[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45669-45678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18229]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[WC Docket Nos. 18-335, 11-39; FCC 19-73]
Truth in Caller ID Rules
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) takes the next step in our multi-pronged approach to
putting an end to unlawful caller ID spoofing. Specifically, we amend
our Truth in Caller ID rules to implement the amendments to section
227(e) of the Communications Act adopted by Congress last year as part
of the RAY BAUM'S Act. Consistent with these statutory amendments, we
amend our rules to encompass malicious spoofing activities directed at
consumers in the United States from actors outside of our country and
reach caller ID spoofing using alternative voice and text messaging
services. This actions advance our goal of ending the malicious caller
ID spoofing that causes billions of dollars of harm to millions of
American consumers each year.
DATES: Effective February 5, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annick Banoun, FCC Wireline
Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554, at (202) 418-1521, or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Report and Order, in WC Docket Nos. 18-335 and 11-39, adopted August 1,
2019 and released August 5, 2019. A full text version of this document
may be obtained at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-73A1.pdf.
[[Page 45670]]
Synopsis
I. Implementing New Statutory Spoofing Prevention Authority
1. This Second Report and Order advances our goal of ending the
malicious caller ID spoofing that causes billions of dollars of harm to
millions of American consumers each year. In section 503 of the 2018
RAY BAUM'S Act, Congress amended section 227(e) of the Act to expand
the reach of covered entities from ``any person within the United
States'' to include ``any person outside the United States if the
recipient is within the United States.'' It also changed the scope of
covered communications from any ``telecommunications service or IP-
enabled voice service'' to a ``voice service or a text message sent
using a text messaging service.'' The RAY BAUM'S Act directs the
Commission to prescribe rules implementing these amendments to section
227(e) within 18 months of enactment, and makes the statutory
amendments effective six months after the Commission prescribes its
regulations. Earlier this year, we released a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) (84 FR 7315, March 4, 2019) in which we proposed and
sought comment on modifications to our current Truth in Caller ID rules
that largely track the language of the recent statutory amendments.
Consistent with these statutory amendments, we amend our rules to
encompass malicious spoofing activities directed at consumers in the
United States from actors outside of our country and reach caller ID
spoofing using alternative voice and text messaging services.
A. Communications Originating Outside the United States
2. We revise our caller ID spoofing rules to cover communications
originating outside the United States directed at recipients within the
United States, consistent with revised section 227(e). As Congress
recognized, the threat to consumers from overseas fraudulent spoofing
continues to grow. We therefore agree with the 42 State Attorneys
General and other commenters that expanding our rules to cover bad
actors reaching into the United States is a ``necessary and important
step in the continued fight against robocalls,'' and that implementing
the RAY BAUM'S Act changes will strengthen the Commission's ability to
enforce its rules against fraudulent and other harmful spoofing.
3. To implement the prohibition on caller ID spoofing directed at
the United States from callers outside our country, we revise Sec.
64.1604 to provide that no person in the United States, nor any person
outside the United States if the recipient is in the United States,
shall, with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain
anything of value, knowingly cause, directly, or indirectly, any caller
identification service to transmit or display misleading or inaccurate
caller identification information in connection with any voice service
or text messaging service. While the current Truth in Caller ID rules
uses the phrase ``person or entity,'' we use the language of the
statute, which is limited to ``person.'' At the same time, consistent
with congressional intent and Commission precedent, we make clear that
``person'' includes both natural persons and non-natural persons, e.g.,
corporations, associations, and partnerships.
4. Finally, we reject Yaana Technologies' suggestion that we cannot
exercise the extraterritorial jurisdiction that Congress expressly
provided in section 503 of the RAY BAUM'S Act, which applies only to
communications received in the United States. Yaana Technologies cites
no specific treaty obligation that the statutory language contravenes,
nor other legal barrier to the Commission's exercise of the legal
authority given it by Congress, and we are aware of none. Moreover, the
Commission's ongoing work with our international counterparts on caller
ID spoofing issues in various fora is not inconsistent with the
jurisdictional framework set forth in the statute. The Commission
collaborates with our international counterparts on a bilateral,
regional, and multilateral basis. For example, the Enforcement Bureau
has executed a bilateral Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with the
Commission's Canadian counterpart, the Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission. The Enforcement Bureau is also a member
of UCENet, which is an international organization that brings together
law enforcement entities across the globe to coordinate and assist each
other's efforts to combat telecommunications fraud, spam, phishing, and
the dissemination of computer viruses. Additionally, the Commission
works with its international counterparts in the course of U.S.
engagement in relevant regional and multilateral fora, such as the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
B. Expanding the Scope of Covered Communications
5. We also expand the scope of communications covered by our caller
ID spoofing rules, consistent with amended section 227(e) and as
proposed in the NPRM. Specifically, we incorporate the phrase ``in
connection with any voice service or text messaging service'' into the
prohibition on causing ``directly, or indirectly, any caller
identification service to transmit or display misleading or inaccurate
caller identification information.'' We find, consistent with our
proposal, that amending our rules to explicitly identify the services
within Sec. 64.1604's prohibition on unlawful spoofing better tracks
the language of the statute and provides more direct notice to covered
entities as to which services the prohibitions apply. As one commenter
explains, the inclusion of the statutory phrase ``in connection with
any voice service or text messaging service'' is not strictly
necessary, because the phrase is encompassed by the definitions of
``caller identification service'' and ``caller identification
information'' to which the prohibition applies. Amended section
227(e)(8) defines ``caller identification service'' as any service or
device designed to provide the user of the service or device with the
telephone number of, or other information regarding the origination of,
a call made using a voice service or a text message sent using a text
messaging service. Such term includes automatic number identification
services. However, the statutory language is clear, and we find that
mirroring the statutory language ```will avoid creating ambiguity' or
deviating from Congress's choices.''
C. Definitions
6. To implement Congress' intent to expand the scope of the
prohibition on harmful caller ID spoofing, we adopt definitions of
``text message,'' ``text messaging service,'' and ``voice service'' and
revise the definitions of ``caller identification information,'' and
``caller identification service'' in accordance with section 503 of the
RAY BAUM'S Act. We also adopt definitions of ``short message service
(SMS)'' and ``multimedia message service (MMS).'' These definitions
will be included in the definitions section of subpart P to our part 64
rules. We also take this opportunity to put in alphabetical order the
definitions in subpart P of part 64 of our rules.
7. Text Message. We adopt a definition of ``text message'' that
mirrors the statutory language. We clarify that this definition of
``text message'' is limited for the purpose of addressing malicious
caller ID spoofing. Amended section 227(e) defines the term ``text
message'' as a message consisting of text, images, sounds, or other
[[Page 45671]]
information that is transmitted to or from a device that is identified
as the receiving or transmitting device by means of a 10-digit
telephone number or N11 service code. One commenter proposes to replace
``a 10-digit telephone number'' with ``a telephone number'' in the
definition of ``text message'' because ``a telephone number may contain
only seven digits if the call is within the same area code.'' We find
these concerns are misplaced because even when a consumer is only
required to dial seven digits of a phone number, there is a 3-digit
area code associated with the 7-digit number the consumer has dialed.
Congress further clarified that the term explicitly includes ``a short
message service (SMS) message and a multimedia message service (MMS)
message'' but excludes ``a real-time, two-way voice or video
communication'' or ``a message sent over an IP-enabled messaging
service to another user of the same messaging service, except for [an
SMS or MMS message].'' We find that this definition is sufficiently
inclusive to capture the current universe of text messages that could
be used for prohibited spoofing activity and will avoid ambiguity as to
Congress' intent. We also believe, and no commenters argue otherwise,
that Congress likely included the phrase `` `other information' out of
an abundance of caution to allow for the inclusion of future
technological advances given the rapid pace of new developments in
technology.''
8. For purposes of our Truth in Caller ID rules, we define ``N11
service code'' as an abbreviated dialing code that allows telephone
users to connect with a particular node in the network by dialing only
three digits, of which the first digit is any digit other than `1' or
`0,' and each of the last two digits is `1.' No commenters offered
substantive suggestions on how to define ``N11 service code,'' so we
looked to the language the Commission used nearly two decades ago when
it described N11 services as ``abbreviated dialing arrangements that
allow telephone users to connect with a particular node in the network
by dialing only three digits,'' as well as the definition of ``N11
service code'' found in the recently-enacted National Suicide Hotline
Prevention Act. The definition we adopt in this document is similar to
the Commission's previous description but provides more specificity by
clarifying that the first digit of an N11 code is any digit other than
``1'' or ``0'', and that the second two digits are ``1,'' consistent
with the National Suicide Hotline Prevention Act.
9. For purposes of our Truth in Caller ID rules, we adopt
definitions of SMS and MMS that are consistent with our descriptions of
those terms in the Commission's 2018 Wireless Messaging Service
Declaratory Ruling (84 FR 5008, Feb. 20, 2019). To that end, we define
SMS as a wireless messaging service that enables users to send and
receive short text messages, typically 160 characters or fewer, to or
from mobile phones and can support a host of applications. And we
define MMS as a wireless messaging service that is an extension of the
SMS protocol and can deliver a variety of media, and enables users to
send pictures, videos, and attachments over wireless messaging
channels. We find that adopting definitions of those terms will provide
clarity to interested parties given that Congress expressly defined
``text message'' to include ``a [SMS] message and a [MMS] message'' but
it did not define those terms.
10. We also clarify that for purposes of our Truth in Caller ID
rules, the definition of ``text message'' includes messages sent to or
from a person or entity using Common Short Codes (Short Codes). Short
Codes are ``5- to 6-digit codes typically used by enterprises for
communicating with consumers at high volume.'' Short Codes are an
addressing mechanism using the SMS and MMS protocols. Like other SMS
and MMS messages, messages sent from a person or entity using Short
Codes are directed to devices using 10-digit telephone numbers. As a
convenience to consumers and to facilitate the delivery of high-volume
traffic, wireless providers developed Short Codes, which are
administered by the Common Short Code Administration and leased to
enterprises. Once a Short Code is assigned to an applicant and before
it can be used, each mobile provider must provision that code to the
customer, usually through a third-party ``aggregator'' that handles the
provisioning across multiple providers.
11. While, as Twilio explains, Short Codes may be less likely to be
used by a person or entity sending messages in connection with
malicious caller ID spoofing because the registration and
administration process make ``the sender of a short code SMS [ ] far
easier to identify than the user of a 10-digit number,'' this
protection is not absolute. Twilio itself admits that it is not
impossible to spoof a Short Code. Consumers have complained about
possible Short Code spoofing, and some reporting indicates that Short
Codes can be hacked which could lead to spoofing. Nonetheless, CTIA
expresses concern about the Commission finding that the definition of
``text message'' for purposes of our Truth in Caller ID rules includes
messages sent to or from a person or entity using Short Codes. CTIA
argues that there is no technical evidence in the record that spoofing
of Short Codes is possible or has occurred. CTIA also argues that an
absence of notice under the Administrative Procedure Act for including
Short Codes in the definition of text message and an absence of
reference to Short Codes in the RAY BAUM'S Act counsel in favor of not
including messages sent from a person or entity using Short Codes in
the definition of text message. We find CTIA's arguments to be
misplaced. The NPRM sought comment on the definition of text message
that we adopt in this document, which includes SMS and MMS messages,
and the record demonstrates that messages sent and received using Short
Codes are SMS or MMS messages. The record demonstrates that messages
sent and received using Short Codes are SMS or MMS messages, and there
is nothing in the record that would allow us to conclude that Caller ID
associated with a Short Code message cannot be spoofed. We are mindful
of Congressional intent to protect against spoofing of SMS and MMS text
messages for nefarious purposes, and therefore, because Short Codes are
used by a person or entity sending SMS or MMS messages to 10-digit
number identified devices, and could be used to perpetrate malicious
spoofing, we conclude that the definition of ``text message'' in
section 503 of the RAY BAUM'S Act and in our Truth in Caller ID rules
is best interpreted as including messages sent to or from a person or
entity using Short Codes. We make clear, however, that our decision
only interprets section 503 of RAY BAUM'S Act in the context of
Congress' specific intent to broadly expand our anti-spoofing rules to
encompass other forms of spoofing sent via SMS and MMS, and we make no
finding with respect to any other Commission jurisdiction over Short
Codes. We also affirm that nothing in this Second Report and Order
affects our decision in the Wireless Messaging Service Declaratory
Ruling to refrain from ``decid[ing] whether short-code provisioning is
a `component' of wireless messaging.''
12. Exclusions. Section 227(e) as amended excludes from the
definition of ``text message'' ``real-time, two-way voice or video
communications'' and ``a message sent over an IP-enabled messaging
service to another user of the same messaging service, except for [an
SMS or MMS message].'' Accordingly,
[[Page 45672]]
we adopt both exclusions in our rules. We conclude that ``real-time,
two-way'' communications that are transmitted by means of a 10-digit
telephone number or N11 service code are excluded from the definition
of ``text message'' because they are intended by Congress to be
included in the definition of ``voice service.'' We interpret the
latter exclusion to include non-MMS or SMS messages sent using IP-
enabled messaging services such as iMessage, Google hangouts, WhatsApp,
and Skype to other users of the same service. As we explained in the
NPRM, ``a message sent from one computer to another computer using
WhatsApp, or the `chat' function on Google Hangouts would appear to be
an IP-enabled messaging service between users of the same messaging
service under the second exclusion in the statutory definition of `text
message.' '' Accordingly, we exclude them from the definition of ``text
message'' in our rules. Similarly, ``text communications between or
among two or more Skype users or iMessages between or among iPhone
users'' are also excluded from the definition of ``text message.''
13. We also clarify that messages sent over other IP-enabled
messaging services that are not SMS or MMS--such as Rich Communications
Services (RCS)--are excluded from amended section 227(e) of the Act and
our implementing rules to the extent such messages are sent to other
users of the same messaging service. RCS and similar services may well
enable users to send messages that would meet the first prong of the
statutory definition of ``text message''--a ``message consisting of
text, images, sounds, or other information that is transmitted to or
from a device that is identified as the receiving or transmitting
device by means of a 10-digit telephone number or N11 service code.''
But the inquiry does not end there. As noted above, while section
227(e) of the Act makes clear that SMS and MMS are included within the
definition of ``text message,'' it simultaneously makes clear that any
``message sent over an IP-enabled messaging service to another user of
the same messaging service'' that is not SMS or MMS is excluded. RCS
fits comfortably within this exclusion. It is an IP-based asynchronous
messaging protocol, and it therefore enables users to send messages
``over an IP-enabled messaging service.'' Also, RCS enables messages to
be sent between users of the same messaging service--that is, other
users with RCS-enabled devices. RCS messages sent to other users are
thus excluded so long as RCS is not SMS or MMS--which it is not. While
RCS has been described as a ``successor protocol'' to SMS or a ``next-
generation'' SMS, it is not the same thing as SMS or MMS. Rather, as
the Commission has previously concluded, RCS has ``advanced messaging
features'' that ``allow users to, among other things, use mobile
banking services, share high-resolution photos and files, track
locations and interact with chatbots.'' Congress was plainly aware of
RCS--a protocol that was first conceived in 2007--when it amended
section 227(e) through the RAY BAUM'S Act last year. Yet, Congress
chose to exempt from the definition of ``text message'' any message
sent over an IP-enabled messaging service that is not SMS or MMS to
another user of the same service, which would include RCS and any other
potential successor protocols. Regardless of whether RCS may bear
functional similarity to MMS and SMS, the Commission cannot disturb the
policy judgment made by Congress to exclude such services from section
227 (a policy judgment perhaps reflecting that the potential for or
record of malicious spoofing for such protocols has not yet been
established). We therefore agree with Twilio and EZ Texting to the
extent they argue that RCS should be excluded from the definition of
``text message.'' Our determination in this document that RCS is
excluded from the definition of ``text message'' under amended section
227(e) should not be read as determinative of any future decision by
the Commission to classify RCS pursuant to other provisions of the
Communications Act.
14. As we explained in the NPRM, we also find that the new
statutory definition of ``text message,'' and other amendments to
section 227(e) under the RAY BAUM'S Act regarding text messages, do not
affect the Commission's finding that text messages are ``calls'' for
purposes of section 227(b). Section 227(b), among other things, places
limits on calls made using any automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice. Congress placed the new definition of
``text message'' in section 227(e) rather than in section 227(a), which
contains definitions generally applicable throughout section 227.
Consequently, we conclude that there is nothing in section 227(e) as
amended to suggest that Congress intended to disturb the Commission's
long-standing treatment of text messages under section 227(b), which
has been in place since 2003.
15. Text Messaging Service. We adopt the statutory definition of
``text messaging service'' as part of our Truth in Caller ID rules.
Section 227(e) as amended defines a ``text messaging service'' as ``a
service that enables the transmission or receipt of a text message,
including a service provided as part of or in connection with a voice
service.'' As we explained in the NPRM, ``[m]aintaining consistency
with the statutory definition of `text messaging service' for unlawful
spoofing prevention is particularly important given that it is only
text messages `sent using a text messaging service' that Congress
includes within the scope of section 227(e) as amended.'' One commenter
supports this approach and no commenters oppose it.
16. Voice Service. We adopt the definition of ``voice service''
contained in amended section 227(e) for purposes of our Truth in Caller
ID rules. Section 227(e) as amended defines ``voice service'' as ``any
service that is interconnected with the public switched telephone
network and that furnishes voice communications to an end user using
resources from the North American Numbering Plan or any successor to
the North American Numbering Plan adopted by the Commission under
section 251(e)(1). . . .'' It also explicitly includes ``transmissions
from a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to a
telephone facsimile machine.''
17. We interpret the term ``voice service'' for the purpose of our
Truth in Caller ID rules to both include and be more expansive than
``telecommunications service'' and ``interconnected VoIP service'' as
currently defined in our rules. Our existing rules cover calls made
using ``telecommunications service'' or ``interconnected VoIP
service.'' 47 CFR 64.1600(c), (d). Because we received no comments from
stakeholders in support of explicitly including the terms
``telecommunications service'' and ``interconnected VoIP service''
within the definition of ``voice service,'' we refrain from doing so at
this time. The statutory language requires that communications
encompassed by the definition of ``voice service'' must be
``interconnected'' with the public switched telephone network (PSTN).
We interpret the term ``interconnected'' as it is used in the
definition of ``voice service'' to include any service that enables
voice communications either to the PSTN or from the PSTN, regardless of
whether it enables both inbound and outbound communications within the
same service. To this end, we interpret the definition of ``voice
service'' to include one-way VoIP service and any similar IP-based or
other technology-
[[Page 45673]]
based calling capability that ``furnishes voice communications to an
end user using resources from the North American Numbering Plan or any
successor to the North American Numbering Plan adopted by the
Commission under section 251(e)(1).''
18. We also clarify that the requirement to ``us[e] resources from
the North American Numbering Plan'' in the definition of ``voice
service'' includes one-way VoIP services that allow customers of such
services to send voice communications to any end user who uses NANP
resources. It does not require the provision of NANP resources directly
to the customer of the service (i.e., the spoofer). We therefore
disagree with INCOMPAS' assertion that the definition of ``voice
service'' should exclude one-way VoIP services because such services
(1) are not capable of transmitting calls to and receiving calls from
the PSTN, and (2) do not require NANP resources to furnish voice
communications to an end user. Adopting the INCOMPAS approach could
exclude significant amounts of unlawful spoofing accomplished through
one-way VoIP services and third-party spoofing platforms, which we find
to be contrary to the Congressional intent in section 503 of the RAY
BAUM'S Act. We observe that in amending section 227(e), Congress
neither defined the term ``interconnected'' for the purposes of section
227(e) nor referenced other statutory provisions or Commission rules
where ``interconnected'' is used as part of the definition of specific
categories of communications. In other statutory contexts, the focus in
defining the scope of a covered ``service'' is on the nature or
capabilities of an offering made by a provider to members of the
public, and not on prohibited uses of communications services by a
person whose identity and means of engaging in unlawful conduct are
likely unknown to the consumer. This difference in statutory text and
purpose counsels for a broader construction of interconnected service
in this context. We further observe that amended section 227(e)
specifically removed from the definition of covered voice services the
reference to the definition of ``interconnected VoIP service'' in Sec.
9.3 of the Commission rules. We find that these actions lend support to
our conclusion that Congress intended to broaden the scope of IP-
enabled voice services subject to the prohibition on unlawful spoofing
in section 227(e). This expanded interpretation of ``voice service,''
however, is limited to our Truth in Caller ID rules, and does not
implicate the definitions of ``interconnected VoIP'' and
``interconnected service'' elsewhere in the Act and our rules.
19. In the NPRM, we sought comment on ``whether we should interpret
`interconnected' to include both direct and indirect interconnection to
the PSTN to account for different methods of interconnection.'' In past
Commission investigations, we have found that malicious caller ID
spoofing often relies on ``dialing platforms'' or ``third party
platforms.'' These platforms provide dialing software that can be used
for sending either live or pre-recorded robocalls. Not all of these
platforms are directly interconnected to the PSTN, however, as they may
require a VoIP or local exchange carrier to connect their customers to
the PSTN. Therefore, to ensure that our rules address malicious caller
ID spoofing made with the aid of these platforms, and in light of the
specific statutory context and purpose of the amended section 227(e),
which is directed at persons who ``knowingly transmit misleading or
inaccurate caller identification information,'' we clarify that for the
purposes of our Truth in Caller ID rules, ``interconnected'' includes
indirect, as well as direct, interconnection.
20. We conclude that ``voice services'' include ``real-time, two-
way voice communications'' that are transmitted by means of a 10-digit
telephone number or N11 service code. Congress explicitly excluded such
communications from the definition of ``text message'' in section
227(e) as amended. Twilio argues that the phrase `` `real-time, two-way
voice communications' that use `a 10-digit telephone number or N11
service code' '' is vague and expansive and should not be considered
part of the definition of ``voice service'' for the purpose of our
Truth in Caller ID rules because Congress could have easily
incorporated that phrase into the definition of ``voice service'' had
it intended such service to be included. Contrary to Twilio's
arguments, we find that phrase to be concrete and specific and we think
that it is useful in providing clear boundaries around what types of
services are covered by the term ``voice services.'' As such, we find
that such real-time, two way voice communications that are transmitted
by means of a 10-digit telephone number or N11 service code are covered
by the amended definition of ``voice services,'' i.e., services
``interconnected with the public switched telephone network . . . that
furnish[ ] voice communications to an end user using resources for the
North American Numbering Plan. . . .''
21. We decline to include real-time, two-way voice communications
between and among closed user groups that do not use 10-digit telephone
numbers or N11 service codes in the definition of ``voice service,'' as
such communications do not meet the statutory definition of ``voice
services.'' In the 2011 Commission Report, the Commission acknowledged
that these communications do not present the same degree of caller ID
spoofing concern as ``interconnected VoIP services.'' One notable
example of real-time voice communications that do not give rise to such
caller ID spoofing concerns is voice communications between players in
online games such as Fortnite. Since such services ``have no connection
to the PSTN,'' we find that Congress did not intend to reach these
types of voice communications, nor do they fall within the definition
of ``voice services'' for purposes of the rules we adopt in this
document.
22. Finally, tracking the language of section 227(e) as amended, we
conclude that the definition of ``voice service'' includes
transmissions to ``a telephone facsimile machine (fax machine) from a
computer, fax machine, or other device.'' We believe that Congress
intended the inclusion of telephone facsimile machine transmissions
within the definition of ``voice service'' to be narrow in scope, and
therefore, decline to expand that definition to encompass ``a computer
or other device whose purpose is to store an image that could have been
sent to a telephone facsimile machine,'' as suggested by commenter John
Shaw. We believe it is necessary to incorporate this additional
specification into our rules to ensure consistency with the RAY BAUM'S
Act and avoid confusion as to the scope of the prohibition. Indeed, in
response to the NPRM, one commenter emphasized that its fax line
``routinely receives unsolicited material promising treasures if
certain steps are taken.''
23. Caller Identification Information and Caller Identification
Service. We revise the existing definitions of ``caller identification
information'' and ``caller identification service'' in our rules to be
consistent with section 227(e)(8) as amended. In doing so, we mirror
the amended statutory text by substituting ``voice service or a text
message sent using a text messaging service'' for ``telecommunications
service or interconnected VoIP service.'' One commenter supports our
proposal to adopt these definitions and no commenters oppose it.
[[Page 45674]]
D. Other Changes to the Rules
24. While numerous commenters took the opportunity to advocate for
the adoption of the SHAKEN/STIR call authentication framework and for
other issues beyond the scope of this proceeding, we decline to make
other changes to our Truth in Caller ID rules, or other rules beyond
the scope of this proceeding, at this time.
II. Procedural Matters
25. Effective Date. Pursuant to section 503 of the RAY BAUM'S Act,
the statutory amendments to section 227(e) will be effective six months
after the Commission prescribes its implementing rules. Because the
Commission's rules implementing the amendments to section 227(e) cannot
be effective until the statutory amendments themselves are effective,
we make the rules adopted here effective six months after adoption and
release of this Report and Order, or 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register, whichever is later.
26. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document does not contain new or
modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore,
it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198.
27. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of
this Second Report and Order to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
28. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the notice
of proposed rulemaking Implementing Section 503 of RAY BAUM'S Act,
Rules and Regulation Implementing the Truth in Caller ID (NPRM),
released February 2019 (84 FR 7315). The Commission sought written
public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the
IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This present Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules
29. Nefarious schemes that manipulate caller ID information to
deceive consumers about the name and phone number of the party that is
calling them, in order to facilitate fraudulent and other harmful
activities, continue to plague American consumers. Last year, as part
of the RAY BAUM'S Act, Congress amended section 227(e) of the
Communications Act to (1) extend its scope to encompass malicious
spoofing activities directed at consumers in the United States from
actors outside the United States; and (2) extend its reach to caller ID
spoofing using alternative voice and text messaging services. In this
Report and Order (Order), we implement these recently adopted
amendments to expand and clarify the Act's prohibition on the use of
misleading and inaccurate caller ID information. The amended Truth in
Caller ID rules largely adopt the language contained in the RAY BAUM'S
Act. The amended rules do not impose record keeping or reporting
obligations on any entity.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA
30. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the
proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA
31. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the
proposed rules as a result of those comments.
32. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the
proposed rules in this proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Rules Will Apply
33. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the final rules adopted pursuant to the Order. 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. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory
definition of a small business applies ``unless an agency, after
consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes
one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the
activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the
Federal Register.'' 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.
34. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of
Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having
fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent
99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8
million businesses.
35. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Reports generated using the
NCCS online database indicated that as of August 2016 there were
356,494 registered nonprofits with total revenues of less than
$100,000. Of this number, 326,897 entities filed tax returns with
65,113 registered nonprofits reporting total revenues of $50,000 or
less on the IRS Form 990-N for Small Exempt Organizations and 261,784
nonprofits reporting total revenues of $100,000 or less on some other
version of the IRS Form 990 within 24 months of the August 2016 data
release date.
36. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicates that there
were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United
States. Local governmental jurisdictions are classified in two
categories--General purpose governments (county, municipal and
[[Page 45675]]
town or township) and Special purpose governments (special districts
and independent school districts). Of this number there were 37,132
General purpose governments (county (there were 2,114 county
governments with populations less than 50,000), municipal and town or
township (there were 18,811 municipal and 16,207 town and township
governments with populations less than 50,000) with populations of less
than 50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school
districts (there were 12,184 independent school districts with
enrollment populations less than 50,000) and special districts) with
populations of less than 50,000. The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for
most types of governments in the local government category shows that
the majority of these governments have populations of less than 50,000.
Based on this data we estimate that at least 49,316 local government
jurisdictions fall in the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
37. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services,
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite television distribution services
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in
this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such
companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 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 size
standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered
small.
38. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses applicable to
local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as defined in paragraph 10 of
this FRFA. 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. The Commission therefore estimates that
most providers of local exchange carrier service are small entities.
39. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard for
incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS Code
category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined in paragraph
10 of this FRFA. Under that size standard, such a business is small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 3,117
firms operated in 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 that
may be affected by the rules and policies adopted. 1,307 Incumbent
Local Exchange Carriers reported that they were incumbent local
exchange service providers. Of this total, an estimated 1,006 have
1,500 or fewer employees. Thus, using the SBA's size standard, the
majority of incumbent LECs can be considered small entities.
40. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business size standard for these service
providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, as defined in paragraph 10 of this FRFA.
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms
operated during that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer
than 1,000 employees. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that
the majority of Competitive LECs, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities.
According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were
engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange services
or competitive access provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an
estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers
have reported that they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17
are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 72
carriers have reported that they are Other Local Service Providers. Of
this total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, based on
internally researched FCC data, the Commission estimates that most
providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access
providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service
Providers are small entities.
41. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a definition for Interexchange Carriers. The closest
NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined in
paragraph 10 of this FRFA. The applicable size standard under SBA rules
is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 359 companies reported that their primary
telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange
services. Of this total, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees
and 42 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of interexchange service providers are
small entities that may be affected by the adopted rules.
42. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for Telecommunications Resellers which includes Local
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 the SBA's size standard, such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau 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, 213 carriers have reported that they are
engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these, an
estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the
Commission
[[Page 45676]]
estimates that the majority of Local Resellers are small entities.
43. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition
for Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS Code Category is
Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry
comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network
capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and
reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except
satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs)
are included in this industry. The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale
services during that year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer
than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated
small business size standard, the majority of these resellers can be
considered small entities. According to Commission data, 881 carriers
have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale
services. Of this total, an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
toll resellers are small entities.
44. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a size standard for small businesses 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 NAICS Code category is for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, as defined in paragraph 10 of this FRFA.
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 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 category and the associated small
business size standard, the majority of Other Toll Carriers can be
considered small. According to Commission data, 284 companies reported
that their primary telecommunications service activity was the
provision of other toll carriage. Of these, an estimated 279 have 1,500
or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most
Other Toll Carriers that may be affected by our rules are small
entities.
45. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (Except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S.
Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or
fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more.
Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the
number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the
largest category provided is for firms with ``1000 employees or more.''
Thus, under this category and the associated size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications
carriers (except satellite) are small entities.
46. The Commission's own data--available in its Universal Licensing
System--indicate that, as of October 25, 2016, there are 280 Cellular
licensees that will be affected by our actions in this document. For
the purposes of this FRFA, consistent with Commission practice for
wireless services, the Commission estimates the number of licensees
based on the number of unique FCC Registration Numbers. The Commission
does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission
does not collect that information for these types of 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,
and Specialized Mobile Radio Telephony services. Of this total, an
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have more than
1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the
majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
47. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite
uses. The Commission defined ``small business'' for the wireless
communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross
revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a
``very small business'' as an entity with average gross revenues of $15
million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved
these small business size standards.
48. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular,
personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio
telephony carriers. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) and the appropriate size
standard for this category under the SBA rules is that such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S.
Census Bureau 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 and 12 firms had 1000 employees or more. Available
census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of
firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest
category provided is for firms with ``1000 employees or more.'' Thus,
under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission
estimates that a majority of these entities can be considered small.
According to Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were
engaged in wireless telephony. Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Therefore, more
than half of these entities can be considered small.
49. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. This industry
comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and
facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee
basis. The broadcast programming is typically narrowcast in nature
(e.g. limited format, such as news, sports, education, or youth-
oriented). These establishments produce programming in their own
facilities or acquire programming from external sources. The
programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as
cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to
viewers. The SBA size standard for this industry establishes as small,
any company in this category which has annual receipts of $38.5 million
or less. According to 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data, 367 firms operated
for the entire year. Of that number, 319 operated with annual receipts
of less than $25 million a year and 48 firms operated with annual
receipts of $25 million or more.
[[Page 45677]]
Available census data does not provide a more precise estimate of the
number of firms that have receipts of $38.5 million or less. Based on
this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of firms
operating in this industry are small.
50. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission
has developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of
cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable
company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide.
Industry data indicate that there are currently 4,600 active cable
systems in the United States. Of this total, all but nine cable
operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber size
standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a
``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.
Current Commission records show 4,600 cable systems nationwide. Of this
total, 3,900 cable systems have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 700
systems have 15,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records.
Thus, under this standard as well, we estimate that most cable systems
are small entities.
51. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 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
one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in
the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' 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, we find that all but nine incumbent
cable operators are small entities under this size standard. We clarify
that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on
whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million. The Commission does receive such
information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local
franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a
small cable operator pursuant to Sec. 76.901(f) of the Commission's
rules. Although it seems certain that some of these cable system
operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues
exceed $250,000,000, we are 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.
52. All Other Telecommunications. This category is comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.
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 All Other Telecommunications, which
consists of all such firms with annual receipts of $32.5 million or
less. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that
there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of those
firms, a total of 1,400 had annual receipts less than $25 million and
42 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999. Thus, the
Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other
Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected by our action can be
considered small.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
53. This Order modifies the Commission's Truth in Caller ID rules
by adopting in large part the language in section 227(e) as amended.
The amended rules adopted in the Order do not contain reporting or
recordkeeping requirements.
F. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
54. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof for such small
entities.''
55. The relevant portions of the RAY BAUM'S Act do not distinguish
between small entities and other entities and individuals. This Order
largely tracks the statutory language and, as a result, the adopted
revisions to the Commission's rules do not result in significant
economic impact to small entities.
G. Report to Congress
56. The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this
FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including
this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the
Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the
Federal Register.
III. Ordering Clauses
57. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i),
201(b), 227(e), 251(e) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201(b), 227(e), 251(e) and 303, and
section 503(a)(5), Public Law 115-141, 132 Stat. 348, 1092 (2018), that
this Second Report and Order is adopted.
58. It is further ordered that part 64 of the Commission's rules
are amended as set forth in the Final Rules.
59. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.4(b)(1)
and 1.103(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1), 1.103(a), and
section 503(a)(5), Public Law 115-141, 132 Stat. 348, 1092 (2018), this
Second Report and Order shall be effective six months after adoption
and release of this Second Report and Order, or 30 days after
publication of this Second Report and Order in the Federal Register,
whichever is later.
60. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of
this Second Report and Order to Congress and to the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
61. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Second Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
[[Page 45678]]
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Communications and common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
The Federal Communications Commission amends part 64 of title 47 of
the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
0
1. The authority citation for part 64 is revised 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; sec. 503, Pub. L. 115-141,
132 Stat. 348.
0
2. Amend Sec. 64.1600 by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) and (f)
through (l) and adding paragraphs (m) through (r) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.1600 Definitions.
* * * * *
(c) Caller identification information. The term ``caller
identification information'' means information provided by a caller
identification service regarding the telephone number of, or other
information regarding the origination of, a call made using a voice
service or a text message sent using a text messaging service.
(d) Caller identification service. The term ``caller identification
service'' means any service or device designed to provide the user of
the service or device with the telephone number of, or other
information regarding the origination of, a call made using a voice
service or a text message sent using a text messaging service.
* * * * *
(f) Charge number. The term ``charge number'' refers to the
delivery of the calling party's billing number in a Signaling System 7
environment by a local exchange carrier to any interconnecting carrier
for billing or routing purposes, and to the subsequent delivery of such
number to end users.
(g) Information regarding the origination. The term ``information
regarding the origination'' means any:
(1) Telephone number;
(2) Portion of a telephone number, such as an area code;
(3) Name;
(4) Location information;
(5) Billing number information, including charge number, ANI, or
pseudo-ANI; or
(6) Other information regarding the source or apparent source of a
telephone call.
(h) Interconnected VoIP service. The term ``interconnected VoIP
service'' has the same meaning given the term ``interconnected VoIP
service'' in 47 CFR 9.3 as it currently exists or may hereafter be
amended.
(i) Intermediate provider. The term ``intermediate provider'' means
any entity that carries or processes traffic that traverses or will
traverse the public switched telephone network (PSTN) at any point
insofar as that entity neither originates nor terminates that traffic.
(j) N11 service code. For purposes of this subpart, the term ``N11
service code'' means an abbreviated dialing code that allows telephone
users to connect with a particular node in the network by dialing only
three digits, of which the first digit is any digit other than `1' or
`0', and each of the last two digits is `1'.
(k) Multimedia message service (MMS). The term ``multimedia message
service'' or MMS refers to a wireless messaging service that is an
extension of the SMS protocol and can deliver a variety of media, and
enables users to send pictures, videos, and attachments over wireless
messaging channels.
(l) Privacy indicator. The term ``privacy indicator'' refers to
information, contained in the calling party number parameter of the
call set-up message associated with an interstate call on an Signaling
System 7 network, that indicates whether the calling party authorizes
presentation of the calling party number to the called party.
(m) Short message service (SMS). The term ``short message service''
or SMS refers to a wireless messaging service that enables users to
send and receive short text messages, typically 160 characters or
fewer, to or from mobile phones and can support a host of applications.
(n) Signaling System 7. The term ``Signaling System 7'' (SS7)
refers to a carrier to carrier out-of-band signaling network used for
call routing, billing and management.
(o) Text message. The term ``text message'':
(1) Means a message consisting of text, images, sounds, or other
information that is transmitted to or from a device that is identified
as the receiving or transmitting device by means of a 10-digit
telephone number or N11 service code;
(2) Includes a short message service (SMS) message, and a
multimedia message service (MMS) message and
(3) Does not include:
(i) A real-time, two-way voice or video communication; or
(ii) A message sent over an IP-enabled messaging service to another
user of the same messaging service, except a message described in
paragraph (o)(2) of this section.
(p) Text messaging service. The term ``text messaging service''
means a service that enables the transmission or receipt of a text
message, including a service provided as part of or in connection with
a voice service.
(q) Threatening call. The term ``threatening call'' is any call
that conveys an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical
injury to any person requiring disclosure without delay of information
relating to the emergency.
(r) Voice service. The term ``voice service'':
(1) Means any service that is interconnected with the public
switched telephone network and that furnishes voice communications to
an end user using resources from the North American Numbering Plan or
any successor to the North American Numbering Plan adopted by the
Commission under section 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended; and
(2) Includes transmissions from a telephone facsimile machine,
computer, or other device to a telephone facsimile machine.
0
3. Amend Sec. 64.1604 by revising paragraph (a) and removing the
heading from paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.1604 Prohibition on transmission of inaccurate or misleading
caller identification information.
(a) No person or entity in the United States, nor any person or
entity outside the United States if the recipient is within the United
States, shall, with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully
obtain anything of value, knowingly cause, directly, or indirectly, any
caller identification service to transmit or display misleading or
inaccurate caller identification information in connection with any
voice service or text messaging service.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-18229 Filed 8-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P