Advanced Methods To Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls-Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Clarification of USTelecom-The Broadband Association, 74399-74400 [2021-28218]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[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