Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5177 

consumers through the use of digital 

labeling (e.g., a QR Code) on the handset 

model’s package label, or through the 

use of a package insert, or in the handset 

model’s user manual: 

* * * * * 

(ix) Where applicable, an explanation 

that the handset model does not meet 

telecoil certification requirements and 

instead couples with hearing aids using 

a Bluetooth connectivity standard and 

provide the name of that Bluetooth 

standard. This explanation should also 

indicate that the handset model will, by 

default, have its acoustic and volume 

control functions on and that it may also 

have a secondary mode whereby the 

handset model’s telecoil is turned on or, 

for those handset models that substitute 

Bluetooth connectivity for telecoil 

connectivity, the Bluetooth function is 

turned on. The explanation must 

include an explanation of each of these 

modes, what each mode does and does 

not include, and how to turn these 

settings on and off. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) Each manufacturer and service 

provider that operates a publiclyaccessible website must make available 

on its website: 

(i) A list of all hearing aid-compatible 

models currently offered, the ANSI 

standard used to evaluate hearing aid 

compatibility, the ratings of those 

models under the relevant ANSI 

standard, if applicable, and an 

explanation of the rating system. Each 

service provider must also include on 

its website: A list of all non-hearing aidcompatible models currently offered, as 

well as a link to the current FCC web 

page containing information about the 

wireless hearing aid compatibility rules 

and service provider’s obligations. Each 

service provider must also include the 

marketing model name/number(s) and 

FCC ID number of each hearing aidcompatible and non-hearing aidcompatible model currently offered. 

(ii) In addition, each manufacturer 

and service provider must identify on 

their publicly accessible websites, for all 

handset models in their handset 

portfolios that are certified as hearing 

aid compatible under (b) of this section, 

which of those handset models meet 

telecoil certification requirements and 

which have Bluetooth connectivity 

technology. For those handset models 

that do not meet telecoil certification 

requirements, each manufacturer and 

service provider must affirmatively state 

that the handset model does not meet 

the telecoil certification requirements. 

For handset models that have Bluetooth 

connectivity technology as a 

replacement to or in addition to telecoil, 

manufacturers and service providers 

must identify which Bluetooth 

connectivity standards these handset 

models include. 

(iii) Each handset manufacturer and 

service provider must identify on their 

publicly accessible websites the 

conversational gain with and without 

hearing aids for each handset model 

certified as hearing aid compatible that 

they offer regardless of whether the 

handset model meets telecoil 

certification standards or includes 

Bluetooth connectivity instead. 

(iv) Each handset manufacturer and 

service provider must include on its 

website a point-of-contact for consumers 

to use in order to resolve questions they 

have about a company’s hearing aidcompatible handset models. Handset 

manufacturers and service providers 

must provide the name of a department 

or a division that is staffed with 

knowledgeable employees and provide 

an email address, mailing address, and 

a toll free number that consumers could 

contact to find out information about a 

hearing aid-compatible handset model 

that the company offers or to ask 

questions about how a particular 

handset model couples with the 

consumer’s hearing device. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) On or after December 31, 2026, 

manufacturers and service providers 

shall submit Form 855 certifications on 

their compliance with the requirements 

of this section by January 31 of each 

year. Information in each certification 

and report must be up-to-date as of the 

last day of the calendar month 

preceding the due date of each 

certification and report. 

(ii) Before December 31, 2026, service 

providers shall submit Form 855 

certifications on their compliance with 

the requirements of this section by 

January 31 of each year. Manufacturers 

shall submit Form 655 reports on their 

compliance with the requirements of 

this section by July 31 of each year. 

Information in each certification and 

report must be up-to-date as of the last 

day of the calendar month preceding the 

due date of each certification and report. 

(2) Content of manufacturer and 

service provider certifications. 

Certifications filed by service providers 

and manufacturers must include: 

* * * * * 

(iv) If the company is subject to 

paragraph (g) of this section, the website 

address of the page(s) containing the 

required information regarding handset 

models; 

(v) The percentage of handset models 

offered that are hearing aid-compatible 

(companies will derive this percentage 

by determining the number of hearing 

aid-compatible handset models offered 

across all air interfaces during the year 

divided by the total number of handset 

models offered during the year); and 

(vi) The following language: 

I am a knowledgeable executive [of 

company x] regarding compliance with 

the Federal Communications 

Commission’s wireless hearing aid 

compatibility requirements as a 

company covered by those 

requirements. 

I certify that the company was [(in full 

compliance/not in full compliance)] 

[choose one] at all times during the 

applicable time period with the 

Commission’s wireless hearing aid 

compatibility handset model 

deployment benchmarks and all other 

relevant wireless hearing aid 

compatibility requirements. 

The company represents and 

warrants, and I certify by this 

declaration under penalty of perjury 

pursuant to 47 CFR 1.16 that the above 

certification is consistent with 47 CFR 

1.17, which requires truthful and 

accurate statements to the Commission. 

The company also acknowledges that 

false statements and misrepresentations 

to the Commission are punishable under 

Title 18 of the U.S. Code and may 

subject it to enforcement action 

pursuant to Sections 501 and 503 of the 

Act. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–00414 Filed 1–25–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket Nos. 02–278, 21–402; FCC 23– 

107; FR ID 194251] 

Targeting and Eliminating Unlawful 

Text Messages; Implementation of the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 

1991 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) seeks comment on several 

issues. First, the Commission proposes 

a text blocking requirement following 

Commission notification and seeks 

comment on other options for requiring 

providers to block unwanted or illegal 

texts. Second, the Commission seeks 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5178 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

further comment on text message 

authentication, including the status of 

any industry standards in development. 

Finally, the Commission proposes to 

require providers to make email-to-text 

services opt in. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

February 26, 2024 and reply comments 

are due on or before March 11, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by CG Docket Nos. 02–278 

and 21–402, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: https://

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

Filings can be sent 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. 

• 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. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• 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, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (OMD 2020), 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy. In the 

event that the Commission announces 

the lifting of COVID–19 restrictions, a 

filing window will be opened at the 

Commission’s office located at 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis, MD 20701. 

People with Disabilities. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jerusha Burnett of the Consumer Policy 

Division, Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau, at jerusha.burnett@

fcc.gov, 202 418–0526 or Mika Savir of 

the Consumer Policy Division, 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, at mika.savir@fcc.gov or (202) 

418–0384. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Second 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(Second FNPRM), in CG Docket Nos. 

02–278 and 21–402; FCC 23–107, 

adopted on December 13, 2023, and 

released on December 18, 2023. The full 

text of this document is available online 

at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ 

attachments/FCC-23-107A1.pdf. 

This matter shall be treated as a 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 through 

1.1216. 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. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other 

rules pertaining to oral and written ex 

parte presentations in permit-butdisclose proceedings are set forth in 

§ 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules, 

47 CFR 1.1206(b). 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

The Second FNPRM may contain 

proposed new or modified information 

collection requirements. The 

Commission, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork burdens, 

invites the general public and OMB to 

comment on any information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document, as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. Pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

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

the Commission seeks specific comment 

on how to further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

Providing Accountability Through 

Transparency Act 

The Providing Accountability 

Through Transparency Act, Public Law 

118–9, requires each agency, in 

providing notice of a rulemaking, to 

post online a brief plain-language 

summary of the proposed rule. The 

required summary of the Second NPRM 

is available at https://www.fcc.gov/ 

proposed-rulemakings. 

Synopsis 

1. Text Blocking. The Commission 

proposes and seeks comment on 

additional text blocking options to 

better protect consumers from illegal 

texts. Specifically, the Commission 

proposes and seeks comment on 

extending the text blocking requirement 

to include originating providers, and to 

require all immediate downstream 

providers to block the texts from 

providers that fail to block after 

Commission notification. The 

Commission also seeks additional 

comment on whether to require this 

blocking to be based on number, source, 

the substantially similar traffic standard, 

or some other standard. Next the 

Commission seeks comment on 

requiring providers to block texts based 

on content-neutral reasonable analytics. 

Third, the Commission seeks comment 

on traceback for text messaging, 

including whether to adopt a traceback 

response requirement for text 

messaging. Fourth, the Commission 

seeks comment on any other rules to 

effectively protect consumers from 

illegal texts. Finally, the Commission 

seeks comment on any additional 

protections that may be necessary in 

case of erroneous blocking. 

2. Expanding the Mandatory Text 

Blocking Requirement to Originating 

Providers and Adding a Downstream 

Provider Blocking Requirement. The 

Commission proposes and seeks 

comment on extending the requirement 

to block following Commission 

notification of illegal texts to other 

providers generally, and originating 

providers specifically. The Commission 

believes that originating providers are 

similar to gateway or originating voice 

service providers in that they are the 

first U.S.-based provider in the text path 

and that applying an analogous rule to 

originating providers could help ensure 

that these providers are properly 

incentivized to stop illegal texts even 

before the Commission sends any 

notice. The Commission seeks comment 

on this view. 

3. The Commission seeks comment on 

whether and, if so, how to define 

originating providers here. Is the 

originating provider the first provider in 

the text path, and therefore in a similar 

position to a gateway or originating 

voice service provider? Are there other 

providers in the path that are more 

similar to a gateway provider? 

Alternatively, should the Commission 

apply these rules to some other entity in 

the chain to better protect consumers? 

The call blocking rules help hold badactor voice service providers 

responsible for the calls they allow onto 

the network by denying those voice 

service providers access to the network 

entirely when they have demonstrated 

noncompliance. Is there a particular 

type of entity in the texting ecosystem 

that is more likely to either intentionally 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5179 

or negligently shield those sending 

illegal texts? 

4. The Commission proposes and 

seeks comment on requiring originating 

providers to block all texts from a 

particular source following Commission 

notification. Is this an appropriate 

standard for blocking? How might 

originating providers determine the 

source of a particular text or texts in 

order to comply with this rule? 

Alternatively, should the Commission 

require blocking based on the number or 

numbers, as the Commission does for 

terminating providers? If so, how 

effective is such a requirement? If not, 

should the Commission also change the 

standard for terminating providers to 

match the standard for originating 

providers, or do originating providers 

have access to more information, 

making a broader requirement to block 

based on source appropriate? 

5. Should the Commission limit the 

length of time for which blocking is 

required? If so, how long should the 

Commission require providers to block? 

Alternatively, should the Commission 

require originating and/or terminating 

providers to block using the 

substantially similar standard applied in 

the call blocking rules? The Commission 

believes that texting may present 

concerns unique from calling that justify 

a different standard, or require 

additional guidance for compliance. For 

example, while a voice service provider 

will not have the content of a particular 

call prior to that call reaching the 

recipient, a texting provider likely does 

have access to this information. Given 

that, should the Commission require 

that blocking be content as well as 

competitively neutral? Are there any 

other standards the Commission should 

consider? 

6. The Commission seek comment on 

whether the process for voice service 

providers should be applied here to 

texting. The current rules for call 

blocking lay out a detailed process that 

must be followed before requiring all 

immediate downstream providers to 

block all of an identified voice service 

provider’s traffic. Is this process 

appropriate for the texting environment, 

or are there differences between texting 

and calling that justify modifications? 

Several commenters expressed concerns 

about the delays inherent in this 

process. While the process works well 

for calling, delays may have different 

consequences in the texting context. Is 

a delay particularly significant when 

dealing with texts compared to calls? 

Why or why not? If so, are there changes 

the Commission could make to address 

this issue while still ensuring that 

providers are afforded sufficient due 

process? For example, should the 

Commission, as is done in the calling 

context, allow 14 days for the 

originating provider to investigate and 

respond following the Notification of 

Suspected Illegal Texts or should it 

change that time frame? Should the 

Commission establish a different docket 

for text blocking Orders, or use the same 

docket used for call blocking? 

7. Requiring Blocking of Texts Based 

on Reasonable Analytics. The 

Commission seeks comment on 

requiring or incentivizing providers to 

block texts based on reasonable 

analytics. The call blocking rules 

provide a safe harbor for the blocking of 

unwanted calls based on reasonable 

analytics on an opt-out basis. In 

addition, the call blocking rules provide 

a safe harbor for the blocking of calls 

without consumers’ consent and calls 

that are highly likely to be illegal based 

on reasonable analytics. In both cases, 

the Commission requires that analytics 

are applied in a non-discriminatory, 

competitively neutral manner. The 

Commission also recently sought 

comment on requiring terminating voice 

service providers to offer opt-out 

blocking services for calls that are 

highly likely to be illegal. The 

Commission has not yet addressed text 

blocking based on reasonable analytics. 

8. The Commission seeks comment on 

whether and how to define reasonable 

analytics for this purpose. The record 

indicates that many providers already 

make use of analytics or other 

techniques to block illegal texts. What 

analytics do providers use to identify 

unwanted or illegal texts? If providers 

are reluctant to share specifics to avoid 

tipping off bad actors, the Commission 

seeks comment on broad criteria that 

providers may use. For example, a callblocking program might block calls 

based on a combination of factors, such 

as: large bursts of calls in a short 

timeframe, low average call duration, 

low call completion ratios, invalid 

numbers placing a large volume of calls. 

9. The Commission seeks comment on 

whether, and to what extent, providers 

use volumetric triggers to identify bad 

traffic. Do any of the call-blocking 

reasonable analytics factors apply to text 

and, if so, which ones? Are there other 

content-neutral factors that are more 

likely to indicate that a text is illegal 

that do not apply in the calling context? 

If the Commission adopts such a rule, 

are there any necessary modifications 

the Commission should make to 

accommodate small businesses? As 

noted above, the content of a text is 

available to the provider at the time that 

blocking occurs, which is not generally 

true for calls. If the Commission 

requires providers to block based on 

reasonable analytics, should the 

Commission require that these analytics 

be content-neutral? Should the 

Commission also require that the 

blocking be non-discriminatory and 

competitively neutral? Alternatively, are 

there ways the Commission could 

encourage this blocking without 

requiring it? Are there any other issues 

the Commission should consider? 

10. Because texting is currently 

classified as an information service, the 

Commission does not believe that 

providers need safe harbor protections 

to engage in this type of blocking. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

belief. Do providers risk liability when 

they block erroneously? If so, what can 

the Commission do to reduce that risk 

while still ensuring that wanted, lawful 

texts reach consumers? 

11. Alternative Approaches. The 

Commission seeks comment on 

alternative blocking or mitigation rules 

the Commission could adopt to target 

unwanted and illegal texts and better 

protect consumers. Are there 

approaches the Commission has not 

considered here that would stop illegal 

texts and protect consumers? What can 

the Commission do to encourage or 

require providers to adopt these 

approaches? For example, can the 

Commission take steps to encourage 

information sharing between providers? 

12. Protections Against Erroneous 

Blocking. If the Commission adopts 

additional text blocking requirements, 

should the Commission also adopt 

additional protections against erroneous 

text blocking? The rules already require 

providers to provide a point of contact 

for blocking issues. Considering that 

providers can and do block texts, is this 

sufficient, or are other protections 

necessary? If so, what protections 

should the Commission adopt? For 

example, should the Commission create 

a white list for ‘‘legitimate research 

organizations and/or research 

campaigns’’ or other entities, or would 

doing so raise legal or policy concerns? 

Similarly, should the Commission 

require some form of notification when 

texts are blocked, similar to the 

requirement when calls are blocked 

based on reasonable analytics? If so, 

how can providers send a notification, 

technically? Should the Commission 

require notification only to certain 

categories of blocking? Or, should the 

Commission require providers to give 

advance notice when a number is 

flagged as suspicious and may be 

blocked along with several other 

protections? Alternatively, should the 

Commission adopt the same protections 

already in place for erroneous blocking 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5180 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

of calls? What are the risks and benefits 

of each approach? 

13. Text Message Authentication. The 

Commission seeks additional comment 

on text message authentication and 

spoofing. The Commission has so far 

declined to adopt authentication 

requirements for texting. The record 

thus far is mixed on the feasibility of 

such a requirement, with commenters 

noting that the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID 

authentication system is designed to 

work only on internet Protocol (IP) 

networks. Further, the record indicates 

that number spoofing is comparatively 

rare in SMS and MMS. The Commission 

believes it is important to continue to 

build a record on these issues and 

ensure awareness of any new 

developments or concerns. The 

Commission therefore seeks further 

comment on the need for and feasibility 

of text authentication. In particular, 

commenters should address whether 

number spoofing is an issue in text 

messaging and, if so, the extent of the 

problem. If number spoofing is 

uncommon, are there steps the 

Commission can take to ensure that it 

remains the exception rather than the 

rule? Do bad actors use other spoofing 

techniques, such as identity spoofing? If 

so, what can the Commission do to 

address this problem? Commenters 

should also discuss any new or inprocess technical standards for 

authentication in text messaging, 

including their current status and any 

timelines for development. What issues 

will these new tools address? If the new 

technical standards are designed to 

prevent number spoofing, is this 

evidence of a more significant spoofing 

issue than commenters acknowledged in 

response to the Second FNPRM? If so, 

should the Commission act more 

quickly in this area, rather than waiting 

for the standards bodies to finish their 

work? 

14. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether it should require industry to 

regularly provide updates with its 

progress on text authentication. The 

Commission believes doing so would 

ensure that the Commission has the 

most up-to-date information available 

without having to adopt further notices 

of proposed rulemaking covering this 

topic. Is this belief correct? If so, how 

often should the Commission require 

industry to provide updates and how 

should the Commission determine when 

further updates are no longer required? 

For example, should the Commission 

set a six-month cycle for updates over 

the next two years? Or should the 

Commission require some other update 

cycle and endpoint? 

15. Traceback. Traceback has been a 

key part of the Commission’s strategy 

for combating illegal calls. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should require a response to traceback 

requests for texting. The Commission 

seeks comment on requiring providers 

to respond to traceback requests from 

the Commission, civil or criminal law 

enforcement within 24 hours, consistent 

with the existing rule for gateway voice 

service providers and the recently 

adopted rule for all voice service 

providers that took effect on January 8, 

2024, see 88 FR 43446–01 (July 10, 

2023). Should the Commission also 

include the industry traceback 

consortium as an entity authorized to 

conduct traceback of texts, or is there 

some other entity that should be 

included? Is traceback for texting 

similar enough to traceback for calls for 

such a requirement to be effective? Are 

there any changes the Commission 

should make to the rule to ensure that 

traceback works for texts? How should 

the Commission handle aggregators and 

cloud platforms? Are there industry 

efforts that are already in operation, 

such as CTIA—The Wireless 

Association’s Secure Messaging 

Initiative, that could replace or 

complement a traceback requirement? 

Are there other issues the Commission 

should consider in adopting a traceback 

requirement? 

16. The Commission seeks comment 

on the specifics of the traceback process 

for texts, as well as any obstacles to 

industry-led traceback efforts that may 

work alongside or in place of rules the 

Commission may establish. Are 

tracebacks typically conducted for 

texting? If so, what does the process 

look like? Are there types of providers 

that are routinely reluctant to respond to 

these requests? Is information from 

traceback processes shared and then 

incorporated into blocking decisions? 

Are there network modifications, 

standards, or changes to software or 

hardware that would enable efficient 

texting traceback? If the Commission 

adopts a traceback requirement for 

texting, are there any necessary 

modifications the Commission should 

make to accommodate small business? 

Is there anything else the Commission 

should know about traceback for 

texting? 

17. E-Mail-to-Text Messages. The 

Commission proposes to require 

providers to make email-to-text an opt 

in service, so that subscribers wishing to 

receive these types of messages would 

first have to opt in to the service. Would 

such a rule reduce the quantity of 

fraudulent text messages consumers 

receive? Does the anonymity of emailto-text make it more attractive to 

fraudulent texters? Commenters should 

discuss any drawbacks to requiring 

providers to block such messages if the 

consumer has not opted in to such 

service. For example, would this result 

in blocking important or urgent 

messages? If so, how could the 

Commission reduce this risk? Are there 

alternatives to making this service opt in 

that would have a similar effect? If so, 

what are they and how would they 

compare? Commenters should discuss 

how the Commission should define 

‘‘email-to-text service.’’ Are there 

analogous services that should be 

covered, e.g., voicemail-to-text? The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

details of any opt-in requirement and if 

the opt-in should be in writing. Must it 

be stand-alone and conspicuous? Will 

providers have the burden of 

demonstrating opt-in decisions? Are 

there any other issues the Commission 

should consider in adopting a rule? 

18. Further Efforts to Assist Small 

Businesses with Compliance. The 

Commission seeks further comment on 

how the Commission can refine and 

expand its efforts to assist businesses, 

particularly small businesses, in 

complying with the one-to-one consent 

requirement. The Commission has 

determined based on the record that 

prior express written consent required 

under the Telephone Consumers 

Protection Act (TCPA) must be given to 

one seller at a time. Some commenters 

raised concerns that this requirement 

will increase costs or otherwise 

disadvantage small business lead 

generators and/or small business lead 

buyers. The Commission, therefore, is 

committed to monitoring the impact 

that the rule has on these businesses 

and to assist small businesses with 

complying with the one-to-one consent 

rule. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether and how it can further 

minimize any potential economic 

impact on small businesses in 

complying with the one-to-one consent 

requirement for prior express written 

consent under the TCPA. Are there 

ways to further clarify or refine this 

requirement to further minimize any 

compliance costs? What impact would 

such refinements have on consumers? 

Are there further outreach efforts or 

other ways the Commission can assist 

small businesses in complying with the 

one-to-one consent rule? 

19. Benefits and Costs. The 

Commission estimates that the total 

harm of unwanted and illegal texts is at 

least $16.5 billion. Assuming a nuisance 

harm of five cents per spam text, the 

Commission estimates total nuisance 

harm to be $11.3 billion (i.e., five cents 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5181 

multiplied by 225.7 billion spam texts). 

Further, the Commission estimates that 

an additional $5.3 billion of harm 

occurs annually due to fraud. 

Previously, the Commission estimated 

the harm due to fraud from scam texts 

at $2 billion. The Commission revised 

this figure upward in proportion with 

the increase in spam texts, resulting in 

an estimate of $5.3 billion. The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

estimates of harm and on the costs of 

the proposals to reduce the harm of 

unwanted and illegal texts. The 

Commission will analyze any detailed 

cost data received in comments. 

20. Digital Equity and Inclusion. The 

Commission, as part of its continuing 

effort to advance digital equity for all, 

including people of color and others 

who have been historically underserved, 

marginalized, and adversely affected by 

persistent poverty and inequality, 

invites comment on any equity-related 

considerations and benefits (if any) that 

may be associated with the proposals 

and issues discussed herein. 

Specifically, the Commission seeks 

comment on how the proposals may 

promote or inhibit advances in 

diversity, equity, inclusion, and 

accessibility. 

21. Legal Authority. The Commission 

seeks comment on its authority to adopt 

several issues: (i) additional blocking 

requirements and related approaches to 

protect consumers from illegal texts; (ii) 

text message authentication; and (iii) 

whether to make email-to-text an opt-in 

service. The Commission has authority 

to regulate certain text messages under 

the TCPA, particularly with regard to 

messages sent using an autodialer and 

without the consent of the called party. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether it has legal authority to adopt 

rules addressing these issues under the 

TCPA or the TRACED Act. For example, 

is the Commission’s TCPA jurisdiction 

sufficient to support the blocking 

proposals, and does the TRACED Act 

provide the Commission with additional 

authority to adopt these rules? 

22. Similarly, does the TCPA grant the 

Commission sufficient authority to 

adopt the rules regarding requiring 

email-to-text to be an opt-out service? 

Commenters should also discuss 

whether the Commission has authority 

for the proposals under section 251(e) of 

the Communications Act, which 

provides the Commission with 

‘‘exclusive jurisdiction over those 

portions of the North American 

Numbering Plan that pertain to the 

United States,’’ particularly to adopt any 

authentication, traceback, or blocking 

requirements. The Commission found 

authority to implement STIR/SHAKEN 

for voice service providers under 

section 251(e) of the Act in order to 

prevent the fraudulent exploitation of 

numbering resources. Does section 

251(e) of the Act grant the Commission 

authority to adopt implementation of 

authentication for text messages? 

23. The Commission seeks comment 

on the authority under the Truth in 

Caller ID Act for these proposals. The 

Commission found that it has authority 

under this statute to adopt a blocking 

requirement in the Text Blocking Order, 

88 FR 21497 (April 11, 2023), and 

FNPRM, 88 FR 20800 (April 7, 2023). 

The Commission also found authority 

under this provision to mandate STIR/ 

SHAKEN implementation, explaining 

that it was ‘‘necessary to enable voice 

service providers to help prevent these 

unlawful acts and to protect voice 

service subscribers from scammers and 

bad actors.’’ The Commission seeks 

comment on whether that same 

reasoning applies here. The Commission 

also seeks comment on whether it has 

authority for these proposals under Title 

III of the Act. Are there any other 

sources of authority the Commission 

could rely on to adopt any of the rules 

discussed in the Second FNPRM? 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

24. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA) the Commission has prepared this 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) of the possible significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities by the policies 

proposed in the Second FNPRM. 

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 in the Second FNPRM. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

entire Second FNPRM, including the 

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration 

(SBA). In addition, the Second FNPRM 

and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) 

will be published in the Federal 

Register. 

25. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules. In the Second FNPRM, 

the Commission proposes additional 

action to stop unwanted and illegal text 

messages that may harass and defraud 

consumers. Specifically, the 

Commission proposes extending the call 

blocking requirements to require all 

downstream providers to block the texts 

from upstream providers that fail to 

block after Commission notification. 

The Commission also seeks comment on 

requiring providers to block texts based 

on content-neutral analytics, and on 

whether it is appropriate to adopt a 24- 

hour traceback response requirement for 

text messaging. The Second FNPRM also 

requests comment on alternative 

approaches to protect consumers from 

unwanted texts, and any additional 

protections that may be necessary in 

case of erroneous blocking. In addition, 

the Commission seeks comment on the 

viability of text authentication, and 

whether it should require industry 

updates on its feasibility. Finally, the 

Commission proposes requiring 

providers to make email-to-text an optin service. 

26. Legal Basis. The proposed action 

is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 

4(j), 227, 301, 303, 307, and 316 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 227, 

301, 303, 307, and 316. 

27. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply. 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 and 

policies, if adopted. The RFA generally 

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as 

having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ 

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ 

In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ 

has the same meaning as the term 

‘‘small business concern’’ under the 

Small Business Act. A ‘‘small business 

concern’’ is one which: (1) is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. 

28. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. The Commission’s actions, 

over time, may affect small entities that 

are not easily categorized at present. 

The Commission therefore describes, 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 33.2 million businesses. 

29. 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.’’ The Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of 

$50,000 or less to delineate its annual 

electronic filing requirements for small 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5182 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

exempt organizations. Nationwide, for 

tax year 2020, there were approximately 

447,689 small exempt organizations in 

the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 

or less according to the registration and 

tax data for exempt organizations 

available from the IRS. 

30. 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 2017 Census of 

Governments indicate there were 90,075 

local governmental jurisdictions 

consisting of general purpose 

governments and special purpose 

governments in the United States. Of 

this number, there were 36,931 general 

purpose governments (county, 

municipal, and town or township) with 

populations of less than 50,000 and 

12,040 special purpose governments— 

independent school districts with 

enrollment populations of less than 

50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017 

U.S. Census of Governments data, the 

Commission estimates that at least 

48,971 entities fall into the category of 

‘‘small governmental jurisdictions.’’ 

31. Wireless Carriers and Service 

Providers. Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite) is the closest industry with an 

SBA small business size standard 

applicable to these service providers. 

The SBA small business size standard 

for this industry classifies a business as 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show 

that there were 2,893 firms that operated 

in this industry for the entire year. Of 

this number, 2,837 firms employed 

fewer than 250 employees. 

Additionally, based on Commission 

data in the 2021 Universal Service 

Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 

2020, there were 797 providers that 

reported they were engaged in the 

provision of wireless services. Of these 

providers, the Commission estimates 

that 715 providers have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, using the 

SBA’s small business size standard, 

most of these providers can be 

considered small entities. 

32. All Other Telecommunications. 

This industry 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. Providers of internet 

services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or Voice 

over internet Protocol (VoIP) services, 

via client-supplied telecommunications 

connections are also included in this 

industry. The SBA small business size 

standard for this industry classifies 

firms with annual receipts of $35 

million or less as small. U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2017 show that there 

were 1,079 firms in this industry that 

operated for the entire year. Of those 

firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than 

$25 million. Based on this data, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of ‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’ 

firms can be considered small. 

33. Description of Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements for Small 

Entities. The Second FNPRM includes 

proposals that may alter the 

Commission’s current information 

collection, reporting, recordkeeping, or 

compliance requirements for small 

entities. Specifically, the proposal to 

extend call blocking mandates to require 

all downstream providers to block the 

texts from upstream providers that fail 

to block after Commission notification, 

and requiring providers to block texts 

based on content-neutral analytics 

would create new obligations for small 

entities and other providers. Similarly, 

establishing a 24-hour traceback 

response requirement for text messaging 

and requiring providers to make emailto-text an opt in service would also 

impose new compliance obligations on 

all providers, including small 

businesses. Additional blocking 

requirements, if adopted, such as 

requiring originating providers to block 

texts after notification from the 

Commission that the texts are likely to 

be illegal should not be a burden for 

small entities due to the fact that mobile 

wireless providers are currently 

blocking texts that are likely to be 

illegal. The Commission anticipates that 

the information it will receive relating 

to cost and benefit analyses will help 

identify and evaluate relevant 

compliance matters for small entities, 

including compliance costs and other 

burdens that may result from the 

proposals and inquiries we make in the 

Second FNPRM. 

34. Steps Taken to Minimize 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered. 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 or reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance, rather than 

design, standards; and (4) and 

exemption from coverage of the rule, or 

any part thereof, for such small 

entities.’’ In the Second FNPRM the 

Commission considered and seeks 

comment on several alternatives that 

may significantly impact small entities. 

As the Commission evaluates additional 

blocking requirements to protect 

consumers from illegal texts, the 

Commission seeks comment on how to 

define originating providers, and 

whether it should apply these rules to 

some other entity in the chain to better 

protect consumers. The Commission 

proposes blocking messages based on 

their source, but considers alternatively 

whether they should be blocked on 

other criteria such as traffic that is 

‘‘substantially similar’’ to blocked texts. 

In addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on alternatives to requiring 

providers to block texts based on 

content-neutral reasonable analytics. 

The Commission also requests comment 

on alternatives to the proposed blocking 

or mitigation rules that would help to 

protect consumers from unwanted and 

illegal texts. The Commission expects to 

fully consider whether any of the costs 

associated with the proposed text 

blocking requirements can be alleviated 

for small entities and any alternatives to 

minimize the economic impact for small 

entities following the review of 

comments filed in response to the 

Second FNPRM. 

35. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed 

Rules. None. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 

Communications common carriers, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Telecommunications, 

Telephone. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 64 as follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5183 

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 

■ 1. The authority citation to part 64 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 

202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 

228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 276, 

403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 617, 620, 1401–1473, 

unless otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115–141, Div. 

P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091. 

Subpart L—Restrictions on 

Telemarketing, Telephone Solicitation, 

and Facsimile Advertising 

■ 2. Amend § 64.1200 by adding 

paragraph (s) to read as follows: 

§ 64.1200 Delivery restrictions. 

* * * * * 

(s) A mobile wireless provider must: 

(1) A terminating mobile wireless 

provider must, upon receipt of a 

Notification of Illegal Texts from the 

Commission through its Enforcement 

Bureau, take the actions described in 

this paragraph (s)(1), including, when 

required, blocking all texts from the 

identified number or numbers. The 

Enforcement Bureau will issue a 

Notification of Illegal Texts that 

identifies the number(s) used and the 

date(s) the texts were sent or received; 

provide the basis for the Enforcement 

Bureau’s determination that the 

identified texts are unlawful; cite the 

statutory or regulatory provisions the 

identified texts violate; direct the 

provider receiving the notice that it 

must comply with this section; and 

provide a point of contact to be used by 

a subscriber to a listed number to 

dispute blocking. The Enforcement 

Bureau’s Notification of Illegal Texts 

shall give the identified provider a 

reasonable amount of time to comply 

with the notice. The Enforcement 

Bureau shall make the Notification of 

Illegal Texts in EB Docket No. 23–418 

available at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/ 

search/search-filings. The provider must 

include a certification that it is blocking 

all texts from the number or numbers 

and will continue to do so unless the 

provider learns that the number has 

been reassigned, in which case the 

provider shall promptly notify the 

Enforcement Bureau of this fact and 

include any information it has obtained 

that demonstrates that the number has 

been reassigned. If, at any time in the 

future, the provider determines that the 

number has been reassigned, it shall 

notify the Enforcement Bureau and 

cease blocking. The provider is not 

required to monitor for number 

reassignments. 

(2) If an originating provider, upon 

receipt of a Notification of Suspected 

Illegal Texts from the Commission 

through its Enforcement Bureau, take 

the actions described in this paragraph 

(s)(2), including, when required, 

blocking all texts from the source. The 

Enforcement Bureau will issue a 

Notification of Suspected Illegal Texts 

that identifies with as much 

particularity as possible the suspected 

illegal texts including the number(s) 

used and the date(s) the texts were sent 

or received; provides the basis for the 

Enforcement Bureau’s reasonable belief 

that the identified texts are unlawful; 

cites the statutory or regulatory 

provisions the identified texts appear to 

violate; and directs the provider 

receiving the notice that it must comply 

with this section. The Enforcement 

Bureau’s Notification of Suspected 

Illegal Texts shall give the identified 

provider a minimum of 14 days to 

comply with the notice. Each notified 

provider must promptly investigate the 

identified texts and report the results of 

that investigation to the Enforcement 

Bureau within the timeframe specified 

in the Notification of Suspected Illegal 

Texts. 

(i) The provider must include a 

certification that it is blocking all texts 

from the source, and will continue to do 

so unless: 

(A) The provider determines that the 

identified texts are not illegal, in which 

case it shall provide an explanation as 

to why the provider reasonably 

concluded that the identified texts are 

not illegal and what steps it took to 

reach that conclusion; or 

(B) The provider learns that the 

number has been reassigned and the 

source cannot be otherwise identified in 

a content-neutral and competitivelyneutral manner, in which case the 

provider shall promptly notify the 

Enforcement Bureau of this fact and 

include any information it has obtained 

that demonstrates that the number has 

been reassigned. If, at any time in the 

future, the provider determines that the 

number has been reassigned, it should 

notify the Enforcement Bureau and 

cease blocking unless further blocking 

of the source can be done in a contentneutral and competitively neutral 

manner. 

(ii) If an originating mobile wireless 

provider fails to respond to the 

Notification of Suspected Illegal Texts, 

the Enforcement Bureau determines that 

the response is insufficient, the 

Enforcement Bureau determines that the 

provider is continuing to originate texts 

from the same source that could be 

blocked after the timeframe specified in 

the Notification of Suspected Illegal 

Texts, or the Enforcement Bureau 

determines based on the evidence that 

the texts are illegal despite the 

provider’s assertions, the Enforcement 

Bureau may issue an Initial 

Determination Order to the provider 

stating the Bureau’s initial 

determination that the provider is not in 

compliance with this section. The Initial 

Determination Order shall include the 

Enforcement Bureau’s reasoning for its 

determination and give the provider a 

minimum of 14 days to provide a final 

response prior to the Enforcement 

Bureau making a final determination on 

whether the provider is in compliance 

with this section. 

(A) If an originating mobile wireless 

provider does not provide an adequate 

response to the Initial Determination 

Order within the timeframe permitted in 

that Order or continues to originate texts 

from the same source onto the U.S. 

network, the Enforcement Bureau may 

issue a Final Determination Order 

finding that the provider is not in 

compliance with this section. The Final 

Determination Order shall be made 

available in EB Docket No. 22–174 at 

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/searchfilings. A Final Determination Order 

may be issued up to one year after the 

release date of the Initial Determination 

Order and may be based on either an 

immediate failure to comply with this 

rule or a determination that the provider 

has failed to meet its ongoing obligation 

under this rule to block all texts from 

the identified source. 

(B) When notified by the Commission 

through its Enforcement Bureau that a 

Final Determination Order has been 

issued finding that an originating 

mobile wireless provider has failed to 

block as required under paragraph (s)(1) 

of this section, block and cease 

accepting all texts received directly 

from the identified originating provider 

beginning 30 days after the release date 

of the Final Determination Order. This 

paragraph (s)(2) applies to any provider 

immediately downstream from the 

originating provider. The Enforcement 

Bureau shall provide notification by 

making the Final Determination Order 

in EB Docket No. 22–418 available at 

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/searchfilings. Providers must monitor EB 

Docket No. 22–174 and initiate blocking 

no later than 30 days from the release 

date of the Final Determination Order. 

[FR Doc. 2023–28833 Filed 1–25–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1