1566 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

13, 2017, for the information collection 

requirements contained in the 

modifications to 47 CFR 10.320(g). 

Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency 

may not conduct or sponsor a collection 

of information unless it displays a 

current, valid OMB Control Number. 

No person shall be subject to any 

penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act that does not 

display a current, valid OMB Control 

Number. The OMB Control Number is 

3060–1126. 

The foregoing notice is required by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13, October 1, 1995, 

and 44 U.S.C. 3507. 

The total annual reporting burdens 

and costs for the respondents are as 

follows: 

OMB Control Number: 3060–1126. 

OMB Approval Date: March 13, 2017. 

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 

2020. 

Title: Testing and Logging 

Requirements for Wireless Emergency 

Alerts (WEA). 

Form Number: N/A. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities, and state, local, or tribal 

government. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 80 respondents; 451,600 

responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 

0.0000694 hours (2.5 seconds)–2 hours. 

Frequency of Response: Monthly and 

on occasion reporting requirements and 

recordkeeping requirement. 

Obligation To Respond: Statutory 

authority for these collection is 

contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(o), 301, 

303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 

624(g), 706, and 715 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

154(o), 301, 301(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 

335, 403, 544(g), 606, and 615, as well 

as by sections 602(a), (b), (c), (f), 603, 

604 and 606 of the WARN Act, 47 

U.S.C. 1202(a), (b), (c), (f), 1203, 1204 

and 1206, unless otherwise noted. 

Total Annual Burden: 125,390 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: No Cost. 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

Confidentiality protection at least equal 

to that provided by the federal Freedom 

of Information Act upon request, but 

only insofar as those logs pertain to 

Alert Messages initiated by that 

emergency management agency. 

Privacy Act: No impact(s). 

Needs and Uses: Section 10.320 

describes the provider alert gateway 

requirements, specifically with respect 

to logging. The CMS provider must log 

the CMAC attributes of all Alert 

Messages received at the CMS Provider 

Alert Gateway, including time stamps 

that verify when the message is 

received, and when it is retransmitted or 

rejected by the Participating CMS 

Provider Alert Gateway. If an Alert 

Message is rejected, a Participating CMS 

Provider is required to log the specific 

error code generated by the rejection. 

The CMS provider must also maintain a 

log of all active and cancelled Alert 

Messages for at least 12 months after 

receipt of such alert or cancellation and 

make their alert logs available to the 

Commission and FEMA upon request. 

Participating CMS Providers are also 

required to make alert logs available to 

emergency management agencies that 

offer confidentiality protection at least 

equal to that provided by the federal 

Freedom of Information Act upon 

request, but only insofar as those logs 

pertain to Alert Messages initiated by 

that emergency management agency. 

This information will inform 

emergency managers whether their 

alerts are delivered, and if not, why not. 

We anticipate that the alert log 

maintenance requirements will serve to 

ensure that alert logs are available when 

needed, both to the Commission and to 

emergency management agencies. These 

logs have potential to increase their 

confidence that WEA will work as 

intended when needed. Alert logs are 

also necessary to establish a baseline for 

system integrity against which future 

iterations of WEA can be evaluated. 

Without records that can be used to 

describe the quality of system integrity, 

and the most common causes of 

message transmission failure, it will be 

difficult to evaluate how any changes to 

WEA could affect system integrity. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00463 Filed 1–11–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket No. 17–59; FCC 17–151] 

Advanced Methods To Target and 

Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, 

Commission issues new rules that 

protect consumers from unwanted 

robocalls by permitting voice service 

providers to proactively block telephone 

calls when the subscriber of a phone 

number requests that calls purporting to 

originate from that number be blocked, 

and when calls purport to originate from 

three categories of unassigned phone 

numbers: Invalid numbers, valid 

numbers that are not allocated to a voice 

service provider, and valid numbers that 

are allocated but not assigned to a 

subscriber. While such calls may appear 

to be legitimate to those who receive 

them, they can result in fraud or 

identity theft. To combat these scams, 

the new rules expressly authorize voice 

service providers to block these 

robocalls without running afoul of the 

FCC’s call completion rules. To 

minimize blocking of lawful calls, the 

Commission encourages voice service 

providers that elect to block calls to 

establish a simple way to identify and 

fix blocking errors. The rules also 

prohibit providers from blocking 911 

emergency calls. 

DATES: Effective February 12, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen A Schroeder, Consumer Policy 

Division, Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau (CGB), at (202) 418–0654, 

email: Karen.Schroeder@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, in CG Docket No. 17–59; 

FCC 17–151, adopted on November 16, 

2017 and released on November 17, 

2017. The full text of this document will 

be available for public inspection and 

copying via ECFS, and during regular 

business hours at the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 

Street SW, Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The full text of 

this document and any subsequently 

filed documents in this matter may also 

be found by searching ECFS at: http:// 

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (insert CG Docket No. 

17–59 into the Proceeding block). The 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM) that was adopted concurrently 

with the Report and Order is published 

elsewhere in the Federal Register. 

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

The Report and Order does not 

contain any new or modified 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any new 

or modified information collection 

burden for small business concerns with 

fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to 

the Small Business Paperwork Relief 

Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 1567 

Congressional Review Act 

The Commission sent a copy of the 

Report and Order to Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

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

Synopsis 

1. In the Report and Order, the 

Commission takes another important 

step in combatting illegal robocalls by 

enabling voice service providers to 

block certain calls before they reach 

consumers’ phones. Specifically, the 

Commission adopts rules allowing 

providers to block calls from phone 

numbers on a Do-Not-Originate (DNO) 

list and those that purport to be from 

invalid, unallocated, or unused 

numbers. Providers have been active in 

identifying these calls and there is broad 

support for these rules. At the same 

time, the Commission establishes 

safeguards to mitigate the possibility of 

blocking desired calls. 

2. Caller ID spoofing is often the key 

to making robocall scams work. 

Generally, Caller ID services permit the 

recipient of an incoming call to know 

the telephone number of the calling 

party, and in some cases a name 

associated with the number, before the 

recipient answers the call. But Caller ID 

information can be altered or 

manipulated, i.e., spoofed, so that the 

name or number displayed to the called 

party does not match that of the actual 

subscriber or the actual originating 

number. Though callers can use 

spoofing to mislead or even defraud the 

called party, there are legitimate uses for 

spoofing. 

3. Congress passed the 2009 Truth in 

Caller ID Act to ‘‘address the growing 

problem of Caller ID spoofing done for 

fraudulent or harmful purposes.’’ 

Congress limited the spoofing 

prohibition to the knowing transmission 

of misleading or inaccurate Caller ID 

information ‘‘with the intent to defraud, 

cause harm, or wrongfully obtain 

anything of value,’’ except where such 

transmission is determined to be exempt 

by the Commission. 

4. Despite these protections, 

consumers still receive an unacceptably 

high volume of illegal robocalls. To 

combat the robocall problem in a 

coordinated way, industry established 

the Robocall Strike Force (Strike Force) 

in 2016. The Strike Force includes 

representatives from providers of 

traditional landline, mobile, and Voice 

over internet Protocol (VoIP) services, 

handset manufacturers, operating 

system developers, and VoIP gateway 

providers. The Strike Force has said that 

‘‘robocalls are best addressed in a 

holistic manner through deployment of 

a wide variety of tools by a broad range 

of stakeholders’’ that includes industry 

blocking of calls. On October 26, 2016, 

it published the Robocall Strike Force 

Report (Strike Force Report). The Strike 

Force specifically asked the 

Commission to provide guidance on 

when providers may block a call that 

the provider believes is illegal. 

5. The Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau (Bureau) addressed one 

of the Strike Force’s requests in 2016 by 

clarifying that voice service providers 

may block calls using a spoofed Caller 

ID number if the number’s subscriber 

requests that they do so. Following that 

initial guidance, the Strike Force Report 

sought additional clarification regarding 

the legality of certain provider-initiated 

call blocking. Specifically, it sought 

clarification that: (1) Providers may 

block calls where the Caller ID shows an 

unassigned number; and (2) providers 

may block calls that the provider has 

determined to be illegal robocalls, so 

long as the provider takes reasonable 

steps to confirm that the calls are illegal. 

6. In the March 2017 Advanced 

Methods NPRM and NOI, document 

FCC 17–24, published at 82 FR 22625, 

May 17, 2017, the Commission sought 

comment on whether to take certain 

steps to facilitate voice service 

providers’ blocking of illegal robocalls. 

In the Advanced Methods NPRM and 

NOI, the Commission proposed rules to 

allow voice service providers to block 

telephone calls when the subscriber of 

a phone number requests that calls 

purporting to originate from that 

number be blocked, and when calls 

purport to originate from three 

categories of phone numbers: Invalid 

numbers, valid numbers that are not 

allocated to a voice service provider, 

and valid numbers that are allocated but 

not assigned to a subscriber. 

7. Call Completion Considerations. 

The Commission has generally found 

call blocking by voice service providers 

to be unlawful. The Commission also 

made clear that it is unlawful for 

providers to block VoIP-Public 

Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) 

traffic, and for interconnected and oneway VoIP providers to block voice 

traffic to or from the PSTN. The 

Commission has allowed call blocking 

only in ‘‘rare and limited 

circumstances.’’ 

Discussion 

8. In the Report and Order, the 

Commission adopts rules to give voice 

service providers the option of blocking 

illegal robocalls in certain, well-defined 

circumstances. By doing so, the 

Commission furthers its goal of 

removing regulatory roadblocks and 

gives industry the flexibility to block 

illegal calls. At the same time, the 

Commission affirms its commitment to 

protect the reliability of the nation’s 

communications network and ensure 

that provider-initiated blocking helps, 

rather than harms, consumers. These 

rules outline specific, well-defined 

circumstances in which voice service 

providers may block calls that are 

highly likely to be illegitimate because 

there is no lawful reason to spoof 

certain kinds of numbers. Thus, a 

provider who blocks calls in accordance 

with these rules will not violate the call 

completion rules. Conversely, a 

provider that blocks calls that do not fall 

within the scope of these rules may be 

liable for violating the Commission’s 

call completion rules. 

Blocking at the Request of the 

Subscriber to the Originating Number 

9. First, the Commission codifies the 

Bureau’s earlier clarification that 

providers may block calls when they 

receive a request from the subscriber to 

which the originating number is 

assigned, i.e., a DNO request. The 2016 

Guidance Public Notice, document DA 

16–1121, made clear that voice service 

providers—whether providing such 

service through TDM, VoIP, or CMRS— 

may block calls purporting to be from a 

telephone number if the subscriber to 

that number requests such blocking in 

order to prevent its number from being 

spoofed. The Bureau concluded that 

where the subscriber did not consent to 

the number being used, the call was 

very likely made to annoy and defraud, 

and therefore, no reasonable consumer 

would wish to receive such a call. The 

Commission agrees and finds such DNO 

calls highly likely to be illegal and to 

violate the Commission’s anti-spoofing 

rule, with the potential to cause harm, 

defraud, or wrongfully obtain something 

of value. 

10. The record shows broad support 

among consumer groups, providers, 

government, and callers for blocking 

DNO calls. Consumers Union et. al. 

emphasizes the urgent need for 

providers to take action against spoofed 

calls, stating, ‘‘DNO is one of several 

promising tools that they should 

implement to help address the 

problem.’’ Several commenters note the 

positive results of DNO trials conducted 

by members of the Strike Force. 

11. ZipDX and others claim that gains 

from blocking DNO numbers will be 

temporary, because those making illegal 

robocalls will simply choose other 

numbers to spoof when their calls are 

blocked. The Commission disagrees that 

this possibility negates the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
1568 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

demonstrated benefits of such blocking. 

Allowing providers to block spoofed 

calls from high-profile numbers, such as 

IRS phone numbers, that are among 

those most likely to lure consumers into 

scams will substantially benefit 

consumers and help entities that make 

DNO requests control the integrity of 

their phone numbers. The Commission 

believes that codifying the Bureau’s 

2016 guidance in the form of a rule 

gives providers greater certainty that 

blocking calls at the request of the 

subscriber is lawful and provides an 

incentive to engage in this kind of 

beneficial blocking. 

12. Criteria for Blocking DNO 

Numbers. In its comments, USTelecom 

suggests five criteria used by the 

Industry Traceback Group (ITB) to 

evaluate numbers to determine whether 

they should be blocked, namely: 

a candidate number must: (1) Be inboundonly; (2) be currently spoofed by a robocaller 

in order to perpetrate impersonation-focused 

fraud; (3) be the source of a substantial 

volume of calls; (4) have authorization for 

participation in the DNO effort from the party 

to which the telephone number is assigned; 

and/or (5) be recognized by consumers as 

belonging to a legitimate entity, lending 

credence to the impersonators and 

influencing successful execution of the scam. 

The Commission finds that for purposes 

of the rule, only two of these criteria are 

necessary. The number must be used for 

inbound calls only, and the subscriber 

to the number must authorize it to be 

blocked. The Commission agrees with 

the ITB recommendation that both the 

subscriber making the request and the 

provider receiving the request validate 

that the number is used for inbound 

calls only. The Commission will not 

require the subscriber or the provider to 

determine whether the number is 

currently being spoofed, is the source of 

a substantial volume of calls, or is 

recognized by consumers. While the 

Commission believes the additional 

criteria may be helpful in some 

circumstances, they would impose too 

high a barrier for inclusion in the DNO 

list. In addition, the Commission does 

not want to impose a potentially 

burdensome analysis requirement on 

providers that might discourage them 

from blocking inbound-only numbers at 

the request of the subscriber. 

13. Coordination of Effort. The 

Commission agrees with Consumers 

Union et. al. that ‘‘[m]uch responsibility 

rests with the providers to ensure that 

DNO works as well as possible’’ through 

broad industry participation. While full 

industry participation is not required to 

achieve positive results, having more 

providers block a number will allow 

fewer calls purporting to be from that 

number to go through. Commenters note 

that providers must coordinate their 

efforts for this type of call blocking to 

be used effectively. For example, Sprint 

comments that, while it supports this 

type of blocking and participated in the 

collaborative effort to block spoofed IRS 

numbers, ‘‘there are currently no 

automated systems in place to expand 

the scale of such projects industry-wide 

or to accommodate much larger 

numbers of customers requesting 

blocking.’’ USTelecom points out the 

inefficiency of requiring subscribers 

‘‘requesting DNOs to be forced to make 

individual requests to multiple 

providers.’’ ZipDX suggests that the 

originating provider is in the best 

position to block these kinds of calls. 

14. Other commenters, however, 

suggest that providers expand their 

existing ways of sharing information 

from the test cases and other initiatives 

to support this effort. As Comcast 

comments, ‘‘[p]articipants in the Strike 

Force have set up an ad hoc shared list 

of numbers that should not be 

originated and can add more for 

review.’’ USTelecom comments that its 

‘‘Industry Traceback Group has been 

facilitating a targeted, centralized, and 

coordinated DNO trial and stands ready 

to continue to evolve industry efforts on 

this front going forward.’’ 

15. The Commission strongly 

encourages providers to continue to 

work cooperatively to share information 

about any inbound-only numbers for 

which the subscriber has requested that 

the number be blocked. At this time, the 

Commission declines to prescribe a 

sharing mechanism, especially in light 

of industry’s existing efforts at 

coordination. The Commission 

emphasizes that safeguards must be put 

in place to prevent numbers used for 

outbound calls from being wrongly 

added to the DNO list, whether from 

hacking, honest mistakes, or some other 

cause, especially for calls made to 

emergency services. The Commission 

encourages industry to continue 

developing its methods for 

implementing DNO and encourages 

providers that choose to do such 

blocking to establish a mechanism for 

timely removal of erroneous blocks. 

16. Resellers. Finally, the Commission 

agree with TracFone that wireless 

resellers may pass along subscriber 

requests to the underlying carrier that 

the subscriber’s inbound-only number 

be blocked. The Commission sees no 

reason on this record to not allow 

wireless reseller subscribers to 

participate in the DNO effort. 

Calls Purporting To Originate From 

Unassigned Numbers 

17. The Commission next finds that 

providers may initiate blocking where 

the call purports to originate from a 

number that is unassigned. Use of an 

unassigned number provides a strong 

indication that the calling party is 

spoofing the Caller ID to potentially 

defraud and harm a voice service 

subscriber. Such calls are therefore 

highly likely to be illegal. The 

Commission identifies three categories 

of unassigned numbers that it 

determines can be reasonably subject to 

blocking: (1) Numbers that are invalid 

under the North American Numbering 

Plan (NANP); (2) numbers that have not 

been allocated by the North American 

Numbering Plan Administrator 

(NANPA) or the Pooling Administrator 

(PA) to any provider; and (3) numbers 

that the NANPA or PA has allocated to 

a provider, but are not currently used. 

Providers may block calls purporting to 

be from numbers that fall into any one 

of these three categories. 

Calls Purporting To Originate From 

Invalid Numbers 

18. Providers may block calls 

purportedly originating from numbers 

that are not valid NANP numbers. 

Examples of such numbers include 

those that use an unassigned area code; 

that use an abbreviated dialing code, 

such as 911 or 411, in place of an area 

code; that do not contain the requisite 

number of digits; and that are a single 

digit repeated, such as 000–000–0000, 

with the exception of 888–888–8888, 

which is an assignable number. With a 

few important exceptions detailed 

below, the record generally supports the 

assumption that, because these numbers 

are not valid, a subscriber could not 

lawfully originate calls from such 

numbers and these calls should be 

blocked. Providers, however, must take 

care that they do not block calls that 

purportedly originate from valid 

numbers, especially emergency calls. 

19. The record supports the proposal 

that no caller would spoof an invalid 

number for any lawful purpose; for 

example, unlike a business spoofing 

Caller ID on outgoing calls to show its 

main call-back number, invalid numbers 

cannot be called back. Thus, the 

Commission does not see a significant 

risk to network reliability in allowing 

providers to block this category of calls. 

ATIS suggests that benefits will be 

temporary because ‘‘widespread 

blocking of invalid and unallocated 

numbers could have an unintended 

negative consequence by driving bad 

actors to focus their efforts on spoofing 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 1569 

assigned/valid numbers.’’ Consumers 

Union et. al., however, comment that 

blocking such calls is imperative, 

because ‘‘[c]onsumers do not expect that 

their phone service would be the means 

through which illegal and fraudulent 

scams enter their homes, and providers 

should not be obligated to deliver illegal 

messages that could cause consumers 

harm.’’ In addition, blocking calls 

purporting to be from invalid numbers 

‘‘holds the greatest potential for success 

in the short term and likely would be 

the easiest to implement.’’ 

20. The Commission rejects 

suggestions that blocking calls 

purporting to originate from invalid 

numbers creates ‘‘significant 

possibilities of false positives.’’ 

Although ZipDX claims that ‘‘a 

significant number’’ of private branch 

exchanges (PBXs) ‘‘are not properly 

configured’’ to display an accurate 

Caller ID and that Caller ID information 

could theoretically be ‘‘unintentionally 

altered’’ during a call’s transmission, the 

record belies such claims. Instead, the 

record demonstrates that the risk of 

erroneously blocking such calls is very 

low and should not be a barrier to 

allowing providers to block calls 

purporting to be from invalid numbers. 

Indeed, the Commission agrees with 

USTelecom that this small risk simply 

requires providers to exercise ‘‘caution 

when instituting blocking in the 

network.’’ And the Commission 

reiterates that caution to businesses 

with PBXs: The responsibility to 

properly configure PBX equipment lies 

with the owner, and those spoofing 

invalid numbers (whether intentionally 

or not) have the ability to ensure that 

their calls go through by properly 

reconfiguring that equipment. 

21. Identifying Invalid Numbers. 

Neustar, which currently is the NANPA 

and PA, comments that ‘‘information for 

invalid numbers [is maintained] within 

the [NANP], and the industry has other 

sources to identify invalid numbers 

such as ATIS’s Industry Numbering 

Committee. . . . Thus, service 

providers already have access to the 

information they need’’ for this kind of 

blocking. Comcast similarly states that 

‘‘[v]oice providers generally have 

‘intimate knowledge of the [NANP]’ and 

can ‘easily identify numbers that fall 

into this category,’ including numbers 

that use an N11 code in place of an area 

code or that repeat a single digit.’’ In 

light of the industry’s assurance that it 

can confidently identify invalid 

numbers, the Commission sees no need 

to further define or limit what is meant 

by ‘‘a number that is not a valid [NANP] 

number.’’ The Commission encourages 

providers to conduct tests or 

simulations before blocking calls 

purporting to originate from invalid 

numbers to verify their methods. 

Calls Purporting To Originate From 

Numbers Not Allocated to Any Provider 

22. The Commission finds that 

providers may block calls purportedly 

originating from numbers that are valid 

but have not yet been allocated by the 

NANPA or the PA to any provider. 

Though these numbers are valid under 

the NANP, the Commission finds that 

calls purporting to use unallocated 

numbers are similar to calls purporting 

to use invalid numbers in that no 

subscriber can actually originate a call 

from any of these numbers, and the 

Commission sees no lawful reason to 

spoof such numbers because they 

cannot be called back. Calls purporting 

to originate from such numbers 

therefore are highly likely to be illegal. 

23. Here, the provider must have 

knowledge that a certain block of 

numbers has not been allocated to any 

provider and therefore that the number 

being blocked could not have been 

assigned to a subscriber. The record 

generally supports allowing permissive 

blocking of calls purporting to be from 

unallocated numbers. For example, 

ATIS points out that ‘‘no subscriber can 

actually originate a call from these 

unallocated central office codes and it is 

unlikely that there is any legitimate, 

lawful reason to.’’ 

24. Parties opposing this type of call 

blocking generally do so based on 

implementation difficulties and the risk 

of blocking legal calls. For example, 

NCTA warns that the proposal ‘‘could 

unintentionally result in harm to 

consumers and should not be adopted at 

this time,’’ and ZipDX cautions that 

‘‘[t]he unintended consequences of 

these blocks (false positives) are 

potentially quite troublesome and far 

outweigh any good that would result 

from successful robocall blocks.’’ 

Several commenters also note that, if 

providers block unallocated numbers, 

then ‘‘illegal robocallers could simply 

shift to spoofing assigned numbers.’’ 

25. Commenters do not agree on the 

potential volume of calls that might be 

blocked under this rule. While ZipDX 

says the ‘‘fraction of complaints’’ from 

unassigned numbers is ‘‘miniscule,’’ 

USTelecom states that ‘‘the scale of 

numbers at issue in the Commission’s 

latter two proposals [blocking calls from 

unallocated and unassigned numbers] 

are potentially enormous— 

encompassing 3 billion telephone 

numbers.’’ Transaction Network 

Services (TNS) attempts to strike a 

middle ground, suggesting that ‘‘[w]hile 

there is a large number of unallocated 

telephone numbers (over 33 million) 

that have been flagged as making calls, 

the volume of call activity from these 

numbers relative to all negative 

robocalling is very small.’’ TNS 

concludes that blocking ‘‘this subset of 

numbers has significant, but limited 

value.’’ In contrast, a recent Commission 

enforcement action found that one 

robocaller made a staggering 21,582,771 

spoofed robocalls in a three-month 

period; the caller ID for each of the 

robocalls examined by the FCC falsely 

identified a phone number that was not 

assigned to any carrier or subscriber at 

the time the calls were made. Although 

the number of complaints about calls 

from unassigned numbers may be small, 

the Commission agrees with USTelecom 

that the potential value of blocking such 

calls is enormous. Consumers will 

benefit from this type of blocking 

because the calls are highly likely to 

annoy or defraud. 

26. Defining Unallocated Numbers 

Subject to Blocking. Some commenters 

emphasize that a permissive rule does 

not require providers to identify and 

block every unallocated number, but 

rather simply allows a provider to block 

calls purporting to be from those 

numbers it can verify are unallocated. 

The Commission agrees. Providers may 

block calls purporting to be from 

unallocated numbers and should limit 

themselves to blocking only those 

numbers that they can verify are 

unallocated. Providers may not be able 

to identify the complete set of all 

unallocated numbers for purposes of 

call blocking. Accordingly, voice service 

providers might be unable to block calls 

purporting to originate from every 

unallocated number, but this 

shortcoming would not result in the 

blocking of legal calls. 

27. Obtaining Unallocated Number 

Information. The Commission does not 

prescribe a technical solution for 

identifying and communicating 

information about unallocated numbers 

at this time. The record shows 

consensus that, while information on 

unallocated numbers is available to 

providers, no currently available source 

identifies all unallocated numbers in 

real time and that ‘‘the NANPA does not 

administer codes outside the United 

States, specifically in Canada and 

Caribbean countries, or toll-free 

numbers.’’ Many commenters suggest 

that providers should use a new, 

centralized database as a resource for 

identification of unallocated numbers. 

28. Neustar lists categories of 

unallocated numbers that should not 

initiate calls, including ‘‘telephone 

numbers in: (1) Unallocated area codes 

in the NANP; (2) unallocated geographic 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
1570 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Central Office (‘‘CO’’) codes (NPA–NXX) 

in the United States; and (3) unallocated 

non-contaminated thousands-blocks 

(NPA–NXX–X) in the United States.’’ 

ATIS elaborates on the issue of 

contaminated thousands-blocks, stating 

that available thousands-blocks 

‘‘publicly posted on the PA website . . . 

could contain up to 100 assigned 

numbers within those blocks.’’ 

Therefore, providers blocking calls from 

contaminated blocks could erroneously 

block calls purporting to originate from 

assigned numbers. Providers that block 

calls purporting to originate from 

assigned numbers may be liable for 

violating the call completion rules. 

29. Several commenters propose 

enhancements to the information 

provided by the NANPA and the PA. 

Neustar suggests that the NANPA and 

the PA ‘‘provide on their websites: (1) 

‘Blacklists’ of unallocated numbers that 

should not be making calls; and (2) 

‘Whitelists’ of allocated area codes in 

the NANP, allocated geographic CO 

codes in the United States, and 

allocated thousands-blocks in the 

United States.’’ Comcast takes a similar 

approach, suggesting that the databases 

‘‘(1) more clearly identify which 

numbers have not yet been allocated 

and (2) are updated immediately to 

reflect any new allocations as they 

occur.’’ 

30. The Commission believes that 

providers, the NANPA, and the PA are 

in the best position to determine how to 

share information about unallocated 

numbers. The Commission encourages 

these parties to work together on 

whether and how to improve the 

availability of this information for 

blocking purposes. At the same time, 

the Commission cautions against 

blocking calls purporting to originate 

from allocated numbers and encourages 

providers to examine their practices 

carefully to verify that they are not 

inadvertently doing so. A provider that 

erroneously blocks calls purporting to 

originate from allocated numbers may 

be liable for violating the call 

completion rules. 

Calls Purporting To Originate From 

Numbers That Are Allocated but 

Unused 

31. The Commission finds that 

providers may block calls purportedly 

originating from numbers that are 

allocated to a provider by the NANPA 

or PA, but are unused, so long as the 

provider blocking the calls is the 

allocatee of the number or has obtained 

verification from the allocatee that the 

number is unused at the time of the 

blocking. For these purposes, an 

‘‘unused’’ number is a number that is 

not assigned to a subscriber or otherwise 

set aside for outbound call use. As with 

invalid numbers and unallocated 

numbers, calls cannot originate from 

such a number, and the Commission 

foresees no lawful purpose for 

intentionally spoofing a number that is 

unused and thus cannot be called back. 

32. The record shows mixed support 

for allowing providers to block these 

kinds of calls. For example, EPIC points 

out that ‘‘because they are not assigned 

anyone using them without the 

provider’s knowledge is almost certainly 

engaging in unlawful activity.’’ Many 

commenters, however, express concerns 

about legal calls being blocked, similar 

to the concerns about unallocated 

number call blocking, because ‘‘the 

status of numbers is always changing.’’ 

The record also shows ‘‘potentially 

thorny implementation issues’’ for 

blocking calls from unused numbers, 

similar to but greater in scale than those 

identified for unallocated numbers. In 

addition, the argument concerning the 

likely reaction of robocallers to the 

blocking of unallocated numbers 

detailed above applies here as well. 

33. Obtaining Unused Number 

Information. The record clearly shows 

‘‘an industry-wide recognition that there 

is currently no technical solution that 

allows providers to accurately and 

promptly identify numbers that have 

been allocated to a carrier but not yet 

assigned to a subscriber.’’ Commenters 

assert that without such a database, 

providers cannot be certain of the status 

of numbers not assigned to them. The 

Number Portability Administration 

Center (NPAC) and other existing 

databases do not show the details of 

provider assignment of numbers and are 

not capable of identifying reassigned 

numbers. Microsoft claims that such 

blocking, ‘‘if not supported by use of a 

100 percent reliable real-time database 

(which does not exist), could prevent 

outgoing domestic call completion for 

consumers who are assigned newlyactivated telephone numbers.’’ 

34. The record reveals that creating 

such a database would be difficult. 

Neustar comments that providers ‘‘often 

consider such information to be 

competitively sensitive.’’ In addition, 

the information changes very quickly, 

‘‘as providers are constantly assigning 

new numbers to subscribers or are deassigning numbers when a subscriber 

leaves and decides not to take advantage 

of number portability.’’ While the FTC 

encourages providers to share this 

information, providers oppose 

mandatory information sharing. CTIA 

cautions that creating a centralized 

database ‘‘is technically challenging and 

would divert resources away from 

innovative solutions.’’ 

35. The Commission concludes, 

however, that a narrowly tailored rule 

could be implemented without a 

database. Noble Systems makes a 

distinction between allowing providers 

to block calls purported to originate 

from numbers allocated to that provider, 

which the provider knows to be unused, 

and requiring providers to share 

information to block all unused 

numbers. Regarding their own numbers, 

‘‘each individual service provider 

certainly knows which telephone 

numbers it has been allocated but not 

yet assigned to subscribers.’’ As such, 

the rule permits providers to block on 

this basis. Should the industry develop 

more comprehensive information 

sources that would facilitate broader 

blocking of calls purported to originate 

from unused numbers, the rule would 

also permit that kind of blocking. 

36. Scope of Rule. The record shows 

significant obstacles to implementing a 

rule requiring all providers to pool their 

information, yet where the allocatee of 

the number in question is the only 

provider able to block calls purporting 

to originate from that number, ‘‘the 

value of the initiative would be 

significantly diminished and would 

create a disadvantage for smaller 

providers.’’ With fewer providers 

blocking each number, fewer illegal 

calls will be blocked overall. 

37. The Commission will not require 

providers to share competitively 

sensitive information on an industrywide basis, nor will it limit providers to 

blocking only unused numbers they 

have been allocated. The Commission 

therefore defines the scope of this rule 

to allow providers to block calls 

purporting to originate from an unused 

number, so long as the provider 

blocking the call either (1) is the 

allocatee of the number and has 

confirmed the number is unused, or (2) 

has verified the unused status of the 

number with the allocatee at the time of 

the blocking. This gives providers the 

flexibility to share information if they 

wish to, and the Commission 

encourages providers to do so. 

38. In addition, this is a permissive 

rule. CTIA points out that such ‘‘[a] 

voluntary regime will allow carriers that 

develop the ability to identify these 

numbers to block calls originating from 

them without forcing carriers to develop 

capabilities they do not currently 

possess.’’ 

39. Types of Used Numbers. Many 

commenters indicate that legal calls 

may be made from what appear to be 

unassigned numbers. For example, 

INCOMPAS points out that ‘‘many 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 1571 

legitimate callers do not originate calls 

on the [PSTN] and, therefore, do not 

have telephone numbers.’’ Commenters 

identify three specific kinds of 

unassigned numbers that should not be 

blocked because they are being used to 

make legal outbound calls: Intermediate 

numbers, administrative numbers, and 

proxy numbers. The Commission 

acknowledges this concern and the rule 

is clear that providers should not block 

any type of number that, although it is 

not assigned to a subscriber, is used for 

these lawful purposes. The Commission 

encourages providers to examine the 

status of their numbers before blocking 

calls that purport to originate from 

unused numbers to verify that they are 

not inadvertently blocking calls that fall 

outside the scope of this rule, which 

would risk liability for violating the call 

completion rules. 

Other Issues 

40. Emergency Calls. The Commission 

makes clear that the rules do not 

authorize the blocking of calls to 911 

under any circumstance. The 

Commission notes that the NANP itself 

contemplates certain non-standard 

numbers to facilitate emergency calling; 

the NANP, for example, ‘‘permits the 

use of ‘911’ as the [Numbering Plan 

Area code] for emergency calls from 

non-initialized mobile devices.’’ To 

make it abundantly clear, nonetheless, 

that voice providers should not block 

such calls, the Commission makes clear 

these rules do not permit the blocking 

of emergency calls except as otherwise 

expressly permitted by the 

Commission’s rules. 

41. International Calls. In the 

Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI, the 

Commission sought comment ‘‘on 

whether an internationally originated 

call purportedly originated from a 

NANP number should be subject to 

these rules, whereas an internationally 

originated call showing an international 

number would be beyond the scope of 

this rule.’’ The Commission adopts this 

proposal. The Commission agrees with 

Neustar that it should apply to 

international calls purporting to use 

NANP numbers ‘‘the same blocking 

rules applicable to domestic originated 

calls.’’ Many illegal robocalls originate 

from overseas call centers, and 

excluding such calls that purport to use 

NANP numbers from the ambit of the 

rule would create an exception that 

threatens to swallow the rule. In 

contrast, international calls from 

purported non-NANP numbers would 

not, by definition, follow the NANP 

numbering scheme and thus are beyond 

the scope of this proceeding. 

42. The Commission agrees with 

commenters that internationally 

originated calls may have lawful reasons 

to use a NANP number. VON, for 

example, suggests ‘‘a US-based user of a 

service may be traveling in Europe but 

uses their service to make Wi-Fi-based 

calls (and have their US caller ID 

shown).’’ And the Commission agrees 

with Microsoft that it must ‘‘avoid 

inadvertently authorizing international 

call blocking.’’ But the Commission 

disagrees with ZipDX’s apparent 

suggestion that some possibility of 

international call blocking means the 

Commission must abandon its efforts. 

Because the Commission authorizes 

blocking only for purported NANP 

numbers, it sees no reason why the 

actual origination point of the call 

would bear on whether it is blocked. In 

other words, the Commission finds the 

likelihood of blocking a legitimate call 

is minimal—no matter its origin. And 

the Commission reiterates that the rules 

do not authorize the blocking of any 

international call purporting to use a 

valid NANP number assigned to that 

user. 

43. Subscriber Consent. The 

Commission does not require consumer 

opt-in for providers to block the specific 

types of calls addressed herein. The 

Commission believes that no reasonable 

consumer would want to receive the 

calls the Commission has determined 

may be subject to blocking. For call 

blocking to be most effective, it must be 

applied throughout the calling network. 

An opt-in requirement would thwart 

providers’ efforts. 

44. The record shows support for 

allowing providers to block these 

specific types of spoofed calls without 

requiring consent from the subscriber. 

Some commenters emphasize the 

limited scope of calls that do not require 

consent. ITTA agrees with the 

Commission’s reasoning that ‘‘obtaining 

opt-in consent from subscribers would 

add unnecessary burdens and 

complexity, . . . may not be 

technically feasible for some providers’’ 

and ‘‘would also add unnecessary 

delays.’’ EPIC comments that ‘‘proactive 

blocking’’ would benefit consumers, 

‘‘especially those that rely on landlines, 

[who] may not have or use caller ID.’’ 

45. Consumers Union et. al. propose 

that providers should obtain consent 

from all consumers before blocking calls 

other than those purporting to originate 

from DNO numbers, but, as stated 

above, the Commission does not believe 

any reasonable consumer would want to 

receive these calls. The administrative 

burden of tracking individual opt-in 

responses would likely be a disincentive 

to blocking. 

46. While providers are not required 

to obtain subscriber consent before 

blocking these calls, the Commission 

emphasizes that the types of calls that 

can be blocked are very limited. The 

Commission agrees with the 

recommendation from the Consumer 

Advisory Committee (CAC) and 

encourages providers to inform their 

customers about the features and risks 

of their own call blocking programs. 

47. Call Completion Rates. The Strike 

Force requested that the Commission 

amend its call completion rules to 

ensure that providers can block illegal 

calls without those blocked calls being 

held against them in calculating call 

completion rates. The Commission 

agrees that providers do not need to 

count these blocked calls for purposes 

of calculating their call completion rates 

on FCC Form 480 and therefore the 

Commission interprets the rules and the 

form to not require inclusion of calls 

blocked in accordance with the rules 

adopted here. Reporting carriers may 

exclude these calls to the extent that 

they are able to identify them. 

48. The record shows significant 

support for excluding these calls from 

the call completion calculations to 

‘‘incentivize carriers to participate in 

voluntary blocking when appropriate 

and consistent with the rules.’’ 

CenturyLink comments that ‘‘[w]ithout 

this protection, carriers may be 

unwilling to use any of the tools that 

may be adopted in the proceeding and 

the consumer benefits the Commission 

hopes to achieve may not be realized.’’ 

Consumers Union et. al. agrees that ‘‘the 

calls that are blocked according to these 

guidelines should be exempt from call 

completion rates.’’ 

49. Notwithstanding this support for 

the concept of excluding blocked calls 

from call completion rate calculations, it 

might not currently be possible for all 

providers to identify blocked calls. 

Originating providers required to file 

call completion reports have no 

standard mechanism to identify calls 

that are blocked intentionally under 

these rules by downstream providers 

and distinguish them from calls that are 

not completed for other reasons. 

Further, NTCA suggests that excluding 

such calls from call completion would 

be premature ‘‘until the definitions and 

practical considerations noted above are 

addressed and standardized by industry 

and the Commission.’’ 

50. Given the inability of all providers 

who must file call completion reports to 

identify blocked calls in every instance 

and the Commission’s revisiting of the 

rural call completion requirements in a 

separate rulemaking proceeding, the 

Commission does not believe that 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
1572 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

requiring exclusion of these calls is 

appropriate at this time. The 

Commission instead simply notes that 

providers subject to the call-completion 

reporting rules may, but are not required 

to, exclude blocked calls from the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements to the extent they can 

identify such calls. 

51. CPNI Rules. In the Advanced 

Methods NPRM and NOI, the 

Commission sought comment on 

whether there are concerns about 

sharing DNO request information and 

whether any clarifications or rule 

changes could be helpful. Some 

commenters asked the Commission to 

clarify the applicability of section 222 of 

the Act, and the implementing rules, in 

order to allow sharing of robocall 

information for traceback purposes or 

sharing of a subscriber’s request to block 

an inbound-only number. 

52. USTelecom notes that ‘‘the 

sharing of CPNI by telecommunications 

providers is essential to ensuring 

accurate and thorough call traceback 

efforts in multiple providers’ networks 

related to suspicious calling events.’’ 

The Commission notes that traceback 

efforts are aimed at identifying persons 

who make illegal robocalls, including 

calls that involve fraud in violation of 

the Truth in Caller ID Act. The FTC 

comments that ‘‘information sharing by 

providers at the subscriber’s request 

appears to be consistent’’ with the CPNI 

rules. The Commission agrees. Section 

222 of the Act and the implementing 

rules explicitly allow 

telecommunications carriers to use, 

disclose, or permit access to CPNI 

obtained from its customers, either 

directly or indirectly through its agents, 

‘‘to protect the rights or property of the 

carrier, or to protect users of those 

services and other carriers from 

fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of, 

or subscription to, such services.’’ 

Furthermore, the Commission agrees 

with the FTC that when a subscriber 

requests that the carrier block calls 

purporting to be from the subscriber’s 

inbound-only number, ‘‘the subscriber 

is almost certainly seeking to have the 

number blocked by as many providers 

as possible.’’ Therefore, such a request 

should be understood as authorizing the 

carrier to share that request with other 

carriers as permitted by section 

222(c)(1) of the Act. Thus, voice service 

providers are free to share DNO requests 

as necessary to block calls in the limited 

circumstances identified in the Report 

and Order. 

53. Removing Blocks on Valid 

Numbers. A challenge mechanism may 

be needed for voice service providers 

that block calls given the small 

possibility of blocking legitimate calls. 

AARP suggested ‘‘[i]t would seem to be 

prudent to have the needed procedures 

to allow consumers to quickly 

counteract inadvertent blocking in place 

prior to the commencement of the 

general robocall blocking program.’’ The 

Commission’s Consumer Advisory 

Committee similarly states that 

providers and consumers should ‘‘work 

collaboratively to develop processes and 

solutions whereby unintended blocking 

of legitimate callers can be remedied in 

a timely and efficient manner.’’ The 

Commission encourages providers that 

block calls to establish a means for a 

caller whose number is blocked to 

contact the provider and remedy the 

problem. Specifically, the Commission 

encourages providers that block calls in 

accordance with these rules to provide 

a way for subscribers to challenge a 

blocked number using a simple method 

that is easy for the average subscriber to 

understand. The Commission also 

encourages providers to quickly resolve 

the matter so subscribers making 

legitimate calls may resume doing so 

speedily. 

54. As a reminder, the call completion 

rules require voice service providers to 

complete calls and they should 

therefore not block legitimate calls. The 

Commission also reminds callers that 

the Commission’s complaint process is 

available when calls that fall outside the 

scope of these rules are improperly 

blocked. 

55. Definition of ‘‘Illegal Robocall.’’ 

Although the Advanced Methods NPRM 

and NOI sought comment on the 

definition of ‘‘illegal robocall’’ for the 

purposes of this proceeding, the 

Commission declines to adopt a 

definition here given that none of the 

rules adopted here rely on such a 

definition. Indeed, the record shows 

confusion regarding how the proposed 

definition of ‘‘illegal robocall’’ should 

apply to the call blocking rules. Sprint 

comments that providers cannot 

determine whether a call meets the 

definition of an illegal robocall before 

blocking it, because ‘‘[u]nlike spam 

prevention in email, the content of a call 

cannot be determined before the call 

rings through to the customer’s phone.’’ 

First Orion states ‘‘the Commission 

clearly intends to give carriers the 

flexibility to prevent all illegal calls, 

regardless of the technology used.’’ 

Similarly, the FTC suggests that the 

Commission use the term ‘‘illegal call’’ 

rather than ‘‘illegal robocall,’’ because 

‘‘the problematic calls here are not 

limited to just robocalls, but also 

abusive, fraudulent, or unlawful calls 

that are ‘live.’ ’’ Because the 

Commission makes clear that providers 

need not listen to the content of calls or 

otherwise to determine whether a 

particular call is expressly illegal before 

blocking it, the Commission sees no 

reason to define the term at the present 

moment. 

Report on Robocalling 

56. To shed additional light on the 

issue of robocalling and inform the 

Commission’s actions going forward, the 

Commission directs the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, in 

consultation with the Federal Trade 

Commission’s Bureau of Consumer 

Protection, to prepare a report on the 

state of robocalling in the United States 

and to submit it to the Commission 

within one year from publication of the 

Report and Order in the Federal 

Register. This report should encompass 

both the progress made by industry, 

government, and consumers in 

combatting illegal robocalls, as well as 

the remaining challenges to continuing 

these important efforts. A focus on 

quantitative data, including, but not 

limited to, calling trends and consumer 

complaints, will provide particular 

insight into the current state of the 

robocalling problem and how to target 

additional measures to help consumers 

avoid the fraud and annoyance that they 

experience. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

57. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as 

amended, an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 

incorporated into the Advanced 

Methods NPRM and NOI. The 

Commission sought written public 

comment on the proposals in the 

Advanced Methods NPRM and NOI, 

including comment on the IRFA. The 

comments received are discussed below. 

This Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. 

Need for, and Objectives of, the Order 

58. The Report and Order takes 

another important step in combatting 

illegal robocalls by enabling voice 

service providers to block certain calls 

before they reach consumers’ phones. In 

the year since August 1, 2016, the 

Commission has received nearly 

185,000 complaints about calls that 

consumers did not want. Stopping 

illegal robocalls and the problems they 

cause has united industry, government, 

and consumer groups. Caller ID 

spoofing is often the key to making 

robocall scams work. Therefore, the 

rules outline specific, well-defined 

circumstances in which voice service 

providers may block calls that are 

highly likely to be illegitimate because 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 1573 

there is no lawful reason to spoof 

certain kinds of numbers. Specifically, 

the Report and Order adopts rules 

allowing providers to block calls from 

phone numbers on a DNO list and those 

that purport to be from invalid, 

unallocated, or unused numbers. By 

doing so, the Commission furthers its 

goal of removing regulatory roadblocks 

and gives industry the flexibility to 

block illegal calls. At the same time, the 

Commission affirms its commitment to 

protect the reliability of the nation’s 

communications network and ensure 

that provider-initiated blocking helps, 

rather than harms, consumers. A 

provider that blocks calls that do not fall 

within the scope of these rules may be 

liable for violating the Commission’s 

call completion rules. 

59. Blocking at the Request of the 

Subscriber to the Originating Number. 

In the Report and Order, the 

Commission codifies the Bureau’s 

earlier clarification that voice service 

providers may block calls purporting to 

be from a telephone number if the 

subscriber to that number requests such 

blocking in order to prevent its number 

from being spoofed. Where the 

subscriber did not consent to the 

number being used, the call was very 

likely made with the intent to defraud, 

and therefore no reasonable consumer 

would wish to receive such a call. 

60. Calls Supposedly Originating 

From Invalid Numbers. Similarly, the 

Report and Order allows providers to 

block calls purportedly originating from 

numbers that are not valid under the 

NANP. Examples of such numbers 

include those that use an unassigned 

area code; that use an abbreviated 

dialing code, such as 411, in place of an 

area code; that do not contain the 

requisite number of digits; and that are 

a single digit repeated, such as 000– 

000–0000, with the exception of 888– 

888–8888, which is an assignable 

number. No caller would spoof an 

invalid number for any lawful purpose; 

for example, unlike a business spoofing 

Caller ID on outgoing calls to show its 

main call-back number, invalid numbers 

cannot be called back. Providers, 

however, must take care that they do not 

block calls that purportedly originate 

from valid numbers, especially 

emergency calls. 

61. Calls Supposedly Originating 

From Numbers Not Allocated to Any 

Provider. The Report and Order also 

allows providers to block calls 

purportedly originating from numbers 

that are valid but have not yet been 

allocated by the NANPA or the PA to 

any provider. Though these numbers are 

valid under the North American 

Numbering Plan, the Commission finds 

that calls purporting to use unallocated 

numbers are similar to calls purporting 

to use invalid numbers in that no 

subscriber can actually originate a call 

from any of these numbers, and the 

Commission sees no lawful reason to 

spoof such numbers because they 

cannot be called back. 

62. Calls Supposedly Originating 

From Numbers That are Allocated but 

Unused. Document FCC 17–151 allows 

providers to block calls purportedly 

originating from numbers that are 

allocated to a provider by the North 

American Numbering Plan 

Administrator or Pooling Administrator, 

but are unused, so long as the provider 

blocking the calls is the allocatee of the 

number or has obtained verification 

from the allocatee that the number is 

unused at the time of the blocking. For 

these purposes, an ‘‘unused’’ number is 

a number that is not assigned to a 

subscriber or otherwise set aside for 

legitimate outbound call use. As with 

invalid numbers and unallocated 

numbers, a subscriber cannot originate a 

call from such a number, and the 

Commission foresees no lawful purpose 

for intentionally spoofing a number that 

is unused and thus cannot be called 

back. 

63. Other Issues. The Report and 

Order also clarifies that these rules do 

not permit the blocking of emergency 

calls except as otherwise expressly 

permitted by the Commission’s rules, 

that all calls purporting to originate 

from a NANP number, including 

international calls, are subject to these 

rules, and that international calls from 

purported non-NANP numbers would 

not, by definition, follow the NANP 

numbering scheme and thus are beyond 

the scope of this proceeding. It confirms 

that the Commission does not require 

consumer opt-in for providers to block 

these specific types of calls, clarifies 

that providers do not need to count 

these blocked calls for purposes of 

calculating their call completion rates, 

clarifies that voice service providers are 

free to share the CPNI necessary to block 

calls in the limited circumstances 

identified in the Report and Order, 

encourages providers to establish a 

means for a caller whose number is 

blocked to contact the provider and 

remedy the problem, and declines to 

adopt a definition of the term ‘‘illegal 

robocall’’ at the present moment. 

Summary of Significant Issues Raised by 

Public Comments in Response to the 

IRFA 

64. In the Advanced Methods NPRM 

and NOI, the Commission solicited 

comments on how to minimize the 

economic impact of the new rules on 

small businesses. The Commission 

received one comment directly 

addressing the IRFA and several 

comments addressing small business 

concerns. Two of the comments 

requested that the call blocking rules be 

permissive, rather than mandatory, 

three pertained to the administration of 

a database for unassigned numbers, and 

two addressed other issues. In addition, 

the Commission received two consumer 

comments documenting the negative 

impact of unwanted calls on small 

businesses. None of the other comments 

pointed out any areas where small 

businesses would incur a particular 

hardship in complying with the rules. 

65. Permissive Rules. Both CTIA and 

ITTA support permissive rules. CTIA 

suggests that ‘‘blocking of numbers . . . 

should be authorized, but not required.’’ 

ITTA claims that permissive rules give 

providers ‘‘flexibility in how 

aggressively they choose to block calls.’’ 

The rules the Commission adopts here 

are permissive and not mandatory. 

66. Database Administration. 

INCOMPAS, ITTA, and PACE suggest 

that a centralized database of unused 

numbers be created, and then suggest 

ways to minimize disproportionate costs 

to small businesses in using such a 

database. The Commission considered 

both the technical and cost issues 

inherent in the creations of a database 

and determined not to require one. 

Without a database, concerns about its 

administration are rendered moot. 

67. INCOMPAS requests a mechanism 

that will ‘‘spare smaller providers from 

using additional resources to prove the 

legitimacy of its call traffic to other 

providers.’’ In the Report and Order, the 

Commission allows a provider to block 

unused numbers only if the provider 

blocking the calls is the allocatee of the 

number or has obtained verification 

from the allocatee that the number is 

unused at the time of the blocking. 

Therefore, if a smaller provider does not 

give information to other providers, its 

call traffic will not be blocked. 

68. Other Issues. Commenters raise 

three other issues. First, INCOMPAS 

requests that the Commission require 

providers to put a mechanism in place 

to remove blocks on valid numbers, and 

that in doing so, ‘‘providers should be 

given discretion to adjust their policies 

according to their size and services.’’ In 

the Report and Order, the Commission 

urges, but does not require providers to 

implement such a mechanism, nor does 

the Commission provide specific 

requirements for how providers might 

remove blocks on valid numbers, 

allowing smaller providers the 

flexibility they request. Second, NTCA 

suggests that the North American 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
1574 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Numbering Council (NANC) ‘‘may be 

best positioned to help clarify practical 

requirements’’ to ‘‘to assess and mitigate 

the costs of compliance for smaller 

firms.’’ However, industry has already 

established the Robocall Strike Force 

(Strike Force), which has produced 

significant documentation clarifying the 

practical requirements for the limited 

and specific types of call blocking 

authorized in the Report and Order. 

Blocking these calls presents a very low 

risk, and NANC participation is not 

required to move forward at this time. 

Third, TNS suggests that providers be 

permitted to block unused numbers 

allocated to other providers to avoid 

creating ‘‘a disadvantage for smaller 

providers.’’ The record also shows that 

many providers view their unused 

number data as competitively sensitive 

information. In the Report and Order, 

the Commission balances these 

concerns by allowing, but not requiring, 

providers to block unused numbers 

allocated to other providers if they have 

verified the unused status of the 

number. 

Response to Comments by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration 

69. Pursuant to the Small Business 

Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the 

RFA, the Commission is required to 

respond to any comments filed by the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA), and to 

provide a detailed statement of any 

change made to the proposed rules as a 

result of those comments. The Chief 

Counsel did not file any comments in 

response to the proposed rules in this 

proceeding. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which Rules Will 

Apply 

70. 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 rules adopted herein. 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 ‘‘smallbusiness 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. 

Wireline Carriers 

71. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 

defines this industry as ‘‘establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired communications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services, wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution, and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry.’’ 

The SBA has developed a small 

business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, which 

consists of all such companies having 

1,500 or fewer employees. Census data 

for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 

firms that operated that year. Of this 

total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this size 

standard, the majority of firms in this 

industry can be considered small. 

72. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a small business size 

standard specifically for local exchange 

services. The closest applicable size 

standard under SBA rules is for the 

category Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 

defines this industry as ‘‘establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired communications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services, wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution, and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry.’’ 

Under that size standard, such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Census data for 2012 show 

that there were 3,117 firms that operated 

that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that most providers of local 

exchange service are small businesses. 

73. Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for incumbent local 

exchange services. The closest 

applicable size standard under SBA 

rules is for the category Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. 

Census Bureau defines this industry as 

‘‘establishments primarily engaged in 

operating and/or providing access to 

transmission facilities and infrastructure 

that they own and/or lease for the 

transmission of voice, data, text, sound, 

and video using wired communications 

networks. Transmission facilities may 

be based on a single technology or a 

combination of technologies. 

Establishments in this industry use the 

wired telecommunications network 

facilities that they operate to provide a 

variety of services, such as wired 

telephony services, including VoIP 

services, wired (cable) audio and video 

programming distribution, and wired 

broadband internet services. By 

exception, establishments providing 

satellite television distribution services 

using facilities and infrastructure that 

they operate are included in this 

industry.’’ Under that size standard, 

such a business is small if it has 1,500 

or fewer employees. Census data for 

2012 show that there were 3,117 firms 

that operated that year. Of this total, 

3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of incumbent local exchange 

service are small businesses. 

74. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers (Competitive LECs), 

Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), 

Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and 

Other Local Service Providers. Neither 

the Commission nor the SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for these service 

providers. The appropriate size standard 

under SBA rules is for the category 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 

The U.S. Census Bureau defines this 

industry as ‘‘establishments primarily 

engaged in operating and/or providing 

access to transmission facilities and 

infrastructure that they own and/or 

lease for the transmission of voice, data, 

text, sound, and video using wired 

communications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 1575 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services, wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution, and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry.’’ 

Under that size standard, such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Census data for 2012 show 

that there were 3,117 firms that operated 

that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that most providers of 

competitive local exchange service, 

competitive access providers, sharedtenant service providers, and other local 

service providers are small entities. 

75. The Commission has included 

small incumbent LECs in this present 

RFA analysis. As noted above, a ‘‘small 

business’’ under the RFA is one that, 

inter alia, meets the pertinent small 

business size standard (e.g., a telephone 

communications business having 1,500 

or fewer employees), and ‘‘is not 

dominant in its field of operation.’’ The 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that, 

for RFA purposes, small incumbent 

LECs are not dominant in their field of 

operation because any such dominance 

is not ‘‘national’’ in scope. The 

Commission has therefore included 

small incumbent LECs in this RFA 

analysis, although it emphasizes that 

this RFA action has no effect on 

Commission analyses and 

determinations in other, non-RFA 

contexts. 

76. Interexchange Carriers. Neither 

the Commission nor the SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for providers of 

interexchange services. The appropriate 

size standard under SBA rules is for the 

category Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 

defines this industry as ‘‘establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired communications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services, wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution, and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry.’’ 

Under that size standard, such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Census data for 2012 show 

that there were 3,117 firms that operated 

that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of 

interexchange carriers are small entities. 

77. Cable System Operators (Telecom 

Act Standard). The Communications 

Act also contains a size standard for 

small cable system operators, which is 

‘‘a cable operator that, directly or 

through an affiliate, serves in the 

aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all 

subscribers in the United States and is 

not affiliated with any entity or entities 

whose gross annual revenues in the 

aggregate exceed $250,000,000.’’ There 

are approximately 52,403,705 cable 

video subscribers in the United States 

today. Accordingly, an operator serving 

fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be 

deemed a small operator if its annual 

revenues, when combined with the total 

annual revenues of all its affiliates, do 

not exceed $250 million in the 

aggregate. Based on available data, the 

Commission finds that all but nine 

incumbent cable operators are small 

entities under this size standard. Note 

that the Commission neither requests 

nor collects information on whether 

cable system operators are affiliated 

with entities whose gross annual 

revenues exceed $250 million. Although 

it seems certain that some of these cable 

system operators are affiliated with 

entities whose gross annual revenues 

exceed $250 million, the Commission is 

unable at this time to estimate with 

greater precision the number of cable 

system operators that would qualify as 

small cable operators under the 

definition in the Communications Act. 

78. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a size standard for small businesses 

specifically applicable to other toll 

carriers. This category includes toll 

carriers that do not fall within the 

categories of interexchange carriers, 

operator service providers, prepaid 

calling card providers, satellite service 

carriers, or toll resellers. The closest 

applicable size standard under SBA 

rules is for Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 

defines this industry as ‘‘establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired communications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services, wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution, and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry.’’ 

Under that size standard, such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Census data for 2012 show 

that there were 3,117 firms that operated 

that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, 

under this category and the associated 

small business size standard, the 

majority of other toll carriers can be 

considered small. 

Wireless Carriers 

79. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, 

the Census Bureau has placed wireless 

firms within this new, broad, economic 

census category. Under the present and 

prior categories, the SBA has deemed a 

wireless business to be small if it has 

1,500 or fewer employees. For the 

category of Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite), Census data for 2012 show 

that there were 967 firms that operated 

for the entire year. Of this total, 955 

firms had fewer than 1,000 employees. 

Thus, under this category and the 

associated size standard, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of wireless telecommunications carriers 

(except satellite) are small entities. 

Similarly, according to internally 

developed Commission data, 413 

carriers reported that they were engaged 

in the provision of wireless telephony, 

including cellular service, Personal 

Communications Service (PCS), and 

Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 

services. Of this total, an estimated 261 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. Thus, 

using available data, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of wireless 

firms can be considered small. 

80. Satellite Telecommunications 

Providers. The category of Satellite 

Telecommunications ‘‘comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

providing telecommunications services 

to other establishments in the 

telecommunications and broadcasting 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
1576 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

industries by forwarding and receiving 

communications signals via a system of 

satellites or reselling satellite 

telecommunications.’’ This category has 

a small business size standard of $32.5 

million or less in average annual 

receipts, under SBA rules. For this 

category, Census Bureau data for 2012 

show that there were a total of 333 firms 

that operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 299 firms had annual receipts of 

under $25 million. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of satellite telecommunications firms 

are small entities. 

81. All Other Telecommunications. 

All other telecommunications comprise, 

inter alia, ‘‘establishments primarily 

engaged in providing specialized 

telecommunications services, such as 

satellite tracking, communications 

telemetry, and radar station operation. 

This industry also includes 

establishments primarily engaged in 

providing satellite terminal stations and 

associated facilities connected with one 

or more terrestrial systems and capable 

of transmitting telecommunications to, 

and receiving telecommunications from, 

satellite systems. Establishments 

providing internet services or voice over 

internet protocol (VoIP) services via 

client-supplied telecommunications 

connections are also included in this 

industry.’’ The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for the 

category of All Other 

Telecommunications. Under that size 

standard, such a business is small if it 

has $32.5 million in annual receipts. For 

this category, Census Bureau data for 

2012 show that there were a total of 

1,442 firms that operated for the entire 

year. Of this total, 1,400 had annual 

receipts below $25 million per year. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of all other 

telecommunications firms are small 

entities. 

Resellers 

82. Toll Resellers. The Commission 

has not developed a definition for toll 

resellers. The closest NAICS Code 

Category is Telecommunications 

Resellers. The Telecommunications 

Resellers industry comprises 

establishments engaged in purchasing 

access and network capacity from 

owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. Mobile virtual network 

operators (MVNOs) are included in this 

industry. The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for the 

category of Telecommunications 

Resellers. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. Census data for 2012 

show that 1,341 firms provided resale 

services during that year. Of that 

number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

these resellers can be considered small 

entities. According to Commission data, 

881 carriers have reported that they are 

engaged in the provision of toll resale 

services. Of this total, an estimated 857 

have 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of toll 

resellers are small entities. 

83. Local Resellers. The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for the category of 

Telecommunications Resellers. The 

Telecommunications Resellers industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

purchasing access and network capacity 

from owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. Mobile virtual network 

operators (MVNOs) are included in this 

industry. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. Census data for 2012 

show that 1,341 firms provided resale 

services during that year. Of that 

number, all operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

these local resellers can be considered 

small entities. 

84. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. 

The SBA has developed a small 

business size standard for the category 

of Telecommunications Resellers. The 

Telecommunications Resellers industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

purchasing access and network capacity 

from owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. Mobile virtual network 

operators (MVNOs) are included in this 

industry. Under that size standard, such 

a business is small if it has 1,500 or 

fewer employees. Census data for 2012 

show that 1,341 firms provided resale 

services during that year. Of that 

number, all operated with fewer than 

1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

category and the associated small 

business size standard, the majority of 

these prepaid calling card providers can 

be considered small entities. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

85. The Report and Order gives voice 

service providers the option of blocking 

illegal robocalls in certain, well-defined 

circumstances. These changes affect 

small and large companies equally, and 

apply equally to all of the classes of 

regulated entities identified above. 

86. Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements. The Report and Order 

clarifies the call completion rules by 

allowing, but not requiring, voice 

service providers to exclude calls 

blocked under these new rules from 

their call completion calculations, to the 

extent that they are aware of which calls 

are blocked. To do so, voice service 

providers that choose to exclude such 

calls may modify their current reporting 

and recordkeeping procedures already 

in place for performing their call 

completion calculations on existing FCC 

Form 480. This is a minor modification 

to an existing process, so the 

Commission anticipates that the impact 

will be minimal. 

87. Other Compliance Requirements. 

Voice service providers will be 

permitted, but not required, to block 

calls purportedly originating from (1) a 

telephone number if the subscriber to 

that number requests such blocking in 

order to prevent its number from being 

spoofed; (2) numbers that purport to be 

NANP numbers but are not valid under 

the NANP; (3) numbers that are valid 

but have not yet been allocated by the 

NANPA or the PA to any provider; (4) 

numbers that are allocated to a provider 

by the NANPA or PA, but are unused, 

so long as the provider blocking the 

calls is the allocatee of the number and 

or has obtained verification from the 

allocatee that the number is unused at 

the time of the blocking. 

Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

88. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 1577 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

89. The Commission considered 

feedback from the Advanced Methods 

NPRM and NOI in crafting the final 

order. The Commission evaluated the 

comments in light of balancing the goal 

of removing regulatory roadblocks and 

giving industry the flexibility to block 

illegal calls with its commitment to 

protect the reliability of the nation’s 

communications network. Small 

businesses supported the proposal to 

make the call blocking rules permissive 

rather than mandatory. While the 

Commission considered mandatory 

rules, it both proposed and 

implemented permissive rules to 

address the concerns of voice service 

providers, including small businesses, 

that the cost and burden of complying 

with mandatory rules could be 

significant and might require 

implementation of new technology. The 

Commission also took small business 

concerns into consideration in its 

determination to not require a database 

of unused numbers. While the 

Commission considered mandating the 

use of a database for providers that 

choose to block unused numbers, such 

a database could impose 

disproportionate costs on small 

businesses and would be challenging to 

create and maintain. Similarly, the 

Commission considered the needs of 

small businesses in its guidance 

regarding removing blocks from valid 

numbers. While the Commission 

considered requiring specific processes 

or dedicated resources, it does not 

mandate them at this time to allow 

small providers to scale their efforts in 

accordance with their businesses and to 

develop a more robust record on the 

issue before the Commission addresses 

this in a future proceeding. 

90. The Commission does not see a 

need to establish a special timetable for 

small entities to reach compliance with 

the modification to the rules. No small 

business has asked for a delay in 

implementing the rules. Small 

businesses may avoid compliance costs 

entirely by declining to block robocalls, 

or may delay implementation of call 

blocking indefinitely to allow for more 

time to come into compliance with the 

rules. Similarly, there are no design 

standards or performance standards to 

consider in this rulemaking. 

Report to Congress 

91. The Commission sent a copy of 

the Report and Order, including the 

FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress 

and the Government Accountability 

Office pursuant to the Congressional 

Review Act. 

Ordering Clauses 

92. Pursuant to sections 201, 202, 222, 

251(e), and 403 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 

202, 222, 251(e), 403, the Report and 

Order is adopted and that part 64 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 64.1200, is 

amended. 

93. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

the Report and Order to Congress and 

the Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

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

94. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

the Report and Order, including the 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 

Telecommunications, Telephone. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the 

Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends part 64 as follows: 

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 64 is 

amended to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 202, 225, 251(e), 

254(k), 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, Pub. L. 

104–104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 

U.S.C. 201, 202, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 

251(e), 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class 

Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. 

L. 112–96, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. In § 64.1200, add reserved 

paragraphs (i) and (j) and paragraph (k) 

to read as follows: 

§ 64.1200 Delivery restrictions. 

* * * * * 

(i) [Reserved] 

(j) [Reserved] 

(k) Voice service providers may block 

calls so that they do not reach a called 

party as follows: 

(1) A provider may block a voice call 

when the subscriber to which the 

originating number is assigned has 

requested that calls purporting to 

originate from that number be blocked 

because the number is used for inbound 

calls only. 

(2) A provider may block a voice call 

purporting to originate from any of the 

following: 

(i) A North American Numbering Plan 

number that is not valid; 

(ii) A valid North American 

Numbering Plan number that is not 

allocated to a provider by the North 

American Numbering Plan 

Administrator or the Pooling 

Administrator; and 

(iii) A valid North American 

Numbering Plan number that is 

allocated to a provider by the North 

American Numbering Plan 

Administrator or Pooling Administrator, 

but is unused, so long as the provider 

blocking the calls is the allocatee of the 

number and confirms that the number is 

unused or has obtained verification 

from the allocatee that the number is 

unused at the time of the blocking. 

(3) A provider may not block a voice 

call under paragraph (k)(1) or (2) of this 

section if the call is an emergency call 

placed to 911. 

(4) For purposes of this subsection, a 

provider may rely on Caller ID 

information to determine the purported 

originating number without regard to 

whether the call in fact originated from 

that number. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00457 Filed 1–11–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 90 

[PS Docket No. 13–87; PS Docket No. 06– 

229, WT Docket No. 96–86, RM–11433 and 

RM–11577, FCC 14–172] 

Service Rules Governing Narrowband 

Operations in the 769–775/799–805 

MHz Bands 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission announces that the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved, for a period of three years, the 

information collection associated with 

the Service Rules Governing 

Narrowband Operations in the 769–775/ 

799–805 MHz Bands, FCC 14–172. This 

document is consistent with the Report 

and Order, which stated that the 

Commission would publish a document 

in the Federal Register announcing the 

effective date of the rules. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES