[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 26, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11226-11232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05620]



[[Page 11226]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 52 and 64

[CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 18-177]


Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission establishes a single, 
comprehensive database that will contain the most recent permanent 
disconnection date for toll free numbers and for each number allocated 
to or ported to each provider that receives North American Numbering 
Plan U.S. geographic numbers. The Commission also sets a minimum aging 
period of 45 days before a permanently disconnected number may be 
reassigned to a new subscriber and adopts a limited safe harbor from 
liability for any caller that relies upon inaccurate information 
provided by the database.

DATES: 
    Effective date: This rule is effective March 26, 2019.
    Compliance date: Compliance will not be required for Sec. Sec.  
52.15(f)(1)(ii)(8), 52.103(d), and 64.1200(l)(1) and (2) until the 
Commission publishes documents in the Federal Register announcing the 
compliance dates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh Zeldis, Consumer Policy Division, 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), at (202) 418-0715, 
email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Compliance

    The amendments of the Commission's rules as set forth in this 
document are effective 30 days after publication of a document in the 
Federal Register announcing approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB). Compliance will not be required for Sec. Sec.  
52.15(f)(1)(ii)(8), 52.103(d), and 64.1200(l)(1) until after approval 
by OMB of information collection requirements contained in Sec. Sec.  
52.15(f)(1)(ii)(8) and 64.1200(l)(1). The compliance date for 
Sec. Sec.  52.15(f)(1)(ii)(8), 52.103(d), and 64.1200(l)(1) will be 
specified in a document published in the Federal Register. Compliance 
will not be required for Sec.  64.1200(l)(2) until after approval by 
OMB and the reassigned numbers database administrator (Administrator) 
is ready to begin accepting reports of the data collected in accordance 
with Sec.  64.1200(l)(1). The Commission will publish another document 
in the Federal Register announcing the compliance date for the 
requirements contained in Sec.  64.1200(l)(2).
    This is a summary of the Commission's Advanced Methods to Target 
and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Second Report and Order (Order), 
document FCC 18-177, adopted on December 12, 2018, and released on 
December 13, 2018, in CG Docket No. 17-59. The Commission previously 
sought comment on these issues in Advanced Methods to Target and 
Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (Second Further Notice), published at 83 FR 17631, April 23, 
2018. The full text of the Order is available for public inspection and 
copying via ECFS and during regular business hours in the FCC Reference 
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554. It and any subsequently filed documents may also 
be found by searching ECFS at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (insert CG 
Docket No. 17-59 into the proceeding block). 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), (202) 418-0432 (TTY) or (844) 432-
2275 (videophone).

Congressional Review Act

    The Commission sent a copy of the Order to Congress and the 
Governmental Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review 
Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    The Order contains new or modified information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public to comment on 
the information collection requirements contained in document FCC 18-
177 as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act PRA of 1995, Public Law 
104-13. In addition, the Commission notes that, pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought comment on how the 
Commission might ``further reduce the information burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''

Synopsis

I. Second Report and Order

    1. In the Order, the Commission takes another action to curb 
unwanted telephone calls by addressing calls to reassigned phone 
numbers. The problem occurs when a caller tries to reach a consumer who 
expects a call but, unbeknownst to the caller, has disconnected the 
number. That number is often reassigned to a new consumer, who then 
receives an unwanted call meant for the prior consumer--and all too 
often multiple unwanted calls when, for example, the consumer misses 
the call or chooses to not to answer it. As a result, the previous 
consumer is deprived of expected calls. In addition, unwanted calls 
reduce callers' operational efficiency and effectiveness, while 
subjecting them to potential liability for alleged violations of the 
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
    2. Today the Commission addresses this problem by establishing a 
single, comprehensive database that will contain reassigned number 
information from each provider that obtains North American Numbering 
Plan (NANP) U.S. geographic numbers. It also will include toll free 
numbers. The database will enable any caller to verify whether a 
telephone number has been reassigned before calling that number.

A. Aging Period

    3. The Commission establishes a minimum aging period of 45 days for 
all numbers. The Commission concludes that 45 days is an appropriate 
aging period because the Commission allows 31 days to ensure each 
month's permanent disconnects are in the database before a number is 
reassigned and an additional two-week buffer to ensure consumers are 
fully protected.

B. Database Information, Access, and Use

    4. The Commission finds that the database needs only the date of 
the most recent permanent disconnection of a particular number in order 
to enable a caller to determine whether that number has been 
permanently disconnected since a date provided by the caller. All 
legitimate callers should have the telephone number associated with the 
consumer they are attempting to reach and either the date they 
contacted that consumer or the date on which the caller could be 
confident that the consumer could still be reached at that number. The 
Commission believes that this minimal amount of information strikes the 
correct balance between not overly burdening reporting providers

[[Page 11227]]

while still offering callers the necessary functionality.
    5. When a caller queries the database using a U.S. NANP number and 
a date, the database must provide a response of ``yes'', ``no'', or 
``no data'' to explain whether the number has been reassigned (or more 
accurately, permanently disconnected) since the date provided. The date 
may be any past date on which the caller reasonably is certain that the 
consumer the caller intends to reach could in fact be reached at that 
number. For example, a caller might select the date on which it last 
spoke to the consumer at that number or the date the consumer last 
updated his contact information.
    6. The Commission concludes, consistent with its existing number 
use reporting requirements, that the obligation to provide this 
information will be on all reporting carriers as defined in its 
numbering rules, which include wireless, wireline, and interconnected 
VoIP providers that obtain numbers from the North American Numbering 
Plan Administrator (NANPA). The data must be comprehensive because any 
exclusions will leave both callers and consumers vulnerable to calls 
misdirected to reassigned numbers. The mandatory reporting is necessary 
because the voluntary reporting alternative would yield data no more 
comprehensive than existing resources because not enough providers 
would voluntarily report.
    7. The Commission requires reporting carriers as defined in Sec.  
52.15(f)(2) of its rules, including those providers that receive their 
numbering resources indirectly, to provide to the database information 
about number disconnections. The Commission concludes, however, that 
these providers should be able to delegate the task of reporting to the 
provider that receives the numbering resources directly from the NANPA 
or Pooling Administrator.
    8. The Commission also includes toll free numbers in the reassigned 
numbers database. Calls to reassigned toll free numbers pose a problem 
to callers who waste time calling an unintended recipient and 
recipients who are responsible for paying the toll charge.
    9. The obligation to report the permanent disconnect status of toll 
free numbers will be on the Toll Free Numbering Administrator. Toll 
free numbers are administered separately from non-toll-free numbers by 
the Toll Free Numbering Administrator. The Toll Free Numbering 
Administrator assigns toll free numbers to Responsible Organizations 
and, unlike the NANPA in relation to non-toll-free numbers, is uniquely 
positioned to have real-time visibility into each toll free number's 
disconnection status. The Commission directs the Toll Free Numbering 
Administrator to revise its Service Management System tariff as 
appropriate to embody this responsibility of the Toll Free Numbering 
Administrator to report the disconnect status of toll free numbers to 
the reassigned numbers database, as set forth herein.
    10. The Commission takes three steps to ensure that the data 
contained in the Reassigned Numbers Database are used appropriately and 
accessible to the widest possible array of users. First, the Commission 
follows the practice of data minimization--the database will not 
contain information about subscribers other than the most recent date 
of permanent disconnections. Second, the Commission limits the data 
available to any individual caller to a ``yes'', ``no'', or ``no data'' 
in response to a particular query. And third, the Commission requires 
callers to certify the purpose for which they are using the database.
    11. The Commission believes that establishing a database that 
returns only a ``yes'', ``no'', or ``no data'' response to queries best 
protects consumer privacy and providers' commercially sensitive 
information because callers will not have access to the underlying 
data.
    12. In addition, the database will be available only to callers who 
agree in writing that the caller (and any agent acting on behalf of the 
caller) will use the database solely to determine whether a number has 
been permanently disconnected since a date provided by the caller for 
the purpose of making lawful calls or sending lawful texts. The 
Administrator will obtain this certification from each new user during 
the enrollment process and before allowing a new user to access the 
database.
    13. Finally, the Commission takes steps to promote the 
accessibility of the database to the widest array of possible users. 
Recognizing that callers of all sizes and levels of sophistication may 
choose to use the database, the Commission requires the database to 
offer the ability to process low-volume queries (e.g., via a website 
interface), as well as to support high-volume queries (e.g., via batch 
process and/or standardized application programming interfaces or other 
protocols). In addition, some callers might use a third-party 
contractor to scrub their calling lists or to provide the capability to 
place autodialed or prerecorded or artificial voice calls. It must be 
possible for these third-party contractors to use it as the agent of 
their client callers.

C. Database Administration

    14. The Commission agrees with the vast majority of commenters that 
a single, centralized database is the preferable option. Keeping 
administration of the database under the Commission's direct oversight 
enables the Commission to better monitor operations and address any 
future issues.
    15. The Commission's approach has the universal benefit of reducing 
transaction costs by providing a single point of contact both for 
providers to report reassigned number information and for callers to 
query that information. Under this approach, providers will avoid the 
costs of having to enter arrangements with multiple data aggregators 
and of establishing mechanisms for transmitting that data to each 
aggregator, which might have differing technical needs.
    16. The Commission concludes that it is in the public interest for 
the reassigned numbers database to be administered by an independent 
third party administrator chosen under a competitive bidding process. 
As the Commission stated when it previously declined to act as the 
NANPA, no government agency has the resources to perform both 
regulatory and administrative functions regarding numbering resources 
effectively. In contrast, the Administrator, like the NANPA, will be 
well situated to administer a reassigned numbers database because it 
will be an independent, non-governmental entity that must meet strict 
competitive neutrality requirements.
    17. The Commission may be able to achieve operational and cost 
efficiencies by merging the administration of the reassigned numbers 
database with the already consolidated NANPA and Pooling Administrator 
functions under a single contract and a single administrator. The 
current NANPA meets the Commission's selection requirements as it is 
independent and was selected previously pursuant to a competitive 
bidding process. The Commission expects that leveraging the existing 
reporting and administration mechanisms between providers and the 
numbering administrators will result in only a small, incremental 
burden resulting from reporting to the Administrator the date of the 
most recent permanent disconnection for each number. The Commission 
will therefore seek to procure a contract that consolidates the 
Administrator's functions with the present NANPA and

[[Page 11228]]

Pooling Administrator functions as soon as reasonably practicable.
    18. The Commission requires each provider to report to the 
Administrator for inclusion in the database the date of the most recent 
permanent disconnection for each number allocated to or ported to the 
provider. This is all the data that is necessary for the Administrator 
to be able to provide a response of ``yes'', ``no'', or ``no data'' to 
queries of whether a number has been permanently disconnected since a 
date chosen by the caller making the query.
    19. Using the date of permanent disconnection in this context 
reduces the potential that callers will needlessly expend resources 
attempting to call the number, and the lead time between disconnection 
and reassignment reduces the likelihood that the consumer to whom the 
number is reassigned will receive calls intended for the prior 
consumer. It also minimizes the amount of information that providers 
must report, minimizes the complexity and size of the database, 
minimizes the types of inquiries the Administrator must facilitate, and 
minimizes the volume of data that must be supplied in response to 
queries.
    20. Definition of Permanent Disconnection. For this purpose, the 
Commission defines ``permanent disconnection'' as occurring when a 
subscriber permanently has relinquished a number, or the provider 
permanently has reversed its assignment of the number to the subscriber 
such that the number has been disassociated with the subscriber for 
active service in the service provider's records. Permanently 
disconnected numbers therefore do not include instances where the phone 
number is still associated with the subscriber, such as when a 
subscriber's phone service has been disconnected temporarily for non-
payment of a bill or when a consumer ports a number to another 
provider. A ported number remains assigned to and associated with the 
same consumer even though a different provider serves the consumer 
after the number is ported.
    21. The Commission requires providers to report data to the 
Administrator on the 15th day of each month. The Commission believes 
that monthly reporting properly balances the burden placed on providers 
with the need for callers to obtain timely information. Moreover, the 
Commission concludes that more frequent reporting is unnecessary 
because the Commission also establishes a minimum aging period of 45 
days, which will ensure that the database reflects current permanent 
disconnection information.
    22. The Commission requires reporting providers to keep accurate 
and complete records associated with the permanent disconnections of 
their subscribers on a going-forward basis as soon as this information 
collection becomes effective, regardless of when the reassigned numbers 
database is launched. Requiring this recordkeeping before the 
reassigned numbers database is launched will ensure that reporting 
providers are appropriately tracking and have available the information 
they will need to update the database once it has launched, as well as 
a set of initial data spanning some period of time to make it more 
useful from launch.
    23. In order to ease the burden on small providers, the Commission 
will permit six additional months for them to begin maintaining and 
reporting data to the Administrator. A limited extension of time is 
appropriate for these providers because they have limited staffing 
resources and may require additional time to make any necessary system 
changes to track and report permanent disconnections. The Commission 
directs CGB to separately announce the effective dates for smaller 
reporting providers when it announces the effective dates for larger 
reporting providers.
    24. The Commission sets the threshold for determining which 
providers qualify for the six-month delay as those providers with 
100,000 or fewer domestic retail subscriber lines as reported on their 
most recent Forms 477, aggregated over all the providers' affiliates. 
The Commission has used this threshold with regard to other 
recordkeeping, retention, and reporting requirements, including in the 
Rural Call Completion Order.
    25. The Commission declines, however, to further limit the 
reporting requirement for small providers, either by eliminating the 
obligation or by requiring less frequent reporting than larger 
providers. All providers, including small providers, are already 
required to report number usage information to the NANPA, albeit on a 
less frequent basis. Regardless of the size of the provider, the burden 
of compiling and reporting the date of permanent disconnection for NANP 
numbers each month is incremental and small compared to their overall 
reporting requirements. The Commission does not believe that this 
incremental burden is so significant as to outweigh the need for 
accurate and comprehensive data, nor does the Commission believe that 
the monthly reporting is overly onerous, as it is not likely to require 
small providers to implement new billing systems or otherwise to incur 
substantial additional costs.

D. Costs and Cost Recovery

    26. The Commission believes that, over the long term, callers 
should pay for the database. Thus, the Administrator's costs to operate 
the database following its establishment will be recovered through 
usage charges that the Administrator will collect from callers that 
choose to use the database. This is consistent with the manner in which 
the Toll Free Numbering Administrator recovers its costs. Like the 
Responsible Organizations that benefit directly from the toll free 
numbers database, callers that choose to use the reassigned numbers 
database benefit directly by reducing their potential liability for 
unlawful calls to reassigned telephone numbers and reducing operational 
costs with more efficient calling. Also, like Responsible 
Organizations, callers that use the database are a clearly identifiable 
user group from which the Administrator can assess usage charges and 
that in turn can spread those costs across their customer bases. In 
contrast, costs for more generalized number administration performed by 
NANPA cannot be directly associated with any particular user group that 
could be billed for those costs and therefore are billed to providers 
that in turn recover those costs through charges for the services they 
provide. The Commission therefore concludes that it is most 
economically efficient and rational for the Administrator to recover 
reassigned numbers database costs from callers that choose to use the 
database.
    27. The costs to establish the database and create the query 
functionality will be recovered using the same type of mechanism that 
is currently used to recover the NANPA's costs. Thus, database creation 
costs will be included along with the other numbering administration 
costs the Billing and Collection Agent bills to and collects from 
providers. The Commission adopts this approach to establish the 
database as quickly as possible using the most practical means of 
funding considering that it is not possible to recover these costs 
through database usage charges before the database is created.
    28. The Commission declines to seek Congressional funding for the 
database. Seeking an appropriation is unnecessary because the 
Commission already has authority to create the database. Further, 
seeking an appropriation would take additional time and therefore would 
delay launch of the database to the detriment of consumers and callers 
alike.

[[Page 11229]]

    29. Just as providers recover other numbering administration costs, 
providers will be able fully to recover the costs they pay for creation 
of the database and query functionality, but no more. Because providers 
have no direct means of recovering these costs from callers that use 
the database, the Commission therefore will require the Administrator 
to set usage charges at a level designed to recover current operating 
costs and, over time, the database creation costs paid by providers.
    30. The Commission agrees with commenters asserting that providers' 
internal costs of tracking and reporting permanent disconnection dates 
to the Administrator will be routine--and minimal--operational expenses 
similar to those expenses providers already incur to report other 
number usage data. In addition, providers have no means of recovering 
these costs directly from callers that choose to use the database and, 
because these are costs internal to providers, they cannot be recovered 
through the offset mechanism that enables them to recover the database 
creation costs they pay. Accordingly, the Commission anticipates that 
providers will recover these costs in their existing fees and charges.
    31. The Toll Free Numbering Administrator similarly lacks a means 
to directly bill callers for its internal reporting costs. Therefore, 
it may recover these costs in the same manner as other costs of toll 
free number administration.

E. Safe Harbor

    32. The Commission sought comment in the Second Further Notice on 
whether to adopt a safe harbor from TCPA liability for those callers 
that choose to use a reassigned numbers database. It adopts such a safe 
harbor for callers that rely on the database to learn if a number has 
been reassigned.
    33. Nearly all commenters argue that if a reassigned numbers 
database is implemented, callers that make use of the database should 
not be subject to liability if the database reports that a number has 
not been reassigned and nevertheless it has been, and so a caller 
inadvertently calls a new consumer. The Commission agrees with consumer 
groups that this safe harbor should not be broadly applied to all calls 
made by a caller who uses the database without regard to whether the 
caller reasonably relied on the database when making a particular call. 
Indeed, the record reflects concerns about good-faith callers being 
subject to liability for TCPA violations, a threat that can cause 
callers to be overly cautious and stop making wanted, lawful calls out 
of concern over potential liability for calling a reassigned number. 
The Commission share these concerns. And it finds that a safe harbor 
will incent greater usage, thereby further protecting more consumers 
from unwanted calls.
    34. Once the database becomes operational, callers that wish to 
avail themselves of the safe harbor must demonstrate that they 
appropriately checked the most recent update of the database and the 
database reported ``No'' when given either the date they contacted that 
consumer or the date on which the caller could be confident that the 
consumer could still be reached at that number. Callers bear the burden 
of proof and persuasion to show that they checked the database before 
making a call.
    35. The Commission disagrees with commenters seeking a more 
expansive safe harbor. For example, it declines to expand the period of 
time between checking the database and making a call beyond the most 
recent update to the database. This time period properly balances the 
burden placed on callers with the privacy interests of consumers. 
Moreover, by setting the minimum aging period at 45 days above, the 
Commission ensures that a caller that accesses the most recent update 
to the database will not inadvertently call a reassigned number unless 
the database is in error.
    36. The Commission also declines to extend the safe harbor to other 
commercial databases. The record shows that such databases collect 
different information over a less-than-comprehensive set of consumers, 
and so the Commission is not in a position to assess whether any such 
database would merit a safe harbor.
    37. Finally, the Commission disagrees with the one commenter who 
contends that the Commission lacks the statutory authority to adopt a 
safe harbor. First, it agrees with commenters that section 227 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (the Act) supplies the Commission the 
authority to establish a safe harbor. Second, it notes that the vast 
majority of commenters support a safe harbor and yet only one party 
states the Commission lacks the authority to establish one. Further, 
the Commission notes that the court that considered its previous safe 
harbor, the D.C. Circuit in its ACA International decision, found the 
Commission's previous one-call safe harbor arbitrary, but did not 
question the Commission's authority to adopt a safe harbor. Indeed, the 
court favorably noted the Commission's steps to establishing a 
reassigned numbers database and the Commission's consideration to adopt 
a safe harbor for callers that check the database as, among other 
things, consistent with the Commission's past practice of taking a 
``reasonable reliance'' approach when interpreting the TCPA, and by 
extension, expressing no concern about the Commission interpreting the 
Act to not demand the impossible of callers. Further, as with the safe 
harbor afforded in the number portability context, the safe harbor here 
is not an ``exemption'' from the TCPA and Commission's rules, but 
rather a means to come into compliance. Otherwise, callers would be 
required to do the impossible: Identify inaccurate information in an 
otherwise comprehensive and timely reassigned numbers database.

F. Technical and Operational Issues

    38. Commenters assert that the creation of a reassigned numbers 
database involves technical and operational requirements that could 
benefit from advice by the North American Numbering Council. The 
Commission agrees. It believes the Council is especially well-situated 
to handle matters related to this aspect of number administration 
because of its prior experience and collective expertise advising the 
Commission, among other things, on administration of number portability 
data and numbering administration procedures and systems. The 
Commission also believes that the Council can address and advise on 
issues and considerations related to the Administrator collecting fees 
from database users, the billing and collection from service providers 
to be administered by the Billing and Collection Agent, and interaction 
and coordination necessary and advisable between the Administrator and 
the Billing and Collection Agent in performing these roles. The 
Commission directs the Council to assess and address technical and 
operational issues consistent with the discussion below and, within six 
months, to report its recommendations on all of these issues to the 
Commission.
    39. The Council, working through its Numbering Administration 
Oversight Working Group (Oversight Working Group), is to develop a 
Technical Requirements Document for the reassigned numbers database for 
review by the Commission. That Technical Requirements Document must 
contain a single, unified set of functional and interface requirements 
for technical interoperability and operational standards; the user 
interface specifications and data format for service providers to 
report to the Administrator; the user interfaces and

[[Page 11230]]

other means by which callers may submit queries, including providing 
callers the abilities for high-volume and batch processing or to submit 
individual queries; appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy and 
security of subscribers, protect the database from unauthorized access, 
and ensure the security and integrity of the data; and keeping records 
of service provider's reporting and accounting. In reaching its 
recommendations, the Council should consider the most cost-effective 
way of administering the database, with the goal of minimizing costs 
and burdens for all users and service providers, while ensuring that it 
will fully serve the intended purpose. The Commission also directs the 
Council, through the Oversight Working Group, to provide guidance on 
any new or modified requirements for the Billing & Collection Agent 
contract that may be advisable or necessary with the implementation and 
operation of this database.
    40. The Commission will refer to the Council questions of how the 
fee structure should be designed and the initial amount of fees. 
Specifically, the Council, through its Oversight Working Group, is to 
consider technical issues surrounding how the Administrator can collect 
fees from callers that use the database. How this can be best achieved 
will depend in part, the Commission believes, on the user interface, 
the fee structure, the Administrator's costs to operate the database, 
and the amount of the fees necessary to enable providers to recover 
their costs of reassigned numbers database costs they pay to the 
Administrator. Therefore, the Council is to consider how to structure 
fees and the amount of such fees. Given the success of the National Do-
Not-Call Registry and support in the record for using its fee structure 
as a model, the Council is to consider using that or a similar fee or 
subscription structure. The Council is also to consider using a per-
query fee structure, which may be better suited to the manner in which 
this database will accept and respond to queries about individual 
numbers and may also be more appropriate for small-volume callers. The 
Commission does not, however, now require use of any particular fee 
structure.
    41. The Council will, within six months from the release of the 
Order, issue its recommendations for implementing and operating the 
reassigned numbers database, including a Technical Requirements 
Document, and recommended fee structure, and fee amounts. The Council 
will meet to discuss these issues and vote on whether to approve the 
recommendations of its Oversight Working Group, subject to any 
amendments the Council may consider appropriate. The Commission directs 
the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) in coordination with CGB to seek 
public comment on the Technical Requirements Document. The Commission 
expects the Council's guidance, as well as any relevant comments 
submitted by interested parties, will be incorporated into any 
contracting decisions.

G. Costs and Benefits

    42. The Commission concludes that the benefits of this database 
outweigh the costs imposed.
    43. A comprehensive database has not been created in the absence of 
Commission action. Until now, the Commission's rules have not required 
providers to report data to this extent and frequency about 
disconnections or reassignments, or otherwise to make this data 
available. There is no comprehensive solution at present and it is 
evident that the marketplace is highly unlikely to create one on its 
own. Moreover, no provider is capable of offering a comprehensive 
resource because each provider has access only to its own reassigned 
numbers data. Similarly, the Commission does not anticipate that data 
aggregators will provide an equivalent resource because doing so would 
require each aggregator to contract with every provider to obtain 
comprehensive data. The transaction costs of negotiating and 
administering thousands of bilateral contracts, and of incenting the 
providers to provide such data voluntarily, would be prohibitive. 
Further, because providers do not all keep records in the same manner 
there is no certainty that the technical arrangements necessary to 
obtain the data would be uniform across all providers or that the data 
could be obtained within the same timeframes from all providers. If 
updates were made at different times, callers would be forced to submit 
queries before each call, which greatly increases transaction costs 
compared to the monthly checks enabled by this database.
    44. The broad support among callers and consumer groups 
representing the interests of called parties--the two groups that 
ultimately will pay for this database and enjoy its benefits--therefore 
amply demonstrates that the benefits outweigh the costs. The Commission 
finds that both of these groups are rational economic actors that have 
estimated costs and benefits in deciding to support this database.

G. Legal Authority

    45. As the Commission recently has with regard to other aspects of 
number administration, it finds that sections 251(e) and 201 of the Act 
provide ample legal authority for the requirements it adopts today. 
Section 251(e) of the Act gives the Commission, ``authority to set 
policy with respect to all facets of numbering administration in the 
United States.'' Section 201 of the Act authorizes the Commission to 
ensure that interstate rates are just and reasonable and to ``prescribe 
such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest 
to carry out the provisions of this Act.''
    46. Section 251(e)(1) of the Act plainly gives the Commission 
authority to designate administrators for purposes of numbering 
administration. Databases long have been a tool used in numbering 
administration. Congress in enacting the Act and the Commission in 
various proceedings have recognized that fair and impartial access to 
numbering resources is critical because ``telephone numbers are the 
means by which telecommunications users gain access to and benefit from 
the public switched telephone network.'' The purpose of telephone 
numbers is to enable callers to place calls to the person they wish to 
reach. These requirements promote that purpose.
    47. Certain aspects of numbering administration long have been 
conducted by carriers themselves as part of the services they offer or 
provided on their behalf by the various numbering administrators, or 
both. For example, carriers and their numbering-related systems play a 
substantial role in local number porting in conjunction with the 
central role of the Local Number Portability Administrator and its NPAC 
system, and, in toll free call numbering, some carriers operate their 
own Service Control Point databases (updated periodically with data 
from a database operated by the Toll Free Number Administrator) for 
servicing real-time per-call toll free call routing queries from 
originating carriers. The Commission similarly finds it is just and 
reasonable, in accordance with section 201 of the Act, for the 
Administrator to collect fees for using the database.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    48. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended, (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated into the Second Further Notice. The Commission sought 
written public comment on the proposals in the Second Further Notice, 
including

[[Page 11231]]

comment on the IRFA. The comments received are discussed below. The 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    49. In the Order, the Commission establishes a single, 
comprehensive database that will contain reassigned number information 
about toll free numbers and from each voice provider that obtains North 
American Numbering Plan (NANP) U.S. geographic numbers. It also will 
include toll free numbers. The Commission's approach solves a 
longstanding problem for consumers and callers alike, and does so in a 
way that minimizes burdens on voice providers and callers.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to 
the IRFA

    50. In the Second Further Notice, the Commission solicited comments 
on how to minimize the economic impact of the new rules on small 
businesses. It received one comment directly addressing the IRFA from 
NTCA. NTCA argues that the IRFA was deficient because the measures on 
which the Commission sought comment were vague and lacked specificity.
    51. The Commission also received several comments addressing small 
business concerns. One commenter requested that small providers be 
excluded from any mandatory reporting requirement. In addition, it 
received a number of comments from small business callers that argued 
that access to reassigned numbers database should be affordable. None 
of the other commenters identified any areas where small businesses 
would incur a particular hardship in complying with the rules.

Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    52. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) did not file any comments in response to the 
proposed rules in this proceeding.

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

    53. The recovery of costs by reporting carriers from callers that 
use the reassigned numbers database apply to a wide range of entities, 
including potentially all entities that use the telephone to advertise. 
Thus, it expects that the costs associated with the voluntary usage of 
the reassigned numbers database 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.
    54. 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 fees to use 
the reassigned numbers database is not readily feasible. A list of the 
types of such small entities affected includes: Wired 
telecommunications carriers, local exchange carriers, incumbent local 
exchange carriers, competitive local exchange carriers, shared-tenant 
service providers, interexchange carriers, cable system operators, 
other toll carriers, wireless telecommunications carriers (except 
satellite), satellite telecommunications providers, all other 
telecommunications, toll resellers, and local resellers.

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

    55. This Order adopts rules to require the Toll Free Numbering 
Administrator and all reporting carriers as defined in the Commission's 
numbering rules, to report information on a monthly basis to a database 
whereby a caller can determine whether a number has been permanently 
disconnected since a date provided by the caller. With the exception of 
delayed implementation for reporting carriers with 100,000 or fewer 
lines, these changes affect small and large companies equally, and 
apply equally to all of the classes of regulated entities identified 
above. The database will be available only to callers who agree in 
writing that the caller (and any agent acting on behalf of the caller) 
will use the database solely to determine whether a number has been 
permanently disconnected since a date provided by the caller for the 
purpose of making lawful calls or sending lawful texts. The 
Administrator will obtain this certification from each new user during 
the enrollment process and before allowing a new user to access the 
database.
    56. The Order modifies Sec. Sec.  52.15(f)(1)(ii) and 52.103(d) of 
the Commission's rules to establish a minimum aging period of 45 days 
for all aging numbers. Thus, neither a toll free number nor a U.S. NANP 
geographic number may be reassigned until at least 45 days after the 
date it was permanently disconnected.

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

    57. The Commission will permit providers with 100,000 or fewer 
subscriber lines as reported on their most recent Forms 477, aggregated 
over all the providers' affiliates, six additional months to begin 
maintaining and reporting data to the Administrator. The Commission 
directs the CGB to separately announce the effective dates for smaller 
reporting providers when it announces the effective dates for larger 
reporting providers.
    58. The Commission requires providers to report to the 
Administrator data on the 15th day of each month. It believes that 
monthly reporting properly balances the burden placed on providers with 
the need for callers to obtain timely information. The Commission 
concluded that alternatives, such as requiring real-time reporting, 
could impose disproportionate costs on small businesses and could be 
technically difficult to accomplish.
    59. The Commission agrees with commenters in the proceeding that 
access to the reassigned numbers database should be affordable, and has 
structured the database accordingly. The information collected is 
minimal: A telephone number and the most recent permanent disconnection 
date. This reduces the cost of the database by minimizing the 
complexity and size of the database, minimizing the types of inquiries 
the Administrator must facilitate, and minimizing the volume of data 
that must be supplied in response to queries.
    60. The Commission agrees with commenters that a safe harbor will 
incent greater usage, thereby further protecting more consumers from 
unwanted calls. One alternative the Commission considered was not to 
adopt a safe harbor. That alternative could make compliance with the 
TCPA's prohibition almost impossible for small businesses. It also 
considered, but rejected, a more expansive safe harbor because it 
believes requiring callers to access the most recent update to the 
database prior to make a call properly balances the burden placed on 
callers with the privacy interests of consumers. Finally, the 
Commission declined to extend the safe harbor to other commercial 
databases.

Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the 
Commission's Rules

    61. None.

[[Page 11232]]

Ordering Clauses

    Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i)-(j), 201(b), 
227, and 251(e) of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i)-(j), 201(b), 
227, 251(e), that the Order is adopted and that Parts 52.15, 52.103, 
and 64.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 52.15, 52.103, 64.1200, 
are amended. The North American Numbering Council shall, by June 13, 
2019, address in a report to the Commission the technical and 
operational issues consistent with the Order, and that CGB, in 
conjunction with WCB, shall coordinate with the Council on those issues 
to ensure that they are addressed fully and timely.

Lists of Subjects

47 CFR Part 52

    Communications common carriers, Telecommunications, Telephone.

47 CFR Part 64

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

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 52 and 64 as follows:

PART 52--NUMBERING

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 201-205, 207-209, 
218, 225-227, 251-252, 271, 332, unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  52.15 by revising paragraph (f)(1)(ii) and adding 
paragraph (f)(8) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.15  Central office code administration.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Aging numbers are disconnected numbers that are not available 
for assignment to another end user or customer for a specified period 
of time. Numbers previously assigned to residential customers may be 
aged for no less than 45 days and no more than 90 days. Numbers 
previously assigned to business customers may be aged for no less than 
45 days and no more than 365 days.
* * * * *
    (8) Reports of Permanently Disconnected Numbers--Reporting carriers 
must report information regarding NANP numbers in accordance with Sec.  
64.1200(l) of this title.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  52.103 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.103  Lag times.

* * * * *
    (d) Disconnect Status. Toll free numbers must remain in disconnect 
status or a combination of disconnect and transitional status for no 
less than 45 days and for no more than 4 months. No requests for 
extension of the 4-month disconnect or disconnect and transitional 
interval will be granted. All toll free numbers in disconnect or 
transitional status must go directly into the spare or unavailable 
category upon expiration of the 4-month disconnect or transitional 
interval. A Responsible Organization may not retrieve a toll free 
number from disconnect or transitional status and return that number 
directly to working status at the expiration of the 4-month disconnect 
or transitional interval,
* * * * *

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULE RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

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

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 
226, 227, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 262, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 
620, 1401-1473, unless otherwise noted.


0
5. Amend Sec.  64.1200 by adding paragraphs (l) and (m) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  64.1200  Delivery restrictions.

* * * * *
    (l) A reporting carrier subject to Sec.  52.15(f) of this title 
shall:
    (1) Maintain records of the most recent date each North American 
Numbering Plan (NANP) telephone number allocated or ported to the 
reporting carrier was permanently disconnected.
    (2) Beginning on the 15th day of the month after the Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau announces that the Administrator is ready 
to begin accepting these reports and on the 15th day of each month 
thereafter, report to the Administrator the most recent date each NANP 
telephone number allocated to or ported to it was permanently 
disconnected.
    (3) For purposes of this paragraph (l), a NANP telephone number has 
been permanently disconnected when a subscriber permanently has 
relinquished the number, or the provider permanently has reversed its 
assignment of the number to the subscriber such that the number has 
been disassociated with the subscriber. A NANP telephone number that is 
ported to another provider is not permanently disconnected.
    (4) Reporting carriers serving 100,000 or fewer domestic retail 
subscriber lines as reported on their most recent Forms 477, aggregated 
over all the providers' affiliates, must begin keeping the records 
required by paragraph (l)(1) of this section six months after the 
effective date for large providers and must begin filing the reports 
required by paragraph (l)(2) of this section no later than the 15th day 
of the month that is six months after the date announced by the 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau pursuant to paragraph (l)(2).
    (m) A person will not be liable for violating the prohibitions in 
paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section by making a call to a 
number for which the person previously had obtained prior express 
consent of the called party as required in paragraph (a)(1), (2), or 
(3) but at the time of the call, the number is not assigned to the 
subscriber to whom it was assigned at the time such prior express 
consent was obtained if the person, bearing the burden of proof and 
persuasion, demonstrates that:
    (1) The person, based upon the most recent numbering information 
reported to the Administrator pursuant to paragraph (l) of this 
section, by querying the database operated by the Administrator and 
receiving a response of ``no'', has verified that the number has not 
been permanently disconnected since the date prior express consent was 
obtained as required in paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section; 
and
    (2) The person's call to the number was the result of the database 
erroneously returning a response of ``no'' to the person's query 
consisting of the number for which prior express consent was obtained 
as required in paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section and the 
date on which such prior express consent was obtained.

[FR Doc. 2019-05620 Filed 3-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P