[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47296-47309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20239]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[WC Docket No. 13-39; FCC 18-120]


Rural Call Completion

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission continues its ongoing efforts 
to ensure that calls are completed to all Americans, including those in 
rural America. This Third Report and Order (Order) begins the 
Commission's implementation of the Improving Rural Call Quality and 
Reliability Act of 2017 (RCC Act). Pursuant to the RCC Act, the Order 
adopts rules to establish a registry for intermediate providers and 
require intermediate providers to register with the Commission before 
offering to transmit covered voice communications. In addition, the 
Order adopts rules to require covered providers to use only registered 
intermediate providers to transmit covered voice communications and 
requires covered providers to maintain the capability to disclose the 
identities of any intermediate providers relied on in the call path to 
the Commission.

DATES: Effective October 19, 2018, except for the addition of 47 CFR 
64.2115, which requires approval by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register 
announcing approval of this requirement and the date the rule will 
become effective.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wireline Competition Bureau, 
Competition Policy Division, Zach Ross, at (202) 418-1033, or 
[email protected]. For further information concerning the Paperwork 
Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this 
document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Nicole Ongele at 
(202) 418-2991.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third 
Report and Order in WC Docket No. 13-39, adopted on August 13, 2018 and 
released on August 15, 2018. The full text of this document, including 
all Appendices, is available for public inspection during regular 
business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 
12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It is also 
available on the Commission's website at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-registry-boost-provider-accountability-rural-call-completion.

I. Synopsis

    1. As directed by the RCC Act and informed by the record of this 
proceeding, in this Third Report and Order we establish a registry for 
intermediate providers and require intermediate providers to register 
with the Commission before offering to transmit covered voice 
communications. In addition, we adopt rules to require covered 
providers to use only registered intermediate providers to transmit 
covered voice communications, and we require covered providers to 
maintain the capability to disclose the identities of any intermediate 
providers relied on in the call path to the Commission. We also adopt a 
narrowly tailored exception to our rules in instances of force majeure. 
The RCC Act requires the Commission to promulgate rules establishing 
service quality standards ``[n]ot later than 1 year after the date of 
enactment,'' or by February 26, 2019. We accordingly sought comment on 
proposed service quality standards in the Third RCC FNPRM, 83 FR 21983. 
We will address the RCC Act's service quality requirements in a 
subsequent Order.

A. Establishment of Intermediate Provider Registry

    2. In accordance with the RCC Act, we adopt our proposal to 
establish an intermediate provider registry. To ``ensure the integrity 
of the transmission of covered voice communications to all customers in 
the United States[] and . . . prevent unjust or unreasonable 
discrimination among areas of the United States in the delivery of 
covered voice communications,'' new section 262 of the Act requires the 
Commission to establish a publicly available intermediate provider 
registry on the Commission's website. We will require intermediate 
providers to register via a portal on the Commission's website 
furnishing the same five categories of information that we proposed in 
the Third RCC FNPRM:
    (1) The intermediate provider's business name(s) and primary 
address;
    (2) the name(s), telephone number(s), email address(es), and 
business address(es) of the intermediate provider's regulatory contact 
and/or designated agent for service of process;
    (3) all business names that the intermediate provider has used in 
the past;
    (4) the state(s) in which the intermediate provider provides 
service; and
    (5) the name, title, business address, telephone number, and email 
address of at least one person as well as the department within the 
company responsible for addressing rural call completion issues.

Further, this information will be made publicly available.
    3. As explained in the Third RCC FNPRM, the first four categories 
of information are similar to the Commission's existing registration 
requirements for interconnected VoIP and telecommunications carriers in 
other contexts. For example, ``a telecommunications carrier that will 
provide interstate telecommunications service'' is required to provide 
the following information via FCC Form 499-A ``under oath and penalty 
of perjury'': (1) The carrier's business name(s) and primary address; 
(2) The names and business addresses of the carrier's chief executive 
officer, chairman, and president, or, in the event that a company does 
not have such executives, three similarly senior-level officials of the 
company; (3) The carrier's regulatory contact and/or designated agent; 
(4) All names that the carrier has used in the past; and (5) The 
state(s) in which the carrier provides telecommunications service.'' 
The Commission's rules also require common carriers, interconnected 
VoIP providers, and non-interconnected VoIP providers to provide the 
contact information, including ``a name, business address, telephone or 
voicemail number, facsimile number, and, if available, internet email 
address,'' for service of process purposes. Such entities are also 
required to ``list any other names by which it is known or under which 
it does business, and, if the carrier, interconnected VoIP provider, or 
non-interconnected VoIP provider is an affiliated company, the parent, 
holding, or management company.'' The record reflects that ``the

[[Page 47297]]

burden to providers arising out of reporting such information is 
minimal--it requires no more than logging into an account and typing in 
the most basic information about a company.'' With respect to contact 
information for the person and department responsible for addressing 
rural call completion issues, we find, based on the record before us, 
that requiring this information will facilitate inter-provider 
cooperation to solve and prevent call completion issues. We also find 
that this requirement is consistent with Congress's mandate that our 
implementing rules ensure the integrity of the transmission of covered 
voice communications to all customers in the country and prevent unjust 
or unreasonable discrimination among areas of the United States in the 
delivery of covered voice communications. The record reflects no 
opposition to requiring these five information categories.
    4. In addition to the five categories of information we proposed, 
we also require intermediate providers to furnish the name(s), business 
address, business telephone number(s), and email address for an 
executive leadership contact, such as the chief executive officer, 
chief operating officer, or owner(s) of the intermediate provider, or 
person performing an equivalent function, who directs or manages the 
entity. Verizon expressed concern that delisted intermediate providers 
could regain registered status by subsequently re-incorporating under 
other names for the purpose of circumventing Commission removal from 
the intermediate provider registry. To assist in preventing 
circumvention of our rules, Verizon proposes requiring this additional 
information, which ``is a common requirement across state and foreign 
corporation registrations, business licensing, and trade licensing,'' 
and thus presents no additional burden in furnishing such existing 
information to the Commission. We agree with Verizon that requiring 
this additional information will ``provide the Commission . . . 
additional visibility into the individuals that direct and manage the 
entity,'' and aid the Commission in enforcing our rules and the RCC 
Act. We observe, however, that because the primary purpose of this 
information is to aid the Commission in preventing circumvention of our 
registry requirements, unlike the other five categories of information, 
this latter category of information will not be made routinely 
available for public inspection.

B. Definitions

    5. As we proposed in the Third RCC FNPRM, we adopt the definition 
of ``intermediate provider'' provided by Congress in section 262(i)(3). 
This definition replaces the definition of ``intermediate provider'' 
currently in our rules. Thus, for purposes of our pre-existing rural 
call completion rules and those we adopt pursuant to the RCC Act, we 
define an intermediate provider as any entity that: ``(A) enters into a 
business arrangement with a covered provider or other intermediate 
provider for the specific purpose of carrying, routing, or transmitting 
voice traffic that is generated from the placement of a call placed (i) 
from an end user connection using a North American Numbering Plan 
resource; or (ii) to an end user connection using such a numbering 
resource; and (B) does not itself, either directly or in conjunction 
with an affiliate, serve as a covered provider in the context of 
originating or terminating a given call.'' We observe that in section 
262(i)(1), Congress explicitly adopted the Commission's definition of 
``covered provider,'' suggesting that, to the extent that section 
262(i)(3) offers a different or narrower interpretation of 
``intermediate provider'' than the current definition in our rules, 
Congress intended the definition provided in the RCC Act to apply to 
our rules implementing the RCC Act.
    6. The definition of ``intermediate provider'' in section 262(i)(3) 
is substantially similar to the definition previously applicable to our 
rural call completion rules, with the added requirement that an 
intermediate provider ``have a business arrangement with a covered 
provider or other intermediate provider for the specific purpose of 
carrying, routing, or transmitting voice traffic.'' As we observed in 
the Third RCC FNPRM, the legislative history surrounding the RCC Act 
suggests that Congress intended to exclude from the definition of 
``intermediate provider'' entities ``that only incidentally transmit 
voice traffic, like internet Service Providers who may carry voice 
traffic alongside other packet data.'' The additional requirement that 
intermediate providers have a business arrangement to carry voice 
traffic effectuates this intent. Thus, entities like internet Service 
Providers that may carry voice traffic only incidentally, absent any 
business arrangement with a covered provider or intermediate provider 
pertaining to that traffic, will not be considered intermediate 
providers subject to our registry and service quality rules.
    7. We decline to adopt an exemption from this definition for 
``facilities-based carriers that provide backbone network capacity'' to 
mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs), as urged by Sprint. To the 
extent that such providers carry voice traffic that originates or 
terminates with a North American Numbering Plan (NANP) resource 
pursuant to a specific business relationship with a covered provider or 
other intermediate provider for said voice traffic, and does not itself 
serve as a covered provider in the context of originating or 
terminating a given call, that entity is an intermediate provider under 
the RCC Act and the rules we adopt today. We agree with NTCA's argument 
that any effect of this rule on entities that, like Sprint, supply 
wholesale capacity to MVNOs is likely to be ``minimally burdensome.'' 
As USTelecom observes, the information submission needed to comply with 
our registration requirement ``[is] of a highly routine nature that 
should be unproblematic for any legitimate company to provide.''
    8. In addition, consistent with our proposal in the Third RCC 
FNPRM, we also adopt the definition of ``covered voice communication'' 
provided by Congress in the RCC Act. The RCC Act defines ``covered 
voice communication'' as ``a voice communication (including any related 
signaling information) that is generated--(A) from the placement of a 
call from a connection using a North American Numbering Plan resource 
or a call placed to a connection using such a numbering resource; and 
(B) through any service provided by a covered provider.''
    9. We decline to adopt the proposal advanced by Verizon and 
USTelecom to limit the definitions of ``intermediate provider'' and 
``covered voice communications'' to ``apply only to intermediate 
providers that handle covered voice communications that are destined 
for rural areas.'' We also decline to adopt alternative suggestions 
that we forebear from applying the RCC Act and our implementing rules 
to non-rural areas. Forbearance is appropriate if the Commission 
determines that: (1) Enforcement of a provision or regulation is not 
necessary to ensure that the telecommunications carrier's charges, 
practices, classifications, or regulations are just, reasonable, and 
not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; (2) enforcement of the 
provision or regulation is not necessary to protect consumers; and (3) 
forbearance from applying such provision or regulation is consistent 
with the public interest. As we explain, the RCC Act reflects 
Congress's judgment that uniform rules are the best means to ensure 
rural call

[[Page 47298]]

completion; and limiting the RCC Act's registry requirements to rural 
areas would undermine the newly passed law's effectiveness. Because 
forbearance would be inconsistent with the public interest and the 
Commission's responsibility to protect consumers, as well as Congress's 
direction in the RCC Act that the Commission ``ensure the integrity of 
the transmission of covered voice communications to all customers in 
the United States,'' we decline USTelecom's request that the Commission 
forbear from applying the RCC Act to non-rural areas. We disagree with 
Verizon's suggestion that ``[t]he RCC Act's text supports construing 
the statute to ensure application only to rural areas.'' If Congress 
had intended to apply the RCC Act definitions only to rural areas, it 
easily could have done so. As Verizon itself notes, ``[t]he RCC Act on 
its face does not include a limitation to rural areas.'' Indeed, apart 
from the short title of the RCC Act, the word ``rural'' appears nowhere 
in its text. As enacted, section 262 is entitled ``Ensuring the 
integrity of voice communications,'' and none of the law's provisions 
or definitions--including those for ``intermediate provider'' and 
``covered voice communication''--contain the word ``rural.'' Nor is the 
Commission's definition of ``covered provider,'' which Congress adopted 
by reference in the RCC Act, limited to providers who originate traffic 
destined for rural areas.
    10. Although we agree with USTelecom's suggestion that Congress 
``intended to implement measures to ensure completion of calls to rural 
areas,'' we disagree with the argument that we should therefore read 
the word ``rural'' into the RCC Act where it does not appear. This line 
of reasoning fails to differentiate between Congress's stated 
objective--to improve rural call completion--and the specific means by 
which Congress has directed the Commission to achieve this goal. 
Indeed, limitation of the RCC Act's provisions to traffic destined to 
rural areas would appear to contravene Congress's explicit instructions 
to the Commission in promulgating rules pursuant to the RCC Act, which 
are to ``ensure the integrity of the transmission of covered voice 
communications to all customers in the United States;'' and to 
``prevent unjust or unreasonable discrimination among areas of the 
United States in the delivery of covered voice communications.'' The 
rules we adopt today are designed to achieve these ends. Despite 
Verizon's and USTelecom's arguments to the contrary, Congress concluded 
that the best way to address rural call completion issues is to craft 
uniform rules applicable to intermediate providers regardless of a 
call's geographic destination. As HD Tandem argues, call completion 
issues are not inherently limited to rural areas, and limiting 
application of the rules we adopt pursuant to the RCC Act to rural 
areas may have the unintended consequence of simply shifting bad actors 
into new markets. Unscrupulous providers may cause call completion 
issues in non-rural areas as well, and our construction of the registry 
provisions of the RCC Act is consistent with Congress's explicit 
direction to the Commission, as noted above. Therefore, assuming 
arguendo that the Act is ambiguous, we believe our approach is likely 
to be more effective in curtailing the use of these providers and 
achieving Congress's clearly stated objective of improving rural call 
completion than the reading of the Act suggested by Verizon and 
USTelecom.
    11. Nor are we persuaded that that we should modify the plain 
meaning of the RCC Act's language to correspond with the scope of our 
recently adopted monitoring rule, which, unlike the RCC Act, does apply 
only to ``call attempts to rural telephone companies.'' The monitoring 
rule adopted in the Second RCC Order, 83 FR 21723, requires covered 
providers to monitor the performance of intermediate providers when 
they direct calls to rural areas, and to take action to address 
identified problems. The RCC Act and our implementing rules require 
certain intermediate providers to register with the Commission and 
abide by service quality standards, and prevent covered providers from 
using unregistered intermediate providers to deliver covered voice 
communications. The monitoring rule and the rules adopted pursuant to 
the RCC Act are complementary, but because covered providers and 
intermediate providers are differently situated and play different 
roles in the delivery of voice traffic, we find that it is appropriate 
that our rules, and the RCC Act, treat them differently. For this 
reason, we also disagree with Verizon's suggestion that our safe 
harbor, referenced in the RCC Act in Section 262(h), compels limiting 
the RCC Act to rural areas. Given the heightened vigilance our 
monitoring rule requires of covered providers, it is appropriate that 
it applies more narrowly than the RCC Act's prohibition on covered 
provider use of unregistered intermediate providers.
    12. Finally, we disagree with arguments that we should apply our 
rules implementing section 262 only to rural areas to increase 
``[a]dministrative efficiency'' or to decrease the burdens that the RCC 
Act imposes on affected entities. In particular, we disagree with 
Verizon's argument that the burdens of complying with the RCC Act will 
``vastly increase'' absent a limitation of section 262 to traffic 
destined to rural areas. Verizon argues that without this restriction 
``[t]he number of OCNs required to be monitored would more than triple, 
from the over 1,300 OCNs required for monitoring rural destinations, to 
more than 4,700 rural and non-rural OCNs.'' The monitoring rule, 
however, remains limited to requiring that covered providers monitor 
intermediate provider performance in the completion of call attempts to 
rural telephone companies. Further, because the RCC Act and our 
implementing rules require intermediate providers to register with the 
Commission, we disagree that requiring covered providers to only use 
registered intermediate providers, without cabining such requirements 
to calls to rural areas, would be burdensome. We therefore expect that 
the burdens of our registry rules on both intermediate providers and 
covered providers will be minimal.

C. Intermediate Providers Who Must Register With the Commission

1. Scope of Registry Requirement
    13. Consistent with the text of section 262(a), we adopt our 
proposal in the Third RCC FNPRM to require any intermediate provider 
``that offers or holds itself out as offering the capability to 
transmit covered voice communications from one destination to another 
and that charges any rate to any other entity (including an affiliated 
entity) for the transmission'' to register with the Commission. In 
adopting this proposal, we decline to simply apply the registry 
obligations of section 262(a) to all intermediate providers, as that 
term is defined in section 262(i)(3). As we suggested in the Third RCC 
FNPRM, the RCC Act's registry requirements and service quality 
standards apply to a subset of ``intermediate providers,'' namely those 
that ``charge[] any rate'' for the transmission of covered voice 
communications.
    14. We agree with commenters who argue that the ``charge[] any 
rate'' language in section 262(a) is best interpreted broadly. Thus, we 
conclude that the application of section 262(a) is not limited only to 
intermediate providers who charge a per-call fee for service; rather, 
section 262(a) encompasses broader remuneration agreements, as well as 
entities offering service in exchange for in-kind or other,

[[Page 47299]]

non-monetary forms of consideration. We therefore disagree with 
commenters who express concern that the ``charge[] any rate'' qualifier 
may exclude entities that Congress intended to reach with the RCC Act. 
To be deemed an intermediate provider under section 262(i), an entity 
must have a ``business arrangement with a covered provider or other 
intermediate provider for the specific purpose of carrying, routing, or 
transmitting'' voice traffic originating or terminating with a NANP 
resource. Although section 262(a) adds the requirement that an 
intermediate provider ``charge[] any rate'' for transmitting covered 
voice communications, we find that to ``charge any rate'' in this 
context is merely to demand compensation for services based on a fixed 
ratio, scale, or standard. Nothing in the language of the RCC Act 
requires that the relevant ``rate'' charged be in the form of monetary 
consideration. We agree with ANI, HD Tandem, and Verizon that relying 
on remuneration as a qualifier may open the possibility for non-fee 
arrangements to circumvent the RCC Act and our implementing rules, and 
thus interpret section 262(a) as applying to any intermediate provider 
that demands monetary or non-monetary consideration for its services.
2. Registration Deadline
    15. We adopt our proposal in the Third RCC FNPRM to require 
intermediate providers to submit their registration to the Commission 
within 30 days after a Public Notice announcing the approval by the 
Office of Management and Budget of the final rules establishing the 
registry. We find, and the record supports, that a 30-day timeframe 
will allow existing intermediate providers adequate time to come into 
compliance with our registry rules. In addition, as we explained in the 
Third RCC FNPRM, this phase-in period is consistent with the filing 
timeframe for Form 499-A, which requires that new filers register with 
the Commission within 30 days. Pursuant to sections 262(a) and (b), 
upon expiration of the initial 30-day registration window, new 
intermediate providers will be required to register with the Commission 
before beginning to transmit covered voice communications for covered 
providers.
    16. We require intermediate providers to submit any necessary 
updates regarding their registration to the Commission within 10 
business days. The record reflects that our proposal to require 
intermediate providers to update their registrations within seven days 
may not provide intermediate providers sufficient time to make 
necessary changes. As such, we permit intermediate providers up to 10 
business days to submit any necessary registration updates. As ATIS 
argues, this additional time will better enable intermediate providers 
to respond to changes related to mergers or similar events. And, as 
West Telecom notes, ``there should be little adverse impact from the 
slightly longer compliance period.'' Because we agree with Verizon that 
``[t]he required information should be readily available,'' we decline 
to increase the time period for updates to 30 days, as Verizon 
requests. As USTelecom notes, the information to be collected is 
generally of a ``routine nature that should be unproblematic for any 
legitimate company to provide.'' Further, because covered providers and 
members of the public will rely on the information contained in the 
registry, for example, in making routing decisions or attempting to 
discover point of contact information to resolve rural call completion 
issues, we find that a 30-day update period would unnecessarily 
undermine the effectiveness of the registry requirement by increasing 
the likelihood that the information contained within the registry is 
out-of-date.
3. Enforcement
    17. Intermediate providers that fail to register with the 
Commission on a timely basis, as required by our rules, shall be 
subject to enforcement under the Act and our rules, including 
forfeiture. For the Commission to exercise its forfeiture authority for 
violations of the Act and the Commission's rules without first issuing 
a citation, the wrongdoer must hold (or be an applicant for) some form 
of license, permit, certificate, or other authorization from the 
Commission, or be engaged in an activity for which such a license, 
permit, certificate, or other authorization is required. Because 
intermediate providers that provide service to covered providers are 
required, under section 262(a)(1), to register with the Commission, we 
conclude that an intermediate provider offering such services is 
engaged in an activity for which Commission license or authorization is 
required under sections 503(b)(5) and 262(a)(1) of the Act.
    18. We disagree with Verizon's unsupported assertion that the 
Commission ``should not interpret the act of registration itself as a 
grant of authorization to exercise its forfeiture authority without 
first issuing a citation.'' We note that no other parties commented our 
proposal to ``interpret the act of registration itself as a grant of 
Commission authorization to intermediate providers and allow us to 
exercise our forfeiture authority against registered providers without 
first issuing a citation.'' The RCC Act makes clear that Congress 
intended the intermediate provider registry to function as a 
qualification for entry into the intermediate provider market, and, as 
such, the requirements to register and subsequently maintain that 
registration in good standing serve as Commission license or 
authorization to function as an intermediate provider transmitting 
covered voice communications in the United States. Consistent with the 
Administrative Procedure Act's definition of ``license,'' which 
includes ``whole or part of an agency . . . registration,'' the 
Commission has found that the term ``license'' encompasses 
registrations.
    19. Accordingly, we conclude that, under our rules, we may exercise 
our forfeiture authority against intermediate providers that fail to 
register, without first issuing a citation. When determining the amount 
of a forfeiture, we will consider ``the nature, circumstances, extent, 
and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the 
degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, 
and such other matters as justice may require.'' To the extent that an 
intermediate provider is a common carrier, the intermediate provider 
may be assessed a forfeiture of up to $196,387 per violation or each 
day of a continuing violation and up to a statutory maximum of 
$1,963,870 for any single act or failure to act. These amounts reflect 
inflation adjustments to the forfeitures specified in section 
503(b)(2)(B) of the Act ($100,000 per violation or per day of a 
continuing violation and $1,000,000 per any single act or failure to 
act). The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvement 
Act of 2015 (2015 Inflation Adjustment Act) requires the Commission to 
amend its forfeiture penalty rules to reflect annual adjustments for 
inflation in order to improve their effectiveness and maintain their 
deterrent effect. Further, the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act provides 
that the new penalty levels shall apply to penalties assessed after the 
effective date of the increase, including when the violations 
associated with the penalties predate the increase. An intermediate 
provider that is not a common carrier is subject to a forfeiture of up 
to $19,639 per violation or each day of a continuing violation and up 
to a statutory maximum of $147,290 for any single act

[[Page 47300]]

or failure to act. These same penalties also apply to an entity that 
does not hold (and is not required to hold) a Commission license, 
permit, certificate, or other instrument of authorization.
    20. In addition, we decline to apply the Commission's ``red-light'' 
rule prior to intermediate providers' registration with the Commission. 
In the Third RCC FNPRM, we sought comment on whether intermediate 
providers should be prohibited from registering with the Commission if 
they are ``red-lighted'' by the Commission for unpaid debts or other 
reasons. Under the red light rule, the Commission will not process 
applications and other requests for benefits by parties that owe non-
tax debt to the Commission. In the context of our rules implementing 
the Debt Collection Improvement Act, the Commission has noted that 
``[i]n some instances . . . filings with the Commission go into effect 
immediately (or within one day), thus precluding a check to determine 
if the filer is a delinquent debtor before the request goes into 
effect.'' The Commission noted that in such situations, the Commission 
has the ability to take appropriate action after the fact for 
noncompliance with any of the Commission's rules. Because we will make 
registrations immediately effective upon receipt, this is a situation 
which precludes a check to determine if the intermediate provider is a 
delinquent debtor before the registration goes into effect. As a 
result, any applicable red-light check will be conducted after 
intermediate provider registration; appropriate action, if any, will be 
taken against intermediate providers who are later discovered to be 
delinquent debtors, including de-registration.

D. Covered Providers May Not Use Unregistered Intermediate Providers

1. Covered Providers Must Take Steps Reasonably Calculated To Prevent 
Use of Unregistered Intermediate Providers Anywhere in the Call Path
    21. We find that section 262(b) requires a covered provider to 
ensure that all intermediate providers involved in the transmission of 
its covered voice communications are registered with the Commission. 
The definition of ``intermediate provider'' contained in section 262(i) 
broadly refers to providers at all intermediate points in the call 
chain, excluding covered providers who originate or terminate a given 
call; and, section 262(a) requires any of these entities that offer to 
transmit covered voice communications for a rate to register with the 
Commission and meet our service quality standards. We note, however, 
that some intermediate providers may be exempted from our service 
quality standards pursuant to section 262(h) and our safe harbor 
provisions. Thus, we conclude that Congress's requirement that covered 
providers ``may not use'' an unregistered intermediate provider to 
transmit traffic is best understood to mean that a covered provider may 
not rely on any unregistered intermediate providers in the path of a 
given call. Consistent with our recently-adopted monitoring rule, we 
allow covered providers to use contractual restrictions that flow down 
the entire intermediate provider call path to fulfill their obligations 
under section 262(b).
    22. We conclude that this interpretation best supports Congress's 
aims in enacting the RCC Act by placing responsibility for compliance 
with section 262(b) with a single, easily identifiable entity. Our 
construction of section 262(b) is supported by the record in this 
proceeding, and is consistent with the rules adopted in the Second RCC 
Order, which highlighted the importance of ``hold[ing] a central party 
responsible for call completion issues.'' As we found in the Second RCC 
Order, because ``covered providers select the initial long-distance 
path and therefore can choose how to route a call,'' it is 
``appropriate that they should have responsibility for monitoring rural 
call completion performance'' along the entire path of a given call.
    23. We agree with arguments advanced by NTCA that limiting the 
application of section 262(b) only to the first contracted intermediate 
provider would ``defeat the spirit and intent of [the RCC Act]'' and 
potentially allow ``unscrupulous carriers or intermediate providers to 
circumvent their ultimate responsibility to complete calls.'' As we 
have explained, a call often travels through a chain of multiple 
intermediate providers before reaching its destination. Because nothing 
in our rules or section 262 requires intermediate providers to use 
other registered intermediate providers to transmit covered voice 
communications, interpreting the restrictions of section 262(b) to 
apply only to the first contracted intermediate provider would 
substantially undermine the purpose of the RCC Act, which is to improve 
rural call completion by, among other things, requiring any 
intermediate provider involved in the transmission of covered voice 
communications to register (and maintain a registration) with the 
Commission. Section 262(b) would do little to improve call completion 
if it was construed only to require that the first of many intermediate 
providers in a call path register with the Commission.
    24. We disagree with commenters who argue in favor of such a narrow 
reading of section 262(b). In particular, we disagree with Comcast's 
claims that covered providers ``lack . . . control over intermediate 
providers with which they have no direct contractual relationship.'' To 
the contrary, we have found that as the first party in the call path, 
covered providers have significant ability to affect the behavior of 
downstream providers--including those with which there is no direct 
relationship--through the use of contractual provisions that travel 
along the entire chain of providers.
    25. Consistent with the monitoring rule for covered providers, 
pursuant to section 262(b) we require covered providers to (i) ensure 
that any directly contracted intermediate provider is registered with 
the Commission; and (ii) implement ``contractual restrictions . . . 
that are reasonably calculated to ensure'' that any subsequent 
intermediate providers with which the covered provider does not 
directly contract are registered under section 262(a). As with the 
monitoring rule, covered providers must ``ensure that these 
[contractual] restrictions flow down the entire intermediate provider 
call path.'' For example, covered providers may require that, as a 
condition of accepting traffic, (i) any directly contracted 
intermediate providers must agree to not hand off traffic to any 
unregistered intermediate providers; and (ii) that they will impose 
this same restriction on any subsequently contracted intermediate 
providers.
    26. Because we allow covered providers to use indirect contractual 
restrictions to satisfy their obligations under section 262(b), we 
disagree with arguments that our interpretation of section 262(b) to 
encompass all intermediate providers in the call path will be 
impractical, inefficient, or excessively burdensome. As West Telecom 
notes, ``[n]egotiated arrangements, when combined with active 
monitoring procedures, are an accepted and proven industry approach to 
ensuring satisfactory performance by downstream providers.'' We 
disagree with ITTA's assertions that construing section 262(b) ``to 
mean that the covered provider must `ensure' only that the first 
intermediate provider in the call path is registered is far more 
consistent with the principles of privity applied by the Commission in 
the Second RCC Order.'' To the contrary, as we have explained, the 
construction of section 262(b) we adopt today uses the same notion of

[[Page 47301]]

privity as that which formed the basis of our monitoring rule. As NTCA 
notes, ITTA's argument ``ignores the fact that covered providers have 
contractual relationships with the first Intermediate Provider in the 
call path, [which is] capable of then contractually binding downstream 
providers to only use registered providers from an identified list.'' 
Instead, as NTCA and HD Tandem argue, because covered providers are 
responsible for monitoring the entire call path pursuant to our 
monitoring rule, it is reasonable to require them to ensure through 
contractual provisions that all intermediate providers in the call path 
are registered with the Commission. Indeed, as we have explained, this 
construction of section 262(b) most reasonably gives effect to 
Congress's intent in passing the RCC Act.
    27. We require covered providers to use the intermediate provider 
registry to ensure that the intermediate providers with which they 
contract are registered with the Commission at the time any agreement 
for the transmission of covered voice communications is finalized. We 
agree with West Telecom, however, that it is unnecessary to require 
covered providers to repeatedly check the registry to confirm the 
registration status of all intermediate providers in the chain of a 
call. Therefore, once an agreement for the transmission of covered 
voice communications is effective, we allow covered providers to use 
contractual restrictions to ensure that all intermediate providers in 
the call path maintain an active registration with the Commission. As 
West Telecom notes, it may be more effective and cost-efficient to 
require downstream providers to promptly report de-registrations to the 
upstream provider, rather than forcing the upstream provider to 
repeatedly recheck the registry to verify the continued registration of 
downstream providers. Notwithstanding any contractual provisions, 
however, if a covered provider gains actual knowledge that it is using 
an unregistered intermediate provider anywhere in its call routing, it 
must cease that practice.
    28. We agree with NCTA that ``covered provider[s] should be 
afforded a reasonable period of time to transition to alternative 
providers without penalty or threat of enforcement.'' As NCTA notes, 
``[i]t takes time for covered providers to restructure their call 
routes, renegotiate their relationships with intermediate providers, or 
make the appropriate contractual arrangements to transition to 
alternative providers.'' Without a transition period, covered providers 
might be left with no option other than to decline to complete calls on 
an affected route. Therefore we grant covered providers a reasonable 
period of time, but no more than 45 days, in which to adjust their call 
routing practices to avoid use of an unregistered intermediate provider 
after gaining knowledge of its deregistration or lack of registration. 
We remind covered providers that, with respect to rural destinations 
that a provider knows or should know are experiencing call completion 
problems, the Second RCC Order requires covered providers to ``promptly 
resolve[ ] any anomalies or problems and take[ ] action to ensure they 
do not recur.'' Our experience investigating individual call completion 
complaints has shown that two weeks from reporting is ample time for a 
provider to resolve a specific call completion problem. Although we 
find, based upon our experience, that 45 days will provide covered 
providers with sufficient time to adjust their call routing practices, 
covered providers should remove deregistered or unregistered 
intermediate providers as soon as reasonably practicable.
    29. Exception for Force Majeure. We adopt a limited exception to 
our rules and exempt covered providers from the prohibition on the use 
of unregistered intermediate providers in circumstances where, due to 
force majeure for which the covered provider invokes a disaster 
recovery plan, no registered intermediate providers are available to 
transmit covered voice communications to their destination. This 
limited exemption that we adopt today is similar in nature to 
exemptions found in our copper retirement rules. Under those 
provisions, incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) are exempted from 
certain provisions of our copper retirement rules in the case of a 
force majeure for which the incumbent LEC invokes a disaster recovery 
plan. For the purposes of this exemption, we give the terms ``force 
majeure'' and ``disaster recovery plan'' the definitions contained in 
47 CFR 51.333(g). As with our copper retirement notification rules, 
allowing an exception in response to force majeure will ensure that 
service providers are able ``to restore their networks and service to 
consumers as quickly as possible rather than jump through regulatory 
hoops.''
    30. We believe that the language of the RCC Act provides sufficient 
authority for us to create a narrow and time-limited exemption of the 
statutory prohibition on covered provider use of unregistered 
intermediate providers. In directing the Commission to promulgate rules 
to implement the RCC Act, Congress specifically instructed the 
Commission to ``ensure the integrity of the transmission of covered 
voice communications to all customers in the United States.'' We 
conclude that permitting covered providers to use unregistered 
intermediate providers to deliver covered voice communications in the 
case of force majeure, as described above, for a limited period of time 
while the provider has invoked a disaster recovery plan is necessary to 
help ``ensure the integrity'' of covered voice communications to all 
customers in the United States.
    31. We find that carving out this limited exception provides 
regulatory certainty to covered providers in these limited 
circumstances where strict compliance with our rules would not be 
possible or in the public interest. We have found that ``it is vital 
that we do everything we can to facilitate rapid restoration of 
communications networks in the face of natural disasters and other 
unforeseen events.'' By codifying an exception to our rules 
implementing section 262(b) for circumstances under which covered 
providers would otherwise need to seek a waiver, we ensure that our 
rules enable covered providers to restore service as quickly as 
possible following force majeure.
    32. Therefore, in circumstances where, due to force majeure, no 
registered intermediate providers are available to transmit covered 
voice communications to their destination, we exempt covered providers 
from the prohibition on use of unregistered intermediate providers. To 
obtain relief under this provision, we require covered providers to 
submit to the Commission a certification explaining the circumstances 
justifying an exemption as soon as practicable. The certification must 
be signed by a corporate officer or official with authority to bind the 
corporation, and knowledge of the details of the covered provider's 
inability to comply with our rules. The exemption period will last a 
period of 180 days, after which time a covered provider will be 
required to submit a request for an extension of the exemption period, 
which must include a status report on the covered provider's attempts 
to come into compliance with section 262(b), including a statement of 
how the covered provider intends to ensure that calls are completed 
notwithstanding the lack of available registered intermediate 
providers.

[[Page 47302]]

2. Covered Providers Must Be Capable of Disclosing to the Commission 
the Identity of All Intermediate Providers in the Call Path
    33. Consistent with our proposal in the Third RCC FNPRM, we require 
covered providers to know, or be capable of knowing, the identity of 
all intermediate providers in the path of a given call. We further 
require covered providers to disclose this information to the 
Commission upon request. As we explained in the Second RCC Order, this 
requirement is a natural outgrowth of section 262(b), which prohibits 
covered providers from using unregistered intermediate providers 
anywhere in the call path.
    34. We agree with HD Tandem that ``[a] registration process without 
this oversight mechanism will likely be very ineffective.'' Permitting 
covered providers to route calls without any means of determining which 
intermediate providers participate in delivery of covered voice 
communications would render the requirements in section 262(b), and the 
registry scheme of the RCC Act, meaningless. As we noted in the Second 
RCC Order, ``allowing covered providers to not know the identities of 
their intermediates amounts to allowing willful ignorance: i.e., it 
would allow covered providers to circumvent their duties by employing 
unknown or anonymous intermediate providers in a call path.''
    35. We disagree with commenters who suggest that this requirement 
should be limited to apply only to intermediate providers with which a 
covered provider shares a direct contractual relationship. As NTCA 
observes, the requirement ``that intermediate providers be 
contractually bound and identifiable'' is essential to enforcing the 
registry and service quality standards imposed by the RCC Act. 
Furthermore, as we have explained, our rural call completion rules are 
premised on the fact that a central party--covered providers--must be 
responsible for ensuring that calls are completed. The RCC Act 
complements this scheme by making covered providers responsible for 
preventing the use of unregistered intermediate providers anywhere in 
the path of a given call.
    36. We therefore disagree with the proposal advanced by Comcast 
that would put the onus on the Commission to assemble this information 
by making separate inquiries of a covered provider and each of its 
individual intermediate providers in order to obtain a full picture of 
the routing of a given call. Requiring covered providers to know and 
disclose to the Commission only the identities of the intermediate 
providers with which they immediately contract would be 
administratively inefficient, insofar as it would require the 
Commission to expend scarce resources in an effort to piece together 
the identities of all parties in the path of a given call. Pursuant to 
the Commission's rural call completion rules and section 262(b), it is 
covered providers, and not the Commission, that are ultimately 
responsible for ensuring that calls are completed using only registered 
intermediates. Moreover, covered providers, as the party initiating 
calls and making the initial routing decisions for covered voice 
communications, are the most logical and efficient party to bear the 
responsibility for obtaining the identities of their intermediate 
providers and relaying this information to the Commission. As HD Tandem 
observes, ``since covered providers are accountable for exercising 
oversight regarding the performance of all intermediate providers (in 
the path of calls for which the covered provider makes the initial 
long-distance call path choice), they must be responsible for obtaining 
and retaining this information.''
    37. We agree with West Telecom that it is not necessary under 
section 262 to require covered providers to ``know at all times `the 
identity of all intermediate providers in a call path,' '' and that it 
is sufficient that ``such information be promptly obtainable when there 
is a call completion problem requiring investigation or a request from 
regulatory authorities.'' Several commenters express concern that 
requiring covered providers to maintain a current list of every 
intermediate provider participating in every transmission of covered 
voice communications would be excessively burdensome relative to the 
benefits of such a rule. For this reason, as with our monitoring rule 
and the prohibition on covered provider use of unregistered 
intermediaries, we allow covered providers to satisfy their obligations 
through the use of contractual restrictions that permit the discovery 
within two weeks of the identities of any intermediate providers in the 
path of a given call. We note that we currently allow a provider two 
weeks to investigate a rural call competition complaint and file a 
write written report with the Commission's Enforcement Bureau on the 
results of its investigation and how it resolved the problem. As West 
Telecom argues, this will permit the Commission to access necessary 
information related to rural call completion failures, while avoiding 
the costs and burdens associated with unnecessary monitoring efforts.
3. Compliance Deadline
    38. We require covered providers to comply with our rules requiring 
the use of registered intermediate providers within 90 days after the 
date by which intermediate providers must register with the Commission. 
As Comcast notes, ``most contracts in place today do not obligate 
intermediate providers to disclose the names of other service providers 
to which the intermediate providers deliver traffic further 
downstream.'' A number of commenters expressed concern that our 
proposed 60-day phase-in period would be insufficient for covered 
providers to renegotiate their contracts for routing voice traffic in 
order to come into compliance with the prohibition on use of 
unregistered intermediates. We find, based on the record before us, 
that a 90-day phase-in period following the date by which intermediate 
providers must register with the Commission will permit covered 
providers adequate time to make adjustments to existing contractual 
arrangements.
    39. We disagree with commenters who suggest that a longer, or 
shorter, timeframe is appropriate. Waiting for a period of a year or 
more to require covered providers to comply with their obligations 
under section 262 and our rules would frustrate the purpose of the RCC 
Act by needlessly delaying its implementation. A shorter time period, 
however, could prove unnecessarily difficult for providers to comply 
with. As several commenters note, a 90-day phase-in period following 
the date by which intermediate providers must register with the 
Commission will provide an appropriate period of adjustment, allowing 
covered providers to renegotiate contracts with registered intermediate 
providers. Furthermore, because our registry requires OMB approval and 
contains its own 30-day implementation period, covered providers should 
have approximately six-months, if not more, to come into compliance, 
which is about the same as the six-month phase-in period recently 
adopted by the Commission for the monitoring rule, which similarly 
required covered providers to ``evaluate and renegotiate contracts with 
intermediate providers.'' The prohibition on use of unregistered 
intermediate providers will therefore go into effect 90 days after the 
date by which intermediate providers must register with the Commission. 
Once our

[[Page 47303]]

registry rules are approved by OMB, intermediate providers will have 30 
days to register with the Commission. Our rules regarding covered 
provider use of registered intermediate providers will take effect 90 
days after the expiration of this 30-day initial registration period.

E. Denial of USTelecom Petition for Stay

    40. USTelecom filed a petition to stay aspects of the April 17, 
2018 Second RCC Order, specifically the covered provider monitoring 
requirements adopted in the Second RCC Order, pending completion of the 
rulemaking process to implement the RCC Act. USTelecom argues that 
absent a stay, covered providers will ``unnecessarily be forced to 
incur the cost of renegotiating their vendor contracts multiple times, 
or be placed in a position where they risk . . . noncompliance with 
[section] 64.2111.'' NTCA filed an opposition to the Petition for Stay, 
while ITTA filed comments in support. For the reasons discussed below, 
we find that USTelecom has failed to meet its burden for a grant of a 
stay and accordingly deny its petition.
    41. To qualify for the extraordinary remedy of a stay, a petitioner 
must show that: (1) It is likely to prevail on the merits; (2) it will 
suffer irreparable harm absent the grant of preliminary relief; (3) 
other interested parties will not be harmed if the stay is granted; and 
(4) the public interest would favor grant of the stay. The Commission's 
consideration of each factor is weighed against the others, and no 
single factor is dispositive. USTelecom has not introduced arguments 
into the record regarding the first factor, therefore we do not 
consider it here. Because we find that USTelecom has not shown that any 
of the remaining three factors weigh in favor of a stay, we conclude 
that USTelecom has failed to meet the test for this extraordinary 
remedy.
1. USTelecom Has Failed To Demonstrate Irreparable Injury
    42. We find that USTelecom's claims that it ``will be irreparably 
injured absent grant of the requested stay'' are unsupported by the 
record. USTelecom rests its claims regarding irreparable injury on the 
theory that covered providers ``will unnecessarily be forced to incur 
the cost of renegotiating their vendor contracts multiple times'' if 
section 64.2111 becomes effective before we have established registry 
and service quality standards for intermediate providers pursuant to of 
the RCC Act.
    43. The record reflects disagreement as to whether multiple rounds 
of contractual negotiations will be required as a result of the 
monitoring rule coming into effect prior to full implementation of the 
RCC Act. ITTA argues that covered provider contracts with intermediate 
providers ``cannot be renegotiated or amended until all parties in the 
call chain have an understanding of the service quality standards to 
which intermediate providers will be subject.'' As NTCA points out, 
however, there are steps that covered providers can take in negotiating 
contracts to implement the monitoring requirement that could help to 
mitigate the need for re-negotiation and its attendant costs, 
including, for example, incorporating an express ``change of law'' 
provision to import whatever standards may thereafter be adopted by the 
Commission for intermediate providers.
    44. Even assuming covered providers will in fact be required to 
undergo separate rounds of contractual negotiations with intermediate 
providers absent a stay, as USTelecom asserts, USTelecom has failed to 
meet the high bar required to demonstrate irreparable injury. USTelecom 
makes no attempt to quantify the costs associated with multiple rounds 
of contractual negotiations; it merely offers unsupported assertions 
that such an outcome would be ``highly disruptive and burdensome.'' As 
a form of equitable relief, a stay generally is granted only where 
petitioners show that remedies at law--for example, the award of 
monetary damages--are insufficient. For this reason, according to well-
established judicial precedent, ``economic loss does not, in and of 
itself, constitute irreparable harm,'' and ``[m]ere injuries, however 
substantial, in terms of money, time and energy necessarily expended in 
the absence of a stay are not enough.'' Recoverable monetary loss may 
constitute an irreparable injury in narrow circumstances where ``the 
loss threatens the very existence of the movant's business;'' however, 
USTelecom makes no assertions to this effect.
    45. Moreover, to justify a stay of the Commission's Second RCC 
Order, the alleged injury ``must be both certain and great; it must be 
actual and not theoretical.'' A stay is warranted only if ``[t]he 
injury complained of is of such imminence that there is a clear and 
present need for equitable relief to prevent irreparable harm.'' 
USTelecom asserts that absent a stay, covered providers will be forced 
to ``incur the cost of renegotiating their vendor contracts multiple 
times,'' and that these costs, ``which need not be incurred, could 
potentially result in higher rates for end users.'' We find that the 
speculative potential incurrence of an unquantified amount of costs to 
renegotiate contracts does not rise to the level of a ``certain and 
great'' injury. For these reasons, we find that USTelecom has failed to 
demonstrate irreparable injury.
2. USTelecom Has Failed To Demonstrate That a Stay Is in the Public 
Interest and Will Not Harm Other Parties
    46. We also find that USTelecom has failed to demonstrate that 
granting a stay is in the public interest and will not harm other 
parties to the proceeding. Indeed, we find that staying the 
effectiveness of section 64.2111 would be contrary to the public 
interest and would threaten harm to consumers by needlessly undermining 
the effectiveness of our rural call completion rules.
    47. We disagree with USTelecom's suggestion that any compliance 
costs associated with prompt enforcement of our covered provider 
monitoring rule are ``unnecessary in light of the fact that rural call 
completion complaints continue to fall.'' Even assuming this were 
correct, rural call completion issues continue to have significant 
ramifications for affected consumers, as we have repeatedly observed. 
Although USTelecom cites the Second RCC Order in support of this 
assertion, it misconstrues our findings. As the Second RCC Order 
observes, ``[t]rends in [rural call completion] complaints are mixed.'' 
While carrier complaints have indeed fallen in the last several years, 
consumer complaints have increased, on a yearly basis, for much of this 
time. Further, we note that rural carrier complaints filed with the 
Commission have increased significantly over this time last year. Call 
completion problems in rural areas ``have serious repercussions, 
imposing needless economic and personal costs, and potentially 
threatening public safety in local communities.'' In enacting the RCC 
Act, Congress and the President have clearly signaled that they agree 
with this assessment. For these reasons, solving rural call completion 
issues has been, and remains, a pressing concern for the Commission.
    48. Despite its claims that ``the public interest strongly favors a 
stay of [section 64.2111],'' USTelecom offers little evidence in 
support of its argument. USTelecom rests its claims that a stay would 
not harm other parties, including consumers, on the basis that the cost 
of multiple rounds of contract renegotiation ``could potentially result 
in higher rates for end users.'' As NTCA observes, however, both the 
existence of

[[Page 47304]]

these costs, and their ultimate impact on consumers in the form of 
higher prices, are speculative. As noted above, USTelecom fails to 
attempt to quantify these costs.
    49. We find that the significant public interest benefits resulting 
from effective rural call completion rules outweigh the hypothetical 
financial harms suggested by USTelecom. As NTCA observes, the public 
has a clear interest in rules that address rural call completion 
issues. Rural carriers, too, have a substantial interest in prompt 
enforcement of our rules, as their business interests are harmed when 
calls initiated elsewhere fail to reach their intended destination. The 
monitoring rule is a critical component of our rural call completion 
regulatory regime. In adopting the Second RCC Order, we considered, but 
declined to adopt, a longer phase-in period for section 64.2111, 
finding that ``the monitoring requirement addresses the ongoing call 
completion problems faced by rural Americans, and delay only postpones 
when rural Americans will see the fruit of this solution.'' The 
monitoring rule is an obligation of covered providers to ensure that 
calls they initiate to rural areas are in fact completed. This 
obligation complements, but exists independently of, the registry and 
service quality obligations contained in the RCC Act and any rules the 
Commission adopts to implement that Act. For the foregoing reasons, we 
deny USTelecom's request for a stay of section 64.2111 pending full 
implementation of the RCC Act.

II. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    50. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated into the Third RCC FNRPM for the Rural Call Completion 
proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the 
proposals in the Third RCC FNRPM, including comment on the IRFA. The 
Commission received no comments on the IRFA. Because the Commission 
amends its rules in this Order, the Commission has included this Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). This present FRFA conforms to 
the RFA.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules

    51. In this Order, we revise our rules to better address ongoing 
problems in the completion of long-distance telephone calls to rural 
areas. Specifically, we require intermediate providers to register in a 
publicly available intermediate provider registry, maintained by the 
Commission. We also require that covered providers not use unregistered 
providers to carry, route, or otherwise transmit covered voice 
communications, except in cases of force majeure. The requirements we 
adopt today implement the Improving Rural Call Quality and Reliability 
Act of 2017 (RCC Act). The RCC Act directs us to (1) promulgate 
registration requirements for intermediate providers within 180 days of 
enactment, and create a registry for such providers on our website; and 
(2) establish service quality standards for intermediate providers 
within one year of enactment.
    52. In implementing the RCC Act, first, we adopt a new rule 
requiring ``intermediate providers'' to provide and update as needed 
the following information on a publicly available online registry 
maintained by the Commission: (1) The intermediate provider's business 
name(s) and primary address; (2) the name(s), telephone number(s), 
email address(es), and business address(es) of the intermediate 
provider's regulatory contact and/or designated agent for service of 
process; (3) all business names that the intermediate provider has used 
in the past; (4) the state(s) in which the intermediate provider 
provides service; (5) the name, title, business address, telephone 
number, and email address of at least one person as well as the 
department within the company responsible for addressing rural call 
completion issues a telephone number and email address for the express 
purpose of receiving and responding promptly to any rural call 
completion issues, and; (6) the name(s), business address, and business 
telephone number(s) for an executive leadership contact, such as the 
chief executive officer, chief operating officer, or owner(s) of the 
intermediate provider, or persons performing an equivalent function, 
who directs or manages the entity.
    53. This Order also requires intermediate providers to register in 
our publicly available intermediate provider registry within 30 days 
after a Public Notice announcing the approval by the Office of 
Management and Budget of the final rules establishing the registry; 
prohibits covered providers from using any unregistered intermediate 
providers in the path of a given call; and requires covered providers 
to be responsible for knowing or obtaining knowledge of the identity of 
all intermediate providers in a call path. To ease burdens covered 
providers may experience during force majeure, covered providers are 
exempted from the prohibition on unregistered providers during such 
events, for an initial period of up to 180 days. Covered providers may 
seek an extension of this exemption period upon submission of a status 
report on the covered provider's attempts to comply with our rules, and 
a statement detailing how the covered provider intends to ensure that 
calls are completed notwithstanding the unavailability of registered 
intermediate providers.
    54. We conclude these rules and procedures are necessary to inject 
transparency and accountability into the call routing system, ``to 
ensure the integrity of voice communications and to prevent unjust or 
unreasonable discrimination among areas of the United States in the 
delivery of such communications.''

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

    55. The Commission did not receive comments specifically addressing 
the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    56. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to this 
proceeding.

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

    57. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the final rules adopted pursuant to the Third RCC FNPRM. 
The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same 
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and 
``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small 
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' 
under the Small Business Act. A ``small-business concern'' is one 
which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in 
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 
established by the SBA.
    58. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at 
the outset, three comprehensive small entity size standards that could 
be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific 
size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of 
Advocacy, in general a small business is

[[Page 47305]]

an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of 
small businesses represent 99.9 percent of all businesses in the United 
States which translates to 28.8 million businesses.
    59. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
Nationwide, as of Aug 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small 
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits 
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
    60. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicates that there 
were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United 
States. Of this number there were 37, 132 General purpose governments 
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 
50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school 
districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000. 
The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the 
local government category show that the majority of these governments 
have populations of less than 50,000. Based on these data we estimate 
that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the 
category of ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
    61. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 
defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in 
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use 
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming 
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, 
establishments providing satellite television distribution services 
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in 
this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard 
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such 
companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show 
that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this size 
standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.
    62. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically 
applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS 
Code category is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, as defined in 
paragraph 11 of this FRFA. Under that size standard, such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show 
that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. The Commission 
therefore estimates that most providers of local exchange carrier 
service are small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted.
    63. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (incumbent LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest 
applicable NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers as 
defined in paragraph 11 of this FRFA. Under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to 
Commission data, 3,117 firms operated in that year. Of this total, 
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange 
service are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and 
policies adopted. One thousand three hundred and seven (1,307) 
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers reported that they were incumbent 
local exchange service providers. Of this total, an estimated 1,006 
have 1,500 or fewer employees.
    64. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (competitive LECs), 
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these 
service providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers, as defined in paragraph 11 of this FRFA. 
Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms 
operated during that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer 
than 1,000 employees. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that 
the majority of Competitive LECs, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service 
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities. 
According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange services 
or competitive access provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an 
estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers 
have reported that they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 
are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 72 
carriers have reported that they are Other Local Service Providers. Of 
this total, 70 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange 
service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and Other Local Service Providers are small entities that may be 
affected by the adopted rules.
    65. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a definition for Interexchange Carriers. The closest 
NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined in 
paragraph 11 of this FRFA. The applicable size standard under SBA rules 
is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to Commission data, 359 companies reported that their primary 
telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange 
services. Of this total, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees 
and 42 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of interexchange service providers are 
small entities that may be affected by rules adopted.
    66. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. The 
Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged 
in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of 
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless 
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and 
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; 
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile 
virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this

[[Page 47306]]

industry. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms 
provided resale services during that year. Of that number, all operated 
with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the 
associated small business size standard, the majority of these prepaid 
calling card providers can be considered small entities.
    67. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition 
for Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS Code Category is 
Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry 
comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network 
capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and 
reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except 
satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) 
are included in this industry. The SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under 
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale 
services during that year. Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer 
than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated 
small business size standard, the majority of these resellers can be 
considered small entities. According to Commission data, 881 carriers 
have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale 
services. Of this total, an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
toll resellers are small entities.
    68. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to 
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not 
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service 
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, 
or toll resellers. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is for 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers as defined above. Under the 
applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 
or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 
firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer 
than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated 
small business size standard, the majority of Other Toll Carriers can 
be considered small. According to internally developed Commission data, 
284 companies reported that their primary telecommunications service 
activity was the provision of other toll carriage. Of these, an 
estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that most Other Toll Carriers are small entities 
that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Third RCC FNRPM.
    69. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a 
definition 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. According to the 
Commission's Form 499 Filer Database, 500 companies reported that they 
were engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. The Commission 
does not have data regarding how many of these 500 companies have 1,500 
or fewer employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there 
are 500 or fewer prepaid calling card providers that may be affected by 
the rules.
    70. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet 
access, and wireless video services. The appropriate size standard 
under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. For this industry, Census data for 2012 show that 
there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 
955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus under this category and 
the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are 
small entities. Similarly, according to internally developed Commission 
data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of 
wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications 
Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) services. Of this 
total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, 
the Commission estimates that approximately half of these firms can be 
considered small. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the 
majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
    71. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for 
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite 
uses. The Commission defined ``small business'' for the wireless 
communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross 
revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a 
``very small business'' as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 
million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved 
these definitions.
    72. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, 
personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio 
telephony carriers. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite). Under the SBA small business size standard, a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 
413 carriers reported that they were engaged in wireless telephony. Of 
these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more 
than 1,500 employees. Therefore, a little less than one third of these 
entities can be considered small.
    73. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and 
facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee 
basis. The broadcast programming is typically narrowcast in nature 
(e.g. limited format, such as news, sports, education, or youth-
oriented). These establishments produce programming in their own 
facilities or acquire programming from external sources. The 
programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as 
cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to 
viewers. The SBA has established a size standard for this industry 
stating that a business in this industry is small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. The 2012 Economic Census indicates that 367 firms were 
operational for that entire year. Of this total, 357 operated with less 
than 1,000 employees. Accordingly we conclude that a substantial 
majority of firms in this industry are small under the applicable SBA 
size standard.
    74. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission 
has developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of 
cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable 
company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. 
Industry data indicate that there are currently 4,600 active cable 
systems in the United States. Of this total, all but nine cable 
operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-

[[Page 47307]]

subscriber size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate 
regulation rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 
or fewer subscribers. Current Commission records show 4,600 cable 
systems nationwide. Of this total, 3,900 cable systems have fewer than 
15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems have 15,000 or more subscribers, 
based on the same records. Thus, under this standard as well, we 
estimate that most cable systems are small entities.
    75. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard 
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that, 
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 
one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not 
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in 
the aggregate exceed $250,000,000 are approximately 52,403,705 cable 
video subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator 
serving fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator 
if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of 
all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based 
on available data, we find that all but nine incumbent cable operators 
are small entities under this size standard. We note that the 
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable 
system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual 
revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of 
these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross 
annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable at this time to 
estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators 
that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the 
Communications Act.
    76. All Other Telecommunications. ``All Other Telecommunications'' 
is defined as follows: ``This U.S. industry is comprised of 
establishments that are primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. 
Establishments providing internet services or voice over internet 
protocol (VoIP) services via client supplied telecommunications 
connections are also included in this industry.'' The SBA has developed 
a small business size standard for ``All Other Telecommunications,'' 
which consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $32.5 
million or less. For this category, Census Bureau data for 2012 show 
that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. Of those 
firms, a total of 1,400 had annual receipts less than $25 million. 
Consequently, we conclude that the majority of All Other 
Telecommunications firms can be considered small.

E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    77. In this Order, we revise our rules to better address ongoing 
problems in the completion of long-distance telephone calls to rural 
areas; namely, providing insight into the identity of intermediate 
providers in the voice call market, and accountability to both covered 
providers and the Commission. In so doing, we require intermediate 
providers to furnish information to a publicly available online 
registry maintained by the Commission that allows for better 
transparency and accountability these entities in the voice call 
routing system.

F. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

    78. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.
    79. The Order adopts reforms that apply across the voice calling 
system, including small entities. As described in the Order, in 
adopting these reforms, we sought comment on the impact of our rule 
changes on all size providers, and considered significant alternatives 
to provide insight into the identity of intermediate providers in the 
voice call market, and establish accountability to covered providers 
and the Commission.
    80. First, we apply our registration requirement to all 
intermediate providers, as we define them in this Third Report and 
Order, but we clarify that this requirement does not apply to entities 
incidentally carrying, routing, or transmitting voice traffic. This 
clarification will reduce the burden on all entities, including small 
providers, which do not have specific business arrangements to carry 
traffic, but which transmission of voice traffic is merely incident to 
operation. Because this measure involves furnishing presently existing 
information on intermediate provider company leadership, rural call 
completion technical point of contact, contact information thereof, and 
places of operation, we find little if no additional burden to 
providers in consolidating such information and furnishing this 
information to the Commission via an online registry. As such we find 
that this is a low-cost measure to facilitate industry collaboration to 
address call completion issues, and increase accountability and 
transparency of intermediate providers in the voice call market.
    81. In addition, we revised our proposal to require intermediate 
provider registry changes within one week of the change, to a time 
period of ten business days, based upon record concerns that the 
proposed time period was burdensome.
    82. Finally, we adopted an exception to our prohibition on use of 
unregistered intermediate providers by covered providers transmitting 
covered voice communications in the case of force majeure, to minimize 
burdens covered providers may experience in complying with our rules 
during force majeure, and accordingly provide for an initial exemption 
period of up to 180 days, which may be extended upon covered provider 
request.

G. Report to Congress

    83. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, 
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress 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 SBA. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.

III. Procedural Matters

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    84. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 
U.S.C. 604, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA)

[[Page 47308]]

of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the 
policies and rules, as proposed, addressed in this Third Report and 
Order. The FRFA is set forth above. The Commission will send a copy of 
this Third Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    85. This Third Report and Order contains new or modified 
information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (PRA), 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, 44 U.S.C. 3507. OMB, the general public, and other Federal 
agencies will be invited to comment on the revised information 
collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we 
note 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 on how the Commission might further reduce the 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees.
    86. In this present document, we require intermediate providers to 
register in our publicly available intermediate provider registry 
within 30 days after a Public Notice announcing the approval by the 
Office of Management and Budget of the final rules establishing the 
registry. We have assessed the effects of this rule and find that any 
burden on small businesses will be minimal because this is a low-cost 
measure seeking readily available information that will improve 
transparency and accountability in the call routing system.

C. Congressional Review Act

    87. The Commission will send a copy of this Third Report and Order 
to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

D. Contact Person

    88. For further information about this proceeding, please contact 
Zach Ross, FCC Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy 
Division, Room 5-C211, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, at 
(202) 418-1033 or [email protected].

IV. Ordering Clauses

    89. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 
201(b), 202(a), 217, and 262 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201(b), 202(a), 217, and 262, this 
Third Report and Order and Order is adopted.
    90. It is further ordered that Part 64 of the Commission's rules 
are amended as set forth in Appendix A.
    91. It is further ordered that, pursuant to sections 1.4(b)(1) and 
1.103(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1), 1.103(a), this 
Third Report and Order shall be effective 30 days after publication of 
a summary in the Federal Register, except for the addition of section 
64.2115 to the Commission's rules, which will become effective 30 days 
after the announcement in the Federal Register of Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) approval and an effective date of the rules.
    92. It is further ordered that pursuant to the authority contained 
in sections 1, 4(i), 201(b), 202(a), 217, 218, 220(a), 251(a), and 262 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 
201(b), 202(a), 217, 218, 220(a), 251(a), and 262, USTelecom's Petition 
for Stay filed on June 11, 2018 in WC Docket No. 13-39 is denied.
    93. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of 
this Third Report and Order to Congress and to the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    94. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Third Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

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

Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Communications 
Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

0
1. Revise the authority citation for part 64 to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 202, 225, 251(e), 254(k), 262, 
403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, Public Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. 
Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 
227, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 262 616, 620, and the Middle Class 
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  64.2101 by adding a definition of ``covered voice 
communication'' in alphabetical order and revising the definition of 
``intermediate provider'' to read as follows:


Sec.  64.2101  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Covered voice communication. The term ``covered voice 
communication'' means a voice communication (including any related 
signaling information) that is generated--
    (1) From the placement of a call from a connection using a North 
American Numbering Plan resource or a call placed to a connection using 
such a numbering resource; and
    (2) Through any service provided by a covered provider.
* * * * *
    Intermediate provider. The term ``intermediate provider'' means any 
entity that--
    (1) Enters into a business arrangement with a covered provider or 
other intermediate provider for the specific purpose of carrying, 
routing, or transmitting voice traffic that is generated from the 
placement of a call placed--
    (i) From an end user connection using a North American Numbering 
Plan resource; or
    (ii) To an end user connection using such a numbering resource; and
    (2) Does not itself, either directly or in conjunction with an 
affiliate, serve as a covered provider in the context of originating or 
terminating a given call.

0
3. Add Sec.  64.2115 to subpart V to read as follows:


Sec.  64.2115  Registration of Intermediate Providers.

    (a) Registration. An intermediate provider that offers or holds 
itself out as offering the capability to transmit covered voice 
communications from one destination to another and that charges any 
rate to any other entity (including an affiliated entity) for the 
transmission shall register with the Commission in accordance with this 
section. The intermediate provider shall provide the following 
information in its registration:
    (1) The intermediate provider's business name(s) and primary 
address;
    (2) The name(s), telephone number(s), email address(es), and 
business address(es) of the intermediate provider's regulatory contact 
and/or designated agent for service of process;

[[Page 47309]]

    (3) All business names that the intermediate provider has used in 
the past;
    (4) The state(s) in which the intermediate provider provides 
service;
    (5) The name, title, business address, telephone number, and email 
address of at least one person as well as the department within the 
company responsible for addressing rural call completion issues, and;
    (6) The name(s), business address, and business telephone number(s) 
for an executive leadership contact, such as the chief executive 
officer, chief operating officer, or owner(s) of the intermediate 
provider, or persons performing an equivalent function, who directs or 
manages the entity.
    (b) Submission of registration. An intermediate provider that is 
subject to the registration requirement in paragraph (a) of this 
section shall submit the information described therein to the 
intermediate provider registry on the Commission's website. The 
registration shall be made under penalty of perjury.
    (c) Changes in information. An intermediate provider must update 
its submission to the intermediate provider registry on the 
Commission's website within 10 business days of any change to the 
information it must provide pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.

0
4. Add Sec.  64.2117 to subpart V to read as follows:


Sec.  64.2117  Use of Registered Intermediate Providers.

    (a) Prohibition on use of unregistered intermediate providers. A 
covered provider shall not use an intermediate provider to carry, 
route, or transmit covered voice communications unless such 
intermediate provider is registered pursuant to section 64.2115 of this 
subpart.
    (b) Force majeure exemption. (1) If, due to a force majeure for 
which a covered provider has instituted a disaster recovery plan, there 
are no registered intermediate providers available to carry, route, or 
transmit covered voice communications, a covered provider need not 
comply with paragraph (a) of this section for a period of up to 180 
days with respect to those covered voice communications. A covered 
provider shall submit to the Commission a certification, signed by a 
corporate officer or official with authority to bind the corporation, 
and knowledge of the details of the covered provider's inability to 
comply with our rules, explaining the circumstances justifying an 
exemption under this section as soon as practicable.
    (2) A covered provider seeking an extension of the exemption 
described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section must submit a request for 
an extension of the exemption period to the Commission. Such an 
extension request shall, at minimum, include a status report on the 
covered provider's attempts to comply with paragraph (a) of this 
section; and a statement detailing how the covered provider intends to 
ensure that calls are completed notwithstanding the unavailability of 
registered intermediate providers.
    (3) For purposes of this section, ``force majeure'' means a highly 
disruptive event beyond the control of the covered provider, such as a 
natural disaster or a terrorist attack.
    (4) For purposes of this section, ``disaster recovery plan'' means 
a disaster response plan developed by the covered provider for the 
purpose of responding to a force majeure event.

[FR Doc. 2018-20239 Filed 9-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P