Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

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 154i, 201, 202, 227, 251e, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154i, 201, 202, 227, 251e, 403, and section 10 of the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act, Public Law 116105, 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. 202128218 Filed 122921; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 671201P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
WC Docket No. 1889; 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 Commissions 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:FRFM30DEP1.SGM

30DEP1