Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier
Selection Changes Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996
Policies and Rules Concerning
Unauthorized Changes of Consumers’
Long Distance Carriers
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CC Docket No. 94-129
FOURTH REPORT AND ORDER
Adopted:  December 18, 2007 Released: January 9, 2008
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Fourth Report and Order (Order), we revise our requirements concerning 
verification of a consumer’s intent to switch carriers.1 As discussed in more detail below, these new 
requirements will: ensure that each verification includes the date; expand the disclosure obligations of 
third party verifiers when consumers have questions during the verification; and otherwise clarify the 
required disclosures by verifiers to ensure that consumers better comprehend precisely what service 
changes they are approving.  We believe that these requirements will increase consumer confidence, 
decrease the administrative costs for carriers, and alleviate the enforcement burden on state regulatory 
authorities and the Commission.
II. BACKGROUND
2. Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, prohibits any telecommunications carrier from submitting or executing 
an unauthorized change in a subscriber’s selection of a telephone exchange or toll service provider.2 This 
practice, known as “slamming,” distorts the telecommunications market by enabling companies that 
engage in fraudulent activity to increase their customer and revenue bases at the expense of consumers 
  
1 See Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996; Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers’ Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket 
No. 94-129, Third Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 18 FCC Rcd 
5099 (2003) (Third Reconsideration Order and/or Second FNPRM).  The Third Reconsideration Order amended the 
Commission’s rules implementing section 258 and the Second FNPRM proposed additional revisions to these rules.  
2 47 U.S.C. § 258(a).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
2
and law-abiding companies.  The Commission’s rules implementing section 258 have been promulgated 
through a series of orders.3 In the Second Report and Order, the Commission sought to eliminate the 
profits associated with slamming by broadening the scope of its carrier change rules and adopting more 
rigorous slamming liability and carrier change verification measures.4  Specifically, the Commission 
stated that a preferred carrier change order must be confirmed using one of several methods, including
independent third party verifications of telephone solicitations.5
3. In the Third Reconsideration Order, the Commission modified certain rules concerning 
verification of carrier change requests and liability for slamming.6  In the Fifth Reconsideration Order,7
the Commission denied petitions filed by a coalition of rural independent local exchange carriers (Rural 
LECs) seeking reconsideration of the Commission’s verification requirement for in-bound carrier change 
request calls.8 The Commission found that any time the carrier has a financial stake in completing the 
  
3 See Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996; Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers’ Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket 
No. 94-129, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 1508 (1998) 
(Second Report and Order), stayed in part, MCI WorldCom v. FCC, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. May 18, 1999) (Stay 
Order), motion to dissolve stay granted, MCI WorldCom v. FCC, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 2000) (Order 
Lifting Stay). Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications 
Act of 1996; Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers’ Long Distance Carriers, CC 
Docket No. 94-129, First Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 8158 (2000) (First Reconsideration Order).  
Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; 
Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers’ Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-
129, Third Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 15996 (2000) (Third Report and 
Order); Errata, DA 00-2163 (rel. Sept. 25, 2000); Erratum, DA 00-292 (rel. Oct. 4, 2000).  Implementation of the 
Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Policies and Rules 
Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers’ Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-129, Order, 16 FCC 
Rcd 4999 (2001).  47 C.F.R. § 64.1100 et seq.  Prior to the adoption of section 258 of the Act, the Commission had 
taken various steps to address the slamming problem; the adoption of section 258 expanded the Commission’s 
authority in this area.  See, e.g., Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long 
Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-129, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9560 (1995), stayed in part, 11 FCC Rcd 
856 (1995); Policies and Rules Concerning Changing Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 91-64, 7 FCC Rcd 
1038 (1992), reconsideration denied, 8 FCC Rcd 3215 (1993); Investigation of Access and Divestiture Related 
Tariffs, CC Docket No. 83-1145, Phase I, 101 FCC 2d 935, reconsideration denied, 102 FCC 2d 503 (1985).
4 See Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1508-1591, paras. 1-138.
5 See id. at 1513-14, para. 6; 1551-56, paras. 69-79.  Other allowable methods of verification include written or 
electronically-signed letters of agency (LOAs), electronic authorization (a call to a toll-free number that records the 
caller’s originating automatic number identification), or “[a]ny State-enacted verification procedures applicable to 
intrastate preferred carrier change orders only.”  47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c)(4); see also Second Report and Order, 14 
FCC Rcd at 1561-64, paras. 86-90.
6 See Third Reconsideration Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 5100-01, paras. 3-4.
7 Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; 
Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers’ Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-
129, Fifth Order on Reconsideration, 19 FCC Rcd 22926 (2004) (Fifth Reconsideration Order).
8 See Rural LECs Petition for Reconsideration, CC Docket No. 94-129, at 3-10 (filed May 19, 2003).  AT&T and 
MCI also sought reconsideration of the in-bound verification requirement as it was articulated in the Third 
Reconsideration Order, but the Commission addressed those concerns in a separate, clarifying order.  See 
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
3
carrier change, the Commission’s verification requirements are necessary to deter slamming, regardless 
of whether the carrier is a larger, smaller, or rural LEC.9
4. Since the adoption of section 258 of the Act, the Commission has intensified its 
commitment to eliminating unauthorized carrier changes.  In 2004 alone, the Commission resolved a total 
of 3,642 slamming complaints, resulting in nearly $775,000 in refunds and credits to consumers.10  Based 
on the Commission’s experiences in handling this volume of slamming complaints, as well as the 
comments received in response to the Second FNPRM, in this Order we adopt rules that will provide 
additional safeguards within the carrier change verification process. The new rules strengthen consumer 
protection by requiring third party verifiers to address material terms of carrier changes that are 
sometimes omitted during the solicitation process.  We also believe that the implementation of these 
proposals will increase the ability of carriers to refute false allegations of slamming, thereby providing 
carriers with greater certainty in the finality of transactions.   
5. In the Third Report and Order, the Commission declined to mandate specific language 
for third party verification calls, but did adopt minimum content requirements for such calls.11  
Accordingly, the Commission concluded that scripts for third party verifications should elicit, at a 
minimum, the following information: (1) the identity of the subscriber; (2) confirmation that the person 
on the call is authorized to make the carrier change; (3) confirmation that the person on the call wants to 
make the change; (4) the names of the carriers affected by the change; (5) the telephone number(s) to be 
switched; and (6) the types of service involved (i.e., local, toll, or international service).12 In addition, 
the Commission found that the third party verification must be conducted in the same language that was 
used in the underlying sales transaction, and that the entire third party verification transaction must be 
recorded.13 The Commission also reiterated that, consistent with its rules regarding verifications 
  
(continued from previous page)
Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; 
Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers’ Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-
129, Order, 18 FCC Rcd 10997 (2003) (Clarification Order).   The Commission clarified that in-bound long 
distance carrier change requests made directly to a LEC must be verified in accordance with the Commission’s 
verification rules only when the carrier change involves the LEC or an affiliate of the LEC.  Id. at 10999, para. 5.
9 See Fifth Reconsideration Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 22931-32, para. 9.
10 See, e.g., LCR Telecommunications, LLC, IC Nos. 03-S84981 and 03-S85545, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24692 (Cnsmr. 
Pol. Div. 2004); AT&T Corp., IC No. 04-I0115373S, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24902 (Cnsmr. Pol. Div. 2004).
11 Third Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16014-19, paras. 33-45; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120.  The Commission stated 
that minimum content requirements would provide useful guidance to the third party verifiers and carriers without 
locking carriers into using a set script.  In addition, the Commission stated that the requirements would also permit 
more streamlined enforcement by helping the Commission to determine the adequacy of steps taken by independent 
third parties in the verification process.  Third Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16016, para. 40.
12 Id.  See also 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c)(3)(iii).
13 Third Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16016, para. 41. See also 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c)(3)(iv).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
4
generally, submitting carriers must maintain and preserve the recordings for a minimum period of two 
years after obtaining such verification.14
6. Based on the Commission’s experience since the effective date of the Third Report and 
Order, in the Second FNPRM the Commission sought comment on the need for additional minimum 
requirements for third party verification calls in order to maximize accuracy and efficiency for 
consumers, carriers, and the Commission.15  
III. DISCUSSION
7. The requirements we adopt below address issues the Commission has seen repeatedly in 
its enforcement of the slamming liability rules.  They are also fully consistent with AT&T v. FCC¸ in 
which the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recognized that Section 258 of the Act 
“authorizes the Commission to prescribe verification procedures.”16  In light of this decision, the 
Commission’s experiences in dealing with slamming complaints since the implementation of section 258 
of the Act, and the comments filed in response to the Second FNPRM, we believe that further 
enhancement of the verification procedures is warranted.
A. Date of Verification
8. Background.  In the Second FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether third
party verifiers should be required to state the date of the verification call during the verification 
process.17
9. Discussion.  We conclude that the date of the verification should be obtained at the time 
of the verification and should be readily identifiable by parties that review the verification at a later date. 
Requiring that the date of verification be obtained and recorded at the time of the verification, in a 
readily identifiable manner, protects consumers against unauthorized carrier changes, and conversely 
prevents customers from fraudulently revoking a validly executed agreement.  This requirement also 
helps to prevent mistakes and confusion that could arise in the verification process, and enhances the 
evidentiary case on which regulatory authorities may rely in order to determine whether a slam occurred.
We also note that carriers that do not wish to use third party verifications are free to use one of the other 
approved forms of verification.  Therefore, in light of these experiences and this previous rule change, as 
  
14 Third Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16016-17, para. 41.  See also Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 
1553, para. 74.  The Commission observed that, if a slamming dispute arises, a recorded verification will help 
determine whether the subscriber was simply seeking information or was in fact agreeing to change carriers and, if 
so, which service(s) the subscriber had agreed to change.  Third Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16017, para. 41.
15 See infra Appendix C for a list of comments filed.
16 Section 258 of the Act provides that carriers may not submit or execute changes in subscribers' telephone service 
“except in accordance with such verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.”  See 47 U.S.C. § 
258(a).  The court concluded that carriers have no way of verifying that the person who responds to a direct 
solicitation is in fact authorized to change telephone services.  The court found that the process of acquiring actual 
authorization from the customer did not constitute a "a particular step adopted for doing or accomplishing 
something,” and was therefore inconsistent with Webster’s definition of “procedure.”  AT&T v. FCC, 323 F.3d at 
1087.
17 See Second FNPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 5142, para. 111.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
5
well as the substantial support by most commenters for a requirement that verifications include the date, 
we find that the date of the verification should be ascertained and recorded at the time of the verification, 
and should be readily identifiable by parties that review the verification at a later date.  We agree that 
carriers should be free to decide how this information will be ascertained, and we therefore decline to 
mandate that the third party verifier must, in all cases, confirm the date verbally with the consumer 
during the verification.18 We decline, however, to require that verifications also include the time of the 
call, because we believe that including the date is sufficient to address the concerns raised by 
commenters regarding multiple switches.  
10. Most commenters support a requirement that verifications include the date.19 The Maine 
and Ohio PUCs state that including the date in the verification will prevent companies from manipulating 
recorded conversations to portray inaccurately the consumer’s most recent choice of carriers in cases of 
multiple switches.20 VarTec and Excel acknowledge that recording the date of the verification is not very 
burdensome,21 and agree with BellSouth that it could benefit carriers in the event of disputes with 
consumers.22   
11. While IDT directs its third party verifiers to state the date at the end of the call, it 
believes that the Commission overstates the importance of date verification in preventing slamming, and 
argues that such a requirement unnecessarily addresses “theoretical” or “infrequent problems.”23  IDT 
also expressed concern that a requirement that verifications include the date of the verification will allow 
customers to revoke their authorization based on clerical errors during the verification process.24 We 
  
18 Though our initial proposal asked whether the third party verifier should be required to state the date during the 
taped verification process, as noted above, some carriers that already record the verification date engage in differing 
forms of date recording, and object to a rule that would require them to modify their systems to accommodate a new 
regulation.  See, e.g., Sprint Comments at 2-3; Verizon Comments at 1-2.  For example, Verizon requires its verifiers 
to electronically date stamp the verification rather than verbally state the date in the conversation, and Verizon 
believes that this process is more reliable than verbally confirming the date with consumers.  Id. We note that while 
Verizon asserts that electronic date stamping is more reliable than verbal confirmation by the verifier of the date, 
NASUCA, in arguing for adoption of a requirement that the verifier state the date verbally, suggests that some dating 
mechanisms are susceptible to alteration after the fact, and that a uniform requirement for verbal confirmation of the 
date minimizes the potential for abuse and alteration.  See NASUCA Reply at 3.  We take no position on which, if 
either, mechanism is more reliable.
19 Several carriers concur that including the date in the verification would benefit consumers, but maintain that 
carriers should remain free to decide how best to implement a date verification requirement.  See MCI Comments at 
3; SBC Comments at 1-2; Sprint Comments at 2; Verizon Comments at 1-2; AT&T Reply at 2.
20 See Ohio PUC Comments at 3; Maine PUC Comments at 1-2.  See also NASUCA Reply at 3.  
21 See VarTec and Excel Comments at 2.  But see IDT Comments at 1-3.
22 See BellSouth Comments at 2. 
23 See IDT Comments at 2-3.  See also Qwest Comments at 2.  The Joint Commenters do not oppose including the 
date of the verification on the recording, and suggest that this information already should be part of a quality 
verification.  See Joint Commenters Comments at 4; see also Talk America Comments at 8.  Conversely, Qwest 
states that because most carriers already state the verification date, it is unnecessary to impose a mandatory 
requirement.  See Qwest Comments at 3.
24 See IDT Comments at 3.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
6
disagree.  The record reflects that undated verifications have resulted in abuses to the system.25  In 
addition, given that the subscriber need not identify the displaced carrier during the verification process, 
the potential for a slam to occur based on an outdated verification is even greater, because there is no 
identifying information concerning the date of the verification or the carrier from whom the subscriber is 
switching.26  Given the generally widespread support of this proposal by the carrier commenters, we are 
skeptical that this particular requirement is overly burdensome.27  It appears that many carriers already 
register this information;28 for carriers that do not, we believe that this requirement will only 
incrementally affect costs of the existing third party verification requirement, particularly since we have 
given carriers latitude to devise their own methods of obtaining and recording this information.   
B. Termination/Completion of Verification Process
12. Background.  In the Third Report and Order, the Commission required that the carrier or 
carrier’s sales representative drop off the call once the connection has been established between the 
consumer and the third party verifier.29  In the Second FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on 
whether the verifier should explicitly state that, if the customer has additional questions for the carrier’s 
sales representative regarding the carrier change after verification has begun, the verification will be 
terminated, and further verification proceedings will not be carried out until after the customer has 
finished speaking with the sales representative (“Verification Termination Proposal”).30 In addition, the 
  
25 See Second FNPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 5142, para. 111; Maine PUC Comments at 2; Ohio PUC Comments at 3.  
Furthermore, as noted in the Second FNPRM, the Commission has become aware of situations in which, for 
example, a carrier may have obtained a valid authorization for a past carrier change, but the customer has since 
switched away from the carrier and now alleges that he or she was switched back to that carrier without 
authorization.  Without a clearly articulated date on the verification tapes, the carrier could use the former 
verification tape to defend itself against the subsequent unauthorized change.
26 Third Reconsideration Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 5120, para. 57.
27 See, e.g., MCI Comments at 3; SBC Comments at 1-2; Sprint Comments at 2; Verizon Comments at 1-2; AT&T 
Reply at 2; VarTec and Excel Comments at 2.
28 See Qwest Comments at 3; see also Verizon Comments at 1-2; IDT Comments at 2-3.
29 See Third Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16015, para. 38.  The Commission stated that a carrier’s sales agent’s 
role is concluded when a consumer is transferred to a third party verifier, because the consumer’s intent to change 
carriers should have been sealed following a clear, non-misleading presentation by the carrier’s sales agent.  The 
Commission found that the presence of a sales agent on the verification call could compromise the independent 
nature of the process by creating an opportunity for improper influence if such intent had not truly been sealed.  We 
also note that, in the Third Reconsideration Order, the Commission recognized that dropping off a three-way call 
potentially could be infeasible for carriers in certain specific situations; for example, a carrier may not be able to 
comply with the drop-off rule because its sales force is located in an area with an exchange that does not employ the 
technology necessary to support a drop-off.  Accordingly, the Commission exempted from the rule those carriers that 
certify to the Commission that their sales agents are unable to drop off the sales call after initiating a third party 
verification.  Third Reconsideration Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 5113, para. 35.
30 See Second FNPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 5142, para. 112.  The Commission noted that, according to our rules, if a 
carrier’s sales representative responds to a consumer’s inquiry after the verification has begun, final verification 
cannot be obtained until after the sales representative has finished responding to the customer and the entire 
verification process accomplished without intervention from the sales agent.  Id.  See also Reminder to 
Telecommunications Carriers of Obligations Regarding Third Party Verification Recordings of Consumer’s Intent 
to Change Telecommunications Carriers, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 12437 (CGB 2005), reminding carriers of 
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
7
Commission sought comment on whether the verifier should be required to convey to the customer that 
the carrier change can be effectuated once the verification has been completed in full (“Verification 
Completion Proposal”), regardless of whether the customer has further contact with the carrier.31
13. Discussion. Verification Termination Proposal. We decline to adopt the Verification 
Termination Proposal, but do adopt what is in effect a modified Verification Completion Proposal.  We 
agree with those commenters that question the utility of having verifiers provide this information to 
customers at the outset of the verification. We agree that doing so likely would increase rather than 
decrease consumer confusion while unnecessarily increasing costs.32  This determination does not alter 
existing requirements.33  Moreover, the record reflects that under prevailing practices, the verifier
generally offers the customer the option to either terminate the verification, if the customer wishes to 
speak to a sales representative before completing the verification, or to complete the verification and 
defer the question until after completion.34  
14. Verification Completion Proposal.  We conclude that, if customers have questions which
a verifier can not answer and the verifier indicates it will complete the verification and the question is to
be deferred to a carrier’s sales representative after completion of the verification, the verifier must state 
that the carrier change can be effectuated once the verification has been completed.35  When customers
wait until after the verification is completed to ask sales agents questions that might affect their choice of 
whether to switch carriers, this creates a potential problem.  In such cases, customers may erroneously 
believe that if they choose not to switch carriers after further discussions with the carrier’s agent, the 
previously completed verification is, in all cases, automatically invalidated.36  Thus, the Maine PUC and 
  
(continued from previous page)
their obligations in this regard; Third Reconsideration Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 5113, para. 35. Accordingly, we 
sought comment as to whether such a requirement would lessen possible customer confusion in situations in which a 
verification is terminated because the customer seeks further discussions with the carrier’s sales agent.
31 We stated that we had found that customers may not realize that a carrier cannot in most cases “undo” a carrier 
change after it has been submitted, even if the subscriber quickly requests cancellation of the change order. Second 
FNPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 5142, para. 112.
32 See, e.g., SBC Comments at 3; Sprint Comments at 3.  According to AT&T, the better approach is to leave it to 
the carriers’ sales agents, prior to dropping off the call, to inform customers that the verifiers are not in a position to 
answer any product-specific questions.  See AT&T Comments at 4.
33 Under these requirements, the verifier must alert the customer that if the customer has additional questions for the 
carrier’s sales agent, which the customer wants answered prior to completing the verification, the verification will be 
terminated.  See Third Reconsideration Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 5117, para. 47.  Several carriers endorse this 
“rebuttal” approach, pursuant to which a verifier informs the customer of the termination policy only if the customer 
asks a substantive question for a sales agent during the verification process.  See BellSouth Comments at 4; Joint 
Commenters Comments at 4; MCI Comments at 4; Talk America Comments at 9.
34 See, e.g., MCI Comments at 4-5.  Of course, a carrier is free, as AT&T suggests, to inform a consumer that the 
ensuing verification must be terminated if the customer has questions he or she wants the carrier to answer prior to 
completion of the verification.  See AT&T Comments at 4.
35 In other words, consumers must be informed by the verifier that the carrier has the ability to change their service 
after the verification is completed, despite the fact that their question was not answered.
36 The Maine PUC, for instance, suggests that some customers believe that they can cancel the verification within 24 
hours by contacting the carrier.  See Maine PUC Comments at 2.  NASUCA reports that some consumers are misled 
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
8
NASUCA support the Verification Completion Proposal.  As with the Verification Termination Proposal, 
however, carriers argue that implementing the Verification Completion Proposal would be superfluous,37
impose unnecessary costs on carriers, and ultimately cause consumer confusion.38  IDT maintains that 
implementing this proposal would cause undue anxiety for the consumer, delay the verification process 
and ultimately altogether dissuade consumers from consummating the carrier switches.39
15. To accommodate these competing concerns, we adopt what is in effect a modified 
Verification Completion Proposal.  To avoid consumer confusion, while minimizing obligations on 
carriers, we require verifiers to directly state that the carrier change can be effectuated once the 
verification has been completed in full, even where the consumer has additional questions for the 
carrier’s sales representative after the verification process. Such a requirement will avoid consumer 
misperception that the verification automatically will be invalidated if the consumer decides that she does 
not want to go through with the carrier switch, and will encourage the consumer to address any 
potentially confusing issues prior to consummating the verification.40  We reject Talk America’s proposal 
that verifiers convey this information only at the end of the verification, because we believe that waiting 
until that point likely will deter consumers from asking questions, out of fear they must go through the 
whole process again.41
16. Sprint and Talk America note that some carriers do allow customers to revoke their 
carrier change authorizations within a certain amount of time after completing the verification process.42  
Therefore, they maintain that requiring third party verifiers to inform consumers that the effectuation can 
occur after verification is complete could create a conflict with information provided by a sales 
representative.  We agree. In these cases, the verifier should simply inform the consumer of the carrier’s 
verification revocation policy. 
C. Confirming Intent to Change Carriers
17. Background.  In the Second FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether 
verifiers must clarify to a customer that she is not verifying an intention to retain existing service, but is 
  
(continued from previous page)
by carrier assurances that no change will be made unless and until the customer has received and accepted written 
verification of the new carrier’s service terms.  See NASUCA Reply at 4.  
37 MCI and Verizon, for instance, argue that customers should be able to glean from the nature of the questions asked 
during the verification process that the carrier change may be effectuated immediately.  See MCI Comments at 5-6; 
Verizon Comments at 4-5.
38 See, e.g., BellSouth Comments at 5; Talk America Comments at 9-10; and VarTec and Excel Comments at 3-4.
39 See IDT Comments at 4-5.  AT&T suggests that requiring verifiers to implement this proposal in all verification 
scripts would result in an increase in consumer confusion.  See AT&T Comments at 4.
40 Thus, although carriers are welcome to inform consumers during the sales process of the effectuation policies, 
verifiers also must convey this information to a consumer when the consumer reveals during the verification that he 
has additional questions for the carrier’s sales agent.
41 See Talk America Comments at 10-11.
42 See Sprint Comments at 4; Talk America Comments at 10.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
9
in fact asking for a carrier change.  The Commission noted examples of carriers seeking to obtain 
customer authorization for carrier changes merely stating to customers that they are consenting to an 
“upgrade” of the customers’ service or to bill consolidation.43
18. Discussion.  We agree with the commenting state utility commissions and Verizon that 
we should require verifiers to convey explicitly to customers that the carrier change transaction is exactly 
that, and not a mere upgrade to existing service or any other misleading description.44 The record reflects 
that carriers using ambiguous language to describe the nature of the transaction may lead to consumer 
confusion concerning the true purpose of the solicitation call.  The Ohio PUC, for instance, cites 
instances in which solicitors promised consumers that they would not be changing carriers, inducing 
these consumers into authorizing carrier changes under the guise of offering discounts and other 
“upgrades” to their current services.45  We believe that such practices are misleading and unreasonable, 
and warrant specific treatment in our rules.  Thus, we amend section 64.1120(c)(3)(iii) of our rules to 
provide for verifications to elicit “confirmation that the person on the call understands that a carrier 
change, not an upgrade to existing service, bill consolidation, or any other misleading description of the 
transaction, is being authorized.”46  We find that making these clarifications for the third party 
verification process will eliminate these sources of confusion.
19. We reject the contentions of some carriers that this requirement is redundant with 
existing regulations.47  Though section 64.1120(c)(3)(iii) of our rules48 already does require, inter alia, 
that the verifier confirm that the person on the call wants to make a carrier change, the record reflects that 
some carriers introduce ambiguity into what should be a straightforward interaction by describing the 
carrier change offer as a mere “upgrade” to existing service or in other ways that obscure the true 
purpose.49  As the Commission concluded when it first considered proposals for third party verifier script 
requirements, “the scripts used by the independent third party verifier should clearly and conspicuously 
confirm that the subscriber has previously authorized a carrier change.”50  We conclude that requiring the 
verifier to convey explicitly that the consumers will have authorized a carrier change, and not, for 
instance, an upgrade to existing service, is a small refinement that will eliminate a significant source of 
ambiguity to consumers while minimally burdening carriers.
  
43 See Second FNPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 5143, para. 113.  
44 See Maine PUC Comments at 2; Ohio PUC Comments at 3; Verizon Comments at 2; NASUCA Reply at 4.
45 See Ohio PUC Comments at 3-4; see also NASUCA Reply at 6 (stating that “[e]xperience confirms that some 
companies mislead consumers into thinking there is no change of carrier and that the only service being marketed is, 
for example, a bill consolidation service”).
46 See infra Appendix A (amendments to 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c)(3)(iii)).
47 See BellSouth Comments at 6 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c)(3)(iii)); Sprint Comments at 5 (citing 47 C.F.R. 
§ 64.1130(e)).  See also VarTec and Excel Comments at 4.  Similarly, we reject commenters’ arguments that we 
should place greater emphasis on enforcement of the Commission’s current rules rather than creating additional 
rules.  See MCI Comments at 6-7; Sprint Comments at 5 n.4; Talk America Comments at 12-13; AT&T Reply at 5-6.
48 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c)(3)(iii).
49 See Ohio PUC Comments at 2; Verizon Comments at 3.
50 Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1553, para. 72.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
10
20. IDT opposes this requirement on Constitutional grounds arguing that the Commission 
“has long avoided requiring specific language in communicating with consumers, in deference to 
carriers’ First Amendment rights.”51 IDT misconstrues the requirement.52 We did not propose, nor do 
we adopt, a specific incantation that verifiers must recite.  Rather, we seek to ensure that verifiers 
confirm the consumer’s intent to receive service from a different carrier, regardless of whether that is 
phrased as a “change,” a “switch,” or any other non-misleading term.53  Thus, First Amendment issues 
are not implicated by the action we take today.
D. Compound Questions
21. Background.  In the Second FNPRM, the Commission asked commenters to address 
whether each piece of information that a third party verifier must gather under our rules should be the 
subject of a separate and distinct third party verifier inquiry and subscriber response.54 Some state utility 
commission and carrier commenters state that asking compound questions during the verification process 
may confuse consumers and impair their ability to consent fully to the carrier switch, and thereby can 
negate the purpose of the verification.55  However, the Joint Commenters and Verizon state that logic 
dictates grouping some questions together, and that doing so streamlines the verification process and 
reduces costs.56  Moreover, carrier commenters state that prohibiting the use of compound questions will 
extend the verification process to an “unbearable length,”57 “increase a carrier’s costs significantly,”58
and allow customers to nullify valid authorizations because of minor missteps by third party verifiers.59  
22. Discussion.  We are persuaded that additional regulation in this regard is unnecessary.  
We note that section 64.1120(b) of our rules already requires the carrier to obtain separate authorization 
and verification for each service that is being changed.60 In addition, as explained in more detail below, 
customers should be aware of the separate and distinct nature of the types of services they are consenting 
to switch. Thus, we conclude that the Commission’s rules provide sufficient protection for consumers,
  
51 IDT Comments at 5.
52 Id.
53 The Ohio PUC also urges the Commission to require verifiers to confirm additional information with the 
consumer, including total prices for services and the price for each separate service, length of the agreement, and 
other contractual conditions.  See Ohio PUC Comments at 3-4.  We agree with commenters that this recommendation 
is outside the scope of the Second FNPRM. See SBC Reply at 1-3; Sprint Reply at 1-2.
54 Second FNPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 5143, para. 113.
55 See, e.g., Ohio PUC Comments at 5; Sprint Comments at 5; Maine PUC Comments at 2-3; NASUCA Reply at 5; 
VarTec and Excel Comments at 4.
56 See Joint Commenters Comments at 4-5; Verizon Comments at 2-3.
57 Contra Joint Commenters Comments at 5.
58 Contra id. at 4.
59 See IDT Comments at 6.
60 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(b), (c)(3)(iii).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
11
such that a prohibition on compound questions would be unnecessary and unduly burdensome for carriers 
and consumers alike.
E. Long Distance Definition
23. Background.  In the Second FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether, 
when verifying a long distance service change, the verifier should specify that long distance service 
encompasses both international and state-to-state calls, and whether a verifier should define the terms 
“intraLATA toll” and “interLATA toll” service.61  The Commission noted its observation that carriers 
sometimes use different terms for these services.62 For example, a carrier might refer to intraLATA 
service as “short haul long distance, local toll, local long distance, or long distance calls within your 
state.”63  The Commission noted receiving numerous complaints from consumers who assert they 
unknowingly gave up the flat rate for intraLATA service they paid to their LEC when consenting to a 
carrier change for different services.64
24. Discussion. We decline to require third party verifiers to define for subscribers the terms 
“intraLATA toll” and interLATA toll” service.  We conclude that to do so could increase consumer 
confusion and add unnecessary time and cost to the verification process.  In addition, we believe that 
other requirements adopted in this Order will go a long way toward alleviating consumer confusion about 
the services to which they subscribe.65 We do, however, require third party verifiers to verify that the 
consumer understands that long distance service includes both international and long distance service.66  
25. While most commenters acknowledge that distinguishing intraLATA service from 
interLATA service is particularly complicated,67 only some support the inclusion of explicit definitions 
  
61 Second FNPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 5143, para. 113.
62 Id.
63 Id.
64 See id.
65 As noted above, the verifier must alert the customer that if the customer has additional questions for the carrier’s 
sales agent, which the customer wants answered prior to completing the verification, the verification will be 
terminated.  See supra note 33.  In this order, we require verifiers to directly state that the carrier change can be 
effectuated once the verification has been completed in full, even where the consumer has additional questions for 
the carrier’s sales representative after the verification process.  See supra para. 15.
66 As we noted in the Second FNPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 5143, para. 113 n.383, in Hawaii, international service is a 
separate service, such that “long distance” service would not encompass both international and state-to-state calls.  
Because these services are separate in Hawaii (and must be separately authorized by the subscriber), the requirement 
to explain that long distance service includes international calls would not apply in that state.  While we create this 
exception for verifications for consumers in Hawaii, and would apply it to any other state where international service 
is a separate service, we do not believe in this case that the existence of an exception or two is grounds to vitiate the 
benefits of adopting the requirement.  But see VarTec and Excel Comments at 5.
67 See, e.g., BellSouth Comments at 7; Verizon Comments at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
12
in the verification process.68 Many carriers believe instead that, in the context of carrier changes, this 
responsibility should be allocated to the carriers themselves, rather than the third party verifiers.69 These 
carriers are concerned primarily that requiring third party verifiers to define complicated terms such as 
interLATA service and intraLATA service will confuse consumers and cause them to ask questions 
beyond the verifier’s capacity to answer, resulting in likely termination of the verification and an
unnecessary and costly reconnection with the carrier’s sales representative.70  We agree that requiring a 
third party verifier to explain the differences between intraLATA service and interLATA service could 
confuse consumers, a majority of whom are unfamiliar with the terms, and increase verification costs.  
Therefore, we decline to adopt such a requirement.  We also note that these terms have little, if any 
significance since the former Bell Operating Companies have now been granted permission to re-enter 
the InterLATA market and provide both IntraLATA and InterLATA service by grant of applications filed 
pursuant to Section 271 of the Act.71 We do, however, revise certain paragraphs in Subpart K of Part 64 
of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. 64.1100 et seq., to clarify terminology which heretofore could have 
been construed to render “intraLATA” synonymous with “intrastate” and “interLATA” synonymous with 
“interstate.”72
26. In adopting the proposal that verifiers specify that long distance service also includes 
international calls,73 we disagree with carriers who suggest that the proposal is unnecessary due to many 
consumers’ purported disinterest in international services.74  The record reflects that customers have an 
interest in how carrier changes will affect all aspects of their telecommunications services.75  Moreover, 
given the expense of international calling plans, we believe that these services merit special consideration 
  
68 See Ohio PUC Comments at 5-6; Sprint Comments at 6; NASUCA Reply at 5.  The Joint Commenters and MCI 
suggest that verifiers only should provide definitions to these terms when asked by consumers.  See Joint
Commenters Comments at 6; MCI Comments at 8.
69 See BellSouth Comments at 7; IDT Comments at 7; Qwest Comments at 3-6; SBC Comments at 3; Talk America 
Comments at 14; AT&T Reply at 7.
70 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 6-7; BellSouth Comments at 6-7; IDT Comments at 7; Qwest Comments at 5; 
Verizon Comments at 4.  
71 See, e.g., Application by Bell Atlantic New York for Authorization Under Section 271 of the Communications Act 
to Provide In-Region, InterLATA Service in the State of New York, CC Docket No. 99-295, Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 3953 (1999); Application by Qwest Communications International, Inc. for Authorization to 
Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services in the States of Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, 
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, WC Docket No. 02-314, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 26303 
(2002).
72 See infra Appendix A, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1120(b), 64.1130(e), 64.1190(c),(d) (2003) (removing the words 
“intrastate” and interstate” from each of these sections).  Though it could be accurate in some cases to treat the terms 
as synonyms, there are numerous states that have multiple LATAs within them, such that an intrastate call is 
interLATA.  Likewise, there are several LATAs that cover portions of more than one state, such that an interstate 
call is intraLATA.
73 The state utility commissions and a couple of carriers supported the proposal.  See Maine PUC Comments at 3; 
Ohio PUC Comments at 6; Sprint Comments at 6; Talk America Comments at 13.  
74 See Joint Commenters Comments at 6; MCI Comments at 7.
75 See Maine PUC Comments at 3; NASUCA Reply at 5-6.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
13
during the verification process.  The cost of international connectivity varies widely from carrier to 
carrier.  According to NASUCA, carriers often will charge exorbitant prices after executing an 
unauthorized carrier change, and international charges are among the most frequently abused.76  
Consequently, customers who erroneously believe that their international rates have not been affected by 
a carrier change can receive charges for such calls that exceed by many times the rates they expect.  In 
light of the risks of such uninformed consent, we disagree that many consumers simply are “not 
interested” in this aspect of their telecommunications services. 
27. We also disagree with Verizon’s suggestion that it should be obvious to consumers that 
long distance service includes international service.77 Furthermore, we note that some carriers have 
conducted campaigns that target minorities and consumers with modest English speaking abilities.78 We 
believe that these measures are appropriate and necessary to protect such consumers.  Finally, we reject 
the argument of some carriers that carriers are better situated than verifiers to specify that long distance 
service also encompasses international service.79 While we encourage carriers to keep their subscribers 
informed in this regard,80 we believe that assigning this role to verifiers will burden the verification 
process only minimally, if at all. We further believe that doing so will alleviate, rather than exacerbate, 
consumer confusion.
F. Other Issues
28. We decline to adopt rule changes proposed by the Joint Commenters regarding the 
preemption of state slamming regulations that differ from the Commission’s. We also reject VarTec and 
Excel’s proposal to change the Commission’s requirement that carrier sales representatives drop off the 
sales call once the connection has been established between the subscriber and the verifier.81 We do, 
however, adopt clerical changes to our rules to correct previous typographical errors, or to reflect 
changes in Commission organization.82
  
76 See NASUCA Reply at 6.  
77 See Verizon Comments at 4.  
78 See Communications Telesystems Int'l v. California Pub. Utilities Commission, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1165, 1166 (N.D.  
Cal. 1998).
79 AT&T Comments at 6; Qwest Comments at 3; SBC Comments at 3; AT&T Reply at 6.
80 See, e.g., IDT Comments at 7.  We also note that carriers’ doing so is in the spirit of our rules.  See Second Report 
and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1558, para. 82 (“requir[ing] that each service be identified and delineated clearly to the 
subscriber”).
81 See Joint Commenters Comments at 3; VarTec and Excel Comments at 2-3.  These issues were not raised in the 
Second FNPRM and are thus beyond the scope of this proceeding.  
82 See infra Appendix A, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1110(a),(b) (removing the words “Consumer Information Bureau Chief” 
and adding in their place, “Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Chief”; 64.1120(c)(3) (inserting a left 
parenthesis); 64.1150(d) (removing “§§ 64.1150 through 64.1160” and adding in their place, “§§ 64.1120 through 
64.1130”); and 64.1160(c) (changing “either;” to “either”; changing “section or;” to “section, or”; and changing 
“subscriber’s” to “subscriber”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
14
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
29. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended,83 the Commission’s Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in this Order is attached as Appendix B.  
B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
30. This Order has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA), Public Law 104-13, and has been found to contain new or modified information collection
requirements.  It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under  
§ 3507(d) of the PRA.  Implementation of these new or modified reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements will be subject to OMB approval and will go into effect upon announcement in the Federal 
Register of OMB approval.  
31. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Review Act of 2002, Public Law No. 
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4), in this present document we have assessed the effect of rule 
changes and find that there likely will be an increased administrative burden on businesses with fewer 
than 25 employees.  We have taken steps, however, to minimize the information collection burden for 
small business concerns, including those with fewer than 25 employees.  The rules permit carriers to 
decide how the date of verification will be ascertained.  In addition, though in some instances the rules 
require verifiers to inform the consumer that the carrier change can be effectuated once the verification is 
completed, they require verifiers to do so only in situations where the subscriber has additional questions 
for the carrier’s sales representative.  We also decline to prohibit verifiers from using compound 
questions during the verification process.  These measures should substantially alleviate any burdens on 
businesses with fewer than 25 employees.
C. Congressional Review Act
32. The Commission will send a copy of this 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.  
§ 801(a)(1)(A).
D. Materials in Accessible Formats
33. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0531 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).  This Order also can be downloaded in 
Word and Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
34. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 206-208 and 258 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 206-208, and 258, and 
section 1.421 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.421, this Fourth Report and Order in CC Docket 
  
83 See 5 U.S.C. § 604.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
15
No. 94-129 IS ADOPTED, and that Part 64 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 64, IS AMENDED
as set forth in Appendix A.  
35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the requirements of this Fourth Report and Order 
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 days after publication of a summary thereof in the Federal Register.  
However, amended section 64.1120 contains new or modified information collections that have not been 
approved by OMB.  These information collections will go into effect upon announcement in the Federal 
Register of OMB approval.
36. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs 
Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Fourth Report and Order in CC 
Docket No. 94-129, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H.  Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
16
APPENDIX A
Rules Amended
Title 47, Part 64 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:
PART 64 – MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
1.  The authority citation for part 64 as of January 3, 2008 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); secs. 403(b)(2)(B),(c), Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 
U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 228, and 254(k) unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 64.1110 is amended by revising the second sentence in paragraph (a) and the second 
sentence in paragraph (b), to read as follows:
§ 64.1110 State notification of election to administer FCC rules.
(a) * * * State notification of an intention to administer the Federal Communications 
Commission’s unauthorized carrier change rules and remedies, as enumerated in §§ 64.1100 
through 64.1190, shall be filed with the Commission Secretary in CC Docket No. 94-129 with a 
copy of such notification provided to the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Chief.* * *
(b) * * * State notification of an intention to discontinue administering the Federal 
Communications Commission’s unauthorized carrier change rules and remedies, as enumerated 
in §§ 64.1100 through 64.1190, shall be filed with the Commission Secretary in CC Docket No. 
94-129 with a copy of such amended notification provided to the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau Chief.* * *
3. Section 64.1120 is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraph (b), the first sentence in 
paragraph (c)(3), and the second sentence in paragraph (c)(3)(iii), to read as follows:
§ 64.1120 Verification of orders for telecommunications service.
* * * * *
(b)  Where a telecommunications carrier is selling more than one type of telecommunications 
service (e.g., local exchange, intraLATA toll, and interLATA toll), that carrier must obtain 
separate authorization from the subscriber for each service sold, although the authorizations may 
be obtained within the same solicitation.* * *
(c) * * * 
(3) An appropriately qualified independent third party has obtained, in accordance with the 
procedures set forth in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (c)(3)(iv) of this section, the subscriber’s oral 
authorization to submit the preferred carrier change order that confirms and includes appropriate 
verification data (e.g., the subscriber’s date of birth or social security number).* * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
17
(iii) * * * Any description of the carrier change transaction by a third party verifier must not be 
misleading, and all third party verification methods shall elicit, at a minimum: the date of the 
verification; the identity of the subscriber; confirmation that the person on the call is authorized 
to make the carrier change; confirmation that the person on the call wants to make the carrier 
change; confirmation that the person on the call understands that a carrier change, not an upgrade 
to existing service, bill consolidation, or any other misleading description of the transaction, is 
being authorized; the names of the carriers affected by the change (not including the name of the 
displaced carrier); the telephone numbers to be switched; and the types of service involved 
(including a brief description of a service about which the subscriber demonstrates confusion 
regarding the nature of that service). Except in Hawaii, any description of interLATA or long 
distance service shall convey that it encompasses both international and state-to-state calls, as 
well as some intrastate calls where applicable.  If the subscriber has additional questions for the 
carrier’s sales representative during the verification, the verifier shall indicate to the subscriber
that, upon completion of the verification process, the subscriber will have authorized a carrier 
change. * * * 
* * * * *
4. Section 64.1130 is amended by revising the second sentence in paragraph (e)(4), to read as follows:
§ 64.1130 Letter of agency form and content.
* * * * *
(e) * * * 
(4) * * * To the extent that a jurisdiction allows the selection of additional preferred carriers 
(e.g., local exchange, intraLATA toll, interLATA toll, or international interexchange), the letter 
of agency must contain separate statements regarding those choices, although a separate letter of 
agency for each choice is not necessary; and
* * * * *
5. Section 64.1150 is amended by revising the third sentence in paragraph (d), to read as follows:
§ 64.1150 Procedures for resolution of unauthorized changes in preferred carrier.
* * * * *
(d) * * * This proof of verification must contain clear and convincing evidence of a valid 
authorized carrier change, as that term is defined in §§ 64.1120 through 64.1130.* * *
* * * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
18
6. Section 64.1160 is amended by revising the second sentence in paragraph (c), to read as follows:
§ 64.1160 Absolution procedures where the subscriber has not paid charges.
* * * * *
(c) * * * An allegedly unauthorized carrier choosing to challenge such allegation shall 
immediately notify the complaining subscriber that: the complaining subscriber must file a 
complaint with a state commission that has opted to administer the FCC’s rules, pursuant to  
§ 64.1110, or the FCC within 30 days of either the date of removal of charges from the 
complaining subscriber’s bill in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, or the date the 
allegedly unauthorized carrier notifies the complaining subscriber of the requirements of this 
paragraph, whichever is later; and a failure to file such a complaint within this 30-day time 
period will result in the charges removed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section being 
reinstated on the subscriber’s bill and, consequently, the complaining subscriber will only be 
entitled to remedies for the alleged unauthorized change other than those provided for in  
§ 64.1140(b)(1).* * *
* * * * *
7. Section 64.1190 is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraph (c), and the second sentence 
in paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(B), to read as follows:
§ 64.1190 Preferred carrier freezes.
* * * * *
(c)  Preferred carrier freeze procedures, including any solicitation, must clearly distinguish 
among telecommunications services (e.g., local exchange, intraLATA toll, and interLATA toll) 
subject to a preferred carrier freeze.* * *
(d) * * * 
(3) * * * 
(ii) * * * 
(B) * * * To the extent that a jurisdiction allows the imposition of preferred carrier freezes on 
additional preferred carrier selections (e.g., for local exchange, intraLATA toll, and interLATA 
toll), the authorization must contain separate statements regarding the particular selections to be 
frozen;
* * * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
19
APPENDIX B
Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification
1. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 requires that a regulatory 
flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency 
certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.”2 The RFA generally 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 the 
Small Business Act.4 A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and 
operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established 
by the Small Business Administration (SBA).5
2. This Fourth Report and Order adopts clarifications and modifications to sections 
64.1110, 64.1120, 64.1130, 64.1150, 64.1160, and 64.1190 of the Commission’s rules pertaining to 
changes in preferred telecommunications service providers that do not have a significant economic 
impact on entities subject to those rules.  Our modifications to subsection 64.1110(a) and (b) clarify to 
whom state notification of the election to administer our carrier-change rules is to be sent at the 
Commission.  Our modification to subsection 64.1120(b) clarifies examples of the types of services for 
which a verifier conducting a third party verification must obtain separate authorization.  We modify 
subsection 64.1120(c)(3) to add the date of the third-party verification.  We modify subsection 
64.1120(c)(iii) to add the requirement that the verifier clarify what constitutes long distance service, and 
to add the requirement that, when a subscriber has a question for the sales representative, the verifier 
must explain that the subscriber will have authorized a carrier change at the end of the verification.  
Subsection 64.1130(e) is modified to clarify examples of the types of services switched through the use 
of a letter of agency.  We modify subsection 64.1150(d) to clarify which subsections apply concerning 
proof of verification.  Subsection 64.1160(c) is modified to correct a grammatical error.  In subsection 
64.1190(c) and subsection 64.1190(d)(3)(ii)(B) we clarify the types of services for which a subscriber 
may request a preferred carrier freeze.
3. As noted above, the modified verification requirements in this Fourth Report and Order
provide that a third-party verification must include the date of the verification, and that the verifier must 
  
1 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 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).
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 definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
5 15 U.S.C. § 632.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
20
convey to the consumer that long distance service includes international service, and, if the subscriber 
has additional questions for the carrier's sales representative, the verifier must indicate that once the 
verification is completed, the subscriber’s service will be switched.  These additions should require only 
minor modifications to third-party verifications.  Specifically, from our experience with verifications, as 
well as from the record in this proceeding, we believe that most verifications already contain the date; in 
addition, we will allow carriers to decide themselves how they would like this information to be 
ascertained.  Likewise, from our experience, as well as from the record in this proceeding, we believe 
that customers have additional questions in relatively few cases, and thus will generally not trigger the 
requirement that the verifier inform the customer that the service will still be switched if the verification 
is completed.  Other rule changes in this Fourth Report and Order are minor clarifications (such as 
grammatical corrections to the existing rules) that would not generate any additional burdens.  Thus, the 
Commission believes that the compliance burden, and resulting economic impact on entities subject 
thereto, will be de minimus.
4. Therefore, we certify for purposes of the RFA that the clarifications and modifications we 
adopt in this Fourth Report and Order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.  
5.  The Commission will send a copy of the Fourth Report and Order, including a copy of 
this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.6 This 
final certification will also be published in the Federal Register.7
  
6 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).
7 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-223
21
APPENDIX C
Comments Filed
Comments:
AT&T Corp (AT&T)
BellSouth
IDT Corporation (IDT)
Maine Public Utilities Commission (Maine PUC)
National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA)
Oklahoma Corporation Commission
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (Ohio PUC)
Qwest Communications International Inc. (Qwest)
Sage Telecom, Inc., Third Party Verification, Inc., and Z-Tel Communications, Inc. (Joint                  
Commenters)
SBC Communications Inc. (SBC)
Sprint Corporation (Sprint)
Talk America, Inc. (Talk America)
Vartec TeleCom, Inc. and Excel Telecommunications, Inc. (VarTec and Excel)
Verizon
WorldCom, Inc. (MCI)
Reply Comments:
AT&T
NASUCA
SBC
Sprint