[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 10, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35406-35411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10896]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[EB Docket No. 20-22; FCC 20-34]
Implementing the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal
Enforcement and Deterrence Act
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission invites comment on what
action the Commission should take, pursuant to the Pallone-Thune
Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED)
Act, if the registered consortium contemplated by the TRACED Act
identifies a provider of voice service subject to a delay of compliance
with the STIR/SHAKEN implementation mandate as repeatedly originating
large-scale unlawful robocall campaigns.
DATES: Comments are due on or before July 10, 2020 and reply comments
are due on or before July 27, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by EB Docket No. 20-22,
by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[Igr]f FCC Headquarters is open to the public, all hand-
delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's
Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW,
Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands
or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
U.S. Postal Service first class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Mason Shefa of the Competition Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau, at [email protected] or (202) 418-2962.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 20-34, EB Docket No. 20-22,
adopted on March 27, 2020 and released on March 27, 2020. The full text
of this document is available for public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room
CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, or online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-34A1.pdf. To request this document in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (e.g., Braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format, etc.) or to request reasonable
accommodations (e.g., accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.), send an email to [email protected] or call the
FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Synopsis
I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice),
the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) invites comment on
the interpretation and implementation of section 4(b)(5)(C)(ii) and
(iii) of the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal
Enforcement Act (TRACED Act). The TRACED Act mandates the widespread
implementation of STIR/SHAKEN, a technology that enables voice service
providers to verify that the caller ID information transmitted with a
particular call matches the caller's number, but also contemplates that
some voice service providers facing barriers to implementation may be
granted a delay of compliance. To keep such providers from becoming new
sources of unlawful robocalls, the TRACED Act requires the Commission
to take action if the registered consortium identifies a provider of
voice service that is subject to a delay of compliance as repeatedly
originating large-scale unlawful robocall campaigns.
2. By what standard should the consortium identify voice service
providers that are originating unlawful robocall campaigns, and how
should the consortium assess whether a campaign is ``large-scale''?
What does ``unlawful robocall campaigns'' mean? The TRACED Act defines
``suspected unlawful robocall'' as calls that the Commission or a voice
service provider reasonably believes to violate sections 227(b) or (e)
of the Communications Act. Is the term ``unlawful robocall'' in section
4(b)(5)(C) of the TRACED Act narrower than ``suspected unlawful
robocall,'' in section 13 of the TRACED Act, and if so, what level of
certainty does it require? At what point would a series of unlawful
calls become a ``campaign''? Does ``campaign'' suggest a pattern of
calls that appear to be coordinated? How should the consortium assess
whether a campaign is ``large-scale''? Should ``large-scale'' refer
only to call volume, or does it account for other factors such as
burden on networks?
3. Once a provider has been identified by the registered
consortium, the Commission must require the provider to take action to
ensure that such provider does not continue to originate such calls and
make reasonable efforts to minimize the burden of any such robocall
mitigation, which may include prescribing certain specific robocall
mitigation practices for providers of voice service that have
repeatedly originated large-scale unlawful robocall campaigns.
4. What action or actions should we require of identified providers
to ensure they do not continue to originate unlawful robocalls? Should
we prescribe specific robocall mitigation practices, and if so, what
practices should we prescribe? Should we require an identified provider
to submit to close monitoring of its practices? Should we, the
registered consortium, or some
[[Page 35407]]
independent third party monitor these practices? Should we require the
identified provider to submit a compliance plan and periodic reports on
its efforts to conform to that plan? Should we propose that an
identified provider make a point of contact available to the
Commission, the consortium, and others and to respond to concerns
within a specified period of time, such as 14 days? Should we require
an identified provider to implement know-your-customer obligations--and
report the contact information for each of its customers to the
registered consortium or the Commission? Should we require identified
providers to implement internal measures to monitor the traffic
transiting their networks to ensure that it is consistent with
legitimate voice traffic and to act in response to aberrant patterns?
What are the benefits and drawbacks of these approaches?
5. Finally, as required by the TRACED Act, how can we ensure that
any robocall mitigation requirements are not overly burdensome, but
achieve the goal of mitigating robocalls originated by voice service
providers identified as originating large-scale unlawful robocall
campaigns? Should we prescribe specific robocall mitigation practices
for the identified providers? Do commenters have other suggestions for
how we should address voice service providers who are identified as
originating unlawful robocall campaigns? We emphasize that we will
continue to take enforcement action against perpetrators of unlawful
robocall campaigns.
II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
6. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the RFA,
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of
the policies and rules addressed in the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Further Notice). Written public comments are requested on
the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the
Further Notice indicated on the first page of this document and must
have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to
the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
7. The Further Notice continues the Commission's efforts to combat
illegal spoofed robocalls and fulfill its obligations under the TRACED
Act. In the Further Notice, the Commission poses questions and issues
for commenters to address which will shape the final rules adopted in
this proceeding. More specifically, pursuant to its obligations in
section 4(b)(5)(C)(ii) of the TRACED Act, the Commission seeks input on
standards and on how to guide a consortium's identification of voice
service providers that ``repeatedly originat[e] large-scale unlawful
robocall campaigns.'' The Commission also seeks input on what actions
we should take once such providers are identified, whether to adopt
robocall mitigation practices, what type and whether or not to require
compliance plans and whether and what type of reporting obligations
should be implemented. Finally, as required by the TRACED Act, the
Commission inquires how it can ensure that any robocall mitigation
requirements that are adopted are not overly burdensome while
simultaneously mitigating robocalls originated by voice service
providers identified as originating large-scale unlawful robocall
campaigns.
Legal Basis
8. The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 4(j),
227, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 154(1), 154(j), 227, and 303(r), and section 4(b)(5)(C) of the
Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and
Deterrence Act, Public Law 116-105, 133 Stat. 3274.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
9. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules on which the Notice seeks comment, if
adopted. The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having
the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition,
the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small-
business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A ``small-business
concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the SBA.
Wireline Carriers
10. 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. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show
that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total,
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered
small.
11. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS
Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under the
applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 3,117
firms operated for the entire year. Of that total, 3,083 operated with
fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus under this category and the associated
size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of local
exchange carriers are small entities.
12. Incumbent LECs. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small-business size standard specifically for incumbent
local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under the applicable SBA size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicates that 3,117 firms operated
the entire year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000
employees. Consequently, the
[[Page 35408]]
Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange
service are small businesses that may be affected by our actions.
According to Commission data, 1,307 Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers
reported that they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of
this total, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Thus,
using the SBA's size standard, the majority of incumbent LECs can be
considered small entities.
13. 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 most appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that year. Of that
number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Based on these
data, the Commission concludes that the majority of Competitive LECS,
CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service
Providers are small entities. According to Commission data, 1,442
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either
competitive local exchange services or competitive access provider
services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or
fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that they are
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500
or fewer employees. Additionally, 72 carriers have reported that they
are Other Local Service Providers. Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or
fewer employees. Consequently, based on internally researched FCC data,
the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local
exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities.
14. We have 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. We have therefore included
small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that
this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations
in other, non-RFA contexts.
15. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a definition for Interexchange Carriers. The closest
NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The
applicable size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for
2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated for the entire year. Of that
number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. According to
internally developed Commission data, 359 companies reported that their
primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of
interexchange services. Of this total, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or
fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the
majority of interexchange service providers are small entities.
16. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that,
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than
one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in
the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' As of 2018, there were
approximately 50,504,624 cable video subscribers in the United States.
Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 505,046 subscribers shall
be deemed a small operator if its annual revenues, when combined with
the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250
million in the aggregate. Based on available data, we find that all but
six incumbent cable operators are small entities under this size
standard. We 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. Therefore, we
are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number
of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators
under the definition in the Communications Act.
17. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission
has also developed its own small business size standards, for the
purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a
``small cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers
nationwide. Industry data indicate that there are 4,600 active cable
systems in the United States. Of this total, all but seven cable
operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber size
standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a
``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.
Commission records show 4,600 cable systems nationwide. Of this total,
3,900 cable systems have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems
have 15,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records. Thus, under
this standard as well, we estimate that most cable systems are small
entities.
Wireless Carriers
18. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment
of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or
more. Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications
carriers (except satellite) are small entities.
19. The Commission's own data--available in its Universal Licensing
System--indicate that, as of August 31, 2018, there are 265 Cellular
licensees that will be affected by our actions today. The Commission
does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission
does not collect that information for these types of entities.
Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless
telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service
(PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of this
total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have
more than 1,500 employees. Thus, using available
[[Page 35409]]
data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered
small.
20. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth
station operators. The category has a small business size standard of
$32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For
this category, U.S. 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 less than $25 million. Consequently,
we estimate that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers
are small entities.
Resellers
21. Local Resellers. The SBA has not developed a small business
size standard specifically for Local Resellers. The SBA category of
Telecommunications Resellers is the closest NAICs code category for
local resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises
establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from
owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired
and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to
businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell
telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included
in this industry. Under the SBA's size standard, such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for
2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year.
Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus,
under this category and the associated small-business size standard,
the majority of these resellers can be considered small entities.
According to Commission data, 213 carriers have reported that they are
engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these, an
estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority of Local Resellers are small
entities.
22. 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. U.S. Census Bureau 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.
23. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business definition specifically for prepaid
calling card providers. The most appropriate NAICS code-based category
for defining prepaid calling card providers is Telecommunications
Resellers. This 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. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms
provided resale services during that year. Of that number, all operated
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the
associated small business size standard, the majority of these prepaid
calling card providers can be considered small entities. According to
Commission data, 193 carriers have reported that they are engaged in
the provision of prepaid calling cards. All 193 carriers have 1,500 or
fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the
majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may
be affected by these rules.
24. 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. U.S. Census Bureau 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.
Other Entities
25. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other
Telecommunications'' category is comprised of establishments primarily
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as
satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station
operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged
in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of
transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications
from, satellite systems. Establishments providing internet services or
voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The
SBA has developed a small-business size standard for All Other
Telecommunications, which consists of all such firms with annual
receipts of $35 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau
data for 2012 shows that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the
entire year. Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual
[[Page 35410]]
receipts less than $25 million and 42 firms had annual receipts of $25
million to $49,999,999. Thus, the Commission estimates that the
majority of ``All Other Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected
by our action can be considered small.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
26. New or additional reporting, recordkeeping and/or other
compliance obligations for small entities and other providers may
result from the rules the Commission ultimately adopts in this
proceeding. The TRACED Act mandates widespread implementation of STIR/
SHAKEN, a technology that enables voice service providers to verify
that the caller ID information transmitted with a particular call
matches the caller's number, but also contemplates that some voice
service providers facing barriers to implementation may be granted a
delay of compliance. The TRACED Act requires the Commission to take
action if the registered consortium identifies a provider of voice
service that is subject to a delay of compliance as repeatedly
originating large-scale unlawful robocall campaigns. Once a provider is
so identified, the Commission must require such a provider to take
action to ensure that such provider does not continue to originate such
calls and make reasonable efforts to minimize the burden of any
robocall mitigation. . . . which may include prescribing certain
specific robocall mitigation practices for providers of voice service
that have repeatedly originated large-scale unlawful robocall
campaigns. One of the potential practices we raise and seek comment on
in the Further Notice to fulfill these obligations would require voice
service providers that the registered consortium identifies as
originating large-scale unlawful robocall campaigns to submit a
compliance plan and file periodic reports on its efforts to conform to
that plan to ensure that these providers do not continue to originate
such calls. Another potential practice would require identified voice
service providers to implement know-your-customer obligations and
report the contact information for each of its customers to the
registered consortium or the Commission. The Further Notice also seeks
comment on adopting a requirement for identified providers to implement
internal measures to monitor the traffic transiting their networks to
ensure that it is consistent with legitimate voice traffic and to act
in response to aberrant patterns.
27. If the Commission were to move forward with these potential
requirements, certain voice service providers would have new reporting,
recordkeeping, and compliance requirements. At this time however, the
Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance with these potential
rule changes and compliance obligations for small entities and is not
currently in a position to determine whether small entities will need
to hire attorneys, engineers, consultants, or other professionals in
order to comply. We expect the information we receive in comments
including any cost and benefit analyses, to help the Commission
identify and evaluate relevant matters for small entities, including
compliance costs and other burdens that may result from the matters
raised in the Further Notice.
Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
28. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.
29. Pursuant to the requirements of the TRACED Act, the Commission
is obligated to minimize burdens for small entities and other voice
service providers associated with any robocall mitigation processes and
procedures the Commission adopts. In the Further Notice we raise
questions on the approach the Commission should take to address
robocall mitigation such as should we prescribe specific robocall
mitigation practices, and if so, what practices should we prescribe?
Should we require the identified provider to submit a compliance plan
and periodic reports on its efforts to conform to that plan? Should we
propose that an identified provider make a point of contact available
to the Commission, the consortium, and others and to respond to
concerns within a specified period of time, such as 14 days? We seek
comment on these matters, including the benefits and drawbacks of our
approach. We also seek comment on how identified voice service
providers will be impacted and welcome proposals on how to lessen that
impact. In reaching our final conclusions and promulgating rules in
this proceeding, the Commission expects to more fully consider the
economic impact and any alternatives for small entities, as identified
in comments filed in response to the Further Notice.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
30. None.
III. Other Procedural Matters
31. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-
but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's
written comments, memoranda, or other filing in the proceeding, the
presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her
prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant
page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be
found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown
or given to Commission staff during ex parte meeting are deemed to be
written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with
section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by
section 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for which the Commission
has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable.pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize
[[Page 35411]]
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
32. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis of 1995. The Further
Notice contains proposed new information collection requirements. The
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements
contained in this document, as required by the paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees.
IV. Ordering Clauses
33. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j),
227, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 154(1), 154(j), 227, and 303(r), and section 4(b)(5)(C) of the
Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and
Deterrence Act, Public Law 116-105, 133 Stat. 3274, that this Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
34. It is further ordered, that a copy this Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA), SHALL be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA), and published in the Federal
Register.
Federal Communications Commission.
Cecilia Sigmund,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-10896 Filed 6-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P