WPC\X 2BJ Z Courier3|o manTimes Roman ItalicKX@HP LaserJet 4 PostScriptHPLA4POS.PRSx  @hhhhWYX@2a6"CourierTimes RomanCourierTimes RomanTimes Roman ItalicTimes Roman BoldX@a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8@   a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersA@` `  ` ` ` a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJ@  ` `  2}@a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersS@  a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers\  @hh# hhh a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numberse  @( hh# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn @- ( 2b   : a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw@pp2 -ppp a1DocumentDocument Style F *  ׃  a2DocumentDocument Style *    a3DocumentDocument Style 0     2> p e ei p a4DocumentDocument Style  . a5DocumentDocument Style  a6DocumentDocument Style  a7DocumentDocument Style` ` ` 2 pp   , a8DocumentDocument Style ` ` ` a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style4!!"     a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style*#$    a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style'%&    2  a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style&'(    a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style&)*  . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style&+,  . a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style&-.  . 2aE}Fa8TechnicalTechnical Document Style&/0  . a1Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)$12 a2Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)/34` ` ` a3Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a):56` ` `  2M1a4Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)E78` ` `  a5Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)P9:` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)[;< a7Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)f=> 2 I!G")a8Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) q?@  X   Њ#Xj\  PG;XP#X01Í ÍX0Í Ífootnote tex!EABE#Xj\  P7G;XP##Xj\  P8G;XP#footnote ref">CD>#Xj\  P9G;XP##Xj\  P:G;XP#2B0k'/@8JL@x6X@7X@<6X9`(CourierXXj\  PG;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXx6X@7X@<6X9`(CourierXXj\  PG;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXXj\  PG;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXXj\  PG;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  PG;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  PG;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  PG;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  P G;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  P G;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  P G;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  P G;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  P G;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  PG;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  PG;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  PG;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  PG;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  PG;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  PG;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  PG;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  PG;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  PG;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  PG;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  PG;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  PG;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  PG;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  PG;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  PG;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  PG;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  PG;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  PG;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  P G;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  P!G;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  P"G;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  P#G;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  P$G;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  P%G;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  P&G;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  P'G;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  P(G;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  P)G;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  P*G;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  P+G;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  P,G;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  P-G;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  P.G;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  P/G;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  P0G;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  P1G;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  P2G;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  P3G;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  P4G;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  P5G;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXX\  P6G;P%\  `&Times New RomanXj\  P7G;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXXj\  P8G;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXXj\  P9G;XP%\  `&Times New RomanXXj\  P:G;XP%\  `&Times New RomanX3|j"S^2CRddCCCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`lC2CC!CCCCCCCCCCd8YYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddodYYYYYYdzYzYzYzYdddddddCdCdCCCdNCdz8zCzCzCz8dddddCCCoNoNoNoNzCzCzCdddddzYzYNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<$YYdCCddooCYd<d<+oodCCddddCo&,,,$"  X4 xsubmitting PICchange requests to local exchange carriers (LECs) on behalf of consumers.X0ÍX0Í* {Oy'#Xj\  P G;XP##X\  P G;P# ÍXSee 47 C.F.R.  64.1100, 64.1150.(# The  xtelemarketing verification options are: (1) obtaining an LOA from the subscriber; (2) receiving  xconfirmation from the subscriber via a tollfree number provided exclusively for the purpose of  xhconfirming change orders electronically; (3) using an independent third party to verify the  xsubscriber's order; or (4) mailing an information package, also known as the "welcome package,"  xthat includes a postagepaid postcard which the subscriber can use to deny, cancel, or confirm  x"a service order, and waiting 14 days after mailing the packet before submitting the PIC change  X_4order.X0ÍX0Í_Z* {Oj '#Xj\  P G;XP##X\  P G;P# ÍXSee 47 C.F.R.  64.1100.(#ƽ  "AIn July 1997, the Commission proposed rules and sought comment on the implementation  X 4 xof Section 258, which was added to the Act as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.X0ÍX0ÍD& * {O' "  #Xj\  P G;XP##X\  PG;P# ÍXImplementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of  {O' " 1996; Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers, Further  " Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd  {O'10,674 (1997) (FNPRM).(#D  xSection 258 makes it unlawful for any telecommunications carrier to "submit or execute a change  xin a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service  X 4 xexcept in accordance with such verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe."X0ÍX0Í * yO`'#Xj\  PG;XP##X\  PG;P# ÍX47 U.S.C.  258(a).(#Ʋ The  xAsection further provides that a telecommunications carrier that violates the Commission's  xverification procedures and that collects charges for telephone service from a subscriber shall be  xliable to the carrier previously selected by the subscriber in an amount equal to all charges paid  Xy4 xby such subscriber after such violation.X0ÍX0Íyj * yO'#Xj\  PG;XP##X\  PG;P# ÍX47 U.S.C.  258(b).(#Ƹ The Commission is currently considering the adoption of new rules in response to the comments received.  "=The Commission thus has taken substantial steps to protect consumers and legitimate  x&competition from slamming by regulating carriers' PIC change practices. These actions, however,  xhave not been intended to displace complementary state efforts. In fact, as a general proposition,  X4 xthe Commission welcomes state efforts to prevent slamming.X0ÍX0Í\ * {O!' "& #Xj\  PG;XP##X\  PG;P# ÍXSee Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumer's Long Distance Carriers, 10 FCC  {Od"' "_ Rcd 9560, 9583 (1995) (LOA Order) (declining to preempt state laws regarding slamming because state action appeared to be consistent with that of the Commission).(# In general, the Commission will  x_make a formal determination about whether specific state laws are preempted only after the  xdevelopment of an adequate record that clearly describes the specific state law to be preempted  X4 xand precisely how that state law conflicts with federal law or obstructs federal objectives.X0ÍX0Ív &~* {Oy'' " #Xj\  PG;XP##X\  PG;P# ÍXSee, e.g., id. (stating that specific preemption questions would be determined on a casebycase basis since  {OC(' " state action regarding slamming appeared to be consistent with that of the Commission); Motion for  " Declaratory Ruling Concerning Preemption of Alaska Call Routing and Interexchange Certification  {O)' "V Regulations as Applied to Cellular Carriers, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 13987, 13991"),**)"  " (1997); Letter from Mary Beth Richards, Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, to Elliot Burg, Assistant  {OX' " Attorney General, State of Vermont, 11 FCC Rcd 1899 (1995); cf. California Payphone Association Petition  " for Preemption of Ordinance No. 576 NS of the City of Huntington Park, California Pursuant to Section  {O' " 253(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, 12 FCC Rcd. 14191 (1997) (Commission denied petition for  "/ preemption under Section 253 because petitioner failed to present sufficient record demonstrating barrier  {O|' " to entry); TCI Cablevision of Oakland County, Inc., 9 Comm. Reg. (P&F) 730 (1997) (petitioner seeking preemption under Section 253 bears burden of proof to demonstrate that it is entitled to such relief).(#v " ,**\"  X4 xBecause you have requested an informal staff opinion regarding federal preemption, however, we next consider the Wisconsin state laws at issue in your complaint against MRP.  X' The Complaint   "~The State filed its complaint in Dane County Circuit Court, State of Wisconsin. In the  xcomplaint, dated May 13, 1998, and attached to your letter to the Commission, the state alleges  xthat MRP has utilized untrue, deceptive, or misleading oral telemarketing in order to induce  xIWisconsin consumers to agree to subscribe to MRP's long distance service. The first claim for  xrelief in the complaint alleges that MRP's sales statements and practices are in violation of  X 4 x+Wisconsin's Telecommunications Sales Law.X0ÍX0Í  * yO'#Xj\  PG;XP##X\  PG;P# ÍXWis. Stat.  100.207 (1993).(#ƻ The second claim for relief in the complaint  x/alleges that MRP's telemarketing sales program is in violation of Wisconsin's Home Solicitation  X 4 xlSelling Law.X0ÍX0Í * {O;'#Xj\  PG;XP##X\  PG;P# ÍXWis. Admin. Code  ATCP 127 et seq. (1993).(# The third claim for relief in the complaint alleges that MRP's failure to obtain  xcaffirmative orders for telecommunications services before billing for such services is in violation  X 4of Wisconsin's Telecommunications Sales Law.X0ÍX0Í 0 * yO'#Xj\  PG;XP##X\  PG;P# ÍXWis. Stat.  100.207 (1993).(#ƻ  X' Analysis   "State law may be preempted by Congress through the proper exercise of its legislative  XK4 xpowers, or by a federal agency acting pursuant to its congressionally delegated authority.X0ÍX0Í K * {O'#Xj\  PG;XP##X\  PG;P# ÍXSee Louisiana PSC v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 36869 (1986). (#  xPreemption may occur where state law conflicts with federal law or obstructs federal objectives,  X4 xor where compliance with both federal and state law is physically impossible.X0ÍX0ÍR * {O "'#Xj\  PG;XP##X\  P G;P# ÍXId.(#ƫ Our  xinterpretation of the Commission's regulations leads us to conclude that the state laws at issue  xyin Wisconsin's complaint against MRP do not appear to conflict with the Commission's rules.  xuThe Commission's rules deter slamming by imposing specific verification requirements on  x&interexchange carriers who submit orders to change consumers' long distance carriers. It appears  xthat the Wisconsin laws at issue seek to deter slamming and other harmful actions through the  x/regulation of marketing rather than through verification procedures. Therefore, based upon the  xinformation that you have provided, we find nothing in the language of any of the state law"|,**"  x/provisions named in the complaint that imposes specific verification requirements on carriers or otherwise contradicts Commission regulations.  "The first and third claims for relief in the complaint are based on Wisconsin's  xTelecommunications Sales Law. In the first claim for relief, Wisconsin alleges that MRP's sales  xstatements and practices are in violation of Sections 100.207(2), 100.207(3)(a), and 100.207(4)(b)  xof Wisconsin's Telecommunications Sales Law. In the third claim for relief, Wisconsin alleges  xthat MRP's failure to obtain affirmative orders for telecommunications services before billing for  xsuch services is in violation of Section 100.207(3)(a) of Wisconsin's Telecommunications Sales Law.  "Wisconsin's Telecommunications Sales Law prohibits unfair and deceptive practices  X 4 xgenerally with regard to the provision of telecommunications service.X0ÍX0Í * yOe '#Xj\  P!G;XP##X\  P"G;P# ÍXWis. Stat.  100.207 (1993). (#ƽ Section 100.207(2) of  xthe Wisconsin Telecommunications Sales Law is entitled "Advertising and Sales Representations"  x<and states in pertinent part: "[a] person may not make . . . any statement or representation with  xregard to the provision of telecommunications service . . . which is false, misleading or deceptive,  xVor which omits to state material information with respect to the provision of telecommunications  Xy4 xservice that is necessary to make the statement not false, misleading, or deceptive."X0ÍX0ÍyX* {O'#Xj\  P#G;XP##X\  P$G;P# ÍXId. at  100.207(2).(#ƹ Section  x100.207(3)(a) is entitled "Sales Practices" and states in pertinent part: "[a] person may not bill  xRa customer for any telecommunications service that the customer did not affirmatively order  xunless that service is required to be provided by law, the Federal Communications Commission  X4 xcor the public service commission."X0ÍX0Í* {O'#Xj\  P%G;XP##X\  P&G;P# ÍXId. at  100.207(3)(a).(#Ƽ Section 100.207(4)(b) is entitled "Collection Practices" and  x"states in pertinent part: "[a] person may not unreasonably refuse to provide a detailed listing of  X4 xthe charges for telecommunications service upon request of a customer."X0ÍX0Í|* {O'#Xj\  P'G;XP##X\  P(G;P# ÍXId. at  100.207(4)(b).(#Ƽ Because these  xEprovisions of the Wisconsin law regulate marketing practices rather than impose verification  x<requirements, compliance with both state and federal law is not impossible and there is no basis for federal preemption of the Wisconsin Telecommunications Sales Law.  "JThe Wisconsin Home Solicitation Selling Law, specifically Sections ATCP 127.02(1),  xATCP 127.03(2)(b), and ATCP 127.03(3), is the basis for the second claim for relief in the  x"complaint. Wisconsin's Home Solicitation Selling Law regulates generally the manner in which  X74 xgoods or services are sold at the residence or place of business of the buyer.X0ÍX0Í7* {O$'#Xj\  P)G;XP##X\  P*G;P# ÍXWis. Admin. Code  ATCP (Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection) 127 et seq. (1993).(# Section ATCP  x127.02(1) states in pertinent part: "[i]n a home solicitation sale every seller shall, at the time of  xinitial contact or communication with the buyer, clearly and expressly disclose: the seller's  xindividual name, the name of the business firm or organization he or she represents, and the  X4 xidentity or kind of goods or services he or she offers to sell."X0ÍX0Í* {O,*'#Xj\  P+G;XP##X\  P,G;P# ÍXId. at  ATCP 127.02(1).(#ƽ Section ATCP 127.03(2)(b) states"2 ,**"  xin pertinent part: "[n]o seller engaged in making a home solicitation sale shall misrepresent . .  X4 x4 Xh . [t]he savings which will be accorded or made available to the buyer."X0ÍX0Í* {Ob'#Xj\  P-G;XP##X\  P.G;P# ÍXId. at ATCP 127.03(2)(b).(#ƻ Section ATCP  x127.03(3) states in pertinent part: "[n]o seller engaged in making a home solicitation sale shall  xuse any false, deceptive or misleading representations to induce a sale, or use any plan . . . which  X4 xNmisrepresents the true status or mission of the person making the call . . ."X0ÍX0ÍZ* {O'#Xj\  P/G;XP##X\  P0G;P# ÍXId. at ATCP 127.03(3).(#Ƹ The above xmentioned provisions place restrictions on the manner in which home solicitations are conducted,  x/and do not appear to impose verification requirements, which, under Section 258, are within the  xauthority of the Commission to promulgate. Because the state law provisions do not conflict with  xVfederal law, and compliance with both federal and state law is not impossible, preemption of the Wisconsin Home Solicitation Selling Law would not appear to be warranted.  "Furthermore, the Wisconsin statutes at issue do not obstruct the Commission's objectives.  xThe State has alleged that, due to the defendants' oral statements and policies, the defendants  xhave misled customers into switching their long distance carriers. As described above, the  xCommission's rules prohibit switching consumers' long distance carriers without proper  xauthorization. Both state and federal law in this case have the effect of preventing slamming and,  x_while utilizing different means to do so, are not incompatible. Therefore, these state statutes appear to promote rather than frustrate Commission objectives.  "Preemption may also occur when Congress, in enacting a federal statute, expresses a clear  X44 xintent to preempt state law.X0ÍX0Í4* {O'#Xj\  P1G;XP##X\  P2G;P# ÍXLouisiana PSC v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355, 36869 (1986).(# Section 258 of the Act states that "[n]o telecommunications carrier  xcshall submit or execute a change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange  xservice or telephone toll service except in accordance with such verification procedures as the  X4 xCommission shall prescribe."X0ÍX0Í~* yO'#Xj\  P3G;XP##X\  P4G;P# ÍX47 U.S.C.  258(a).(#Ʋ Section 258, however, does not express intent to preempt all state  xElaws with regard to slamming. Section 258 states merely that, "[n]othing in this section shall  xVpreclude any State Commission from enforcing [the Commission's verification] procedures with  X4 xrespect to intrastate services,"X0ÍX0Í* yOi '#Xj\  P5G;XP##X\  P6G;P# ÍX47 U.S.C.  258(a).(#Ʋ and does not, by its terms, appear to address the efforts of states  xto regulate the marketing of intrastate services. We conclude that the language of Section 258  xdoes not preempt state efforts to prevent unfair and deceptive marketing practices that also have the effect of preventing or deterring slamming.  X7' Conclusion  "In sum, the staff's informal view is that the Commission's slamming rules do not appear  xto conflict with these Wisconsin laws that are designed to protect consumers from potentially  xdeceptive practices relating to the marketing of telecommunications services, nor does Section  x[258 itself express an intent to preempt such laws. Accordingly, based on the information" ,**"  xprovided, we see no apparent justification for preemption of the state laws forming the basis of Wisconsin's suit against MRP.  "~I hope this information is helpful and thank you for your interest in this matter. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. ` `  hhCqSincerely, XX` ` X XXhhCXqLawrence E. Strickling(# XX` ` X XXhhCXqDeputy Chief(# XX` ` X XXhhCXqCommon Carrier Bureau(#