[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10965-10967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4213]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Ch. I

[CC Docket No. 99-273; FCC 01-27]


Provision of Directory Listing Information Under the 
Telecommunications Act of 1934

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document adopts some of the tentative conclusions 
contained in the Subscriber List Information/Directory Assistance Order 
and Notice

[[Page 10966]]

of Proposed Rulemaking (SLI/DA Order and Notice). Specifically, the 
Federal Communications Commission (Commission) concludes that competing 
directory assistance (DA) providers that offer call completion services 
provide telephone exchange or telephone toll service and thus are 
entitled to nondiscriminatory access to all local exchange carrier 
(LEC) directory assistance, including access to LEC local directory-
assistance databases compiled by LECs. In this First Report and Order, 
the Commission also resolves issues relating to directory publishing, 
specifically, the Commission concludes that the language concerning 
directory publishing ``in any format'' encompasses telephone 
directories on the Internet.

DATES: Effective February 21, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Cooke, 202/418-2351, Fax 202/
418-2345, TTY 202/418-0484, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3453575b5b5f51745257571a535b42"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8aede9e5e5e1efcaece9e9a4ede5fc">[email protected]</span></a>, Network Services Division, 
Common Carrier Bureau, or Pam Slipakoff, 202/418-7705, Fax 202/418-
2345, TTY 202/418-0484, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bccccfd0d5ccddd7d3fcdadfdf92dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8afaf9e6e3faebe1e5caece9e9a4ede5fc">[email protected]</span></a>, Network Services Division, 
Common Carrier Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's First 
Report and Order, CC Docket No. 99-273, FCC 01-27 (First Report and 
Order), adopted January 19, 2001 and released January 23, 2001. The 
full text of the First Report and Order is available for inspection and 
copying during the weekday hours of 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the FCC 
Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20554, or copies may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., 445 12th 
Street, SW, Suite CY-B400, Washington, DC 20554, phone (202) 857-3800.

Synopsis of the First Report and Order in CC Docket No. 99-273

    1. In September 1999, the Commission released SLI/DA Order and 
Notice, CC Docket Nos. 96-115, 96-98, 99-273, Third Report and Order, 
Second Order on Reconsideration, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 
FCC Rcd 15550 (1999), 64 FR 51910 (September 9, 1999) in which the 
Commission tentatively concluded that the presence of competing 
directory assistance providers benefits competition and that such 
providers are unable fully to compete without nondiscriminatory access 
to the incumbent LECs' directory assistance databases. This First 
Report and Order adopts some of the tentative conclusions contained in 
the SLI/DA Order and Notice.
    2. Specifically, in the First Report and Order, the Commission 
concludes that under section 251(b)(3) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Act), 
competing DA providers that provide offer call completion services for 
local or toll calls provide telephone exchange or telephone toll 
service, respectively, as defined within the Act, and thus are entitled 
to nondiscriminatory access to all directory assistance, including 
access to local directory-assistance databases compiled by LECs. In 
this First Report and Order the Commission also stated that the 
competitive provision of directory assistance is a necessary element of 
competitive local telecommunications market, and that Congress 
recognized it as such in section 251 of the Act. To the extent that 
such DA providers qualify under section 251(b)(3) of the Act, the 
Commission finds that LEC failure to provide such action not only 
violates section 251(b)(3), but may also violate section 201(b).
    3. In the First Report and Order, the Commission also explains 
that, where a DA provider completes the call and charges the customer, 
this service comes within the meaning of telephone exchange service and 
telephone toll services as defined in sections 3(47) and 3(48) of the 
Act, respectively. DA providers that qualify for nondiscriminatory 
access under section 251(b)(3) of the Act also are subject to 
obligations such as contributing for universal service, 
Telecommunications Relay Service, paying appropriate assessments for 
Local Number Portability administration, and North American Numbering 
Plan Administration.
    4. In addition, the Commission concludes that when a competing 
local exchange carrier (CLEC) or an interexchange carrier (IXC), having 
entered an interconnection agreement with the relevant LEC, designates 
a DA provider to act as their agent, that competing DA provider is 
entitled to nondiscriminatory access to the providing LECs' local DA 
database. The Commission declines to adopt rules permitting the LEC to 
restrict the use of subscriber information to the specific carrier-
principal for which the purchase was made. Furthermore, the Commission 
declines to limit the manner in which DA providers use the information 
beyond the limitation announced in the Local Competition Second Report 
and Order.
    5. In the SLI/DA Order and Notice the Commission sought comment on 
whether DA providers falling outside of 251(b)(3) would nevertheless 
qualify for protection under sections 201(b) and 202(a). The Commission 
does not address these issues in the First Report and Order, but may 
address them in a separate proceeding.
    6. The Commission also concludes that LECs are not required to 
grant competing DA providers nondiscriminatory access to non-local 
directory assistance databases that the LECs acquire form third parties 
because LECs do not exercise bottleneck control over such databases. 
However, 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 
First Report and Order.
    7. In addition, section 251(b)(3) of the Act and the Commission's 
rules prohibit LECs from charging discriminatory rates for access to DA 
databases to competing DA providers that fall within the protection of 
that section. Thus, LECs must offer access to their DA database at 
rates that do not discriminate among the entities to which they provide 
access. Further, failure to provide directory assistance at 
nondiscriminatory and reasonable rates to DA providers within the 
protection of section 251(b)(3) may also constitute an unjust charge 
under section 201(b). The Commission notes that for its requirement 
that LECs charge nondiscriminatory rates for DA to have any effect, 
competing DA providers must have access to the pertinent terms, 
conditions, and pricing data. Thus, in order to make this 
nondiscrimination requirement meaningful, the Commission would expect 
carriers to comply with section 252 and make rates, terms, and 
conditions data available to requesting parties in a timely manner. The 
Commission also declines to adopt, for DA purposes, the rate 
methodology for subscriber list information under section 222(e) of the 
Act. It concludes that, because of the statutory differences between 
directory assistance and directory publishing, the Commission can not 
at this time justify setting a rate that would apply to both access to 
directory assistance databases and directory publishing. The 
Commission's decision not to impose a specific pricing structure on 
directory assistance notwithstanding our jurisdiction over DA does not 
preclude a state commission from doing so. In such cases, the 
Commission would

[[Page 10967]]

adopt the state rate as its own, subject to the Title II requirements 
of reasonableness and nondiscrimination as set forth in this order. 
Parties that wished to challenge such rates on the basis of non-
compliance with Title II could do so before the Commission in an 
enforcement proceeding.
    8. The First Report and Order also resolves other issues relating 
to directory publishing. Specifically, the Commission concludes that 
the language concerning directory publishing ``in any format'' in 
section 222(e) of the Act applies to entities that seek subscriber list 
information to publish telephone directories on the Internet. In 
addition, because an Internet directory is published when Internet 
users are able to access it, a directory publisher that requests 
subscriber list information for purposes of placing it on the Internet 
is seeking that information ``for the purpose of publishing a 
directory'' within the meaning of section 222(e). The Commission finds 
that extending the guarantees of section 222(e) to publishers of 
telephone directories on the Internet will further enhance competition 
in the market for directory publishing. In addition, the Commission 
believes that specific LEC-mandated use restrictions are not necessary 
to ensure that the interests of LECs are protected. Thus, the 
Commission concludes that publishers of telephone directories on the 
Internet should be permitted to use the data for the purpose for which 
it was purchased and should not be restricted in the manner in which 
they display or allow customers to access the data.
    9. Finally, the Commission finds that the oral provisioning of 
directory assistance does not constitute ``publication'' for the 
purposes of section 222(e), and thus conclude that directory assistance 
should not be regulated under that section. The Commission also 
concludes that the statutory differences between directory assistance 
and directory publishing should continue to be observed. In the future, 
if directory assistance and directory publishing evolve to resemble one 
another more closely, the Commission may revisit this issue.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    10. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice 
of Proposed Rule Making (Notice) in this docket, CC Docket No. 99-273. 
The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the 
Notice, including comment on the IRFA. No comments on the IRFA were 
received. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification 
(Final Certification) conforms to the RFA.
    11. The RFA requires an analysis of any notice-and-comment type 
rule making if the rule will result in a ``significant economic 
impact'' on ``a substantial number of small entities.'' There are four 
categories of entities that might be affected by the requirements 
contained in this First Report and Order. None of these categories 
reaches the threshold of a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. First, the requirements adopted herein are 
expected to have a significant positive economic impact on a 
substantial number of small competitive directory assistance providers 
and small directory publishers. Although, the requirements included in 
this First Report and Order do not directly affect these entities, the 
requirements, once in place, should ensure the ability of these 
entities to provide services on a competitively neutral basis. Second, 
the Commission expects these requirements to have a positive economic 
impact on some CLECs. Many CLECs, both small and large, rely upon small 
competitive directory assistance providers to outsource their directory 
assistance services; the requirements contained herein should result in 
more competition in the directory assistance arena and therefore a 
savings to these CLECs. Third, these requirements may have an adverse 
economic impact on incumbent LECs that are Bell Operating Companies 
(BOCs). Each BOC is a large, national company, affiliated with a 
Regional Holding Company (RHC). All BOCs and their RHCs have more than 
1,500 employees, placing these entities above the small business size 
standard established by the Small Business Administration. Therefore, 
although the effect of these requirements may result in a ``significant 
economic impact'' to a BOC it will not result in a ``significant 
economic impact'' to a small entity. Fourth, the Commission anticipates 
that any cost incurred as a result of the requirement that small 
incumbent LECs electronically transfer their directory assistance data 
will be nominal and will not result in a ``significant economic 
impact'' on these small entities. The Commission therefore certifies, 
pursuant to the RFA, that the requirements adopted in the present First 
Report and Order will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

Report to Congress

    12. The Commission will send a copy of this First Report and Order, 
including a copy of this Final Certification, in a report to Congress 
pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996. In addition, the First Report and Order and this Final 
Certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration, and will be published in the Federal 
Register.

Ordering Clauses

    13. Pursuant to Sections 1, 3, 4, 201, 222, 251 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153, 154, 201, 
222, and 251, the First Report and Order is hereby Adopted, and the 
requirements contained herein will become effective February 21, 2001.
    14. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, Shall send a copy of this First Report and Order, 
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of Small Business Administration.
    15. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification for this First 
Report and Order, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 
604, is contained herein.

Federal Communions Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-4213 Filed 2-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>