Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, 17726-17735 [2021-04414]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 6, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17726-17735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04414]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0 and 64

[CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 20-187; FRS 17439]


Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopts rules to implement the 
TRACED Act and require voice service providers to better police their 
networks. Specifically, the Commission requires voice service providers 
to meet

[[Page 17727]]

certain affirmative obligations and to better police their networks 
against illegal calls. Second, the Commission expands its existing call 
blocking safe harbor to cover network-based blocking of certain calls 
that are highly likely to be illegal. Third, the Commission adopts 
rules to provide greater transparency and ensure that both callers and 
consumers can better identify blocked calls and ensure those that are 
wanted are un-blocked, consistent with the TRACED Act. Finally, the 
Commission broadens its point-of-contact requirement to cover caller ID 
authentication concerns under the TRACED Act.

DATES: Effective May 6, 2021 except instruction 5 adding Sec.  
64.1200(k)(9), which is effective January 1, 2022, and instruction 6 
adding Sec.  64.1200(k)(10) and (n)(2), which is delayed indefinitely. 
The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register 
announcing the effective date for Sec.  64.1200(k)(10) and (n)(2).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerusha Burnett, Consumer Policy 
Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, email at 
[email protected] or by phone at (202) 418-0526.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fourth 
Report and Order, in CG Docket No. 17-59, FCC 20-187, adopted on 
December 29, 2020, and released on December 30, 2020. The full text of 
document FCC 20-187 is available for public inspection and copying via 
the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). The full text 
of document FCC 20-187 and any subsequently filed documents in this 
matter may also be found by searching ECFS at: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (insert CG Docket No. 17-59 into the Proceeding block). To 
request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities 
(Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email 
to [email protected], or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau 
at (202) 418-0530 (voice).

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document contains new information collection requirements. The 
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, invites the general public to comment on the information 
collection requirements contained in the Fourth Report and Order as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In 
addition, the Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on how 
the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden 
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    In this document, the Commission has assessed the effects of its 
requirements that voice service providers report to the Commission 
following a notification that certain telephone network traffic appears 
to be unlawful and that voice service providers that block calls 
disclose to consumers a list of blocked calls upon request. The 
Commission finds the requirement to report to the Commission is 
necessary to ensure that voice service providers are taking proper 
steps to prevent illegal calls from reaching consumers and to avoid the 
risk of bad actor voice service providers shielding bad actor callers. 
The Commission finds that the blocked calls list is necessary to ensure 
consumers receive transparency and effective redress. Further, the 
Commission's decisions to allow flexibility in the method for providing 
the list and to limit the scope of the list appropriately balance small 
business' concerns.
    Sections 641.1200(k)(10) and 64.1200(n)(2) contain information 
collection requirements and are not effective until approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget. The FCC will publish a document in the 
Federal Register announcing the effective dates for those sections.

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. With the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission takes further 
steps to implement the TRACED Act and require voice service providers 
to better police their networks. The Commission also responds to caller 
concerns that their calls may be blocked in error and ensures that 
consumers receive much-needed protection from harassing and even 
fraudulent calls. First, the Commission requires all voice service 
providers to take steps to stop illegal traffic on their networks and 
assist the Commission, law enforcement, and the industry traceback 
consortium (Consortium) in tracking down callers that make such calls. 
Second, the Commission expands its safe harbor to include network-based 
blocking based on reasonable analytics that incorporate caller ID 
authentication information designed to identify calls that are highly 
likely to be illegal, if this blocking is managed with human oversight 
and network monitoring sufficient to ensure that blocking is working as 
intended. Third the Commission requires that voice service providers 
that block calls disclose such blocking, establish a dispute resolution 
process to correct erroneous blocking, and promptly resolve disputes. 
Finally, the Commission addresses several other pending issues from the 
Call Blocking Further Notice, published at 85 FR 46063, July 31, 2020, 
including whether to adopt a further safe harbor for the 
misidentification of the level of trust for calls and additional 
methods to protect consumers from unwanted calls and text messages from 
unauthenticated numbers.

Affirmative Obligations for Voice Service Providers

    2. The Commission and law enforcement play critical roles in 
combatting illegal robocalls, as evidenced by the FCC/FTC collaboration 
to stop COVID-19-related scam calls. The Commission thus wants to 
ensure that both the Commission and law enforcement have information 
necessary to combat illegal robocalling. The Commission now requires 
every voice service provider to: (1) Respond to traceback requests from 
the Commission, civil and criminal law enforcement, and the Consortium; 
(2) take steps to effectively mitigate illegal traffic when it receives 
actual written notice of such traffic from the Commission; and (3) 
implement affirmative, effective measures to prevent new and renewing 
customers from using its network to originate illegal calls.

Respond to Traceback Requests

    3. The Commission adopts its proposal to require all voice service 
providers to respond to traceback requests from the Commission, civil 
and criminal law enforcement, and the Consortium. And the Commission 
makes clear that it expects voice service providers to reply fully and 
timely. Traceback is an essential tool for determining the source of 
illegal calls. It is useful to prevent further calls from the same 
source and to inform enforcement actions. This information is 
particularly important when the caller ID may be spoofed, as it can 
greatly assist with identification of the actual caller.

[[Page 17728]]

    4. Entities Authorized to Make the Request. The Commission adopts 
its proposal to require voice service providers to respond to traceback 
requests from the Commission, civil and criminal law enforcement, and 
the Consortium. The Commission encourages, but does not require, law 
enforcement to make such requests through the Consortium, where 
possible. This will improve efficiency and help ensure that requests 
are handled in a consistent manner. In requiring response to the 
Consortium, the Commission does not vest any authority in the 
Consortium or its members to address non-compliance under the 
Commission's rules. Instead, the Consortium should inform the 
Commission when they identify a pattern of non-compliance, and the 
Commission will take any appropriate action.

Take Steps To Effectively Mitigate Illegal Traffic When Notified by the 
Commission

    5. The Commission adopts a modified version of its proposal to 
require voice service providers to take steps to effectively mitigate 
illegal traffic when notified by the Commission. Specifically, the 
Commission directs the Commission's Enforcement Bureau to identify 
suspected illegal calls and provide written notice to voice service 
providers. This requirement builds on the safe harbor it established in 
the Call Blocking Order, published at 85 FR 56530, September. 14, 2020. 
That safe harbor permits downstream voice service providers to block 
calls where an upstream voice service provider failed to effectively 
mitigate illegal traffic after being notified of such traffic by the 
Commission. This requirement takes the additional step of holding the 
notified voice service provider liable for that failure.
    6. When providing the notice under this new rule, the Enforcement 
Bureau shall: (1) Identify with as much particularity as possible the 
suspected traffic; (2) cite the statutory or regulatory provisions the 
suspected traffic appears to violate; (3) provide the basis for the 
Enforcement Bureau's reasonable belief that the identified traffic is 
unlawful, including any relevant nonconfidential evidence from credible 
sources such as the Consortium or law enforcement agencies; and (4) 
direct the voice service provider receiving the notice that it must 
comply with Sec.  64.1200(n)(2) of the Commission's rules. The 
Commission generally expects that the Enforcement Bureau will notify 
either the originating voice service provider that has a direct 
relationship to the caller or the intermediate provider that is the 
gateway onto the U.S. network.
    7. Upon receiving such notice, the voice service provider must 
promptly investigate the traffic identified in the notice and either 
take steps to effectively mitigate the identified traffic, in the 
manner described below, or respond to the Commission that the service 
provider has a reasonable basis for concluding that the identified 
calls are not illegal. If the notified voice service provider 
determines that such traffic comes from an upstream voice service 
provider with direct access to the U.S. public switched telephone 
network, the notified voice service provider must promptly inform the 
Commission of the source of the traffic and, if possible, take lawful 
steps to effectively mitigate this traffic. Such steps could include, 
for example, enforcing contract terms or blocking the calls from bad 
actor providers.
    8. Each notified voice service provider must promptly report the 
results of its investigation to the Enforcement Bureau, including any 
steps the voice service provider has taken to effectively mitigate the 
identified traffic, or an explanation as to why the voice service 
provider reasonably concluded that the identified calls were not 
illegal, and what steps it took to reach that conclusion. The 
Commission emphasizes that a ``reasonable basis for concluding that the 
calls are not illegal'' requires sufficient due diligence on the part 
of the voice service provider making such a determination. For example, 
the mere existence of a contractual provision forbidding illegal calls 
on the network is not sufficient to make this determination. Similarly, 
in cases where a caller makes telemarketing calls that include 
prerecorded or artificial voice messages, is it not reasonable to rely 
solely on a caller's written or verbal assurances in lieu of documented 
proof of prior express written consent from the called parties. Callers 
that believe that they have been blocked in error can seek review by 
the Commission through existing mechanisms.
    9. For a voice service provider to take steps to ``effectively 
mitigate'' the traffic identified, it must first investigate to 
identify the source of that traffic. Where the source is a customer or 
some other entity that does not have direct access to the U.S. public 
switched telephone network, the voice service provider must take steps 
to prevent that source from continuing to originate such traffic. This 
could mean ending a customer relationship, limiting access to high-
volume origination services, or any other steps that have the effect of 
stopping this traffic and preventing future, similar traffic. The 
Commission does not expect that originating voice service providers 
will need to block calls to comply with this requirement, as such voice 
service providers have a direct relationship with the customer and can 
use other mechanisms to address these issues. The Commission notes, 
however, that blocking may be necessary for gateway providers to comply 
with these requirements.
    10. The Commission anticipates that this requirement will primarily 
impact originating or gateway voice service providers. If, however, a 
voice service provider receiving notification from the Commission 
determines that the source of the illegal traffic is another voice 
service provider with access to the U.S. public switched telephone 
network, it must notify the Commission. The originally notified voice 
service provider must, if possible, take any otherwise lawful steps 
available to effectively mitigate the identified traffic. Where a voice 
service provider cannot take immediate action, the Commission 
encourages voice service providers to use the safe harbor for provider-
based blocking the Commission adopted in the Call Blocking Order, once 
the criteria for that safe harbor have been met.
    11. The Commission recognizes that intermediate and terminating 
voice service providers have limited visibility into the actual source 
of the traffic. The Commission accordingly does not expect perfection 
in mitigation, nor do the rules it adopts require an intermediate or 
terminating voice service provider to block all calls from a particular 
source. Further, the rules the Commission adopts today only require 
mitigation steps from originating or gateway voice service providers. 
While gateway providers may need to engage in blocking to comply with 
this rule, the Commission does not expect them to block all traffic, 
and encourages use of other methods where available.

Implement Effective Measures To Prevent New and Renewing Customers From 
Originating Illegal Calls

    12. The Commission adopts its proposal to require voice service 
providers to adopt affirmative, effective measures to prevent new and 
renewing customers from using their network to originate illegal calls. 
The Commission requires that all originating voice service providers 
know their customers and exercise due diligence in ensuring that their 
services are not used to originate illegal traffic. Beyond that, the 
Commission does not require that voice service providers take specific, 
defined steps, but instead permits them

[[Page 17729]]

flexibility to determine what works best on their networks. The 
Commission does recommend that voice service providers exercise caution 
in granting access to high-volume origination services, to ensure that 
bad actors do not abuse such services.
    13. While more involved investigations represent some burden, 
particularly for smaller voice service providers, voice service 
providers of all sizes should be able to impose and enforce relevant 
contract terms. Of course, contract provisions are only effective if 
they are enforced, and voice service providers that refuse to do so 
fail to satisfy this requirement. The Commission also clarifies that, 
if voice service providers have already implemented effective measures, 
they do not need to take further steps at this time. Voice service 
providers, however, that have not done so will need to comply with this 
requirement when they accept new customers or renew existing customers 
after the date of these rules.

Expanding the Safe Harbor Based on Reasonable Analytics to Network-
Based Blocking

    14. The Commission adopts its proposal to expand the safe harbor 
based on reasonable analytics to cover network-based blocking if the 
network-based blocking incorporates caller ID authentication 
information where available and otherwise meets the requirements the 
Commission adopted both in the Call Blocking Order and elsewhere in the 
Fourth Report and Order. To get the benefit of this safe harbor, a 
terminating voice service provider must ensure its network-based 
blocking targets only calls highly likely to be illegal, not simply 
unwanted. It must also manage this blocking with human oversight and 
network monitoring sufficient to ensure that the blocking works as 
intended; this must include a process that reasonably determines that 
the particular call pattern is highly likely to be illegal prior to 
blocking calls that are part of that pattern. And the Commission 
expects voice service providers to demonstrate they have conducted an 
appropriate process should the Commission inquire about specific 
blocking. The Commission bases this decision on its previous finding 
that no reasonable consumer would want to receive calls that are highly 
likely to be illegal. The safe harbor the Commission adopts today 
ensures that terminating voice service providers can respond to 
evolving threats while safeguarding the calls consumers want.
    15. Network Blocking Based on Reasonable Analytics. In expanding 
its safe harbor, the Commission first makes clear that terminating 
voice service providers may block calls at the network level, without 
consumer opt in or opt out, if that blocking is based on reasonable 
analytics that incorporate caller ID authentication information 
designed to identify calls and call patterns that are highly likely to 
be illegal. Terminating voice service providers must manage that 
blocking with human oversight and network monitoring sufficient to 
ensure that blocking is working as intended. This must include a 
process to reasonably determine that the particular call pattern is 
highly likely to be illegal prior to blocking calls. A terminating 
voice service provider must disclose to consumers that it is engaging 
in such blocking so that consumers are fully aware of it. In the 2017 
Call Blocking Order, published at 83 FR 1566, January 12, 2018, the 
Commission authorized voice service providers to block, without 
consumer consent, certain categories of calls on the basis that no 
reasonable consumer would want to receive such calls. The Commission's 
decision here is an extension of this decision, making clear that a 
terminating voice service provider may block any calls that it 
determines are highly likely to be illegal based on certain defined 
parameters.
    16. For purposes of this safe harbor, the Commission makes clear 
that terminating voice service providers must have in place a process 
to reasonably determine that the particular call pattern is highly 
likely to be illegal prior to blocking calls. Doing so will ensure that 
important calls, including emergency calls, are not blocked in error 
based solely on analytics. The Commission does not prescribe the 
specific steps of this process but instead expects that it will include 
steps designed to find out whether the calls that are part of the call 
pattern in question are highly likely to be illegal such as dialing the 
telephone number from which the apparently illegal calls purportedly 
originate; reviewing complaint data about calls from the source; or 
contacting the originating voice service provider.
    17. The Commission urges terminating voice service providers to be 
thorough in this process to avoid blocking errors. In particular, the 
Commission believes terminating voice service providers will need to 
use a combination of methods in their processes. For example, call-
backs may work well for some types of high-volume traffic, but may not 
be determinative for emergency alerts since the number may not be set 
up to receive calls. The Commission further clarifies that, because it 
only authorizes blocking of calls that are part of a call pattern that 
indicates the calls are highly likely to be illegal, when a terminating 
voice service provider learns that calls fitting this pattern are 
likely lawful, that voice service provider must immediately cease 
network-based blocking. The Commission notes that a voice service 
provider may continue to block under this safe harbor while 
investigating a dispute prior to obtaining information that indicates 
the calls are likely lawful.

Enhanced Transparency and Redress Requirements

    18. Consistent with the TRACED Act and building on its Call 
Blocking Order and Further Notice, the Commission adopts additional 
requirements to provide callers and consumers with more transparency to 
ensure that they can effectively access redress mechanisms, and ensure 
that a caller can verify the authenticity of its calls. First, the 
Commission requires terminating voice service providers that block 
calls to immediately notify the caller that the call has been blocked 
by sending either a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) or ISDN User Part 
(ISUP) response code, as appropriate, and the Commission requires all 
voice service providers in the call path to transmit these codes to the 
origination point. Second, the Commission requires terminating voice 
service providers that block calls on an opt-in or opt-out basis to 
disclose to their subscribers a list of blocked calls upon request. 
Third, when a calling party disputes whether blocking its calls is 
appropriate, the Commission requires terminating voice service 
providers to provide a status update to the party that filed the 
dispute within 24 hours. The Commission requires that the point of 
contact which terminating voice service providers have established to 
handle blocking disputes also handle contacts from callers that are 
adversely affected by information provided by caller ID authentication 
seeking to verify the authenticity of their calls. Finally, the 
Commission declines to address the issue of erroneous labeling at this 
time.
    19. The Commission expects voice service providers to satisfy those 
requirements, whether or not they use a third party, to ensure that the 
safeguards the Commission adopts to prevent erroneous blocking apply 
across the network. The Commission therefore declines to allow voice 
service providers to avoid liability solely because they make use of a 
third-party

[[Page 17730]]

service. By contrast, a voice service provider is not responsible for 
blocking done by a blocking service chosen by the consumer such as a 
blocking app.

Immediate Notification of Blocking

    20. The Commission requires terminating voice service providers 
that block calls to immediately notify callers of such blocking. The 
Commission further directs all voice service providers to perform 
necessary software upgrades to ensure the codes it requires for such 
notification are appropriately mapped; voice service providers must 
ensure that calls that transit over TDM and IP networks return an 
appropriate code. The Commission requires all voice service providers 
in the call path to transmit the code, or its equivalent, as discussed 
below, to the origination point so that callers with the appropriate 
equipment may receive timely notice of a blocked call. The Commission's 
requirements ensure that legitimate callers know when their calls are 
blocked so they can seek redress.
    21. Method of Notification. To ensure that callers understand these 
notifications and can make informed decisions regarding next steps, the 
Commission requires voice service providers to use specific, existing 
codes when blocking calls. Callers with properly configured equipment 
will thereby receive sufficient information to determine whether to 
access redress or investigate the blocking further. The Commission 
requires that terminating voice service providers that block calls on 
an IP network return SIP Code 607 or 608, as appropriate. Both of these 
codes are designed to be used for call blocking. Because SIP codes are 
not available on non-IP networks, ISUP code 21 is the appropriate code 
for calls blocked on a TDM network. Therefore, the Commission requires 
that terminating voice service providers that block calls on a TDM 
network return ISUP code 21.
    22. Many calls transit both IP-based and TDM networks. The 
Commission therefore establishes requirements regarding how these codes 
map, or translate, when call signaling transits between IP and TDM. For 
signals moving from IP to TDM, the Commission directs voice service 
providers, regardless of their position in the network, to make any 
necessary upgrades or software configuration changes to ensure that SIP 
Codes 607 and 608 map to ISUP code 21. In certain cases, callers may 
also receive SIP code 603 when calls have been blocked. This is likely 
to occur when call signaling transits from TDM to IP. The Commission 
further notes that the specifications for SIP code 608 give some 
guidance for interoperability, including the playing of an 
announcement. The Commission strongly encourages voice service 
providers to use this portion of the specification to eliminate 
confusion caused by ISUP code 21's multiple uses.
    23. Compliance Date. Finally, the Commission gives voice service 
providers until January 1, 2022, approximately 12 months after the 
adoption of the Order, to comply with its immediate notification 
requirements. The Commission recognizes that voice service providers 
are bearing costs as they work to implement STIR/SHAKEN in the IP 
portions of their networks, which the Commission has required by June 
30, 2021. Any incremental increase in burden could introduce challenges 
in compliance for some voice service providers. By delaying the 
compliance date of these requirements until January 1, 2022, which is 
approximately 12 months from the adoption of the Order, or six months 
from the STIR/SHAKEN implementation compliance date, the Commission 
ensures that voice service providers can make the necessary software 
upgrades without diverting resources from STIR/SHAKEN implementation.

Blocked Calls List

    24. The TRACED Act directs the Commission to ensure that consumers, 
as well as callers, have transparency and effective redress when wanted 
calls are blocked using robocall blocking services provided on an opt-
out or opt-in basis pursuant to its Call Blocking Declaratory Ruling 
and Further Notice. Consumers may opt out of blocking services at any 
time as a form of redress, and the Commission already made clear that 
voice service providers that use blocking programs should disclose to 
consumers the types of calls they seek to block and make clear that 
some wanted calls may be blocked. While a consumer knows that wanted 
calls may be blocked, consumers may not be able to determine whether 
blocking has occurred. The Commission thus requires any terminating 
voice service provider that blocks calls on an opt-in or opt-out basis 
to provide, on the request of the subscriber to a particular number, a 
list of all calls intended for that number that the voice service 
provider or its designee has blocked. The list should contain the 
calling number and the date and time of the call. Consistent with the 
TRACED Act, this list must be provided at no additional charge to the 
consumer. To ensure that this information is provided to the subscriber 
in a timely manner, the Commission requires that the terminating voice 
service provider provide this list within three business days of 
receiving the request. To avoid unwieldy recordkeeping requirements, 
the Commission limits the reporting requirement to calls blocked in no 
fewer than the 28 days prior to the request.
    25. Recipients and Content of List. The Commission requires that 
the blocked calls list include calls blocked on an opt-out or opt-in 
basis and that the voice service provider make it available to the 
subscriber to the called number. The list need only contain calls 
blocked with consumer consent because consumers can review these calls 
and make a different choice. This is also consistent with the scope of 
transparency and effective redress requirement in section 10(b) of the 
TRACED Act, which applies to ``robocall blocking services provided on 
an opt-out or opt-in basis.'' The Commission limits the scope of 
parties who can request and receive blocked calls lists to the 
subscriber because callers already have transparency and effective 
redress through the Commission's other requirements and doing so avoids 
the additional burden on voice service providers of furnishing lists to 
a potentially large group of others.
    26. Flexibility in Blocked Calls List Mechanism. Consistent with 
the call for flexibility in the record, the Commission declines to 
mandate how voice service providers give subscribers this list. The 
Commission instead leaves the method of providing the information to 
the judgment of the voice service provider. For example, voice service 
providers could use a web portal and those using a third-party blocking 
service may rely on that third party to provide this list. The ultimate 
responsibility falls to the voice service provider. Should the third 
party fail to provide the list consistent with the requirements the 
Commission adopts herein, the voice service provider will be liable for 
this failure.
    27. Time for Response and Length of Recordkeeping Requirement. The 
Commission requires terminating voice service providers to respond to 
subscribers' requests for blocked calls lists within three business 
days of receiving such a request. In establishing this requirement, the 
Commission balances the burden to the voice service provider against 
the needs of the subscriber. The Commission determines that three 
business days is sufficient time for a voice service provider to 
compile such a list, even if they are using a manual process. It also 
ensures that the subscriber, who may be requesting the list because 
they suspect important calls may not be reaching

[[Page 17731]]

them, has access to this information in a timely manner.
    28. To meet this obligation and for purposes of this rule, voice 
service providers must retain records of blocked calls for a minimum of 
four weeks or 28 days. This recognizes the need for subscribers to 
receive meaningful information and seeks to avoid overly burdening 
voice service providers with unnecessary recordkeeping requirements. 
Twenty-eight days provides the information subscribers need and imposes 
a reasonable burden on voice service providers.

Status of Call Blocking Dispute Resolution

    29. To ensure that callers can track dispute status and to increase 
transparency consistent with the TRACED Act, the Commission enhances 
its existing redress requirements to require voice service providers to 
respond to blocking disputes they receive through their established 
point of contact by providing a status update to the party that filed 
the dispute within 24 hours. In doing so, the Commission does not 
modify its requirement that disputes are resolved in a reasonable 
amount of time and at no cost to the caller, if the complaint is made 
in good faith. Instead, the Commission recognizes both that callers 
need speedy resolution of disputes and that voice service providers may 
need additional time to resolve disputes in certain instances. By 
requiring a status update within 24 hours, the Commission ensures that 
callers have the information they need while also granting voice 
service providers flexibility.

Point of Contact for Verifying Call Authenticity

    30. The Commission requires that the point of contact terminating 
voice service providers have established to take blocking disputes also 
handle contacts from callers that are adversely affected by information 
provided by caller ID authentication seeking to verify the authenticity 
of their calls. Because the Commission's rules already require blocking 
voice service providers to have a point of contact, it expects that 
most terminating voice service providers already have one in place. Any 
terminating voice service provider that does not block calls, and takes 
into account attestation information in determining how to deliver 
calls, must provide a point of contact to receive caller complaints 
regarding caller ID authentication consistent with the rules the 
Commission established in the Call Blocking Order, the Call Blocking 
Further Notice, and the Fourth Report and Order.
    31. Section 4(c)(1)(C) of the TRACED Act requires the Commission to 
establish a mechanism for callers that are adversely affected by 
information provided by the caller ID authentication framework to 
verify the authenticity of the calls. This will provide callers with a 
mechanism for redress where, for example, calls are blocked due to an 
incorrect attestation. The Commission specifies that the point of 
contact is not required to resolve all disputes about attestation level 
and, in fact, is not properly placed to do so; the terminating voice 
service provider is not the entity that typically attests to caller ID. 
Instead, the terminating voice service provider should consider whether 
the decision in question would be appropriate if the same calls were to 
receive a higher level of attestation and treat future calls 
accordingly unless circumstances change.
    32. The Commission's decision to require the same point of contact 
to handle blocking disputes and ``adverse effects'' from caller ID 
authentication information streamlines the process for both voice 
service providers and callers. The Commission expects that blocking and 
authentication concerns will often be interrelated, such as when the 
adverse effect is blocking. Only the terminating voice service provider 
can determine whether caller ID authentication was a significant factor 
in its decision and therefore whether there is a need to adjust its 
analytics or otherwise change its call-delivery practices. Even when 
the adverse effects from caller ID authentication and blocking are not 
directly related, by requiring the same point of contact to receive 
complaints of both issues, the Commission ensures that a caller only 
needs to go to one contact at a given terminating voice service 
provider in order to resolve either issue.
    33. Because the TRACED Act requirement seeks to address ``adverse 
effects,'' not simply incorrect caller ID authentication information, 
the Commission finds the terminating voice service provider is in the 
best position to address callers' concerns. The terminating voice 
service provider takes the action that represents the adverse effect, 
such as blocking. Originating voice service providers, by contrast, are 
not so positioned because they cannot ensure that attestation 
information reaches the terminating voice service provider. This is 
because STIR/SHAKEN does not work on TDM networks. Even once voice 
service providers implement STIR/SHAKEN, some voice service providers 
may thus be unable to sign calls and some calls may drop the initial 
attestation when they transit on TDM.

No Redress Requirements for Labeling

    34. The Commission declines to extend redress mechanisms to 
erroneous call labeling at this time. Rather, the Commission encourages 
voice service providers and their analytics partners to work in good 
faith with callers to avoid erroneous labeling so consumers can better 
decide whether to answer a call.

Other Issues and Proposals

    35. Safe Harbor for Misidentification of the Level of Trust. At 
this time, the Commission declines to extend the safe harbor to cover 
the inadvertent or unintended misidentification of the level of trust 
for particular calls. The Commission is not aware of any sources of 
liability specifically for the misidentification of the level of trust, 
including any liability stemming from non-federal sources. The 
Commission makes clear, however, that it will consider such a safe 
harbor in the future should parties bring such sources of liability to 
its attention. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission finds that 
it has met the TRACED Act's direction to provide such a safe harbor 
through its provision of a safe harbor for blocking, which is the only 
potential source of liability of which it is aware.
    36. TRACED Act Section 7. The Commission declines to take further 
action under section 7 of the TRACED Act at this time, but makes clear 
that the Commission may act in the future, as circumstances warrant. 
The Commission believes that, at this time, the best approach to 
protecting consumers from unwanted calls from unauthenticated numbers 
is through blocking programs that are consistent with the safe harbor 
it adopted in the Call Blocking Order. The Commission concludes that it 
has met its statutory obligation under section 7 by seeking comment on 
additional steps the Commission could take to provide this protection.
    37. Other Section 4(c) Issues. The Commission adopts the tentative 
conclusions proposed in the Call Blocking Further Notice with regard to 
section 4(c) of the TRACED Act. Specifically, the Commission finds that 
it has fully implemented section 4(c)(1), except to the extent that it 
adopts new rules elsewhere in this Order. The Commission similarly 
concludes that, in establishing the safe harbor adopted in the Call 
Blocking Order and expanded upon elsewhere in this Order, it has 
properly taken into account the

[[Page 17732]]

considerations listed in section 4(c)(2) of the TRACED Act.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as 
amended, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated into the Declaratory Ruling and Further Notice. The 
Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Call 
Blocking Further Notice, including comment on the IRFA. The comments 
received are discussed below. This Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Order

    2. The Fourth Report and Order takes important steps in the fight 
against illegal robocalls by requiring voice service providers to take 
certain affirmative steps to prevent illegal calls. Next, the Fourth 
Report and Order expands the Commission's safe harbor to include 
network-based blocking based on reasonable analytics that incorporate 
caller ID authentication information designed to identify calls that 
are highly likely to be illegal, if this blocking is managed with human 
oversight and network monitoring sufficient to ensure that blocking is 
working as intended. The Fourth Report and Order then takes steps to 
implement the TRACED Act by ensuring that both callers and consumers 
are provided with transparency and effective redress. Taken together, 
these steps will provide greater protection to consumers and increase 
trust in the telephone system while ensuring that consumers continue to 
receive the calls they want.
    3. Affirmative Obligations for Voice Service Providers. The Fourth 
Report and Order establishes three affirmative obligations for all 
voice service providers. First, all voice service providers must 
respond to traceback requests from the Commission, civil and criminal 
law enforcement, or the Industry Traceback Consortium (Consortium). 
Second, all voice service providers must take steps to effectively 
mitigate suspected illegal traffic when notified of such traffic by the 
Commission through the Enforcement Bureau. The notice from the 
Enforcement Bureau must be in writing and include specific information 
as detailed in the Fourth Report and Order and accompanying rules. The 
notified voice service provider must investigate the suspected illegal 
traffic and report to the Enforcement Bureau regarding the results of 
that investigation, including whether the calls came from another voice 
service provider with direct access to the U.S. public switched 
telephone network, and any mitigation steps taken. Finally, all voice 
service providers must take affirmative, effective steps to prevent new 
and renewing customers from using their network to originate illegal 
calls.
    4. Expanding the Safe Harbor Based on Reasonable Analytics to 
Network-Based Blocking. The Fourth Report and Order expands the 
Commission's safe harbor for blocking based on reasonable analytics, 
which must include caller ID authentication information where 
available, to cover certain network-based blocking, without consumer 
opt in or opt out. The blocking must be designed to target only calls 
highly likely to be illegal and managed with sufficient human oversight 
and network monitoring to ensure that blocking is working as intended. 
For purposes of the safe harbor, the Fourth Report and Order makes 
clear that voice service providers must have a process in place to 
reasonably determine that a call pattern is highly likely to be illegal 
prior to initiating blocking without consumer consent, and must cease 
blocking when the voice service provider learns that calls are likely 
lawful.
    5. Enhanced Transparency and Redress. The Fourth Report and Order 
establishes several requirements to implement the TRACED Act and ensure 
that both callers and consumers are provided with transparency and 
effective redress. First, voice service providers that block calls must 
return to the caller an appropriate SIP or ISUP code, as appropriate. 
In order to ensure that these codes reach the origination point of the 
call, all voice service providers must make all necessary software 
upgrades and configuration changes to ensure that these codes translate 
properly when a call moves between TDM and IP-based networks. Providers 
must comply with this requirement by January 1, 2022. Second, voice 
service providers that block on an opt-in or opt-out basis must 
provide, on the request of the subscriber to a particular number, a 
list of all calls intended for that number that the provider has 
blocked. Voice service providers have three days to provide the list 
and the list should include all calls blocked on an opt-in or opt-out 
basis within the 28 days prior to the request. Third, voice service 
providers that block calls must respond to any blocking dispute within 
24 hours, either with a status update or a resolution. This requirement 
builds on the Commission's requirements in the Call Blocking Order and 
Further Notice that voice service providers designate a single point of 
contact to handle blocking disputes. Finally, consistent with the 
TRACED Act, the Fourth Report and Order requires that the point of 
contact previously established to handle blocking disputes also be 
prepared to handle contacts from callers seeking to verify the 
authenticity of their calls. Any terminating voice service provider 
that does not block calls, and takes into account attestation 
information in determining how to deliver calls, must provide a point 
of contact to receive caller complaints regarding caller ID 
authentication consistent with the rules the Commission established in 
the Call Blocking Order and Further Notice, as well as the Fourth 
Report and Order.

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

    6. In the Call Blocking Order and Further Notice, the Commission 
solicited comments on how to minimize the economic impact of the new 
rules on small business. The Commission received seven comments either 
directly referencing the IRFA or addressing concerns particular to 
small businesses. Five of these comments addressed the affirmative 
obligations. Six addressed small business concerns with transparency 
and redress requirements. Three of these comments addressed issues 
raised in the Call Blocking Order and Further Notice that the Fourth 
Report and Order declines to move forward with, and therefore are not 
directly relevant to this analysis.
    7. Affirmative Obligations. The Fourth Report and Order requires 
voice service providers to respond to traceback, mitigate illegal 
traffic when notified of such traffic by the Commission, and take 
affirmative steps to prevent illegal calls from new and renewing 
customers. Commenters, including smaller voice service providers, were 
generally supportive of these requirements. Commenters did urge us to 
take certain steps to aid smaller voice service providers and ensure 
that these voice service providers have the information and resources 
to comply.
    8. With regard to the requirement to respond to traceback requests 
from the Commission, law enforcement, and the Consortium, ACA Connects 
notes that many smaller voice service providers may be unfamiliar with 
the process and urges us to work with stakeholders to educate smaller 
voice service providers. In the Fourth Report and Order the Commission 
makes clear to voice service providers that it is in their best 
interest to ensure that they have a clear point of contact at which to 
receive these requests. The Commission remains open to working with 
smaller

[[Page 17733]]

voice service providers and other stakeholders to ensure that they 
understand the traceback process and how best to handle these requests.
    9. There is significant overlap with commenters' concerns regarding 
the second and third requirements. In general, these concerns urge the 
Commission to ensure that these requirements, to the extent possible, 
consider that smaller voice service providers will have fewer 
resources. INCOMPAS urges us to avoid overly prescriptive requirements 
and to provide flexibility on the third requirement. Competitive 
Carriers urges us to ensure that, with regard to new and renewing 
customers, the requirement ``is satisfied so long as a provider takes 
action once it has actual knowledge of a customer originating illegal 
calls.'' WTA asks that the Commission define particular steps so a 
voice service provider can be sure it is in compliance. The Fourth 
Report and Order makes clear that, while the Commission does not define 
specific steps, the Commission does not expect perfection, and that 
enforcement of contract clauses is sufficient to satisfy the third 
requirement. By granting flexibility, the Commission ensures that all 
voice service providers can determine the approach best suited to their 
networks.
    10. Transparency and Redress. The Fourth Report and Order adopts 
several transparency and redress requirements, including immediate 
notification of blocking, provision of a blocked calls list for 
consumers, and status updates regarding disputes. Commenters raise 
concerns that prescriptive transparency and redress mandates are 
particularly burdensome for smaller voice service providers, and 
generally seek flexibility. They note that smaller providers are more 
often reliant on third parties, both for blocking services and 
associated redress. Commenters also raise particular concerns regarding 
speed of redress for smaller providers. There is, however, some 
disagreement on this issue, with Telnyx noting that smaller voice 
service providers may also be disadvantaged if larger voice service 
providers take too long to resolve disputes. WTA also raises concerns 
about the burdens associated with requiring a blocked calls list, but 
does not specifically tie these concerns to voice service provider 
size.

Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

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

    27. The Fourth Report and Order requires voice service providers to 
meet certain affirmative obligations and to provide specific 
transparency and redress to both callers and consumers. These changes 
affect small and large companies equally and apply equally to all the 
classes of regulated entities identified above.
    28. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements. The Fourth Report and 
Order requires voice service providers to effectively mitigate illegal 
traffic once notified of suspected illegal traffic by the Commission 
through its Enforcement Bureau. As part of this requirement, a notified 
voice service provider must promptly report the results of its 
investigation to the Enforcement Bureau, including any steps the voice 
service provider has taken to effectively mitigate the identified 
traffic, or an explanation as to why the voice service provider 
reasonably concluded that the identified calls were not illegal, and 
what steps it took to reach that conclusion. The Fourth Report and 
Order also requires voice service providers to provide, at the request 
of a subscriber, a list of calls blocked on an opt-out or opt-in basis 
over the prior 28 days. This requires voice service providers that 
block calls on an opt-out or opt-in basis to retain records regarding 
such blocking for a minimum of 28 days. The other requirements adopted 
in the Fourth Report and Order do not include specific recordkeeping or 
retention requirements. However, voice service providers may find it 
necessary to retain records to ensure that they are able to resolve 
blocking disputes, respond to traceback, or demonstrate that they are 
in compliance with the Commission's rules in the event of a dispute.

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

    29. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may 
include the following four alternatives, among others: (1) The 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.
    30. The Commission considered feedback from the Call Blocking Order 
and Further Notice in crafting the final order. The Commission 
evaluated the comments with the goal of protecting consumers from 
illegal calls while also ensuring that both consumers and callers 
receive transparency and effective redress. For example, in 
establishing affirmative obligations for voice service providers, the 
Commission ensured that voice service providers have flexibility to 
determine how best to comply and made clear that the Commission does 
not expect perfection With regard to transparency and redress 
requirements, wherever possible, the Commission ensures that 
prescriptive requirements make use of already-existing mechanisms to 
minimize the burdens and declined to require resolution of blocking 
disputes within a specific timeframe. The Commission also delays the 
date of compliance, setting it at January 1, 2022, to ensure that voice 
service providers have sufficient time to make any necessary upgrades 
or configuration changes before they must provide immediate 
notification of blocked calls by providing a SIP or ISUP code.
    31. The Fourth Report and Order carefully weighs the concerns of 
small voice service providers against those of callers, many of which 
are also small businesses. In adopting an immediate notification 
requirement, it makes use of existing mechanisms and delays the 
compliance date to keep the burden as low as possible while still 
providing important information to callers. Further, in requiring a 
status update, but not resolution, within 24 hours, the Fourth Report 
and Order ensures that small voice service providers have necessary 
time to conduct investigations while also providing valuable 
information to callers. The requirements adopted in the Fourth Report 
and Order will impose some burden on smaller voice service providers, 
but these burdens are necessary to implement the TRACED Act and ensure 
that both callers and consumers are provided with transparency and 
effective redress.
    32. The Commission does not see a need to establish a special 
timetable for

[[Page 17734]]

small entities to reach compliance with the modification to the rules. 
No small business has asked for a delay in implementing the rules. Any 
voice service providers that require such a delay may reach out through 
the usual processes. Similarly, there are no design standards or 
performance standards to consider in this rulemaking.

Ordering Clauses

    91. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 
201, 202, 217, 227, 227b, 251(e), 303(r), and 403 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 202, 217, 227, 227b, 
251(e), 303(r), 403, this Fourth Report and Order is adopted.
    92. It is further ordered that part 0 and part 64 of the 
Commission's rules are amended as set forth in the Final Rules, with 
the exception of new Sec. Sec.  64.1200(k)(9) and (10), and 
64.1200(n)(2), and shall be effective 30 days after their publication 
in the Federal Register.
    93. It is further ordered that new Sec.  64.1200(k)(9) shall be 
effective on January 1, 2022.
    94. It is further ordered that new Sec.  64.1200(k)(10) and 
64.1200(n)(2) shall be effective 30 days after the Commission's 
publication of a notice in the Federal Register, which will announce 
approval of portions of the rules requiring approval by OMB under the 
PRA.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

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

Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 parts 0 and 64 as follows:

PART 0--COMMISSION ORGANIZATION

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

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, and 409.


0
2. Effective May 6, 2021, amend Sec.  0.111 by adding paragraph (a)(27) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  0.111   Functions of the Bureau.

    (a) * * *
    (27) Identify suspected illegal calls and provide written notice to 
voice service providers. The Enforcement Bureau shall:
    (i) Identify with as much particularity as possible the suspected 
traffic;
    (ii) Cite the statutory or regulatory provisions the suspected 
traffic appears to violate;
    (iii) Provide the basis for the Enforcement Bureau's reasonable 
belief that the identified traffic is unlawful, including any relevant 
nonconfidential evidence from credible sources such as the industry 
traceback consortium or law enforcement agencies; and
    (iv) Direct the voice service provider receiving the notice that it 
must comply with Sec.  64.1200(n)(2) of the Commission's rules.
* * * * *

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

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

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


0
4. Effective May 6, 2021, amend Sec.  64.1200 by revising paragraphs 
(k)(5), (6), and (8), and by adding paragraphs (k)(9) through (11) and 
(n) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.1200  Delivery restrictions.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (5) A provider may not block a voice call under paragraph (k)(1) 
through (4) or (11) of this section if the call is an emergency call 
placed to 911.
    (6) A provider may not block a voice call under paragraph (k)(1) 
through (4) or (11) of this section unless that provider makes all 
reasonable efforts to ensure that calls from public safety answering 
points and government emergency numbers are not blocked.
* * * * *
    (8) Each terminating provider that blocks calls pursuant to this 
section or utilizes caller ID authentication information in determining 
how to deliver calls must provide a single point of contact, readily 
available on the terminating provider's public-facing website, for 
receiving call blocking error complaints and verifying the authenticity 
of the calls of a calling party that is adversely affected by 
information provided by caller ID authentication. The terminating 
provider must resolve disputes pertaining to caller ID authentication 
information within a reasonable time and, at a minimum, provide a 
status update within 24 hours. When a caller makes a credible claim of 
erroneous blocking and the terminating provider determines that the 
calls should not have been blocked, or the call delivery decision is 
not appropriate, the terminating provider must promptly cease the call 
treatment for that number unless circumstances change. The terminating 
provider may not impose any charge on callers for reporting, 
investigating, or resolving either category of complaints, so long as 
the complaint is made in good faith.
    (9)-(10) [Reserved]
    (11) A terminating provider may block calls without liability under 
the Communications Act and the Commission's rules, without giving 
consumers the opportunity to opt out of such blocking, so long as:
    (i) The provider reasonably determines, based on reasonable 
analytics that include consideration of caller ID authentication 
information where available, that calls are part of a particular call 
pattern that is highly likely to be illegal;
    (ii) The provider manages its network-based blocking with human 
oversight and network monitoring sufficient to ensure that it blocks 
only calls that are highly likely to be illegal, which must include a 
process that reasonably determines that the particular call pattern is 
highly likely to be illegal before initiating blocking of calls that 
are part of that pattern;
    (iii) The provider ceases blocking calls that are part of the call 
pattern as soon as the provider has actual knowledge that the blocked 
calls are likely lawful;
    (iv) The provider discloses to consumers that it is engaging in 
such blocking;
    (v) All analytics are applied in a non-discriminatory, 
competitively neutral manner;
    (vi) Blocking services are provided with no additional line-item 
charge to consumers; and
    (vii) The terminating provider provides, without line item charge 
to the caller, the redress requirements set forth in subparagraphs 8 
and 9.
* * * * *
    (n) A voice service provider must:
    (1) Respond fully and in a timely matter to all traceback requests 
from the Commission, civil law enforcement, criminal law enforcement, 
and the industry traceback consortium;
    (2) [Reserved]
    (3) Take affirmative, effective measures to prevent new and 
renewing customers from using its network to originate illegal calls, 
including knowing its customers and exercising due diligence in 
ensuring that its

[[Page 17735]]

services are not used to originate illegal traffic.

0
5. Effective January 1, 2022, further amend Sec.  64.1200 by adding 
paragraph (k)(9) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.1200  Delivery restrictions.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (9) Any terminating provider that blocks calls, 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 607 or 608;
    (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 codes 607 and 608 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, 607, or 608 where 
the cause location is ``user.''
* * * * *

0
6. Delayed indefinitely, further amend Sec.  64.1200 by adding 
paragraphs (k)(10) and (n)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.1200  Delivery restrictions.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (10) Any terminating provider that blocks calls on an opt-out or 
opt-in basis, either itself or through a third-party blocking service, 
must provide, at the request of the subscriber to a number, at no 
additional charge and within 3 business days of such a request, a list 
of calls to that number, including the date and time of the call and 
the calling number, that the terminating provider or its designee 
blocked within the 28 days prior to the request.
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (2) Take steps to effectively mitigate illegal traffic when it 
receives actual written notice of such traffic from the Commission 
through its Enforcement Bureau. In providing notice, the Enforcement 
Bureau shall identify with as much particularity as possible the 
suspected traffic; provide the basis for the Enforcement Bureau's 
reasonable belief that the identified traffic is unlawful; cite the 
statutory or regulatory provisions the suspected traffic appears to 
violate; and direct the voice service provider receiving the notice 
that it must comply with this section. Each notified provider must 
promptly investigate the identified traffic. Each notified provider 
must then promptly report the results of its investigation to the 
Enforcement Bureau, including any steps the provider has taken to 
effectively mitigate the identified traffic or an explanation as to why 
the provider has reasonably concluded that the identified calls were 
not illegal and what steps it took to reach that conclusion. Should the 
notified provider find that the traffic comes from an upstream provider 
with direct access to the U.S. Public Switched Telephone Network, that 
provider must promptly inform the Enforcement Bureau of the source of 
the traffic and, if possible, take steps to mitigate this traffic; and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-04414 Filed 4-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P