Rural Call Completion, 21891-21904 [2013-08527]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(i) Within 240 minutes of discovering
that they have experienced on any
facilities that they own, operate, lease,
or otherwise utilize, an outage of at least
30 minutes duration that potentially
affects a 911 special facility (as defined
in paragraph (e) of § 4.5), in which case
they also shall notify immediately by
telephone and in writing via electronic
means, any official who has been
designated by the management of the
affected 911 facility as the provider’s
contact person(s) for communications
outages at that facility, and the provider
shall convey all available information
that may be useful to the management
of the affected facility in mitigating the
effects of the outage on efforts to
communicate with that facility. This
information shall include, at a
minimum, the nature of the outage, the
estimated number of users affected or
potentially affected, the location of
those users, the actions being taken by
provider to address the outage, the
estimated time at which service will be
restored, recommended actions the
impacted 911 special facility should
take to minimize the disruption of
service, and the sender’s name,
telephone number and email address at
which the sender can be reached; or
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–08525 Filed 4–11–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[WC Docket No. 13–39; FCC 13–18]
Rural Call Completion
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Federal Communications
Commission proposes to adopt rules
requiring facilities-based originating
long distance providers to record and
retain data on call completion rates to
rural areas, and to report this data to the
Commission on a quarterly basis. We
propose to reduce or eliminate a
provider’s retention and reporting
obligations if that provider certifies that
it qualifies for one of two proposed safe
harbor provisions. We also propose to
prohibit both originating and
intermediate providers from causing
audible ringing to be sent to the caller
before the terminating provider has
signaled that the called party is being
alerted. These changes will allow the
Commission to more effectively
determine the causes of call completion
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
problems to rural areas and take action
to cure them, and will also prevent
consumer confusion caused by the
injection of false ringtones before the
called party has been alerted.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
May 13, 2013.
Submit reply comments on or before
May 28, 2013.
Written comments on the Paperwork
Reduction Act proposed information
collection requirements must be
submitted by the public, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and
other interested parties on or before
June 11, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by WC Docket No. 13–39, by
any of the following methods:
D Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
D People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
In addition to filing comments with the
Secretary, a copy of any comments on
the Paperwork Reduction Act
information collection requirements
contained herein should be submitted to
the Federal Communications
Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov
and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of
Management and Budget, via email to
Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via
fax at 202–395–5167.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Rowings, Competition Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau,
at (202) 418–1033 or by email at
steven.rowings@fcc.gov. To submit
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
comments, send an email to
PRA@fcc.gov. For further information
concerning the Paperwork Reduction
Act information collection requirements
contained in this document, contact
Judith B. Herman, 202–418–0214.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
D Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21891
accessing the ECFS: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number.
Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington DC 20554.
• People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (TTY).
This document contains proposed
information collection requirements.
The Commission, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, invites the general public and
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to comment on the information
collection requirements contained in
this document, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. Public and agency
comments are due June 11, 2013.
PRA comments should address
whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
the accuracy of the Commission’s
burden estimates; ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21892
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
information on the respondents,
including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; and ways to
further reduce the information burden
for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees.
OMB Control Number: 3060–XXXX.
Title: Rural Call Completion
Recordkeeping and Reporting.
Form No.: Not applicable.
Type of Review: New Collection.
Respondents: Business or other forprofit; not-for-profit institutions; and
State, Local or Tribal governments.
Number of Respondents and
Responses: 90 respondents, 360 annual
responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 16
hours.
Frequency of Response: Quarterly
reporting requirement and
recordkeeping requirement.
Obligation To Respond: Mandatory.
Statutory authority is contained in
sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201, 202, 218, 220(a),
and 403 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152,
154(i), 201, 202, 218, 220(a), and 403.
Total Annual Burden: 5,760 hours.
Total Annual Costs: $393,750.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:
The Commission gives no assurances
that information submitted in response
to these proposed rules will be treated
as confidential. Any information
provided by parties to comply with
these proposed rules may be submitted
pursuant to a request for confidentiality
under § 0.459 of the Commission’s rules.
See 47 CFR 0.459.
Needs and Uses: These proposed
rules would require facilities-based
originating long-distance voice service
providers to collect data on call answer
rates, and to report those data to the
Commission on a quarterly basis. The
information obtained through this
collection will allow the Commission to
monitor the performance of longdistance telephone service providers in
order to more fully investigate the
disparity in performance levels between
long-distance calls to rural areas and
those to nonrural areas, as well as to
ensure that long-distance providers are
complying with their statutory
obligations to provide just, reasonable,
and nondiscriminatory service
throughout the nation.
To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format) or to request reasonable
accommodations for filing comments
(accessible format documents, sign
language interpreters, CART, etc.), send
an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice) or 202–
418–0432 (TTY).
Synopsis of Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
In this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), we seek comment
on rules to help address problems in the
completion of long-distance telephone
calls to rural customers.
I. Introduction
1. Retail long-distance providers, such
as wireless providers, cable companies,
interexchange carriers (IXCs), local
exchange carriers (LECs), and providers
of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
services, often employ intermediate
providers to carry long-distance calls to
their destination. Some of these
intermediate providers offering
wholesale call delivery services may be
failing to deliver a significant number of
calls to rural telephone company
customers, and evidence indicates that
the retail long-distance providers may
not be adequately examining the
resultant rural call completion
performance.
2. Completion rates of long-distance
calls to rural telephone company service
areas are frequently poor, even where
overall performance of the intermediate
provider appears acceptable. The
problems manifest themselves in
lengthy periods of dead air on the
calling party’s end after dialing a
number, audible ringing tones on the
calling party’s end when the called
party’s telephone never rings at all, false
busy signals, inaccurate intercept
messages, and the inability of one or
both parties to hear the other when the
call does go through. This causes rural
businesses to lose customers, cuts
families off from their relatives in rural
areas, and creates potential for
dangerous delays in public safety
communications in rural areas.
3. In this proceeding, we will consider
measures to improve the Commission’s
ability to monitor the delivery of longdistance calls to rural areas and aid
enforcement action in connection with
providers’ call-completion practices as
necessary. We seek comment on
reporting and data retention
requirements that would allow the
Commission to review a long distance
provider’s call performance to specific
areas. These measures would strengthen
the Commission’s ability to ensure a
reasonable and nondiscriminatory level
of service to rural areas. We also seek
comment on how to minimize the
burden of compliance with these
proposed rules, particularly for
originating providers whose call-routing
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
practices do not appear to cause
significant call-completion problems.
II. Background
4. In filings with the Commission and
in presentations at the Commission’s
October 18, 2011 workshop on rural call
routing and termination problems,
several entities identified a number of
rural call completion issues and asked
the Commission to address them
promptly. Trade associations that
represent rate-of-return carriers
(collectively, ‘‘rural associations’’) and
several state utility commissions
describe the call-termination issues
affecting rural areas as serious and
widespread. They emphasize that the
inability of businesses, consumers, and
government officials to receive calls
compromises the integrity and
reliability of the public switched
telephone network (PSTN) and
threatens the public safety, homeland
security, consumer welfare, and
economic well-being of rural America.
These entities claim that calltermination problems continue to
increase and that the result is the
‘‘effective disconnection of rural
consumers from many other parts of the
PSTN.’’
5. As evidence of the problem, rural
associations report that rate-of-return
carriers serving rural areas are reporting
an alarming increase in complaints from
their customers stating that longdistance calls and faxes are not reaching
them or that call quality is poor. Indeed,
these rural associations state that 80
percent of rural carriers responding to
one survey reported problems, and rural
customer reports of problems receiving
calls increased by more than 2000
percent in the twelve-month period
from April 2010 to March 2011. In May
2012, the rural associations conducted a
second call-completion study based on
over 7400 call attempts and reported
that, while there was some
improvement in rural areas from 2011 to
2012, the incompletion rate in rural
areas was still 13 times higher in rural
areas than in nonrural areas. In
November 2012, a third survey of rural
carriers indicated that the problems
with completing calls to rural areas
were continuing at an alarming rate.
6. Call completion problems appear to
occur particularly in rural areas served
by rate-of-return carriers, where the
costs that long-distance providers incur
to complete calls are generally higher
than in nonrural areas. To minimize call
termination charges, long-distance
providers often use intermediate
providers that offer to deliver calls to
specified terminating providers at
comparatively low cost, usually within
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
defined service quality parameters.
Rural associations suggest that the callcompletion problems may arise from the
manner in which originating providers
set up the signaling and routing of their
calls, and that many of these call routing
and termination problems can be
attributed to intermediate providers.
7. Previous Commission Actions. The
Commission has stated that carriers are
prohibited from blocking, choking,
reducing, or restricting traffic in any
way, including to avoid termination
charges. Noting that the ubiquity and
reliability of the nation’s
telecommunications network is of
paramount importance to the explicit
goals of the Act, the Wireline
Competition Bureau (Bureau) issued a
declaratory ruling in 2007 to clarify that
no carriers, including interexchange
carriers, may block, choke, reduce, or
restrict traffic in any way.
8. In September 2011, the
Commission created the Rural Call
Completion Task Force to address and
investigate the growing problems
associated with calls to rural customers.
On October 18, 2011, the Task Force
held a workshop to identify specific
causes of the problem and discuss
potential solutions with key
stakeholders.
9. In its November 2011 Order
reforming intercarrier compensation and
the Universal Service Fund, the
Commission again emphasized its
longstanding prohibition on call
blocking. The Commission reiterated
that call blocking has the potential to
degrade the reliability of the nation’s
telecommunications network and that
call blocking harms consumers. The
Commission also made clear that the
general prohibition on call blocking by
carriers applies to VoIP–PSTN traffic.
Finally, the Commission prohibited call
blocking by providers of interconnected
VoIP services and providers of ‘‘oneway’’ VoIP services.
10. In February 2012, the Wireline
Competition Bureau issued a
declaratory ruling to clarify the scope of
the Commission’s prohibition on
blocking, choking, reducing, or
restricting telephone traffic in response
to continued complaints about rural call
completion issues from rural
associations, state utility commissions,
and consumers. The 2012 Declaratory
Ruling made clear that rural call routing
practices that lead to call termination
and quality problems may violate the
prohibition against unjust and
unreasonable practices in section 201 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (the Act) or may violate the
carriers’ section 202 duty to refrain from
unjust or unreasonable discrimination
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
in practices, facilities, or services. The
2012 Declaratory Ruling also noted that
carriers may be subject to liability under
section 217 of the Act for the actions of
their agents or other persons acting for
or employed by the carriers. The Bureau
stated that the practices causing rural
call completion problems ‘‘adversely
affect the ubiquity and reliability of the
nation’s telecommunications network
and threaten commerce, public safety,
and the ability of consumers,
businesses, and public health and safety
officials in rural America to access and
use a reliable network.’’
11. In addition to conducting ongoing
investigations of several long-distance
providers, the Commission has also
been addressing daily operational
problems reported by rural customers
and carriers so that incoming longdistance calling to rural telephone
company customers is promptly
restored. We have established dedicated
avenues for rural customers and carriers
to inform the Commission about these
call completion problems. A web-based
complaint intake focuses on the rural
call completion problems of residential
and business customers, instructs them
on how to file complaints with the
Commission, and links to the
Commission’s standard 2000B
complaint form. A dedicated email
intake expedites the ability of rural
telephone companies to alert the
Commission of systemic problems
receiving the calls from a particular
originating long-distance provider and
facilitates provider-to-provider
resolution.
12. Other Actions. In December 2012,
the Oregon Public Utilities Commission
adopted additional Conditions of
Certificates of Authority requiring a
certificate holder to take reasonable
steps to ensure that it does not adopt or
perpetuate intrastate routing practices
that result in lower-quality service to an
exchange with higher terminating access
rates.
III. Discussion
13. There is ample evidence that rural
call completion problems are
widespread and serious. We are
dedicated to ensuring that all Americans
receive high-quality telephone service.
Although the Commission has stated
unequivocally that traffic may not be
blocked, choked, reduced, or restricted,
we have learned that carriers often do
not retain records that permit the
Commission to determine compliance
with these prohibitions. To that end, in
this NPRM we propose rules that would
help the Commission monitor
originating providers’ call-completion
performance and ensure that telephone
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21893
service to rural consumers is as reliable
as service to the rest of the country. In
essence, these proposed rules would
require facilities-based originating longdistance voice service providers to
collect and report to the Commission
data on call answer rates. For purposes
of this Notice, originating long-distance
voice service providers include local
exchange carriers, interexchange
carriers, commercial mobile radio
service (CMRS) providers, and
interconnected VoIP service providers.
We seek comment on whether these
proposed rules should apply to other
categories of providers as well, such as
one-way VoIP service providers, and on
the Commission’s authority to extend
these proposed rules to such providers.
We also welcome data explaining why
call answer rates might differ between
rural and nonrural areas and why any
differential may be reasonable.
14. We also propose a rule that would
prohibit both originating providers and
intermediate providers from causing
audible ringing to be sent to the caller
before the terminating provider has
signaled that the called party is being
alerted. We seek comment on whether
these proposed rules will help alleviate
rural call completion problems, or
whether the Commission should
consider different approaches, and, if
so, what those approaches are.
15. We recognize that even when calls
to rural areas in particular do get
answered, the communications quality
of the call may be so poor as to render
the communication between the calling
and called parties unsuccessful. While
we do not propose call communications
quality standards at this time, we will
continue to monitor the problem, and
we may revisit the issue in the future if
improvements in call answer rates and
signaling integrity do not result in
concomitant improvements in call
communications quality.
A. Data Reporting, Recordkeeping, and
Retention
16. Our processing of informal
complaints that have been filed with the
Commission concerning rural call
completion problems indicates that
some originating long-distance
providers collect and retain the call
history data that support detection of
problems with calls to rural areas.
However, we have also found that some
long-distance providers do not collect
and retain information on failed call
attempts that is necessary for
segregating the percentage of calls
failing to complete to rural areas from
all calls being carried to all destinations.
As a result, some long-distance
providers appear unable to analyze rural
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21894
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
call performance relative to overall
performance or to distinguish the
performance of intermediate providers
in delivering calls to rural areas.
Additionally, this lack of data has
impeded Enforcement Bureau
investigations.
17. Consequently, subject to certain
limitations and safe harbors discussed
below, we propose to adopt rules that
would require facilities-based
originating long-distance voice service
providers to collect and retain basic
information on call attempts and to
periodically undertake a basic call
completion summary analysis and
report the results to the Commission. If
the originating long-distance voice
service provider is not facilities based,
we propose to apply these obligations to
the first facilities-based provider in the
call-delivery chain, because the
facilities-based provider will have
access to the inaugural call detail
information.
18. Below, we seek comment on our
proposed rules, the types of carriers and
providers to be covered by these rules,
the general categories of call attempts
covered, the types of calls that should
be excluded, the information to be
collected on each call attempt covered,
and the length of time such information
should be retained. We also seek
comment on possible safe harbors that
would relieve providers of reporting
obligations and reduce their record
retention requirements.
19. Our authority for these reporting,
record keeping, and retention rules lies
in sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act:
call routing practices that lead to rural
call termination and quality problems
may violate the prohibition against
unjust and unreasonable practices in
section 201(b), or may violate carriers’
duty under section 202(a) to refrain
from unjust or unreasonable
discrimination in practices, facilities, or
services. Sections 218, 220(a), and 403
of the Act provide additional authority
for these proposed rules with regard to
carriers. To the extent that these
proposed rules would apply to VoIP
providers, we propose to exercise our
ancillary authority to the extent that
VoIP services are information services,
on the ground that such requirements
would be necessary for the Commission
to carry out its section 201(b) and 202(a)
obligations with regard to carriers. We
seek comment on this analysis and any
additional sources of possible authority,
such as section 403.
1. Proposed Reporting, Recordkeeping,
and Retention Requirements
20. Reporting Requirements. We
propose to adopt a rule requiring that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
facilities-based originating long-distance
providers measure the call answer rate
for each rural operating company
number (OCN) to which 100 or more
calls were attempted during the
calendar month for the categories of call
attempts identified below, and that
originating long-distance providers also
measure the overall call answer rate for
nonrural call attempts. We propose to
adopt a rule requiring that originating
long-distance providers submit in
electronic form the monthly call answer
rate for rural OCNs with 100 attempts or
more and the nonrural monthly overall
average to the Commission once per
calendar quarter. The data collection
and reporting requirements that we
propose would allow the Commission to
compare an originating provider’s
performance in delivering interstate and
intrastate long-distance calls to rural
local exchanges versus nonrural local
exchanges. We believe that it is
necessary to measure performance at the
individual rural telephone company
level, as identified by the OCN, to
ensure that poor performance to any
individual rural telephone company is
not masked, as it otherwise would be by
averaging together calls to all rural
telephone companies or averaging call
data for rural and nonrural areas.
21. We seek comment on our
proposed reporting requirements. Is the
proposed 100 call per month threshold
appropriate or, for example, should the
threshold be tied to a provider’s overall
number of call attempts, such as a
percentage of overall call attempts?
Should all call attempts be included, or
just those attempted in some peak
period such as between noon and 6:00
p.m. Eastern time? Are the proposed
monthly measurement and quarterly
reporting intervals appropriate? For
example, is the nature of chronic call
routing failures such that measurement
data analyzed monthly masks problems
that a weekly measurement would
capture? If the Commission adopts
quarterly reporting requirements, on
what dates should they be filed? We
seek comment on the benefits and
burdens associated with our proposed
reporting requirements. We seek
comment on whether the information
that will be provided should be treated
as confidential or be open to public
inspection.
22. Record Keeping and Retention. We
propose to adopt a rule requiring that
providers record information for each
long-distance call attempt they handle.
We propose that, in addition to calling
party number, called party number, and
date and time, the information recorded
on each call attempt include: (1)
Whether the call attempt was handed off
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to an intermediate provider and, if so,
which intermediate provider; (2)
whether the call attempt was going to a
rural carrier and, if so, which rural
carrier as identified by its OCN; (3)
whether the call attempt was interstate;
and (4) whether the call attempt was
answered. We propose that providers be
required to retain these call attempt
records in a readily retrievable form for
a period that includes the six most
recent complete calendar months.
23. We seek comment on our
proposed record-keeping and recordretention requirements. We also seek
comment generally on the long-distance
records and data that originating
providers currently collect in the
normal course of business, and to what
extent they already (1) capture and (2)
retain the information proposed. For
example, do originating providers
typically retain the information we
propose to be retained on each call
attempt, including on failed attempts?
We seek comment on the benefits and
burdens associated with collecting and
retaining information as described
above that is additional to currently
collected information. We seek
comment on whether recording and
retaining a statistically valid sample of
data could fulfill the purposes of data
retention and provide the basis for the
required reporting while being less
burdensome. Would a statistical sample
support enforcement action in
connection with a provider’s callcompletion practices?
24. Entities Covered By Proposed
Rules. As noted above, we propose to
adopt a rule requiring that if the
originating provider is not facilities
based, the record-keeping, retention,
and reporting requirements proposed in
this NPRM would apply to the first
facilities-based provider that is involved
in handling the call. In cases where the
first facilities-based provider serves
multiple non-facilities-based originating
providers, the facilities-based provider
should aggregate the call attempt
information for all such non-facilitiesbased providers into a single report. We
seek comment on this proposal. Does
limiting these proposed requirements to
facilities-based providers ensure that the
rules apply to the entity with the most
direct access to call records, thus
minimizing the burden of compliance?
Should the Commission also impose
record-keeping and reporting
requirements on intermediate
providers? If so, what types of recordkeeping and reporting requirements?
Would the burden of compliance be
lower for intermediate providers that
also provide originating service to end
users? We seek comment generally on
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
the benefits and burdens associated
with limiting our proposed
requirements to facilities-based
providers.
25. Categories of Call Attempts. For
purposes of this rulemaking, we propose
to categorize long-distance call attempts
according to call source type and
terminating provider type. With respect
to call source type, the provider subject
to these proposed rules will be either a
facilities-based originating long-distance
voice service provider or, if the
originating provider is not facilities
based, the first facilities-based long
distance service provider in the callcompletion chain. We propose that data
collection requirements cover, at a
minimum, the following sourcetermination categories of long-distance
call traffic: originating provider to rural
telephone company (including rural
CLEC), originating provider to nonrural
LEC (including nonrural CLEC), first
facilities-based provider to rural
telephone company (including rural
CLEC), and first facilities-based provider
to nonrural LEC (including nonrural
CLEC). We seek comment on whether
other categories of calls should also be
covered, such as calls to CMRS
subscribers, which do not normally
incur high termination access charges
on termination in rural areas and have
not been the subject of the same types
of complaints as calls to rural telephone
companies.
26. We seek comment on whether
these proposed categories are both
necessary and sufficient for purposes of
the data retention and reporting
described above. For example, should
some subcategories, such as traffic to
nonrural CLECs, be excluded? We note
that some providers may handle
substantial amounts of auto-dialer traffic
on behalf of retail business customers
who may have call completion
expectations and capacity requirements
that are different from those of
residential and business callers. Can
such auto-dialer traffic sources be
reliably identified, and if so, should
auto-dialer call attempts be excluded
from traffic sources? Our principal
objective is to compare a provider’s
rural and nonrural performance. Is it
thus reasonable to require providers that
can identify and exclude auto-dialer
traffic to do so, even if other providers
may not be able to do so? We are aware
that auto-dialers are also used to
distribute emergency alert notifications,
including across some rural areas. Can
emergency auto-dialer sources be
reliably identified, and if so, can and
should emergency auto-dialer traffic be
included even if other auto-dialer traffic
is excluded?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
27. Call Attempts That Can Be
Excluded. We propose to use a ‘‘call
answer rate’’ as the basic measure of call
completion performance. An ‘‘answered
call attempt’’ means a call attempt that
is answered by the called party,
including, for example, by voicemail,
answering machine, or fax machine. We
calculate a call answer rate as ‘‘the
number of call attempts that result in an
answer divided by the total number of
calls attempted, expressed as a
percentage.’’ In the following
paragraphs, we propose the types of call
attempts to be included and excluded
when calculating the call answer rate.
28. In the typical arrangement, an
intermediate provider must hand a call
back to the upstream provider if it
cannot expeditiously hand off the call
attempt downstream, e.g., to the
terminating provider. This is so the
upstream provider can attempt to
complete the call using another
intermediate provider or over its own
facilities. In order to avoid doublecounting such multiple attempts for the
same call, we propose that call attempts
that are handed back to the upstream
provider should be excluded from data
collection and reporting requirements.
We seek comment on whether it is
feasible and appropriate to exclude such
call attempts in view of the reporting
objective.
29. When a terminating provider is
successful or unsuccessful in
completing a call, it signals a ‘‘cause
value’’ giving a precise indication of the
event. Cause values can be classified
into three general categories indicating
the nature or origin of the event: Call
Completed, User, and Network. One
commonly occurring ‘‘User’’ cause is
‘‘unallocated number’’ (cause value 0),
which indicates that the caller has
dialed a properly formatted telephone
number, but that number itself is not
assigned. Excluding all call attempts
indicating that the user apparently
misdialed could mask call attempts that
actually failed or were dropped within
an intermediate provider’s network,
because there is anecdotal evidence to
suggest that calling parties sometimes
receive intercept messages that wrongly
indicate, for example, that the call
cannot be completed as dialed. We thus
propose that all call attempts to an
‘‘unallocated number’’ be retained. We
seek comment on this proposal.
Similarly, we have anecdotal evidence
that other ‘‘User’’ events, such as ‘‘user
busy,’’ ‘‘no user responding’’ (i.e., ring
no answer) or ‘‘number changed,’’
which should be signaled only by the
terminating provider, are sometimes
being signaled by intermediate
providers. Consequently, the most
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21895
reliable measure is whether the call
attempt is actually answered (‘‘call
completed’’ cause values 16 and 31);
excluding call attempts indicating
apparent user behavior such as ‘‘user
busy’’ or ‘‘user not responding’’ could
mask call attempts that actually failed or
were dropped within an intermediate
provider’s network. Thus we propose
that any call attempt not answered and
showing a ‘‘User’’ category release cause
code should be included in the total of
call attempts. We seek comment on this
proposal.
30. We seek comment on other types
of long-distance call attempts that
should be excluded from the categories
of call attempts covered. For example,
can calls to toll-free numbers be reliably
excluded? Should answered calls of
very short duration, such as less than
two seconds, be excluded? Are there
internal network test calls that are
readily identifiable and easily excluded?
2. Proposed Limitations on Application
of Reporting and Retention Rules
31. In order to lessen the burden of
compliance with these proposed rules,
we propose to require only those
originating long-distance providers and
other covered providers with more than
100,000 retail long-distance subscribers
(business or residential) to retain the
basic information on call attempts and
to periodically report the summary
analysis of that information to the
Commission. We seek comment on this
proposal. Would the exclusion of
smaller providers compromise the
Commission’s ability to monitor rural
call completion problems effectively?
32. We also propose two safe harbors
by which providers can avoid or reduce
their obligations under the data
reporting and retention obligations that
we propose in this NPRM. The purpose
of these safe harbors is to minimize the
burden of compliance without
compromising the goals of these rules.
We seek comment on the proposed safe
harbors, and whether they should
include safeguards to ensure that
providers’ call-completion performance
does not suffer. For example, should we
delegate to the Wireline Competition
Bureau authority to revoke a provider’s
eligibility for these safe harbors if the
Commission receives a certain number
of complaints about that provider’s callcompletion performance? If so, what
would be an appropriate number of
complaints or other trigger to justify
revoking eligibility for the safe harbors?
33. Managing Intermediate Provider
Safe Harbor. Our first proposed safe
harbor would relieve a provider of all
call completion data retention and
reporting obligations proposed in this
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21896
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
NPRM. To qualify for this safe harbor,
a provider must certify on an annual
basis that it restricts by contract directly
connected intermediate providers to no
more than one additional intermediate
provider in the call path before the call
reaches the terminating provider. The
provider must further certify that any
nondisclosure agreement with an
intermediate provider permits the
originating provider to reveal the
identity of the intermediate provider to
the Commission and to the rural
carrier(s) whose incoming long-distance
calls are affected by the intermediate
provider’s performance. Finally, the
provider must certify that it has a
process in place to monitor the
performance of its intermediate
providers in completing calls to
individual rural telephone companies as
identified by Operating Carrier Number.
34. We seek comment on this
proposed safe harbor. For example, will
restricting the number of intermediate
providers in the call path from a retail
customer improve the originating
provider’s control sufficiently to
maintain rural call answer rates that are
on par with nonrural rates? Is the
restriction to no more than two
intermediate providers between the
originating provider and the terminating
provider the appropriate number? Will
providing the identity of the
intermediate provider that is affecting
the incoming long-distance calls assist
the terminating rural provider in
troubleshooting with other originating
providers?
35. Monitoring Performance Safe
Harbor. Our second proposed safe
harbor would subject a provider to a
reduced call-completion data retention
obligation and relieve the provider of all
reporting obligations proposed in this
Notice. To qualify for this safe harbor,
a provider must certify on an annual
basis that for each of the previous 12
months, it has met the following
performance standard: the average call
answer rate for all rural carriers to
which the provider attempted more than
100 calls in a month was no more than
2 percent less than the average call
answer rate for all calls it placed to
nonrural carriers in the same month,
and the call answer rates for 95 percent
of those rural carriers to which the
provider attempted more than 100 calls
were no more than 3 percent below the
average rural call answer rate. Finally,
the provider must certify that it has a
process in place to investigate its
performance in completing calls to
individual rural telephone companies
(as identified by Operating Carrier
Number) for which the call answer rate
is more than 3 percent below the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
average of the rural call answer rate for
all rural telephone companies to which
it attempted more than 100 calls.
Providers that certify compliance with
this safe harbor would be relieved of
any quarterly reporting obligation and
would be required to retain call attempt
data in readily retrievable form for a
reduced period of three months.
36. We seek comment on this
proposed safe harbor. Are these
proposed thresholds reasonable and
appropriate? Are calls to business
customers more likely to be answered
than calls to residential customers, and
is the percentage of calls to business
customers in nonrural area higher than
in rural areas such that a call answer
rate differential is appropriate, and if so,
are the differentials proposed above
reasonable? Is the nature of chronic call
routing failures such that measurement
data analyzed monthly masks
significant problems? Would it be more
appropriate to set a threshold based on
weekly or other measurements? Is three
months of past information sufficient if
any investigation of rural call
completion or service quality issues is
deemed necessary, notwithstanding that
a particular type of safe harbor
certification has been made?
3. Duration of Proposed Reporting and
Retention Rules
37. In the USF/ICC Transformation
Order, the Commission adopted rules
that may ultimately address the root
causes of many rural call completion
problems. In particular, in
comprehensively reforming intercarrier
compensation, the Commission adopted
a bill-and-keep methodology for all
intercarrier traffic, and adopted a
transition plan to gradually reduce most
termination charges, which, at the end
of the transition, should eliminate the
primary incentives for cost-saving
practices that appear to be undermining
the reliability of rural telephone service.
38. NARUC has argued, and we agree,
that there is a need to limit the harmful
effect of these rural call completion
problems on consumers in the near
term. Accordingly, we propose these
rules to provide prompt relief to rural
consumers who are receiving inferior
telephone service. We seek comment,
however, on whether the rules we
propose today should expire at the end
of the intercarrier compensation reform
transition period or some other point.
Would a sunset provision reduce the
burden of compliance? Would rural
consumers be sufficiently protected
from call completion problems if the
rules expire at that time? If not, we seek
comment on alternative sunset dates, or
whether the requirements should
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
remain in effect until the Commission
modifies the relevant rules.
B. Proposed Ring Signaling Integrity
Requirements
39. A major complaint by rural
representatives regarding call
termination problems is ‘‘false audible
ringing,’’ in which the long-distance
caller hears prolonged ringing—and so
finally hangs up—before the rural phone
he called has rung at all. This appears
to be relatively new as a widespread
phenomenon, and is brought about
when the originating provider or an
intermediate provider prematurely
triggers the audible ring tone to the
caller before the call setup request has
actually reached the terminating rural
provider. An originating provider or
intermediate provider may do this to
mask the silence that would otherwise
be heard by the caller during excessive
call setup time. Moreover, once an
intermediate provider provides a ringing
indication to an originating provider
while still processing the call, the call
cannot be handed back to the preceding
provider for an alternate route.
40. This premature audible ringing
departs from the long-established
telephony signaling practice (and enduser expectation) of audible ringing
indication being provided to the caller
only after the terminating provider
affirmatively signals that the called line
is free and the called party is being
alerted. The net effect of this practice is
to unfairly make it appear to the caller
that the terminating rural provider is
responsible for the call failure, instead
of the originating provider. Complaints
filed with the Commission indicate that
this misperception is often shared by
the rural called party, who may
eventually hear his phone ringing and
answer after the calling party has finally
hung up.
41. The decision by some providers to
deviate from traditional industry
practice is likely to harm consumers in
rural areas. We therefore propose a new
rule that would prohibit both
originating providers and intermediate
providers from causing audible ringing
to be sent to the caller before the
terminating provider has signaled that
the called party is being alerted.
Originating providers and intermediate
providers must also convey audio tones
and announcements sent by the
terminating provider to the calling
party. This proposal would codify a
widely accepted industry practice that
has in the past proven effective. We
expect that the proposed rule will
improve the ability to identify the
provider responsible for service failures,
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
without imposing unduly burdensome
costs.
42. Our authority for this ring
signaling integrity rule lies in section
201(b) of the Act: it is an unreasonable
practice to send misleading ring sounds
to customers making long-distance
phone calls, as it may cause them to
believe that the called party is not
answering when in fact the call has not
yet been connected or has been
connected for a shorter time than the
ring sounds would lead the calling party
to believe. To the extent that this
proposed rule would apply to VoIP
providers, we propose to exercise our
ancillary authority to the extent that
VoIP services are information services,
on the ground that such requirements
would be necessary for the Commission
to carry out its section 201(b)
obligations with regard to carriers. We
seek comment on this analysis and any
additional sources of possible authority.
43. We invite comment on this
proposed rule and on whether it is
consistent with prior telephony industry
practice and telephone user expectation
with respect to the meaning of audible
ringing. We seek comment on whether
the proposed rule is consistent with
recommended industry practice for
TDM- and IP-based telephony
interworking. We seek comment on the
benefits and burdens associated with
this proposed rule. We also seek
comment on the need to extend these
requirements to non-interconnected
VoIP providers and on the
Commission’s authority to do so.
Finally, we seek comment on whether,
for technical reasons, any aspect of this
proposed rule should be applied
differently to originating CMRS carriers.
IV. Procedural Matters
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
44. This document contains proposed
new information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part
of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, invites the general
public and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) to comment on the
information collection requirements
contained in this document, as required
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4),
we seek specific comment on how we
might ‘‘further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25
employees.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
B. Regulatory Flexibility
45. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, the
Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
for this notice of proposed rulemaking,
of the possible significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this notice of proposed
rulemaking. 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 notice of proposed
rulemaking. The Commission will send
a copy of the notice of proposed
rulemaking, including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.
In addition, the notice of proposed
rulemaking and IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal
Register.
C. Ex Parte Presentations
46. The proceeding this NPRM
initiates shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance
with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
Persons making ex parte presentations
must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with
§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
§ 1.49(f) or for which the Commission
has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21897
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. 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
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM). Written 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 NPRM. The
Commission will send a copy of the
NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). In
addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
2. The NPRM seeks comment on a
variety of issues relating to possible
remedies for the problem of low call
completion rates and poor overall call
quality to rural America. As discussed
in the NPRM, the proposed rules will
provide an incentive for originating long
distance providers to more closely
monitor their call completion
performance in rural areas and more
actively manage their dealings with
intermediate providers, while also
providing more clarity to consumers in
identifying the carriers responsible for
call completion and quality problems.
The ubiquity and reliability of the
nation’s telecommunications network
are of paramount importance to the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, and problems adversely
affecting that ubiquity and reliability
threaten commerce, public safety, and
the ability of consumers, businesses,
and public health and safety officials in
rural America to access and use a
reliable network. In order to confront
these challenges, the NPRM asks for
comment in a number of specific areas.
1. Data Reporting and Retention
Requirements
3. The NPRM first proposes that
facilities-based originating long-distance
voice service providers collect and
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21898
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
retain basic information on call attempts
and report to the Commission data on
call answer rates. The NPRM proposes
that originating long-distance voice
service providers include local
exchange carriers, interexchange
carriers, commercial mobile radio
service (CMRS) providers, and
interconnected VoIP service providers,
and seeks comment on whether these
proposed requirements should apply to
other categories of providers, such as
one-way VoIP service providers, and on
the Commission’s authority to extend
the proposed rules to such providers.
The NPRM proposes to apply these
obligations to the first facilities-based
provider in the call-delivery chain when
the originating long-distance voice
service provider is not facilities based.
The NPRM also seeks comment offering
data to explain any differential in call
answer rates between rural and nonrural
areas, and why such a differential may
be reasonable.
4. Specifically, the NPRM proposes to
adopt a rule requiring that facilitiesbased originating long-distance
providers measure the call answer rate
for each rural operating company
number (OCN) to which 100 or more
calls are attempted in a calendar month,
as well as the overall call answer rate for
nonrural call attempts, and to retain
those records for a period including the
six most recent complete calendar
months. The NPRM seeks comment on
these proposed requirements, including
whether and to what extent originating
providers collect and retain these sorts
of call attempt records in the ordinary
course of business, as well as on the
benefits and burdens these data
collection and retention requirements
might produce.
5. The NPRM further proposes to
adopt a rule requiring that originating
long-distance providers report to the
Commission the monthly call answer
rate for rural OCNs with 100 attempts or
more and the nonrural monthly overall
average call answer rate once per
calendar quarter in order that the
Commission can compare an originating
provider’s performance in delivering
interstate and intrastate long-distance
calls to rural local exchanges versus
nonrural local exchanges. The NPRM
seeks comment on this reporting
requirement, including whether the 100call per month threshold is appropriate
and whether a weekly reporting
requirement would provide more useful
data than the proposed monthly
requirement, the benefits and burdens
the proposed reporting requirements
might produce, and whether the
information reported should be treated
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
as confidential or open to public
inspection.
6. The NPRM also seeks comment on
application of the proposed rules, if the
originating provider is not facilities
based, to the first facilities-based
provider in the call chain. The NPRM
seeks comment on whether limiting the
proposed requirements to facilitiesbased providers ensures that the entities
collecting and reporting this data are
those with the most direct access to call
records, thus minimizing the burden of
compliance. The NPRM also seeks
comment on whether the proposed
rules, or some variation thereof, should
also be applied to intermediate
providers and whether the burden of
compliance would be lower for
intermediate providers that also provide
originating service to end users. The
NPRM seeks comment on the burdens
and benefits associated with limiting the
application of the proposed rules to
facilities-based providers.
7. The NPRM proposes to adopt a rule
requiring that providers record
information for each long-distance call
attempt they handle. In addition to
calling party number, called party
number, date and time, the NPRM
proposes that the information recorded
on each call attempt include: (1)
Whether the call attempt was handed off
to an intermediate provider and, if so,
which intermediate provider; (2)
whether the call attempt was going to a
rural carrier and, if so, which rural
carrier as identified by its OCN; (3)
whether the call attempt was interstate;
and (4) whether the call attempt was
answered. The NPRM proposes that
providers be required to retain these call
attempt records in a readily retrievable
form for a period that includes the six
most recent complete calendar months.
The NPRM seeks comment on these
proposed record-keeping and record
retention requirements, on what longdistance records and data that
originating providers currently collect
in the normal course of business, and on
the benefits and burdens associated
with collecting and retaining the
information proposed.
8. The NPRM proposes to categorize
long-distance call attempts according to
call source type and terminating
provider type. These proposed sourcetermination categories of long-distance
call traffic include, at a minimum:
originating provider to rural telephone
company (including rural CLEC),
originating provider to nonrural LEC
(including nonrural CLEC), first
facilities-based provider to rural
telephone company (including rural
CLEC), and first facilities-based provider
to nonrural LEC (including nonrural
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
CLEC). The NPRM seeks comment on
whether these categories of call attempts
are sufficient for the proposed rules, and
also asks whether other categories of
calls should be included, such as calls
to CMRS subscribers.
9. The NRPM proposes to exclude
from the proposed data collection and
reporting requirements call attempts
that are handed back to an upstream
provider for further attempts at
completion in order to avoid doublecounting such multiple attempts for the
same call. The NPRM seeks comment on
this proposal. The NPRM also proposed
to include in the data collection and
reporting requirements all call attempts
not answered that show a ‘‘User’’
category release cause code in response
to concerns that excluding such call
attempts could mask call attempts that
actually failed or were dropped within
an intermediate provider’s network. The
NPRM seeks comment on the
appropriateness and efficacy of these
proposals, and on whether other types
of long-distance call attempts should be
excluded.
2. Proposed Limitations on Application
of Reporting and Retention Rules
10. The NPRM proposes to apply
these reporting and retention
requirements only to covered providers
with more than 100,000 retail longdistance subscribers (business or
residential) in order to reduce the
burden of compliance with the
proposed rules. It seeks comment on
this proposal, and on whether the
exclusion of smaller providers would
compromise the Commission’s ability to
effectively monitor rural call completion
problems.
11. The NPRM also proposes two safe
harbors by which covered providers can
avoid or reduce their reporting and
retention obligations under the
proposed rules in order to minimize the
burden of compliance without
compromising the goals of the proposed
rules. The NPRM seeks comment on the
proposed safe harbors, whether the
proposed safe harbors will achieve that
purpose, and whether the safe harbors
should include safeguards to ensure that
providers’ call-completion performance
does not suffer. The NPRM seeks
comment on whether the Commission
should delegate authority to the
Wireline Competition Bureau to revoke
a provider’s eligibility for these safe
harbors if the Commission receives a
certain number of complaints about that
provider’s call-completion performance.
12. The NPRM proposes in the first
safe harbor to relieve a covered provider
of the proposed reporting and data
retention requirements if it certifies
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
annually that it restricts by contract
directly connected intermediate
providers to no more than one
additional intermediate provider in the
call path before the call reaches the
terminating provider. This proposed
safe harbor also requires a provider to
certify that any nondisclosure
agreement with an intermediate
provider permits the originating
provider to reveal the intermediate
provider’s identity to the Commission
and to any rural carrier whose incoming
long-distance traffic is affected by the
intermediate provider’s performance.
Finally, the first proposed safe harbor
requires the covered provider to certify
that it has a process in place to monitor
the performance of its intermediate
providers in completing calls to
individual rural telephone companies as
identified by Operating Carrier Number.
13. The NRPM seeks comment on this
proposed safe harbor, including whether
restricting the number of intermediate
providers in the call path from a retail
customer will improve the originating
provider’s control sufficiently to
maintain rural call answer rates that are
on par with nonrural rates, whether the
restriction to no more than two
intermediate providers between the
originating provider and the terminating
provider is the appropriate number, and
whether disclosing the identity of the
intermediate provider will allow
originating and terminating providers to
troubleshoot more effectively.
14. The NRPM proposes in the second
safe harbor to reduce to three months a
covered provider’s record retention
obligations and eliminate its reporting
obligations if it certifies annually that
for each of the preceding 12 months: (1)
its average call answer rate for all rural
carriers to which the provider attempted
more than 100 calls in a month was no
more than 2 percent less than the
average call answer rate for all calls it
placed to nonrural carriers in the same
month; and (2) the call answer rates for
95 percent of those rural carriers to
which it attempted more than 100 calls
were no more than 3 percent below the
average rural call answer rate. The
provider must also certify that it has a
process in place to investigate its
performance in completing calls to
individual rural telephone companies
(as identified by Operating Carrier
Number) for which the call answer rate
is more than 3 percent below the
average of the rural call answer rate for
all rural telephone companies to which
it attempted more than 100 calls.
15. The NPRM seeks comment on this
second proposed safe harbor, including
whether the second proposed safe
harbor’s proposed thresholds are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
reasonable and appropriate, whether the
safe harbor should make some
allowance for any potential difference in
call answer rates between residential
and business customers, whether a
weekly measurement requirement
would reveal call-completion problems
that a monthly measurement would
mask, and whether three months of past
information is sufficient if any
investigation of rural call completion or
service quality issues is deemed
necessary.
16. The NPRM also seeks comment on
whether the rules proposed should
expire at the end of the intercarrier
compensation reform transition period
or some other point in view of the
possibility that intercarrier
compensation reform should eliminate
the primary incentives for cost-saving
practices that appear to be undermining
the reliability of rural telephone service.
The NPRM seeks comment on whether
a sunset provision would reduce the
burden of compliance, whether rural
consumers would be sufficiently
protected from call completion
problems if the rules expire at that time,
alternative sunset dates, and whether
the proposed requirements should
remain in effect until the Commission
modifies the relevant rules.
3. Proposed Ring Signaling Integrity
Requirements
17. The NPRM proposes a new rule
that would prohibit both originating and
intermediate providers from causing
audible ringing to be sent to the caller
before the terminating provider has
signaled that the called party is being
alerted. The proposed rule also requires
originating providers to convey audio
tones and announcements sent by the
terminating provider to the calling
party. The NPRM seeks comment on
this proposed rule, including whether it
is consistent with prior telephony
industry practice, telephone user
expectation with respect to the meaning
of audible ringing, and recommended
industry practice for TDM- and IP-based
telephony interworking. The NPRM also
seeks comment on the benefits and
burdens associated with this proposed
rule. Finally, the NPRM seeks comment
on the need to extend these
requirements to non-interconnected
VoIP providers, including the
Commission’s authority to do so, and on
whether, for technical reasons, any
aspect of this proposed rule should be
applied differently to originating CMRS
carriers.
B. Legal Basis
18. The legal basis for any action that
may be taken pursuant to the NPRM is
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21899
contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201, 202,
218, 220(a), and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
201, 202, 218, 220(a), 403.
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
19. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rules, if adopted. 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 smallbusiness 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 SBA.
20. Small Businesses. Nationwide,
there are a total of approximately 27.9
million small businesses, according to
the SBA.
21. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which
consists of all such companies having
1,500 or fewer employees Census data
for 2007 shows that there were 31,996
establishments that operated that year.
Of those 31,996, 1,818 operated with
more than 100 employees, and 30,178
operated with fewer than 100
employees. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms can be
considered small.
22. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to
local exchange services. The closest
applicable size standard under SBA
rules is for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. Under that size standard, such
a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. According to
Commission data, Census data for 2007
shows that there were 31,996
establishments that operated that year.
Of those 31,996, 1,818 operated with
more than 100 employees, and 30,178
operated with fewer than 100
employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most
providers of local exchange service are
small entities that may be affected by
the rules and policies proposed in the
NPRM.
23. Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers (incumbent LECs). Neither the
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21900
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a size standard for small businesses
specifically applicable to incumbent
local exchange services. The closest
applicable size standard under SBA
rules is for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. Under that size standard, such
a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. According to
Commission data, 1,307 carriers
reported that they were incumbent local
exchange service providers. Of these
1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have
1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have
more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most providers of
incumbent local exchange service are
small businesses that may be affected by
rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
24. We have included small
incumbent LECs in this present RFA
analysis. As noted above, a ‘‘small
business’’ under the RFA is one that,
inter alia, meets the pertinent small
business size standard (e.g., a telephone
communications business having 1,500
or fewer employees), and ‘‘is not
dominant in its field of operation.’’ The
SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that,
for RFA purposes, small incumbent
LECs are not dominant in their field of
operation because any such dominance
is not ‘‘national’’ in scope. We have
therefore included small incumbent
LECs in this RFA analysis, although we
emphasize that this RFA action has no
effect on Commission analyses and
determinations in other, non-RFA
contexts.
25. Competitive Local Exchange
Carriers (competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs),
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
Other Local Service Providers. Neither
the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size
standard specifically for these service
providers. The appropriate size standard
under SBA rules is for the category
Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. According to Commission
data, 1,442 carriers reported that they
were engaged in the provision of either
competitive local exchange services or
competitive access provider services. Of
these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186
have more than 1,500 employees. In
addition, 17 carriers have reported that
they are Shared-Tenant Service
Providers, and all 17 are estimated to
have 1,500 or fewer employees. In
addition, 72 carriers have reported that
they are Other Local Service Providers.
Of the 72, seventy have 1,500 or fewer
employees and two have more than
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most
providers of competitive local exchange
service, competitive access providers,
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
Other Local Service Providers are small
entities that may be affected by rules
adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
26. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to
interexchange services. The closest
applicable size standard under SBA
rules is for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. Under that size standard, such
a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. According to
Commission data, 359 companies
reported that their primary
telecommunications service activity was
the provision of interexchange services.
Of these 359 companies, an estimated
317 have 1,500 or fewer employees and
42 have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of
interexchange service providers are
small entities that may be affected by
rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
27. Prepaid Calling Card Providers.
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business size
standard specifically for prepaid calling
card providers. The appropriate size
standard under SBA rules is for the
category Telecommunications Resellers.
Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2007 show
that 1,523 firms provided resale services
during that year. Of that number, 1,522
operated with fewer than 1000
employees and one operated with more
than 1,000. Thus, under this category
and the associated small business size
standard, the majority of these prepaid
calling card providers can be considered
small entities. According to Commission
data, 193 carriers have reported that
they are engaged in the provision of
prepaid calling cards. Of these, an
estimated all 193 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and none have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority
of prepaid calling card providers are
small entities that may be affected by
rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
28. Local Resellers. The SBA has
developed a small business size
standard for the category of
Telecommunications Resellers. Under
that size standard, such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
Census data for 2007 show that 1,523
firms provided resale services during
that year. Of that number, 1,522
operated with fewer than 1000
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
employees and one operated with more
than 1,000. Thus, under this category
and the associated small business size
standard, the majority of these local
resale providers can be considered small
entities. According to Commission data,
213 carriers have reported that they are
engaged in the provision of local resale
services. Of these, an estimated 211
have 1,500 or fewer employees and two
have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of local
resellers are small entities that may be
affected by rules adopted pursuant to
the NPRM.
29. Toll Resellers. The SBA has
developed a small business size
standard for the category of
Telecommunications Resellers. Under
that size standard, such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
Census data for 2007 show that 1,523
firms provided resale services during
that year. Of that number, 1,522
operated with fewer than 1000
employees and one operated with more
than 1,000. Thus, under this category
and the associated small business size
standard, the majority of these toll
resale providers can be considered small
entities. According to Commission data,
881 carriers have reported that they are
engaged in the provision of toll resale
services. Of these, an estimated 857
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 24
have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of toll
resellers are small entities that may be
affected by rules adopted pursuant to
the NPRM.
30. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a size standard for small businesses
specifically applicable to Other Toll
Carriers. This category includes toll
carriers that do not fall within the
categories of interexchange carriers,
operator service providers, prepaid
calling card providers, satellite service
carriers, or toll resellers. The closest
applicable size standard under SBA
rules is for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. Under that size standard, such
a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. Census data for 2007
shows that there were 31,996
establishments that operated that year.
Of those 31,996, 1,818 operated with
more than 100 employees, and 30,178
operated with fewer than 100
employees. Thus, under this category
and the associated small business size
standard, the majority of Other Toll
Carriers can be considered small.
According to Commission data, 284
companies reported that their primary
telecommunications service activity was
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
the provision of other toll carriage. Of
these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and five have more
than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that most
Other Toll Carriers are small entities
that may be affected by the rules and
policies adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
31. Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007,
the SBA has recognized wireless firms
within this new, broad, economic
census category. Prior to that time, such
firms were within the now-superseded
categories of Paging and Cellular and
Other Wireless Telecommunications.
Under the present and prior categories,
the SBA has deemed a wireless business
to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For this category, census
data for 2007 show that there were
11,163 establishments that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 10,791
establishments had employment of 999
or fewer employees and 372 had
employment of 1000 employees or
more. Thus, under this category and the
associated small business size standard,
the Commission estimates that the
majority of wireless telecommunications
carriers (except satellite) are small
entities that may be affected by our
proposed action.
32. Similarly, according to
Commission data, 413 carriers reported
that they were engaged in the provision
of wireless telephony, including cellular
service, Personal Communications
Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile
Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of
these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and 152 have more
than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that
approximately half or more of these
firms can be considered small. Thus,
using available data, we estimate that
the majority of wireless firms can be
considered small.
33. Cable and Other Program
Distribution. Since 2007, these services
have been defined within the broad
economic census category of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers; that
category is defined as follows: ‘‘This
industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in operating and/or
providing access to transmission
facilities and infrastructure that they
own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using
wired telecommunications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies.’’ The SBA has developed
a small business size standard for this
category, which is: All such firms
having 1,500 or fewer employees.
Census data for 2007 shows that there
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
were 31,996 establishments that
operated that year. Of those 31,996,
1,818 operated with more than 100
employees, and 30,178 operated with
fewer than 100 employees. Thus, under
this size standard, the majority of firms
offering cable and other program
distribution services can be considered
small and may be affected by rules
adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
34. Cable Companies and Systems.
The Commission has developed its own
small business size standards, for the
purpose of cable rate regulation. Under
the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small cable
company’’ is one serving 400,000 or
fewer subscribers, nationwide. Industry
data indicate that, of 1,076 cable
operators nationwide, all but eleven are
small under this size standard. In
addition, under the Commission’s rules,
a ‘‘small system’’ is a cable system
serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.
Industry data indicate that, of 6,635
systems nationwide, 5,802 systems have
under 10,000 subscribers, and an
additional 302 systems have 10,000–
19,999 subscribers. Thus, under this
second size standard, most cable
systems are small and may be affected
by rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
35. All Other Telecommunications.
The Census Bureau defines this industry
as including ‘‘establishments primarily
engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as
satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation.
This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in
providing satellite terminal stations and
associated facilities connected with one
or more terrestrial systems and capable
of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from,
satellite systems. Establishments
providing Internet services or Voice
over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services
via client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this
industry.’’ The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for this
category; that size standard is $30.0
million or less in average annual
receipts. According to Census Bureau
data for 2007, there were 2,623 firms in
this category that operated for the entire
year. Of these, 2478 establishments had
annual receipts of under $10 million
and 145 establishments had annual
receipts of $10 million or more.
Consequently, we estimate that the
majority of these firms are small entities
that may be affected by our action.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21901
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
36. In the NPRM, the Commission
proposes to require covered providers to
report to the Commission the monthly
call answer rate to each rural OCN to
which 100 or more calls were attempted
during the calendar month and the
nonrural monthly overall average once
per calendar quarter. Compliance with
these reporting obligations may affect
small entities, and may include new
administrative processes.
37. In the NPRM, the Commission
also proposes a rule requiring that an
originating facilities-based provider or
the first facilities-based provider in the
call path record for each long-distance
call it attempts, in addition to calling
party number, called party number, date
and time: (1) Whether the call attempt
was handed off to an intermediate
provider and, if so, which intermediate
provider; (2) whether the call attempt
was going to a rural carrier and, if so,
which rural carrier as identified by its
OCN; (3) whether the call attempt was
interstate; and (4) whether the call
attempt was answered. The Commission
also proposes to require these providers
to retain these records for a period
including the six most recent calendar
months. Compliance with these
reporting obligations may affect small
entities, and may include new
administrative processes. We note
parenthetically that in the NPRM, the
Commission seeks comment on the
benefits and burdens of these proposals,
and on whether the categories of records
to be retained are normally collected in
the ordinary course of business.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered
38. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, specifically
small business, 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 and reporting requirements
under the rules for such 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 such small entities.’’
39. The Commission is aware that
some of the proposals under
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
21902
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
consideration will impact small entities
by imposing costs and administrative
burdens. For this reason, the NPRM
proposes a number of measures to
minimize or eliminate the costs and
burdens generated by compliance with
the proposed rules.
40. First, The NPRM proposes to
require only those originating longdistance providers and other covered
providers with more than 100,000 retail
long-distance subscribers (business or
residential) to retain the basic
information on call attempts and to
periodically report the summary
analysis of that information to the
Commission.
41. The NPRM proposes two safe
harbor provisions that could reduce the
economic impact on small entities. In
the first safe harbor, the NPRM proposes
to relieve covered providers of their
reporting and retention obligations if
they certify that: They restrict by
contract directly connected intermediate
providers to no more than one
additional intermediate provider in the
call path before the call reaches the
terminating provider; any nondisclosure
agreement with an intermediate
provider permits the originating
provider to reveal the intermediate
provider’s identity to the Commission
and to any rural carrier whose incoming
long-distance traffic is affected by the
intermediate provider’s performance;
and they have a process in place to
monitor the performance of their
intermediate providers in completing
calls to individual rural telephone
companies as identified by Operating
Carrier Number.
42. In the second safe harbor, the
NPRM also proposes to reduce to three
months a covered provider’s record
retention obligations and eliminate its
reporting obligations if it certifies
annually that for each of the preceding
12 months: (1) Its average call answer
rate for all rural carriers to which the
provider attempted more than 100 calls
in a month was no more than 2 percent
less than the average call answer rate for
all calls it placed to nonrural carriers in
the same month; and (2) the call answer
rates for 95 percent of those rural
carriers to which it attempted more than
100 calls were no more than 3 percent
below the average rural call answer rate.
A covered provider must also certify
that it has a process in place to
investigate its performance in
completing calls to individual rural
telephone companies (as identified by
Operating Carrier Number) for which
the call answer rate is more than 3
percent below the average of the rural
call answer rate for all rural telephone
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
companies to which it attempted more
than 100 calls.
43. In the NPRM, the Commission
also seeks comment on whether the
proposed rules should include a sunset
provision to account for the possibility
that reforms to the intercarrier
compensation rules may alleviate many
of the rural call completion problems
addressed in the NPRM. Such a sunset
provision could limit the costs and
burdens of compliance with the
proposed rules by establishing an end
date for those costs and burdens.
44. The Commission expects to
consider the economic impact on small
entities, as identified in comments filed
in response to the NPRM, in reaching its
final conclusions and taking action in
this proceeding. The proposed ring
signaling integrity requirements in the
NPRM could have an economic impact
on both small and large entities.
However, the Commission believes that
any impact of such requirements is
outweighed by the accompanying
benefits to the public and to the
operation and efficiency of the long
distance industry.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
None.
V. Ordering Clauses
45. Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201, 202, 218, 220(a),
and 403 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152,
154(i), 201, 202, 218, 220(a), 403, this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
adopted.
46. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, SHALL SEND a
copy of this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 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.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 64 as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PART 64— MISCELLANEOUS RULES
RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
1. The authority citation for part 64
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k);
403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104–104, 110 Stat.
56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222,
225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, and the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act
of 2012, Pub. L. 112–96, unless otherwise
noted.
2. Add subpart V to part 64 to read as
follows:
■
Subpart V—Data Retention and
Reporting of Call Answer Rates
Affecting Long Distance Telephone
Calls to Rural Areas
Sec.
64.2101 Definitions.
64.2103 Retention of call attempt records.
64.2105 Report of call answer rates.
64.2107 Exceptions from retention and
reporting requirements.
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
202(a), 220(a), 403.
§ 64.2101
Definitions.
(a) Answered call. The term
‘‘answered call’’ means a call that is
answered by the called party, including
by voicemail service, facsimile machine
or answering machine.
(b) Attempted call. The term
‘‘attempted call’’ means a call that
results in transmission by the reporting
entity toward the terminating provider
of the initial call setup message,
regardless of the voice call signaling and
transmission technology used.
(c) Call answer rate. The term ‘‘call
answer rate’’ means the number of
attempted calls that result in an
answered call divided by the total
number of attempted calls, expressed as
a percentage.
(d) Facilities-based provider. The term
‘‘facilities-based provider’’ excludes
providers that do not originate long
distance calls using their own
equipment and includes interconnected
VoIP providers, for purposes of this
part.
(e) Intermediate provider. The term
‘‘intermediate provider’’ has the same
meaning as in § 64.1600(f).
(f) Long distance voice service. The
term ‘‘long distance voice service’’
includes interstate inter-LATA,
intrastate inter-LATA, interstate
interexchange, intrastate interexchange,
inter-MTA interstate and inter-MTA
intrastate voice services.
(g) Operating company number
(OCN). The term ‘‘operating company
number’’ means a four-place
alphanumeric code that uniquely
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
identifies a provider of local
telecommunications service.
(h) Originating long distance voice
service provider (originating provider).
The term ‘‘originating long distance
voice service provider’’ or ‘‘originating
provider’’ includes a local exchange
carrier as defined in § 64.4001(d), an
interexchange carrier as defined in
§ 64.4001(e), a commercial mobile radio
service provider as defined in § 20.3 of
this chapter, and an interconnected
voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
provider as defined in 47 U.S.C.
153(25).
(i) Rural CLEC. The term ‘‘rural
CLEC’’ has the same meaning as in
§ 61.26(a)(6) of this chapter.
(j) Rural OCN. The term ‘‘rural OCN’’
means an operating carrier number that
uniquely identifies a rural telephone
company. The term ‘‘nonrural OCN’’
means an operating carrier number that
does not identify a rural telephone
company.
(k) Rural telephone company. The
term ‘‘rural telephone company’’ has the
same meaning as in § 51.5 of this
chapter.
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 64.2103
records.
Retention of call attempt
Except as described in § 64.2107, an
originating long distance voice service
provider (or first facilities-based
provider when the originating provider
is not facilities-based) shall retain
records of attempted calls in a readily
retrievable form for a period that
includes the six (6) most recent
complete calendar months:
(a) Information shall be retained for
each attempted call to a rural telephone
company (including rural CLEC) and
nonrural LEC (including nonrural
CLEC). An attempted call that is
returned by an intermediate provider to
the originating provider and re-assigned
shall count as a single attempted call.
(b) The information contained in each
‘‘record’’ of an attempted call shall
include:
(1) Calling party number;
(2) Called party number;
(3) Date;
(4) Time;
(5) An indication whether the call was
handed off to an intermediate provider
or not and, if so, which intermediate
provider;
(6) An indication whether the called
party number was assigned to a rural
telephone company or not and, if so, the
OCN of the rural telephone company;
(7) An indication whether the call was
interstate or intrastate; and
(8) An indication whether the call was
answered or not.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
§ 64.2105
Report of call answer rates.
Except as described in § 64.2107, each
originating long distance voice service
provider (or its first facilities-based
provider when the originating provider
is not facilities-based) shall submit a
report to the Commission in electronic
form not later than the 15th day of the
first month following the end of each
calendar quarter. The information
contained in the report shall include for
each month in that quarter:
(a) For each rural OCN to which more
than 100 calls were attempted during
the month, the OCN, the state, the
number of attempted calls, the number
of attempted calls that were answered,
and the call answer rate;
(b) For rural OCNs to which more
than 100 calls were attempted during
the month (all such OCNs in the
aggregate), the total number of
attempted calls, the total number of
attempted calls that were answered, and
the call answer rate; and
(c) For nonrural OCNs (in the
aggregate), the total number of
attempted calls, the total number of
attempted calls that were answered, and
the call answer rate.
§ 64.2107 Exceptions from retention and
reporting requirements.
(a) An originating long distance voice
service provider with 100,000 or fewer
total retail long distance subscribers
(business and residential combined) is
not required to retain records of
attempted calls or to report call answer
rates as provided in this subpart. A first
facilities-based provider for originating
long distance service providers that do
not report, and that provides service
directly or indirectly to 100,000 or fewer
retail long distance subscribers, is not
required to retain records and to report
as provided in this subpart.
(b) An originating provider or a first
facilities-based provider that makes one
of the following annual certifications is
not required to report rural call
completion rates to the Commission for
one year following such certification.
Providers filing Certification in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section are not
required to retain records of attempted
calls, and providers filing Certification
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are
required to retain records of attempted
calls for only the three (3) most recent
complete calendar months.
(1) Certification of Intermediate
Provider Management. The chief
executive officer (CEO), chief financial
officer (CFO), or other senior executive
of an originating long distance voice
service provider or first facilities-based
provider with first-hand knowledge of
the accuracy and completeness of the
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21903
information provided, certifies as
follows: I llll (name) llll
(title), an officer of llll (entity),
certify that ______ (entity) restricts by
contract any intermediate provider to
which a call is directed by (entity) from
permitting more than one additional
intermediate provider in the call path
before the call reaches the terminating
provider. I certify that any
nondisclosure agreement with an
intermediate provider permits llll
(entity) to reveal the identity of the
intermediate provider to the
Commission and to the rural telephone
company(ies) whose incoming longdistance calls are affected by the
intermediate provider’s performance. I
certify that llll (entity) has a
process in place to monitor the
performance of its intermediate
providers in completing calls to
individual rural telephone companies as
identified by Operating Carrier Number.
(2) Certification of Rural Call
Performance. The chief executive officer
(CEO), chief financial officer (CFO), or
other senior executive of an originating
long distance voice service provider or
first facilities-based provider with firsthand knowledge of the accuracy and
completeness of the information
provided, certifies as follows:
I llll (name) llll (title), an
officer of llll (entity), certify that
for each of the previous 12 full calendar
months, llll (entity) has met the
following performance standard: the
average of the call answer rates for all
rural telephone companies as identified
by Operating Carrier Number to which
llll (entity) attempted more than
100 calls in a month was no more than
2 percent less than the average call
answer rate for all calls llll (entity)
placed to nonrural LECs in the same
month, and the call answer rates for 95
percent of those rural telephone
companies to which llll (entity)
attempted more than 100 calls were no
more than 3 percent below the average
rural call answer rate. I certify that
llll (entity) has a process in place
to investigate its performance in
completing calls to individual rural
telephone companies as identified by
Operating Carrier Number for which the
call answer rate is more than 3 percent
below the average of the rural call
answer rate for all rural telephone
companies to which llll (entity)
attempted more than 100 calls.
■ 3. Add subpart W to part 64 to read
as follows:
Subpart W—Ring Signaling Integrity
Sec.
64.2201
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
Ringing indication requirements.
12APP1
21904
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
201(b).
§ 64.2201
Ringing indication requirements.
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(a) Telecommunications carriers and
providers of interconnected Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, when
originating interstate or intrastate traffic
on the public switched telephone
network (PSTN) or originating interstate
or intrastate traffic that is destined for
the PSTN, shall not generate a ringing
indication locally that is conveyed to
the calling party until the terminating
provider has signaled that the called
party is being alerted to an incoming
call, such as by ringing. If the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:20 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
terminating provider signals that the
called party is being alerted and
provides an audio tone or
announcement, originating providers
are required to cease any locallygenerated audible tone or
announcement and convey the
terminating provider’s tone or
announcement to the calling party. The
scope of this provision includes any
voice call signaling and transmission
technologies.
(b) Intermediate providers within an
interstate or intrastate call path that
originates and/or terminates on the
PSTN must return unaltered to
providers in the call path any signaling
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
information that indicates that the
terminating provider is alerting the
called party, such as by ringing. An
intermediate provider may not generate
signaling information that indicates the
terminating provider is alerting the
called party unless it has received such
an indication from the terminating
provider. Intermediate providers must
also return unaltered any audio tone or
announcement provided by the
terminating provider. The scope of this
provision includes any voice call
signaling and transmission technologies.
[FR Doc. 2013–08527 Filed 4–11–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21891-21904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08527]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[WC Docket No. 13-39; FCC 13-18]
Rural Call Completion
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission proposes to adopt rules
requiring facilities-based originating long distance providers to
record and retain data on call completion rates to rural areas, and to
report this data to the Commission on a quarterly basis. We propose to
reduce or eliminate a provider's retention and reporting obligations if
that provider certifies that it qualifies for one of two proposed safe
harbor provisions. We also propose to prohibit both originating and
intermediate providers from causing audible ringing to be sent to the
caller before the terminating provider has signaled that the called
party is being alerted. These changes will allow the Commission to more
effectively determine the causes of call completion problems to rural
areas and take action to cure them, and will also prevent consumer
confusion caused by the injection of false ringtones before the called
party has been alerted.
DATES: Submit comments on or before May 13, 2013.
Submit reply comments on or before May 28, 2013.
Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed
information collection requirements must be submitted by the public,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on
or before June 11, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 13-39,
by any of the following methods:
[ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
[ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection
requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal
Communications Commission via email to PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A.
Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via email to Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via fax at 202-395-5167.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rowings, Competition Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1033 or by email at
steven.rowings@fcc.gov. To submit Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
comments, send an email to PRA@fcc.gov. For further information
concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection
requirements contained in this document, contact Judith B. Herman, 202-
418-0214.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may
file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on
the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
This document contains proposed information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments
are due June 11, 2013.
PRA comments should address whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
[[Page 21892]]
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
ways to further reduce the information burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.
Title: Rural Call Completion Recordkeeping and Reporting.
Form No.: Not applicable.
Type of Review: New Collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit
institutions; and State, Local or Tribal governments.
Number of Respondents and Responses: 90 respondents, 360 annual
responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 16 hours.
Frequency of Response: Quarterly reporting requirement and
recordkeeping requirement.
Obligation To Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority is contained
in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201, 202, 218, 220(a), and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
201, 202, 218, 220(a), and 403.
Total Annual Burden: 5,760 hours.
Total Annual Costs: $393,750.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission gives no
assurances that information submitted in response to these proposed
rules will be treated as confidential. Any information provided by
parties to comply with these proposed rules may be submitted pursuant
to a request for confidentiality under Sec. 0.459 of the Commission's
rules. See 47 CFR 0.459.
Needs and Uses: These proposed rules would require facilities-based
originating long-distance voice service providers to collect data on
call answer rates, and to report those data to the Commission on a
quarterly basis. The information obtained through this collection will
allow the Commission to monitor the performance of long-distance
telephone service providers in order to more fully investigate the
disparity in performance levels between long-distance calls to rural
areas and those to nonrural areas, as well as to ensure that long-
distance providers are complying with their statutory obligations to
provide just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory service throughout the
nation.
To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) or
to request reasonable accommodations for filing comments (accessible
format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.), send an
email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice) or 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we seek comment on
rules to help address problems in the completion of long-distance
telephone calls to rural customers.
I. Introduction
1. Retail long-distance providers, such as wireless providers,
cable companies, interexchange carriers (IXCs), local exchange carriers
(LECs), and providers of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services,
often employ intermediate providers to carry long-distance calls to
their destination. Some of these intermediate providers offering
wholesale call delivery services may be failing to deliver a
significant number of calls to rural telephone company customers, and
evidence indicates that the retail long-distance providers may not be
adequately examining the resultant rural call completion performance.
2. Completion rates of long-distance calls to rural telephone
company service areas are frequently poor, even where overall
performance of the intermediate provider appears acceptable. The
problems manifest themselves in lengthy periods of dead air on the
calling party's end after dialing a number, audible ringing tones on
the calling party's end when the called party's telephone never rings
at all, false busy signals, inaccurate intercept messages, and the
inability of one or both parties to hear the other when the call does
go through. This causes rural businesses to lose customers, cuts
families off from their relatives in rural areas, and creates potential
for dangerous delays in public safety communications in rural areas.
3. In this proceeding, we will consider measures to improve the
Commission's ability to monitor the delivery of long-distance calls to
rural areas and aid enforcement action in connection with providers'
call-completion practices as necessary. We seek comment on reporting
and data retention requirements that would allow the Commission to
review a long distance provider's call performance to specific areas.
These measures would strengthen the Commission's ability to ensure a
reasonable and nondiscriminatory level of service to rural areas. We
also seek comment on how to minimize the burden of compliance with
these proposed rules, particularly for originating providers whose
call-routing practices do not appear to cause significant call-
completion problems.
II. Background
4. In filings with the Commission and in presentations at the
Commission's October 18, 2011 workshop on rural call routing and
termination problems, several entities identified a number of rural
call completion issues and asked the Commission to address them
promptly. Trade associations that represent rate-of-return carriers
(collectively, ``rural associations'') and several state utility
commissions describe the call-termination issues affecting rural areas
as serious and widespread. They emphasize that the inability of
businesses, consumers, and government officials to receive calls
compromises the integrity and reliability of the public switched
telephone network (PSTN) and threatens the public safety, homeland
security, consumer welfare, and economic well-being of rural America.
These entities claim that call-termination problems continue to
increase and that the result is the ``effective disconnection of rural
consumers from many other parts of the PSTN.''
5. As evidence of the problem, rural associations report that rate-
of-return carriers serving rural areas are reporting an alarming
increase in complaints from their customers stating that long-distance
calls and faxes are not reaching them or that call quality is poor.
Indeed, these rural associations state that 80 percent of rural
carriers responding to one survey reported problems, and rural customer
reports of problems receiving calls increased by more than 2000 percent
in the twelve-month period from April 2010 to March 2011. In May 2012,
the rural associations conducted a second call-completion study based
on over 7400 call attempts and reported that, while there was some
improvement in rural areas from 2011 to 2012, the incompletion rate in
rural areas was still 13 times higher in rural areas than in nonrural
areas. In November 2012, a third survey of rural carriers indicated
that the problems with completing calls to rural areas were continuing
at an alarming rate.
6. Call completion problems appear to occur particularly in rural
areas served by rate-of-return carriers, where the costs that long-
distance providers incur to complete calls are generally higher than in
nonrural areas. To minimize call termination charges, long-distance
providers often use intermediate providers that offer to deliver calls
to specified terminating providers at comparatively low cost, usually
within
[[Page 21893]]
defined service quality parameters. Rural associations suggest that the
call-completion problems may arise from the manner in which originating
providers set up the signaling and routing of their calls, and that
many of these call routing and termination problems can be attributed
to intermediate providers.
7. Previous Commission Actions. The Commission has stated that
carriers are prohibited from blocking, choking, reducing, or
restricting traffic in any way, including to avoid termination charges.
Noting that the ubiquity and reliability of the nation's
telecommunications network is of paramount importance to the explicit
goals of the Act, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) issued a
declaratory ruling in 2007 to clarify that no carriers, including
interexchange carriers, may block, choke, reduce, or restrict traffic
in any way.
8. In September 2011, the Commission created the Rural Call
Completion Task Force to address and investigate the growing problems
associated with calls to rural customers. On October 18, 2011, the Task
Force held a workshop to identify specific causes of the problem and
discuss potential solutions with key stakeholders.
9. In its November 2011 Order reforming intercarrier compensation
and the Universal Service Fund, the Commission again emphasized its
longstanding prohibition on call blocking. The Commission reiterated
that call blocking has the potential to degrade the reliability of the
nation's telecommunications network and that call blocking harms
consumers. The Commission also made clear that the general prohibition
on call blocking by carriers applies to VoIP-PSTN traffic. Finally, the
Commission prohibited call blocking by providers of interconnected VoIP
services and providers of ``one-way'' VoIP services.
10. In February 2012, the Wireline Competition Bureau issued a
declaratory ruling to clarify the scope of the Commission's prohibition
on blocking, choking, reducing, or restricting telephone traffic in
response to continued complaints about rural call completion issues
from rural associations, state utility commissions, and consumers. The
2012 Declaratory Ruling made clear that rural call routing practices
that lead to call termination and quality problems may violate the
prohibition against unjust and unreasonable practices in section 201 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) or may violate the
carriers' section 202 duty to refrain from unjust or unreasonable
discrimination in practices, facilities, or services. The 2012
Declaratory Ruling also noted that carriers may be subject to liability
under section 217 of the Act for the actions of their agents or other
persons acting for or employed by the carriers. The Bureau stated that
the practices causing rural call completion problems ``adversely affect
the ubiquity and reliability of the nation's telecommunications network
and threaten commerce, public safety, and the ability of consumers,
businesses, and public health and safety officials in rural America to
access and use a reliable network.''
11. In addition to conducting ongoing investigations of several
long-distance providers, the Commission has also been addressing daily
operational problems reported by rural customers and carriers so that
incoming long-distance calling to rural telephone company customers is
promptly restored. We have established dedicated avenues for rural
customers and carriers to inform the Commission about these call
completion problems. A web-based complaint intake focuses on the rural
call completion problems of residential and business customers,
instructs them on how to file complaints with the Commission, and links
to the Commission's standard 2000B complaint form. A dedicated email
intake expedites the ability of rural telephone companies to alert the
Commission of systemic problems receiving the calls from a particular
originating long-distance provider and facilitates provider-to-provider
resolution.
12. Other Actions. In December 2012, the Oregon Public Utilities
Commission adopted additional Conditions of Certificates of Authority
requiring a certificate holder to take reasonable steps to ensure that
it does not adopt or perpetuate intrastate routing practices that
result in lower-quality service to an exchange with higher terminating
access rates.
III. Discussion
13. There is ample evidence that rural call completion problems are
widespread and serious. We are dedicated to ensuring that all Americans
receive high-quality telephone service. Although the Commission has
stated unequivocally that traffic may not be blocked, choked, reduced,
or restricted, we have learned that carriers often do not retain
records that permit the Commission to determine compliance with these
prohibitions. To that end, in this NPRM we propose rules that would
help the Commission monitor originating providers' call-completion
performance and ensure that telephone service to rural consumers is as
reliable as service to the rest of the country. In essence, these
proposed rules would require facilities-based originating long-distance
voice service providers to collect and report to the Commission data on
call answer rates. For purposes of this Notice, originating long-
distance voice service providers include local exchange carriers,
interexchange carriers, commercial mobile radio service (CMRS)
providers, and interconnected VoIP service providers. We seek comment
on whether these proposed rules should apply to other categories of
providers as well, such as one-way VoIP service providers, and on the
Commission's authority to extend these proposed rules to such
providers. We also welcome data explaining why call answer rates might
differ between rural and nonrural areas and why any differential may be
reasonable.
14. We also propose a rule that would prohibit both originating
providers and intermediate providers from causing audible ringing to be
sent to the caller before the terminating provider has signaled that
the called party is being alerted. We seek comment on whether these
proposed rules will help alleviate rural call completion problems, or
whether the Commission should consider different approaches, and, if
so, what those approaches are.
15. We recognize that even when calls to rural areas in particular
do get answered, the communications quality of the call may be so poor
as to render the communication between the calling and called parties
unsuccessful. While we do not propose call communications quality
standards at this time, we will continue to monitor the problem, and we
may revisit the issue in the future if improvements in call answer
rates and signaling integrity do not result in concomitant improvements
in call communications quality.
A. Data Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Retention
16. Our processing of informal complaints that have been filed with
the Commission concerning rural call completion problems indicates that
some originating long-distance providers collect and retain the call
history data that support detection of problems with calls to rural
areas. However, we have also found that some long-distance providers do
not collect and retain information on failed call attempts that is
necessary for segregating the percentage of calls failing to complete
to rural areas from all calls being carried to all destinations. As a
result, some long-distance providers appear unable to analyze rural
[[Page 21894]]
call performance relative to overall performance or to distinguish the
performance of intermediate providers in delivering calls to rural
areas. Additionally, this lack of data has impeded Enforcement Bureau
investigations.
17. Consequently, subject to certain limitations and safe harbors
discussed below, we propose to adopt rules that would require
facilities-based originating long-distance voice service providers to
collect and retain basic information on call attempts and to
periodically undertake a basic call completion summary analysis and
report the results to the Commission. If the originating long-distance
voice service provider is not facilities based, we propose to apply
these obligations to the first facilities-based provider in the call-
delivery chain, because the facilities-based provider will have access
to the inaugural call detail information.
18. Below, we seek comment on our proposed rules, the types of
carriers and providers to be covered by these rules, the general
categories of call attempts covered, the types of calls that should be
excluded, the information to be collected on each call attempt covered,
and the length of time such information should be retained. We also
seek comment on possible safe harbors that would relieve providers of
reporting obligations and reduce their record retention requirements.
19. Our authority for these reporting, record keeping, and
retention rules lies in sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act: call
routing practices that lead to rural call termination and quality
problems may violate the prohibition against unjust and unreasonable
practices in section 201(b), or may violate carriers' duty under
section 202(a) to refrain from unjust or unreasonable discrimination in
practices, facilities, or services. Sections 218, 220(a), and 403 of
the Act provide additional authority for these proposed rules with
regard to carriers. To the extent that these proposed rules would apply
to VoIP providers, we propose to exercise our ancillary authority to
the extent that VoIP services are information services, on the ground
that such requirements would be necessary for the Commission to carry
out its section 201(b) and 202(a) obligations with regard to carriers.
We seek comment on this analysis and any additional sources of possible
authority, such as section 403.
1. Proposed Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Retention Requirements
20. Reporting Requirements. We propose to adopt a rule requiring
that facilities-based originating long-distance providers measure the
call answer rate for each rural operating company number (OCN) to which
100 or more calls were attempted during the calendar month for the
categories of call attempts identified below, and that originating
long-distance providers also measure the overall call answer rate for
nonrural call attempts. We propose to adopt a rule requiring that
originating long-distance providers submit in electronic form the
monthly call answer rate for rural OCNs with 100 attempts or more and
the nonrural monthly overall average to the Commission once per
calendar quarter. The data collection and reporting requirements that
we propose would allow the Commission to compare an originating
provider's performance in delivering interstate and intrastate long-
distance calls to rural local exchanges versus nonrural local
exchanges. We believe that it is necessary to measure performance at
the individual rural telephone company level, as identified by the OCN,
to ensure that poor performance to any individual rural telephone
company is not masked, as it otherwise would be by averaging together
calls to all rural telephone companies or averaging call data for rural
and nonrural areas.
21. We seek comment on our proposed reporting requirements. Is the
proposed 100 call per month threshold appropriate or, for example,
should the threshold be tied to a provider's overall number of call
attempts, such as a percentage of overall call attempts? Should all
call attempts be included, or just those attempted in some peak period
such as between noon and 6:00 p.m. Eastern time? Are the proposed
monthly measurement and quarterly reporting intervals appropriate? For
example, is the nature of chronic call routing failures such that
measurement data analyzed monthly masks problems that a weekly
measurement would capture? If the Commission adopts quarterly reporting
requirements, on what dates should they be filed? We seek comment on
the benefits and burdens associated with our proposed reporting
requirements. We seek comment on whether the information that will be
provided should be treated as confidential or be open to public
inspection.
22. Record Keeping and Retention. We propose to adopt a rule
requiring that providers record information for each long-distance call
attempt they handle. We propose that, in addition to calling party
number, called party number, and date and time, the information
recorded on each call attempt include: (1) Whether the call attempt was
handed off to an intermediate provider and, if so, which intermediate
provider; (2) whether the call attempt was going to a rural carrier
and, if so, which rural carrier as identified by its OCN; (3) whether
the call attempt was interstate; and (4) whether the call attempt was
answered. We propose that providers be required to retain these call
attempt records in a readily retrievable form for a period that
includes the six most recent complete calendar months.
23. We seek comment on our proposed record-keeping and record-
retention requirements. We also seek comment generally on the long-
distance records and data that originating providers currently collect
in the normal course of business, and to what extent they already (1)
capture and (2) retain the information proposed. For example, do
originating providers typically retain the information we propose to be
retained on each call attempt, including on failed attempts? We seek
comment on the benefits and burdens associated with collecting and
retaining information as described above that is additional to
currently collected information. We seek comment on whether recording
and retaining a statistically valid sample of data could fulfill the
purposes of data retention and provide the basis for the required
reporting while being less burdensome. Would a statistical sample
support enforcement action in connection with a provider's call-
completion practices?
24. Entities Covered By Proposed Rules. As noted above, we propose
to adopt a rule requiring that if the originating provider is not
facilities based, the record-keeping, retention, and reporting
requirements proposed in this NPRM would apply to the first facilities-
based provider that is involved in handling the call. In cases where
the first facilities-based provider serves multiple non-facilities-
based originating providers, the facilities-based provider should
aggregate the call attempt information for all such non-facilities-
based providers into a single report. We seek comment on this proposal.
Does limiting these proposed requirements to facilities-based providers
ensure that the rules apply to the entity with the most direct access
to call records, thus minimizing the burden of compliance? Should the
Commission also impose record-keeping and reporting requirements on
intermediate providers? If so, what types of record-keeping and
reporting requirements? Would the burden of compliance be lower for
intermediate providers that also provide originating service to end
users? We seek comment generally on
[[Page 21895]]
the benefits and burdens associated with limiting our proposed
requirements to facilities-based providers.
25. Categories of Call Attempts. For purposes of this rulemaking,
we propose to categorize long-distance call attempts according to call
source type and terminating provider type. With respect to call source
type, the provider subject to these proposed rules will be either a
facilities-based originating long-distance voice service provider or,
if the originating provider is not facilities based, the first
facilities-based long distance service provider in the call-completion
chain. We propose that data collection requirements cover, at a
minimum, the following source-termination categories of long-distance
call traffic: originating provider to rural telephone company
(including rural CLEC), originating provider to nonrural LEC (including
nonrural CLEC), first facilities-based provider to rural telephone
company (including rural CLEC), and first facilities-based provider to
nonrural LEC (including nonrural CLEC). We seek comment on whether
other categories of calls should also be covered, such as calls to CMRS
subscribers, which do not normally incur high termination access
charges on termination in rural areas and have not been the subject of
the same types of complaints as calls to rural telephone companies.
26. We seek comment on whether these proposed categories are both
necessary and sufficient for purposes of the data retention and
reporting described above. For example, should some subcategories, such
as traffic to nonrural CLECs, be excluded? We note that some providers
may handle substantial amounts of auto-dialer traffic on behalf of
retail business customers who may have call completion expectations and
capacity requirements that are different from those of residential and
business callers. Can such auto-dialer traffic sources be reliably
identified, and if so, should auto-dialer call attempts be excluded
from traffic sources? Our principal objective is to compare a
provider's rural and nonrural performance. Is it thus reasonable to
require providers that can identify and exclude auto-dialer traffic to
do so, even if other providers may not be able to do so? We are aware
that auto-dialers are also used to distribute emergency alert
notifications, including across some rural areas. Can emergency auto-
dialer sources be reliably identified, and if so, can and should
emergency auto-dialer traffic be included even if other auto-dialer
traffic is excluded?
27. Call Attempts That Can Be Excluded. We propose to use a ``call
answer rate'' as the basic measure of call completion performance. An
``answered call attempt'' means a call attempt that is answered by the
called party, including, for example, by voicemail, answering machine,
or fax machine. We calculate a call answer rate as ``the number of call
attempts that result in an answer divided by the total number of calls
attempted, expressed as a percentage.'' In the following paragraphs, we
propose the types of call attempts to be included and excluded when
calculating the call answer rate.
28. In the typical arrangement, an intermediate provider must hand
a call back to the upstream provider if it cannot expeditiously hand
off the call attempt downstream, e.g., to the terminating provider.
This is so the upstream provider can attempt to complete the call using
another intermediate provider or over its own facilities. In order to
avoid double-counting such multiple attempts for the same call, we
propose that call attempts that are handed back to the upstream
provider should be excluded from data collection and reporting
requirements. We seek comment on whether it is feasible and appropriate
to exclude such call attempts in view of the reporting objective.
29. When a terminating provider is successful or unsuccessful in
completing a call, it signals a ``cause value'' giving a precise
indication of the event. Cause values can be classified into three
general categories indicating the nature or origin of the event: Call
Completed, User, and Network. One commonly occurring ``User'' cause is
``unallocated number'' (cause value 0), which indicates that the caller
has dialed a properly formatted telephone number, but that number
itself is not assigned. Excluding all call attempts indicating that the
user apparently misdialed could mask call attempts that actually failed
or were dropped within an intermediate provider's network, because
there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that calling parties sometimes
receive intercept messages that wrongly indicate, for example, that the
call cannot be completed as dialed. We thus propose that all call
attempts to an ``unallocated number'' be retained. We seek comment on
this proposal. Similarly, we have anecdotal evidence that other
``User'' events, such as ``user busy,'' ``no user responding'' (i.e.,
ring no answer) or ``number changed,'' which should be signaled only by
the terminating provider, are sometimes being signaled by intermediate
providers. Consequently, the most reliable measure is whether the call
attempt is actually answered (``call completed'' cause values 16 and
31); excluding call attempts indicating apparent user behavior such as
``user busy'' or ``user not responding'' could mask call attempts that
actually failed or were dropped within an intermediate provider's
network. Thus we propose that any call attempt not answered and showing
a ``User'' category release cause code should be included in the total
of call attempts. We seek comment on this proposal.
30. We seek comment on other types of long-distance call attempts
that should be excluded from the categories of call attempts covered.
For example, can calls to toll-free numbers be reliably excluded?
Should answered calls of very short duration, such as less than two
seconds, be excluded? Are there internal network test calls that are
readily identifiable and easily excluded?
2. Proposed Limitations on Application of Reporting and Retention Rules
31. In order to lessen the burden of compliance with these proposed
rules, we propose to require only those originating long-distance
providers and other covered providers with more than 100,000 retail
long-distance subscribers (business or residential) to retain the basic
information on call attempts and to periodically report the summary
analysis of that information to the Commission. We seek comment on this
proposal. Would the exclusion of smaller providers compromise the
Commission's ability to monitor rural call completion problems
effectively?
32. We also propose two safe harbors by which providers can avoid
or reduce their obligations under the data reporting and retention
obligations that we propose in this NPRM. The purpose of these safe
harbors is to minimize the burden of compliance without compromising
the goals of these rules. We seek comment on the proposed safe harbors,
and whether they should include safeguards to ensure that providers'
call-completion performance does not suffer. For example, should we
delegate to the Wireline Competition Bureau authority to revoke a
provider's eligibility for these safe harbors if the Commission
receives a certain number of complaints about that provider's call-
completion performance? If so, what would be an appropriate number of
complaints or other trigger to justify revoking eligibility for the
safe harbors?
33. Managing Intermediate Provider Safe Harbor. Our first proposed
safe harbor would relieve a provider of all call completion data
retention and reporting obligations proposed in this
[[Page 21896]]
NPRM. To qualify for this safe harbor, a provider must certify on an
annual basis that it restricts by contract directly connected
intermediate providers to no more than one additional intermediate
provider in the call path before the call reaches the terminating
provider. The provider must further certify that any nondisclosure
agreement with an intermediate provider permits the originating
provider to reveal the identity of the intermediate provider to the
Commission and to the rural carrier(s) whose incoming long-distance
calls are affected by the intermediate provider's performance. Finally,
the provider must certify that it has a process in place to monitor the
performance of its intermediate providers in completing calls to
individual rural telephone companies as identified by Operating Carrier
Number.
34. We seek comment on this proposed safe harbor. For example, will
restricting the number of intermediate providers in the call path from
a retail customer improve the originating provider's control
sufficiently to maintain rural call answer rates that are on par with
nonrural rates? Is the restriction to no more than two intermediate
providers between the originating provider and the terminating provider
the appropriate number? Will providing the identity of the intermediate
provider that is affecting the incoming long-distance calls assist the
terminating rural provider in troubleshooting with other originating
providers?
35. Monitoring Performance Safe Harbor. Our second proposed safe
harbor would subject a provider to a reduced call-completion data
retention obligation and relieve the provider of all reporting
obligations proposed in this Notice. To qualify for this safe harbor, a
provider must certify on an annual basis that for each of the previous
12 months, it has met the following performance standard: the average
call answer rate for all rural carriers to which the provider attempted
more than 100 calls in a month was no more than 2 percent less than the
average call answer rate for all calls it placed to nonrural carriers
in the same month, and the call answer rates for 95 percent of those
rural carriers to which the provider attempted more than 100 calls were
no more than 3 percent below the average rural call answer rate.
Finally, the provider must certify that it has a process in place to
investigate its performance in completing calls to individual rural
telephone companies (as identified by Operating Carrier Number) for
which the call answer rate is more than 3 percent below the average of
the rural call answer rate for all rural telephone companies to which
it attempted more than 100 calls. Providers that certify compliance
with this safe harbor would be relieved of any quarterly reporting
obligation and would be required to retain call attempt data in readily
retrievable form for a reduced period of three months.
36. We seek comment on this proposed safe harbor. Are these
proposed thresholds reasonable and appropriate? Are calls to business
customers more likely to be answered than calls to residential
customers, and is the percentage of calls to business customers in
nonrural area higher than in rural areas such that a call answer rate
differential is appropriate, and if so, are the differentials proposed
above reasonable? Is the nature of chronic call routing failures such
that measurement data analyzed monthly masks significant problems?
Would it be more appropriate to set a threshold based on weekly or
other measurements? Is three months of past information sufficient if
any investigation of rural call completion or service quality issues is
deemed necessary, notwithstanding that a particular type of safe harbor
certification has been made?
3. Duration of Proposed Reporting and Retention Rules
37. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission adopted
rules that may ultimately address the root causes of many rural call
completion problems. In particular, in comprehensively reforming
intercarrier compensation, the Commission adopted a bill-and-keep
methodology for all intercarrier traffic, and adopted a transition plan
to gradually reduce most termination charges, which, at the end of the
transition, should eliminate the primary incentives for cost-saving
practices that appear to be undermining the reliability of rural
telephone service.
38. NARUC has argued, and we agree, that there is a need to limit
the harmful effect of these rural call completion problems on consumers
in the near term. Accordingly, we propose these rules to provide prompt
relief to rural consumers who are receiving inferior telephone service.
We seek comment, however, on whether the rules we propose today should
expire at the end of the intercarrier compensation reform transition
period or some other point. Would a sunset provision reduce the burden
of compliance? Would rural consumers be sufficiently protected from
call completion problems if the rules expire at that time? If not, we
seek comment on alternative sunset dates, or whether the requirements
should remain in effect until the Commission modifies the relevant
rules.
B. Proposed Ring Signaling Integrity Requirements
39. A major complaint by rural representatives regarding call
termination problems is ``false audible ringing,'' in which the long-
distance caller hears prolonged ringing--and so finally hangs up--
before the rural phone he called has rung at all. This appears to be
relatively new as a widespread phenomenon, and is brought about when
the originating provider or an intermediate provider prematurely
triggers the audible ring tone to the caller before the call setup
request has actually reached the terminating rural provider. An
originating provider or intermediate provider may do this to mask the
silence that would otherwise be heard by the caller during excessive
call setup time. Moreover, once an intermediate provider provides a
ringing indication to an originating provider while still processing
the call, the call cannot be handed back to the preceding provider for
an alternate route.
40. This premature audible ringing departs from the long-
established telephony signaling practice (and end-user expectation) of
audible ringing indication being provided to the caller only after the
terminating provider affirmatively signals that the called line is free
and the called party is being alerted. The net effect of this practice
is to unfairly make it appear to the caller that the terminating rural
provider is responsible for the call failure, instead of the
originating provider. Complaints filed with the Commission indicate
that this misperception is often shared by the rural called party, who
may eventually hear his phone ringing and answer after the calling
party has finally hung up.
41. The decision by some providers to deviate from traditional
industry practice is likely to harm consumers in rural areas. We
therefore propose a new rule that would prohibit both originating
providers and intermediate providers from causing audible ringing to be
sent to the caller before the terminating provider has signaled that
the called party is being alerted. Originating providers and
intermediate providers must also convey audio tones and announcements
sent by the terminating provider to the calling party. This proposal
would codify a widely accepted industry practice that has in the past
proven effective. We expect that the proposed rule will improve the
ability to identify the provider responsible for service failures,
[[Page 21897]]
without imposing unduly burdensome costs.
42. Our authority for this ring signaling integrity rule lies in
section 201(b) of the Act: it is an unreasonable practice to send
misleading ring sounds to customers making long-distance phone calls,
as it may cause them to believe that the called party is not answering
when in fact the call has not yet been connected or has been connected
for a shorter time than the ring sounds would lead the calling party to
believe. To the extent that this proposed rule would apply to VoIP
providers, we propose to exercise our ancillary authority to the extent
that VoIP services are information services, on the ground that such
requirements would be necessary for the Commission to carry out its
section 201(b) obligations with regard to carriers. We seek comment on
this analysis and any additional sources of possible authority.
43. We invite comment on this proposed rule and on whether it is
consistent with prior telephony industry practice and telephone user
expectation with respect to the meaning of audible ringing. We seek
comment on whether the proposed rule is consistent with recommended
industry practice for TDM- and IP-based telephony interworking. We seek
comment on the benefits and burdens associated with this proposed rule.
We also seek comment on the need to extend these requirements to non-
interconnected VoIP providers and on the Commission's authority to do
so. Finally, we seek comment on whether, for technical reasons, any
aspect of this proposed rule should be applied differently to
originating CMRS carriers.
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
44. This document contains proposed new information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might ``further
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees.''
B. Regulatory Flexibility
45. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) for this notice of proposed rulemaking, of the possible
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
by the policies and rules proposed in this notice of proposed
rulemaking. 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 notice of proposed rulemaking. The
Commission will send a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. In
addition, the notice of proposed rulemaking and IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
C. Ex Parte Presentations
46. The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method
of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. 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 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Written 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 NPRM.
The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
2. The NPRM seeks comment on a variety of issues relating to
possible remedies for the problem of low call completion rates and poor
overall call quality to rural America. As discussed in the NPRM, the
proposed rules will provide an incentive for originating long distance
providers to more closely monitor their call completion performance in
rural areas and more actively manage their dealings with intermediate
providers, while also providing more clarity to consumers in
identifying the carriers responsible for call completion and quality
problems. The ubiquity and reliability of the nation's
telecommunications network are of paramount importance to the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and problems adversely
affecting that ubiquity and reliability threaten commerce, public
safety, and the ability of consumers, businesses, and public health and
safety officials in rural America to access and use a reliable network.
In order to confront these challenges, the NPRM asks for comment in a
number of specific areas.
1. Data Reporting and Retention Requirements
3. The NPRM first proposes that facilities-based originating long-
distance voice service providers collect and
[[Page 21898]]
retain basic information on call attempts and report to the Commission
data on call answer rates. The NPRM proposes that originating long-
distance voice service providers include local exchange carriers,
interexchange carriers, commercial mobile radio service (CMRS)
providers, and interconnected VoIP service providers, and seeks comment
on whether these proposed requirements should apply to other categories
of providers, such as one-way VoIP service providers, and on the
Commission's authority to extend the proposed rules to such providers.
The NPRM proposes to apply these obligations to the first facilities-
based provider in the call-delivery chain when the originating long-
distance voice service provider is not facilities based. The NPRM also
seeks comment offering data to explain any differential in call answer
rates between rural and nonrural areas, and why such a differential may
be reasonable.
4. Specifically, the NPRM proposes to adopt a rule requiring that
facilities-based originating long-distance providers measure the call
answer rate for each rural operating company number (OCN) to which 100
or more calls are attempted in a calendar month, as well as the overall
call answer rate for nonrural call attempts, and to retain those
records for a period including the six most recent complete calendar
months. The NPRM seeks comment on these proposed requirements,
including whether and to what extent originating providers collect and
retain these sorts of call attempt records in the ordinary course of
business, as well as on the benefits and burdens these data collection
and retention requirements might produce.
5. The NPRM further proposes to adopt a rule requiring that
originating long-distance providers report to the Commission the
monthly call answer rate for rural OCNs with 100 attempts or more and
the nonrural monthly overall average call answer rate once per calendar
quarter in order that the Commission can compare an originating
provider's performance in delivering interstate and intrastate long-
distance calls to rural local exchanges versus nonrural local
exchanges. The NPRM seeks comment on this reporting requirement,
including whether the 100-call per month threshold is appropriate and
whether a weekly reporting requirement would provide more useful data
than the proposed monthly requirement, the benefits and burdens the
proposed reporting requirements might produce, and whether the
information reported should be treated as confidential or open to
public inspection.
6. The NPRM also seeks comment on application of the proposed
rules, if the originating provider is not facilities based, to the
first facilities-based provider in the call chain. The NPRM seeks
comment on whether limiting the proposed requirements to facilities-
based providers ensures that the entities collecting and reporting this
data are those with the most direct access to call records, thus
minimizing the burden of compliance. The NPRM also seeks comment on
whether the proposed rules, or some variation thereof, should also be
applied to intermediate providers and whether the burden of compliance
would be lower for intermediate providers that also provide originating
service to end users. The NPRM seeks comment on the burdens and
benefits associated with limiting the application of the proposed rules
to facilities-based providers.
7. The NPRM proposes to adopt a rule requiring that providers
record information for each long-distance call attempt they handle. In
addition to calling party number, called party number, date and time,
the NPRM proposes that the information recorded on each call attempt
include: (1) Whether the call attempt was handed off to an intermediate
provider and, if so, which intermediate provider; (2) whether the call
attempt was going to a rural carrier and, if so, which rural carrier as
identified by its OCN; (3) whether the call attempt was interstate; and
(4) whether the call attempt was answered. The NPRM proposes that
providers be required to retain these call attempt records in a readily
retrievable form for a period that includes the six most recent
complete calendar months. The NPRM seeks comment on these proposed
record-keeping and record retention requirements, on what long-distance
records and data that originating providers currently collect in the
normal course of business, and on the benefits and burdens associated
with collecting and retaining the information proposed.
8. The NPRM proposes to categorize long-distance call attempts
according to call source type and terminating provider type. These
proposed source-termination categories of long-distance call traffic
include, at a minimum: originating provider to rural telephone company
(including rural CLEC), originating provider to nonrural LEC (including
nonrural CLEC), first facilities-based provider to rural telephone
company (including rural CLEC), and first facilities-based provider to
nonrural LEC (including nonrural CLEC). The NPRM seeks comment on
whether these categories of call attempts are sufficient for the
proposed rules, and also asks whether other categories of calls should
be included, such as calls to CMRS subscribers.
9. The NRPM proposes to exclude from the proposed data collection
and reporting requirements call attempts that are handed back to an
upstream provider for further attempts at completion in order to avoid
double-counting such multiple attempts for the same call. The NPRM
seeks comment on this proposal. The NPRM also proposed to include in
the data collection and reporting requirements all call attempts not
answered that show a ``User'' category release cause code in response
to concerns that excluding such call attempts could mask call attempts
that actually failed or were dropped within an intermediate provider's
network. The NPRM seeks comment on the appropriateness and efficacy of
these proposals, and on whether other types of long-distance call
attempts should be excluded.
2. Proposed Limitations on Application of Reporting and Retention Rules
10. The NPRM proposes to apply these reporting and retention
requirements only to covered providers with more than 100,000 retail
long-distance subscribers (business or residential) in order to reduce
the burden of compliance with the proposed rules. It seeks comment on
this proposal, and on whether the exclusion of smaller providers would
compromise the Commission's ability to effectively monitor rural call
completion problems.
11. The NPRM also proposes two safe harbors by which covered
providers can avoid or reduce their reporting and retention obligations
under the proposed rules in order to minimize the burden of compliance
without compromising the goals of the proposed rules. The NPRM seeks
comment on the proposed safe harbors, whether the proposed safe harbors
will achieve that purpose, and whether the safe harbors should include
safeguards to ensure that providers' call-completion performance does
not suffer. The NPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission should
delegate authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau to revoke a
provider's eligibility for these safe harbors if the Commission
receives a certain number of complaints about that provider's call-
completion performance.
12. The NPRM proposes in the first safe harbor to relieve a covered
provider of the proposed reporting and data retention requirements if
it certifies
[[Page 21899]]
annually that it restricts by contract directly connected intermediate
providers to no more than one additional intermediate provider in the
call path before the call reaches the terminating provider. This
proposed safe harbor also requires a provider to certify that any
nondisclosure agreement with an intermediate provider permits the
originating provider to reveal the intermediate provider's identity to
the Commission and to any rural carrier whose incoming long-distance
traffic is affected by the intermediate provider's performance.
Finally, the first proposed safe harbor requires the covered provider
to certify that it has a process in place to monitor the performance of
its intermediate providers in completing calls to individual rural
telephone companies as identified by Operating Carrier Number.
13. The NRPM seeks comment on this proposed safe harbor, including
whether restricting the number of intermediate providers in the call
path from a retail customer will improve the originating provider's
control sufficiently to maintain rural call answer rates that are on
par with nonrural rates, whether the restriction to no more than two
intermediate providers between the originating provider and the
terminating provider is the appropriate number, and whether disclosing
the identity of the intermediate provider will allow originating and
terminating providers to troubleshoot more effectively.
14. The NRPM proposes in the second safe harbor to reduce to three
months a covered provider's record retention obligations and eliminate
its reporting obligations if it certifies annually that for each of the
preceding 12 months: (1) its average call answer rate for all rural
carriers to which the provider attempted more than 100 calls in a month
was no more than 2 percent less than the average call answer rate for
all calls it placed to nonrural carriers in the same month; and (2) the
call answer rates for 95 percent of those rural carriers to which it
attempted more than 100 calls were no more than 3 percent below the
average rural call answer rate. The provider must also certify that it
has a process in place to investigate its performance in completing
calls to individual rural telephone companies (as identified by
Operating Carrier Number) for which the call answer rate is more than 3
percent below the average of the rural call answer rate for all rural
telephone companies to which it attempted more than 100 calls.
15. The NPRM seeks comment on this second proposed safe harbor,
including whether the second proposed safe harbor's proposed thresholds
are reasonable and appropriate, whether the safe harbor should make
some allowance for any potential difference in call answer rates
between residential and business customers, whether a weekly
measurement requirement would reveal call-completion problems that a
monthly measurement would mask, and whether three months of past
information is sufficient if any investigation of rural call completion
or service quality issues is deemed necessary.
16. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether the rules proposed
should expire at the end of the intercarrier compensation reform
transition period or some other point in view of the possibility that
intercarrier compensation reform should eliminate the primary
incentives for cost-saving practices that appear to be undermining the
reliability of rural telephone service. The NPRM seeks comment on
whether a sunset provision would reduce the burden of compliance,
whether rural consumers would be sufficiently protected from call
completion problems if the rules expire at that time, alternative
sunset dates, and whether the proposed requirements should remain in
effect until the Commission modifies the relevant rules.
3. Proposed Ring Signaling Integrity Requirements
17. The NPRM proposes a new rule that would prohibit both
originating and intermediate providers from causing audible ringing to
be sent to the caller before the terminating provider has signaled that
the called party is being alerted. The proposed rule also requires
originating providers to convey audio tones and announcements sent by
the terminating provider to the calling party. The NPRM seeks comment
on this proposed rule, including whether it is consistent with prior
telephony industry practice, telephone user expectation with respect to
the meaning of audible ringing, and recommended industry practice for
TDM- and IP-based telephony interworking. The NPRM also seeks comment
on the benefits and burdens associated with this proposed rule.
Finally, the NPRM seeks comment on the need to extend these
requirements to non-interconnected VoIP providers, including the
Commission's authority to do so, and on whether, for technical reasons,
any aspect of this proposed rule should be applied differently to
originating CMRS carriers.
B. Legal Basis
18. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to
the NPRM is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201, 202, 218, 220(a),
and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
152, 154(i), 201, 202, 218, 220(a), 403.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
19. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 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 SBA.
20. Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of
approximately 27.9 million small businesses, according to the SBA.
21. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers,
which consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees
Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that
operated that year. Of those 31,996, 1,818 operated with more than 100
employees, and 30,178 operated with fewer than 100 employees. Thus,
under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered
small.
22. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable size
standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. According to Commission data, Census data for 2007
shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of
those 31,996, 1,818 operated with more than 100 employees, and 30,178
operated with fewer than 100 employees. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most providers of local exchange service are small
entities that may be affected by the rules and policies proposed in the
NPRM.
23. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (incumbent LECs). Neither the
[[Page 21900]]
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to incumbent local exchange
services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to
Commission data, 1,307 carriers reported that they were incumbent local
exchange service providers. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent
local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by
rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
24. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA
analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one
that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard
(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer
employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The
SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small
incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any
such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore included
small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that
this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations
in other, non-RFA contexts.
25. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these
service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for
the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were
engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange services
or competitive access provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an
estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186 have more than
1,500 employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that they are
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500
or fewer employees. In addition, 72 carriers have reported that they
are Other Local Service Providers. Of the 72, seventy have 1,500 or
fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local
exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities that
may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
26. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to interexchange services. The closest applicable size
standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. According to Commission data, 359 companies reported
that their primary telecommunications service activity was the
provision of interexchange services. Of these 359 companies, an
estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 42 have more than 1,500
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
interexchange service providers are small entities that may be affected
by rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
27. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA
rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
Census data for 2007 show that 1,523 firms provided resale services
during that year. Of that number, 1,522 operated with fewer than 1000
employees and one operated with more than 1,000. Thus, under this
category and the associated small business size standard, the majority
of these prepaid calling card providers can be considered small
entities. According to Commission data, 193 carriers have reported that
they are engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these,
an estimated all 193 have 1,500 or fewer employees and none have more
than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the
majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may
be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
28. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2007 show that 1,523 firms provided resale
services during that year. Of that number, 1,522 operated with fewer
than 1000 employees and one operated with more than 1,000. Thus, under
this category and the associated small business size standard, the
majority of these local resale providers can be considered small
entities. According to Commission data, 213 carriers have reported that
they are engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these,
an estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the
majority of local resellers are small entities that may be affected by
rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
29. Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that
size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2007 show that 1,523 firms provided resale
services during that year. Of that number, 1,522 operated with fewer
than 1000 employees and one operated with more than 1,000. Thus, under
this category and the associated small business size standard, the
majority of these toll resale providers can be considered small
entities. According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported that
they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of these, an
estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 24 have more than 1,500
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
toll resellers are small entities that may be affected by rules adopted
pursuant to the NPRM.
30. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable
to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do
not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator
service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service
carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under
SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that
operated that year. Of those 31,996, 1,818 operated with more than 100
employees, and 30,178 operated with fewer than 100 employees. Thus,
under this category and the associated small business size standard,
the majority of Other Toll Carriers can be considered small. According
to Commission data, 284 companies reported that their primary
telecommunications service activity was
[[Page 21901]]
the provision of other toll carriage. Of these, an estimated 279 have
1,500 or fewer employees and five have more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most Other Toll Carriers
are small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies
adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
31. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since
2007, the SBA has recognized wireless firms within this new, broad,
economic census category. Prior to that time, such firms were within
the now-superseded categories of Paging and Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications. Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has
deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were
11,163 establishments that operated for the entire year. Of this total,
10,791 establishments had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 372
had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and
the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates
that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except
satellite) are small entities that may be affected by our proposed
action.
32. Similarly, according to Commission data, 413 carriers reported
that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony,
including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of these, an
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that
approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small.
Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless
firms can be considered small.
33. Cable and Other Program Distribution. Since 2007, these
services have been defined within the broad economic census category of
Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows:
``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text,
sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for this category, which is: All such firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996
establishments that operated that year. Of those 31,996, 1,818 operated
with more than 100 employees, and 30,178 operated with fewer than 100
employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms
offering cable and other program distribution services can be
considered small and may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the
NPRM.
34. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has developed its
own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate
regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is
one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide. Industry data
indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but eleven are
small under this size standard. In addition, under the Commission's
rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer
subscribers. Industry data indicate that, of 6,635 systems nationwide,
5,802 systems have under 10,000 subscribers, and an additional 302
systems have 10,000-19,999 subscribers. Thus, under this second size
standard, most cable systems are small and may be affected by rules
adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
35. All Other Telecommunications. The Census Bureau defines this
industry as including ``establishments primarily engaged in providing
specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking,
communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry
also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite
terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.
Establishments providing Internet services or Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this industry.'' The SBA has developed
a small business size standard for this category; that size standard is
$30.0 million or less in average annual receipts. According to Census
Bureau data for 2007, there were 2,623 firms in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of these, 2478 establishments had annual
receipts of under $10 million and 145 establishments had annual
receipts of $10 million or more. Consequently, we estimate that the
majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by our
action.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
36. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes to require covered
providers to report to the Commission the monthly call answer rate to
each rural OCN to which 100 or more calls were attempted during the
calendar month and the nonrural monthly overall average once per
calendar quarter. Compliance with these reporting obligations may
affect small entities, and may include new administrative processes.
37. In the NPRM, the Commission also proposes a rule requiring that
an originating facilities-based provider or the first facilities-based
provider in the call path record for each long-distance call it
attempts, in addition to calling party number, called party number,
date and time: (1) Whether the call attempt was handed off to an
intermediate provider and, if so, which intermediate provider; (2)
whether the call attempt was going to a rural carrier and, if so, which
rural carrier as identified by its OCN; (3) whether the call attempt
was interstate; and (4) whether the call attempt was answered. The
Commission also proposes to require these providers to retain these
records for a period including the six most recent calendar months.
Compliance with these reporting obligations may affect small entities,
and may include new administrative processes. We note parenthetically
that in the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on the benefits and
burdens of these proposals, and on whether the categories of records to
be retained are normally collected in the ordinary course of business.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
38. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, 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 and
reporting requirements under the rules for such 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 such small
entities.''
39. The Commission is aware that some of the proposals under
[[Page 21902]]
consideration will impact small entities by imposing costs and
administrative burdens. For this reason, the NPRM proposes a number of
measures to minimize or eliminate the costs and burdens generated by
compliance with the proposed rules.
40. First, The NPRM proposes to require only those originating
long-distance providers and other covered providers with more than
100,000 retail long-distance subscribers (business or residential) to
retain the basic information on call attempts and to periodically
report the summary analysis of that information to the Commission.
41. The NPRM proposes two safe harbor provisions that could reduce
the economic impact on small entities. In the first safe harbor, the
NPRM proposes to relieve covered providers of their reporting and
retention obligations if they certify that: They restrict by contract
directly connected intermediate providers to no more than one
additional intermediate provider in the call path before the call
reaches the terminating provider; any nondisclosure agreement with an
intermediate provider permits the originating provider to reveal the
intermediate provider's identity to the Commission and to any rural
carrier whose incoming long-distance traffic is affected by the
intermediate provider's performance; and they have a process in place
to monitor the performance of their intermediate providers in
completing calls to individual rural telephone companies as identified
by Operating Carrier Number.
42. In the second safe harbor, the NPRM also proposes to reduce to
three months a covered provider's record retention obligations and
eliminate its reporting obligations if it certifies annually that for
each of the preceding 12 months: (1) Its average call answer rate for
all rural carriers to which the provider attempted more than 100 calls
in a month was no more than 2 percent less than the average call answer
rate for all calls it placed to nonrural carriers in the same month;
and (2) the call answer rates for 95 percent of those rural carriers to
which it attempted more than 100 calls were no more than 3 percent
below the average rural call answer rate. A covered provider must also
certify that it has a process in place to investigate its performance
in completing calls to individual rural telephone companies (as
identified by Operating Carrier Number) for which the call answer rate
is more than 3 percent below the average of the rural call answer rate
for all rural telephone companies to which it attempted more than 100
calls.
43. In the NPRM, the Commission also seeks comment on whether the
proposed rules should include a sunset provision to account for the
possibility that reforms to the intercarrier compensation rules may
alleviate many of the rural call completion problems addressed in the
NPRM. Such a sunset provision could limit the costs and burdens of
compliance with the proposed rules by establishing an end date for
those costs and burdens.
44. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small
entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the NPRM, in
reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding.
The proposed ring signaling integrity requirements in the NPRM could
have an economic impact on both small and large entities. However, the
Commission believes that any impact of such requirements is outweighed
by the accompanying benefits to the public and to the operation and
efficiency of the long distance industry.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
None.
V. Ordering Clauses
45. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201, 202, 218, 220(a), and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
201, 202, 218, 220(a), 403, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
adopted.
46. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 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.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 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); 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L.
104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222,
225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Add subpart V to part 64 to read as follows:
Subpart V--Data Retention and Reporting of Call Answer Rates
Affecting Long Distance Telephone Calls to Rural Areas
Sec.
64.2101 Definitions.
64.2103 Retention of call attempt records.
64.2105 Report of call answer rates.
64.2107 Exceptions from retention and reporting requirements.
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 202(a), 220(a), 403.
Sec. 64.2101 Definitions.
(a) Answered call. The term ``answered call'' means a call that is
answered by the called party, including by voicemail service, facsimile
machine or answering machine.
(b) Attempted call. The term ``attempted call'' means a call that
results in transmission by the reporting entity toward the terminating
provider of the initial call setup message, regardless of the voice
call signaling and transmission technology used.
(c) Call answer rate. The term ``call answer rate'' means the
number of attempted calls that result in an answered call divided by
the total number of attempted calls, expressed as a percentage.
(d) Facilities-based provider. The term ``facilities-based
provider'' excludes providers that do not originate long distance calls
using their own equipment and includes interconnected VoIP providers,
for purposes of this part.
(e) Intermediate provider. The term ``intermediate provider'' has
the same meaning as in Sec. 64.1600(f).
(f) Long distance voice service. The term ``long distance voice
service'' includes interstate inter-LATA, intrastate inter-LATA,
interstate interexchange, intrastate interexchange, inter-MTA
interstate and inter-MTA intrastate voice services.
(g) Operating company number (OCN). The term ``operating company
number'' means a four-place alphanumeric code that uniquely
[[Page 21903]]
identifies a provider of local telecommunications service.
(h) Originating long distance voice service provider (originating
provider). The term ``originating long distance voice service
provider'' or ``originating provider'' includes a local exchange
carrier as defined in Sec. 64.4001(d), an interexchange carrier as
defined in Sec. 64.4001(e), a commercial mobile radio service provider
as defined in Sec. 20.3 of this chapter, and an interconnected voice
over Internet Protocol (VoIP) provider as defined in 47 U.S.C. 153(25).
(i) Rural CLEC. The term ``rural CLEC'' has the same meaning as in
Sec. 61.26(a)(6) of this chapter.
(j) Rural OCN. The term ``rural OCN'' means an operating carrier
number that uniquely identifies a rural telephone company. The term
``nonrural OCN'' means an operating carrier number that does not
identify a rural telephone company.
(k) Rural telephone company. The term ``rural telephone company''
has the same meaning as in Sec. 51.5 of this chapter.
Sec. 64.2103 Retention of call attempt records.
Except as described in Sec. 64.2107, an originating long distance
voice service provider (or first facilities-based provider when the
originating provider is not facilities-based) shall retain records of
attempted calls in a readily retrievable form for a period that
includes the six (6) most recent complete calendar months:
(a) Information shall be retained for each attempted call to a
rural telephone company (including rural CLEC) and nonrural LEC
(including nonrural CLEC). An attempted call that is returned by an
intermediate provider to the originating provider and re-assigned shall
count as a single attempted call.
(b) The information contained in each ``record'' of an attempted
call shall include:
(1) Calling party number;
(2) Called party number;
(3) Date;
(4) Time;
(5) An indication whether the call was handed off to an
intermediate provider or not and, if so, which intermediate provider;
(6) An indication whether the called party number was assigned to a
rural telephone company or not and, if so, the OCN of the rural
telephone company;
(7) An indication whether the call was interstate or intrastate;
and
(8) An indication whether the call was answered or not.
Sec. 64.2105 Report of call answer rates.
Except as described in Sec. 64.2107, each originating long
distance voice service provider (or its first facilities-based provider
when the originating provider is not facilities-based) shall submit a
report to the Commission in electronic form not later than the 15th day
of the first month following the end of each calendar quarter. The
information contained in the report shall include for each month in
that quarter:
(a) For each rural OCN to which more than 100 calls were attempted
during the month, the OCN, the state, the number of attempted calls,
the number of attempted calls that were answered, and the call answer
rate;
(b) For rural OCNs to which more than 100 calls were attempted
during the month (all such OCNs in the aggregate), the total number of
attempted calls, the total number of attempted calls that were
answered, and the call answer rate; and
(c) For nonrural OCNs (in the aggregate), the total number of
attempted calls, the total number of attempted calls that were
answered, and the call answer rate.
Sec. 64.2107 Exceptions from retention and reporting requirements.
(a) An originating long distance voice service provider with
100,000 or fewer total retail long distance subscribers (business and
residential combined) is not required to retain records of attempted
calls or to report call answer rates as provided in this subpart. A
first facilities-based provider for originating long distance service
providers that do not report, and that provides service directly or
indirectly to 100,000 or fewer retail long distance subscribers, is not
required to retain records and to report as provided in this subpart.
(b) An originating provider or a first facilities-based provider
that makes one of the following annual certifications is not required
to report rural call completion rates to the Commission for one year
following such certification. Providers filing Certification in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section are not required to retain records of
attempted calls, and providers filing Certification in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section are required to retain records of attempted calls for
only the three (3) most recent complete calendar months.
(1) Certification of Intermediate Provider Management. The chief
executive officer (CEO), chief financial officer (CFO), or other senior
executive of an originating long distance voice service provider or
first facilities-based provider with first-hand knowledge of the
accuracy and completeness of the information provided, certifies as
follows: I -------- (name) -------- (title), an officer of --------
(entity), certify that ------------ (entity) restricts by contract any
intermediate provider to which a call is directed by (entity) from
permitting more than one additional intermediate provider in the call
path before the call reaches the terminating provider. I certify that
any nondisclosure agreement with an intermediate provider permits ----
---- (entity) to reveal the identity of the intermediate provider to
the Commission and to the rural telephone company(ies) whose incoming
long-distance calls are affected by the intermediate provider's
performance. I certify that -------- (entity) has a process in place to
monitor the performance of its intermediate providers in completing
calls to individual rural telephone companies as identified by
Operating Carrier Number.
(2) Certification of Rural Call Performance. The chief executive
officer (CEO), chief financial officer (CFO), or other senior executive
of an originating long distance voice service provider or first
facilities-based provider with first-hand knowledge of the accuracy and
completeness of the information provided, certifies as follows:
I -------- (name) -------- (title), an officer of --------
(entity), certify that for each of the previous 12 full calendar
months, -------- (entity) has met the following performance standard:
the average of the call answer rates for all rural telephone companies
as identified by Operating Carrier Number to which -------- (entity)
attempted more than 100 calls in a month was no more than 2 percent
less than the average call answer rate for all calls -------- (entity)
placed to nonrural LECs in the same month, and the call answer rates
for 95 percent of those rural telephone companies to which --------
(entity) attempted more than 100 calls were no more than 3 percent
below the average rural call answer rate. I certify that --------
(entity) has a process in place to investigate its performance in
completing calls to individual rural telephone companies as identified
by Operating Carrier Number for which the call answer rate is more than
3 percent below the average of the rural call answer rate for all rural
telephone companies to which -------- (entity) attempted more than 100
calls.
0
3. Add subpart W to part 64 to read as follows:
Subpart W--Ring Signaling Integrity
Sec.
64.2201 Ringing indication requirements.
[[Page 21904]]
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201(b).
Sec. 64.2201 Ringing indication requirements.
(a) Telecommunications carriers and providers of interconnected
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, when originating
interstate or intrastate traffic on the public switched telephone
network (PSTN) or originating interstate or intrastate traffic that is
destined for the PSTN, shall not generate a ringing indication locally
that is conveyed to the calling party until the terminating provider
has signaled that the called party is being alerted to an incoming
call, such as by ringing. If the terminating provider signals that the
called party is being alerted and provides an audio tone or
announcement, originating providers are required to cease any locally-
generated audible tone or announcement and convey the terminating
provider's tone or announcement to the calling party. The scope of this
provision includes any voice call signaling and transmission
technologies.
(b) Intermediate providers within an interstate or intrastate call
path that originates and/or terminates on the PSTN must return
unaltered to providers in the call path any signaling information that
indicates that the terminating provider is alerting the called party,
such as by ringing. An intermediate provider may not generate signaling
information that indicates the terminating provider is alerting the
called party unless it has received such an indication from the
terminating provider. Intermediate providers must also return unaltered
any audio tone or announcement provided by the terminating provider.
The scope of this provision includes any voice call signaling and
transmission technologies.
[FR Doc. 2013-08527 Filed 4-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P