Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 62811

Application Number 21 CFR Section Trade Name 

NADA 109–471 520.1448a Cattle Block M

NADA 136–214 520.1846 Enproal Bloat Blox

Accordingly, the agency is amending 

the regulations in 21 CFR 520.1448a, 

520.1840, and 520.1846 to reflect the 

transfer of ownership.

Following these changes of 

sponsorship, Sweetlix LLC is no longer 

the sponsor of an approved application. 

In addition, Ridley U.S. Holdings, Inc., 

is not currently listed in the animal drug 

regulations as a sponsor of an approved 

application. Accordingly, § 510.600(c) is 

being amended to remove the entries for 

Sweetlix LLC and to add entries for 

Ridley U.S. Holdings, Inc.

This rule does not meet the definition 

of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because 

it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’

Therefore, it is not subject to the 

congressional review requirements in 5 

U.S.C. 801–808.

List of Subjects

21 CFR Part 510

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

21 CFR Part 520

Animal drugs.

■ Therefore, under the Federal Food, 

Drug and Cosmetic Act and under 

authority delegated to the Commissioner 

of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the 

Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR 

part 510 and 520 are amended as follows:

PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

parts 510 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 

353, 360b, 371, 379e.

■ 2. Section 510.600 is amended in the 

table in paragraph (c)(1) by removing the 

entry for ‘‘Sweetlix LLC’’ and by 

alphabetically adding an entry for 

‘‘Ridley U.S. Holdings, Inc.’’ and in the 

table in paragraph (c)(2) by removing the 

entry for ‘‘036904’’ and by adding an 

entry for ‘‘067949’’ to read as follows:

§ 510.600 Names, addresses, and drug 

labeler codes of sponsors of approved 

applications.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

Firm name and address Drug labeler 

code 

*****

Ridley U.S. Holdings, Inc., 

424 North Riverfront Dr., 

P.O. Box 8500, Mankato, 

MN 56002–8500.

067949

*****

(2) * * *

Drug labeler 

code Firm name and address 

*****

067949 Ridley U.S. Holdings, Inc., 

424 N. Riverfront Dr., 

P.O. Box 8500, Mankato, 

MN 56002–8500

*****

PART 520—ORAL DOSAGE FORM 

NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

■ 3. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 520 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.

§ 520.1448a [Amended]

■ 4. Section 520.1448a is amended in 

paragraph (a)(2) by removing ‘‘036904’’

and by adding in its place ‘‘No. 067949.’’

§ 520.1840 [Amended]

■ 5. Section 520.1840 is amended in 

paragraph (b)(3) by removing ‘‘036904’’

and by adding in its place ‘‘067949.’’

§ 520.1846 [Amended]

■ 6. Section 520.1846 is amended in 

paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘050112’’ and 

by adding in its place ‘‘067949.’’

Dated: October 20, 2004.

Steven D. Vaughn,

Director, Office of New Animal Drug 

Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine.

[FR Doc. 04–24112 Filed 10–27–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 96–115; FCC 04–206] 

Telecommunications Carriers’ Use of 

Customer Proprietary Network 

Information and Other Customer 

Information

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission addresses 

the petitions for reconsideration of the 

Subscriber List Information Order, 

which adopted rules to implement 

section 222(e) of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended 

(Communications Act or Act). The 

Commission denies requests for 

modification of certain aspects of the 

complaint procedures, notification 

requirements, and unbundling 

requirements established in the 

Subscriber List Information Order. The 

Commission eliminates the requirement 

for carriers to provide requesting 

directory publishers with notice of 

changes in subscriber list information in 

circumstances where customers choose 

to cease having their numbers listed, 

and modifies the contract disclosure 

requirement to allow carriers to 

withhold from disclosure those portions 

of their contracts that are unrelated to 

the provision of subscriber list 

information and to subject such 

disclosures to confidentiality 

agreements.

DATES: The amendments to § 64.2341 

are effective November 29, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. See 

Supplementary Information for further 

filing instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Kehoe, Senior Attorney, 

Competition Policy Division, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, at (202) 418–7122, 

or at William.Kehoe@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

Memorandum Opinion and Order on 

Reconsideration (Reconsideration 

Order) in CC Docket No. 96–114, FCC 

04–206, adopted August 25, 2004, and 

released September 13, 2004. The 

complete text of this Reconsideration 

Order is available for inspection and 

copying during normal business hours 

in the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC, 

20554. This document may also 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, telephone 202–863–2893,

62812 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

facsimile 202–863–2898, or via e-mail at 

bcpiweb.com. It is also available on the 

Commission’s Web site at http://

www.fcc.gov.

Synopsis of the Memorandum Opinion 

and Order on Reconsideration 

1. Background. Section 222(e) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended by the Telecommunications 

Act of 1996 (the Act), requires carriers 

that provide telephone exchange service 

to provide requesting directory 

publishers with subscriber list 

information, that is listed subscribers’

names, addresses, telephone numbers, 

and headings under which businesses 

are listed in the yellow pages, ‘‘on a 

timely and unbundled basis, under 

nondiscriminatory and reasonable rates, 

terms, and conditions.’’ In 1999, in the 

Subscriber List Information Order, the 

Commission adopted comprehensive 

rules implementing section 222(e), 

consistent with the congressional intent 

to prevent carriers from leveraging their 

control over subscriber list information 

to impede competition in directory 

publishing (64 FR 53944, Oct. 5, 1999). 

These rules established procedures for 

carrier provision of subscriber list 

information to directory publishers, 

established presumptively reasonable 

rates for carrier provision of subscriber 

list information to directory publishers, 

and provided processes for addressing 

subscriber list information complaints. 

ALLTEL Corporate Services, Inc. 

(ALLTEL), the Association of Directory 

Publishers (ADP), Bell Atlantic (now 

Verizon), National Telephone 

Cooperative Association (NTCA), and 

US WEST Communications, Inc., (now 

Qwest Communications International 

Inc.) filed petitions for reconsideration 

that challenged certain aspects of the 

Subscriber List Information Order.

Subsequently, NTCA withdrew its 

petition for reconsideration. 

2. Complaint Procedures. In this 

order, the Commission denies a request 

to modify current complaint procedures 

to allow a directory publisher to pay the 

presumptively reasonable rates during 

the pendency of a complaint. 

Additionally, the Commission denies a 

request that any subscriber list 

information rate complaint will be given 

accelerated docket treatment or 

otherwise resolved within 60 days of 

filing. 

3. Treatment of Unlisted Numbers.

The Commission grants a request to 

eliminate a requirement for carriers to 

provide requesting directory publishers 

with notice of changes in subscriber list 

information when customers choose to 

have unlisted numbers.

4. Availability of Written Contracts.

The requirement in the Subscriber List 

Information Order regarding contract 

disclosure is confirmed by the 

Commission as a useful tool to prevent 

discrimination. However, the 

Commission specifies that carriers may 

limit such disclosures to only those 

portions of contracts that are related to 

the carrier’s provision of subscriber list 

information. The Commission also 

determines that carriers may subject 

such disclosures to confidentiality 

agreements. 

5. Timeframe for Provision of 

Subscriber List Information. In the 

Subscriber List Information Order, the 

Commission adopted rules to help 

ensure that carriers provide subscriber 

list information on a ‘‘timely’’ basis as 

required by section 222(e). One of these 

rules gave carriers 30 days to inform 

directory publishers that they cannot 

comply with requests for subscriber list 

information. In the Reconsideration 

Order, the Commission declines to 

lower this timeframe to seven days. 

6. Safeguards. In the Subscriber List 

Information Order, the Commission 

allowed carriers to require entities 

requesting subscriber list information 

pursuant to section 222(e) to certify that 

they will use that information only for 

directory publishing purposes. The 

Commission determined that once the 

directory publisher provides this 

certification, the carrier must comply 

with the directory publisher’s request 

for subscriber list information absent a 

Commission order to the contrary. In the 

Reconsideration Order, the Commission 

affirms this requirement, stating that 

this ‘‘innocent until proven guilty’’

approach ensures that a directory 

publisher that meets the certification 

requirement will have the subscriber list 

information it needs to publish its 

directories pending resolution of any 

dispute regarding subscriber list 

information usage. The Commission 

also states that a ‘‘guilty until proven 

innocent’’ approach, even if limited to 

entities that are not established 

directory publishers, would enable 

carriers to delay entry by potential 

directory publishing competitors by 

forcing them to obtain Commission 

determinations in their favor prior to 

their receiving subscriber list 

information. 

7. Role of Carrier Publishing 

Affiliates. In the Subscriber List 

Information Order, the Commission 

determined that a carrier’s decision to 

have an affiliate or third party assign 

primary advertising classifications as 

required under a state obligation does 

not absolve the carrier of its obligation 

to provide those classifications to 

requesting directory publishers in 

accordance with section 222(e). 

Consistent with the principle behind 

this determination, the Commission 

determines that in the Reconsideration 

Order that a carrier should not be 

allowed to use an affiliate to evade its 

subscriber list information 

responsibilities under section 222(e) 

and the Commission’s implementing 

rules. 

8. Section 222(e) Unbundling. In 

implementing section 222(e)’s 

unbundling requirement, the 

Commission concluded in the 

Subscriber List Information Order that 

section 222(e) precludes a carrier from 

bundling listings that the carrier is able 

to sell separately. The Commission 

required carriers to unbundle subscriber 

list information, including updates, on 

any basis requested by a directory 

publisher that the carrier’s internal 

systems can accommodate. The 

Commission stated that, if this process 

results in the provision of listings in 

addition to those the directory publisher 

requested, the carrier may impose 

charges for, and the directory publisher 

may publish, only the requested listings. 

In the Reconsideration Order, the 

Commission declines to adopt suggested 

changes to these requirements. The 

Commission concludes that the 

unbundling requirements adopted in the 

Subscriber List Information Order

properly balance carriers’ and directory 

publishers’ competing interests. 

9. Unpublished and Unlisted 

Information. In the Reconsideration 

Order, the Commission denies a request 

that it rules that sections 201 and 202 

of the Act mandate that carriers must 

provide information regarding 

subscribers with unpublished and 

unlisted numbers to competing 

publishers if the carriers provide that 

information to their own publishing 

affiliates. The Commission determines 

that this request is beyond the scope of 

this proceeding, which it had initiated 

to consider adopting regulations to 

implement section 222 of the Act and 

did not indicate that the Commission 

might act pursuant to sections 201 or 

202. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

10. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC 

Docket No. 96–115 (Notice). The 

Commission sought written public 

comment on the proposals in the Notice, 

including comment on the IRFA. In 

addition, a Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis was incorporated in the Third 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 62813

Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96–

115 (Subscriber List Information Order). 

This present Supplemental Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (SFRFA) 

on the Memorandum Opinion and 

Order on Reconsideration 

(Reconsideration Order) conforms to the 

RFA.

Need for, and Objectives of, Adopted 

Rules 

11. The need for and objectives of the 

rules adopted in this Reconsideration 

Order are the same as those discussed 

in the FRFA on the Subscriber List 

Information Order. In general, these 

rules implement section 222(e) of the 

Communications Act, in order to further 

Congress’s goal of preventing unfair 

local exchange carrier (LEC) practices in 

relation to subscriber list information 

and of encouraging the development of 

competition in directory publishing. 

The Commission promulgated rules 

pursuant to section 222(e) of the 

Communications Act in the Subscriber 

List Information Order. We grant in part, 

and deny in part the requests for 

reconsideration or clarification of the 

Subscriber List Information Order. In 

particular, we deny a request that the 

Commission modify the complaint 

procedures adopted in the Subscriber 

List Information Order by allowing a 

publisher to pay the presumptively 

reasonable rates during the pendency of 

a complaint and by guaranteeing that 

any subscriber list information rate 

complaint will be given accelerated 

docket treatment or otherwise resolved 

within 60 days of filing. We grant a 

request that the Commission eliminate a 

requirement that carriers provide 

requesting directory publishers with 

notice of changes in subscriber list 

information in circumstances where 

customers choose to cease having their 

numbers listed. We confirm as a useful 

tool to prevent discrimination the 

Subscriber List Information Order’s

requirement regarding contract 

disclosure, but allow carriers to limit 

such disclosures to only those portions 

of contracts that are related to subscriber 

list information and subject such 

disclosures to confidentiality 

agreements. Finally, the Commission 

affirms other aspects of the Subscriber 

List Information Order that were subject 

to petitions for reconsideration. 

Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

by Public Comments in Response to the 

FRFA 

12. We received no comments directly 

in response to the FRFA in this 

proceeding. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which the Adopted 

Rules Will Apply 

13. 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, if adopted. The RFA generally 

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as 

having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’

In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’

has the same meaning as the term 

‘‘small business concern’’ under section 

3 of the Small Business Act. 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). A small 

organization is generally ‘‘any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field.’’

14. In this section, we further describe 

and estimate the number of small entity 

licensees and regulatees that may be 

affected by the rules adopted in this 

Order. The most reliable source of 

information regarding the total numbers 

of certain common carrier and related 

providers nationwide, as well as the 

number of commercial wireless entities, 

appears to be the data that the 

Commission published in its Trends in 

Telephone Service August 2003 report. 

The SBA has developed small business 

size standards for wireline and wireless 

small businesses within the three 

commercial census categories of ‘‘Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers,’’

‘‘Paging,’’ and ‘‘Cellular and Other 

Wireless Telecommunications.’’ Under 

these categories, a business is small if it 

has 1,500 or fewer employees. Below, 

using the above size standards and 

others, we discuss the total estimated 

numbers of small businesses that might 

be affected by our actions. 

15. We have included small 

incumbent local exchange carriers 

(incumbent LECs) in this present 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 telephone 

communications business, having 1,500 

or fewer employees), and ‘‘is not 

dominant in its field of operation.’’ 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. We have 

therefore included small incumbent 

LECs in this RFA analysis, although we 

emphasize that this RFA action has no 

effect on Commission analyses and 

determinations in other, non-RFA 

contexts. 

16. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, which 

consists of all such companies having 

1,500 or fewer employees. According to 

Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 

a total of 2,225 firms in this category 

that operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 2,210 firms employed 999 or fewer 

employees, and an additional 24 firms 

employed 1,000 employees or more. 

Thus, under this size standard, the great 

majority of firms can be considered 

small.

17. Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers. Neither the Commission nor 

the SBA has developed a specific 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. 

According to the FCC’s Telephone 

Trends Report data, 1,337 incumbent 

local exchange carriers reported that 

they were engaged in the provision of 

local exchange services. Of these 1,337 

carriers, an estimated 1,032 have 1,500 

or fewer employees and 305 have more 

than 1,500 employees. Consequently, 

we estimate that the majority of 

providers of local exchange service are 

small entities that may be affected by 

the rules and policies adopted herein. 

18. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers. Neither the Commission nor 

the SBA has developed a specific small 

business size standard for providers of 

competitive local exchange services or 

to competitive access providers or to 

‘‘Other Local Exchange Carriers,’’ all of 

which are discrete categories under 

which TRS data are collected. 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. 

According to the FCC’s Telephone 

Trends Report data, 609 companies 

reported that they were engaged in the 

provision of either competitive access 

provider services or competitive local 

exchange carrier services. Of these 609 

companies, an estimated 458 have 1,500 

or fewer employees and 151 have more 

than 1,500 employees. Consequently, 

the Commission estimates that the 

majority of providers of competitive 

local exchange service, competitive 

access providers, and ‘‘Other Local 

62814 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Exchange Carriers’’ are small entities 

that may be affected by the rules and 

policies adopted herein. 

19. 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. 

According to the FCC’s Telephone 

Trends Report data, 133 companies 

reported that they were engaged in the 

provision of local resale services. Of 

these 133 companies, an estimated 127 

have 1,500 or fewer employees and 6 

have more than 1,500 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of local 

resellers may be affected by the rules. 

20. 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. 

According to the FCC’s Telephone 

Trends Report data, 625 companies 

reported that they were engaged in the 

provision of toll resale services. Of these 

625 companies, an estimated 590 have 

1,500 or fewer employees and 35 have 

more than 1,500 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that a majority of toll resellers 

may be affected by the rules. 

21. 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. 

According to the FCC’s Telephone 

Trends Report data, 261 carriers 

reported that their primary 

telecommunications service activity was 

the provision of interexchange services. 

Of these 261 carriers, an estimated 223 

have 1,500 or fewer employees and 38 

have more than 1,500 employees. 

Consequently, we estimate that a 

majority of interexchange carriers may 

be affected by the rules. 

22. Operator Service Providers (OSPs).

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a specific 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. 

According to the FCC’s Telephone 

Trends Report data, 23 companies 

reported that they were engaged in the 

provision of operator services. Of these 

23 companies, an estimated 22 have 

1,500 or fewer employees and one has 

more than 1,500 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that a majority of local 

resellers may be affected by the rules. 

23. 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. According to the FCC’s 

Telephone Trends Report data, 37 

companies reported that they were 

engaged in the provision of prepaid 

calling cards. Of these 37 companies, an 

estimated 36 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and one has more than 1,500 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that a majority of 

prepaid calling providers may be 

affected by the rules. 

24. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a specific 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. According to the FCC’s 

Telephone Trends Report data, 92 

carriers reported that they were engaged 

in the provision of ‘‘Other Toll 

Services.’’ Of these 92 carriers, an 

estimated 82 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees and ten have more than 

1,500 employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that a majority of 

‘‘Other Toll Carriers’’ may be affected by 

the rules. 

25. Directory Publishers. Many 

directory publishers are members of 

either of two trade associations, 

Association of Directory Publishers 

(ADP) and Yellow Pages Integrated 

Media Association (YPIMA). ADP states 

that its membership includes more than 

135 directory publishers. Collectively, 

these companies publish over 2,200 

different directories annually. While we 

have no current information on the 

number of YPIMA’s members, YPIMA 

states that its members deliver yellow 

pages directories to virtually all 

telephone households within the United 

States. We have also no data on how 

many ADP and YPIMA members have 

gross annual revenues of $5 million or 

less. We assume, for purposes of this 

SFRFA, that all of these publishers are 

small entities that may be affected by 

this Reconsideration Order.

Collectively, ADP and YPIMA members 

publish the vast majority of the 

directories published in the United 

States. There, however, likely are 

additional directory publishers that are 

small entities. 

Description of Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

26. In this section of the 

Supplemental FRFA, we analyze the 

projected reporting, recordkeeping, and 

other compliance requirements that may 

apply to small entities as a result of this 

Reconsideration Order. We also describe 

the steps taken to minimize the 

economic impact of our decisions on 

small entities, including the significant 

alternatives considered and rejected.

27. In the Subscriber List Information 

Order, the Commission adopted 

presumptively reasonable rates of $0.04 

per listing for base file subscriber list 

information and $0.06 per listing for 

updates. In the Reconsideration Order,

we deny a request that the Commission 

modify the complaint procedures 

adopted in the Subscriber List 

Information Order by allowing a 

publisher to pay those presumptively 

reasonable rates during the pendency of 

a complaint and by guaranteeing that 

any subscriber list information rate 

complaint will be given accelerated 

docket treatment or otherwise resolved 

within 60 days of filing. We grant a 

request that the Commission eliminate a 

requirement that carriers provide 

requesting directory publishers with 

notice of changes in subscriber list 

information in circumstances where 

customers choose to cease having their 

numbers listed. We confirm as a useful 

tool to prevent discrimination the 

Subscriber List Information Order’s

requirement regarding contract 

disclosure, but allow carriers to limit 

such disclosures to only those portions 

of contracts that are related to subscriber 

list information and subject such 

disclosures to confidentiality 

agreements. We decline ADP’s request 

to change the timeframe in which 

carriers must inform directory 

publishers that they cannot comply with 

a request for subscriber list information 

to seven days. We determine that the 

safeguards adopted in the Subscriber 

List Information Order are sufficient and 

reject a request to allow a carrier to 

refrain from providing subscriber list 

information to directory publishers that 

the carrier believes will misuse it. We 

affirm that carriers may not use their 

publishing affiliates to avoid fulfilling 

their duties under section 222(e). We 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 62815

reject Bell Atlantic’s requests that we 

determine that if a carrier is unable to 

unbundle subscriber list information in 

the manner that the publisher requests, 

the publisher must pay for all the 

listings received, not just the listings 

that the publisher uses. Finally, we 

reject a request that we take action 

under sections 201 and 202 of the Act, 

because such action would be beyond 

the scope of the original Notice in this 

docket. Additionally, the collection of 

information contained herein is 

contingent upon approval by the Office 

of Management and Budget. 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

28. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its adopted 

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. 

29. In choosing among the various 

alternatives in the Reconsideration 

Order, we have sought to minimize the 

adverse economic impact on carriers 

and directory publishers, including 

those that are small entities. As was the 

case in the Subscriber List Information 

Order, moreover, we recognize that 

Congress intended section 222(e) to 

prevent carriers from deriving economic 

benefits from refusing to provide 

subscriber list information on a timely 

and unbundled basis, charging 

discriminatory or unreasonable rates for 

that information, or imposing 

discriminatory or unreasonable terms or 

conditions in connection with the 

provision of that information. In 

reconsidering our rules implementing 

that section, we have sought to further 

this congressional intent in a manner 

that minimizes regulatory burdens, 

including the burdens on small entities. 

The effort has resulted in our 

eliminating a requirement that carriers 

provide requesting directory publishers 

with notice of changes in subscriber list 

information in circumstances where 

customers choose to cease having their 

numbers listed. We also amend our 

contract disclosure rules to allow 

carriers to withhold from disclosure 

certain portions of subscriber list 

information contracts and to subject 

disclosure of such contracts to 

confidentiality agreements. These 

changes should reduce burdens on 

carriers, including those that are small 

businesses, without adversely affecting 

directory publishers. 

30. In other instances, however, we 

reject as unsupported by the record 

proposed alternatives to the rules 

adopted in the Subscriber List 

Information Order. For instance, we 

reject as beyond the scope of this 

proceeding a request that we take 

action, pursuant to sections 201 and 202 

of the Communications Act, to prohibit 

carriers from favoring their own 

directory publishing operations over 

their competitors’ operations in 

connection with information regarding 

subscribers with unpublished or 

unlisted numbers. We believe that these 

actions properly balance the interests of 

carriers and directory publishers, 

including the members of each group 

that are small businesses. 

Report to Congress

31. The Commission will send a copy 

of the Reconsideration Order, including 

this SFRFA, in a report to be sent to 

Congress pursuant to the Congressional 

Review Act. In addition, the 

Commission will send a copy of the 

Reconsideration Order, including the 

SFRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. A copy of the 

Reconsideration Order and SFRFA (or 

summaries thereof) also will be 

published in the Federal Register. See

5 U.S.C. 604(b). 

Ordering Clauses 

32. Accordingly, it is ordered,

pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201–

205, 208, 222(e), 222(f), 251, 303(r), and 

403 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 

154(j), 201–205, 208, 222(e), 222(f), 

303(r), and 403, that this Memorandum 

Opinion and Order on Reconsideration 

is adopted.

33. It is further ordered, pursuant to 

sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201–205, 208, 

222(e), 222(f), 251, 303(r), and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 

201–205, 208, 222(e), 222(f), 303(r), and 

403, that this Memorandum Opinion 

and Order on Reconsideration shall 

become effective thirty days after 

publication of the text or a summary 

thereof in the Federal Register, except 

for paragraphs 7 through 10 of this 

summary, which contain collection 

requirements that have not been 

approved by OMB. The Federal 

Communications Commission will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date. 

34. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to the authority contained in Sections 1, 

4(i), 4(j), 201–205, 208, 222(e), 222(f), 

251, 303(r), and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 

201–205, 208, 222(e), 222(f), 303(r), and 

403 that the petition for reconsideration 

of the Subscriber List Information Order

filed on November 4, 1999, by the 

Association of Directory Publishers is 

granted to the extent indicated herein 

and otherwise is denied.

35. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to the authority contained in Sections 1, 

4(i), 4(j), 201–205, 208, 222(e), 222(f), 

251, 303(r), and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 

201–205, 208, 222(e), 222(f), 303(r), and 

403 that the petition for reconsideration 

and clarification of the Subscriber List 

Information Order filed on November 4, 

1999, by ALLTEL Corporate Services, 

Inc., is granted to the extent indicated 

herein and otherwise is denied.

36. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to the authority contained in Sections 1, 

4(i), 4(j), 201–205, 208, 222(e), 222(f), 

251, 303(r), and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 

201–205, 208, 222(e), 222(f), 303(r), and 

403 that the petition for reconsideration 

of the Subscriber List Information Order

filed on November 4, 1999, by the Bell 

Atlantic is granted to the extent 

indicated herein and otherwise is 

denied.

37. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to the authority contained in Sections 1, 

4(i), 4(j), 201–205, 208, 222(e), 222(f), 

251, 303(r), and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 

201–205, 208, 222(e), 222(f), 303(r), and 

403 that the petition for reconsideration 

of the Subscriber List Information Order

filed on November 4, 1999, by U S 

WEST Communications, Inc., is granted

to the extent indicated herein and 

otherwise is denied.

38. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to the authority contained in Sections 1, 

4(i), 4(j), 201–205, 208, 222(e), 222(f), 

251, 303(r), and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 

201–205, 208, 222(e), 222(f), 303(r), and 

403 that the petition for reconsideration 

of the Subscriber List Information Order

filed on November 4, 1999, by National 

Telephone Cooperative Association has 

been withdrawn.

39. It is further ordered, that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

62816 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Memorandum Opinion and Order 

on Reconsideration, including the 

Supplemental Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration.

List of Subjects 

Subscriber List Information, Record 

Keeping, and Directory Publishers.

Federal Communications Commission. 

William F. Caton, 

Deputy Secretary.

Final Rules

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 64 is 

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 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 64.2341 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) and adding 

paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:

§ 64.2341 Record keeping.

* * * * *

(c) Except to the extent specified in 

paragraph (d), a carrier shall make the 

contracts and records described in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) available, upon 

request, to the Commission and to any 

directory publisher that requests those 

contracts and records for the purpose of 

publishing a directory. 

(d) A carrier need not disclose to a 

directory publisher pursuant to 

paragraph (c) portions of requested 

contracts that are wholly unrelated to 

the rates, terms, or conditions under 

which the carrier provides subscriber 

list information to itself, an affiliate, or 

an entity that publishes directories on 

the carrier’s behalf. 

(e) A carrier may subject its disclosure 

of subscriber list information contracts 

or records to a directory publisher 

pursuant to paragraph (c) to a 

confidentiality agreement that limits 

access to and use of the information to 

the purpose of determining the rates, 

terms, and conditions under which the 

carrier provides subscriber list 

information to itself, an affiliate, or an 

entity that publishes directories on the 

carrier’s behalf.

[FR Doc. 04–23094 Filed 10–27–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 02–278, FCC 04–223] 

Rules and Regulations Implementing 

the Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act of 1991

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective 

date. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission extends through June 30, 

2005, the effective date of the 

Commission’s determination that an 

established business relationship will 

no longer be sufficient to show that an 

individual or business has given express 

permission to receive unsolicited 

facsimile advertisements and the rule 

requiring that the sender of a facsimile 

advertisement first obtain the recipient’s 

express permission in writing.

DATES: The effective date of the rule 

amending 47 CFR part 64, 

§ 64.1200(a)(3)(i) published at 68 FR 

44144, July 25, 2003, is delayed until 

July 1, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Erica H. McMahon at 202–418–2512, 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, Federal Communications 

Commission.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order in 

CG Docket No. 02–278, FCC 04–223, 

adopted on September 15, 2004 and 

released on October 1, 2004. The full 

text of this document is available at the 

Commission’s Web site http://

www.fcc.gov on the Electronic Comment 

Filing System and for public inspection 

and copying during regular business 

hours in the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text of the decision may be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc. (BCPA), Portals II, 445 

12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. Customers may 

contact BCPI, Inc., at its Web site:

http://www.bcpiweb.com or call 1–800–

378–3160. To request materials in 

accessible formats for people with 

disabilities (braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format), send an 

e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice) or 

(202) 418–0432 (TTY). The Order can 

also be downloaded in Word and 

Portable Document Format (PDF) at 

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb. 

Synopsis 

On July 3, 2003, the Commission 

revised the unsolicited facsimile 

advertising requirements under the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 

1991 (TCPA). On August 18, 2003, the 

Commission issued an Order on 

Reconsideration (68 FR 50978, August 

25, 2003) that established an effective 

date of January 1, 2005. We now extend, 

through June 30, 2005, the effective date 

of the determination that an established 

business relationship will no longer be 

sufficient to show that an individual or 

business has given express permission 

to receive unsolicited facsimile 

advertisements, as well as the amended 

unsolicited facsimile provisions at 47 

CFR 64.1200(a)(3)(i). Section 

64.1200(a)(3)(i), as amended, requires 

the sender of a facsimile advertisement 

to first obtain from the recipient a 

signed, written statement that includes 

the facsimile number to which any 

advertisements may be sent and clearly 

indicates the recipient’s consent to 

receive such facsimile advertisements 

from the sender. In light of recent action 

by the United States House of 

Representatives to amend the TCPA and 

similar proposed legislation in the 

United States Senate, we believe the 

public interest would best be served by 

delaying the effective date of the written 

consent requirement for six months to 

allow Congress to act. Should Congress 

not act in this regard, a further 

extension will provide the Commission 

requisite time to address the petitions 

for reconsideration filed on these issues. 

For these same reasons, through June 

30, 2005, the 18-month limitation on the 

duration of the established business 

relationship based on purchases and 

transactions and the three-month 

limitation on applications and inquiries 

will not apply to the transmission of 

facsimile advertisements. 

We emphasize that our existing TCPA 

rules prohibiting the transmission of 

unsolicited advertisements to a 

telephone facsimile machine will 

remain in effect during the pendency of 

this extension. Under these rules, those 

transmitting facsimile advertisements 

must have an established business 

relationship or prior express permission 

from the facsimile recipient to comply 

with our rules. 

Ordering Clauses 

Pursuant to sections 1–4, 227, and 

303(r) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154,