Enhancing the Ability of Consumers To Control the Robocalls

Issuing agencies

Abstract

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) modifies rules to ensure that consumers can revoke consent for robocalls they no longer wish to receive while continuing to receive those they still want. We also modernize our rules to ensure that consumers have clear, simple, and automated ways to revoke consent while streamlining callers' ability to process revocations. Specifically, we allow callers to interpret a revocation request as applying only to the specific category of informational robocalls to which the revocation was directed, allow callers to designate an exclusive means to revoke consent, and amend the exemption from the consent requirement for financial institutions to allow them to more easily alert customers to fraudulent activity on their account. In addition, we delegate authority to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) in consultation with the Enforcement Bureau (EB) to review our robocall rules to ensure that those rules are clear and easy to read.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 205 (Monday, October 26, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 205 (Monday, October 26, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67214-67219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-21821]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 02-278; FCC 26-67; FR ID 373556]


Enhancing the Ability of Consumers To Control the Robocalls

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) modifies rules to ensure that consumers can revoke consent 
for robocalls they no longer wish to receive while continuing to 
receive those they still want. We also modernize our rules to ensure 
that consumers have clear, simple, and automated ways to revoke consent 
while streamlining callers' ability to process revocations. 
Specifically, we allow callers to interpret a revocation request as 
applying only to the specific category of informational robocalls to 
which the revocation was directed, allow callers to designate an 
exclusive means to revoke consent, and amend the exemption from the 
consent requirement for financial institutions to allow them to more 
easily alert customers to fraudulent activity on their account. In 
addition, we delegate authority to the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau (CGB) in consultation with the Enforcement Bureau (EB) 
to review our robocall rules to ensure that those rules are clear and 
easy to read.

DATES: Effective November 25, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Richard D. Smith 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#01536862696073652f526c687569416762622f666e77"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="41132822292033256f122c283529012722226f262e37">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, (717) 
338-2797. For information regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 
information collection requirements contained in the PRA, contact Cathy 
Williams <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5e1d3f2a36277009373232373f332d1e383d3d70393128"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f7b496839f8ed9a09e9b9b9e969a84b7919494d9909881">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>, Office of Managing Director, (202) 
418-2918.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 
1991, Report and Order (Order) in CG Docket No. 02-278; FCC 26-67, 
adopted September 30, 2026 and released on October 1, 2026. The full 
text of this document is available for public inspection during regular 
business hours at Commission's headquarters 45 L Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20554 or at the following internet address: <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-67A1.pdf</a>.
    To request material 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#177174742227235771747439707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bfd9dcdc8a8f8bffd9dcdc91d8d0c9">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).

Synopsis

I. Discussion

A. Ensuring Consumers Get the Calls They Want

    We modify our rules to allow callers to interpret a revocation 
request as applying only to the specific category of informational 
robocalls to which the revocation was directed and not all robocalls. 
In so doing, we conclude that a requirement to treat a revocation 
request made in response to one type of informational robocall as 
applicable to all future robocalls unduly restricts consumers' ability 
to receive other wanted calls. We emphasize that this specific 
modification affects only informational robocalls.
    We agree with a broad range of commenters representing various 
industries and consumer groups that the current ``revoke all'' rule 
does not align with consumer expectations and poses significant risks 
to the delivery of essential information. Specifically, we conclude 
that this requirement is overinclusive and may lead to unintended 
consequences that do not align with the consumer's actual intent. For 
example, if a consumer revokes consent in response to payment reminders 
under the current rule interpretation the caller must stop all future 
robocalls on unrelated matters such as fraud alerts, multi-factor 
authentication, appointment reminders, or utility outage calls even if 
that was not the consumer's will. The record suggests that this is 
often not consistent with the consumer's intent. In fact, consumers may 
not even be aware that by revoking consent with respect to one category 
of informational messages, they are revoking consent to all messages 
from that caller.
    We conclude that the better reading of the TCPA permits consumers 
to avoid an all-or-nothing revocation by opting out of only those 
categories of informational robocalls they do not wish to receive while 
continuing to

[[Page 67215]]

receive desired communications. This flexibility allows consumers 
greater control over robocalls while ensuring that critical, time-
sensitive communications are not inadvertently stopped by the consumer. 
In addition, this approach addresses the concerns of utility companies 
that revocation requests will inadvertently extend to communications 
that they are legally required to make by limiting the scope of 
revocation only to the specific category of robocall to which they were 
directed. We note that one party has expressed opposition in an ex 
parte filing arguing that the revisions make compliance more complex. 
For the reasons discussed herein, however, we conclude that the 
industry and consumer group support is persuasive evidence that it does 
not.
    Currently some callers may also empower consumers to make more 
granular choices about the types of informational calls they wish to 
receive, including providing them with the option to revoke consent for 
all robocalls and text messages requiring consent. Some commenters 
request that we mandate a means by which consumers may revoke consent 
to all robocalls from a particular caller. One commenter expresses 
concern, however, with the potential compliance burdens entailed by 
requiring callers to provide a revoke all method. Therefore, we seek 
further comment in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published 
elsewhere in the Federal Register to inform the record on whether the 
benefits to consumers from requiring callers to provide a one-step 
means to revoke consent to all future robocalls outweigh the potential 
compliance burdens.
    Revocation requests made in response to robocalls that contain an 
advertisement or constitute telemarketing revoke consent to all future 
robocalls containing an advertisement or that constitute telemarketing 
from that caller. Such calls constitute a specific category of 
communication for which there are no exemptions to the prior express 
consent requirement. As a result, consumers need only make a single 
revocation request to revoke consent to all future telemarketing 
robocalls from any caller. In that regard, we remind telemarketers that 
our rules require that a residential subscriber's do-not-call request 
shall apply to the particular entity making the call (or on whose 
behalf a call is made), as well as affiliated entities if the consumer 
reasonably would expect them to be included.

B. Giving Consumers Clear, Simple, and Automated Ways To Revoke Consent

    We modify our rules to allow callers to designate an exclusive 
means by which consumers may revoke consent instead of requiring 
callers to honor all revocation requests made ``using any reasonable 
method,'' as currently provided in Sec.  64.1200(a)(10) of the 
Commission's rules. Specifically, we conclude that callers may 
designate any of the three methods currently described in the second 
sentence of Sec.  64.1200(a)(10) of the Commission's rules as the 
exclusive means to make revocation requests. This approach adequately 
ensures that a simple, automated, easily understood method for 
revocation is readily available to consumers to revoke consent while 
streamlining the ability of callers to process such requests and 
reducing compliance burdens. In addition, this ensures that callers 
will not demand revocations to be made by unduly complex, difficult, or 
cumbersome methods that could prevent or deter consumers from revoking 
consent effectively.
    As a result, callers may designate an exclusive revocation method 
that requires: (1) using an automated, interactive voice or key-press 
activated opt-out mechanism in response to a robocall, (2) using 
specific standardized words in response to an incoming text, and/or (3) 
using a website or telephone number provided by the caller to process 
opt-out requests, so long as the caller clearly and conspicuously 
discloses the designated method for revoking consent on the call or in 
the text. Callers that designate any of these three exclusive means to 
revoke consent will not be required to process revocation requests made 
by any other means. Any caller that does not designate one of the 
methods listed in Sec.  64.1200(a)(10) of the Commission's rules as the 
exclusive means to revoke consent must continue to process revocation 
requests when made in any reasonable manner.
    We agree with both industry and consumer groups that the designated 
use of these methods ensures that consumers can easily revoke consent 
while allowing callers to use cost effective, automated systems to 
process all incoming revocation requests. This approach also provides 
clarity by eliminating the need to determine on a case-by-case basis 
whether a ``reasonable means'' is used to revoke consent. We also agree 
with industry and consumer groups who contend that callers that 
designate an exclusive method to revoke consent should disclose that 
method on calls and in messages. This ensures that callers inform 
consumers of the designated revocation method. We therefore decline the 
request to allow callers to determine when and how to inform customers 
of the designated method. We agree with commenters, however, that 
requiring text senders to include all seven standardized words in a 
text message when designating a reply text as the exclusive means to 
revoke consent would make disclosures unnecessarily lengthy given the 
character limitations of text messages. As a result, we clarify that 
text senders can satisfy the disclosure requirement by disclosing even 
just one of the standardized words in each text message. For example, 
by indicating that recipients can revoke consent by responding 
``stop.'' But text senders still must honor revocation requests made 
using any of the standardized words as our rules recognize these as 
commonly used words to reflect a clear and unmistakable desire to 
revoke consent.
    In addition, we agree with industry and consumer groups that 
allowing callers to designate an automated revocation method as the 
exclusive means to revoke consent will incentivize more callers to make 
available such revocation methods and avoid delays inherent in manually 
processing revocation requests that result when made by non-designated 
methods. We disagree with the commenter who argues that callers that 
are regulated by another agency when communicating with consumers 
should be allowed to designate any such revocation method established 
by that agency's regulations as the exclusive means to revoke consent. 
While certain callers may be subject to such requirements, the record 
in this matter does not provide sufficient confirmation of the consumer 
protections afforded by these alternative methods to conclude that 
callers can designate such methods as the exclusive method for revoking 
consent.
    We emphasize that this rule modification does not alter the 
existing opt-out methods specified in our rules for calls made pursuant 
to an exemption or that include an advertisement or constitute 
telemarketing. For example, Sec.  64.1200(b)(3) of the Commission's 
rules requires calls made pursuant to an exemption in Sec.  
64.1200(a)(3)(ii) through (v) of the Commission's rules or that use an 
artificial or prerecorded voice that introduces an advertisement or 
constitutes telemarketing to provide an automated, interactive voice- 
and/or key press-activated opt-out mechanism to make a do-not-call 
request. Callers

[[Page 67216]]

subject to these requirements must comply with these obligations and 
utilize the opt-out method specified in our rules.

C. Revisiting Fraud Alert Restrictions

    We amend the exemption for financial institutions to initiate 
certain informational robocalls to wireless numbers without prior 
consent by modifying the condition limiting financial institutions to 
communicating only with those customers using a telephone number they 
provided directly to that financial institution. Specifically, we agree 
with commenters that exempted communications should be allowed when the 
wireless number is obtained from a reliable source. We conclude that a 
``reliable source'' in this context includes a telephone number: (i) 
supplied by a spouse or other family member who is authorized to be on 
the account; (ii) obtained when the customer calls the institution; or 
(iii) included in the records obtained from another financial 
institutions.
    We agree with commenters that the current condition limiting 
financial institutions to communicating only with those customers who 
have provided their telephone numbers to that financial institution 
unduly restricts the ability to communicate important, often time-
sensitive information to customers. This includes communications 
related to transactions and time sensitive events informing consumers 
of a risk of fraud or identity theft. For similar reasons, we grant 
ABA's 2015 petition for reconsideration to the extent that it requests 
that the Commission revisit the provided number condition.
    We conclude that this modification enhances the ability of 
financial institutions to communicate critical information under the 
exemption without infringing upon consumer privacy rights. In this 
regard, we encourage financial institutions to make use of resources 
such as the Reassigned Numbers Database (RND) to prevent calls being 
misdirected from someone who previously held that phone number. In 
addition, we emphasize that financial institutions making use of this 
exemption must honor opt-out requests from consumers to ensure that 
they are calling only those parties that wish to receive such 
communications. When combined with other conditions imposed on this 
exemption, such as a numerical limitation on the number of calls and 
messages that can be made pursuant to the exemption, we believe that 
modifying this condition does not adversely affect consumer privacy 
interests while promoting the ability of financial institutions to 
communicate important information to their customers and others 
authorized on the account.

D. Improving the Organization and Readability of the Robocall Rules

    We delegate authority to CGB in consultation with the Enforcement 
Bureau to review the rules contained in Sec.  64.1200 of the 
Commission's rules to ensure that those rules are clearly organized and 
comprehensible, invite comment at a later date on proposed changes, and 
issue an order implementing these changes to make these rules more 
transparent and easier to understand. This rule section contains 
numerous robocall and call blocking-related rules adopted and revised 
over the last three decades as part of our ongoing effort to implement 
the TCPA and protect consumers from illegal robocalls. As a result, 
these rules have grown increasingly lengthy and dense. The substance of 
these rules will not be changed on delegated authority, instead the 
goal is to recast them where appropriate in plain language so as to 
give regulated entities, as well as the broader public, a better grasp 
of what is required, what is permitted, and what is prohibited under 
these rules. We make clear that substantive changes to these rules are 
excluded from this delegation of authority. We believe such revisions 
to make the rules easier to understand can enhance compliance, reduce 
transaction costs, and make it easier to identify and report 
violations.

E. Effective Date

    The revised rule amendments contained herein become effective 
November 25, 2026. As a result, the rule modification to Sec.  
64.1200(a)(10) of the Commission's rules will go into effect at that 
time and supersede the delayed effective date of the relevant portion 
of that rule that was previously extended to January 31, 2027. We 
decline the request of one party to extend the effective date up to 12 
months after Federal Register publication to ensure that callers can 
begin utilizing the modernized consent methods as soon as possible.

F. Cost and Benefit Analysis

    Although robocalls are most commonly associated with illegal calls 
that defraud and annoy consumers, and are consistently a top consumer 
complaint, the term includes a wide array of calls, many of which are 
legal and benefit consumers. For example, robocalls are used to 
communicate time sensitive information such as fraud alerts, 
appointment reminders, school closings, power outages, and public 
safety notifications. The efficient provision of such information via 
robocalls provide consumers with substantial financial, health, and 
safety benefits by ensuring that consumers receive critical information 
that allows them to take time-sensitive actions in response to such 
communications. As a result, the right to grant and revoke consent to 
receive robocalls is fundamental to empowering consumers to manage 
those calls they wish to receive. Unduly restricting a consumers' 
ability to receive the calls they wish to receive is detrimental to 
this goal.
    The rule modifications contained herein enhance the ability of 
consumers to decide which robocalls that they wish to receive by 
ensuring that they have easy access to simple methods to revoke consent 
for those robocalls that they do not wish to receive while allowing 
them to continue receiving important information from financial 
institutions, health care providers, and utilities. While some 
consumers may be required under our modified rules to make more than 
one revocation request in response to informational robocalls, we 
believe this burden is minimal and offset by the benefits of the 
approach adopted herein. In so doing, we also streamline existing 
requirements such as by allowing callers the option to designate the 
exclusive method to be used for revoking consent to ensure that such 
request can be efficiently processed by automated means rather than 
requiring callers to process all revocation requests made in a 
reasonable manner. We impose no new compliance obligation. We therefore 
conclude that benefits of the rule modifications contained herein to 
both consumers and industry, as supported by a wide variety of 
commenters including consumer groups, financial institutions, health 
care organizations, and utilities, substantially outweigh any costs.

G. Legal Authority

    The Commission has legal authority to take the actions contained 
herein pursuant to sections 1-5, and section 227 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended.

II. Procedural Matters

H. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    This document contains non-substantive modifications to approved 
information collections that have been reviewed and approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to OMB's non-substantive 
modification process. Because these modifications are non-substantive, 
they do not impose any new or modified

[[Page 67217]]

information collection burdens on the public subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.

I. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires 
that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-
and-comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule 
will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has 
prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the 
possible impact of the rule and policy changes contained in the Report 
and Order on small entities.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Commission sent a copy of document FCC 26-67 to Congress and 
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) incorporated 
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the 2025 TCPA 
FNPRM, released in October 2025. The Commission sought written public 
comment on the proposals in the FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. 
No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA and it (or summaries 
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order

    The Commission receives more complaints about illegal robocalls 
that defraud and annoy consumers than any other issue, and we have 
taken a variety of measures to protect consumers from such calls. At 
the same time, many robocalls provide critical, time-sensitive 
information--such as medical appointment reminders or fraud alerts--
that many consumers want to receive. The Commission believes that the 
right to grant and revoke consent to receive robocalls is fundamental 
to empowering consumers to manage the calls that they wish to receive, 
and unduly restricting the public's ability to receive the calls they 
wish to receive is detrimental to this goal.
    This Order modernizes our rules to ensure that consumers have 
simple, clear, automated and accessible ways to revoke consent for 
those calls they no longer want while ensuring they continue to get 
those they do, while helping callers process these requests efficiently 
and with reduced compliance burdens. In addition, we also delegate 
authority to CGB to review our robocall rules to ensure those rules are 
comprehensible to the public, all interested parties, and small 
business entities.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    No comments were filed in response to the IRFA addressing the 
impact of the proposed rules on small entities. Several commenters 
expressed support for the rules modification contained herein due, in 
part, to the reduction in compliance burdens associated with 
eliminating or streamlining our existing rules. Specifically, 
commenters argue that applying revocation requests made in response to 
one type of informational robocalls to all future communications and 
being required to process revocation requests made by any reasonable 
means as required under our existing rules instead of designating the 
exclusive means to revoke consent places significant burdens on 
callers.

C. 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 the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of 
Advocacy, and also 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.

D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Will Apply

    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 adopted rules. 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. The SBA 
establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to 
use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses; 
agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such 
programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing 
so.
    Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not 
easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups 
of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. 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 34.75 million 
businesses. Next, ``small organizations'' are not-for-profit 
enterprises that are independently owned and operated and are not 
dominant in their field. While we do not have data regarding the number 
of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits 
have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, ``small governmental 
jurisdictions'' are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, 
villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of 
less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments 
data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government 
jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
    The rules adopted in the Order will apply to small entities in the 
industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding 
SBA size standard. Where available, we also provide additional 
information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in 
the identified industries below.

[[Page 67218]]



                               Table 1--2022 U.S. Census Bureau Data by NAICS Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Regulated industry (footnotes
 specify potentially affected                       SBA size                        Total small    Percent small
  entities within a regulated     NAICS code        standard        Total firms        firms           firms
  industry where applicable)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wired Telecommunications                517111  1,500 employees.           3,403           3,027           88.95
 Carriers.
Wireless Telecommunications             517112  1,500 employees.           1,184           1,081           91.30
 Carriers (except Satellite).
Commercial Banks..............          522110  $850 million in            3,917           2,897           73.96
                                                 assets.
Credit Unions.................          522130  $850 million in            4,411           3,671           83.22
                                                 assets.
Savings Institutions and Other          522180  $850 million in              569             375           65.91
 Depository Credit                               assets.
 Intermediation.
Sales Financing...............          522220  $47 million.....           2,180           1,690           77.52
Consumer Lending..............          522291  $47 million.....           2,918           2,292           78.55
Mortgage and Nonmortgage Loan           522310  $15 million.....           4,603           3,966           86.16
 Brokers.
Offices of Real Estate Agents           531210  $15 million.....         150,558         100,559           66.79
 and Brokers.
Marketing Consulting Services.          541613  $19 million.....          50,507          34,127           67.57
Other Services Related to               541890  $19 million.....           7,067           4,850           68.63
 Advertising.
Facilities Support Service....          561210  $47 million.....           2,941           2,402           81.67
Telemarketing Bureaus and               561422  $25.5 million...           2,380           1,798           75.55
 Other Contact Centers.
Collection Agencies...........          561440  $19.5 million...           2,549           1,827           71.68
Schools.......................          611110  $20 million.....          14,088          14,087           99.99
Offices of Physicians Except            621111  $16 million.....         138,120         104,486           75.65
 Mental Health Specialists.
Offices of All Other                    621399  $10 million.....          29,775          18,206           61.15
 Miscellaneous Health
 Practitioners.
General Medical and Surgical            622110  $47 million.....           2,280             501           21.97
 Hospitals.
Business Associations.........          813910  $15.5 million...          14,599          13,134           89.97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                Table 2--Telecommunications Service Provider Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2025 Universal Service Monitoring Report                   SBA size standard (1,500 employees)
  telecommunications service provider data (data as of  --------------------------------------------------------
                     December 2024)
--------------------------------------------------------  Total number FCC     Small firms       Percent small
                    Affected entity                       Form 499A filers                          entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs)............              4,049              3,853              95.16
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs).....              1,175                920              78.30
Interexchange Carriers (IXCs)..........................                112                 92              82.14
Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).........................              5,224              4,773              91.37
Operator Service Providers (OSPs)......................                 26                 24              92.31
Other Toll Carriers....................................                 72                 69              95.83
Paging & Messaging.....................................                 56                 56             100.00
Payphone Service Providers.............................                 25                 24              96.00
Prepaid Card Providers.................................                 47                 45              95.74
Telecommunications Resellers...........................                655                630              96.18
Wired Telecommunications Carriers......................              4,971              4,531              91.15
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)                608                522              85.86
Wireless Telephony.....................................                336                262              77.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of adopted 
rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping 
and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes 
of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type 
of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or 
record.
    This Order modernizes our rules to ensure that consumers have 
simple, automated and accessible ways to revoke consent for those calls 
they no longer want while ensuring they continue to get those they do, 
while helping callers process these requests efficiently and with 
streamlined compliance burdens. In addition, we eliminate outdated 
rules and delegate authority to CGB to review our robocall rules to 
ensure those rules are comprehensible to interested parties. We impose 
no new reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements on 
small entities. Rather, we eliminate and streamline existing rules to 
reflect changes in technologies and industry practices to allow small 
entities to more efficiently process revocation requests.

[[Page 67219]]

F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    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.''
    In this Order we take steps to modernize our rules to ensure that 
consumers have easily accessible ways to revoke consent. We have 
eliminated and streamlined requirements to make the processing of 
revocation requests more efficient. For example, we modify our rules to 
allow callers to interpret a revocation request to apply only to the 
specific category of informational robocalls to which the revocation 
was directed and not all communications. This modification streamlines 
the ability to process revocation requests. We also modify our rules to 
allow callers to designate the exclusive means to process revocation 
requests making it clearer to consumers how to request such revocations 
and easier for callers to process such requests by allowing callers to 
avoid processing incoming revocation requests made through other 
methods. These modifications minimize the economic impact of our 
existing rules on small entities by streamlining those rules.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

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


Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
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.


0
2. Amend Sec.  64.1200 by revising paragraphs (a)(9)(iii)(A), (10), 
(11), and (12) to read as follows.


 Sec.  64.1200   Delivery restrictions.

    (a) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) Voice calls and text messages must be sent only to the wireless 
telephone number(s) provided by the customer of the financial 
institution or obtained from a reliable source. In this context, a 
wireless telephone number obtained from a reliable source means a 
wireless telephone number: supplied by a spouse or other family member 
who is authorized to be on the account; obtained when the customer 
calls the financial institution; or included in records obtained from 
another financial institution.
* * * * *
    (10) A called party may revoke prior express consent, including 
prior express written consent, to receive calls or text messages made 
pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) and (c)(2) of this section. 
Callers may designate any of the following methods as the exclusive 
means to revoke consent:
    (i) an automated, interactive voice or key press-activated opt-out 
mechanism on a call;
    (ii) replying to an incoming text message with any one of the 
following standardized words: ``stop,'' ``quit,'' ``end,'' ``revoke,'' 
``opt out,'' ``cancel,'' or ``unsubscribe''; and/or
    (iii) pursuant to a website or telephone number designated by the 
caller to process opt-out requests. The caller must clearly and 
conspicuously disclose the designated method to revoke consent on the 
call or in the text. Text senders that designate a reply text message 
as the exclusive means to revoke consent can satisfy the disclosure 
obligation by including at least one of the standardized words 
contained in paragraph (a)(10)(ii) of this section in each text message 
so long as the text sender recognizes the use of any of the 
standardized words as a valid revocation request. Any caller that 
designates any of the methods identified above as the exclusive means 
to revoke consent is not required to process revocation requests made 
by any other means. Callers may interpret a revocation request made in 
response to an informational call or text message (i.e., a call or text 
message that does not contain any advertising or telemarketing) as 
applying only to the specific category of informational robocalls and 
text messages to which the revocation was directed and not to all 
communications. Revocation requests made in response to calls or text 
messages that contain an advertisement or constitute telemarketing 
revoke consent to all future calls or text messages containing an 
advertisement or constitute telemarketing from that caller. Should the 
text initiator choose to use a texting protocol that does not allow 
reply texts, it must provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure in each 
text to the consumer that two-way texting is not available due to 
technical limitations of the texting protocol, and clearly and 
conspicuously provide in each text reasonable alternative ways to 
revoke consent. All requests to revoke prior express consent or prior 
express written consent made in the manner described above must be 
honored within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days from 
receipt of such request.
    (11) Callers that do not designate an exclusive means to revoke 
consent pursuant to paragraph (a)(10) of this section must process 
revocation requests made by any reasonable means. The use of any means 
to revoke consent not listed in paragraph (a)(10) of this section 
creates a rebuttable presumption that the consumer has revoked consent 
when the called party satisfies their obligation to produce evidence 
that such a request has been made, absent evidence to the contrary. In 
those circumstances, a totality of circumstances analysis will 
determine whether the caller can demonstrate that a request to revoke 
consent has not been conveyed in a reasonable manner. All requests to 
revoke prior express consent or prior express written consent made in 
the manner described in this paragraph must be honored within a 
reasonable time not to exceed ten business days from receipt of such 
request.
    (12) A text message confirming a request to revoke consent from 
receiving any further calls or text messages does not violate 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section as long as the confirmation 
text merely confirms the text recipient's revocation request and does 
not include any marketing or promotional information. If the 
confirmation text is sent within five minutes of receipt, it will be 
presumed to fall within the consumer's prior express consent. If it 
takes longer, however, the sender will have to make a showing that such 
delay was reasonable.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-21821 Filed 10-23-26; 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>