Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls-Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Clarification of USTelecom-The Broadband Association, 74373-74375 [2021-28212]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 248 / Thursday, December 30, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action is
not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59
FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it
does not establish an environmental
health or safety standard. This
regulatory action is a procedural rule
and does not have any impact on human
health or the environment.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
[FR Doc. 2021–28282 Filed 12–29–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 17–59; FCC 21–126; FRS
63954]
Advanced Methods To Target and
Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls—Petition
for Reconsideration and Request for
Clarification of USTelecom—The
Broadband Association
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution or use of energy.
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
K. Congressional Review Act
This rule is exempt from the CRA
because it is a rule of agency
organization, procedure or practice that
does not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties.
Jkt 256001
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, and under the authority of
E.O. 13992, the Environmental
Protection Agency removes and reserves
40 CFR part 31.
■
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children. Per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of Executive
Order 13891 and because this action
does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk, it is not subject
to Executive Order 13045.
16:53 Dec 29, 2021
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
PART 31 [REMOVED AND RESERVED]
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
VerDate Sep<11>2014
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 31
Environmental protection, On-site
civil inspection procedures.
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) reconsiders and clarifies
certain aspects of the transparency and
redress requirements previously
adopted to ensure that voice service
providers continue to block unwanted
and illegal calls, while also protecting
the interests of legitimate callers and
consumers, also, granting a waiver to
allow voice service providers
terminating a call on an internet
protocol (IP) network to use Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP).
DATES: This rule is effective January 31,
2022, except for the addition of
§ 64.1200(k)(10), which is delayed
indefinitely. The Commission will
publish a document in the Federal
Register announcing the effective date
of this amendment. Section
64.1200(k)(9)(i) is waived from January
1, 2022 until January 31, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information on this
proceeding, contact Jerusha Burnett,
Jerusha.Burnett@fcc.gov or (202) 418–
0526, of the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer
Policy Division.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Order on
Reconsideration and Waiver Order, FCC
21–126, CG Docket No. 17–59, adopted
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
74373
on December 10, 2021, and released on
December 14, 2021. The full text of this
document is available online at https://
www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adoptsrobocall-blocking-reconsideration-order.
To request this document in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (e.g.,
Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format) or to request reasonable
accommodations (e.g., accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov
or call the FCC’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice).
Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Analysis
The Order on Reconsideration
contains a non-substantive modification
to an approved information collection
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. This
modification will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review pursuant to OMB’s
process for non-substantive changes.
The Order on Reconsideration,
therefore, does not contain any new or
modified information collection burden
for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4). The Waiver Order does not
contain any new or modified
information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, Public Law 104–13.
Congressional Review Act
The Commission sent a copy of
document FCC 21–126 to Congress and
the Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Synopsis
1. In the Order on Reconsideration,
the Commission reconsiders and
clarifies certain aspects of the
transparency and redress requirements
previously adopted in the Call Blocking
Fourth Report and Order to ensure that
voice service providers continue to
block unwanted and illegal calls, while
also protecting the interests of legitimate
callers and consumers. In the Waiver
Order, the Commission grants a waiver
to allow voice service providers
terminating a call on an IP network to
use SIP Code 603 in addition to SIP
Code 607 or 608 from January 1, 2022
until the effective date of the
amendments to § 64.1200(k)(9) of the
Commission’s rules.
2. The Commission previously
permitted voice service providers to
block certain categories of calls that are
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
74374
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 248 / Thursday, December 30, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
highly likely to be illegal without
consumer consent, e.g., calls purporting
to be from invalid, unallocated, or
unused numbers, and calls likely to be
unwanted based on reasonable analytics
designed to identify unwanted calls.
The Commission adopted a safe harbor
from liability under the
Communications Act and the
Commission’s rules for erroneous call
blocking, in order to protect voice
service providers from liability for
unintended blocking of wanted calls
where terminating voice service
providers block calls thought to be
illegal or unwanted based on reasonable
analytics that include caller ID
authentication information and where
the consumer is given the opportunity
to opt out, if this blocking is managed
with human oversight and network
monitoring sufficient to ensure that
blocking is working as intended. In
addition, voice service providers must
take steps to stop illegal traffic on their
networks and assist the Commission,
law enforcement, and the Traceback
Consortium in tracking down callers
that make such calls.
3. As part of the call blocking and safe
harbor rules, the Commission had
required voice service providers
blocking calls to provide immediate
notification to callers of such blocking
through the use of specified SIP Codes.
SIP is the signaling protocol used in IP
networks enabling calls to be made and
received by end-users and includes a
SIP request and a SIP response. The SIP
response is a three-digit code that
indicates the status of the SIP request.
The Commission specified that
terminating voice service providers that
block calls on an IP network return SIP
Code 607 or 608, as appropriate. SIP
Code 607 is used when the called party
indicates a call is unwanted. SIP Code
608 indicates a call was rejected by an
intermediary, such as an analytics
engine, as opposed to by the called
party. Because SIP Codes are not
available on non-IP networks, the
Commission required use of ISUP code
21 for calls blocked on a TDM network.
4. The Commission further required
all voice service providers in the call
path to transmit the appropriate SIP
Codes to the origination point of the call
and set a deadline of January 1, 2022 for
voice service providers to comply with
the immediate notification
requirements. The Commission required
that any terminating voice service
provider that blocks calls on an opt-in
or opt-out basis provide, on the request
of the subscriber to a particular number,
a list of all calls intended for that
number that the voice service provider
or its designee has blocked.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Dec 29, 2021
Jkt 256001
5. In the Order on Reconsideration,
the Commission granted, in part, the
petition for reconsideration filed by
USTelecom and stated that allowing
terminating voice service providers to
utilize SIP Code 603 during the
finalization of and transition to SIP
Codes 607 and 608 strikes a reasonable
balance between ensuring that voice
service providers have the technical
ability to provide immediate
notification to callers and ensuring that
callers have a uniform means of
receiving such notifications. The
Commission amended the immediate
notification requirements to allow
terminating voice service providers
operating IP networks to use SIP Codes
603, 607, or 608 to comply with the
rule. The Commission granted
USTelecom’s request to allow use of SIP
Code 603 as an alternative to SIP Codes
607 and 608 and denied USTelecom’s
broader request for general flexibility
with regard to providing blocking
notification.
6. The Commission also granted
USTelecom’s request to confirm that
immediate notification to callers is
necessary only for calls blocked
pursuant to any analytics programs. The
Commission stated that a voice service
provider must comply with the
immediate notification requirement
whenever it blocks calls based on
analytics, regardless of whether such
blocking is done with consumer opt in
or opt out, or at the network level
without consumer consent.
7. The Commission denied
USTelecom’s request to exempt voice
service providers from the immediate
notification requirements if they are
temporarily unable to for technical
reasons and concluded that under such
circumstances they may seek a waiver
from the Commission and such waivers
will be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis.
8. The Commission also clarified that
the requirement that any terminating
voice service provider that blocks on an
opt-in or opt-out basis must provide, on
the request of the subscriber to a
particular number, a list of calls
intended for that number that the voice
service provider or its designee has
blocked applies only to blocking
performed pursuant to opt-in or opt-out
analytics programs, rather than to
subscriber-initiated features such as
white lists, black lists, Do Not Disturb,
call rejection, and line-level blocking.
The Commission explained that because
the purpose of the blocked-calls-list
requirement is to ensure effective
redress to consumers, there is no reason
to apply such a requirement to
situations where providers are not
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
required to allow consumers to opt out
and this redress requirement is, thus,
inapplicable. As a result, the blockedcalls-list requirement does not apply to
such blocking programs.
9. The Commission denied
USTelecom’s request to confirm that
originating voice service providers can
determine with their enterprise
customers how those customers will be
notified about blocking of their calls by
downstream providers and that
notifications to enterprise customers are
not covered by the Commission’s
notification requirement. All voice
service providers in the call path are
required to transmit the appropriate
response codes to the origination point
of the call. The Commission clarified
that an originating voice service
provider must transmit the appropriate
response code to the origination point of
the call, which means that the code
must be made available to callers that
are able to receive it. The Commission
stated that the focus of section 10(b) of
the TRACED Act, codified at 47 U.S.C.
227(j), and the Commission’s rules
implementing this provision, is on
transparency for the caller, not
transparency for an originating provider.
Thus, originating voice service
providers must, at a minimum, transmit
the appropriate response code to the
caller.
10. In the Waiver Order, the
Commission explained that, because the
amendment to the immediate
notification requirement in the Order on
Reconsideration may not be published
in the Federal Register before January 1,
2022, the Commission grants, pursuant
to section 1.3 of the Commission’s rules,
a waiver of § 64.1200(k)(9)(i) to allow
voice service providers terminating a
call on an IP network to use SIP Code
603, 607, or 608 from January 1, 2022
until the effective date of the
amendments to section 64.1200(k)(9) of
the Commission’s rules adopted in the
Order on Reconsideration.
11. The Commission found that good
cause exists to allow voice service
providers to use SIP Code 603 beginning
on January 1, 2022. Granting this waiver
is necessary to avoid a situation where
a terminating voice service provider on
an IP network may be unable to return
SIP Code 607 or 608 beginning on
January 1, 2022 (for the reasons
discussed in the Order on
Reconsideration) and thus, absent a
waiver, could choose not to block calls
rather than to block calls in a manner
that does not comply with
§ 64.1200(k)(9)(i) of the Commission’s
rules.
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 248 / Thursday, December 30, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
12. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as
amended, an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated into the Call Blocking
Fourth Report and Order. The
Commission sought written public
comment on the proposals in the NPRM,
including comment on the IRFA. This
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
13. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Order. The Order on Reconsideration
reconsiders and clarifies certain aspects
of the transparency and redress
requirements adopted in the Call
Blocking Fourth Report and Order to
ensure that voice service providers
continue to block unwanted and illegal
calls, while also protecting the interests
of legitimate callers and consumers. The
rules adopted in the Order on
Reconsideration help clarify certain
aspects of our rules while promoting
greater flexibility for voice service
providers in meeting the obligations set
forth in the Call Blocking Fourth Report
and Order.
14. Summary of Significant Issues
Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA. The Commission responded
to all significant issues raised in
response to the IRFA in the Call
Blocking Fourth Report and Order.
15. Response to Comments by the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. Pursuant to
the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010,
which amended the RFA, the
Commission is required to respond to
any comments filed by the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA), and to
provide a detailed statement of any
change made to the proposed rules as a
result of those comments. The Chief
Counsel did not file any comments in
response to the proposed rules in this
proceeding.
16. Description of Projected
Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements. This Order
on Reconsideration does not adopt any
new reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance requirements for small
entities.
17. Steps Taken to Minimize
Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered. The RFA requires an
agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its approach, which may
include the following four alternatives
(among others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Dec 29, 2021
Jkt 256001
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities. The Order on
Reconsideration relieves a burden on
small voice service providers by
allowing such providers more flexibility
in meeting the immediate notification
requirements adopted in the Call
Blocking Fourth Report and Order.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Communications common carriers,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telecommunications,
Telephone.
§ 64.1200
74375
Delivery restrictions.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) * * *
(10) Any terminating provider that
blocks calls pursuant to an opt-out or
opt-in analytics program, either itself or
through a third-party blocking service,
must provide, at the request of the
subscriber to a number, at no additional
charge and within 3 business days of
such a request, a list of calls to that
number, including the date and time of
the call and the calling number, that the
terminating provider or its designee
blocked pursuant to such analytics
program within the 28 days prior to the
request.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2021–28212 Filed 12–29–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Final Rules
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 part 64 as
follows:
PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES
RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
1. The authority citation for part 64
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201,
202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b,
228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 262, 276,
403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 1401–1473, unless
otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115–141, Div. P, sec.
503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.
2. Effective January 31, 2022, amend
§ 64.1200 by revising paragraphs (k)(9)
introductory text and (k)(9)(i) to read as
follows:
■
§ 64.1200
Delivery restrictions.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) * * *
(9) Any terminating provider that
blocks calls based on any analytics
program, either itself or through a thirdparty blocking service, must
immediately return, and all voice
service providers in the call path must
transmit, an appropriate response code
to the origination point of the call. For
purposes of this rule, an appropriate
response code is:
(i) In the case of a call terminating on
an IP network, the use of Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) code 603, 607,
or 608;
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Delayed indefinitely, further amend
§ 64.1200 by revising paragraph (k)(10)
to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48 CFR Parts 225 and 252
[Docket DARS–2021–0026]
RIN 0750–AL50
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement: Trade
Agreements Thresholds (DFARS Case
2022–D003)
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
DoD is issuing a final rule
amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) to incorporate revised
thresholds for application of the World
Trade Organization Government
Procurement Agreement and the Free
Trade Agreements, as determined by the
United States Trade Representative.
DATES: Effective January 1, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Kimberly Bass, 571–372–6174.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
This rule adjusts thresholds for
application of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) Government
Procurement Agreement (GPA) and Free
Trade Agreements (FTA) as determined
by the United States Trade
Representative (USTR). The trade
agreements thresholds are adjusted
every two years according to
predetermined formulae set forth in the
agreements. The USTR has specified the
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 248 (Thursday, December 30, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74373-74375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28212]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 21-126; FRS 63954]
Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls--
Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Clarification of
USTelecom--The Broadband Association
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) reconsiders and clarifies certain aspects of the
transparency and redress requirements previously adopted to ensure that
voice service providers continue to block unwanted and illegal calls,
while also protecting the interests of legitimate callers and
consumers, also, granting a waiver to allow voice service providers
terminating a call on an internet protocol (IP) network to use Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP).
DATES: This rule is effective January 31, 2022, except for the addition
of Sec. 64.1200(k)(10), which is delayed indefinitely. The Commission
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the
effective date of this amendment. Section 64.1200(k)(9)(i) is waived
from January 1, 2022 until January 31, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Jerusha Burnett, [email protected] or (202)
418-0526, of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer
Policy Division.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order
on Reconsideration and Waiver Order, FCC 21-126, CG Docket No. 17-59,
adopted on December 10, 2021, and released on December 14, 2021. The
full text of this document is available online at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-robocall-blocking-reconsideration-order. To request
this document in accessible formats for people with disabilities (e.g.,
Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) or to request
reasonable accommodations (e.g., accessible format documents, sign
language interpreters, CART), send an email to [email protected] or call
the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice).
Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
The Order on Reconsideration contains a non-substantive
modification to an approved information collection subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. This
modification will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review pursuant to OMB's process for non-substantive changes.
The Order on Reconsideration, therefore, does not contain any new or
modified information collection burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). The
Waiver Order does not contain any new or modified information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104-13.
Congressional Review Act
The Commission sent a copy of document FCC 21-126 to Congress and
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Synopsis
1. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission reconsiders and
clarifies certain aspects of the transparency and redress requirements
previously adopted in the Call Blocking Fourth Report and Order to
ensure that voice service providers continue to block unwanted and
illegal calls, while also protecting the interests of legitimate
callers and consumers. In the Waiver Order, the Commission grants a
waiver to allow voice service providers terminating a call on an IP
network to use SIP Code 603 in addition to SIP Code 607 or 608 from
January 1, 2022 until the effective date of the amendments to Sec.
64.1200(k)(9) of the Commission's rules.
2. The Commission previously permitted voice service providers to
block certain categories of calls that are
[[Page 74374]]
highly likely to be illegal without consumer consent, e.g., calls
purporting to be from invalid, unallocated, or unused numbers, and
calls likely to be unwanted based on reasonable analytics designed to
identify unwanted calls. The Commission adopted a safe harbor from
liability under the Communications Act and the Commission's rules for
erroneous call blocking, in order to protect voice service providers
from liability for unintended blocking of wanted calls where
terminating voice service providers block calls thought to be illegal
or unwanted based on reasonable analytics that include caller ID
authentication information and where the consumer is given the
opportunity to opt out, if this blocking is managed with human
oversight and network monitoring sufficient to ensure that blocking is
working as intended. In addition, voice service providers must take
steps to stop illegal traffic on their networks and assist the
Commission, law enforcement, and the Traceback Consortium in tracking
down callers that make such calls.
3. As part of the call blocking and safe harbor rules, the
Commission had required voice service providers blocking calls to
provide immediate notification to callers of such blocking through the
use of specified SIP Codes. SIP is the signaling protocol used in IP
networks enabling calls to be made and received by end-users and
includes a SIP request and a SIP response. The SIP response is a three-
digit code that indicates the status of the SIP request. The Commission
specified that terminating voice service providers that block calls on
an IP network return SIP Code 607 or 608, as appropriate. SIP Code 607
is used when the called party indicates a call is unwanted. SIP Code
608 indicates a call was rejected by an intermediary, such as an
analytics engine, as opposed to by the called party. Because SIP Codes
are not available on non-IP networks, the Commission required use of
ISUP code 21 for calls blocked on a TDM network.
4. The Commission further required all voice service providers in
the call path to transmit the appropriate SIP Codes to the origination
point of the call and set a deadline of January 1, 2022 for voice
service providers to comply with the immediate notification
requirements. The Commission required that any terminating voice
service provider that blocks calls on an opt-in or opt-out basis
provide, on the request of the subscriber to a particular number, a
list of all calls intended for that number that the voice service
provider or its designee has blocked.
5. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission granted, in
part, the petition for reconsideration filed by USTelecom and stated
that allowing terminating voice service providers to utilize SIP Code
603 during the finalization of and transition to SIP Codes 607 and 608
strikes a reasonable balance between ensuring that voice service
providers have the technical ability to provide immediate notification
to callers and ensuring that callers have a uniform means of receiving
such notifications. The Commission amended the immediate notification
requirements to allow terminating voice service providers operating IP
networks to use SIP Codes 603, 607, or 608 to comply with the rule. The
Commission granted USTelecom's request to allow use of SIP Code 603 as
an alternative to SIP Codes 607 and 608 and denied USTelecom's broader
request for general flexibility with regard to providing blocking
notification.
6. The Commission also granted USTelecom's request to confirm that
immediate notification to callers is necessary only for calls blocked
pursuant to any analytics programs. The Commission stated that a voice
service provider must comply with the immediate notification
requirement whenever it blocks calls based on analytics, regardless of
whether such blocking is done with consumer opt in or opt out, or at
the network level without consumer consent.
7. The Commission denied USTelecom's request to exempt voice
service providers from the immediate notification requirements if they
are temporarily unable to for technical reasons and concluded that
under such circumstances they may seek a waiver from the Commission and
such waivers will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
8. The Commission also clarified that the requirement that any
terminating voice service provider that blocks on an opt-in or opt-out
basis must provide, on the request of the subscriber to a particular
number, a list of calls intended for that number that the voice service
provider or its designee has blocked applies only to blocking performed
pursuant to opt-in or opt-out analytics programs, rather than to
subscriber-initiated features such as white lists, black lists, Do Not
Disturb, call rejection, and line-level blocking. The Commission
explained that because the purpose of the blocked-calls-list
requirement is to ensure effective redress to consumers, there is no
reason to apply such a requirement to situations where providers are
not required to allow consumers to opt out and this redress requirement
is, thus, inapplicable. As a result, the blocked-calls-list requirement
does not apply to such blocking programs.
9. The Commission denied USTelecom's request to confirm that
originating voice service providers can determine with their enterprise
customers how those customers will be notified about blocking of their
calls by downstream providers and that notifications to enterprise
customers are not covered by the Commission's notification requirement.
All voice service providers in the call path are required to transmit
the appropriate response codes to the origination point of the call.
The Commission clarified that an originating voice service provider
must transmit the appropriate response code to the origination point of
the call, which means that the code must be made available to callers
that are able to receive it. The Commission stated that the focus of
section 10(b) of the TRACED Act, codified at 47 U.S.C. 227(j), and the
Commission's rules implementing this provision, is on transparency for
the caller, not transparency for an originating provider. Thus,
originating voice service providers must, at a minimum, transmit the
appropriate response code to the caller.
10. In the Waiver Order, the Commission explained that, because the
amendment to the immediate notification requirement in the Order on
Reconsideration may not be published in the Federal Register before
January 1, 2022, the Commission grants, pursuant to section 1.3 of the
Commission's rules, a waiver of Sec. 64.1200(k)(9)(i) to allow voice
service providers terminating a call on an IP network to use SIP Code
603, 607, or 608 from January 1, 2022 until the effective date of the
amendments to section 64.1200(k)(9) of the Commission's rules adopted
in the Order on Reconsideration.
11. The Commission found that good cause exists to allow voice
service providers to use SIP Code 603 beginning on January 1, 2022.
Granting this waiver is necessary to avoid a situation where a
terminating voice service provider on an IP network may be unable to
return SIP Code 607 or 608 beginning on January 1, 2022 (for the
reasons discussed in the Order on Reconsideration) and thus, absent a
waiver, could choose not to block calls rather than to block calls in a
manner that does not comply with Sec. 64.1200(k)(9)(i) of the
Commission's rules.
[[Page 74375]]
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
12. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as
amended, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated into the Call Blocking Fourth Report and Order. The
Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM,
including comment on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
13. Need for, and Objectives of, the Order. The Order on
Reconsideration reconsiders and clarifies certain aspects of the
transparency and redress requirements adopted in the Call Blocking
Fourth Report and Order to ensure that voice service providers continue
to block unwanted and illegal calls, while also protecting the
interests of legitimate callers and consumers. The rules adopted in the
Order on Reconsideration help clarify certain aspects of our rules
while promoting greater flexibility for voice service providers in
meeting the obligations set forth in the Call Blocking Fourth Report
and Order.
14. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in
Response to the IRFA. The Commission responded to all significant
issues raised in response to the IRFA in the Call Blocking Fourth
Report and Order.
15. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act
of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond
to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of
any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments.
The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed
rules in this proceeding.
16. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements. This Order on Reconsideration does not adopt
any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for
small entities.
17. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an
agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered
in reaching its approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. The
Order on Reconsideration relieves a burden on small voice service
providers by allowing such providers more flexibility in meeting the
immediate notification requirements adopted in the Call Blocking Fourth
Report and Order.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 part 64 as follows:
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220,
222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 262, 276,
403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 1401-1473, unless otherwise noted; Pub.
L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.
0
2. Effective January 31, 2022, amend Sec. 64.1200 by revising
paragraphs (k)(9) introductory text and (k)(9)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.1200 Delivery restrictions.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(9) Any terminating provider that blocks calls based on any
analytics program, either itself or through a third-party blocking
service, must immediately return, and all voice service providers in
the call path must transmit, an appropriate response code to the
origination point of the call. For purposes of this rule, an
appropriate response code is:
(i) In the case of a call terminating on an IP network, the use of
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) code 603, 607, or 608;
* * * * *
0
3. Delayed indefinitely, further amend Sec. 64.1200 by revising
paragraph (k)(10) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.1200 Delivery restrictions.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(10) Any terminating provider that blocks calls pursuant to an opt-
out or opt-in analytics program, either itself or through a third-party
blocking service, must provide, at the request of the subscriber to a
number, at no additional charge and within 3 business days of such a
request, a list of calls to that number, including the date and time of
the call and the calling number, that the terminating provider or its
designee blocked pursuant to such analytics program within the 28 days
prior to the request.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-28212 Filed 12-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
