83 FR 26284 - Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment on Interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in Light of the D.C. Circuit's ACA International Decision

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 109 (June 6, 2018)

Page Range		26284-26286
FR Document		2018-12084
In this document, the Commission, via the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau), invites comment on several issues related to interpretation and implementation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) following the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in ACA International v. FCC: What constitutes an ``automatic telephone dialing system,'' how to treat calls to reassigned wireless numbers, and how a called party may revoke prior express consent to receive robocalls under the TCPA. In addition, the Bureau seeks to refresh the record on two pending petitions for reconsideration of the Commission's Broadnet Declaratory Ruling and on a pending petition for reconsideration of the 2016 Federal Debt Collection Rules that implemented amendments to the TCPA.
Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2018)
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26284-26286]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12084]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[CG Docket Nos. 18-152, 02-278; DA 18-493]


Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment on 
Interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in Light of the 
D.C. Circuit's ACA International Decision

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission, via the Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau), invites comment on several issues 
related to interpretation and implementation of the Telephone Consumer 
Protection Act (TCPA) following the recent decision of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia in ACA International v. FCC: 
What constitutes an ``automatic telephone dialing system,'' how to 
treat calls to reassigned wireless numbers, and how a called party may 
revoke prior express consent to receive robocalls under the TCPA. In 
addition, the Bureau seeks to refresh the record on two pending 
petitions for reconsideration of the Commission's Broadnet Declaratory 
Ruling and on a pending petition for reconsideration of the 2016 
Federal Debt Collection Rules that implemented amendments to the TCPA.

DATES: Comments are due on June 13, 2018. Reply comments are due on 
June 28, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Documents may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
     Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th Street SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing 
hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held 
together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must 
be disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact 
Kristi Thornton of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 
(202) 418-2467 or [email protected]; Christina Clearwater at 
(202) 418-1893 or [email protected]; or Karen Schroeder at 
(202) 418-0654 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Public 
Notice, document DA 18-493, released on May 14, 2018. The full text of 
document DA 18-493 will be available for public inspection and copying 
via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference 
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554. A copy of document DA 18-493 and any subsequently 
filed documents in this matter may also be found by searching ECFS at: 
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (insert CG Docket Nos. 18-152 or 02-278 into 
the Proceeding block).
    Interested parties may file comments on or before the dates 
indicated above in the Dates portion of this notice. All filings must 
reference CG Docket Nos. 18-152 and 02-278. Pursuant to Sec.  1.1200 of 
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1200, this matter shall be treated as 
a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the 
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must 
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any 
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation 
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period 
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that 
memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) List all persons 
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex 
parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with Sec.  1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In 
proceedings governed by Sec.  1.49(f) of the rules or for which the 
Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex 
parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte 
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the 
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and 
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, 
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize 
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
    To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and

[[Page 26285]]

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (844) 432-2275 
(videophone), or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Document DA 18-493 can also be 
downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-18-493A1.docx.

Synopsis

    1. In the Public Notice, the Bureau seeks comment on several issues 
related to interpretation and implementation of the Telephone Consumer 
Protection Act (TCPA), following the recent decision of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia in ACA International v. FCC, 
885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
    First, the Bureau seeks comment on what constitutes an ``automatic 
telephone dialing system.'' The TCPA defines an automatic telephone 
dialing system as ``equipment which has the capacity--(A) to store or 
produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential 
number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.'' The Commission had 
interpreted the term ``capacity'' to include a device ``even if, for 
example, it requires the addition of software to actually perform the 
functions described in the definition''--``an expansive interpretation 
of `capacity' having the apparent effect of embracing any and all 
smartphones.'' The court set aside this interpretation, finding the 
agency's ``capacious understanding of a device's `capacity' lies 
considerably beyond the agency's zone of delegated authority.''
    2. The Bureau seeks comment on how to interpret ``capacity'' in 
light of the court's guidance. For example, how much user effort should 
be required to enable the device to function as an automatic telephone 
dialing system? Does equipment have the capacity if it requires the 
simple flipping of a switch? If the addition of software can give it 
the requisite functionality? If it requires essentially a top-to-bottom 
reconstruction of the equipment? In answering that question, what kinds 
(and how broad a swath) of telephone equipment might then be deemed to 
qualify as an automatic telephone dialing system? Notably, in light of 
the court's guidance that the Commission's prior interpretation had an 
``eye-popping sweep,'' the Bureau seeks comment on how to more narrowly 
interpret the word ``capacity'' to better comport with the 
congressional findings and the intended reach of the statute.
    3. The Bureau seeks further comment on the functions a device must 
be able to perform to qualify as an automatic telephone dialing system. 
Again, the TCPA defines an ``automatic telephone dialing system'' as 
``equipment which has the capacity--(A) to store or produce telephone 
numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; 
and (B) to dial such numbers.'' Regarding the term ``automatic,'' the 
Commission explained that the ``basic function[ ]'' of an automatic 
telephone dialing system is to ``dial numbers without human 
intervention'' and yet ``declined to `clarify[ ] that a dialer is not 
an [automatic telephone dialing system] unless it has the capacity to 
dial numbers without human intervention.' '' As the court put it, 
``[t]hose side-by-side propositions are difficult to square.'' The 
court further noted the Commission said another basic function was to 
``dial thousands of numbers in a short period of time,'' which left 
parties ``in a significant fog of uncertainty'' on how to apply that 
notation. How ``automatic'' must dialing be for equipment to qualify as 
an automatic telephone dialing system? Does the word ``automatic'' 
``envision non-manual dialing of telephone numbers''? Must such a 
system dial numbers without human intervention? Must it dial thousands 
of numbers in a short period of time? If so, what constitutes a short 
period of time for these purposes?
    4. Regarding the provision concerning a ``random or sequential 
number generator,'' the court noted that ``the 2015 ruling indicates in 
certain places that a device must be able to generate and dial random 
or sequential numbers to meet the TCPA's definition of an autodialer, 
[and] it also suggests a competing view: that equipment can meet the 
statutory definition even if it lacks that capacity.'' The court 
explained ``the Commission cannot, consistent with reasoned 
decisionmaking, espouse both competing interpretations in the same 
order.'' And so, like the court, the Bureau seeks comment on ``which is 
it?'' If equipment cannot itself dial random or sequential numbers, can 
that equipment be an automatic telephone dialing system?
    5. The court also noted that the statute prohibits ``mak[ing] any 
call . . . using any automatic telephone dialing system''--leading to 
the question ``does the bar against `making any call using' an 
[automatic telephone dialing system] apply only to calls made using the 
equipment's [automatic telephone dialing system] functionality?'' The 
Bureau seeks comment on this question. If a caller does not use 
equipment as an automatic telephone dialing system, does the statutory 
prohibition apply? The court also noted that adopting such an 
interpretation could limit the scope of the statutory bar: ``the fact 
that a smartphone could be configured to function as an autodialer 
would not matter unless the relevant software in fact were loaded onto 
the phone and were used to initiate calls or send messages.'' Should 
the Commission adopt this approach? More broadly, how should the 
Commission interpret these various statutory provisions in harmony? The 
Bureau also seeks comment on a petition for declaratory ruling filed by 
the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform and several other parties, 
asking the Commission to clarify the definition of ``automatic 
telephone dialing system'' in light of the D.C. Circuit's decision.
    6. Second, the Bureau seeks comment on how to treat calls to 
reassigned wireless numbers under the TCPA. The statute carves out 
calls ``made with the prior express consent of the called party'' from 
its prohibitions. The court vacated as arbitrary and capricious the 
Commission's interpretation of the term ``called party,'' including a 
one-call safe harbor for callers to detect reassignments, and noted 
that the Commission ``consistently adopted a `reasonable reliance' 
approach when interpreting the TCPA's approval of calls based on `prior 
express consent.' '' The Bureau seeks comment on how to interpret the 
term ``called party'' for calls to reassigned numbers. Does the 
``called party'' refer to ``the person the caller expected to reach''? 
Or does it refer to the party the caller reasonably expected to reach? 
Or does it refer to ``the person actually reached, the wireless 
number's present-day subscriber after reassignment''? Or does it refer 
to a ```customary user' (`such as a close relative on a subscriber's 
family calling plan'), rather than . . . the subscriber herself''? What 
interpretation best implements the statute in light of the decision? 
Should the Commission maintain its reasonable-reliance approach to 
prior express consent? Is a reassigned numbers safe harbor necessary, 
and if so, what is the specific statutory authority for such a safe 
harbor? May the Commission, consistent with the statute, interpret the 
term ``called party'' to mean different things in differing contexts? 
How should the Commission's proceeding to establish a reassigned 
numbers database impact the interpretation, if at all?
    7. Third, the Bureau seeks comment on how a called party may revoke 
prior express consent to receive robocalls. The court found that ``a 
party may revoke her consent through any reasonable means clearly 
expressing a desire to receive no further messages from the caller.'' 
Such a standard, the

[[Page 26286]]

court made clear, means ``callers . . . have no need to train every 
retail employee on the finer points of revocation'' and have ``every 
incentive to avoid TCPA liability by making available clearly-defined 
and easy-to-use opt-out methods.'' The Bureau seeks comment on what 
opt-out methods would be sufficiently clearly defined and easy to use 
such that ``any effort to sidestep the available methods in favor of 
idiosyncratic or imaginative revocation requests might well be seen as 
unreasonable.'' For example, what opt-out method would be clearly 
defined and sufficiently easy to use for unwanted calls? Pushing a 
standardized code (such as ``*7'')? Saying ``stop calling'' in response 
to a live caller? Offering opt-out through a website? For unwanted 
texts, would a response of ``stop'' or similar keywords be sufficiently 
easy to use and clearly defined? What other methods would be 
sufficient? And must callers offer all or some combination of such 
methods to qualify?
    8. Fourth, in light of the court's decision on several key TCPA 
issues, the Bureau seeks renewed comment on two pending petitions for 
reconsideration of the Commission's Broadnet Declaratory Ruling. In the 
first, National Consumer Law Center asks the Commission to reconsider 
its interpretation of ``person'' and clarify that federal government 
contractors, regardless of their status as common-law agents, are 
``persons'' under the TCPA. In the second, Professional Services 
Council asks the Commission to reconsider its reliance on common-law 
agency principles and clarify that contractors acting on behalf of the 
federal government are not ``persons'' under the TCPA.
    9. The Bureau seeks comment on issues raised in those petitions and 
whether contractors acting on behalf of federal, state, and local 
governments are ``persons'' under the TCPA. While the question of 
whether contractors acting on behalf of state and local governments are 
``persons'' for purposes of the TCPA is not raised in the pending 
petitions for reconsideration of the Broadnet Declaratory Ruling, the 
Commission has not addressed these questions. Should it do so now? Are 
all three levels of government subject to the same legal framework in 
determining whether they are ``persons''? How is a state or local 
government official, or a contractor making calls on their behalf, 
legally similar to or different from federal government callers?
    10. Fifth, the Bureau seeks renewed comment on the pending petition 
for reconsideration of the 2016 Federal Debt Collection Rules, 
published at 81 FR 80594, November 16, 2016, filed by Great Lakes 
Higher Education Corp. et al. Great Lakes asks the Commission to 
reconsider several aspects of the rules, including the applicability of 
the TCPA's limits on calls to reassigned wireless numbers. In light of 
the court's opinion on reassigned numbers, the Bureau seeks renewed 
comment on this and other issues raised by the petition.
    11. The Bureau also seeks comment on the interplay between the 
Broadnet decision and the Budget Act amendments--if a federal 
contractor is not a ``person'' for purposes of the TCPA (as the 
Commission held in Broadnet), would the rules adopted in the 2016 
Federal Debt Collection Rules even apply to a federal contractor 
collecting a federal debt?
    Do persons who are not federal contractors collect federal debts? 
Or does the Budget Act amendment underlying the 2016 Federal Debt 
Collection Rules undermine the rationale of Broadnet?

Federal Communications Commission.
Gregory Haledjian,
Legal Advisor, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2018-12084 Filed 6-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
26284 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2018 / Notices

OMB. This decrease is due in part to a pending petitions for reconsideration of Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
decrease in the number of new the Commission’s Broadnet Declaratory A copy of document DA 18–493 and any
technician certifications and the time Ruling and on a pending petition for subsequently filed documents in this
allotted for maintenance of the reconsideration of the 2016 Federal Debt matter may also be found by searching
technician certification records. In this Collection Rules that implemented ECFS at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (insert
ICR EPA estimates the number of new amendments to the TCPA. CG Docket Nos. 18–152 or 02–278 into
technician certifications to be 40,000 DATES: Comments are due on June 13, the Proceeding block).
per year, a decrease from the 50,000 2018. Reply comments are due on June Interested parties may file comments
estimated in the previous ICR, based on 28, 2018. on or before the dates indicated above
information provided by the largest ADDRESSES: Comments may be filed
in the Dates portion of this notice. All
technician certification program. The filings must reference CG Docket Nos.
using the Commission’s Electronic
maintenance of these records is 18–152 and 02–278. Pursuant to
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See
estimated to require 0.067 clerical work § 1.1200 of the Commission’s rules, 47
Electronic Filing of Documents in
hours per certification, a decrease from CFR 1.1200, this matter shall be treated
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121
0.08 hours in the previous ICR, as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in
(1998).
recognizing the move towards electronic • Electronic Filers: Documents may accordance with the Commission’s ex
recordkeeping which may be more parte rules. Persons making ex parte
be filed electronically using the internet
efficient. Another reason for the burden presentations must file a copy of any
by accessing ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/
decrease is a decrease in the market for written presentation or a memorandum
ecfs/.
small containers of CFC–12 refrigerant. • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to summarizing any oral presentation
In this ICR, EPA estimates that the file by paper must file an original and within two business days after the
number of purchases for resale only by one copy of each filing. presentation (unless a different deadline
uncertified purchasers of small cans • Filings can be sent by hand or applicable to the Sunshine period
will be 50% less than in the previous messenger delivery, by commercial applies). Persons making oral ex parte
ICR, or approximately 69 purchases, overnight courier, or by first-class or presentations are reminded that
because EPA estimates that there has overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All memoranda summarizing the
been at least a 50% reduction in the filings must be addressed to the presentation must: (1) List all persons
CFC–12 vehicle fleet since 2015. Commission’s Secretary, Office of the attending or otherwise participating in
Secretary, Federal Communications the meeting at which the ex parte
Dated: May 23, 2018. presentation was made; and (2)
Cynthia A. Newberg, Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messenger- summarize all data presented and
Director, Stratospheric Protection Division. arguments made during the
delivered paper filings for the
[FR Doc. 2018–12163 Filed 6–5–18; 8:45 am]
Commission’s Secretary must be presentation. If the presentation
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 consisted in whole or in part of the
12th Street SW, Room TW–A325, presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS written comments, memoranda, or other
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
COMMISSION filings in the proceeding, the presenter
deliveries must be held together with
may provide citations to such data or
[CG Docket Nos. 18–152, 02–278; DA 18– rubber bands or fasteners. Any
arguments in his or her prior comments,
493] envelopes and boxes must be disposed
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
of before entering the building.
the relevant page and/or paragraph
Consumer and Governmental Affairs • Commercial overnight mail (other
Bureau Seeks Comment on numbers where such data or arguments
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
Interpretation of the Telephone can be found) in lieu of summarizing
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Consumer Protection Act in Light of them in the memorandum. Documents
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
the D.C. Circuit’s ACA International shown or given to Commission staff
20701.
Decision • U.S. Postal Service first-class, during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
Express, and Priority mail must be
AGENCY: Federal Communications must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b)
addressed to 445 12th Street SW,
Commission. of the Commission’s rules. In
Washington, DC 20554.
ACTION: Notice. proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) of the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For rules or for which the Commission has
SUMMARY: In this document, the further information, contact Kristi made available a method of electronic
Commission, via the Consumer and Thornton of the Consumer and filing, written ex parte presentations
Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau), Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) and memoranda summarizing oral ex
invites comment on several issues 418–2467 or Kristi.Thornton@fcc.gov; parte presentations, and all attachments
related to interpretation and Christina Clearwater at (202) 418–1893 thereto, must be filed through the
implementation of the Telephone or Christina.Clearwater@fcc.gov; or electronic comment filing system
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Karen Schroeder at (202) 418–0654 or available for that proceeding, and must
following the recent decision of the U.S. Karen.Schroeder@fcc.gov. be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
Court of Appeals for the District of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
Columbia in ACA International v. FCC: summary of the Commission’s Public in this proceeding should familiarize
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

What constitutes an ‘‘automatic Notice, document DA 18–493, released themselves with the Commission’s ex
telephone dialing system,’’ how to treat on May 14, 2018. The full text of parte rules.
calls to reassigned wireless numbers, document DA 18–493 will be available To request materials in accessible
and how a called party may revoke prior for public inspection and copying via formats for people with disabilities
express consent to receive robocalls ECFS, and during regular business (Braille, large print, electronic files,
under the TCPA. In addition, the Bureau hours at the FCC Reference Information audio format), send an email to fcc504@
seeks to refresh the record on two Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, fcc.gov or call the Consumer and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1
26286 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 6, 2018 / Notices

court made clear, means ‘‘callers . . . Council asks the Commission to 11. The Bureau also seeks comment
have no need to train every retail reconsider its reliance on common-law on the interplay between the Broadnet
employee on the finer points of agency principles and clarify that decision and the Budget Act
revocation’’ and have ‘‘every incentive contractors acting on behalf of the amendments—if a federal contractor is
to avoid TCPA liability by making federal government are not ‘‘persons’’ not a ‘‘person’’ for purposes of the TCPA
available clearly-defined and easy-to- under the TCPA. (as the Commission held in Broadnet),
use opt-out methods.’’ The Bureau seeks 9. The Bureau seeks comment on would the rules adopted in the 2016
comment on what opt-out methods issues raised in those petitions and Federal Debt Collection Rules even
would be sufficiently clearly defined whether contractors acting on behalf of apply to a federal contractor collecting
and easy to use such that ‘‘any effort to federal, state, and local governments are a federal debt?
sidestep the available methods in favor ‘‘persons’’ under the TCPA. While the Do persons who are not federal
of idiosyncratic or imaginative question of whether contractors acting contractors collect federal debts? Or
revocation requests might well be seen on behalf of state and local governments does the Budget Act amendment
as unreasonable.’’ For example, what are ‘‘persons’’ for purposes of the TCPA underlying the 2016 Federal Debt
opt-out method would be clearly is not raised in the pending petitions for Collection Rules undermine the
defined and sufficiently easy to use for reconsideration of the Broadnet rationale of Broadnet?
unwanted calls? Pushing a standardized Declaratory Ruling, the Commission has Federal Communications Commission.
code (such as ‘‘*7’’)? Saying ‘‘stop not addressed these questions. Should it
Gregory Haledjian,
calling’’ in response to a live caller? do so now? Are all three levels of
Offering opt-out through a website? For government subject to the same legal Legal Advisor, Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau.
unwanted texts, would a response of framework in determining whether they
[FR Doc. 2018–12084 Filed 6–5–18; 8:45 am]
‘‘stop’’ or similar keywords be are ‘‘persons’’? How is a state or local
sufficiently easy to use and clearly government official, or a contractor BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

defined? What other methods would be making calls on their behalf, legally
sufficient? And must callers offer all or similar to or different from federal
some combination of such methods to government callers?
10. Fifth, the Bureau seeks renewed FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
qualify?
8. Fourth, in light of the court’s comment on the pending petition for CORPORATION
decision on several key TCPA issues, reconsideration of the 2016 Federal Debt Notice of Termination of Receiverships
the Bureau seeks renewed comment on Collection Rules, published at 81 FR
two pending petitions for 80594, November 16, 2016, filed by The Federal Deposit Insurance
reconsideration of the Commission’s Great Lakes Higher Education Corp. et Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as
Broadnet Declaratory Ruling. In the al. Great Lakes asks the Commission to Receiver for each of the following
first, National Consumer Law Center reconsider several aspects of the rules, insured depository institutions, was
asks the Commission to reconsider its including the applicability of the charged with the duty of winding up the
interpretation of ‘‘person’’ and clarify TCPA’s limits on calls to reassigned affairs of the former institutions and
that federal government contractors, wireless numbers. In light of the court’s liquidating all related assets. The
regardless of their status as common-law opinion on reassigned numbers, the Receiver has fulfilled its obligations and
agents, are ‘‘persons’’ under the TCPA. Bureau seeks renewed comment on this made all dividend distributions
In the second, Professional Services and other issues raised by the petition. required by law.

NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF RECEIVERSHIPS
Termination
Fund Receivership name City State date

10092 ..................... Community First Bank ................................................. Prineville ........................... OR 6/1/2018
10189 ..................... Rainier Pacific Bank .................................................... Tacoma ............................. WA 6/1/2018
10252 ..................... High Desert State Bank ............................................... Albuquerque ..................... NM 6/1/2018
10388 ..................... The First National Bank of Olathe ............................... Olathe ............................... KS 6/1/2018

The Receiver has further irrevocably Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the
authorized and appointed FDIC- Robert E. Feldman, Federal Reserve System (Board) is
Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to Executive Secretary. adopting a proposal to extend for three
execute and file any and all documents [FR Doc. 2018–12092 Filed 6–5–18; 8:45 am] years, without revision, the Survey of
that may be required to be executed by Consumer Finances (FR 3059; OMB
BILLING CODE 6714–01–P
the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in No.7100–0287).
its sole discretion, deems necessary, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
including but not limited to releases, Federal Reserve Board Clearance
discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of
assignments, and deeds. Effective on the the Chief Data Officer, Board of
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

termination dates listed above, the Agency Information Collection Governors of the Federal Reserve
Receiverships have been terminated, the Activities: Announcement of Board System, Washington, DC 20551, (202)
Receiver has been discharged, and the Approval Under Delegated Authority 452–3829. Telecommunications Device
Receiverships have ceased to exist as and Submission to OMB for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact
legal entities. (202) 263–4869, Board of Governors of
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the the Federal Reserve System,
Dated at Washington, DC, on May 31, 2018. Federal Reserve System. Washington, DC 20551.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:35 Jun 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM 06JNN1
Document Created: 2018-06-06 00:53:58
Document Modified: 2018-06-06 00:53:58
Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Notice.
Dates		Comments are due on June 13, 2018. Reply comments are due on June 28, 2018.
Contact		For further information, contact Kristi Thornton of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-2467 or [email protected]; Christina Clearwater at (202) 418-1893 or [email protected]; or Karen Schroeder at (202) 418-0654 or [email protected]
FR Citation		83 FR 26284