17726 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

(B) You may not set or operate a fish 

wheel within 75 feet of another fish 

wheel. 

(C) You must check your fish wheel 

at least once every 10 hours and remove 

all fish. 

(D) No fish wheel may have more than 

two baskets. 

(E) If you are a permittee other than 

the owner, you must attach an 

additional wood, metal, or plastic plate 

at least 12 inches high by 12 inches 

wide, bearing your name and address in 

letters and numerals at least 1 inch high, 

to the fish wheel so that the name and 

address are plainly visible. 

(xiv) A subsistence fishing permit 

may be issued to a village council, or 

other similarly qualified organization 

whose members operate fish wheels for 

subsistence purposes in the Upper 

Copper River District, to operate fish 

wheels on behalf of members of its 

village or organization. The following 

additional provisions apply to 

subsistence fishing permits issued 

under this paragraph (e)(11)(xiv): 

(A) The permit will list all households 

and household members for whom the 

fish wheel is being operated. The permit 

will identify a person who will be 

responsible for the fish wheel and will 

be the same person as is listed on the 

fish wheel described in paragraph 

(e)(11)(xiii)(E) of this section. 

(B) The allowable harvest may not 

exceed the combined seasonal limits for 

the households listed on the permit; the 

permittee will notify the ADF&G or 

Federal Subsistence Board when 

households are added to the list, and the 

seasonal limit may be adjusted 

accordingly. 

(C) Members of households listed on 

a permit issued to a village council or 

other similarly qualified organization 

are not eligible for a separate household 

subsistence fishing permit for the Upper 

Copper River District. 

(D) The permit will include 

provisions for recording daily catches 

for each fish wheel; location and 

number of fish wheels; full legal name 

of the individual responsible for the 

lawful operation of each fish wheel as 

described in paragraph (e)(11)(xiii)(E) of 

this section; and other information 

determined to be necessary for effective 

resource management. 

(xv) You may take salmon in the 

vicinity of the former Native village of 

Batzulnetas only under the authority of 

a Batzulnetas subsistence salmon 

fishing permit available from the 

National Park Service under the 

following conditions: 

(A) You may take salmon only in 

those waters of the Copper River 

between National Park Service 

regulatory markers located near the 

mouth of Tanada Creek and 

approximately one-half mile 

downstream from that mouth and in 

Tanada Creek between National Park 

Service regulatory markers identifying 

the open waters of the creek. 

(B) You may use only fish wheels, dip 

nets, and rod and reel on the Copper 

River and only dip nets, spears, fyke 

nets, and rod and reel in Tanada Creek. 

One fyke net and associated lead may be 

used in Tanada Creek upstream of the 

National Park Service weir. 

(C) You may take salmon only from 

May 15 through September 30 or until 

the season is closed by special action. 

(D) You may retain Chinook salmon 

taken in a fish wheel in the Copper 

River. You must return to the water 

unharmed any Chinook salmon caught 

in Tanada Creek. 

(E) You must return the permit to the 

National Park Service no later than 

October 15 of the year the permit was 

issued. 

(F) You may only use a fyke net after 

consultation with the in-season 

manager. You must be present when the 

fyke net is actively fishing. You may 

take no more than 1,000 sockeye salmon 

in Tanada Creek with a fyke net. 

(xvi) You may take pink salmon for 

subsistence purposes from fresh water 

with a dip net from May 15 through 

September 30, 7 days per week, with no 

harvest or possession limits in the 

following areas: 

(A) Green Island, Knight Island, 

Chenega Island, Bainbridge Island, 

Evans Island, Elrington Island, Latouche 

Island, and adjacent islands, and the 

mainland waters from the outer point of 

Granite Bay located in Knight Island 

Passage to Cape Fairfield; 

(B) Waters north of a line from 

Porcupine Point to Granite Point, and 

south of a line from Point Lowe to 

Tongue Point. 

(xvii) In the Chugach National Forest 

portion of the Prince William Sound 

Area, you must possess a Federal 

subsistence fishing permit to take 

salmon, trout, whitefish, grayling, Dolly 

Varden, or char. Permits are available 

from the Cordova Ranger District. 

(A) Salmon harvest is not allowed in 

Eyak Lake and its tributaries, Copper 

River and its tributaries, and Eyak River 

upstream from the Copper River 

Highway bridge. 

(B) You must record on your 

subsistence permit the number of 

subsistence fish taken. You must record 

all harvested fish prior to leaving the 

fishing site, and return the permit by the 

due date marked on the permit. 

(C) You must remove both lobes of the 

caudal (tail) fin from subsistence-caught 

salmon before leaving the fishing site. 

(D) You may take salmon by rod and 

reel, dip net, spear, and gaff year round. 

(E) For a household with 1 person, 15 

salmon (other than pink) may be taken, 

and 5 cutthroat trout, with only 2 over 

20 inches, may be taken; for pink 

salmon, see the conditions of the 

permit. 

(F) For a household with 2 persons, 

30 salmon (other than pink) may be 

taken, plus an additional 10 salmon for 

each additional person in a household 

over 2 persons, and 5 cutthroat trout, 

with only 2 over 20 inches per each 

household member with a maximum 

household limit of 30 cutthroat trout 

may be taken; for pink salmon, see the 

conditions of the permit. 

(G) You may take Dolly Varden, 

Arctic char, whitefish, and grayling with 

rod and reel and spear year round and 

with a gillnet from January 1–April 1. 

The maximum incidental gillnet harvest 

of trout is 10. 

(H) You may take cutthroat trout with 

rod and reel and spear from June 15 to 

April 14th and with a gillnet from 

January 1 to April 1. 

(I) You may not retain rainbow/ 

steelhead trout for subsistence unless 

taken incidentally in a subsistence 

gillnet fishery. Rainbow/steelhead trout 

must be immediately released from a 

dip net without harm. 

* * * * * 

Sue Detwiler, 

Assistant Regional Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Gregory Risdahl, 

Subsistence Program Leader, USDA–Forest 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–07016 Filed 4–5–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3411–15–P; 4333–15–P 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 64.1200(k)(9), 

which is effective January 1, 2022, and 

instruction 6 adding § 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 § 64.1200(k)(10) and (n)(2). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jerusha Burnett, Consumer Policy 

Division, Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau, email at 

jerusha.burnett@fcc.gov 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: http://

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 fcc504@

fcc.gov, 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 muchneeded 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
17728 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 highvolume 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 networkbased 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 highvolume 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
17730 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
17732 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 NetworkBased 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 networkbased 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 alreadyexisting 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
17734 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§§ 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 

§ 64.1200(k)(9) shall be effective on 

January 1, 2022. 

94. It is further ordered that new 

§ 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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Effective May 6, 2021, amend 

§ 0.111 by adding paragraph (a)(27) to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 § 64.1200(n)(2) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

* * * * * 

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 

■ 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. 

■ 4. Effective May 6, 2021, amend 

§ 64.1200 by revising paragraphs (k)(5), 

(6), and (8), and by adding paragraphs 

(k)(9) through (11) and (n) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 networkbased 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 nondiscriminatory, 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 6, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 17735 

1The NPRM was published in the Federal 

Register, 84 FR 55109 (Oct. 15, 2019). 

2The SNPRM was published in the Federal 

Register, 85 FR. 26915 (May 6, 2020). 

3 In Demurrage Liability, EP 707, slip op. at 15– 

16 (STB served Apr. 11, 2014), the Board clarified 

that private car storage is included in the definition 

of demurrage for purposes of the demurrage 

regulations established in that decision. The Board 

uses the same definition of demurrage in this 

decision. 

4As the Board noted in Demurrage Liability, EP 

707, slip op. at 2 n.2, the Interstate Commerce Act, 

as amended by the ICC Termination Act of 1995 

(ICCTA), Public Law 104–88, 109 Stat. 803, does 

not define ‘‘consignor’’ or ‘‘consignee,’’ though both 

terms are commonly used in the demurrage context. 

Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘‘consignor’’ as 

‘‘[o]ne who dispatches goods to another on 

consignment,’’ and ‘‘consignee’’ ‘‘as [o]ne to whom 

goods are consigned.’’ Demurrage Liability, EP 707, 

slip op. at 2 n.2 (alterations in original) (citing 

Black’s Law Dictionary 327 (8th ed. 2004)). The 

Federal Bills of Lading Act defines these terms in 

a similar manner. Id. (citing 49 U.S.C. 80101(1) & 

(2)). 

5This decision uses ‘‘rail users’’ to broadly mean 

any person or business that sends goods by rail or 

receives rail cars for loading or unloading, 

Continued 

services are not used to originate illegal 

traffic. 

■ 5. Effective January 1, 2022, further 

amend § 64.1200 by adding paragraph 

(k)(9) to read as follows: 

§ 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.’’ 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Delayed indefinitely, further amend 

§ 64.1200 by adding paragraphs (k)(10) 

and (n)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 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 thirdparty 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 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

49 CFR Part 1333 

[Docket No. EP 759] 

Demurrage Billing Requirements 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation 

Board (STB or Board) adopts a final rule 

that requires Class I carriers to include 

certain minimum information on or 

with demurrage invoices and provide 

machine-readable access to the 

minimum information. 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

6, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Fancher at (202) 245–0355. 

Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board 

issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 

on October 7, 2019, to propose changes 

to its existing demurrage regulations to 

address several issues regarding carriers’ 

demurrage billing practices. Demurrage 

Billing Requirements (NPRM), EP 759 

(STB served Oct. 7, 2019).1 The Board 

subsequently issued a supplemental 

notice on April 30, 2020, seeking 

comment on potential modifications 

and additions to the proposal. 

Demurrage Billing Requirements 

(SNPRM), EP 759 (STB served Apr. 30, 

2020).2 Demurrage is subject to Board 

regulation under 49 U.S.C. 10702, 

which requires railroads to establish 

reasonable rates and transportationrelated rules and practices, and under 

49 U.S.C. 10746, which requires 

railroads to compute demurrage charges, 

and establish rules related to those 

charges, in a way that will fulfill the 

national needs related to freight car use 

and distribution and maintenance of an 

adequate car supply.3 Demurrage is a 

charge that serves principally as an 

incentive to prevent undue car 

detention and thereby encourage the 

efficient use of rail cars in the rail 

network, while also providing 

compensation to rail carriers for the 

expense incurred when rail cars are 

unduly detained beyond a specified 

period of time (i.e., ‘‘free time’’) for 

loading and unloading. See Pa. R.R. v. 

Kittaning Iron & Steel Mfg. Co., 253 U.S. 

319, 323 (1920) (‘‘The purpose of 

demurrage charges is to promote car 

efficiency by penalizing undue 

detention of cars.’’); 49 CFR 1333.1; see 

also 49 CFR pt. 1201, category 106. 

In the simplest demurrage case, a 

railroad assesses demurrage on the 

consignor (the shipper of the goods) for 

delays in loading cars at origin and on 

the consignee (the receiver of the goods) 

for delays in unloading cars and 

returning them to the rail carrier at 

destination.4 Demurrage, however, can 

also involve third-party intermediaries, 

commonly known as warehousemen or 

terminal operators, that accept freight 

cars for loading and unloading but have 

no property interest in the freight being 

transported.5


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES