[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 104 (Wednesday, June 1, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31406-31409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-10973]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 02-386; FCC 05-29]


Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer Account 
Record Exchange Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on issues 
relating to the exchange of customer account information between Local 
Exchange Carriers. The Commission specifically questions whether we 
should require all local service providers to participate in the 
exchange of customer account information and if so, what information 
local service providers should be required to supply. In addition, in 
this document the Commission seeks comment broadly on the interplay 
between the state rules and any federal rules we might adopt in this 
area.

DATES: Comments are due on or before July 18, 2005, and reply comments 
are due August 1, 2005. Written comments on the proposed information 
collection(s) must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before August 1, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the 
Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 
information collection requirements contained herein should be 
submitted to Leslie Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-
C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet 
to [email protected], and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, 
Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, via the 
Internet to [email protected], or via fax at (202) 395-
5167.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Boehley, Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-7395 (voice), or e-mail 
[email protected]. For additional information concerning the PRA 
information collection requirements contained in this document, contact 
Leslie Smith at (202) 418-0217, or via the Internet at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(FNPRM), Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer Account 
Record Exchange Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers, CG 
Docket No. 02-386, FCC 05-29, contains proposed information collection 
requirements subject to the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. It will be 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under 
section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal 
agencies are invited to comment on the proposed information collection 
requirements contained in this proceeding.
    This is a summary of the Commission's FNPRM, adopted February 10, 
2005, and released February 25, 2005. Comments may be filed using the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper 
copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 
63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent 
as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html.
    Copies of this document and any subsequently filed documents in 
this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during 
regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals 
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The 
complete text of this decision may be purchased from the Commission's 
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals 
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers 
may contact BCPI, Inc. at their Web site: http://www.bcpiweb.com or 
call 1-800-378-3160. To request materials in accessible formats for 
people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio 
format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 
(TTY). This document can also be downloaded in Word and Portable 
Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/pol.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This FNPRM 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 FNPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due August 1, 
2005.
    Comments should address: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. 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.''
    OMB Control Number: 3060-xxxx.
    Title: Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer Account 
Record Exchange Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers, CG 
Docket No. 02-386, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), FCC 
05-29.
    Form Number: N/A.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.
    Number of Respondents: 1,873; 60 responses per year.
    Estimated Time per Response: 0.25 hours.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion and annual reporting 
requirements.
    Total Annual Burden: 28,095 hours.
    Total Annual Cost: $210,713.
    Privacy Impact Assessment: No.
    Needs and Uses: On February 25, 2005, the FCC released a Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Rules and Regulations Implementing 
Minimum Customer Account Record Exchange Obligations on All Local and 
Interexchange Carriers (FNPRM), which seeks comment on whether the 
Commission should require all local service providers to participate in 
the

[[Page 31407]]

exchange of customer account information when a customer switches from 
one local service provider to another. The Commission is considering 
the adoption of rules governing information exchanges between local 
service providers. The Commission is taking this step in response to 
concerns that have been brought to its attention by particular local 
service providers. In particular, local service providers complain of 
the failure on the part of certain providers to transmit basic customer 
account information when a customer changes from one local service 
provider to another. The comments suggest that mandatory information 
exchanges in these situations may help to ensure that customer 
migrations from one local service provider to another will take place 
seamlessly and without undue delay. Mandatory information exchanges 
also may help to ensure the accuracy of customer bills for local 
telephone service and may assist the Commission and state commissions 
in their enforcement proceedings related to billing-related consumer 
complaints. We note that, in the FNPRM, the Commission has not proposed 
specific rules detailing the precise circumstances in which information 
exchanges may be required. If the Commission determines to adopt such 
rules, however, we anticipate that they will contain information 
collection requirements, within the meaning of the PRA.

Synopsis

    In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the 
Commission seeks comment on the exchange of information between Local 
Exchange Carriers (LECs). We specifically ask whether the Commission 
should require all local service providers to participate in the 
exchange of customer account information and if so, what information 
local service providers should be required to supply. A significant 
number of commenters recognize that the sharing of customer account 
information is necessary for service changes involving presubscribed 
Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Certain local service providers argue 
that the exchange of end user account information between local service 
providers is equally critical when a customer is switching local 
service. As an incumbent LEC subject to Sec.  271 obligations, one such 
commenter indicates that it already is required to provide timely 
customer account information to a requesting CLEC that has acquired a 
new customer. However, a similar obligation on CLECs does not exist. 
Many local service providers not subject to the Sec.  271 requirements 
fail to exchange information in a uniform manner or to provide complete 
and timely information, thereby delaying the customer's switch in 
service. Specifically, particular local service providers describe a 
problem with ``old'' local service providers not responding to customer 
service record requests in a timely or consistent manner. Customers, in 
turn, who expect service transitions to occur seamlessly and in a 
timely fashion, are confused about the source of the delay, frustrated, 
and often give up on the desired change. In addition, ATIS OBF's recent 
action to develop local service migration guidelines and to outline 
standards for the exchange of customer service record information 
suggests that the industry as a whole recognizes the need for uniform 
standards in connection with local-to-local carrier changes. The FNPRM 
seeks comment on the issues identified in the record of the CARE 
proceeding regarding LEC-to-LEC communications and on whether mandating 
the exchange of customer account information among LECs will reduce the 
problems identified therein, including double billing, delays in 
migration, and confusion on the part of consumers concerning their 
local service accounts. The Commission also requests comment on the 
exchange of ``line level'' information, such as working telephone 
number, current preferred interexchange carrier and freeze status, 
along with calling features such as toll blocking and call forwarding. 
In addition, the Commission seeks comment broadly on the interplay 
between the state rules and any federal rules we might adopt in the 
area of end user migrations between facilities-based providers. We ask 
that carriers identify problems specific to LEC-to-LEC exchanges that 
might warrant adopting standards for timeliness. If so, we ask 
commenters to describe what those standards for timeliness should be. 
Finally, the FNPRM seeks comment on ways to minimize the burdens on 
small businesses.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), (see 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA), Public Law Number 104-121, Title II, 110 Statute 857 
(1996)), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this FNPRM. 
Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be 
identified as responses to the FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy 
of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, 
this FNPRM and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the 
Federal Register.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    The Commission determined that the record in this proceeding 
demonstrates that basic customer account information that carriers 
require to ensure accurate billing of end user customers and to execute 
end user customer requests in a timely manner is not being provided by 
all LECs and by all IXCs. This can inhibit customers' ability to move 
seamlessly from one carrier to another, and can result in substantial 
increases in unbillable calls and customer complaints. Therefore, the 
Commission adopted new rules to facilitate the exchange of customer 
account information between LECs and IXCs to ensure those consumers' 
phone service bills are accurate and that their carrier selection 
requests are honored and executed without undue delay.
    The record suggests that local service providers experience many of 
the same difficulties with access to customer account information as 
described by Joint Petitioners, and that the sharing of necessary 
customer information is not limited to changes involving presubscribed 
IXCs. It appears that with the increase in competition and churn in the 
local market, coupled with the advent of local number portability, the 
failure to exchange information in a uniform or timely manner may 
result in an increase in customer migrations from LEC to LEC that are 
not seamless. Therefore, the FNPRM seeks comment on the exchange of 
information between LECs and asks whether the Commission should require 
that all local service providers participate in the exchange of 
customer account information. We seek comment specifically on whether 
mandating the exchange of customer account information among LECs will 
reduce the problems identified by commenters, including double billing, 
delays in migration, and consumer confusion about their service.

Legal Basis

    The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to this 
FNPRM is contained in Sec. Sec.  1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202, 206-208, 222, 
and 258 of the

[[Page 31408]]

Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 
201, 202, 206-208, 222, and 258, and Sec.  1.421 and 1.429 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.421 and 1.429.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the 
Proposed Rules Will Apply

    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. (See 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3)). 
The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same 
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and 
``small governmental jurisdiction.'' (See 5 U.S.C. 601(6)). In 
addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term 
``small business concern'' under section 3 of the Small Business Act. 
(See 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of 
``small business concern'' in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). 
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small 
business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with the Office 
of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity 
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term 
which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes 
such definitions(s) in the Federal Register.'') Under the Small 
Business Act, a ``small business concern'' is one that: (1) Is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
Small Business Administration (SBA). (See 15 U.S.C. 632).
    We have included small incumbent LECs in this 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 
wireline telecommunications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), 
and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' (See 13 CFR 121.201, 
NAICS code 517110). 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. (See 
Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to 
Chairman William E. Kennard, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act 
contains a definition of ``small business concern,'' which the RFA 
incorporates into its own definition of ``small business.'' See 5 
U.S.C. 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (RFA). SBA 
regulations interpret ``small business concern'' to include the concept 
of dominance on a national basis. 13 CFR 121.102(b)). We have therefore 
included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we 
emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on the Commission's 
analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for providers of 
incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard 
under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under 
that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees (13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110). According to the FCC's 
Telephone Trends Report data, 1,310 incumbent local exchange carriers 
reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange 
services (FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and 
Technology Division, Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5.3, p. 5-5 
(May 2004) (Telephone Trends Report). This source uses data that are 
current as of October 22, 2003. Of these 1,310 carriers, an estimated 
1,025 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 285 have more than 1,500 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
providers of local exchange service are small entitles that may be 
affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
    Competitive Local Exchange Carriers and Competitive Access 
Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed specific 
small business size standards for providers of competitive local 
exchange services or competitive access providers (CAPs). The closest 
applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees (See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS 
code 517110). According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 563 
companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of either 
competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange 
carrier services. (See Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. The data are 
grouped together in the Telephone Trends Report). Of these 563 
companies, an estimated 472 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 91 have 
more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 
the majority of providers of competitive local exchange service and 
CAPs are small entities that may be affected by the rules.
    Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a specific size standard for 
small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. 
Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees (See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517310). According to the 
FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 127 companies reported that they 
were engaged in the provision of local resale services (See Telephone 
Trends Report, Table 5.3). Of these 127 companies, an estimated 121 
have 1,500 or fewer employees, and six have more than 1,500 employees. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local 
resellers may be affected by the rules.
    Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a specific size standard for 
small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. 
Under that SBA definition, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees (See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517310). According to 
the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 645 companies reported that 
they were engaged in the provision of toll resale services. (See 
Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3). Of these 645 companies, an 
estimated 619 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 26 have more than 
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority 
of toll resellers may be affected by the rules.
    Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a specific size standard for small entities specifically 
applicable to providers of interexchange services. The closest 
applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. (See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS 
code 517110). According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 281 
carriers reported that their primary telecommunications service 
activity was the provision of interexchange services. (See Telephone 
Trends Report, Table 5.3). Of these 281 carriers, an estimated 254 have 
1,500 or fewer employees, and 27 have more than 1,500 employees. 
Consequently, we estimate that a majority of interexchange carriers may 
be affected by the rules.
    Operator Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a size standard for small entities specifically applicable to 
operator service providers. The closest applicable size standard under 
the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
(See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS

[[Page 31409]]

code 517110). According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 21 
companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of operator 
services. (See Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3). Of these 21 
companies, an estimated 20 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and one has 
more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 
a majority of operator service providers may be affected by the rules.
    Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a size 
standard for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications 
Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. (See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517310). 
According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 40 companies 
reported that they were engaged in the provision of prepaid calling 
cards. (See Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3). Of these 40 companies, 
all 40 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, 
the Commission estimates that all or most prepaid calling card 
providers may be affected by the rules.
    Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a size standard for small entities 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 
the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
(See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110). According to the FCC's 
Telephone Trends Report data, 65 carriers reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of ``Other Toll Services.'' (See Telephone 
Trends Report, Table 5.3). Of these 65 carriers, an estimated 62 have 
1,500 or fewer employees, and three have more than 1,500 employees. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of ``Other Toll 
Carriers'' may be affected by the rules.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities

    As noted, the Commission seeks comment on whether mandatory minimum 
standards for the exchange of customer account information between 
local service providers could provide consistency within the industry 
and could eliminate a significant percentage of consumer complaints 
concerning billing errors. In addition, we ask whether the Commission 
should mandate the use of CARE transaction codes to facilitate the 
exchange of customer account information. In the event any new 
standards for LEC-to-LEC exchanges are adopted, we expect that such 
standards will be minimal and will provide sufficient flexibility in 
their application that they will not create any significant burden on 
small entities.

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered

    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives 
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may 
include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for 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 
small entities. (See 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4)).
    The FNPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission should impose 
mandatory minimum standards on all LECs for the exchange of customer 
account information between local service providers. (See Further 
Notice at paragraphs 75-81). The Commission seeks specific information 
addressing the possible impact of such mandatory requirements on 
smaller carriers, and it asks whether implementing CARE codes would be 
problematic for any LECs, or for small or rural LECs in particular. The 
Commission also asks commenters to discuss how, if the Commission were 
to adopt minimum standards for the exchange of information among LECs, 
it could provide sufficient flexibility to protect carriers, 
particularly small/rural LECs, from unduly burdensome requirements. The 
Commission does not have any evidence before it at this time regarding 
whether proposals outlined in this FNPRM would, if adopted, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
However, the record in the proceeding involving LEC-to-IXC transfers 
revealed that there would likely be some additional burdens on small 
LECs required to transfer customer account information to IXCs. 
Therefore, the Commission recognizes, in the context of LEC-to-LEC 
exchanges, mandating the exchange of customer account information may 
result in additional burdens on small entities. The Commission 
therefore seeks comment on the potential impact of these proposals on 
small entities, and whether there are any less burdensome alternatives 
that we should consider.

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    In addressing the exchange of customer account information between 
LECs and IXCs, the Commission noted that Sec.  222 of the 
Communications Act governs carriers' use of customer proprietary 
network information and generally prohibits a carrier from disclosing 
such information. Although the Commission does not believe Sec.  222 
duplicates, overlaps, or conflicts with the proposed rules on LEC-to-
LEC exchanges, it seeks comment on the interplay between Sec.  222 and 
the proposed rules.

Ordering Clauses

    Pursuant to the authority contained in Sec. Sec.  1-4, 201, 202, 
222, 258, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 
U.S.C. 151-154, 201, 202, 222, 258, and 303(r), the further notice of 
proposed rulemaking is adopted.
    The Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, shall send a copy of the Further 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.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-10973 Filed 5-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P