[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 148 (Friday, July 31, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46063-46066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16463]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 20-96; FRS 16959]


Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or 
Commission) invites comments on proposed revisions to its rules 
implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Pallone-
Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act 
(TRACED Act). The Commission proposes: To require voice service 
providers to respond to certain traceback requests, mitigate bad 
traffic when notified of such traffic by the Commission, and implement 
effective measures to prevent new and renewing customers from using its 
network to originate illegal calls; to extend the safe harbor for 
blocking based on reasonable analytics including caller ID 
authentication information to network-based blocking without consumer 
consent so long as the blocking is specifically designed to block calls 
that are highly likely to be illegal and is managed with sufficient 
human oversight and network monitoring to ensure that blocking is 
working as intended; and to require terminating voice service providers 
to provide a list of individually blocked calls that were placed to a 
particular number at the request of the subscriber to that number. 
These proposals, taken together, implement the TRACED Act and continue 
the Commission's fight against illegal and unwanted robocalls while 
taking further steps to ensure that wanted calls are protected.

DATES: Comments are due on or before August 31, 2020, and reply 
comments are due on or before September 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 17-59, 
by any of the following methods:
    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
    [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file 
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    [ssquf] Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    [ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
    [ssquf] Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerusha Burnett, Consumer Policy 
Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, email at 
[email protected] or by phone at (202) 418-0526.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fourth 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FFNPRM), in CG Docket No. 17-59, 
FCC 20-96, adopted on July 16, 2020, and released on July 17, 2020. The 
Third Report and Order that was adopted concurrently with the FFNPRM is 
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. The full 
text of document FCC 20-96 is available for public inspection and 
copying via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). 
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities 
(Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email 
to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau 
at 202-418-0530 (voice).
    This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR 
1.1200 et seq. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded 
that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of 
the substances of the presentations and not merely a listing of the 
subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the 
views and arguments presented is generally required. See 47 CFR 
1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte 
presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in Sec.  
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    The FFNPRM, FCC 20-96, seeks comment on proposed rule amendments 
that may result in modified information collection requirements. If the 
Commission adopts any modified information collection requirements, the 
Commission will publish another notice in the Federal Register inviting 
the public to comment on the requirements, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. In addition, 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the 
Commission seeks comment on how it might further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees. Public Law 107-198; 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Synopsis

    1. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on how it can build 
on its prior work and further implement the TRACED Act. The Commission 
proposes to establish an affirmative obligation for voice service 
providers to

[[Page 46064]]

respond to certain traceback requests, mitigate bad traffic, and take 
affirmative measures to prevent customers from originating illegal 
calls, and proposes to make clear that failure to comply with any of 
these affirmative obligations is unjust and unreasonable under section 
201(b) of the Communications Act. Next, the Commission proposes to 
extend its safe harbor for blocking of calls based on reasonable 
analytics to include network-based blocking without consumer opt out. 
The Commission further seeks comment on additional redress issues. 
Finally, the Commission proposes to require terminating voice service 
providers that block calls to provide a list of blocked calls to their 
customers on demand and at no additional charge.

Section 4 of the TRACED Act

    2. The Commission seeks comment on any other instances where it 
should allow voice service providers to block based in whole or in part 
on caller ID authentication information. Are there other appropriate 
ways to approach blocking in part based on caller ID authentication 
information beyond incorporating that information into other reasonable 
analytics? Are there any situations in which blocking based solely on 
caller ID authentication information would be appropriate, such that 
the Commission should authorize blocking based ``in whole'' on caller 
ID authentication information? Are there any instances where the 
Commission should permit voice service providers other than terminating 
voice service providers to block based on caller ID authentication 
information? The Commission further seeks comment on extending the safe 
harbor to cover other types of blocking based on caller ID 
authentication information or the unintended or inadvertent 
misidentification of the level of trust for individual calls.
    3. The Commission seeks comment on establishing a process for a 
calling party adversely affected by caller ID authentication 
information to verify the authenticity of their calls. What might this 
process look like? If a call is adversely affected due to a combination 
of caller ID authentication information and, for example, consumer 
complaints or suspect call patterns, should the same process be 
available? How might a calling party identify that the caller ID 
authentication information is the cause of the problem?
    4. The Commission seeks comment on any other steps it should take 
to ensure that voice service providers that are subject to a delay in 
compliance consistent with the TRACED Act are not unreasonably blocked 
because they are not able to be authenticated. The Commission 
tentatively concludes that, because it does not permit blocking based 
solely on caller ID authentication information, voice service providers 
subject to a delay in compliance will not be blocked because their 
calls cannot be authenticated.
    5. The Commission seeks comment on any additional steps it should 
take to ensure that liability is limited based on the extent to which a 
voice service provider ``blocks or identifies calls based, in whole or 
in part, on'' caller ID authentication information and ``implemented 
procedures based, in whole or in part, on'' caller ID authentication 
information. Are there any additional steps the Commission needs to 
take to ensure the safe harbor considers whether a voice service 
provider ``used reasonable care, including making all reasonable 
efforts to avoid blocking emergency public safety calls?''

Section 7 of the TRACED Act

    6. The Commission seeks comment on additional steps to protect a 
subscriber from receiving unwanted calls or text messages from 
unauthenticated numbers. Wide implementation of STIR/SHAKEN will 
decrease the amount of calls made by callers using an unauthenticated 
number, but some callers will still be unable to place calls using an 
authenticated number. How can the Commission's rules protect 
subscribers from receiving unwanted calls from unauthenticated numbers 
while not disadvantaging callers whose voice service providers are 
unable to participate in caller ID authentication or whose calls 
transit non-IP networks?

Section 10 of the TRACED Act

    7. The Commission seeks comment on providing transparency and 
effective redress options for both consumers and callers. Are the steps 
the Commission takes in the Third Report and Order sufficient? What 
further steps might the Commission take to ensure that both consumers 
and callers are provided with transparency and effective redress 
options? Are there any steps the Commission can take to ensure that 
these options protect lawful callers without benefiting illegal 
callers?
    8. The Commission further seeks comment on providing blocking 
services with no additional line-item charge to consumers and no 
additional charge to callers for resolving complaints for erroneously 
blocked calls. What costs does a blocking provider incur when dealing 
with complaints of erroneous blocking? Are there steps the Commission 
can take to reduce these costs while still providing transparency and 
effective redress?
    9. The Commission seeks comment on other steps it should take to 
ensure that emergency public safety calls are not blocked.

Requiring Voice Service Providers To Meet Certain Standards

    10. The Commission seeks comment on affirmatively requiring voice 
service providers to: (1) Respond to traceback requests from the 
Commission, law enforcement, or the Traceback Consortium; (2) mitigate 
bad traffic when notified of that traffic by the Commission; and (3) 
implement effective measures to prevent new and renewing customers from 
using its network to originate illegal calls.
    11. The Commission proposes to affirmatively require all voice 
service providers to respond to traceback requests from the Commission, 
law enforcement, or the Traceback Consortium. Traceback provides 
valuable information regarding the sources of illegal calls. The 
Commission proposes to sanction the Traceback Consortium to make these 
requests and seeks comment on this proposal. What other entities, if 
any, should the Commission sanction to make these requests? What costs 
would voice service providers likely incur in order to comply with this 
requirement?
    12. The Commission proposes to require all voice service providers 
to take effective steps to mitigate bad traffic when notified of that 
traffic by the Commission. Should the Commission require voice service 
providers to take particular steps to mitigate bad traffic, or should 
it leave the steps up to the voice service provider? Should the 
Commission limit the requirement to notification from one of the 
mentioned entities? What costs would voice service providers likely 
incur in order to comply with this requirement?
    13. The Commission proposes to require voice service providers to 
take affirmative, effective measures to prevent new and renewing 
customers from using their networks to originate illegal calls. What 
steps might a voice service provider take to ensure its new and 
renewing customers do not originate bad traffic? Should the Commission 
require all voice service providers to take specific steps, or should 
it permit each voice service provider to develop their own plan? What 
costs would voice service providers likely incur in order to comply 
with this requirement?

[[Page 46065]]

    14. The Commission seeks comment on its legal authority to require 
voice service providers to meet these standards. The Commission 
tentatively concludes that section 201(b) of the Act provides it with 
sufficient authority to require common carriers to meet these standards 
and seeks comment on this conclusion. The Commission further 
specifically seeks comment on its authority to require non-carrier 
voice service providers to meet these standards.

Extending Safe Harbor Based on Reasonable Analytics to Network-Based 
Blocking

    15. The Commission proposes to extend its safe harbor to cover 
network-based blocking, which voice service providers would do on 
behalf of their customers without those customers having to opt in or 
out, based on reasonable analytics that incorporate caller ID 
authentication information, so long as the blocking is specifically 
designed to block calls that are highly likely to be illegal and is 
managed with sufficient human oversight and network monitoring to 
ensure that blocking is working as intended. The Commission seeks 
comment on how to ensure that network-based blocking based on 
reasonable analytics without any consumer consent option but with human 
oversight and network monitoring is used only to block calls that are 
highly likely to be illegal. Should the Commission require that voice 
service providers that block at the network level take additional more, 
specific steps to ensure that the calls are highly likely to be 
illegal?

Expanding Redress Requirements

    16. The Commission seeks comment on setting a more concrete 
timeline for redress options. For example, is immediate notification or 
notification within a set time period (for example, 24 hours) feasible? 
Should a caller be required to request such notification or register 
with a provider to ensure such notification occurs? Or should voice 
service providers be given flexibility to use SIP codes, ISUP codes, 
and intercept messages to notify callers? If so, is immediate 
notification necessary to provide transparency and effective redress?
    17. The Commission similarly seeks comment on requiring voice 
service providers to respond to disputes about erroneous call blocking 
within a set time period (such as 24 hours or a week). What is the 
appropriate amount of time? What steps could a voice service provider 
take to communicate with the party that raised the dispute to ensure 
that these disputes are being handled as quickly as possible? What 
steps could a caller take to ensure prompt resolution of call-blocking 
concerns?
    18. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should address the 
issue of mislabeling of calls and, if so, how. Should the Commission 
require transparency and effective redress for mislabeled calls in 
order to prevent potential harm to legitimate callers? If so, what 
redress should the Commission require? Should the single point of 
contact required for the resolution of blocking disputes also handle 
labeling disputes?

Blocked Calls Lists

    19. The Commission proposes to require terminating voice service 
providers to provide a list of individually blocked calls that were 
placed to a particular number at the request of the subscriber to that 
number. The Commission further proposes to require that terminating 
voice service providers offer this service at no additional charge. 
Would such a list be valuable to consumers? What information should be 
included on such a list? What costs would terminating voice service 
providers incur?

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended, the Commission has prepared the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed 
in the FFNPRM. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. 
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed 
by the deadlines for comments on the FFNPRM provided.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    2. The FFNPRM continues a process to prevent unwanted calls from 
reaching consumers while also ensuring that wanted calls are protected. 
The FFNPRM seeks comment on ways to implement certain provisions of the 
TRACED Act. The FFNPRM proposes rules to make voice service providers 
responsible for the calls that originate on their network. Next, the 
FFNPRM proposes to extend the reasonable analytics call blocking safe 
harbor to cover network-based blocking without consumer opt out. The 
FFNPRM seeks comment on whether to adopt more extensive redress 
requirements, including whether to extend these requirements to 
erroneously labeled calls. Finally, the FFNPRM proposes to require 
terminating voice service providers that block calls to provide a list 
of calls blocked on an opt-in or opt-out basis to their customers on 
demand.
    3. The FFNPRM proposes to declare particular practices by voice 
service providers unjust and unreasonable under section 201(b) of the 
Communications Act. First, the FFNPRM proposes to affirmatively require 
all voice service providers to respond to traceback requests from the 
Commission, law enforcement, or the Traceback Consortium. Second, the 
FFNPRM proposes to require all voice service providers to take 
effective steps to mitigate illegal traffic when notified of that 
traffic by the Commission. Third, the FFNPRM proposes to require all 
voice service providers to take affirmative, effective measures to 
prevent new customers from using their network to originate illegal 
calls.

Legal Basis

    4. The proposed and anticipated rules are authorized under the 
TRACED Act, 154(i), 201, 202, 227, 251(e), and 403 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 202, 
227, 251(e), 403, and section 7 of the Telephone Robocall Abuse 
Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act, Public Law 116-105, 133 Stat. 
3274.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    5. As indicated above, the FFNPRM seeks comment on proposed rules 
to: Implement the TRACED Act, place affirmative duties on originating 
and intermediate providers to better police their network, and require 
terminating providers that block on an opt-in or opt-out basis to 
provide a list of blocked calls to subscribers on request. Until these 
requirements are defined in full, it is not possible to predict with 
certainty whether the costs of compliance will be proportional between 
small and large voice service providers. In the FFNPRM, the Commission 
seeks to minimize the burden associated with reporting, recordkeeping, 
and other compliance requirements for the proposed rules, such as 
modifying software, developing procedures, and training staff.
    6. First, under the proposed rules, the Commission tentatively 
concludes that originating and intermediate providers will need to 
retain call information in order to respond to traceback requests. They 
will also need to communicate with other intermediate and terminating 
providers regarding traceback requests and mitigation of illegal 
traffic. Additionally, they will need to

[[Page 46066]]

implement processes to prevent new customers from using their network 
to originate illegal calls.
    7. Second, the Commission tentatively concludes that terminating 
providers will need to keep records of calls blocked by destination 
telephone number. In addition, terminating providers will need to 
provide this information to subscribers on request.

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

    8. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) 
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.
    9. The Commission's proposed rules allow originating, intermediate, 
and terminating providers, including small businesses, flexibility in 
how to comply. Small businesses may reduce compliance costs through 
their implementation choices. For example, our proposed requirement 
that blocking voice service providers offer, on demand of the 
subscriber, a list of calls intended for a particular number, allows 
for this list to provided in real-time or on demand, through whichever 
means is easiest for the terminating provider. In addition, the 
Commission anticipates that the proposed rules will reduce costs by 
reducing the amount of illegal traffic on the network, which will both 
free up network capacity for wanted calls and reduce customer service 
costs resulting from consumer complaints. However, the Commission 
intends to craft rules that encourage all carriers, including small 
businesses, to block such calls; the FFNPRM, therefore, seeks comment 
from small businesses on how to minimize costs associated with 
implementing the proposed rules. The FFNPRM includes specific requests 
for comment from small businesses regarding how the proposed rules 
would affect them and what could be done to minimize any 
disproportionate impact on small businesses.
    10. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small 
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the FFNPRM and 
the IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this 
proceeding.

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

    11. None.

List of Subjects

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

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

Proposed Rules

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

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

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

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 
226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 262, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 
616, 620, 1401-1473, unless otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. 
P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.

0
2. Amend Sec.  64.1200 by revising paragraphs (k)(9) and (10) and by 
adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.1200   Delivery restrictions.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (9) Any terminating voice service provider that blocks calls on an 
opt-out or opt-in basis must provide, at the request of the subscriber 
to a number, a list of calls to the number that were blocked.
    (10) A provider may block calls consistent with paragraph (k)(3) of 
this section, but without giving consumers the opportunity to opt out, 
so long as:
    (i) Those calls are highly likely to be illegal; and
    (ii) The blocking is managed by the provider with sufficient human 
oversight and network monitoring to ensure that blocking is working as 
the provider intends.
* * * * *
    (n) Voice service providers must:
    (1) Respond to all traceback requests from the Commission, law 
enforcement, or the Traceback Consortium;
    (2) Take effective steps to mitigate illegal traffic when the 
originating or intermediate provider receives actual notice of that 
traffic by the Commission; and
    (3) Take affirmative, effective measures to prevent new and 
renewing customers from using their network to originate illegal calls.

[FR Doc. 2020-16463 Filed 7-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P