6444 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) The anticipated participating area 

size and well locations (see § 3137.80(b) 

of this subpart); 

* * * * * 

(5) A provision that acknowledges the 

BLM consulted with and provided 

opportunities for participation in the 

creation of the unit and a provision that 

acknowledges that the BLM will consult 

with and provide opportunities for 

participation in the expansion of the 

unit by —

(A) The regional corporation, if the 

unit acreage contains the regional 

corporation’s mineral estate; or 

(B) The State of Alaska, if the unit 

acreage contains the state’s mineral 

estate. 

(6) Any optional terms which are 

authorized in § 3137.50 of this subpart 

that you choose to include in the unit 

agreement. 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Amend § 3137.23 by revising 

paragraph (d) introductory text, 

removing ‘‘and’’ from the end of the 

paragraph (f), redesignating paragraph 

(g) as paragraph (h), and adding a new 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 3137.23 What must I include in my NPR–

A unitization application? 

* * * * * 

(d) A statement certifying—

* * * * * 

(g) A discussion of the proposed 

methodology for allocating production 

among the committed tracts. If the unit 

includes non-Federal oil and gas 

mineral estate, you must explain how 

the methodology takes into account 

reservoir heterogeneity and area 

variation in reservoir producibility; and 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Amend § 3137.41 by revising the 

introductory paragraph of the section to 

read as follows: 

§ 3137.41 What continuing development 

obligations must I define in a unit 

agreement? 

A unit agreement must provide for 

submission of supplemental or 

additional plans of development which 

obligate the operator to a program of 

exploration and development (see 

§ 3137.71 of this subpart) that, after 

completion of the initial obligations —

* * * * * 

■ 17. Amend § 3137.80 by revising 

paragraph (a) and the first sentence of 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 3137.80 What are participating areas and 

how do they relate to the unit agreement? 

(a) Participating areas are those 

committed tracts or portions of those 

committed tracts within the unit area 

that are proven to be productive by a 

well meeting the productivity criteria 

specified in the unit agreement. 

(b) You must include a description of 

the anticipated participating area(s) size 

in the unit agreement for planning 

purposes to aid in the mitigation of 

reasonably foreseeable and significantly 

adverse effects on NPR–A surface 

resources. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 18. Amend § 3137.81 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 3137.81 What is the function of a 

participating area? 

(a) The function of a participating area 

is to allocate production to each 

committed tract within a participating 

area. The BLM will allocate production 

for royalty purposes to each committed 

tract within the participating area using 

the allocation methodology agreed to in 

the unit agreement (see § 3137.23(g) of 

this subpart). 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Amend § 3137.85 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 3137.85 What is the effective date of a 

participating area or modified allocation 

schedule? 

* * * * * 

(b) The effective date of a modified 

participating area or modified allocation 

schedule is the earlier of the first day of 

the month in which you file the 

proposal for a modification or such 

other effective date as may be provided 

for in the unit agreement and approved 

by the BLM, but no earlier than the 

effective date of the unit. 

■ 20. Revise § 3137.111 to read as 

follows: 

§ 3137.111 When will BLM extend the 

primary term of all leases committed to a 

unit agreement or renew all leases 

committed to a unit agreement? 

If the unit operator requests it, the 

BLM will extend the primary term of all 

NPR–A leases committed to a unit 

agreement or renew the leases 

committed to a unit agreement if any 

committed lease within the unit is 

extended or renewed under §§ 3135.1–

5 or 3135.1–6. If the BLM approves a 

lease renewal under § 3135.1–6(b), the 

BLM will require a renewal fee of $100 

per acre for each lease in the unit that 

is renewed. 

■ 21. Amend § 3137.131 by revising the 

second and third sentences of the 

section to read as follows: 

§ 3137.131 What happens if the unit 

terminated before the unit operator met the 

initial development obligations? 

* * * You, as lessee, forfeit all further 

benefits, including extensions and 

suspensions, granted any NPR–A lease 

because of having been committed to 

the unit. Any lease that the BLM 

extended because of being committed to 

the unit would expire unless it had been 

granted an extension or renewal under 

§§ 3135.1–5 or 3135.1–6. 

■ 22. Amend § 3137.134 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 3137.134 What happens to committed 

leases if the unit terminates? 

* * * * * 

(b) An NPR–A lease that has 

completed its primary term on or before 

the date the unit terminates will expire 

unless it is granted an extension or 

renewal under §§ 3135.1–5 or 3135.1–6. 

[FR Doc. E8–1647 Filed 2–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CC Docket No. 94–129; FCC 07–222] 

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; LEC Coalition 

Application for Review Regarding 

Carrier Change Rules 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission denies an Application for 

Review filed by a coalition of local 

exchange carriers (‘‘LEC Petitioners’’) 

regarding the Commission’s carrier 

change verification rules. Specifically, 

the Commission affirms that it is not 

permissible for an executing carrier to 

block a carrier change submission by a 

submitting carrier, based on the 

executing carrier’s own finding that the 

customer’s information does not match 

exactly the information in the executing 

carrier’s records. 

DATES: Effective February 4, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy Stevenson, Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6445 

418–7039 (voice), or e-mail 

Nancy.Stevenson@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 8, 

2005, an application for review was 

filed by a coalition of local exchange 

carriers against the Commission’s 

Implementation of the Subscriber 

Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 

declaratory ruling, DA 05–1618, 

published at 71 FR 2895 (January 18, 

2006). This is a summary of the 

Commission’s document FCC 07–222, 

adopted December 18, 2007, released 

January 4, 2008, denying the application 

for review. Copies of document FCC 07–

222 and any subsequently filed 

documents in this matter will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying during regular business hours 

at the FCC Reference Information 

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

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

Document FCC 07–222 and any 

subsequently filed documents in this 

matter may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor at 

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

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. 

Customers may contact the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor at 

their 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). Document FCC 

07–222 can also be downloaded in 

Word and Portable Document Format 

(PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

The document does not contain new 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, 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 

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

Synopsis 

Section 64.1120(a)(2) of the 

Commission’s rules provides that ‘‘[a]n 

executing carrier shall not verify the 

submission of a change in the 

subscriber’s selection of a 

telecommunications service received 

from a submitting carrier.’’ The 

Commission affirms that it is not 

permissible for an executing carrier to 

block a carrier change submission by a 

submitting carrier, based on the 

executing carrier’s own finding that the 

customer’s information does not match 

exactly the information in the executing 

carrier’s records. The Commission 

expressed concern that executing 

carriers could use the verification 

process as a means to delay or deny 

carrier change requests in order to 

benefit themselves or their affiliates. 

While the Commission agreed that 

allowing executing carriers to re-verify 

carrier change requests could, under 

certain circumstances, help deter 

slamming, it ultimately concluded that 

the anti-competitive effects of reverification outweighed the potential 

benefits. 

The LEC Petitioners contend that the 

Bureau mischaracterized their 

argument. Rather, according to the LEC 

Petitioners, under general principles of 

agency law, an executing carrier simply 

has a much more limited obligation to 

its subscribers not to make changes to 

subscriber accounts without prior 

indication from the subscriber that the 

submitting carrier request was so 

authorized. The LEC Petitioners liken 

their actions to that of a clerk at a liquor 

store that asks a customer for 

identification as a condition of 

purchase. 

The Commission disagrees with LEC 

Petitioners and finds there is no 

material distinction between rejecting a 

carrier change request because of a 

determination that the customer is not 

authorized, and rejecting a change 

request because the LEC has determined 

that customer information does not 

match the LEC’s records. As the Bureau 

emphasized in its declaratory ruling, 

and as commenters reiterate here, the 

Commission has already clearly defined 

the roles of the submitting and 

executing carrier in a carrier change 

request. Specifically, in the course of 

verifying the subscriber’s intention to 

change long distance service, a 

submitting carrier’s independent, thirdparty verifier is required to elicit 

confirmation that the person contacted 

is authorized to make the change (that 

is, either the party or an agent of the 

party identified on the account). As to 

executing carriers, the Commission’s 

rules simply require ‘‘prompt execution 

of changes verified by a submitting 

carrier.’’ As stated in the declaratory 

ruling, the mere fact that the name(s) 

contained in the executing carrier’s LEC 

account information may differ from 

that of the contact person listed on the 

submitting carrier’s change request does 

not necessarily indicate a lack of 

authority or agency on the part of the 

person requesting the IXC change. The 

Commission finds credible, and LEC 

Petitioners do not dispute, that 

‘‘customers often authorize a spouse, a 

roommate, or other associate to act on 

their behalf,’’ or may use a different 

name for billing purposes, and this 

information may not reside in the LEC’s 

files. The Commission does not believe 

the LEC Petitioners’ liquor store analogy 

is applicable to the actions at issue here. 

In the LEC Petitioners’ purported 

analogy, the customer is directly 

requesting a product sold by that store. 

Here, an executing carrier seeks to block 

a transaction that has already occurred 

between a customer and another carrier. 

The LEC Petitioners also argue that 

the Bureau erred when it failed to 

consider their arguments in light of 

AT&T v. FCC. In that decision, the court 

found that the Commission could not 

require submitting carriers to obtain 

actual authorization from a subscriber 

for a carrier change. Instead, the court 

found that Section 258 of the Act 

provides that carriers must comply only 

with ‘‘such verification procedures as 

the Commission shall prescribe 

(emphasis added).’’ The court added 

that requiring actual authorization was 

tantamount to holding submitting 

carriers to a strict liability standard, but 

that no such standard was contained in 

section 258 of the Act. The LEC 

Petitioners point to the court’s statement 

that the customer’s local exchange 

carrier ‘‘might be able to verify the 

subscriber’s identity by consulting its 

own customer records,’’ to support their 

proposition that they should not have to 

presume that any name submitted in 

connection with a carrier change order 

is authorized by the subscriber. The 

Commission disagrees. In AT&T v. FCC, 

the court reviewed the Commission’s 

enforcement action imposing forfeiture 

against AT&T for slamming. That 

decision concerned only the obligations 

of a submitting carrier; it did not 

address the rights or obligations of 

LECs. The specific language cited by the 

LEC Petitioners occurs in the context of 

the court’s explanation of why the 

Commission exceeded its statutory 

authority in creating an ‘‘actual 

authorization from the subscriber’’

requirement and enforcing it against 

AT&T. 

The Bureau cited several examples 

(provided by the LEC Petitioners) of 

situations in which a LEC could, under 

the Commission’s rules, legitimately 

reject a submitting carrier’s change 

request, such as when a customer is 

already subscribed to the submitting 

carrier, when a customer has a PIC 

freeze in place, or when PIC changes are 

not permitted (e.g., certain college 

dormitory rooms). The LEC Petitioners 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
6446 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 23 / Monday, February 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

argue that rejection of a carrier change 

for the reasons at issue here cannot be 

disallowed if it is in fact permissible for 

a LEC to utilize its records when 

processing a carrier change request, as 

in the examples described above. The 

Commission disagrees. The Commission 

reiterates that carriers may access 

account information in the course of 

effectuating carrier changes, and we do 

not believe that, under the limited 

circumstances described above, an 

executing carrier’s return of a carrier 

change to the submitting carrier 

constitutes re-verification in violation of 

the Commission’s rules. The 

Commission’s objection to the LEC 

actions at issue here is not related to 

their consulting account information per 

se during the course of executing a 

carrier change. Rather, it violates 

Commission rules for executing carriers 

to make an independent determination 

with respect to the ability of a person to 

authorize a carrier change based on such 

information. 

Executing carriers have means (other 

than re-verification) of protecting their 

customers that do not interfere with 

competition or undermine consumer 

choice. Executing carriers can, for 

example, alert customers to preferred 

carrier changes, such as by highlighting 

changes to customers’ accounts in 

customer billings, and can offer a 

preferred carrier freeze option to 

customers who are concerned about 

slamming. However, as the Commission 

expressed in the past, re-verification by 

executing carriers could function as a de 

facto preferred carrier freeze in 

situations where a subscriber has not 

requested such a freeze. The 

Commission emphasized that the 

imposition of a preferred carrier freeze 

must be authorized by the consumer to 

minimize any anticompetitive effects 

and to maintain flexibility for 

consumers. While preferred carrier 

freezes can provide consumers with 

extra protection from slamming, freezes 

by their very nature impose additional 

burdens on subscribers, and as such 

should only be enacted as a result of 

consumer choice. In the declaratory 

ruling, the Bureau reiterated this 

concern with respect to the LEC 

Petitioners’ actions. The LEC actions at 

issue here serve to restrict consumer 

control by eliminating the consumer’s 

ability to designate someone (such as a 

spouse) as authorized to change 

telecommunications service without 

first contacting the local carrier, thereby 

increasing the ability of the executing 

carrier to act in an anti-competitive 

manner. Endorsement of the LEC 

Petitioners’ policies would result in 

inconvenience and delays for 

customers. The Commission continues 

to believe that the actions of the LEC 

Petitioners can, and do, result in de 

facto preferred carrier freezes where the 

customer has not requested such a 

freeze. 

Finally, the Commission notes that 

IUB and NASUCA commented in 

support of the LEC Petitioners. While 

the Commission declines to grant the 

LEC Petitioners’ request to reverse the 

Bureau’s finding in the declaratory 

ruling, the Commission recognizes that 

state authorities may have verification 

requirements for matters within their 

jurisdiction that are stricter than those 

of the Commission. As the Commission 

recognized in the Third Report and 

Order, FCC 00–255, published at 66 FR 

12877 (March 1, 2001), states have 

valuable insight into the slamming 

problems experienced by consumers in 

their respective locales. Accordingly, 

the Commission declined to require that 

‘‘states * * * limit their verification 

requirements so that they are no more 

stringent than those promulgated by this 

Commission.’’ As was noted in the 

declaratory ruling, the Commission’s 

decision here concerns the question of 

permissible actions by private 

companies, not actions by a state 

regulatory agency. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Commission will not send a copy 

of document FCC 07–222 pursuant to 

the Congressional Review Act, see 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because no new 

rules were adopted in the document. 

Ordering Clauses 

Pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 1, 2, 4(i), and 258 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

and 258, and sections 1.115 and 

64.1120(a)(2) of the Commission’s rules, 

47 CFR 1.115 and 64.1120(a)(2), 

document FCC 07–222 is adopted. 

Pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 1, 2, 4(i), and 258 of the 

Communications Act, of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

and 258, and sections 1.115 and 

64.1120(a)(2) of the Commission’s rules, 

47 CFR 1.115 and 64.1120(a)(2), the LEC 

Petitioners’ Application for Review is 

denied. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–1980 Filed 2–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES