Implementing the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act, 21785-21789 [2020-07212]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 76 (Monday, April 20, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21785-21789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07212]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[EB Docket No. 20-22; FCC 20-34; FRS 16617]


Implementing the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal 
Enforcement and Deterrence Act

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopts final rules, as 
required by the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal 
Enforcement and Deterrence Act (TRACED Act), to establish a 
registration process for the registration of a single consortium that 
conducts private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected 
unlawful robocalls.

DATES: Effective May 20, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Daniel Stepanicich of the Telecommunications 
Consumers Division, Enforcement Bureau, at [email protected] 
or (202) 418-7451.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, FCC 20-34, EB Docket No. 20-22, adopted on March 27, 2020 
and released on March 27, 2020, which is the subject of this 
rulemaking. The full text of this document is available for public 
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 
445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, or online at 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-34A1.pdf. To request 
this document in accessible formats for people with disabilities (e.g., 
Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format, etc.) or to 
request reasonable accommodations (e.g., accessible format documents, 
sign language interpreters, CART, etc.), send an email to 
[email protected] or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Synopsis

    1. In this Report and Order, the Federal Communications Commission 
adopts final rules to implement section 13(d) of the Pallone-Thune 
Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act 
(TRACED Act) to establish a registration process for the registration 
of a single consortium that conducts private-led efforts to trace back 
the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls. Unlawful prerecorded or 
artificial voice message calls--robocalls--plague the American public. 
Despite the Commission's efforts to combat unlawful robocalls, which 
includes efforts to trace unlawful spoofed robocalls to their 
origination--a process known as traceback--these calls persist. 
Congress recognized the continued problem and enacted the TRACED Act to 
further aid the Commission's efforts. Congress acknowledged the 
beneficial collaboration between the Commission and the private sector 
on traceback issues and, in section 13(d) of the TRACED Act, required 
the Commission to issue rules for the registration of a single 
consortium that conducts private-led efforts to trace back the origin 
of suspected unlawful robocalls.
    2. The Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
on February 6, 2020, at 85 FR 8531, proposing to establish a process to 
designate a registered consortium as contemplated by section 13(d) of 
the TRACED Act. ACA International, INCOMPAS, NCTA-The internet & 
Television Association (NCTA), USTelecom-The Broadband Association 
(USTelecom), and ZipDX, LLC (ZipDX) filed comments, and Cloud 
Communications Alliance (CCA), NCTA, and USTelecom filed reply comments 
in this proceeding.
    3. In this Report and Order, we amend our rules to establish a 
process to register a single consortium under section 13(d) of the 
TRACED Act. We generally adopt our rules as proposed, with limited 
modifications to ensure that we satisfy the statutory requirements and 
to address commenters' concerns.

Registration Process

    4. We revise our rules to require the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) 
to issue, no later than April 28th of each year, an annual public 
notice seeking registration of a single consortium that conducts 
private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful 
robocalls. This is consistent with the statute and our proposed rule. 
The notice will set forth a deadline by which an entity that plans to 
register as the consortium for private-led traceback efforts must 
submit in the docket a letter of notice of its intent to conduct 
private-led traceback efforts and its intent to register as a single 
consortium.
    5. Letter of Intent. We require an entity that plans to register as 
the consortium for private-led traceback efforts to submit a Letter of 
Intent as directed by the Bureau's public notice. Consistent with the 
statute, we proposed that the Letter of Intent include the name of the 
entity and a statement of its intent to conduct private-led traceback 
efforts and its intent to register with the Commission as the single 
consortium that conducts private-led efforts to trace back the origin 
of suspected unlawful robocalls. We adopt this proposal.
    6. In its Letter of Intent, the entity must satisfy the statutory 
requirements by:
    (a) Demonstrating that the consortium is a neutral third party 
competent to manage the private-led effort to trace back the origin of 
suspected unlawful robocalls;
    (b) Including a copy of the consortium's written best practices, 
with an explanation thereof, regarding management of its traceback 
efforts and regarding providers of voice services' participation in the 
consortium's efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful 
robocalls;
    (c) Certifying that, consistent with section 222(d)(2) of the 
Communications Act, the consortium's efforts will focus on fraudulent, 
abusive, or unlawful traffic; and
    (d) Certifying that the consortium has notified the Commission that 
it intends to conduct traceback efforts of suspected unlawful robocalls 
in advance of registration as the single consortium.
    7. We direct the Bureau to review the Letters of Intent and to 
select the single registered consortium no later than 90 days after the 
deadline for the submission of Letters of Intent. As we proposed, we 
will not require the incumbent registered consortium to submit a Letter 
of Intent after its initial selection as the registered consortium. 
Instead, the certifications contained in the registered consortium's 
initial Letter of Intent will continue in effect for each subsequent 
year the incumbent registered consortium serves unless the incumbent 
consortium notifies the Commission otherwise in writing on or before 
the date for the filing of such letters set forth in the annual public 
notice. This approach will allow us to fulfill our statutory mandate 
while minimizing the burdens of the registration process. In the event 
of any

[[Page 21786]]

delays in our annual selection process, the incumbent consortium is 
authorized to continue its traceback efforts until the effective date 
of the selection of any new registered consortium.
    8. In order to ensure that the incumbent registered consortium 
continues to perform its duties in compliance with the statute and to 
address commenters' concerns about Commission oversight, we also add 
certain requirements to help the Commission verify that the registered 
consortium continues to comply with the statute. Specifically, in the 
Letter of Intent, an entity seeking registration must certify that it 
will (1) remain in compliance throughout the time period that it is the 
registered consortium; (2) conduct an annual review to ensure its 
compliance with the statutory requirements; and (3) promptly notify the 
Commission of any changes that reasonably bear on its certification, 
including, for example, material changes to its best practices. We 
reserve the right to revisit these requirements or impose additional 
commitments if necessary.
    9. 2020 Registration Process. Because this is a new process, we 
direct the Bureau to provide an opportunity for public comment on any 
Letter of Intent in response to the first annual notice. We also direct 
the Bureau to set the filing date for Letters of Intent no sooner than 
30 days after the rules are published in the Federal Register. We will 
not impose additional process requirements, but the Bureau shall have 
appropriate flexibility to determine what, if any, additional processes 
may be necessary to ensure that it receives sufficient information to 
select the registered consortium, including providing an opportunity 
for public comment on any Letters of Intent in future years.

Selection of the Registered Consortium

    10. An entity that seeks to become the registered consortium must 
sufficiently and meaningfully fulfill the statutory requirements. Based 
on our experience, we expect the traceback process to evolve in 
response to new unlawful robocalling schemes, new technologies, and the 
needs of interested parties, such as the Commission, the Department of 
Justice, state Attorneys General, and other agencies. Accordingly, we 
wish to encourage, not hinder, a responsive, dynamic traceback process. 
We must, however, ensure that the registered consortium is accountable 
for compliance with the statutory requirements. We will set forth a set 
of principles, rather than prescriptive directives, for the Bureau to 
use to select the registered consortium and ensure that it complies 
with section 13(d)(1)(A) through (D) of the TRACED Act. This approach 
will ensure a reasonable balance between ensuring statutory compliance 
with the need for a nimble and dynamic traceback process.
    11. First, the registered consortium must be a neutral third party. 
As we stated in the NPRM, openness is indicative of the level of 
neutrality we would expect in order to accept a consortium's 
registration. We find that a neutral third party, at a minimum, must 
demonstrate its openness by explaining how it will allow voice service 
providers to participate in an unbiased, non-discriminatory, and 
technology-neutral manner. Commenters generally recognize that openness 
is an indicator of neutrality, and we find that objective criteria of 
openness will encourage broad voice service provider participation. 
Broad participation and cooperation are necessary to fulfill the 
fundamental purpose of traceback--timely and successfully finding the 
origin of suspected unlawful robocalls that traverse multiple voice 
service providers' networks.
    12. We also agree with USTelecom that, so long as participation 
criteria are objectively neutral as we describe, the consortium should 
have flexibility to control participation when appropriate. For 
example, a voice service provider that carries voluminous suspected 
unlawful robocalls might attempt to join the consortium to gain insight 
into ways to evade traceback efforts. Allowing such an entity access to 
the consortium could undermine or even defeat the consortium's 
traceback efforts--and defeat Congress's purpose in enacting the 
statute. Thus, we interpret the statutory requirement that the 
consortium be neutral to mean that it must allow voice service 
providers' participation in an unbiased, non-discriminatory, and 
technology-neutral manner, thereby prohibiting bias in favor or against 
any industry segment. It does not require that the consortium permit 
indiscriminate participation by any entity, nor prohibit the consortium 
from denying or restricting participation where there is a valid reason 
to do so. We encourage any entity that believes that the designated 
consortium has unfairly discriminated against any entity regarding 
participation to alert the Bureau promptly of such concerns.
    13. In order to ensure that the registered consortium fulfills the 
statutory obligation of neutrality, applicants will need to demonstrate 
in their Letters of Intent that they meet that requirement. Consistent 
with the openness principle, consortia should provide information to 
demonstrate that their internal structural, procedural, and 
administrative mechanisms, as well as other operational criteria do not 
result in an overall lack of neutrality. The Bureau must fully consider 
and evaluate each Letter of Intent to ensure that it meets the 
neutrality requirements, consistent with our objective openness 
principle, as well as the other statutory requirements. The Bureau will 
select as the registered consortium the entity that best meets these 
requirements. As we have stated, however, we are willing to entertain 
public input regarding the consortium's neutrality, and we will 
evaluate each such Letter of Intent in light of a consortium's showings 
of compliance with the neutrality and other requirements of section 
13(d).
    14. Both NCTA and INCOMPAS propose that the Commission mandate 
specific neutrality requirements, such as requiring the registered 
consortium to establish and maintain an executive committee, or 
something comparable, comprised of different industry sectors with an 
equal voice in the management of the consortium, or requiring 
structural separation from any advocacy entity. We acknowledge that, in 
other instances, we have adopted more detailed neutrality criteria, 
such as in the context of number administration. The primary purpose of 
entities like the North American Numbering Plan Administrator, however, 
is to oversee resources for the communications industry, which may have 
competing goals. Here, in contrast, there is a shared goal among the 
vast majority of participants to curtail unlawful robocalling and 
spoofing. Although NCTA and INCOMPAS's proposals provide examples of 
what a consortium could include to demonstrate its openness, we decline 
to mandate these specific requirements. The statute does not require, 
and we do not find it necessary to impose, a single, specific structure 
or administrative methodology to ensure neutrality.
    15. INCOMPAS also suggests that the Industry Traceback Group is the 
Commission's predetermined registered consortium, and expresses concern 
about that group's neutrality. We acknowledge our experience with the 
Industry Traceback Group, but the Commission has not reached a 
determination as to which entity may be selected as the registered 
consortium. Moreover, the statute contemplates an annual evaluation 
process by the Bureau to ensure that the registered consortium 
continues to (or in the case of a new applicant, shall) fulfill the 
statutory obligation for neutrality. Accordingly, we are open to 
receiving comments now

[[Page 21787]]

and in future application cycles to ensure that the registered 
consortium, throughout its tenure, performs its traceback activities in 
a fair and neutral manner. We note that specific examples have the most 
probative value.
    16. Second, the registered consortium must be a competent manager 
of the private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected 
unlawful robocalls. We find that a competent manager of the private-led 
traceback efforts must be able to effectively and efficiently manage a 
traceback process of suspected unlawful robocalls for the benefit of 
those who use the traceback information and ultimately, consumers. An 
effective and efficient traceback process includes timely and 
successfully finding the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls that 
traverse multiple voice service providers' networks. Competent 
management requires that the consortium work cooperatively and 
collaboratively across the industry and provide prompt and 
comprehensive information to the Bureau and others who have a 
legitimate need for, and a legal right to, the information. The 
registered consortium also must be aware of and conform to applicable 
legal requirements, such as requirements regarding confidentiality and 
legal processes.
    17. Congress specifically afforded the Commission discretion to 
determine a consortium's competence to manage private-led traceback 
efforts, ``in the judgement of the Commission.'' Evidence of expertise 
and success in managing and improving traceback processes address a 
consortium's competence, and therefore, is rooted in statutory 
authority. As we state in the NPRM, it is reasonable to weigh that 
expertise and success when selecting between or among consortia to 
ensure that private-led efforts result in effective traceback. We note, 
however, that while a consortium's expertise in managing traceback 
processes is particularly relevant, such experience is not a 
prerequisite.
    18. We disagree with INCOMPAS's assertion that we are foreclosed 
from weighting a consortium's expertise and success in managing and 
improving traceback processes. Giving weight to expertise and success 
in managing and improving traceback processes does not foreclose 
consortia that develop innovative traceback processes, and we encourage 
all qualified interested entities to apply.
    19. Third, the registered consortium must maintain, and conform its 
actions to, written best practices regarding the management of private-
led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls 
and regarding providers of voice services' participation in such 
efforts. We find that written best practices, at a minimum, would 
address the consortium's compliance with statutory requirements, 
consistent with the principles we set forth in this Order. We also find 
that the registered consortium's written best practices must establish 
processes and criteria for determining how providers of voice services 
will participate in traceback efforts, and those processes and criteria 
must be fair and reasonable.
    20. By their nature, best practices evolve over time to reflect 
empirical knowledge and practical experience. This is particularly true 
for technology-dependent activities such as combatting caller ID 
spoofing. Therefore, we decline to mandate specific best practices that 
would necessarily be based on our experience today and might not 
accurately encompass concerns or reflect best practices that may 
develop in the future. It is incumbent upon a consortium, however, to 
explain how its written policy demonstrates best practices. For 
example, written best practices that address the openness of the 
consortium and the competency of the consortium would likely include a 
number of commenters' specific suggestions, e.g., provisions governing 
(a) voice service providers' participation in private-led traceback 
efforts, (b) how specific calls are selected for traceback, (c) 
traceback information sharing, (d) consortium governance, and (e) 
budget transparency, including voice service provider participation 
fees or costs. Our evaluation of consortium proposals will also include 
a review of such explanations.
    21. Fourth, consistent with section 222(d)(2), the registered 
consortium's private-led traceback of suspected unlawful robocalls must 
focus on fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful traffic. Commenters offered 
no specific suggestions for interpreting this particular provision. 
Based on our experience regarding unlawful robocalls, a traceback 
process that, at a minimum, considers scope, scale, and harm, should 
lead to a focus on fraudulent, abusive, and unlawful traffic. For 
example, large scale unlawful robocalling and/or unlawful spoofing 
campaigns may be abusive because they add unauthorized burdens to 
telecommunications networks and potentially threaten the integrity of 
the nation's telecommunications infrastructure. A consortium could 
demonstrate compliance by adopting criteria, consistent with the 
considerations enumerated here, that govern how calls are selected for 
traceback.
    22. CCA suggests that the definition of suspected unlawful 
robocalls that trigger a traceback request should be limited to calls 
that seek to perpetrate fraud or result in massive unlawful activity, 
such as mass calling to numbers on the do not call registry. We find 
that a written best practice that uses CCA's proposed interpretation of 
the definition of suspected unlawful robocalls that trigger a traceback 
request to be too narrow. Suspected unlawful robocalls are defined, for 
example, to include calls that the Commission or a voice service 
provider reasonably believes to be unlawful spoofed calls; not all 
unlawful spoofed calls seek to perpetrate fraud or result in massive 
unlawful activity. Indeed, fraud is only one of three elements in the 
statute that determines whether the act of spoofing violates the law.
    23. In the event that more than one consortium submits a Letter of 
Intent, meets the statutory requirements of section 13(d)(1)(A) through 
(D), and fulfills the rules that we adopt today, the Bureau must select 
only one. The Bureau should fully evaluate each applicant to determine 
which most fully satisfies the statutory requirements and the 
principles that the Commission has identified.
    24. ACA International suggests that, if more than one consortium 
seeks to be the registered consortium, the Bureau should heavily weight 
applicants whose members include a representative sampling of lawful 
legitimate callers and applicants whose procedures and policies seek to 
minimize the likelihood of false positives that would negatively impact 
lawful, legitimate calls. Other commenters assert that ACA 
International's comments arise from concerns about voice service 
providers' call blocking and are better addressed through other FCC 
proceedings that specifically address the call blocking issue. We agree 
that protecting legitimate calls is better addressed through call 
blocking proceedings rather than the selection of the consortium 
selected to conduct tracebacks. Our openness principle for 
demonstrating neutrality focuses on allowing voice service providers to 
participate but does not exclude a consortium from addressing ACA 
International's concern.
    25. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. The Report and Order 
does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, 
therefore, the Report and Order does not contain any new or modified 
information collection burden

[[Page 21788]]

for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to 
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
    26. Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and 
the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, concurs that this rule is non-major 
under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission 
will send a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    27. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification. The Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, as amended (RFA), requires a regulatory flexibility 
analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, 
unless the agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having 
the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small 
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, 
the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small 
business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A ``small business 
concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is 
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA).
    28. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification (IRFC) was 
incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) in this 
proceeding. The proceeding was established to fulfill the Commission's 
statutory obligation under the TRACED Act, no later than March 29, 
2020, to issue rules to establish a registration process for the 
registration of a single consortium that conducts private-led efforts 
to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls. The scope of 
the proposals in the Notice were limited to the creation of a 
registration with the Commission of a single consortium that conducts 
private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful 
robocalls as required by section 13 of the TRACED Act. As such the 
Commission did not anticipate that there would be a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because very 
few entities would likely apply to serve as the consortium and only a 
single entity will be chosen. Moreover, the Commission believed that 
for any entity that has the resources to perform the private-led 
traceback efforts, both the registration burdens and the economic 
impact of the proposals in the Notice would be negligible.
    29. In the Report and Order, the Commission generally adopts the 
rules as proposed in the February 6, 2020 rulemaking, subject to a few 
modifications to ensure that we satisfy statutory requirements and 
address concerns raised in comments filed in the proceeding. Based on 
our experience, the Commission continues to reasonably expect that no 
more than a few entities, and perhaps only one, will apply to serve as 
the consortium, and the rules we adopt herein impose minimal 
registration burdens such that they will have no more than a de minimis 
economic impact on any entity that has the resources to perform the 
private-led traceback efforts. Accordingly, we make this Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Certification certifying that the rules adopted 
in the Report and Order will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.
    30. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 4(j), 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 
154(j), and section 13(d) of the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse 
Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act, Public Law 116-105, 133 Stat. 
3274, this Report and Order is adopted.
    31. It is further ordered that parts 0 and 64 of the Commission's 
rules are amended as set forth in Appendix A.
    32. It is further ordered, that, pursuant to sections 1.4(b)(1) and 
1.103(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1), 1.103(a), this 
Report and Order and the amendments to parts 0 and 64 of the 
Commission's rules, as set forth in Appendix A, shall be effective 30 
days after publication in the Federal Register.
    33. It is further ordered, that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Certification, in a report to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    34. It is further ordered, that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration and be published in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in Parts 0 and 64

    Telecommunications.

    Federal Communications Commission.
Cecilia Sigmund,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 0 and 64 as follows:

PART 0--COMMISSION ORGANIZATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 155, 225, unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  0.111 by redesignating paragraph (i) as paragraph (j) 
and adding a new paragraph (i) to read as follows::


Sec.  0.111  --Functions of the Bureau.

* * * * *
    (i) Conduct the annual registration and select a single consortium 
to conduct private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected 
unlawful robocalls, under section 13(d) of the TRACED Act, 133 Stat. at 
3287, and Sec.  64.1203 of this chapter, consistent with FCC No. 20-34.
* * * * *

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

0
3. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 225, 226, 
227, 228, 251(e), 254(k), 262, 403(b), (2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 1401-
1473, unless otherwise noted. sec. 503, Pub. L. 115-141, 132 Stat. 
348.


0
4. Add Sec.  64.1203 to read as follows:


Sec.  64.1203  --Consortium registration process.

    (a) The Enforcement Bureau shall issue a public notice no later 
than April 28 annually seeking registration of a single consortium that 
conducts private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected 
unlawful robocalls.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, an entity 
that seeks to register as the single consortium that conducts private-
led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls 
must submit a letter and associated documentation in response to the 
public notice issued pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section. In the 
letter, the entity must:

[[Page 21789]]

    (1) Demonstrate that the consortium is a neutral third party 
competent to manage the private-led effort to trace back the origin of 
suspected unlawful robocalls;
    (2) Include a copy of the consortium's written best practices, with 
an explanation thereof, regarding the management of its traceback 
efforts and regarding voice service providers' participation in the 
consortium's efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful 
robocalls;
    (3) Certify that, consistent with section 222(d)(2) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the consortium's efforts will 
focus on fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful traffic;
    (4) Certify that the consortium has notified the Commission that it 
intends to conduct traceback efforts of suspected unlawful robocalls in 
advance of registration as the single consortium; and
    (5) Certify that, if selected to be the registered consortium, it 
will:
    (i) Remain in compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (4) of this section;
    (ii) Conduct an annual review to ensure compliance with the 
requirements set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this 
section; and
    (iii) Promptly notify the Commission of any changes that reasonably 
bear on its certification.
    (c) The entity selected to be the registered consortium will not be 
required to file the letter mandated in paragraph (b) of this section 
in subsequent years after the consortium's initial registration. The 
registered consortium's initial certifications, required by paragraph 
(b) of this section, will continue for the duration of each subsequent 
year unless the registered consortium notifies the Commission otherwise 
in writing on or before the date for filing letters set forth in the 
annual public notice issued pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
    (d) The current registered consortium shall continue its traceback 
efforts until the effective date of the selection of any new registered 
consortium.
[FR Doc. 2020-07212 Filed 4-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P