*Pages 1--56 from Microsoft Word - 46480.doc* Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Rules and Regulations Implementing ) CG Docket No. 02- 386 Minimum Customer Account Record ) Exchange Obligations on All Local and ) Interexchange Carriers ) ) ) ) REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: February 10, 2005 Released: February 25, 2005 Comment Date: 45 days after publication in the Federal Register. Reply Comment Date: 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. By the Commission: Chairman Powell issuing separate statement. 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph Number I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 3 A. Factual Background ......................................................................................................................... 3 1. Current Data Exchange Methods............................................................................................... 3 2. The Customer Account Record Exchange Process ................................................................... 5 B. Procedural Background.................................................................................................................... 7 1. The Equal Access Notice of Inquiry ......................................................................................... 7 2. The Americatel Petition and the Joint Petition.......................................................................... 8 3. The December 2002 Public Notice.......................................................................................... 10 4. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ...................................................................................... 11 III. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 12 A. Overview........................................................................................................................................ 12 B. The Need for Mandatory, Minimum Standards Governing the Exchange of Customer Account Information Between LECs and IXCs............................................................................. 13 1. Background ............................................................................................................................. 13 2. Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 15 C. Transactions Requiring the Transfer or Exchange of Customer Account Information and Responsibilities of Particular Carriers ........................................................................................... 25 1. Background ............................................................................................................................. 25 2. Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 29 Customer Account Changes That Affect a Customer’s Choice of Preferred Interexchange Carrier - Customer is Placed on IXC’s Network...................................... 15 1 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 2 Customer Account Changes That Affect a Customer’s Choice of Preferred Interexchange Carrier - Customer Cancels PIC................................................................ 29 Changes to Customer’s Local Service Account (That May or May Not Affect Customer’s Choice of Preferred Interexchange Carrier) .................................................. 20 IXC Requests for Customer BNA Information ....................................................................... 29 D. Format and Method of Delivery of Required Information Exchanges .......................................... 58 1. Background ............................................................................................................................. 58 2. Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 59 E. Performance Measures................................................................................................................... 60 1. Background ............................................................................................................................. 60 2. Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 61 F. Customer Privacy and Limitations on Use of Customer Account Information ............................. 64 1. Background ............................................................................................................................. 64 2. Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 66 G. Implementation Issues and Cost Recovery .................................................................................... 68 1. Background ............................................................................................................................. 68 2. Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 69 H. Issues For Future Proceedings ....................................................................................................... 71 IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING..................................................................... 72 A. Background.................................................................................................................................... 72 B. Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 75 V. PROCEDURAL ISSUES..................................................................................................................... 82 A. Ex Parte Presentations for Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking............................................. 82 B. Paperwork Reduction Act .............................................................................................................. 83 C. Congressional Review Act............................................................................................................. 86 D. Filing of Comments and Reply Comments.................................................................................... 87 E. Accessible Formats ........................................................................................................................ 90 F. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ..................................................................................................... 91 G. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis........................................................................................... 92 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES....................................................................................................................... 93 Appendix A: Amendments to the Code of Federal Regulations- Part 64- Miscellaneous Rules Relating to Common Carriers Appendix B: Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Appendix C: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Appendix D: Comments Filed I. INTRODUCTION 1. In March 2004, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ NPRM”) seeking comment on whether to adopt mandatory, minimum standards governing the exchange of customer account information between local exchange carriers (“ LECs”) and interexchange carriers (“ IXCs”). 1 The NPRM also sought comment on particular information exchange requirements proposed in a petition for declaratory ruling filed by Americatel Corporation (“ Americatel Petition”), 2 and in a 1 Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer Account Record Exchange Obligations on all Local and Interexchange Carriers, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 02- 386, 19 FCC Rcd 5688 (2004) (“ NPRM”). 2 Obligation of All Local Exchange Carriers to Provide Timely and Accurate Billing Name and Address Service to Interexchange Carriers, Petition for Declaratory Ruling, filed by Americatel Corporation on Sept. 5, 2002. 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 3 separate petition for rulemaking filed by AT& T, Sprint Corporation, and MCI, Inc. (“ Joint Petition”). 3 As explained more fully below, we find that the record of this proceeding demonstrates that basic customer account information that carriers require to ensure accurate billing of end user customers and to execute end user customer requests in a timely manner is not being provided by all LECs and by all IXCs. For this reason, we adopt new rules to facilitate the exchange of customer account information between LECs and IXCs and to establish carriers’ responsibilities with respect to such exchanges. 2. The rules we adopt today will help to ensure that consumers’ phone service bills are accurate and that their carrier selection requests are honored and executed without undue delay. These requirements also recognize a carrier’s right to be compensated for the services it provides by ensuring that providers of long distance phone services receive proper notification when customers are placed on their networks. To those ends and for the reasons that we discuss below, we grant in part, and deny in part, the Americatel Petition and the Joint Petition. Finally, in the attached Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on issues relating to the exchange of customer account information between local exchange carriers. II. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background 1. Current Data Exchange Methods 3. For the purpose of providing interexchange service, an IXC obtains access to its customer by means of the particular local switch that serves each local exchange service customer. Certain transactions affecting an IXC’s ability to provide service and manage its customers’ accounts, including the execution of customer requests to establish or change a preferred IXC (“ PIC”) or to make certain changes to a customer’s account information, are carried out, not by the customer’s IXC, but by his LEC. In these situations, effective communications between LECs and IXCs may be critical to IXCs’ ability to maintain accurate billing records and to honor customer PIC selections and other customer requests. 4. There is currently no uniform, nationwide process by which all carriers exchange customer account information. 4 Individual carriers nevertheless may share customer account information pursuant to state- mandated data exchange requirements, 5 voluntarily- established business rules, 6 or privately negotiated agreements with other carriers. 7 Many carriers today utilize in varying degrees certain voluntary, industry- developed standards known as the Customer Account Record Exchange (“ CARE”) process. We discuss the history and operation of the CARE process immediately below. 3 Petition for Rulemaking to Implement Mandatory Minimum Customer Account Record Exchange Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers, filed by AT& T Corp, Sprint Corporation, and WorldCom, Inc. on Nov. 22, 2002. In this Order, we refer to Petitioner WorldCom, Inc. by its current corporate name, which is MCI. 4 See, e. g., NECA comments at 3 (“ NECA pool members exchange end user account information with IXCs through a variety of methods”). See also NARUC Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Standards Relative to the Exchange of Customer Account Information Between Interexchange Carriers, Local Exchange Carriers, and Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (March 4, 2004) (model guidelines and resolution encouraging states to adopt mandatory, minimum requirements for the exchange of customer account information between LECs and IXCs). 5 See, e. g., 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 26. 130 (m) (West 2004) 6 See, e. g., Okla. RTCs Comments at 3. 7 See, e. g., USTA Comments at 8; Okla. RTCs Reply at 3- 4. 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 4 2. The Customer Account Record Exchange Process 5. The CARE process was established under the auspices of the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (“ ATIS”), Ordering and Billing Forum (“ OBF”) in response to the break- up of the Bell System and the introduction of competitive long distance services. 8 ATIS develops and promotes technical and operational standards for communications and related information technologies. According to ATIS, its member companies represent “all segments of the telecommunications industry” and participate in ATIS’ open industry committees and forums. 9 The CARE process initially was developed to assist LECs in fulfilling their equal access obligations, 10 which required them to provide all IXCs with access to their networks equal in type, quality, and price to that provided to AT& T and its affiliates. 11 Thus, when a customer wished to change long distance providers or otherwise make changes to his billing, name, and address information, the CARE process was used by incumbent LECs (“ ILECs”) to transmit customer account information to the appropriate IXC to ensure the seamless provision of service to the customer. 6. The Subscription Committee of the OBF developed and continues to maintain the Equal Access Subscription Customer Account Record Exchange Industry Support Interface (“ CARE/ ISI”) document. According to ATIS, the CARE/ ISI document “describes industry recommendations for a standardized exchange of customer account information among telecommunications service providers.” 12 The document identifies the content of the data that participating carriers are expected to share in specified circumstances and provides a consistent format for the exchange of that data. 13 CARE data consists of numbered codes called Transaction Code/ Status Indicators (“ TCSIs” or “CARE codes”). Each TC describes the nature or purpose of the data being exchanged (e. g., a TC of “22” is used to represent a customer disconnecting her IXC). Each SI provides specific details associated with the TC (e. g., an SI of “06” coupled with a TC of “22” represents a customer disconnecting his IXC by switching to another IXC). The TCSI in this example would appear as “2206.” Although TCSIs may be exchanged by use of several different mediums, including but not limited to facsimile, mail, and e- mail, the CARE standards specifically “support a data format intended to facilitate the mechanized exchange of [customer account] information.” 14 B. Procedural Background 1. The Equal Access Notice of Inquiry 7. On February 28, 2002, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on the status and continued importance of the equal access and nondiscrimination obligations of section 251( g) 8 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5690, ¶ 3. See also United States v. AT& T, 552 F. Supp. 131 (D. D. C. 1982), aff’d sub nom., Maryland v. United States, 460 U. S. 1001 (1983). 9 ATIS Comments at 2. 10 Equal access allows end users to access facilities of a designated IXC by dialing “1+” the desired telephone number. 11 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5690, ¶ 3. 12 ATIS Comments at 4. 13 Id. 14 CARE/ ISI Document at 1- 3. 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 5 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”). 15 On May 10, 2002, and September 18, 2002, AT& T filed comments in that proceeding in which it argued that all carriers should be subject to the same mandatory, minimum requirements with regard to the accurate and timely exchange of customer account information. 16 Specifically, AT& T proposed that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to address the issue of making the voluntary CARE process mandatory for all LECs in order to provide uniform, timely, and complete exchange of customer account data. 17 In their reply comments in the Equal Access NOI proceeding, Sprint and MCI both supported AT& T's proposal for implementation of mandatory minimum standards governing the exchange of customer account information. 18 2. The Americatel Petition and the Joint Petition 8. Two separate petitions were subsequently filed with the Commission concerning the exchange of customer account data between LECs and IXCs. 19 The first, filed by Americatel Corporation on September 5, 2002, asked the Commission to issue a declaration that: (1) the obligation of LECs to provide customer billing, name and address (“ BNA”) 20 information to IXCs, subject to existing safeguards, extends not merely to ILECs, but to competitive LECs (“ CLECs”) as well; (2) all LECs must notify the appropriate presubscribed IXC whenever a customer changes local service providers; and (3) a LEC that no longer serves a particular customer must provide to a requesting long distance provider the identity of the customer’s new LEC. 21 9. A second petition, filed on November 22, 2002, by AT& T, Sprint, and MCI (collectively, “Joint Petitioners”) asked the Commission to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to implement mandatory, minimum standards governing the exchange of customer account information between LECs and IXCs and to adopt CARE as the prescribed format for such exchanges. 22 The Joint Petitioners argued that mandatory, minimum standards are needed to ensure the exchange of information that carriers require to 15 Review of the Equal Access and Nondiscrimination Obligations Applicable to Local Exchange Carriers, Notice of Inquiry, CC Docket No. 02- 39, 17 FCC Rcd 4015 (2002) (“ Equal Access NOI”). Section 251( g) preserves the equal access and nondiscrimination requirements that were established for LECs “under any court order, consent decree, or regulation, order, or policy of the Commission” prior to passage of the 1996 Act. 47 U. S. C. § 251( g). That provision imports the obligations of the Modification of Final Judgment, the consent decree that settled the Department of Justice’s antitrust suit against AT& T and required divestiture of the Bell Operating Companies as well as Commission equal access requirements. U. S. v. AT& T, 552 F. Supp. 131 (D. D. C. 1982), aff’d sub nom., Maryland v. U. S., 460 U. S. 1001 (1983). 16 AT& T Comments in the Equal Access NOI proceeding (filed May 10, 2002, and September 18, 2002). 17 Id. 18 Sprint Reply in the Equal Access NOI proceeding (filed June 10, 2002), at 3- 4; MCI Reply in the Equal Access NOI proceeding (filed June 10, 2002), at 2- 3. 19 Unless otherwise specified, the term “LECs,” as used herein, refers to both incumbent LECs and competitive LECs. 20 Under the Commission’s rules, the term “billing name and address” refers to the name and address provided to a LEC by each of its local exchange customers to which the LEC directs bills for its services. 47 C. F. R. § 64. 1202( a)( 1). 21 Americatel Petition at 18. If the Commission were to determine that these issues would be better addressed in a rulemaking proceeding, Americatel asked that its petition be treated as a petition for rulemaking. Id. at 4 n. 4. 22 Joint Petition at 1. 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 6 maintain accurate billing records and to deliver quality customer service. 23 While noting that most ILECs participate in CARE, the Joint Petitioners complained that many CLECs that were established following enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 either do not provide it at all, or do not provide it on a timely basis or with a quality or format upon which IXCs can depend. 24 Under the Joint Petitioners’ proposal, all LECs and IXCs would be required, in specified situations, to transmit to other carriers particular CARE codes (or specified alternative codes) that are designed to provide particular billing and/ or other “essential” customer account information. 25 The Joint Petitioners further proposed that carriers be given flexibility in their choice of methods for transmitting CARE data and that such methods should include transmission by paper (facsimile, mail), e- mail, cartridge, Internet processing, mechanized processing, and real- time processing. 26 Finally, the Joint Petitioners proposed that we adopt performance measures for timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of CARE data transmissions. 27 3. The December 2002 Public Notice 10. On December 20, 2002, the Commission opened a new Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau docket to receive public comment on the Americatel Petition and the Joint Petition (collectively, the “Petitions”). On that date, the Commission issued a public notice directing interested parties to file comments on the issues raised in the Petitions by January 21, 2003, and to file reply comments by February 4, 2003.28 After reviewing the Petitions and the comments filed in response to the December 2002 Public Notice, the Commission determined that these issues would be “more appropriately addressed through a notice and comment rulemaking proceeding than by an immediate ruling on the petitions.” 29 For this reason, the Commission determined to elicit further public comment in an NPRM. 30 4. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 11. On March 25, 2004, the Commission released an NPRM seeking further comment as to whether it should adopt mandatory, minimum standards governing the exchange of customer account information between LECs and IXCs. In particular, the Commission sought comment on issues and proposals raised in the Petitions, as well as in comments filed by parties in response to the December 2002 Public Notice. Commenters who disagreed with the specific proposals set forth in the Petitions were encouraged to “specifically outline the minimum data exchange necessary to address the problems described in the petitions.” 31 The Commission noted its intent to focus “primarily” on the proposals 23 Id. 24 Id. at 3. 25 Id. at 7. 26 Id., App. A, at 4. 27 Id. at 8- 10 and App. A, at 4- 8. 28 See Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Petition for Declaratory Ruling and/ or Rulemaking, filed by Americatel Corporation, and for Comments on Joint Petition for Rulemaking to Implement Mandatory Minimum Customer Account Record Exchange Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers, filed by AT& T Corp., Sprint Corporation, and WorldCom, Inc., Public Notice, CG Docket No. 02- 386, 17 FCC Rcd 25535 (2002) (“ December 2002 Public Notice”). 29 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5692 ¶ 9. 30 Id. 31 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5694- 95, ¶ 12. 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 7 outlined in the Joint Petition and further noted that it had determined not to address the Americatel Petition “in full” at this time. 32 In particular, the Commission declined to address the Americatel Petition to the extent that the relief requested by Americatel was in the form of a declaratory ruling rather than in a rulemaking proceeding. 33 Finally, the Commission indicated that it was not necessary to address Americatel’s request for declaratory relief concerning CLECs’ BNA service obligations insofar as the Commission’s current BNA requirements make “no distinction between the responsibilities of independent LECs and competitive LECs, and place[] the obligations of notice and access on all LECs.” 34 A list of parties who filed comments and/ or reply comments in response to the NPRM is set forth in Appendix D attached hereto. III. DISCUSSION A. Overview 12. In this Order, we establish mandatory, minimum standards governing the exchange of customer account information between LECs and IXCs. In taking this action, we do not prescribe the use of a particular notification format or medium for the transfer of customer account information, such as CARE, and, instead, identify the situations in which information exchanges must take place and the obligations of particular carriers with respect to those exchanges. Under the rules we adopt today, a LEC will be required to supply customer account information to an IXC when: (1) the LEC has placed an end user on the IXC’s network; (2) the LEC has removed an end user from the IXC’s network; (3) an end user that is presubscribed to the IXC makes certain changes to her account information via her LEC; (4) the IXC has requested BNA for an end user who has usage on the IXC’s network but for whom the IXC does not have an existing account; and (5) the LEC rejects an IXC- initiated PIC order. In addition, an IXC will be required to supply customer account information to a LEC when an end user contacts the IXC directly either to select or to remove the IXC as his PIC. We also require carriers to provide the required notifications promptly and without unreasonable delay. Finally, we require carriers to exercise reasonable efforts to ensure that the required data transmissions are complete and accurate. B. The Need for Mandatory, Minimum Standards Governing the Exchange of Customer Account Information Between LECs and IXCs 1. Background 13. The NPRM sought comment on whether the Commission should replace the current voluntary process for exchanging customer account information with mandatory, minimum standards applicable to all LECs and IXCs. 35 In particular, the NPRM asked parties to address the magnitude of the billing problems ascribed to carriers’ failure to exchange customer account information among themselves in a complete and/ or timely manner and whether the adoption of mandatory, minimum standards could significantly reduce the percentage of consumer complaints concerning billing errors. 36 We also sought comment on the then- proposed NARUC Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs model 32 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5693 ¶ 9. 33 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5693 ¶ 9 and n. 4. 34 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5693 ¶ 9. 35 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5689, 5693 ¶¶ 1, 10. 36 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5692- 93 ¶¶ 9, 10. 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 8 “carrier change guidelines.” 37 Noting that these could be adopted on a state- by- state basis to address customer account record concerns, we asked whether the model guidelines would adequately address the issues raised in the Petitions. 14. The NPRM also sought comment on Americatel’s proposal to require the establishment of a line- level database as a comprehensive solution to data exchange problems in the industry and as to whether the adoption of data exchange requirements could provide quicker relief to the petitioners than the adoption of the database solution proposed by Americatel. 38 Finally, we sought comment on our tentative conclusion that a uniform process observed by all LECs and all IXCs could provide a better framework for fair and consistent enforcement activity by the Commission. 39 2. Discussion 15. Upon a review of the record before us, we conclude that mandatory, minimum standards are needed to facilitate the exchange of customer account information between LECs and IXCs. We adopt this conclusion in light of the considerable record of evidence demonstrating that information needed by carriers to execute customer requests in a timely and efficient manner and to properly bill customers is not being consistently provided by all LECs and by all IXCs. 40 The Joint Petitioners report, for example, that of the approximately 3, 065 wireline local service providers identified in the Local Exchange Routing Guide, nearly 60% of these providers do not participate in any exchange of customer account information. 41 The Joint Petitioners further report that, on average, approximately 163.7 million calls per month (nearly two billion calls per year) are placed on their long distance networks by subscribers for whom the Joint Petitioners have received no customer billing name and address information. 42 16. In determining the need for mandatory, minimum standards, we also take particular note of the information and views presented by representatives of state regulatory commissions and other state and consumer organizations, all of which urge us to adopt mandatory, minimum standards. 43 For example, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (“ NARUC”) reports that between 30% and 50% of billing- related telecommunications complaints received by state commissions 37 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5698 ¶ 22. In March 2004, the NARUC Board of Directors adopted a resolution approving the principles expressed in the model rule that had been developed earlier by the NARUC Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs. The March 2004 resolution encourages states to adopt “minimum requirements relative to the exchange of customer account information between [IXCs and LECs]. The resolution further encourages states to use the NARUC Model Rule “as a template upon which to build their own customized individual standards.” NARUC Comments, App. A. 38 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5697 ¶¶ 17- 19. 39 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5693 ¶ 10. 40 See, e. g., Joint Petition at 3- 7; Americatel Petition at 6- 8; NASUCA Comments at 5; NYOAG Comments at 2; Qwest Comments at 6; Transaction Networks Comments at 1; Willtel Comments at 1; Working Assets Comments at 6- 8; SBC Comments at 2. 41 See Letter from Michael F. Del Casino, AT& T, to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC (October 25, 2004), Attachment, at 3. The Local Exchange Routing Guide, or LERG, refers to a database of switching information that is maintained by Telcordia Technologies and that is updated monthly. 42 See Letter from Michael F. Del Casino, AT& T, to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC (October 25, 2004), Attachment, at 4. 43 See, e. g., CPUC Comments at 2; NARUC Comments at 4; NASUCA Reply at 4; NECPUC Comments at 5; NJDRA Reply at 4- 5; NYOAG Comments at 2; OOAG Reply at 2; OPC- DC Comments at 3; PPUC Reply at 1; TPUC Comments at 2. 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 9 appear to be the result of “a breakdown in communications among the numerous carriers involved in changing a customer’s primary interexchange carrier.” 44 NARUC, which supports our adoption of nationwide, minimum requirements in this area, also has adopted resolutions and a model rule addressing this issue. In adopting the model rule, NARUC reportedly hopes to encourage states to adopt their own mandatory, minimum standards. 45 The New England Conference of Public Utility Commissioners (“ NECPUC”) similarly reports that problems stemming from carriers’ failure to communicate critical customer account information regarding PIC changes are “pervasive and warrant regulatory intervention.” 46 NECPUC further states that approximately 20% of PIC changes “fail[] to flow through seamlessly” and that these failures, many of which NECPUC believes are attributable to ineffective communications among carriers, are “costly for consumers and carriers and damage[] consumers’ confidence in the marketplace.” 47 17. The comments of NECPUC and others also reinforce our belief that the adoption of mandatory, minimum standards applicable to all LECs and IXCs will enhance Commission and state enforcement efforts. We agree that, once carriers’ respective obligations with respect to specific transactions are clearly delineated and made mandatory, regulators will be better able to determine the responsibility of individual carriers in connection with particular billing disputes and to ascertain at which point( s) in a transaction involving two or more carriers the process has gone awry. 18. On the basis of the Commission’s own experience with consumer complaint investigations, we find that consumers are significantly impacted when carriers fail to communicate. As the Commission has observed in resolving consumer billing complaints, if a consumer’s PIC change order is not communicated to the appropriate IXCs, the consumer may continue to receive bills from her former IXC for non- usage related charges long after the consumer has cancelled her service with that provider. In that instance, the consumer’s new IXC, upon detecting usage on its network that it cannot associate with an identified subscriber (because it has received no billing name or address information from the customer’s LEC) may have no choice but to place a block on the customer’s line, thus preventing the customer from placing long distance calls over the network of the customer’s preferred carrier. In these and other examples, it is the consumer who bears the burden of making multiple phone calls to rectify problems of double and continued billing, as well as problems associated with the delayed or failed execution of consumers’ PIC change requests. 19. Although there is a divergence of views as to the particular circumstances in which information exchanges should be made mandatory and the specific parameters governing those exchanges (addressed in Sections C and D infra), there is widespread recognition among industry commenters that, in a defined set of circumstances, certain mandatory, minimum standards are needed. 48 A number of small and rural ILECs, however, oppose our adoption of mandatory, minimum standards with respect to the exchange of customer account information. 49 These parties oppose mandatory standards in general 44 NARUC Comments at 3. 45 Id. at 2- 3 (citing NARUC Comments, App. A, B, and C). 46 NECPUC Comments at 3. 47 Id. 48 See, e. g., Joint Petitioners Comments at 7; BellSouth Comments at 1; Cox Communications Comments at 1; Nextel Comments at 2; Time Warner Comments at 2; ALTS Reply at 2. 49 See, e. g., NTCA Comments at 2 (“ The Commission should consider less burdensome alternatives before it imposes a mandate expected to involve substantial burdens and costs on small rural ILECs.”); TDS Comments at 4 (although TDS “participates in the automated exchange of CARE information in accordance with 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 10 or, in the case of some parties, the imposition of CARE standards in particular on grounds that: (1) the information that IXCs claim to need could be obtained from the IXCs’ own customers50 or through voluntary negotiations between LECs and IXCs; 51 (2) ATIS OBF is a more appropriate forum for addressing data exchange issues and IXCs have not met their burden of proving that the current voluntary standards are inadequate; 52 (3) small and rural LECs lack the necessary resources to implement costly new processes; 53 (4) imposing additional requirements on ILECs is unwarranted insofar as the record demonstrates that it is the CLECs, not the ILECs, that are responsible for the vast majority of problems and disputes relating to the sharing of information with IXCs. 54 We address these arguments in turn below. 20. As an initial matter, we find that the specific customer data that are the subject of the rules that we adopt today is not consistently available to IXCs in a timely or reliable manner, or at all, from sources other than their customers’ LEC. For example, a customer who wishes to initiate or change a PIC selection may do so by communicating this request to his LEC or by directly contacting his PIC, which then must submit the order to the LEC on behalf of the customer. In either situation, the PIC may have no way of knowing that the customer has been added to its network unless and until the LEC provides notification to the IXC confirming this fact. Absent such notification, an IXC’s customer may be able to place long distance calls on the IXC’s network, but the IXC may not have sufficient information to bill the customer accurately, if at all, for those calls. 55 Similarly, when a LEC removes a customer from an IXC’s network in response to a customer’s PIC change request, absent notification of this fact, an IXC may not be aware that it is no longer the customer’s PIC and, most importantly, that it should discontinue billing the customer for non- usage specific monthly charges. Because the LEC is often regarded as the point of contact for a customer wishing to make changes to his long distance service account, and it is the LEC that executes a customer’s request to establish or change a PIC selection, we find that certain basic customer account information that is needed by IXCs to provide service and properly bill their customers is not reasonably available from the IXC’s customer or from sources other than the customer’s LEC. 56 Even when customer account information is available through other means, the IXC may have no reason to request it to the extent that it is unaware that a change has occurred. 21. Second, given that LECs and IXCs today compete directly in the long distance service the standards established by the ATIS OBF[,]” it sees “no evidence of a need” to make those standards mandatory). 50 See, e. g., Frontier Comments at 6. 51 See, e. g., USTA Comments at 8; Okla. RTCs Reply at 3- 4. 52 See, e. g., TDS Comments at 4; USTA Comments at 2; Okla. RTCs Comments at 2- 3. 53 See, e. g., Texas Statewide Tel. Coop. Comments at 2; Rural ILECs Comments at 3; Frontier Comments at 2- 4; TDS Comments at 9- 10 (estimating at least 500 hours of information systems personnel time just to make the technical changes called for by the proposed mandatory minimum CARE standards). 54 See, e. g., Okla. RTCs Reply at 2. 55 See Joint Petition at 4- 5 (noting that this problem results in “multi- million dollar losses” to the long distance industry each year). 56 See SBC Comments at 2 (due to faulty inter- carrier communications “many IXCs do not know when subscribers are placed on or removed from their network, or receive insufficient customer data to enable them to bill their customers for service or bill them correctly”); NASUCA Reply at 7 n. 30 (noting that information supplied by a LEC about a customer’s PIC is “likely to be more accurate than information gathered from the customer, which would still have to be confirmed by the LEC”). 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 11 markets of many states, we disagree with commenters who suggest that customer account information that is within the exclusive control of a customer’s LEC can always be obtained by an IXC through voluntary negotiations with the LEC or in reliance on voluntary ATIS OBF standards. Although we encourage carriers to enter into voluntary agreements governing the exchange of customer account information and we commend the significant steps that industry has taken to develop voluntary standards through the ATIS OBF process, we are not persuaded that, without some minimum regulatory intervention, all carriers will participate voluntarily in such agreements or otherwise negotiate in good faith. 57 Our own experience with consumer billing complaint investigations reinforces this observation. We agree with the Joint Petitioners that voluntary standards fall short because they do not result in industry- wide participation. Without industry- wide participation, customers have no assurance that their carrier change and other requests will be acted upon in a timely or efficient manner, if at all. The broad-based support for Commission action, as reflected in the record of this proceeding, supports the conclusion that voluntary industry standards, by themselves, are not adequate for this purpose. 22. Likewise, to the extent that the March 2004 NARUC resolution encourages states to use the NARUC model rule “as a template upon which to build their own customized individual standards[,]” and adoption of such standards is plainly within the discretion of each and every state commission or legislature, we conclude that the NARUC model rule is not likely to ensure industry- wide participation or a uniform, minimum standard. 58 Although the NARUC model rule may prove useful to states wishing to adopt more expansive requirements than those adopted here, the model rule is unlikely to result in the adoption, on a nationwide basis, of the minimum standards that we believe are needed to address the billing and provisioning problems at issue in this proceeding. 23. Third, we note that, in response to concerns expressed by commenters regarding the burdens that mandatory, minimum standards would impose on small and rural carriers, we have made every effort to minimize those burdens. By limiting the universe of mandated information exchanges to those situations that we believe are most critical to addressing the problems identified in the record (see Section C infra) and by adopting standards that allow for flexibility in both the format and medium of information exchanges (see Section D infra), we anticipate that the costs or burdens associated with implementing the requirements that we adopt today will be minimal. 59 Because we have made a concerted effort to minimize the burdens on small and rural carriers, we believe that any additional burdens associated with these requirements are outweighed by important public interest considerations, including the accurate billing of customers and the timely and efficient execution of customer requests. 60 24. Finally, we disagree with the suggestion that imposing data exchange requirements on ILECs is unwarranted because it is CLECs, not ILECs, that are responsible for the problems identified in this proceeding. Contrary to this suggestion, the record demonstrates that long distance companies have 57 See Working Assets Comments at 3 (“ In the absence of regulatory oversight the local exchange carriers can, and in Working Assets experience have, improperly used their unilateral control of CARE information to disadvantage their competitors.”) 58 See NARUC Comments at 5 (“ Whatever the benefits of industry created solutions for exchange of such information, unfortunately industry cannot mandate the use of those standards”). 59 See Rural ILECs Comments at 10 (urging that, if the Commission adopts mandatory standards it should “require carriers to exchange information at specific times, but refrain from micro- managing the methods the carriers use to do so”). 60 See also Americatel Reply at 5 (noting that, on a relative basis, Americatel’s financial problems related to unbillable calls are “much greater” than the financial impact on the ILECs should the FCC require ILECs to adopt minimum CARE standards). 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 12 experienced difficulty securing basic customer account information both from ILECs and CLECs. 61 In any event, because the information exchange requirements that we adopt today represent, in our view, the bare minimum that carriers must do to address the billing, provisioning, and accuracy concerns raised in this proceeding, we anticipate that, as a practical matter, these requirements will result in minimal, if any, additional burden on ILECs that currently are participating in CARE or are otherwise providing IXCs with the equivalent information. C. Transactions Requiring the Transfer or Exchange of Customer Account Information and Responsibilities of Particular Carriers 1. Background 25. The NPRM. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the specific data exchanges proposed in the Petitions (as described below) and encouraged parties, to the extent that they disagree with the proposals set forth in the Petitions, to “specifically outline the minimum data exchange necessary to address the problems described in the [P] etitions.” 62 26. The Joint Petition. The Joint Petitioners ask the Commission to mandate the exchange of customer account information (as reflected by a specific subset of CARE codes) in connection with a defined set of transactions. Under the Joint Petition, a LEC would be required to supply customer account information to an IXC when: (1) the LEC has placed an end user on the IXC’s network; (2) the LEC has removed an end user from the IXC’s network; (3) an end user that is presubscribed to the IXC makes certain changes to her account information via her LEC; (4) the LEC has suspended or blocked an end user from using the IXC’s network (e. g., due to collection or fraud issues); (5) the IXC has requested BNA for an end user who has usage on the IXC’s network but for whom the IXC does not have an existing account; and (6) when the LEC rejects an IXC- initiated request or order in order to explain the basis for such rejection. Under the Joint Petition, an IXC would be required to supply customer account information to a LEC when an end user contacts the IXC directly to select the IXC as his PIC. 63 In the NPRM, we sought comment on whether, if we were to adopt mandatory, minimum standards, the standard proposed by the Joint Petitioners was “appropriate and adequate to address the concerns raised in the petitions” and whether any modifications to that proposal would be necessary. 64 27. The Americatel Petition. Americatel asks the Commission to issue a declaration that a LEC must notify the appropriate presubscribed long distance carrier when a customer changes local service providers and that, upon the request of a long distance carrier, a LEC that no longer serves a customer must indicate the identity of the customer’s new local service provider. 65 Americatel also asks the Commission to clarify that the obligation to provide BNA service to IXCs extends to all LECs, and not just to ILECs. The NPRM sought comment on the first two issues raised in the Americatel Petition. 66 61 See, e. g., Qwest Comments at 6; Working Assets Comments at 3, 5. 62 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5694- 95 ¶ 12. The NPRM also sought comment as to whether data exchange requirements are needed in the context of wireline- to- wireless porting. NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5695 ¶¶ 13- 14. 63 Joint Petition, App. A at 3. We note that, in their proposal, the Joint Petitioners used the terms “local service provider” and “access customer” in lieu of LEC and IXC. We use the terms LEC and IXC in describing their proposal for consistency and to avoid confusion with terms used previously in this Order. As discussed in Section D infra, the Joint Petitioners also identified the “minimum CARE TCSIs” that they considered “essential” to facilitate the transfer or exchange of the information required in each of these situations. 64 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5694 ¶ 12. 65 Americatel Petition at 12- 13. 66 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5694 ¶ 12. 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 13 With respect to Americatel’s request for declaratory relief regarding LECs’ BNA service obligations, the Commission noted that section 64.1201 of its rules makes “no distinction” between the responsibilities of independent LECs and competitive LECs, and “places the obligations of notice and access on all LECs.” 67 28. The Coalition Proposal. On November 8, 2004, a coalition of interexchange carriers and local exchange carriers including AT& T, MCI, Sprint, BellSouth, Qwest, SBC, and Verizon (“ the Coalition”) filed with the Commission a proposed “set of mandated business activities that should trigger the exchange of specific customer record information between carriers.” 68 In its November 8, 2004 ex parte letter, the Coalition asserts that “mandating the exchange of specific information during the identified business activities will reduce the number of consumer complaints associated with carrier changes.” 69 In addition, the Coalition contends that the information that carriers would be required to exchange under its proposal is “the minimum required” to address customer billing issues associated with these business activities. 70 2. Discussion 29. We conclude that minimum data exchange requirements are needed in connection with a number of specific transactions identified in the record. We anticipate that the adoption of nationwide rules requiring the exchange or transfer of customer account information in the situations identified below will help to alleviate the billing and provisioning problems described in this proceeding as well as the associated customer confusion and complaints that are documented in the record before us and that have come to our attention through the Consumer Inquiries & Complaints Division of the Commission’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau. We note that the rules that we adopt today do not prescribe a particular format or delivery method (e. g., the CARE process) for the transfer of customer account information and instead focus more generally on information sharing in particular situations. 71 In adopting this approach we agree with the comments of Qwest that, at this time, what is important is that information exchanges take place, not the format or methodology that is associated with those exchanges. 72 30. The specific information that carriers will be required to exchange represents the minimum that is required in connection with each of the identified transactions. Although we do not prescribe the CARE format, the content of the notification requirements adopted here generally mirrors that which carriers currently exchange under the industry- established CARE standards. The Coalition contends that these particular data elements represent “the minimum required in order to address customer billing 67 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5693 ¶ 9 (emphasis in original). 68 The Coalition first proposed a draft list of mandated data exchanges in an ex parte letter filed with the Commission on November 5, 2004. See Letter from Mary L. Henze, BellSouth, to Marlene Dortch, FCC (November 5, 2004). The Coalition filed a “refinement and clarification” of that list on November 8, 2004. See Letter from Michael F. Del Casino, AT& T, to Marlene Dortch, FCC (November 8, 2004). It filed with the Commission a slightly modified version of the list on November 10, 2004. See Letter from Michael F. Del Casino, AT& T, to Marlene Dortch, FCC (November 10, 2004). 69 See November 8, 2004, Coalition Ex Parte. 70 See November 8, 2004, Coalition Ex Parte. 71 We address commenters’ arguments regarding the CARE process and other formats and delivery methods that carriers may use to transmit customer account information in Section E herein. 72 Qwest Comments at ii. 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 14 issues” identified in this proceeding. 73 We note that no party has addressed the Coalition’s proposed list of required data elements or otherwise disputed this contention. We conclude that the required data elements may be transmitted using CARE processes (i. e., TCSIs with the required data elements) or, if CARE processes are not used, a written description of the required information. 74 Finally, in response to carrier comments cautioning us to avoid requiring carriers to transmit information that they do not have, we clarify that a carrier is obligated to transmit the required information only to the extent that that information is reasonably available to it. We describe here the situations in which information exchanges must take place and the obligations of particular carriers with respect to those exchanges. Customer Account Changes That Affect a Customer’s Choice of Preferred Interexchange Carrier - Customer is Placed on IXC’s Network 31. In the transactions described in this section, a LEC has received an order to add at its local switch a presubscribed long distance customer to an IXC’s network. We conclude that the data exchanges described here are necessary to facilitate the proper establishment and billing of an end user customer’s account. 75 These notification requirements are intended primarily to address the situations described by the Joint Petitioners in which they reportedly are unable to bill a presubscribed customer for long distance calls made on an IXC network or to honor a customer’s request for a particular calling plan because the customer’s LEC has not notified the IXC that it has placed the customer on the IXC’s network or supplied appropriate BNA information for that customer. 76 Customer- Submitted PIC Order 32. Upon receiving and processing a PIC selection submitted by an end user customer and adding the customer to the preferred IXC’s network at the LEC’s local switch, the LEC must notify the IXC of this event. 77 Commenters who proposed particular data exchange standards generally agreed that the transfer of customer account information in this situation should be made mandatory. 78 33. In conjunction with this notification requirement, the confirmation provided by the LEC to the IXC must contain all of the customer account information necessary to allow for proper billing of the customer by the IXC including: (1) the customer’s billing telephone number, working telephone number, and billing name and address; (2) the effective date of the PIC change; (3) a statement describing the customer type (i. e., business or residential); (4) a statement indicating, to the extent appropriate, that the customer’s telephone service listing is not printed in a directory and is not available from directory assistance, or is not printed in a directory but is available from directory assistance; (5) the jurisdictional scope of the PIC installation (i. e., intraLATA and/ or interLATA and/ or international); (6) the carrier identification code of the submitting LEC; and (7) if relevant, a statement indicating that the customer’s 73 See November 8, 2004, Coalition Ex Parte. See also November 17, 2004, Coalition Ex Parte (“ exchange of these data elements is vital to ensuring that our mutual customers receive prompt execution of account maintenance”). 74 As we discuss further in Section E infra, we encourage, but do not require, carriers to use CARE processes and guidelines. 75 See, e. g., Joint Petition at 6; Qwest Comments at 9; CBT Comments at 6. 76 Joint Petition at 5- 7. 77 According to the Coalition, a carrier that elects to use CARE TCSI codes to communicate this information may use TCSIs 2003, 2008, 2009, or 2010. November 17, 2004, Coalition Ex Parte. 78 See, e. g., NASUCA Comments at 2; SBC Reply at 2 (arguing that LECs should be required to notify a presubscribed IXC when a customer is placed on the IXC’s network). 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 15 account is subject to a PIC freeze. IXC- Submitted PIC Order 34. When an end user customer contacts an IXC to establish interexchange service on a presubscribed basis, the IXC selected must submit the customer’s properly verified PIC order to the customer’s LEC, instructing the LEC to install or change the PIC for the customer’s line( s) to that IXC. 79 Commenters who proposed particular data exchange standards generally agreed that the transfer of customer account information in this situation should be made mandatory. 80 35. In conjunction with this notification requirement, the IXC must submit to the LEC all of the information necessary to properly execute the order including but not limited to: (1) the customer’s billing telephone number or working telephone number associated with the lines or terminals that are to be presubscribed to the IXC; (2) the date of the IXC- submitted PIC order; (3) the jurisdictional scope of the PIC order (i. e., intraLATA and/ or interLATA and/ or international); and (4) the carrier identification code of the submitting IXC. Confirmation of IXC- Submitted PIC Order 36. When a LEC has placed a customer on an IXC’s network at the local switch in response to an IXC- submitted PIC order, the LEC must send a confirmation to the submitting IXC. 81 Commenters who proposed particular data exchange standards generally agreed that the transfer of customer account information in this situation should be made mandatory. 82 37. In conjunction with this notification requirement, the confirmation provided by the LEC to the IXC must include: (1) the customer’s billing telephone number, working telephone number, and billing name and address; (2) the effective date of the PIC change; (3) a statement describing the customer type (i. e., business or residential); (4) a statement indicating, to the extent appropriate, if the customer’s telephone service listing is not printed in a directory and is not available from directory assistance, or is not printed in a directory but is available from directory assistance; (5) the jurisdictional scope of the PIC installation (i. e., intraLATA and/ or interLATA and/ or international); and (6) the carrier identification code of the submitting LEC. If the PIC order at issue originally was submitted by an underlying IXC on behalf of a toll reseller, the confirmation provided by the LEC to the IXC must indicate, to the extent that this information is known, a statement indicating that the customer’s PIC is a toll reseller. Rejection of IXC- Submitted PIC Order 38. When a LEC rejects or otherwise does not act upon a PIC order submitted to it by an IXC, the LEC must notify the IXC and provide the reason( s) why the PIC order could not be processed. 83 79 See 47 C. F. R. § 64. 1120( a). According to the Coalition, a carrier that elects to use CARE TCSI codes to communicate this information may use TCSIs 0101, 0105, or 0104. November 17, 2004, Coalition Ex Parte. 80 See, e. g., Qwest Comments at 9. 81 According to the Coalition, a carrier that elects to use CARE TCSI codes to communicate this information may use TCSIs 2004 or 2020 (indicating to underlying IXC that confirmation is in response to a toll reseller order) November 17, 2004, Coalition Ex Parte. 82 See, e. g., BellSouth Comments at 6. 83 According to the Coalition, a carrier that elects to use CARE TCSI codes to communicate this information may use applicable TCSIs in the 21XX, 31XX, or 41XX series. November 17, 2004, Coalition Ex Parte. 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 16 Commenters who proposed particular data exchange standards generally agreed that the transfer of customer account information in this situation should be made mandatory. 84 39. In conjunction with this notification requirement, the LEC must notify the IXC that it has rejected the IXC- submitted PIC order and specify the reason( s) for the rejection (e. g., due to a lack of information, incorrect information, or a PIC freeze on the customer’s account). 85 The notification must contain the identical data elements that were provided to the LEC in the original IXC- submitted PIC order (i. e., mirror image of the original order), unless otherwise specified herein. If a LEC rejects an IXC-submitted PIC order for a multi- line account (i. e., the customer has selected the IXC as his PIC for two or more lines or terminals associated with his billing telephone number), the notification provided by the LEC rejecting that order must explain the effect of the rejection with respect to each line (working telephone number or terminal) associated with the customer’s billing telephone number. A LEC will not be required to generate a line- specific or terminal- specific response, however, and may communicate the rejection at the billing telephone level, when the LEC is unable to process an entire order, including all working telephone numbers and terminals associated with a particular billing telephone number. In addition, the notification must indicate the jurisdictional scope of the PIC order rejection (i. e., intraLATA and/ or interLATA and/ or international). 40. Finally, if a LEC rejects a PIC order because: (1) the customer’s telephone number has been ported to another LEC; or (2) the customer has otherwise changed local service providers, the LEC must include in its notification, to the extent that it is available, the identity of the customer’s new local service provider. Although a few carriers argue that providing this information would be burdensome and costly, these carriers make no effort to substantiate these claims. 86 We find that, to the extent that it is available, information concerning the identity of the carrier that is responsible for a customer’s local service account must be transmitted to an IXC whose PIC order has been rejected given that, in our view, this information is critical to effectuating the customer’s PIC choice, particularly where the customer has not accurately identified his local service provider. Additional Information Concerning Placement of Customer on IXC’s Network 41. To the extent that certain additional information is available to a LEC regarding the circumstances surrounding the placement of a customer on an IXC’s network, its notification must include this information as well. Specifically, the LEC must include within the notifications described above, information, if relevant and to the extent that it is available, reflecting the fact that a customer’s PIC selection was the result of: (1) a move (an end user customer has moved from one location to another within a LEC’s service territory); (2) a change in responsible billing party; or (3) the resolution of a PIC dispute (following a slam). 87 Although certain parties dispute an IXC’s need for this additional information, we find that the information is important to an IXC’s ability to maintain continuity in its provision of service to a presubscribed customer and to properly bill its customers. For example, if a customer moves from one location to another within a LEC’s service territory but does not change local 84 See, e. g., Verizon Reply at 2. 85 A PIC freeze prevents a change in a subscriber’s preferred carrier selection unless the subscriber gives the carrier from whom the freeze was requested his or her express written or oral consent. 47 C. F. R. § 64.1190( a). 86 See, e. g., USTA Comments at 6. 87 According to the Coalition, a carrier that elects to use CARE TCSI codes to communicate this information may use TCSI 2005 or an applicable TCSI in the 23XX series (customer move), TCSI 2007 or an applicable TCSI in the 23XX series (change in responsible billing party), or TCSI 2011 (PIC dispute). November 17, 2004, Coalition Ex Parte. 16 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 17 or long distance carriers, the customer’s PIC may require this information in order to properly bill the customer and to know whether to continue the customer’s subscription to a particular calling plan. Similarly, a customer’s PIC may require notification of a change of responsible party on an account in order to properly identify and bill the new responsible party and to issue a final bill, if appropriate, to the former responsible party. Finally, we note that, in addition to ensuring that a customer’s calling plan subscriptions can be restored following a slam, the notification that a LEC must transmit to a customer’s PIC, once the customer has been restored to his PIC following a PIC dispute, corresponds to the notification provision in section 64.1150( a) of the Commission’s existing rules, which requires a LEC that is informed of an alleged slam to notify both the authorized and allegedly unauthorized carrier of the incident. 88 Customer Account Changes That Affect a Customer’s Choice of Preferred Interexchange Carrier - Customer Cancels PIC 42. When an end user customer contacts an IXC or a LEC to discontinue interexchange service on a presubscribed basis, proper notification to each of the carriers involved, as detailed herein, is required. As the Texas PUC notes, the basis for adopting notification requirements in this situation is to protect consumers from “continued billing for services that the customer sought to cancel, an issue that [has given] rise to numerous and continued customer complaints.” 89 Commenters further note instances in which IXCs are held responsible for what consumers perceive as double or continued billing, cramming, 90 and slamming91 in situations where a customer’s LEC does not notify an IXC that the IXC’s customer has selected a new PIC and, unaware of this change, the IXC continues billing the customer for recurring, non- usage related monthly charges after the customer is no longer on its network. 92 43. Frontier argues that IXCs should be required to contact their customers to obtain carrier change information. According to Frontier, the fact that “a customer’s usage suddenly drops to zero, or remains at zero for some period of time, [should provide to the IXC] some clue that it may have lost a customer.” 93 We disagree. Because accurate customer billing by IXCs hinges on their receipt of timely and accurate customer account information, we reject the suggestion that carriers should be required to take a wait- and- see approach when it comes to billing their customers. We find that the most reliable source of accurate and complete customer account information in this situation, and sometimes the only source of such information, is the customer’s LEC. Customer Contacts LEC or New IXC to Cancel PIC 44. When a LEC has removed at its local switch a presubscribed long distance customer from an IXC’s network, either in response to a customer order or upon receipt of a properly verified PIC order submitted by another IXC, effectively canceling the service of the first IXC, the LEC must notify the 88 47 C. F. R. § 64.1150( a). 89 Texas PUC Comments at 3. 90 “Cramming” refers to the practice of causing unauthorized, misleading, or deceptive charges to be placed on consumers’ telephone bills. NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5701 n. 20. 91 “Slamming” refers to the submission and execution by a telecommunications carrier of an unauthorized change in a subscriber’s selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service. NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5701 n. 21 (citing 47 U. S. C. § 258( a)). 92 See, e. g., NARUC Comments at 5. 93 Frontier Comments at 5. 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 18 customer’s former IXC of this event. Specifically, the LEC must notify the IXC that the customer, by directly contacting the LEC or by establishing presubscribed service with another IXC, has cancelled the IXC’s services and is no longer presubscribed to that IXC’s network. 94 Commenters who proposed particular data exchange standards generally agreed that the transfer of customer account information in this situation should be made mandatory. 95 45. In conjunction with this notification requirement, the LEC must provide to the IXC all of the customer account information that is necessary to allow for proper final billing of the customer by the IXC including: (1) the customer’s billing telephone number, working telephone number, and, billing name and address; (2) the effective date of the PIC change; (3) a description of the customer type (i. e., business or residential); (4) the jurisdictional scope of the lines or terminals affected (i. e., intraLATA and/ or interLATA and/ or international); and (5) the carrier identification code of the submitting LEC. In addition, when a customer changes PICs but retains the same LEC, the LEC is responsible for notifying both the old PIC and new PIC of the PIC change. Customer Contacts IXC to Cancel PIC and to Select No- PIC Status 46. When an end user customer contacts an IXC to discontinue interexchange service on a presubscribed basis, the IXC must confirm that it is the customer’s desire to have no PIC and, if that is the case, the IXC must notify the customer’s LEC. The IXC also is encouraged to instruct the customer to notify his LEC. An IXC may choose to satisfy this requirement by establishing a three- way call with the customer and the customer’s LEC to confirm that it is the customer’s desire to have no PIC and, where appropriate, to provide the customer the opportunity to withdraw any PIC freeze that may be in place. 96 This notification requirement applies only when a customer expresses a desire to have no PIC. It does not apply where the customer expresses a desire to change PICs given that the LEC in that instance will know to remove a customer from the network of her former PIC upon receipt of a properly verified order from her new PIC. 47. Although the Coalition did not propose that we adopt a notification requirement in this situation, several other commenters have urged us to adopt such a requirement. We note, for example, that the comments of the New York Office of the Attorney General describe at length the erroneous billings that result when a customer’s PIC cancellation order is not communicated to the customer’s LEC. 97 To address the concern raised by the NYOAG and other commenters, we take this action to 94 According to the Coalition, a carrier that elects to use CARE TCSI codes to communicate this information may use TCSIs 2203 or 2209 (customer cancels PIC by contacting LEC), or TCSI 2206 (PIC cancelled through another IXC- submitted order). November 17, 2004, Coalition Ex Parte. 95 See, e. g., SBC Reply at 2; NASUCA Comments at 2. 96 We note that our PIC freeze rules, which prevent a LEC from switching a customer’s PIC from one IXC to another when a PIC freeze is in place, could be interpreted to prevent a LEC from switching a PIC- frozen customer to “no- PIC” status without the customer’s express authorization. See 47 C. F. R. § 64.1190. Because we believe that this issue should be explored more fully in the Commission’s slamming docket, we decline to resolve it here. Pending final resolution of this matter by the Commission, we strongly encourage carriers to engage in a three- way conversation in which the customer who wishes to have no PIC, but whose account is subject to a PIC freeze, is provided the opportunity to withdraw the PIC freeze in order to effectuate the customer’s wishes. 97 NYOAG Comments at 3- 5 (“ Consumers reasonably believe… that telling their IXC to cancel the service will terminate their contractual relationship and are not aware of the additional requirement that the local carrier be notified.”). The NYOAG Comments propose that all carriers be required to send a notice of line loss to other affected providers. See also Oregon Attorney General of the State of Oregon Reply Comments at 3 (“ Requiring consumers to contact their local exchange carrier in order to terminate their customer relationship with their long distance carrier is burdensome, counterintuitive, and unreasonable”). 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 19 ensure that an IXC customer’s express instruction to cancel the services of a particular IXC is honored. 48. In conjunction with this notification requirement, the IXC must submit to the LEC all of the information necessary to properly execute the cancellation order including but not limited to: (1) the customer’s billing telephone number or working telephone number associated with the lines or terminals that are affected; (2) the date of the IXC- submitted PIC removal order; (3) the jurisdictional scope of the PIC removal order (i. e., intraLATA and/ or interLATA and/ or international); and (4) the carrier identification code of the submitting IXC. Additional Information Concerning Removal of Customer from IXC’s Network 49. To the extent that certain additional information is available to a LEC regarding the circumstances surrounding the removal of a customer from an IXC’s network, its notification must include this information as well. Specifically, the LEC must include within the notifications described above, if relevant, information reflecting the fact that a customer’s PIC removal was the result of: (1) the customer moving from one location to another within the LEC’s service territory (but where there is no change in local service provider); (2) a change of responsible party on an account; or (3) a disputed PIC selection (PIC removal to rectify unauthorized switch). 98 As explained more fully in Subsection (2)( a)( v) supra, we find that these notifications are needed to ensure that an IXC can properly identify and bill its customer and to maintain continuity of service and calling plans when a customer is not changing PICs. Changes to Customer’s Local Service Account (That May or May Not Affect Customer’s Choice of Preferred Interexchange Carrier) Particular Changes to Account of Presubscribed End User Customer 50. When, according to a LEC’s records, any account or line information changes occur on a presubscribed customer’s account, the LEC must communicate the changed information to the customer’s PIC. For purposes of this requirement, the LEC must supply any account or line information changes that are necessary for an IXC to issue timely and accurate bills to its customers and to maintain accurate PIC records. 99 We agree with commenters who contend that this information is needed to facilitate accurate and timely billing of end user customers. 100 51. In conjunction with this notification requirement, the LEC must inform the IXC of any changes to the following: (1) the customer’s billing telephone number, working telephone number, and billing name and address; (2) the customer code assigned to that customer by the LEC; (3) the type of customer account (i. e., business or residential); (4) the status of the customer’s telephone service listing as not printed in a directory and not available from directory assistance, or not printed in a directory but available from directory assistance; and (5) the jurisdictional scope of the PIC installation (i. e., intraLATA and/ or interLATA and/ or international). If there are changes to the customer’s billing or 98 According to the Coalition, a carrier that elects to use CARE TCSI codes to communicate this information may use TCSI 2202 or an applicable TCSI in the 23XX series (PIC canceled due to customer move within LEC service territory), TCSI 2212 (PIC canceled due to change in responsible party), or TCSIs 2217, 2218, or 2219 (PIC cancelled following resolution of PIC dispute). November 17, 2004, Coalition Ex Parte. 99 According to the Coalition, a carrier that elects to use CARE TCSI codes to communicate this information may use TCSIs 2317, 2368, 2369 or an applicable TCSI in the 23XX series. November 17, 2004, Coalition Ex Parte. 100 See, e. g., Joint Petitioners Reply at 14- 15. 19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 20 working telephone number, customer code, or customer type, the LEC must supply both the old and new information for each of these categories. Local Service Disconnects 52. Upon receipt of an end user customer’s request to terminate his entire local service account or disconnect one or more lines (but not all lines) of a multi- line account, the LEC must notify the PIC( s) for the billing telephone number or working telephone number on the account of the account termination or lines disconnected. 101 We agree with commenters who argue that this information is needed to ensure that a presubscribed IXC does not continue to bill a customer who has disconnected her line for non-usage related monthly charges. 102 53. In conjunction with this notification requirement, the LEC must provide to a customer’s PIC( s) all account termination or single/ multi- line disconnection change information necessary for the PIC( s) to maintain accurate billing and PIC records, including: (1) the effective date of the termination/ disconnection; and (2) the customer’s working and billing telephone numbers and billing name and address; (3) the type of customer account (i. e., business or residential); (4) the jurisdictional scope of the PIC installation (i. e., intraLATA and/ or interLATA and/ or international); and (5) the carrier identification code of the LEC. Change of Local Service Provider 54. When an end user customer changes LECs, the customer’s former LEC must notify the customer’s PIC( s) of the customer’s change in LECs. If the customer also makes a PIC change, the customer’s former LEC must notify the customer’s former PIC( s) of the change and the new LEC must notify the customer’s new PIC of the customer’s PIC selection. We conclude that notification to the former PIC by the former LEC and notification to the new PIC by the new LEC will enable the former and current PICs to know the precise date from which each may or may not charge for presubscribed service and will help to avoid double billing. 55. If the customer’s LEC is unable to identify the customer’s new LEC, the former LEC should simply notify the presubscribed IXC of a local service disconnect as described above. To the extent that a LEC has certain additional information regarding a customer’s change of local service providers and the identity of the customer’s new LEC, its notification must include this information as well. Specifically, the LEC’s notification information, if available, must reflect the fact that an account change was the result of: (1) the customer porting his number to a new LEC; (2) a local resale arrangement (customer has transferred to local reseller); or (3) the discontinuation of a local resale arrangement. 103 We conclude that this information is needed by an IXC to facilitate continuity of service where the customer is changing local service providers but is not making a PIC change and, to alert an IXC when the IXC is no longer the customer’s PIC. 104 101 According to the Coalition, a carrier that elects to use CARE TCSI codes to communicate this information may use TCSIs 2201, 2215, or 2216. November 17, 2004, Coalition Ex Parte. 102 See, e. g., Joint Petitioners Comments at 5- 6 and n. 6. 103 According to the Coalition, a carrier that elects to use CARE TCSI codes to communicate this information may use TCSI 2231 (customer is porting number to a new carrier), TCSI 2233 (customer is migrating to a new local provider involving local resale), or TCSI 2234 (termination of local resale arrangement). November 17, 2004, Coalition Ex Parte. 104 See, e. g., Qwest Comments at 10 n. 15 (noting that, although an IXC may be able to learn the identity of a customer’s new local service provider when the customer has ported his number to that provider by querying 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 21 IXC Requests for Customer BNA Information 56. Upon the request of an IXC, a LEC must provide the billing name and address information necessary to facilitate an end user’s receipt of a timely, accurate bill for services rendered and/ or to prevent fraud, regardless of the type of service the end user receives/ has received from the requesting carrier (i. e., presubscribed, dial- around, casual). 105 In the NPRM, the Commission indicated that it need not address BNA requests in this proceeding to the extent that all LECs, including CLECs, currently are subject to the BNA requirements of 47 C. F. R. § 64.1201. While agreeing that section 64.1201 applies to all LECs, Qwest and other commenters argue that this provision deals only with BNA requests in the context of joint- use calling cards. 106 These commenters urge the Commission to include an obligation to provide BNA generally for IXCs’ presubscribed, dial- around, and casual calling customers. 107 We hereby clarify that the obligation to provide BNA information extends to all LECs and is not confined to the context of joint- use calling cards. By including BNA requests among the data exchanges identified here, we clarify carriers’ existing obligation to provide BNA information upon the request of an IXC. 57. In response to an IXC’s BNA request for ANI, a LEC must provide the BNA for the submitted ANI along with: (1) the working telephone number for the ANI; (2) the date of the BNA response; (3) the carrier identification code of the submitting IXC; and (4) a statement indicating, to the extent appropriate, if the customer’s telephone service listing is not printed in a directory and is not available from directory assistance, or is not printed in a directory but is available from directory assistance. 108 A LEC that is unable to provide the BNA requested must provide the submitting carrier with the identical information contained in the original BNA request (i. e., the mirror image of the original request), along with the specific reason( s) why the requested information could not be provided. 109 If the BNA is not available because the customer has changed local service providers or ported his telephone number, the LEC should include the identity of the new provider when this information is available. D. Format and Method of Delivery of Required Information Exchanges 1. Background 58. In the NPRM, we asked parties to comment on whether our adoption of CARE codes and CARE guidelines governing the transmission of customer data would provide uniformity and consistency within the industry and thereby facilitate the exchange of customer account information between and the NPAC database by Neustar, in the case of resale, the IXC will know only that a disconnection has occurred but will not know the identity of the new carrier). 105 According to the Coalition, a carrier that elects to use CARE TCSI codes to communicate this information may use TCSI 0501( IXC BNA request for ANI) or TCSI 2501 (LEC response to BNA request), as appropriate. November 17, 2004, Coalition Ex Parte. 106 See, e. g., Qwest Comments at 6. 107 Qwest Comments at 10 n. 16 (“ The matter of BNA provisioning is fairly within the scope of the existing NPRM as it is raised not only by Americatel but the Joint Petition. The NPRM only reserved the matter of addressing the item in the context of a declaratory ruling and the matter of a national database to provision the information”). 108 The term automatic number identification (“ ANI”) refers to the delivery of a calling party's billing telephone number by a LEC to any interconnecting carrier for billing or routing purposes. 109 According to the Coalition, a carrier that elects to use CARE TCSI codes to communicate this information may use an appropriate TCSI in the 26XX series. November 17, 2004, Coalition Ex Parte. 21 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 22 among carriers. 110 The Joint Petitioners identify a subset of CARE codes and ask that carriers be required, in specified situations, to transmit those codes, each of which is designed to provide specific billing and other customer account information to involved carriers. 111 The Joint Petitioners argue that the CARE process offers the uniformity that is needed to ensure complete and accurate transmissions of customer data between LECs and IXCs and to support consumers’ ability to move seamlessly from one carrier to another. 112 The Joint Petitioners further argue that their proposal affords carriers flexibility insofar as it specifies the use of certain “preferred” codes in particular situations, but also allows for the use of certain “alternative” codes depending upon carriers’ particular needs and operations. 113 The Joint Petitioners urge that their proposal also would minimize costs for carriers not currently participating in the CARE process, by affording carriers flexibility in terms of the methods used to transmit required data. 114 2. Discussion 59. Because we agree with commenters who argue that what is most important is that information exchanges take place, we decline to mandate at this time the use of a particular format or transmission medium, such as CARE, with respect to the data exchanges required by this Order. 115 In addition, the rules we adopt today do not preclude carriers from arranging with other carriers or entities to provide the required notification( s) on their behalf. 116 By focusing on information exchanges in particular circumstances rather than on mandating specific formats or transmission mediums for those exchanges, we have attempted to minimize the potential costs or burdens associated with implementing these requirements, particularly for small and rural carriers. As noted by one commenter, “[ e] ven though the CARE process … may be workable for larger companies with large staffs, [requiring compliance with CARE] would add unnecessary burdens to smaller ILECs that currently do not use the CARE codes but do provide information to other carriers that meets the other carriers’ needs.” 117 Thus, to the extent that carriers currently are providing, consistent with the requirements adopted herein, timely and adequate notifications to other carriers pursuant to inter- carrier agreements or other non- CARE processes, we have determined not to require those carriers to incur potentially unnecessary expenses associated with modifying their current processes. 118 We refrain from prescribing the use of particular CARE codes also in light of the fact that, among carriers currently participating in CARE, few of those carriers’ operating 110 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 569- 93, ¶¶ 9- 10. 111 Joint Petition at 7. 112 Joint Petitioners Comments at 2. 113 Joint Petition at 7- 8 and App. A. 114 Joint Petition at 8 (noting that carriers could transmit data in a variety of ways, including paper, e-mail, cartridge, Internet processing, mechanized processing or real- time processing). 115 See, e. g., Qwest Comments at ii; Texas Statewide Telephone Coop. Reply at 5 (urging the Commission “to focus on the information sharing process rather than mandating specific formats for sharing information”). See also, Texas PUC Comments at 2 (noting that the Texas PUC rule does not require the use of a specific notification method, such as CARE). 116 Texas PUC Comments at 2. 117 Rural ILECs Comments at 10. 118 See NTCA Comments at 4 (“ It can be expected that the costs of implementing a minimum standard will have a greater impact on small carriers with fewer customers over which to spread costs. Every effort should be made to minimize the adverse impact of these costs”). 22 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 23 systems, if any, support an identical set of CARE codes. 119 Because CARE is an established standard that has been successfully used by many carriers for a number of years, we encourage carriers to use CARE processes and guidelines in implementing the requirements adopted herein and to work with the OBF industry forum to further develop and refine them. In light of our desire to avoid imposing any potentially unnecessary burdens on small and rural carriers that currently do not participate in CARE, we do not mandate such participation. Finally, if the measures that we adopt today do not resolve the billing, provisioning, and accuracy concerns raised in the record of this proceeding, we may reconsider at a future time the need for additional standards. E. Performance Measures 1. Background 60. The Joint Petitioners urge the Commission to adopt performance measurements governing the timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of any mandated data exchanges. 120 In particular, they ask the Commission to: (1) adopt timeliness thresholds that would vary from 12 hours to five business days depending upon the processing method used; (2) require all carriers to use “best efforts” and “quality practices and methods” to ensure that the data exchanged is accurate and complete; and (3) require all carriers to use the CARE/ ISI document guidelines to ensure the accuracy and completeness of submitted information. 121 The NPRM sought comment as to whether the performance criteria proposed by the Joint Petitioners are “appropriate or necessary” and whether other measures would provide a more accurate assessment of carrier compliance. 122 2. Discussion 61. We agree with the Joint Petitioners and other commenters that the timely transmission of account information between carriers is essential to ensuring that customer requests are honored and that they are processed without undue delay. Accordingly, we require carriers to provide the required notifications promptly and without unreasonable delay. 123 We note that the Commission has employed a similar timeliness standard in the context of its rules governing a LEC’s obligation to accept and process a carrier change order that has been verified and submitted to the LEC by an IXC. 124 We have determined not to adopt more specific timeliness measures given the widely divergent proposals of commenters on this question and because we conclude that it would be premature to adopt timeframes before we have had an opportunity to observe the level of carrier performance and compliance with the data exchange requirements that we adopt today. 125 We anticipate that carriers’ future performance in this regard will 119 See, e. g., Verizon Reply at 3- 5. 120 Joint Petition at 8. 121 Joint Petition at 9. 122 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5696 ¶ 16. 123 See, e. g., Joint Petition at 8; Working Assets Comments at 13- 14. 124 See 47 C. F. R. § 64. 1120( a)( 2) (“ For an executing carrier, compliance with the procedures described in this part shall be defined as prompt execution, without any unreasonable delay, of changes that have been verified by a submitting carrier.”). 125 For example, the NARUC Model Rule recommends that an executing carrier be required to provide confirmation of a PIC change “as soon as is practical” but not to exceed three business days. NARUC Model Rule, § 6. By contrast, the Texas PUC rule referenced above requires a local service provider to provide notification of a PIC change within five business days. See 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 26. 130( m). 23 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 24 inform our judgment as to whether more specific timeframes are needed. 62. Regarding the accuracy and completeness of carrier data exchanges, we require carriers to exercise reasonable efforts to ensure that the data transmitted is accurate. 126 We also encourage, but do not require, carriers to refer to the guidelines set forth in the CARE/ ISI document to ensure the completeness of data transmissions. Again, we conclude that once all LECs and IXCs are subject to the data exchange requirements adopted here, we will be better able to determine if further Commission action is needed. 63. To the extent that a carrier believes that it is aggrieved by another carrier’s failure to provide accurate and complete information in a timely fashion, we encourage such carrier to bring this to our attention through appropriate enforcement processes. If we observe, upon implementation of the attached rules, a widespread disregard by carriers in this area we may, at that time, reconsider the need for more specific performance criteria. F. Customer Privacy and Limitations on Use of Customer Account Information 1. Background 64. Section 222 of the Act governs carriers’ use of customer proprietary network information (“ CPNI”) and generally prohibits a carrier from disclosing such information. 127 Section 222 establishes three categories of customer information to which different privacy protections and carrier obligations apply: (1) individually identifiable CPNI; (2) aggregate customer information; and (3) subscriber list information. 128 The Act accords CPNI, which includes personal, individually identifiable information, the greatest level of protection. As specified in section 222( c)( 1), a carrier can only “use, disclose or permit access to CPNI in its provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service.” 129 Section 222( d) contains several exceptions to the general prohibition on disclosure of individually identifiable CPNI, including, as relevant here, those that permit a telecommunications carrier to use individually identifiable CPNI: (1) to initiate, render, bill and collect for telecommunications services; or (2) to protect the rights or property of the carrier, or to protect users and other carriers from 126 Joint Petition at 9. 1. 127 Section 222( h) defines CPNI as: (A) information that relates to the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, location, and amount of use of a telecommunications service subscribed to by any customer of a telecommunications carrier, and that is made available to the carrier by the customer solely by virtue of the carrier- customer relationship; and (B) information contained in the bills pertaining to telephone exchange service or telephone toll service received by a customer of a carrier. 47 U. S. C. § 222( h). 128 Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Telecommunications Carriers’ Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information and Other Customer Information, 17 FCC Rcd 14860, 14864 ¶ 6 (2002). 129 47 U. S. C. § 222( c)( 1). See also 47 U. S. C. § 222( b) (“ A telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains proprietary information from another carrier for purposes of providing any telecommunications service shall use such information only for such purpose, and shall not use such information for its own marketing efforts”). 24 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 25 fraudulent or illegal use of, or subscription to, such services. 130 65. The term “billing name and address,” or BNA, is defined in the Commission’s rules as “the name and address provided to a [LEC] by each of its local exchange customers to which the [LEC] directs bills for its services.” 131 Section 64.1201( b) of the Commission’s rules provides that “[ n] o [LEC] providing billing name and address shall disclose billing name and address information to any party other than a telecommunications service provider or an authorized billing and collection agent of a telecommunications service provider.” 132 Section 64.1201( c)( 1) provides that “[ n] o telecommunications service provider or authorized billing and collection agent of a telecommunications service provider shall use billing name and address information for any purpose other than the following: (i) Billing customers for using telecommunications services of that service provider and collecting amounts due; (ii) Any purpose associated with the ‘equal access’ requirements of United States v. AT& T, 552 F. Supp. 131 (D. D. C. 1982); (iii) Verification of service orders of new customers, identification of customers who have moved to a new address, fraud prevention, and similar nonmarketing purposes.” 133 2. Discussion 66. We assume, for purposes of this Order, that the information that is the subject of the data exchange requirements adopted herein constitutes CPNI, as that term is defined in section 222( h) of the Act. Assuming that it does qualify as CPNI, we note that the information that we direct carriers to disclose under these requirements includes basic customer account information that is required by carriers in order to accurately bill their customers and to carry out their customers’ PIC changes and other requests. As such, we conclude that disclosure for these purposes is consistent with the requirements of section 222 and is expressly permitted under subsections (c)( 1)( B) and (d)( 2) of that provision. 134 67. As reflected in the attached rules, carriers that receive customer account information under the rules we adopt here may use that information for billing and provisioning purposes only and may not use it for marketing purposes unless they obtain customer approval pursuant to our CPNI rules. 135 G. Implementation Issues and Cost Recovery 1. Background 68. The NPRM sought comment on “the expected implementation costs associated with adopting minimum CARE standards, as well as the appropriate allocation of those costs.” 136 In the NPRM we noted the statement of the Joint Petitioners that their proposal would require carriers to use fewer than five percent of the approximately 700 CARE codes developed by ATIS and would provide for the “transmission of required data in a variety of ways.” 137 We also asked whether these aspects of the Joint Petition were sufficient to contain the costs and burdens associated with adopting the Joint 130 47 U. S. C. § 222( d)( 1), (2). 131 47 C. F. R. § 64.1201( a). 132 47 C. F. R. § 64.1201( b). 133 47 C. F. R. § 64.1201( c)( 1). 134 47 U. S. C. § 222( c)( 1)( B), (d)( 2). 135 See 47 C. F. R. Part 64, Subpart U. 136 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5696 ¶ 15. 137 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5696 ¶ 15. 25 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 26 Petitioners’ proposal. 138 2. Discussion 69. In the data exchange requirements adopted in this Order, we have attempted to balance two goals, ensuring the exchange of critical customer account information in a manner that will protect consumers and minimizing the burden of such exchanges on carriers. To that end, we have adopted minimum standards that focus on information sharing in designated situations while affording carriers flexibility in the methods and processes used to provide the required notifications. Because of the flexibility and accommodation of different carrier needs provided in these standards, we anticipate that the costs associated with their implementation will be minimal. For example, carriers that currently provide timely and adequate notifications in the situations identified above should incur few, if any, additional costs. 139 Carriers that currently do not provide such notifications may incur additional costs. As discussed previously, we conclude that any such additional costs or burdens are outweighed by the substantial benefits that will be provided to end user customers, state and federal enforcement efforts, and to competition in the industry. 70. To the extent that carriers incur costs associated with implementing the notification requirements adopted in this Order, we permit, but do not require, the recovery of those costs, consistent with federal and state laws, through the filing of tariffs, via negotiated agreements, or by other appropriate mechanisms. 140 We note that any cost recovery method must be reasonable and must recover only costs that are associated with providing the particular information. 141 In addition, we caution that the imposition of unreasonable terms or conditions on the provision of information required by this Order by a LEC or by an IXC may be considered an unreasonable carrier practice under section 201( b) of the Act and subject the carrier to appropriate enforcement action. 142 H. Issues For Future Proceedings 71. In this Order, the Commission has addressed itself, for the first time, to issues pertaining to the customer account information exchange process between carriers. We recognize that additional issues raised in the record of this proceeding remain to be addressed and conclude that these issues merit serious Commission consideration. In order to address in an expeditious manner those issues that we deem to be most pressing, however, we defer consideration of a number of those issues. For example, we do not at this time address proposals concerning: (1) the establishment of a line- level database; 143 (2) notification obligations of a LEC when the LEC has temporarily suspended or blocked its customer’s account due to 138 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5696 ¶ 15. 139 See, e. g., Rural ILECs Comments at 3 (noting that rural ILECs currently are exchanging customer account information). 140 NTCA Comments at 5 (“ If the Commission imposes a mandate, it should provide for cost recovery from the carriers who benefit directly”). 141 Working Assets Comments at 3 (asserting that basic customer account information should be available at charges, “if any, that reflect the actual costs of providing the information and subject to fair and reasonable terms and conditions”). 142 Working Assets Comments at 3 (alleging that particular LECs have “improperly used their unilateral control of customer account information to disadvantage their competitors”). 143 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 5697 ¶¶ 17- 19. 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 27 fraud or nonpayment; 144 and (3) whether to impose data exchange requirements on wireless service providers that offer functionally equivalent services to those provided by LECs and IXCs. 145 IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING A. Background 72. As explained above, the CARE process was originally developed by ATIS’ Ordering and Billing Forum (“ OBF”) to allow LECs to comply with their obligation to provide all IXCs with access equal in type, quality, and price to that provided to AT& T and its affiliates. The purpose of CARE was specifically to facilitate communication between LECs and IXCs regarding customer account information— primarily when a customer elected to change long distance carriers or wished to modify his or her BNA information. The CARE standards were designed to enable customers to move seamlessly from one IXC to another and to ensure that the appropriate IXC receives accurate customer account information in a timely manner. Joint Petitioners focus exclusively on mandating CARE for the exchange of information between LECs and IXCs. 73. BellSouth contends that local service providers experience many of the same difficulties with access to customer account information as described by Joint Petitioners, and that the sharing of necessary customer information should not be limited to changes involving presubscribed IXCs. 146 BellSouth notes that, in response to industry’s concerns about the exchange of information among LECs, the OBF recently developed Local Service Migration Guidelines to facilitate the sharing of customer service records among LECs. 147 According to BellSouth, these guidelines became “final” during the OBF meeting of October 2004. 148 74. BellSouth urges the Commission to adopt information exchange requirements for all LECs to ensure that customers switching between local service providers experience a seamless and timely transition. BellSouth explains that ILEC- to- CLEC migrations are regulated by the Commission under section 271, which requires ILECs to transfer customer information to CLECs in a timely manner. 149 144 Joint Petition, App. A at 2. Although we do not here require LECs to provide notifications to presubscribed IXCs concerning temporary suspensions or blocks on customers accounts, we encourage those currently providing such notifications voluntarily to continue to do so. 145 See, e. g., NECA, NTCA & OPASTCO Reply at 3 n. 5. Proposals also have been advanced regarding data- exchange requirements for IP- enabled services. See, e. g., id. (“ Should the Commission ultimately decide on standards for ‘all LECs, ’ it should ensure that they apply as well to all IP- enabled service providers offering functionally equivalent services that touch the public switched telephone network (PSTN) to originate or terminate voice traffic”). We note that the Commission currently is considering the regulatory framework for IP- enabled services in IP- Enabled Services, WC Docket No. 04- 36, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 4863 (2004). 146 See BellSouth ex parte filing at 3- 4, October 28, 2004; see also OPCDC Comments at 3 (consumers are unaware that CLECs are totally dependent upon the incumbent LEC for obtaining customer record information or accessing the telephone network to provide local telephone service. Therefore, it is critical that all carriers exchange customer information in a uniform and unbiased manner to level the playing field for all telecommunications carriers.). 147 See BellSouth ex parte filing at 8, October 28, 2004. 148 See BellSouth ex parte filing at 8, October 28, 2004. 149 See BellSouth ex parte filing at 2, 5, October 28, 2004. Under section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the Bell Operating Companies must file applications with the FCC on a state- by- state basis in order to provide in- region interLATA services. 27 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 28 Conversely, CLEC- to- ILEC and CLEC- to- CLEC migrations are largely unregulated by the Commission and by the states. 150 Therefore, BellSouth contends that many local service providers not subject to other regulatory requirements do not exchange information in a uniform manner and/ or fail to provide complete or timely information. BellSouth argues that with the increase in competition and churn in the local market, accompanied by the advent of local number portability, the failure to exchange information in a uniform or timely manner has resulted in an increase in customer migrations that are not seamless. 151 BellSouth believes customers switching between facilities- based carriers and who want to retain their phone numbers, in particular, experience confusion, delays, or problems with double billing. Thus, BellSouth proposes a set of minimum standards that the Commission should adopt to facilitate local- to- local carrier changes. B. Discussion 75. In this Further Notice, we seek comment on the exchange of information between LECs. We specifically ask whether the Commission should require all local service providers to participate in the exchange of customer account information and if so, what information local service providers should be required to supply. 76. A significant number of commenters recognize that the sharing of customer account information is necessary for service changes involving presubscribed IXCs. 152 BellSouth argues that the exchange of end user account information between local service providers is equally critical when a customer is switching local service. As an incumbent LEC subject to section 271 obligations, BellSouth indicates that it already is required to provide timely customer account information to a requesting CLEC that has acquired a new customer. However, a similar obligation on CLECs does not exist. 153 Many local service providers not subject to the section 271 requirements fail to exchange information in a uniform manner or to provide complete and timely information, thereby delaying the customer’s switch in service. Specifically, BellSouth describes a problem with “old” local service providers not responding to customer service record requests in a timely or consistent manner. Customers, in turn, who expect service transitions to occur seamlessly and in a timely fashion, are confused about the source of the delay, frustrated, and often give up on the desired change. 154 In addition, ATIS OBF’s recent action to develop local service migration guidelines and to outline standards for the exchange of customer service record information suggests that the industry as a whole recognizes the need for uniform standards in connection with local- to- local carrier changes. 77. We seek comment on the issues identified by BellSouth. To what extent are other carriers 150 As noted below, however, some states— New York, New Hampshire, Illinois, Texas and Oregon— have established guidelines to facilitate such migrations. See BellSouth ex parte filing at 2 and 6, October 28, 2004. 151 Bell South explains that the following must occur for successful migrations: the old provider must provide the new provider with business rules for exchanging account information and submitting local service requests (LSRs); the old provider must provide the new provider with account information in a uniform and timely manner; the old provider must provide the new provider with clarifications to, or confirmations of, the LSR in a timely and uniform manner. Bell South ex parte filing at 4, October 28, 2004. 152 See supra, ¶ 19. 153 BellSouth ex parte filing at 4, October 28, 2004; see also SBC Comments at 4 (generally supporting data exchange requirements for CLECs and ILECs, as SBC too has experienced innumerable instances where it did not receive necessary information from CLECs to effectively and timely transfer a local customer to SBC). 154 BellSouth indicates that consumers may blame the new provider when the old provider has withheld necessary information from the new provider. See BellSouth ex parte filing at 4, October 28, 2004. 28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 29 experiencing similar problems with the exchange of information between or among LECs? If such problems exist, are they exacerbated when a customer wishes to switch between facilities- based local service providers and, in the process, requests to retain the same telephone number? We seek comment on whether mandating the exchange of customer account information among LECs will reduce the problems identified by BellSouth, including double billing, delays in migration, and confusion on the part of consumers concerning their local service accounts. 78. Should the Commission take action regarding the exchange of customer record information among LECs, we ask what information is necessary to ensure the seamless transfer of customers. Is “account level” information, such as billing telephone number, name and address, along with similar directory listing information, critical to this process? We also seek comment on the exchange of “line level” information, such as working telephone number, current preferred interexchange carrier and freeze status, along with calling features such as toll blocking and call forwarding. Is there additional information that would facilitate the customer’s smooth transfer from one carrier to another? 79. BellSouth notes that several states have established guidelines for end user migrations between facilities- based providers. 155 Therefore, we seek comment broadly on the interplay between the state rules and any federal rules we might adopt in this area. If the Commission adopts requirements that are inconsistent with any state requirements, should the federal rules preempt the state rules? Should the Commission instead make clear that any federal rules we adopt would constitute the minimum requirements on LECs, and that states may adopt more restrictive requirements for the exchange of information? What conflicts between state and federal rules might warrant preemption? Should our analysis depend on whether the exchange of customer account information occurs solely on an intrastate basis? 80. BellSouth explains that a customer’s new local service provider must seek initial information or clarification of customer service records from the customer’s old local service provider. When rejecting, or seeking clarifications of, a local service provider’s request for customer account information, should a carrier be required to identify all errors at once, rather than serially, to avoid delays? In addition, should the Commission require that such rejects and clarifications be returned within a designated timeframe? As discussed above, the Commission declined to adopt performance measurements for the exchange of information between LECs and IXCs. We ask that carriers identify problems specific to LEC- to- LEC exchanges that might warrant adopting standards for timeliness. If so, we ask commenters to describe what those standards for timeliness should be. Should all LECs be required, as BellSouth contends, to provide near real- time access to the “old” local service provider’s customer service records? Should this include on- line access, or a minimum period of time, such as 24 hours, for the retrieval of customer service records by facsimile or email when online access is not available? 81. For all information identified as necessary for seamless and timely exchanges among LECs, we ask in what format the information should be provided. Should the Commission mandate the use of CARE guidelines, or of particular CARE codes, as developed by ATIS OBF? Would implementing CARE codes be problematic for any LECs, or for small or rural LECs in particular? We seek comment on ways to minimize the burdens on small businesses. Should we instead mandate the exchange of data without requiring the use of codes? Would mandated data exchanges adequately address the migration and billing problems that arise in connection with LEC- to- LEC transfers? 155 See BellSouth ex parte filing at 6, October 28, 2004 (noting that Illinois, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon and Texas have established guidelines, and that Michigan and Florida are currently developing such guidelines). 29 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 30 V. PROCEDURAL ISSUES A. Ex Parte Presentations for Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 82. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit but disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules, 47 C. F. R. § 1.1200. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substances of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. See 47 C. F. R. § 1.1206( b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit- but- disclose proceedings are set forth in section 1.1206( b) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C. F. R. § 1.1206( b). B. Paperwork Reduction Act 83. The Report and Order contains new 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. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new 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 the information collection requirements proposed in the earlier NPRM. 84. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of mandating the exchange of customer account information among carriers and find that there may be an increased administrative burden on businesses with fewer than 25 employees. We have taken steps to minimize the information collection burden for small business concerns, including those with fewer than 25 employees. We have determined not to require the use of particular CARE codes for the exchange of such information. We have also declined to adopt specific performance measurements for the timeliness and completeness of the transfer of customer account information between LECs and IXCs. Finally, we have determined that carriers subject to these requirements may use a variety of transmission mediums (e. g., facsimile, mail, electronic mail, cartridge) for the required information exchanges. These measures should substantially alleviate any burdens on businesses with fewer than 25 employees. 156 85. In addition, the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains proposed new information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this Further Notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104- 13. Public and agency comments are due 60 days after the date of publication of this Further Notice in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission’s burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107- 198, see 44 U. S. C. § 3506( c)( 4), we seek specific comment on how we might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” C. Congressional Review Act 86. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U. S. C. § 156 Also, see the discussion in App. B, FRFA, at § E. 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 31 801( a)( 1)( A). D. Filing of Comments and Reply Comments 87. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 or the Commission’s rules, 47 C. F. R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments in this proceeding on or before the 45 days after publication of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register, and reply comments may be filed on or before 60 days after publication of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register. When filing comments, please reference CG Docket No. 02- 386. Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24121 (1998). Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http:// www. fcc. gov/ e- file/ ecfs. html. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, U. S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e- mail. To get filing instructions for e- mail comments, commenters should send e- mail to ecfs@ fcc. gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, “get form .” A sample form and directions will be sent in reply. 88. Parties who choose to file by paper must send an original and four (4) copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by electronic media, by commercial overnight courier, or by first- class or overnight U. S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U. S. Postal Service mail). The Commission’s contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger- delivered paper filings or electronic media for the Commission’s Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, N. E., Suite 110, Washington, D. C. 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8: 00 a. m. to 7: 00 p. m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial and electronic media sent by overnight mail (other than U. S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U. S. Postal Service first- class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, S. W., Washington, D. C. 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW- B204, Washington, DC 20554. 89. The full text of this document and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, S. W., Room CY- A257, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418- 0270. This document may be purchased from the Commission’s duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY- B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI, Inc. at their web site: www. bcpiweb. com or by calling 1- 800- 378- 3160. E. Accessible Formats 90. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e- mail to fcc504@ fcc. gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418- 0530 (voice) or (202) 418- 0432 (TTY). This Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking can also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format (PDF) at http:// www. fcc. gov/ cgb/ policy. F. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 91. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 157 the Commission’s Final 157 5 U. S. C. §§ 601 et seq. 31 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 32 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis regarding the Report and Order is attached as Appendix B. G. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 92. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 158 the Commission’s Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis regarding the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is attached as Appendix C. VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 93. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1- 4, 201, 202, 222, 258, and 303( r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U. S. C. §§ 151- 154, 201, 202, 222, 258, and 303( r), the REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ARE ADOPTED. 94. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1- 4, 201, 202, 222, 258, and 303( r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U. S. C. §§ 151- 154, 201, 202, 222, 258, and 303( r), Part 64 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C. F. R. Part 64, IS AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A. 95. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, because many of the rules and requirements contained in this Order and in Appendix A attached hereto contain information collection requirements under the PRA, the rules and requirements SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE until the information collection requirements have been approved by OMB. The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of these rules. 96. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1- 4, 201, 202, 222, 258, and 303( r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U. S. C. §§ 151- 154, 201, 202, 222, 258, and 303( r), and section 1.2 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C. F. R. § 1.2, that the Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by Americatel Corporation on September 5, 2002, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, to the extent provided herein. 97. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1- 4, 201, 202, 222, 258, and 303( r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U. S. C. §§ 151- 154, 201, 202, 222, 258, and 303( r), and section 1.407 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C. F. R. § 1.407, that the Petition for Rulemaking filed by AT& T Corp, Sprint Corporation, and WorldCom, Inc. on November 22, 2002, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, to the extent provided herein. 158 5 U. S. C. §§ 601 et seq. 32 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 33 98. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of the Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Final and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 33 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 1 APPENDIX A AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS PART 64 – MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 1. The authority citation continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U. S. C. 154, 254( k); secs. 403( b)( 2)( B), (c), Public Law 104- 104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U. S. C. 201, 218, 225, 226, 228, and 254( k) unless otherwise noted. 2. Subpart BB is added to read as follows: Subpart BB - Customer Account Record Exchange Requirements 3. The authority citation for this subpart reads as follows: Authority: 47 U. S. C. 154, 201, 202, 222, 258 unless otherwise noted. § 64.4000 Basis and purpose. (a) Basis. The rules in this subpart are issued pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. (b) Purpose. The purpose of these rules is to facilitate the timely and accurate establishment, termination, and billing of customer telephone service accounts. § 64.4001 Definitions. Terms in this Subpart have the following meanings: (a) Automatic number identification (ANI). The term automatic number identification refers to the delivery of the calling party's billing telephone number by a local exchange carrier to any interconnecting carrier for billing or routing purposes. (b) Billing name and address (BNA). The term billing name and address means the name and address provided to a [LEC] by each of its local exchange customers to which the [LEC] directs bills for its services. (c) Customer. The term customer means the end user to whom a local exchange carrier or interexchange carrier is providing local exchange or telephone toll service. (d) Interexchange carrier (IXC). The term interexchange carrier means a telephone company that provides telephone toll service. An interexchange carrier does not include commercial mobile radio service providers as defined by federal law. (e) Local exchange carrier (LEC). The term local exchange carrier means any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access. Such term does not include a person insofar as such person is engaged in the provision of a commercial mobile service under section 332( c), except to the extent that the Commission finds that such service should be included in the definition of that term. (f) Preferred interexchange carrier (PIC). The term preferred interexchange carrier means the carrier to 34 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 2 which a customer chooses to be presubscribed for purposes of receiving intraLATA and/ or interLATA and/ or international toll services. § 64.4002 Notification obligations of LECs. To the extent that the information is reasonably available to a LEC, the LEC shall provide to an IXC the customer account information described in this section consistent with section 64.4004. Nothing in this section shall prevent a LEC from providing additional customer account information to an IXC to the extent that such additional information is necessary for billing purposes or to properly execute a customer’s PIC order. (a) Customer- submitted PIC order. Upon receiving and processing a PIC selection submitted by a customer and placing the customer on the network of the customer’s preferred interexchange carrier at the LEC’s local switch, the LEC must notify the IXC of this event. The notification provided by the LEC to the IXC must contain all of the customer account information necessary to allow for proper billing of the customer by the IXC including but not limited to: (1) the customer’s billing telephone number, working telephone number, and billing name and address; (2) the effective date of the PIC change; (3) a statement describing the customer type (i. e., business or residential); (4) a statement indicating, to the extent appropriate, that the customer’s telephone service listing is not printed in a directory and is not available from directory assistance or is not printed in a directory but is available from directory assistance; (5) the jurisdictional scope of the PIC installation (i. e., intraLATA and/ or interLATA and/ or international); (6) the carrier identification code of the submitting LEC; and (7) if relevant, a statement indicating that the customer’s account is subject to a PIC freeze. The notification also must contain information, if relevant and to the extent that it is available, reflecting the fact that a customer’s PIC selection was the result of: (1) a move (an end user customer has moved from one location to another within a LEC’s service territory); (2) a change in responsible billing party; or (3) the resolution of a PIC dispute. (b) Confirmation of IXC- submitted PIC order. When a LEC has placed a customer on an IXC’s network at the local switch in response to an IXC- submitted PIC order, the LEC must send a confirmation to the submitting IXC. The confirmation provided by the LEC to the IXC must include: (1) the customer’s billing telephone number, working telephone number, and billing name and address; (2) the effective date of the PIC change; (3) a statement describing the customer type (i. e., business or residential); (4) a statement indicating, to the extent appropriate, if the customer’s telephone service listing is not printed in a directory and is not available from directory assistance, or is not printed in a directory but is available from directory assistance; (5) the jurisdictional scope of the PIC installation (i. e., intraLATA and/ or interLATA and/ or international); and (6) the carrier identification code of the submitting LEC. If the PIC order at issue originally was submitted by an underlying IXC on behalf of a toll reseller, the confirmation provided by the LEC to the IXC must indicate, to the extent that this information is known, a statement indicating that the customer’s PIC is a toll reseller. (c) Rejection of IXC- submitted PIC order. When a LEC rejects or otherwise does not act upon a PIC order submitted to it by an IXC, the LEC must notify the IXC and provide the reason( s) why the PIC order could not be processed. The notification provided by the LEC to the IXC must state that it has rejected the IXC- submitted PIC order and specify the reason( s) for the rejection (e. g., due to a lack of information, incorrect information, or a PIC freeze on the customer’s account). The notification must contain the identical data elements that were provided to the LEC in the original IXC- submitted PIC order (i. e., mirror image of the original order), unless otherwise specified by this subsection. If a LEC rejects an IXC- submitted PIC order for a multi- line account (i. e., the customer has selected the IXC as his PIC for two or more lines or terminals associated with his billing telephone number), the notification provided by the LEC rejecting that order must explain the effect of the rejection with respect to each line (working telephone number or terminal) associated with the customer’s billing telephone number. A LEC is not required to generate a line- specific or terminal- specific response, however, and may communicate the 35 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 3 rejection at the billing telephone level, when the LEC is unable to process an entire order, including all working telephone numbers and terminals associated with a particular billing telephone number. In addition, the notification must indicate the jurisdictional scope of the PIC order rejection (i. e., intraLATA and/ or interLATA and/ or international). If a LEC rejects a PIC order because: (1) the customer’s telephone number has been ported to another LEC; or (2) the customer has otherwise changed local service providers, the LEC must include in its notification, to the extent that it is available, the identity of the customer’s new LEC. (d) Customer contacts LEC or new IXC to cancel PIC. When a LEC has removed at its local switch a presubscribed customer from an IXC’s network, either in response to a customer order or upon receipt of a properly verified PIC order submitted by another IXC, the LEC must notify the customer’s former IXC of this event. The LEC must provide to the IXC the customer account information that is necessary to allow for proper final billing of the customer by the IXC including but not limited to: (1) the customer’s billing telephone number, working telephone number, and, billing name and address; (2) the effective date of the PIC change; (3) a description of the customer type (i. e., business or residential); (4) the jurisdictional scope of the lines or terminals affected (i. e., intraLATA and/ or interLATA and/ or international); and (5) the carrier identification code of the submitting LEC. If a customer changes PICs but retains the same LEC, the LEC is responsible for notifying both the old PIC and new PIC of the PIC change. The notification also must contain information, if relevant and to the extent that it is available, reflecting the fact that a customer’s PIC removal was the result of: (1) the customer moving from one location to another within the LEC’s service territory, but where there is no change in local service provider; (2) a change of responsible party on an account; or (3) a disputed PIC selection. (e) Particular changes to customer’s local service account. When, according to a LEC’s records, certain account or line information changes occur on a presubscribed customer’s account, the LEC must communicate this information to the customer’s PIC. For purposes of this subsection, the LEC must provide to the appropriate IXC account change information that is necessary for the IXC to issue timely and accurate bills to its customers including but not limited to: (1) the customer’s billing telephone number, working telephone number, and billing name and address; (2) the customer code assigned to that customer by the LEC; (3) the type of customer account (i. e., business or residential); (4) the status of the customer’s telephone service listing, to the extent appropriate, as not printed in a directory and not available from directory assistance, or not printed in a directory but available from directory assistance; and (5) the jurisdictional scope of the PIC installation (i. e., intraLATA and/ or interLATA and/ or international). If there are changes to the customer’s billing or working telephone number, customer code, or customer type, the LEC must supply both the old and new information for each of these categories. (f) Local service disconnection. Upon receipt of an end user customer’s request to terminate his entire local service account or disconnect one or more lines (but not all lines) of a multi- line account, the LEC must notify the PIC( s) for the billing telephone number or working telephone number on the account of the account termination or lines disconnected. In conjunction with this notification requirement, the LEC must provide to a customer’s PIC( s) all account termination or single/ multi- line disconnection change information necessary for the PIC( s) to maintain accurate billing and PIC records, including but not limited to: (1) the effective date of the termination/ disconnection; and (2) the customer’s working and billing telephone numbers and billing name and address; (3) the type of customer account (i. e., business or residential); (4) the jurisdictional scope of the PIC installation (i. e., intraLATA and/ or interLATA and/ or international); and (5) the carrier identification code of the LEC. (g) Change of local service provider. When a customer changes LECs, the customer’s former LEC must notify the customer’s PIC( s) of the customer’s change in LECs and, if known, the identity of the customer’s new LEC. If the customer also makes a PIC change, the customer’s former LEC must notify the customer’s former PIC( s) of the change and the new LEC must notify the customer’s new PIC of the 36 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 4 customer’s PIC selection. If the customer’s LEC is unable to identify the customer’s new LEC, the former LEC must notify the customer’s PIC of a local service disconnection as described in subsection (f). The notification also must contain information, if relevant and to the extent that it is available, reflecting the fact that an account change was the result of: (1) the customer porting his number to a new LEC; (2) a local resale arrangement (customer has transferred to local reseller); or (3) the discontinuation of a local resale arrangement. (h) IXC requests for customer BNA information. Upon the request of an IXC, a LEC must provide the billing name and address information necessary to facilitate a customer’s receipt of a timely, accurate bill for services rendered and/ or to prevent fraud, regardless of the type of service the end user receives/ has received from the requesting carrier (i. e., presubscribed, dial- around, casual). In response to an IXC’s BNA request for ANI, a LEC must provide the BNA for the submitted ANI along with: (1) the working telephone number for the ANI; (2) the date of the BNA response; (3) the carrier identification code of the submitting IXC; and (4) a statement indicating, to the extent appropriate, if the customer’s telephone service listing is not printed in a directory and is not available from directory assistance, or is not printed in a directory but is available from directory assistance. A LEC that is unable to provide the BNA requested must provide the submitting carrier with the identical information contained in the original BNA request (i. e., the mirror image of the original request), along with the specific reason( s) why the requested information could not be provided. If the BNA is not available because the customer has changed local service providers or ported his telephone number, the LEC must include the identity of the new provider when this information is available. § 64.4003 Notification obligations of IXCs. To the extent that the information is reasonably available to an IXC, the IXC shall provide to a LEC the customer account information described in this section consistent with section 64.4004. Nothing in this section shall prevent an IXC from providing additional customer account information to a LEC to the extent that such additional information is necessary for billing purposes or to properly execute a customer’s PIC order. (a) IXC- submitted PIC order. When a customer contacts an IXC to establish interexchange service on a presubscribed basis, the IXC selected must submit the customer’s properly verified PIC order (see 47 C. F. R. § 64. 1120( a)) to the customer’s LEC, instructing the LEC to install or change the PIC for the customer’s line( s) to that IXC. The notification provided by the IXC to the LEC must contain all of the information necessary to properly execute the order including but not limited to: (1) the customer’s billing telephone number or working telephone number associated with the lines or terminals that are to be presubscribed to the IXC; (2) the date of the IXC- submitted PIC order; (3) the jurisdictional scope of the PIC order (i. e., intraLATA and/ or interLATA and/ or international); and (4) the carrier identification code of the submitting IXC. (b) Customer contacts IXC to cancel PIC and to select no- PIC status. When an end user customer contacts an IXC to discontinue interexchange service on a presubscribed basis, the IXC must confirm that it is the customer’s desire to have no PIC and, if that is the case, the IXC must notify the customer’s LEC. The IXC also is encouraged to instruct the customer to notify his LEC. An IXC may satisfy this requirement by establishing a three- way call with the customer and the customer’s LEC to confirm that it is the customer’s desire to have no PIC and, where appropriate, to provide the customer the opportunity to withdraw any PIC freeze that may be in place. The notification provided by the IXC to the LEC must contain the customer account information necessary to properly execute the cancellation order including but not limited to: (1) the customer’s billing telephone number or working telephone number associated with the lines or terminals that are affected; (2) the date of the IXC- submitted PIC removal order; (3) the jurisdictional scope of the PIC removal order (i. e., intraLATA and/ or interLATA and/ or international); and (4) the carrier identification code of the submitting IXC. 37 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 5 § 64.4004 Timeliness of required notifications. Carriers subject to the requirements of this section shall provide the required notifications promptly and without unreasonable delay. § 64.4005 Unreasonable terms or conditions on the provision of customer account information. To the extent that a carrier incurs costs associated with providing the notifications required by this section, the carrier may recover such costs, consistent with federal and state laws, through the filing of tariffs, via negotiated agreements, or by other appropriate mechanisms. Any cost recovery method must be reasonable and must recover only costs that are associated with providing the particular information. The imposition of unreasonable terms or conditions on the provision of information required by this section may be considered an unreasonable carrier practice under section 201( b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and may subject the carrier to appropriate enforcement action. § 64.4006 Limitations on use of customer account information. A carrier that receives customer account information under this section shall use such information to ensure timely and accurate billing of a customer’s account and to ensure timely and accurate execution of a customer’s preferred interexchange carrier instructions. Such information shall not be used for marketing purposes without the express consent of the customer. 38 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 1 APPENDIX B FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 1 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking2 (NPRM) released by the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) on March 25, 2004. The Commission sought written public comments on the proposals contained in the NPRM, including comments on the IRFA. Only two comments filed in this proceeding were specifically identified as comments addressing the IRFA; however comments that address the impact of the proposed rules and policies on small entities are discussed below. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. 3 A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Order 2. The telecommunications industry developed the Customer Account Record Exchange (“ CARE”) process in response to the break- up of the Bell System and the introduction of competitive long distance services. 4 In order to facilitate equal access and cooperation mandated by the Modified Final Judgment, the industry created the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (“ ATIS”). 5 ATIS develops and promotes technical and operational standards for communications and related information technologies worldwide. 6 ATIS’ 124 member companies represent all segments of the telecommunications industry and participate in ATIS’ open industry committees and forums. 7 ATIS in turn created the Ordering and Billing Forum (“ OBF”), which established voluntary CARE standards in the industry. 8 These voluntary standards were developed to allow local exchange carriers (“ LECs”) to comply with their obligation to provide all interexchange carriers (“ IXCs”) with access equal in type, quality, and price to that provided to AT& T and its affiliates. 9 Thus, the CARE standards generally were created to facilitate the transfer of customer account information from a customer’s incumbent local exchange carrier (“ ILEC”) to the appropriate IXC( s) when a customer elected to change long distance carriers or wished to modify his or her billing, name, and address (“ BNA”) information. The transfer of CARE data in these situations was designed to enable customers to move seamlessly from one IXC to another and to ensure that the appropriate IXC receives accurate customer account information in a timely 1 See 5 U. S. C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U. S. C. §§ 601- 612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104- 121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 2 See Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer Account Record Exchange Obligations on All Local and Interexchange Carriers, CG Docket No. 02- 386, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 04- 50, released March 25, 2004 (“ NPRM ”). A summary of the NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 19, 2004. See 69 Fed. Reg. 20845 3 See 5 U. S. C. § 604. 4 See NPRM at 3, ¶ 3. 5 See NPRM at 1, ¶ 1, n. 1. 6 ATIS Comments at 2. 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Id. 39 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 2 manner. 10 3. In November of 2002, AT& T, Sprint Corporation, and MCI, Inc. (Joint Petitioners) filed a petition asking the Commission to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to implement mandatory, minimum standards governing the exchange of customer account information between LECs and IXCs and to adopt CARE as the prescribed format for such exchanges. The Joint Petitioners argued that mandatory, minimum standards are needed to ensure the exchange of information that carriers require to maintain accurate billing records and to deliver quality customer service and asked the Commission to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to mandate particular CARE codes and data exchange situations for communications between all wireline carriers. The Joint Petitioners contend that the voluntary exchange of information worked relatively well until the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“ the Act”). 11 The passage of the Act created competitive LECs (“ CLECs”), many of which do not participate in the voluntary CARE exchange, or do not provide appropriate information on a timely basis or with a quality or format upon which IXCs can depend. The Joint Petitioners proposed that all LECs and IXCs be required, in specified situations, to transmit to other carriers particular CARE codes that are designed to provide particular billing and/ or other “essential” customer account information. 12 4. The NPRM sought comment as to whether the Commission should adopt mandatory, minimum standards governing the exchange of customer account information between LECs and IXCs. In addition, in the IRFA, the Commission sought comment on the effect of the proposed policies and rules on small business entities. 5. In this Report and Order (Order), the Commission establishes mandatory, minimum standards governing the exchange of customer account information between LECs and IXCs. In taking this action, we do not prescribe the use of a particular notification format or medium for the transfer of customer account information, such as CARE codes, and, instead, identify situations in which information exchanges must take place and the obligations of particular carriers with respect to those exchanges. We reach this conclusion in light of the considerable record evidence demonstrating that information needed by carriers to execute customer requests in a timely and efficient manner and to properly bill customers is not being consistently provided by all LECs and by all IXCs, thereby often resulting in customer migration delays, consumer confusion and problems such as cramming, slamming, and double billing. B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA. 6. Two entities filed comments specifically addressing the proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA. 13 The Rural Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (“ Rural ILECs”) filed the most comprehensive analysis on the impact of the proposed rules on small or rural carriers. 14 The Rural ILECs urged the Commission to exempt small ILECs from the reporting requirements, arguing that there was no justification for the imposition of new regulations on small ILECs. In the alternative, the Rural 10 See NPRM at 3, ¶ 4. 11 Joint Petitioners Comments at 2. 12 See Joint Petition at 7- 8. See also Joint Petition at Appendix A. 13 See NTCA Comments at 6; Rural ILECs Comments on the IRFA. 14 See generally, Rural ILECs Comments. 40 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 3 ILECs requested that the Commission exempt at least those ILECs that participate in centralized equal access networks where the centralized equal access network provides reports to other carriers. 15 In the event that the Commission did not carve out an exemption for such ILECs, the Rural ILECs suggested that the Commission only mandate specific exchange situations and allow all carriers the choice of media to transmit customer account data. 16 The Rural ILECs indicated that allowing ILECs to continue to exchange information using the formats and media they currently use, on the schedules they use, will minimize costs of compliance for the rural carriers. 17 The Rural ILECs explain that if they are required to send customer account information on a more frequent basis or use codes not currently used, they would face increasing costs. 18 For example, they might incur costs for additional staff time to process reports, or for the use of modified software to incorporate codes not currently used, or for the purchase of the ATIS OBF Equal Access Subscription CARE/ Industry Support Interface. 19 7. National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (“ NTCA”) maintains that the Commission should consider less burdensome alternatives before imposing mandatory requirements on small rural ILECs. 20 Specifically, NTCA argues that any new cost burdens associated with mandatory standards should be placed squarely on the IXC beneficiaries, rather than on small ILECs. 21 NTCA further states that, should the Commission mandate the exchange of information, small rural ILECs must be able to recover their costs in the interstate jurisdiction through access charges or other mechanisms. 22 Finally, NTCA indicates that the IRFA failed to identify federal rules that may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rules and suggests that the Customer Proprietary Network Information (“ CPNI”) requirements under section 222 of the Act and the Commission’s rules for changing long distance service potentially duplicate, conflict with, or overlap the proposed rules. 23 8. Other parties filed comments that specifically mentioned small businesses. SBC indicated that small businesses must be able to retain the flexibility to use third party vendors to participate in CARE and to transmit data to these third parties in a variety of ways. 24 SBC also noted that, if the Commission is concerned that mandatory minimum CARE standards would prove too burdensome to 15 Rural ILECs Comments on the IRFA at 3. 16 Rural ILECs Comments at 16 (specifically that the Commission could specify the events that trigger the exchange of information, but not require the use of specific CARE Transaction Code Status Indicators (TCSIs)). 17 Rural ILECs Comments on IRFA at 4. 18 Rural ILECs Comments on the IRFA at 5 (maintaining that if the ILEC were to generate reports twice a week, the additional burden may be 0. 5 to 1 hour, depending on whether the reports were created by hand or by computer, which amounts to 26 to 52 hours per year per ILEC. If applicable to 1,000 ILECs, the total additional burden for all small ILECs could be 26, 000 to 52, 000 hours per year). 19 Rural ILECs Comments on the IRFA at 5- 6 (contending that the ATIS document costs $550 and that with 1, 000 small ILECs, the cost to the industry may be $550, 000 for the initial purchase of the ATIS document, and for each revision of that document). 20 NTCA Comments at 2. 21 NTCA Comments at 2- 3. 22 NTCA Comments at 4- 5. 23 NTCA Comments at 5- 6. 24 SBC Comments at 8. 41 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 4 small businesses, it could exempt those businesses that demonstrate that compliance would be too economically burdensome. 25 TDS Telecommunications Corp. (“ TDS”) maintains that because the Joint Petitioners’ proposal “lacks flexibility and suitability to the current voluntary standards,” it would unduly burden small and rural LECs. 26 Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (“ TSTCI”) also suggested that while small and rural carriers are currently using some CARE codes, they lack the resources to be active participants in the ATIS/ OBF forums. Thus, it could potentially be burdensome on these carriers should the Commission require compliance with the ATIS/ OBF standards. 27 Frontier similarly maintains that small and rural LECs lack the necessary resources to implement costly new processes. 28 C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply 9. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. 29 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 30 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 31 Under the Small Business Act, a “small business concern” is one that: 1) is independently owned and operated; 2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 32 10. We have included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e. g., a wireline telecommunications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” 33 The SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. 34 We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we 25 SBC Comments at 8. 26 TDS Comments at 8- 10. 27 TSTCI Comments at 2- 3. 28 Frontier Comments at 2- 4. 29 5 U. S. C. § 604( a)( 3). 30 5 U. S. C. § 601( 6) 31 5 U. S. C. § 601( 3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small- business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 U. S. C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U. S. C. § 601( 3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comments, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition( s) in the Federal Register.” 32 15 U. S. C. § 632. 33 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 517110. 34 See Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to Chairman William E. Kennard, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of “small business concern,” which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of “small business.” See 5 U. S. C. § 632( a) (Small Business Act); 5 U. S. C. 42 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 5 emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on the Commission’s analyses and determinations in other, non- RFA contexts. 11. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard for providers of incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 35 According to the FCC’s Telephone Trends Report data, 1,310 incumbent local exchange carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. 36 Of these 1,310 carriers, an estimated 1,025 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 285 have more than 1,500 employees. 37 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers of local exchange service are small entitles that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 12. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers and Competitive Access Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed specific small business size standards for providers of competitive local exchange services or competitive access providers (CAPs). The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 38 According to the FCC’s Telephone Trends Report data, 563 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. 39 Of these 563 companies, an estimated 472 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 91 have more than 1,500 employees. 40 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers of competitive local exchange service and CAPs are small entities that may be affected by the rules. 13. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a specific size standard for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 41 According to the FCC’s Telephone Trends Report data, 127 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of local resale services. 42 Of these 127 companies, an estimated 121 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and six have more than 1,500 employees. 43 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local resellers may be affected by the rules. 601( 3) (RFA). SBA regulations interpret “small business concern” to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. 13 C. F. R. § 121. 102( b). 35 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 517110. 36 FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5. 3, p. 5 - 5 (May 2004) (Telephone Trends Report). This source uses data that are current as of October 22, 2003. 37 Id. 38 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 517110. 39 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5. 3. The data are grouped together in the Telephone Trends Report. 40 Id. 41 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 517310. 42 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 43 Id. 43 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 6 14. Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a specific size standard for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that SBA definition, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 44 According to the FCC’s Telephone Trends Report data, 645 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of toll resale services. 45 Of these 645 companies, an estimated 619 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 26 have more than 1,500 employees. 46 Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of toll resellers may be affected by the rules. 15. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific size standard for small entities specifically applicable to providers of interexchange services. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 47 According to the FCC’s Telephone Trends Report data, 281 carriers reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange services. 48 Of these 281 carriers, an estimated 254 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 27 have more than 1,500 employees. 49 Consequently, we estimate that a majority of interexchange carriers may be affected by the rules. 16. Operator Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small entities specifically applicable to operator service providers. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 50 According to the FCC’s Telephone Trends Report data, 21 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of operator services. 51 Of these 21 companies, an estimated 20 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and one has more than 1,500 employees. 52 Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of operator service providers may be affected by the rules. 17. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 53 According to the FCC’s Telephone Trends Report data, 40 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. 54 Of these 40 companies, all 40 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. 55 Consequently, the Commission 44 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 517310. 45 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 46 Id. 47 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 517110. 48 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 49 Id. 50 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 517110. 51 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 52 Id. 53 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 517310. 54 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 55 Id. 44 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 7 estimates that all or most prepaid calling card providers may be affected by the rules. 18. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small entities specifically applicable to “Other Toll Carriers.” This category includes toll carriers that do not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 56 According to the FCC’s Telephone Trends Report data, 65 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of “Other Toll Services.” 57 Of these 65 carriers, an estimated 62 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and three have more than 1,500 employees. 58 Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of “Other Toll Carriers” may be affected by the rules. D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities. 19. The Commission adopts rules to require minimum standards necessary to facilitate the exchange of customer account information between LECs and IXCs. We require that the exchange of information take place in certain situations, and we describe the obligations of particular carriers with respect to those exchanges. The rules require the exchange of information in the following specific situations (described in detail in the Order, paragraphs 31- 57): 1) a customer is placed on an IXC’s network; 2) a customer is removed from an IXC’s network; 3) a customer’s account information changes; 4) a customer changes his local service provider; 5) an IXC requests customer BNA information; 6) a LEC rejects an IXC- initiated PIC order; and 7) an IXC initiates a PIC Order. However, these rules do not prescribe a particular format or delivery method (e. g., the CARE process) for the transfer of customer account information and instead focus more generally on information sharing in particular situations. 20. By focusing on information exchanges in particular circumstances, rather than mandating specific formats or transmission mediums for those exchanges, we have attempted to minimize the potential costs or burdens associated with implementing these requirements, particularly for small and rural carriers. We recognize that the CARE process could add burdens to smaller ILECs that currently do not use CARE codes but nevertheless provide information to other carriers. Thus, we have determined not to require those carriers that currently are providing, consistent with the rules described in this Order, timely and adequate notifications to other carriers pursuant to inter- carrier agreements or other non-CARE processes, to incur potentially unnecessary expenses associated with modifying their current processes. Thus, to avoid imposing any potentially unnecessary burdens on small and rural carriers, we do not mandate participation in CARE. In addition, although we require that the transmission of customer account information be processed without unreasonable delay, we determined not to adopt more specific timeliness measures in light of the widely divergent proposals and needs of commenters, nor do we mandate the use of the OBF- developed CARE/ ISI documents to ensure completeness of data transmissions. Our determination not to adopt specific performance measurements at this time should minimize any administrative burdens on small or rural LECs to comply with the new rules. 21. We believe that the adoption of nationwide rules requiring the exchange or transfer of customer account information in the situations identified in the Joint Petition will help to alleviate the billing and provisioning problems described in this proceeding, as well as the associated customer confusion and customer complaints that are documented in the record before us. We further believe that 56 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 517110. 57 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 58 Id. 45 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 8 the need for mandatory minimum standards to facilitate the exchange of customer account information between LECs and IXCs outweighs the administrative and cost burdens associated with the increase in compliance requirements for those carriers not currently exchanging such information in a timely manner. E. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 22. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 5 U. S. C. § 603. 23. We believe that effective communications between LECs and IXCs are critical to an IXC’s ability to maintain accurate billing records and to honor customer PIC selections and other customer requests. Today, there is no uniform, nationwide process by which all carriers exchange customer account information. The records show that basic customer account information that carriers require to ensure accurate billing of end user customers and to execute end user customer requests is not provided by all LECs and by all IXCs. Thus, we adopt rules to ensure that such information is exchanged and without unreasonable delay. Recognizing the potential compliance burdens on carriers— particularly small or rural carriers— associated with any new rules in this area, we considered several alternatives to address the problems identified in the record. 24. First, we considered not mandating the exchange of information among LECs and IXCs, but permitting such exchanges to continue on a voluntary basis. 59 Voluntary standards would arguably impose no additional compliance burdens on small or rural LECs. We concluded, however, that customer account information that is within the exclusive control of a customer’s LEC is not always obtainable by an IXC through voluntary negotiations with the LEC or in reliance on voluntary ATIS OBF standards. We believe that voluntary standards fall short because they do not result in industry- wide participation. Thus, without such industry- wide participation, customers have no assurance that their carrier changes and other requests will be acted upon in a timely or efficient manner, if at all. Voluntary industry standards are inadequate to address the problems described in the record. 25. Second, we considered exempting small and rural LECs from the information exchange requirements. However, in light of the numerous measures we have taken to minimize burdens on small LECs and the fact that without uniform participation (as described above), the problems faced by IXCs, LECs and their customers with completing PIC changes and executing customers’ requests would not be adequately addressed, we opted not to carve out such an exemption. We found that certain basic customer account information that is needed by IXCs to provide service and properly bill their customers is not reasonably available to the IXC from sources other than the customer’s LEC, whether that LEC is small or not. Thus, we concluded that mandatory standards should be established for communications among all LECs and all IXCs. 26. Third, we determined not to mandate information exchanges in every situation originally identified by the Joint Petitioners and other commenters. Doing so might prove efficient for those carriers currently using the CARE process developed by ATIS/ OBF. However, by limiting the universe of mandated information exchanges to those situations that we believe are most critical to addressing the 59 See Order, supra ¶¶ 21- 22. 46 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 9 problems identified in the record of this proceeding, we anticipate that the costs or burdens associated with implementing the requirements we adopt in this Order will be minimal. In addition, we declined to require carriers to use the specific CARE codes developed by ATIS/ OBF to facilitate the exchange of information among LECs and IXCs. While mandating the use of CARE codes might provide greater uniformity, such action could potentially impose unnecessary burdens on small or rural carriers that currently do not participate in CARE. We also refrained from prescribing the use of particular CARE codes because we recognize that, among carriers currently participating in CARE, few of those carriers’ operating systems, if any, support an identical set of CARE codes. 27. Fourth, we considered not adopting specific performance measurements for the exchange of customer account information (timeliness and method of transmission such as facsimile, mail, electronic email, cartridge, etc). 60 We concluded that, while we should require notifications regarding customer account information to be completed promptly and without unreasonable delay, that more specific timeliness measures were not warranted at this time, given the widely divergent proposals from commenters and the potential burden on smaller LECs. We also do not require carriers to refer to the CARE/ ISI document to ensure the completeness of date transmissions, although we require carriers to exercise reasonable efforts to ensure that the data transmitted is accurate. 28. Fifth, we considered using the NARUC model rules as a template upon which states could build their own customized individual standards. 61 We concluded, however, that the NARUC model rule is not likely to ensure industry- wide participation or a uniform, minimum standard. Although the NARUC model rule may prove useful to states wishing to adopt more expansive requirements than those the Commission would adopt, the model rule is unlikely to result in the adoption, on a nationwide basis, of the minimum standards that we believe are needed to address the billing and provisioning problems at issue. In addition, absent Commission rules in this area, small carriers may face greater compliance burdens associated with rules adopted on a state- by- state basis. 29. REPORT TO CONGRESS: The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Comptroller General pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. 62 In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or 60 See Order supra, ¶¶ 57- 58, 60- 61. 61 See Order supra, ¶ 22. 62 See 5 U. S. C. § 801( a)( 1)( A). 47 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 10 summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register. 63 63 See 5 U. S. C. § 604( b). 48 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 1 APPENDIX C INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 1 the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the Further Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. See 5 U. S. C. § 603( a). In addition, this Further Notice and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register. F. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 2. The Commission determined that the record in this proceeding demonstrates that basic customer account information that carriers require to ensure accurate billing of end user customers and to execute end user customer requests in a timely manner is not being provided by all LECs and by all IXCs. This can inhibit customers’ ability to move seamlessly from one carrier to another, and can result in substantial increases in unbillable calls and customer complaints. Therefore, we adopted new rules to facilitate the exchange of customer account information between LECs and IXCs to ensure that consumer’s phone service bills are accurate and that their carrier selection requests are honored and executed without undue delay. 3. The record suggests that local service providers experience many of the same difficulties with access to customer account information as described by Joint Petitioners, and that the sharing of necessary customer information is not limited to changes involving presubscribed IXCs. It appears that with the increase in competition and churn in the local market, coupled with the advent of local number portability, the failure to exchange information in a uniform or timely manner may result in an increase in customer migrations from LEC to LEC that are not seamless. Therefore, the Further Notice seeks comment on the exchange of information between LECs and asks whether the Commission should require that all local service providers participate in the exchange of customer account information. We seek comment specifically on whether mandating the exchange of customer account information among LECs will reduce the problems identified by commenters, including double billing, delays in migration, and consumer confusion about their service. G. Legal Basis 4. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to this Further Notice is contained in sections 1, 4( i), 4( j), 201, 202, 206- 208, 222, and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. §§ 151, 154( i), 154( j), 201, 202, 206- 208, 222, and 258, and sections 1.421 and 1.429 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C. F. R. §§ 1. 421 and 1.429. H. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply 5. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 2 The RFA generally 1 5 U. S. C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U. S. C. §§ 601- 612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104- 121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 2 See 5 U. S. C. § 603( b)( 3). 49 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 2 defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 3 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. 4 Under the Small Business Act, a “small business concern” is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 5 6. We have included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e. g., a wireline telecommunications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” 6 The SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. 7 We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on the Commission’s analyses and determinations in other, non- RFA contexts. 7. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard for providers of incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 8 According to the FCC’s Telephone Trends Report data, 1,310 incumbent local exchange carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. 9 Of these 1,310 carriers, an estimated 1,025 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 285 have more than 1,500 employees. 10 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers of local exchange service are small entitles that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 8. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers and Competitive Access Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed specific small business size standards for providers of competitive local exchange services or competitive access providers (CAPs). The closest applicable size 3 5 U. S. C. § 601( 6). 4 5 U. S. C. § 601( 3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 U. S. C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U. S. C. § 601( 3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definitions( s) in the Federal Register.” 5 15 U. S. C. § 632. 6 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 517110. 7 See Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to Chairman William E. Kennard, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of “small business concern,” which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of “small business.” See 5 U. S. C. § 632( a) (Small Business Act); 5 U. S. C. 601( 3) (RFA). SBA regulations interpret “small business concern” to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. 13 C. F. R. § 121. 102( b). 8 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 517110. 9 FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5. 3, p. 5 - 5 (May 2004) (Telephone Trends Report). This source uses data that are current as of October 22, 2003. 10 Id. 50 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 3 standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 11 According to the FCC’s Telephone Trends Report data, 563 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. 12 Of these 563 companies, an estimated 472 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 91 have more than 1,500 employees. 13 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers of competitive local exchange service and CAPs are small entities that may be affected by the rules. 9. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a specific size standard for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 14 According to the FCC’s Telephone Trends Report data, 127 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of local resale services. 15 Of these 127 companies, an estimated 121 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and six have more than 1,500 employees. 16 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local resellers may be affected by the rules. 10. Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a specific size standard for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that SBA definition, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 17 According to the FCC’s Telephone Trends Report data, 645 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of toll resale services. 18 Of these 645 companies, an estimated 619 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 26 have more than 1,500 employees. 19 Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of toll resellers may be affected by the rules. 11. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific size standard for small entities specifically applicable to providers of interexchange services. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 20 According to the FCC’s Telephone Trends Report data, 281 carriers reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange services. 21 Of these 281 carriers, an estimated 254 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 27 have more than 1,500 employees. 22 Consequently, we estimate that a majority of interexchange carriers may be affected by the rules. 11 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 517110. 12 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5. 3. The data are grouped together in the Telephone Trends Report. 13 Id. 14 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 517310. 15 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 16 Id. 17 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 517310. 18 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 19 Id. 20 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 517110. 21 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 22 Id. 51 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 4 12. Operator Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small entities specifically applicable to operator service providers. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 23 According to the FCC’s Telephone Trends Report data, 21 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of operator services. 24 Of these 21 companies, an estimated 20 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and one has more than 1,500 employees. 25 Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of operator service providers may be affected by the rules. 13. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 26 According to the FCC’s Telephone Trends Report data, 40 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. 27 Of these 40 companies, all 40 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. 28 Consequently, the Commission estimates that all or most prepaid calling card providers may be affected by the rules. 14. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small entities specifically applicable to “Other Toll Carriers.” This category includes toll carriers that do not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 29 According to the FCC’s Telephone Trends Report data, 65 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of “Other Toll Services.” 30 Of these 65 carriers, an estimated 62 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and three have more than 1,500 employees. 31 Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of “Other Toll Carriers” may be affected by the rules. I. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities 15. As noted, we seek comment on whether mandatory minimum standards for the exchange of customer account information between local service providers could provide consistency within the industry and could eliminate a significant percentage of consumer complaints concerning billing errors. In addition, we ask whether the Commission should mandate the use of CARE transaction codes to facilitate the exchange of customer account information. In the event any new standards for LEC- to- LEC exchanges are adopted, we expect that such standards will be minimal and will provide sufficient 23 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 517110. 24 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 25 Id. 26 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 517310. 27 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 28 Id. 29 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 517110. 30 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 31 Id. 52 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 5 flexibility in their application that they will not create any significant burden on small entities. J. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 16. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 32 17. The Further Notice seeks comment on whether the Commission should impose mandatory minimum standards on all LECs for the exchange of customer account information between local service providers. 33 We seek specific information addressing the possible impact of such mandatory requirements on smaller carriers. We ask whether implementing CARE codes would be problematic for any LECs, or for small or rural LECs in particular. We also ask commenters to discuss how, if we were to adopt minimum standards for the exchange of information among LECs, we could provide sufficient flexibility to protect carriers, particularly small/ rural LECs, from unduly burdensome requirements. We do not have any evidence before us at this time regarding whether proposals outlined in this Further Notice would, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, the record in the proceeding involving LEC- to- IXC transfers revealed that there would likely be some additional burdens on small LECs required to transfer customer account information to IXCs. Therefore, we recognize that, in the context of LEC- to- LEC exchanges, mandating the exchange of customer account information may result in additional burdens on small entities. We therefore seek comment on the potential impact of these proposals on small entities, and whether there are any less burdensome alternatives that we should consider. K. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules 18. In addressing the exchange of customer account information between LECs and IXCs, we noted that section 222 of the Communications Act governs carriers’ use of customer proprietary network information and generally prohibits a carrier from disclosing such information. Although we do not believe section 222 duplicates, overlaps, or conflicts with the proposed rules on LEC- to- LEC exchanges, we seek comment on the interplay between section 222 and the proposed rules. 32 5 U. S. C. § 603( c)( 1)-( c)( 4). 33 See Further Notice at ¶¶ 75- 81. 53 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 6 APPENDIX D Commenter/ Date Filed Abbreviation Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (6/ 3/ 04) ATIS Americatel Corporation (6/ 3/ 04) Americatel BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (6/ 3/ 04) BellSouth California Public Utilities Commission/ People of California (6/ 3/ 04) CPUC Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company (6/ 3/ 04) CBT Cox Communications (6/ 3/ 04) Cox Creative Support Solutions (6/ 3/ 04) CSS CTIA – The Wireless Association (6/ 3/ 04) CTIA Frontier & Citizens Communications (6/ 2/ 04) Frontier Intrado, Inc. (6/ 3/ 04) Intrado Joint Petitioners (AT& T, Sprint Corporation, & MCI, Inc.) (6/ 3/ 04) Joint Petitioners Martin Group (6/ 1/ 04) Martin National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (6/ 3/ 04) NARUC National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (6/ 3/ 04) NASUCA National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (6/ 3/ 04) NTCA New England Conference of Public Utilities Commissioners (6/ 3/ 04) NECPUC New York Office of the Attorney General (6/ 3/ 04) NYOAG Nextel Communications, Inc. (6/ 3/ 04) Nextel NeuStar, Inc. (6/ 3/ 04) NeuStar Office of the People’s Counsel for the District of Columbia (6/ 3/ 04) OPC- DC Oklahoma Rural Telephone Companies (6/ 3/ 04) Okla. RTCs Public Utility Commission of Texas (6/ 1/ 04) PUCTX Qwest Communications International, Inc. (6/ 3/ 04) Qwest Rural Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (6/ 3/ 04) Rural ILECs SBC Communications (6/ 3/ 04) SBC TDS Telecommunications Corp. (6/ 3/ 04) TDS Telcordia Technologies, Inc. (6/ 3/ 04) Telcordia Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (6/ 3/ 04) TSTCI Time Warner Telecom, Inc. (6/ 3/ 04) TWTC Transaction Networks (4/ 28/ 04) TN United States Telecom Association (6/ 3/ 04) USTA Verizon (6/ 3/ 04) Verizon Working Assets Long Distance (6/ 3/ 04) Working Assets Reply Commenter/ Date Filed Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (6/ 18/ 04) ATIS Americatel Corporation (6/ 18/ 04) Americatel Association for Local Telecommunications Services (6/ 18/ 04) ALTS California Public Utilities Commission/ People of California (6/ 18/ 04) CPUC Cox Communications (6/ 18/ 04) Cox GVNW Consulting, Inc. (6/ 17/ 04) GVNW Joint Petitioners (AT& T, Sprint Corporation, & MCI, Inc.) (6/ 18/ 04) Joint Petitioners National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. et al. (6/ 18/ 04) NECA National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (6/ 18/ 04) NASUCA New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate (6/ 18/ 04) NJDRA New York Office of the Attorney General (6/ 10/ 04) NYOAG Office of the People’s Counsel for the District of Columbia (6/ 17/ 04) OPC- DC 54 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 7 Oklahoma Rural Telephone Companies (6/ 18/ 04) Okla. RTCs Oregon Office of the Attorney General (6/ 18/ 04) OOAG Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (6/ 18/ 04) PPUC Rural Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (6/ 18/ 04) Rural ILECs SBC Communications (6/ 18/ 04) SBC TDS Telecommunications Corp. (6/ 18/ 04) TDS Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (6/ 18/ 04) TSTCI Verizon (6/ 18/ 04) Verizon WilTel Communications, LLC (6/ 18/ 04) WilTel Working Assets Long Distance (6/ 18/ 04) Working Assets 55 Federal Communications Commission FCC 05- 29 8 CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL RE: In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing Minimum Customer Account Record Exchange Obligation on All Local and Interexchange Carriers, CG Docket No. 02- 386. RE: Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02- 278. RE: Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier Charges, CC Docket No. 02- 53. The three items the Commission adopts today continue our efforts to place consumers at the forefront of the Commission’s agenda. Specifically, we take action to strengthen the Commission’s telemarketing rules, which were amended in 2003. This continues the work begun in 2003 with the establishment of a national do- not- call registry and other consumer protection measures concerning telemarketing calls. The do- not- call registry now contains over 80 million telephone numbers and continues to serve as an option to protect consumers from unwanted telemarketing calls. Moreover, the rules we adopt today help to ensure that consumers’ phone service bills are accurate and that their carrier selection requests are honored and executed without undue delay. Facilitating the exchange of customer account information in certain situations will assist all carriers in resolving billing issues and moving customers seamlessly from one carrier to another. I am pleased that the Commission has endorsed a proposal that has garnered the support of a broad cross- section of the industry. These standards will create greater industry uniformity without imposing unnecessary burdens on carriers. Finally, we revise the Commission’s policies governing charges associated with a consumer’s choice to change long distance providers. The current $5 safe harbor rate was implemented in 1984, and industry and market conditions have changed dramatically since that time. Moreover, the record in this proceeding clearly demonstrates a large disparity between the costs of PIC change charges that are processed electronically versus those that are processed manually. As a result, based on cost data filed in the record, we set a separate safe harbor rate for electronically and manually processed PIC changes -- $ 1.25 and $5.50, respectively. Carriers that have invested in the technology to process and submit PIC changes electronically should be rewarded by offering potential customers a lower PIC change rate reflecting the lower costs of electronic processing. Adopting a two- tiered approach provides an incentive for providers offering long distance service to invest in electronic processing capabilities to gain the competitive advantage of lower PIC change charges for customers switching to these services. I am pleased to support these three interrelated items. They represent the Commission’s commitment to protecting individuals throughout the life- cycle of consumer choice – from the decision to change providers, to the costs associated with that choice, to a decision to prevent unwanted telemarketing calls. 56