Proposed Rule2021-28218
Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls-Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Clarification of USTelecom-The Broadband Association
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 30, 2021
Effective
January 31, 2022
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) seeks comment on whether and how to transition away from the use of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Code 603 for purposes of the immediate notification of call blocking requirement and toward full implementation of SIP Codes 607 and 608. The Commission also seeks comment on any potential costs and benefits associated with phasing out SIP Code 603 for purposes of the immediate notification requirement, and the burden, if any, on small businesses.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 248 (Thursday, December 30, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 248 (Thursday, December 30, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74399-74400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28218]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 0 and 64
[CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 21-126; FRS 63918]
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: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC
or Commission) seeks comment on whether and how to transition away from
the use of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Code 603 for purposes of
the immediate notification of call blocking requirement and toward full
implementation of SIP Codes 607 and 608. The Commission also seeks
comment on any potential costs and benefits associated with phasing out
SIP Code 603 for purposes of the immediate notification requirement,
and the burden, if any, on small businesses.
DATES: Comments are due on or before January 31, 2022 and reply
comments are due on or before February 14, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 17-59,
by the following method:
Federal Communications Commission: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.filings">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.filings</a>. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission
no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a
temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of
individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (OMD 2020). In the
event that the Commission announces the lifting of COVID-19
restrictions, a filing window will be opened at the Commission's office
located at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis, MD 20701. See Amendment of
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, Order, 35 FCC Rcd
5450 (OMD 2020).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerusha Burnett of the Consumer Policy
Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d7bdb2a5a2a4bfb6f9b5a2a5b9b2a3a397b1b4b4f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3a505f484f49525b14584f48545f4e4e7a5c5959145d554c">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 418-0526.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 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 <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-126A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-126A1.pdf</a>.
To request this document in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (e.g., Braille, large print, electronic files, audio
format) or to request reasonable accommodations (e.g., accessible
format documents, sign language interpreters, CART), send an email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4e282d2d7b7e7a0e282d2d60292138"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ccaaafaff9fcf88caaafafe2aba3ba">[email protected]</span></a> or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).
This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR
1.1200 et seq. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded
that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of
the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the
subjects discussed. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to
oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose
proceedings are set forth in Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.1206(b).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
If the Commission adopts any modified information collection
requirements, the Commission will publish another notice in the Federal
Register inviting the public to comment on the requirements, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C.
3501-3520. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief
Act of 2002, the Commission seeks comment on how it might further
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees. Public Law 107-198; 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
1. In this Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the
Commission seeks comment on any potential costs and benefits associated
with phasing out SIP Code 603 for purposes of the immediate
notification of call blocking requirement, and the burden, if any, on
small businesses. The Commission adopted an Order on Reconsideration on
December 10, 2021, released on December 14, 2021, [insert FR cite],
that granted USTelecom's request to allow voice service providers
operating IP networks the flexibility to
[[Page 74400]]
use SIP Code 603 to meet the immediate notification requirement
beginning on January 1, 2022. At that time, the Commission also granted
the request to clarify that the immediate notification requirements
apply to all analytics-based blocking, and do not apply to non-
analytics-based blocking programs and that the blocked calls list
requirements applies only to opt-in or opt-out analytics-based blocking
and not to other blocking programs.
2. In this FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether and how
to transition away from the use of SIP Code 603 for immediate
notification and toward full implementation of SIP Codes 607 and 608.
Should the Commission phase out use of SIP Code 603 for its immediate
notification requirement or does SIP Code 603 provide adequate
information to callers? Does SIP Code 603 require additional
modifications to make it useful for callers? If so, would such
modifications potentially eliminate any cost or time savings gained
from allowing its use? Would use of SIP Code 603 for such purposes
undermine its value for callers because its use is too varied for
proper analysis by caller analytics programs?
3. The Commission also sought comment on whether setting a firm
deadline for implementation of SIP Codes 607 and 608 is the best means
of ensuring that voice service providers move expeditiously while
allowing standards bodies to continue their important processes. If the
Commission requires use of only SIP Codes 607 and 608, what is the
appropriate deadline for implementation? What factors should the
Commission consider in making this decision? How might the Commission
encourage standards bodies to finalize their work in a timely manner?
Should the Commission require voice service providers to submit status
reports on their progress in implementing SIP Codes 607 and 608? If so,
how often should the Commission require such status reports?
4. The Commission sought comment on any other matters raised by the
SIP Code requirements addressed in the Order on Reconsideration. The
Commission specifically requested comment on any potential costs and
benefits associated with phasing out SIP Code 603 for purposes of the
immediate notification requirement, and the burden, if any, on small
businesses.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
5. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended, (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this Sixth FNPRM. Written public comments are requested on
this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and
must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM provided on
the first page of this document. The Commission will send a copy of the
FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
6. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. The FNPRM seeks
comment on whether to phase out the use of SIP Code 603 for purposes of
voice service providers' immediate notification requirements. The
Commission continues to believe that it should retain its requirement
that terminating voice service providers ultimately use only SIP Codes
607 or 608 in IP networks, as these codes are designed to be used for
call blocking. As many commenters note, the design specifications for
SIP Codes 607 and 608 provide important information that enables
callers to contact blocking entities and initiate the redress process.
The Commission believes that these codes present the best long-term
solution for immediate notification. While some commenters argue that
certain design specifications may be difficult to implement, the
Commission believes that it should encourage standards-setting bodies
to finalize their work and provide time for voice service providers to
implement, test, and refine internal systems needed to return codes 607
and 608. The FNPRM seeks comment on this belief and whether and how the
Commission should phase out the use of SIP Code 603 for purposes of
voice service providers' immediate notification requirements.
7. Legal Basis. The proposed and anticipated rules are authorized
under sections 154(i), 201, 202, 227, 251(e), and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 202,
227, 251(e), 403, and section 10 of the Telephone Robocall Abuse
Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act, Public Law 116-105, 133 Stat.
3274.
8. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements. As indicated above, the FNPRM seeks comment on
whether and how to phase out the use of SIP Code 603 for purposes of
voice service providers' immediate notification requirements. The FNPRM
does not contain any projected reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance requirements.
9. 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 proposed 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.
10. The FNPRM seeks comment on whether and how to phase out the use
of SIP Code 603 for purposes of voice service providers' immediate
notification requirements. The Commission expects to consider the
economic impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in
response to the FNPRM and this IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions
and taking action in this proceeding.
11. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rules. None.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-28218 Filed 12-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 30, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.