 
authenticated in accordance with these standards? Would it be possible 
to consider the lack of authenticated Caller ID only for those calls to 
which these industry standards can be applied? Are there special 
considerations related to implementing these standards on networks 
operated by small providers or in rural areas? What other factors 
should the Commission consider with regard to blocking calls based upon 
whether Caller ID has been authenticated in accordance with these 
standards?
    25. The Commission seeks comment on whether sharing of information 
among providers can increase the effectiveness of call blocking 
methodologies and could enable small providers to benefit from the 
greater resources of larger providers that might be better able to 
create and implement more sophisticated methods of identifying illegal 
calls. The Commission seeks comment on these and any other impacts, 
positive and negative, of such information sharing and on what the 
Commission can do to encourage and facilitate such sharing of 
information in a manner most likely to result in accurate and timely 
identification of illegal calls. Again, the Commission notes that by 
seeking comment on these issues, the Commission does not stall, 
interrupt, or prevent information sharing that is already occurring 
lawfully. The Commission notes that section 222(d)(2) of the Act makes 
clear that CPNI may be shared ``to protect users of those services and 
other carriers from fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of . . . such 
services.'' The Commission seek comment on what other clarifications or 
rules changes, if any, would help to improve industry efforts to combat 
illegal robocalls and improve traceback efforts.

[[Page 22630]]

B. Safe Harbor for the Blocking of Calls Identified Using Objective 
Standards

    26. The Commission also seeks comment on a broader safe harbor to 
provide certainty to providers that blocking calls in accordance with 
the rules the Commission adopts in this proceeding will not be deemed a 
violation of the Commission's rules and the Act, or counted for 
purposes of evaluating a provider's call completion rates. The 
Commission seeks comment on the appropriate scope of such a safe 
harbor.
    27. The Commission seeks comment on what blocking practices and 
objective standards should be covered by any safe harbor. Are there any 
methods, practices, or objective standards that should expressly be 
excluded from the safe harbor? Are there methods, practices, or 
objective standards that warrant some protection, such as a rebuttable 
presumption that their use does not violate the call completion rules, 
but do not warrant the full protection of a safe harbor? What are they?
    28. The Commission further seeks comment on how to formulate a safe 
harbor that avoids providing a roadmap enabling makers of illegal 
robocalls to circumvent call blocking by providers. Are there ways to 
provide both certainty to providers without providing a level of detail 
that would enable makers of illegal robocalls to circumvent blocking 
efforts? Should the Commission distinguish between standards that are 
general, e.g., regarding the presence or absence of Caller ID 
signatures, versus standards that involve patterns and statistics? 
Would it be workable to provide a safe harbor covering specific 
objective standards or specific objective standards implemented at some 
high threshold level but only a rebuttable presumption covering other 
objective standards or objective standards implemented at some low 
threshold? For example, what if the safe harbor applied when a provider 
blocks calls originating from a single number when the calls 
originating from that number per minute exceed a fairly high threshold, 
while a provider that applies a lower, non-public threshold would 
qualify only for a rebuttable presumption? Finally, should the safe 
harbor be the same for both large and small providers, and are there 
any considerations specific to small providers?

C. Protections for Legitimate Callers

    29. Even if providers use objective standards, there might be some 
situations in which legitimate calls would be blocked. For example, 
high-volume callers that properly obtain prior express consent might 
run afoul of call-per-minute restrictions even though all calls made 
are legal. This might occur if a call center lawfully spoofs the Caller 
ID on outgoing calls to utilize the business's toll-free number that 
consumers can use to call back or that might be familiar to consumers 
in a way that helps to identify the caller. The Commission seeks to 
avoid the blocking of such legitimate calls and, instead, seek to 
ensure that legitimate calls are completed. The Commission thus seeks 
comment on protections for legitimate callers. Specifically, should the 
Commission require providers to ``white list'' legitimate callers who 
give them advance notice? Should the Commission establish a challenge 
mechanism for callers who may have been blocked in error?
    30. First, the Commission seeks comment on establishing a 
mechanism, such as a white list, to enable legitimate callers to 
proactively avoid having their calls blocked. Should the Commission 
specify the mechanism or mechanisms to be used or administrative 
details, such as the type of evidence providers might require of such 
legitimate callers? If so, what should the Commission require? Should 
the Commission specify a timeframe within which providers must add a 
legitimate caller to its white list? How should white list information 
be shared by providers? Is there anything the Commission can do to 
ensure that white list information is shared in a timely fashion such 
that legitimate callers need not contact each and every provider 
separately? Is Commission action needed to guard against white lists 
being accessed or obtained by makers of illegal robocalls? What is the 
risk that a caller could circumvent efforts to block illegal robocalls 
by spoofing numbers on the white list? Is this risk mitigated by the 
SHAKEN and STIR standards for authenticating Caller ID if, for example, 
the white list requires that all calls from the white listed telephone 
number be signed--once those standards have been implemented? Finally, 
the Commission seeks comment on any other relevant issues.
    31. Second, the Commission seeks comment on implementing a process 
to allow legitimate callers to notify providers when their calls are 
blocked and to require providers immediately to cease blocking calls 
when they learn that the calls are legitimate. How rapidly must a 
provider respond to a request to cease blocking, and should the 
Commission specify the information that providers must accept as proof 
that a caller is legitimate? Should the Commission require specific 
procedures, or allow providers discretion in how to develop processes, 
including processes for sharing and safeguarding this information? If 
provider discretion is allowed, should the Commission require providers 
to submit their procedures for staff review along with their objective 
standards? Are there procedures that would reduce any potentially undue 
burdens on smaller providers? The Commission believes most callers will 
contact their own provider first when their calls are being blocked. 
That provider, however, may not be the provider that is actually 
blocking the calls. The Commission seeks comment on how to facilitate 
information sharing so that the challenge reaches the provider actually 
blocking the calls. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on any other 
relevant issues.
    Lastly, the Commission seeks comment on whether providers should 
designate an officer or other authorized point of contact for 
legitimate callers seeking to proactively avoid having their calls 
blocked or to stop blocking of their calls. Would such a requirement 
represent an undue burden on smaller providers and, if so, what 
alternative should be available to legitimate callers?

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    32. 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 a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in document FCC 17-24. Written public comments are requested 
on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and 
must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified in the DATES 
section. The Commission will send a copy of document FCC 17-24, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    33. Document FCC 17-24 begins a process to facilitate voice service 
providers' blocking of illegal robocalls, which represent an 
annoyance--and often worse--for consumers. Document FCC 17-24 proposes 
rules that would allow providers to--on their customers' behalf--block 
the illegal robocalls that can bombard their phones at all hours of the 
day. Providers have been active in identifying such robocalls, and 
consumer groups and others have asked

[[Page 22631]]

the Commission to encourage better call blocking. Document FCC 17-24 
suggests it is in the best interest of achieving the goal of 
eliminating illegal robocalls for government to collaborate with 
industry to crack the problem of illegal robocalling--government can 
remove regulatory roadblocks and ensure that industry has the 
flexibility to use robust tools to address illegal traffic. It is also 
important for the Commission to protect the reliability of the nation's 
communications network and to protect consumers from provider-initiated 
blocking that harms, rather than helps, consumers. The Commission 
therefore must balance competing policy considerations--some favoring 
blocking and others disfavoring blocking--to arrive at an effective 
solution that maximizes consumer protection and network reliability. 
Document FCC 17-24 seeks comment on several proposals that the 
Commission believes strikes the correct balance.
    34. Document FCC 17-24 seeks comment on proposed rules to codify 
that voice service providers may block telephone calls in certain 
circumstances to protect subscribers from illegal robocalls. First, 
document FCC 17-24 proposes to codify the clarification contained in 
the 2016 Guidance PN that providers may block calls when the subscriber 
to a particular telephone number requests that calls originating from 
that number be blocked. Second, the document FCC 17-24 seeks comment on 
proposed rules authorizing providers to block calls from three 
categories of numbers: Invalid numbers, valid numbers that are not 
allocated, and valid numbers that are allocated but not assigned. 
Third, document FCC 17-24 seeks comment on related issues, such as the 
treatment of internationally originated calls, subscriber consent to 
call blocking, and the impact on call completion rate rules. The 
document FCC 17-24 also includes a Notice of Inquiry that seeks 
comments on further actions that may be taken in the future, including 
establishment of objective standards to indicate that a call is likely 
to be illegal, creation of a safe harbor for providers, and creation of 
safeguards to minimize blocking of lawful calls.

B. Legal Basis

    35. The proposed and anticipated rules are authorized under 
sections 201, 202, 227, 251(e) and 403 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 227, 251(e), 403.

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

    36. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be 
affected by the proposed rules, 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. Under the Small Business Act, a ``small business concern'' is one 
that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in 
its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria 
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Nationwide, 
there are a total of approximately 28.8 million small businesses, 
according to the SBA.
    37. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 
defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in 
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use 
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming 
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, 
establishments providing satellite television distribution services 
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in 
this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard 
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such 
companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 shows 
that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this size 
standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.
    38. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for local 
exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules 
is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census 
Bureau defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in 
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use 
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming 
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, 
establishments providing satellite television distribution services 
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in 
this industry.'' Under that size standard, such a business is small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there 
were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated 
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates 
that most providers of local exchange service are small businesses.
    39. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest 
applicable size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this 
industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or 
providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that 
they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, 
and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities 
may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. 
Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications 
network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, 
such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired 
(cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband 
internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite 
television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure 
that they operate are included in this industry.'' Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated 
that year. Of this total,

[[Page 22632]]

3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange 
service are small businesses.
    40. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), 
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these 
service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for 
the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 
defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in 
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use 
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming 
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, 
establishments providing satellite television distribution services 
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in 
this industry.'' Under that size standard, such a business is small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there 
were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated 
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates 
that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive 
access providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and other local 
service providers are small entities.
    41. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this 
present RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the 
RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size 
standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or 
fewer employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' 
The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small 
incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any 
such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. The Commission has 
therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although 
the Commission emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on 
Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    42. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of 
interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules 
is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census 
Bureau defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in 
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use 
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming 
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, 
establishments providing satellite television distribution services 
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in 
this industry.'' Under that size standard, such a business is small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there 
were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated 
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates 
that the majority of IXCs are small entities.
    43. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act also contains a size standard for small cable system 
operators, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through an 
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all 
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity 
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed 
$250,000,000.'' There are approximately 52,403,705 cable video 
subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator 
serving fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator 
if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of 
all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based 
on available data, the Commission finds that all but nine incumbent 
cable operators are small entities under this size standard. The 
Commission notes that the Commission neither requests nor collects 
information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with 
entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although it 
seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated 
with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, the 
Commission is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision 
the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable 
operators under the definition in the Communications Act.
    44. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable 
to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do 
not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator 
service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service 
carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under 
SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census 
Bureau defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in 
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use 
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming 
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, 
establishments providing satellite television distribution services 
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in 
this industry.'' Under that size standard, such a business is small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there 
were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated 
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the 
associated small business size standard, the majority of Other Toll 
Carriers can be considered small.
    45. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 
2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new, 
broad, economic census category. Under the present and prior 
categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the category of Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), Census data for 2012 
show that there were 967 firms that operated

[[Page 22633]]

for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 
employees. Thus under this category and the associated size standard, 
the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless 
telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities. 
Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413 
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service 
(PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) services. Of this total, an 
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Thus, using available 
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless firms can 
be considered small.
    46. Satellite Telecommunications Providers. The category of 
Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises establishments 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.'' This category 
has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average 
annual receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, Census Bureau data 
for 2012 show that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for 
the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual receipts of under 
$25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority 
of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities.
    47. All Other Telecommunications. All Other Telecommunications 
comprises, inter alia, ``establishments primarily engaged in providing 
specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, 
communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry 
also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite 
terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. 
Establishments providing Internet services or VoIP services via client-
supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this 
industry.'' For this category, Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 
there were a total of 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of 
this total, 1,400 had annual receipts below $25 million per year. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of All Other 
Telecommunications firms are small entities.
    48. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition 
for Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS Code Category is 
Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry 
comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network 
capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and 
reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except 
satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) 
are included in this industry. The SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under 
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale 
services during that year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer 
than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated 
small business size standard, the majority of these resellers can be 
considered small entities. According to Commission data, 881 carriers 
have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale 
services. Of this total, an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
toll resellers are small entities.
    49. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. The 
Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged 
in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of 
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless 
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and 
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; 
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. MVNOs 
are included in this industry. Under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 
2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. 
Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
the majority of these prepaid calling card providers can be considered 
small entities.
    50. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for the category of Telecommunications 
Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises 
establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from 
owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired 
and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to 
businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell 
telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and 
infrastructure. MVNOs are included in this industry. Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services 
during that year. Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business 
size standard, the majority of these prepaid calling card providers can 
be considered small entities.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    51. As indicated above, document FCC 17-24 seeks comment on 
proposed rules to codify that voice service providers may block 
telephone calls in certain circumstances to protect subscribers from 
illegal robocalls. Until these requirements are defined in full, it is 
not possible to predict with certainty whether the costs of compliance 
will be proportionate between small and large providers. The Commission 
seeks to minimize the burden associated with reporting, recordkeeping, 
and other compliance requirements for the proposed rules, such as 
modifying software, developing procedures, and training staff.
    52. Under the proposed rules, providers may need to record requests 
from subscribers to block certain numbers, as well as identify invalid 
numbers, valid numbers that are not allocated, and valid numbers that 
are allocated but not assigned. In addition, they may need to set up 
communication with other providers to share information about numbers 
to be blocked. Finally, providers may need to exclude calls that are 
blocked pursuant to the proposed rules when calculating their call 
completion rates.

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

    53. 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

[[Page 22634]]

differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take 
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use 
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
    54. It should be noted that these proposed rules to codify that 
voice service providers may block telephone calls in certain 
circumstances to protect subscribers from illegal robocalls are 
permissive and not mandatory. Small businesses may avoid compliance 
costs entirely by declining to block robocalls, or may delay their 
implementation of robocall blocking to allow for more time to come into 
compliance with the rules. However, the Commission intends to craft 
rules that encourage all carriers, including small businesses, to block 
illegal robocalls and therefore seeks comment from small businesses on 
how to minimize costs associated with implementing the proposed rules. 
Document FCC 17-24 poses specific requests for comment from small 
businesses regarding how the proposed rules affect them and what could 
be done to minimize any disproportionate impact on small businesses.
    55. The Commission has proposed rules regarding blocking calls at 
the request of the subscriber to the originating number and blocking 
calls originating from unassigned numbers. The Commission has requested 
feedback from small businesses in the Notice and seek comment on ways 
to make the proposed rules less costly. The Commission has proposed not 
to require providers to obtain an opt-in from subscribers in order to 
block calls as a way of reducing costs to all providers, including 
small businesses. The Commission seeks comment on how to minimize the 
economic impact of the Commission's proposals.
    56. The Commission has also initiated a Notice of Inquiry in 
document FCC 17-24 to consider a range of alternatives to expand the 
proposed rules, including establishment of objective standards to 
indicate that a call is likely to be illegal, creation of a safe harbor 
for providers, and creation of safeguards to minimize blocking of 
lawful calls. These are not yet proposed rules. They show the 
Commission is proceeding with caution and seeking comment from small 
businesses and others before developing rules in this complex area. The 
Commission will assess how to proceed in light of the record in 
response to the document FCC 17-24, including any comments from small 
businesses.
    57. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small 
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the document 
FCC 17-24 and this IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions and taking 
action in this proceeding.

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

    58. None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Claims, Communications common carriers, Computer technology, 
Credit, Foreign relations, Individuals with disabilities, Political 
candidates, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Telecommunications, Telegraph, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

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

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

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

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 225, 254(k), 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 715, 
Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 
218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class 
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  64.1200 by adding and reserving paragraphs (i) and (j), 
and adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.1200   Delivery restrictions.

* * * * *
    (i) [Reserved]
    (j) [Reserved]
    (k) Voice service providers may block calls so that they do not 
reach a called party as follows:
    (1) Providers may block calls when the subscriber to which the 
originating number is assigned has requested that calls originating 
from that number be blocked. Calls may be blocked based upon the 
originating number shown in the Caller ID without regard to whether the 
calls in fact originate from that number.
    (2) Providers may block calls originating from the following 
numbers:
    (i) A number that is not a valid North American Numbering Plan 
number;
    (ii) A valid North American Numbering Plan number that is not 
allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan 
Administrator or the Pooling Administrator; and
    (iii) A valid North American Numbering Plan number that is 
allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan 
Administrator or Pooling Administrator, but is not assigned to a 
subscriber.
    (3) For purposes of blocking calls based upon the originating 
number under this paragraph (k), a provider may rely on Caller ID 
information to determine the originating number.
0
3. Amend Sec.  64.2103 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.2103   Retention of call attempt records.

* * * * *
    (e) The following calls are excluded from these requirements:
    (1) IntraLATA toll calls carried entirely over the covered 
provider's network or handed off by the covered provider directly to 
the terminating local exchange carrier or directly to the tandem switch 
that the terminating local exchange carrier's end office subtends 
(terminating tandem); and
    (2) Calls blocked pursuant to Sec.  64.1200(k) of the Commission's 
rules.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  64.2105 by revising paragraph (e) to read:


Sec.  64.2105   Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) The following calls are excluded from these requirements:
    (1) IntraLATA toll calls carried entirely over the covered 
provider's network or handed off by the covered provider directly to 
the terminating local exchange carrier or directly to the tandem switch 
that the terminating local exchange carrier's end office subtends 
(terminating tandem); and
    (2) calls blocked pursuant to Sec.  64.1200(k) of the Commission's 
rules.

[FR Doc. 2017-09463 Filed 5-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P