WPC5 2BJZ Courier3|j x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si 2000M RM 210HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\d"MpX@266 ZFKK3|j HP LaserJet 5Si 2000M RM 210HPLAS5SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\d"MpXP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2t  T  a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2n>a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2I'a1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2Ta3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2!3Te!a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:/>/>/>/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."""""""""2"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""\4  pG;kW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPlH5!,),5\  P6G;,P\5hC:,%rXh*f9 xr G;XX25 X4 X    X4w  Federal Communications Commission`(#ZFCC 97117 ă   yxdddy vf#X\  P6G;ɒP# Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO'}9Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  X 4#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#In the Matter of) ) )  X4Rules and Regulations Implementing)CC Docket 9290 the Telephone Consumer Protection) Act of 1991) )  X: '  ORDER ON FURTHER RECONSIDERATION \  X 4X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:&'ԍ MCI Petition at 1.; The Commission issued a Public NoticeAXVJ yO' x ԍ Public Notice, Commission Seeks Comment on MCI Petition for Clarification and/or Reconsideration of  yOX' x Commission Order Finalizing Rules Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, DA 952030, 10 FCC Rcd 13168 (1995).A on October 6, 1995, seeking",))ZZ}"  X4 xcomment on the MCI petition.   Three commentsXP yO' xQ ԍ Comments were filed by Sprint Communications Company L.P. ("Sprint"), Russell R. Smith ("Smith") and the Ameritech Operating Companies ("Ameritech"). were filed in response to the Public Notice, and  xMCI filed a reply. We grant MCI's request for clarification or, in the alternative, reconsideration  X4 xof our Memorandum Opinion and Order by stating that a message sent by a facsimile broadcast  x_service provider must contain the identification and telephone number of the entity on whose behalf the message was sent.  Xv4 g< II. BACKGROUND ă  "2. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), Public Law 102243 (1991),  X14 xcamended Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.  201 et seq., by adding a new  x3section, 47 U.S.C.  227. The TCPA restricted the use of telephone equipment for telemarketing  xpurposes by imposing restrictions on the use of automatic dialing systems, of artificial or  x=prerecorded voice messages, and of telephone facsimile machines to send unsolicited  x@advertisements. The TCPA prohibited the transmission of unsolicited advertisements by telephone  xhfacsimile machines and required those using telephone facsimile machines or transmitting  xartificial or prerecorded voice messages to identify themselves to message recipients. The  xCommission sought to implement the TCPA in a way that reasonably accommodated individuals'  xrights to privacy as well as the legitimate business interests of telemarketers. We amended  xSection 68.318 of the Commission's rules to require that all facsimile transmissions identify the  xbusiness, entity or individual sending the message and the telephone number of the sending  X44 x_machine or of such business, entity or individual sending the message. In the Memorandum  X4 xOpinion and Order we further stated that facsimile broadcast service providers@XP yO' x ԍ Facsimile broadcast service providers are businesses or individuals that transmit messages on behalf of other entities to selected destinations and that do not determine either the message content or to whom they are sent. also must comply  x/with these identification requirements. We required that a facsimile broadcast service provider  X4 xltransmitting messages for multiple entities ensure that its own identifying information and the  xidentifying information of each entity on whose behalf it has sent messages appear separately on  X4 x<facsimile broadcasts.uXP yO !'ԍ See Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12407, para. 35.u We reconsider our decision in the Memorandum Opinion and Order and  X4 x<require that a facsimile broadcast service provider ensure that the identifying information of the entity on whose behalf the provider sent messages appear on facsimile messages.  Xe4 "F 3. MCI, Sprint and Ameritech argue that the Commission erred in stating that the  xfacsimile broadcast service provider must ensure that two identifications, that of the entity on  xwhose behalf the facsimile was sent and that of the facsimile broadcast service provider, appear"7( ,-(-(ZZ"  X4 xon each facsimile message the facsimile broadcast service provider sends. XP yOy'ԍ See MCI Petition at 1; Sprint Comments at 23; Ameritech Comments at 2; MCI Reply at 2. While Ameritech  xargues that the Commission erred in requiring dual identification, it requests that the Commission  X4 xallow a facsimile broadcast provider to supply dual identification if it chooses to do so.K XXP yO'ԍ See Ameritech Comments at 2.K Smith,  xhowever, requests that the Commission deny MCI's petition and affirm the requirement that both  xthe facsimile broadcast service provider and the entity on whose behalf the facsimile was sent  X4place identifying information on a facsimile message.G XP yO& 'ԍ See Smith Comments at 1.G  "4. MCI, Sprint, and Ameritech contend that Section 68.318(c)(3) of the Commission's  xNrules requires that only one entity be identified as the sender of the facsimile and that the  X14 x}Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order creates an additional obligation by requiring the  X 4identification of two entities.  xXP yOC'ԍ See MCI Petition at 1; Sprint Comments at 3; Ameritech Comments at 2; MCI Reply at 1. Section 68.318(c)(3) provides that:  XIt shall be unlawful for any person within the United States to use a computer or  Fother electronic device to send any message via a telephone facsimile unless such  9message contains, in a margin at the top or bottom of each transmitted page or on  the first page of the transmission, the date and time it is sent and an identification  X4 `of the business, other entity, or individual sending the message [emphasis added]  zand the telephone number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity,   or individual . . . Telephone facsimile machines manufactured on and after  rDecember 20, 1992, must clearly mark such identifying information on each  X64transmitted message.M 6XP yO'ԍ 47 C.F.R.  68.318(c)(3). M   xMMCI asserts that the "message sender" is the entity responsible for the content of the message and  xonly its identifying information should be placed on the facsimile message. MCI states that the  x+facsimile broadcast service provider is not responsible for the content of the message that it  X4 x/transmits and, therefore, it should not be identified as the message sender.XP yO !'ԍ See MCI Petition at 12; Sprint Comments at 2; Ameritech Comments at 2; MCI Reply at 1. Ameritech asserts  xRthat neither the TCPA nor the Commission's orders in this docket state an intent to define a  X4 xfacsimile broadcast service provider as a "sender" under Section 68.318(c)(3).R( XP yOn$'ԍ See Ameritech Comments at 2, fn. 4.R Notwithstanding  xthese claims, Smith states that Section 68.318(c)(3) requires that identification of the facsimile  x@broadcast service provider be placed on the facsimile message and Section 64.1200(e)(iv), the rule  xyregarding identification of a telephone solicitor, requires that identification of the entity whom"P ,-(-(ZZ"  x}the facsimile broadcaster represents (by transmitting the facsimile) be contained within the body  X4of the facsimile.HXP yOb'ԍ See Smith Comments at 2. H  "5. Parties also argue that facsimile broadcast service providers are not ultimately liable  xdfor failure to comply with Section 64.1200(a)(3), the rule banning unsolicited facsimile  X4 xadvertisements,uXXP yO'ԍ See Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12407, para. 35.u and thus there is no reason for their identifying information to appear on the  Xv4 xlfacsimile message.\vXP yO 'ԍ See Sprint Comments at 23; MCI Reply at 12.\ MCI and Sprint assert that if a facsimile message is sent in violation of  xcSection 64.1200(a)(3), the identification and telephone number of the entity on whose behalf the  xfacsimile was sent will give the recipient consumer the information necessary to initiate a contact  X14 xor complaint and to prevent the consumer from receiving additional unwanted facsimiles.l1xXP yOZ'ԍ See MCI Petition at 2; Sprint Comments at 2; MCI Reply at 1.l  x<Parties contend that dual identification will confuse facsimile recipients as to who is responsible  xfor the message and may cause consumers incorrectly to link the facsimile broadcast service  X 4 x<provider to the content of the message. XP yO'ԍ See MCI Petition at 2; Sprint Comments at 3; Ameritech Comments at 2; MCI Reply at 12. In contrast, Smith reports that dual identification may  x/allow consumers to trace unwanted facsimiles through the broadcaster when the identity of the  X 4 xentity on whose behalf the facsimile was sent is not clear.G XP yO'ԍ See Smith Comments at 2.G After reviewing the complaints filed  xwith the Commission under the TCPA, Smith states that in many facsimile complaint cases there  X4 xis a lack of sufficient identifying information by the sender of the facsimile message.Q( XP yOi'ԍ See Smith Comments at 1, Appendix.Q Finally,  xSmith notes that a facsimile broadcast service provider could put a disclaimer on the facsimile message to ensure that the recipient does not associate it with the content of the message.  X44C III. DISCUSSION ă  X4 "6.  The purpose of Section 68.318(c)(3), which parallels the language of the TCPA,^ XP yOo!'ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  227(d)(1) and 227(d)(2).^ is  xAto ensure that consumers will have the information they need to identify the sender of an  X4 xunsolicited facsimile message.XH XP yO$' x! ԍ In our Report and Order, we noted that carriers who transmitted unsolicited facsimile advertisements on behalf  x of other entities would be not liable for failure to comply with Section 64.1200(a)(3), the rule banning unsolicited facsimile advertisements, unless they had "a high degree of involvement" in sending the unsolicited facsimile"a&,-(-(q&"Ԍ yO' x messages or had actual notice of the illegal messages and failed to take steps to prevent such transmissions. See  yOX'Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 8779, para. 54.  Section 68.318(c)(3) requires that all facsimile transmissions" ,-(-(ZZ"  xprovide two informational elements: (1) the identity of the business, entity or individual sending  X4 xthe message; and (2) the telephone number of the sending machine or of such business, entity or  xindividual sending the message. MCI contends that only the identity and telephone number of  x/the "message sender," which it defines as the entity responsible for the content of the message,  xshould appear on a facsimile message sent by a facsimile broadcast service provider. Having  X4 xureviewed the pleadings, the TCPA's statutory language^ XP yO^ 'ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  227(d)(1) and 227(d)(2).^ and the legislative history of the  Xv4 x&TCPA,cvXP yO 'ԍ See S. Rep. No. 178, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 9 (1991).c we reconsider our determination in our Memorandum Opinion and Order that a facsimile  X_4 xNbroadcast service provider must ensure that its identifying information and the identifying  xinformation of the entity on whose behalf it sent facsimile messages must appear on the  xmessages. We clarify that the sender of a facsimile message is the creator of the content of the  X 4 xmessage. We find that the Section 227(d)(1)L @XP yO 'ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  227(d)(1).L of the statute mandates that a facsimile include  x+the identification of the business, other entity, or individual creating or originating a facsimile  X 4 xImessage and not the entity that transmits the message.  XP yOm' x ԍ See Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 12407, fn. 90. S. Rep. No. 178, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 9 (1991) states that:   Xregulations concerning the use of these machines apply to the persons initiating the telephone call    or sending the message and do not apply to the common carrier or other entity that transmits the call or message and that is not the originator or controller of the content of the call or message.    We do not find anything in the TCPA  xthat would prohibit a facsimile broadcast provider from supplying identification of itself and the  xentity originating a message if it arranges with the message sender to do so. This, however, is  xa matter between the parties, and we emphasize that in cases where parties choose to place dual  xidentification upon the facsimile message, it must be clear which entity is the content originator  xand which entity is merely the transmitter of the message. Thus, we protect consumers' rights  x"to identify the sender of an unsolicited facsimile message without unduly hindering the business practices of facsimile broadcast service providers.  X4H& IV. ORDERING CLAUSE ă  "7. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 227(d)(2) and 405(a) of the Communications  xAct of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 227(d)(2) and 405(a), and Section 1.106 of the  xCommission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, IT IS ORDERED, that MCI's petition for clarification or, in the alternative, reconsideration is GRANTED. "|H ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X4ԙ` `  hhCFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION(#(# ` `  hhCWilliam F. Caton ` `  hhCActing Secretary