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, 13144-13150 [E8-4976]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 12, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13144-13150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-4976]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 94-129; FCC 07-223]


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

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission revises its requirements 
concerning verification of a consumer's intent to switch carriers. 
These new requirements will ensure that each verification includes the 
date; expand

[[Page 13145]]

the disclosure obligations of third party verifiers when consumers have 
questions during the verification; and otherwise clarify the required 
disclosures by verifiers to ensure that consumers better comprehend 
precisely what service changes they are approving. The Commission 
believes that these requirements will increase consumer confidence, 
decrease the administrative costs for carriers, and alleviate the 
enforcement burden on state regulatory authorities and the Commission.

DATES: Effective April 11, 2008 except for 47 CFR 64.1120(c)(3)(iii) 
which contains information collection requirements that have not been 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), The Commission 
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the 
effective date for the amendment and information collection 
requirements. Interested parties (including the general public, OMB, 
and other Federal agencies) that wish to submit written comments on the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) information collection requirements must 
do so on or before May 12, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit PRA comments identified by OMB 
Control Number 3060-0787 and CC Docket No. 94-129 by any of the 
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Parties who choose to file by email should submit 
their PRA comments to PRA@fcc.gov. Please include OMB Control Number 
3060-0787 and CC Docket No.94-129 in the subject line of the message.
     Mail/Fax: Parties who choose to file by paper should 
submit their PRA comments to Cathy Williams, Federal Communications 
Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Stevenson, Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-7039 (voice), or e-mail 
Nancy.Stevenson@fcc.gov. For additional information concerning the PRA 
information collection requirements contained in this document, send an 
e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission's rules implementing section 
258 of the Act have been promulgated through a series of orders. In the 
Second Report and Order (FCC 98-334) published at 64 FR 7746, February 
16, 1999, the Commission sought to eliminate the profits associated 
with slamming by broadening the scope of its carrier change rules and 
adopting more rigorous slamming liability and carrier change 
verification measures. In the Third Reconsideration Order (FCC 03-42), 
published at 68 FR 19152, April 18, 2003, the Commission modified 
certain rules concerning verification of carrier change requests and 
liability for slamming. In the Fifth Reconsideration Order (FCC 04-
214), published at 70 FR 14567, March 23, 2005, the Commission denied 
petitions filed by a coalition of rural independent local exchange 
carriers (Rural LECs) seeking reconsideration of the Commission's 
verification requirement for in-bound carrier change request calls. In 
the Third Report and Order (FCC 00-255), published at 66 FR 12877, 
March 1, 2001, the Commission declined to mandate specific language for 
third party verification calls, but did adopt minimum content 
requirements for such calls. Based on the Commission's experience since 
the effective date of the Third Report and Order (FCC 00-255), in the 
Second FNPRM (FCC 03-42) published at 68 FR 19152, April 18, 2003, the 
Commission sought comment on the need for additional minimum 
requirements for third party verification calls in order to maximize 
accuracy and efficiency for consumers, carriers, and the Commission. 
This is a summary of the Commission's 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, CC Docket No. 94-129, FCC 07-223, adopted 
December 18, 2007, released January 9, 2008 (Fourth Report and Order), 
revising its requirements concerning verification of a consumer's 
intent to switch carriers.
    The full text of document FCC 07-223 and copies of 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 07-223 and copies of 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 07-223 can also be 
downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format (PDF) at: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    Document FCC 07-223 contains modified information collection 
requirements subject to the PRA of 1995. It will be submitted to OBM 
for review under section 3507 of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and 
other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the modified 
information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. 
Public and agency comments are due May 12, 2008.
    In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Review Act of 
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission has 
assessed the effect of rule changes and find that there likely will be 
an increased administrative burden on businesses with fewer than 25 
employees. The Commission has taken steps, however, to minimize the 
information collection burden for small business concerns, including 
those with fewer than 25 employees. The rules permit carriers to decide 
how the date of verification will be ascertained. In addition, though 
in some instances the rules require verifiers to inform the consumer 
that the carrier change can be effectuated once the verification is 
completed, they require verifiers to do so only in situations where the 
subscriber has additional questions for the carrier's sales 
representative. The Commission also declines to prohibit verifiers from 
using compound questions during the verification process. These 
measures should substantially alleviate any burdens on businesses with 
fewer than 25 employees.

Synopsis

    1. The requirements adopted in the Fourth Report and Order address 
issues the Commission has seen repeatedly in its enforcement of the 
slamming liability rules. They are also fully consistent with AT&T v. 
FCC, in which the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
recognized that section 258 of the Act ``authorizes the Commission to 
prescribe verification procedures.'' In light of this decision, the 
Commission's

[[Page 13146]]

experiences in dealing with slamming complaints since the 
implementation of section 258 of the Act, and the comments filed in 
response to the Second FNPRM, the Commission believes that further 
enhancement of the verification procedures is warranted.
    2. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether 
third party verifiers should be required to state the date of the 
verification call during the verification process.
    3. The Commission concludes that the date of the verification 
should be obtained at the time of the verification and should be 
readily identifiable by parties that review the verification at a later 
date. Requiring that the date of verification be obtained and recorded 
at the time of the verification, in a readily identifiable manner, 
protects consumers against unauthorized carrier changes, and conversely 
prevents customers from fraudulently revoking a validly executed 
agreement. This requirement also helps to prevent mistakes and 
confusion that could arise in the verification process, and enhances 
the evidentiary case on which regulatory authorities may rely in order 
to determine whether a slam occurred. The Commission also notes that 
carriers that do not wish to use third party verifications are free to 
use one of the other approved forms of verification. Therefore, in 
light of these experiences and this previous rule change, as well as 
the substantial support by most commenters for a requirement that 
verifications include the date, the Commission finds that the date of 
the verification should be ascertained and recorded at the time of the 
verification, and should be readily identifiable by parties that review 
the verification at a later date. The Commission agrees that carriers 
should be free to decide how this information will be ascertained, and 
therefore declines to mandate that the third party verifier must, in 
all cases, confirm the date verbally with the consumer during the 
verification. The Commission declines to require that verifications 
also include the time of the call, because the Commission believes that 
including the date is sufficient to address the concerns raised by 
commenters regarding multiple switches.
    4. The record reflects that undated verifications have resulted in 
abuses to the system. In addition, given that the subscriber need not 
identify the displaced carrier during the verification process, the 
potential for a slam to occur based on an outdated verification is even 
greater, because there is no identifying information concerning the 
date of the verification or the carrier from whom the subscriber is 
switching. Given the generally widespread support of this proposal by 
the carrier commenters, the Commission is skeptical that this 
particular requirement is overly burdensome. It appears that many 
carriers already register this information; for carriers that do not, 
the Commission believes that this requirement will only incrementally 
affect costs of the existing third party verification requirement, 
particularly since the Commission has given carriers latitude to devise 
their own methods of obtaining and recording this information.
    5. In the Third Report and Order, the Commission required that the 
carrier or carrier's sales representative drop off the call once the 
connection has been established between the consumer and the third 
party verifier. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on 
whether the verifier should explicitly state that, if the customer has 
additional questions for the carrier's sales representative regarding 
the carrier change after verification has begun, the verification will 
be terminated, and further verification proceedings will not be carried 
out until after the customer has finished speaking with the sales 
representative (``Verification Termination Proposal''). In addition, 
the Commission sought comment on whether the verifier should be 
required to convey to the customer that the carrier change can be 
effectuated once the verification has been completed in full 
(``Verification Completion Proposal''), regardless of whether the 
customer has further contact with the carrier.
    6. The Commission declines to adopt the Verification Termination 
Proposal, but does adopt what is in effect a modified Verification 
Completion Proposal. The Commission agrees with those commenters that 
question the utility of having verifiers provide this information to 
customers at the outset of the verification. The Commission agrees that 
doing so likely would increase rather than decrease consumer confusion 
while unnecessarily increasing costs. This determination does not alter 
existing requirements. Moreover, the record reflects that under 
prevailing practices, the verifier generally offers the customer the 
option to either terminate the verification, if the customer wishes to 
speak to a sales representative before completing the verification, or 
to complete the verification and defer the question until after 
completion.
    7. The Commission concludes that, if customers have questions which 
a verifier can not answer and the verifier indicates it will complete 
the verification and the question is to be deferred to a carrier's 
sales representative after completion of the verification, the verifier 
must state that the carrier change can be effectuated once the 
verification has been completed. When customers wait until after the 
verification is completed to ask sales agents questions that might 
affect their choice of whether to switch carriers, this creates a 
potential problem. In such cases, customers may erroneously believe 
that if they choose not to switch carriers after further discussions 
with the carrier's agent, the previously completed verification is, in 
all cases, automatically invalidated. As with the Verification 
Termination Proposal, however, carriers argue that implementing the 
Verification Completion Proposal would be superfluous, impose 
unnecessary costs on carriers, and ultimately cause consumer confusion. 
Some commenters maintain that implementing this proposal would cause 
undue anxiety for the consumer, delay the verification process and 
ultimately altogether dissuade consumers from consummating the carrier 
switches.
    8. The Commission adopts what is in effect a modified Verification 
Completion Proposal, to accommodate these competing concerns. To avoid 
consumer confusion, while minimizing obligations on carriers, the 
Commission requires verifiers to directly state that the carrier change 
can be effectuated once the verification has been completed in full, 
even where the consumer has additional questions for the carrier's 
sales representative after the verification process. Such a requirement 
will avoid consumer misperception that the verification automatically 
will be invalidated if the consumer decides that they do not want to go 
through with the carrier switch, and will encourage the consumer to 
address any potentially confusing issues prior to consummating the 
verification. The Commission rejects a proposal that verifiers convey 
this information only at the end of the verification, because it 
believes that waiting until that point likely will deter consumers from 
asking questions, out of fear they must go through the whole process 
again. Some carriers do allow customers to revoke their carrier change 
authorizations within a certain amount of time after completing the 
verification process. Therefore, they maintain that requiring third 
party verifiers to inform consumers that the effectuation can occur 
after verification is complete could create a conflict with information

[[Page 13147]]

provided by a sales representative. In these cases, the Commission 
agrees the verifier should simply inform the consumer of the carrier's 
verification revocation policy.
    9. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether 
verifiers must clarify to a customer that she is not verifying an 
intention to retain existing service, but is in fact asking for a 
carrier change. The Commission noted examples of carriers seeking to 
obtain customer authorization for carrier changes merely stating to 
customers that they are consenting to an ``upgrade'' of the customers' 
service or to bill consolidation.
    10. The Commission agrees with the commenting state utility 
commissions and Verizon that it should require verifiers to convey 
explicitly to customers that the carrier change transaction is exactly 
that, and not a mere upgrade to existing service or any other 
misleading description. The record reflects that carriers using 
ambiguous language to describe the nature of the transaction may lead 
to consumer confusion concerning the true purpose of the solicitation 
call. The Ohio PUC, for instance, cites instances in which solicitors 
promised consumers that they would not be changing carriers, inducing 
these consumers into authorizing carrier changes under the guise of 
offering discounts and other ``upgrades'' to their current services. 
The Commission believes that such practices are misleading and 
unreasonable, and warrant specific treatment in our rules. Thus, the 
Commission amends Sec.  64.1120(c)(3)(iii) of its rules to provide for 
verifications to elicit ``confirmation that the person on the call 
understands that a carrier change, not an upgrade to existing service, 
bill consolidation, or any other misleading description of the 
transaction, is being authorized.'' The Commission finds that making 
these clarifications for the third party verification process will 
eliminate these sources of confusion.
    11. The Commission rejects the contentions of some carriers that 
this requirement is redundant with existing regulations. Though Sec.  
64.1120(c)(3)(iii) of the Commission's rules already requires, inter 
alia, that the verifier confirm that the person on the call wants to 
make a carrier change, the record reflects that some carriers introduce 
ambiguity into what should be a straightforward interaction by 
describing the carrier change offer as a mere ``upgrade'' to existing 
service or in other ways that obscure the true purpose. As the 
Commission concluded when it first considered proposals for third party 
verifier script requirements, ``the scripts used by the independent 
third party verifier should clearly and conspicuously confirm that the 
subscriber has previously authorized a carrier change.'' The Commission 
concludes that requiring the verifier to convey explicitly that the 
consumers will have authorized a carrier change, and not, for instance, 
an upgrade to existing service, is a small refinement that will 
eliminate a significant source of ambiguity to consumers while 
minimally burdening carriers.
    12. IDT opposes this requirement on Constitutional grounds arguing 
that the Commission ``has long avoided requiring specific language in 
communicating with consumers, in deference to carriers' First Amendment 
rights.'' IDT misconstrues the requirement. The Commission did not 
propose, nor does it adopt, a specific incantation that verifiers must 
recite. Rather, the Commission seeks to ensure that verifiers confirm 
the consumer's intent to receive service from a different carrier, 
regardless of whether that is phrased as a ``change,'' a ``switch,'' or 
any other non-misleading term. Thus, First Amendment issues are not 
implicated by the action the Commission takes today.
    13. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission asked commenters to address 
whether each piece of information that a third party verifier must 
gather under its rules should be the subject of a separate and distinct 
third party verifier inquiry and subscriber response. The Commission 
notes that Sec.  64.1120(b) of its rules already requires the carrier 
to obtain separate authorization and verification for each service that 
is being changed. In addition, customers should be aware of the 
separate and distinct nature of the types of services they are 
consenting to switch. Thus, the Commission concludes that its rules 
provide sufficient protection for consumers, such that a prohibition on 
compound questions would be unnecessary and unduly burdensome for 
carriers and consumers alike.
    14. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether, 
when verifying a long distance service change, the verifier should 
specify that long distance service encompasses both international and 
state-to-state calls, and whether a verifier should define the terms 
``intraLATA toll'' and ``interLATA toll'' service. The Commission noted 
its observation that carriers sometimes use different terms for these 
services. For example, a carrier might refer to intraLATA service as 
``short haul long distance, local toll, local long distance, or long 
distance calls within your state.'' The Commission noted receiving 
numerous complaints from consumers who assert they unknowingly gave up 
the flat rate for intraLATA service they paid to their LEC when 
consenting to a carrier change for different services. The Commission 
declines to require third party verifiers to define for subscribers the 
terms ``intraLATA toll'' and interLATA toll'' service. The Commission 
concludes that to do so could increase consumer confusion and add 
unnecessary time and cost to the verification process. In addition, the 
Commission believes that other requirements adopted in the Fourth 
Report and Order will go a long way toward alleviating consumer 
confusion about the services to which they subscribe. The Commission 
does, however, require third party verifiers to verify that the 
consumer understands that long distance service includes both 
international and long distance service.
    15. While most commenters acknowledge that distinguishing intraLATA 
service from interLATA service is particularly complicated, only some 
support the inclusion of explicit definitions in the verification 
process. Many carriers believe instead that, in the context of carrier 
changes, this responsibility should be allocated to the carriers 
themselves, rather than the third party verifiers. These carriers are 
concerned primarily that requiring third party verifiers to define 
complicated terms such as interLATA service and intraLATA service will 
confuse consumers and cause them to ask questions beyond the verifier's 
capacity to answer, resulting in likely termination of the verification 
and an unnecessary and costly reconnection with the carrier's sales 
representative. The Commission agrees that requiring a third party 
verifier to explain the differences between intraLATA service and 
interLATA service could confuse consumers, a majority of whom are 
unfamiliar with the terms, and increase verification costs. Therefore, 
the Commission declines to adopt such a requirement. The Commission 
also notes that these terms have little, if any significance since the 
former Bell Operating Companies have now been granted permission to re-
enter the InterLATA market and provide both IntraLATA and InterLATA 
service by grant of applications filed pursuant to section 271 of the 
Act. The Commission does, however, revise certain paragraphs in Subpart 
K of part 64 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 64.1100 et

[[Page 13148]]

seq., to clarify terminology which heretofore could have been construed 
to render ``intraLATA'' synonymous with ``intrastate'' and 
``interLATA'' synonymous with ``interstate.''
    16. In adopting the proposal that verifiers specify that long 
distance service also includes international calls, the Commission 
disagrees with carriers who suggest that the proposal is unnecessary 
due to many consumers' purported disinterest in international services. 
The record reflects that customers have an interest in how carrier 
changes will affect all aspects of their telecommunications services. 
Moreover, given the expense of international calling plans, the 
Commission believes that these services merit special consideration 
during the verification process. The cost of international connectivity 
varies widely from carrier to carrier. According to the National 
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA), carriers 
often will charge exorbitant prices after executing an unauthorized 
carrier change, and international charges are among the most frequently 
abused. Consequently, customers who erroneously believe that their 
international rates have not been affected by a carrier change can 
receive charges for such calls that exceed by many times the rates they 
expect. In light of the risks of such uninformed consent, the 
Commission disagrees that many consumers simply are ``not interested'' 
in this aspect of their telecommunications services.
    17. The Commission notes that some carriers have conducted 
campaigns that target minorities and consumers with modest English 
speaking abilities. The Commission believes that these measures are 
appropriate and necessary to protect such consumers. Finally, the 
Commission rejects the argument of some carriers that carriers are 
better situated than verifiers to specify that long distance service 
also encompasses international service. While the Commission encourages 
carriers to keep their subscribers informed in this regard, we believe 
that assigning this role to verifiers will burden the verification 
process only minimally, if at all. The Commission further believes that 
doing so will alleviate, rather than exacerbate, consumer confusion.
    18. The Commission declines to adopt rule changes proposed by the 
Joint Commenters regarding the preemption of state slamming regulations 
that differ from the Commission's. The Commission also rejects a 
proposal to change the Commission's requirement that carrier sales 
representatives drop off the sales call once the connection has been 
established between the subscriber and the verifier. The Commission 
does, however, adopt clerical changes to its rules to correct previous 
typographical errors, or to reflect changes in Commission organization.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification (FRFA)

    19. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 
requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-
and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that 
``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.'' The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).
    20. The Fourth Report and Order adopts clarifications and 
modifications to Sec. Sec.  64.1110, 64.1120, 64.1130, 64.1150, 
64.1160, and 64.1190 of the Commission's rules pertaining to changes in 
preferred telecommunications service providers that do not have a 
significant economic impact on entities subject to those rules. The 
modifications to Sec.  64.1110(a) and (b) clarify to whom state 
notification of the election to administer our carrier-change rules is 
to be sent at the Commission. The modification to Sec.  64.1120(b) 
clarifies examples of the types of services for which a verifier 
conducting a third party verification must obtain separate 
authorization. The Commission modifies Sec.  64.1120(c)(3) to add the 
date of the third-party verification. The Commission modifies Sec.  
64.1120(c)(iii) to add the requirement that the verifier clarify what 
constitutes long distance service, and to add the requirement that, 
when a subscriber has a question for the sales representative, the 
verifier must explain that the subscriber will have authorized a 
carrier change at the end of the verification. Section 64.1130(e) is 
modified to clarify examples of the types of services switched through 
the use of a letter of agency. The Commission modifies Sec.  64.1150(d) 
to clarify which subsections apply concerning proof of verification. 
Section 64.1160(c) is modified to correct a grammatical error. In Sec.  
64.1190(c) and Sec.  64.1190(d)(3)(ii)(B) the Commission clarifies the 
types of services for which a subscriber may request a preferred 
carrier freeze.
    21. As noted above, the modified verification requirements in the 
Fourth Report and Order provide that a third-party verification must 
include the date of the verification, and that the verifier must convey 
to the consumer that long distance service includes international 
service, and, if the subscriber has additional questions for the 
carrier's sales representative, the verifier must indicate that once 
the verification is completed, the subscriber's service will be 
switched. These additions should require only minor modifications to 
third-party verifications. Specifically, from the Commission's 
experience with verifications, as well as from the record in this 
proceeding, the Commission believes that most verifications already 
contain the date; in addition, the Commission will allow carriers to 
decide themselves how they would like this information to be 
ascertained. Likewise, from our experience, as well as from the record 
in this proceeding, the Commission believes that customers have 
additional questions in relatively few cases, and thus will generally 
not trigger the requirement that the verifier inform the customer that 
the service will still be switched if the verification is completed. 
Other rule changes in the Fourth Report and Order are minor 
clarifications (such as grammatical corrections to the existing rules) 
that would not generate any additional burdens. Thus, the Commission 
believes that the compliance burden, and resulting economic impact on 
entities subject thereto, will be de minimus. Therefore, the Commission 
certifies for purposes of the RFA that the clarifications and 
modifications adopted in the Fourth Report and Order will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    22. The Commission will send a copy of the Fourth Report and Order, 
including a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.

Congressional Review Act

    The Commission will send a copy of FCC 07-223 in a report to be 
sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 
the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Ordering Clauses

    Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 206-208 and 258 of the

[[Page 13149]]

Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 
201, 206-208, and 258, and Sec.  1.421 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.421, document FCC 07-223 is adopted, and that part 64 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 64, is amended.
    The requirements of the Fourth Report and Order shall become 
effective April 11, 2008, except Sec.  64.1120 (c)(3)(iii) which 
contains information collections that have not been approved by OMB. 
These information collections will go into effect upon announcement in 
the Federal Register of OMB approval.
    The information collections contained herein are contingent upon 
approval by the Office of Management and Budget.
    The Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, shall send a copy of document FCC 07-223 in CC 
Docket No. 94-129, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

 Rule Changes

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications 
Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); secs. 403(b)(2)(B),(c), Public 
Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 
222, 225, 226, 228, and 254 (k) unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Section 64.1110 is amended by revising the first sentence in 
paragraph (a) and the first sentence in paragraph (b), to read as 
follows:


Sec.  64.1110  State notification of election to administer FCC rules.

    (a) * * * State notification of an intention to administer the 
Federal Communications Commission's unauthorized carrier change rules 
and remedies, as enumerated in Sec. Sec.  64.1100 through 64.1190, 
shall be filed with the Commission Secretary in CC Docket No. 94-129 
with a copy of such notification provided to the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau Chief.* * *
    (b) * * * State notification of an intention to discontinue 
administering the Federal Communications Commission's unauthorized 
carrier change rules and remedies, as enumerated in Sec. Sec.  64.1100 
through 64.1190, shall be filed with the Commission Secretary in CC 
Docket No. 94-129 with a copy of such amended notification provided to 
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Chief.* * *
0
3. Section 64.1120 is amended by revising the first sentence in 
paragraphs (b) and (c)(3), and revising paragraph (c)(3)(iii), to read 
as follows:


Sec.  64.1120  Verification of orders for telecommunications service.

* * * * *
    (b) Where a telecommunications carrier is selling more than one 
type of telecommunications service (e.g., local exchange, intraLATA 
toll, and interLATA toll), that carrier must obtain separate 
authorization from the subscriber for each service sold, although the 
authorizations may be obtained within the same solicitation.* * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) An appropriately qualified independent third party has 
obtained, in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraphs 
(c)(3)(i) through (c)(3)(iv) of this section, the subscriber's oral 
authorization to submit the preferred carrier change order that 
confirms and includes appropriate verification data (e.g., the 
subscriber's date of birth or social security number).* * *
    (iii) Requirements for content and format of third party 
verification. Any description of the carrier change transaction by a 
third party verifier must not be misleading, and all third party 
verification methods shall elicit, at a minimum: The date of the 
verification; the identity of the subscriber; confirmation that the 
person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change; 
confirmation that the person on the call wants to make the carrier 
change; confirmation that the person on the call understands that a 
carrier change, not an upgrade to existing service, bill consolidation, 
or any other misleading description of the transaction, is being 
authorized; the names of the carriers affected by the change (not 
including the name of the displaced carrier); the telephone numbers to 
be switched; and the types of service involved (including a brief 
description of a service about which the subscriber demonstrates 
confusion regarding the nature of that service). Except in Hawaii, any 
description of interLATA or long distance service shall convey that it 
encompasses both international and state-to-state calls, as well as 
some intrastate calls where applicable. If the subscriber has 
additional questions for the carrier's sales representative during the 
verification, the verifier shall indicate to the subscriber that, upon 
completion of the verification process, the subscriber will have 
authorized a carrier change. Third party verifiers may not market the 
carrier's services by providing additional information, including 
information regarding preferred carrier freeze procedures.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 64.1130 is amended by revising the second sentence in 
paragraph (e)(4), to read as follows:


Sec.  64.1130  Letter of agency form and content.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4) * * * To the extent that a jurisdiction allows the selection of 
additional preferred carriers (e.g., local exchange, intraLATA toll, 
interLATA toll, or international interexchange), the letter of agency 
must contain separate statements regarding those choices, although a 
separate letter of agency for each choice is not necessary; and
* * * * *

0
5. Section 64.1150 is amended by revising the second sentence in 
paragraph (d), to read as follows:


Sec.  64.1150  Procedures for resolution of unauthorized changes in 
preferred carrier.

* * * * *
    (d) * * * This proof of verification must contain clear and 
convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change, as that term 
is defined in Sec. Sec.  64.1120 through 64.1130.* * *
* * * * *

0
6. Section 64.1160 is amended by revising the second sentence in 
paragraph (c), to read as follows:


Sec.  64.1160  Absolution procedures where the subscriber has not paid 
charges.

* * * * *
    (c) * * * An allegedly unauthorized carrier choosing to challenge 
such allegation shall immediately notify the complaining subscriber 
that: The complaining subscriber must file a complaint with a State 
commission that has opted to administer the FCC's rules, pursuant to 
Sec.  64.1110, or the FCC within 30 days of either the date of removal 
of charges from the complaining subscriber's bill in accordance with 
paragraph (b) of this section, or the date

[[Page 13150]]

the allegedly unauthorized carrier notifies the complaining subscriber 
of the requirements of this paragraph, whichever is later; and a 
failure to file such a complaint within this 30-day time period will 
result in the charges removed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section 
being reinstated on the subscriber's bill and, consequently, the 
complaining subscriber will only be entitled to remedies for the 
alleged unauthorized change other than those provided for in Sec.  
64.1140(b)(1).* * *
* * * * *

0
7. Section 64.1190 is amended by revising the first sentence in 
paragraph (c), and the second sentence in paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(B), to 
read as follows:


Sec.  64.1190  Preferred carrier freezes.

* * * * *
    (c) Preferred carrier freeze procedures, including any 
solicitation, must clearly distinguish among telecommunications 
services (e.g., local exchange, intraLATA toll, and interLATA toll) 
subject to a preferred carrier freeze.* * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) * * * To the extent that a jurisdiction allows the imposition 
of preferred carrier freezes on additional preferred carrier selections 
(e.g., for local exchange, intraLATA toll, and interLATA toll), the 
authorization must contain separate statements regarding the particular 
selections to be frozen;
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E8-4976 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P