Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16367 

3The one exception is within the exterior 

boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also 

known as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the 

Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 

25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided State 

and local agencies in Washington authority over 

activities on non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey 

Area. 

redesignation, classification, or 

reclassification was in error, EPA may 

in the same manner as the approval, 

disapproval, or promulgation revise 

such action as appropriate without 

requiring any further submission from 

the State. Such determination and the 

basis thereof shall be provided to the 

State and public. 

Pursuant to section 110(k)(6), EPA is 

proposing to find that its approval of 

these State and local provisions was in 

error, and to clarify and, as necessary, 

narrow its approval of certain 

regulations in the Washington SIP so 

that EPA’s approval of those regulations 

as part of the Washington SIP is limited 

to their application to those pollutants 

that are reasonably related to attainment 

or maintenance of the NAAQS, that is, 

NAAQS pollutants and their precursors. 

EPA has previously similarly relied on 

section 110(k)(6) of the CAA to remove 

from other States’ SIPs provisions that 

do not relate to attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS or to 

narrow SIP provisions consistent with 

CAA requirements. See, e.g., 75 FR 2440 

(January 15, 2010) (removing from 

Kentucky SIP rule regulating hazardous 

air pollutants); 74 FR 27442 (June 10, 

2009) (removing from the Indiana SIP 

provisions relating to hazardous air 

pollutants); 73 FR 21546 (April 22, 

2008) (removing the word ‘‘odor’’ from 

the definition of air contaminant in the 

New York SIP); 70 FR 58311 (October 6, 

2005) (removing from the Idaho SIP a 

cross-reference to toxic air pollutants); 

66 FR 57391 (November 15, 2001) 

(removing from the Missoula CityCounty portion of the Montana SIP 

provisions relating to, among other 

things, fluoride emission standards); see 

also Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas 

Emitting-Sources in State 

Implementation Plans; Final Rule, 75 FR 

82536, 82543–44 (Dec. 30, 2010) 

(relying on the authority of CAA 

110(k)(6) to narrow the scope of Federal 

approval of State Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) SIP 

provisions to ensure that federally 

enforceable requirements of the PSD 

programs of these States did not apply 

at lower thresholds for greenhouse gases 

than those under Federal PSD 

requirements in the Tailoring Rule). 

Narrowing EPA’s approval of these 

regulations to NAAQS pollutants and 

their precursors will have no affect on 

Washington’s ability to demonstrate 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS or to meet any other 

requirement of the CAA. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely corrects EPA’s prior SIP 

approvals to be consistent with Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by the State’s law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in Washington,3 and EPA notes 

that it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: March 16, 2011. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6872 Filed 3–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1 and 64 

[WC Docket No. 11–39; FCC 11–41] 

Implementation of the Truth in Caller 

ID Act of 2009 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rules. 

SUMMARY: In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission 

proposes rules to implement the Truth 

in Caller ID Act of 2009. The proposed 

rules prohibit caller ID spoofing done 

with the intent to defraud, cause harm, 

or wrongfully obtain anything of value. 

The Commission also seeks comments 

that will assist the Commission in 

preparing a statutorily required report to 

Congress on whether additional 

legislation is necessary to prohibit the 

provision of inaccurate caller 

identification information in 

technologies that are successor or 

replacement technologies to 

telecommunications services or IPenabled voice services. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

April 18, 2011 and reply comments are 

due on or before May 3, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 11–39, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
16368 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the supplementary information 

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Hone, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Competition Policy Division, 202–418– 

1580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on or before April 18, 2011 

and reply comments on or before May 

3, 2011. Comments may be filed using: 

(1) The Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the 

Federal Government’s eRulemaking 

Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See 

Electronic Filing of Documents in 

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 

(1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/or the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies 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. 

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. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St., SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

Filings and comments are also 

available for public inspection and 

copying during regular business hours 

at the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

They may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (202) 

488–5300, fax: (202) 488–5563, or via 

e-mail http://www.bcpiweb.com. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed 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, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 

Below is a synopsis of the 

Commission’s Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 11–39, 

adopted March 9, 2011, and released 

March 9, 2011. 

Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

1. In this NPRM, the Commission 

seeks comment on proposed rules to 

implement the Truth in Caller ID Act of 

2009 (Truth in Caller ID Act, or Act), 

signed into law on December 22, 2010. 

Caller ID services identify the telephone 

numbers and sometimes the names 

associated with incoming calls. The 

Truth in Caller ID Act prohibits anyone 

in the United States from causing any 

caller identification service to 

knowingly transmit misleading or 

inaccurate caller ID information with 

the intent to defraud, cause harm, or 

wrongfully obtain anything of value. 

The Truth in Caller ID Act requires the 

Commission to issue implementing 

regulations within six months of the 

law’s enactment. It also requires the 

Commission, by the same date, to 

submit a report to Congress on ‘‘whether 

additional legislation is necessary to 

prohibit the provision of inaccurate 

caller identification information in 

technologies that are successor or 

replacement technologies to 

telecommunications services or IPenabled voice services.’’ 

2. In order to implement the Truth in 

Caller ID Act, the Commission proposes 

to (i) add a section to the Commission’s 

current rules governing Calling Party 

Number (CPN) services, and (ii) enhance 

the Commission’s forfeiture rules. The 

proposed additions to the Commission’s 

CPN rules are modeled on the Act’s 

prohibition against engaging in caller ID 

spoofing with fraudulent or harmful 

intent, and include the statutory 

exemptions to the prohibition. The 

proposed rules also include new 

definitions. The proposed amendments 

to the Commission’s forfeiture rules 

implement the forfeiture penalties and 

forfeiture process provided for in the 

Act. 

A. Proposed Amendments to the 

Commission’s Rules Relating to Calling 

Party Numbers 

3. The Commission proposes rules 

that would prohibit any person or entity 

in the United States, with the intent to 

defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully 

obtain anything of value, from 

knowingly causing, directly or 

indirectly, any caller identification 

service to transmit or display 

misleading or inaccurate caller 

identification information. The Act’s 

prohibition is directed at spoofing ‘‘in 

connection with any 

telecommunications service or IPenabled voice service.’’ The proposed 

rules define ‘‘caller identification 

service’’ and ‘‘caller identification 

information’’ to encompass both types of 

calls; therefore, the proposed rules 

would apply to calls made using both 

types of services. The Commission seeks 

comment on this approach, and whether 

the Commission needs to take any other 

steps to ensure that calls made using 

telecommunications services and 

interconnected VoIP services are 

covered by the proposed rules. 

4. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the use of the word 

‘‘knowingly’’ in the statute and our 

proposed rules. The statutory language 

prohibits anyone from ‘‘causing any 

caller identification service to 

knowingly transmit misleading or 

inaccurate caller identification 

information with the intent to defraud, 

cause harm or wrongfully obtain 

anything of value’’ and could be read to 

require knowledge by either the caller 

identification service or the actor 

employing the caller identification 

service. However, in many instances, 

the caller identification service has no 

way of knowing whether or not the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16369 

caller identification information it 

receives has been manipulated. The 

proposed rules thus focus on whether 

the caller has knowingly manipulated 

the caller identification information that 

is seen by the call recipient in order to 

defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully 

obtain anything of value. Our proposed 

rules provide that the person or entity 

prohibited from ‘‘knowingly’’ causing 

transmission or display of inaccurate or 

misleading caller identification is the 

same person or entity that must be 

acting with intent to defraud, cause 

harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of 

value. The proposed rules address both 

transmitting and displaying inaccurate 

caller identification information to make 

clear that, even if a carrier or 

interconnected VoIP provider transmits 

accurate caller identification 

information, it would be a violation for 

a person or entity to cause a device that 

displays caller identification 

information to display inaccurate or 

misleading information with the intent 

to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully 

obtain anything of value. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

these proposed rules accurately reflect 

Congress’ intent. Are there any changes 

to the proposed rules that would 

improve how this prohibition is 

expressed? 

5. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether the proposed 

prohibition on causing any caller 

identification service to transmit or 

display ‘‘misleading or inaccurate’’ caller 

identification information with the 

‘‘intent to defraud, cause harm, or 

wrongfully obtain anything of value’’ 

provides sufficiently clear guidance 

about what actions are prohibited. Do 

the proposed rules provide the public 

with ‘‘ascertainable certainty’’ about 

what would constitute a violation of the 

Act? Are the terms used in the proposed 

rules sufficiently well understood 

concepts that the public reasonably 

should know which actions are 

prohibited? For example, must the legal 

elements of common law ‘‘fraud’’ be met 

for a finding of intent to ‘‘defraud’’ under 

the Commission’s proposed rules? Are 

there other statutes that provide relevant 

and well-defined standards for what it 

means to ‘‘defraud’’ someone? To the 

extent that greater specification is 

desirable, how should the proposed 

rules be changed to provide the desired 

clarity while remaining faithful to 

Congress’ intent? The Commission also 

seeks comment on the different methods 

that a person or entity can employ to 

cause a caller identification service to 

transmit misleading or inaccurate 

information, and whether our proposed 

rules adequately encompass all such 

methods. 

6. Definitions. The Act specifies that 

‘‘IP-Enabled Voice Service’’ has the same 

meaning as § 9.3 of the Commission’s 

regulations (47 CFR 9.3). The 

Commission’s regulations define 

‘‘Interconnected VoIP service’’ rather 

than ‘‘IP-Enabled Voice Services.’’ 

Although the Act’s use of a term other 

than the one set forth in the 

Commission’s regulations might allow 

other interpretations, the Act’s specific 

reference to the Commission’s rule 

defining interconnected VoIP service 

indicates that Congress intended the 

scope of the caller ID spoofing 

prohibition to track the Commission’s 

definition of interconnected VoIP 

service. Consequently, the proposed 

rules use the term ‘‘Interconnected VoIP 

service’’ and specify that it has the same 

meaning given the term ‘‘Interconnected 

VoIP service’’ in 47 CFR 9.3 as it 

currently exists or may hereafter be 

amended. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. The 

Department of Justice (DOJ) has 

suggested that the Commission could 

instead model a definition of IP-enabled 

voice service on the definition of that 

term in 18 U.S.C. 1039(h)(4). DOJ’s 

proposed definition is broader than the 

Commission’s and would not require 

the user to have a broadband 

connection, and would not require that 

users be able to originate traffic to and 

terminate traffic from the public 

switched telephone network. The 

Commission seeks comment on DOJ’s 

suggestion, and on other suggestions for 

defining ‘‘IP-Enabled Voice Service,’’ 

including the advantages and 

disadvantages of adopting a particular 

definition. Commenters should also 

explain how such an interpretation is in 

accord with the reference to 47 CFR 9.3 

in the statute. 

7. The Commission proposes defining 

‘‘Caller identification information’’ to 

mean ‘‘information provided by a caller 

identification service regarding the 

telephone number of, or other 

information regarding the origination of, 

a call made using a telecommunications 

service or interconnected VoIP service,’’ 

and defining ‘‘Caller identification 

service’’ to mean ‘‘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 telecommunications service or 

interconnected VoIP service. Such term 

includes automatic number 

identification services.’’ The 

Commission’s proposed rules adopt the 

definitions in the Act, except that, as 

described above, the proposed 

definitions use the term ‘‘interconnected 

VoIP services’’ instead of ‘‘IP-enabled 

voice services.’’ 

8. The Commission seeks comment on 

whether the definitions of ‘‘Caller 

identification information’’ and ‘‘Caller 

identification service’’ in the proposed 

rules are sufficiently clear. Are there 

services other than traditional caller ID 

services (i.e., services that terminating 

carriers and Interconnected VoIP 

provide to their subscribers) that are, or 

should be, included within the 

definition of ‘‘Caller identification 

service’’? For example, spoofing caller 

identification information transmitted to 

emergency services providers is a 

particularly dangerous practice, and one 

which Congress was particularly 

concerned about when adopting the 

Truth in Caller ID Act. Should the 

delivery of caller identification 

information to E911 public safety 

answering points, which use automatic 

number identification (ANI) to look up 

the caller’s name and location 

information on emergency calls, be 

considered a type of ‘‘Caller 

identification service’’ for purposes of 

our rules? What are the benefits and 

drawbacks to including information 

about calling parties provided to E911 

public safety answering points as ‘‘Caller 

identification information?’’ 

9. The term ‘‘Caller identification 

service’’ in the Act explicitly includes 

‘‘automatic number identification 

services.’’ The Commission’s current 

rules relating to the delivery of CPN 

services define ANI as the ‘‘delivery of 

the calling party’s billing number 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. 

We seek comment on whether we 

should use a different definition of ANI 

for purposes of the Truth in Caller ID 

Act. In particular should we include in 

the proposed rules a definition of ANI 

that encompasses charge party numbers 

delivered by interconnected VoIP 

providers? What are the consequences 

of referencing automatic number 

identification services in the definition 

of ‘‘Caller identification service,’’ but not 

in the definition of Caller identification 

information? 

10. The Act and proposed rules define 

‘‘Caller identification Information’’ and 

‘‘Caller identification service’’ to include 

‘‘the telephone number of, or other 

information regarding the origination of, 

a call.’’ The Commission proposes to 

define ‘‘information regarding the 

origination’’ to mean any: (i) Telephone 

number; (ii) portion of a telephone 

number, such as an area code; (iii) 

name; (iv) location information; or (v) 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
16370 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

other information regarding the source 

or apparent source of a telephone call. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

proposed definition. Are there other 

things that should be included in the 

definition? For example, should the 

definition explicitly reference 

information transmitted in the SS7 

Jurisdiction Information Parameter (JIP) 

code that provides information about 

the location of a caller who has ported 

his number or is calling over a mobile 

service? Does the proposed definition 

provide sufficient clarity about what is 

included? 

11. The Act is directed at ‘‘any 

person,’’ but does not define the term 

‘‘person.’’ In order to make clear that the 

rules are not limited to natural persons 

and to be consistent with the 

Commission’s current rules concerning 

the delivery of CPN, the proposed 

amendments to the CPN rules use the 

phrase any ‘‘person or entity.’’ By 

contrast, the proposed amendments to 

the Commission’s forfeiture rules use 

the term ‘‘person’’ in order to be 

consistent with the use of the term 

‘‘person’’ in the forfeiture rules. In both 

cases, the Commission intends for the 

entities covered to be those that are 

considered to be a ‘‘person’’ under the 

definition of ‘‘person’’ in the 

Communications Act. The Commission 

seeks comment on this approach. 

Should the Commission, consistent with 

its stated intent, incorporate the 

Communications Act definition of 

person in both rules rather than use 

different terminology in each rule? The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether it should exclude any class of 

persons or entities from the definition of 

‘‘person’’ and if so, whom it should 

exclude. Should the same rules apply to 

individuals and businesses? The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether there are other terms that 

should be defined in the Commission’s 

implementing regulations. 

12. Third-Party Spoofing Services. 

There are numerous third-party 

providers of caller ID spoofing services, 

which can make it easy for callers to 

engage in caller ID spoofing. Third-party 

spoofing services can facilitate lawful 

and legitimate instances of caller ID 

manipulation as well as unlawful and 

illegitimate caller ID manipulation. DOJ 

has urged the Commission to consider 

adopting rules requiring ‘‘public 

providers of caller ID spoofing services 

to make a good-faith effort to verify that 

a user has the authority to use the 

substituted number, such as by placing 

a one-time verification call to that 

number.’’ The Commission invites 

comment on whether the Commission 

can, and should, adopt rules imposing 

obligations on providers of caller ID 

spoofing services when they are not 

themselves acting with intent to 

defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully 

obtain anything of value. For example, 

are there reporting or record-keeping 

requirements that we can and should 

impose on third-party spoofing services 

that would assist the Commission in 

preventing callers from knowingly 

spoofing caller identification 

information with intent to defraud, 

cause harm, or wrongfully obtain 

anything of value or that would assist 

the Commission in identifying callers 

who engage in such practices? The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

DOJ’s specific proposal relating to 

providers of caller ID spoofing services, 

and more broadly on what rules we can 

adopt to discourage or prevent caller ID 

spoofing services from enabling or 

facilitating unlawful conduct. If a thirdparty provider knows or has reason to 

believe that a caller is seeking to use the 

caller ID spoofing service for 

impermissible purposes, should the 

third party be held liable, or have a duty 

to report its concerns to the 

Commission? What jurisdiction does the 

Commission have to impose obligations 

on third-party providers? How would 

DOJ’s proposal, or other possible 

approaches to address third-party 

services that may facilitate unlawful 

activity, affect the callers that use thirdparty services for permissible purposes? 

13. Exemptions. The Act directs the 

Commission to exempt from its 

regulations: (i) any authorized activity 

of a law enforcement agency; and (ii) 

court orders that specifically authorize 

the use of caller identification 

manipulation. The Act also makes clear 

that it ‘‘does not prohibit any lawfully 

authorized investigative, protective, or 

intelligence activity of a law 

enforcement agency of the United 

States, a State or a political subdivision 

of a State, or of an intelligence agency 

of the United States.’’ The proposed 

rules therefore incorporate the two 

exemptions specified in the Act, and 

expand the exemption for law 

enforcement activities to cover 

protective and intelligence activities. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. 

14. The Act gives the Commission 

authority to adopt additional 

exemptions to the prohibition on using 

caller ID spoofing as the Commission 

determines appropriate. Therefore, the 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether it should adopt any additional 

exemptions. Do carriers or 

interconnected VoIP providers engage in 

legitimate conduct that could be 

implicated by the proposed rules? For 

example, in many instances, the carrier 

or provider merely transmits the caller 

ID information it receives from another 

carrier, provider, or customer. Should 

the Commission expressly exempt 

carrier or provider conduct under these 

circumstances, even if the information 

conveyed is not accurate? Should the 

Commission more generally exempt 

conduct by carriers or interconnected 

VoIP providers that is necessary to 

provide services to their customers? The 

Act exempts authorized activity of law 

enforcement agencies and court orders 

that specifically authorize the use of 

caller identification manipulation. 

Should the proposed rules also exempt 

conduct by carriers or interconnected 

VoIP providers that is authorized or 

required by law? Are any such 

exemptions for carriers and 

interconnected VoIP providers 

necessary, given the Act’s requirement 

that a violation involve intent to 

defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully 

obtain anything of value? 

15. Some caller identification 

manipulation services allow customers 

to select which caller identification 

information is displayed. Likewise, 

certain services—such as pick-yourown-area-code—enable customers to 

select phone numbers that are not 

geographically associated with their 

location, and thus are potentially 

misleading with respect to the 

‘‘origination of’’ calls by such persons. 

Does the Commission need to adopt an 

exemption to avoid stifling innovative 

new services such as call back services 

or services that involve manipulation of 

area codes, or location? 

16. Caller ID Blocking. The Truth in 

Caller ID Act specifies that it is not 

intended to be construed to prevent or 

restrict any person from blocking the 

transmission of caller identification 

information. The legislative history 

shows that Congress intended to protect 

subscribers’ ability to block the 

transmission of their own caller 

identification information to called 

parties. Therefore, the proposed rules 

provide that a person or entity that 

blocks or seeks to block a caller 

identification service from transmitting 

or displaying that person or entity’s own 

caller identification information shall 

not be liable for violating the 

Commission’s Truth in Caller ID Act 

implementing rules. The Commission 

seeks comment on whether the 

proposed rules appropriately implement 

this provision of the Act. 

17. Although the Commission’s rules 

generally allow callers to block caller 

ID, telemarketers are not allowed to do 

so. Telemarketers are required to 

transmit caller identification 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16371 

information, and the phone number 

they transmit must be one that a person 

can call to request placement on a 

company-specific do-not-call list. This 

requirement benefits consumers and law 

enforcement. It allows consumers to 

more easily identify incoming 

telemarketing calls and to make 

informed decisions about whether to 

answer particular calls. It also facilitates 

consumers’ ability to request placement 

on company-specific do-not-call lists. 

The requirement also assists law 

enforcement investigations into 

telemarketing complaints. Therefore, the 

proposed rules specify that any person 

or entity that engages in telemarketing, 

as defined in § 64.1200(f)(10) of the 

Commission’s rules, remains obligated 

to transmit caller identification 

information under § 64.1601(e) of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission 

seeks comment on this provision of the 

proposed rules. 

18. Some entities—often the same 

ones that offer spoofing services—also 

offer the ability to unmask a blocked 

number, effectively stripping out the 

privacy indicator chosen by the calling 

party. Are there ways that carriers and 

interconnected VoIP providers can 

prevent third parties from overriding 

calling parties’ privacy choice? If so, 

would it be appropriate for the 

Commission to impose such 

obligations? What legal authority does 

the Commission have to address this 

practice? Commenters that support 

amending the Commission’s rules 

should identify specific rule changes 

that will prevent these practices while 

ensuring that consumers’ privacy 

preferences are respected. 

19. Finally, we seek comment on the 

benefits and burdens, including the 

burdens on small entities, of adopting 

the proposed rules implementing the 

provisions of the Truth in Caller ID Act. 

Are there any other considerations the 

Commission should take into account as 

it evaluates rules to implement the Act? 

B. Enforcement Issues 

20. The Truth in Caller ID Act 

provides for additional forfeiture 

penalties for violations of section 227(e) 

of the Communications Act, and new 

procedures for imposing and recovering 

such penalties. In order to implement 

the forfeiture provisions of the Truth in 

Caller ID Act, we propose modifications 

to the Commission’s forfeiture rules. We 

seek comment on the proposed 

amendments to our forfeiture rules and 

on some additional issues relating to 

enforcement of the Truth in Caller ID 

Act. 

21. Amount of Penalties. The Act 

specifies that the penalty for a violation 

of the Act ‘‘shall not exceed $10,000 for 

each violation, or 3 times that amount 

for each day of a continuing violation, 

except that the amount assessed for any 

continuing violation shall not exceed a 

total of $1,000,000 for any single act or 

failure to act.’’ These forfeitures are in 

addition to penalties provided for 

elsewhere in the Communications Act. 

Thus the Truth in Caller ID Act 

establishes the maximum amount of 

additional forfeiture the Commission 

can assess for a violation of the Act, but 

it does not specify how the Commission 

should determine the forfeiture amount 

in any particular situation. Therefore, 

the Commission proposes to amend 

§ 1.80(b) of our rules to include a 

provision specifying the maximum 

amount of the additional fines that can 

be assessed for violations of the Truth 

in Caller ID Act. The Commission also 

proposes to employ the balancing 

factors we typically use to inform the 

amount of a forfeiture, which are set 

forth in section 503(b)(2)(E) of the 

Communications Act and § 1.80(b)(4) of 

the Commission’s rules. The balancing 

factors include ‘‘the nature, 

circumstances, extent, and gravity of the 

violation, and, with respect to the 

violator, the degree of culpability, any 

history of prior offenses, ability to pay, 

and such other matters as justice may 

require.’’ The Commission seeks 

comment on these proposals. 

22. Procedure for Determining 

Penalties. With respect to the procedure 

for determining or imposing a penalty, 

the Act provides that ‘‘[a]ny person that 

is determined by the Commission, in 

accordance with paragraphs (3) and (4) 

of section 503(b) [of the 

Communications Act], to have violated 

this subsection shall be liable to the 

United States for a forfeiture penalty.’’ It 

also states that ‘‘[n]o forfeiture penalty 

shall be determined under clause (i) 

against any person unless such person 

receives the notice required by section 

503(b)(3) or section 503(b)(4) [of the 

Communications Act].’’ Taken together, 

sections 503(b)(3) and 503(b)(4) allow 

the Commission to impose a forfeiture 

penalty against a person through either 

a hearing or a written notice of apparent 

liability (NAL), subject to certain 

procedures. The Truth in Caller ID Act 

makes no reference to section 503(b)(5) 

of the Communications Act, which 

states that the Commission may not 

assess a forfeiture under any provision 

of section 503(b) against any person, 

who: (i) ‘‘does not hold a license, permit, 

certificate, or other authorization issued 

by the Commission;’’ (ii) ‘‘is not an 

applicant for a license, permit, 

certificate, or other authorization issued 

by the Commission;’’ or (iii) is not 

‘‘engaging in activities for which a 

license, permit, certificate, or other 

authorization is required,’’ unless the 

Commission first issues a citation to 

such person in accordance with certain 

procedures. That omission suggests that 

Congress intended to give the 

Commission the authority to proceed 

expeditiously to stop and, where 

appropriate, assess a forfeiture against, 

unlawful caller ID spoofing by any 

person or entity engaged in that practice 

without first issuing a citation. 

Therefore, the proposed rules would 

allow the Commission to determine or 

impose a forfeiture penalty for a 

violation of section 227(e) against ‘‘any 

person,’’ regardless of whether that 

person holds a license, permit, 

certificate, or other authorization issued 

by the Commission; is an applicant for 

any of the identified instrumentalities; 

or is engaged in activities for which one 

of the instrumentalities is required. The 

proposed rules clarify that the citationfirst requirements in the Commission’s 

rules do not apply to penalties imposed 

for violations of the Truth in Caller ID 

Act. The Commission invites comment 

on this interpretation of the relationship 

between the Truth in Caller ID Act and 

section 503(b)(5) of the Communications 

Act. 

23. In contrast to section 503(b)(1)(B) 

of the Communications Act, which 

provides for a forfeiture penalty against 

anyone who has ‘‘willfully or 

repeatedly’’ failed to comply with any 

provisions of the Communications Act, 

or any regulations issued by the 

Commission under the Act, the Truth in 

Caller ID Act does not require ‘‘willful’’ 

or ‘‘repeated’’ violations to justify 

imposition of a penalty. Therefore, the 

Commission proposes to amend 

§ 1.80(a) of the Commission’s rules to 

add a new paragraph (a)(4) providing 

that forfeiture penalties may be assessed 

against any person found to have 

‘‘violated any provision of section 227(e) 

or of the rules issued by the 

Commission under that section of the 

Act.’’ The Commission seeks comment 

on that proposal. 

24. Statute of Limitations. The Truth 

in Caller ID Act specifies that ‘‘[n]o 

forfeiture penalty shall be determined or 

imposed against any person under 

[section 227(e)(5)(i)] if the violation 

charged occurred more than 2 years 

prior to the date of issuance of the 

required notice or notice of apparent 

liability.’’ This statute differs from the 

one in section 403(b)(6) of the 

Communications Act, which provides 

for a one-year statute of limitations. The 

Commission proposes to adopt a twoyear statute of limitations for taking 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
16372 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

action on violations of the Truth in 

Caller ID Act. The Commission seeks 

comment on this proposal. 

25. Miscellaneous. The Commission 

also takes this opportunity to propose 

redesignating as ‘‘Note to paragraph 

1.80(a)’’ the undesignated text in section 

1.80(a) and revising the new ‘‘Note to 

paragraph 1.80(a)’’ to address issues not 

directly relating to implementation of 

the Truth in Caller ID Act. First, in order 

to ensure that the language in the rule 

encompasses the language used in all of 

the statutory provisions, the 

Commission proposes amending the 

rule to say that the forfeiture amounts 

set forth in § 1.80(b) are inapplicable ‘‘to 

conduct which is subject to a forfeiture 

penalty or fine’’ under the various 

statutory provisions listed. (Emphasis 

added.) Second, the Commission 

proposes changing the references to 

sections 362(a) and 362(b) to sections 

364(a) and 364(b) in order that the 

statutory provision references match 

those used in the Communications Act, 

rather than the U.S. Code. (Section 364 

of the Communications Act is codified 

as 47 U.S.C. 362.) Third, the 

Commission proposes deleting section 

503(b) from the list of statutory 

provisions to which the forfeiture 

amounts in § 1.80(b) do not apply, 

because the inclusion was error; 

§ 1.80(b) implements the forfeiture 

amounts of section 503(b), and so the 

penalties set forth in § 1.80(b) apply to 

forfeiture under section 503(b). The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

proposed changes to its forfeiture rules. 

C. Report 

26. The Truth in Caller ID Act 

requires the Commission to issue a 

report to Congress within six months of 

the law’s enactment on ‘‘whether 

additional legislation is necessary to 

prohibit the provisions of inaccurate 

caller identification information in 

technologies that are successor or 

replacement technologies to 

telecommunications services or IPenabled voice services.’’ The 

Commission seeks comment on which 

technologies parties anticipate will be 

successor or replacement technologies 

to telecommunications services or IPenabled voice services. The Commission 

also seeks comment on the provision of 

inaccurate caller ID information with 

respect to such technologies, and 

whether the Commission will need 

additional authority to address concerns 

about caller ID spoofing associated with 

such successor or replacement 

technologies. In particular, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

communications services that are not 

interconnected with the public switched 

telephone network. In addition, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

there are other issues that the 

Commission should include in its report 

to Congress. 

Procedural Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 

27. This document does not contain 

proposed information collection(s) 

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 burdens for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

28. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, the 

Commission has prepared an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

for this NPRM of the possible significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities by the policies 

and rules proposed in this notice of 

proposed rulemaking. Written public 

comments are requested on this IRFA. 

Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadlines for comments on the 

further notice of proposed rulemaking. 

The Commission will send a copy of the 

notice of proposed rulemaking, 

including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. 

C. Ex Parte Presentations 

29. This proceeding shall be treated as 

a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance 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. Other requirements pertaining 

to oral and written presentations are set 

forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s 

rules. 

Ordering Clauses 

30. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to section 2 of the Truth in 

Caller ID Act of 2009, Pub. Law 11–331, 

and sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 227, and 303(r) 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 

227 and 303(r) this Notice, with all 

attachments, is adopted. 

31. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

1. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission 

has prepared this Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

small entities by the policies and rules 

proposed in this Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making (NPRM). Written public 

comments are requested on this IRFA. 

Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadlines for comments provided 

in this NPRM. The Commission will 

send a copy of this NPRM, including 

this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

2. The Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 

(Truth in Caller ID Act, or Act) was 

enacted on December 22, 2010. The Act 

prohibits anyone in the United States 

from causing any caller identification 

service to knowingly transmit 

misleading or inaccurate caller ID 

information with the intent to defraud, 

cause harm, or wrongfully obtain 

anything of value. The Truth in Caller 

ID Act requires the Commission to issue 

implementing regulations within six 

months of the law’s enactment. It also 

requires the Commission, by the same 

date, to submit a report to Congress on 

‘‘whether additional legislation is 

necessary to prohibit the provision of 

inaccurate caller identification 

information in technologies that are 

successor or replacement technologies 

to telecommunications services or IPenabled voice services.’’ The NPRM 

proposes to (i) add a new section and 

new definitions to the Commission’s 

current rules governing Calling Party 

Number (CPN) services, 47 CFR 64.1600 

et seq., and (ii) enhance the 

Commission’s forfeiture rules, 47 CFR 

1.80. 

3. The proposed additions to the 

Commission’s CPN rules are modeled 

on the Act’s prohibition against 

engaging in caller ID spoofing with 

fraudulent or harmful intent. The 

proposed rules would prohibit any 

person or entity in the United States, 

with the intent to defraud, cause harm, 

or wrongfully obtain anything of value, 

from knowingly causing, directly or 

indirectly, any caller identification 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16373 

service to transmit or display 

misleading or inaccurate caller 

identification information. The Act 

directs the Commission to exempt from 

its regulations: (i) any authorized 

activity of a law enforcement agency; 

and (ii) court orders that specifically 

authorize the use of caller identification 

manipulation. The Act also makes clear 

that it ‘‘does not prohibit any lawfully 

authorized investigative, protective, or 

intelligence activity of a law 

enforcement agency of the United 

States, a State or a political subdivision 

of a State, or of an intelligence agency 

of the United States.’’ The proposed 

rules therefore incorporate the two 

exemptions specified in the Act, and 

expand the exemption for law 

enforcement activities to cover 

protective and intelligence activities. 

4. The proposed amendments to the 

Commission’s forfeiture rules are 

intended to implement the penalties 

and procedures for imposing penalties 

provided for in the Act. The Act 

specifies that the penalty for a violation 

of the Act ‘‘shall not exceed $10,000 for 

each violation, or 3 times that amount 

for each day of a continuing violation, 

except that the amount assessed for any 

continuing violation shall not exceed a 

total of $1,000,000 for any single act or 

failure to act.’’ These forfeitures are in 

addition to penalties provided for 

elsewhere in the Communications Act. 

Therefore, the proposed amendments to 

§ 1.80(b) of the Commission’s rules 

include a provision specifying the 

maximum amount of the additional 

fines that can be assessed for violations 

of the Truth in Caller ID Act. Also, 

consistent with the specifications of the 

Act, the proposed rules would allow the 

Commission to determine or impose a 

forfeiture penalty for a violation of 

section 227(e) against ‘‘any person,’’ 

regardless of whether that person holds 

a license, permit, certificate, or other 

authorization issued by the 

Commission; is an applicant for any of 

the identified instrumentalities; or is 

engaged in activities for which one of 

the instrumentalities is required. 

5. The proposed rules do not impose 

recording keeping or reporting 

obligations on any entity. The NPRM 

does, however, seek comment on 

whether the Commission can and 

should adopt rules imposing obligations 

on providers of caller ID spoofing 

services. The NPRM also seeks comment 

on whether there are ways that carriers 

and interconnected VoIP providers can 

prevent third parties from unmasking a 

blocked number and overriding calling 

parties’ privacy choice. 

B. Legal Basis 

6. The proposed action is authorized 

under the Truth in Caller ID Act, Pub. 

Law 111–331, codified at 47 U.S.C. 

227(e), and sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 303 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)–(j), and 

303. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

7. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ 

as having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business’’ and ‘‘small 

organization.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act. A small 

business concern is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. 

8. Small Business. Nationwide as of 

2009, there are approximately 27.5 

million small businesses, according to 

the SBA. 

9. Small Organizations. Nationwide as 

of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 

million small organizations. A ‘‘small 

organization’’ is generally ‘‘any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field.’’ 

10. The Small Businesses and Small 

Organizations that will be directly 

affected by the proposed rules are those 

that knowingly spoof caller ID with the 

intent to defraud, cause harm, or 

wrongfully obtain anything of value. We 

are not aware of any attempts to 

quantify the number of small businesses 

or organizations engaged in such 

practices, nor have we have identified a 

feasible way to quantify the number of 

such entities. 

11. In addition to entities that spoof 

their caller identification information, 

there are entities that provide caller ID 

spoofing services—services that make it 

possible for callers to alter or modify the 

caller identification information that is 

displayed to call recipients by their 

caller ID services. We have not proposed 

rules that directly affect providers of 

caller ID spoofing services, however, the 

NPRM requests comment on whether 

the Commission can and should adopt 

rules imposing obligations on providers 

of caller ID spoofing services. We are 

not aware of any attempts to quantify 

the number of caller ID spoofing 

services and we have not identified a 

feasible way to quantify the number of 

such entities. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

12. The proposed rules prohibit any 

person or entity acting with the intent 

to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully 

obtain anything of value from 

knowingly causing a caller ID service to 

alter or manipulate caller ID 

information. That prohibition does not 

distinguish between large businesses 

and entities, small businesses and 

entities, or individuals. The NPRM does 

not propose rules that include any 

reporting or record keeping 

requirements. However, the NPRM does 

invite comment on whether the 

Commission can and should adopt rules 

imposing obligations, including record 

keeping and reporting obligations, on 

providers of caller ID spoofing services 

when they are not themselves acting 

with intent to defraud, cause harm, or 

wrongfully obtain anything of value. 

Certain providers of caller ID spoofing 

services may be considered small 

businesses or small entities. 

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

13. The Truth in Caller ID Act, which 

prohibits anyone in the United States 

from causing any caller identification 

service to knowingly transmit 

misleading or inaccurate caller ID 

information with the intent to defraud, 

cause harm, or wrongfully obtain 

anything of value, does not distinguish 

between small entities and other entities 

and individuals. The Commission has 

sought comment on the benefits and 

economically adverse burdens, 

including the burdens on small entities, 

of adopting the proposed rules 

implementing the provisions of the 

Truth in Caller ID Act. In addition the 

Commission seeks comment, focused on 

the issue of reducing economically 

adverse impact of the proposed rules on 

small entities, on alternatives to any 

proposed rule, or of alternative ways of 

implementing any proposed rule. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

14. None. 

List of Subjects 

47 CFR Part 1 

Penalties. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
16374 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

47 CFR Part 64 

Communications common carriers, 

Caller identification information, 

Telecommunications, Telegraph, 

Telephone. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

parts 1 and 64 as follows: 

PART 1—PRACTICE AND 

PROCEDURE 

1. The authority citation for part 1, of 

Title 47 of the Code of Federal 

Regulation is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq; 47 U.S.C. 

151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 225, 227, 303(r), 

and 309. 

§ 1.80 [Amended] 

2. Amend section 1.80 as follows: 

a. Designate the undesignated 

paragraph following (a)(4) as ‘‘Note to 

Paragraph (a)’’ and revise it; 

b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(4), 

(b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), and (c)(3), as 

paragraphs (a)(5), (b)(4); (b)(5), (b)(6), 

and (c)(4), respectively; 

c. Redesignate ‘‘Note to Paragraph 

(b)(4)’’ as ‘‘Note to paragraph (b)(5)’’; 

d. Add new paragraphs (a)(4), (b)(3), 

and (c)(3); 

e. Revise redesignated paragraph 

(b)(4); and 

f. Revise paragraph (d). 

§ 1.80 Forfeiture proceedings. 

(a) * * * 

(4) Violated any provision of section 

227(e) of the Communications Act or of 

the rules issued by the Commission 

under section 227(e) of the Act; or 

Note to pararaph (a): A forfeiture penalty 

assessed under this section is in addition to 

any other penalty provided for by the 

Communications Act, except that the 

penalties provided for in paragraphs (b)(1), 

(b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4) of this section shall not 

apply to conduct which is subject to a 

forfeiture penalty or fine under sections 

202(c), 203(e), 205(b), 214(d), 219(b), 220(d), 

223(b), 364(a), 364(b), 386(a), 386(b), 506, 

and 634 of the Communications Act. The 

remaining provisions of this section are 

applicable to such conduct. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Any person determined to have 

violated section 227(e) of the 

Communications Act or of the rules 

issued by the Commission under section 

227(e) of the Communications Act shall 

be liable to the United States for a 

forfeiture penalty of not more than 

$10,000 for each violation or three times 

that amount for each day of a continuing 

violation, except that the amount 

assessed for any continuing violation 

shall not exceed a total of $1,000,000 for 

any single act or failure to act. Such 

penalty shall be in addition to any other 

forfeiture penalty provided for by the 

Communications Act. 

(4) In any case not covered by 

paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2) or (b)(3) of this 

section, the amount of any forfeiture 

penalty determined under this section 

shall not exceed $16,000 for each 

violation or each day of a continuing 

violation, except that the amount 

assessed for any continuing violation 

shall not exceed a total of $112,500 for 

any single act or failure to act described 

in paragraph (a) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) In the case of a forfeiture imposed 

under section 227(e), no forfeiture will 

be imposed if the violation occurred 

more than 2 years prior to the date on 

which the appropriate notice is issued. 

(d) Preliminary procedure in some 

cases; citations. Except for a forfeiture 

imposed under subsection 227(e)(5) of 

the Act, no forfeiture penalty shall be 

imposed upon any person under this 

section of the Act if such person does 

not hold a license, permit, certificate, or 

other authorization issued by the 

Commission, and if such person is not 

an applicant for a license, permit, 

certificate, or other authorization issued 

by the Commission, unless, prior to the 

issuance of the appropriate notice, such 

person: 

(1) Is sent a citation reciting the 

violation charged; 

(2) Is given a reasonable opportunity 

(usually 30 days) to request a personal 

interview with a Commission official, at 

the field office which is nearest to such 

person’s place of residence; and 

(3) Subsequently engages in conduct 

of the type described in the citation. 

However, a forfeiture penalty may be 

imposed, if such person is engaged in 

(and the violation relates to) activities 

for which a license, permit, certificate, 

or other authorization is required or if 

such person is a cable television 

operator, or in the case of violations of 

section 303(q), if the person involved is 

a nonlicensee tower owner who has 

previously received notice of the 

obligations imposed by section 303(q) 

from the Commission or the permittee 

or licensee who uses that tower. 

Paragraph (c) of this section does not 

limit the issuance of citations. When the 

requirements of this paragraph have 

been satisfied with respect to a 

particular violation by a particular 

person, a forfeiture penalty may be 

imposed upon such person for conduct 

of the type described in the citation 

without issuance of an additional 

citation. 

* * * * * 

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 

3. The authority citation for part 64 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k), 227; secs. 

403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104–104, 100 Stat. 

56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 

225, 226, 207, 228, and 254(k) unless 

otherwise noted. 

4. Section 64.1600 is amended by 

redesignating paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and 

(f) as paragraphs (e), (f), (i) and (j) 

respectively and by adding new 

paragraphs (c), (d), (g), and (h) to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 

telecommunications service or 

interconnected VoIP 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 telecommunications 

service or interconnected VoIP service. 

Such term includes automatic number 

identification services. 

* * * * * 

(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; or 

(5) 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. 

§ 64.1604 [Redesignated as § 64.1605] 

5. Section 64.1604 is redesignated as 

§ 64.1605, and a new section 64.1604 is 

added to read as follows: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 16375 

§ 64.1604 Prohibition on transmission of 

inaccurate or misleading caller 

identification information. 

(a) No person or entity 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. 

(b) Exemptions. Paragraph (a) of this 

section shall not apply to: 

(1) Lawfully authorized investigative, 

protective, or intelligence activity of a 

law enforcement agency of the United 

States, a State, or a political subdivision 

of a State, or of an intelligence agency 

of the United States; or 

(2) Activity engaged in pursuant to a 

court order that specifically authorizes 

the use of caller identification 

manipulation. 

(c) A person or entity that blocks or 

seeks to block a caller identification 

service from transmitting or displaying 

that person or entity’s own caller 

identification information shall not be 

liable for violating the prohibition in 

paragraph (a) of this section. This 

subsection does not relieve any person 

or entity that engages in telemarketing, 

as defined in § 64.1200(f)(10) of the 

obligation to transmit caller 

identification information under 

§ 64.1601(e). 

[FR Doc. 2011–6877 Filed 3–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 97 

[WT Docket No. 09–209; Report No. 2926] 

Petition for Reconsideration of Action 

of Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document, a Petition 

for Reconsideration (Petition) has been 

filed in the Commission’s Rulemaking 

proceeding listed in this document 

(Amendment of the Amateur Service 

Rules Governing Vanity and Club 

Station Call Signs). In the Rulemaking 

proceeding, the Commission amended 

the rules governing amateur radio 

service vanity and club station call signs 

to, among other things, limit club 

stations to holding one vanity call sign 

and limit individuals to serving as the 

trustee for one club. ARRL, the national 

association for Amateur Radio, formerly 

known as the American Radio Relay 

League, Inc. (ARRL), filed a Petition for 

Reconsideration arguing that the rule 

amendments adopted by the 

Commission are capable of being 

evaded, and thus do not fully effectuate 

the Commission’s intent of preventing 

individuals from using club station 

licenses to hoard vanity call signs. 

ARRL proposes alternate regulatory 

language that it believes would better 

prevent hoarding of vanity call signs. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions 

must be filed by April 7, 2011. Replies 

to an opposition must be filed April 18, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot 

Stone, Wireless Competition Bureau, 

202–418–0638. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of Commission’s document, 

Report No. 2926, released February 15, 

2011. The full text of this document is 

available for viewing and copying in 

Room CY–B402, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC or may be purchased 

from the Commission’s copy contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) 

(1–800–378–3160). The Commission 

will not send a copy of this Notice 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this 

Notice does not have an impact on any 

rules of particular applicability. 

This document published pursuant to 

47 CFR 1.429(e). See 1.4(b)(1) of the 

Commission’s rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). 

Subject: In the Matter of Amendment 

of the Amateur Service Rules Governing 

Vanity and Club Station Call Signs (WT 

Docket No. 09–209); Petition for Rule 

Making: Amateur Radio Service (Part 

97); Petition to change Part 97.19(c)(2) 

of the Amateur Radio Service Rules. 

Number of Petitions Filed: 1. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of 

Managing Director. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5523 Filed 3–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS