37830 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donald Dahl, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and 

Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. Mr. Dahl’s 

telephone number is (617) 918–1657; 

email address: dahl.donald@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules Section of this issue of the 

Federal Register, EPA is approving the 

State’s SIP submittal as a direct final 

rule without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this action rule, 

no further activity is contemplated. If 

EPA receives adverse comments, the 

direct final rule will be withdrawn and 

all public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

Rules Section of this issue of the 

Federal Register. 

Dated: July 24, 2017. 

Deborah A. Szaro, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17022 Filed 8–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket No. 17–169; FCC 17–91] 

Protecting Consumers From 

Unauthorized Carrier Changes and 

Related Unauthorized Charges 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission proposes to amend its rules 

to prohibit carriers from 

misrepresenting themselves when 

placing telemarketing sales calls to 

consumers and placing unauthorized 

charges on their phone bills. The 

Commission seeks comment on ways to 

strengthen its rules to protect consumers 

from slamming and cramming and 

proposes to codify a rule prohibiting 

misrepresentations on carrier 

telemarketing calls to consumers that 

often precede a carrier switch, and 

proposes to codify a rule against 

cramming. The intended effect of this 

action is to prevent unscrupulous 

carriers from targeting vulnerable 

populations from committing fraud 

either on sales calls or when ‘‘verifying’’ 

a consumer switch. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

September 13, 2017, and reply 

comments are due on or before October 

13, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by CG Docket No. 17–169 

and/or FCC Number 17–91, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS), through 

the Commission’s Web site: http://

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow 

the instructions provided on the Web 

site for submitting comments. For ECFS 

filers, in completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal service mailing 

address, and CG Docket No. 17–169. 

• Mail: Parties who choose to file by 

paper must file an original and one copy 

of each filing. Filings can be sent by 

hand or messenger delivery, by 

commercial overnight courier, or by 

first-class or overnight U.S. Postal 

Service mail (although the Commission 

continues to experience delays in 

receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kimberly A. Wild, Consumer Policy 

Division, Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau (CGB), at (202) 418–1324, 

email: Kimberly.Wild@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Rules 

and Policies Protecting Consumers from 

Unauthorized Carrier Changes and 

Related Unauthorized Charges, Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, document FCC 

17–91, adopted on July 13, 2017, 

released on July 14, 2017. The full text 

of document FCC 17–91 will be 

available for public inspection and 

copying via ECFS, and during regular 

business hours at the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. A copy of 

document FCC 17–91 and any 

subsequently filed documents in this 

matter may also be found by searching 

ECFS at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (insert 

CG Docket No. 17–169 into the 

Proceeding block). 

Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, 

interested parties may file comments 

and reply comments on or before the 

dates indicated on the first page of this 

document. Comments may be filed 

using ECFS. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th Street SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

• Commercial Mail sent by overnight 

mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 

Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be 

sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, 

Capitol Heights, MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail should be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

Pursuant to § 1.1200 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1200, this 

matter shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance 

with the Commission’s ex parte rules. 

Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substances of the presentations 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 37831 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one or two 

sentence description of the views and 

arguments presented is generally 

required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other 

rules pertaining to oral and written ex 

parte presentations in permit-butdisclose proceedings are set forth in 

§ 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules, 

47 CFR 1.1206(b). 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to: fcc504@

fcc.gov or call CGB at: (202) 418–0530 

(voice), or (202) 418–0432 (TTY). 

Document FCC 17–91 can also be 

downloaded in Word or Portable 

Document Format (PDF) at: https://

www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposesrules-aid-investigation-threatening-calls. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

Document FCC 17–91 seeks comment 

on proposed rule amendments that may 

result in modified information 

collection requirements. If the 

Commission adopts any modified 

information collection requirements, the 

Commission will publish another notice 

in the Federal Register inviting the 

public to comment on the requirements, 

as required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA). Public Law 104–13; 44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520. In addition, pursuant 

to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 

Act of 2002, the Commission seeks 

comment on how it might further 

reduce the information collection 

burden for small business concerns with 

fewer than 25 employees. Public Law 

107–198, 116 Stat. 729; 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Synopsis 

1. All too often, unscrupulous carriers 

target Americans, including those 

within vulnerable populations like the 

elderly, recent immigrants, small 

businesses, and non-English speakers, to 

carry out unauthorized carrier changes, 

or ‘‘slams.’’ These carriers misrepresent 

who they are and why they are calling, 

fraudulently verify carrier changes, and 

add unauthorized charges, or ‘‘crams,’’ 

onto consumers’ bills. Some sales agents 

pretend they are calling from a 

consumer’s existing carrier, others 

pretend to call about a package delivery 

to record a consumer saying certain key 

phrases like their name and ‘‘yes.’’ Still 

others bill for services never rendered or 

refuse to stop billing for new services 

even after a consumer terminates 

service. 

2. With document FCC 17–91, the 

Commission seeks comment on 

additional steps to protect consumers 

from slamming and cramming. The 

Commission seeks to strengthen its 

ability to take action against slammers 

and crammers, and deter carriers from 

slamming and cramming in the first 

place, without impeding competition or 

impairing the ability of consumers to 

switch providers. 

Background 

Slamming Rules 

3. Section 258 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended 

(Communications Act or Act), makes it 

unlawful for any telecommunications 

carrier to ‘‘submit or execute a change 

in a subscriber’s selection of a provider 

of telephone exchange service or 

telephone toll service except in 

accordance with such verification 

procedures as the Commission shall 

prescribe.’’ To further protect 

consumers from slamming and provide 

them with control over their service 

providers, the Commission’s rules allow 

consumers to opt in to freeze their 

choice of carriers. At the same time, the 

rules do not allow for the executing 

carrier to verify that the subscriber 

wants to change carriers, so as to avoid 

undue delay in authorized switches. 

Finally, the Commission adopted rules 

for calculating slamming carrier 

liability. 

Continuing Problem 

4. Notwithstanding the Commission’s 

rulemaking and enforcement actions to 

date, slamming and cramming continue 

to be a problem. Slammers, or would-be 

slammers, have also crammed 

consumers as part of their fraud 

schemes. The Commission is cognizant 

that it must balance the benefits of the 

proposals in document FCC 17–91 

against the burden they may place on 

legitimate carrier changes and thirdparty charges. The steps the 

Commission seeks comment on today to 

strengthen its rules seek to address the 

evolving practices of bad actors with 

respect to slamming and cramming, 

while not impeding competition or 

impairing the ability of consumers to 

switch providers. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

5. In document FCC 17–91, the 

Commission seeks comment on ways to 

strengthen its rules to protect consumers 

from slamming and cramming. The 

Commission believes its legal authority 

stems directly from sections 201(b) and 

258 of the Act. The Commission has 

based slamming and cramming rules on 

these provisions of the Act in the past. 

The Commission notes that section 258 

of the Act is clear that carriers cannot 

execute switches unless they do so ‘‘in 

accordance with such verification 

procedures as the Commission shall 

prescribe.’’ The Commission believes 

the anti-slamming steps it proposes here 

are ‘‘verification procedures’’ consistent 

with the authority specified in section 

258 of the Act. Similarly, the 

Commission has found that both 

sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act 

support its truth-in-billing rules, 

including those to prevent cramming on 

consumers’ bills. The Commission seeks 

comment on the nature and scope of its 

authority to adopt the rules it proposes 

in document FCC 17–91. 

Banning Misrepresentation and 

Unauthorized Charges 

6. The Commission’s recent 

enforcement actions reveal that a major 

source of slamming is deception in the 

sales calls. The Commission seeks 

comment on proposed new rules to 

address sales call abuses and further 

reduce slamming. The Commission’s 

current rules contain detailed 

verification procedures, adopted under 

section 258 of the Act, that specify that 

carriers shall not submit or execute 

carrier changes without authorization 

from the subscriber and verification of 

that authorization. The Commission has 

previously held that misrepresentations 

on sales calls are an unjust and 

unreasonable practice and unlawful 

under section 201(b) of the Act. 

Although the Commission has in place 

verification rules to prevent slamming, 

its rules do not expressly ban carrier- or 

carrier-agent-misrepresentations on the 

sales calls that typically precede a slam. 

The Commission thus proposes to 

codify, pursuant to sections 258 and 

201(b) of the Act, a new 

§ 64.1120(a)(1)(i)(A) of its rules banning 

misrepresentations on the sales calls 

and stating that any misrepresentation 

or deception would invalidate any 

subsequent verification of a carrier 

change, even where the submitting 

carrier purports to have evidence of 

consumer authorization (e.g., a TPV 

recording). The Commission believes 

codifying such a ban would provide 

even greater clarity to carriers and will 

aid its enforcement efforts. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. Are there any potential 

downsides to a codified rule against 

sales call misrepresentation? The 

Commission notes that its slamming 

rules currently do not apply to CMRS, 

pre-paid wireless, or interconnected 

Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). Are 

such misrepresentations enough of a 

problem for CMRS, pre-paid wireless 

and interconnected VoIP and sufficient 

to justify extending its proposed rule to 

cover those services? Would such a rule 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
37832 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

impose any burden on legitimate 

marketing? How should the proposed 

rule interact with existing State 

slamming rules? 

7. The Commission also proposes to 

codify a rule against cramming. While 

cramming has been a long-standing 

problem and the Commission has 

adopted truth-in-billing rules to help 

detect it, the Commission has never 

codified a rule against cramming. The 

Commission thus proposes to codify in 

a new § 64.2401(g) of its rules the 

existing prohibition against cramming 

that the Commission has enforced under 

section 201(b) of the Act. The 

Commission believes codifying the 

cramming prohibition for wireline and 

wireless carriers would act as a 

deterrent. The Commission believes 

codifying a ban against cramming would 

provide even greater clarity to carriers 

and will aid its enforcement. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. Are there any potential 

downsides to such a rule? The 

Commission’s cramming rules currently 

do not apply to interconnected VoIP, 

and only some of the cramming rules 

apply to CMRS. Should the Commission 

extend this proposed rule to CMRS, prepaid wireless and interconnected VoIP? 

Are there limitations on the 

Commission’s ability to adopt the 

proposed cramming rule? Should this 

proposed rule be codified under the 

slamming rules as opposed to the 

cramming rules? The truth-in-billing 

rules do not define ‘‘cramming’’ or 

‘‘telephone bill.’’ The Commission seeks 

comment on whether it should adopt 

such definitions for clarity of its rules. 

Many consumers today receive 

electronic bills and have constant online 

access to their telephone account 

showing in near real-time all fees, 

charges and assessments. If the 

Commission defines ‘‘telephone bill’’ in 

its rules, should it include the various 

ways that consumers can keep track of 

their telephone account activity? 

PIC Freezes and Third-Party Billing 

Preferred Carrier Freezes by Default 

8. The Commission’s current rules 

allow consumers to protect themselves 

from slamming by ‘‘freezing’’ their 

choice of wireline providers if their 

local exchange carrier offers that ability. 

But to do so, a consumer must 

affirmatively opt in. Given the trend of 

consumers preferring to buy local and 

long-distance services together rather 

than separately, as well as emerging 

abusive practices in the market for 

resold local and long-distance services, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

making freezes the default so that 

consumers are automatically afforded 

additional protection against slamming, 

rather than requiring them to take extra 

steps to do so. The Commission believes 

this would give consumers more control 

to prevent slamming. Today, carriers 

must offer freezes for local, intraLATA 

and interLATA services and get separate 

authorization from consumers for each 

of the services the consumer chooses to 

freeze. A majority of consumers today 

purchase bundles of services rather than 

selecting individual services, and the 

Commission believes most consumers 

have no reason to distinguish 

interLATA and intraLATA services. The 

Commission seeks comment on 

eliminating the service distinctions for 

these purposes and having carrier 

freezes apply to all telephone services a 

consumer has with no need to seek 

separate authorization. The Commission 

believes consumers purchase CMRS and 

interconnected VoIP as all distance 

services and thus a default freeze does 

not make sense for these services. The 

Commission seeks comment on that 

view and whether it should consider 

extending default freezes to those 

services. 

9. If the Commission were to adopt a 

default freeze rule, should it apply to all 

local exchange carriers, or only those 

that currently offer freezes? What effect 

would the Commission’s proposal have 

on carrier billing systems and sales 

practices? How should consumers be 

notified about this change to ensure 

they are fully aware of the default 

freeze? Should the Commission change 

its current requirements for notifying 

consumers about freezes, or relax those 

requirements? What procedures should 

be put in place to lift a default freeze? 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether its freeze proposal would affect 

number exhaustion by incenting carriers 

to issue new numbers to consumers 

while waiting for the freeze to be lifted. 

The Commission’s goals are to ensure 

that the default freeze is a strong 

safeguard against slamming while not 

unduly burdening consumers who may 

want to opt out of a freeze or giving 

executing carriers who may be losing 

the customer an opportunity to behave 

anti-competitively. The Commission 

seeks comment on how to achieve these 

goals along with whether carriers 

should be able to charge for freezes. 

10. What are the costs and benefits of 

a default freeze? For carriers that 

already offer consumers a freeze option, 

the cost to implement a default freeze 

should be relatively low, essentially 

changing a field in a preexisting 

database. For carriers that do not 

currently offer a preferred carrier freeze 

to their consumers, the implementation 

costs would presumably be greater. The 

benefits of a default freeze may be 

substantial, because would-be slammers 

would face significant obstacles to 

carrying out their intended slams. The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

views and ask commenters to provide 

details on costs and benefits of both 

implementing a default freeze and 

procedures to lift a default freeze. Can 

the Commission mitigate the costs by, 

for example, extending implementation 

deadlines and considering additional 

specific relief for smaller carriers? Could 

costs be further mitigated by applying a 

default freeze only to new customers 

and not existing ones? Should the 

Commission distinguish between 

smaller local exchange carriers and 

larger local exchange carriers in what 

rules should apply? What would be the 

cost savings for consumers and carriers 

in avoiding the expense and 

inconvenience of restoring service with 

their original carrier after a slam and 

seeking a refund for the unauthorized 

charges? 

Blocking Certain Third-Party Billing by 

Default 

11. Today, the Commission’s rules do 

not prohibit carriers from placing thirdparty charges on consumers’ bills 

without verification by the consumer, a 

practice that has led to cramming. 

Consumers who do not have a preferred 

long-distance provider have been 

crammed when a third-party carrier 

adds its long-distance service to the 

consumer’s bill without authorization. 

Some consumers discover a slam and 

have their preferred carrier’s service 

reinstated but are still billed by the 

slamming carrier for local or longdistance service. 

12. The Commission seeks comment 

on requiring wireline carriers to block 

third-party charges for local and longdistance service—a frequent source of 

slamming-related cramming—by 

default, and only bill such charges if a 

consumer opts in. Do consumers 

generally expect to be charged for local 

or long-distance service by third parties? 

What trends, if any, could inform the 

Commission’s understanding of how 

consumers make choices in the market 

for telephone service? How prevalent 

are such third-party charges? Do the 

natural reductions in third-party billing 

as a result of market changes reduce the 

need for the type of rule the 

Commission proposes? The Commission 

notes that the vast majority of 

complaints and enforcement actions 

appear to target the billing practices of 

traditional local exchange carriers, not 

wireless carriers or interconnected VoIP 

providers. Is that because wireless 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 37833 

carriers and interconnected VoIP 

providers generally offer local and longdistance services as a bundle or for 

some other reason? Notwithstanding the 

lack of complaints and enforcement 

actions about CMRS and interconnected 

VoIP, the Commission seeks comment 

on whether it should extend its proposal 

to those services. 

13. How exactly should an opt-in 

process for third-party local and longdistance service work? For example, if 

a carrier offered its subscribers access to 

information about their account online, 

could a simple control be added so that 

consumers could opt in (or later opt 

back out) of third-party local and longdistance service billing? What opt-in 

options should be available for 

consumers that do not have Internet 

access? What information, if any, should 

be presented to consumers before they 

opt in to such third-party charges? 

Should opting in last indefinitely, or 

sunset after some period of time? Or 

could consumers opt in for only a single 

service change? How should consumers 

be made aware of the opt-in option? 

Should the Commission require 

providers to notify consumers at the 

point of sale? Should such notice appear 

on the provider’s Web site and 

advertising materials or on consumers’ 

bills? The Commission notes that 

several carriers have committed to 

blocking certain nontelecommunications third-party charges 

in the past. The Commission seeks 

specific comments on the processes they 

used to inform consumers about these 

changes. 

14. The Commission also seeks 

comment on several corner cases. For 

local exchange carriers that do not offer 

long-distance service, should opt in be 

required before any third-party longdistance service is charged to the 

consumer or only any change in thirdparty long-distance service? For 

consumers that currently subscribe to a 

third-party local or long-distance 

service, should those services be 

grandfathered? Or should those 

consumers be considered to have opted 

in already? And how should the 

Commission structure any rule to 

minimize the impact on single-use 

services—such as placing an 

international call through a third-party 

carrier or receiving a collect call—or 

other legitimate third-party local or 

long-distance services that haven’t been 

subject to the same pattern of abuse that 

the Commission has seen in recent 

slamming and cramming cases? 

15. The Commission seeks comment 

on the costs and benefits of an opt-in 

process for third-party local and longdistance charges. The Commission 

believes that blocking such charges 

would be beneficial to consumers and 

reduce slamming and cramming 

significantly. Yet the Commission 

recognizes that changes to carrier billing 

systems can be costly. The Commission 

believes many carriers already have the 

ability to block third-party charges, and 

seeks comment on whether this is 

correct, and whether there would be any 

challenges, including billing system and 

notification changes, for carriers arising 

from adopting an opt-in mechanism for 

third-party charges. What are the costs 

of implementing an opt-in mechanism 

for third-party charges? For those 

carriers that do not currently offer the 

option to block third-party charges, 

what costs would be associated with 

making that protection available to 

consumers and how could the 

Commission craft rules to minimize 

those costs and burdens? Would the 

costs to carriers be mitigated if the 

timeframe to implement the opt-in 

mechanism was extended or if the optin mechanism was phased in, for 

example, by requiring an opt-in for new 

customers only? Do small carriers have 

unique implementation costs or other 

burdens, and if so, how should the 

Commission address those issues? 

Double-Checking a Switch With the 

Consumer 

16. Rather than requiring an opt in 

before placing third-party local or longdistance charges on a bill, should the 

Commission require the executing 

carrier to confirm or ‘‘double-check’’ 

whether the consumer wants to switch 

providers before making the change? 

Requiring the executing carrier to 

double-check a change request could be 

a strong anti-slamming safeguard 

because it gives the consumer a second 

opportunity to confirm a switch. If the 

Commission were to adopt such a 

requirement, the Commission seeks 

comment on how the Commission could 

best implement it. 

17. Would requiring that the 

executing carrier obtain the consumer’s 

consent in writing or through the email 

address of record sufficiently protect 

consumers? Would mandating that the 

executing carrier obtain oral consent via 

a phone call to the consumer at the 

telephone number of record provide 

consumers with more protection from 

slamming? If the Commission requires 

the executing provider to confirm a 

switch request, what should the 

executing carrier be required to ask (e.g., 

‘‘the submitting carrier says that you 

would like to switch to them. Is that 

correct?’’)? Are there First Amendment 

implications related to prescribing the 

language to be used by the executing 

carrier? Should the executing carrier 

have to follow, for all switch requests, 

the procedures that are presently only in 

place when a consumer has activated a 

preferred carrier freeze? Should the 

double-check by the executing carrier be 

strictly limited to certain narrow 

questions with no opportunity for 

retention marketing? Should there be a 

deadline by which the double-check 

must occur? Should the executing 

carrier be required to notify the new 

carrier of the timing and outcome of the 

double-check? If so, should there be a 

timeframe within which that notice 

must occur? Finally, what should the 

consequences be if an executing carrier 

fails to meet the deadline? The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

effect the proposal would have on 

carrier billing systems and sales 

practices. Finally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether its proposed 

double-check would have any effect on 

number exhaustion by incenting carriers 

to issue new numbers to consumers 

while waiting for verification and 

execution of the carrier change. 

18. Currently, unless a consumer has 

activated a preferred carrier freeze, the 

slamming rules do not allow the 

executing carrier to verify whether the 

subscriber wants to change carriers 

when it receives a preferred carrier 

change request because of previous 

Commission concerns that that 

approach would be expensive, 

unnecessary, and duplicative of the 

submitting carrier’s verification. At the 

time those rules were adopted, the local 

and long-distance markets had only 

been recently opened to competition, 

and there was concern that an executing 

carrier might intentionally delay the 

carrier change or attempt to retain the 

subscriber. Today, the market for 

wireline communications services is 

more established and competitive, and 

consumers have access to a wide variety 

of providers and technologies to obtain 

long-distance services and are more 

likely to purchase bundles of services 

from the same provider. In addition, 

slamming has evolved, and the rules the 

Commission adopted almost two 

decades ago have not proven effective in 

preventing slamming. Do market trends 

involving stand-alone long-distance 

service impact the need for the type of 

slamming rules the Commission 

proposes? Based on the marketplace 

today, the Commission also seeks 

comment on the relationship between 

the ease of switching voice providers 

and broadband adoption. The 

Commission seeks to avoid unintended 

negative consequences of its proposals. 

For example, would they effectively 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
37834 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

‘‘lock’’ consumers into bundles of 

services that may not meet their current 

broadband needs? Finally, and 

fundamentally, the Commission seeks 

comment on the prevalence of 

incidences of slamming as seen in its 

enforcement actions versus the number 

of legitimate carrier changes that occur. 

19. Given these changes in the 

marketplace and the continued and 

evolving problem of slamming faced by 

consumers, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the Commission’s 

previous concerns about delays and 

anti-competitive practices that could 

arise from a double-check requirement 

are still valid. If the previous concerns 

are still well-founded, are those 

concerns now outweighed by other 

factors, such as ensuring that consumers 

are not victimized by the new forms of 

slamming? The Commission seeks 

comment on whether and how the 

changed circumstances since 1998 have 

reduced the danger of anti-competitive 

behavior, as well as how to structure a 

double-check mechanism to avoid or 

limit any competitive harms. Similar to 

its proposals above, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether it should 

extend its proposal to CMRS and 

interconnected VoIP providers. In the 

past, the Commission expressed concern 

that requiring verification by the 

executing carrier could be a de facto 

preferred carrier freeze without the 

consumer’s consent that would take 

control away from consumers. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the Commission should adopt both a 

verification by the executing carrier and 

the default carrier freeze proposed 

above. Are these processes duplicative 

and if so, does it make sense to provide 

consumers with two levels of protection 

against slamming? Does one option 

benefit consumers in ways that the other 

does not? The Commission seeks 

comment on the costs to consumers, if 

any, of both options. 

20. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the costs and benefits of 

requiring some form of secondary 

verification by the executing carrier 

before switching a consumer’s longdistance provider. The Commission 

believes the costs of requiring the 

executing carrier to perform a simple 

double-check by phone, email or in 

writing would be fairly modest, yet the 

consumer benefit in stopping slamming 

would be substantial. The Commission 

seeks comment on these views and ask 

commenters to provide details on costs 

and benefits. The Commission also 

seeks comment on how it can further 

mitigate the costs by, for example, 

extending implementation deadlines of 

any rules adopted and considering 

additional specific relief for smaller 

carriers. 

21. Section 222(b) of the Act. When it 

previously determined that executing 

carriers should not verify carrier 

changes, the Commission expressed 

concern that such verification would 

violate section 222(b) of the Act. Section 

222(b) of the Act states that a carrier that 

‘‘receives or obtains proprietary 

information from another carrier for 

purposes of providing any 

telecommunications service shall use 

such information only for such purpose, 

and shall not use such information for 

its own marketing efforts.’’ The 

Commission found that the information 

contained in a submitting carrier’s 

change request is proprietary because 

the submitting carrier must provide 

information regarding the consumer’s 

choice of long-distance providers to the 

executing carrier, to which the 

executing carrier would otherwise not 

have access, to obtain provisioning of 

service for the new subscriber. Thus, 

under the Commission’s current rules 

the executing carrier can only use the 

information to provide service to the 

submitting carrier, i.e., changing the 

subscriber’s carrier, and may not 

attempt to verify that subscriber’s 

decision to change carriers. 

22. The Commission notes that 

section 222(d)(2) of the Act provides an 

exception allowing the carrier to use the 

customer information ‘‘to protect users 

of those services and other carriers from 

fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of, 

or subscription to such services.’’ The 

Commission tentatively concludes that 

this exception supports its proposals to 

allow the executing carrier to use the 

customer information to re-verify that 

the consumer wants to change 

providers. The Commission seeks 

comment on this interpretation. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether a carrier indeed is using the 

‘‘proprietary information’’ received from 

a submitting carrier only for ‘‘purposes 

of providing any telecommunications 

service’’ if it uses that information to 

verify a carrier switch without 

conducting any additional marketing. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether double-checking by the 

executing provider could be permissive, 

rather than required, and whether 

permissive double-checking would 

fulfill the Commission’s policy goals of 

deterring slamming. 

23. If the Commission determines that 

section 222 of the Act supports 

requiring executing carriers to confirm a 

switching request, it is important to note 

that the exceptions in section 222(d) of 

the Act that allow the carrier to use the 

consumer information for a specific 

purpose would not allow the reverification process to be used for 

retention marketing, and any rule the 

Commission adopts would bar the 

executing carrier from using the 

confirmation process for marketing or 

anticompetitive purposes. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

view, and on how its rules could best 

implement such a bar. 

Other Measures 

Recording Sales Calls 

24. The Commission’s current 

verification rules provide that carriers 

shall not submit or execute carrier 

changes without authorization from the 

subscriber and verification of that 

authorization. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether submitting 

carriers that rely on TPVs should be 

required to record the entire sales call 

that precedes a switch. The Commission 

seeks comment on how to define a sales 

call. The Commission believes that a 

requirement to record all sales calls 

would deter misrepresentation and aid 

enforcement if misrepresentation does 

occur. The Commission seeks comment 

on this view. 

25. If the Commission requires that 

sales calls be recorded, should the 

Commission require the same two-year 

retention of the recordings as it 

currently does for TPV calls? Should the 

Commission also require that sales 

representatives give the consumer 

specific information to help them 

understand the call’s purpose, for 

example: (1) The identity of the 

company that is calling or on whose 

behalf the call is being made; (2) that the 

sales representative is not affiliated with 

the consumer’s current long-distance, 

international, or other toll carrier (if 

true); and (3) the purpose of the call is 

to inquire whether the consumer is 

authorized to make a change to and 

wishes to change his or her longdistance, international, or other toll 

service from his or her current preferred 

carrier to the calling carrier. Should the 

Commission’s rules also prohibit the 

sales representative from (1) making any 

false or misleading statements to the 

consumer regarding the third-party 

verifier or the role of the verifier, and (2) 

instructing the consumer in how he or 

she should respond to the verifier’s 

questions? In the alternative, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

recording the sales call should be 

voluntary as opposed to being required 

and whether a valid recording should 

serve as an affirmative defense if a 

slamming complaint was filed against 

the carrier. Further, are there First 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 37835 

Amendment implications related to 

prescribing specific notifications? 

26. The Commission does not believe 

that requiring the disclosures discussed 

above, as well as recording and 

preserving the sales call, would be 

costly for providers. At the same time, 

based on evidence from recent 

consumer complaints and enforcement 

actions indicating that sales call 

misrepresentations are a significant 

source of slamming, the Commission 

believes the benefits to consumers are 

material. The Commission seeks 

comment on these views and asks 

commenters to provide details on costs 

and benefits of its proposals. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

how it can further mitigate the costs by, 

for example, extending implementation 

deadlines and considering additional 

specific relief for smaller carriers. 

Third-Party Verifications 

27. The Commission seeks comment 

on whether TPVs are an effective means 

of providing evidence that a consumer 

wishes to switch carriers. Would 

eliminating TPVs as a verification 

mechanism be effective in preventing 

slamming and provide substantial 

benefits to consumers? How would the 

elimination of TPVs affect legitimate 

providers’ sales efforts? If the TPV is 

eliminated, are there other mechanisms 

the Commission should put in place to 

verify authorization of a carrier change? 

Should consumers have the option to 

sign up for service online after the sales 

call has ended, or to call a designated 

customer service number to confirm 

their desire to switch long distance or 

other toll services? The Commission 

seeks comment on the impact of these 

or other verification mechanisms on 

competition. The Commission seeks 

comment on the costs and benefits of 

elimination of the TPV option. The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

how it can further mitigate any costs to 

providers by, for example, extending 

implementation deadlines and 

considering additional specific relief for 

smaller carriers. 

28. If the Commission decides to 

retain TPVs as evidence of a consumer’s 

wish to switch providers, how might it 

make them more difficult to falsify? The 

Commission’s rules require that TPVs 

elicit certain information, including the 

subscriber’s identity, that the person on 

the call is authorized and wishes to 

make the switch, and the telephone 

numbers to be switched. Should the 

Commission update the TPV 

requirements to require that consumers 

affirmatively state all telephone 

numbers to be switched, rather than, as 

is currently permitted, to allow the 

third-party verifier to read off the 

numbers to be switched? Because the 

third-party verifier must already obtain 

specific information during the TPV, the 

Commission does not believe adding 

this requirement represents a significant 

additional cost. But the Commission 

believes it would benefit consumers by 

making it more difficult to falsify TPVs. 

29. Are there other ways to ensure the 

validity of the TPV? For example, 

should the Commission require 

certification of third-party verifiers by 

either carriers or the Commission? Does 

the Commission have authority to 

require such certification? The 

Commission also seeks comment on 

whether there are any current 

provisions in its verification 

requirements that it could update to 

make the rules clearer and easier to 

follow. Should the Commission 

eliminate the requirement that verifiers 

must get confirmation of each 

individual service sold (e.g., intraLATA 

and interLATA service)? Does this 

requirement make sense in today’s 

bundle-oriented marketplace? The 

Commission asks commenters to 

provide details on costs and benefits of 

implementing these potential rule 

changes. The Commission also seeks 

comment on how it can further mitigate 

the costs by, for example, extending 

implementation deadlines and 

considering additional specific relief for 

smaller carriers. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis 

30. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) of the possible significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities by the policies 

and rules proposed in document FCC 

17–91. Written public comments are 

requested on the IRFA. Comments must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments on document FCC 17–91 

provided on the first page of document 

FCC 17–91. The Commission will send 

a copy of document FCC 17–91, 

including the IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). 

Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

30. Document FCC 17–91 contains 

proposals regarding how to strengthen 

the Commission’s rules to prevent 

slamming and cramming. Slamming is 

the unauthorized change of a 

consumer’s preferred interexchange 

telecommunications service provider 

and cramming is the placement of 

unauthorized charges on a consumer’s 

telephone bill. Despite detailed 

slamming rules and truth-in-billing 

rules, thousands of consumers are still 

being slammed and billed for 

unauthorized charges. Since, 2010, the 

Commission’s Enforcement Bureau has 

brought multiple actions against carriers 

for slamming and cramming violations. 

These actions have resulted in over $80 

million dollars in fines and proposed 

forfeitures. The Commission believes 

that adopting the proposals in document 

FCC 17–91 will provide consumers with 

the additional safeguards they need to 

protect themselves from this risk. 

31. Specifically, document FCC 17–91 

seeks comment on whether and, if so, 

how: (1) The Commission should codify 

in a rule the prohibition against 

deceptive marketing and 

misrepresentations on the sales call; (2) 

the Commission should codify in a rule 

the prohibition against placing 

unauthorized charges on a consumer’s 

telephone bill; (3) the Commission 

should make preferred carrier freezes 

the default rather than something the 

consumer must initiate; (4) the 

Commission should require consumers 

to opt in to third-party billing; (5) the 

Commission should require executing 

carriers to make contact with consumers 

to verify preferred carrier change 

requests prior to execution; (6) the 

Commission should require recording 

and retention of the sales call; and (7) 

the Commission should modify the 

verification rules relating to preferred 

carrier changes to require the consumer 

to affirmatively list the telephone 

numbers to be switched in a TPV, or 

update the TPV requirements to 

eliminate the requirement to list all 

services being changed, or eliminate the 

TPV altogether as an option to verify 

authorization of a carrier switch. 

Legal Basis 

32. The legal basis for any action that 

may be taken pursuant to document 

FCC 17–91 is contained in sections 1– 

4, 201(b), and 258 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 201(b), 

258. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 

Rules Will Apply 

33. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that will 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
37836 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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. Under 

the Small Business Act, a ‘‘small 

business concern’’ is one that: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) meets any additional criteria 

established by the Small Business 

Administration. 

Wireline Carriers 

34. Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for incumbent local 

exchange services. The closest 

applicable size standard under SBA 

rules is for the category Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. 

Census Bureau defines this industry as 

‘‘establishments primarily engaged in 

operating and/or providing access to 

transmission facilities and infrastructure 

that they own and/or lease for the 

transmission of voice, data, text, sound, 

and video using wired communications 

networks. Transmission facilities may 

be based on a single technology or a 

combination of technologies. 

Establishments in this industry use the 

wired telecommunications network 

facilities that they operate to provide a 

variety of services, such as wired 

telephony services, including VoIP 

services, wired (cable) audio and video 

programming distribution, and wired 

broadband internet services. By 

exception, establishments providing 

satellite television distribution services 

using facilities and infrastructure that 

they operate are included in this 

industry.’’ Under that size standard, 

such a business is small if it has 1,500 

or fewer employees. Census data for 

2012 show that there were 3,117 firms 

that operated that year. Of this total, 

3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that most 

providers of incumbent local exchange 

service are small businesses. 

35. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers (Competitive LECs), 

Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), 

Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and 

Other Local Service Providers. Neither 

the Commission nor the SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for these service 

providers. The appropriate size standard 

under SBA rules is for the category 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 

The U.S. Census Bureau defines this 

industry as ‘‘establishments primarily 

engaged in operating and/or providing 

access to transmission facilities and 

infrastructure that they own and/or 

lease for the transmission of voice, data, 

text, sound, and video using wired 

communications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services, wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution, and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry.’’ 

Under that size standard, such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Census data for 2012 show 

that there were 3,117 firms that operated 

that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that most providers of 

competitive local exchange service, 

competitive access providers, SharedTenant Service Providers, and other 

local service providers are small 

entities. 

36. The Commission has included 

small incumbent LECs in this present 

RFA analysis. As noted above, a ‘‘small 

business’’ under the RFA is one that, 

inter alia, meets the pertinent small 

business size standard (e.g., a telephone 

communications business having 1,500 

or fewer employees), and ‘‘is not 

dominant in its field of operation.’’ The 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that, 

for RFA purposes, small incumbent 

LECs are not dominant in their field of 

operation because any such dominance 

is not ‘‘national’’ in scope. The 

Commission has therefore included 

small incumbent LECs in this RFA 

analysis, although it emphasizes that the 

RFA action has no effect on Commission 

analyses and determinations in other, 

non-RFA contexts. 

37. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a small business size 

standard specifically for providers of 

interexchange services. The appropriate 

size standard under SBA rules is for the 

category Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 

defines this industry as ‘‘establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired communications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services, wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution, and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry.’’ 

Under that size standard, such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Census data for 2012 show 

that there were 3,117 firms that operated 

that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. 

Consequently, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of IXCs are 

small entities. 

38. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a size standard for small businesses 

specifically applicable to Other Toll 

Carriers. This category includes toll 

carriers that do not fall within the 

categories of interexchange carriers, 

operator service providers, pre-paid 

calling card providers, satellite service 

carriers, or toll resellers. The closest 

applicable size standard under SBA 

rules is for Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 

defines this industry as ‘‘establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired communications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services, wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution, and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry.’’ 

Under that size standard, such a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Census data for 2012 show 

that there were 3,117 firms that operated 

that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, 

under this category and the associated 

small business size standard, the 

majority of Other Toll Carriers can be 

considered small. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 37837 

Wireless Carriers 

39. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, 

the Census Bureau has placed wireless 

firms within this new, broad, economic 

census category. Under the present and 

prior categories, the SBA has deemed a 

wireless business to be small if it has 

1,500 or fewer employees. For the 

category of Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite), Census data for 2012 show 

that there were 967 firms that operated 

for the entire year. Of this total, 955 

firms had fewer than 1,000 employees. 

Thus under this category and the 

associated size standard, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of wireless telecommunications carriers 

(except satellite) are small entities. 

Similarly, according to internally 

developed Commission data, 413 

carriers reported that they were engaged 

in the provision of wireless telephony, 

including cellular service, Personal 

Communications Service PCS, and 

Specialized Mobile Radio SMR services. 

Of this total, an estimated 261 have 

1,500 or fewer employees. Thus, using 

available data, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of wireless 

firms can be considered small. 

Resellers 

40. Local Resellers. The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for the category of 

Telecommunications Resellers. Under 

that size standard, such a business is 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 

firms provided resale services during 

that year. Of that number, all operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, 

under this category and the associated 

small business size standard, the 

majority of these pre-paid calling card 

providers can be considered small 

entities. 

41. Toll Resellers. The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for the category of 

Telecommunications Resellers. Under 

that size standard, such a business is 

small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 

firms provided resale services during 

that year. Of that number, all operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, 

under this category and the associated 

small business size standard, the 

majority of these pre-paid calling card 

providers can be considered small 

entities. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

42. Document FCC 17–91 contains 

proposals regarding how to strengthen 

the Commission’s rules to prevent 

slamming and cramming. Until the 

proposed rules are defined in full, it is 

not possible to predict with certainty 

whether the costs of compliance will be 

proportionate between small and large 

providers. The Commission seeks to 

minimize the burden associated with 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements for the 

proposed rules. 

43. The proposals under 

consideration could result in additional 

costs to regulated entities. These 

proposals may necessitate that some 

carriers create new processes or make 

changes to their existing processes 

which would impose some additional 

costs to carriers. Document FCC 17–91 

proposes to require: Reverification by 

the executing carrier; a default carrier 

freeze and procedures to lift the freeze; 

recording of sales calls and retention of 

such recordings for two years; certain 

information be conveyed during the 

sales call; implementation of new 

marketing methods; and an explicit optin decision for third-party billing. These 

proposals may require changes to 

certain carrier processes. However, 

some carriers may already be in 

compliance with some of these 

requirements and therefore, no 

additional compliance efforts will be 

required. 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

44. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant 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 or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

45. The Commission proposes rules to 

eliminate slamming and cramming on 

consumers’ bills. The Commission 

believes that any economic burden these 

proposed rules may have on carriers is 

outweighed by the considerable benefits 

to consumers. Consumers are currently 

being charged for services they never 

authorized and in some instances never 

received. In addition, consumers must 

expend significant time and energy 

trying to recoup these costs and get back 

to the provider of their choice. In 

document FCC 17–91 the Commission 

specifically asks how to minimize the 

economic impact of its proposals on 

small entities. For instance, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

specific costs of the measures it 

discusses in document FCC 17–91, and 

ways it might mitigate any 

implementation costs, including by 

extending implementation deadlines for 

small carriers. It also particularly asks 

whether smaller carriers face unique 

implementation costs and, if so, how the 

Commission might address those 

concerns. In addition, for example, it 

seeks comment on alternatives for how 

a carrier should obtain a consumer’s 

decision to opt in to third-party charges, 

if the Commission decides to adopt an 

‘‘opt-in’’ approach. Finally, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

overall economic impact these proposed 

rules may have on carriers because the 

Commission seeks to minimize all costs 

associated with these proposed rules. 

46. The Commission expects to 

consider the economic impact on small 

entities, as identified in comments filed 

in response to document FCC 17–91 and 

the IRFA, in reaching its final 

conclusions and taking action in this 

proceeding. 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

47. None. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 

Claims, Communications common 

carriers, Computer technology, Credit, 

Foreign relations, Individuals with 

disabilities, Political candidates, Radio, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Telecommunications, 

Telegraph, Telephone. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Katura Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the 

Secretary. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 64 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, 225, 254(k), 

403(b)(2)(B), (c), 715, Pub. L. 104–104, 110 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
37838 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 155 / Monday, August 14, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 

218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, 

and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112–96, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 64.1120 by revising 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 64.1120 Verification of orders for 

telecommunications services. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Authorization from the subscriber, 

subject to the following: 

(A) Misrepresentation and/or 

deception on the sales call is prohibited. 

Authorization is not valid if there is any 

misrepresentation and/or deception 

when making the sales call. 

(B) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 64.2401 by adding 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 64.2401 Truth-in Billing Requirements. 

* * * * * 

(g) Prohibition against unauthorized 

charges. Carriers shall not place or cause 

to be placed on any telephone bill 

charges that have not been authorized 

by the subscriber. For purposes of this 

subsection, telephone bill means any 

bill that contains charges for an 

interstate telecommunications service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–16961 Filed 8–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS