[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 105 (Thursday, June 2, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32258-32266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-10974]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopts new rules to 
facilitate the exchange of customer account information between Local 
Exchange Carriers (LECs) and Interexchange Carriers (IXCs) and to 
establish carriers' responsibilities with respect to such exchanges.

DATES: The rules in this document contain information collection 
requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the Federal 
Register announcing the effective date for these rules. Written 
comments by the public on the new and modified information collections 
are due July 5, 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: On April 19, 2004, the Commission included 
in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Rules and Regulations 
Implementing Minimum Customer Account Record Exchange Obligations on 
All Local and Interexchange Carriers, published at 69 FR 20845, April 
19, 2004, the 60 day PRA notice that sought comment on whether the 
Commission should impose mandatory minimum Customer Account Record 
Exchange (CARE) obligations on all local and interexchange carriers 
and, in specified situations, require carriers to transmit to involved 
carriers certain CARE codes designed to provide specific billing an 
other essential customer data. In addition, the Commission questioned 
whether adopting a mandatory minimum CARE standard for wireline-to-
wireless porting would impose a burden on local exchange carriers and/
or commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers, and sought input 
on what steps might be taken to minimize any such burden. Finally, the 
Commission sought comment on proposals for addressing billing issues in 
wireline-to-wireless number porting situations. On February 25, 2005, 
the Commission released a Report and Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum 
Customer Account Record Exchange Obligations on All Local and 
Interexchange Carriers, in which the Commission required the exchange 
of certain information, but determined not to require the use of 
particular CARE codes for the exchange of such information. In 
addition, the Commission declined to adopt specific performance 
measurements for the timeliness and completeness of the transfer of 
customer account information between local exchange carriers (LECs) and 
interexchange carriers (IXCs). Finally, the Commission determined that 
carriers subject to these requirements may use a variety of 
transmission mediums for the required information exchanges. This 
Report and Order contains new information collection requirements 
subject to the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. These 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 new information collection requirements 
contained in this proceeding. This Report and Order addresses issues 
arising from Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer 
Account Record Exchange Obligations on all Local and Interexchange 
Carriers, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), CG Docket No. 02-386, 
FCC 04-50; published at 69 FR 20845, April 19, 2004. 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 
Report and Order can also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document 
Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/pol.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This Report and Order contains new information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public to comment on the 
information collection requirements contained in the Report and Order 
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 
104-13. Public and agency comments are due July 5, 2005. In addition, 
the Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we 
previously sought specific comment

[[Page 32259]]

on how the Commission might ``further reduce the information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' In 
the present document, the Commission undertook to minimize the burden 
of the new rules on small businesses and small entities. For example, 
the Report and Order affords carriers flexibility in both the format 
and medium of information exchanges and, thus, does not require 
carriers to use Customer Account Record Exchange (CARE) or other 
automated methods, unless they so choose. In addition, in response to 
rural and small carrier concerns, the Commission rejected suggestions 
to impose specific time limits or performance measurements on the 
exchange of customer account information. These determinations appear 
to be consistent with the views expressed by a number of small and 
rural carriers in the Commission's Report and Order who urge that if 
the Commission adopts mandatory standards it should ``require carriers 
to exchange information at specific times, but refrain from micro-
managing the methods the carriers use to do so''.

Synopsis

    In this Report and Order, the Commission establishes mandatory, 
minimum standards governing the exchange of customer account 
information between LECs and IXCs. In taking this action, we do not 
prescribe the use of a particular notification format or medium for the 
transfer of customer account information, such as Customer Account 
Record Exchange (CARE), and, instead, identify the situations in which 
information exchanges must take place and the obligations of particular 
carriers with respect to those exchanges. Under the rules we adopt, a 
LEC will be required to supply customer account information to an IXC 
when: (1) The LEC has placed an end user on the IXC's network; (2) the 
LEC has removed an end user from the IXC's network; (3) an end user 
that is presubscribed to the IXC makes certain changes to her account 
information via her LEC; (4) the IXC has requested billing, name, and 
address (``BNA'') information for an end user who has usage on the 
IXC's network but for whom the IXC does not have an existing account; 
and (5) the LEC rejects an IXC-initiated PIC Report and Order. In 
addition, an IXC will be required to supply customer account 
information to a LEC when an end user contacts the IXC directly either 
to select or to remove the IXC as his PIC. The Commission also requires 
carriers to provide the required notifications promptly and without 
unreasonable delay. Finally, we require carriers to exercise reasonable 
efforts to ensure that the required data transmissions are complete and 
accurate.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification (FRFA)

    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 Stat. 857 
(1996), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) released by 
the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) on March 25, 2004. 
(See Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer Account Record 
Exchange Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers, CG Docket 
No. 02-386, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 04-50, released March 
25, 2004 (``NPRM ''), a summary of the NPRM was published in the 
Federal Register on April 19, 2004. (See 69 FR 20845). The Commission 
sought written public comments on the proposals contained in the NPRM, 
including comments on the IRFA. Only two comments filed in this 
proceeding were specifically identified as comments addressing the 
IRFA; however comments that address the impact of the proposed rules 
and policies on small entities are discussed below. This present Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. (See 5 
U.S.C. 604).

Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order

    A group of carriers including the Bell Operating Companies, several 
independent telephone companies, and the then-existing long distance 
carriers, developed the Customer Account Record Exchange (``CARE'') 
process in response to the break-up of the Bell System and the 
introduction of competitive long distance services. In the Report and 
Order, to facilitate equal access and cooperation mandated by the 
Modified Final Judgment, the industry created the Alliance for 
Telecommunications Industry Solutions (``ATIS''). ATIS develops and 
promotes technical and operational standards for communications and 
related information technologies worldwide. ATIS' 124 member companies 
represent all segments of the telecommunications industry and 
participate in ATIS' open industry committees and forums. ATIS in turn 
created the Ordering and Billing Forum (``OBF''), which established 
voluntary CARE standards in the industry. These voluntary standards 
were developed to allow LECs to comply with their obligation to provide 
IXCs with access equal in type, quality, and price to that provided to 
AT&T and its affiliates. Thus, the CARE standards generally were 
created to facilitate the transfer of customer account information from 
a customer's incumbent local exchange carrier (``ILEC'') to the 
appropriate IXC(s) when a customer elected to change long distance 
carriers or wished to modify his or her BNA information. The transfer 
of CARE data in these situations was designed to enable customers to 
move seamlessly from one IXC to another and to ensure that the 
appropriate IXC receives accurate customer account information in a 
timely manner.
    In November of 2002, AT&T, Sprint Corporation, and MCI, Inc. (Joint 
Petitioners) filed a petition asking the Commission to initiate a 
rulemaking proceeding to implement mandatory, minimum standards 
governing the exchange of customer account information between LECs and 
IXCs and to adopt CARE as the prescribed format for such exchanges. The 
Joint Petitioners argued that mandatory, minimum standards are needed 
to ensure the exchange of information that carriers require to maintain 
accurate billing records and to deliver quality customer service and 
asked the Commission to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to mandate 
particular CARE codes and data exchange situations for communications 
between all wireline carriers. The Joint Petitioners contend that the 
voluntary exchange of information worked relatively well until the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (``the Act''). The passage of the Act 
created competitive LECs (``CLECs''), many of which do not participate 
in the voluntary CARE exchange, or do not provide appropriate 
information on a timely basis or with a quality or format upon which 
IXCs can depend. The Joint Petitioners proposed that all LECs and IXCs 
be required, in specified situations, to transmit to other carriers' 
particular CARE codes that are designed to provide particular billing 
and/or other ``essential'' customer account information.
    The NPRM sought comment as to whether the Commission should adopt 
mandatory, minimum standards governing the exchange of customer account 
information between LECs and IXCs. In addition, in the IRFA, the 
Commission sought comment on the

[[Page 32260]]

effect of the proposed policies and rules on small business entities.
    In this Report and Order, the Commission establishes mandatory, 
minimum standards governing the exchange of customer account 
information between LECs and IXCs. In taking this action, we do not 
prescribe the use of a particular notification format or medium for the 
transfer of customer account information, such as CARE codes, and, 
instead, identify situations in which information exchanges must take 
place and the obligations of particular carriers with respect to those 
exchanges. We reach this conclusion in light of the considerable record 
evidence demonstrating that information needed by carriers to execute 
customer requests in a timely and efficient manner and to properly bill 
customers is not being consistently provided by all LECs and by all 
IXCs, thereby often resulting in customer migration delays, consumer 
confusion and problems such as cramming, slamming, and double billing.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to 
the IRFA

    Two entities filed comments specifically addressing the proposed 
rules and policies presented in the IRFA. The Rural Incumbent Local 
Exchange Carriers (``Rural ILECs'') filed the most comprehensive 
analysis on the impact of the proposed rules on small or rural 
carriers. The Rural ILECs urged the Commission to exempt small ILECs 
from the reporting requirements, arguing that there was no 
justification for the imposition of new regulations on small ILECs. In 
the alternative, the Rural ILECs requested that the Commission exempt 
at least those ILECs that participate in centralized equal access 
networks where the centralized equal access network provides reports to 
other carriers. In the event that the Commission did not carve out an 
exemption for such ILECs, the Rural ILECs suggested that the Commission 
only mandate specific exchange situations and allow all carriers the 
choice of media to transmit customer account data. (Rural ILECs 
Comments at 16 (specifically that the Commission could specify the 
events that trigger the exchange of information, but not require the 
use of specific CARE Transaction Code Status Indicators (TCSIs)). The 
Rural ILECs indicated that allowing ILECs to continue to exchange 
information using the formats and media they currently use, on the 
schedules they use, will minimize costs of compliance for the rural 
carriers. The Rural ILECs explain that if they are required to send 
customer account information on a more frequent basis or use codes not 
currently used, they would face increasing costs (see Rural ILECs 
Comments on the IRFA at 5, maintaining that if the ILEC were to 
generate reports twice a week, the additional burden may be 0.5 to 1 
hour, depending on whether the reports were created by hand or by 
computer, which amounts to 26 to 52 hours per year per ILEC. If 
applicable to 1,000 ILECs, the total additional burden for all small 
ILECs could be 26,000 to 52,000 hours per year). For example, they 
might incur costs for additional staff time to process reports, or for 
the use of modified software to incorporate codes not currently used, 
or for the purchase of the ATIS OBF Equal Access Subscription CARE/
Industry Support Interface. (See Rural ILECs Comments on the IRFA at 5-
6 contending that the ATIS document costs $550 and that with 1,000 
small ILECs, the cost to the industry may be $550,000 for the initial 
purchase of the ATIS document and for each revision of that document).
    National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (``NTCA'') 
maintains that the Commission should consider less burdensome 
alternatives before imposing mandatory requirements on small, rural 
ILECs. Specifically, NTCA argues that any new cost burdens associated 
with mandatory standards should be placed squarely on the IXC 
beneficiaries, rather than on small ILECs. NTCA further states that, 
should the Commission mandate the exchange of information, small rural 
ILECs must be able to recover their costs in the interstate 
jurisdiction through access charges or other mechanisms. Finally, NTCA 
indicates that the IRFA failed to identify federal rules that may 
duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rules and suggests 
that the Customer Proprietary Network Information (``CPNI'') 
requirements under Sec.  222 of the Act and the Commission's rules for 
changing long distance service potentially duplicate, conflict with, or 
overlap the proposed rules.
    Other parties filed comments that specifically mentioned small 
businesses. SBC indicated that small businesses must be able to retain 
the flexibility to use third party vendors to participate in CARE and 
to transmit data to these third parties in a variety of ways. SBC also 
noted that, if the Commission is concerned that mandatory minimum CARE 
standards would prove too burdensome to small businesses, it could 
exempt those businesses that demonstrate that compliance would be too 
economically burdensome. TDS Telecommunications Corp. (``TDS'') 
maintains that because the Joint Petitioners' proposal ``lacks 
flexibility and suitability to the current voluntary standards,'' it 
would unduly burden small and rural LECs. Texas Statewide Telephone 
Cooperative, Inc. (``TSTCI'') also suggested that while small and rural 
carriers are currently using some CARE codes, they lack the resources 
to be active participants in the ATIS/OBF forums. Thus, it could 
potentially be burdensome on these carriers should the Commission 
require compliance with the ATIS/OBF standards. Frontier similarly 
maintains that small and rural LECs lack the necessary resources to 
implement costly new processes.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the 
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 rules adopted herein. 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 (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 comments, establishes one or more definitions of such term 
which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes 
such definition(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

[[Page 32261]]

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. See 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 (see 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 (see 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 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

[[Page 32262]]

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

    The Commission adopts rules to require minimum standards necessary 
to facilitate the exchange of customer account information between LECs 
and IXCs. We require that the exchange of information take place in 
certain situations, and we describe the obligations of particular 
carriers with respect to those exchanges. The rules require the 
exchange of information in the following specific situations (described 
in detail in the Report and Order, paragraphs 31-57): (1) A customer is 
placed on an IXC's network; (2) a customer is removed from an IXC's 
network; (3) a customer's account information changes; (4) a customer 
changes his local service provider; (5) an IXC requests customer BNA 
information; (6) a LEC rejects an IXC-initiated PIC Report and Order; 
and (7) an IXC initiates a PIC Report and Order. However, these rules 
do not prescribe a particular format or delivery method (e.g., the CARE 
process) for the transfer of customer account information and instead 
focus more generally on information sharing in particular situations.
    By focusing on information exchanges in particular circumstances, 
rather than mandating specific formats or transmission mediums for 
those exchanges, we have attempted to minimize the potential costs or 
burdens associated with implementing these requirements, particularly 
for small and rural carriers. We recognize that the CARE process could 
add burdens to smaller ILECs that currently do not use CARE codes but 
nevertheless provide information to other carriers. Thus, we have 
determined not to require those carriers that currently are providing, 
consistent with the rules described in this Report and Order, timely 
and adequate notifications to other carriers pursuant to inter-carrier 
agreements or other non-CARE processes, to incur potentially 
unnecessary expenses associated with modifying their current processes. 
Thus, to avoid imposing any potentially unnecessary burdens on small 
and rural carriers, we do not mandate participation in CARE. In 
addition, although we require that the transmission of customer account 
information be processed without unreasonable delay, we determined not 
to adopt more specific timeliness measures in light of the widely 
divergent proposals and needs of commenters, nor do we mandate the use 
of the OBF-developed CARE/ISI documents to ensure completeness of data 
transmissions. Our determination not to adopt specific performance 
measurements at this time should minimize any administrative burdens on 
small or rural LECs to comply with the new rules.
    We believe that the adoption of nationwide rules requiring the 
exchange or transfer of customer account information in the situations 
identified in the Joint Petition will help to alleviate the billing and 
provisioning problems described in this proceeding, as well as the 
associated customer confusion and customer complaints that are 
documented in the record before us. We further believe that the need 
for mandatory minimum standards to facilitate the exchange of customer 
account information between LECs and IXCs outweighs the administrative 
and cost burdens associated with the increase in compliance 
requirements for those carriers not currently exchanging such 
information in a timely manner.

Steps Taken To Minimize the 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 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 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. 5 U.S.C. 
603.
    We believe that effective communications between LECs and IXCs are 
critical to an IXC's ability to maintain accurate billing records and 
to honor customer PIC selections and other customer requests. Today, 
there is no uniform, nationwide process by which all carriers exchange 
customer account information. The records show that basic customer 
account information that carriers require to ensure accurate billing of 
end user customers and to execute end user customer requests is not 
provided by all LECs and by all IXCs. Thus, we adopt rules to ensure 
that such information is exchanged and without unreasonable delay. 
Recognizing the potential compliance burdens on carriers--particularly 
small or rural carriers--associated with any new rules in this area, we 
considered several alternatives to address the problems identified in 
the record.
    First, we considered not mandating the exchange of information 
among LECs and IXCs, but permitting such exchanges to continue on a 
voluntary basis. Voluntary standards would arguably impose no 
additional compliance burdens on small or rural LECs. We concluded, 
however, that customer account information that is within the exclusive 
control of a customer's LEC is not always obtainable by an IXC through 
voluntary negotiations with the LEC or in reliance on voluntary ATIS 
OBF standards. We believe that voluntary standards fall short because 
they do not result in industry-wide participation. Thus, without such 
industry-wide participation, customers have no assurance that their 
carrier changes and other requests will be acted upon in a timely or 
efficient manner, if at all. Voluntary industry standards are 
inadequate to address the problems described in the record.
    Second, we considered exempting small and rural LECs from the 
information exchange requirements. However, in light of the numerous 
measures we have taken to minimize burdens on small LECs and the fact 
that without uniform participation (as described above), the problems 
faced by IXCs, LECs and their customers with completing PIC changes and 
executing customers' requests would not be adequately addressed, we 
opted not to carve out such an exemption. We found that certain basic 
customer account information that is needed by IXCs to provide service 
and properly bill their customers is not reasonably available to the 
IXC from sources other than the customer's LEC, whether that LEC is 
small or not. Thus, we concluded that mandatory standards should be 
established for communications among all LECs and all IXCs.
    Third, we determined not to mandate information exchanges in every 
situation originally identified by the Joint Petitioners and other 
commenters. Doing so might prove efficient for those carriers currently 
using the CARE process developed by ATIS/OBF. However, by limiting the 
universe of mandated information exchanges to those situations that we 
believe are most critical to addressing the problems identified in the 
record of this proceeding, we anticipate that the costs or burdens 
associated with implementing the requirements we adopt in this Report 
and Order will be minimal. In addition, we declined to

[[Page 32263]]

require carriers to use the specific CARE codes developed by ATIS/OBF 
to facilitate the exchange of information among LECs and IXCs. While 
mandating the use of CARE codes might provide greater uniformity, such 
action could potentially impose unnecessary burdens on small or rural 
carriers that currently do not participate in CARE. We also refrained 
from prescribing the use of particular CARE codes because we recognize 
that, among carriers currently participating in CARE, few of those 
carriers' operating systems, if any, support an identical set of CARE 
codes.
    Fourth, we considered not adopting specific performance 
measurements for the exchange of customer account information 
(timeliness and method of transmission such as facsimile, mail, 
electronic e-mail, cartridge, etc). We concluded that, while we should 
require notifications regarding customer account information to be 
completed promptly and without unreasonable delay, that more specific 
timeliness measures were not warranted at this time, given the widely 
divergent proposals from commenters and the potential burden on smaller 
LECs. We also do not require carriers to refer to the CARE/ISI document 
to ensure the completeness of date transmissions, although we require 
carriers to exercise reasonable efforts to ensure that the data 
transmitted is accurate.
    Fifth, we considered using the NARUC model rules as a template upon 
which states could build their own customized individual standards. We 
concluded, however, that the NARUC model rule is not likely to ensure 
industry-wide participation or a uniform, minimum standard. Although 
the NARUC model rule may prove useful to states wishing to adopt more 
expansive requirements than those the Commission would adopt, the model 
rule is unlikely to result in the adoption, on a nationwide basis, of 
the minimum standards that we believe are needed to address the billing 
and provisioning problems at issue. In addition, absent Commission 
rules in this area, small carriers may face greater compliance burdens 
associated with rules adopted on a state-by-state basis.

Report to Congress

    The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including 
this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), in a report to be 
sent to Congress and the Comptroller General pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy 
of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Report and 
Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the 
Federal Register. (See 5 U.S.C. 604(b)).

Ordering Clauses

    Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 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 Report and Order is 
adopted.
    Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 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), Part 64 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR Part 64, is amended as set forth in the Rule 
Changes.
    The rules in this Report and Order contain information collection 
requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB). Because many of the rules and requirements contained 
in this Report and Order and in the Rule Changes contain information 
collection requirements under the PRA, the rules and information 
collection requirements shall not become effective until the 
information collection requirements have been approved by OMB. The 
Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing 
the effective date of these rules.
    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), and Sec.  1.2 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.2, the Petition for Declaratory Ruling 
filed by Americatel Corporation on September 5, 2002, is granted in 
part and denied in part, to the extent provided herein.
    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), and Sec.  1.407 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.407, the Petition for Rulemaking filed by 
AT&T Corp, Sprint Corporation, and WorldCom, Inc. on November 22, 2002, 
is granted in part and denied in part, to the extent provided herein.
    The Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, shall send a copy of the Report and Order including 
the Final 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.

Rule Changes

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

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

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

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

0
2. Subpart CC is added to read as follows:

Subpart CC--Customer Account Record Exchange Requirements

Sec.
64.4000 Basis and purpose.
64.4001 Definitions.
64.4002 Notification obligations of LECs.
64.4003 Notification obligations of IXCs.
64.4004 Timeliness of required notifications.
64.4005 Unreasonable terms or conditions on the provision of 
customer account information.
64.4006 Limitations on use of customer account information.

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 222, 258 unless otherwise 
noted.


Sec.  64.4000  Basis and purpose.

    (a) Basis. The rules in this subpart are issued pursuant to the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
    (b) Purpose. The purpose of these rules is to facilitate the timely 
and accurate establishment, termination, and billing of customer 
telephone service accounts.


Sec.  64.4001  Definitions.

    Terms in this subpart have the following meanings:
    (a) Automatic number identification (ANI). The term automatic 
number identification refers to the delivery of the calling party's 
billing telephone number by a local exchange carrier to any 
interconnecting carrier for billing or routing purposes.
    (b) Billing name and address (BNA). The term billing name and 
address means the name and address provided to a [LEC] by each of its 
local exchange

[[Page 32264]]

customers to which the [LEC] directs bills for its services.
    (c) Customer. The term customer means the end user to whom a local 
exchange carrier or interexchange carrier is providing local exchange 
or telephone toll service.
    (d) Interexchange carrier (IXC). The term interexchange carrier 
means a telephone company that provides telephone toll service. An 
interexchange carrier does not include commercial mobile radio service 
providers as defined by federal law.
    (e) Local exchange carrier (LEC). The term local exchange carrier 
means any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange 
service or exchange access. Such term does not include a person insofar 
as such person is engaged in the provision of a commercial mobile 
service under Sec.  332(c), except to the extent that the Commission 
finds that such service should be included in the definition of that 
term.
    (f) Preferred interexchange carrier (PIC). The term preferred 
interexchange carrier means the carrier to which a customer chooses to 
be presubscribed for purposes of receiving intraLATA and/or interLATA 
and/or international toll services.


Sec.  64.4002  Notification obligations of LECs.

    To the extent that the information is reasonably available to a 
LEC, the LEC shall provide to an IXC the customer account information 
described in this section consistent with Sec.  64.4004. Nothing in 
this section shall prevent a LEC from providing additional customer 
account information to an IXC to the extent that such additional 
information is necessary for billing purposes or to properly execute a 
customer's PIC Report and Order.
    (a) Customer-submitted PIC Report and Order. Upon receiving and 
processing a PIC selection submitted by a customer and placing the 
customer on the network of the customer's preferred interexchange 
carrier at the LEC's local switch, the LEC must notify the IXC of this 
event. The notification provided by the LEC to the IXC must contain all 
of the customer account information necessary to allow for proper 
billing of the customer by the IXC including but not limited to:
    (1) The customer's billing telephone number, working telephone 
number, and billing name and address;
    (2) The effective date of the PIC change;
    (3) A statement describing the customer type (i.e., business or 
residential);
    (4) A statement indicating, to the extent appropriate, that the 
customer's telephone service listing is not printed in a directory and 
is not available from directory assistance or is not printed in a 
directory but is available from directory assistance;
    (5) The jurisdictional scope of the PIC installation (i.e., 
intraLATA and/or interLATA and/or international);
    (6) The carrier identification code of the submitting LEC; and
    (7) If relevant, a statement indicating that the customer's account 
is subject to a PIC freeze. The notification also must contain 
information, if relevant and to the extent that it is available, 
reflecting the fact that a customer's PIC selection was the result of:
    (i) A move (an end user customer has moved from one location to 
another within a LEC's service territory);
    (ii) A change in responsible billing party; or
    (iii) The resolution of a PIC dispute.
    (b) Confirmation of IXC-submitted PIC Report and Order. When a LEC 
has placed a customer on an IXC's network at the local switch in 
response to an IXC-submitted PIC Report and Order, the LEC must send a 
confirmation to the submitting IXC. The confirmation provided by the 
LEC to the IXC must include:
    (1) The customer's billing telephone number, working telephone 
number, and billing name and address;
    (2) The effective date of the PIC change;
    (3) A statement describing the customer type (i.e., business or 
residential);
    (4) A statement indicating, to the extent appropriate, if the 
customer's telephone service listing is not printed in a directory and 
is not available from directory assistance, or is not printed in a 
directory but is available from directory assistance;
    (5) The jurisdictional scope of the PIC installation (i.e., 
intraLATA and/or interLATA and/or international); and
    (6) The carrier identification code of the submitting LEC. If the 
PIC Report and Order at issue originally was submitted by an underlying 
IXC on behalf of a toll reseller, the confirmation provided by the LEC 
to the IXC must indicate, to the extent that this information is known, 
a statement indicating that the customer's PIC is a toll reseller.
    (c) Rejection of IXC-submitted PIC Report and Order. When a LEC 
rejects or otherwise does not act upon a PIC Report and Order submitted 
to it by an IXC, the LEC must notify the IXC and provide the reason(s) 
why the PIC Report and Order could not be processed. The notification 
provided by the LEC to the IXC must state that it has rejected the IXC-
submitted PIC Report and Order and specify the reason(s) for the 
rejection (e.g., due to a lack of information, incorrect information, 
or a PIC freeze on the customer's account). The notification must 
contain the identical data elements that were provided to the LEC in 
the original IXC-submitted PIC Report and Order (i.e., mirror image of 
the original Report and Order), unless otherwise specified by this 
subsection. If a LEC rejects an IXC-submitted PIC Report and Order for 
a multi-line account (i.e., the customer has selected the IXC as his 
PIC for two or more lines or terminals associated with his billing 
telephone number), the notification provided by the LEC rejecting that 
Report and Order must explain the effect of the rejection with respect 
to each line (working telephone number or terminal) associated with the 
customer's billing telephone number. A LEC is not required to generate 
a line-specific or terminal-specific response, however, and may 
communicate the rejection at the billing telephone level, when the LEC 
is unable to process an entire Report and Order, including all working 
telephone numbers and terminals associated with a particular billing 
telephone number. In addition, the notification must indicate the 
jurisdictional scope of the PIC Report and Order rejection (i.e., 
intraLATA and/or interLATA and/or international). If a LEC rejects a 
PIC Report and Order because:
    (1) The customer's telephone number has been ported to another LEC; 
or
    (2) The customer has otherwise changed local service providers, the 
LEC must include in its notification, to the extent that it is 
available, the identity of the customer's new LEC.
    (d) Customer contacts LEC or new IXC to cancel PIC. When a LEC has 
removed at its local switch a presubscribed customer from an IXC's 
network, either in response to a customer Report and Order or upon 
receipt of a properly verified PIC Report and Order submitted by 
another IXC, the LEC must notify the customer's former IXC of this 
event. The LEC must provide to the IXC the customer account information 
that is necessary to allow for proper final billing of the customer by 
the IXC including but not limited to:
    (1) The customer's billing telephone number, working telephone 
number, and, billing name and address;
    (2) The effective date of the PIC change;
    (3) A description of the customer type (i.e., business or 
residential);

[[Page 32265]]

    (4) The jurisdictional scope of the lines or terminals affected 
(i.e., intraLATA and/or interLATA and/or international); and
    (5) The carrier identification code of the submitting LEC. If a 
customer changes PICs but retains the same LEC, the LEC is responsible 
for notifying both the old PIC and new PIC of the PIC change. The 
notification also must contain information, if relevant and to the 
extent that it is available, reflecting the fact that a customer's PIC 
removal was the result of:
    (i) The customer moving from one location to another within the 
LEC's service territory, but where there is no change in local service 
provider;
    (ii) A change of responsible party on an account; or
    (iii) A disputed PIC selection.
    (e) Particular changes to customer's local service account. When, 
according to a LEC's records, certain account or line information 
changes occur on a presubscribed customer's account, the LEC must 
communicate this information to the customer's PIC. For purposes of 
this subsection, the LEC must provide to the appropriate IXC account 
change information that is necessary for the IXC to issue timely and 
accurate bills to its customers including but not limited to:
    (1) The customer's billing telephone number, working telephone 
number, and billing name and address;
    (2) The customer code assigned to that customer by the LEC;
    (3) The type of customer account (i.e., business or residential);
    (4) The status of the customer's telephone service listing, to the 
extent appropriate, as not printed in a directory and not available 
from directory assistance, or not printed in a directory but available 
from directory assistance; and
    (5) The jurisdictional scope of the PIC installation (i.e., 
intraLATA and/or interLATA and/or international). If there are changes 
to the customer's billing or working telephone number, customer code, 
or customer type, the LEC must supply both the old and new information 
for each of these categories.
    (f) Local service disconnection. Upon receipt of an end user 
customer's request to terminate his entire local service account or 
disconnect one or more lines (but not all lines) of a multi-line 
account, the LEC must notify the PIC(s) for the billing telephone 
number or working telephone number on the account of the account 
termination or lines disconnected. In conjunction with this 
notification requirement, the LEC must provide to a customer's PIC(s) 
all account termination or single/multi-line disconnection change 
information necessary for the PIC(s) to maintain accurate billing and 
PIC records, including but not limited to:
    (1) The effective date of the termination/disconnection; and
    (2) The customer's working and billing telephone numbers and 
billing name and address;
    (3) The type of customer account (i.e., business or residential);
    (4) The jurisdictional scope of the PIC installation (i.e., 
intraLATA and/or interLATA and/or international); and
    (5) The carrier identification code of the LEC.
    (g) Change of local service provider. When a customer changes LECs, 
the customer's former LEC must notify the customer's PIC(s) of the 
customer's change in LECs and, if known, the identity of the customer's 
new LEC. If the customer also makes a PIC change, the customer's former 
LEC must notify the customer's former PIC(s) of the change and the new 
LEC must notify the customer's new PIC of the customer's PIC selection. 
If the customer's LEC is unable to identify the customer's new LEC, the 
former LEC must notify the customer's PIC of a local service 
disconnection as described in paragraph (f) of this section. The 
notification also must contain information, if relevant and to the 
extent that it is available, reflecting the fact that an account change 
was the result of:
    (1) The customer porting his number to a new LEC;
    (2) A local resale arrangement (customer has transferred to local 
reseller); or
    (3) The discontinuation of a local resale arrangement.
    (h) IXC requests for customer BNA information. Upon the request of 
an IXC, a LEC must provide the billing name and address information 
necessary to facilitate a customer's receipt of a timely, accurate bill 
for services rendered and/or to prevent fraud, regardless of the type 
of service the end user receives/has received from the requesting 
carrier (i.e., presubscribed, dial-around, casual). In response to an 
IXC's BNA request for ANI, a LEC must provide the BNA for the submitted 
ANI along with:
    (1) The working telephone number for the ANI;
    (2) The date of the BNA response;
    (3) The carrier identification code of the submitting IXC; and
    (4) A statement indicating, to the extent appropriate, if the 
customer's telephone service listing is not printed in a directory and 
is not available from directory assistance, or is not printed in a 
directory but is available from directory assistance. A LEC that is 
unable to provide the BNA requested must provide the submitting carrier 
with the identical information contained in the original BNA request 
(i.e., the mirror image of the original request), along with the 
specific reason(s) why the requested information could not be provided. 
If the BNA is not available because the customer has changed local 
service providers or ported his telephone number, the LEC must include 
the identity of the new provider when this information is available.


Sec.  64.4003  Notification obligations of IXCs.

    To the extent that the information is reasonably available to an 
IXC, the IXC shall provide to a LEC the customer account information 
described in this section consistent with Sec.  64.4004. Nothing in 
this section shall prevent an IXC from providing additional customer 
account information to a LEC to the extent that such additional 
information is necessary for billing purposes or to properly execute a 
customer's PIC Report and Order.
    (a) IXC-submitted PIC Report and Order. When a customer contacts an 
IXC to establish interexchange service on a presubscribed basis, the 
IXC selected must submit the customer's properly verified PIC Report 
and Order (see 47 CFR 64.1120(a)) to the customer's LEC, instructing 
the LEC to install or change the PIC for the customer's line(s) to that 
IXC. The notification provided by the IXC to the LEC must contain all 
of the information necessary to properly execute the Report and Order 
including but not limited to:
    (1) The customer's billing telephone number or working telephone 
number associated with the lines or terminals that are to be 
presubscribed to the IXC;
    (2) The date of the IXC-submitted PIC Report and Order;
    (3) The jurisdictional scope of the PIC Report and Order (i.e., 
intraLATA and/or interLATA and/or international); and
    (4) The carrier identification code of the submitting IXC.
    (b) Customer contacts IXC to cancel PIC and to select no-PIC 
status. When an end user customer contacts an IXC to discontinue 
interexchange service on a presubscribed basis, the IXC must confirm 
that it is the customer's desire to have no PIC and, if that is the 
case, the IXC must notify the customer's LEC. The IXC also is 
encouraged to instruct the customer to notify his LEC. An IXC may 
satisfy this requirement by establishing a three-way call with the 
customer and the customer's LEC to confirm that it is the customer's 
desire to have no PIC and, where appropriate, to provide the customer 
the opportunity

[[Page 32266]]

to withdraw any PIC freeze that may be in place. The notification 
provided by the IXC to the LEC must contain the customer account 
information necessary to properly execute the cancellation Report and 
Order including but not limited to:
    (1) The customer's billing telephone number or working telephone 
number associated with the lines or terminals that are affected;
    (2) The date of the IXC-submitted PIC removal Report and Order;
    (3) The jurisdictional scope of the PIC removal Report and Order 
(i.e., intraLATA and/or interLATA and/or international); and
    (4) The carrier identification code of the submitting IXC.


Sec.  64.4004  Timeliness of required notifications.

    Carriers subject to the requirements of this section shall provide 
the required notifications promptly and without unreasonable delay.


Sec.  64.4005  Unreasonable terms or conditions on the provision of 
customer account information.

    To the extent that a carrier incurs costs associated with providing 
the notifications required by this section, the carrier may recover 
such costs, consistent with federal and state laws, through the filing 
of tariffs, via negotiated agreements, or by other appropriate 
mechanisms. Any cost recovery method must be reasonable and must 
recover only costs that are associated with providing the particular 
information. The imposition of unreasonable terms or conditions on the 
provision of information required by this section may be considered an 
unreasonable carrier practice under section 201(b) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and may subject the carrier to 
appropriate enforcement action.


Sec.  64.4006  Limitations on use of customer account information.

    A carrier that receives customer account information under this 
section shall use such information to ensure timely and accurate 
billing of a customer's account and to ensure timely and accurate 
execution of a customer's preferred interexchange carrier instructions. 
Such information shall not be used for marketing purposes without the 
express consent of the customer.

[FR Doc. 05-10974 Filed 6-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P