FR 2020-28612

The document is a proposal from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) aimed at combatting the persistent nuisance of unlawful robocalls. It outlines the agency's intention to implement specific rules to support the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act (TRACED Act). The proposed measures hope to streamline the way private entities can report violations of the Communications Act, particularly those related to robocalls and caller ID spoofing.

General Summary

At its core, the proposed rules seek to simplify and formalize how private entities such as individuals, companies, and non-government organizations can submit information about illegal calls to the FCC. A key feature of this proposal is the creation of an online portal managed by the FCC's Enforcement Bureau. This tool is envisioned as a direct channel for private entities to report suspicious robocalling activities without being embedded in bureaucratic procedures.

Significant Issues and Concerns

While the document is well-intentioned, it presents several concerns and ambiguities. Firstly, the language used throughout the proposal is notably complex and formal, which might hinder understanding among the general public. This complexity can obstruct engagement from non-expert stakeholders who may benefit from participating in reporting robocalls.

Another significant issue is the vague definition of a "private entity." Although the definition excludes government bodies, it could be clearer on what actually qualifies as a "public entity," ensuring all stakeholders understand their eligibility to use the proposed system.

Moreover, the proposal raises questions about the incentives for private entities to engage with the FCC's reporting process. While it mentions safe harbor provisions as potential enticements, these concepts are not thoroughly fleshed out, leaving stakeholders uncertain about the benefits of their participation.

The document also does not provide detailed clarity on managing the information submitted through this web portal, including how it will integrate with existing systems or address significant security concerns. The assurance of confidentiality for those submitting reports is mentioned, yet there is limited detail on enforcing these protections effectively.

Public and Stakeholder Impact

The proposal, if enacted, has the potential to improve the broader public welfare significantly by curbing the surge of unwanted and often deceptive robocalls. This would especially aid consumers who have experienced disruptions or scams originating from such calls.

For specific stakeholders, such as small businesses and organizations, the impact is mixed. On one hand, they benefit from a streamlined process that could reduce their exposure to robocalls. However, without clear incentives, the burden may still be perceived as one-sided, where reporting is voluntary and possibly seen as time-consuming with uncertain outcomes.

Conclusion

The FCC's effort to combat illegal robocalls through the TRACED Act's implementation is a step in the right direction to protect the public from telecom abuses. However, the proposal would benefit from more precise language, clearer definitions, and definite provisions for protecting and motivating those who utilize the reporting system. The provision of concrete examples of how small entities might be impacted, both positively and negatively, could also enrich public understanding and foster greater participation.

The document under analysis addresses the implementation of the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act, or the TRACED Act, aimed at curbing unlawful robocalls and spoofing activities. Despite these aims, the document makes reference to specific financial thresholds that relate to certain organizations affected by the proposed rulemaking.

Revenue Benchmark for Small Exempt Organizations

One clear financial reference in the document involves the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)'s use of a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less. This benchmark is used to delineate the annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. This figure is notably relevant to how small non-profit organizations may be categorized for purposes of compliance or for special considerations under regulatory frameworks like the proposed rules in the document.

Statistical Context for Small Exempt Organizations

The document also cites data illustrating that nationwide, for the tax year 2018, there were approximately 571,709 small exempt organizations in the United States that reported revenues of $50,000 or less. This statistic underscores the prevalence of small organizations that might be engaged in activities related to or affected by telecommunication regulations like those being proposed. However, the document does not directly address how these financial metrics will interplay with any new responsibilities or opportunities resulting from this regulatory change, nor does it elucidate any direct fiscal impacts for these small entities.

Relation to Identified Issues

While these financial figures are presented as factual data points, the document does not expand on how they connect to the issues identified, particularly the concerns around potential reporting burdens on small entities. There is an assertion in the document that the proposed web portal for reporting robocall violations would not constitute a significant new obligation for small entities. However, no specific financial analysis or empirical data is offered to validate this claim. Given the size and scope of the small exempt organizations referenced, further elaboration on these financial aspects might provide greater clarity on potential economic impacts.

In summary, while the document does mention specific financial thresholds and statistical data about small exempt organizations, it falls short of linking these references to the broader implications of the TRACED Act's implementation or to addressing concerns around regulatory burdens for small entities. The references serve more as background context rather than providing a comprehensive financial assessment or forecast connected to the proposed rulemaking.