Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers; LEC Coalition Application for Review Regarding Carrier Change Rules, 6444-6446 [E8-1980]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6444
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
(3) The anticipated participating area
size and well locations (see § 3137.80(b)
of this subpart);
*
*
*
*
*
(5) A provision that acknowledges the
BLM consulted with and provided
opportunities for participation in the
creation of the unit and a provision that
acknowledges that the BLM will consult
with and provide opportunities for
participation in the expansion of the
unit by —
(A) The regional corporation, if the
unit acreage contains the regional
corporation’s mineral estate; or
(B) The State of Alaska, if the unit
acreage contains the state’s mineral
estate.
(6) Any optional terms which are
authorized in § 3137.50 of this subpart
that you choose to include in the unit
agreement.
*
*
*
*
*
I 15. Amend § 3137.23 by revising
paragraph (d) introductory text,
removing ‘‘and’’ from the end of the
paragraph (f), redesignating paragraph
(g) as paragraph (h), and adding a new
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§ 3137.23 What must I include in my NPR–
A unitization application?
*
*
*
*
*
(d) A statement certifying—
*
*
*
*
*
(g) A discussion of the proposed
methodology for allocating production
among the committed tracts. If the unit
includes non-Federal oil and gas
mineral estate, you must explain how
the methodology takes into account
reservoir heterogeneity and area
variation in reservoir producibility; and
*
*
*
*
*
I 16. Amend § 3137.41 by revising the
introductory paragraph of the section to
read as follows:
§ 3137.41 What continuing development
obligations must I define in a unit
agreement?
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
A unit agreement must provide for
submission of supplemental or
additional plans of development which
obligate the operator to a program of
exploration and development (see
§ 3137.71 of this subpart) that, after
completion of the initial obligations —
*
*
*
*
*
I 17. Amend § 3137.80 by revising
paragraph (a) and the first sentence of
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 3137.80 What are participating areas and
how do they relate to the unit agreement?
(a) Participating areas are those
committed tracts or portions of those
committed tracts within the unit area
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 Feb 01, 2008
Jkt 214001
that are proven to be productive by a
well meeting the productivity criteria
specified in the unit agreement.
(b) You must include a description of
the anticipated participating area(s) size
in the unit agreement for planning
purposes to aid in the mitigation of
reasonably foreseeable and significantly
adverse effects on NPR–A surface
resources. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
§ 3137.131 What happens if the unit
terminated before the unit operator met the
initial development obligations?
18. Amend § 3137.81 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
* * * You, as lessee, forfeit all further
benefits, including extensions and
suspensions, granted any NPR–A lease
because of having been committed to
the unit. Any lease that the BLM
extended because of being committed to
the unit would expire unless it had been
granted an extension or renewal under
§§ 3135.1–5 or 3135.1–6.
I 22. Amend § 3137.134 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 3137.81 What is the function of a
participating area?
§ 3137.134 What happens to committed
leases if the unit terminates?
I
(a) The function of a participating area
is to allocate production to each
committed tract within a participating
area. The BLM will allocate production
for royalty purposes to each committed
tract within the participating area using
the allocation methodology agreed to in
the unit agreement (see § 3137.23(g) of
this subpart).
*
*
*
*
*
19. Amend § 3137.85 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
I
§ 3137.85 What is the effective date of a
participating area or modified allocation
schedule?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The effective date of a modified
participating area or modified allocation
schedule is the earlier of the first day of
the month in which you file the
proposal for a modification or such
other effective date as may be provided
for in the unit agreement and approved
by the BLM, but no earlier than the
effective date of the unit.
20. Revise § 3137.111 to read as
follows:
I
§ 3137.111 When will BLM extend the
primary term of all leases committed to a
unit agreement or renew all leases
committed to a unit agreement?
If the unit operator requests it, the
BLM will extend the primary term of all
NPR–A leases committed to a unit
agreement or renew the leases
committed to a unit agreement if any
committed lease within the unit is
extended or renewed under §§ 3135.1–
5 or 3135.1–6. If the BLM approves a
lease renewal under § 3135.1–6(b), the
BLM will require a renewal fee of $100
per acre for each lease in the unit that
is renewed.
21. Amend § 3137.131 by revising the
second and third sentences of the
section to read as follows:
I
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
*
*
(b) An NPR–A lease that has
completed its primary term on or before
the date the unit terminates will expire
unless it is granted an extension or
renewal under §§ 3135.1–5 or 3135.1–6.
[FR Doc. E8–1647 Filed 2–1–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–84–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CC Docket No. 94–129; FCC 07–222]
Implementation of the Subscriber
Carrier Selection Changes Provisions
of the Telecommunications Act of
1996; Policies and Rules Concerning
Unauthorized Changes of Consumers’
Long Distance Carriers; LEC Coalition
Application for Review Regarding
Carrier Change Rules
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In this document, the
Commission denies an Application for
Review filed by a coalition of local
exchange carriers (‘‘LEC Petitioners’’)
regarding the Commission’s carrier
change verification rules. Specifically,
the Commission affirms that it is not
permissible for an executing carrier to
block a carrier change submission by a
submitting carrier, based on the
executing carrier’s own finding that the
customer’s information does not match
exactly the information in the executing
carrier’s records.
DATES: Effective February 4, 2008.
Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Stevenson, Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
418–7039 (voice), or e-mail
Nancy.Stevenson@fcc.gov.
On July 8,
2005, an application for review was
filed by a coalition of local exchange
carriers against the Commission’s
Implementation of the Subscriber
Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
declaratory ruling, DA 05–1618,
published at 71 FR 2895 (January 18,
2006). This is a summary of the
Commission’s document FCC 07–222,
adopted December 18, 2007, released
January 4, 2008, denying the application
for review. Copies of document FCC 07–
222 and any subsequently filed
documents in this matter will be
available for public inspection and
copying during regular business hours
at the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
Document FCC 07–222 and any
subsequently filed documents in this
matter may also be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor at
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room
CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554.
Customers may contact the
Commission’s duplicating contractor at
their Web site: https://www.bcpiweb.com
or call 1–800–378–3160. To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (Braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice) or
(202) 418–0432 (TTY). Document FCC
07–222 can also be downloaded in
Word and Portable Document Format
(PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Analysis
The document does not contain new
information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In
addition, it does not contain any new or
modified ‘‘information collection
burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to
the Small Business Paperwork Relief
Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198. See
47 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
Synopsis
Section 64.1120(a)(2) of the
Commission’s rules provides that ‘‘[a]n
executing carrier shall not verify the
submission of a change in the
subscriber’s selection of a
telecommunications service received
from a submitting carrier.’’ The
Commission affirms that it is not
permissible for an executing carrier to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 Feb 01, 2008
Jkt 214001
block a carrier change submission by a
submitting carrier, based on the
executing carrier’s own finding that the
customer’s information does not match
exactly the information in the executing
carrier’s records. The Commission
expressed concern that executing
carriers could use the verification
process as a means to delay or deny
carrier change requests in order to
benefit themselves or their affiliates.
While the Commission agreed that
allowing executing carriers to re-verify
carrier change requests could, under
certain circumstances, help deter
slamming, it ultimately concluded that
the anti-competitive effects of reverification outweighed the potential
benefits.
The LEC Petitioners contend that the
Bureau mischaracterized their
argument. Rather, according to the LEC
Petitioners, under general principles of
agency law, an executing carrier simply
has a much more limited obligation to
its subscribers not to make changes to
subscriber accounts without prior
indication from the subscriber that the
submitting carrier request was so
authorized. The LEC Petitioners liken
their actions to that of a clerk at a liquor
store that asks a customer for
identification as a condition of
purchase.
The Commission disagrees with LEC
Petitioners and finds there is no
material distinction between rejecting a
carrier change request because of a
determination that the customer is not
authorized, and rejecting a change
request because the LEC has determined
that customer information does not
match the LEC’s records. As the Bureau
emphasized in its declaratory ruling,
and as commenters reiterate here, the
Commission has already clearly defined
the roles of the submitting and
executing carrier in a carrier change
request. Specifically, in the course of
verifying the subscriber’s intention to
change long distance service, a
submitting carrier’s independent, thirdparty verifier is required to elicit
confirmation that the person contacted
is authorized to make the change (that
is, either the party or an agent of the
party identified on the account). As to
executing carriers, the Commission’s
rules simply require ‘‘prompt execution
of changes verified by a submitting
carrier.’’ As stated in the declaratory
ruling, the mere fact that the name(s)
contained in the executing carrier’s LEC
account information may differ from
that of the contact person listed on the
submitting carrier’s change request does
not necessarily indicate a lack of
authority or agency on the part of the
person requesting the IXC change. The
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6445
Commission finds credible, and LEC
Petitioners do not dispute, that
‘‘customers often authorize a spouse, a
roommate, or other associate to act on
their behalf,’’ or may use a different
name for billing purposes, and this
information may not reside in the LEC’s
files. The Commission does not believe
the LEC Petitioners’ liquor store analogy
is applicable to the actions at issue here.
In the LEC Petitioners’ purported
analogy, the customer is directly
requesting a product sold by that store.
Here, an executing carrier seeks to block
a transaction that has already occurred
between a customer and another carrier.
The LEC Petitioners also argue that
the Bureau erred when it failed to
consider their arguments in light of
AT&T v. FCC. In that decision, the court
found that the Commission could not
require submitting carriers to obtain
actual authorization from a subscriber
for a carrier change. Instead, the court
found that Section 258 of the Act
provides that carriers must comply only
with ‘‘such verification procedures as
the Commission shall prescribe
(emphasis added).’’ The court added
that requiring actual authorization was
tantamount to holding submitting
carriers to a strict liability standard, but
that no such standard was contained in
section 258 of the Act. The LEC
Petitioners point to the court’s statement
that the customer’s local exchange
carrier ‘‘might be able to verify the
subscriber’s identity by consulting its
own customer records,’’ to support their
proposition that they should not have to
presume that any name submitted in
connection with a carrier change order
is authorized by the subscriber. The
Commission disagrees. In AT&T v. FCC,
the court reviewed the Commission’s
enforcement action imposing forfeiture
against AT&T for slamming. That
decision concerned only the obligations
of a submitting carrier; it did not
address the rights or obligations of
LECs. The specific language cited by the
LEC Petitioners occurs in the context of
the court’s explanation of why the
Commission exceeded its statutory
authority in creating an ‘‘actual
authorization from the subscriber’’
requirement and enforcing it against
AT&T.
The Bureau cited several examples
(provided by the LEC Petitioners) of
situations in which a LEC could, under
the Commission’s rules, legitimately
reject a submitting carrier’s change
request, such as when a customer is
already subscribed to the submitting
carrier, when a customer has a PIC
freeze in place, or when PIC changes are
not permitted (e.g., certain college
dormitory rooms). The LEC Petitioners
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
6446
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
argue that rejection of a carrier change
for the reasons at issue here cannot be
disallowed if it is in fact permissible for
a LEC to utilize its records when
processing a carrier change request, as
in the examples described above. The
Commission disagrees. The Commission
reiterates that carriers may access
account information in the course of
effectuating carrier changes, and we do
not believe that, under the limited
circumstances described above, an
executing carrier’s return of a carrier
change to the submitting carrier
constitutes re-verification in violation of
the Commission’s rules. The
Commission’s objection to the LEC
actions at issue here is not related to
their consulting account information per
se during the course of executing a
carrier change. Rather, it violates
Commission rules for executing carriers
to make an independent determination
with respect to the ability of a person to
authorize a carrier change based on such
information.
Executing carriers have means (other
than re-verification) of protecting their
customers that do not interfere with
competition or undermine consumer
choice. Executing carriers can, for
example, alert customers to preferred
carrier changes, such as by highlighting
changes to customers’ accounts in
customer billings, and can offer a
preferred carrier freeze option to
customers who are concerned about
slamming. However, as the Commission
expressed in the past, re-verification by
executing carriers could function as a de
facto preferred carrier freeze in
situations where a subscriber has not
requested such a freeze. The
Commission emphasized that the
imposition of a preferred carrier freeze
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 Feb 01, 2008
Jkt 214001
must be authorized by the consumer to
minimize any anticompetitive effects
and to maintain flexibility for
consumers. While preferred carrier
freezes can provide consumers with
extra protection from slamming, freezes
by their very nature impose additional
burdens on subscribers, and as such
should only be enacted as a result of
consumer choice. In the declaratory
ruling, the Bureau reiterated this
concern with respect to the LEC
Petitioners’ actions. The LEC actions at
issue here serve to restrict consumer
control by eliminating the consumer’s
ability to designate someone (such as a
spouse) as authorized to change
telecommunications service without
first contacting the local carrier, thereby
increasing the ability of the executing
carrier to act in an anti-competitive
manner. Endorsement of the LEC
Petitioners’ policies would result in
inconvenience and delays for
customers. The Commission continues
to believe that the actions of the LEC
Petitioners can, and do, result in de
facto preferred carrier freezes where the
customer has not requested such a
freeze.
Finally, the Commission notes that
IUB and NASUCA commented in
support of the LEC Petitioners. While
the Commission declines to grant the
LEC Petitioners’ request to reverse the
Bureau’s finding in the declaratory
ruling, the Commission recognizes that
state authorities may have verification
requirements for matters within their
jurisdiction that are stricter than those
of the Commission. As the Commission
recognized in the Third Report and
Order, FCC 00–255, published at 66 FR
12877 (March 1, 2001), states have
valuable insight into the slamming
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
problems experienced by consumers in
their respective locales. Accordingly,
the Commission declined to require that
‘‘states * * * limit their verification
requirements so that they are no more
stringent than those promulgated by this
Commission.’’ As was noted in the
declaratory ruling, the Commission’s
decision here concerns the question of
permissible actions by private
companies, not actions by a state
regulatory agency.
Congressional Review Act
The Commission will not send a copy
of document FCC 07–222 pursuant to
the Congressional Review Act, see 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because no new
rules were adopted in the document.
Ordering Clauses
Pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 1, 2, 4(i), and 258 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
and 258, and sections 1.115 and
64.1120(a)(2) of the Commission’s rules,
47 CFR 1.115 and 64.1120(a)(2),
document FCC 07–222 is adopted.
Pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 1, 2, 4(i), and 258 of the
Communications Act, of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
and 258, and sections 1.115 and
64.1120(a)(2) of the Commission’s rules,
47 CFR 1.115 and 64.1120(a)(2), the LEC
Petitioners’ Application for Review is
denied.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–1980 Filed 2–1–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\04FER1.SGM
04FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 23 (Monday, February 4, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6444-6446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1980]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CC Docket No. 94-129; FCC 07-222]
Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes
Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Policies and Rules
Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers;
LEC Coalition Application for Review Regarding Carrier Change Rules
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission denies an Application for
Review filed by a coalition of local exchange carriers (``LEC
Petitioners'') regarding the Commission's carrier change verification
rules. Specifically, the Commission affirms that it is not permissible
for an executing carrier to block a carrier change submission by a
submitting carrier, based on the executing carrier's own finding that
the customer's information does not match exactly the information in
the executing carrier's records.
DATES: Effective February 4, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Stevenson, Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
[[Page 6445]]
418-7039 (voice), or e-mail Nancy.Stevenson@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 8, 2005, an application for review
was filed by a coalition of local exchange carriers against the
Commission's Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes
Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, declaratory ruling,
DA 05-1618, published at 71 FR 2895 (January 18, 2006). This is a
summary of the Commission's document FCC 07-222, adopted December 18,
2007, released January 4, 2008, denying the application for review.
Copies of document FCC 07-222 and any subsequently filed documents in
this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during
regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Document
FCC 07-222 and any subsequently filed documents in this matter may also
be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers
may contact the Commission's duplicating contractor at their Web site:
https://www.bcpiweb.com or call 1-800-378-3160. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice) or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Document FCC 07-222 can also be
downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format (PDF) at: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
The document does not contain new information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13. In addition, it does not contain any new or modified
``information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198. See 47 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
Section 64.1120(a)(2) of the Commission's rules provides that
``[a]n executing carrier shall not verify the submission of a change in
the subscriber's selection of a telecommunications service received
from a submitting carrier.'' The Commission affirms that it is not
permissible for an executing carrier to block a carrier change
submission by a submitting carrier, based on the executing carrier's
own finding that the customer's information does not match exactly the
information in the executing carrier's records. The Commission
expressed concern that executing carriers could use the verification
process as a means to delay or deny carrier change requests in order to
benefit themselves or their affiliates. While the Commission agreed
that allowing executing carriers to re-verify carrier change requests
could, under certain circumstances, help deter slamming, it ultimately
concluded that the anti-competitive effects of re-verification
outweighed the potential benefits.
The LEC Petitioners contend that the Bureau mischaracterized their
argument. Rather, according to the LEC Petitioners, under general
principles of agency law, an executing carrier simply has a much more
limited obligation to its subscribers not to make changes to subscriber
accounts without prior indication from the subscriber that the
submitting carrier request was so authorized. The LEC Petitioners liken
their actions to that of a clerk at a liquor store that asks a customer
for identification as a condition of purchase.
The Commission disagrees with LEC Petitioners and finds there is no
material distinction between rejecting a carrier change request because
of a determination that the customer is not authorized, and rejecting a
change request because the LEC has determined that customer information
does not match the LEC's records. As the Bureau emphasized in its
declaratory ruling, and as commenters reiterate here, the Commission
has already clearly defined the roles of the submitting and executing
carrier in a carrier change request. Specifically, in the course of
verifying the subscriber's intention to change long distance service, a
submitting carrier's independent, third-party verifier is required to
elicit confirmation that the person contacted is authorized to make the
change (that is, either the party or an agent of the party identified
on the account). As to executing carriers, the Commission's rules
simply require ``prompt execution of changes verified by a submitting
carrier.'' As stated in the declaratory ruling, the mere fact that the
name(s) contained in the executing carrier's LEC account information
may differ from that of the contact person listed on the submitting
carrier's change request does not necessarily indicate a lack of
authority or agency on the part of the person requesting the IXC
change. The Commission finds credible, and LEC Petitioners do not
dispute, that ``customers often authorize a spouse, a roommate, or
other associate to act on their behalf,'' or may use a different name
for billing purposes, and this information may not reside in the LEC's
files. The Commission does not believe the LEC Petitioners' liquor
store analogy is applicable to the actions at issue here. In the LEC
Petitioners' purported analogy, the customer is directly requesting a
product sold by that store. Here, an executing carrier seeks to block a
transaction that has already occurred between a customer and another
carrier.
The LEC Petitioners also argue that the Bureau erred when it failed
to consider their arguments in light of AT&T v. FCC. In that decision,
the court found that the Commission could not require submitting
carriers to obtain actual authorization from a subscriber for a carrier
change. Instead, the court found that Section 258 of the Act provides
that carriers must comply only with ``such verification procedures as
the Commission shall prescribe (emphasis added).'' The court added that
requiring actual authorization was tantamount to holding submitting
carriers to a strict liability standard, but that no such standard was
contained in section 258 of the Act. The LEC Petitioners point to the
court's statement that the customer's local exchange carrier ``might be
able to verify the subscriber's identity by consulting its own customer
records,'' to support their proposition that they should not have to
presume that any name submitted in connection with a carrier change
order is authorized by the subscriber. The Commission disagrees. In
AT&T v. FCC, the court reviewed the Commission's enforcement action
imposing forfeiture against AT&T for slamming. That decision concerned
only the obligations of a submitting carrier; it did not address the
rights or obligations of LECs. The specific language cited by the LEC
Petitioners occurs in the context of the court's explanation of why the
Commission exceeded its statutory authority in creating an ``actual
authorization from the subscriber'' requirement and enforcing it
against AT&T.
The Bureau cited several examples (provided by the LEC Petitioners)
of situations in which a LEC could, under the Commission's rules,
legitimately reject a submitting carrier's change request, such as when
a customer is already subscribed to the submitting carrier, when a
customer has a PIC freeze in place, or when PIC changes are not
permitted (e.g., certain college dormitory rooms). The LEC Petitioners
[[Page 6446]]
argue that rejection of a carrier change for the reasons at issue here
cannot be disallowed if it is in fact permissible for a LEC to utilize
its records when processing a carrier change request, as in the
examples described above. The Commission disagrees. The Commission
reiterates that carriers may access account information in the course
of effectuating carrier changes, and we do not believe that, under the
limited circumstances described above, an executing carrier's return of
a carrier change to the submitting carrier constitutes re-verification
in violation of the Commission's rules. The Commission's objection to
the LEC actions at issue here is not related to their consulting
account information per se during the course of executing a carrier
change. Rather, it violates Commission rules for executing carriers to
make an independent determination with respect to the ability of a
person to authorize a carrier change based on such information.
Executing carriers have means (other than re-verification) of
protecting their customers that do not interfere with competition or
undermine consumer choice. Executing carriers can, for example, alert
customers to preferred carrier changes, such as by highlighting changes
to customers' accounts in customer billings, and can offer a preferred
carrier freeze option to customers who are concerned about slamming.
However, as the Commission expressed in the past, re-verification by
executing carriers could function as a de facto preferred carrier
freeze in situations where a subscriber has not requested such a
freeze. The Commission emphasized that the imposition of a preferred
carrier freeze must be authorized by the consumer to minimize any
anticompetitive effects and to maintain flexibility for consumers.
While preferred carrier freezes can provide consumers with extra
protection from slamming, freezes by their very nature impose
additional burdens on subscribers, and as such should only be enacted
as a result of consumer choice. In the declaratory ruling, the Bureau
reiterated this concern with respect to the LEC Petitioners' actions.
The LEC actions at issue here serve to restrict consumer control by
eliminating the consumer's ability to designate someone (such as a
spouse) as authorized to change telecommunications service without
first contacting the local carrier, thereby increasing the ability of
the executing carrier to act in an anti-competitive manner. Endorsement
of the LEC Petitioners' policies would result in inconvenience and
delays for customers. The Commission continues to believe that the
actions of the LEC Petitioners can, and do, result in de facto
preferred carrier freezes where the customer has not requested such a
freeze.
Finally, the Commission notes that IUB and NASUCA commented in
support of the LEC Petitioners. While the Commission declines to grant
the LEC Petitioners' request to reverse the Bureau's finding in the
declaratory ruling, the Commission recognizes that state authorities
may have verification requirements for matters within their
jurisdiction that are stricter than those of the Commission. As the
Commission recognized in the Third Report and Order, FCC 00-255,
published at 66 FR 12877 (March 1, 2001), states have valuable insight
into the slamming problems experienced by consumers in their respective
locales. Accordingly, the Commission declined to require that ``states
* * * limit their verification requirements so that they are no more
stringent than those promulgated by this Commission.'' As was noted in
the declaratory ruling, the Commission's decision here concerns the
question of permissible actions by private companies, not actions by a
state regulatory agency.
Congressional Review Act
The Commission will not send a copy of document FCC 07-222 pursuant
to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because no
new rules were adopted in the document.
Ordering Clauses
Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), and 258
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152,
154(i), and 258, and sections 1.115 and 64.1120(a)(2) of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.115 and 64.1120(a)(2), document FCC 07-222
is adopted.
Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), and 258
of the Communications Act, of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152,
154(i), and 258, and sections 1.115 and 64.1120(a)(2) of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.115 and 64.1120(a)(2), the LEC
Petitioners' Application for Review is denied.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-1980 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
