[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 139 (Friday, July 21, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33856-33863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15303]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 91-281; FCC 17-76]


Calling Number Identification Service--Caller ID

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes to amend its Caller 
ID rules to allow carriers to disclose blocked Caller ID information in 
the limited case of threatening calls as an aid to law enforcement 
investigations. Media and law enforcement reports indicate that the 
number of threatening calls targeting schools, religious organizations, 
and other entities appears to be increasing dramatically. In many 
cases, the perpetrators block the Caller ID information, making it 
difficult to trace the threatening calls. The Commission's current 
rules require that carriers not reveal blocked Caller ID information or 
use that information to allow the called party to contact the caller. 
Recognizing that threatening callers do not have a legitimate privacy 
interest in having

[[Page 33857]]

blocked Caller ID protected from disclosure, the Commission seeks to 
amend its Caller ID rules to permit carriers to disclose blocked Caller 
ID information in the limited case of threatening calls as an aid to 
law enforcement investigations.

DATES: Comments are due on or before August 21, 2017, and reply 
comments are due on or before September 19, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by CC Docket No. 91-281 
and/or FCC Number 17-76, 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 CC Docket No. 91-281.
     Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or 
messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class 
or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission 
continues to experience delays in receiving 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: Nellie Foosaner, Consumer Policy 
Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), at: (202) 
418-2925, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, document FCC 17-76, adopted on June 22, 2017, 
and released on June 22, 2017. The full text of document FCC 17-76 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 17-76 and any subsequently filed documents in this matter 
may also be found by searching ECFS at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ 
(insert CC Docket No. 91-281 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 CGB at: (202) 418-0530 
(voice), or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Document FCC 17-76 can also be 
downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-rules-aid-investigation-threatening-calls.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    Document FCC 17-76 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; 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 17-76, the Commission proposes to amend its 
Caller ID rules to enable called parties and/or law enforcement to 
obtain blocked Caller ID information in connection with threatening 
calls. For purposes of document FCC 17-76, the Commission defines a 
``threatening call'' as any call that includes a threat of serious and 
imminent unlawful action posing a substantial risk to property, life, 
safety, or health.
    2. Based on reports of widespread and increasing numbers of 
threatening calls that have targeted schools, religious organizations 
and other entities, the Commission proposes amending Sec.  64.1601 of 
its rules, which provides that ``[n]o common carrier subscribing to or 
offering any service that delivers [the Calling Party Number (CPN)] may 
override the privacy indicator associate with an interstate call,'' to 
ensure that all parties who receive threatening calls are not hindered 
by the Commission's rules in gaining timely access to CPN information 
that may allow them to identify threatening callers. Amending the 
Commission's Caller ID rules to permit threatened parties, law 
enforcement and security personnel of threatened entities to gain 
access to the CPN of threatening callers could promote public safety 
and provide administrative efficiencies over the current process, which 
necessitates addressing individual waiver requests on a case-by-case 
basis. Even when threatening calls prove to be a hoax, they can often 
result in substantial disruption and expenditure of public resources by 
law enforcement. The Commission therefore proposes to amend its rules 
to recognize an exemption from the privacy protections contained in 
Sec.  64.1601(b) of its rules in the limited case of threatening calls. 
The Commission seeks additional comment on ways to facilitate the 
ability of law enforcement and security personnel to investigate and 
identify threatening callers while protecting the legitimate privacy 
interests of non-threatening callers. In that regard, the Commission 
seeks comment on how to define the term ``security personnel'' to 
ensure that

[[Page 33858]]

only the appropriate personnel responsible for the safety of any 
threatened entity has access to the information they require to perform 
their duties.
    3. Section 64.1601(b) of the Commission's rules requires that 
carriers must act in accordance with the customer's privacy request 
that CPN not be passed on interstate calls. The Commission has 
recognized, however, certain exemptions to this requirement. The 
Commission has concluded, for example, that to the extent CPN-based 
services are used to deliver emergency services, privacy requirements 
should not apply to delivery of CPN to a public agency's emergency 
lines, a poison control line, or in conjunction with 911 emergency 
services. In these instances, the Commission concluded that Caller ID 
blocking mechanisms could jeopardize emergency services and therefore 
pose a serious threat to the safety of life and property. The 
Commission believes that threatening calls present equally compelling 
circumstances in which the need to ensure public safety, in accordance 
with the Commission's fundamental statutory mission, outweighs the 
threatening caller's interest in maintaining the privacy of his or her 
CPN.
    4. Specifically, the Commission proposes amending Sec.  64.1601 of 
its rules to recognize an exemption to Sec.  64.1601(b)'s of its rules 
prohibition on overriding a privacy indicator associated with an 
interstate call when such call contains a threat of a serious nature. 
For purposes of this context, the Commission proposes defining a 
``threatening call'' as any call that includes a threat of serious and 
imminent unlawful action posing a substantial risk to property, life, 
safety, or health. The Commission seeks comment on this definition and 
on any alternatives. Accordingly, the Commission proposes adding an 
exemption in Sec.  64.1601(d) of its rules to exclude threatening calls 
from the privacy protections afforded by Sec.  64.1601(b) of its rules.
    5. In this context, the Commission seeks comment on how evaluations 
should be made to determine whether a threat meets the proposed 
definition of a threatening call, including who should make that 
evaluation. Should the Commission require, for example, that otherwise 
restricted CPN be made available only after a law enforcement agency 
confirms that it constitutes a threat of a serious and imminent 
unlawful action posing a substantial risk to property, life, safety, or 
health? Would this approach provide sufficient privacy safeguards to 
ensure that blocked CPN is released only in those limited situations? 
Conversely, to what extent would involving law enforcement in this 
process hinder the ability of threatened parties to gain timely access 
to the CPN of threatening callers?
    6. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and any additional 
options that might aid law enforcement and threatened parties in 
obtaining the information they need to identify threatening callers. In 
addition, the Commission seeks comment on how to facilitate the 
provision of CPN to threatened entities in a manner that minimizes 
administrative burdens on carriers while ensuring that such information 
is provided to the threatened party and law enforcement in a timely 
manner. How are carriers burdened today when law enforcement uses 
lawful processes to compel disclosure of call details? In particular, 
the Commission seeks comment on the potential burdens on small 
providers that may be asked to disclose information upon a report of a 
threatening call, including measures that could mitigate those burdens. 
The Commission recognizes that telecommunications systems utilized by 
threatened entities and relationships with their carriers may vary 
widely. The Commission therefore seeks the input of carriers on how 
best to facilitate the process of providing CPN information in a timely 
manner to parties that report a threatening call. Given the existing 
exemption for public agencies that deliver emergency services as noted 
above, the Commission also seeks comment on whether it should extend 
that exemption to non-public entities that provide emergency services 
such as private ambulance companies.
    7. Privacy. In proposing this amendment to the Caller ID rules, the 
Commission endeavors to ensure that this exemption is not abused and 
that the legitimate privacy interests of non-threatening callers are 
not infringed, particularly when the calling party has a higher need 
for CPN blocking protections to mitigate the risk of personal injury, 
such as in the case of calls made from domestic violence agencies. When 
the Commission adopted the rule in 1994, it concluded based on an 
extensive record that ``the calling public has an interest in 
exercising a measure of control over the dissemination of telephone 
numbers that must be reflected in federal policies governing caller ID 
services.'' As a result, the Commission adopted a rule requiring 
carriers to offer per-call blocking of Caller ID and allowed carriers 
to continue offering per-line blocking as long as they also provided 
per-call unblocking. Because of this recognized privacy interest, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether it should require anyone reporting 
a threatening call for purposes of obtaining otherwise restricted CPN 
to do so in conjunction with a law enforcement agency, so as to provide 
some assurance that the called party is not attempting to circumvent 
the privacy obligations of the rule by reporting a false threat. Should 
access to restricted CPN be limited only to law enforcement 
authorities? Would the risk of abuse be further reduced by limiting 
application of this exemption only to non-residential entities such as 
schools, religious organizations, and other public and private business 
and governmental entities? Would excluding private individuals who are 
not typically the target of mass phone threats limit the potential for 
abuse of this exemption? The Commission notes, for example, that 
petitions seeking waivers on the basis of a pattern of threatening 
calls, including most press reports, relate to threatening calls that 
target entities such as these rather than private individuals. Finally, 
how would a carrier's obligations under section 222 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (the Act) be affected? Is CPN that a caller 
intends to block protected by section 222 of the Act, and would a rule 
that requires or allows carriers to divulge blocked CPN conflict with 
section 222 of the Act?
    8. Are there other means to ensure that legitimate privacy 
protections are not infringed should the Commissions exempt threatening 
calls from the privacy requirements of Sec.  64.1601(b) of its rules? 
The Commission notes, for example, that CGB, in granting waivers of the 
Commission's rule, has imposed certain conditions and obligations on 
entities granted waivers of Sec.  64.1601(b) of its rules in the past 
to ensure that restricted CPN information is disclosed only to 
authorized personnel for purposes of investigating threatening calls, 
and hence, any legitimate expectation of privacy by non-threatening 
callers is adequately protected. These conditions typically include: 
(1) The CPN on incoming restricted calls not be passed on to the line 
called; (2) any system used to record CPN be operated in a secure way, 
limiting access to designated telecommunications and security 
personnel; (3) telecommunications and security personnel may access 
restricted CPN data only when investigating phone calls of a 
threatening and serious nature, and shall document that access as part 
of the investigative report; (4) transmission of restricted CPN

[[Page 33859]]

information to law enforcement agencies must occur only through secure 
communications; (5) CPN information must be destroyed in a secure 
manner after a reasonable retention period; and (6) any violation of 
these conditions must be reported promptly to the Commission. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether similar conditions should be 
imposed on any party that obtains restricted CPN pursuant to the 
proposed exemption. The Commission seeks comment on these and any other 
proposals to achieve the Commission's objective in assisting threatened 
parties and law enforcement officials in identifying threatening 
callers in a timely manner.
    9. The Commission seeks comment on whether circumstances have 
changed since the Commission originally adopted Sec.  64.1601 of its 
rules. At the time, the Commission rejected arguments that parts of the 
rule would infringe on callers' expectations of privacy and anonymity. 
This was in part because the rule would allow callers to choose to 
block passage of CPN by choosing either per-call or per-line blocking. 
Would this logic hold true if the Commission were to allow call 
recipients to demand that CPN be revealed by asserting that the call 
contained a threat? In concluding that compelling the transmission of 
CPN would not violate any privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment, 
the Commission reasoned that callers have no reasonable expectation of 
privacy in their phone numbers because those numbers are voluntarily 
exposed to the telephone company's equipment. Does this hold true 
today, and would it be true if callers intending to block CPN delivery 
could have it unblocked by a called party's assertion that a call 
contained a threat?

The JCC Temporary Waiver

    10. Based on the large numbers of recent threats phoned in to the 
JCCs and the record compiled in this matter, the Commission confirms 
that good cause continues to exist to maintain the temporary waiver of 
Sec.  64.1601(b) of its rules granted to JCCs and the carriers who 
serve them for disclosure of CPN associated with threatening calls to 
JCCs.
    11. In the event the Commission amends its rules to recognize an 
exemption for threatening calls as proposed herein, this waiver, along 
with other similar prior waivers, will be encompassed within the 
protections afforded by that exemption. In the meantime, this temporary 
waiver ensures that JCCs are afforded certainty that they will continue 
to have the necessary protections from threatening calls.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    12. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by 
the policies and rules proposed in document FCC 17-76. Written public 
comments are requested on the 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 17-76, including the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    13. In recent years, media and law enforcement reports indicate 
that the number of threatening calls appears be increasing 
dramatically. In the past the Commission has addressed such situations 
on a case-by-case basis via a waiver process at the request of 
individual entities that report receiving threatening calls. In 
document FCC 17-76, the Commission takes steps to amend the Caller ID 
rules to ensure that law enforcement and threatened parties are not 
hindered in their ability to investigate and respond to threatening 
phone calls. The Commission recognizes the privacy interests of non-
threatening callers that may have valid reasons to block their 
telephone numbers by limiting the proposal strictly to those situations 
that involve threatening calls of a serious and imminent nature while 
further limiting access to such restricted CPN information in the case 
of threatening calls only to those parties responsible for safety and 
security of the threatened party. The Commission proposes to amend the 
current process that necessitates addressing individual waiver requests 
on a case-by-case basis. The Commission proposes and seeks additional 
comment on ways to facilitate the ability of law enforcement and 
security personnel to investigate and identify callers while protecting 
the legitimate privacy interests of non-threatening callers.
    14. Specifically, the Commission proposes to amend Sec.  
64.1601(d)(4)'s of its rules current list of exemptions by adding a new 
section (iv) to read: (4) CPN delivery--``(iv) Is made in connection 
with a threatening call. Upon report of such a threatening call, the 
carrier will provide any CPN of the calling party to the called party 
and/or law enforcement for the purpose of identifying the responsible 
party.'' The Commission proposes defining a ``threatening call'' as any 
called that includes a threat of serious and imminent unlawful action 
posing a substantial risk to property, life, safety, or health. In 
addition, the Commission seeks comment on how to facilitate the 
provision of CPN to threatened entities in a manner that minimizes 
administrative burdens on carriers while ensuring that such information 
is provided to the threatened party and law enforcement in a timely 
manner.
    15. For privacy purposes, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
it should require anyone reporting a threatening call for purpose of 
obtaining otherwise restricted CPN to do so in conjunction with a law 
enforcement agency to provide some assurance that the called party is 
not attempting to circumvent the privacy obligations of the rule by 
reporting a false threat. The Commission also inquiries into the 
possibility of excluding private individuals, who are not typically the 
target of mass phone threats, from this exemption in order to limit the 
potential for abuse. The Commission notes, for example, that CGB has 
imposed certain conditions and obligations on entities granted waivers 
of Sec.  64.1601(b) of its rules in the past to ensure that restricted 
CPN information is disclosed only to authorized personnel for purposes 
of investigating threatening calls, and hence, any legitimate 
expectation of privacy by non-threatening callers is adequately 
protected. The Commission seeks comment on whether similar conditions 
should be imposed on any party that obtains restricted CPN pursuant to 
the proposed exemption.

Legal Basis

    16. The proposed and anticipated rules are authorized under 
sections 1-4 and 201 of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, and 
201.

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

    17. 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''

[[Page 33860]]

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 SBA. Nationwide, there are a 
total of approximately 28.8 million small businesses, according to the 
SBA.

Wireline Carriers

    18. 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 voice over Internet protocol (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.
    19. 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.
    20. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest 
applicable size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this 
industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or 
providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that 
they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, 
and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities 
may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. 
Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications 
network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, 
such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired 
(cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband 
internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite 
television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure 
that they operate are included in this industry.'' Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated 
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers 
of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses.
    21. 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.
    22. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in the 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 the RFA analysis, although 
it emphasizes that the RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses 
and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    23. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). 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

[[Page 33861]]

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.
    24. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable 
to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do 
not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator 
service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service 
carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under 
SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census 
Bureau defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in 
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use 
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming 
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, 
establishments providing satellite television distribution services 
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in 
this industry.'' Under that size standard, such a business is small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there 
were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated 
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the 
associated small business size standard, the majority of Other Toll 
Carriers can be considered small.

Wireless Carriers

    25. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 
2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new, 
broad, economic census category. Under the present and prior 
categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the category of Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), Census data for 2012 
show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of 
this total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus under this 
category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates 
that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except 
satellite) are small entities. Similarly, according to internally 
developed Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged 
in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, 
Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio 
(SMR) services. Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Thus, using available data, the Commission estimates that 
the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
    26. 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.
    27. 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.

Resellers

    28. 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.
    29. 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

[[Page 33862]]

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.
    30. 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.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    31. As indicated above, document FCC 17-76 seeks comment on a 
proposed amendment to the rules to require carriers to make available, 
upon report of a threatening call from the called party, any CPN of the 
calling party to the called party and/or law enforcement for the 
purpose of identifying the responsible party. 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.
    32. Under the proposed rules, carriers will need to make the CPN of 
a calling party available to a threatened recipient of the call. They 
may need to work with law enforcement and the entity called to ensure 
there is a genuine threat in order to protect the privacy of the 
caller.

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

    33. 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 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.
    34. The Commission has proposed rules for carriers, upon report of 
a threatening call from the called party, to provide any CPN of the 
calling party to the called party and/or law enforcement for the 
purpose of identifying the responsible party. The Commission requested 
feedback from small businesses in document FCC 17-76, and seeks comment 
on ways to make the proposed rules less costly. The Commission asks how 
to facilitate the provision of CPN to threatened entities in a manner 
that minimizes the administrative burdens on carriers while ensuring 
that such information is provided to the threatened party and law 
enforcement in a timely manner. The Commission seeks the input of 
carriers on how to best facilitate the process of providing CPN 
information in a timely manner to parties that report a threatening 
call. To help carriers protect privacy interests, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether it should require anyone reporting a threatening 
call for purposes of obtaining otherwise restricted CPN to do so in 
conjunction with a law enforcement agency to provide some assurance 
that the called party is not attempting to circumvent the privacy 
obligations of the rule by reporting a false threat. The Commission 
also asks whether excluding private individuals would limit the 
potential for abuse. The Commission seeks comment on how to minimize 
the economic impact of its proposals, particularly to small businesses.
    35. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small 
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to document FCC 
17-76 and the IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action 
in this proceeding.

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

    36. 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.

    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.  64.1600 by adding paragraph (l) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.1600  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (l) Threatening Call. The term ``threatening call'' means any call 
that includes a threat of serious and imminent unlawful action posing a 
substantial risk to property, life, safety, or health.
0
3. Amend Sec.  64.1601 by revising paragraph (d)(4) (ii) through (iv) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  64.1601  Delivery requirements and privacy restrictions.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) Is used on a public agency's emergency telephone line or in 
conjunction with 911 emergency services, or on any entity's emergency 
assistance poison control telephone line;
    (iii) Is provided in connection with legally authorized call 
tracing or trapping procedures specifically

[[Page 33863]]

requested by a law enforcement agency; or
    (iv) Is made in connection with a threatening call. Upon report of 
such a threatening call, the carrier will provide any CPN of the 
calling party to the called party and/or law enforcement for the 
purpose of identifying the responsible party.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-15303 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P