If your operation handles US consumer calls from outside the United States, there is a regulatory proceeding underway that is worth tracking closely, even though nothing has been finalized yet. This piece sticks to what is actually in the proposal and its current procedural status, not speculation about outcomes, since the rule is still open for comment and could change substantially before anything takes effect.
What''s actually being proposed
On March 27, 2026, the Federal Communications Commission voted to open a rulemaking proceeding titled "Improving Customer Service and Protecting Consumers Through Onshoring," published in the Federal Register on April 23, 2026. The proposal would apply to providers of telecommunications, mobile, VoIP, cable, and satellite broadcast services, and covers several distinct ideas the Commission is seeking comment on:
A right for consumers to be transferred to a US-based representative during a call, with disclosure of that right at the start of the interaction.
Limits on what percentage of a covered provider''s calls can be routed to foreign call centers.
Requirements to disclose the physical location of the call center handling a consumer''s call.
Proficiency standards for call center staff in American Standard English, with the FCC specifically raising the question of whether this should be tested at the individual agent level or measured as an average across a call centre''s staff.
New data-handling, reporting, and audit obligations tied to consumer information handled at foreign call centers.
Where the process actually stands
| Date | Milestone |
|---|---|
| March 27, 2026 | FCC voted to open the rulemaking (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking approved) |
| April 23, 2026 | NPRM published in the Federal Register |
| May 26, 2026 | Public comments due |
| June 22, 2026 | Reply comments due |
| Not yet set | Final rule adoption, if any |
This is a proposal open for public comment, not a finalized regulation. Industry groups, including business associations representing large employers, have already filed comments raising concerns about compliance cost and the operational impact of some provisions, particularly the mandatory transfer-to-US-agent requirement, which critics argue would increase average handle time and require duplicate staffing capacity in both the offshore and onshore location for the same call type. The Commission''s stated rationale centers on consumer experience, data security, and reducing overseas-originated robocall fraud. Both the compliance-cost concerns and the consumer-protection rationale are part of the public record, and the outcome of the comment period will shape what, if anything, is finalized.
What this means for WFM planning right now
Nothing in this proposal is final, and reacting as though it already is would be premature. That said, "wait and see" and "do nothing" are not the same thing. A few concrete, low-cost steps are worth taking now regardless of how the rulemaking resolves:
Model a transfer-rate scenario. If even a modest percentage of your US-facing calls required a hard transfer to a domestic agent, what would that do to your AHT and required headcount at your current volume. Running this once, even as a rough estimate, means you are not starting from zero if a transfer requirement moves forward.
Track where your US-facing volume is currently routed, by location, in a way you could report on quickly if a disclosure or location-reporting requirement is finalized. This is a data-hygiene exercise worth doing on its own merits regardless of the rule''s outcome.
Watch the comment and reply-comment period rather than the news headlines. NPRMs frequently narrow or change substantially between proposal and final rule, and the specific mechanics (percentage caps, testing methodology for language proficiency, which provider types are actually covered) are exactly the details still being contested.
Keep this separate from your existing capacity plan as a tagged contingency scenario, not a baseline assumption. Building a rule that may not be finalized, in the form it may not take, into your core staffing model risks planning for the wrong thing entirely.
The practical takeaway
This is a regulatory process to monitor, not an operational change to implement today. If you run or plan capacity for a US-facing offshore or nearshore operation, the useful move right now is having a rough transfer-rate and AHT-impact scenario ready, not restructuring anything based on a proposal still months away from any final form. You can model what a shift in call handling requirements would do to your staffing using the Erlang C Staffing Calculator on this site, treating any transfer-rate assumption as exactly that, a scenario input, until there is an actual rule to plan against.