33140 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal 

Service; Lifeline and Link-Up; Universal 

Service Reform—Mobility Fund, WC 

Docket Nos. 10–90, 07–135, 05–337, 03– 

109; GN Docket No. 09–51; CC Docket 

Nos. 01–92, 96–45; WT Docket No. 10– 

208, Order and Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 

17663 (2011) (USF/ICC Transformation 

Order), and the Commission and 

Wireline Competition Bureau have since 

adopted a number of orders that 

implement the USF/ICC Transformation 

Order; see also Connect America Fund 

et al., WC Docket No. 10–90 et al., Third 

Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 

5622 (2012); Connect America Fund et 

al., WC Docket No. 10–90 et al., Order, 

27 FCC Rcd 605 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 

2012); Connect America Fund et al., WC 

Docket No. 10–90 et al., Fifth Order on 

Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 14549 

(2012); Connect America Fund et al., 

WC Docket No. 10–90 et al., Order, 28 

FCC Rcd 2051 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 

2013); Connect America Fund et al., WC 

Docket No. 10–90 et al., Order, 28 FCC 

Rcd 7227 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013); 

Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 

10–90, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 

7766 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013); 

Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 

10–90, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 

7211 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013); 

Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 

10–90, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 

10488 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013); 

Connect America Fund et al., WC 

Docket No. 10–90 et al., Report and 

Order, Order and Order on 

Reconsideration and Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 3087 

(2016). The Commission has received 

OMB approval for most of the 

information collections required by 

these orders. At a later date, the 

Commission plans to submit additional 

revisions for OMB review to address 

other reforms adopted in the orders 

(e.g., 47 CFR 54.313(a)(6)). 

More recently, on August 23, 2016, 

the Commission adopted the Alaska 

Plan Order. See Connect America Fund 

et al., WC Docket Nos. 10–90, 16–271; 

WT Docket No. 10–208, Report and 

Order and Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 10139 (2016) 

(Alaska Plan Order). In that order, the 

Commission adopted a plan for 

providing Alaskan rate-of-return carriers 

and competitive eligible 

telecommunications carriers (ETCs) the 

option to obtain a fixed level of funding 

for a defined term in exchange for 

committing to deployment obligations 

that are tailored to each Alaskan 

carrier’s circumstances. ETCs receiving 

support pursuant to the Alaska Plan 

must comply with the Commission’s 

existing high-cost reporting and 

oversight mechanisms, with certain 

exceptions and modifications. 

On July 7, 2017, the Commission 

adopted the ETC Reporting Streamlining 

Order. See Connect America Fund; ETC 

Annual Reports and Certifications, WC 

Docket Nos. 10–90, 14–58, Report and 

Order, 32 FCC Rcd 5944 (2017) (ETC 

Reporting Streamlining Order). In that 

order, the Commission streamlined the 

annual reporting requirements for ETCs 

by eliminating rules duplicative of other 

reporting requirements or that are no 

longer necessary. 

Further, since the previous filing 

deadline associated with this collection, 

changing circumstances have made 

filing certain information no longer 

necessary or required under the rules. 

For instance, the final Connect America 

Phase I incremental support deployment 

deadlines were in early 2017, so there 

are no longer any reporting obligations 

associated with that support. 

Moreover, because the Connect 

America Phase II challenge process has 

ended, the Commission removed Form 

505 from this collection. The 

Commission also moved FCC Form 507, 

FCC Form 508, FCC Form 509 and the 

accompanying instructions to 

information collection 3060–0233. 

The Commission therefore revises this 

information collection, as well as Form 

481 and its accompanying instructions, 

to reflect these new or modified 

requirements. The Commission also 

implemented a number of nonsubstantive changes to the Form 481 

and accompanying instructions. Any 

increased burdens for particular 

reporting requirements are associated 

with ETCs newly subject to those 

requirements as a condition of receiving 

high-cost support. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15171 Filed 7–16–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket No. 17–169; FCC 18–78] 

Protecting Consumers From 

Unauthorized Carrier Changes and 

Related Unauthorized Charges 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission takes measures to 

strengthen our rules to protect 

consumers from slamming and 

cramming by codifying rules against 

sales call misrepresentations and 

cramming and revising rules to improve 

the effectiveness of the third-party 

verification (TPV) process. Slamming is 

an unauthorized change in a consumers’ 

telephone provider and cramming is the 

placement of an unauthorized charge on 

the consumers’ telephone bill. 

DATES: Effective August 16, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard D. Smith, Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau (717) 338– 

2797, email Richard.Smith@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, document FCC 18–78, 

adopted on June 7, 2018, and released 

on June 8, 2018, in CG Docket No. 17– 

169. The full text of document FCC 18– 

78 will be available for public 

inspection and copying via the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS), and during 

regular business hours at the FCC 

Reference Information Center, Portals II, 

445 12th Street SW, Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. 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 and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (844) 

432–2272 (videophone), or (202) 418– 

0432 (TTY). 

Congressional Review Act 

The Commission will send a copy of 

document FCC 18–78 to Congress and 

the Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

The Report and Order does not 

contain any new or modified 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any new 

or modified information collection 

burden for small business concerns with 

fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to 

the Small Business Paperwork Relief 

Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 

Synopsis 

Misrepresentations on Sales Calls 

1. The Commission’s recent 

enforcement actions reveal that 

misrepresentations on sales calls are a 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 33141 

continuing source of slamming. The 

Commission therefore codifies a rule to 

prohibit material misrepresentation, 

including material omissions, in sales 

calls to further reduce the incidence of 

slamming. A codified rule is consistent 

with the Commission’s statutory 

authority and prior enforcement actions. 

In addition, codifying this prohibition 

in our rules will provide carriers and 

consumers with more specific 

information and notice of this 

prohibited practice. In so doing, the 

Commission notes that it revised the 

Slamming and Cramming NPRM’s 

proposed rule, published at 82 FR 

37830, August 14, 2017, on sales calls 

by deleting the reference to 

‘‘deception.’’ The Commission finds that 

this term is vague and subject to an 

unclear interpretation absent a record to 

define it. 

2. Upon a finding of material 

misrepresentation in the sales call, the 

consumer’s authorization to change 

carriers will be deemed invalid even if 

the carrier has some evidence of 

consumer authorization of a switch. In 

this regard, our enforcement cases make 

clear that sales misrepresentations may 

not be cured by a facially valid TPV. 

When a consumer’s decision to switch 

carriers is predicated on false 

information provided in a sales call, that 

consumer’s authorization to switch 

carriers can no longer be considered 

binding. 

3. A codified rule is consistent with 

the Commission’s statutory authority 

and prior enforcement actions. Section 

201(b) of the Act states, in pertinent 

part, that ‘‘[a]ll charges, practices, 

classifications, and regulations for and 

in connection with [interstate or foreign] 

communication service [by wire or 

radio], shall be just and reasonable, and 

any such charge, practice, classification, 

or regulation that is unjust or 

unreasonable is declared to be 

unlawful.’’ The Commission has found 

that misrepresentations made by 

interstate common carriers constitute 

unjust and unreasonable practices under 

section 201(b) of the Act. Sales calls that 

contain misrepresentations undermine 

the effectiveness of the carrier’s 

validation procedures under Section 

258 of the Act, and thus are an unjust 

and unreasonable practice that is ‘‘in 

connection with’’ the communication 

service that is the subject of the 

verification process. 

4. Material Violations. The 

Commission bans only ‘‘material’’ 

misrepresentations on sales calls. In so 

doing, the Commission acknowledges 

that occasional minor or trivial 

inaccuracies that have no bearing on the 

consumer’s decision to switch carriers 

can occur and may not rise to a level 

warranting enforcement action, 

consistent with how the Commission 

has exercised its enforcement discretion 

in the past. The Commission declines, 

however, to require that such 

misrepresentations also be 

‘‘intentional.’’ The Commission has 

never articulated an intentionality 

standard when it has penalized carriers 

for misrepresentations on sales calls in 

the past. Rather, the Commission’s 

forfeiture policies already require that, 

when determining the appropriate 

adjustment to a base forfeiture amount 

(rather than whether the act is a 

violation), the Commission considers 

‘‘egregious conduct’’ and ‘‘intentional 

violation’’ consistent with section 503 of 

the Act. The Commission believes this 

allows sufficient flexibility to take 

‘‘intent’’ into consideration as an 

aggravating or mitigating factor when a 

violation of this rule occurs. 

5. Defining ‘‘Sales Call.’’ The 

Commission’s slamming rules are 

designed to prevent a provider from 

switching a consumer’s preferred carrier 

without the consumer’s permission. 

Section 258 of the Act makes it 

unlawful for any telecommunications 

carrier to ‘‘submit or execute a change 

in a subscriber’s selection of a provider 

of telephone exchange service or 

telephone toll service except in 

accordance with such verification 

procedures as the Commission shall 

prescribe.’’ Thus, for purposes of the 

slamming rules, the Commission 

clarifies that a ‘‘sales call’’ is any 

telephone call in which a carrier 

encourages a subscriber to submit or 

execute a change in the subscriber’s 

provider of telephone exchange service 

or telephone toll service. 

6. Recording Sales Calls. The 

Commission declines to mandate that 

sales calls be recorded. Although the 

Commission agrees with commenters 

that recordings would aid in 

determining whether a 

misrepresentation occurred, the record 

contains unrebutted evidence that any 

such mandate would necessitate 

industry-wide installation of recording 

technologies, amending existing 

protocols with vendors that make such 

calls on carriers’ behalf, recording large 

numbers of calls, and storing those 

records for some specified period when 

the vast majority of these calls do not 

result in consumer complaints. The 

principal consumer benefit of a 

recording mandate would be to aid 

enforcement, but the Commission is 

confident in light of the success of our 

prior enforcement actions that we can 

continue to enforce our rules even 

without a mandate, and nothing in the 

record persuades us otherwise. 

7. Nonetheless, the Commission 

encourages carriers and their agents to 

record sales calls. The Commission 

clarifies that a consumer’s allegation of 

a sales call misrepresentation shifts the 

burden of proof to the carrier making 

the sales call to provide persuasive 

evidence to rebut the claim. The 

Commission believes that in those 

instances in which a consumer has 

provided credible evidence of a 

misrepresentation that a carrier is 

uniquely positioned via its access to 

sales scripts, recordings, training, and 

other relevant materials relating to sales 

calls to proffer evidence to rebut those 

claims if they are without merit. In most 

instances, the consumer will not have 

access to these same materials. An 

accurate and complete sales call 

recording may be a carrier’s best such 

evidence, and the record indicates that 

at least some carriers already record 

calls for training and monitoring 

purposes. Those carriers that do not 

and/or choose not to record sales calls 

will have to develop other means to 

rebut credible consumer allegations of 

misrepresentations on sales calls. 

Unauthorized Charges on Telephone 

Bills 

8. The Commission codifies a 

prohibition on the placement of 

unauthorized charges on telephone 

bills. Although cramming has been a 

long-standing issue addressed in various 

enforcement actions, and the 

Commission has adopted truth-inbilling rules to help detect it, the 

Commission has never codified a rule 

against cramming. The Commission 

thus codifies in a new § 64.2401(g) of 

the Commission’s truth-in-billing rules 

the prohibition against cramming that it 

has long enforced under section 201(b) 

of the Act. The Commission believes 

codifying the cramming prohibition for 

wireline and wireless carriers will act as 

a deterrent to this conduct. In so doing, 

the Commission agrees with 

commenters that codifying a ban against 

cramming provides greater clarity to 

interested parties and will aid its 

enforcement efforts. In addition, 

codifying this prohibition into its rules 

will provide consumers with more 

specific information and notice of this 

prohibited practice. 

9. The Commission agrees with those 

commenters who contend that wireless 

consumers should be afforded the same 

consumer protections as wireline 

consumers when such unauthorized 

charges appear on their telephone bills. 

This approach is also consistent with 

the Commission’s prior enforcement 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
33142 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

investigations conducted under section 

201(b) holding wireless providers 

accountable for alleged unauthorized 

charges that appeared on wireless bills. 

Third-Party Verification 

10. Authorizing Individual Services. 

The Commission eliminates the 

requirement in § 64.1120(b) of its rules 

that carriers must obtain the 

authorization for each individual 

service sold when the carrier is selling 

more than one telecommunications 

service to a subscriber. The Commission 

agrees with those commenters who 

suggest there is minimal benefit to 

asking consumers if they want to 

separately switch individual services 

based on regulatory classifications that 

may be outdated and unfamiliar to 

them. 

11. TPV Abuses. The Commission 

remains concerned that the TPV process 

has been misused in some instances to 

fraudulently verify consumer 

authorization to switch providers. Its 

prior enforcement actions confirm 

instances of abuse of the TPV process. 

Although the current record does not 

contain a sufficient basis to eliminate 

this widely-used verification 

mechanism, the Commission believes 

that these documented abuses warrant 

additional oversight. As a result, the 

Commission concludes that any carrier 

that becomes the subject of a 

Commission forfeiture order through 

abuse of that process will be suspended 

for a period of five years from using the 

TPV process to confirm consumer 

switches. That will necessitate that 

these carriers use other recognized 

sources of evidence under our rules, 

such as a letter of agency, to confirm a 

consumer switch during the pendency 

of that suspension. The Commission 

notes that this suspension process will 

be applied only going forward from the 

effective date of the rules adopted in 

document FC 18–78. Thus, carriers and 

verifiers will be afforded an opportunity 

to take proactive measures to correct 

any deficiencies that have resulted in 

prior enforcement actions. In addition to 

strengthening its requirements in this 

action, the Commission reminds carriers 

that it takes violations of its rules 

seriously and the Commission will 

continue to use its enforcement 

authority to stop bad actors, including 

through substantial monetary penalties 

and revocation of Commission operating 

authorization. 

Other Measures 

12. In light of the enhanced consumer 

protections afforded by the rules 

adopted in document FCC 18–78, the 

apparent diminishing nature of the 

slamming and cramming problem as 

evidenced by recent complaint data, and 

the potential costs of compliance with 

additional requirements, the 

Commission declines to mandate any 

other changes to its rules. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

13. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA) an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the 

Slamming and Cramming NPRM. The 

Commission sought written public 

comment on the proposals in the 

Slamming and Cramming NPRM, 

including comments on the IFRA. This 

present Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. 

Need For, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

14. This document FCC 18–78 adopts 

rules to strengthen consumer 

protections from slamming and 

cramming. Slamming is the 

unauthorized change of a consumer’s 

preferred interexchange 

telecommunications service provider, 

and cramming is the placement of 

unauthorized charges on a consumer’s 

telephone bill. Despite existing 

slamming and truth-in-billing rules, 

recent enforcement actions indicate that 

the most vulnerable consumers, 

including the elderly and non-English 

speakers, remain at significant risk of 

being the victims of these fraudulent 

practices because unscrupulous carriers 

often make it difficult to detect such 

conduct. Specifically, the Commission 

adopts rules designed to provide greater 

clarity of these existing prohibitions and 

assist in our enforcement actions where 

such conduct occurs. 

15. Section 258 of the Act makes it 

unlawful for any telecommunication 

carrier to ‘‘submit or execute a change 

in accordance with such verification 

procedures as the Commission shall 

prescribe.’’ The rules adopted in 

document FCC 18–78 will strengthen 

the Commission’s ability to deter 

slamming by addressing misleading 

statements made in sales calls which the 

record confirms are a substantial factor 

in slamming. For example, when a 

consumer’s decision to switch carriers is 

made based on false information 

provided in a sales call, that consumer’s 

authorization to switch carrier will no 

longer be considered binding. In 

addition, the Commission streamlines 

the carrier change process by 

eliminating the requirement that the 

consumer’s authorization be obtained 

for every service to be switched when 

selling more than one 

telecommunications service. This will 

improve the efficiency for both carriers 

and consumers when making carrier 

change requests by eliminating 

unnecessary regulatory impediments. 

Finally, any telecommunications carrier 

that is the subject of a Commission 

forfeiture action will be suspended for 

a period of five years from using that 

process to confirm a consumer switch. 

This will ensure that greater care is 

taken by both carriers and verifiers to 

avoid TPV abuses. 

16. The Commission has found on 

numerous instances that cramming is an 

‘‘unjust and unreasonable’’ practice in 

violation of section 201(b) of the Act but 

has never codified a prohibition against 

cramming in our rules. Doing so in 

document FCC 18–78 provides greater 

clarity of this long-recognized 

prohibition to interested parties and 

will assist in our enforcement efforts of 

this prohibited practice. 

Summary of Significant Issues Raised by 

Public Comments in Response to the 

IRFA 

17. One comment was filed that 

specifically addressed the proposed 

rules and policies presented in the 

IRFA. Although supporting the adoption 

of the two proposed rules contained in 

the Slamming and Cramming NPRM, 

NTCA argues that the IRFA was 

deficient because the other measures 

discussed therein were vague and 

lacked specificity. 

Response to Comments by Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of Small Business 

Administration 

18. Pursuant to the Small Business 

Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the 

RFA, the Commission is required to 

respond to any comments filed by the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration, and to provide 

a detailed statement of any change made 

to the proposed rules as a result of those 

comments. 

19. The Chief Counsel did not file any 

comments in response to the proposed 

rules in this proceeding. 

Small Entities Impacted 

20. The rules adopted in document 

FCC 18–78 will affect obligations of 

Wireline and Wireless 

telecommunications carriers. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

21. In document FCC 18–78, the 

Commission adopt rules to enhance the 

existing consumer protections from 

slamming and cramming. Specifically, 

the Commission adopts rules to codify 

a ban on: (i) Material misrepresentations 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 33143 

on sales calls for voice services; and (ii) 

unauthorized charges on telephone 

bills. Although the Commission has 

previously held that these practices are 

unjust and unreasonable practices under 

section 201(b) of the Act, its rules have 

not expressly prohibited them. Because 

these prohibitions have been long 

recognized pursuant to our enforcement 

actions, however, they should not 

necessitate any new burdens for those 

carriers are that in compliance. In 

addition, the Commission takes steps to 

improve the effectiveness of the existing 

carrier change process by eliminating 

the requirement that carriers obtain the 

authorization to switch each individual 

service when selling more than one 

service and by suspending any carrier 

for a five-year period from using the 

TPV process when it becomes the 

subject of a Commission forfeiture 

action. 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

22. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business alternatives that it has 

considered in developing its approach, 

which may include the following four 

alternatives (among others): ‘‘(1) the 

establishment of differing compliance or 

reporting requirements or timetables 

that take into account the resources 

available to small entities; (2) the 

clarification, consolidation, or 

simplification of compliance or 

reporting requirements under the rule 

for small entities; (3) the use of 

performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities.’’ 

23. The rules adopted in document 

FCC 18–78 codify long-recognized 

consumer protections from slamming 

and cramming. In prior enforcement 

actions, the Commission has previously 

held that these practices are unjust and 

unreasonable practices under section 

201(b) of the Act. As a result, the 

economic impact on affected carriers 

should be minimal because they impose 

no new requirements. In declining to 

adopt other measures discussed in the 

Slamming and Cramming NPRM, the 

Commission has taken into 

consideration the potential burdens on 

carriers, including smaller carriers, in 

determining that such actions are not 

justified at this time. In these instances, 

the Commission has taken into 

consideration the concerns of industry 

commenters that the potential costs and 

delays that may result from these 

measures outweigh the potential 

benefits to consumers. 

Ordering Clauses 

Pursuant to sections 1–4, 201(b), and 

258 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 201, 

258, document FCC 18–78 is adopted, 

and part 64 of the Commission’s rules, 

47 CFR 64.1120 and 64.2401 are 

amended. 

The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

document FCC 18–78 to Congress and 

the Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act. 

The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

document FCC 18–78, including the 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 

Communications common carriers, 

Telecommunications. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as 

follows: 

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 64 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 218, 

222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 251(e), 254(k), 

403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 1401–1473, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 64.1120 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 64.1120 Verification of orders for 

telecommunications services. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Authorization from the subscriber, 

subject to the following: 

(A) Material misrepresentation on the 

sales call is prohibited. Upon a 

consumer’s credible allegation of a sales 

call misrepresentation, the burden of 

proof shifts to the carrier making the 

sales call to provide persuasive 

evidence to rebut the claim. Upon a 

finding that such a material 

misrepresentation has occurred on a 

sales call, the subscriber’s authorization 

to switch carriers will be deemed 

invalid. 

(B) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(b) Any telecommunications carrier 

that becomes the subject of a 

Commission forfeiture action through a 

violation of the third-party verification 

process set forth in paragraph (c)(3) of 

this section will be suspended for a fiveyear period from utilizing the thirdparty verification process to confirm a 

carrier change. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 64.2401 by adding 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 64.2401 Truth-in-Billing Requirements. 

* * * * * 

(g) Prohibition against unauthorized 

charges. Carriers shall not place or 

cause to be placed on any telephone bill 

charges that have not been authorized 

by the subscriber. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14151 Filed 7–16–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[WC Docket No. 17–141; CC Docket No. 

96–128; WC Docket No. 16–132; FCC 18– 

21] 

Modernization of Payphone 

Compensation Rules; Implementation 

of the Pay Telephone Reclassification 

and Compensation Provisions of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996; 2016 

Biennial Review of 

Telecommunications Regulations 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission announces that the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved, for a period of three years, the 

information collection associated with 

the Commission’s payphone 

compensation rules. This document is 

consistent with the Modernization of 

Payphone Compensation Rules Report 

and Order, FCC 18–21, which stated 

that the Commission would publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing the effective date of those 

rules. 

DATES: The amendment to 47 CFR 

64.1310(a)(3) published at 83 FR 11422, 

March 15, 2018, is effective on July 17, 

2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Levy Berlove, Attorney 

Advisor, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

at (202) 418–1477, or by email at 

Michele.Berlove@fcc.gov. For additional 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES