02-25569. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991

AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether to revise, clarify or adopt any additional rules in order to more effectively carry out Congress's directives in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). New technologies have emerged that allow telemarketers to better target potential customers and make it more cost effective to market using telephones and facsimile machines. These new telemarketing techniques have also increased public concern about the effect on consumer privacy. Therefore, we seek comment on whether to revise or clarify our rules governing unwanted telephone solicitations and the use of automatic dialing systems, prerecorded or artificial voice messages, and telephone facsimile machines.

DATES:

Comments are due November 22, 2002 and reply comments are due December 9, 2002. Written comments by the public on the proposed information collections are due November 22, 2002. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Managements and Budget (OMB) on the proposed information collection on or before December 9, 2002.

ADDRESSES:

Parties who choose to file comment by paper must file an original and four copies to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. Comments may also be filed using the Commission's Electronic Filing System, which can be accessed via the Internet at www.fcc.gov/​e-file/​ecfs.html. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to Les Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [e-mail] and to Kim A. Johnson, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20503 or via the Internet to [e-mail].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Erica H. McMahon or Richard D. Smith at 202-418-2512, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau. For additional information concerning the information collection(s) contained in this document, contact Les Smith at 202-418-0217 or via the Internet at [e-mail].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in CG Docket No. 02-278 and CC Docket No. 92-90, FCC 02-250, released September 18, 2002. The full text of this document is available on the Commission's Web site Electronic Comment Filing System and for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This NPRM contains a modified information collection. 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 collections contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this NPRM; OMB notification of action is due 60 days from date of publication of this NPRM in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Only those proposals that might change an information collection requirement are discussed below.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0519.

Title: Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991, NPRM, CG Docket No. 02-278 and CC Docket No. 92-90.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 30,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: 55.1 hours (average).

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping; On occasion reporting requirement; Third Party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 1,653,600 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Needs and Uses: The current total public disclosure and recordkeeping burden for collections of information under the TCPA rules is 936,000 hours, as stated most recently in the Commission's OMB submission to extend approval of the information collection in connection with the TCPA rules.

1. Additional Hour Burden for Company-Specific Do-Not-Call List Requirements

In this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on the current recordkeeping requirement on companies to maintain lists of telephone subscribers who do not wish to be contacted by telephone. Taking into account more recent estimates on the number of telemarketing calls made daily in the United States, we estimate that the requirement to maintain such lists may result in an additional 291,200 burden hours.

2. Proposal That the Commission Require Common Carriers To Inform Subscribers of the Option To Register With a National Do-Not-Call List and To Inform Any Telemarketers To Which They Provide Services of the Do-Not-Call Requirements

We estimate that any requirement on common carriers to notify telemarketers and consumers of a national do-not-call list will account for an additional burden of 396,400 hours.

3. Proposal That the Commission Adopt Certain Recordkeeping Requirements

The Commission also seeks comment on whether to adopt certain recordkeeping requirements that must be met before companies may avail themselves of any “safe harbor” protections for violating the do-not-call rules. Companies that conduct telemarketing already maintain their own do-not-call lists and many of them must reconcile their lists with state do-not-call lists. We believe that any additional recordkeeping burden as a result of specific “safe harbor” requirements, particularly the verifiable authorizations, would be minimal. We estimate that this requirement will account for one hour of recordkeeping burden per company, or an additional 30,000 hours.

Synopsis of NPRM

1. It has been nearly ten years since the Commission adopted a broad set of rules to curb unwanted telephone solicitations in the TCPA Order (57 FR 48333, October 23, 1992). In this NPRM, we seek to review the practices used to market goods and services over the telephone and facsimile machine that are the focus of the TCPA and the Commission's implementing regulations. In doing so, we ask whether the Commission should: (1) refine its existing rules on the use of autodialers, prerecorded messages, and unsolicited facsimile advertisements, to account for technological developments in recent years and emerging telemarketing practices; (2) adopt any additional rules as permitted by the statute to ensure that our telemarketing requirements protect the privacy of individuals and permit legitimate telemarketing practices; and (3) reconsider the option of establishing a national do-not-call list as authorized by Congress in the TCPA. On the subject of a national do-not-call list, we are particularly interested in comments addressing those entities not covered by the FTC's proposed national do-not-call database as well as the interplay between a national registry and state do-not-call lists. We request that commenters address issues relating to our current rules separately from those issues relating to a national do-not-call list.

2. In evaluating the issues in this NPRM, we will be mindful of the constitutional standards applicable to governmental regulations of commercial speech articulated in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Service Commission. In order to determine whether restrictions on commercial speech survive “intermediate scrutiny,” Central Hudson sets out a four-part test. Central Hudson asks first whether the speech in question concerns illegal activity or is misleading, in which case the government may freely regulate the speech. If the speech is not misleading and does not involve illegal activity, the court applies the rest of the four-part test to the government's regulation. The second prong of Central Hudson examines whether the government has a substantial interest in regulating the speech. Third, the government must show that the restriction on commercial speech directly and materially advances that interest. Finally, the regulation must be narrowly tailored. Narrowly tailored means that the government's restriction on speech reflects a “carefu[l] calculat[ion of] the costs and benefits associated with the burden on speech imposed by its prohibition.” To the extent that any proposed changes to our current rules implicate these constitutional standards, we seek comment on such implications.

1. TCPA Rules

a. Company-Specific Do-Not-Call Lists

3. The TCPA directs the Commission to “compare and evaluate alternative methods and procedures . . . for their effectiveness in protecting [residential telephone subscribers'] privacy rights'' to avoid receiving unwanted telephone solicitations. In the TCPA Order, the Commission determined that rules requiring telemarketers to maintain their own lists of consumers who did not wish to be called sufficiently balanced consumer interests in limiting unsolicited advertising with telemarketers' interests in providing beneficial services to consumers. The company-specific do-not-call approach protects residential telephone subscriber privacy by requiring telemarketers to place a consumer on a do-not-call list if the consumer asks not to receive further solicitations.

4. We now seek comment on the overall effectiveness of the company-specific do-not-call approach in providing consumers with a reasonable means to curb unwanted telephone solicitations. We recognize that some consumers may feel that receiving product and service information by telephone helps them reap the benefits of a competitive marketplace; such consumers may value the savings and convenience that telemarketing often provides. Other consumers may wish to limit, or even stop altogether, the number of telemarketing calls they receive. Given the volume of telemarketing calls, we seek comment on whether the company-specific do-not-call approach adequately balances the interests of those consumers who wish to continue receiving telemarketing calls, and of the telemarketers who wish to reach them, against the interests of those who object to such sales calls. We note that, under the company-specific do-not-call approach, consumers must repeat their request not to be called on a case-by-case basis as calls are received. We seek comment on whether this approach is unreasonably burdensome for consumers. We also seek comment on how effective such requests have been in practice in preventing unwanted telephone solicitations. For example, we seek comment on whether such requests are typically honored, whether consumers continue to receive calls for some period of time after requesting that they be placed on a do-not-call list, and whether some telemarketers hang up before consumers can assert their “do-not-call” rights. In addition, we seek comment on whether consumers with hearing and speech disabilities often may be unable to convey a request not to be called to telemarketers.

5. As discussed above, changes in the marketplace and technological innovations since the Commission adopted its TCPA rules in 1992 may have reduced the effectiveness of the company-specific approach. For example, the widespread use of predictive dialers and answering machine detection technology results in many “hang-up” or “dead air” calls in which the consumer has no opportunity to request that the telemarketer not call in the future. The FTC indicates that use of predictive dialers has increased dramatically in the past decade. The FTC notes that many consumers feel frightened, threatened, or harassed when receiving a pattern of such hang-up calls. In addition, there is no way for the consumer to determine whether such calls are placed by telemarketers or may be part of some illegitimate conduct. Such calls may also be particularly trying for the elderly and persons with disabilities who may have difficulty reaching the phone only to be disconnected. Such calls may also be disruptive to the increasing number of individuals who now work from home by tying up telephone lines or disconnecting telecommuters from the Internet. We seek comment on what, if any, legitimate business or commercial speech interest is promoted by these calls. We seek comment on these issues and any other impact that changes in the telemarketing industry over the last decade have had on the overall effectiveness of the company-specific approach.

6. In the TCPA Order, the Commission enumerated a number of advantages both to consumers and businesses in adopting a company-specific do-not-call approach. In particular, the Commission concluded that company-specific do-not-call lists: (1) Were already maintained by many telemarketers; (2) allow residential subscribers to selectively halt calls from telemarketers; (3) allow businesses to gain useful information about consumer preferences; (4) protect consumer confidentiality because the lists would not be universally accessible; and (5) impose the costs of protecting consumers on telemarketers rather than telephone companies or consumers. We seek comment on whether these and any other potential advantages of the company-specific do-not-call approach remain valid today. In addition, we seek comment on whether the company-specific approach should be retained if the FTC, either acting alone or in conjunction with the Commission, adopts a national do-not-call list. Under such circumstances, we seek comment as to whether the benefits of retaining company-specific do-not-call lists to consumers would continue to outweigh the costs to telemarketers. Parties are strongly encouraged to provide empirical studies or other specific evidence whenever possible to support their arguments.

7. If the Commission concludes that it should retain the company-specific do-not-call lists, we seek comment on whether the Commission should consider any additional modifications that would allow consumers greater flexibility to register on such lists. For example, we seek specific comment on whether companies should be required to provide a toll-free number and/or a website that consumers can access to register their name on the do-not-call list. In addition, we seek comment on whether any additional measures should be taken to ensure that consumers with disabilities have the same opportunity as other consumers to request that they be placed on do-not-call lists. We also seek comment on whether companies should be required to respond affirmatively to such requests or otherwise provide some means of confirmation so that consumers may verify that their requests have been processed. As a related matter, we seek comment as to whether the Commission should set a specific time frame for companies to process do-not-call requests. We also ask whether the requirement that companies honor do-not-call requests for ten years is a reasonable length of time for consumers and telemarketers. In addition, we seek comment on any possible Commission or industry initiatives that would better inform consumers of their right to request placement on a company's do-not-call list. We also seek comment on the effectiveness of any private sector initiatives, such as the Direct Marketing Association's Telephone Preference Service, in reducing unwanted sales calls. Are there any industry “best practices” that might provide telemarketers with possible safe harbors from liability for violating our do-not-call rules? Finally, we seek comment on whether our rules should be modified to minimize unnecessary burdens on telemarketers. We seek comment on these and any other modifications that commenters may suggest that would better balance the goal of limiting unsolicited advertising against telemarketers' burdens in conducting beneficial or otherwise legitimate telemarketing practices.

8. Interplay of sections 222 and 227. The Commission has recently released an Order implementing section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Section 222, entitled “Privacy of Customer Information,” obligates telecommunications carriers to protect the confidentiality of certain information. In the CPNI Order (67 FR 59205, September 20, 2002), the Commission determined that a telecommunications carrier may use a customer's CPNI to market various services to a customer if that customer has provided its carrier with appropriate consent. The section 227 rules require telemarketers to maintain their lists of consumers who do not wish to be called and to place a consumer on a do-not-call list if the consumer asks not to receive further solicitations.

9. We seek comment broadly on the interplay between sections 222 and 227. For example, if an individual places her name on her carrier's do-not-call list under section 227 (or a national do-not-call list, if one were implemented), should such an express request not to be contacted by means of the telephone be honored even though the customer may also have provided implied (opt-out) consent under section 222 for use and disclosure of her CPNI? We believe that a consumer's request to be placed on a telecommunications carrier's do-not-call list limits that carrier's ability to market to that consumer over the telephone. The carrier, however, may still market to that consumer, using her CPNI, in other ways (e.g., direct mail, email, etc.). Honoring a do not call request under section 227 does not render a consent under section 222 a nullity, but instead merely limits the manner of contact (i.e., marketing over the telephone) consistent with the express request of the customer under section 227. Further, we believe it likely that permitting a section 222 opt-out consent to eliminate or trump a section 227 do not call request would lead to customer confusion concerning privacy rights and the actions required to secure those rights. We request comment on our tentative conclusion, as well as on the rationale underlying that conclusion. We also request comment on whether we should reach that same tentative conclusion where the form of consent provided under section 222 is an express opt-in consent. Commenters should also analyze those constitutional considerations that may influence our determination, and explain with particularity how their recommendations are consistent with first amendment requirements.

10. As discussed below, the Commission's rules permit an exemption for companies to deliver artificial or prerecorded message calls to consumers with whom they have an “established business relationship.” The Commission seeks comment on what effect the established business relationship exemption might have on the telecommunications industry, if a national do-not-call list is established. Should we consider modifying the definition of “established business relationship” so that a company that has a relationship with a customer based on one type of product or service may not call consumers on the do-not-call list to advertise a different service or product?

b. Network Technologies

11. We seek comment on whether network technologies have been developed over the last decade that may allow consumers to avoid receiving unwanted telephone solicitations. If so, we seek comment on whether and how these technologies should influence our analysis of the merits of revising our company-specific do-not-call rules or possibly adopting a national do-not-call list. In particular, we seek comment on what factors the Commission should consider in deciding whether to rely on these technologies. In the 1992 TCPA Order, the Commission rejected the network technology method of avoiding unwanted telephone solicitations. In particular, the Commission considered whether to require telemarketers to use a special area code or telephone number prefix that would allow consumers to block such calls using automatic number identification (ANI) or a caller ID service. Based on the costs and technical barriers to implement this alternative, however, the Commission concluded that this solution was not the best means for accomplishing the objectives of the TCPA at that time. The Commission also noted that it was unclear whether fees on telemarketers would be sufficient to cover the costs of making call blocking technology universally available, raising the possibility that such costs would be passed on to residential telephone subscribers, in violation of the TCPA. We seek comment on whether these concerns remain persuasive today. We seek comment on whether we should consider any other technologies in this context, and, if so, we ask commenters to include a brief explanation of how these technologies operate and how much they would cost to implement.

12. Under the Commission's rules, with certain limited exceptions, common carriers using Signaling System 7 (SS7) and offering or subscribing to any service based on SS7 functionality are required to transmit the calling party number (CPN) associated with an interstate call to interconnecting carriers. As discussed in greater detail below, we take this opportunity to seek comment on whether the Commission should consider any additional “caller ID” requirements in the context of its review of the TCPA rules. Specifically, should the Commission require telemarketers to transmit the name and telephone number of the calling party, when possible, or prohibit them from blocking or altering the transmission of such information? We also seek comment on what impact any changes to our “caller ID” rules might have on existing state “caller ID” rules.

c. Autodialers

13. Definition. Section 227 and the Commission's implementing regulations define automatic telephone dialing systems as “equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator and to dial such numbers.” The Commission seeks comment on the definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” (or “autodialer”) and whether it is necessary to identify the technologies section 227 is designed to address. The TCPA and Commission's rules prohibit calls using an autodialer to emergency telephone lines, to the telephone line of a guest room of a health care facility, to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call. In addition, Commission rules provide that all artificial or prerecorded messages delivered by an autodialer shall, at the beginning of the message, state the identity of the entity initiating the call and, during the message, the telephone number or address of such entity. The Commission has received inquiries about whether certain technologies fall within these restrictions, given that they may or may not be classified as “automatic telephone dialing systems.”

14. The legislative history of the TCPA suggests that autodialer-generated calls are more intrusive to the privacy concerns of the called party than live solicitations. An autodialer can generate far more calls to residences than a telemarketer can manually. In addition, an autodialer is frequently used to send artificial or prerecorded messages, which the legislative history suggests are often a greater nuisance and invasion of privacy than calls placed by “live” persons. We seek comment on this reading of the legislative history and whether Congress intended the definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” to be broad enough to include any equipment that dials numbers automatically, either by producing 10-digit telephone numbers arbitrarily or generating them from a database of existing telephone numbers. The Commission recognizes that in the last decade new technologies have emerged to assist telemarketers in dialing the telephone numbers of potential customers. More sophisticated dialing systems, such as predictive dialers and other electronic hardware and software containing databases of telephone numbers, are now widely used by telemarketers to increase productivity and lower costs. Therefore, we ask commenters to provide information on the various technologies used to dial telephone numbers. We invite comment on the use of random and sequential number generators and whether an autodialer can generate phone calls from a database of existing numbers. If a particular technology generates numbers at random, how does a telemarketer comply with the law to avoid calling emergency phone lines, health care facilities, pager numbers, and wireless telephone numbers? In light of new technologies and the legislative history, is there a need to refine the definition in our rules to better balance the goal of limiting unsolicited advertising against the burdens on telemarketers and their interest in providing beneficial telemarketing services?

15. Autodialed Calls to Residences and Businesses. Additionally, the Commission seeks input from commenters about the costs and benefits of adopting rules to further restrict the use of autodialers to dial residential and business telephone numbers. We specifically seek comment on the practice of using automatic telephone dialing equipment to dial large blocks of telephone numbers in order to identify lines that belong to telephone facsimile machines. Should the Commission adopt rules to restrict this practice?

16. Predictive Dialers. We seek specific comment on whether a predictive dialer, as a form of automatic telephone dialing system, is subject to the ban on calls to emergency lines, health care facilities, paging services, and any service for which the called party is charged for the call. Specifically, we ask whether a predictive dialer that dials telephone numbers using a computer database of numbers falls under the TCPA's restrictions on the use of autodialers. We seek comment on whether the Commission should adopt rules to further restrict the use of predictive dialers to dial consumers' telephone numbers. In addition to automatically dialing numbers, predictive dialers are set up to “predict” the average time it takes for a consumer to answer the phone and when a telemarketer will be free to take the next call. When a consumer answers the telephone, a predictive dialer transfers the call to an available telemarketer. When a predictive dialer simultaneously dials more numbers than the telemarketers can handle, some of the calls are disconnected. The consumer may hear silence on the line as the call is being transferred or a “click” as the call is disconnected. In 1991, the Commission received a total of 757 complaints regarding calls placed to subscribers by autodialers. From June 2000 to December 2001, the Commission received over 1,500 inquiries about predictive dialing alone. In addition, the consumer alert titled “Predictive Dialing: Silence on the Other End of the Line” has received over 16,000 hits on the Commission's website since the alert was posted in February of 2001. In light of the increased use of predictive dialers, the Commission seeks recommendations on what approaches we might take to minimize any harm that results from the use of predictive dialers. Cognizant of the benefits of predictive dialing to the telemarketing industry, the Commission invites comment on whether requiring a maximum setting on the number of abandoned calls or requiring telemarketers who use predictive dialers to also transmit caller ID information are feasible options for telemarketers. We also seek comment on whether prohibiting telemarketers from blocking caller ID information would alleviate the harm that results when predictive dialers abandon calls. As noted earlier, under the Commission's caller ID rules, common carriers using SS7 and offering or subscribing to any service based on SS7 functionality are required to transmit the CPN associated with an interstate call to interconnecting carriers. If the Commission were to adopt rules regarding the transmission of caller ID information by telemarketers, should we consider amending the caller ID rules in any way to ensure the two sets of rules are consistent? We also invite commenters to suggest alternative approaches to the problems associated with abandoned calls.

17. Answering Machine Detection. Another reason for “dead air” may be the use of Answering Machine Detection (AMD) technology that monitors calls once they are answered. According to DialAmerica Marketing, Inc., AMD can be used along with automatic dialing systems to deliver telemarketing calls. AMD may either send a prerecorded message to an answering machine or transfer the call to a telemarketer once it detects that a customer has answered the call. According to comments filed with the FTC, if the AMD detects “noise” (e.g., the word “Hello”) followed by silence, it assumes that a person has answered the phone. If the AMD detects noise for several seconds, it assumes that it is an answering machine message. In either case, the AMD may be programmed to disconnect the call or send a prerecorded message to an answering machine. In the event that a person has answered the telephone and the call is transferred to a sales representative, the use of AMD involves the monitoring of the line for several seconds and may create “dead air” while the call is being transferred. The Commission seeks comment on the use of AMD by the telemarketing industry and whether AMD technology is responsible for much of the “dead air” consumers encounter. We also seek comment on whether consumers are most frustrated with the delay in response as the call is transferred to a telemarketer, or with calls that are abandoned entirely, or with both. Would restrictions on the use of AMD serve to alleviate the problem of “dead air?” Should restrictions on AMD be implemented in conjunction with restrictions on autodialers and predictive dialers? Commenters are strongly encouraged to support their arguments with empirical studies or other specific evidence.

d. Identification Requirements

18. Commission regulations require that a person or entity making a telephone solicitation must provide the called party with the name of the individual caller, the name of the person or entity on whose behalf the call is being made, and a telephone number or address at which the person or entity may be contacted. The term “telephone solicitation” is defined to mean the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of * * * property, goods, or services * * * ”. The TCPA clearly imposes identification requirements upon artificial and prerecorded voice messages and our identification rules apply without limitation to “any telephone solicitation to a residential telephone subscriber.” Nonetheless, we seek comment on whether we should modify our rules to state expressly that the identification requirements apply to otherwise lawful artificial or prerecorded messages, as well as to live solicitation calls.

19. Under Commission rules, telemarketers who use autodialers to send artificial or prerecorded messages similarly must identify themselves by name and phone number or address. We seek comment on the Commission's identification requirement at 47 CFR 64.1200(d) and its applicability to predictive dialing and other circumstances involving abandoned telemarketing calls. We note that, in its discussion on predictive dialing, the FTC maintains that telemarketers who abandon calls are violating section 310.4(d) of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The FTC states that, under its rules, when a telemarketer calls a consumer, the telemarketer is required to disclose identifying information to the person receiving the call. According to the FTC, the consumer is “receiving the call” when the consumer answers the telephone. Therefore, if a predictive dialer abandons the call before the telemarketer identifies himself or herself, the FTC proposes that the telemarketer is violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule. We seek comment on whether the Commission should reach a similar conclusion.

e. Artificial or Prerecorded Voice Messages

(i) Commercial and Non-Commercial Calls

20. The TCPA and Commission rules prohibit telephone calls to residences using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party, unless the call is for emergency purposes or is specifically exempted. Commission rules exempt calls that are non-commercial as well as commercial calls that do not include the transmission of any unsolicited advertisement. The rules define “unsolicited advertisement” to mean “any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.” While the Commission has declined to create specific categories of non-commercial exemptions (other than for tax-exempt nonprofit organizations, discussed below), it noted that messages that do not seek to sell a product or service do not tread heavily upon the consumer interests implicated by section 227. Therefore, the Commission determined that calls conducting research, market surveys, political polling, or similar activities which do not involve solicitation as defined by the rules are exempt from the prohibition on prerecorded messages. We note here that the exemption for non-commercial calls applies to a wide range of entities, some of which are engaged in political or religious discourse. This Commission does not intend in this NPRM to seek comment on the exemption as it applies to political and religious speech.

21. We specifically seek comment on artificial or prerecorded messages containing offers for free goods or services (including free estimates or free analyses) and messages with “information-only” about products. We also invite comment about calls seeking people to help sell or market a business' products (a kind of “help wanted” message). We note that, while these calls do not purport to sell something, they often contain messages advertising the quality of certain goods or services and are intended to generate future business. Such messages usually include phone numbers that consumers can call to obtain further information, at which time the seller offers additional goods or services for purchase. Such calls arguably have a dual purpose, as in the case when a business calls to inquire about a customer's satisfaction with a product or service already purchased, but is nevertheless motivated in part by the desire to ultimately sell additional goods or services. The Commission therefore seeks comment on whether our rules would better serve consumers and businesses if they more explicitly addressed those calls that include information about a product or service but do not immediately solicit a purchase. Would it balance the interests of consumers and telemarketers more effectively for us to clarify that calls containing offers for free goods or services are prohibited without the prior express consent of the called party? Would such action assist telemarketers in their efforts to comply with our rules, as well as reduce the number of unwanted telephone solicitations? Again, as stated above, we note that we are not seeking comment regarding political or religious speech.

22. Based on public inquiries, we also seek comment on prerecorded messages sent by radio stations or television broadcasters that encourage telephone subscribers to tune in at a particular time for a chance to win a prize or some similar opportunity. Does the Commission need to specifically address these kinds of telemarketing calls, and, if so, what rules might we adopt to appropriately balance consumers' interest in restricting unsolicited advertising with commercial freedoms of speech?

(i) Tax-Exempt Nonprofit Organizations

23. The TCPA excludes calls or messages by tax-exempt nonprofit organizations from the definition of “telephone solicitation.” In the TCPA Order, the Commission concluded that calls by tax-exempt nonprofit organizations also should be exempt from the prohibition on prerecorded messages to residences as non-commercial calls. Noting that the TCPA seeks primarily to protect subscribers from unrestricted commercial telemarketing activities, the Commission found no evidence to show that non-commercial calls represented as serious a concern for telephone subscribers as unsolicited commercial calls. In addition, the Commission determined that calls made by independent telemarketers on behalf of tax-exempt nonprofit organizations are not subject to our rules governing telephone solicitations. We point out, however, that the Commission has received inquiries over the years about certain practices by nonprofit organizations. We take this opportunity to seek comment on calls made jointly by nonprofit and for-profit organizations and whether they should be exempt from the restrictions on telephone solicitations and prerecorded messages. For example, if a nonprofit organization calls consumers to sell another company's magazines and receives a portion of the proceeds, should such calls fall within the exemption? We emphasize in this NPRM that the exemption for tax-exempt nonprofit organizations applies to religious and political organizations that have likewise received tax exempt status from the U.S. government. We note here that the exemption for non-commercial calls applies to a wide range of entities, some of which are engaged in political or religious discourse. In this NPRM, we do not seek comment on the exemption as it applies to political and religious speech. We emphasize that we do not seek comment in this notice on the exemption as it applies to political and religious speech whether conducted by nonprofit organizations or for-profit organizations on behalf of nonprofit organizations. We note that the statute and our rules clearly apply already to messages that are predominantly commercial in nature, and that we will not hesitate to consider enforcement action should the provider of an otherwise commercial message seek to immunize itself by simply inserting purportedly “non-commercial” content into that message.

(ii) Established Business Relationship

24. In the TCPA Order, the Commission determined that, based on the record and legislative history, the TCPA permits an “established business relationship” exemption from the restrictions on artificial or prerecorded message calls to residences. The Commission concluded that a solicitation to someone with whom a prior business relationship exists does not adversely affect subscriber privacy interests. The Commission defined the term “established business relationship” to mean “a prior or existing relationship formed by a voluntary two-way communication between a person or entity and a residential subscriber with or without an exchange of consideration, on the basis of an inquiry, application, purchase or transaction by the residential subscriber regarding products or services offered by such person or entity, which relationship has not been previously terminated by either party.” We seek comment on whether any circumstances have developed that would justify revisiting these conclusions. If so, would revisiting the exemption interfere with ongoing business relationships or impede communications between businesses and their customers, particularly for small businesses? Should the Commission specify by rule the particular circumstances that would establish the requisite business relationship? We seek comment specifically on whether we should clarify the type of consumer inquiry that would create an established business relationship for purposes of the exemption. For example, need we clarify that a consumer's request for information related to business hours or directions to a business location is not an inquiry that would establish the requisite business relationship? The Commission also invites comment on whether merely asking at a previous time about a company's products, services, or prices could establish a prior business relationship. If so, is there any time limitation to such relationships?

25. We also seek comment on the interplay between the established business relationship exemption and a customer's request not to receive calls from a person or entity with which the customer has a prior business relationship. In the TCPA Order, the Commission noted that a business may not make telephone solicitations to an existing or former customer who has asked to be placed on that company's do-not-call list. The Commission explained that a customer's request to be placed on the company's do-not-call list terminates the business relationship between the company and that customer for the purpose of any future solicitation. We seek comment on the effect of a do-not-call request on a prior business relationship. Specifically, should a company be obligated to honor a do-not-call request even when the customer continues to do business with the entity making the solicitations? Or is the consumer obligated to first terminate all business with the company before the company must suspend solicitation calls to that customer? For example, must a consumer who subscribes to a daily newspaper or holds a credit card cancel the newspaper subscription or credit card in order to stop future solicitation calls from those businesses?

f. Time of Day Restrictions

26. In the TCPA Order, the Commission concluded that it was in the public interest to impose time of day restrictions on telephone solicitations as reasonable limitations on telemarketing to residences. Accordingly, the Commission implemented regulations that prohibited unsolicited sales calls before 8:00 am and after 9:00 pm local time at the called party's location. As part of our review of the current TCPA rules, we seek comment on how effective these time restrictions have been at limiting objectionable solicitation calls. The FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule also includes calling time restrictions that are consistent with the FCC's rules on calling hours. The FTC indicates that the current calling time restrictions provide reasonable protections for consumers' privacy while not burdening the telemarketing industry. The FTC also notes that altering the calling hours under the TSR would create a conflict in the federal [FCC] regulations governing telemarketers. We seek comment on this reasoning. In addition, should more restrictive calling times be adopted only in the event a national do-not-call list is not established, or could they work in conjunction with a national registry to better protect consumers from receiving telephone solicitations to which they object?

g. Unsolicited Facsimile Advertisements

27. The TCPA prohibits the transmission of unsolicited advertisements by telephone facsimile machines and requires those sending any messages via telephone facsimile machines to identify themselves to message recipients. We seek comment on the continued effectiveness of these regulations and on any developing technologies, such as computerized fax servers, that might warrant revisiting the rules on unsolicited faxes. In considering any possible rule changes, we will take into account both the record developed during this proceeding, as well as the Commission's extensive enforcement experience regarding the rules on unsolicited fax advertisements.

(i) Prior Express Invitation or Permission

28. The TCPA prohibits the sending of unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines. The Commission's rules define an unsolicited advertisement as “any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission.” We seek comment on the need to clarify what constitutes prior express invitation or permission for purposes of sending an unsolicited fax. In the 1995 TCPA Reconsideration Order (60 FR 42068, August 15, 1995), the Commission determined that the intent of the TCPA was not to equate mere distribution or publication of a telephone facsimile number with prior express permission or invitation to receive such advertisements. The Commission determined that given the variety of ways in which fax numbers may be distributed, it was appropriate to treat the issue of consent in any complaint on a case-by-case basis. We seek comment on the circumstances in which facsimile numbers are distributed or published by individuals and businesses. We invite comment specifically on the issue of membership in a trade association or similar group. For example, should the publication of one's fax number in an organization's directory constitute an invitation or permission to receive an unsolicited fax? The Commission also seeks comment on what effect its case-by-case analysis has had on the number of unsolicited faxes sent to consumers and on costs incurred by the recipients of such faxes.

(ii) Established Business Relationship

29. We seek comment on the Commission's determination that a prior business relationship between a fax sender and recipient establishes the requisite consent to receive telephone facsimile advertisement transmissions. This determination has amounted to an effective exemption from the prohibition on sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements, although our rules do not expressly provide for such an exemption. We ask whether, in practice, the Commission's previous determination has served to protect ongoing business relationships and whether it has had any adverse impact on consumer privacy. If we were to preserve the “exemption,” should we amend our rules to expressly provide for it? We also seek comment on the need to clarify the scope of the “exemption.” For instance, should a company that has an established relationship with a customer based on one type of product or service also be allowed to send unsolicited faxes about a different service or product? We invite comment on a consumer's authority to stop faxes to his facsimile number from a business with which he has an established relationship. Is it necessary for the Commission to adopt rules to protect consumers from unsolicited faxes in such circumstances?

(iii) Fax Broadcasters

30. We seek comment on whether the Commission should address specifically in the rules the activities of “fax broadcasters” who transmit other entities' advertisements to a large number of telephone facsimile machines for a fee. In the TCPA Order, the Commission stated that “[i]n the absence of a “high degree of involvement or actual notice of an illegal use and failure to take steps to prevent such transmissions,” common carriers will not be held liable for the transmission of a prohibited facsimile message.” When asked whether common carriers' exemption from liability extended to entities that engage in fax broadcasting but are not common carriers, the Commission found that “[t]he entity or entities on whose behalf facsimiles are transmitted are ultimately liable for compliance with the rule banning unsolicited facsimile advertisements, and that fax broadcasters are not liable for compliance with the rule.” In a later order further addressing fax broadcasters' obligations under the TCPA rules, the Commission stated that “[f]acsimile broadcast service providers are businesses or individuals that transmit messages on behalf of other entities to selected destinations and that do not determine either the message content or to whom they are sent.” ome fax broadcasters maintain lists of telephone facsimile numbers that they use to direct their clients' advertisements. This practice, among others, indicates a fax broadcaster's close involvement in sending unlawful fax advertisements and may subject such entities to enforcement action under the TCPA and our existing rules. Based on the number of complaints and inquiries the Commission has received in the last few years on unwanted faxes, and the apparent prevalence of fax broadcasters that determine the destination of their clients' advertisements, we seek comment on whether the Commission should address specifically in the rules the activities of such fax broadcasters. Should the Commission amend the rules to state explicitly that certain fax broadcasting practices expose the fax broadcaster to liability under the TCPA and the Commission's rules? Should the Commission specify by rule the particular activities that would demonstrate a fax broadcaster's “high degree of involvement” in the unlawful activity of sending unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines? Would such a rule afford consumers a greater measure of protection from unlawful faxing than they already enjoy under existing rules? Would such a rule better inform the business community about the general prohibition on unsolicited fax advertising? Have the Commission's rules that require fax advertisements to identify the entity on whose behalf the messages are sent been effective at protecting consumers' rights to enforce the TCPA?

h. Wireless Telephone Numbers

31. The TCPA and the Commission's rules specifically prohibit telephone calls using an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice message to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call, except in emergencies or with the prior express consent of the called party. The Commission's rules also state that live telephone solicitations to residential telephone subscribers must comply with time of day restrictions and must institute procedures for maintaining do-not-call lists. The Commission has not opined on whether wireless subscribers or a subset thereof are “residential telephone subscribers” for purposes of these restrictions.

32. Since 1991, the commercial wireless industry has grown dramatically, both in the number of subscribers and the amount of usage for each subscriber. A USA Today/CNN/Gallop poll found that almost one in five mobile telephony users regard their wireless phone as their primary phone. Also, many wireless consumers purchase large “buckets” of minutes at a fixed rate, which may have an impact on the way consumers perceive the costs of making and receiving calls on their wireless phones.

33. We seek comment on the extent to which telemarketing to wireless consumers exists today. Specifically, we seek comment on whether consumers receive solicitations on their wireless phones, and the nature and frequency of such solicitations. We also seek comment on whether telemarketers are including or targeting wireless phone numbers in their telemarketing calls. Do telemarketers distinguish between wireless and wireline phone numbers and, if so, how?

34. In addition, we seek comment on whether the Commission's TCPA rules are sufficient to address any issues identified above, or whether any revisions are necessary. For example, should wireless telephone numbers or a subset thereof be considered “residential telephone numbers” for the purposes of the Commission's rules on telephone solicitations? If so, should there be any different rules that apply to solicitations to wireless telephone numbers than already would apply under § 64.1200(e)?

35. We note that the TCPA permits the Commission to exempt from the restrictions on autodialer or prerecorded message calls to wireless phone numbers “calls to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service that are not charged to the called party, subject to such conditions as the Commission may prescribe as necessary in the interest of the privacy rights this section is intended to protect.” In the TCPA Order, the Commission concluded that calls made by cellular carriers to their subscribers for which the subscribers were not charged do not fall within the prohibitions on autodialers or prerecorded messages. We seek comment on whether there are other types of calls to wireless telephone numbers that are not charged to the called party, and whether such calls also should not fall within the prohibitions on autodialers or prerecorded messages.

36. Lastly, we seek comment on any developments anticipated in the near future that may affect telemarketing to wireless phone numbers. For example, when consumers are able to port numbers from their wireline phones to wireless phones, or are assigned numbers from a pool of numbers rather than from a full central office code, how will telemarketers identify wireless numbers in order to comply with the TCPA? We therefore seek comment on the availability of any technological tools that would allow telemarketers to recognize numbers that have been ported from wireline to wireless phones or to recognize wireless numbers that have been assigned from a pool of numbers that formerly were all wireline. For example, we note that the public safety community is finalizing plans that would enable Public Safety Answering Points to identify the type of phone from which the caller is making an emergency call. The Number Portability Administration Center administrator, Neustar, has, however, limited access to this Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system to service providers, authorized law enforcement, and public safety agencies. Telemarketers currently do not have access to the IVR system. Should telemarketers be given access to the IVR system, or should access to the IVR system continue to be restricted to service providers, law enforcement, and public safety agencies? If telemarketers are granted access, will the IVR system be sufficient to enable them to determine whether a number serves a wireline or wireless subscriber? If telemarketers should not be given access to the IVR system, or if this system will be insufficient to identify whether a number serves a wireless or wireline subscriber, should a different system be developed, perhaps based on the IVR system, for use by telemarketers?

i. Enforcement

(i) Private Right of Action and Individual Complaints

37. Based on the statutory language, the Commission determined that “[a]bsent state law to the contrary, consumers may immediately file suit in state court if a caller violates the TCPA's prohibitions on the use of automatic dialing system and artificial or prerecorded voice messages.” The Commission also determined that the TCPA permits a consumer to file suit in state court if he or she has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same company in violation of the guidelines for making telephone solicitations. The Commission has continued to receive inquiries about a consumer's right to file suit against a person or entity that has made one phone call in violation of the TCPA rules. Should we clarify whether a consumer may file suit after receiving one call from a telemarketer who, for example, fails to properly identify himself or makes a call outside the time of day restrictions? In addition, telemarketers that are not common carriers are not currently subject to the informal complaint rules that require common carriers to reply to individual complaints upon notice of a complaint by the Commission. The Commission released an NPRM in February seeking comment on whether to extend the informal complaint rules to entities other than common carriers. We seek comment in this proceeding on whether the Commission should amend these informal complaint rules to apply to telemarketers.

(ii) State Law Preemption

38. In the TCPA, Congress provided a standard for preemption of state law on autodialers, artificial or prerecorded voice messages, and telephone solicitations. The TCPA does not preempt “any state law that imposes more restrictive intrastate requirements or regulations on, or which prohibits—(A) the use of telephone facsimile machines or other electronic devices to send unsolicited advertisements; (B) the use of automatic telephone dialing systems; (C) the use of artificial or prerecorded voice messages; or (D) the making of telephone solicitations.” The Commission seeks comment on whether and, if so, to what degree, state requirements should be preempted. Some courts have held that the TCPA does not necessarily preempt less restrictive state laws on telemarketing. We seek comment on this interpretation. In addition, we ask whether preemption should depend on whether the state law in question applies solely to intrastate telemarketing or to interstate telemarketing as well. What conflicts between state telemarketing laws and federal law might warrant preemption?

2. National Do-Not-Call List

39. Pursuant to section 227(c)(3) of the TCPA, the Commission “may require the establishment and operation of a single national database to compile a list of telephone numbers of residential subscribers who object to receiving telephone solicitations, and to make that compiled list and parts thereof available for purchase.” In this section, we seek comment on whether the Commission should revisit its determination not to adopt a national do-not-call list. Persistent consumer complaints regarding unwanted telephone solicitations indicate that the time may now be ripe to revisit this issue. We note that a national list might provide consumers with a one-step method for preventing telemarketing calls. This option might be less burdensome than repeating requests on a case-by-case basis, particularly in light of the number of entities that conduct telemarketing today. A national list might also be less burdensome for telemarketers, who, under the company-specific approach, must retain do-not-call records for a period of ten years. We also seek comment on the options for possible Commission action in conjunction with the FTC's proposal to adopt a nationwide do-not-call list for those entities over which it has jurisdiction and the proliferation of state-adopted do-not-call lists. We acknowledge that the FTC has not yet adopted final rules based on its proposal, and we note that we have the option to seek further comment to fully address the interplay between final FTC rules and possible Commission action.

40. As discussed above, we invite comment in the context of our consideration of a national do-not-call list on the constitutional standards applicable to governmental regulation of commercial speech. Specifically, we seek comment on whether a national do-not-call list satisfies each of the standards articulated in Central Hudson, including the requirement that the regulation be narrowly tailored to ensure that it is no more extensive than necessary to serve the governmental interest.

41. In declining to adopt a national do-not-call list in 1992, the Commission concluded that a national database would be costly and difficult to establish and maintain in a reasonably accurate form. The Commission found that frequent updates would be required, regional telemarketers would be forced to purchase a national database, costs might be passed on to consumers, and the information compiled would present problems in protecting consumer privacy. The Commission noted that, because nearly one-fifth of all telephone numbers change each year, any such database would require frequent updates to remain accurate. The Commission also noted concerns in protecting the privacy of telephone subscriber information including whether the confidentiality of subscribers having unpublished or unlisted numbers could be maintained.

42. We seek comment on any disadvantages to consumers or any other parties to establishing a national do-not-call list including whether the concerns noted by the Commission in declining to adopt a national do-not-call list in 1992 remain persuasive today. Specifically, we seek information regarding the potential costs of establishing and maintaining a national do-not-call database, the burdens on telemarketers of compliance with a national do-not-call database, and whether there should be any distinction on a national, regional, state, or local level or for small businesses. In particular, we seek comment on whether technological innovations in computers and software programs over the last ten years have mitigated, in any respect, concerns about the costs, accuracy, and privacy issues involved in establishing a national database. We also seek comment on how state commissions and parties involved in compiling and maintaining the state established do-not-call lists have dealt with each of these issues. The information and experience acquired by these parties in the actual operation of such databases may prove particularly useful in this analysis. We also seek comment on what effect, if any, some combination of efforts by the FTC, states, and this Commission would have on the cost and privacy issues involved in developing and maintaining a national do-not-call list. We seek comment on whether a national do-not-call list provides any advantages to telemarketers in identifying those consumers who do not wish to be contacted.

43. Section 227(c)(3) enumerates a number of specific requirements that the Commission must satisfy in adopting a national database. In relevant part, these include: (1) Specifying a method by which to select an entity to administer the database; (2) requiring each common carrier providing telephone exchange service to inform subscribers of the opportunity to object to receiving telephone solicitations; (3) specifying the methods by which subscribers may be informed, by the common carrier that provides service to the subscriber, of the subscriber's right to give or revoke a notification of an objection to receiving telephone solicitations; (4) specifying the methods by which such objections shall be collected and added to the database; (5) prohibiting any residential subscriber from being charged for giving or revoking such notification or being included in the database; (6) prohibiting any person from making or transmitting a telephone solicitation to the telephone number of any subscriber included in the database; (7) specifying the method by which any person desiring to make or transmit telephone solicitations will obtain access to the database and the costs to be recovered from such persons; (8) specifying the methods for recovering, from persons accessing the database, the cost involved in operating the database; (9) specifying the frequency with which the database will be updated and the method by which such updates will take effect; (10) designing the database to enable states to use it to administer or enforce state law; (11) prohibiting the use of the database for any purpose other than compliance with the requirements of section 227 and any such state law, and specifying methods for protection of the privacy rights of persons whose numbers are included in the database; and (12) requiring each common carrier providing services to any person for the purpose of making telephone solicitations to notify such persons of the requirements of this section and the regulations thereunder. We seek comment on what possible options the Commission might pursue that would satisfy the requirements listed above, as well as complement the FTC's proposal and the individual state do-not-call statutes and regulations. We note that while the FTC's proposal could incorporate some, if not all, of the twelve criteria above, the FTC is not required by statute to satisfy these requirements. Therefore, we ask whether these twelve requirements would preclude the Commission from adopting rules requiring common carriers and other entities under our TCPA jurisdiction to comply with a national do-not-call regime administered by the FTC, should the FTC adopt rules that are inconsistent with the TCPA.

44. We recognize that the effectiveness and value of any national do-not-call list would be contingent upon an informed public. As noted above, Congress provided that, should the Commission establish a national do-not-call list, each common carrier providing telephone exchange service shall be required to inform its subscribers of the opportunity to object to telephone solicitations and the option to register with a national do-not-call list. As part of our ongoing efforts to ensure that consumers are aware of their rights under the TCPA, we will continue to disseminate our own public notices, fact sheets, and other information to publicize the rules applicable to telemarketing calls. In addition, should we establish a national do-not-call list, we propose adopting rules that codify the statutory provisions requiring common carriers to notify their subscribers of the opportunity to place their telephone numbers on a national do-not-call list. We seek input on this proposal and any other suggestions to ensure that consumers are well informed.

45. FTC Proposal to Adopt a Nationwide Do-Not-Call List. As noted above, the FTC has recently issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on a number of potential amendments to its Telemarketing Sales Rule. In relevant part, the FTC proposes to adopt a national do-not-call list that would allow consumers to prohibit calls from any telemarketer within the FTC's jurisdiction by placing their telephone number on a central registry to be maintained by, or on behalf of, the FTC. Because the FTC lacks jurisdiction over banks, common carriers, insurance companies, and certain other entities, these entities could continue to make telemarketing calls to individuals on the FTC's do-not-call list. We seek comment on whether the Commission should use its authority under the TCPA to extend any national do-not-call requirements adopted by the FTC to those entities that fall outside the FTC's jurisdiction. If so, we seek comment on what role the Commission should play in the administration and enforcement of a national database.

46. If the Commission should determine that a national do-not-call list is warranted, we seek comment on what actions the Commission could take to most efficiently, effectively, and consistently complement the FTC's proposal. The FTC indicates that its do-not-call proposal is consistent with the Commission's regulations and should “not be construed to permit any conduct that is precluded or limited by FCC regulations.” If inconsistencies exist at the end of the rulemakings, would this create confusion regarding the applicability and enforcement of the do-not-call requirements to certain entities? For example, the FTC proposes to extend the do-not-call requirement to telemarketing calls from “for-profit entities” that solicit charitable contributions. In so doing, the FTC indicates that its authority extends not only to the sale of goods or services but also to charitable solicitations by for-profit entities on behalf of nonprofit organizations. The Commission has concluded, however, that its regulations under the TCPA apply only to commercial calls. In addition, the TCPA specifically excludes “tax exempt nonprofit organizations” from its provisions. The Commission has concluded that this exemption for nonprofit organizations extends to telephone solicitations made by telemarketers on behalf of tax-exempt nonprofit organizations. We seek comment on whether this interpretation raises possible inconsistencies with the FTC's proposal. If so, we seek comment on how these inconsistencies could be reconciled in the administration of any national do-not-call database.

47. The FTC's proposal also may allow some business and wireless telephone subscribers to register on the national database. The TCPA, however, only grants authority to the Commission to establish a national database for residential subscribers. We seek comment on the extent to which wireless subscribers may be considered “residential” for purposes of the TCPA. In addition, we seek comment on what, if any, conflict exists under the FTC's rules and proposals and the TCPA regarding inclusion of business consumers on the national do-not-call list. The FTC proposal also does not indicate whether consumers will be charged a fee for including their names on the national do-not-call database. We note that the TCPA prohibits the Commission from charging residential consumers to be included in the database. We seek comment on whether these and any other issues that commenters may identify raise potential areas of concern in coordinating the FTC's proposals with any Commission action. To the extent that any such inconsistencies exist, we seek suggestions as to how they could be reconciled to minimize the potential for confusion to consumers, telemarketers, and regulators in the administration and enforcement of any national do-not-call database established under the combined authority of the FTC and the Commission.

48. We also seek comment on whether the Commission should adopt any new rules or revise any of its existing rules to remain consistent with the proposals of the FTC. For example, the FTC proposes that consumers who have placed themselves on the national do-not-call registry “could allow telemarketing calls from or on behalf of specific sellers, or on behalf of charitable organizations, by providing express verifiable authorization to the seller, or telemarketer making calls on behalf of a seller or charitable organization, that the consumer agrees to accept calls from that seller or telemarketer.” The FTC also proposes adopting certain recordkeeping requirements that must be met before companies may avail themselves of the “safe harbor” protections for violating the do-not-call rules. In so doing, the FTC notes that the Commission's rules are silent as to any such requirements to reconcile names or numbers on a national registry because our rules relate only to company-specific lists. We seek comment on whether, if the Commission implements a national database with the FTC, the Commission should adopt recordkeeping or other rules that mirror those proposed by the FTC.

49. Finally, we note that the FTC has sought comment on establishing a national do-not-call registry for a two-year trial period, after which it may review the costs and benefits of the central registry in order to determine whether to modify or terminate its operation. We seek comment on how this could affect any Commission decision to establish a joint database with the FTC, including whether the Commission should commit to a similar review at the same time. We also seek comment on what, if any, disruptions this may cause consumers if the FTC determines at that time to terminate the operation of its national do-not-call database. Finally, we note that the FTC has released a Privacy Act Notice specifying the measures it intends to take to ensure the privacy of consumers in compiling and maintaining the national registry. In its Notice, the FTC proposes to collect certain information including, at a minimum, telephone numbers of individuals who do not wish to receive telemarketing calls. To the extent necessary, the FTC may collect other information such as date(s) and time(s) that the individual's telephone number was placed on the registry; the individual's specific telemarketing preferences; and other identifying information that individuals may provide voluntarily (e.g., residential zip codes for record sorting purposes). The FTC expects to use automated methods to collect the information and to process requests from individuals seeking access to their records in the system. The FTC states that it intends to maintain these records in a secure electronic database operated by that agency and/or contractor personnel bound by the restrictions of the Privacy Act. We seek comment on whether the Commission should impose any requirements beyond those proposed by the FTC to ensure that consumer proprietary information would be protected in a national database.

50. State Do-Not-Call Lists. As noted above, a number of states have adopted or are considering legislation to establish statewide do-not-call lists. Such state lists vary widely in the methods used for collecting data, the fees charged, and the types of entities required to comply with their restrictions. Some state statutes provide for state-managed do-not-call lists, while others require telemarketers to use the Direct Marketing Association's Telephone Preference Service. In some states, residents can register for the do-not-call lists at no charge. In others, telephone subscribers must pay a fee. The state “do-not-call” statutes provide for varying exceptions to the do-not-call requirements. In the context of our review of the national do-not-call database, we seek comment on how effective these state administered do-not-call lists have been in curbing unwanted telephone solicitations and whether a national database would correct any of the shortcomings of the state lists.

51. If the Commission should establish a nationwide do-not-call list in conjunction with the FTC, we seek comment on the potential relationship of that database to state do-not-call laws. We seek comment on the potential role that states could play in administering and enforcing federal do-not-call requirements. We believe that many states have obtained valuable experience and insight into the administration of the do-not-call lists in their respective states. We therefore seek comment from the states, and any other interested parties, on the following options to incorporate state expertise in this process. We also invite additional suggestions on these or any alternative proposals.

52. First, we seek comment on whether those states that have adopted do-not-call laws should administer those laws to the extent that they apply to intrastate telemarketing calls, while the federal law would govern interstate telemarketing. Under such circumstances, we seek comment on whether the Commission should establish a regulatory scheme similar to that developed with the Commission's “slamming” rules that would allow states to “opt-in” and thereby co-administer and enforce the federal interstate do-not-call rules in their respective states. Consistent with the Commission's slamming regulations, states that “opt-in” would be required to write and interpret their statutes and regulations for telemarketing calls in a manner that is consistent with the federal rules. States would be allowed to adopt more restrictive rules for intrastate telemarketing calls if such action is necessary based on its local experiences. Consumers residing in states that decided not to “opt-in” would be allowed to register with the administrator of the federal do-not-call database. These consumers would register and file do-not-call complaints regarding both unwanted intrastate and interstate telephone solicitations with the appropriate federal regulatory entity.

53. We seek comment on whether this proposal is administratively feasible, including whether it is possible and/or necessary for regulators and consumers to distinguish intrastate from interstate telemarketing calls. We note that in comments filed in the FTC proceeding, the Attorneys General of all fifty states, Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands, indicated that states have enforced their own do-not-call laws against telemarketers irrespective of whether such calls are intrastate or interstate in nature. The Attorneys General contend that states have historically enforced their consumer protection laws within, as well as across, state lines to prosecute out-of-state companies that have contacted their residents over the telephone. We seek comment on this interpretation of state authority to regulate telemarketing calls originating outside of the state.

54. Second, we seek comment on how we could work together with states that have adopted do-not-call lists. The state Attorneys General argue that the states have the authority to enforce their own no-call laws against telemarketers across the country. Although many states have adopted laws that differ in some respects from the FTC's proposal, these differences may be reflective of the particularized circumstances of consumers and telemarketers in that state. In this context, the federal do-not-call database could act either as a default mechanism for those states that have not adopted do-not-call laws or coexist with the state do-not-call laws to provide consumers with additional safeguards.

55. Under this approach, there would be no disruption to consumers in the administration and enforcement of the state regulations as applied to interstate calls. In this context, we seek comment on whether consumers in states that have adopted do-not-call laws should be restricted solely to registering on the state database or should also be allowed the option to register on any federal national do-not-call database. If consumers are allowed the option to register on both databases, we seek comment on whether the federal database should permit states to submit do-not-call requests from their own database and to obtain from the federal database any requests from their own state. As noted above, states have adopted a variety of do-not-call laws, some of which may be less restrictive of telemarketing activity than the regulations proposed by the FTC. We therefore seek comment on whether the administration of both a state and federal do-not-call database would be feasible, including whether this approach may lead to consumer confusion or duplicative administrative costs. In this regard, we seek suggestions on how the federal and state regulatory entities should coordinate their efforts, including providing adequate information to consumers.

56. Finally, we invite comment on additional proposals to reconcile the administration of any national do-not-call list with the various state lists. For example, the Commission has received inquiries regarding whether the Commission may also consider preempting the state do-not-call statutes, in whole or in part, under the theory that Congress has legislated comprehensively in this area, thus occupying the entire field of regulation and leaving no room for the states to supplement federal law. This issue has never been addressed on the Commission level, leading to uncertainty among states and telemarketers. In addition, the legislative history indicates that Congress believed the TCPA was necessary because states may lack jurisdiction to regulate interstate telemarketing calls. We seek comment on whether there are any advantages to a single national database over a collection of state do-not-call laws. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether the development of state do-not-call lists obviates the need for a national list. We also seek comment on whether preemption of state do-not-call lists would result in substantial confusion for those consumers that may have already registered in states that have adopted do-not-call lists. Similar to our discussion above, we seek comment in this context on whether the states could be allowed to “opt-in” and thereby co-administer and enforce the federal do-not-call rules in their respective states.

II. Procedural Issues

A. Ex Parte Presentations

57. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules.

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

58. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic effect on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadline for comments on the NPRM provided below in the Comment Filing Procedures section. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

59. Since 1992, when the Commission adopted rules pursuant to the TCPA, telemarketing practices have changed significantly. New technologies have emerged that allow telemarketers to better target potential customers and make marketing using telephones and facsimile machines more cost-effective. At the same time, these new telemarketing techniques have heightened public concern about the effect on consumer privacy. The Commission has received numerous inquiries and complaints involving its rules on telemarketing and unsolicited fax advertisements. A growing number of states have passed or are considering legislation to establish statewide do-not-call lists, and the FTC has proposed establishing a national do-not-call registry. Congress provided in the TCPA that “individuals” privacy rights, public safety interests, and commercial freedoms of speech and trade must be balanced in a way that protects the privacy of individuals and permits legitimate telemarketing practices. In this NPRM, we seek comment on whether the Commission's rules need to be revised in order to more effectively carry out Congress's directives in the TCPA. Specifically, we seek comment on whether to revise or clarify our rules governing unwanted telephone solicitations and the use of automatic telephone dialing systems, prerecorded or artificial voice messages and telephone facsimile machines. In addition, we seek comment on the effectiveness of company-specific do-not-call lists. We also seek comment on whether the Commission should revisit its determination not to adopt a national do-not-call list. In so doing, we seek comment on the options for possible Commission action in conjunction with the FTC's proposal to adopt a national do-not-call registry for those entities over which it has jurisdiction and the proliferation of state-adopted do-not-call lists. We seek comment on these issues, as well as any alternative means of protecting consumers' privacy while avoiding imposing unnecessary burdens on the telemarketing industry, consumers, and regulators.

2. Legal Basis

60. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to this NPRM is contained in sections 1 thru 4, 227 and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151 thru 154 and 227; and 47 CFR 64.1200 and 1201 of the Commission's rules.

3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

61. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules, 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. Under the Small Business Act, a “small business concern” is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

62. The Commission's rules on telephone solicitation and the use of autodialers, artificial or prerecorded messages and telephone facsimile machines apply to a wide range of entities, including all telecommunications carriers and other entities that use the telephone or facsimile machine to advertise. Thus, we expect that the proposals in this proceeding could have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In 1992, there were approximately 4.44 million small business firms in the United States, according to SBA data. The SBA has determined that “telemarketing bureaus” with $6 million or less in annual receipts qualify as small businesses. For 1997, there were 1,727 firms in this category, total, which operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,536 reported annual receipts of less than $5 million.

63. Determining a precise number of small entities that would be subject to the requirements proposed in this NPRM is not readily feasible. Therefore, we invite comment about the number of small business entities that would be subject to the proposed rules in this proceeding. After evaluating the comments, the Commission will examine further the effect any rule changes might have on small entities, and will set forth our findings in the final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

64. We are seeking comment on whether to amend the Commission's TCPA rules and/or to revisit the option of establishing a national do-not-call list. The proposed rules will apply, with certain exceptions, to all entities making telephone solicitations or using automatic telephone dialing systems, prerecorded or artificial voice messages or telephone facsimile machines to send unsolicited advertisements. If we retain the company-specific do-not-call approach, we seek comment on whether to require companies to provide a toll-free number and/or website for consumers to register their names on the do-not-call lists. We also seek comment on whether additional measures should be taken to ensure that consumers with disabilities can register their do-not-call requests. Any such measures, if adopted, may involve additional costs to businesses. If we find that establishing a national do-not-call list is warranted, we must determine the entity that will maintain the list and the procedures for administering the list. For small businesses whose call lists are not automated, scrubbing lists could be more labor-intensive and thus, more time-consuming and costly. However, we do not anticipate that such recordkeeping will require the use of professional skills, including legal and accounting expertise. In this NPRM, we seek information regarding the burdens on telemarketers to comply with a national do-not-call database, including the requirements to obtain a national list of telephone numbers and to incorporate those numbers into telemarketers' individual do-not-call lists. Entities, especially small businesses, are encouraged to quantify the costs and benefits of a national do-not-call list, as well as the costs and benefits of any possible new rules regarding certain telemarketing technologies and practices. Finally, the TCPA under section 227(c)(3) provides that should the Commission adopt a national do-not-call list, common carriers shall be required to inform subscribers of the option to register on a national do-not-call list. We seek input on this proposal and any other suggestions to ensure the public is well-informed.

5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

65. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 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 or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

66. This NPRM invites comment on a number of alternatives to modify the existing TCPA rules on telephone solicitation and the use of autodialers, artificial or prerecorded messages, and telephone facsimile machines. The Commission also will consider additional significant alternatives developed in the record. We seek comment on the effectiveness of company-specific do-not-call lists and whether the benefits of individual company lists continue to outweigh the costs to telemarketers. We also seek comment on whether any network technologies have been developed over the last decade that could serve as alternatives to do-not-call lists. We ask whether any such technologies are effective, universally available, and affordable to consumers in allowing consumers to curb unwanted telephone solicitations. In addition, we seek comment on a number of proposals such as requiring a maximum setting on the number of abandoned calls, requiring telemarketers to transmit caller ID information or prohibiting them from blocking such information. We also ask whether revisiting the established business relationship exemption would interfere with ongoing business relationships, particularly for small businesses.

67. We also seek comment on options for possible Commission action in conjunction with the FTC's proposal to establish a national do-not-call registry. A national do-not-call list might provide consumers with a one step method to avoid unwanted sales calls and assist telemarketers in identifying those consumers who do not wish to be contacted. We seek information, however, about the potential costs of establishing and maintaining a national list and about the burdens on telemarketers of complying with a national do-not-call list. Specifically, we ask whether there should be any distinctions for small businesses that must comply with a national do-not-call registry. We also ask whether consumers listed on a national registry should be permitted to also provide express verifiable authorization to those businesses from whom they want to receive calls.

6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

68. The Telemarketing Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (“Telemarketing Act”), 15 U.S.C. 6101 thru 6108, and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) adopted by the FTC also address certain telemarketing acts or practices. The TCPA and Commission rules currently do not duplicate, overlap or conflict with the Telemarketing Act or TSR; however, there are provisions in the FTC's rules that mirror the Commission's rules, such as the calling time restrictions. It is difficult to determine at this time whether any of the proposals contained in this NPRM might conflict with any other federal rules, given that the FTC has undertaken a rulemaking proceeding of its own. Therefore, we ask in the NPRM whether any inconsistencies at the end of the rulemakings would create confusion regarding the applicability and enforcement of the do-not-call requirements to certain entities. For instance, the FTC proposes to extend its do-not-call requirements to telemarketing calls from “for-profit entities” that solicit charitable contributions; the Commission has concluded that its regulations apply only to commercial calls. The FTC's proposal also appears to allow some business and wireless telephone subscribers to register on the national database, while the TCPA grants authority to the Commission to establish a national database only for residential subscribers. Therefore, the Commission invites comment in this NPRM on whether we could adopt any new rules or revise any of our existing rules to remain consistent with the FTC's proposals.

C. Filing of Comments and Reply Comments

69. We invite comment on the issues and questions set forth above. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before November 22, 2002, and reply comments on or before December 9, 2002. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings (63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998).

70. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/​e-file/​ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to [e-mail], and should include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in reply. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters 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 (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes 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 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Parties also should send four (4) paper copies of their filings to Kelli Farmer, Federal Communications Commission, Room 4-C740, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

71. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information collections are due on or before November 22, 2002. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information collections on or before December 9, 2002. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [e-mail] and to Edward Springer, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to [e-mail].

72. Accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin of the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, at [phone], TTY [phone], or at [e-mail].

III. Ordering Clauses

73. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.

74. The Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

• Telephone

Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene H. Dortch,

Secretary.