47 C.F.R. § 51.223
Application of additional requirements
(a) A state may not impose the obligations set forth in section 251(c) of the Act on a LEC that is not classified as an incumbent LEC as defined in section 251(h)(1) of the Act, unless the Commission issues an order declaring that such LECs or classes or categories of LECs should be treated as incumbent LECs.
(b) A state commission, or any other interested party, may request that the Commission issue an order declaring that a particular LEC be treated as an incumbent LEC, or that a class or category of LECs be treated as incumbent LECs, pursuant to section 251(h)(2) of the Act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1
case, 1999–1999 · leading case: U.S. West Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jennings, 46 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (D. Ariz. 1999).
U.S. West Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jennings, 46 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (D. Ariz. 1999). “47 C.F.R. § 51.223 . The duty to unbundle network elements is an obligation contained in § 251(c), and neither AT & T nor MCI is presently classified as an incumbent LEC in Arizona.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.