******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                         Before the
              Federal Communications Commission
                   Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                  )
                                 )
National A-1 Advertising, Inc.    )
and 811 Direct, Inc.,             )
                                 )
    Complainants,                 )
                                 )
v.                                )   File No. EB-02-TC-F-003
                                 )
BellSouth Telecommunications,     )
Inc.,                             )
                                 )
    Defendant.

                            ORDER

Adopted:  September 27, 2002                        
Released:  October 1, 2002

By the Deputy Chief, Telecommunications Consumers Division, 
Enforcement Bureau:

On June  10, 2002,  National A-1  Advertising, Inc.  and 811 
Direct, Inc (Complainants) filed  a formal complaint against 
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.  (Defendant), pursuant to 
Section 208  of the Communications  Act of 1934,  as amended 
(the Act).1   In the complaint, they  alleged that Defendant 
had violated sections 201(a), 201(b), 202(a), and 214 of the 
Act2  by refusing  to  continue  providing for  Complainants 
abbreviated  dialing  code  services or  substitute  dialing 
arrangements.3  Subsequent  to that filing  by Complainants, 
the parties to this proceeding reached a settlement of their 
dispute.  On  August 29,  2002, Complainants filed  a letter 
requesting dismissal of their complaint without prejudice.

We  are  satisfied  that  allowing the  withdrawal  of  this 
complaint will  serve the  public interest by  promoting the 
private  resolution   of  disputes   and  by   reducing  the 
expenditure of further time and resources by the parties and 
by  this Commission.   Furthermore,  we believe  that it  is 
appropriate  to  dismiss  this complaint  without  prejudice 
because  Defendant  has not  yet  filed  its answer  to  the 
complaint.4

Accordingly, IT  IS ORDERED,  pursuant to sections  1, 4(i), 
4(j), 201(b), and 208 of  the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151,  154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, and 
the authority delegated  by sections 0.111 and  0.311 of the 
Commission's  rules, 47  C.F.R.  §§ 0.111,  0.311, that  the 
formal complaint  of National A-1 Advertising,  Inc. and 811 
Direct, Inc., filed  on June 10, 2002,  is DISMISSED WITHOUT 
PREDJUDICE.


                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         Kurt A. Schroeder
                         Deputy Chief
                         Telecommunications Consumers 
Division
                         Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

1    47 U.S.C. § 208.
2    Id. §§ 201(a), 201(b), 202(a), 214.
3    See Formal Complaint of National A-1 Advertising, Inc., 
and 811 Direct, Inc., at ii (filed June 10, 2002). 
4    See McLeodUSA Publishing Company v. U S West 
Communications, Inc., Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7957 (Mkt. Disp. 
Res. Div., Enf. Bur. 2000) (appropriate to grant dismissal 
without prejudice because defendant has not yet filed its 
answer to complaint).  Accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) 
(allowing a plaintiff to dismiss an action without prejudice 
by filing a notice of dismissal before service of an answer 
by the adverse party). Here, we postponed, as a matter of 
discretion, the filing date for Defendant's answer because 
the parties were actively pursuing settlement.