[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