Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/03/22/2010-6095/telephone-consumer-protection
Timestamp: 2017-06-27 17:22:23
Document Index: 522989601

Matched Legal Cases: ['ART 64', '§\u20091', '§\u200964', '§\u200964', '§\u200964', 'arts 64', 'ART 64', 'art 64', '§\u200964', '§\u200964', '§\u200964']

:: Telephone Consumer Protection
A Proposed Rule by the Federal Communications Commission on 03/22/2010
13471-13482
PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS Subpart L—Restrictions on Telemarketing, Telephone Solicitation, and Facsimile Advertising
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2010-6095
Document FCC 10-18 contains proposed information collection requirements subject to the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, it contains a 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, Start Printed Page 13472Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(4).
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
A copy of document FCC 10-18 and any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270. Document FCC 10-18 and any subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at their Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com, or call (800) 378-3160. A copy of document FCC 10-18 and any subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be found by searching the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) at http://www.fcc.gov.cgb/​ecfs (insert CG Docket No. 02-278 into the Proceeding block).
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Document FCC 10-18 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/​cgb/​policy.
Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The authorizing statute for this information collection is found in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), Public Law 102-243, 105 Statute 2394 (1991), which added Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934, [47 U.S.C. 227] Restrictions on the Use of Telephone Equipment.
Privacy Impact Assessment: Yes. The Privacy Impact Assessment was completed on June 28, 2007. It may be reviewed at http://www.fcc.gov/​omd/​privacyact/​privacy_​impact_​assessment.html. The Commission is in the process of updating the PIA to incorporate various revisions to it as a result of revisions to the system of records notice (SORN).
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Confidentiality is an issue to the extent Start Printed Page 13473that individuals and households provide personally identifiable information, which is covered by the FCC's SORN, FCC/CGB-1, “Informal Complaints and Inquiries.” As required by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Commission also published SORN, FCC/CGB1, “Informal Complaints and Inquiries,” in the Federal Register on December 15, 2009 (74 FR 66356), which became effective on January 25, 2010. A system of records for the do-not-call registry was created by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under the Privacy Act. The FTC published a notice in the Federal Register describing the system. See 68 FR 37494, June 24, 2003.
Needs and Uses: On July 3, 2003, the Commission released the Rules and Regulations Implementing the TCPA of 1991, Report and Order (2003 TCPA Order), CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 03-153, published at 68 FR 44144, July 25, 2003, revising the TCPA rules, and adopted new rules to provide consumers with several options for avoiding unwanted telephone solicitations. These new rules established a national do-not-call registry, set a maximum rate on the number of abandoned calls, required telemarketers to transmit caller ID information, and modified the Commission's unsolicited facsimile advertising requirements. On January 22, 2010, the Commission released the Rules and Regulations Implementing the TCPA of 1991, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 10-18 seeking comment on proposed revisions to its rules under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) that would harmonize those rules with the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) recently amended Telemarketing Sales Rule. The Commission anticipates that proposed revisions to §§ 64.1200(a)(1) and 64.1200(a)(2) of the Commission's TCPA rules would contain new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed revisions would require sellers and telemarketers, when obtaining telephone subscribers' prior express consent to receive prerecorded telemarketing calls, to obtain such prior express consent in writing (including electronic methods of consent).
3. The FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule. Under the Telemarketing Sales Rule, as amended, prior express consent to receive prerecorded telemarketing calls must be in writing. The written agreement must be signed by the consumer and must be sufficient to show that he or she: (1) Received “clear and conspicuous disclosure” of the consequences of providing the requested consent—i.e., that the consumer will receive future calls that deliver prerecorded messages by or on behalf of a specific seller—and (2) having received this information, agrees unambiguously to receive such calls at a telephone number the consumer designates. In addition, the written agreement must be obtained “without requiring, directly or indirectly, that the agreement be executed as a condition of purchasing any good or service.” The FTC has determined that written agreements obtained in compliance with the E-SIGN Act will satisfy the requirements of its rule, such as, for example, agreements obtained via an e-mail or Web site form, telephone keypress, or voice recording. Finally, under the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the seller bears the burden of proving that a clear and conspicuous disclosure was provided, and that an unambiguous consent was obtained.
4. Consistent with Congress's directive in the Do Not Call Improvement Act of 2007 (DNCIA) to “maximize consistency” of the Commission's TCPA rules with the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should revise §§ 64.1200(a)(1) and 64.1200(a)(2) of its rules to provide that, for all calls, prior express consent to receive prerecorded telemarketing messages must be obtained in writing. The Commission seeks comment on these proposed revisions and specific related issues in the discussion that follows.
5. As an initial matter, the Commission seeks comment on its authority to adopt a prior written consent requirement similar to the FTC's. Specifically, while the term “prior express consent” appears in both subsections 227(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, the statute is silent regarding the precise form of such Start Printed Page 13474consent (i.e., oral or written). Certain statements in the legislative history, however, suggest that Congress may have contemplated that consent may be obtained orally or in writing.
7. As noted above, when written consent is required under the Commission's current rules (because the called party's number is listed on the national do-not-call registry), the seller or telemarketer must obtain a signed, written agreement between the subscriber and seller stating that the subscriber agrees to be contacted by that seller and including the telephone number to which the calls may be placed. If the Commission were to adopt a written consent requirement for placing prerecorded telemarketing calls to unregistered subscribers, it seeks comment on whether it also should adapt existing § 64.1200(c)(2)(ii) of its rules (governing the content of written consent agreements) to apply specifically to prerecorded telemarketing calls, as the FTC has done in its Telemarketing Sales Rule. The Commission tentatively concludes that requiring a written agreement evidencing consent to receive prerecorded messages in particular, such as that required by the FTC, may help to ensure that consumers are adequately apprised of the specific nature of the consent that is being requested and, in particular, of the fact that they will receive prerecorded message calls as a consequence of their agreement.
12. The FCC's TCPA Rules. The TCPA prohibits the use of artificial or prerecorded messages in telephone calls to residential (wireline) numbers without the prior express consent of the called party, but permits the Commission to exempt from this provision calls that are non-commercial and commercial calls that “do not adversely affect the privacy rights of the called party” and that do not transmit an “unsolicited advertisement.” The TCPA does not explicitly exempt from the prohibition on artificial and prerecorded message calls those from a party with whom the subscriber has an established business relationship. Nevertheless, in Start Printed Page 134751992, the Commission determined to create such an exemption, based on its authority under the TCPA to exempt commercial calls that “do not adversely affect residential subscriber privacy interests.” The Commission concluded, based upon “the comments received and the legislative history,” that a solicitation to someone with whom a prior business relationship exists does not adversely affect subscriber privacy interests. It further concluded that such a solicitation can be “deemed to be invited or permitted” by a subscriber in light of the business relationship. Finally, noting that the legislative history indicates that the TCPA “does not intend to unduly interfere with ongoing business relationships,” the Commission stated that “requiring actual consent to prerecorded message calls where [established business] relationships exist could significantly impede communications between businesses and their customers.”
17. In the 1992 rulemaking, the Commission also expressed the concern that “requiring actual consent to prerecorded message calls where [established business] relationships exist could significantly impede communications between businesses and their customers” and, as such, might be at odds with statements in the legislative history indicating Congress's desire not to “unduly interfere with ongoing business relationships.” The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which authorization to receive Start Printed Page 13476prerecorded message calls based on prior written or oral consent (rather than on the basis of an established business relationship) would in fact “unduly interfere with ongoing business relationships” or “impede communications” between businesses and their customers. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether technological advances, such as the use of one or more methods available under the E-SIGN Act for establishing a consumer's prior express written consent to receive prerecorded telemarketing calls, have minimized the burden associated with obtaining the express consent of established business customers (e.g., instructing an established customer during a live telephone solicitation to use a keypress feature to request future prerecorded message calls).
22. On the basis of information presented in the record of the FTC's rulemaking proceeding on healthcare-related prerecorded message calls made by, or on behalf of, a covered entity or its business associate, as those terms are defined in the HIPAA Privacy Rule, the Commission seeks comment on whether it likewise should exempt such calls from the general prohibition on prerecorded message calls to residential lines under the TCPA. If so, it seeks comment on the Commission's authority to exempt these calls either under section 227(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Communications Act (calls that are not made for a commercial purpose), or under section 227(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Communications Act (commercial calls that do not adversely affect the privacy rights of the called party and that do not transmit an unsolicited advertisement). In addition, it notes that, with limited exception, HIPAA requires that a “covered entity” obtain an individual's written authorization before using protected health information (including the individual's name and telephone number) for marketing purposes. As a practical matter, this HIPAA restriction (in conjunction with other HIPAA provisions) would appear to preclude or limit the delivery of prerecorded telemarketing calls placed by a “covered entity” or its “business associate” to individuals with whom the covered entity or business associate has no pre-existing relationship (i.e., “cold calling” of consumers). The Commission seeks comment on this aspect of the HIPAA requirements, on the relative frequency and volume of healthcare-related prerecorded telemarketing calls placed to individuals by entities that do not have a pre-existing relationship with the consumer, and on the extent to which consumers consider such calls intrusive or an invasion of privacy.
23. The Commission notes that when one of its TCPA rules differs substantively from the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule, it has been generally understood that the more restrictive requirement prevails and sets the standard applicable to all entities that are subject to the jurisdiction of both agencies. In this instance, although the FTC has adopted a more specific provision, the Commission's rule, by providing no exemption for healthcare-related prerecorded message calls subject to HIPAA, is arguably more restrictive. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on the practical impact of this disparity on Start Printed Page 13477regulated entities currently and if the Commission does not adopt a similar exemption in the future.
31. The FCC's TCPA Rules. Under the Commission's rules, an outbound telephone call is deemed “abandoned” if a person answers the telephone and the caller does not connect the call to a sales representative within two seconds of the person's completed greeting. The Commission imposes restrictions on the percentage of live telemarketing calls Start Printed Page 13478that a telemarketer may drop or “abandon” as a result of the use of predictive dialers. Under the Commission's rules, a seller or telemarketer would not be liable for violating the restrictions on call abandonment if, among other things, it employs technology that ensures abandonment of no more than three percent of all calls answered by a person (rather than by an answering machine). The Commission's call abandonment rule measures the abandonment rate over a 30-day period, but contains no “per campaign” limitation.
36. In document FCC 10-18, the Commission seeks comment on proposed revisions to its rules under the TCPA pertaining to prerecorded telemarketing calls and certain other telemarketing practices. Document FCC 10-18 proposes to amend the Commission's TCPA rules in four areas. The first proposed amendment would conform the Commission's rules to the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule by prohibiting the use of prerecorded messages in telemarketing sales calls unless the seller or telemarketer has obtained the consumer's prior express consent, in writing, to receive such messages and irrespective of any established business relationship between the caller and the called party. The Commission also proposes to allow sellers or telemarketers to obtain such consent using any medium or format permitted by the E-SIGN Act. The Commission's objective in proposing to harmonize its prior consent requirement with the FTC's by adopting a written consent requirement is to reduce the potential for industry and consumer confusion surrounding telemarketers' obligations to the extent that similarly situated entities would no longer be subject to different requirements depending upon whether an entity is subject to the FTC's rule or to the Commission's rule. The Commission also believes that written consent may Start Printed Page 13479enhance its enforcement efforts and serve to protect both consumers and industry from erroneous claims that consent was or was not given, to the extent that, unlike oral consent, the existence of a paper or electronic record may provide unambiguous proof of consent.
44. Telemarketing Bureaus and Other Contact Centers. According to the Start Printed Page 13480Census Bureau, this economic census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating call centers that initiate or receive communications for others—via telephone, facsimile, e-mail, or other communication modes—for purposes such as (1) promoting clients' products or services, (2) taking orders for clients, (3) soliciting contributions for a client; and (4) providing information or assistance regarding a client's products or services.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such entities having $7 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 1,876 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,610 firms had annual sales of under $5 million, and an additional 129 had sales of $5 million to $9,999,999. Thus, the majority of firms in this category can be considered small.
51. As discussed above, the Telemarketing Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (“Telemarketing Act”), 15 U.S.C. 6101-6108, and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) adopted by the FTC also address certain telemarketing acts or practices. Start Printed Page 13481Document FCC 10-18 identifies several aspects of the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule, as recently amended, that differ from the Commission's TCPA rules. Therefore, the Commission seeks comment in document FCC 10-18 on whether it should revise its rules to harmonize them with the FTC's rule. Amending the Commission's rules, as proposed above, would reduce the inconsistencies that currently exist between the two sets of rules.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 64 and 68 as follows: Start Part
PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 1. The authority citation for part 64 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 227, and 254(k); secs. 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, and 254 (k) unless otherwise noted.
§ 64.1200 Delivery restrictions. (a) No person or entity may: (1) Initiate any telephone call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express written consent of the called party) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice;
(i) At the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business, individual, or other entity that is responsible for initiating the call. If a business is responsible for initiating the Start Printed Page 13482call, the name under which the entity is registered to conduct business with the State Corporation Commission (or comparable regulatory authority) must be stated, and
Authority: Secs. 4, 5, 227, 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1066, 1068, 1082 (47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 227, 303). End Authority
4. Section 68.318 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 68.318 Additional limitations.
(c) Line seizure by automatic telephone dialing systems. Automatic telephone dialing systems which deliver a recorded message to the called party must release the called party's telephone line within 5 seconds of the time notification is transmitted to the system that the called party has hung up, to allow the called party's line to be used to make or receive other calls. When a residential telephone subscriber asserts a do-not-call request pursuant to § 64.1200(b)(2) of this chapter, an automatic dialing system that delivers an artificial or prerecorded message to such subscriber for telemarketing purposes must release the called party's telephone line in the manner prescribed in § 64.1200(b)(2) of this chapter.