Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73227 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This action does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require 

any special considerations under 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under FFDCA section 408(d), such as 

the exemption in this final rule, do not 

require the issuance of a proposed rule, 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.), do not apply. 

This action directly regulates growers, 

food processors, food handlers, and food 

retailers, not States or tribes, nor does 

this action alter the relationships or 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established by Congress 

in the preemption provisions of FFDCA 

section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency 

has determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on States 

or tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply 

to this action. In addition, this action 

does not impose any enforceable duty or 

contain any unfunded mandate as 

described under Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 

1501 et seq.). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VIII. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: November 26, 2014. 

Susan Lewis, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. In § 180.920, add alphabetically the 

inert ingredient in the table to read as 

follows: 

§ 180.920 Inert ingredients used preharvest; exemptions from the requirement 

of a tolerance. 

* * * * * 

Inert ingredients Limits Uses 

*******

C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 (CAS Reg. No. 

2512–29–0).

Not to exceed 10% (weight/weight) in pesticide formulation .......................................... Colorant. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–28936 Filed 12–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[WC Docket No. 13–39; FCC 14–175] 

Rural Call Completion 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document affirms the 

Commission’s commitment to ensuring 

that high quality telephone service must 

be available to all Americans. In the 

underlying Order, the Commission 

established rules to combat extensive 

problems with successfully completing 

calls to rural areas, and created a 

framework to improve the ability to 

monitor call problems and take 

appropriate enforcement action. In the 

Order on Reconsideration, the 

Commission denies several petitions for 

reconsideration that, if granted, would 

impair the Commission’s ability to 

monitor, and take enforcement action 

against, call completion problems. The 

Commission does, however, grant one 

petition for reconsideration because the 

Commission finds that modifying its 

original determination will significantly 

lower providers’ compliance costs and 

burdens without impairing the 

Commission’s ability to obtain reliable 

and extensive information about rural 

call completion problems. 

DATES: Effective January 9, 2015, except 

for amendments to §§ 64.2101, 64.2103, 

and 64.2105, which contain new or 

modified information collection 

requirements that will not be effective 

until approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget. The Federal 

Communications Commission will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Claude Aiken, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, Competition Policy Division, 

(202) 418–1580, or send an email to 

claude.aiken@fcc.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order on 

Reconsideration in WC Docket No. 13– 

39, adopted and released November 13, 

2014. The full text of this document is 

available for public inspection during 

regular business hours in the FCC 

Reference Information Center, Portals II, 

445 12th Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The document 

may also be purchased from the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
73228 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 

378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile 

(202) 863–2898, or via the Internet at 

http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is available 

on the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.fcc.gov. 

Summary 

1. In the Order on Reconsideration, 

October 28, 2013, the Commission 

adopted the Rural Call Completion 

Order, WC Docket No. 13–39, Report 

and Order and Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 

16154 (2013), Rural Call Completion 

Order or (Order). That Order established 

rules to combat extensive problems with 

successfully completing calls to rural 

areas, and created a framework to 

improve the ability to monitor call 

problems and take appropriate 

enforcement action. The Rural Call 

Completion Order reflected the 

Commission’s commitment to ensuring 

that high quality telephone service must 

be available to all Americans. In this 

Order on Reconsideration, we affirm 

that commitment. We deny several 

petitions for reconsideration that, if 

granted, would impair the 

Commission’s ability to monitor, and 

take enforcement action against, call 

completion problems. We do, however, 

grant one petition for reconsideration 

because we find that modifying our 

original determination will significantly 

lower providers’ compliance costs and 

burdens without impairing the 

Commission’s ability to obtain reliable 

and extensive information about rural 

call completion problems. 

2. Specifically, we grant the petition 

filed by USTelecom and ITTA. In doing 

so, we modify rules adopted in the 

Order so that the recordkeeping, 

retention, and reporting requirements 

adopted in the Order do not apply to a 

limited subset of calls: intraLATA toll 

calls that are carried entirely over the 

covered provider’s network, and 

intraLATA toll calls that are handed off 

by the covered provider directly to the 

terminating local exchange carrier (LEC) 

or to the tandem that the terminating 

LEC’s end office subtends. The decision 

to grant reconsideration reflects a 

focused analysis of the costs of applying 

the rules to this limited set of traffic, the 

fact that this traffic represents a small 

portion of total toll traffic, and the 

modest incremental benefit that such 

data would likely yield. 

3. We deny the petitions for 

reconsideration filed by Carolina West 

and COMPTEL, deny and dismiss the 

petition for reconsideration filed by 

Sprint Corporation, as described below, 

and dismiss the petition for 

reconsideration filed by Transcom 

Enhanced Services, Inc. 

I. Background 

4. In a February 2013 Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the 

Commission sought comment on how to 

address rural call completion issues and 

sought comment on proposed rules. In 

October 2013, the Commission adopted 

recordkeeping, retention, reporting, and 

ring signaling rules designed to help the 

Commission and communications 

providers ensure that long-distance calls 

to rural Americans are completed. 

5. The recording, retention, and 

reporting rules we adopted in the Rural 

Call Completion Order apply to 

providers of long-distance voice service 

that make the initial long-distance call 

path choice for more than 100,000 

domestic retail subscriber lines, 

counting the total of all business and 

residential fixed subscriber lines and 

mobile phones and aggregated over all 

of the providers’ affiliates. These 

‘‘covered providers’’ must record and 

retain specific information about each 

call attempt to a rural operating 

company number (OCN) from subscriber 

lines for which the providers make the 

initial long-distance call path choice. 

This information must be stored in a 

readily retrievable form and must 

include the six most recent complete 

calendar months. Covered providers 

must submit to the Commission, on a 

quarterly schedule, a certified report 

containing information on long-distance 

call attempts from subscriber lines for 

which the covered providers make the 

initial call path choice. The reports 

must separate out call attempts by 

month. The Commission adopted a safe 

harbor to reduce certain qualifying 

providers’ reporting obligations and 

reduce their data retention obligations 

from six months to three months. 

Further, the Commission adopted a 

process enabling covered providers that 

have taken additional steps, beyond the 

safe harbor requirements, to ensure that 

calls to rural areas are being completed 

to receive a waiver of the data reporting 

and retention obligations. The 

Commission also adopted a rule 

prohibiting false audible ringing that 

applies to all originating long-distance 

voice service providers and 

intermediate providers. This ring 

signaling rule prohibits providers from 

causing audible ringing to be sent to the 

caller before the terminating provider 

has signaled that the called party is 

being alerted to the existence of an 

inbound call. 

6. The Commission received five 

petitions for reconsideration of portions 

of the Rural Call Completion Order. 

Various parties filed comments in 

support of or in opposition to the 

petitions. 

II. Discussion 

A. USTelecom/ITTA Petition: 

IntraLATA Toll Calls 

7. The requirements described above 

apply to ‘‘intraLATA toll traffic and 

interLATA traffic carried on [the 

covered provider’s] own network and 

handed off directly by the originating 

provider to the terminating LEC.’’ The 

Commission initially declined to 

exclude this traffic, ‘‘[e]ven if [such 

traffic] would incur fewer call 

completion issues,’’ because data on this 

traffic would ‘‘provide[] an important 

benchmark for issue-free performance,’’ 

especially ‘‘where a provider may be 

using both on-net and off-net routes to 

deliver calls to the same terminating 

provider. 

8. In their petition for reconsideration, 

USTelecom and ITTA (USTelecom/

ITTA or Petitioners) request that the 

Commission reconsider the decision to 

require recordkeeping, retention, and 

reporting of ‘‘on-network’’ intraLATA 

interexchange/toll calls. Specifically, 

Petitioners seek reconsideration of 

application of the recordkeeping, 

retention, and reporting rules adopted 

in the Order for ‘‘intraLATA 

interexchange/toll calls that are either 

carried entirely over the originating 

LEC’s network (that is, originated and 

terminated by the same carrier) or 

handed off by the originating LEC 

directly to the terminating LEC.’’ 

9. We remain committed to both the 

goals of the Rural Call Completion 

Order, and the rules the Commission 

adopted therein to identify and address 

rural call completion and call quality 

problems. Excluding on-net intraLATA 

toll traffic from the recordkeeping, 

retention, and reporting requirements 

will reduce the burden of compliance 

without undermining these goals. Based 

on new information that was not 

available to the Commission when the 

Rural Call Completion Order was 

adopted, we conclude that the burdens 

associated with applying our rules to 

on-net intraLATA toll calls exceed the 

marginal benefit of obtaining this 

limited incremental information. 

Accordingly, we grant USTelecom/

ITTA’s petition for reconsideration. 

10. Excluding on-net intraLATA toll 

traffic from the scope of these rules will 

not undermine the goals of the Rural 

Call Completion Order and will not 

impair the Commission’s ability to 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73229 

monitor and address problems 

associated with completing calls to rural 

areas. First, the Commission will 

continue to have access to information 

about on-net interLATA toll traffic, as 

well as all off-net traffic, and this traffic 

comprises the significant majority of all 

calls. Petitioners assert that the volume 

of on-network intraLATA toll traffic is 

relatively small—less than three percent 

of the total traffic on the network of one 

of USTelecom’s largest members. 

CenturyLink estimates that less than one 

percent of its traffic is on-net intraLATA 

toll traffic. Although the data samples 

available to establish on-net delivery 

benchmarks will be slightly reduced by 

removing the intraLATA toll 

component, we are persuaded both by 

new evidence from Petitioners and 

supporting commenters and by the 

nature of these on-net intraLATA toll 

calls that on-net delivery benchmarks 

will not significantly change. Covered 

providers remain obligated to follow our 

recordkeeping, retention, and reporting 

rules for all interLATA and off-net 

intraLATA toll traffic. Second, the 

Commission will still be able to use onnet interLATA traffic as a benchmark for 

assessing off-net traffic performance, 

which was the stated reason for 

requiring providers to record, retain and 

report on-net traffic data. Because the 

vast majority of on-net long distance 

traffic is interLATA traffic, the 

Commission will continue to have an 

effective benchmark by which to 

compare off-net long distance call 

failure rates for a particular carrier. 

11. The cost of including on-net 

intraLATA toll traffic in the recording 

and reporting requirements exceeds the 

limited incremental benefit from 

collecting this data. After analyzing the 

requirements of the Rural Call 

Completion Order, USTelecom/ITTA 

and Verizon provided new information 

regarding the compliance costs of 

applying the recordkeeping, retention, 

and reporting obligations to on-net 

intraLATA toll traffic and the 

compliance cost reductions associated 

with excluding on-net intraLATA toll 

traffic from these requirements. 

Petitioners explain that their members 

currently lack the ability to capture call 

attempt information for this traffic 

because their members generally only 

collect data for billable calls and 

consequently had no reason to record 

this information. While this category of 

traffic reportedly represents a relatively 

small percentage of Petitioner’s traffic, 

Petitioners estimate that, industry-wide, 

implementing such capability into 

legacy networks to comply with 

recordkeeping, retention, and reporting 

requirements for this traffic would take 

‘‘at least 18 to 24 months and cost in 

excess of $100 million.’’ In comments 

supporting the USTelecom/ITTA 

Petition, Verizon states that it would 

cost in excess of $20 million and take 

two years to collect and report data for 

intraLATA interexchange/toll traffic. As 

explained above, the Commission can 

establish an on-net benchmark against 

which to compare off-net performance 

without on-net intraLATA toll traffic 

data. Therefore, we find that at this time 

the compliance costs for reporting 

information on this small category of 

calls are not justified. We are committed 

to balancing the costs and benefits of 

regulatory obligations in the public 

interest. 

12. The Commission considered and 

denied a broader request to exclude 

both intraLATA and interLATA on-net 

information in the Rural Call 

Completion Order; USTelecom/ITTA’s 

reconsideration request is much 

narrower and does not seek exclusion of 

on-net interLATA call data. Moreover, 

when it made that decision, the 

Commission did not have the benefit of 

data regarding the costs and benefits 

specifically associated with retaining 

and reporting on on-net intraLATA toll 

traffic. As a result, the new evidence 

regarding both: (1) The compliance cost 

reductions associated with excluding 

on-net intraLATA toll traffic from our 

rules; and (2) the fact that on-net 

intraLATA toll traffic is only a small 

fraction of on-network traffic, are 

relevant to our decision to reconsider 

and we find that consideration of this 

data is in the public interest. 

13. Petitioners also assert that on-net 

intraLATA toll traffic is unlikely to be 

a source of call completion problems. 

Petitioners report that the on-network 

intraLATA toll traffic for which they 

seek relief in their petition does not 

involve the use of intermediate 

providers and that, rather than having 

multiple carriers in the call completion 

path, these calls are typically carried by 

a single provider on its own network or 

are handed off directly to the 

terminating LEC. We need not and do 

not decide whether on-net traffic might 

ever present concerns about call quality 

or completion. Our decision to exclude 

on-network intraLATA toll traffic from 

our recordkeeping, retention, and 

reporting requirements reflects an 

overall balancing of the costs and 

benefits, including consideration of the 

small portion of traffic that is on-net 

intraLATA toll traffic. Moreover, our 

rules remain in effect for the remainder 

of covered provider traffic, which 

includes on-net interLATA toll traffic, 

as well as off-net intraLATA toll traffic 

and off-net interLATA traffic. 

14. We implement the exclusion 

discussed above by amending the 

recordkeeping, retention, and reporting 

rules adopted in the Order to exclude 

their applicability to intraLATA toll 

calls carried entirely over the covered 

provider’s network or handed off by the 

covered provider directly to the 

terminating LEC or directly to the 

tandem switch serving the terminating 

LEC’s end office. We also amend the 

definition of ‘‘long-distance voice 

service’’ in section 64.2101 of our rules 

to include intraLATA toll voice 

services. We make this amendment to 

harmonize the rule language with the 

Commission’s intent expressed in the 

Order, where it defined ‘‘long-distance 

voice service provider’’ for purposes of 

the Order as any person engaged in the 

provision of specific voice services, 

including intraLATA toll voice services. 

15. Some entities argue that the 

Commission should not make these 

changes to its new call completion rules 

until it collects and analyzes a year’s 

worth of call data or opens an inquiry 

into the matter. As explained above, the 

industry-wide costs of compliance are 

substantial, and exceed the potential 

value of the incremental data we would 

collect. A large portion of the costs 

associated with complying with the 

recordkeeping, retention and reporting 

would occur at the outset, because 

providers would have to develop and 

implement systems to collect this 

information. Having concluded that the 

potential value of the data is 

outweighed by the significant burden of 

compliance, we cannot conclude that 

such costs are justified on a one-time or 

short-term basis. While we decline to 

impose the burden of collecting and 

reporting data on such traffic on a 

temporary basis, we can revisit this 

decision if evidence later suggests that 

on-net intraLATA calls to rural areas are 

not being completed properly. For 

example, we will continue to monitor 

information and complaints submitted 

about call completion problems and will 

be attentive to the jurisdictional nature 

about such complaints. 

16. All parties generally agree that any 

relief granted should be limited to calls 

carried on-network or handed off 

directly from the originating carrier to 

the terminating carrier. USTelecom/

ITTA and Verizon assert that the relief 

should encompass calls delivered 

directly to the terminating tandem, as 

well as to the terminating carrier. 

USTelecom/ITTA and Verizon state that 

many rural LECs can only be reached 

through these tandems, and that covered 

providers have no involvement in the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
73230 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

selection or performance of these 

tandems. USTelecom/ITTA note that 

these tandems exist largely due to the 

legacy structure of the networks and are 

the equivalent of a direct network 

connection. They note that the 

Commission declined to count the 

tandem as an additional intermediate 

provider for purposes of safe harbor 

eligibility. The Rural Associations did 

not specifically address whether any 

relief granted on reconsideration should 

include calls delivered directly to the 

terminating tandem. We find 

Petitioner’s arguments compelling and 

grant the request for relief from the 

recordkeeping, retention, and reporting 

requirements for intraLATA toll calls 

that are delivered by the covered 

provider directly to the tandem that the 

terminating LEC’s end office subtends. 

17. The Rural Associations also assert 

that any relief should be limited to 

‘‘only the intraLATA traffic that is 

originated by the LEC’s retail 

customers.’’ The Rural Associations did 

not, however, provide any reasons for 

limiting relief to retail traffic. Verizon 

opposes such limitation, arguing that it 

‘‘has wholesale arrangements through 

which it provides intraLATA 

interexchange/toll service in the same 

manner as it carries traffic for its [retail] 

customers’’ and that the same 

implementation obstacles exist for this 

traffic. In the absence of specific or 

substantiated arguments to support 

limiting relief to calls originated by 

retail customers, we decline to do so. 

B. COMPTEL Petition: Smaller Covered 

Provider Exception 

18. COMPTEL seeks reconsideration 

of the smaller covered provider 

exception. As noted above, in the Order, 

the Commission concluded that it 

should require only providers of longdistance voice service that make the 

initial long-distance call path choice for 

more than 100,000 domestic retail 

subscriber lines to comply with the 

recording, retention, and reporting 

rules. COMPTEL argues, on various 

grounds, that the Commission should 

reconsider this conclusion, so that more 

providers qualify for the smaller 

provider exception. For the reasons set 

forth below, we deny COMPTEL’s 

Petition. 

1. Administrative Procedure Act 

19. COMPTEL asserts that the 

Commission violated the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) because the 

Commission (1) did not provide an 

explanation for the change in the 

smaller covered provider exception 

from the proposal in the NPRM that 

referred to ‘‘subscribers’’ to the rule 

ultimately adopted that instead refers to 

‘‘subscriber lines,’’ and (2) did not give 

adequate notice and opportunity to 

comment on the definition of smaller 

provider adopted in the Rural Call 

Completion Order. We find these 

arguments to be without merit. 

20. Reasoned Explanation. The rule 

that the Commission adopted to except 

smaller providers from recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements was 

reasonable, and the Commission’s 

decision to base the exception on the 

number of a provider’s subscriber lines 

for which the provider makes the initial 

long-distance call path choice, rather 

than the number of its subscribers, was 

also reasonable. The purpose of the 

exception, as COMPTEL recognized in 

its petition for reconsideration, was to 

exempt smaller providers from the 

record-keeping and reporting 

requirements. In the notice, the 

Commission asked commenters about 

ways to minimize burdens on smaller 

providers, ‘‘without compromising the 

goals of [the] rules.’’ The rule that the 

Commission selected was a reasonable 

means of achieving this balance. 

Although COMPTEL objects to the 

decision to adopt an exception based on 

the number of subscriber lines, it does 

not assert that the adoption of such an 

exception will compromise the 

Commission’s goals when implementing 

these rules. 

21. Excepting providers on the basis 

of subscriber lines, rather than 

subscribers, is reasonably designed to 

minimize burdens on smaller providers 

without compromising the effectiveness 

of the rules. The number of lines better 

reflects a provider’s size and share of 

traffic than does the number of 

subscribers. For example, a provider 

that serves a modest number of very 

large business customers (each with 

hundreds of subscriber lines) may 

handle a substantial portion of traffic to 

rural areas. Thus, excepting providers 

on the basis of subscribership would not 

have been as well suited, relative to an 

exclusion based on subscriber lines, to 

ensure that only smaller covered 

providers are subject to the exception. 

In addition, the Commission noted that 

the 100,000 subscriber-line threshold 

should capture as much as 95 percent of 

all callers. Thus, the exception will not 

compromise the effectiveness of the 

rules. 

22. Additionally, the use of 

‘‘subscriber lines’’ is easier to 

administer than a subscriber-based 

exception would be. The Commission 

collects data, via FCC Form 477, on 

subscriber lines. The Commission does 

not routinely collect data that provides 

an equally reliable count of 

‘‘subscribers.’’ By defining the smaller 

covered provider exception in terms 

consistent with the Commission’s Form 

477 collection of voice telephony data, 

the Commission will be able to verify 

that entities claiming the exception are 

in fact eligible for it. 

23. COMPTEL argues that far more 

smaller providers will be required to 

comply with the adopted recordkeeping, 

retention, and reporting requirements, 

and that compliance will be expensive 

and burdensome for providers to 

implement, especially smaller 

providers. We recognize that, as a result 

of the change from subscribers to 

subscriber lines, some additional 

providers will need to expend the 

resources necessary to comply with 

these rules. However, we find that the 

importance of obtaining the data 

necessary to address rural call 

completion problems and the benefits 

described above of the adopted 

exception outweigh the burden these 

providers will encounter. We note that 

only providers that actually make the 

initial call path choice for more than 

100,000 subscriber lines are required to 

comply with the rules. Additionally, in 

the Order, the Commission reduced the 

compliance burden, relative to the 

proposed rules, in a number of ways. 

We further reduce compliance burdens 

today by excluding intraLATA on-net 

toll traffic from the recordkeeping, 

retention, and reporting requirements. 

Finally, although COMPTEL argues that 

far more providers will be required to 

comply with the recordkeeping, 

retention, and reporting requirements as 

a result of the change from 

‘‘subscribers’’ to ‘‘subscriber lines’’ we 

believe that the number of affected 

providers will be more modest. 

COMPTEL’s assertion is premised on an 

erroneous interpretation of Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) filings. 

While suggesting that there could be 

more, COMPTEL has identified only 

four entities affected by this change. 

24. NPRM. COMPTEL alleges that the 

Commission’s decision to exclude from 

the requirements providers that make 

the initial long-distance call path choice 

for 100,000 or fewer subscriber lines, 

rather than adopting the specific 

proposal set forth in the NPRM, failed 

to provide adequate notice and 

opportunity to comment. COMPTEL 

asserts that no commenter advocated 

adoption of a rule that defined smaller 

provider based on ‘‘subscriber lines,’’ 

and that far fewer providers are eligible 

for the exception as a result of the 

change. 

25. We disagree that the Commission 

failed to provide adequate notice and an 

opportunity to comment. We find that 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73231 

the smaller covered provider exception 

adopted in the Order is a logical 

outgrowth of the smaller provider 

exception proposed in the NPRM and is 

well within the scope of the inquiry 

initiated by the NPRM. As discussed 

below, the Commission determined that 

a smaller covered provider exception, 

albeit a revised version of the originally 

proposed exception, is warranted. 

26. Section 553(b) and (c) of the APA 

requires agencies to give public notice 

of a proposed rulemaking that includes 

‘‘either the terms or substance of the 

proposed rule or a description of the 

subjects and issues involved’’ and to 

give interested parties an opportunity to 

submit comments on the proposal. The 

notice ‘‘need not specify every precise 

proposal which [the agency] may 

ultimately adopt as a rule’’; it need only 

‘‘be sufficient to fairly apprise interested 

parties of the issues involved.’’ In 

particular, the APA’s notice 

requirements are satisfied where the 

final rule is a ‘‘logical outgrowth’’ of the 

actions proposed. As long as parties 

could have anticipated that the rule 

ultimately adopted was possible, it is 

considered a ‘‘logical outgrowth’’ of the 

original proposal, and there is no 

violation of the APA’s notice 

requirements. 

27. The Commission provided the 

required notice by seeking comment on 

the proposed smaller covered provider 

exception. The Commission provided 

notice that it might exclude smaller 

providers, and proposed a threshold of 

100,000 subscribers, but it also sought 

comment on whether the proposed 

exception would compromise the 

Commission’s ability to monitor rural 

call completion problems. Among other 

things, the Commission explained that it 

was proposing rules to ‘‘help [it] 

monitor originating providers’ callcompletion performance and ensure that 

telephone service to rural consumers is 

as reliable as service to the rest of the 

country.’’ 

28. We find that it is a logical 

outgrowth of such notice that the 

Commission would, and did, adopt a 

rule that represents a compromise 

position. Interested parties could 

reasonably anticipate that the 

Commission might consider the pros 

and cons of excluding smaller carriers 

and adopt a narrower exception than the 

one specifically proposed. Indeed, 

numerous parties responded to this 

opportunity to comment, some 

supporting the exception as proposed, 

some opposing any exception, and some 

arguing for a narrower exception. In 

fact, two commenters specifically noted 

that the Commission could define the 

smaller covered provider exception 

using lines. These comments support 

our conclusion that relying on 

subscriber lines rather than subscribers 

represents an adjustment that parties 

reasonably could have anticipated. 

29. As discussed above, beyond 

seeking comment on a proposed 100,000 

subscriber cut-off, the Commission gave 

notice that it might not exclude any 

providers, or might only exclude some 

different universe of providers. 

Commenters were on notice that any 

exclusion would be designed to ensure 

that it did not ‘‘compromise the 

Commission’s ability to monitor rural 

call completion problems effectively.’’ 

In the Order, the Commission made 

clear that it wanted ‘‘a complete picture 

of the rural call completion problem’’ in 

order to ‘‘address it effectively.’’ The 

100,000 subscriber line threshold 

ultimately adopted better ensures ‘‘the 

Commission’s ability to monitor rural 

call completion problems effectively’’ 

than the exclusion proposed in the 

Notice because a subscriber line-based 

threshold is more verifiable and 

administrable than a subscriber-based 

threshold. Moreover, the exclusion 

reflects and reasonably balances the 

range of views in the record regarding 

the scope of any exclusion—including 

some advocating no exclusion at all. 

30. In short, the Notice contained 

sufficient notice to generate a full record 

on the smaller covered provider 

exception. The final rule, which reflects 

input from commenters, deviated from 

the proposal in the Notice only in ways 

specifically designed to ensure that the 

exemption did not ‘‘compromise the 

Commission’s ability to monitor rural 

call completion problems effectively.’’ 

The exception adopted in the Order was 

thus a logical outgrowth of the original 

proposal in the Notice. There is no 

violation of the APA’s notice 

requirements and thus, contrary to 

COMPTEL’s assertion, no need for an 

additional round of comments on the 

smaller covered provider exception. 

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

31. For many of the same reasons it 

challenged the Commission’s decision 

to adopt a smaller covered provider 

exception based on 100,000 subscriber 

lines instead of 100,000 subscribers, 

COMPTEL argues that the Commission 

failed to comply with section 604 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. COMPTEL 

asserts that the FRFA attached to the 

Rural Call Completion Order did not 

include a statement of the factual, 

policy or legal reasons for selecting the 

100,000 subscriber line threshold or 

explain why the 100,000 subscriber 

threshold proposed in the Notice was 

rejected. As discussed below, the FRFA 

complies with the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. 

32. The Commission has complied 

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and 

COMPTEL’s argument on this issue is 

without merit. We therefore deny 

COMPTEL’s Petition. In the FRFA, the 

Commission specifically noted that ‘‘[t]o 

the extent we received comments 

raising general small business concerns 

during this proceeding, those comments 

are discussed throughout the Order.’’ 

Subsection E of the FRFA specifically 

addresses steps taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities, and references the smaller 

covered provider exception as one factor 

that reduces the economic impact of the 

rules on small entities. 

33. As addressed above, the 

Commission provided an explanation 

for the smaller covered provider 

exception adopted in the Order, and we 

respond to further relevant comments 

regarding that exception. The 

Commission noted that some 

commenters argued that the threshold 

should be lowered, that the 100,000 

subscriber-line threshold should capture 

as much as 95 percent of all callers, and 

that many providers that have fewer 

than 100,000 subscriber lines would not 

be covered providers even without the 

smaller provider exception because they 

are reselling long-distance service from 

other providers that make the initial 

long-distance call path choice. The 

Commission also noted that exclusion of 

smaller providers should not 

compromise our ability to monitor rural 

call completion problems effectively. 

34. Accordingly, the Commission did 

provide factual, policy, and legal 

reasons for selecting the 100,000 

subscriber line threshold over the 

proposal in the Notice for the smaller 

covered provider exception. 

COMPTEL’s Regulatory Flexibility Act 

argument amounts essentially to a 

restatement of its earlier argument that 

the Commission failed to provide an 

adequate explanation for the threshold 

it adopted. 

C. Sprint Petition 

35. Sprint raises several issues in its 

Petition. First, Sprint asks us to 

reconsider the Commission’s decision 

‘‘to use the required call completion 

reports as the basis for subsequent 

enforcement action. Second, Sprint 

asserts that the Commission largely 

relied on summaries of surveys 

performed by the RLECs and urges the 

Commission to make the RLEC surveys 

available in their entirety for 

independent review. Finally, Sprint 

argues that the Commission’s 

compliance burden estimate is too low. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
73232 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

For the reasons discussed below, we 

deny Sprint’s Petition. 

1. Use of Call Completion Reports for 

Enforcement Action 

36. Sprint argues that the Commission 

should reconsider its decision ‘‘to use 

the required call completion reports as 

the basis for subsequent enforcement 

action,’’ asserting that the Commission 

‘‘has provided no guidance as to what 

behaviors by covered carriers it 

considers unreasonable, or what 

performance results are actionable and 

therefore could trigger enforcement 

action.’’ Sprint suggests that the 

Commission should ‘‘make public a list 

of call completion practices it deems 

acceptable.’’ For the reasons discussed 

below, we deny Sprint’s Petition on this 

issue. 

37. First we note that, although the 

Commission adopted the recordkeeping, 

retention, and reporting rules to 

‘‘substantially increase [its] ability to 

monitor and redress problems 

associated with completing calls to rural 

areas,’’ the Order did not suggest that 

the reports covered providers file with 

the Commission would constitute the 

sole basis for an enforcement action. 

Rather, the Order stated that the 

recording, retention, and reporting 

requirements may ‘‘aid[ ],’’ ‘‘enhance,’’ 

and ‘‘inform’’ enforcement actions. This 

language makes clear that the reports are 

intended as a means for identifying 

possible areas for further inquiry, not for 

forming the sole basis for enforcement 

actions. Any action initiated by the 

Enforcement Bureau would offer 

providers the evidentiary opportunities 

afforded in any enforcement proceeding. 

Furthermore, the Order emphasizes that 

enforcement actions are not the only 

reason for adopting the rules; the rules 

will also help the providers themselves 

identify and correct call completion 

problems. The Order explains that, once 

providers begin collecting call 

completion data under the rural call 

completion rules, ‘‘many will have 

greater insight into their performance 

and that of their intermediate providers 

than they have had in the past.’’ 

38. Second, the Commission has 

provided ample guidance regarding 

what it considers unacceptable call 

completion practices. The Wireline 

Competition Bureau has issued two 

declaratory rulings clarifying that 

carriers are prohibited from blocking, 

choking, reducing, or restricting traffic 

in any way, including to avoid 

termination charges, and clarifying the 

scope of the Commission’s longstanding 

prohibition on blocking, choking, 

reducing, or restricting telephone traffic, 

which may violate section 201 or 202 of 

the Act. The failure of a carrier to 

investigate evidence of a rural call 

delivery problem or to correct a problem 

of degraded service about which it 

knows or should know also may lead to 

enforcement action. In the 2011 USF/

ICC Transformation Order, the 

Commission addressed the prohibition 

on call blocking and, inter alia, made 

clear that the prohibition applies to 

VoIP-to-PSTN traffic and providers of 

interconnected VoIP and ‘‘one-way’’ 

VoIP services. We thus reject Sprint’s 

assertion that the Commission has not 

adequately identified prohibited 

practices. 

39. Finally, Sprint asserts that the 

required reports will not, in many cases, 

identify the reason a call failed to 

complete, and there are multiple factors 

that cause rural call completion failures, 

many of which are beyond the control 

of the long-distance provider. As we 

have explained, any enforcement action 

would give a covered provider an 

opportunity to provide exculpatory 

evidence. Furthermore, Sprint’s 

assertion that the rules impose ‘‘the 

burden of an investigation, and the 

threat of enforcement action, entirely on 

long distance carriers’’ is incorrect. On 

the contrary, the Order emphasized that 

while the recording, retention, and 

reporting requirements do not apply to 

intermediate providers, ‘‘the 

Enforcement Bureau continues to have 

the authority to investigate and collect 

additional information from 

intermediate providers when pursuing 

specific complaints and enforcement 

actions.’’ The Commission also 

encouraged rural ILECs to report 

specific information and sought 

comment on whether the Commission 

should adopt or encourage additional 

rural ILEC reporting. For all of these 

reasons, we decline to reconsider our 

recognition of the potential use of call 

completion reports in enforcement 

actions, and we deny Sprint’s Petition 

on this issue. 

2. Availability of RLEC Surveys for 

Independent Review 

40. Sprint argues that, to justify 

adopting the recording, retention, and 

reporting rules, the Commission relied 

largely on summaries of surveys of 

RLECs’ call completion experiences 

filed with the Commission by NTCA. It 

asserts that the Commission should 

make these surveys available in their 

entirety for independent review. Sprint 

also asserts that the Commission should 

reconsider whether a more limited data 

collection, such as one-time sample 

studies, would be a more appropriate 

first step to address rural call 

completion problems. 

41. Sprint’s Petition overstates the 

Commission’s reliance on the RLEC 

surveys. The Commission based its 

decision to promulgate rural call 

completion rules on a broad array of 

information filed in this proceeding and 

in predecessor dockets. This base of 

information included, among other 

things, numerous comments and filings 

in the docket and preceding dockets, the 

Commission’s experience with and 

investigations of rural call completion 

complaints, and the information gained 

from a workshop held at the 

Commission which addressed rural call 

completion problems. The Commission 

found comments and ex parte letters 

filed with the Commission by the Rural 

Associations and the Commission’s state 

partners to be especially persuasive, 

‘‘given their direct experience with 

complaints about call completion 

performance.’’ The Commission did 

rely, in part, on the results of a test 

conducted by NECA in two of the Rural 

Association filings, but these results 

were only one piece of information that 

the Commission relied upon as a basis 

for adopting the Order. Other entities 

also filed comments noting the 

existence of call completion problems in 

rural areas. The Commission also relied 

on its own significant experience 

receiving and investigating informal call 

completion complaints. Rather than 

being critical factual information on 

which our decision hinged, the 

information submitted about the RLEC 

surveys was supplementary data that 

confirmed the various other pieces of 

evidence in the record. Even absent 

these surveys, we would find a strong 

basis in the record to adopt the 

recording, retention, and reporting 

rules. For these reasons, we are not 

persuaded that we should revisit the 

Commission’s use of NECA’s summaries 

of its RLEC surveys, the availability of 

the NECA RLEC survey results for 

independent review, or the 

implementation of a new data sample 

before the rules take effect. We also 

separately affirm our conclusion that 

ongoing data collection, rather than a 

one-time collection, is more likely to 

address call completion problems, 

which have been ongoing and extensive. 

We therefore deny Sprint’s petition on 

this issue. 

3. Industry Compliance Costs 

42. Sprint reiterates arguments about 

the burden of compliance that it made 

during the pendency of the rulemaking. 

These arguments do not warrant 

consideration by the Commission 

because Sprint relies on arguments that 

the Commission considered and rejected 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73233 

in the Order. Accordingly, we dismiss 

this part of Sprint’s Petition. 

43. Evaluating Sprint’s arguments on 

the merits, however, we find that 

reconsideration of the Commission’s 

burden analysis is not warranted and 

deny this part of Sprint’s Petition. In the 

Order, the Commission determined that 

the benefits of these rules outweigh the 

burdens. Sprint asserts that the 

Commission should re-evaluate the 

estimated industry-wide compliance 

costs these rules impose on covered 

providers. Sprint asserts that 

insufficient data has been submitted to 

calculate the total on-going costs likely 

to be incurred by covered providers to 

comply with the new rules. It argues 

that numerous carriers currently do not 

collect at least some of the information 

required under the new rules and at 

least three carriers have estimated that 

it would cost each of them millions of 

dollars to comply with those rules. 

44. As explained further below, the 

Commission adopted the Order only 

after carefully weighing the costs and 

benefits of the new requirements, 

including record evidence alleging 

compliance costs on the part of covered 

providers. Sprint nonetheless contends 

that the Commission should ‘‘assess 

factually the relative costs and benefits 

of its data collection retention and 

reporting rules.’’ Pursuant to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), the Commission will conduct a 

careful analysis of any reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements imposed on 

the public. The Commission has begun 

that analysis, and five entities have 

submitted comments, including Sprint 

and HyperCube. The recordkeeping, 

retention, and reporting requirements 

adopted in the Order will not become 

effective until an announcement is 

published in the Federal Register of the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) approval and an effective date of 

the rules. While we deny Sprint’s 

Petition, several of the concerns raised 

by Sprint, XO and HyperCube will be 

addressed in the context of the PRA 

analysis. 

45. Sprint contends that industry 

compliance costs will exceed $100 

million and that it has updated its 

burden analysis to reflect new 

compliance cost information and the 

impact of the rules adopted. Much of 

the information Sprint provides to 

support these assertions, including its 

own cost estimates, are not new and 

were submitted prior to the 

Commission’s adoption of the rules in 

the Order. This information includes 

estimates of compliance costs that do 

not take into account ways the 

Commission reduced the burden of the 

proposed rules in the Order. For 

example, the Commission changed the 

rule requiring retention of call detail 

records to apply only to call attempts to 

rural ILECs, a relatively small 

percentage of total call attempts, and 

determined that call attempts to 

nonrural incumbent LECs need not be 

retained. Sprint also refers to a cost 

estimate in a request for waiver filed by 

Midcontinent Communications after the 

Order was released, but that estimate is 

consistent with or less than other 

estimates already considered by the 

Commission. Moreover, the changes we 

adopt in this Reconsideration Order will 

reduce providers’ costs. The 

USTelecom/ITTA cost estimate that 

Sprint refers to includes the cost of 

collecting, retaining, and reporting data 

for on-net intraLATA interexchange toll 

traffic that we now exempt from the 

rules. 

46. Sprint states that the 

Commission’s PRA analysis estimates 

that 225 entities will be required to file 

the new call completion reports, all of 

those entities will incur some 

compliance costs, some will need to 

make system and/or staffing changes to 

comply with the new rules, and covered 

providers will continue to incur 

recurring compliance costs for years to 

come. Sprint over-estimates the number 

of entities required to comply with the 

new rules. It misunderstands the PRA 

analysis, which, as noted above, 

includes voluntary quarterly reporting 

by RLECs of a reduced set of data. The 

majority of the 225 entities are RLECs 

that may voluntarily file and that may 

have this information readily available. 

47. Finally, Sprint states that the 

information provided pursuant to the 

new rules will provide limited 

information on the root cause of any call 

termination problems and, if the likely 

costs exceed the anticipated benefits, 

the Commission should adopt more 

limited measures, such as allowing 

covered providers to perform a 

statistically significant sample study or 

to retain fewer months of data. These 

arguments were fully addressed and 

disposed of in the Order, and Sprint 

provides no new information warranting 

reconsideration. XO and HyperCube 

support Sprint’s Petition and argue that 

not all providers collect the information 

required, but neither provides new 

information or arguments warranting 

reconsideration. 

48. HyperCube asserts that the 

Commission ‘‘overlooked the substantial 

burden imposed on many providers to 

determine whether they are in fact 

‘covered providers’ and, as a result, has 

also greatly underestimated the number 

of burdened providers.’’ We disagree. 

The Commission recognized the burden 

of determining if a provider is a covered 

provider. In the Order, the Commission 

attempted to minimalize any such 

burden, by providing examples of how 

to determine whether a provider is a 

covered provider and noting that some 

providers will need to segregate 

originated traffic from intermediary 

traffic. HyperCube’s assertions that we 

underestimated the number of burdened 

providers because we did not include 

the substantial burden imposed on 

many providers just to determine 

whether they are in fact ‘‘covered 

providers’’ is more appropriately 

addressed in the PRA context. 

HyperCube filed comments regarding 

the Commission’s specific burden 

estimate in the PRA context and these 

matters will be addressed in the context 

of that Paperwork Reduction Analysis. 

49. HyperCube also argues that the 

Commission did not consider the 

possibility that providers could be 

covered providers even if they operate 

primarily as intermediate providers. 

Although the Commission did not apply 

these rules to entities acting exclusively 

as intermediate providers, it did apply 

the rules to providers of long-distance 

voice service that make the initial longdistance call path choice for more than 

100,000 domestic retail subscriber lines. 

The Commission recognized that such 

providers might also serve as 

intermediate providers and in fact stated 

that ‘‘a covered provider that also serves 

as an intermediate provider for other 

providers may—but need not—segregate 

its originated traffic from its 

intermediary traffic in its recording and 

reporting, given the additional burdens 

such segregation may impose on such 

providers.’’ Accordingly, the 

Commission did not overlook the fact 

that providers that may be intermediate 

providers in some instances and 

covered providers in other instances. 

50. For all of these reasons, we 

decline to reconsider the Commission’s 

finding that the benefits of these rules 

outweigh the burdens of compliance. 

Burden arguments raised in the PRA 

context will be considered and 

addressed in compliance with the PRA. 

D. Transcom Petition: Application of 

Ring Signaling Rule to Intermediate 

Providers That Are Not Common 

Carriers 

51. In the Order, the Commission 

adopted a rule that prohibits 

‘‘originating and intermediate providers 

. . . from causing audible ringing to be 

sent to the caller before the terminating 

provider has signaled that the called 

party is being alerted.’’ The Commission 

applied this rule to, among others, 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
73234 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘intermediate providers that are not 

common carriers.’’ Transcom requests 

reconsideration of this rule ‘‘insofar as 

[it] applies to ‘intermediate providers’ 

that are not common carriers,’’ arguing 

that the Commission exceeded its legal 

authority by extending the rule to such 

providers. For the reasons discussed 

below, we dismiss Transcom’s Petition. 

52. As an initial matter, we must 

determine whether consideration of 

Transcom’s petition is procedurally 

appropriate under section 1.429(b) of 

the Commission’s rules. As Transcom 

notes, it did not submit comments in 

response to the Notice or conduct any ex 

parte meetings in this docket. Thus 

Transcom did not previously present 

any of the facts or arguments in its 

Petition to the Commission, and our 

review of the record indicates that no 

party to the proceeding raised facts or 

arguments relating to the Commission’s 

authority to require intermediate 

providers that are not common carriers 

to comply with the ring signaling rule. 

Transcom asserts that another entity 

presented the relevant legal issue in an 

ex parte letter and that the Commission 

thus considered and addressed the 

matter in the Order. However, the ex 

parte letter from the VON Coalition that 

Transcom cites did not present the same 

issues that Transcom now presents. 

Neither the VON Coalition’s letter cited 

by Transcom nor its comments and 

reply comments in this proceeding, 

which the letter references, raised any 

facts or arguments relating to the 

Commission’s authority to require 

intermediate providers that are not 

common carriers to comply with the 

ring signaling rule. 

53. Section 1.429(b) of the 

Commission’s rules provides that a 

petition for reconsideration that relies 

on facts or arguments which have not 

previously been presented to the 

Commission will be granted only if: (1) 

The facts or arguments relied on relate 

to events which have occurred or 

circumstances which have changed 

since the last opportunity to present 

such matters to the Commission; (2) the 

facts or arguments relied on were 

unknown to petitioner until after his 

last opportunity to present them to the 

Commission, and he could not through 

the exercise of ordinary diligence have 

learned of the facts or arguments in 

question prior to such opportunity; or 

(3) the Commission determines that 

consideration of the facts or arguments 

relied on is required in the public 

interest. Because Transcom’s Petition 

‘‘relies on facts or arguments which 

have not previously been presented to 

the Commission,’’ we may grant the 

Petition only if one of the three criteria 

described above is met. 

54. Transcom makes no effort in its 

Petition to argue that its reconsideration 

request meets the requirements of 

section 1.429(b). In its reply to an 

opposition filed by the Rural 

Associations, however, Transcom argues 

that the United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit’s 

recent decision in Verizon v. FCC 

constitutes an ‘‘intervening event’’ that 

justifies consideration of its Petition 

under section 1.429(b)(1). We disagree. 

Transcom reads Verizon to hold that 

‘‘the Commission cannot use Title I to 

justify imposing common carrier duties 

on non-common carriers.’’ But the idea 

that the Commission cannot regulate 

services that have not been classified as 

common carrier services in a way that 

result in per se common carriage did not 

originate in the Verizon opinion; the 

courts and the Commission have long 

recognized that concept. The Verizon 

court merely applied this precedent to 

the Commission’s Open Internet rules 

and found that parts of those rules 

impermissibly required per se common 

carriage in that context. For this reason, 

the fact that the Verizon court discussed 

limitations on the Commission’s ability 

to regulate non-common carriers does 

not make the Verizon opinion an 

‘‘event[ ] which [has] occurred or 

circumstance[ ] which [has] changed 

since the last opportunity to present 

such matters to the Commission’’ for 

purposes of section 1.429(b)(1). 

55. In this same set of reply 

comments, Transcom also argues that 

reconsideration is appropriate under 

section 1.429(b)(2) because the legal 

question was presented by the VON 

Coalition and disposed in the Order. As 

we have explained, Transcom’s 

assertion that the relevant legal issue 

was raised in the record prior to 

adoption of the Order is incorrect. Even 

if it were correct, however, whether or 

not ‘‘the legal question was presented 

and disposed’’ is irrelevant to whether 

a petition satisfies section 1.429(b)(2), 

which applies only where ‘‘the facts or 

arguments relied on were unknown to 

petitioner until after his last opportunity 

to present them to the Commission.’’ 

Transcom makes no argument based on 

the requirements of section 1.429(b)(2); 

accordingly, this argument also fails. 

56. Transcom further argues that 

consideration of its petition is required 

by the public interest and thus warrants 

consideration under section 1.429(b)(3). 

But Transcom does not support this 

assertion except to say that the Verizon 

decision ‘‘directly undercuts the 

primary rationale’’ for the ring signaling 

rule. As we have explained, the Verizon 

opinion did not change the law in any 

way bearing on the Commission’s 

decision to apply the ring signaling rule 

to intermediate providers that are not 

common carriers. Moreover, we 

independently discern no other fact or 

argument set forth in the Transcom 

Petition that would require its petition 

to be considered. Accordingly, 

consideration of Transcom’s petition is 

not ‘‘required in the public interest.’’ 

Because Transcom’s Petition fails to 

satisfy any of the criteria of section 

1.429(b), we dismiss the Petition. 

57. Carolina West asks us to modify 

the definition of ‘‘covered provider’’ as 

it applies to the smaller covered 

provider exception to our 

recordkeeping, retention, and reporting 

rules. Specifically, Carolina West 

proposes that we replace ‘‘aggregated 

over all of the provider’s affiliates’’ in 

the definition of covered provider with 

‘‘aggregated over all entities under 

common control with such provider’’ 

Carolina West argues that, when 

determining whether a provider makes 

the initial call path choice for more than 

100,000 subscriber lines, a provider 

should not have to include ‘‘lines served 

by non-controlling minority owners.’’ In 

support of its petition, Carolina West 

states that it is ‘‘common for rural 

wireless carriers to have passive 

investors who are themselves carriers 

that provide long-distance service’’ and 

that these investors ‘‘do not and cannot 

make the ultimate determination 

regarding the call routing practices of 

the providers in which they hold such 

passive investments.’’ Carolina West 

reports that, although it serves fewer 

than 100,000 subscriber lines, it 

‘‘believes that it would be subject to the 

full scope of the new retention and 

reporting requirements because one or 

more of its minority investors provide 

long-distance service and make the 

initial call path decision for enough 

customer lines such that, in the 

aggregate, [Carolina West] and its 

‘affiliates’ would exceed the 100,000 

line de minimis threshold.’’ 

58. In the Order, the Commission 

concluded that the recordkeeping, 

retention, and reporting rules should 

apply to ‘‘covered providers,’’ i.e., 

providers of long-distance voice service 

that make the initial long-distance call 

path choice for more than 100,000 

domestic retail subscriber lines, 

including lines served by the providers’ 

affiliates. The 100,000 line threshold 

forms a basis for the ‘‘exception for 

smaller covered providers’’ adopted in 

the Order. In adopting this exception, 

the Commission noted that the 

recordkeeping, retention, and reporting 

requirements would still ‘‘capture as 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73235 

much as 95 percent of all callers’’ and 

that ‘‘a covered provider qualifies for 

this exception only if it and all its 

affiliates, as defined in section 3(2) of 

the Act . . . together made the initial 

long-distance call path choice for 

100,000 or fewer total business or 

residential subscriber lines.’’ 

59. We acknowledge Carolina West’s 

concerns about the burdens on small 

providers associated with complying 

with the rule. On the record before us, 

however, we are unable to conclude that 

the Commission’s goals would continue 

to be met if we changed our rules to 

exempt additional providers from 

compliance. For example, the 

Commission noted that it was not 

‘‘compromis[ing] our ability to monitor 

rural call completion problems 

effectively’’ in creating the exemption 

because we could continue to capture 

‘‘as much as 95% of all callers.’’ But the 

record here does not reveal how many 

providers or how much call completion 

data would be lost if we modified the 

rule as Carolina West proposes. In 

addition, while Carolina West argues 

that minority investors cannot dictate 

call routing for the carriers in which 

they invest, this argument fails to take 

into account, for example, the variety of 

stock classes and attendant voting rights 

that may allow a minority investor to in 

fact to dictate call routing for an affiliate 

because the affiliate may be relying on 

the minority investor to handle its long 

distance traffic. Thus, a categorical 

decision to consider the lines of only 

affiliates under common control could 

create a loophole exempting carriers 

under common influence in their 

routing decisions, making it more 

difficult for the Commission to identify 

the sources of problems in rural call 

completion. Therefore, the record does 

not persuade us to modify our rules as 

Carolina West requests, and we deny 

their petition. 

60. We do, however, recognize that 

there are burdens associated with 

compliance with these rules, and there 

may be particular circumstances that 

make application of the rules to 

Carolina West inequitable or contrary to 

the public interest. We invite Carolina 

West and other carriers to file waiver 

requests if they believe that the public 

interest would be better served by not 

counting the lines of some or all of their 

affiliates towards the 100,000 line 

threshold. 

III. Procedural Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

61. This document contains modified 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. It 

has been submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under section 3507(d) of the 

PRA. OMB, the general public, and 

other Federal agencies are invited to 

comment on the modified information 

collection requirements contained in 

this proceeding. In addition, we note 

that pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

we previously sought specific comment 

on how the Commission might further 

reduce the information collection 

burden for small business concerns with 

fewer than 25 employees. 

62. In this present document, we have 

assessed the effects of various 

requirements adopted in the Rural Call 

Completion Order and determined that 

certain recordkeeping, retention, and 

reporting requirements should not apply 

to intraLATA toll calls that are carried 

entirely over the covered provider’s 

network or that are handed off by the 

covered provider directly to the 

terminating LEC or its terminating 

tandem switch. We find that these 

actions are in the public interest 

because they reduce the burdens of 

these recordkeeping, retention, and 

reporting requirements without 

undermining the goals and objectives 

behind the requirements. The 

amendments we adopt today will 

reduce the burden on businesses with 

fewer than 25 employees. 

B. Supplemental Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis 

63. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the 

Commission has prepared a 

Supplemental Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) relating to 

the Order on Reconsideration. 

64. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

was incorporated in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) in WC 

Docket No. 13–39. The Commission 

sought written public comment on the 

proposals in the Notice, including 

comment on the IRFA. The Commission 

subsequently incorporated a Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), 

as well as a supplemental IRFA, in the 

Report and Order and Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 

13–39. This Supplemental FRFA 

conforms to the RFA and incorporates 

by reference the FRFA in the Order. It 

reflects changes to the Commission’s 

rules arising from the Order on 

Reconsideration. 

C. Need for, and Objectives of, the Order 

on Reconsideration 

65. The Order on Reconsideration 

affirms the Commission’s commitment 

to ensuring that high quality telephone 

service must be available to all 

Americans. In the underlying Order, the 

Commission established rules to combat 

extensive problems with successfully 

completing calls to rural areas, and 

created a framework to improve the 

ability to monitor call problems and 

take appropriate enforcement action. In 

this Order on Reconsideration, the 

Commission denies several petitions for 

reconsideration that, if granted, would 

impair the Commission’s ability to 

monitor, and take enforcement action 

against, call completion problems. The 

Commission does, however, grant one 

petition for reconsideration because the 

Commission finds that modifying its 

original determination will significantly 

lower providers’ compliance costs and 

burdens without impairing the 

Commission’s ability to obtain reliable 

and extensive information about rural 

call completion problems. 

66. Specifically, in the Order on 

Reconsideration, the Commission grants 

the petition for reconsideration of the 

Rural Call Completion Order filed by 

USTelecom and ITTA. In doing so, the 

Commission modifies rules adopted in 

the Rural Call Completion Order so that 

the recordkeeping, retention, and 

reporting requirements adopted in the 

Rural Call Completion Order do not 

apply to a limited subset of calls: 

intraLATA toll calls that are carried 

entirely over the covered provider’s 

network, and intraLATA toll calls that 

are handed off by the covered provider 

directly to the terminating local 

exchange carrier (LEC) or to the tandem 

that the terminating LEC’s end office 

subtends. The decision to grant 

reconsideration reflects a focused 

analysis of the costs of applying the 

rules to this limited set of traffic, the 

fact that this traffic represents a small 

portion of total toll traffic, and the 

modest incremental benefit that such 

data would likely yield. Most notably, 

these limited rule modifications will 

reduce the burdens on small business 

entities resulting from compliance with 

the rules adopted in WC Docket No. 

13–39. 

D. Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

by Public Comments in Response to the 

IRFA and the Rural Call Completion 

Order 

67. There were no comments filed 

that specifically addressed the rules and 

policies proposed in the IRFA that was 

incorporated in the Notice. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
73236 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

68. In a petition for reconsideration of 

the Rural Call Completion Order, 

COMPTEL argued that the 

Commission’s decision to adopt in the 

Rural Call Completion Order a smaller 

covered provider exception to the 

reporting rules, based on 100,000 

subscriber lines rather than 100,000 

subscribers, failed to comply with 

section 604 of the RFA. In the Order on 

Reconsideration, the Commission 

denies COMPTEL’s petition. The 

Commission finds that the FRFA 

incorporated in the Rural Call 

Completion Order complies with the 

RFA. Specifically, the Commission 

recounts how section E of the FRFA 

specifically addresses steps taken to 

minimize the significant economic 

impact on small entities, and references 

the smaller covered provider exception 

as one factor that reduces the economic 

impact of the rules on small entities, 

and that in the Rural Call Completion 

Order, the Commission provided an 

explanation for the smaller covered 

provider exception adopted therein. 

E. Response to Comments by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration 

69. Pursuant to the Small Business 

Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission is 

required to respond to any comments 

filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration 

(SBA), and to provide a detailed 

statement of any change made to the 

proposed rules as a result of those 

comments. The Chief Counsel did not 

file any comments in response to the 

proposed rules in this proceeding. 

F. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Rules Will Apply 

70. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules, if adopted. 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 the Small Business Act. A ‘‘smallbusiness concern’’ is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. 

71. As noted, a FRFA was 

incorporated into the Rural Call 

Completion Order. In that analysis, the 

Commission described in detail the 

various small business entities that may 

be affected by the final rules. Those 

entities consist of: Wired 

telecommunications carriers; LECs; 

incumbent LECs; competitive LECs, 

competitive access providers, sharedtenant service providers, and other local 

service providers; interexchange 

carriers; prepaid calling card providers; 

local resellers; toll resellers; other toll 

carriers; wireless telecommunications 

carriers (except satellite); cable and 

other program distribution; cable 

companies and systems; and all other 

telecommunications. In this present 

Order on Reconsideration, the 

Commission is amending the final rules 

adopted in the Rural Call Completion 

Order and the small business entities 

described in the underlying FRFA are 

the same that may be affected by this 

present Order on Reconsideration. This 

Supplemental FRFA incorporates by 

reference the description and estimate 

of the number of small entities from the 

FRFA in this proceeding. 

G. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

72. In Section D of the FRFA 

incorporated into the Rural Call 

Completion Order, the Commission 

described in detail the projected 

recording, recordkeeping, reporting and 

other compliance requirements for small 

entities arising from the rules adopted 

in the Rural Call Completion Order. 

This Supplemental FRFA incorporates 

by reference the requirements described 

in Section D of the FRFA. In the Order 

on Reconsideration, however, the 

Commission modifies rules adopted in 

the Rural Call Completion Order so that 

the recordkeeping, retention, and 

reporting requirements adopted in the 

Rural Call Completion Order do not 

apply to a limited subset of calls: 

intraLATA toll calls that are carried 

entirely over the covered provider’s 

network, and intraLATA toll calls that 

are handed off by the covered provider 

directly to the terminating LEC or to the 

tandem that the terminating LEC’s end 

office subtends. The effect of such 

modifications is to reduce the 

compliance requirements for this subset 

of small entities that carry intraLATA 

toll traffic. 

H. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

73. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business, alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its proposed 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rules for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities.’’ In 

Section E of the FRFA incorporated into 

the Rural Call Completion Order, the 

Commission described in detail the 

steps taken to minimize the significant 

economic impact on small entities, and 

the significant alternatives considered 

in the Rural Call Completion Order. 

This Supplemental FRFA incorporates 

by reference the steps taken and 

alternatives described in Section E of 

the FRFA. 

74. The Commission considered the 

economic impact on small entities in 

reaching its final conclusions and taking 

action in the Rural Call Completion 

Order, and it likewise does so here. 

While declining to disturb the majority 

of the findings and conclusions in the 

underlying Rural Call Completion 

Order, this Order mitigates burdens for 

smaller entities that carry intraLATA 

toll traffic. By excluding intraLATA toll 

calls that are carried entirely over the 

covered provider’s network, and 

intraLATA toll calls that are handed off 

by the covered provider directly to the 

terminating LEC or to the tandem that 

the terminating LEC’s end office 

subtends, the Commission reduces 

burden of the recordkeeping, retention, 

and reporting requirements it adopted 

in the Rural Call Completion Order. 

I. Report to Congress 

75. The Commission will send a copy 

of the Order on Reconsideration, 

including this Supplemental FRFA, in a 

report to be sent to Congress pursuant 

to the Congressional Review Act. In 

addition, the Commission will send a 

copy of the Order on Reconsideration, 

including this Supplemental FRFA, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

SBA. A copy of the Order on 

Reconsideration and Supplemental 

FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also 

be published in the Federal Register. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

76. The Commission will send a copy 

of the Order on Reconsideration in a 

report to be sent to Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

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


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 73237 

IV. Ordering Clauses 

77. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, 

pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), and 405 of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 405, 

and sections 1.1 and 1.429 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.429, 

that the Order on Reconsideration IS 

ADOPTED, effective January 9, 2015. 

78. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 

part 64 of the Commission’s rules, 47 

CFR part 64, IS AMENDED as set forth 

in Appendix A, and that such rule 

amendments SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 

after announcement in the Federal 

Register of Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approval of the rules, and 

on the effective date announced therein. 

79. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 

the Petition of USTelecom and ITTA for 

Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, 

for Waiver or Extension of Time to 

Comply IS GRANTED to the extent 

described herein and otherwise 

DISMISSED AS MOOT. 

80. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 

the Petitions for Reconsideration filed 

by Carolina West and COMPTEL ARE 

DENIED. 

81. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 

the Petition for Reconsideration filed by 

Sprint Corporation IS DENIED, as to 

Sections I and II.A of the Petition. The 

Petition for Reconsideration filed by 

Sprint Corporation is DISMISSED and 

DENIED on an independent and 

alternative basis, as to Section II.B of the 

Petition. 

82. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 

the Petition for Reconsideration filed by 

Transcom Enhanced Services, Inc. is 

DISMISSED. 

83. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 

the Petition for Waiver filed by AT&T 

Services, Inc., IS DISMISSED AS 

MOOT, as to the portion of the Petition 

requesting relief for on-net intraLATA 

toll traffic. 

84. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 

the Petition for Waiver filed by 

CenturyLink, Inc. IS DISMISSED AS 

MOOT, as to Section III.C.ii of the 

Petition. 

85. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 

the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of 

the Order on Reconsideration to 

Congress and to the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). Part 64 of the 

Commission’s rules ARE GRANTED to 

the extent set forth herein, and this 

Order on Reconsideration SHALL BE 

EFFECTIVE upon release. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 to 

read as follows: 

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 64 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); 

403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104–104, 110 Stat. 

56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 

225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, and 620 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 64.2101 by revising 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 64.2101 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(f) Long-distance voice service. For 

purposes of subparts V and W, the term 

‘‘long-distance voice service’’ includes 

interstate interLATA, intrastate 

interLATA, interstate interexchange, 

intrastate interexchange, intraLATA toll, 

inter-MTA interstate and inter-MTA 

intrastate voice services. 

■ 3. Amend § 64.2103 by redesignating 

paragraph (e) as paragraph (f) and 

adding new paragraph (e) as follows. 

§ 64.2103 Retention of Call Attempt 

Records. 

* * * * * 

(e) IntraLATA toll calls carried 

entirely over the covered provider’s 

network or handed off by the covered 

provider directly to the terminating 

local exchange carrier or directly to the 

tandem switch serving the terminating 

local exchange carrier’s end office 

(terminating tandem), are excluded from 

these requirements. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 64.2105 by adding 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 64.2105 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) IntraLATA toll calls carried 

entirely over the covered provider’s 

network or handed off by the covered 

provider directly to the terminating 

local exchange carrier or directly to the 

tandem switch that the terminating local 

exchange carrier’s end office subtends 

(terminating tandem), are excluded from 

these requirements. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28898 Filed 12–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 14–1610] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Various 

Locations 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Audio 

Division amends the FM Table of 

Allotments to reinstate seven vacant FM 

allotments in various communities in 

Oregon, Missouri, Texas, and 

Washington. These vacant allotments 

have previously undergone notice and 

comment rule making, but they were 

inadvertently removed from the FM 

Table. Therefore, we find for good cause 

that further notice and comment are 

unnecessary. 

DATES: Effective December 10, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2700. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Report and Order, DA 

14–1610, adopted November 5, 2014, 

and released November 6, 2014. The full 

text of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the Commission’s 

Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. The complete 

text of this document may also be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., 

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20054, 

telephone 1–800–378–3160 or 

www.BCPIWEB.com. The Commission 

will not send a copy of this Report and 

Order pursuant to the Congressional 

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

because the adopted rules are rules of 

particular applicability. This document 

does not contain information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any 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). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES