Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls-Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Clarification of USTelecom-The Broadband Association, 74399-74400 [2021-28218]
Download as PDF
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 248 / Thursday, December 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
regulations-emissions-vehicles-andengines/proposed-rule-control-airpollution-aircraft-engines). EPA may ask
clarifying questions during the oral
presentations but will not respond to
the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information
submitted during the comment period
will be considered with the same weight
as any oral comments and supporting
information presented at the public
hearing. EPA recommends submitting
the text of your oral comments as
written comments to the rulemaking
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–
0660, which can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov.
The hearing will begin at 10 a.m.
Eastern Time (ET) and end when all
parties who wish to speak have had an
opportunity to do so. A five-minute time
limit will be placed on all oral
testimony.
Please note that any updates made to
any aspect of the hearing will be posted
online at https://www.epa.gov/
regulations-emissions-vehicles-andengines/proposed-rule-control-airpollution-aircraft-engines. While EPA
expects the hearing to go forward as set
forth above, please monitor our website
or contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
determine if there are any updates. EPA
does not intend to publish a document
in the Federal Register announcing
updates.
If you require the services of a
translator or special accommodations
such as audio description, please preregister for the hearing and describe
your needs by January 18, 2022. EPA
may not be able to arrange
accommodations without advance
notice.
How can I get copies of the proposed
action and other related information?
EPA has established a docket for this
action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2019–0660, which can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov. EPA has
also developed a website for this
proposed rule at https://www.epa.gov/
regulations-emissions-vehicles-andengines/proposed-rule-control-airpollution-aircraft-engines. Please refer
to the notice of proposed rulemaking for
detailed information on accessing
information related to the proposal.
William Charmley,
Director, Assessment and Standards Division,
Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
[FR Doc. 2021–28280 Filed 12–29–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Dec 29, 2021
Jkt 256001
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
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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: https://www.fcc.gov/
ecfs.filings. 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 jerusha.burnett@
fcc.gov or (202) 418–0526.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Further
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
74399
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 https://docs.fcc.gov/
public/attachments/FCC-21-126A1.pdf.
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).
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-butdisclose proceedings are set forth in
§ 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
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
74400
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 248 / Thursday, December 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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 analyticsbased 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Dec 29, 2021
Jkt 256001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[WC Docket No. 18–89; Report No. 3185;
FR ID 64443]
Petition for Reconsideration of Action
in Rulemaking Proceeding
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Petition for Reconsideration.
AGENCY:
Petition for Reconsideration
(Petition) has been filed in the
Commission’s rulemaking proceeding
by Carri Bennet, on behalf of The Rural
Wireless Association, Inc.
DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must
be filed on or before January 14, 2022.
Replies to oppositions must be filed on
or before January 24, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William Layton, Telecommunications
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
Agencies
[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.filings. 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
[email protected] 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 https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-126A1.pdf.
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).
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