WPCA 2BJZ Courier3|j>fx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4M (PCL)HPLA4MPC.PRSx  @\.FX@26<F  Z3|jTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic݌HP LaserJet 4M (PCL)HPLA4MPC.PRSC\  P6Q\.FP2 K[KK@"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d"")>F)))))))))<)C"VV5VYO5O5O5O5^<^<^<^>^<^C^F.".C.).CaC>>^CO"O6O)O0O"VCVVCVC^<^O=O)OFVCVCVCVCVCVCxVV>O5O5O5VCO)VCC.O)V<X<<( (WTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN+HH+@<)<<<< A yO-#X\  P6G;IP#ЍXx47 U.S.C.  228(c)(7)(C)(i).(#Ə and we have incorporated this provision  xin the proposed presubscription definition. We ask commenters, however, to consider whether  xsafeguards should be required to ensure that these agreements are valid commercial instruments  xand that electronic execution does not encourage the abuses that arose from oral execution of presubscription contracts.  X1- px` ` *43. Finally, we are proposing to add to our presubscription definition a  xrequirement that a consumer must use a preexisting credit, charge, or calling cards to obtain  x.information services and that an actual card must have been delivered to the party to be billed  xprior to assessment of any charges. Additionally, such cards could not operate to assess charges  xthrough ANI. We have made these proposals to prevent use of "instant" credit, charge, or calling  xcards that might be issued by an IP during the course of a call to an information service without confirming that the caller is, in fact, the party to be billed. x` `  Xy-x 2. "Restrictions on the Use of TollFree Numbers" 47 C.F.R. 64.1504  XK- p x` ` +44. The limitations on the use of tollfree numbers to provide information  X4- xservices contained in Section 228(c)(7) are framed to apply to "the calling party."?4A yO-#X\  P6G;IP#ЍXx47 U.S.C.  228(c)(7).(#Ɖ Thus, the  X- xstatute explicitly protects callers to tollfree numbers from six prohibited transactions, including  xconnection to a paypercall service and assessment of informationservice charges absent a  x/written agreement or payment by prepaid account, debit, credit, charge, or calling card. We  xKpropose to modify Section 64.1504 to ensure that subscribers whose telephone lines may be used  x/to place calls to tollfree numbers likewise are not assessed charges for calls to information  xservices provided by means specifically described in the statutory prohibitions. Thus, we propose  x[to amend Section 64.1504(c), (d), and (e) to state explicitly that the protections afforded to "the  X~- x=calling party" also apply to "the subscriber to the originating line."@~@A yOo!-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxSee TDDRA FNPRM, 9 FCC Rcd at 6896.(#ƕ This amendment should  xensure that a telephone subscriber will not be billed for information services obtained by another  xindividual who uses the subscriber's line to place calls to numbers widely understood to be tollfree. ""@,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ X- px` ` ,45. Restoration of public confidence in tollfree calling was a priority for this  X- xCommission in adopting the TDDRA FNPRMAA yOb-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxTDDRA FNPRM, 9 FCC Rcd at 6895.(#ƅ and for Congress in amending Section 228 of  X- xthe Communications Act.BXA yO-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxSee Joint Explanatory Statement, S. Rep. No. 104230 at 20203. (#Ʀ That goal remains crucial in this new proceeding. We ask parties  xto comment on the potential effectiveness of these provisions in combating deception and fraud  xthat have been associated with 800 number information services and invite comment as to  xwhether any other actions might be warranted to forestall future abuse involving tollfree  xnumbers. In particular, we ask parties to address our tentative conclusion that a carrier's billing  xof calls dialed to an 800 or other tollfree number on the basis of ANI is a violation of Section  XH- x228(c)(7)(A) of the Communications Act:CHA yO -  \#X\  P6G;IP#эXxThis provision prohibits use of tollfree numbers "in a manner that would result in the calling party being assessed, by virtue of completing the call, a charge for the call." 47 U.S.C.  228(c)(7)(A). (#: unless the call involves use of telecommunications  xdevices for the deaf. Usually, calls to carriers' tollfreeaccess numbers are delivered only if a  xcalling card is used or the call is collect. We have received complaints that some carriers bill  xycalls to their tollfreeaccess numbers to the originating line instead of to the customer's calling  X - x<card account.D @A yO-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxSee Transglobal Telecommunications Co. v. Etel, Inc., E9514.(#ƥ This encourages toll fraud especially from aggregator phones and phones that  xZhave been blocked from long distance direct dialing because the subscriber who is charged and  x{the individual making the call are not always the same. With the exception of calls using  xtelecommunications devices for the deaf, reliance on ANI to bill any type of call to a tollfree  xLnumber even a carrier's tollfreeaccess code does not appear to satisfy a common carrier's  Xy- xstatutory obligation to provide communications service in a just and reasonable manner.E@yA yO-  \#X\  P6G;IP#эXxIn 1992, prior to enactment of TDDRA's limitations on the use of 800 numbers to charge consumers for   information services, the National Association of Attorneys General filed a Petition for Modification and   Clarification of the Commission's paypercall rules. The Petition was treated as a petition for rule making   >(RM7990), which was later incorporated with our implementation of the TDDRA. Because we believed   zthat the statutory prohibitions and presubscription standards reflected in Section 64.1504 and 64.1501(b)   would effectively preclude reliance on ANI to bill callers for 800 number information services, we found  yO-  it unnecessary, at that time, to adopt a rule expressly prohibiting that practice. TDDRA Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 6891 n.50. (# We  x seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We encourage parties to address whether it is  xappropriate to revisit issues involving use of ANI to bill callers to tollfree numbers now, and, if so, what would be the most effective regulatory response.  X-  Xx 3. "Billing and Collection of PayPerCall and Similar Service Charges" 47  X-C.F.R.  64.1510 (#  X- px` ` -46. We propose one minor modification to Section 64.1510(c) to implement  x=the 1996 Act's billing requirements virtually verbatim. As set forth in Appendix B, we propose"E,N(N(ZZp"  xto add language to state explicitly that charges for presubscribed information services accessed  xjthrough a tollfree number must be displayed separately from those for local and longdistance  X- xtelephone service. We proposed such a requirement in the TDDRA FNPRM,FA yOK-#X\  P6G;IP#ЍXx9 FCC Rcd at 6896.(#Ƃ and continue to  xkbelieve that such separate identification of charges for normally tollfree calls is essential to  xeliminating consumer confusion about such charges. We seek comment on the costs to carriers  x.for separate billing. In addition, although we have not proposed a rule change at this time, we  xyrequest commenters' views as to whether current or predicted conditions warrant adoption of a  xrule covering carrier billing of presubscribed information services that are not available through tollfree numbers.  X -x 4. Redefinition of PayPerCall to Remove the Tariffed Services Exemption  X -  X - px` ` .47. In repealing the tariffed services exemption to paypercall status, Congress  x-specifically sought to end service arrangements in which telephone subscribers are charged high  X - xprices for transmission of calls to ostensibly free information services.G XA yO-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxSee Joint Explanatory Statement, S. Rep. No. 104230 at 202.(#Ƣ We are concerned,  xhowever, that some entities may seek to continue these arrangements despite Congress' clear  x-intention that they be ended. Under Section 228 of the Communications Act, imposition of a per xcall or pertimeinterval charge in excess of the charge assessed for transmitting a call is a  Xb- xrequirement for paypercall status.H bA yO-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxSection 228(i)(l) provides that (# XxX` ` [t]he term 'paypercall services' means any service (#` XxX` ` X (A) in which any person provides or purports to provide (#  7XxX` ` X X(i) audio information or audio entertainment produced or packaged by such person;(# XxX` ` X X(ii) access to simultaneous voice conversation service; or(#  cXxX` ` X X(iii) any service, including the provision of a product, the charges for which are assessed on the basis of the completion of the call;(#   pXxX` ` X (B) for which the caller pays a percall or pertimeinterval charge that is greater than, or in addition to, the charge for transmission of the call; and(#   pbXxX` ` X (C) which is accessed through use of a 900 number or any other prefix or area code designated by the Commission. . . . (# Xx47 U.S.C.  228(i)(1).(# Carriers who have invoked the tariffed services exemption  x=in an effort to shelter arrangements whereby information services are provided at tariffed rates  xmight likewise still claim that their services do not meet the criteria for paypercall status  x!because callers purportedly are not charged for conveyance of information but only for  xtransmission of calls. While there may be some truly free information services that callers might"H,N(N(ZZ"  X- xwish to access through a toll call,IXA yOy-  L#X\  P6G;IP#эXxCommenters responding the TDDRA FNPRM have cited, for example, local time or weather, movie theater  yOA-  Minformation, product information, or airline flight information. See Comments of InfoAccess, Inc. at 4; Reply Comments of Pilgrim Telephone, Inc. at 56, 8.(#ƙ we believe that we must take steps to ensure that the  xprotective purposes underlying Congress' decision to remove the tariffed services exemption are  xfully realized. Congress specifically recognized that the consumer protections enacted by the  xTDDRA are eviscerated when information providers are able to charge consumers tariffed rates  X- xMfor the provision of information services.JXA yO= -  #X\  P6G;IP#эXxSee Joint Explanatory Statement, S. Rep. No. 104230 at 202. ("This [tariffed services] exemption has   Mproven to be a problem because consumers have none of the protections that were enacted as part of the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act (P.L. 102556).")(#ƚ Such services are misleadingly characterized as  x<ordinary long distance telecommunications and are billed to telephone subscribers as "deniable," meaning that failure to pay charges may jeopardize local and long distance telephone service.  XH- pEx` ` /48. Pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act,vKHA yO-#X\  P6G;IP#эXx47 U.S.C.  154(i).(#v we tentatively  x.conclude that when a common carrier charges a telephone subscriber for a call to an interstate  xinformation service, any form of remuneration from that carrier to an entity providing or  X - xadvertising the service, or any reciprocal arrangement between such entities, constitutes per se  xMevidence that the charge levied actually exceeds the charge for transmission. Accordingly,  xinterstate services provided through such arrangements would fit within the paypercall definition  xand, thus, be required to be offered exclusively through 900 numbers. We invite comment on  xthis tentative conclusion and, also, as to whether, in any event, such conduct by a common carrier is just and reasonable.  Xb- IV. PROCEDURAL ISSUES ă  X4- A. Administrative Procedure Act Requirements  X- px` ` 049. Because the rule changes set forth in Appendix A and adopted herein  xLsimply conform the Commission's Rules to the statute, we find for good cause that compliance  X- xxwith the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act is unnecessary. See  x5 U.S.C.  553(b)(B). Moreover, to the extent that the provisions of the 1996 Act mirror  X- xproposals set forth in the TDDRA FNPRM, notice and comment requirements have been satisfied.  Xe- B. Ex Parte Presentations  X7-  pD x` ` 150. This is a nonrestricted noticeandcomment rulemaking proceeding. Ex  X - xparte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they" K,N(N(ZZz"  X- x]are disclosed as provided in the Commission's  ml R ml ules. See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206.  X- C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  X- p'x` ` 251. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  601, et seq, the  Xv- xCommission's Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with respect to this Notice of Proposed Rule  X_-Making is as follows:  X1- px` ` 352. Reason for action. The Commission is issuing this Notice of Proposed Rule  X - xMaking to afford consumers greater protection from deceptive practices associated with the provision of interstate information services.  X - p5x` ` 453. Objectives. The objective of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is to  x=provide an opportunity for public comment and to provide a record for a Commission decision  X -on the issue stated above.  Xy- pSx` ` 554. Legal Basis. Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 228 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), and 228.  X6- p5x` ` 655. Description, potential impact, and number of small entities affected. As  x1set forth above, the Commission is proposing to amend paypercall rules to prevent  x.circumvention of new federal standards that were enacted in the 1996 Act to govern interstate  xOinformation services. Specifically, the Commission is proposing to require that (1) all  xpresubscription arrangements to purchase interstate information services (not just those involving  xLtollfree service) be executed in writing or, alternatively, through payment by direct remittance,  x.prepaid account, or debit, credit, or calling card; (2) limitations on the use of tollfree numbers  x\to provide information services apply to both "the calling party" and "the subscriber to the  xoriginating line;" and (3) charges for presubscribed information services accessed through a toll xfree number must be displayed separately on a telephone bill from charges for local and long xdistance telephone service. The Commission is seeking public comment on the proposed rule  xchanges and asking whether additional measures are necessary to ensure that the protective  xzpurposes of the 1996 Act are realized and consumers are protected from deceptive practices associated with the provision of some interstate information services.  ` x` ` 756. The proposed rule changes set forth in Appendix B and any other changes that  xmight occur as a result of this proceeding could affect both common carriers and IPs that qualify  X!- x.as small business entities under Section 601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,uL!A yO($-#X\  P6G;IP#эXx5 U.S.C.  601(3).(#u Section 3 of  X"- xthe Small Business Act,vM"XA yO&-#X\  P6G;IP#эXx15 U.S.C.  632(a).(#v and standards promulgated by the Small Business Administration at 13""M,N(N(ZZ!"  xC.F.R.  121.201. The proposed rules would impose constraints on common carriers that bill  xtelephone subscribers for interstate information services offered pursuant to presubscription  x>arrangements. Filings with the Commission indicate that there are 1,347 LECs who might be  xaffected by the proposal to require separation of "tollfree" presubscribed information service  X- x-charges from local and longdistance telephone charges.2NA yO-  #X\  P6G;IP#эXxSee FCC Industry Analysis Div., Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers, Table 1 (rel. Dec. 18, 1995) (reporting number of LECs filing Telecommunications Relay Services Fund Worksheet).(#2 The proposed separation requirement  xis not likely to have a significant economic impact on any carrier that bills telephone subscribers  xjfor information services provided through tollfree numbers by means of a telephone bill, since  x those carriers are already required by statute to list the tollfree number actually dialed and  xinclude a disclaimer informing the subscriber that "common carriers may not disconnect local or  X1- xjlong distance telephone service for failure to pay disputed charges for information services."O1 A yO -#X\  P6G;IP#эXx47 U.S.C.  228(c)(8)(B)(ii)(iii). See para. 19, supra.(#ƨ  xWe invite parties to comment on this tentative conclusion. In addition, parties opposing the  xseparate billing requirement should identify other measures that would ensure telephone subscribers are able to identify easily the type of charges contained on a telephone bill.  ` Px` ` 857. While the Commission's Rules directly apply to common carriers that transmit  xand bill subscribers for interstate information services, IPs actually providing the information  xLservices may be indirectly affected. For example, IPs that have used tollfree numbers and oral  xjpresubscription arrangements to provide information services will be affected  mleffected by the proposed  xlimitations involving use of tollfree numbers and mandatory written presubscription. These IPs  x.may experience adverse economic impact in that they will have to change the manner in which  xthey provide information services to secure common carrier billing or to ensure compliance with  xthe tariffs under which they obtain tollfree service. The Commission has only limited and  xunverifiable information to predict either the total number of affected IPs or the percentage of  xaffected IPs that qualify as small entities. IPs are not subject to federal licensing or reporting  xrequirements and the staff has been able to obtain from industry sources only an informal  xestimate that the total number of IPs currently operating is probably somewhere between 10,000  xand 20,000. Even assuming that this rough estimate is correct, we cannot, with certainty,  x(1)identify what portion of all IPs might be providing service in a manner that would subject  x<them to the proposed regulations governing tollfree numbers and presubscription arrangements,  xor (2)predict what portion of all IPs are small businesses. We invite parties commenting on this  xinitial regulatory flexibility analysis to provide information as to the number of small businesses  xthat would be affected by our proposed regulations and identify alternatives that would reduce  xthe burden on these entities while still ensuring that consumers are neither "presubscribed" to any  xinformation service without their informed and explicit consent nor charged for calls that they  xkbelieve are tollfree. After evaluating the comments in this proceeding, the Commission will  xfurther examine the impact of any rule changes on small entities and set forth findings in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. "!O,N(N(ZZ "Ԍ X-  px` ` 958. Reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. The  xproposed rules would impose disclosure requirements upon common carriers that bill telephone  xLsubscribers for presubscribed information services and, indirectly, upon IPs that provide such  x0services. Common carriers would be required, on telephone bills, to display charges for  xjpresubscribed information services separately from local and long distance telephone charges.  xUnder the proposed definition of a presubscription or comparable arrangement, IPs that wish to  xoffer presubscribed information services would be required to execute all presubscription  x-agreements in writing and include in each agreement specific information regarding the terms and conditions under which the service is to be provided.  X - ` x` ` :59. Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rules.  xjAs required by the TDDRA, FTC regulations prescribe federal standards governing IPs and all  X -entities, including common carriers, that bill and collect for interstate information services.P A yOe -#X\  P6G;IP#эXx16 C.F.R.  308.1 et seq. (#Ɖ  X -  px` ` ;60. Any significant alternatives minimizing impact on small entities and  X - xconsistent with stated objectives. The Commission has considered proposing no rule changes  xbeyond those specifically required by the 1996 Act, but concluded that further action is demanded  xby the likelihood of attempts to evade the new statutory requirements. Therefore, as discussed  xabove, we are proposing very limited rule changes which, given the history of widespread  xdeception and abuse, we believe are minimally intrusive steps necessary to discourage possible  x#evasion of the new federal paypercall standards contained in Section 228 of the  X- xzCommunications Act.QXA yO&-#X\  P6G;IP#эXxSee paras. 3948, supra.(#Ƅ We are inviting public comment as to whether the proposals will be  xeffective deterrents or whether other requirements should be adopted. We shall consider any  xalternatives suggested in comments that are consistent with the statutory objectives of Section 228  x of the Communications Act and will afford telephone subscribers effective protection from abusive practices involving provision of interstate information services.  X- p&x` ` <61. Comments are solicited. Written comments are requested on this Initial  xRegulatory Flexibility Analysis. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same  Xe- xfiling deadlines set for comments on the other issues in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making but  x-they must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the Regulatory  X7- xFlexibility Analysis. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making  xto the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in Accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.  X- D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis  X!- px` ` =62. This Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making contains either a proposed  xlor modified information collection. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork""Q,N(N(ZZ!"  xburdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to take  xthis opportunity to comment on the information collections contained in this item, as required by  xthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 10413. Public and agency comments are due  X- xat the same time as other comments on the Notice of Proposed Rule Making. OMB comments  X- xLare due 60 days from the date of publication of the Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making  x/in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of  xlinformation is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission,  x"including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the  xCommission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the  xinformation collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on  x]the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.  X - E. Comment Filing Procedures  X - p x` ` >63. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of  xthe Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or  xbefore August 26, 1996, and reply comments on or before September 16, 1996. To file formally  xin this proceeding, participants must file an original and four copies of all comments, reply  xKcomments, and supporting comments. If participants wish each Commissioner to have a personal  xNcopy of their comments, an original plus nine copies must be filed. Comments and reply  xLcomments should be sent to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,  xWashington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection  x|during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239) of the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.  X- px` ` ?64. Parties are asked to submit comments and reply comments on diskette.  x\Such diskette submission are in addition to the formal filing requirements addressed above.  xParties submitting diskettes should submit them to Mary Romano of the Common Carrier Bureau,  x2025 M Street, N.W., Room 6120, Washington, D.C. 20554. Such submissions should be on  xa 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible form using MS DOS 5.0 and WordPerfect  x5.1 software. The diskette should be submitted in "read only" mode. The diskette should be  xclearly labelled with the party's name, proceeding, type of pleading (comment or reply comments) and date of submission. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter.  X- psx` ` @65. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified  X - x[information collections are due at the same time as other comments on this Notice of Proposed  X!- xNRule Making. Written comments by OMB on the proposed and/or modified information  xcollections must be submitted on or before 60 days after date of publication in the Federal  x\Register. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the  x information collections contained herein should be submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal  x=Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or via  xInternet to dconway@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503 or via the Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov."#'Q,N(N(ZZ%"Ԍ X-ԙ V. CONCLUSION  X- pU x` ` A66. In this Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making, we amend our  xregulations to implement the Section 701 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and propose  x.additional minor modifications to maximize consumers' protection from confusing or deceptive  xpractices related to the provision of interstate information services and guard against future abuse.  x<Commenters are encouraged to address the proposed rules set forth in Appendix B and explained  xabove. We urge parties to assess carefully whether the rules will effectively correct and deter abuse, and to offer alternative suggestions, including specific rule language.  X1-   X - VI. ORDERING CLAUSES  X - p&x ` ` B67. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 228  xof the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  152, 154(i), 154(j), and 228, that 47 C.F.R. Part 64  xIS AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A, below, effective 150 days from publication of the text of the designated rules in the Federal Register.  Xy- pTx` ` C68. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 228  Xb- xof the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  152, 154(i), 154(j), and 228, that a Notice of Proposed  XK- xzRule Making is hereby ADOPTED, proposing amendment of 47 C.F.R. Part 64 as set forth in the Appendix B.  X- px` ` D69. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CC Docket No. 9322 is hereby  X-terminated.  X- px` ` E70. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Secretary shall send a copy of this  X- xLNotice of Proposed Rule Making including the initial regulatory flexibility analysis to the Chief  xCounsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton x` `  hhActing Secretary " Q,N(N(ZZ"  X-      T P ) APPENDIX A Ã [RULES AMENDED  X- Part 64 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:  XH- x  AUTHORITY: Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, unless otherwise noted.  xt"Interpret or apply secs. 201, 218, 226, 228, 48 Stat 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 226, 228 unless otherwise noted.  X - 2. The heading of Subpart O of Part 64 is revised to read as follows: Subpart OInterstate PayPerCall and Other Information Services 3. Section 64.1501 is revised to read as follows: For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions shall apply:  X4-(a) Paypercall service means any service: Xx(1) In which any person provides or purports to provide:(#  ` XxX` ` (i) Audio information or audio entertainment produced or packaged by such person;(#` XxX` ` (ii) Access to simultaneous voice conversation services; or(#`  ` XxX` ` (iii) Any service, including the provision of a product, the charges for which are assessed on the basis of the completion of the call;(#`   Xx(2) For which the caller pays a percall or pertimeinterval charge that is greater than, or in addition to, the charge for transmission of the call; and(# Xx(3) Which is accessed through use of a 900 number;(#   Xx(4) Provided, however, such term does not include directory services provided by a   !common carrier or its affiliate or by a local exchange carrier or its affiliate, or any service   _for which users are assessed charges only after entering into a presubscription or comparable arrangement with the provider of such service.(#  X:&-(b)xPresubscription or comparable arrangement means a contractual agreement in which  X (- ` X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: