1.  

**PUBLIC NOTICE**![](media/image1.png){width="0.6541666666666667in"
height="0.6604166666666667in"}

**Federal Communications Commission**

**445 12th St., S.W.**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

**DA 01-640**

> **March 9, 2001**
>
> **Macro International Requests a Declaratory Ruling on**
>
> **Interpretation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1601(d)(2)**
>
> **CC Docket No. 91-281**
>
> **Public Comment Invited**

**Comments due: April 9, 2001**

### Reply Comments due: April 24, 2001

> On September 12, 2000, Macro International, Inc. (Macro) filed a
> petition for declaratory ruling regarding section 64.1601(d)(2) of the
> Commission\'s rules, 47 CFR 64.1601(d)(2).
>
> Macro's request for declaratory ruling pertains to the March 25, 1997
> *Third Report an Order* in CC Docket No. 91-281 that established new
> caller ID rules governing local exchange carriers (LECs). In pertinent
> part these rules require that LECs using SS7 are required to transmit
> the calling party number (CPN) associated with an interstate call to
> interconnecting carriers. These rules also require such
> interconnecting carriers to deploy blocking and unblocking capability
> for the transmission of CPN. The Commission exempted from this
> requirements LECs for whom blocking and unblocking is technologically
> infeasible, *i.e.*, LECs using SS7 but not equipped with CLASS TM
> software or alternative blocking or unblocking capabilities, and the
> rules further prohibited such carriers from passing CPN.

Lines owned by interexchange carriers (IXCs) are often part of the
transmission sequence of telephone call routing. Since some IXCs may
have the same technological limitations preventing the transmission of
CPN over their lines as do some LECs, argues Macro, then IXCs not
equipped with CLASS TM software or alternative blocking or unblocking
capabilities should also be exempted under 47 CFR 64.1601(d)(2). Without
this exemption, the originating carrier would be in apparent violation
of section 64.1601(d)(2) if the call were to be transmitted over an IXC
without these capabilities.

Macro also points out that the specification of only LECs in section
64.1601 was not proposed in the December 1995 *Order and Fourth Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking* in CC Docket No. 91-281. There, the Commission
proposed that "carriers" that lack blocking and unblocking capabilities
should be exempted from the Commission's caller ID rules. Accordingly,
Macro requests that the Commission declare that the Commission's
exemption for LECs using SS7 but not equipped with CLASS TM software or
alternative blocking or unblocking capabilities, and the prohibition for
such carriers from passing CPN, also applies to IXCs.

> To the extent that any party believes that a declaratory ruling is not
> the appropriate relief, but rather that a waiver of our rules is
> required, please note that the Commission will not waive any provision
> of its rules unless good cause is shown.[^1] Under the relevant case
> law, the applicant has the burden of showing good cause for a waiver:
> \"\[a\]n applicant \[for a waiver\] faces a high hurdle even at the
> starting gate.\"[^2] Nevertheless, an agency must take a \"hard look\"
> at applications for waiver[^3] and must consider all relevant
> factors.[^4] An agency must adhere strictly to its rules unless a
> party can show \"reasons why in the public interest the rule should be
> waived.\"[^5] Finally, \"\[t\]he agency must explain why deviation
> better serves the public interest and articulate the nature of the
> special circumstances to prevent discriminatory application and to put
> future parties on notice as to its operation.\"[^6]
>
> Comments responding to this public notice must be filed with the
> Commission by April 9, 2001, and reply comments by April 24, 2001.
> Such comments should reference CC Docket No. 91-281. They should
> include specific information about the impact of the proposed
> declaratory ruling and the impact of any proposed waiver.
>
> Comments should be sent to the Office of the Secretary, Federal
> Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-A325,
> Washington, DC 20554. Two copies of the comments should also be sent
> to the Network Services Division, 445 12th Street, SW, Room 6-A207,
> Washington, DC 20554. The petition and public comments will be
> available for review and copying during regular business hours at the
> FCC Reference Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-A257,
> Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270.
>
> For further information, contact Susan Magnotti of the Network
> Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau at (202) 418-0871 (voice),
> (202) 418-0484 (TTY), or by email at
> [smagnott@fcc.gov](../smagnott@fcc.gov).

[^1]: ^    ^ ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.

[^2]: ^   ^ ^ ?^ WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir.
    1969).

[^3]: ^    ^ ^?^ Id.

[^4]: ^    ^ ^?^ Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401
    U.S. 402, 416 (1971).

[^5]: ^   ^ ^ ?^ FPC v. Texaco Inc., 377 U.S. 33, 39 (1964).

[^6]: ^    ^ ^?^ Northeast Cellular Telephone Company, L.P. v. FCC, 897
    F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990).