Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-239
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Rules and Regulations Implementing the 
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005
)
)
)
)
)
)
CG Docket No. 02-278
CG Docket No. 05-338
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION 
Adopted:  October 8, 2008 Released:  October 14, 2008
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Order on Reconsideration, we address certain issues raised in petitions for 
reconsideration and/or clarification of the Report and Order1 implementing the Junk Fax Prevention Act 
of 2005.2 As set forth in detail below, we clarify that:  (1) facsimile numbers compiled by third parties 
on behalf of the facsimile sender will be presumed to have been made voluntarily available for public 
distribution so long as they are obtained from the intended recipients own directory, advertisement, or 
Internet site; (2) reasonable steps to verify that a recipient has agreed to make available a facsimile 
number for public distribution may include methods other than direct contact with the recipient; and (3) a 
description of the facsimile senders opt-out mechanism on the first webpage to which recipients are 
directed in the opt-out notice satisfies the requirement that such a description appear on the first page of 
the website.  We believe the clarifications provided herein will assist senders of facsimile advertisements 
in complying with the Commissions rules in a manner that minimizes regulatory compliance costs while 
maintaining the protections afforded consumers under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).3
  
1 See Direct Marketing Association Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification, filed in CG Docket Nos. 02-
278, 05-338 on June 2, 2006 (DMA Petition); Leventhal Senter & Lerman PLLC Petition for Reconsideration or 
Clarification, filed in CG Docket Nos. 02-278, 05-338 on June 2, 2006 (LS&L Petition).  See also Rules and 
Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, CG 
Docket Nos. 02-278, 05-338, Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd 3787 (2006) 
(Junk Fax Order).   
2 See Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-21, 119 Stat. 359 (2005) (Junk Fax Prevention Act).  
3 See Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-243, 105 Stat. 2394 (1991), codified at 47 
U.S.C.  227.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-239
2
II. BACKGROUND
A. Telephone Consumer Protection Act   
2. On December 20, 1991, in an effort to address a growing number of telephone marketing 
calls and certain telemarketing practices thought to be an invasion of consumer privacy, Congress 
enacted the TCPA.4 In relevant part, the TCPA prohibits the use of any telephone facsimile machine, 
computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine.5  
3. In 1992, the Commission adopted rules implementing the TCPA, including restrictions 
on the transmission of unsolicited advertisements by facsimile machines.6 The Commissions rules on 
unsolicited facsimile advertisements incorporated the language of the TCPA virtually verbatim.7 On July 
3, 2003, the Commission revised some of its telemarketing rules including those relating to facsimile 
advertising.8 Prior to the implementation of the revised facsimile rules, however, Congress enacted the 
Junk Fax Prevention Act which amended provisions of the TCPA relating to unsolicited facsimile 
advertisements.9 As required by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, the Commission initiated a rulemaking to 
conform its regulations to the requirements of the Junk Fax Prevention Act.10
B. Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005
4. On July 9, 2005, the Junk Fax Prevention Act was enacted amending section 227 of the 
Communications Act.  In general, the Junk Fax Prevention Act:  (1) codified an established business 
relationship (EBR) exemption to the prohibition on sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements;11 (2) 
  
4 See TCPA, Section 2(5), reprinted in Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection 
Act of 1991, CC Docket No. 92-90, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 8752 (1992).
5 47 U.S.C.  227(b)(1)(C).  An unsolicited advertisement is defined as any material advertising the commercial 
availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that persons 
prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise.  See 47 U.S.C.  227(a)(5).
6 See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CC Docket No. 92-
90, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8752 (1992) (1992 TCPA Order); see also 47 C.F.R.  64.1200.  In 1995 and 
1997, the Commission released orders addressing petitions for reconsideration of the 1992 TCPA Order.  See 
Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CC Docket No. 92-90, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 12391 (1995) (1995 TCPA Reconsideration Order); Rules and 
Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CC Docket No. 92-90, Order on 
Further Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 4609 (1997) (1997 TCPA Reconsideration Order). 
7 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R.  64.1200(a)(3) (no person or entity may [u]se a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or 
other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine . . .). 
8 See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-
278, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14014 at 14128-29, para. 191 (2003).
9 See generally Junk Fax Prevention Act. 
10 See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991; Junk Fax Prevention 
Act of 2005; CG Docket Nos. 02-278, 05-338, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 19758 
(2005). 
11 Junk Fax Prevention Act, Sec. 2(a).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-239
3
provided a definition of an EBR to be used in the context of unsolicited facsimile advertisements;12 (3) 
required the sender of a facsimile advertisement to provide specified notice and contact information on 
the facsimile that allows recipients to opt-out of any future facsimile transmissions from the sender;13
and (4) specified the circumstances under which a request to opt-out complies with the Act.14
5. On April 6, 2006, as required by the Junk Fax Prevention Act,15 the Commission released 
an Order amending its rules on unsolicited facsimile advertisements.  In so doing, the Commission 
adopted the requirements of that statute virtually verbatim.16  
6. As relevant here, the Junk Fax Prevention Act allows a sender that has an EBR with the 
recipient to send an unsolicited facsimile advertisement if the sender obtained the number of the 
facsimile machine through:  (1) the voluntary communication of such number, within the context of the 
EBR, from the recipient of the facsimile advertisement, or (2) a directory, advertisement, or site on the 
Internet to which the recipient voluntarily agreed to make available its facsimile number for public 
distribution.17 For this second category of facsimile numbers, the Commission found that it would be 
unduly burdensome for senders of facsimile advertisements to verify that the recipient voluntarily agreed 
to make the facsimile number public in every instance.18 As a result, the Commission concluded that a 
facsimile number obtained from the recipients own directory, advertisement, or internet site was 
voluntarily made available for public distribution, unless the recipient has noted on such materials that it 
does not accept unsolicited advertisements at that number.19 The Commission noted, however, that if a 
sender obtains the facsimile number from sources of information compiled by third parties  such as 
membership directories and commercial databases, the sender must take reasonable steps to verify that 
the recipient consented to have the number listed, such as calling or emailing the recipient.20
  
12 Junk Fax Prevention Act, Sec. 2(b). 
13 Id., Sec. 2(c). 
14 Junk Fax Prevention Act, Sec. 2(d).  In addition, the Junk Fax Prevention Act authorized the Commission to:  (1) 
determine the shortest reasonable time that a sender must comply with a request not to receive future facsimile 
advertisements; (2) consider exempting certain classes of small business senders from the requirement to provide a 
cost-free mechanism for a recipient to transmit an opt-out request; and (3) consider whether to allow professional 
or trade associations that are tax-exempt nonprofit organizations to send unsolicited advertisements to their 
members in furtherance of the associations tax-exempt purpose that do not contain the opt-out notice otherwise 
required by the Junk Fax Prevention Act.
15 See generally Junk Fax Order. 
16 See Junk Fax Order, App. A  Final Rules.  See also 47 C.F.R.  64.1200 (as revised by the Junk Fax Order). 
17 See Junk Fax Prevention Act, Sec. 2(a).  
18 See Junk Fax Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3795, para. 15.
19 Id.
20 Id., 21 FCC Rcd at 3795-96, para. 15.  The Commissions rules define the sender as the person or entity on 
whose behalf a facsimile unsolicited advertisement is sent or whose goods or services are advertised or promoted 
in the unsolicited advertisement.  See 47 C.F.R.  64.1200(f)(8).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-239
4
7. The Junk Fax Prevention Act also requires that all unsolicited facsimile advertisements 
include an opt-out notice that instructs recipients on how to notify senders that they do not wish to 
receive future facsimile advertisements.21 Among other requirements, the opt-out notice must identify a 
cost-free mechanism by which recipients can transmit their opt-out requests.22 The Commission 
concluded that, if a sender designates a website as its cost free opt-out mechanism, a description of the 
opt-out mechanism and procedures must be included clearly and conspicuously on the first page of the 
website.23 The Commission also clarified that, in accordance with the Junk Fax Prevention Act, if there 
are several pages to the facsimile, the first page of the advertisement must contain the opt-out notice.24 In 
so doing, the Commission declined to find that the first page notice requirement was satisfied by 
including the notice on a cover page.  Rather, the Commission required that the opt-out notice appear on 
the first page of the advertisement itself.25  
8. Finally, the Commission declined to limit the time period during which a request to opt-
out from receiving unsolicited facsimile advertisements remains in effect.26 The Commission concluded 
that requiring consumers to repeat their opt-out requests to potentially hundreds of senders of unsolicited 
facsimile advertisements would be overly burdensome to recipients.27 Therefore, once an opt-out request 
has been received, the sender is prohibited from transmitting facsimile advertisements to that number 
until the sender obtains the prior express permission of the recipient to resume sending facsimile 
advertisements.28  
C. Petitions For Reconsideration
9. On June 2, 2006, two petitions for reconsideration and clarification were filed in 
response to the Junk Fax Order.29 Specifically, the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) seeks 
clarification that the Junk Fax Order does not prohibit the use of third-party agents to perform services 
that an organization would otherwise be permitted to conduct internally.30 In particular, DMA contends 
that many facsimile senders hire third parties to gather facsimile numbers from the intended recipients 
  
21 Junk Fax Prevention Act, Sec. 2(c).
22 Id.
23 Junk Fax Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3803, para. 28 (emphasis added).
24 Id., 21 FCC Rcd at 3801, para. 26.
25 Id., 21 FCC Rcd at 3801, para. 26 and n.96.
26 Id., 21 FCC Rcd at 3804-05, para. 32.
27 Id.
28 Id., 21 FCC Rcd at 3805, para. 32.  
29 See DMA Petition; LS&L Petition.  No comments were filed in opposition to these petitions.  Three comments 
were filed in support of LS&Ls Petition.  See National Association of Broadcasters Comments in Support of 
Petition For Reconsideration dated July 13, 2006; Comments of American Society of Association Executives dated 
July 12, 2006; Joint Comments of the Named State Broadcasters Associations dated July 13, 2006. 
30 DMA Petition at 2-4. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-239
5
own directories, websites or advertisements.31 In these instances the DMA suggests that, although 
literally compiled by third parties, this information is collected on behalf of the sender, and in relation 
to those with whom the sender has an EBR.32 DMA contends that, in this situation, additional 
verification that the recipient has voluntarily made available its facsimile number should not be required 
simply because a third party  rather than an internal employee of the sender  has compiled the 
information.  In addition, DMA urges the Commission to make clear that when a sender does elect to use 
facsimile numbers collected independently from a third party source such as a membership directory, that 
reasonable steps to verify the number was provided voluntarily may include measures that do not 
involve direct contact with the intended recipient.33 For example, DMA argues that the manner in which 
numbers are compiled, furnished, or displayed and other similar factors may be ample to demonstrate that 
a recipient agreed to make a facsimile number appearing in an advertisement, directory, or Internet site 
available for public distribution without the necessity of contacting the recipient directly.34 Finally, 
DMA requests that the Commission reconsider the decision not to limit the time period for which an opt-
out request remains in effect.35
10. Leventhal Senter and Lerman PLLC (LS&L), on behalf of certain unnamed broadcast 
clients, seeks reconsideration or clarification of two issues relating to the opt-out notice.36 First, LS&L 
requests that the Commission clarify that the requirement that a clear and conspicuous description of the 
opt-out mechanism appear on the websites first page is met when a dedicated opt-out page [is] 
specified by URL in the opt-out notice that appears in the facsimile advertisement.37 In addition, LS&L 
suggests that a link could be included on the websites homepage to direct recipients to the appropriate 
internal webpage.38 LS&L contends that web homepages for most businesses do not easily lend 
themselves to including lengthy descriptions of the opt-out mechanism.39 Therefore, LS&L argues that 
interpreting the first page requirement to require the entire opt-out mechanism to appear on the 
senders homepage would be costly to implement.40 Second, LS&L requests that a properly formatted 
opt-out notice included on a facsimile cover page complies with the requirement that such opt-out notice 
  
31 Id. at 1-3. 
32 Id. at 3. 
33 Id. at 4.
34 Id. at 4. 
35 Id. at 5-9.  For example, DMA notes that the Commission has limited the duration of a do-not-call request to five 
years in the case of unwanted telephone solicitations.  Id. at 6.
36 See generally LS&L Petition.  Three comments were filed in support of LS&Ls Petition.  See National 
Association of Broadcasters Comments in Support of Petition For Reconsideration dated July 13, 2006; Comments 
of American Society of Association Executives dated July 12, 2006; Joint Comments of the Named State 
Broadcasters Associations dated July 13, 2006.
37 LS&L Petition at 2-4. 
38 Id. at 2. 
39 Id. at 2-3. 
40 Id. at 3. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-239
6
appear on the first page of the advertisement.41 LS&L contends that businesses often send facsimile 
advertisements that are pre-produced or are designed in a manner that cannot easily be edited or revised 
to include the opt-out language in a clear and conspicuous manner on the advertisement.42
III. DISCUSSION
A. Established Business Relationship
1. Facsimile Numbers Obtained from the Recipients Own Directory, 
Advertisement or Internet Site
11. Consistent with the Commissions conclusion in the Junk Fax Order, we reiterate that 
facsimile numbers compiled on behalf of the facsimile sender will be presumed to have been voluntarily 
made available for public distribution so long as they are obtained from the intended recipients own 
directory, advertisement or Internet site.43 In so doing, we agree with DMA that the Commission did not 
limit this presumption to only those situations in which the sender compiles this information through in-
house employees.  Rather, it is the source from which the facsimile number is obtained, and not the 
identity of the compiler, that provides evidence of whether the recipient intended to make that number 
available for public distribution.44 Therefore, no additional verification that the recipient has voluntarily 
made available his or her facsimile number is required if the number is obtained from the recipients own 
directory, advertisement or Internet site.  However, we caution that a sender that uses a third party to 
compile facsimile numbers will be liable for the errors of its third-party agent or contractor.  We also 
reiterate that senders of facsimile advertisements must have an EBR with the recipient in order to send 
the advertisement to the recipients facsimile number.  The fact that the facsimile number was made 
available in the recipients own directory, advertisement or website does not alone entitle a sender to 
transmit a facsimile advertisement to that number.45  
  
41 Id. at 4-7 ([s]uch an interpretation would be consistent with the statutory first page requirement while ensuring 
that the notice is clear and conspicuous, as this would be the first page a recipient will see.). 
42 Id. at 5.
43 As noted above, the Junk Fax Prevention Act allows a sender that has an EBR with the recipient to send an 
unsolicited facsimile advertisement if the sender obtained the number of the facsimile machine through a directory, 
advertisement, or site on the Internet to which the recipient voluntarily agreed to make available its facsimile 
number for public distribution.  See Junk Fax Prevention Act, Sec. 2(a).  The Commissions rules provide that if a 
sender obtains the facsimile number from the recipients own directory, advertisement or Internet site, it will be 
presumed that the number was voluntarily made available for public distribution.  The recipient may rebut this 
presumption by noting on such materials that it does not accept unsolicited advertisements at the facsimile number 
in question.  See Junk Fax Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3795, para. 15; 47 C.F.R.  64.1200(a)(3)(ii).
44 See, e.g., Junk Fax Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3795-96, para. 15 (noting that membership directories requiring a fee 
to use are limited in distribution and, as such, the information included within the directory is made available to 
subscribers and purchasers, not the general public). 
45 See id., 21 FCC Rcd at 3796, para. 15 (noting that the sender must also have an EBR with the recipient in order 
to transmit a facsimile advertisement). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-239
7
2. Reasonable Steps to Verify That the Recipient has Voluntarily Made 
Available a Facsimile Number
12. We clarify that reasonable steps under the Commissions rules to verify that a recipient 
has agreed to make available a facsimile number for public distribution may include methods other than 
calling or emailing the recipient directly.46 The Commission cited these verification methods in the Junk 
Fax Order as examples that satisfy this requirement.47 The Commission did not, however, limit parties in 
this context only to means of direct contact with the recipient.  
13. We agree with DMA that it is possible that the circumstances attending the collection of a 
facsimile number can provide sufficient evidence that the number has been provided voluntarily for 
public distribution without the necessity of contacting the recipient.48 For example, the recipient may 
expressly agree at the point of collection to allow for public disclosure of the facsimile number.  We 
caution, however, that should a complaint arise on this issue, the facsimile sender has the burden to 
demonstrate that the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the facsimile number reasonably 
indicate that the recipient agreed to make the facsimile number available for public distribution.49  
B. Notice of Opt-Out Opportunity
1. Location of the Opt-Out Mechanism on the Websites First Page
14. We clarify that a facsimile sender satisfies the requirement to provide clear and 
conspicuous notice of a cost-free mechanism for transmitting opt-out requests when the opt-out notice 
directs the recipient to a dedicated webpage that allows the recipient to opt-out of future facsimile 
advertisements.  The Commissions rules require that all facsimile advertisements include an opt-out 
notice by which recipients can inform senders that they do not wish to receive future unsolicited 
advertisements.50 The notice must include a domestic telephone number and facsimile number for the 
recipient to transmit an opt-out request.51 If neither the required telephone number nor facsimile number 
is a toll free number, a separate cost-free mechanism must be provided for the recipient to transmit the 
opt-out request.52 In the Junk Fax Order, the Commission noted that, if the sender designates a website 
as its cost-free opt-out mechanism, a description of the mechanism must be included clearly and 
  
46 47 C.F.R.  64.1200(a)(3)(ii).
47 See Junk Fax Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3795, para. 15. 
48 DMA Petition at 4-5. 
49 In the context of facsimile advertisements, the Commission has defined the sender as the person or entity 
whose services are advertised or promoted in the advertisement.  See Junk Fax Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3807-08, 
paras. 38-39.  See also 47 C.F.R.  64.1200(f)(8).  The Commission has concluded that a fax broadcaster also will 
be liable for violations of the facsimile rules if it demonstrates a high degree or involvement in, or actual notice 
of, the unlawful activity and fails to take steps to prevent such facsimile advertisements.  See Junk Fax Order, 21 
FCC Rcd at 3808, para. 40.  See also 47 C.F.R.  64.1200(a)(3)(vii).
50 47 C.F.R.  64.1200(a)(3)(iii). 
51 Junk Fax Prevention Act, Sec. 2(c).
52 47 C.F.R.  64.1200(a)(3)(iii)(D)(2).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-239
8
conspicuously on the first page of the website.53 We clarify that a description of the facsimile senders 
opt-out mechanism on the first webpage to which recipients are directed in the opt-out notice satisfies the 
requirement that such a description appear on the first page of the website.  In addition, a clear and 
conspicuous link should be provided on the websites homepage to direct recipients to the appropriate 
internal opt-out webpage.54 We agree with LS&L, however, that the Commission did not intend to 
mandate that the entire opt-out mechanism must appear on the homepage of every sender of unsolicited 
facsimile advertisements.55 Rather, the intent of this requirement is to provide a reasonable means for 
recipients to locate the facsimile senders opt-out mechanism and make requests to avoid future 
unwanted facsimiles.  We believe this interpretation of the first webpage requirement adequately 
ensures that recipients can locate the opt-out mechanism while providing flexibility to facsimile senders 
in designing their websites in the most cost-effective manner to comply with this requirement.56  
2. Facsimile Cover Page
15. We decline to reconsider the Commissions decision that the first page of the facsimile 
advertisement must contain the opt-out notice.57 In so doing, we note that the Junk Fax Prevention Act 
requires that the notice is clear and conspicuous and on the first page of the unsolicited 
advertisement.58 Specifically, we decline to find that placement of the opt-out notice on a cover sheet 
that accompanies the facsimile advertisement satisfies this requirement.59 The Commission specifically 
addressed this issue in the Junk Fax Order, and petitioners provide no new information or evidence that 
leads us to now reconsider this conclusion.60  
  
53 Junk Fax Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3802-03, para. 28. 
54 See LS&L Petition at 2. 
55 See id. at 3.  See also ASAE Comments at 2; NAB Comments at 3.  
56 Interested parties in this proceeding contend that reconfiguring web homepages to include the opt-out 
mechanism is more cost prohibitive for most small businesses than simply designing a separate opt-out page.   
These parties also note that the traditional content of the homepage may be significantly disrupted by the inclusion 
of the entire opt-out mechanism.  See, e.g., LS&L Petition at 2-4; ASAE Comments at 2-3; NAB Comments at 3.
57 See LS&L Petition at 4-7. See also Junk Fax Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3801, para. 26.
58 See 47 U.S.C.  227(b)(2)(D)(i) (emphasis added). 
59 See LS&L Petition at 4-7. 
60 See Junk Fax Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3801, para. 26.   In many cases, the facsimile sender will not be the same 
party that actually transmits the facsimile to the recipient.  In these situations, there will be no way for the sender to 
ensure that an opt-out notice that complies with the requirements of the Junk Fax Prevention Act is included in the 
cover page or even whether a cover page is sent.  In addition, a cover page may easily become separated from the 
advertisement upon receipt.  Therefore, the Commission has concluded that the interest of facsimile recipients and 
senders is best protected by a requirement that the notice be placed on the first page of the advertisement itself.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-239
9
3. Duration of Opt-Out Requests
16. We decline to reconsider the Commissions decision not to limit the duration for which a 
request to opt-out from receiving unsolicited facsimile advertisements remains in effect.61 Here too the 
Commission directly addressed this issue in the Junk Fax Order, and petitioners provide no new evidence 
or arguments on reconsideration that lead us to reconsider this finding.62 The Commission has 
considered arguments that facsimile numbers may change hands over time and that those who make the 
opt-out request could, at some point, no longer be the same parties associated with those telephone 
numbers.63 The Commission has concluded, however, that these concerns are outweighed by the 
potential burdens imposed on those recipients that would otherwise be forced to repeat their opt-out 
requests to potentially hundreds of facsimile senders.64  
17. We disagree with DMAs contention that opt-out requests from facsimile recipients 
should be limited in duration in the same manner as do-not-call requests.65  We note that, unlike the 
Commissions rules on telephone solicitations, once an EBR has been established for purposes of 
allowing the transmission of facsimile advertisements, it remains in effect indefinitely until the recipient 
affirmatively opts-out from receiving future advertisements.66 In contrast, the Commissions rules limit 
the duration of an EBR exemption in the case of telephone solicitations to no longer than 18 months after 
a purchase or transaction or three months following an application or inquiry.67 Thus, the EBR will 
expire automatically in the case of telephone solicitations without any further action by the consumer.  In 
addition, recipients of facsimile advertisements assume the cost of the paper used, the cost associated 
with the use of the facsimile machine, and the costs associated with the time spent receiving a facsimile 
advertisement during which the machine cannot be used by its owner to send or receive other facsimile 
  
61 See DMA Petition at 4-8.
62 See Junk Fax Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3804-05, para. 32. 
63 Id.
64 Id.  
65 DMA Petition at 5-8. 
66 See 47 C.F.R.  64.1200(f)(5).  The EBR definition set forth by the Junk Fax Prevention Act for facsimile 
advertisements is unlimited in duration.   See Junk Fax Prevention Act, Sec. 2(f).  The Junk Fax Prevention Act 
permits the Commission to consider limiting the duration of the facsimile EBR exemption on the prohibition on 
sending facsimile advertisements after taking into consideration certain specified factors set forth in the Act.  See
47 U.S.C.  227(b)(2)(G).  Consistent with these statutory guidelines, the Commission has indicated that it intends 
to evaluate complaint data to determine whether the EBR exemption has resulted in a significant number of 
complaints, and whether such complaints involve facsimile advertisements sent based on an EBR of a duration that 
is inconsistent with the reasonable expectations of consumers.  See Junk Fax Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3800, para. 23. 
See also Junk Fax Prevention Act, Sec. 2(f).
67 See 47 C.F.R.  64.1200(f)(4). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-239
10
transmissions.   We believe that protecting recipients from the direct costs imposed by unwanted 
facsimile transmissions is best achieved by declining to limit the duration of an opt-out request.68  
IV. PROCEDURAL ISSUES
A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
18.  We note that no Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is necessary for this Order on 
Reconsideration as we are not making any changes to the Commissions rules.  
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
19. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13.  In addition, it does not 
contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 
25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).  
C. Congressional Review Act
20. The Commission will send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration in a report to be sent 
to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 
U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A).
D. Materials in Accessible Formats
21. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large 
print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).  This Order on 
Reconsideration can also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format (PDF) at 
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
22. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4, 
227, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C.  151-154, 227, and 303(r); 
Section 1.429 of the Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.429; and section 64.1200 of the Commissions 
Rules, 47 C.F.R.  64.1200, this Order on Reconsideration in CG Docket Nos. 02-278 and 05-338 IS 
ADOPTED.
23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that petitions for reconsideration and/or clarification filed 
by the Direct Marketing Association and Leventhal Senter and Lerman PLLC in CG Docket Nos. 02-278 
and 05-338 are DENIED in part and GRANTED in part as set forth herein.
  
68 As noted in the Junk Fax Order, a consumer who wishes to receive facsimiles at a new number or resume 
receiving facsimiles after previously opting out may give the sender prior express permission.  See Junk Fax 
Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 3805, para. 32. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-239
11
24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Commissions Consumer & Governmental Affairs 
Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Order on Reconsideration, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary