******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Federal Communications Commission DA 98-500 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Rules and Policies Regarding Calling ) CC Docket No. 91-281 Number Identification Service -- Caller ID ) MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Adopted: March 16, 1998 Released: March 16, 1998 By the Chief, Network Services Division: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Siemens Business Communication Systems, Inc. ("Siemens"), a manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, seeks reconsideration of the Commission's Third Report and Order related to caller identification ("caller ID") rules and their application to private branch exchange ("PBX") systems. Siemens requests that the Commission reconsider any requirements that mandate PBX equipment manufacturers, by March 25, 1998, to manufacture PBX systems to allow users to dial *67 to block transmission of end-user CPN, and *82 to unblock transmission of CPN. On our own motion, we stay application of Section 64.1601(b) to manufacturers of PBX equipment until the Commission addresses Siemens's petition for reconsideration. II. BACKGROUND 2. Section 64.1601(a) of the Commission's rules requires common carriers using Signaling System 7 ("SS7") to transmit the calling party number ("CPN") associated with an interstate call to interconnecting carriers. Section 64.1601(b) prohibits carriers from revealing a caller's name or number when the caller requests that information not be provided to the called party. Section 64.1601(b) also requires carriers employing SS7 to recognize *67 as a request for privacy on an interstate call. This rule also requires that if a carrier offers per line blocking it must recognize *82 as a caller's request that the CPN not be blocked on an interstate call. Section 64.1601(b) applies to the delivery of the CPN, and extends to call return services. 3. On March 25, 1997, the Commission issued the Third Report and Order mandating that by March 25, 1998, PBX systems that pass end user CPN must provide CPN blocking capability. The Commission found that this rule would place no undue burdens on owners and operators of PBXs that could not pass end user CPN. Furthermore, the Third Report and Order stated that some PBX equipment that has the capability of passing end user CPN also has the ability to suppress it, and that a PBX owner's activation of the suppression option would preclude any need for end user blocking capability. In a prior order, the Commission noted that PBX equipment that passes CPN but does not allow callers to indicate a privacy request creates risks to calling parties. The Commission rejected the argument that users of PBX equipment have no privacy expectations, noting that PBX systems are often installed in shelters for abused persons. III. DISCUSSION 4. After reviewing the record, we conclude that we will best serve the public interest by temporarily staying, on our own motion, the application of section 64.1601(b) to manufacturers of PBX systems until the Commission rules on Siemens's Petition. We find that granting a stay serves the public interest because the Commission may clarify its rules regarding this section's applicability to PBX equipment manufacturers as a consequence of Siemens's petition for reconsideration. 5. Siemens's Petition posits that, as written, the Commission's rules regarding caller ID apply only to telecommunications carriers, not to equipment manufacturers, owners, and operators of PBX equipment. Siemens alleges, however, that the Third Report and Order places the onus of complying with blocking and unblocking requirements on PBX equipment manufacturers as well, even though the Commission did not modify its Part 68 rules which govern terminal equipment such as PBXs. The source of Siemens's concern stems from language in the Third Report and Order which reads, "we now require that PBX systems that do pass the end user CPN must provide blocking capability within one year of the release date of this order." Siemens states that the Commission failed to incorporate the purported requirement imposed on owners and operators into its rules, and failed to explain whether the requirement applies to PBX manufacturers. Siemens states that in light of this alleged inconsistency between the Third Report and Order and the rules, confusion in the industry will make it impossible to achieve compliance with the requirement by March 25, 1998. 6. Siemens requests that we immediately suspend the March 25, 1998, compliance deadline with Section 64.1601 for a period of two years from the date of an order granting Siemens's petition. We note here that we are not, at this time, granting the suspension Siemens requests in its petition. Rather, given that the date by which users of PBX equipment are supposed to be able to block and unblock transmission of CPN is March 25, 1998, and that Siemens's petition raises complex points of law, we temporarily stay Section 64.1601(b) of the Commission's rules as it applies to PBX equipment manufacturers until the Commission addresses Siemens's Petition. 7. In an order of October 30, 1995, the Commission stayed application of Section 64.1601(b) for calls that originated from hotel and motel lines until January 1, 1997. In reaching that decision, the Commission stated that ". . . no matter how the issues raised in BellSouth's Reconsideration Petition are resolved, and even if the Commission adheres to its original decision in every material respect, complying with these rules prior to the resolution of issues raised in the Third Notice impose costly and inefficient expenditures for network upgrades." The Commission expressed concern that carriers could incur economic harm if they had to comply with the caller ID rules prior to the Commission's review of the blocking and unblocking requirements for certain categories of lines. 8. We find the reasoning of the Commission's October 30 Order applicable to Siemens's current position. Even if the Commission denies Siemens's petition for reconsideration in all respects, complying with rules that may not be clearly applicable to equipment manufacturers by March 25, 1998, the time specified in the Third Report and Order, could impose costly and inefficient upgrades of PBX product lines. The Commission is currently reviewing the record in this matter. 9. Accordingly, we conclude that a stay of the application of Section 64.1601(b) as it may apply to manufacturers of PBX equipment is warranted until the Commission issues an order on reconsideration of the Third Report and Order. IV. ORDERING CLAUSE 10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.3, and the authority that is delegated pursuant to Section 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.291, that Section 64.1601(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  64.1601(b), is STAYED only for manufacturers of PBX equipment until further order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Geraldine A. Matise Chief, Network Services Division Common Carrier Bureau