Rule2025-04811
Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls
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
March 24, 2025
Effective
March 25, 2026
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) modifies its existing call blocking rules. Specifically, the Commission requires all domestic voice service providers to block based on a reasonable do-not-originate (DNO) list. Second, it requires voice service providers to return Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) code 603+ when calls are blocked based on reasonable analytics.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 55 (Monday, March 24, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 55 (Monday, March 24, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13416-13425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-04811]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 25-15; FR ID 285031]
Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) modifies its existing call blocking rules. Specifically,
the Commission requires all domestic voice service providers to block
based on a reasonable do-not-originate (DNO) list. Second, it requires
voice service providers to return Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
code 603+ when calls are blocked based on reasonable analytics.
DATES: Effective March 25, 2026, except for the amendment to 47 CFR
64.1200(o) which are delayed indefinitely. The amendments to 47 CFR
64.1200(o) will become effective following publication
[[Page 13417]]
of a document in the Federal Register announcing approval of the
information collection and the relevant effective date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerusha Burnett, Consumer Policy
Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b5dfd0c7c0c6ddd49bd7c0c7dbd0c1c1f5d3d6d69bd2dac3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b0dad5c2c5c3d8d19ed2c5c2ded5c4c4f0d6d3d39ed7dfc6">[email protected]</span></a> or by phone at (202) 418-0526. For information
regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) information collection
requirements contained in the PRA, contact Cathy Williams, Office of
Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918, or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#195a786d7160374e7075757078746a597f7a7a377e766f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9eac8ddc1d087fec0c5c5c0c8c4dae9cfcaca87cec6df">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order, in CG Docket No. 17-59, FCC 25-15, adopted on February 27,
2025, and released on February 28, 2025. The full text of this document
is available online at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-15A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-15A1.pdf</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#197f7a7a2c292d597f7a7a377e766f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c4a2a7a7f1f4f084a2a7a7eaa3abb2">[email protected]</span></a> or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418-0530.
Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This document contains new or modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13. This document will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the
PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be
invited to comment on the new or modified information collection
requirements contained in this proceeding.
Congressional Review Act
The Commission sent a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Synopsis
1. In this Report and Order, the Commission strengthens its call
blocking and robocall mitigation rules in key areas. First, the
Commission expands its requirement to block calls based on a reasonable
do-not-originate (DNO) list to include all U.S.-based providers in the
call path. The Commission next establishes Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) code 603+ as the exclusive code to notify callers when calls on
internet Protocol (IP) networks are blocked based on reasonable
analytics to better correct erroneous blocking.
Requiring All Providers To Block Using a Reasonable Do-Not-Originate
List
2. The Commission adopts its proposal to require all providers in
the call path to block calls that are highly likely to be illegal based
on a reasonable DNO list. Requiring all providers to block using a
reasonable DNO list ensures that this type of blocking protects all
voice customers. Even if some providers use more limited lists that are
nonetheless reasonable, either out of concern that lawful calls may be
blocked or because of technical limitations, consumers will be better
protected because other providers in the call path may use more
extensive lists, or even slightly different lists. The Commission
therefore agrees with commenters that broadly support extension of the
DNO blocking requirement to all voice service providers. The Commission
makes this requirement effective 90 days after publication of a notice
of Office of Management and Budget approval in the Federal Register.
3. While the Commission agrees with USTelecom that many providers
already block based on such lists, it disagrees with it that this makes
a mandate unnecessary. Requiring more providers to block based on a DNO
list will ensure that more consumers are protected from illegal calls.
Further, the Commission is unpersuaded that any potential
inefficiencies that stem from requiring all providers to block based on
a reasonable DNO list outweigh the potential benefits. A provider may
implement this requirement in whatever method makes sense for its
network, so long as the list is applied to all calls that transit the
provider's network. The Commission also declines to adopt a safe harbor
for blocking based on a reasonable DNO list, as Cloud Communications
Alliance suggests, because it is unclear what liability a provider
would face for blocking based on a such a list and the Commission is
unaware of any provider facing such liability since the Commission
first authorized this blocking in 2017.
4. Scope of the List. Consistent with the Commission's rule for
gateway providers and messaging providers, the Commission does not
mandate the use of a specific list, but allows providers to use any DNO
list so long as the list is reasonable. The Commission similarly does
not change the scope of numbers that may be included on a reasonable
DNO list. This ensures that its rule for gateway providers is
consistent with the Commission's rule for all other providers and
ensures that the categories of numbers from which there is no valid
reason for calls to originate can be included on the list. Such a list
may include only invalid, unallocated, and unused numbers, as well as
numbers for which the subscriber has requested blocking. The Commission
clarifies that, to be considered reasonable, a list may include only
the above-referenced categories of numbers and need not include all
possible covered numbers. This is particularly true for unused numbers,
which may be difficult for some providers to identify in some cases.
The Commission may, however, deem unreasonable a list so limited in
scope that it leaves out obvious numbers that could be included with
little effort. The Commission finds that the current categories of
numbers appropriately balance the certainty that calls are highly
likely to be illegal with the need to protect consumers from those
calls. The Commission therefore agrees with commenters that ask it not
to change the scope of numbers that may be included on a reasonable DNO
list.
5. Consistent with the Commission's rule, it does not adopt a
single uniform list or establish a minimum list. Providers must
constantly update DNO lists, especially if they include unused numbers
that could go into use at any time, and there is not currently a
standardized way to ensure that these updates would happen in real time
for all providers. While this is true of either a centralized list or a
provider-maintained list, a provider-maintained list may, for example,
include only unused numbers assigned to that provider and automate
number drop-off upon putting the number into use--or simply leave off
these numbers if they cannot reasonably do so. Additionally, as Neustar
notes, some voice service providers may have ``limitations in the
number of DNO numbers that they can use'' due to ``older or less
capable networking equipment.'' A provider-selected list better
accounts for this issue than a uniform list, and technical limitations
provide a valid reason for some numbers to be excluded. The Commission
also recognizes that providers know their own networks and may be
better positioned to determine what types of numbers should be
prioritized. By contrast, a central list would need to include rules
prioritizing particular numbers across the U.S. network, which may not
be the best
[[Page 13418]]
approach in all cases. The Commission therefore agrees with Neustar
that granting flexibility to providers allows them ``to adapt or
customize their DNO list based on their customer base, traffic profile,
and other reasonable considerations. This will help those voice service
providers maximize protections for their customers.''
6. The Commission therefore disagrees with commenters who argue
that it should adopt a uniform list or establish a minimum list,
require a more comprehensive list, or ``set the criteria for inbound-
only numbers to be the same as for government inbound-only numbers.''
Because of the potential technological limitations discussed above, the
Commission declines to mandate a more extensive list at this time. The
Commission also maintains its previous approach, which allows providers
to exercise discretion as to what numbers they include on their lists,
so long as the list includes, at a minimum: (1) ``any inbound-only
government numbers where the government entity has requested the number
be included;'' and (2) ``private inbound-only numbers that have been
used in imposter scams, when a request is made by the private entity
assigned such a number.'' Providers may, of course, include inbound-
only numbers that have not been used in imposter scams if they are
capable of doing so.
7. Moreover, while Somos correctly notes that ``the more
comprehensive the DNO list . . . the more spoofed calls that will be
blocked before reaching the intended victim,'' the Commission finds
that the burden of requiring all providers, including smaller
providers, to use an expansive DNO list is unnecessary at this time.
This is particularly true when all other providers in the call path
must block. Some providers will use or already use these more expansive
lists, and a single call will often pass through several networks on
its path to the recipient. As a result, many consumers will be
protected by these more comprehensive lists even when one provider in
the call path uses a more restricted list. The Commission recommends
that providers, when technically feasible, use a more comprehensive
list to safeguard even more consumers.
SIP Code for Immediate Notification of Analytics-Based Blocking
8. The Commission modifies its requirement for terminating
providers to provide immediate notification to callers when calls are
blocked based on reasonable analytics. The Commission now requires the
exclusive use of SIP code 603+ for this purpose on IP networks. The
Commissions directs providers that block based on reasonable analytics
to return SIP code 603+. This will ensure that callers learn when and
why their calls are blocked based on reasonable analytics, which in
turn will allow these callers to access redress when blocking errors
occur. The Commission clarifies that this requirement only applies when
providers block calls based on analytics; the Commission does not
require providers to provide immediate notification when blocking based
on a DNO list, pursuant to Commission notification if not based on
analytics, or at the request of a customer without the use of
analytics. As required by the Commission's rules, the Commission
directs all providers to perform necessary software upgrades to ensure
the codes it requires for such notification are appropriately mapped.
Providers must ensure that calls that transit over Time Division
Multiplexing (TDM) and IP networks return an appropriate code when
calls are blocked based on an analytics program, and the correct ISUP
code for this purpose remains 21. The Commission further directs voice
service providers to cease using the standard version of SIP code 603,
or SIP codes 607 or 608, for this purpose.
9. Adopting 603+ for Immediate Notification on IP Networks. The
Commission previously indicated that the existing rule allowing
providers to use one of several codes for immediate notification of
blocking based on an analytics program--i.e., SIP code 603, 607, or
608--was a temporary measure. The TRACED Act requires the Commission to
ensure that callers receive ``transparency and effective redress'' when
their calls are blocked by analytics, and a single uniform code is the
best way to achieve this transparency. The Commission therefore agrees
with commenters such as INCOMPAS and Cloud Communications Alliance that
urge it to adopt a single, uniform code. The Commission similarly
agrees that providers should adopt and implement a code quickly. The
implementation of a single code has already been delayed and should not
be delayed for longer than is absolutely necessary for implementation.
10. The record demonstrates that SIP code 603+ will provide more
information to providers more quickly than SIP code 608, and likely at
lower cost to providers. While both SIP codes 603+ and 608 could
ultimately provide the information callers need, commenters disagree as
to whether SIP code 603+ or 608 is the best code for this purpose.
Despite the contention by some commenters that some providers currently
use SIP code 608, it appears a limited number of providers use it for a
limited number of calls and without the jCard. In the SIP code 608
specification, the jCard is an optional feature but it is necessary to
provide information such as the identity of the blocking provider and
redress information. As a result, current uses of SIP code 608 tell a
caller that a call was blocked based on analytics but not which
provider blocked the call or how to file a dispute. Therefore, while
SIP code 608 provides callers with the basic information that a call is
blocked, it provides minimal actionable information. USTelecom notes
that currently very few providers have implemented SIP code 608, which
means that, when a caller receives a 608, there is a limited list of
providers that may have blocked the call; it further notes that broader
deployment will make identifying the blocking provider significantly
more difficult, especially in cases where SIP Code 608 may be used by
non-terminating providers. Some commenters argue that implementing the
jCard would take a significant amount of time--even years. By contrast,
SIP code 603+ is not currently in use, but can provide the same
information without the complexity of the jCard; furthermore, since it
builds on an existing code, it appears to be substantially less
technically complex to implement.
11. SIP code 603+ builds on SIP code 603, which is already in use
in the network and is different from it in a few key ways. First,
instead of the status line reading ``Decline'' as in the standard SIP
code 603, 603+ will read ``Network Blocked.'' This provides immediate,
standardized information to originating providers and callers that the
code is being used to indicate analytics-based blocking. Additionally,
ATIS has standardized the reason header to define and require text
fields that indicate blocking is based on analytics, as well as contact
information for redress. This contains significantly more information
than that provided by SIP code 608 without the use of the optional
jCard, and at least comparable to what that code would provide if fully
implemented with the jCard.
12. Commenters are correct that SIP code 603 was not originally
intended for use as a notification for blocking. Indeed, when it was
originally established, analytics-based blocking as we currently know
it did not exist. And the Commission agrees with commenters that it has
characterized the use of SIP code 603 as a temporary measure to satisfy
the TRACED Act requirement to provide transparency
[[Page 13419]]
and effective redress for erroneous analytics-based blocking. However,
except where ISUP code 21 is translated into a standard SIP code 603
and therefore cannot be distinguished as a 603+, SIP code 603+ is
substantially different both in the status line and in mandatory text
fields. These significant modifications, which make SIP code 603+
distinct from a standard SIP code 603, ensure that 603+ is appropriate
for this use, even though the standard SIP code 603 would be
inappropriate for long term use to indicate analytics-based blocking.
13. The Commission disagrees with commenters who argue that SIP
code 608 is the more appropriate code because it is more readily
accessible and easier for callers to analyze. The Commission
understands that caller equipment may need to be modified to look for
the text in the status line, rather than simply the number of the code,
and that system changes may need to be done to read the text fields
that include redress information. The Commission is not convinced that
this is a particularly challenging hurdle for callers to overcome,
however. The status line that includes the numerical code, whether 603
or 608, also includes the reason phrase (in the case of 603+, ``Network
Blocked''). While software may not currently be configured to read this
reason phrase, commenters do not make a clear case that this software
cannot be reconfigured. Indeed, at least one group of caller commenters
appears to believe that such reconfiguration is possible and
specifically supports the use of SIP code 603+, citing the ``Network
Blocked'' portion of the status line, among other factors, as evidence
it will work for their needs. Additionally, implementation of SIP code
603+ will make specific redress information available to callers, which
should significantly reduce, if not eliminate, the current need for
callers to invest significant time into investigation and outreach in
order to initiate redress with the correct provider. Moreover, if SIP
code 608 were implemented with the jCard to provide this information,
callers would presumably also need to make modifications to read the
information provided by the jCard. Therefore, use of either code would
appear to require some investment by callers. The Commission therefore
expects that most high-volume callers will choose to modify their
equipment to recognize SIP code 603+ and have sufficient incentive to
do so.
14. As part of the Commission's requirement for voice service
providers to return SIP code 603+, the Commission clarifies that all
providers in the call path must transmit the appropriate code to the
origination point of the call, including ensuring that SIP code 603+
maps appropriately to ISUP code 21. Similarly, any IP provider that
receives SIP code 603+ must ensure it transmits the full header,
including all mandatory text fields established in the standard.
15. Implementation Deadline and Sunsetting SIP codes 603, 607, and
608. The Commission requires providers to implement SIP code 603+ no
later than 12 months from publication of this Order in the Federal
Register. The Commission finds that a one-year implementation period
appropriately balances the need for callers to receive greater
transparency and the need for interoperability testing and other
finalizing work by providers. Providers should have long been aware
that the Commission would want them to quickly implement such a change,
as the TRACED Act requires transparency and effective redress and the
Commission has described the current option to use the standard version
of SIP code 603 as a temporary measure.
16. The Commission also directs providers to cease using SIP codes
603, 607, and 608 when calls are blocked using analytics once they have
implemented 603+ and in no instance later than 12 months from
publication of this Order in the Federal Register. The Commission
therefore disagrees with Cloud Communications Alliance and INCOMPAS,
which urge us to continue to allow the use of 608 and to require
implementation of the requirements in six months. First, continuing to
allow SIP code 608 would cause further confusion and uncertainty by
reducing incentives for both providers and callers to update their
systems appropriately which undermines the Commission's goal of
mandating a single code. Second, while AT&T may already have
effectively implemented 603+ in much of its network, AT&T is a single
large provider and other providers, such as those with different
network architecture, may to need additional time. Similarly, AT&T's
ability to implement 608 without the jCard within 12 months does not
indicate that other providers will not reasonably require additional
time. Additionally, SIP code 608 without the jCard offers much less
information compared to SIP code 603+. However, when SIP code 608
includes the jCard, it provides benefits similar to 603+, though it
takes more time to implement. Therefore, it is more appropriate to use
SIP code 608 with the jCard for comparison. While the Commission agrees
that quicker implementation would be ideal and provide benefit to
callers, it is concerned that doing so will be technically infeasible
for quite a few providers, and therefore continue the cycle of delays
and uncertainty.
17. Providers may continue to use SIP code 603 where otherwise
appropriate, but not for analytics-based blocking except when an
intermediate or terminating providers receive ISUP code 21 and cannot
reasonably determine whether SIP code 603 or 603+ is appropriate. SIP
code 607 may be used for its intended purpose: to indicate that a call
was blocked at the subscriber's direction without the use of analytics.
Because the Commission requires immediate notification only when
providers block based on reasonable analytics, it declines to mandate
the use of SIP code 607. The Commission therefore disagrees with the
commenter that urges it to require use of SIP code 607. While this
information may be valuable to some callers, comments in previous
proceedings indicate that there may be privacy concerns with its use.
At this time, the Commission finds that these concerns outweigh the
potential benefits and therefore decline to mandate the use of SIP code
607.
18. Additional Protections for Lawful Callers. Because the
Commission does not adopt any requirements for blocking based on
reasonable analytics and the blocking notification rules it adopts
today are expansions of its existing rules, rather than wholly new
requirements, it declines to adopt any additional protections for
lawful callers at this time. The record does not suggest that the
Commission's current protections will be insufficient to protect lawful
callers after these particular incremental expansions take effect.
Moreover, and as discussed previously, the Commission believes that the
deployment of SIP code 603+ will provide significant benefit to callers
that, when paired with the Commission's existing protections, are
sufficient to protect the interests of callers.
Status of Rich Call Data or Other Caller Name Tools
19. The Commission declines to require the display of caller name
information when a provider chooses to display an indication that
caller ID has been authenticated. Although the Commission does not
adopt such a mandate, it urges providers to continue to develop next-
generation tools, such as Rich Call Data (RCD) and branded calling
solutions, to ensure that consumers receive this information and
welcome any updates industry has on its progress. The Commission notes
that
[[Page 13420]]
it may consider a mandate in the future, particularly if the timely
deployment of such valuable tools does not occur without Commission
intervention. The record indicates both that CNAM databases are
insufficient to provide a consumer with reliable information, and that
a mandate requiring the use of other, newer, technologies is premature.
Furthermore, the Commission agrees with consumer groups that the ``use
of rented [Direct Inward Dialing numbers] just for the purpose of
allowing callers to pretend to be someone other than themselves for the
express purpose of evading blocking and labeling efforts'' is a concern
that merits caution. Solutions that can provide secure end-to-end
authentication and verification information can help restore trust in
the ecosystem and enhance consumer welfare.
20. Though the Commission declines to adopt a mandate at this time,
it nonetheless believes that displaying caller name or other enhanced
call information, once a reliable solution is available, will provide
significant benefit to consumers, particularly when combined with an
indication that caller ID has been authenticated. The Commission
therefore strongly encourages industry to develop and standardize tools
to ensure that this information is provided to consumers without
additional charge to the call recipient. The Commission is concerned
that, absent this information, an indication that caller ID has been
authenticated provides little actionable information to consumers and
may provide consumers with a false sense of security. The Commission
intends to continue monitoring developments in this area in order to
take action as appropriate in the future.
Legal Authority
21. The Commission's legal authority for the rules it adopts today
stems from sections 201(b), 202(a), and 251(e) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), as well as from the Truth in Caller
ID Act, and the TRACED Act. These sections have formed the basis for
much of the Commission's work to combat illegal calls. In particular,
sections 201(b) and 202(a) grant the Commission broad authority to
adopt rules governing just and reasonable practices of common carriers.
22. The Commission's authority under section 251(e)(1) provides
independent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of U.S. North American
Numbering Plan (NANP) resources. This is particularly relevant to the
rules the Commission adopts today that require blocking based on a
reasonable DNO list, where there is no legitimate reason for the caller
to use the number. Similarly, the Truth in Caller ID Act grants the
Commission authority to prescribe rules to make unlawful the spoofing
of caller ID information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or
wrongfully obtain something of value, and provides us authority to
require blocking based on a reasonable DNO list where the number has
clearly been spoofed.
23. Section 10(b) of the TRACED Act directs the Commission to
ensure that providers are transparent about blocking and give both
consumers and callers effective redress for erroneous blocking. It
provides authority for the Commission's designation of SIP code 603+ as
the appropriate code for immediate notification of callers when calls
are blocked based on reasonable analytics. The Commission adopted its
original immediate notification requirement based on the authority of
that section. The Commission now simply modify that requirement to
ensure that callers receive greater transparency.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
24. The record supports the Commission's conclusion that the
actions it takes now to strengthen its rules will yield benefits to
consumers that exceed the costs of their implementation. The Commission
previously estimated that illegal and unwanted calls cost consumers
$13.5 billion annually. Even if the actions the Commission takes now to
strengthen its rules eliminate only a small fraction of these unwanted
and fraudulent calls, the benefits will be substantial and will
outweigh the costs.
25. Benefits. Extending blocking to all voice service providers in
the call path based on a reasonable DNO list will increase the
proportion of unwanted and illegal calls that are successfully blocked.
The collective effect of each provider in the call path using its own
risk-based DNO list will be to better filter illegal and unwanted calls
by blocking illegal calls that elude one provider's different DNO list.
If the effect is to eliminate a small share of unwanted and illegal
calls, consumers would save millions annually in avoided fraud,
aggravation, inconvenience, and mistrust.
26. Costs. While the record lacks specific cost data and related
analysis, the Commission believes that the increase in providers' costs
to avoid the risk of originating illegal calls will be modest. First,
the DNO list blocking requirement of this Report and Order merely
extends the existing requirement of previous orders. In the May 2023
Call Blocking Order and Further Notice, the Commission reaffirmed that
``voice service providers are responsible for the calls they originate,
carry, or transmit.'' In this Report and Order, the Commission requires
all voice service providers to block calls based upon a reasonable DNO
list which is a modest extension of the responsibility for all calls on
a network.
27. Additionally, requiring providers to use SIP code 603+ for
immediate notification to callers of analytics-based blocking is less
technically complex than other potential solutions, and thus likely
minimizes the costs of implementation for providers. SIP code 603+
builds on an existing code and thus requires less development than
adoption of a new release code. In addition, voice service providers
have 12 months after the publication of this Report and Order in the
Federal Register to implement this change. Further, implementation of
SIP code 603+ will make specific redress information available to
callers, which should significantly reduce, if not eliminate, the
current need for callers to invest significant time into investigation
and outreach to initiate redress with the correct provider.
28. Although the record is sparse, the new requirements in this
Report and Order to reduce illegal calls can likely be implemented at a
relatively modest cost. Given that unwanted and illegal calls reduce
public welfare by billions of dollars annually, even a small percentage
reduction in those will generate benefits that exceed the costs of the
new rules.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
29. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as
amended, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful
Robocalls, Call Authentication Trust Anchor, Eighth Further Notice
(Call Blocking FNPRM) released in May 2023. The Federal Communications
Commission (Commission) sought written public comment on the proposals
in the Call Blocking FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments
were filed addressing the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Order
30. The Report and Order continues the Commission's ongoing efforts
to stop the growing tide of illegal calls by building on its existing
rules. The Commission has taken significant action
[[Page 13421]]
to combat this problem, and this Report and Order adopts several rules
to continue this work. First, the Report and Order expands the existing
requirements to block calls based on a reasonable do-not-originate
(DNO) list. Additionally, it increases transparency for callers by
mandating a single Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) code be used when
calls are blocked based on reasonable analytic. The Commission's
adoption of these requirements in the Report and Order strengthens its
call blocking and robocall mitigation rules to provide enhanced
protection for consumers.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to
the IRFA
31. Although the Commission did not receive comments specifically
addressing the IRFA in the Call Blocking FNPRM, the Commission did
receive comments addressing the burdens on small providers. Commenters
expressed concerns regarding burdens associated with additional
blocking requirements. With regard to the Commission's proposed
requirement for all providers in the call path to block calls that are
highly likely to be illegal based on a reasonable DNO list, commenters
advocated for call blocking on a reasonable DNO list, no change to the
scope of numbers included on a reasonable DNO list, a safe harbor from
liability for providers based on the use of a reasonable DNO list.
Further, commenters opined on the appropriate SIP code for immediate
notification requirements and mandatory call-blocking based on
reasonable analytics. Additionally, commenters raised concerns about
short implementation times, and asked for additional time for smaller
providers. The Commission carefully considered these concerns, and
discusses steps taken to address them in section F of this FRFA. The
Commission further considered the potential impact of the rules
proposed in the IRFA on small entities, and took steps where
appropriate and feasible, to reduce the compliance and economic burden
for small entities.
Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration
32. 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.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules
Will Apply
33. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 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. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.
34. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission
therefore describes, at the outset, three broad groups of small
entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are
industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in
the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small
Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small
business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.
These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in
the United States, which translates to 33.2 million businesses.
35. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were
approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
36. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were
90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of
this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county,
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000
and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts)
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on
the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that
at least 48,724 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
Wireline Carriers
37. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text,
sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a
variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP
services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and
wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments
providing satellite television distribution services using facilities
and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.
Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline
carriers or fixed local service providers.
38. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
[[Page 13422]]
39. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to LECs. Providers of these services include both incumbent
and competitive local exchange service providers. Wired
Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small
business size standard. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also
referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local service providers. The
SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated
with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data
in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31,
2021, there were 4,590 providers that reported they were fixed local
exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 4,146 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of
these providers can be considered small entities.
40. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired
Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small
business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 1,212 providers
that reported they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that 916 providers have 1,500
or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local
exchange carriers can be considered small entities.
41. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to competitive LECs. Providers of
these services include several types of competitive local exchange
service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest
industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021,
there were 3,378 providers that reported they were competitive local
service providers. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that
3,230 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the
SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be
considered small entities.
42. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for
IXCs. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with a
SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or
fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire
year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 127
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of
interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates
that 109 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using
the SBA's small business size standard, the Commission estimates that
the majority of providers in this industry can be considered small
entities.
43. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a
``small cable operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that, directly or
through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of
all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any
entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.'' For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the
Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer
than 498,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will
meet the definition of a small cable operator. Based on industry data,
only six cable system operators have more than 498,000 subscribers.
Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of cable system
operators are small under this size standard. The Commission notes
however, that the Commission neither requests nor collects information
on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose
gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore, the Commission is
unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of
cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators
under the definition in the Communications Act.
44. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers,
or toll resellers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest
industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that
operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021,
there were 90 providers that reported they were engaged in the
provision of other toll services. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 87 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of
these providers can be considered small entities.
Wireless Carriers
45. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
services, wireless
[[Page 13423]]
internet access, and wireless video services. The SBA size standard for
this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893
firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of that
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Additionally,
based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring
Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 providers that reported
they were engaged in the provision of wireless services. Of these
providers, the Commission estimates that 511 providers have 1,500 or
fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size
standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.
46. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth
station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies a business with $44 million or less in annual
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 42
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, a little more than half of these
providers can be considered small entities.
Resellers
47. Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have
developed a small business size standard specifically for Local
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with a
SBA small business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs)
are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire
year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 207
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of local
resale services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 202
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
48. Toll Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have
developed a small business size standard specifically for Toll
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with a
SBA small business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs)
are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire
year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 457
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of toll
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 438
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
49. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
prepaid calling card providers. Telecommunications Resellers is the
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The
Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged
in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications;
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile
virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. The
SBA small business size standard for Telecommunications Resellers
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry
provided resale services for the entire year. Of that number, 1,375
firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2021, there were 62 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of prepaid card services. Of these providers,
the Commission estimates that 61 providers have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard,
most of these providers can be considered small entities.
Other Entities
50. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of
internet services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are
also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard
for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $40 million
or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
[[Page 13424]]
were 1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
51. The Report and Order does not impose new or additional
reporting or recordkeeping on small or other impacted entities. The
Report and Order does require voice providers to meet certain
obligations. These changes affect small and large companies, and apply
to all the classes of regulated entities identified above in section D.
The Commission allows providers 12 months after publication of the
Report and Order in the Federal Register to comply with these
requirements. First, all voice service providers, rather than only
originating and gateway providers, must block calls purporting to
originate from numbers on a reasonable DNO list. Voice service
providers are granted flexibility to determine the appropriate list,
based on the needs and capabilities of their networks. Additionally,
voice service providers must use SIP code 603+ to provide immediate
notification to callers when calls are blocked based on reasonable
analytics.
52. The rules adopted in the Report and Order will result in
compliance costs for small and other entities, and may require small
entities to hire professionals to comply. While the record does not
contain specific cost data estimates or analysis, the Commission
believes that the burdens associated with the rules it adopts today
will be modest. The requirement to block based on a reasonable DNO list
is a modest extension of an existing rule. Similarly, implementation of
SIP code 603+ is unlikely to impose significant new costs as it can be
implemented as part of routine maintenance.
53. Although small and other entities will incur costs to implement
the requirements of the Report and Order, based on the record the
benefit of these requirements will exceed their costs. The Commission
notes in the Report and Order that the industry estimates that
consumers receive 13 spam or fraud calls a month, and on average those
scammed by phone lose $865. Moreover, based on complaint data from the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the median loss for fraud by phone was
$1480. Further, the FTC reports a total of $850 million lost to fraud
by phone call.
Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
54. The RFA requires an agency to provide, ``a description of the
steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact
on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy,
and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final
rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule
considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was
rejected.''
55. In the Report and Order, the Commission considered various
alternatives and took the steps discussed below to minimize the
economic impact for small entities, and address concerns small entities
raised in comments. The Commission declined to adopt additional
protections for lawful callers. The Commission extended the existing
rule requiring blocking of calls based on a reasonable DNO list to all
voice providers, rather than only originating and gateway providers,
consistent with small and other providers that broadly support this
proposed extension. The Commission declined to expand the scope of the
list, or to mandate the use of a single uniform list, in part to ensure
that providers with more limited resources and older equipment, which
would include many smaller providers, are able to adopt lists that are
appropriate for their networks and should address the concerns raised
by some small entity commenters. The Commission also considered but
declined to adopted a safe harbor from liability for providers based on
use of a reasonable DNO list requested by small entity advocates since
the Commission is not aware of what liability a provider would face for
blocking based on a such a list, or of any provider encountering any
such liability since the Commission authorized this type of blocking in
2017. The Commission likewise declined to adopt a reasonable analytics-
based blocking mandate, reducing the burden on smaller providers which
was a concern raised in comments.
56. In addition to the blocking requirements, the Report and Order
adopted a single SIP code for notification to callers when calls are
blocked based on reasonable analytics, SIP code 603+. This modifies the
Commission's existing rule allowing for use of one of a list of several
codes, which has always been intended as a temporary measure. Support
both for, and against the use of SIP code 603+ were in comments filed
by small entities. Based on the record, SIP code 603+ which builds on
the existing SIP code 603 will provide more information to providers
more quickly than SIP code 608, builds on the existing SIP code 603,
and appears to be substantially less technically complex to implement
making it the more appropriate choice for the Commission. As the
Commission discusses in the Report and Order, whether the Commission
chose SIP code 603+ or 608, small and other callers would be required
to make modifications to comply. To ensure that small and other
providers have adequate time to implement the Report and Order
requirements, the Commission modified and expanded the implementation
deadline it proposed in the Call Blocking NPRM. All providers have 12
months from publication of the Report and Order in the Federal Register
to make the transition, which addresses small provider concerns about
the implementation timeframe and requests for additional time. The
Report and Order also allows for use of an ISDN User Part (ISUP) code
where the network is non-IP.
Report to Congress
57. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order,
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy
of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA. The Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries
thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.
Ordering Clauses
58. It is ordered that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202,
217, 227, 251(e), 301, 303, 307, 316, and 403 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201, 202, 217, 227,
251(e), 301, 303, 307, 316, and 403, this Report and Order is adopted.
59. It is further ordered that the revisions to Sec. 64.1200(o)
shall be effective 90 days after publication of a notice of Office of
Management and Budget approval in the Federal Register of information
collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the
revisions to Sec. 64.1200(k)(9) shall be effective 12 months after
publication in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
[[Page 13425]]
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR 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), 255, 262,
276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401-1473, unless otherwise
noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091; Pub.
L. 117-338, 136 Stat. 6156.
Subpart L--Restrictions on Telemarketing, Telephone Solicitation,
and Facsimile Advertising
0
2. Sec. 64.1200 is amended by revising paragraphs (k)(9) and (o) 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+, as defined in ATIS-
1000099, adopted August 16, 2022;
(ii) In the case of a call terminating on a non-IP network, the use
of ISDN User Part (ISUP) code 21 with the cause location ``user'';
(iii) In the case of a code transmitting from an IP network to a
non-IP network, SIP code 603+ must map to ISUP code 21; and
(iv) In the case of a code transmitting from a non-IP network to an
IP network, ISUP code 21 must map to SIP code 603 or 603+ where the
cause location is ``user.''
* * * * *
(o) A voice service provider must block any calls purporting to
originate from a number on a reasonable do-not-originate list. A list
so limited in scope that it leaves out obvious numbers that could be
included with little effort may be deemed unreasonable. The do-not-
originate list may include only:
(1) Numbers for which the subscriber to the number has requested
that calls purporting to originate from that number be blocked because
the number is used for inbound calls only;
(2) North American Numbering Plan numbers that are not valid;
(3) Valid North American Numbering Plan Numbers that are not
allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan
Administrator; and
(4) Valid North American Numbering Plan numbers that are allocated
to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator, but
are unused, so long as the provider blocking the calls is the allocatee
of the number and confirms that the number is unused or has obtained
verification from the allocatee that the number is unused at the time
of blocking.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2025-04811 Filed 3-21-25; 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 March 24, 2025.
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.