[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17631-17641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08376]



[[Page 17631]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 18-31]


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. The Commission proposes rules to ensure that one 
or more databases are available to provide callers with the 
comprehensive and timely information they need to discover potential 
number reassignments before making a call. It seeks comment on the 
specific information that callers need from a reassigned numbers 
database; and the best way to make that information available to 
callers that want it, as well as related issues.

DATES: Comments are due on June 7, 2018, and reply comments are due on 
July 9, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by CG Docket No. 17-59 
and/or FCC Number 18-31, 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 website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on 
the website 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. 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: Josh Zeldis, Consumer Policy Division, 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), at (202) 418- 0715, 
email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM), document FCC 18-
31, adopted on March 22, 2018, and released on March 23, 2018. The full 
text of document FCC 18-31 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 18-31 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 9050 
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     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). The Second FNPRM can also be 
downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-address-robocalls-reassigned-phone-numbers-0.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    The Second FNPRM 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. The Commission, as part of its multiple-front battle against 
unwanted calls, proposes and seeks comment on ways to address the 
problem of unwanted calls to reassigned numbers. This problem subjects 
the recipient of the reassigned number to annoyance and wastes the time 
and effort of the caller while potentially subjecting the caller to 
liability.
    2. Consumer groups and callers alike have asked for a solution to 
this problem. The Commission therefore proposes in document FCC 18-31 
to ensure that one or more databases are available to provide callers 
with the comprehensive and timely information they need to discover 
potential number reassignments before making a call. To that end, the 
Commission seeks further comment on, among other issues: (1) The 
specific information that callers need from a reassigned numbers 
database; and (2) the best way to make that information available to 
callers that want it. Making a reassigned numbers database available to 
callers that want it will benefit consumers by reducing unwanted calls 
intended for another consumer while helping callers avoid the costs of 
calling the wrong consumer, including potential violations of the 
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

[[Page 17632]]

Background

    3. As required by the Commission's rules, voice service providers 
ensure the efficient use of telephone numbers by reassigning a 
telephone number to a new consumer after it is disconnected by the 
previous subscriber. Approximately 35 million numbers are disconnected 
and made available for reassignment to new consumers each year. 
Consumers disconnect their old numbers and change to new telephone 
numbers for a variety of reasons, including switching wireless 
providers without porting numbers and getting new wireline telephone 
numbers when they move. Upon disconnecting his or her phone number, a 
consumer may not update all parties who have called him/her in the 
past, including businesses to which the consumer gave prior express 
consent to call and other callers from which the consumer expects to 
receive calls. When that number is reassigned, the new subscriber of 
that number may receive unwanted calls intended for the previous 
subscriber.
    4. The problem of unwanted calls to reassigned numbers can have 
important consequences for both consumers and callers. Beyond annoying 
the new subscriber of the reassigned number, a misdirected call can 
deprive the previous subscriber of the number of a desired call from, 
for example, his/her school, health care provider, or financial 
institution. In the case of prerecorded or automated voice calls 
(robocalls) to reassigned numbers, a good-faith caller may be subject 
to liability for violations of the TCPA. That threat can have a 
chilling effect, causing some callers to be overly cautious and stop 
making wanted, lawful calls out of concern over potential liability for 
calling a reassigned number.
    5. While existing tools can help callers identify number 
reassignments, ``callers lack guaranteed methods to discover all 
reassignments'' in a timely manner. Accordingly, in the July 2017 
Reassigned Numbers NOI (NOI), the Commission launched an inquiry to 
explore ways to reduce unwanted calls to reassigned numbers. The 
Commission sought comment on, among other issues, the best ways for 
service providers to report information about number reassignments and 
how that information can most effectively be made available to callers. 
Thirty-three parties filed comments and fourteen parties submitted 
reply comments.
    6. The majority of commenters on the NOI support a comprehensive 
and timely database that allows callers to verify whether a number has 
been reassigned before making a call. Specifically, a broad range of 
commenters, including callers and associated trade organizations, 
consumer groups, cable and VoIP service providers, and data 
aggregators, support establishing a database where service providers 
can report reassigned number data and callers can access that data. 
Legislators have also encouraged the Commission to proceed with a 
rulemaking to create a comprehensive reassigned numbers database.
    7. Several commenters nonetheless raise concerns about this 
approach. For example, the United States Chamber of Commerce express 
concern about the costs associated with using a reassigned numbers 
database and note that the Commission cannot mandate that callers use a 
reassigned numbers database in order to comply with the TCPA. Several 
other commenters contend that establishing a reassigned numbers 
database is too costly as compared to the likely benefit. 
Alternatively, CTIA and others contend that if the Commission decides 
to address the reassigned numbers problem, it should adopt a safe 
harbor from TCPA violations for callers that use existing commercial 
solutions and thereby encourage broader adoption and improvement of 
those solutions.

Discussion

    8. The Commission proposes to ensure that one or more databases are 
available to provide callers with the comprehensive and timely 
information they need to avoid calling reassigned numbers. The 
Commission therefore seek comment below on, among other things: (1) The 
information that callers who choose to use a reassigned numbers 
database need from such a database; (2) how to ensure that the 
information is reported to a database; and (3) the best approach to 
making that information available to callers.
    9. The Commission believes that its proposal will benefit 
legitimate callers and consumers alike. While some commenters argued 
that a reassigned numbers database would not reduce unwanted calls from 
bad actors, the Commission notes that a reassigned numbers database is 
only one important part of its broader policy and enforcement efforts 
to combat unwanted calls, including illegal robocalls. The Commission 
seeks comment on how its approach in the Second FNPRM fits within these 
broader efforts.
    10. The Commission believes its legal authority for the potential 
requirements and alternatives stems directly from section 251(e) of the 
Act. More specifically, it believes that the Commission's exclusive 
jurisdiction over North American Numbering Plan (NANP) numbering 
resources provides ample authority to adopt any requirements that 
recipients of NANP numbers report reassignment or other information 
about those numbers, including the mechanism through which such 
information must be reported. The Commission seeks comment on these 
views and on the nature and scope of its legal authority under section 
251(e) of the Act to adopt the potential requirements and alternatives.

Database Information, Access, and Use

    11. Based on the NOI comments, an effective reassigned numbers 
database should contain both comprehensive and timely data for callers 
to discover potential reassignments before they occur. A reassigned 
numbers database should also be easy to use and cost-effective for 
callers while minimizing the burden on service providers supplying the 
data. With these goals in mind, the Commission seeks comment below on 
the operational aspects of a reassigned numbers database, namely the 
type and format of information that callers need from such a database, 
how comprehensive and timely the data needs to be in order for the 
database to be effective, any restrictions or limitations on callers' 
access to and usage of the database, and the best ways to ensure that 
callers' costs to use a reassigned numbers database are minimized. The 
Commission also emphasizes that usage of a reassigned numbers database 
would be wholly voluntary for callers.
    12. Type of Information Needed By Callers. The Commission seeks 
comment on the information that a legitimate caller needs from a 
reassigned numbers database, and it seeks to understand how callers 
expect an efficient and effective database to work. To that end, the 
Commission seeks comment on the following issues. First, the Commission 
seeks comment on the information a legitimate caller would have on hand 
when seeking to search or query a reassigned numbers database. The 
Commission expects that such a caller would possess, at a minimum, the 
following information: (1) The name of the consumer the caller wants to 
reach; (2) a telephone number associated with that consumer; and (3) a 
date on which the caller could be confident that the consumer was still 
associated with that number (e.g., the last date the caller made 
contact with the consumer at that number; the date the consumer last 
provided that number to the caller; or the date the caller obtained 
consent to call the consumer). The Commission seeks comment on this 
view. What other

[[Page 17633]]

information, if any, should the Commission expect a legitimate caller 
to already possess before making a call?
    13. Second, the Commission seeks comment on the information a 
caller would need to submit to a reassigned numbers database and the 
information the caller seeks to generate from a search or query of the 
database. The Commission believes that, at a minimum, the database 
should be able to indicate (e.g., by providing a ``yes'' or ``no'' 
response) whether a number has been reassigned since a date entered by 
the caller. That information could then be used by a legitimate caller 
to determine whether a number has been reassigned since the caller last 
had a reasonable expectation that a particular person could be reached 
at the number. The Commission seeks comment on this view. Do callers 
need any additional information beyond an indication of whether a 
particular number has been reassigned since a particular date? For 
example, do callers need the actual date on which the number was 
reassigned? If so, why? Do callers need the name of the individual 
currently associated with the number? Why or why not? What are the 
privacy implications of allowing callers to obtain such information and 
how should they be addressed? Or to phrase the question differently, 
how can the Commission minimize the information provided by the 
database (to protect a consumer's information from being unnecessarily 
disclosed) while it maximizes the effectiveness of the database (to 
protect a consumer from receiving unwanted calls)?
    14. Third, if a reassigned numbers database should indicate whether 
a number has been reassigned, then how should the Commission define 
when a number is reassigned for this purpose? Typically, the 
reassignment process consists of four steps: A number currently in use 
is first disconnected, then aged, then made available for assignment, 
and finally assigned to a new subscriber. Determining the appropriate 
step in the reassignment process to cull information from service 
providers and pass it to callers requires considering the needs of 
callers as well as the administrative feasibility and cost of reporting 
to service providers.
    15. The Commission proposes to provide callers with information 
about when NANP numbers are disconnected. Because disconnection is a 
first step in the reassignment process, the Commission believes that a 
database containing information on when a number has been disconnected 
will best allow callers to identify, at the earliest possible point, 
when a subscriber can no longer be reached at that number. With timely 
access to such data, callers will be best positioned to rid their 
calling lists of reassigned numbers before calling them. Access to 
disconnection information would be preferable to new assignment 
information because, as one commenter notes, tracking new assignments 
``would provide little to no lead time for callers to update their 
dialing lists to avoid calling consumers with newly reassigned 
numbers.'' Do commenters agree with these views? Why or why not? The 
Commission also understands that service providers routinely track 
disconnection information and it seeks comment on this view. Do service 
providers use consistent criteria to track and record disconnects or 
does each service provider set its own criteria?
    16. Should an effective reassigned numbers database contain 
information in addition to or in lieu of disconnection information? 
Commenters should discuss the advantages and disadvantages of their 
preferred approach relative to other approaches.
    17. The Commission also seeks comment on information that callers 
believe should be excluded from a reassigned numbers database in order 
to ensure accurate and reliable data and prevent false positives. For 
example, if the database includes information about disconnections, 
should the database exclude information on when a number has been 
temporarily disconnected, thus excluding, for example, when a number is 
in a temporary suspension status (e.g., for non-payment)? Is it 
feasible for service providers to exclude such information from their 
reporting? What are the costs of differentiating disconnections for 
service providers? How should the Commission weigh those costs against 
the risk that the reassigned numbers database might be overinclusive--
stating that certain numbers have been reassigned more recently than 
they actually have been--and thus may unnecessarily discourage 
legitimate calls from being made.
    18. Comprehensiveness of Database Information. The Commission seeks 
comment on how comprehensive a reassigned numbers database needs to be. 
It believes that when callers use such a database, they should 
reasonably expect that the database is sufficiently comprehensive such 
that they do not need to rely on any other databases. The Commission 
seeks comment on this view.
    19. To ensure a comprehensive database, do callers need data from 
all types of voice service providers, including wireless, wireline, 
interconnected VoIP, and non-interconnected VoIP providers? Or would 
data from only certain types of providers be sufficient? Nearly all NOI 
commenters on this issue argue that an effective reassigned numbers 
solution must contain data from all service providers. For example, one 
commenter contends that without data from all voice service providers, 
a reassigned numbers database ``would contain insufficient . . . 
information about a potentially large set of numbers, and thus likely 
would not be any more `comprehensive' than existing tools.'' Do 
commenters agree? Why or why not? And do texters need reassignment 
information from text message providers to the extent that such 
providers do not also provide voice service? Are there significant 
occurrences of misdirected texts to reassigned numbers such that 
texters need this information?
    20. The Commission also seeks comment on the universe of numbers 
that a reassigned numbers database should contain. For example, should 
such a database contain all numbers allocated by a numbering 
administrator to a service provider or only a subset of such numbers 
(e.g., only numbers that have been disconnected since the commencement 
of the database)? If a reassigned numbers database contains only a 
subset of allocated numbers, the Commission notes that a caller may be 
unable to determine the status of a given number. On the other hand, a 
database containing all allocated numbers may be unwieldy. The 
Commission seeks comment on these views and on the best approach for 
making comprehensive data available to callers while minimizing the 
burdens on those reporting and managing the data.
    21. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether there is any 
reason to limit the reported reassignment information to a specific 
timeframe. For instance, if the most recent reassignment of a number 
occurred five or ten years ago, do callers need that information?
    22. Timeliness of Database Information. The Commission seeks 
comment on how timely the information contained in a reassigned numbers 
database must be. How frequently should the data be reported to 
maximize callers' ability to remove reassigned numbers from their 
calling lists before placing calls? Some NOI commenters argue that data 
should be reported on a daily basis while others contend that it should 
be updated in realtime or as close to realtime as practicable. CTIA 
cautions, however, that real-time updates would result in greater 
costs, while potentially not measurably reducing unwanted calls 
compared to

[[Page 17634]]

less frequent updates. Tatango argues that data should be reported 
based on how long a service provider ages its numbers, with those 
providers that age their numbers quickly (e.g., after two days) being 
required to report on a daily basis and those providers that age their 
numbers for at least 45 days being allowed to report on a monthly 
basis. The Commission seeks comment on these approaches, any 
alternatives, and their costs and benefits.
    23. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on how long service 
providers currently age numbers before making them available again for 
assignment. The Commission notes that the Commission's rules limit the 
aging period for disconnected residential numbers to a maximum of 90 
days. Should the Commission adopt a minimum aging period for 
disconnected numbers so that service providers could report data to a 
reassigned numbers database less frequently? If so, would 30 days be a 
reasonable minimum aging period? Would 60 days? What are the costs and 
benefits to service providers of having to comply with a minimum aging 
requirement? Would the costs outweigh any benefit of being able to 
report data to a reassigned numbers database less frequently?
    24. Format of Database Information. The Commission seeks comment on 
the format in which callers need the relevant data. For example, 
several NOI commenters argue that callers need this information in an 
easily accessible, usable, and consistent file format such as comma-
separated values (CSV) or eXtensible Markup Language (XML) format. Do 
commenters agree or believe that alternative formats should be used, 
and if so, which formats? Does the Commission need to specify the 
format of such information by rule, or should the Commission allow the 
database administrator to determine it?
    25. User Access to Database Information. The Commission anticipates 
that callers may use the database directly or may wish to have entities 
that are not callers (such as data aggregators or entities that manage 
callers' call lists) use the database. The Commission seeks comment on 
this view and any associated impacts on implementation.
    26. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on any specific 
criteria or requirements that an entity must satisfy to become an 
eligible user. Most commenters on the NOI argue that some restrictions 
are necessary to prevent misuse of data. The Commission is particularly 
mindful that the database information may be business- and market-
sensitive, especially as it relates to customer churn. The Commission 
also seeks to mitigate any risk that the data could be used by 
fraudulent robocallers or other bad actors for spoofing or other 
purposes. At the same time, the Commission seeks to minimize the 
administrative and cost burden on callers so as not to discourage their 
use of a reassigned numbers database. With these goals in mind, the 
Commission seeks comment on the potential requirements for eligible 
users discussed below and any other requirements that commenters 
believe are necessary. The Commission also seek comment on how to 
enforce these requirements to ensure database security and integrity.
    27. The Commission seeks comment on whether users should be 
required to certify the purpose for which they seek access to the 
information and, if so, how that purpose should be defined. In the NOI, 
the Commission asked whether entities seeking access should be required 
to certify that the information will be used only for purposes of TCPA 
compliance, and many commenters favor such a restriction. However, the 
Commission notes that all callers seeking to reduce unwanted calls to 
reassigned numbers--not merely callers seeking to ensure compliance 
with the TCPA--should be permitted to access a reassigned numbers 
database. The Commission seeks comment on this view. If commenters 
agree that user access should be permitted for this broader purpose 
(and not for any other purpose, such as marketing), what specific 
language should be used in any required certification?
    28. The Commission also seeks comment on whether and how to track 
relevant information about those who access a reassigned numbers 
database. Several commenters on the NOI argue that database users 
should be subject to a registration requirement. Do commenters agree? 
If users are required to set up an account that identifies the party 
obtaining the data, what information should they be required to 
provide? The Commission also seeks comment on whether database users 
should be subject to audits or other reviews, and if so, the components 
and frequency of such audits. Additionally, the Commission seeks 
comment on what recourse, if any, an entity denied access should have.
    29. Cost to Use Database. The Commission seeks comment on any ways 
it can minimize the cost of using a reassigned numbers database so as 
to encourage usage, including by small business callers. The Commission 
notes that commenters on the NOI largely agree that service providers 
should be compensated for the costs of reporting data to a reassigned 
numbers database, but callers argue that any cost recovery mechanism 
should be reasonable so that access to the data will be affordable. How 
should the Commission balance these interests?
    30. Database Use and TCPA Compliance. The Commission seeks comment 
on how use of a reassigned numbers database should intersect with TCPA 
compliance. In response to comments filed on the NOI by the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, the Commission makes clear that it is not 
proposing to mandate that callers use a reassigned numbers database in 
order to comply with the TCPA.
    31. Rather, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt 
a safe harbor from TCPA liability for those callers that choose to use 
a reassigned numbers database, including under any of the three 
approaches to database administration discussed below. Some commenters, 
for example, urge the Commission to adopt a safe harbor from TCPA 
violations for robocallers that inadvertently make calls to reassigned 
numbers after checking a comprehensive reassigned numbers database. 
Other commenters argue that the Commission should instead adopt a safe 
harbor for callers using existing commercial solutions. The Commission 
seeks comment on these views. If the Commission were to adopt a safe 
harbor from TCPA violations, under what circumstances should callers be 
permitted to avail themselves of the safe harbor? For example, how 
often would a caller need to check a reassigned numbers database under 
a safe harbor? The Commission also seeks detailed comment on whether 
section 227 of the Act or other sections of the Act provide it with 
authority to adopt such a safe harbor--what provisions, precisely, 
would allow the agency to create a safe harbor? If the Commission were 
to adopt a safe harbor under the TCPA, how does the D.C. Circuit's 
recent ruling in ACA International v. FCC impact its ability to adopt a 
safe harbor, if at all? Does the Commission have more authority to 
craft a safe harbor from its own enforcement authority than from the 
private right of action contained in the TCPA? Does section 251(e) of 
the Act provide independent or additional authority for such a safe 
harbor? If the Commission were to establish such a safe harbor, what 
precisely would it protect a caller from? Liability from all 
reassigned-number calls? Liability from good-faith reassigned-number 
calls? Liability from reassigned-number calls but only when the 
database's

[[Page 17635]]

information was either untimely or inaccurate?

Approaches to Database Administration

    32. In the NOI, the Commission suggested four potential mechanisms 
for service providers to report reassigned number information and for 
callers to access that information. Most commenters addressing this 
issue favored a single, FCC-designated database, while others favored 
making the data available through commercial data aggregators. The 
Commission seeks further comment on these options below. Specifically, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether it should: (1) Require service 
providers to report reassigned number information to a single, FCC-
designated database; (2) require service providers to report such 
information to one or more commercial data aggregators; or (3) allow 
service providers to report such information to commercial data 
aggregators on a voluntary basis. The Commission also seeks comment on 
any alternative approaches that commenters believe it should consider. 
Regardless of the approach, the Commission seeks to balance callers' 
need for comprehensive and timely reassigned number information with 
the need to minimize the reporting burden placed on service providers.
    33. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 
recognized that the Commission has ``consistently adopted a `reasonable 
reliance' approach'' to the TCPA, including in cases ``when a 
consenting party's number is reassigned.'' The court highlighted that 
the Commission is ``considering creating a comprehensive repository of 
information about reassigned wireless numbers'' and ``whether to 
provide a safe harbor for callers that inadvertently reach reassigned 
numbers after consulting the most recently updated information''--and 
the court noted a reassigned numbers database ``would naturally bear on 
the reasonableness of calling numbers that have in fact been 
reassigned.'' The Commission seeks comment on the impact that decision 
and possible Commission action in response to that decision could have 
on the costs and benefits of the database options discussed herein. 
Does that decision strengthen the need for a timely and comprehensive 
reassigned numbers database? Or does it suggest that existing, 
commercially available databases provide callers with sufficient 
resources, diminishing the need for a new database or a mandatory 
reporting requirement?

Mandatory Reporting to Single Database

    34. The Commission seeks detailed comment on whether it should 
establish and select an administrator of a single reassigned numbers 
database. Under this approach, the Commission would mandate that 
service providers report reassigned number information to the database, 
and allow eligible users to query the database for such information. As 
discussed below, the Commission seeks comment on how the single 
database should be established, who should administer it, and how it 
should be funded. The Commission also seeks comment on which service 
providers should be required to report information, the requirements 
that should apply to such providers, and whether and how they should be 
able to recover their reporting costs. Finally, the Commission seeks 
comment on the effectiveness, costs, and benefits of the single 
database approach.
    35. Establishment and Administration of Single Database. The 
Commission seeks comment on how complicated it would be to establish a 
single reassigned numbers database. Would it be necessary to develop a 
completely new database or would it be possible to expand or modify one 
of the existing numbering databases overseen by the Commission to 
accommodate the data that callers need? Are there any economies of 
scale or scope that could be achieved under the latter approach?
    36. One possibility would be to modify the Number Portability 
Administration Center (NPAC), which is used to facilitate local number 
portability. In response to the NOI, however, iconectiv explains that 
the NPAC currently lacks information about all number reassignments and 
therefore cautions that the ``suitability of extending the NPAC to 
serve as a reassigned number database warrants a great deal more 
consideration prior to making such a decision.'' What factors should 
the Commission consider in making such a decision and what processes 
should it follow in establishing a single database? For example, should 
the Commission consult with the North American Numbering Council 
(NANC), as some commenters suggest?
    37. The Commission also seeks comment on which entities have the 
expertise to serve as the administrator of a central reassigned numbers 
database. Could the LNPA or a different numbering administrator (such 
as the NANPA or the Pooling Administrator) serve such a role? Or could 
an entirely different vendor serve this role? What factors should the 
Commission take into account in selecting a reassigned numbers database 
administrator?
    38. Funding. How should an FCC-designated reassigned numbers 
database be funded? For example, should the Commission establish a 
charge to database users to help cover the costs of establishing and 
maintaining the database? If so, how should the charge be set (e.g., 
per query, a flat fee or some other basis) and how should the billing 
and collection process work? To the extent that such fees do not cover 
all of the costs of establishing and maintaining the database, should 
the Commission recover the remaining costs from reporting service 
providers? The Commission notes that section 251 of the Act provides 
that the ``cost of establishing telecommunications numbering 
administration arrangements . . . shall be borne by all 
telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis as 
determined by the Commission.'' How would this statutory provision 
affect the Commission's approach? To the extent that fees collected 
from database users exceed the costs of establishing and maintaining 
the reassigned numbers database, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether such fees could be used to offset the costs of numbering 
administration more generally.
    39. Covered Service Providers. The Commission seeks comment on 
which service providers should be required to report data to a single, 
FCC-designated reassigned numbers database. Should all service 
providers--including wireless, wireline, interconnected VoIP, and non-
interconnected VoIP providers--be required to report data? Should the 
reporting requirements also apply to text messaging providers to the 
extent that they do not also provide voice service?
    40. Alternatively, should the Commission require all service 
providers that receive numbers directly from the NANPA to report data 
on those numbers? In response to the NOI, several commenters note that 
some service providers, such as resellers and interconnected VoIP 
providers that do not obtain numbers directly from the NANPA, might not 
have knowledge of certain changes in the status of a number if they do 
not have control over the provision of the number. Tatango therefore 
argues that, consistent with the Commission's existing number 
utilization reporting requirements, the obligation to report data about 
a number to a reassigned numbers database should be imposed on the 
entity that obtained the number directly from the NANPA. The Commission 
seeks

[[Page 17636]]

comment on this view. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to 
afford covered service providers the flexibility to contractually 
delegate those requirements to the service provider that indirectly 
receives numbers.
    41. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should 
exempt certain service providers from the obligation to report data to 
an FCC-designated reassigned numbers database without undermining its 
overall comprehensiveness. For example, NTCA asks that the Commission 
exempt rural service providers from this requirement, at least 
initially, because of their limitations in resources and staff. Are 
there other types of providers, such as those offering only 
telecommunications relay services, that should be exempted from 
mandatory reporting? The Commission seeks comment on whether it should 
adopt any such exemptions, the relevant eligibility criteria, and the 
effect of the exemption on the goal of providing comprehensive 
numbering information to callers that want it. Are there other measures 
short of an exemption that would lessen the reporting burden, while 
still achieving that goal?
    42. Requirements for Covered Service Providers. The Commission 
seeks comment on the reporting requirements that should apply to 
covered service providers under a single database approach. In 
particular, it seeks comment on: (1) The specific data that covered 
service providers should be required to report; (2) how often they 
should be required to report such information; and (3) the format in 
which they should be required to report it. In adopting such 
requirements, the Commission seeks to balance callers' need for 
comprehensive and timely reassigned number data with the need to 
minimize the reporting burden on service providers. The Commission also 
seeks comment on the costs and benefits of these reporting 
requirements, including specific cost estimates. Additionally, are 
there any unique reporting burdens faced by small and/or rural service 
providers, and if so, how should they be addressed? For example, should 
the Commission permit small providers to report data less frequently 
than larger providers, as NTCA suggests? Or start reporting at a later 
time? Furthermore, are there other requirements for covered service 
providers that the Commission should adopt? For example, is there a 
risk that customer proprietary network information (CPNI) could be 
disclosed without customer consent, and if so, how could that risk be 
addressed?
    43. Cost Recovery for Covered Service Providers. Should covered 
service providers be compensated for some or all of their costs of 
reporting information to an FCC-designated reassigned numbers database? 
Commenters recognize that service providers will incur operational 
costs to provide the required data. For example, CTIA emphasizes that 
its members may need to develop new database solutions and/or incur 
operational expenses associated with modifying existing systems. Would 
service providers' costs ultimately be borne by their subscribers, as 
NCLC suggests? If covered service providers should be permitted to 
recover some or all of their costs of reporting data, how should they 
be compensated and what limits, if any, should be set on such 
compensation?
    44. Other Implementation Issues and Implementation Timeline. The 
Commission seeks comment on any other issues related to the feasibility 
or implementation of a single, FCC-designated reassigned numbers 
database. The Commission also seeks comment on an implementation 
timeline for establishing such a database. What steps would need to be 
taken and approximately how long would they take?
    45. Costs and Benefits. The Commission seek comment on the 
effectiveness, costs (including specific cost estimates), and benefits 
of the single database approach. The Commission also seeks comment on 
its advantages and disadvantages compared to existing solutions and the 
alternatives discussed below. Would, as many commenters argue, a single 
database approach be more comprehensive and therefore, more effective, 
in addressing the reassigned numbers problem, than existing commercial 
solutions? Additionally, requiring service providers to report to, and 
allowing eligible users to query from, a single, centralized database 
would likely be more efficient and cost-effective than an approach that 
involves multiple commercial data aggregators. Some commenters contend 
that a single database would also serve as an ``authoritative source'' 
of reassigned number information and could better facilitate 
establishment of a safe harbor from TCPA violations. Another commenter 
points out that in contrast to commercial databases that might cease 
operations, a single, FCC-designated database would better enable the 
Commission to oversee quality of and access to the data. At the same 
time, however, developing such a database could require substantially 
more time and expenditures than an approach that relies on commercial 
data aggregators. The Commission seeks comment on these views and on 
any other factors that commenters believe the Commission should 
consider when evaluating a single, FCC-designated database as a 
solution to the reassigned numbers problem.

Mandatory Reporting to Commercial Data Aggregators

    46. As an alternative to the single database approach discussed 
above, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should require 
service providers to report reassigned number information to commercial 
data aggregators. Under this approach, the Commission expects that 
service providers would enter into bilateral agreements with data 
aggregators for purposes of reporting data, and as a result, there 
would be multiple reassigned numbers databases that callers could 
query. The Commission seeks comment on the criteria and process for 
becoming a qualifying data aggregator to which service providers would 
report data; which service providers should be required to report data, 
the requirements they should be subject to, and the appropriate cost 
recovery for these covered service providers; contractual and other 
issues that might arise between data aggregators and service providers; 
and the feasibility and implementation issues associated with this 
approach. The Commission also seeks comment on the costs and benefits 
of this approach.
    47. Qualifying Data Aggregators. The Commission believes that 
service providers should be required to report reassigned number data 
only to those commercial data aggregators that meet specific 
eligibility or qualification criteria (e.g., certain baseline or 
operational standards). The Commission seeks comment on this view. If 
commenters agree, how should the Commission define a ``qualifying data 
aggregator'' for this purpose and what criteria should such an entity 
satisfy? For example, should a data aggregator be required to: (1) 
Establish internal controls to ensure that the data it receives will be 
used solely to respond to callers' queries and not for any marketing or 
other commercial purpose; (2) maintain records of callers' queries; (3) 
ensure data security and privacy; and (4) establish internal controls 
to accurately respond to such queries? The Commission seeks comment on 
these potential criteria and any others that commenters believe are 
necessary to ensure reliable and secure databases.
    48. The Commission also seeks comment on the process for becoming a

[[Page 17637]]

qualifying data aggregator. For instance, should a data aggregator be 
required to register with or seek approval from the Commission? 
Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on how to ensure compliance 
with the qualification criteria. For example, should service providers 
require that any criteria placed on the qualifying data aggregator, 
such as those referenced above, be addressed within the bilateral 
contract between the parties? Are there other ways that the Commission 
can ensure that a qualifying data aggregator meets the requisite 
criteria? Should a qualifying data aggregator be required to undergo 
regular audits and file with the Commission an auditor's certification 
that it complies with the required criteria? Further, how should 
service providers be expected to know which data aggregators are 
qualifying data aggregators? Should the Commission maintain a list or 
registry of such entities and if so, how and when should it be updated?
    49. Covered Service Providers. The Commission seeks comment on 
which service providers should be required to report reassigned number 
data to commercial data aggregators. Should the same universe of 
providers be subject to reporting regardless of whether the Commission 
requires reporting to commercial data aggregators or to a single, FCC-
designated database? Why or why not?
    50. Reporting to Single or Multiple Data Aggregators. Under this 
approach, should covered service providers be required to report 
reassigned number data to some or all qualifying data aggregators, and 
how would this requirement work in practice? Alternatively, should the 
Commission require covered service providers to report information to 
only one qualifying data aggregator which would in turn share the 
information with other qualifying data aggregators? What would be the 
parameters of such required data-sharing arrangements? What are the 
potential benefits and drawbacks of such an approach and how would it 
work in practice?
    51. Other Requirements for Covered Service Providers. The 
Commission seeks comment on the other requirements that should apply to 
covered service providers under this approach. Should the same 
reporting and other requirements that would apply under the single 
database approach discussed above apply under this approach as well? 
Are there different or additional requirements for covered service 
providers that the Commission should adopt under mandatory reporting to 
data aggregators?
    52. Cost Recovery for Covered Service Providers. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether covered service providers should be permitted 
to recover some or all of their reporting costs under this approach. If 
so, how should they be compensated and what limits, if any, should be 
set on such compensation?
    53. Contractual Issues. As discussed above, under this approach, 
the Commission anticipates that service providers would enter into 
bilateral agreements with data aggregators for purposes of reporting 
data. The Commission seeks comment on how negotiation of these 
agreements would work in practice. Are there contractual, business, or 
other concerns that would need to be addressed in order to rely on this 
approach as a solution to the reassigned numbers problem?
    54. Other Feasibility or Implementation Issues and Implementation 
Timeline. The Commission seeks comment on any other issues related to 
the feasibility or implementation of mandatory reporting to commercial 
data aggregators that commenters believe it should consider. For 
example, how should callers be expected to learn about the multiple 
reassigned numbers databases that would result from this approach? The 
Commission also seeks comment on a timeline for implementing this 
approach. What steps would need to be taken and approximately how long 
would they take?
    55. Costs and Benefits. The Commission seeks comment on the 
effectiveness, costs (including specific cost estimates), and benefits 
of mandatory reporting to commercial data aggregators as well as its 
advantages and disadvantages compared to the other approaches discussed 
herein and compared to existing commercial solutions. For example, an 
approach involving commercial data aggregators would enable those 
entities to leverage their existing infrastructure and services and 
likely make reassigned numbers databases available more quickly and 
with less upfront expenditures than a single, FCC-designated database 
approach. On the other hand, mandatory reporting to multiple data 
aggregators may be less efficient and cost-effective for both service 
providers and callers than a single database approach. The Commission 
seeks comment on these views and on any other factors that commenters 
believe it should consider in evaluating mandatory reporting to data 
aggregators as a solution to the reassigned numbers problem.

Voluntary Reporting to Commercial Data Aggregators

    56. The Commission seeks comment on whether, as a second 
alternative, it should allow service providers to report reassigned 
number data to commercial data aggregators on a voluntary basis. Under 
this approach, callers could then use commercial data aggregators to 
determine whether a phone number has been reassigned. As discussed 
below, the Commission seeks comment on whether, and if so, how a 
voluntary reporting approach could be structured to be more effective 
than existing solutions at addressing the reassigned numbers problem.
    57. Incentives to Encourage Effective Databases. As discussed 
above, the Commission believes that an effective reassigned numbers 
database must contain information that is both comprehensive and 
timely. The Commission seeks comment on whether reassigned number 
solutions that are available in the marketplace today are comprehensive 
and timely, and, if not, what efforts the FCC could undertake to 
incentivize improvement of these solutions. For example, CTIA and 
others argue that the Commission should adopt a safe harbor from TCPA 
violations for those callers that use existing commercial solutions. 
They further suggest that the safe harbor would lead to widespread use 
of existing solutions by callers, which would in turn create more 
competition among commercial data aggregators, spur those data 
aggregators to pay service providers to induce them to report data, and 
result in more comprehensive and reliable databases. Do commenters 
agree with this view? Commenters that advocate adoption of a safe 
harbor should explain in detail the Commission's legal authority to 
take such action. If the Commission were to adopt a safe harbor, under 
what circumstances should callers be allowed to avail themselves of the 
safe harbor? For example, how often would a caller need to check a 
reassigned numbers database under a safe harbor? And what parameters, 
in terms of comprehensiveness and timeliness of the data, would a 
reassigned numbers database used by such a caller need to satisfy? For 
instance, would a database need to have a certain percentage of service 
providers' data before a caller could use it under the safe harbor? 
Would coverage of 90 percent of allocated numbers be sufficient? 95 
percent? 99 percent? Would, as with the mandatory reporting approach, a 
data aggregator need to meet specific qualifying criteria, including 
certification? The

[[Page 17638]]

Commission also seeks comment on whether there are there other 
incentives, along with or in addition to a safe harbor, that the 
Commission could create to encourage the development of comprehensive 
and timely reassigned numbers databases under a voluntary reporting 
approach.
    58. Reporting. Under a voluntary reporting approach, the Commission 
anticipates that service providers would enter into bilateral 
commercial agreements with data aggregators for purposes of reporting 
data. Are there ways to improve the reporting infrastructure, including 
reducing administrative costs and increasing confidence in query 
results, such as by using distributed ledger technology? What other 
actions could the Commission take to better facilitate more widespread 
reporting by service providers without mandating reporting?
    59. Cost Recovery. Under this voluntary approach, the Commission 
expects that service providers would recover their reporting costs from 
data aggregators and those data aggregators would in turn pass those 
costs on to callers seeking to query their databases. The Commission 
seeks comment on this view and on any related issues. In particular, 
the Commission seeks comment on how best to ensure that small service 
providers recover their costs and are able to have their reassigned 
number data included in these databases.
    60. Costs and Benefits. The Commission seeks comment on the 
effectiveness, costs (including specific cost estimates), and benefits 
of voluntary reporting to commercial data aggregators relative to the 
other approaches discussed above. For example, the Commission 
anticipates that while a voluntary approach would give service 
providers more flexibility than a mandatory approach, it would 
nevertheless result in less comprehensive databases and would therefore 
be less effective in addressing the reassigned numbers problem than the 
alternatives discussed above. The Commission seeks comment on this 
view. Additionally, would callers have to pay more or less for database 
access under a voluntary approach than under the approaches discussed 
above or under existing commercial solutions? The Commission seeks 
comment on these issues and on any other factors that commenters 
believe it should consider in evaluating a voluntary reporting approach 
as a solution to the reassigned numbers problem.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    61. As required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 
1980, as amended, (RFA) the Commission has prepared the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected impact on small 
entities of the proposals contained in the Second FNPRM. 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 
on the Second FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the Second 
FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    62. The Second FNPRM seeks to reduce unwanted calls to reassigned 
numbers by proposing to ensure that one or more databases are available 
to provide callers with the comprehensive and timely information they 
need to avoid calling reassigned numbers. Despite existing tools that 
can help callers identify number reassignments, callers lack guaranteed 
methods to discover all reassignments in a timely manner. Beyond 
annoying the new subscriber of the reassigned number, a misdirected 
call can deprive the previous subscriber of the number of a desired 
call from, for example, his/her school, health care provider, or 
financial institution. In the case of robocalls to reassigned numbers, 
a good-faith caller may be subject to liability for violations of the 
TCPA. That threat can have a chilling effect, causing some callers to 
be overly cautious and stop making wanted, lawful calls out of concern 
over potential liability for calling a reassigned number.
    63. The Second FNPRM seeks to reduce the number comment on various 
aspects of a reassigned numbers database. The Second FNPRM also seeks 
comment on three alternatives for service providers to report 
reassigned number information and for callers to access that 
information. Finally, the Second FNPRM seeks comment on whether, and if 
so, how the Commission should adopt a safe harbor from liability under 
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for those callers that choose to 
use a reassigned numbers database. Making a reassigned numbers database 
available to callers that want it will benefit consumers by reducing 
unwanted calls intended for another consumer while helping callers 
avoid the costs of calling the wrong consumer, including potential 
violations of the TCPA.

Legal Basis

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

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

    65. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the 
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A ``small-business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    66. The proposed safe harbor from liability for violating the 
prohibitions relating to telephone solicitations using autodialers, 
artificial and/or prerecorded messages applies to a wide range of 
entities, including potentially all entities that use the telephone to 
advertise. Thus, the Commission expects that the safe harbor proposal 
could have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. For instance, funeral homes, mortgage brokers, 
automobile dealers, newspapers and telecommunications companies could 
all be affected.
    67. In 2013, there were approximately 28.8 million small business 
firms in the United States, according to SBA data. Determining a 
precise number of small entities that would be subject to the 
requirements proposed in this NPRM is not readily feasible. Therefore, 
the Commission invites comment about the number of small business 
entities that would be subject to the proposed safe harbor in this 
proceeding. After evaluating the comments, the Commission will examine 
further the effect the proposed safe harbor might have on small 
entities, and will set forth its findings in the final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis.
    68. The descriptions and estimates of small entities affected by 
the remaining proposed rules is detailed below.

[[Page 17639]]

Wireline Carriers

    69. 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.
    70. 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.
    71. 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.
    72. 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.
    73. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this 
present RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the 
RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size 
standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or 
fewer employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' 
The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small 
incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any 
such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. The Commission has 
therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although 
it emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses 
and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    74. 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

[[Page 17640]]

(cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband 
internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite 
television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure 
that they operate are included in this industry.'' Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated 
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
interexchange carriers are small entities.
    75. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act also contains a size standard for small cable system 
operators, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through an 
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all 
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity 
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed 
$250,000,000.'' There are approximately 52,403,705 cable video 
subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator 
serving fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator 
if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of 
all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based 
on available data, the Commission finds that all but nine incumbent 
cable operators are small entities under this size standard. Note that 
the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether 
cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual 
revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of 
these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross 
annual revenues exceed $250 million, the Commission is unable at this 
time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system 
operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the 
definition in the Communications Act.
    76. 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

    77. 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.
    78. 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.
    79. 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 voice over internet 
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications 
connections are also included in this industry.'' The SBA has developed 
a small business size standard for the category of All Other 
Telecommunications. Under that size standard, such a business is small 
if it has $32.5 million in annual receipts. For this category, Census 
Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 1,442 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,400 had annual receipts 
below $25 million per year. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 
the majority of all other telecommunications firms are small entities.

Resellers

    80. 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

[[Page 17641]]

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, all 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.
    81. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. The 
Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged 
in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of 
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless 
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and 
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; 
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile 
virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. Under 
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale 
services during that year. Of that number, all operated with fewer than 
1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small 
business size standard, the majority of these local resellers can be 
considered small entities.
    82. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for the category of Telecommunications 
Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises 
establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from 
owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired 
and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to 
businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell 
telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and 
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included 
in this industry. Under that size standard, such a business is small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 
firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, all 
operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and 
the associated small business size standard, the majority of these 
prepaid calling card providers can be considered small entities.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    83. As indicated above, the Second FNPRM seeks comment on its 
proposal to make one or more databases available to provide callers 
with the comprehensive and timely information they need to avoid 
calling reassigned numbers. The Commission seeks to minimize the burden 
associated with reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
requirements for the proposal. The proposal under consideration could 
result in additional costs to regulated entities. This proposal would 
necessitate that some voice service providers create new processes or 
make changes to their existing processes that would impose some 
additional costs to those service providers. The Commission believes 
that service providers already track phone number status information, 
and it therefore does not anticipate that these costs will be 
excessive. In addition, as indicated in more detail below, the Second 
FNPRM also contemplates a cost recovery mechanism for expenses incurred 
by service providers.

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

    84. 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.
    85. As indicated above, the Second FNPRM seeks comment on a 
proposal to make one or more databases available so that callers can 
discover reassignments prior to making a call. The Commission has 
examined both the economic burden this proposal may have on callers and 
service providers and the considerable benefits to consumers and 
callers provide by a solution of a reassigned numbers database. 
Consumers are currently receiving a significant number of unwanted 
calls that are an annoyance and expend wasted time while other 
consumers are not getting the information that they solicited. In 
addition, callers are wasting considerable resources calling the wrong 
number and incurring potential TCPA liability. The Second FNPRM seeks 
to significantly reduce the number of unwanted calls to those that 
receive reassigned numbers by informing callers that use a database 
solution of the change in assignment. The Second FNPRM also seeks 
comment on potential ways to allow service providers to recoup their 
costs associated with reporting number reassignment information. If 
adopted, this cost-recovery mechanism could negate any service provider 
costs associated with the provisioning of phone number reassignment 
data. The Commission seeks comment on the specific costs of the 
measures we discuss in the Second FNPRM, and ways the Commission might 
further mitigate any implementation costs, including by making 
allowances for small and rural voice service providers and small 
business callers that might choose to use a reassigned number solution.
    86. The Commission will consider ways to reduce the impact on small 
businesses, such as establishment of different compliance or reporting 
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources 
available to small entities based on the record in response to the 
Second FNPRM. The Commission has requested feedback from small 
businesses in the Second FNPRM and seeks comment on ways to make a 
challenge mechanism and reporting less costly. The Commission seeks 
comment on how to minimize the economic impact of these potential 
requirements.
    87. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small 
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the Second 
FNPRM, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this 
proceeding.

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

    88. None.

Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-08376 Filed 4-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P