**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | CC Docket No. 97-172         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Petition of U S WEST             | ) |                              |
| Communications, Inc.             | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| for a Declaratory Ruling         |   |                              |
| Regarding the                    | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Provision of National Directory  | ) |                              |
| Assistance                       | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION**

**Adopted:** August 28, 2002 **Released:** September 6, 2002

By the Commission:

# introduction

1.  In the *NDA Order*, the Commission concluded that U S WEST's
    nonlocal directory assistance service to its in-region subscribers
    constitutes the provision of in-region, interLATA service, as
    defined in section 271(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended (the Act).[^1] It also concluded that a Bell Operating
    Company (BOC) could provide nonlocal directory assistance service as
    an "incidental interLATA service" pursuant to the exception
    contained in section 271(g)(4) of the Act without obtaining
    authorization under the general provisions of section 271.[^2] It
    found, however, that because section 271(g)(4) only allows the
    provision of incidental interLATA service by a BOC if the service is
    provided using the "information storage facilities of such company,"
    the section allows the provision of nonlocal directory assistance
    service only when the BOC uses its "own centralized information
    storage facilities" to provide the service.[^3] This Order addresses
    a petition for limited reconsideration on this issue filed by
    BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth) by further defining the meaning of
    the phrase "of such company" in section 271(g)(4).[^4]

# background

## Statutory Language

2.  The relevant statutory language for our analysis is in sections
    271(g) and 271(h) of the Act. Section 271(g) states:

    For purposes of this section, the term "incidental interLATA
    services" means the interLATA provision by a Bell operating company
    or its affiliate --

    \* \* \* \*

> \(4\) of a service that permits a customer that is located in one LATA
> to retrieve stored information from, or file information for storage
> in, information storage facilities of such company that are located in
> another LATA.[^5]

Section 271(h) states:

> The provisions of subsection (g) are intended to be narrowly
> construed. . . . The Commission shall ensure that the provision of
> services authorized under subsection (g) by a Bell operating company
> or its affiliate will not adversely affect telephone exchange service
> ratepayers or competition in any telecommunications market.[^6]

## NDA Order

3.  In the *NDA Order*, the Commission explained that directory
    assistance service is considered "nonlocal" whenever a customer
    requests the telephone number of a subscriber located outside his or
    her home LATA.[^7] The Commission concluded that U S WEST's
    provision of nonlocal directory assistance service constituted
    in-region, interLATA service because it involved transmission of end
    user calls across LATA boundaries, primarily through U S WEST's use
    of its official services network or leased common carrier lines to
    retrieve directory listing information from a database located
    outside its 14-state region.[^8] The Commission also found that the
    provision of nonlocal directory assistance service constitutes a
    permissible incidental interLATA service under section 271(g)(4) of
    the Act, provided that the BOC uses its own information storage
    facilities to provide the service. It stated:

> As an initial matter, we conclude that section 271(g)(4), by its
> express terms, authorizes BOC provision of the capability for
> customers to access only the BOC's own centralized information storage
> facilities. Indeed, we find that this construction of the statute is
> apparent from Congress' use of the term 'such company' in setting
> forth types of services authorized by section 271(g)(4). Thus, section
> 271(g)(4) permits a BOC to offer the incidental interLATA service
> described therein only when it *uses its own facilities*. Such a
> construction of section 271(g)(4) is consistent with Congress'
> directive that the provisions of section 271(g) are to be narrowly
> construed.[^9]

Although the *NDA Order* made clear that the BOC must use its own
facilities to provide nonlocal directory assistance service, it did not
otherwise address the extent of the interest that would be required
under section 271(g)(4). It found only that U S WEST's use of a database
owned entirely by a third party, Nortel Networks, Inc. (Nortel), did not
comply with the ownership requirement.[^10] The Commission also
emphasized that its determination that U S WEST's nationwide directory
assistance service does not satisfy the requirements of section
271(g)(4) was "limited to the facts presented in the instant
proceeding."[^11]

4.  Since the Commission released the *NDA Order*, the BOCs have been
    offering nonlocal directory assistance service throughout their
    regions. Based on the BOCs' representations that they own 100
    percent of the information storage facilities they use in the
    provision of the service, the Common Carrier Bureau, now the
    Wireline Competition Bureau, concluded that each BOC's nonlocal
    directory assistance service is an incidental interLATA service
    under section 271(g)(4).[^12] A BOC's information storage facilities
    typically store both local listings, obtained from the processes
    associated with providing local exchange service to its customers,
    and nonlocal listings, obtained from various sources and then loaded
    into the BOC's facilities. These sources include other BOC and
    non-BOC incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs), competitive LECs,
    and third party vendors.

## BellSouth's Requests

5.  BellSouth interprets the *NDA Order* as requiring that a BOC own 100
    percent of the information storage facilities it uses to provide
    nonlocal directory assistance service in order to satisfy the
    requirements of section 271(g)(4). Arguing that such a requirement
    is not mandated by the statute, it requests that we now find
    explicitly that section 271(g)(4) permits BOCs to provide the
    service through a less restrictive means of ownership.[^13] It
    suggests that we interpret section 271(g)(4) to allow sharing of
    storage facilities among unaffiliated directory assistance providers
    through leasing or contracting arrangements.[^14] In the
    alternative, it requests that we find that a BOC's holding greater
    than a 10 percent interest in the facilities is sufficient to make
    them the "information storage facilities of such company."[^15]
    Several parties oppose BellSouth's request on the grounds that the
    statute requires full ownership of the facilities by the BOC and
    that full ownership is necessary to ensure that competitive
    directory assistance providers have nondiscriminatory access to each
    BOC's listing information.[^16]

6.  In subsequent letter filings with the Commission, BellSouth also
    argues that a less restrictive facilities ownership requirement is
    necessary to allow it to offer international directory assistance
    service.[^17] It asks us to find that under section 271(g)(4) it may
    use foreign databases, in which it has no ownership interest, to
    respond to a *de minimis* number of customer queries for
    international directory listings.[^18]

# discussion

## Facilities Ownership Issue

7.  Upon further review, we conclude that we can more explicitly define
    the meaning of the phrase "of such company" in section 271(g)(4). We
    recognize that the statute does not specifically address the type of
    interest a BOC must have in information storage facilities for them
    to be considered facilities "of such company" within the meaning of
    section 271(g)(4), and that this phrase is subject to different
    interpretations.[^19] We find, however, that in the absence of
    Congress speaking directly to this specific issue, the best and most
    reasonable interpretation is one that requires the BOC to have an
    actual ownership interest in the information storage facilities,
    consistent with how ownership is otherwise cognizable under the Act.
    For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that a BOC that holds
    greater than a 10 percent interest in the information storage
    facilities used to provide nonlocal directory assistance service
    would satisfy the requirement in section 271(g)(4) that the
    facilities be the "information storage facilities of such company."

8.  We begin by noting that the phrase at the core of our analysis, "of
    such company," does not, itself, incorporate an express reference to
    any specific type of interest. Because section 271 does not define
    the specific amount of BOC ownership required, we can look for
    guidance on this issue in other parts of the Act. Section 274, which
    addresses the provision of electronic publishing by a BOC, defines
    "own" as having a "direct or indirect equity interest (or the
    equivalent thereof) of more than 10 percent of an entity, or the
    right to more than 10 percent of the gross revenues of an entity
    under a revenue sharing or royalty agreement."[^20] This is
    consistent with the definition of "affiliate" in section 3(1) of the
    Act, which specifies that "an equity interest (or the equivalent
    thereof) of more than 10 percent" creates an affiliate
    relationship.[^21] We conclude that this "more than 10 percent"
    threshold, which Congress has used in other parts of the Act, is
    reasonably applied to the more ambiguous language in section
    271(g)(4). We agree with BellSouth that if ownership of a
    corporation or other entity may be attributed to a company that
    holds a greater than 10 percent interest in that entity, a BOC's
    similar ownership interest in information storage facilities should
    be sufficient to make those facilities the "information storage
    facilities of such company."[^22] We find that reading section
    271(g)(4) as allowing BOC provision of database storage and
    retrieval services in this manner results in only a narrow exception
    to the general prohibition against BOC provision of interLATA
    services in the absence of authorization under the general
    provisions of section 271 and therefore is reasonable.

9.  We further find that our interpretation of section 271(g)(4) is
    consistent with Congress' directive in section 271(h) that the
    provisions of section 271(g) are to be narrowly construed.[^23] The
    Commission has concluded that the language in these subsections
    should be read as reflecting Congress' awareness that a broad
    reading of the exceptions in section 271(g) could adversely affect
    implementation of sections 251 and 271 of the Act.[^24] The
    Commission has therefore determined that allowing certain
    far-reaching actions, such as eliminating LATA boundaries for
    incidental interLATA services, would clearly conflict with section
    271(h)'s mandate.[^25] However, as we find here, allowing a BOC to
    maintain less than full ownership, but greater than 10 percent
    ownership, of their information storage facilities does not
    similarly affect implementation of sections 251 and 271 because we
    are not extending the type or scope of "incidental" service that the
    BOCs may provide pursuant to section 271(g)(4). Thus, our
    construction of section 271(g)(4) in this Order is consistent with
    the language of the statute.

10. Establishing a clear threshold of at least 10 percent BOC ownership
    is not only the most reasonable reading of the text of the statute,
    but it is also consistent with the policy goals of providing
    certainty to the industry and encouraging nondiscriminatory access
    to directory listings by competitors. Setting a clear threshold will
    allow BOCs and competitive providers of nonlocal directory
    assistance service to explore varied ownership arrangements for
    information storage facilities. Our determination that BOCs may own
    less than 100 percent of their storage facilities could also reduce
    the costs that directory assistance providers incur to provide
    service.[^26] We balance this potential cost savings with the
    ability of competitive providers of directory assistance service to
    access the BOCs' directory listings on a nondiscriminatory basis. We
    find nothing in the record to suggest that an interest of less than
    100 percent would undermine the Commission's nondiscrimination
    requirements relating to the provision of directory listing
    information. We will monitor the situation, however, and take
    corrective action if necessary.

11. The finding here that allowing a BOC to own only 10 percent of each
    information storage facility it uses to provide national directory
    assistance can enhance competition for nonlocal directory assistance
    service and benefit consumers is also consistent with the
    Commission's conclusion in the *NDA Order* that U S WEST's provision
    of nonlocal directory assistance service would meet the requirements
    of section 271(h).[^27] There, the Commission stated,

> \[I\]n view of our finding that U S WEST's provision of regionwide
> directory assistance service will promote competition in the interLATA
> directory assistance services market, we conclude that the directive
> in section 271(h) that the services authorized in section 271(g) "will
> not adversely affect telephone exchange ratepayers or competition in
> any telecommunications market" is fulfilled.[^28]

Similarly, we find here that there are positive benefits associated with
a BOC's provision of interLATA directory assistance service, and that
allowing it to maintain more flexible interests in information storage
facilities will help realize these benefits.

12. We also find it to be significant that the Commission emphasized
    that its determination in the *NDA Order* that U S WEST's nationwide
    directory assistance service did not satisfy the requirements of
    section 271(g)(4) was "limited to the facts presented in the instant
    proceeding."[^29] The record there indicated that U S WEST used a
    "Nortel owned" database located outside of its region to provide
    nationwide directory assistance service.[^30] Therefore, the
    Commission analyzed a situation in the *NDA Order* in which the BOC
    did not own any portion of the information storage facilities it
    used to provide nonlocal directory assistance service, which it
    found would both violate section 271(g)(4) and be inconsistent with
    Congress' directive in section 271(h).[^31] The Commission therefore
    did not consider the implications associated with requiring that a
    BOC maintain an actual, but less than exclusive, ownership interest
    in information storage facilities, as we do here.

13. We reject BellSouth's contention that section 271(g)(4) refers only
    to facilities the costs of which the BOC has incorporated into its
    costing and pricing structure, regardless of who owns them.[^32] To
    the extent that such arrangements take the form of lease or
    contractual interests in the facilities, we find that such an
    arrangement would not amount to the ownership interest required
    under section 271(g)(4).[^33] Permitting a BOC to maintain only a
    leasehold in the storage facilities, as BellSouth urges,[^34] could
    allow the BOCs to provide nonlocal directory assistance service on a
    broad basis while claiming that they have little or no control over
    the ability of competitors to access the listings contained in the
    database, as required by section 251(b)(3) of the Act. Such a result
    would be inconsistent with the language of the statute.[^35]
    Furthermore, BellSouth's argument is based on the Commission's
    determination, in the *Universal Service Order*,[^36] that leased
    unbundled network elements are considered to be the lessee's "own
    facilities" for purposes of Section 214(e)(1)(A) of the Act even
    though the competitive LEC does not hold absolute title to
    them.[^37] BellSouth's comparison is inapposite. Section 251(c)(3)
    states that incumbent LECs have a duty to provide to carriers
    nondiscriminatory access to unbundled network elements to provide
    telecommunications service. Section 271(g)(4), on the other hand,
    does not grant the BOCs a similar right of access to the information
    storage facilities, but rather places a condition on their ability
    to provide incidental interLATA service. In order to give full
    effect to this condition, the BOCs must own at least a portion of
    the facilities. In this respect, we are particularly mindful of our
    obligation under section 271(h) to construe section 271(g) narrowly,
    quite aside from our general obligation to give effect to the
    wording of the statute.

14. We also reject the arguments of certain parties that the BOCs must
    maintain full and exclusive ownership of their information storage
    facilities. Specifically, we reject these parties' contentions that
    permitting the BOCs to share ownership of an information storage
    facility would prevent competitive directory assistance providers
    from accessing the BOCs' directory listing information.[^38] Under
    the Commission's nondiscrimination rules, any LEC that provides
    local or national listing information for the purpose of its own
    directory assistance operations (whether provided on an integrated
    basis or through an affiliate) must make that same information
    available to competing directory assistance providers on a
    nondiscriminatory basis.[^39] Accordingly, nothing in this Order
    changes the applicability of the Commission's nondiscrimination
    rules relating to the provision of directory listing information.
    We, therefore, agree with WorldCom that if a BOC provides national
    directory assistance information to other BOCs in its role as a
    directory assistance provider, then it must make the same
    information available to competing directory assistance providers
    under nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and conditions.[^40]
    WorldCom's arguments also presume that the BOCs would, as a group,
    immediately divest themselves of their existing storage facilities
    and establish a commonly-owned facility, which is not at all clear
    from the record here. While WorldCom is correct in arguing that we
    are not requiring that competitors own any part of an information
    storage facility under section 271(g)(4), they are clearly not
    prohibited from doing so. Indeed, as the Commission previously found
    with regard to U S WEST, the BOCs face competition from many other
    providers of nonlocal directory assistance service, and do not
    exercise monopoly power over the components used to provide the
    telephone numbers of customers outside of each of their
    regions.[^41] Rather, like competing providers of nonlocal directory
    assistance, the BOCs must obtain the telephone numbers of
    subscribers outside their regions from non-affiliated entities that
    compile national listings or from other LECs.[^42] Accordingly,
    WorldCom's arguments give us no reason to impose a 100 percent
    ownership requirement in the face of a more reasonable
    interpretation of the statute.

## International Directory Assistance Issue

15. We deny, on procedural grounds, BellSouth's request for a *de
    minimis* exception to the facilities ownership requirement for
    international directory assistance queries. In its August 24, 2001
    letter, BellSouth argues for the first time in this proceeding that
    a directory assistance provider cannot practically own and maintain
    a database of listings from all the countries that generate
    directory assistance inquiries, and that a less restrictive
    ownership requirement than the one required in the *NDA Order* would
    enable BOCs and other carriers to provide expanded directory
    assistance services.[^43] WorldCom opposes BellSouth's request on
    the ground that the statute does not provide an exception for the
    *de minimis* provision of in-region, interLATA services.[^44] The
    *NDA Order* was clearly confined to the issue of domestic directory
    assistance services. It states that the directory assistance
    services under review allow subscribers to obtain the telephone
    number of a subscriber located "anywhere in the United States."[^45]
    As we stated above, the findings in the *NDA Order* were also
    limited to the facts presented in that proceeding.[^46] Accordingly,
    the Commission did not consider the BOCs' provision of international
    directory assistance services, and we therefore conclude that it is
    procedurally inappropriate to rule on this issue in the context of
    BellSouth's limited request for reconsideration of the *NDA Order*.
    We note that in rejecting BellSouth's request on the basis that
    international directory assistance services were not within the
    scope of the *NDA Order*, we do not make any findings or otherwise
    imply that BellSouth or any other BOC is not required to comply with
    section 271(g)(4) or any other part of the Act if it provides
    international directory assistance service. BellSouth may file a
    petition for declaratory ruling if it deems it necessary to resolve
    this issue.[^47]

# ordering clause

16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4, 10, 201-205,
    271-272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
    154, 160, 201-205, 271-272, and sections 1.106 of the Commission's
    rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that BellSouth's Petition for limited
    reconsideration IS GRANTED to the extent set forth herein, and
    otherwise IS DENIED.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch

    Secretary

[^1]: *Petition of U S WEST Communications, Inc. for a Declaratory
    Ruling Regarding the Provision of National Directory Assistance*, CC
    Docket No. 97-172, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 16252
    (1999) (*NDA Order*). NDA is an acronym for national directory
    assistance. In-region, interLATA service refers to
    telecommunications between a point located in a local access and
    transport area (LATA) in a Bell Operating Company's home region and
    a point located outside the LATA.

[^2]: *Id.* at 16265, para. 23.

[^3]: *Id.* at 16266, para. 24.

[^4]: *Petition of U S WEST Communications, Inc. for a Declaratory
    Ruling Regarding the Provision of National Directory Assistance*,
    BellSouth Petition for Limited Reconsideration, filed Oct. 27, 1999
    (Petition). On November 4, 1999, the Commission issued a public
    notice notifying parties that oppositions and replies to oppositions
    on BellSouth's petition were due in accordance with the filing
    requirements in 47 C.F.R. § 1.4(b)(1). AT&T Corp. (AT&T), Excell
    Agent Services, L.L.C. (Excell), and MCI WorldCom (WorldCom) filed
    oppositions. BellSouth and Bell Atlantic, now Verizon, filed
    replies.

[^5]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(g)(4).

[^6]: 47 U.S.C. § 271(h).

[^7]: *NDA Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 16255, para. 6. In this Order, we refer
    interchangeably to national and nonlocal directory assistance as
    directory assistance service provided to customers located outside
    the caller's home LATA.

[^8]: *Id.* at 16263, para. 18. Official services networks are interLATA
    networks that the BOCs were allowed to maintain for the management
    and operation of local exchange services under the Modification of
    Final Judgment (MFJ). These interLATA networks are used to perform
    official services, such as connecting directory assistance operators
    in different LATAs with customers and monitoring and controlling
    trunks and switches. *See* *United States v. Western Electric*, 569
    F.Supp. 1057, 1097-1101 (D.D.C.), *aff\'d*., 464 U.S. 1013 (1983).

[^9]: *NDA Order*, 14 FCC Rcd*.* at 16265, para. 23 (emphasis added).

[^10]: *Id.* at 16266, para. 24.

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: *E.g., Petition of Bell Atlantic for Forbearance from Section 272
    Requirements in Connection with National Directory Assistance
    Services*, CC Docket No. 97-172, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14
    FCC Rcd 21484 (Com. Car. Bur. 1999) (*Bell Atlantic NDA Order*).

[^13]: Petition at 4-7.

[^14]: *Id.* at 7.

[^15]: *Id.* at 7-8 (*citing NDA Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 16268, para. 27).
    Bell Atlantic, now Verizon, agrees with BellSouth that the phrase,
    "information storage facilities of such company," without additional
    language regarding ownership, permits arrangements such as leases
    and those in which the company buys or contracts for the right to
    use the facilities. Bell Atlantic Reply at 1-2.

[^16]: *See* AT&T Opposition at 3-5; Excell Opposition at 1-2; WorldCom
    Opposition at 3-8.

[^17]: *See* Letter from Angela N. Brown, Regulatory Counsel, BellSouth,
    to Michelle Carey, Division Chief, Policy and Program Planning
    Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
    CC Docket No. 97-172, at 3-4 (filed Oct. 5, 2001)(*BellSouth Oct. 5,
    2001 Letter*); Letter from Angela N. Brown, Regulatory Counsel,
    BellSouth, to Michelle Carey, Division Chief, Policy and Program
    Planning Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission, CC Docket No. 97-172, at 7-8 (filed Aug. 24, 2001)
    (*BellSouth Aug. 24, 2001 Letter*).

[^18]: *BellSouth Aug. 24, 2001 Letter* at 7-8.

[^19]: We note that section 274(g)(4) refers to the incidental interLATA
    services that "a \[BOC\] or its affiliate" may provide. For
    simplicity, we refer to the "BOC" throughout this Order.

[^20]: 47 U.S.C. § 274(i)(8).

[^21]: 47 U.S.C. § 153(1).

[^22]: Petition at 8; *cf. GTE Corporation, Transferor, and Bell
    Atlantic Corporation, Transferee, For Consent to Transfer Control of
    Domestic and International Sections 214 and 310 Authorizations and
    Application to Transfer Control of a Submarine Cable Landing
    License,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 14032, 14037,
    para. 5 (2000) (*Bell Atlantic/GTE Merger Order*) (recognizing that
    an ownership interest of less than 10 percent does not constitute an
    attributable interest under section 3(1)).

[^23]: Section 271(h) states that the "provisions of subsection (g) are
    intended to be narrowly construed," and that "the Commission shall
    ensure that the provision of services authorized under subsection
    (g) by a Bell Operating Company or its affiliate will not adversely
    affect telephone exchange service ratepayers or competition in any
    telecommunications market." 47 U.S.C. § 271(h).

[^24]: *See Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced
    Telecommunications Capability; Request by Bell Atlantic-West
    Virginia for Interim Relief Under Section 706, or in the
    Alternative, a LATA Boundary Modification*, CC Docket No. 98-147 and
    NSD-L-98-99, Fourth Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 15 FCC Rcd 3089, 3109, para. 40 (2000).

[^25]: *Id.*

[^26]: BellSouth states that a wholly-owned, free standing, national
    directory assistance storage facility could cost up to \$8 million,
    and that if all BOCs were required to make such individual
    investments, it would result in duplication of costs and facilities.
    BellSouth states that the costs of these duplicate facilities would
    be recovered through the price of their directory assistance
    service. Petition at 6-7.

[^27]: *NDA Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 16266, para. 25.

[^28]: *Id.*

[^29]: *Id.* at 16266, para. 24.

[^30]: *Id.* at 16256, 16266, paras. 9, 24.

[^31]: *Id.* at 16265-66, paras. 23-24.

[^32]: Petition at 7; BellSouth Reply at 3. *See also BellSouth Aug. 24,
    2001 Letter* at 5.

[^33]: *See supra* paras. 7-8.

[^34]: *See BellSouth Aug. 24, 2001 Letter* at 5-6.

[^35]: Section 271(h) requires that the provision of incidental
    interLATA service not harm competition in any telecommunications
    market. 47 U.S.C. § 271(h).

[^36]: *Federal State Joint Board on Universal Service*, CC Docket No.
    96-45, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 8865-66, paras. 158-59
    (1997) (subsequent history omitted) (*Universal Service Order*).

[^37]: *BellSouth Aug. 24, 2001 Letter* at 5 (*citing* *Universal
    Service Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 8865-66, paras. 158-59). Section
    214(e)(1)(A) provides that a common carrier may be designated as
    eligible to receive federal universal service support if, among
    other conditions, it offers the services for which support is sought
    either "using its own facilities or a combination of its own
    facilities and resale of another carrier's service." 47 U.S.C. §
    214(e)(1)(A).

[^38]: WorldCom Opposition at 7-8; Excell Opposition at 4.

[^39]: *Provision of Directory Listing Information Under the
    Telecommunications Act of 1934, As Amended*, CC Docket No. 99-273,
    First Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 2736, 2750-51, para. 32 (2001)
    (specifying that "to the extent that a carrier provides access to
    national DA information \[to\] any other DA provider, including
    another LEC, it must make that same information available to
    competing DA providers under nondiscriminatory rates, terms, and
    conditions as required by this order") (*Directory Listings Order*).
    We note that BellSouth agrees that companies participating in a
    sharing arrangement must comply with the Commission's
    nondiscrimination requirements. *BellSouth Aug. 24, 2001 Letter* at
    6.

[^40]: Letter from Karen Reidy, Associate Counsel, Federal Law and
    Public Policy, WorldCom, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 97-172, at 4 (filed Oct.
    15, 2001) (*WorldCom Oct. 15, 2001 Lette*r).

[^41]: *See NDA Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 16265, para. 23. We note that the
    Common Carrier Bureau made similar findings with regard to other
    BOCs. *See, e.g.*, *Bell Atlantic NDA Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 21491,
    para. 14.

[^42]: *Petition of U S WEST Communications, Inc. for a Declaratory
    Ruling Regarding the Provision of National Directory Assistance;
    Petition of U S WEST Communications, Inc. for Forbearance; The Use
    of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements*, CC Docket
    Nos. 97-172 and 92-105, 14 FCC Rcd 16252, 16271, para. 33 (1999).

[^43]: *BellSouth Aug. 24, 2001 Letter* at 7-8.

[^44]: *WorldCom Oct. 15, 2001 Letter* at n.13.

[^45]: *NDA Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 16255-57, paras. 7-10.

[^46]: *See supra* paras. 3, 12

[^47]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2. We note, however, that this issue becomes moot
    once a BOC receives section 271 approval in all states within its
    region.