Rule2021-28212
Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls-Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Clarification of USTelecom-The Broadband Association
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 30, 2021
Effective
January 31, 2022
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
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).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 248 (Thursday, December 30, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#28624d5a5d5b4049066a5d5a464d5c5c684e4b4b064f475e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="38725d4a4d4b5059167a4d4a565d4c4c785e5b5b165f574e">[email protected]</span></a> 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 <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-robocall-blocking-reconsideration-order">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-robocall-blocking-reconsideration-order</a>. 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f2949191c7c2c6b2949191dc959d84"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="54323737616460143237377a333b22">[email protected]</span></a> 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
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 30, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.