[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 248 (Thursday, December 30, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74373-74375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28212]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 21-126; FRS 63954]


Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls--
Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Clarification of 
USTelecom--The Broadband Association

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) reconsiders and clarifies certain aspects of the 
transparency and redress requirements previously adopted to ensure that 
voice service providers continue to block unwanted and illegal calls, 
while also protecting the interests of legitimate callers and 
consumers, also, granting a waiver to allow voice service providers 
terminating a call on an internet protocol (IP) network to use Session 
Initiation Protocol (SIP).

DATES: This rule is effective January 31, 2022, except for the addition 
of Sec.  64.1200(k)(10), which is delayed indefinitely. The Commission 
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the 
effective date of this amendment. Section 64.1200(k)(9)(i) is waived 
from January 1, 2022 until January 31, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Jerusha Burnett, [email protected] or (202) 
418-0526, of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer 
Policy Division.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
on Reconsideration and Waiver Order, FCC 21-126, CG Docket No. 17-59, 
adopted on December 10, 2021, and released on December 14, 2021. The 
full text of this document is available online at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-robocall-blocking-reconsideration-order. To request 
this document in accessible formats for people with disabilities (e.g., 
Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) or to request 
reasonable accommodations (e.g., accessible format documents, sign 
language interpreters, CART), send an email to [email protected] or call 
the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 
(voice).

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    The Order on Reconsideration contains a non-substantive 
modification to an approved information collection subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. This 
modification will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review pursuant to OMB's process for non-substantive changes. 
The Order on Reconsideration, therefore, does not contain any 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, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). The 
Waiver Order does not contain any new or modified information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 
Public Law 104-13.

Congressional Review Act

    The Commission sent a copy of document FCC 21-126 to Congress and 
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Synopsis

    1. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission reconsiders and 
clarifies certain aspects of the transparency and redress requirements 
previously adopted in the Call Blocking Fourth Report and Order to 
ensure that voice service providers continue to block unwanted and 
illegal calls, while also protecting the interests of legitimate 
callers and consumers. In the Waiver Order, the Commission grants a 
waiver to allow voice service providers terminating a call on an IP 
network to use SIP Code 603 in addition to SIP Code 607 or 608 from 
January 1, 2022 until the effective date of the amendments to Sec.  
64.1200(k)(9) of the Commission's rules.
    2. The Commission previously permitted voice service providers to 
block certain categories of calls that are

[[Page 74374]]

highly likely to be illegal without consumer consent, e.g., calls 
purporting to be from invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers, and 
calls likely to be unwanted based on reasonable analytics designed to 
identify unwanted calls. The Commission adopted a safe harbor from 
liability under the Communications Act and the Commission's rules for 
erroneous call blocking, in order to protect voice service providers 
from liability for unintended blocking of wanted calls where 
terminating voice service providers block calls thought to be illegal 
or unwanted based on reasonable analytics that include caller ID 
authentication information and where the consumer is given the 
opportunity to opt out, if this blocking is managed with human 
oversight and network monitoring sufficient to ensure that blocking is 
working as intended. In addition, voice service providers must take 
steps to stop illegal traffic on their networks and assist the 
Commission, law enforcement, and the Traceback Consortium in tracking 
down callers that make such calls.
    3. As part of the call blocking and safe harbor rules, the 
Commission had required voice service providers blocking calls to 
provide immediate notification to callers of such blocking through the 
use of specified SIP Codes. SIP is the signaling protocol used in IP 
networks enabling calls to be made and received by end-users and 
includes a SIP request and a SIP response. The SIP response is a three-
digit code that indicates the status of the SIP request. The Commission 
specified that terminating voice service providers that block calls on 
an IP network return SIP Code 607 or 608, as appropriate. SIP Code 607 
is used when the called party indicates a call is unwanted. SIP Code 
608 indicates a call was rejected by an intermediary, such as an 
analytics engine, as opposed to by the called party. Because SIP Codes 
are not available on non-IP networks, the Commission required use of 
ISUP code 21 for calls blocked on a TDM network.
    4. The Commission further required all voice service providers in 
the call path to transmit the appropriate SIP Codes to the origination 
point of the call and set a deadline of January 1, 2022 for voice 
service providers to comply with the immediate notification 
requirements. The Commission required that any terminating voice 
service provider that blocks calls on an opt-in or opt-out basis 
provide, on the request of the subscriber to a particular number, a 
list of all calls intended for that number that the voice service 
provider or its designee has blocked.
    5. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission granted, in 
part, the petition for reconsideration filed by USTelecom and stated 
that allowing terminating voice service providers to utilize SIP Code 
603 during the finalization of and transition to SIP Codes 607 and 608 
strikes a reasonable balance between ensuring that voice service 
providers have the technical ability to provide immediate notification 
to callers and ensuring that callers have a uniform means of receiving 
such notifications. The Commission amended the immediate notification 
requirements to allow terminating voice service providers operating IP 
networks to use SIP Codes 603, 607, or 608 to comply with the rule. The 
Commission granted USTelecom's request to allow use of SIP Code 603 as 
an alternative to SIP Codes 607 and 608 and denied USTelecom's broader 
request for general flexibility with regard to providing blocking 
notification.
    6. The Commission also granted USTelecom's request to confirm that 
immediate notification to callers is necessary only for calls blocked 
pursuant to any analytics programs. The Commission stated that a voice 
service provider must comply with the immediate notification 
requirement whenever it blocks calls based on analytics, regardless of 
whether such blocking is done with consumer opt in or opt out, or at 
the network level without consumer consent.
    7. The Commission denied USTelecom's request to exempt voice 
service providers from the immediate notification requirements if they 
are temporarily unable to for technical reasons and concluded that 
under such circumstances they may seek a waiver from the Commission and 
such waivers will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
    8. The Commission also clarified that the requirement that any 
terminating voice service provider that blocks on an opt-in or opt-out 
basis must provide, on the request of the subscriber to a particular 
number, a list of calls intended for that number that the voice service 
provider or its designee has blocked applies only to blocking performed 
pursuant to opt-in or opt-out analytics programs, rather than to 
subscriber-initiated features such as white lists, black lists, Do Not 
Disturb, call rejection, and line-level blocking. The Commission 
explained that because the purpose of the blocked-calls-list 
requirement is to ensure effective redress to consumers, there is no 
reason to apply such a requirement to situations where providers are 
not required to allow consumers to opt out and this redress requirement 
is, thus, inapplicable. As a result, the blocked-calls-list requirement 
does not apply to such blocking programs.
    9. The Commission denied USTelecom's request to confirm that 
originating voice service providers can determine with their enterprise 
customers how those customers will be notified about blocking of their 
calls by downstream providers and that notifications to enterprise 
customers are not covered by the Commission's notification requirement. 
All voice service providers in the call path are required to transmit 
the appropriate response codes to the origination point of the call. 
The Commission clarified that an originating voice service provider 
must transmit the appropriate response code to the origination point of 
the call, which means that the code must be made available to callers 
that are able to receive it. The Commission stated that the focus of 
section 10(b) of the TRACED Act, codified at 47 U.S.C. 227(j), and the 
Commission's rules implementing this provision, is on transparency for 
the caller, not transparency for an originating provider. Thus, 
originating voice service providers must, at a minimum, transmit the 
appropriate response code to the caller.
    10. In the Waiver Order, the Commission explained that, because the 
amendment to the immediate notification requirement in the Order on 
Reconsideration may not be published in the Federal Register before 
January 1, 2022, the Commission grants, pursuant to section 1.3 of the 
Commission's rules, a waiver of Sec.  64.1200(k)(9)(i) to allow voice 
service providers terminating a call on an IP network to use SIP Code 
603, 607, or 608 from January 1, 2022 until the effective date of the 
amendments to section 64.1200(k)(9) of the Commission's rules adopted 
in the Order on Reconsideration.
    11. The Commission found that good cause exists to allow voice 
service providers to use SIP Code 603 beginning on January 1, 2022. 
Granting this waiver is necessary to avoid a situation where a 
terminating voice service provider on an IP network may be unable to 
return SIP Code 607 or 608 beginning on January 1, 2022 (for the 
reasons discussed in the Order on Reconsideration) and thus, absent a 
waiver, could choose not to block calls rather than to block calls in a 
manner that does not comply with Sec.  64.1200(k)(9)(i) of the 
Commission's rules.

[[Page 74375]]

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    12. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as 
amended, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated into the Call Blocking Fourth Report and Order. The 
Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, 
including comment on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
    13. Need for, and Objectives of, the Order. The Order on 
Reconsideration reconsiders and clarifies certain aspects of the 
transparency and redress requirements adopted in the Call Blocking 
Fourth Report and Order to ensure that voice service providers continue 
to block unwanted and illegal calls, while also protecting the 
interests of legitimate callers and consumers. The rules adopted in the 
Order on Reconsideration help clarify certain aspects of our rules 
while promoting greater flexibility for voice service providers in 
meeting the obligations set forth in the Call Blocking Fourth Report 
and Order.
    14. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in 
Response to the IRFA. The Commission responded to all significant 
issues raised in response to the IRFA in the Call Blocking Fourth 
Report and Order.
    15. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act 
of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond 
to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of 
any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. 
The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed 
rules in this proceeding.
    16. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements. This Order on Reconsideration does not adopt 
any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for 
small entities.
    17. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an 
agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 
in reaching its approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use 
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. The 
Order on Reconsideration relieves a burden on small voice service 
providers by allowing such providers more flexibility in meeting the 
immediate notification requirements adopted in the Call Blocking Fourth 
Report and Order.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.

Final Rules

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

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

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

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 
222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 262, 276, 
403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 1401-1473, unless otherwise noted; Pub. 
L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.


0
2. Effective January 31, 2022, amend Sec.  64.1200 by revising 
paragraphs (k)(9) introductory text and (k)(9)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.1200  Delivery restrictions.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (9) Any terminating provider that blocks calls based on any 
analytics program, either itself or through a third-party blocking 
service, must immediately return, and all voice service providers in 
the call path must transmit, an appropriate response code to the 
origination point of the call. For purposes of this rule, an 
appropriate response code is:
    (i) In the case of a call terminating on an IP network, the use of 
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) code 603, 607, or 608;
* * * * *

0
3. Delayed indefinitely, further amend Sec.  64.1200 by revising 
paragraph (k)(10) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.1200  Delivery restrictions.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (10) Any terminating provider that blocks calls pursuant to an opt-
out or opt-in analytics program, either itself or through a third-party 
blocking service, must provide, at the request of the subscriber to a 
number, at no additional charge and within 3 business days of such a 
request, a list of calls to that number, including the date and time of 
the call and the calling number, that the terminating provider or its 
designee blocked pursuant to such analytics program within the 28 days 
prior to the request.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-28212 Filed 12-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P