Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process,
For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, at (202) 418-2918, or e-mail
On July 3, 2003, the Commission released the
Document FCC 10-18 contains proposed information collection requirements subject to the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, it contains a new or modified “information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.
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 St., SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of
• 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, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554.
Pursuant to § 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
A copy of document FCC 10-18 and any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270. Document FCC 10-18 and any subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at their Web site,
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to
Document FCC 10-18 contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden, invites the general public, OMB and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due May 21, 2010. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning: (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 estimate; (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.
In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page
2. With respect to a residential subscriber who has
4. Consistent with Congress's directive in the Do Not Call Improvement Act of 2007 (DNCIA) to “maximize consistency” of the Commission's TCPA rules with the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should revise §§ 64.1200(a)(1) and 64.1200(a)(2) of its rules to provide that, for all calls, prior express consent to receive prerecorded telemarketing messages must be obtained in writing. The Commission seeks comment on these proposed revisions and specific related issues in the discussion that follows.
5. As an initial matter, the Commission seeks comment on its authority to adopt a prior written consent requirement similar to the FTC's. Specifically, while the term “prior express consent” appears in both subsections 227(b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act, the statute is silent regarding the precise form of such
6. Given that such a rule change would permit a telemarketer wishing to deliver prerecorded telemarketing messages to residential subscribers to obtain agreements from the subscribers by any electronic means authorized by the E-SIGN Act (including, for example, e-mail, Web form, telephone key press, or voice recording), the Commission seeks comment on whether Congressional concerns expressed nearly two decades ago regarding the potential burdens of a written consent requirement remain relevant today in light of the multitude of quick and cost effective options now available for obtaining written consent, other than via traditional pen and paper. The Commission also notes that section 227(b)(2)(B) of the Communications Act, in authorizing the Commission to adopt exemptions from the prerecorded message prohibition, states that it may do so “subject to such conditions as the Commission may prescribe.” This statement suggests that Congress intended the Commission to exercise discretion in establishing the parameters of any exemption from the prohibition on prerecorded messages. The Commission seeks comment on whether the discretion afforded it in this subsection extends to establishing a written consent requirement. The Commission also seeks comment on how best to reconcile the congressional objective to maximize consistency between the FTC's rule and the Commission's rule with the statements referenced above in the TCPA's legislative history reflecting the concern that written consent may prove unduly burdensome to telemarketers and to subscribers who wish to receive telephone solicitations. The Commission seeks comment on whether the convenience afforded by the E-SIGN Act addresses these concerns.
7. As noted above, when written consent is required under the Commission's current rules (because the called party's number is listed on the national do-not-call registry), the seller or telemarketer must obtain a signed, written agreement between the subscriber and seller stating that the subscriber agrees to be contacted by that seller and including the telephone number to which the calls may be placed. If the Commission were to adopt a written consent requirement for placing prerecorded telemarketing calls to unregistered subscribers, it seeks comment on whether it also should adapt existing § 64.1200(c)(2)(ii) of its rules (governing the content of written consent agreements) to apply specifically to prerecorded telemarketing calls, as the FTC has done in its Telemarketing Sales Rule. The Commission tentatively concludes that requiring a written agreement evidencing consent to receive prerecorded messages in particular, such as that required by the FTC, may help to ensure that consumers are adequately apprised of the specific nature of the consent that is being requested and, in particular, of the fact that they will receive prerecorded message calls as a consequence of their agreement.
8. Assuming the Commission has legal authority to adopt a written consent requirement, it seeks comment on whether it should adopt the same requirement both for calls governed by section 227(b)(1)(A) of the Communications Act (generally prohibiting automated or artificial or prerecorded message calls without prior express consent to emergency lines, health care facilities, and cellular services), and for calls governed by section 227(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act (generally prohibiting prerecorded message calls without prior express consent to residential telephone lines). Because the two provisions include an identically worded exception for calls made with the “prior express consent of the called party,” the Commission tentatively concludes that any written consent requirement adopted should apply to both provisions. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion.
9. The Commission also seeks information concerning the extent to which, in the absence of written consent, residential subscribers have been targeted by unscrupulous senders of prerecorded messages who erroneously claim to have obtained the subscriber's oral consent. If, after reviewing the record, the Commission determines that it does not have legal authority to adopt a written consent requirement, it seeks comment on what, if any, additional steps should be required by senders who choose to obtain consent orally in order to verify that consent was, in fact, given.
10. As a policy matter, the Commission tentatively concludes that harmonizing its prior consent requirement with the FTC's may reduce the potential for industry and consumer confusion surrounding a telemarketer's obligations to the extent that similarly situated entities would no longer be subject to different requirements depending upon whether an entity is subject to the FTC's rule or to the Commission's rule. It tentatively concludes that written consent also may enhance the Commission's enforcement efforts and serve to protect both consumers and industry from erroneous claims that consent was or was not given, to the extent that, unlike oral consent, the existence of a paper or electronic record may provide unambiguous proof of consent. The Commission seeks comment on these tentative conclusions.
11. The Commission notes that in light of the numerous options available today under the E-SIGN Act to obtain a written agreement, a telemarketer may be afforded flexibility to determine the form of “written” consent that is most appropriate, least burdensome, and most cost effective for that particular business (
14. In 2006, the FTC denied the proposed safe harbor request that would have permitted prerecorded telemarketing calls to established business customers based, in large measure, on the more than 13,000 consumer comments it had received opposing the proposal. According to the FTC, many consumers expressed the view that, in light of the “intrusive and impersonal nature” of prerecorded messages, neither a prior inquiry nor a purchase should be deemed to imply consumer consent to receive future prerecorded solicitations from a seller. The FTC noted that this reaction was contrary to prior consumer support among commenters for an exemption to allow
15. In 2008, the FTC amended the Telemarketing Sales Rule to make explicit that the existence of an established business relationship will
In light of the substantial record of public comments developed over the course of the FTC's four-year rulemaking opposing the creation of a safe harbor for prerecorded telemarketing calls to established business customers, and in view of Congress's mandate to maximize consistency between the Commission's rules and the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should reconsider its 1992 determination that an established business relationship may be deemed to constitute express invitation or permission to receive unsolicited prerecorded telemarketing calls. The FTC's 2008 rule amendments make explicit that, absent a consumer's express prior written agreement, sellers and telemarketers are prohibited from delivering a prerecorded telemarketing message, regardless of whether the call is made to a consumer who has an established business relationship with the seller. As a result, an “established business relationship” currently provides the necessary permission to deliver prerecorded telemarketing messages only for entities subject to the Commission's, but not the FTC's, jurisdiction (
16. As noted above, the Commission created the “established business relationship” exemption from the TCPA's ban on artificial or prerecorded messages based on its authority under the TCPA to exempt calls that “do not adversely affect residential subscriber privacy interests.” It reasoned that a subscriber's privacy interests are not adversely affected by the receipt of such prerecorded message calls because, in that instance, the solicitation can be “
17. In the 1992 rulemaking, the Commission also expressed the concern that “requiring actual consent to prerecorded message calls where [established business] relationships exist
18. The Commission also seeks specific comment on the experiences of telemarketers that have conducted marketing campaigns on behalf of sellers that are subject to the FTC's recently amended Telemarketing Sales Rule in obtaining the requisite prior written consent from those businesses' established customers. Has the FTC's revised rule had the effect of impeding communications between businesses and their customers and, if so, in what ways? If the Commission were to retain the current exemption for established business customers, it seeks comment, particularly from individual consumers and consumer groups, regarding whether consumers would support the use of prerecorded telemarketing messages by sellers and telemarketers with established business customers if such messages provided an interactive opt-out mechanism that would provide a means to avoid future prerecorded messages from that seller.
19. Finally, the Commission tentatively concludes that conforming its rule governing prerecorded message calls to established business customers to the FTC's may reduce the potential for industry and consumer confusion surrounding a telemarketer's authority to place unsolicited prerecorded message calls to established customers to the extent that similarly situated entities would no longer be subject to different requirements depending upon whether an entity is subject to the FTC's rule or to the Commission's. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion.
22. On the basis of information presented in the record of the FTC's rulemaking proceeding on healthcare-related prerecorded message calls made by, or on behalf of, a covered entity or its business associate, as those terms are defined in the HIPAA Privacy Rule, the Commission seeks comment on whether it likewise should exempt such calls from the general prohibition on prerecorded message calls to residential lines under the TCPA. If so, it seeks comment on the Commission's authority to exempt these calls either under section 227(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Communications Act (calls that are not made for a commercial purpose), or under section 227(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Communications Act (commercial calls that do not adversely affect the privacy rights of the called party and that do not transmit an unsolicited advertisement). In addition, it notes that, with limited exception, HIPAA requires that a “covered entity” obtain an individual's written authorization before using protected health information (including the individual's name and telephone number) for marketing purposes. As a practical matter, this HIPAA restriction (in conjunction with other HIPAA provisions) would appear to preclude or limit the delivery of prerecorded telemarketing calls placed by a “covered entity” or its “business associate” to individuals with whom the covered entity or business associate has no pre-existing relationship (
23. The Commission notes that when one of its TCPA rules differs substantively from the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule, it has been generally understood that the more restrictive requirement prevails and sets the standard applicable to all entities that are subject to the jurisdiction of both agencies. In this instance, although the FTC has adopted a more specific provision, the Commission's rule, by providing no exemption for healthcare-related prerecorded message calls subject to HIPAA, is arguably more restrictive. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on the practical impact of this disparity on
26. There are several key differences between the Commission's and the FTC's rules with respect to their respective “opt-out” and related disclosure requirements. First, the FTC opt-out requirement specifies that, if there is any possibility that a call could be answered in person by a consumer, an automated interactive opt-out mechanism must be available throughout the call. The provision permits either a voice or keypress-activated opt-out mechanism to be used, or both in combination. If there is any possibility that a prerecorded call could be answered by an answering machine or voicemail service, a toll-free number must be provided and disclosed promptly at the outset of the call. The toll-free number must connect directly to an automated interactive opt-out mechanism that is accessible at any time throughout the duration of the telemarketing campaign. The provision further requires that, once invoked, the interactive mechanism must automatically add the number called to the seller's entity-specific do-not-call list. In contrast, the Commission's analogous provision does not require an automated opt-out mechanism and, instead, simply requires a telephone number that consumers can call “during regular business hours” to make an entity-specific do-not-call request. Inasmuch as automated, interactive opt-out mechanisms are now widely available and, as discussed above, are now required of most sellers and telemarketers by virtue of the FTC's rule, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should conform its rule to the FTC's rule by requiring their use. Comments supporting this revision should address the Commission's authority to adopt this change, consistent with the “technical and procedural standards” provision of the TCPA, as codified in section 227(d)(3) of the Communications Act. In addition, given that section 227(d)(3) of the Communications Act prescribes technical standards for “any” artificial or prerecorded voice message via telephone, the Commission seeks comment on whether it may adopt additional disclosure and opt-out requirements mirroring the FTC's solely for artificial or prerecorded voice message calls that are for telemarketing purposes.
27. Second, whereas the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule requires that prerecorded message calls provide a disclosure at the outset of the message explaining how to opt out of future calls, the TCPA itself provides that, for opt-out purposes, the telephone number of the entity initiating a call can be disclosed “during or after the message.” Therefore, commenters supporting a requirement that the telephone number of the entity initiating the prerecorded message be disclosed at the outset of the message should address the Commission's legal authority to do so.
28. Third, although each agency's rule provides for prompt termination of the call after a consumer hangs up, the Commission's standard is more specific (call must be released within 5 seconds of time notification is transmitted to system) than the FTC's (call must be released immediately). Again, in light of the specific statutory language pertaining to call termination, commenters supporting a change to the Commission's existing rules to require immediate release of a call once the consumer has hung up are asked to address the Commission's authority to adopt such a requirement.
29. Finally, the Commission notes that, in addition to exempting certain healthcare-related prerecorded message calls from its express written consent requirement, the FTC likewise exempted such calls from its automated opt-out requirement. Inasmuch as the TCPA technical standards codified in section 227(d)(3) of the Communications Act apply to “any” artificial or prerecorded messages, the Commission seeks comment on its authority to exempt any category of prerecorded message calls from the specific requirements of that section. If it adopts separate disclosure and opt-out requirements (mirroring the FTC's) specifically for prerecorded
30. As a policy matter, the FTC's automated opt-out requirement appears to be more consumer friendly than the Commission's to the extent that it allows consumers to easily and immediately assert their opt-out rights, regardless of the time of day, and without having to wait to opt out until the next business day during regular business hours when an operator is available to record the opt-out request. The Commission therefore seeks comment on whether it should revise its opt-out requirements to make them more consistent with the FTC's, and, if so, how to do so in a manner that is consistent with the “technical and procedural standards” provision of the TCPA.
In its 2008 final rule amendments, the FTC revised the standard it uses for measuring the three percent (permissible) call abandonment rate. Whereas the FTC previously required that a telemarketer employ technology that ensures abandonment of no more than three percent of all calls answered by a person,
33. The Commission's current rule measures the three percent (permissible) call abandonment rate over a 30-day period but, because it imposes no “per campaign” limitation, it effectively allows the averaging of call abandonment rates across multiple telemarketing campaigns during any single 30-day period. As noted above, the FTC's rulemaking proceeding highlighted concerns that this approach might allow a telemarketer to compute a single call abandonment rate for all campaigns that it conducts during a 30-day period and, in so doing, to allocate a greater percentage of abandoned calls to a less desirable marketing campaign (
34. In order to reduce initial compliance costs and burdens, the FTC deferred the effective date of the requirement that prerecorded message calls provide an automated interactive opt-out mechanism for three months, and the express written agreement requirement for twelve months. If the Commission adopts an express written consent requirement and/or an automated interactive opt-out mechanism such as those adopted by the FTC, it seeks comment on whether it also should adopt similar implementation periods to ensure that companies have adequate time to prepare to comply. If the Commission adopts these or similar requirements, it seeks comment on whether to allow sellers and telemarketers, as did the FTC, to continue placing prerecorded telemarketing calls to consumers with whom the seller has an established business relationship for the duration of the implementation period for the express written consent requirement. Finally, it seeks comment on an appropriate implementation period for the proposed change to the Commission's call abandonment rules.
35. 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 impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in document FCC 10-18. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on document FCC 10-18 provided on the first page of this document. The Commission will send a copy of document FCC 10-18, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
36. In document FCC 10-18, the Commission seeks comment on proposed revisions to its rules under the TCPA pertaining to prerecorded telemarketing calls and certain other telemarketing practices. Document FCC 10-18 proposes to amend the Commission's TCPA rules in four areas. The first proposed amendment would conform the Commission's rules to the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule by prohibiting the use of prerecorded messages in telemarketing sales calls unless the seller or telemarketer has obtained the consumer's prior express consent, in writing, to receive such messages and irrespective of any established business relationship between the caller and the called party. The Commission also proposes to allow sellers or telemarketers to obtain such consent using any medium or format permitted by the E-SIGN Act. The Commission's objective in proposing to harmonize its prior consent requirement with the FTC's by adopting a written consent requirement is to reduce the potential for industry and consumer confusion surrounding telemarketers' obligations to the extent that similarly situated entities would no longer be subject to different requirements depending upon whether an entity is subject to the FTC's rule or to the Commission's rule. The Commission also believes that written consent may
37. The second proposed amendment would conform the Commission's rules to the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule by exempting certain healthcare-related calls from the general prohibition on prerecorded telemarketing calls to residential telephone lines. The Commission proposes to exempt such calls based on the FTC's findings that: (1) The individuals most in need of these healthcare-related prerecorded messages (elderly or ill patients) might be unable or unlikely to take the steps necessary to provide their express written consent to receive them; (2) communications between healthcare-related entities subject to HIPAA regulations and their customers already are subject to extensive regulations at the Federal level, including regulations directly addressing the making of telephone solicitations to patients, such that it would be unlikely that the creation of an exemption for these calls would lead to abusive practices; and (3) prerecorded healthcare messages of the type described in document FCC 10-18 are generally deemed more welcome and less intrusive by consumers and, as such, the creation of an exemption for this category of calls would not adversely affect consumer privacy rights. Thus, the Commission's objective in proposing the creation of this exemption is to avoid imposing duplicative regulations in an area that is already extensively regulated at the Federal level and that, as a result, does not appear to give rise to the same privacy and other concerns as other types of calls.
38. The third proposed amendment would conform the Commission's rules to the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule by requiring that prerecorded telemarketing calls delivered to residential subscribers include an automated, interactive mechanism by which a consumer may “opt out” of receiving future prerecorded messages from the seller or telemarketer. The Commission's objective in proposing this requirement is to make the opt-out process more consumer friendly by allowing consumers to easily and immediately assert their opt-out rights, regardless of the time of day, and without having to wait to opt out until the next business day during regular business hours when an operator is available to record the opt-out request.
39. The Commission also believes that the use of an automated mechanism, as described above, may enhance the efficiency of companies' outbound telemarketing campaigns. To the extent that the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule, as recently amended, imposes different requirements on sellers and telemarketers in these three areas than analogous rules adopted by the Commission, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should attempt to harmonize its TCPA requirements with those of the FTC. In proposing to conform its prerecorded message rules to the Telemarketing Sales Rule in the identified areas, the Commission also identified two overarching objectives: (1) To further empower residential telephone subscribers to avoid unwanted telemarketing messages; and (2) to advance Congress's directive to maximize consistency between the Commission's TCPA rules and the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule. The Commission therefore seeks comment on whether these proposed revisions would benefit consumers and industry by creating greater symmetry between the two agencies' regulations and on the extent to which they would enhance the ability of residential telephone subscribers to avoid unwanted telemarketing messages.
40. The final proposed amendment would conform the Commission's rules to the FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule by adopting a “per campaign” standard for measuring the “call abandonment rate.” As noted above, the “call abandonment rate” refers to the percentage of live telemarketing calls that a telemarketer drops or “abandons” as a result of the use of predictive dialers. The Commission proposes to adopt a “per campaign” limitation based on the concern raised in the FTC's rulemaking proceeding that telemarketers would be more likely to target less-valued customers with a disproportionate share of abandoned calls in the absence of such a limitation. Because the absence of a “per campaign” limitation may leave consumers to rely on the industry's good faith that it will not engage in such practices, despite obvious economic incentives to do otherwise, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should revise its current standard for measuring the three percent call abandonment rate by adopting this proposed limitation.
41. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to document FCC 10-18 is contained in sections 1-4, 227, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Public Law 102-243, 105 Statute 2394; and the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, Public Law 108-10, 117 Statute 557.
42. 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).
43. In general, the Commission's rules on telephone solicitation and on the use of autodialers, or artificial or prerecorded messages apply to a wide range of entities. The proposed rules, in particular, would apply (with certain exceptions) to all persons using prerecorded or artificial voice messages for telemarketing purposes. Therefore, the Commission expects that the proposals in this proceeding potentially could have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Determining the precise number of small entities that would be subject to the requirements proposed in document FCC 10-18, however, is not readily feasible. Therefore, the Commission invites comment on such number and, after evaluating the comments, will examine further the effect of any rule changes on small entities in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Below, the Commission has described some current data that are helpful in describing the number of small entities that might be affected by the proposed action, if adopted.
Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 29.6 million small businesses, according to the SBA. A “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations.
45. The express written consent requirement proposed in document FCC 10-18 may entail additional recordkeeping requirements for covered entities to the extent that they would be required to obtain and keep records of consumers' written consent to receive prerecorded message calls. As a practical matter, however, it appears that there would not be a significant change in this recordkeeping burden for at least two reasons.
46. First, because a seller or telemarketer placing a prerecorded telemarketing call must be prepared to provide, under the Commission's current requirements, “clear and convincing evidence” that it received prior express consent from the called party, whether consent has been obtained orally or in writing, covered entities already are required to maintain records to demonstrate compliance with the existing express consent requirement. In addition, covered entities already maintain electronic or other records of the existence of an established business relationship in order to demonstrate compliance with current Commission requirements governing prerecorded message calls to established business relationship customers. In place of keeping records of “oral consent” or of “established business relationships” as a precondition for placing