Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment To Refresh the Record on Truth-in-Billing Rules To Ensure Protections for All Consumers of Voice Services, 1798-1799 [2020-00260]

Download as PDF 1798 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 2020 / Proposed Rules additional application methods, and updates definitions. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the ‘‘For Further Information Contact’’ section of this preamble for more information). khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve the Georgia SIP revision to Rule 391–3–1– .02(2)(kkk), ‘‘VOC Emissions from Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities,’’ submitted on June 6, 2019. EPA has evaluated Georgia’s submittal and preliminarily determined that they meet the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action: • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866; • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Jan 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: December 26, 2019. Blake M. Ashbee, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2020–00327 Filed 1–10–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Chapter I [CC Docket No. 98–170, WC Docket No. 04– 36; DA 19–1271; FRS 16334] Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment To Refresh the Record on Truth-in-Billing Rules To Ensure Protections for All Consumers of Voice Services Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: In this document, the Commission, via the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau), seeks to refresh the record on two issues related to the Commission’s truth-inbilling rules. Specifically, the Bureau seeks additional comment on proposals to extend the truth-in-billing rules to providers of interconnected Voice over SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 internet Protocol (VoIP) services and to require carriers to separate governmentmandated charges from other charges on consumers’ telephone bills. The Bureau also seeks additional comment on how to define ‘‘government-mandated charge’’ for these purposes. DATES: Comments are due February 12, 2020, and reply comments are due March 13, 2020. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CC Docket No. 98–170 and WC Docket No. 04–36, by any of the following methods: • Federal Communications Commission’s Website: https:// apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Paper Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. 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. • 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. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Erica McMahon of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0346 or Erica.McMahon@fcc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission’s Public Notice, in CC Docket No. 98–170, WC Docket No. 04–36; DA 19–1271, released on December 13, 2019. The full text of document DA 19–1271 will be available for public inspection and copying via the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 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 and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), or (202) 418–0432 (TTY). E:\FR\FM\13JAP1.SGM 13JAP1 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 2020 / Proposed Rules This matter shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memorandum summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-butdisclose proceedings are set forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b). khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Synopsis 1. In the Public Notice, the Bureau seeks comment on several issues related to the Commission’s truth-in-billing rules. Specifically, the Bureau seeks additional comment on proposals to extend the truth-in-billing rules to providers of interconnected VoIP services and to require carriers to separate government-mandated charges from other charges on consumers’ telephone bills. 2. First, the Bureau seeks comment on extending the Commission’s existing truth-in-billing rules, which currently apply only to wireline and wireless common carriers, to interconnected VoIP service providers. The Commission previously sought comment on this issue. See IP-Enabled Services, WC Docket No. 04–36, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published at 69 FR 16193, March 29, 2004. The Bureau seeks to refresh the record in light of the increasing numbers of consumers who have replaced their traditional circuit-switched phone service with interconnected VoIP service. Would consumers of interconnected VoIP service benefit from the truth-in-billing rules? Would such rules aid consumers both in determining whether to subscribe to an interconnected VoIP service in the first place and, thereafter, in assessing a provider’s ongoing fees and conditions vis-a`-vis those of other providers? Would rules requiring that charges be clear and conspicuous enhance VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:13 Jan 10, 2020 Jkt 250001 interconnected VoIP consumers’ ability to detect erroneous charges and unauthorized changes in their service arrangements? 3. If the Commission were to extend the truth-in-billing rules to interconnected VoIP services, what rules should it extend, i.e., those that currently are designed to apply to legacy wireline carriers or the more recent rules that apply to wireless carriers? In other words, what rules are appropriate for interconnected VoIP and how should they apply? And should the Commission take the opportunity to revisit the need for any possibly outdated rules? If so, the Bureau seeks comment on why any such rules no longer benefit consumers. 4. Second, the Bureau seeks to refresh the record on whether the Commission should require all voice service providers to separate on consumer bills those line-item fees that are government-mandated from those that are not to the extent they include separate line items on a consumer’s bill. See Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, CC Docket No. 98–170, CG Docket No. 04–208, Second Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published at 70 FR 30044, May 25, 2005. Would such an approach serve the Commission’s historical truth-in-billing goal ‘‘to aid customers in understanding their telecommunications bills, and to provide them with the tools they need to make informed choices in the market for telecommunications services’’? If the Commission were to require such separation, what would be the most consumer-beneficial way to do so while minimizing regulatory burdens on voice service providers? Should the Commission consider steps beyond simple separation and require that different charges appear in a distinct section of the consumer’s bill, one clearly labeled to show that it contains government-mandated charges? Some service providers promote all-inclusive prices, with no added line-item charges, for certain offerings. How should the Commission address governmentmandated charges in this context? 5. The Bureau seeks additional comment on how to define ‘‘government-mandated charge’’ for PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 1799 these purposes. In the Truth-in-Billing FNPRM, the Commission noted that mandated charges could be defined as those that providers are required by law to collect from consumers and remit directly to federal, state, or local governments, or could also include charges that providers are not required to collect from consumers but choose to do so through separate line items, to reimburse themselves for their own payments toward government programs. Under this definition, charges for universal service, state and local taxes, 911/E911, and other line-item fees should be considered governmentmandated. The Bureau seeks further comment on how to define governmentmandated charges. 6. In contrast, most other line-item charges would not be considered government-mandated. For example, charges historically associated with network access, such as the Subscriber Line Charge and Access Recovery Charge; charges designed to recover the administrative or other costs for complying with federal and state law, such as a ‘‘Regulatory Fee’’ or ‘‘Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge;’’ and charges to reimburse providers for more general operating costs, such as permit fees, application fees, or licensing fees, are not charges remitted to the government but are line items collected by carriers of their own volition. The Bureau seeks comment on whether such fees should be separated from government-mandated charges. 7. The Commission’s authority to adopt truth-in-billing rules for common carriers derives in large part from section 201(b) of the Communications Act to deter carriers from engaging in unjust and unreasonable practices. The Bureau seeks to refresh the record on the Commission’s authority to extend the truth-in-billing rules to interconnected VoIP service providers, including both two-way and one-way interconnected VoIP services. Federal Communications Commission. Gregory Haledjian, Legal Advisor, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau. [FR Doc. 2020–00260 Filed 1–10–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712–01–P E:\FR\FM\13JAP1.SGM 13JAP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 8 (Monday, January 13, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1798-1799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00260]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I

[CC Docket No. 98-170, WC Docket No. 04-36; DA 19-1271; FRS 16334]


Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment To Refresh 
the Record on Truth-in-Billing Rules To Ensure Protections for All 
Consumers of Voice Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission, via the Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau), seeks to refresh the record on 
two issues related to the Commission's truth-in-billing rules. 
Specifically, the Bureau seeks additional comment on proposals to 
extend the truth-in-billing rules to providers of interconnected Voice 
over internet Protocol (VoIP) services and to require carriers to 
separate government-mandated charges from other charges on consumers' 
telephone bills. The Bureau also seeks additional comment on how to 
define ``government-mandated charge'' for these purposes.

DATES: Comments are due February 12, 2020, and reply comments are due 
March 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CC Docket No. 98-170 
and WC Docket No. 04-36, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Website: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Paper Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file 
an original and one copy of each filing. 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.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Erica 
McMahon of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-
0346 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Public 
Notice, in CC Docket No. 98-170, WC Docket No. 04-36; DA 19-1271, 
released on December 13, 2019. The full text of document DA 19-1271 
will be available for public inspection and copying via the Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS), and during regular business hours at the 
FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room 
CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), or 
(202) 418-0432 (TTY).

[[Page 1799]]

    This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR 
1.1200 et seq. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded 
that memorandum summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of 
the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the 
subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the 
views and arguments presented is generally required. See 47 CFR 
1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte 
presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in Sec.  
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

Synopsis

    1. In the Public Notice, the Bureau seeks comment on several issues 
related to the Commission's truth-in-billing rules. Specifically, the 
Bureau seeks additional comment on proposals to extend the truth-in-
billing rules to providers of interconnected VoIP services and to 
require carriers to separate government-mandated charges from other 
charges on consumers' telephone bills.
    2. First, the Bureau seeks comment on extending the Commission's 
existing truth-in-billing rules, which currently apply only to wireline 
and wireless common carriers, to interconnected VoIP service providers. 
The Commission previously sought comment on this issue. See IP-Enabled 
Services, WC Docket No. 04-36, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published 
at 69 FR 16193, March 29, 2004. The Bureau seeks to refresh the record 
in light of the increasing numbers of consumers who have replaced their 
traditional circuit-switched phone service with interconnected VoIP 
service. Would consumers of interconnected VoIP service benefit from 
the truth-in-billing rules? Would such rules aid consumers both in 
determining whether to subscribe to an interconnected VoIP service in 
the first place and, thereafter, in assessing a provider's ongoing fees 
and conditions vis-[agrave]-vis those of other providers? Would rules 
requiring that charges be clear and conspicuous enhance interconnected 
VoIP consumers' ability to detect erroneous charges and unauthorized 
changes in their service arrangements?
    3. If the Commission were to extend the truth-in-billing rules to 
interconnected VoIP services, what rules should it extend, i.e., those 
that currently are designed to apply to legacy wireline carriers or the 
more recent rules that apply to wireless carriers? In other words, what 
rules are appropriate for interconnected VoIP and how should they 
apply? And should the Commission take the opportunity to revisit the 
need for any possibly outdated rules? If so, the Bureau seeks comment 
on why any such rules no longer benefit consumers.
    4. Second, the Bureau seeks to refresh the record on whether the 
Commission should require all voice service providers to separate on 
consumer bills those line-item fees that are government-mandated from 
those that are not to the extent they include separate line items on a 
consumer's bill. See Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, CC Docket No. 
98-170, CG Docket No. 04-208, Second Report and Order, Declaratory 
Ruling, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published at 
70 FR 30044, May 25, 2005. Would such an approach serve the 
Commission's historical truth-in-billing goal ``to aid customers in 
understanding their telecommunications bills, and to provide them with 
the tools they need to make informed choices in the market for 
telecommunications services''? If the Commission were to require such 
separation, what would be the most consumer-beneficial way to do so 
while minimizing regulatory burdens on voice service providers? Should 
the Commission consider steps beyond simple separation and require that 
different charges appear in a distinct section of the consumer's bill, 
one clearly labeled to show that it contains government-mandated 
charges? Some service providers promote all-inclusive prices, with no 
added line-item charges, for certain offerings. How should the 
Commission address government-mandated charges in this context?
    5. The Bureau seeks additional comment on how to define 
``government-mandated charge'' for these purposes. In the Truth-in-
Billing FNPRM, the Commission noted that mandated charges could be 
defined as those that providers are required by law to collect from 
consumers and remit directly to federal, state, or local governments, 
or could also include charges that providers are not required to 
collect from consumers but choose to do so through separate line items, 
to reimburse themselves for their own payments toward government 
programs. Under this definition, charges for universal service, state 
and local taxes, 911/E911, and other line-item fees should be 
considered government-mandated. The Bureau seeks further comment on how 
to define government-mandated charges.
    6. In contrast, most other line-item charges would not be 
considered government-mandated. For example, charges historically 
associated with network access, such as the Subscriber Line Charge and 
Access Recovery Charge; charges designed to recover the administrative 
or other costs for complying with federal and state law, such as a 
``Regulatory Fee'' or ``Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge;'' and charges 
to reimburse providers for more general operating costs, such as permit 
fees, application fees, or licensing fees, are not charges remitted to 
the government but are line items collected by carriers of their own 
volition. The Bureau seeks comment on whether such fees should be 
separated from government-mandated charges.
    7. The Commission's authority to adopt truth-in-billing rules for 
common carriers derives in large part from section 201(b) of the 
Communications Act to deter carriers from engaging in unjust and 
unreasonable practices.
    The Bureau seeks to refresh the record on the Commission's 
authority to extend the truth-in-billing rules to interconnected VoIP 
service providers, including both two-way and one-way interconnected 
VoIP services.

Federal Communications Commission.
Gregory Haledjian,
Legal Advisor, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2020-00260 Filed 1-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.