WPC 2BEVZ\3|wle) Y-#Xw P7[AXP#"Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxSxSxSrSrSrS{SiSiSiSiSxSxSxSxSxS{S{SS.SSSSz]SSuSiSiSk2g/a{S{SxSxSxoSoSZ?YSYSiSiSiS{S{S{S{SxxSkI8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxWxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ8HP LaserJet IIISi (Add) rm 534HPLAIIAD.PRSc P7H YP25 E-X  Y-#Xw P7[AXP#"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYddddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdddddddd~d~d~d~ddddddddd8ddddoddd~d~d<|8tddddddlLkdkd~d~d~ddddddXCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"Ȑdhd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCŐz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYCȢx/c81,c P7P8wC;,[AXw P7XP3  &@K2K;U7VVCYp7Rr1H]tP23g w \'3|w"Sh5^/5JPP|555P5555PPPPPPPPPP55Gtenve_tv5>qevt\tkVevttth555PP5GPGPG5PP,,P,|PPPP;>,PPtPPGGPGPPPPPP5PPPPPPPPP,tGtGtGtGtGknGeGeGeGeG5,5,5,5,vPtPtPtPtPvPvPvPvPtPtGvPtPtPtPvP\PtPtPtPnPnPnPvPePePePePtPtPtPtPtPvPvPP,PPPPuYPPqPePePf0c-]vPvPtPtPtkPkPV=VPVPePePePvPvPvPvPttPfF5PP555WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNtttPPP5GAAPPPPPP8PPPP855SSP))PPbbyPPtP_YY5SP8"ttPtSttP厎P55tbttttttttttx5PtPYPtkP5PtGP\t|httttttttttJttttttkb|tD_tttttttPtttttttGttttGtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt5ttt5ttt5ttt5ttttttttttttttbeYbYkGe>hGvPtG5,qGkYYvGkPtGtb\PbPPeGtGkbtY|bbbtev5PtttbGbbbb55PPPPtvPPPtttb5\PG58wC;,[AXw P7XPx/c81,c P7P7zC;,ZXz_ p^7XV"G($,hG P7hP H<!, ,< P7,P&!z-b81,-b&_ x$&7Xy.f81,f_ p^7&"6uC;,-/Xu&_ x$&7XXs-_5/,_ P7Pe63wSg p6w Technical Document Styleg pܺ*HںwSg "Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYddddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdddddddd~d~d~d~ddddddddd8ddddoddd~d~d<|8tddddddlLkdkd~d~d~ddddddXCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"Ȑdhd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCŐz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC2 Ze HHP LaserJet IIISi (Add) rm 534HPLAIIAD.PRSXw P7H YXPCG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)CG Times Italic (Scalable)Document[1]K&7>Document StyleE " "7>NGI "F **  ׃  2q%eDocument[2]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI "*   Document[3]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI "0     Document[4]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI "  . Document[5]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI "   2"e-pp rDocument[6]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI "   Document[7]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI " `  Document[8]K&7>Document StyleGw "7>NGI "`  Technical[1]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI " 4$     2! T   !Technical[2]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI " *    Technical[3]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI " '   Technical[4]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI " &   Technical[5]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI " &  . 2#!U""_#Technical[6]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI "&  . Technical[7]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI "&  . Technical[8]K&7>Technical Document Style "7>NGI "&   . Right Par[1]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "8!"@   2&#$$b%&Right Par[2]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "A#$@`  `  Right Par[3]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "J%&` @  `   Right Par[4]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "S'(`  @   Right Par[5]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "\)*`  @#h# #h# 2*&'~(O)Right Par[6]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "e+,`  #h#@(( #h#(( Right Par[7]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "n-.`  #h#((@-- ((-- Right Par[8]K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "w/0`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 Doc Init(K&7>Initialize Document Style "7>NGI "1Y2   T I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)T2,@**+q",a1DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" "F34 **  ׃  a2DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" "*56   a3DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" "07 8    a4DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" "9 : . 2o.e,e*- p-!p-a5DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" " ;< a6DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" " => a7DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" " ?@`  a8DocumentI "7>Document Stylerw !E "Gw" "!AB`  221".#Q/$0%0Tech Init(K&7>Initialize Technical Style "7>NGI ""XCDT 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Ta1Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "#4E$F     a2Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "$*GH    a3Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "%'IJ   23&d1'1(}2)3a4Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "&&KL   a5Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "'&MN  . a6Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "(&OP  . a7Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ ")&QR  . 2@9*3+>4,=8-8a8Technical "7>Technical Document Style !E "Gw$ "*&ST  . Pleading(K&7>Header for numbered pleading paper7>NGI "+UV    X  y*dddyy*dddy H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   Ӈfootnote refK&7>footnote referenceGw) "7>NGI ",+WXpage numberK&7>page number"Gw* "7>NGI "-(YZ2>.r9/I:0c<1=Default ParaK&7>Default Paragraph Fontw+ "7>NGI ".([(\footer*(K&7>footer!E "Gw, "7>NGI "/]^ (# ` hp x (#endnote refeK&7>endnote referenceGw- "7>NGI "0+_+`annotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "1LaLb Xv P  Xv P 2`B23>3>4I?5Aannotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI "2)c(dfootnote texK&7>footnote textGw0 "7>NGI "3)e(fheader*(K&7>header!E "Gw1 "7>NGI "4gh (# ` hp x (#2G2*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "58ij@   24E6B7-C8C9~D3G3*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "6Akl@`  `  4G4*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "7Jmn` @  `   5G5*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "8Sop`  @   6G6*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "9\qr`  @#h# #h# 2,H:fE;%F<F=nG7G7*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI ":est`  #h#@(( #h#(( 8G8*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI ";nuv`  #h#((@-- ((-- 9G9*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Bibliography"Gw: "7>NGI "=yz  2J>^H?H@IAAJa1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>8{|@    ưX a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers?A}~@`  ` ưX a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers@J` @  `  ưX a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersAS`  @  ưX 2LNB&KCKDLEuMa5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersB\`  @h #h#ưX a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersCe`  #h#@$$ #h#((ưX a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersDn`  #h#((@** ((--ưX a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersEw`  #h#((--@/p/ --2p2ưX 2PFp~NGNHOI:P10G0*(Q&7tDocument Style Gl0 "7t GI "F`  11G1*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "G4$     12G2*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "H*    13G3*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "I'   2$SJQKQLRMR14G4*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "J&   15G5*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "K&  . 16G6*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "L&  . 17G7*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "M&  . 2UNVSOSPmTQU18G8*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "N&  . 19G9*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "O8@   20G:*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "PA@`  `  21G;*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "QJ` @  `   2XRUSVTAWUX22G<*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "RS`  @   23G=*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "S\`  @#h# #h# 24G>*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "Te`  #h#@(( #h#(( 25G?*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "Un`  #h#((@-- ((-- 2[VXWYXZY)[26G@*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "Vw`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 1wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EWF **  ׃  27wSg K6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EXJ` @  `   28wSg L6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EYS`  @   2_Z\[\\}]]E^29wSg M6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EZ\`  @#h# #h# 30wSg N6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E[e`  #h#@(( #h#(( 31wSg O6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\n`  #h#((@-- ((-- 32wSg P6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E]w`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 2a^pH___`h`aa33wSg R6w Document Style=(H8g Rܺ*HںwSg E^`  34wSg S6w Technical Document Styleg Sܺ*HںwSg E_4$     35wSg T6w Technical Document Styleg Tܺ*HںwSg E`*    36wSg U6w Technical Document Styleg Uܺ*HںwSg Ea'   2cbac_bdbeic37wSg V6w Technical Document Styleg Vܺ*HںwSg Eb&   38wSg W6w Technical Document Styleg Wܺ*HںwSg Ec&  . 39wSg X6w Technical Document Styleg Xܺ*HںwSg Ed&  . 40wSg Y6w Technical Document Styleg Yܺ*HںwSg Ee&  . 2vff dgdh7eie41wSg Z6w Technical Document Styleg Zܺ*HںwSg Ef&  . 42wSg [6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Eg8@   43wSg \6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EhA@`  `  44wSg ]6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EiJ` @  `   2ijfkUgl hmh45wSg ^6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EjS`  @   46wSg _6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ek\`  @#h# #h# 47wSg `6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ele`  #h#@(( #h#(( 48wSg a6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Emn`  #h#((@-- ((-- 2lniojpOkqk49wSg b6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Enw`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 50wSg c6w Document Style=(H8g cܺ*HںwSg EoF **  ׃  51wSg d6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EpJ` @  `   52wSg e6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EqS`  @   2orlsmtGnuo53wSg f6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Er\`  @#h# #h# 54wSg g6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ese`  #h#@(( #h#(( 55wSg h6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Etn`  #h#((@-- ((-- 56wSg i6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Euw`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 2crvppwpx2qyq57wSg j6w Document Style=(H8g jܺ*HںwSg Ev`  58wSg k6w Technical Document Styleg kܺ*HںwSg Ew4$     59wSg l6w Technical Document Styleg lܺ*HںwSg Ex*    60wSg m6w Technical Document Styleg mܺ*HںwSg Ey'   2tzr{)s|s}3t61wSg n6w Technical Document Styleg nܺ*HںwSg Ez&   62wSg o6w Technical Document Styleg oܺ*HںwSg E{&  . 63wSg p6w Technical Document Styleg pܺ*HںwSg E|&  . 64wSg q6w Technical Document Styleg qܺ*HںwSg E}&  . 2@w~touvv65wSg r6w Technical Document Styleg rܺ*HںwSg E~&  . 66wSg s6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   67wSg t6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@`  `  68wSg u6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` @  `   2\zrwxxy69wSg v6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES`  @   70wSg w6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\`  @#h# #h# 71wSg x6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee`  #h#@(( #h#(( 72wSg y6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En  `  #h#((@-- ((-- 2A}z_{||73wSg z6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew  `  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 74wSg {6w Document Style=(H8g {ܺ*HںwSg EF  **  ׃  75wSg |6w Document Style=(H8g |ܺ*HںwSg E*   76wSg }6w Document Style=(H8g }ܺ*HںwSg E0     2qs}e}eI~p~77wSg ~6w Document Style=(H8g ~ܺ*HںwSg E  . 78wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  79wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  80wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E`  2pPp 81wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E`  82wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E4$     83wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E*     84wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E'!"   2Ӂgq85wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&#$   86wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&%&  . 87wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&'(  . 88wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&)*  . 2~(?څ89wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&+,  . 90wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8-.@   91wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA/0@`  `  92wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ12` @  `   2]҈93wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES34`  @   94wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\56`  @#h# #h# 95wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee78`  #h#@(( #h#(( 96wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En9:`  #h#((@-- ((-- 2̉e.97wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew;<`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 98wSg 6w Default Paragraph Font8g ܺ*HںwSg E8=8> x@  b@ endnote text6w endnote textH̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E9?8@ x@  b@ 99wSg 6w endnote referenceH8g ܺ*HںwSg E;A;B x@  b@ 2.!Ŏ!100wSg 6w footnote text̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E9C8D x@  b@ 101wSg 6w footnote referenceH8g ܺ*HںwSg E;E;F x@  b@ toc 1g 6w toc 1 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EGH(#`` hp x (#toc 2g 6w toc 2 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EIJ` (#`` hp x (#2!9!Z!{!toc 3g 6w toc 3 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EKL` (#` hp x (#toc 4g 6w toc 4 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EMN (#` hp x (#toc 5g 6w toc 5 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EOPh(#` hp x (#toc 6g 6w toc 6 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EQR(# ` hp x (#2Ӣ!p!!toc 7g 6w toc 7 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg ESTtoc 8g 6w toc 8 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EUV(# ` hp x (#toc 9g 6w toc 9 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EWX(#`` hp x (#index 1g 6w index 1 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg EYZ` (#` hp x (#2ب!!&Gindex 2g 6w index 2 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E[\` (#`` hp x (#toa heading6w toa headingH̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E]^(#` hp x (#captiong 6w caption 2H̺=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E9_8` x@  b@ _Equation Ca6w _Equation CaptionH8g ܺ*HںwSg E8a8b x@  b@ 2 x-Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font.c.d Xv@  b@ endnote referenceendnote reference1e1f Xv@  b@ footnote textfootnote text/g.h Xv@  b@ footnote referencefootnote reference1i1j Xv@  b@ 2ͬ`_Equation Caption_Equation Caption.k.l Xv@  b@ heading 36qheading 3 -̺=(3ȷ ܺ*3ںGzǷ Emn102OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQEFop **  ׃  103OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE*qr   2%qe+e104OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE0s t    105OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQEu v . 106OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE wx 107OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE yz 2Sp'p108OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE{|`  109OQ6CDocument Style=(5Qܺ*5ںOQE}~`  110OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE4$     111OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE*    23112OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE'   113OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE&   114OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE&  . 115OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE&  . 2!o116OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE&  . 117OQ6CTechnical Document StyleQܺ*5ںOQE&  . 118OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQE8@   119OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQEA@`  `  2SZ120OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQEJ` @  `   121OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQES`  @   122OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQE\`  @#h# #h# 123OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQEe`  #h#@(( #h#(( 2KԿ124OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQEn`  #h#((@-- ((-- 125OQ6CRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*5ںOQEw`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 126OQ6CDefault Paragraph FontQܺ*5ںOQELL x@  b@ 127OQ6Cendnote reference5Qܺ*5ںOQEOO x@  b@ 28e128OQ6Cfootnote text̺=(5Qܺ*5ںOQEML x@  b@ 129OQ6Cfootnote reference5Qܺ*5ںOQEOO x@  b@ 130OQ6C_Equation Caption5Qܺ*5ںOQELL x@  b@ Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush Left 2pjyS Heading 1Centered Headingcal Style ** Ã  Bullet ListIndented Bullet List` ưX 131</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ EF **  ׃  132</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ E*   2qgee=133</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ E0     134</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ E  . 135</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ E  136</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ E  2ppDd137</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ E`  138</ 6Document Style=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ E`  139</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E4$     140</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E*    2e2[141</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E'   142</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E&   143</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E&  . 144</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E&  . 23145</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E&  . 146</ 6Technical Document Style/ ܺ*w7ں</ E&  . 147</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ E8@   148</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ EA@`  `  2Q149</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ EJ` @  `   150</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ ES`  @   151</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ E\`  @#h# #h# 152</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ Ee`  #h#@(( #h#(( 2@F153</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ En`  #h#((@-- ((-- 154</ 6Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*w7ں</ Ew`  #h#((--@2p2 --2p2 155</ 6Default Paragraph Font8/ ܺ*w7ں</ Ett x@  b@ 156</ 6endnote referencew78/ ܺ*w7ں</ Eww x@  b@ 2=AIF@-157</ 6footnote text̺=(w78/ ܺ*w7ں</ Eut x@  b@ 158</ 6footnote reference78/ ܺ*w7ں</ Eww x@  b@ 159</ 6_Equation Captionw78/ ܺ*w7ں</ Ett x@  b@ para numS3n6OMnumbered indented paragraphs 3H*_0F_8S\EX}T 1.T Xx P T 1.TҲ2o ^6HeadingS6n6OMChapter Heading=(_08S 6H*_0F_8S\E3 **  ׃  Right Par7n6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\E<@    Subheadingn6OMSubheadingZ/08=(_08S 8H*_0F_8S\E.  FOOTNOTES9n6OMFootnote - Appearance8S 9H*_0F_8S\E2d *31HIGHLIGHT 1n6OMItalics and Bold(_08S :H*_0F_8S\E DRAFT ONS;n6OMHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateH*_0F_8S\E X 8 Xx@ `E(#EDRAFTă `@(#@"3 1, 4"  ӓDRAFT OFF?n6OMTurn Draft Style off8S ?H*_0F_8S\ED    LETTER LANDn6OMLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5 AH*_0F_8S\E '3   2s12cLEGAL LANDn6OMLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5S BH*_0F_8S\E 'A   "Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxSxSxSrSrSrS{SiSiSiSiSxSxSxSxSxS{S{SS.SSSSz]SSuSiSiSk2g/a{S{SxSxSxoSoSZ?YSYSiSiSiS{S{S{S{SxxSkI8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxWxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ8"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲdxN`xoȐCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddddddddCddddddddo8dddddϐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddxoddddddodddddddddood8doddrddoddN8ooddddoNododdddooooȐdYCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"Ȑdsd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUvŐdȐddCCCCŐzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC"Sh5^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx:J2J2H2H2YHC2C26&6262?2?2?2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22==Ld2d2H2;SS88Y!42^x#"ddddHHddd2Hdd4HHYYddd2YYddd Y2!!dddddH=dYHHHHHHHHHHx!d2H282YdHdC2!2H,29HNAddHHHHHHHHHHddddd.dHHHHdddddddddddddddddddHHddddddSC=NdHddd+;HHHHddddddHHH2HHdHHdddHHH,HHHH,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!HHH!HHH!HHH!HHHHHHHHHHHHHH=?8=8C,?'A,J2H,!F,C8[8J,C2H,H=92=22?,H,C=H8N===H?J!2HHH=,====!!2222HJ222HHH=!92,!d"Sh5^18PSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Sddoxd`xx8Jo]oxdxdS]xdd]]888SS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSS??.SJoJJ?JSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.dSdSdSdSdSooJdJdJdJdJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JdSxSxSxS]JxSdSdSdSdSoSoSoSxSdSdSdSdSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSS/SSSSSSSoS]S]S]/]/doSoSxSxSodSdSS?SSSS]S]S]SxSxSxSxSo]S]?8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SMMSSSSSS;SSSS;88SSS..SSffSSxSYSS8SS;"xxSxSxxS哓S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SfS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxfff]f]oJfA]JxSxJ8.oJo]]oJoSxJxffSfSS]J]Joff]fffffx8Sx]]fJffff88SSSSfxSSS]]]f8`SJ8"Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88SxoxxodAPoxdx]oxxxxo888SS8S]J]J;S].8].]S]]JA8]SxSSJSSSSSSSSS8SSSSSSSS].xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSd]xSxSxSxSxSxSx]oSoSoSoSSSSSS]]S.S]SS_SS]oSoSoAo.x]x]SS{xSxS]A]S]SoSoSoSx]x]x]x]xxSoJ8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SGGSSSSSS;SSSS;88``S++SSffSSxSi]]8`S;"xxSx`xxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xrxxxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxSxxxxSxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfo]f]oJoAoJJxJA.Jo]]xJoSJxffSfSSoJxJofx]fffxoASxxfJffff88SSSSxSSSxxxf8fSJ8"Sh5^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȰdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYddddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdddddxdxdxdxddddddddd8ddddddddododp8p8xddddxdxddLddddodododddddodpLCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"Ȑddd尰dCCȐzȰxCdzdodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC2 X-  #C\  P6QP#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#XP\  P6Q[AXP#/ Y-  #XP\  P6Q[AXP#Federal Communications Commission`*(#2DA 971029 ă  yxdddy / (JBefore the W FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  X-Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  Y-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:"(#s 1 XUII. BACKGROUND p>"(#s 3  Y-XX` ` A.` ` CEI Plans ` p>"(#s 3  Y~-XX` ` B.` ` The Telecommunications Act of 1996 ` p>"(#s 7 XUIII. SERVICE DESCRIPTION p>"(#s 9 XUIV. COMPLIANCE ISSUES p!(#l 15  Y -XX` ` A.` ` Applicability of the 1996 Act's Alarm Monitoring Services Prohibition to SWBT's Proposed Security Service ` p!(#l 15  Y-XX` ` X ` ` 1. Positions of the Parties p!(#l 15  Y -XX` ` X ` ` 2. Discussion p"(#p 27  Y!-XX` ` B.` ` CEI Plan Requirements ` p"(#p 44  Y"-XX` ` X ` ` 1. Applicability p"(#p 44  Y#-XX` ` X ` ` 2. Analysis p"(#p 47  Yj$-XX` ` C.` ` Other Nonstructural Safeguards ` p"(#p 66  YS%-XX` ` X ` ` 1. Customer Proprietary Network Information p"(#p 67  Y<&-XX` ` X ` ` 2. Network Information Disclosure p"(#p 70"<&0*''[[`'"Ԍ Y-XX` ` X ` ` 3. Nondiscrimination Reporting p"(#p 72  Y-XX` ` D.` ` Accounting Safeguards ` p"(#p 73 XUV. CONCLUSION p"(#p 74 XUVI. ORDERING CLAUSES p"(#p 75  XH- !I. INTRODUCTION ׃  Y -1.` ` On April 4, 1996, pursuant to the requirements of the Computer III  Y -proceeding,  < xP| -ԍAmendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, CC Docket No. 85229,  xPD -Phase I, 104 FCC 2d 958 (1986) (Phase I Order), recon., 2 FCC Rcd 3035 (1987) (Phase I Reconsideration  xP -Order), further recon., 3 FCC Rcd 1135 (1988) (Phase I Further Reconsideration Order), second further recon.,  xP-4 FCC Rcd 5927 (1989) (Phase I Second Further Reconsideration), Phase I Order and Phase I Reconsideration  xP-Order vacated, California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1990) (California I); Phase II, 2 FCC Rcd 3072  xPd-(1987) (Phase II Order), recon., 3 FCC Rcd 1150 (1988) (Phase II Reconsideration Order), further recon., 4  xP,-FCC Rcd 5927 (1989) (Phase II Further Reconsideration Order), Phase II Order vacated, California I, 905 F.2d  xP-1217 (9th Cir. 1990); Computer III Remand Proceedings, 5 FCC Rcd 7719 (1990) (ONA Remand Order),  xP-recon., 7 FCC Rcd 909 (1992), pets. for review denied, California v. FCC, 4 F.3d 1505 (9th Cir. 1993)  xP-(California II); Computer III Remand Proceeding: Bell Operating Company Safeguards and Tier 1 Local  xPL-Exchange Company Safeguards, 6 FCC Rcd 7571 (1991) (BOC Safeguards Order), recon. dismissed in part,  xP-Order, CC Docket Nos. 90623 & 92256, FCC 96222 (rel. May 17, 1996); BOC Safeguards Order vacated in  xP-part and remanded, California v. FCC, 39 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 1994) (California III), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct.  xP-1427 (1995) (referred to collectively as the Computer III proceeding). Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ("SWBT") filed a comparably efficient  Y -interconnection (CEI) plan for its proposed residential Security Service. < xP-ԍSouthwestern Bell Telephone Company's Comparably Efficient Interconnection Plan for Security Services (filed April 4, 1996) (SWBT CEI Plan). Under the  Y -Computer III regulatory regime, a Bell Operating Company (BOC) is permitted to offer  Y -unregulated, enhanced services if it files a CEI plan demonstrating that the underlying regulated basic services are available on an equivalent basis to unaffiliated enhanced service  Y-providers (ESPs).i< xP-ԍPhase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 96465, 45.i A CEI plan must also be filed if a BOC plans to act as a sales agent for an enhanced service provider or otherwise market an enhanced service, even if the BOC will  Yb-not provide the enhanced service itself.kbh< xP{"-ԍSee infra AMERITECH ARGUMENT44.k Prior to offering or marketing an enhanced service, a BOC must obtain Commission approval of its CEI plan. "40*%%[["Ԍ Y-2.` ` The Commission issued a public notice concerning SWBT's CEI Plan on April  Y-26, 1996. X< xPb-ԍSee Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on SWBT's Comparably Efficient Interconnection Plans  xP*-for Security Service, Public Notice, CC Docket Nos. 85229, 90623 and 9520, DA 96645 (rel. April 26, 1996).  The Ameritech Corporation (Ameritech) and the Alarm Industry Communications  Y-Committee (AICC)7Z< xPk-ԍAICC is a subcommittee of the Central Station Alarm Association ("CSAA"). CSAA's members  zP3-include, inter alia, Honeywell Protection Services, the National Burglar and Fire Alarm Association, Rollins, Inc. and Wells Fargo Alarm Services.7 filed comments opposing SWBT's CEI Plan on May 24, 1996. SWBT  Y-and Ameritech submitted reply comments on June 7, 1996, and AICC filed a "Motion To  Y-Hold In Abeyance" on August 2, 1996.n < xP_ -ԍAICC requested that the Commission hold SWBT's CEI Plan in abeyance until completion of the  xP' -Commission's rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96152, Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:  xP -Telemessaging, Electronic Publishing, and Alarm Monitoring Services. SWBT filed comments in opposition to AICC's Motion on August 12, 1996, and AICC submitted a reply to SWBT's opposition on August 22, 1996.  xP-As discussed below, AICC's motion is dismissed as moot. See supra  MOOT43 .n For the reasons discussed below, we approve SWBT's CEI Plan subject to the conditions set forth in this Order.  YH-& II. BACKGROUND ׃  X - A.CEI Plans  Y -  Y -3.` ` The requirement that a CEI plan be filed was first established in the Computer  Y -III proceeding, in which the Commission adopted a regulatory framework to govern the provision of integrated enhanced and basic services by the BOCs. Requiring BOCs to file CEI plans was one of the nonstructural safeguards adopted by the Commission, in lieu of  Y-structural separation, to prevent crosssubsidization and discrimination.  < xP-ԍComputer III Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Safeguards; and Tier I Local Exchange  xP-Company Safeguards, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 174, 175, 9 (1990).  As a first step in  Yz-implementing the Computer III framework, the Commission permitted the BOCs, which remained subject to various structural separation requirements, to offer individual enhanced  YL-services on an integrated basis following approval of servicespecific CEI plans.n L< xP!-ԍPhase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 103459, 142200.n BOCs were required to describe in their CEI plans: (1) the enhanced service or services to be offered; (2) how the underlying basic services would be made available for use by competing ESPs; and (3) how the BOCs would comply with the other nonstructural safeguards imposed  Y-by Computer III." 0*%%[["Ԍ Y-ԙ4.` ` The Computer III decision concluded that, in the longer term, with the implementation of Open Network Architecture (ONA), the BOCs should be allowed to  Y-provide integrated enhanced services without prior Commission approval of servicespecific  Y-CEI plans.v < xP4-ԍId. at 101921,  11315 and 105968,  20122.v In a series of orders between 1988 and the end of 1992, the Commission approved the BOC ONA plans that described the unbundled basic services each BOC proposed to provide as ONA services and the terms under which they would be offered. During 19921993, the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) lifted structural separation requirements for individual BOCs that showed they had implemented all of the ONA services set forth in their ONA plans.  Y -5.` ` In California III, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit  Y -determined that, although the Commission had adequately explained its decision to strengthen  Y -the protections against crosssubsidization at issue in California I, it had not justified its retreat from its initial position regarding the level of unbundling necessary for eliminating  Y -structural separation.[ X< xP-ԍCalifornia III, 39 F.3d at 927, 929.[ The court concluded that the Commission's costbenefit analysis of  Y -its structural separation safeguards was flawed and vacated the BOC Safeguards Order as  Y-arbitrary and capricious.B < xP)-ԍId. at 929.B In response to the California III decision, the Commission initiated a rulemaking proceeding to review the safeguards for BOC provision of enhanced  Yb-services. bx< xP-ԍComputer III Further Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision of Enhanced Services,  xPS-Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 8360 (1995) (Computer III Remand Notice of Proposed  xP-Rulemaking). For a more detailed history of rules governing the BOCs' participation in the enhanced services  xP-market, see Computer III Remand Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd at 836269, 310.  Y4-6.` ` Following the California III decision, the Bureau issued an order allowing the BOCs to continue providing enhanced services and conducting market trials pursuant to CEI  Y-plans approved prior to the lifting of structural separation._X` < xP-ԍSee Bell Operating Companies' Joint Petition for Waiver of Computer II Rules, Memorandum Opinion  xP-and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 1724, 23 (Com. Car. Bur. 1995), recon., 10 FCC Rcd 13758 (Com. Car. Bur.  xP -1995) (Bureau Interim Waiver Order)._ The Bureau also granted  Y-waivers necessary to enable BOCs to continue providing other enhanced services and market trials, provided that the BOCs filed CEI plans or market trial notifications, respectively," 0*%%[["  Y-within 60 days of the Bureau Interim Waiver Order.UX< xPy-ԍThe Bureau subsequently approved the BOCs' CEI plans for these other existing enhanced services.  xPA-Bell Operating Companies Joint Petition for Waiver of Computer II Rules, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13758 (Com.  xP -Car. Bur. 1995) (Joint Petition Order).U The Bureau required the BOCs to file CEI plans or market trial notifications prior to providing any new services or market trials.  Y-In addition, the Bureau Interim Waiver Order required the BOCs to continue to comply with  Y-the procedures established in approved ONA plans.(@< xPT-ԍSee Bureau Interim Waiver Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 172829, 22. See also Filing and Review of Open  xP -Network Architecture Plans, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 1 (1988) (BOC ONA Order),  xP -recon., 5 FCC Rcd 3084 (1990) (BOC ONA Reconsideration Order), 5 FCC Rcd 3103 (1990) (BOC ONA  xP -Amendment Order), Erratum, 5 FCC Rcd 4045, pets. for review denied, California II, 4 F.3d 1505 (9th Cir.  xPt -1993), recon., 8 FCC Rcd 97 (1993), 6 FCC Rcd 7646 (1991), 8 FCC Rcd 2602 (1993), pet. for review  xP< -denied, California II, 4 F.3d 1505 (9th Cir. 1993). In April 1994, the Commission decided to apply the  xP -Computer III and ONA requirements to GTE Corporation. Application of Open Network Architecture and  xP -Nondiscrimination Safeguards to GTE Corporation, Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 4922 (1994).(  Y-  X- B.The Telecommunications Act of 1996  Yv-  Y_-7. ABEYANCE FCC ORDER` ` On February 8, 1996, the "Telecommunications Act of 1996" (1996 Act)  YH-became law. H < xP-ԍTelecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996), codified at 47 U.S.C.   xP-151 et. seq. Hereinafter, all citations to the 1996 Act will be to the 1996 Act as it is codified in the United States Code. The 1996 Act amended the Communications Act of 1934. We will refer to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, as "the Communications Act" or "the Act." Sections 275 and 222 of the 1996 Act are applicable in evaluating SWBT's  Y1-CEI Plan. Section 275(a) of the Act prohibits BOCs from engaging "in the provision of  Y -alarm monitoring services" until February 8, 2001.(  < xP-ԍ47 U.S.C. 275(a)(1). BOCs that were providing alarm monitoring service as of November 30, 1995  xPk-are exempt from this prohibition. See 47 U.S.C. 275(a)(2). Section 275(e) of the Act defines "alarm monitoring service" as: Xa service that uses a device located at a residence, place of business, or other fixed premises (1) to receive signals from other devices located at or about such premises regarding a possible threat at such premises to life, safety, or property, from burglary, fire, vandalism, bodily injury, or other emergency, and (2) to transmit a signal regarding such threat by means of transmission facilities of a local exchange carrier or one of its affiliates to a remote monitoring center to alert a person at such center of the need to inform the customer or another person or police, fire, rescue, security, or public safety personnel of such threat . . . .  47 U.S.C. 275(e). On March 21, 1997, the Commission" 0*%%[[ "  Y-adopted an order addressing the alarm monitoring provisions of section 275.TX< xPy-ԍImplementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Telemessaging, Electronic Publishing, and  xPA-Alarm Monitoring Services, Second Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96152 (rel. March 25, 1997) (Alarm  xP -Monitoring Order), recon. pending.T Among other  Y-things, the Alarm Monitoring Order clarified the definition of alarm monitoring serviceM< xP-ԍId. at  2633.M and  Y-discussed the meaning of the word "provision" as used in section 275(a).x< xP-ԍId. at  3441. In addition, section 275(d) of the Act prohibits LECs from recording or using in any fashion "the occurrence or contents of calls received by providers of alarm monitoring services for the purposes of marketing such services on behalf of such LECs, or any other entity. 47 U.S.C. 275(d). Section 275(d) provides that "[a]ny regulations necessary to enforce this subsection shall be issued initially within 6 months  xP -after the date of enactment" of the 1996 Act. Id. In an order adopted August 6, 1996, the Commission  xP -concluded that "no regulations are necessary at this time to implement or enforce" section 275. Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network  xPs-Information; Use of Data Regarding Alarm Monitoring Service Providers, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 9553 (1996) at 10.  Y- 8.` ` Section 222 of the Act contains requirements related to the privacy of  Y-customer information.EH < xP-ԍ47 U.S.C.  222.E The Commission has initiated a proceeding to consider regulations  Yv-interpreting and specifying in more detail telecommunications carriers' obligations pursuant  Y_-to section 222.,X_< xP-ԍImplementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Telecommunications Carriers' Use of  xP-Customer Proprietary Network Information, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 12513 (1996) (CPNI  xPx-NPRM).,  Y1-  III. SERVICE DESCRIPTION SERVICE PLAN-BEGIN  Y -9.` ` SWBT represents that its proposed "Security Service" will consist of two  Y -separate and distinct components.D < xP-ԍSWBT CEI Plan at 3.D SWBT states that the first component is comprised of customer premise equipment (CPE), which will be sold, installed and serviced by SWBT  Y -personnel.: < xP!-ԍId.: This equipment is intended to detect many common types of residential  Y -intrusion and emergency situations, sound an audible alarm, and report the condition to an" 0*%%[[y"  Y-unaffiliated alarm monitoring service provider.B< xPy-ԍId. at 23.B SWBT states that an unaffiliated monitoring  Y-agency will be responsible for situation assessment and action.@X< xP-ԍId. at 2.@  Y- 10.` ` The second aspect of SWBT's Security Service involves the monitoring  Y-function.@< xP= -ԍId. at 4.@ SWBT represents that this function will be performed by an unaffiliated entity on  Y-whose behalf SWBT will act only as a sales agent.:x< xP -ԍId.: According to SWBT, the typical alarm  Yv-monitoring scenario involves two phases.:v< xP/-ԍId.: The first phase is the transmission of a nonvoice message from the residential alarm system to the monitoring center, indicating that an alarm condition exists. This message is transmitted over the public switched telephone network.  Y1-The second phase involves a voice call placed by personnel at the monitoring center to the  Y -police and/or fire departments, and to other persons identified by the customer.: < xPc-ԍId.: SWBT  Y -stresses that an unaffiliated entity, not SWBT, will perform the monitoring function.:  ( < xP-ԍId.:  Y - 11.` ` SWBT states that potential Security Service subscribers will be presented two separate contracts. The first contract would govern the relationship between the customer  Y -and SWBT, and cover the installation and maintenance of CPE.B! < xP-ԍId. at 23.B SWBT states that the second contract, to be presented to the customer by SWBT on behalf of an unaffiliated  Yy-monitoring service, would set forth the liabilities and obligations of the monitoring service  Yb-provider to the customer."bH < xP[-ԍId. at 3. SWBT also states that any changes to or termination of the relationship between SWBT and the alarm monitoring service provider will not affect the customer's contract with the monitoring entity. Letter from Todd F. Silbergeld, Director Federal Regulatory, SBC Communications Inc., to William F. Caton,  xP!-Acting Secretary, FCC (July 18, 1996) at Attachment 1, at 2 [hereinafter "SWBT July 18, 1996 Ex Parte letter"]. SWBT states that customers will have the option of purchasing  YK-the SWBT Security Service system (i.e., installation of alarm detection CPE only) or SWBT  Y4-Security Service system packaged with alarm monitoring service provided by an unaffiliated"4"0*%%[[G"  Y-entity.#< xPy-ԍ Letter from Todd F. Silbergeld, Director Federal Regulatory, SBC Communications Inc., to William  xPA-F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (July 3, 1996) at 1 [hereinafter "SWBT July 3, 1996 Ex Parte letter"]. See  xP -also SWBT July 18, 1996 Ex Parte letter, Attachment 1 at 1. This representation modifies SWBT's CEI plan as originally proposed, which stated that qualified customers will be presented with two contracts, both of which  xP-would be necessary to subscribe to SWBT's home security offering. See SWBT CEI Plan at 1. SWBT further represents that, if a customer decides to purchase only the CPE, the customer will be free to contract with an alarm monitoring service provider of their choice,  Y-or not to subscribe to any monitoring service at all.$Xx< xP-ԍSWBT July 18, 1996 Ex Parte letter at Attachment 1 at 1; SWBT July 3, 1996 Ex Parte letter at 1. If the customer purchases the alarm detection CPE only, SWBT will not receive any sales commission from the  xP -alarm monitoring service provider. SWBT July 3, 1996 Ex Parte letter at 1.  Y-  Y- 12.` ` SWBT asserts that inquiries regarding its proposed Security Service will be  Y-handled by SWBT customer contact center personnel.D%< xP-ԍSWBT CEI Plan at 2.D However, when a customer calls SWBT to inquire about the alarm monitoring service (as opposed to billing or equipment),  Y_-SWBT states that the customer will be referred to the alarm monitoring service provider.K&_( < xP8-ԍSWBT Reply Comments at 10.K  YH-In addition, all associated correspondence and materials (e.g., yard sign, window stickers,  Y1-etc.) will identify the alarm monitoring service provider.:'1 < xP-ԍId.:  Y - 13.` ` SWBT states that two separate and distinct charges will be displayed on  Y -SWBT's bill.(  H < xP-ԍSWBT July 18, 1996 Ex Parte letter, Attachment 1 at 1. This representation modifies an earlier SWBT's filing, which stated that, where permitted, a single amount would be billed reflecting the total of both  xPu-SWBT's CPE charges and the charges of the alarm monitoring service provider. See SWBT Reply Comments at 7. First, the alarm monitoring service provider's name will be clearly identified  Y -along with its associated charges.s) 0< xP-ԍSWBT July 18, 1996 Ex Parte letter, Attachment 1 at 1.s Second, a separate charge will also appear on the bill,  Y -consisting of SWBT's CPE charge, when applicable.:* < xP/!-ԍId.: SWBT further states that it will  Y -collect customer payments, deduct charges for billing and collection services it provides and  Y-deduct any sales commission due, and remit the net balance to the alarm monitoring service"P*0*%%[[x"  Y-provider.:+< xPy-ԍId.:  Y- 14.SERVICE PLAN-END` ` SWBT represents that its Security Service will be initially targeted to  Y-residential markets, with the possible inclusion of small businesses in the future.D,X< xP-ԍSWBT CEI Plan at 4.D In addition, SWBT states that while the availability of its Security Service offering will depend on market demand, it expects that ultimately the service will be available in most major metropolitan areas within SWBT's fivestate territory (Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri,  Y_-Oklahoma and Texas).B-_< xP -ԍId. at 45.B  X - IV. COMPLIANCE ISSUES ă  X - A.XApplicability of the 1996 Act's Alarm Monitoring Services Prohibition to SWBT's  X -Proposed Security Service (#  X - 1.` ` Positions of the PartiesV  Yy-15.` ` AICC objects to SWBT's CEI Plan on the grounds that section 275 of the Act prohibits SWBT from engaging in the provision of alarm monitoring services, and the  YK-activities proposed by SWBT constitute the provision of such service.D.Kx< xPt-ԍAICC Comments at 1.D AICC states that SWBT's CEI plan is dependent upon the proposition that, as long as it does not directly operate the central station, SWBT may engage in all other aspects of the alarm monitoring  Y-business.B/< xP-ԍId. at 34.B AICC asserts that this interpretation is inconsistent with the intent of section 275, which must be read to prohibit BOC participation in the alarm monitoring business, not  Y-merely as a rule requiring the BOCs to subcontract for the central station functions.@0< xP! -ԍId. at 4.@ Although AICC has "no objection to SWBT being compensated for its billing and collection  Y-services,"H1( < xP#-ԍId. at 13, n. 17.H and acknowledges that, pursuant to section 275, SWBT may "provide sales," 10*%%[["  Y-installation and maintenance of alarm monitoring CPE,"F2< xPy-ԍId. at 3, n. 6.F AICC asks the Bureau to establish a clear distinction between permissible BOC activities and prohibited alarm monitoring services, and recommends that all participation in the alarm monitoring business be  Y-prohibited.A3X< xP-ԍId. at 14.A  Y-16.` ` Ameritech also argues that the Bureau should reject SWBT's CEI Plan because  Yv-it would violate section 275 of the Act.N4v< xP -ԍAmeritech Comments at 1, 34.N Ameritech contends that SWBT's emphasis on the  Y_-fact that a separate, unaffiliated entity will operate the monitoring system is misplaced.@5_x< xP -ԍId. at 4.@ Regardless of who owns the monitoring center, Ameritech argues that the alarm monitoring service described in SWBT's CEI plan is SWBT's service and further notes that SWBT's  Y -CEI Plan characterizes the endtoend security service as "SWBT's Security Service."I6 < xP-ԍId. at 2, 5.I Although SWBT characterizes its proposed relationship with alarm monitoring providers as one of sales agency, Ameritech believes that the SWBT/alarm monitoring provider relationship appears to be one of contractorsubcontractor (with the alarm monitoring  Y -company being the subcontractor).@7 < xP-ԍId. at 2.@ Ameritech submits that SWBT should not be allowed to  Y -provide alarm monitoring service through a subcontractor when it cannot do so directly.@8 ( < xP-ԍId. at 4.@  Yy-17.` ` Relying exclusively on the Bureau's order approving Bell Atlantic's CEI plan  Yb-for internet access service ("IAS"),c9Xb < xP-ԍIn the Matter of Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies Offer of Comparably Efficient Interconnection to  xP-Providers of Internet Access Services, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 6919 (Com. Car. Bur. 1996) (Bell Atlantic Internet  xP[-Access CEI Order), recon. pending.c SWBT argues on reply that all objections based on  YK-section 275 of the Act are outside the scope of this proceeding.:K< xP!-ԍSWBT Reply at 2. In support of this position, SWBT points to the Bureau's decision in the Bell  xP"-Atlantic Internet Access CEI Order, in which the Bureau rejected a claim by MFS Communications Company ("MFS") that Bell Atlantic's CEI plan failed to comply with the provisions of section 251(c) of the Act, which  xP,$-requires incumbent LECs to provide interconnection and access to unbundled network elements. See Bell  xP$-Atlantic Internet Access CEI Order at 44. MFS also asserted that Bell Atlantic's CEI plan did not comply"$90*%% %"  xP-with the pricing standards set forth in Section 252(d). Id. See also SWBT July 18, 1996 Ex Parte letter at 4 (reiterating arguments set forth in SWBT's reply). SWBT contends that the"K :0*%%[[H" oppositions filed by Ameritech and AICC, which are based on section 275, are therefore irrelevant to action on its CEI plan. Absent valid substantive objections on the merits of its  Y-CEI plan, SWBT concludes that its plan should be approved.J; < xP-ԍSWBT Reply Comments at 2.J  Y-18.` ` SWBT asserts that, even if the Bureau considers the section 275 arguments raised by Ameritech and AICC, its planned Security Service does not violate section 275  Yv-because SWBT would not be providing "alarm monitoring services" as defined in the Act.C<v< xP -ԍId. at 212.C Moreover, SWBT argues that it is acting as a sales agent for the unaffiliated alarm  YH-monitoring entity, not as a reseller or contractor as AICC and Ameritech allege.C=H@< xP9-ԍId. at 910.C SWBT states that, consistent with the nature of sales agency relationships, purchasers of alarm monitoring services will be made aware of the actual, unaffiliated provider of such services  Y -at all times.A> < xP-ԍId. at 10.A֐  Y -19.` ` Following the release of the Alarm Monitoring Order, which addressed section  Y -275 of the Act,a? ` < xP-ԍSee supra FCC ORDER7.a SWBT and AICC filed ex parte letters supplementing the record in this proceeding. In a letter dated April 3, 1997, SWBT argues that its proposed service does not constitute the provision of alarm monitoring service pursuant to section 275, as this statutory  Yy-provision is interpreted in the Alarm Monitoring Order.@y < xP-ԍLetter from Stephen S. Melnikoff, Vice President Federal Regulatory, SBC Communications Inc., to  xP-William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (April 3, 1997) [hereinafter "SWBT April 3, 1997 Ex Parte letter"]. In particular, SWBT asserts that  Yb-its proposal satisfies the Alarm Monitoring Order's requirements concerning compensation  YK-and nondiscrimination in entering into sales agency relationships.?AKH < xPD -ԍId. at 2?  Y-20.NONDISCRIM.` ` For example, SWBT represents that its alarm monitoring sales agency agreements will be mutually nonexclusive, meaning that the alarm monitoring provider will  Y-be free to use other sales agents or distribution channels, and SWBT will be free to enter into" A0*%%[["  Y-sales agency agreements with other alarm monitoring service providers.:B< xPy-ԍId.: SWBT also represents that it will Xconsider acting as a sales agent for qualified providers based upon standard business criteria, such as the provider's financial and business stability and reputation, size and scope of operations, geographic monitoring coverage, central alarm monitoring station certification, technical and operational compatibility, future growth capacity, existing/emerging service capability, and compensation arrangements. . . . Once SWBT enters into a sales agency  Y1-relationship with an alarm monitoring service provider, it will make available to other comparably qualified alarm monitoring service providers the same terms and conditions of the sales agency arrangement on a nondiscriminatory  Y -basis.:C X< xP-ԍId.:   Y -  Y -21.COMPENSATION` ` Furthermore, SWBT represents that its compensation "will depend solely upon  Y -SWBT's own performance" as a sales agent.:D < xP@-ԍId.: SWBT states that "[s]uch compensation will not depend upon a provider's performance in offering the alarm monitoring service, nor will it be based upon the net revenues of an alarm monitoring service provider to which SWBT  Yb-furnishes sales agency services."mEXbx< xP-ԍId.; see also Letter from Patricia Diaz Dennis, Senior Vice President and Assistant General Counsel Regulation and Law, SBC Communications Inc., to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (April 14, 1997)  xP-[hereinafter "SWBT April 14, 1997 Ex Parte letter"] at 12.m SWBT also represents that it "will have no 'financial  YK-stake in the commercial success' of any alarm monitoring provider."FK< xP-ԍSWBT April 3, 1997 Ex Parte letter at 2; see also SWBT April 14, 1997 Ex Parte letter at 12. Finally, SWBT asserts: XWhile the exact compensation terms will be the subject of commercial negotiations between SWBT and an alarm monitoring service provider, they  Y-will likely be based on a flat rate, per customer charge, billed either on an upfront, onetime basis or in the form of a monthly recurring charge, taking into account the level (and associated cost) of advertising/marketing that SWBT  Y-will be contributing to the agency relationship in any given case, and the" ( F0*%%[["  Y-volume of new customers produced as a result of SWBT's marketing efforts.kG< xPy-ԍSWBT April 3, 1997 Ex Parte letter at 2, n. 3.k   Y-22.` ` In response, AICC argues that SWBT's filing lacks sufficient detail to make a  Y-determination of "whether SWBT would have a financial stake in the success of its chosen  Y-alarm partners."HX< xP-ԍLetter from Danny E. Adams, counsel to AICC, to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC (April 7,  xPu-1997) [hereinafter "AICC April 7, 1997 Ex Parte letter"] at 1. AICC recommends that the Bureau seek additional information from SWBT, and suggests three "measures of reasonableness" by which to evaluate any  Yv-compensation arrangement proposed by SWBT.@Iv< xP -ԍId. at 2.@ Specifically, AICC states that it would be unlikely for SWBT to be able to obtain a financial stake in the success of its alarm monitoring partner if its compensation arrangements are: (1) designed to compensate SWBT for the initial sale and paid as a one time fee, or, if received on a monthly recurring basis, amortized over a 23 year period; (2) comparable to the additional cost SWBT actually incurs in advertising and marketing the alarm monitoring provider's services, which, according to AICC, should not exceed 25% of the gross monthly monitoring fee charged to the end user;  Y -and (3) consistent with the level of compensation typically paid to sales agents in the alarm monitoring industry, which, according to AICC, is a commission of approximately 1520  Y -percent, calculated based upon 23 years of expected revenues.:J @< xP-ԍId.:  Y-  Yy-23.` ` SWBT disputes AICC's assertion that it has failed to provide enough  Yb-information with respect to the compensation issue.fKb< xP-ԍSWBT April 14, 1997 Ex Parte letter at 1.f SWBT argues that: (1) it has already committed to adopt compensation arrangements that are consistent with the Commission's  Y4-rules; and (2) neither the Act, the Alarm Monitoring Order, nor any other legal or regulatory considerations require the Commission to "engage in detailed rate regulation of sales agency  Y-compensation," as would be the case if the Commission adopted AICC's recommendations.BL` < xP-ԍId. at 12.B  Y-24.` ` In an ex parte letter submitted April 28, 1997, AICC denies that it is seeking  Y-rate regulation of SWBT's sales agency relationship; rather, AICC asserts that evaluation of the structure of SWBT's compensation arrangements is critical in determining whether SWBT will have a stake in the commercial success of the alarm monitoring entities for which it" L0*%%[["  Y-provides sales agency services.M< xPy-ԍSee Letter from Danny E. Adams, counsel to AICC, to Regina Keeney, Chief, Common Carrier  xPA-Bureau, FCC (April 28, 1997) [hereinafter "AICC April 28, 1997 Ex Parte letter"] at 3. AICC reiterates its claim that the record in this proceeding  Y-is devoid of evidence necessary for the Bureau to make such a determination.@N < xP-ԍId. at 1.@  Y-25.` ` AICC argues that there are two key elements in evaluating the compensation structure associated with the marketing alarm monitoring services by SWBT. First, the alarm monitoring service provider must control the contractual relationship with the customer. For example, AICC asserts that the alarm monitoring service provider must be  Y_-able to: (1) establish, raise or lower the price of the monitoring service without the involvement of its marketing agent; and (2) sell or transfer the customer contract to another  Y1-alarm monitoring company.@O1< xP-ԍId. at 3.@ AICC also contends that the contract between the alarm  Y -monitoring company and the customer must separately identify the total alarm monitoring  Y -fee, as distinct from any SWBT charges for CPE installation or maintenance.:P @< xP-ԍId.:  Y -26.` ` Second, AICC claims that if the SWBT/alarm monitoring service provider  Y -relationship is truly one of sales agency, SWBT will not be able to command a significant  Y -premium over other alarm monitoring marketing agents.:Q < xP(-ԍId.: AICC asserts that industry practice demonstrates that marketing relationships typically generate a 2025 percent share of monitoring revenues for the sales agent, while resale relationships typically generate a 7075  Yb-percent share of the revenues for the reseller.BRb` < xPs-ԍId. at 34.B AICC concludes that, if SWBT commands compensation at reseller levels, it should be presumed to be engaging in resale, which  Y4-pursuant to the Alarm Monitoring Order is prohibited by section 275 of the Act.@S4 < xP-ԍId. at 4.@ Finally, AICC asserts that SWBT intends to rely on precedent established in the context of this alarm  Y-monitoring CEI proceeding to circumvent the separate affiliate requirement of section 272  Y-through an exclusive marketing arrangement with its longdistance affiliate.BT < xP #-ԍId. at 23.B  Y-"T0*%%[["Ԍ X- 2.` ` Discussion  Y-27.` ` As a threshold matter, we reject SWBT's claim that objections based on  Y-section 275 of the Act are outside the scope of this proceeding.TU< xP4-ԍSee SWBT Reply Comments at2.T Pursuant to sections 4(i)  Y-and 4(j) of the Act, we have broad discretion to order our proceedings in a manner that will  Y-best serve the public interest.2VX< xP-ԍSection 4(j) provides, in part, that "[t]he Commission may conduct its proceedings in such manner as  xP^ -will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice." 47 U.S.C. 4(j). Section 4(i) of the Act provides that "the Commission may perform any and all such acts, make such rules and regulations,  xP -and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of its function." 47 U.S.C.  4(i). 2 In the context of this proceeding, we believe that it would be an unwise use of Commission resources to consider whether SWBT's CEI plan is consistent with the Commission's CEI requirements without first determining whether SWBT is statutorily prohibited from providing the proposed service covered by the CEI plan. Given the record in this proceeding, we see no public interest benefits to acting on the CEI plan and addressing the section 275 issues in subsequent enforcement or complaint proceedings.  Y -28.` ` In addition, we reject SWBT's suggestion that our decision in the Bell Atlantic  Y -Internet Access CEI Order may be read to mean that all challenges to CEI plans based on  Y -provisions of the 1996 Act are inappropriate.TW < xPw-ԍSee SWBT Reply Comments at 2.T The Bureau's determination that arguments concerning sections 251 and 252 of the Act were outside the scope of Bell Atlantic's CEI plan is distinguishable from the circumstances presented by SWBT's proposed CEI plan. Sections 251 and 252 of the Act, at issue in the Bell Atlantic proceeding, impose certain obligations on incumbent LECs in order to facilitate competition in the local exchange  YK-marketplace.SXK< xP-ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 251, 252.S In the Bell Atlantic internet access CEI proceeding, there was no contention that sections 251 and 252 barred the provision of the internet access service proposed by Bell Atlantic; rather, the question was whether Bell Atlantic had to demonstrate in its CEI plan that it satisfied requirements established in sections 251 and 252. In contrast, commenting parties in this proceeding have alleged that SWBT is barred by section 275 of the Act from providing the service which is the subject of the CEI plan before us.  Y-29.` ` Accordingly, prior to evaluating whether SWBT's CEI Plan meets the Commission's CEI requirements, we will determine whether SWBT's proposed Security Service is prohibited by section 275 of the Act, based on the guidelines established by the  Ye-Commission in the Alarm Monitoring Order."e( X0*%%[[l"Ԍ X-ԙ ` ` a. Alarm Monitoring Order  Y-30.` ` In addressing the question of what constitutes the prohibited "provision of  Y-alarm monitoring services" for the purposes of section 275, the Commission, in the Alarm  Y-Monitoring Order, concluded:  Y- X[A]n incumbent LEC, including a BOC, is engaged in the 'provision' of alarm monitoring service if it operates the 'remote monitoring center' in connection with the provision of alarm monitoring service to end users. . . . [If] an incumbent LEC is merely providing the CPE and/or the underlying  Y -transmission service, it is not engaged in the provision of alarm monitoring  Y -service under section 275.YY < xP| -ԍAlarm Monitoring Order at  36.Y   Y -31.` ` The Commission also concluded in the Alarm Monitoring Order that performing billing and collection functions for an alarm monitoring company "does not, in  Y -and of itself, constitute the provision of alarm monitoring service under section 275(a)."@Z X< xP-ԍId.@ The Commission reached the same conclusion with respect to BOC participation in sales  Yy-agency and marketing of alarm monitoring services.F[y< xP-ԍId. at 37.F In reaching this decision, the Commission explicitly rejected AICC's suggestion that BOCs be flatly prohibited "from entering into arrangements to act as sales agents on behalf of alarm monitoring service  Y4-providers or to market on behalf of, or in conjunction with, alarm monitoring services  Y-providers.":\x< xPF-ԍId.: Nevertheless, the Commission recognized: X[T]here may be certain situations where a BOC is not directly providing alarm  Y-monitoring service, but its interests are so intertwined with the interests of an alarm monitoring service provider that the BOC itself may be considered to be 'engaged in the provision' of alarm monitoring . . . . We conclude therefore  Y-that we will examine sales agency and marketing arrangements . . . on a case by case basis to determine whether they constitute the 'provision' of alarm  Yg-monitoring service.W]g< xP #-ԍId. at  38 (emphasis added).W  "P]0*%%[[k"Ԍ Y-32.` ` The Commission stated that it will take into account a variety of factors in determining whether the interests of a BOC and the interests of an alarm monitoring service provider are "intertwined" such that the BOC will be considered to be providing alarm monitoring service. One factor is "whether the terms and conditions of the sales agency and  Y-marketing arrangements are made available to other alarm monitoring companies on a  Y-nondiscriminatory basis.":^< xP-ԍId.: Another factor is how the BOC will be compensated for its sales  Yv-agency and marketing services. The Alarm Monitoring Order states: X[I]f a BOC, actingas a sales agent or otherwise marketing the services of a particular alarm monitoring service provider, has a financial stake in the commercial success of that provider, such involvement with the alarm monitoring company may constitute the 'provision' of alarm monitoring service. Such a BOC may be unlawfully providing alarm monitoring if its compensation for marketing such services is based on the net revenues of an alarm monitoring service provider to which the BOC furnishes such marketing services. In that circumstance, a BOC's compensation would not be tied to its performance in marketing the unaffiliated firm's service, but rather would depend on the unaffiliated firm's performance in offering alarm monitoring  Yb-service.F_bX< xPk-ԍId. at  39.F   YK-  X4- ` ` b. Analysis  Y-  Y- 33.` ` We conclude that under SWBT's proposal, it would not be engaged in the provision of "alarm monitoring service" as defined by section 275 of the Act. Accordingly,  Y-we find that the Act's fiveyear prohibition on BOC provision of "alarm monitoring service" does not bar SWBT's provision of the Security Service as proposed in its CEI plan. In reaching this conclusion, we are guided by the policies established in the Commission's  Y-Alarm Monitoring Order, and expressly rely upon the representations made by SWBT in this proceeding. Since this conclusion concerning the applicability of the section 275 prohibition is a predicate for action on SWBT's CEI Plan, our approval of the plan is conditioned on SWBT abiding by the representations made regarding its sales agency arrangements.  Y7-  Y -!34.` ` It is clear from the representations made by SWBT that it does not propose to  Y -operate a remote alarm monitoring center, and thus the proposed service cannot be argued to" _0*%%[["  Y-violate section 275 for this reason.` < xPy-ԍSWBT specifically states in its CEI plan that it will not operate the remote monitoring centers; instead, the actual monitoring functions associated with its proposed Security Service will be performed by unaffiliated  xP -alarm monitoring service providers on whose behalf SWBT will act only as a sales agent. See e.g., SWBT CEI Plan at 2, 4; SWBT Reply Comments at 34. Moreover, as the Alarm Monitoring Order made clear, the fact that SWBT proposes to sell, install and maintain CPE, provide billing and collection services, and act as a sales agent for unaffiliated alarm monitoring service providers, "does not, in and of itself, constitute the provision of alarm monitoring service under section  Y-275(a)."ja< xP -ԍSee Alarm Monitoring Order at  3637.j While SWBT's proposed activities do not inherently involve the provision of  Y-alarm monitoring service, the Alarm Monitoring Order requires a casebycase examination of sales agency and marketing arrangements between a BOC and an alarm monitoring  Y_-company.Pb_@< xPP-ԍSee id. at  38.P The purpose of this examination is to ensure that the interests of the BOC, and the alarm monitoring provider for which the BOC will act as a sales agent (or for which the BOC will provide marketing services), are not so "intertwined" that the BOC should be  Y -deemed to be engaged in the provision of alarm monitoring service in contravention of  Y -section 275.;c < xP-ԍId. ;  Y -"35.` ` We conclude that SWBT's proposed sales agency and marketing relationships  Y -will not create an impermissible "intertwining" of interests for purposes of section 275 such that SWBT should be deemed to be engaged in the provision of alarm monitoring. The  Y-Alarm Monitoring Order identified two factors to be considered when addressing the question of impermissible "intertwining" of the interests of a BOC and an alarm monitoring service  Yb-provider on whose behalf the BOC is providing marketing or sales agency services.Sdb` < xPs-ԍSee id. at 3839.S The first factor is whether the terms and conditions of the sales agency or marketing arrangement  Y4-will be available to other alarm monitoring companies on a nondiscriminatory basis.Re4 < xP-ԍSee id. at 38. R SWBT represents that its sales agency and marketing agreements will expressly provide that  Y-they are mutually nonexclusive (i.e., either party may enter into other such agreements), and that it will use standard business criteria in determining whether to enter into a sales agency  Y-relationship with an alarm monitoring service provider.f < xP $-ԍThese criteria are described in SWBT's April 3, 1997 Ex Parte letter at 2. See also supra NONDISCRIM.20. SWBT states that, once it enters  Y-into a sales agency relationship with an alarm monitoring service provider, it will make the"f0*%%[[" same terms and conditions available to other similarly qualified providers on a non Y-discriminatory basis.wg< xPb-ԍSee SWBT's April 3, 1997 Ex Parte letter at 2.w No party has objected to, or commented on, this aspect of SWBT's proposal.  Y-#36.` ` On May 5, 1997, SWBT filed a "Petition for Reconsideration or Clarification"  Y-of the nondiscrimination requirement for sales agency in the Alarm Monitoring Order. SWBT argues that, Xthe Commission need not, and should not, take into account whether the terms  Y1-and conditions of the [sales agency] arrangement would be made available to other alarm monitoring providers on a nondiscriminatory basis. . . . At the very least, the Commission should clarify that nondiscrimination is not an  Y -absolute requirement for an acceptable sales agency relationship.h X< xP-ԍSWBT Petition For Reconsideration Or Clarification, CC Docket No. 96152 (May 5, 1997) at 12.  In its reconsideration petition, SWBT represents that it will comply with the commitments  Y -regarding nondiscrimination contained in its April 3, 1997 Ex Parte letter addressing its  Y-pending CEI plan.i< xP)-ԍWe note that our conclusion that SWBT's representations satisfy our nondiscrimination test in this context should not necessarily be treated as precedential in contexts involving different issues or circumstances. In addition, SWBT represents that if the Commission adopts SWBT's  Yy-suggested modification or clarification to the Alarm Monitoring Order, SWBT "will not modify its sales agency relationship until the Bureau approves an amendment to its CEI  YK-Plan."FjK@< xP<-ԍId. at 3, n. 5.F  Y-$37.` ` Based on SWBT's representations in this CEI proceeding, and in SWBT's Petition for Reconsideration in the rulemaking docket, we find that its proposed Security Service comports with the Commission's nondiscrimination requirement and does not indicate  Y-an impermissible intertwining of interests for purposes of section 275.:k< xPY-ԍId.:  Y-%38.` ` A second factor to be considered is how the BOC is compensated for its sales  Y-agency services.cl` < xP#-ԍSee Alarm Monitoring Order at 39.c If the BOC has a financial stake in the commercial success of the alarm" l0*%%[["  Y-monitoring provider, the BOC may be deemed to be "providing" alarm monitoring service.Dm< xPy-ԍSee id.D In particular, the Commission stated that a BOC "may be unlawfully providing alarm monitoring service if its compensation . . . is based on the net revenues of [the] alarm  Y-monitoring service provider . . . . ":nX< xP-ԍId.: SWBT represents that any compensation for its performance of sales agency functions "(1) would depend solely upon SWBT's own performance as a sales agent; (2) would not depend upon an alarm monitoring service provider's performance of its services; and (3) would not be based upon the net revenues of  Y_-an alarm monitoring service provider."o_< xP -ԍSWBT April 14, 1997 Ex Parte letter at 2. See also supra  COMPENSATION21. Based on these representations, we conclude SWBT has demonstrated that its compensation for sales agency activities will not so intertwine its interests with those of alarm monitoring service providers that SWBT should be considered to be engaged in the provision of alarm monitoring service pursuant to section 275.  Y -&39.` ` We reject AICC's request that SWBT be required to submit information further detailing its possible compensation arrangements and decline to withhold approval of SWBT's CEI plan based on AICC's contentions concerning the compensation  Y-arrangements.px< xP-ԍSee AICC April 7, 1997 Ex Parte letter at 2 and AICC April 28, 1997 Ex Parte letter at 3. In sum, we decline to limit the level of SWBT's compensation for its sales  Yy-agency and marketing services based on the record in this proceeding.qy< xP2-ԍOur decision to approve this CEI plan is without prejudice to any party that wishes to challenge a specific compensation arrangement. For example, AICC asserts that it is industry practice for entities marketing alarm monitoring services to receive a "2025 percent share of monitoring revenues," while resellers of alarm monitoring  Y4-services receive "7075 percent of the revenue."pr4` < xPE-ԍSee AICC April 28, 1997 Ex Parte letter at 3.p AICC therefore argues that the Commission should presume that SWBT is engaged in the resale of alarm monitoring  Y-services (which is prohibited by section 275, as indicated in the Alarm Monitoring Order) if  Y-it obtains compensation at reseller levels.<s < xP!-ԍId. < While we are mindful that extraordinarily high levels of compensation may raise questions concerning the relationship between the BOC and an alarm monitoring service provider, AICC has not demonstrated that a BOC's compensation for sales agency or marketing services should be subject to any specific cap. " s0*%%[[" In fact, there may be legitimate business reasons, such as more efficient marketing operations, that would justify compensation that differs from current industry standards. Moreover, AICC has not shown that the compensation levels that it cites for sales agency are  Y-relevant when, in addition to acting as a sales agent, SWBT will be providing and  Y-maintaining alarm CPE as well as providing billing and collection.t< xP-ԍAccording to AICC, the average residential alarm monitoring service subscriber pays approximately  xP-$20 per month. See AICC April 7, 1997 Ex Parte letter at 2. We understand this to include both monitoring and CPE. To the extent that SWBT sells and installs the CPE associated with the alarm monitoring service it markets, we would expect SWBT to receive the portion of the average $20 monthly fees attributable to CPE, in addition to whatever percentage of the monitoring fee it receives in exchange for its efforts as a sales agent. If we assume that the CPE portion represents 50% of the total $20 monthly bill, and SWBT receives a 20% sales agency commission, SWBT would be entitled to 70% of the total average bill. In comparing "typical" sales agency and resale compensation arrangements in the alarm monitoring industry with SWBT's proposed plan, AICC fails to specify with sufficient clarity whether it is including CPErelated charges, when it suggests that if SWBT received "7075 percent of the revenue" it should be considered a reseller rather than a sales agent. If the services provided by SWBT differ from those of other parties, one would expect compensation levels to differ as well.  YH-'40.` ` Moreover, we see little risk that the BOCs will be able to extract excessive compensation for their sales agency and marketing services. As noted by SWBT, the exact terms and conditions of SWBT's compensation will be negotiated with unaffiliated alarm  Y -monitoring providers on an armslength basis.fu ` < xP-ԍSWBT April 14, 1997 Ex Parte letter at 2.f Sales agency and marketing services provided by parties other than SWBT are readily available to alarm monitoring service  Y -providers,v < xPv-ԍSee AICC April 7, 1997 Ex Parte letter at 2 (noting that sales agency is a common practice in the alarm monitoring industry). and our CEI requirements protect against the potential for discrimination by SWBT.  Y-(41.` ` We also reject AICC and Ameritech's other claims that SWBT's relationship with the unaffiliated monitoring entity is not one of sales agency. AICC and Ameritech argue that, for all practical purposes, SWBT would be reselling or subcontracting the alarm  YK-monitoring function rather than acting as a sales agent.wKH < xPD -ԍAICC June 20, 1996 Ex Parte letter, Attachment 1 at 5; Ameritech Comments at 2. In particular, AICC asserts that, unless the relationship between the alarm monitoring company and its end user customer is  Y-unencumbered by SWBT's role as a marketing agent, SWBT must be considered a reseller  Y-rather than a sales agent.fx< xP$-ԍAICC April 28, 1997 Ex Parte letter at 3.f We agree with AICC that as a sales or marketing agent for an"hx0*%%[[" alarm monitoring service provider, SWBT may not "own" or exercise direct control over the  Y-terms of the subscriber contract. This includes, inter alia, the right to set, raise or lower monitoring charges and the right to transfer or sell the contract to a third party.  Y-)42.` ` Consistent with the foregoing, we find that SWBT would be acting as a sales  Y-agent based on its representations that, inter alia: (1) the terms and conditions for the provision of the monitoring functions will be set forth in a separate contract between the subscriber and the unaffiliated monitoring entity; (2) SWBT will not set the price for monitoring services or rebrand the service as SWBT service; (3) all calls or questions  Y5-relating to the monitoring functions will be directed to the unaffiliated monitoring company; and (4) the unaffiliated monitoring company will be clearly identified on all bills issued by SWBT, and all associated correspondence and materials will also identify the monitoring  Y -entity.Ty < xPi -ԍSWBT Reply Comments at 1011.T In addition, we rely on SWBT's representation that: ` ` In no event . . . will SWBT have the unlimited right to control the customer account during the efficacy of the prohibition contained in Section 275. The nonaffiliated alarm monitoring service provider will have complete customer control subject to the service contract between it and the alarm monitoring service  YO-customer.dzOX< xPX-ԍSWBT July 3, 1996 Ex Parte letter at 3.d x`  Y!-*43. MOOT ` ` Finally, we find AICC's concern that SWBT will rely on precedent established in the alarm monitoring context to circumvent the separate affiliate requirement of section 272 through an exclusive marketing arrangement with its longdistance affiliate to be speculative at best. Conjecture about SWBT's future compliance with the requirements in section 272 do not constitute grounds for withholding approval of SWBT's CEI Plan. We also dismiss as moot AICC's request that the Commission hold SWBT's CEI Plan in abeyance until completion of the Commission's Alarm Monitoring rulemaking proceeding. As discussed above, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order in the Alarm  Yi-Monitoring proceeding on March 21, 1997,a{i< xP -ԍSee supra  ABEYANCE7. a and our decision herein relies on the policies set forth in that Order. ";x{0*%%[[="Ԍ X- _B.CEI Plan Requirements  X- 1.` ` Applicability  Y-+44.AMERITECH ARGUMENT` ` We agree with SWBT that the Commission's rules require approval of a CEI plan before a BOC may market an enhanced service. While CEI plan approval is not necessary for a BOC to provide CPE or billing and collection in connection_ with enhanced services, CEI plan approval is required when a BOC seeks to act as a sales agent or  YH-otherwise market an enhanced service.| H< xP -ԍSee Phase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 958, 99 (". . . the nonstructural safeguards we establish in this Order [such as the filing of CEI plans] adequately address the legitimate concerns of some competitors that joint marketing not provide a vehicle for cross subsidization, discrimination in the provision of basic services, or improper use of customer proprietary information.").  While this situation has arisen most frequently in the context of BOC marketing for affiliated enhanced service providers, we believe that the requirements for CEI plan approval provide significant public interest benefits in the case of marketing or sales agency for unaffiliated entities as well. In particular, application of the CEI requirements and other nonstructural safeguards protect against the possibility of  Y -discrimination in favor of the entity for which the BOC is acting as a sales agent or  Y -providing marketing services.}X < xP-ԍFor example, a BOC might have an incentive to discriminate in favor of an unaffiliated enhanced service provider for which it is acting as a sales agent in order to increase sales and earn additional commissions.  Y-,45.` ` The Commission's CEI requirements give other ESPs equal and efficient  Yy-access to those basic services that the BOCs use to provide their own enhanced services.h~y< xP-ԍPhase I Recon. Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3048, 91.h In most cases, BOCs filing CEI plans are seeking to offer enhanced services themselves without a separate subsidiary. Here, SWBT proposes to act as a sales agent for unaffiliated  Y4-alarm monitoring service providers, but will not provide alarm monitoring itself.4` < xPE-ԍSee supra  SERVICE PLAN-BEGIN8שSERVICE PLAN-END14. Despite this, in its CEI plan, SWBT has typically worded its CEI commitments as if it were providing an enhanced service itself rather than acting as a sales agent and marketing an enhanced service provided by a third party. In this context, we will generally apply the CEI criteria to require that, in the provision of basic underlying services, SWBT treat alarm monitoring service providers for which it acts as a sales agent or performs marketing no more favorably than alarm monitoring service providers for which it is not acting as a sales agent or performing marketing. "| 0*%%[[|"Ԍ Y--46.` ` As previously indicated, CEI plans for the marketing of enhanced services usually involve BOC marketing on behalf of an affiliated ESP, and a number of SWBT's CEI representations and commitments use language that is consistent with this. However, based on the record before us, it is clear that the alarm monitoring service providers for which SWBT proposes to provide sales agency and marketing services would not be affiliated with SWBT. Thus, to the extent that certain of SWBT's representations with respect to its CEI commitments do not reflect the fact that SWBT is providing sales agency and marketing services for unaffiliated alarm monitoring service providers, as opposed to providing alarm monitoring services itself or through an affiliate, we interpret SWBT's representations in a manner that reflects a marketing and sales agency relationship with an unaffiliated entity. Other representations which do not appear to require clarification are accepted as stated. We approve the individual aspects of the plan predicated on these interpretations. The provision of sales agency and marketing services by SWBT pursuant to this plan will be deemed to constitute acceptance of our interpretations of SWBT's CEI representations, and SWBT will be required to comply with these representations as we have interpreted them.  X- 2.` ` Analysis  Yy-  Yb-.47.` ` The Commission, in its Computer III proceeding, established nine specific CEI  YK-requirements,mK< xP-ԍPhase I Order, 104 FCC 2d 10391043,  154166.m which are discussed below. SWBT has described in its submissions how it will satisfy each of these nine requirements. We review below SWBT's CEI plan with respect to each of these requirements.  Y- ` ` a. Unbundling of Basic Services  Y-/48.` ` The unbundling requirement obligates the carrier to unbundle, and associate  Y-with a specific rate element in the tariff, the basic services and basic service functions that  Y-underlie the enhanced service offering provided or marketed by the carrier.WX< xP-ԍSee id. at 1040, 158.W Nonproprietary information used by the carrier providing or marketing the unbundled basic  Yf-service must be made available as part of CEI.Df< xP-ԍSee id.D In addition, the carrier must include in its unbundled offerings any options in the provision of such basic services or functions available to itself or to the entity for which it is acting as a sales agent or providing marketing  Y!-services.D!x< xPJ$-ԍSee id.D"!0*%%[[-"Ԍ Y-ԙ049.` ` SWBT represents that local exchange service is the primary underlying basic  Y-service that will be used to provide SWBT Security Service.D< xPb-ԍSWBT CEI Plan at 6.D SWBT also states that, at  Y-present, local exchange service is offered on an unbundled basis (i.e., separately from  Y-SWBT's Security Service) under tariffs in all five states currently served by SWBT.:X< xP-ԍId.: Consequently, SWBT asserts that this basic service will be available to end users of SWBT's Security Service and to end users of unaffiliated competing vendors on an unbundled basis, at the same rates, and under the same terms and conditions, through state tariffs in effect in all jurisdictions currently served by SWBT. SWBT represents that any interLATA services  YH-required as part of SWBT's Security Service will be obtained by end users without any  Y1-SWBT involvement.:1< xP -ԍId.: Finally, SWBT represents that any additional intraLATA basic services used to support SWBT's Security Service will be added to the CEI plan by way of  Y -an amendment prior to their use by SWBT.: x< xP,-ԍId.:  Y -150.` ` In the context of this CEI plan, we interpret SWBT's representations to mean,  Y -inter alia, that the basic service underlying the provision of alarm monitoring service by  Y -entities for which SWBT provides sales agency or marketing will be available on an unbundled basis to all other alarm monitoring service providers and end users on an unbundled basis at the same rates, terms, and conditions through state tariffs in all jurisdictions served by SWBT. SWBT represents that any interLATA services used in conjunction with the alarm monitoring services for which SWBT acts as a sales agent or provides marketing will be obtained by customers without any SWBT involvement. No party has objected to, or commented on, this aspect of SWBT's CEI Plan. Based on our interpretation of SWBT's representations, we find that its CEI Plan comports with the Commission's unbundling requirement. We note, however, that SWBT will have to obtain approval of a plan amendment (as opposed simply to filing an amendment as its representation implies) before it may provide sales agency or marketing services to alarm monitoring service providers using any underlying basic services other than local exchange service.  Xe- ` ` b. Interface Functionality  YN-  Y7-251.` ` The interface functionality requirement obligates the carrier to "make available standardized hardware and software interfaces that are able to support transmission," 0*%%[[<" switching, and signaling functions identical to those utilized in the enhanced service provided  Y-by the carrier,"b< xPb-ԍPhase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 1039, 157.b or for which the carrier acts as a sales agent.  Y-352.` ` SWBT represents that "[a]ll SWBT Security Service providers, including SWBT, will connect their facilities to SWBT's network through existing standard lineside  Y-and trunkside network interfaces which have already been made available to the public" in  Yv-compliance with the Commission's network disclosure rules.DvX< xP -ԍSWBT CEI Plan at 5.D SWBT further represents that no special interfaces, signaling, abbreviated dialing, or other unique capabilities will be  YH-provided by SWBT to end users, or to other providers in support of the enhanced offerings  Y1-described in its plan.:1< xP -ԍId.: If such access arrangements are to be made available to SWBT's Security Service, SWBT represents that such arrangements will be made available to other  Y -ESPs at the same time, in the same jurisdictions and on the same terms and conditions.B x< xP,-ԍId. at 56.B Finally, SWBT represents that it will provide advance notification to ESPs of new interfaces,  Y -and will provide prior notification (including "make/buy" disclosure) required by the  Y -Commission's network disclosure rules.@ < xPw-ԍId. at 6.@  Y -  Y-453.` ` In the context of this CEI plan, we interpret SWBT's representations to mean,  Yy-inter alia, that: (1) all alarm monitoring service providers may connect their facilities to  Yb-SWBT's network through existing standard lineside and trunkside network interfaces, which have already been made available to the public in compliance with the Commission's network disclosure rules; (2) no special interfaces, signaling, abbreviated dialing or other unique capabilities will be provided by SWBT to any end users or any alarm monitoring service providers in support of alarm monitoring services; (3) in the event that special interfaces, signaling, abbreviated dialing or other unique capabilities are provided by SWBT to alarm monitoring service providers for which SWBT provides sales agency or marketing, SWBT will make such arrangements available to all other alarm monitoring service providers at the same time, in the same jurisdictions, and on the same terms and conditions; and (4) SWBT will provide advance notification to all alarm monitoring service providers of new interfaces as required by the Commission's network disclosure rules. No party has objected to, or commented on, this aspect of SWBT's CEI Plan. Based on our interpretation of SWBT's representations, we find that its CEI Plan comports with the Commission's interface functionality requirements. "70*%%[[["Ԍ X-ԙ` ` c. Resale  Y-554.` ` The resale requirement established in Computer III obligates a carrier's enhanced service operations or the entity for which it acts as a sales agent or provides marketing to take the basic services used in its enhanced service offerings at the carrier's unbundled tariffed rates as a means of preventing improper costshifting to regulated  Yv-operations and anticompetitive pricing in unregulated markets.cv< xP-ԍPhase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 1040,  159.c  YH-655.` ` SWBT represents that its proposed Security Service will be provided by obtaining underlying basic services at tariffed rates, and that the resulting enhanced service  Y -will be provided on a nonregulated basis.D X< xP# -ԍSWBT CEI Plan at 7.D In the context of this CEI plan, we interpret  Y -SWBT's representations to mean, inter alia, that all alarm monitoring service providers for which SWBT provides marketing or acts as a sales agent will take the basic services underlying their alarm monitoring services at tariffed rates. No party has objected to, or commented on, this aspect of SWBT's CEI Plan. Based on our interpretation of SWBT's representations, we find that its CEI Plan comports with the Commission's resale requirement.  Xb-` ` d. Technical Characteristics  Y4-756.` ` This requirement obligates a carrier to provide basic services with technical  Y-characteristics that are equal to the technical characteristics the carrier uses for its own enhanced services or the enhanced services for which it provides marketing or sales agency  Y-services.c< xP-ԍPhase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 1041,  160.c  Y-857.` ` SWBT represents that interconnection between its proposed Security Service and the underlying basic services will be achieved through existing, published standard  Y-network interfaces identical to those provided under existing local exchange tariffs and the  Y|-technical references noted in those tariffs.D|x< xP -ԍSWBT CEI Plan at 7.D Therefore, according to SWBT, the technical  Ye-characteristics of the underlying interfaces that will be used by SWBT to provide these enhanced services will also be the same as those available to nonaffiliated competitors who  Y7-wish to use them in providing their own security service.:7< xP$-ԍId.: In the context of this CEI plan,"70*%%[[L"  Y-we interpret SWBT's representations to mean, inter alia, that SWBT will provide all alarm monitoring service providers with underlying basic local exchange services that have technical characteristics that are equal to the technical characteristics of those services provided to an alarm monitoring service provider for which SWBT provides marketing or sales agency services. No party has objected to, or commented on, this aspect of SWBT's CEI Plan. Based on our interpretation of SWBT's representations, we find that its CEI Plan comports with the Commission's technical characteristics requirement.  XH-` ` e. Installation, Maintenance, and Repair  Y -958.` ` This requirement ensures that the periods for installation, maintenance, and repair of the basic services and facilities in a CEI offering are the same as those the carrier  Y -provides to its own enhanced service operations or the enhanced service operations of an  Y -entity on whose behalf a BOC is providing sales agency or marketing services.c < xPN-ԍPhase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 1041,  161.c Carriers must also satisfy reporting and other requirements showing that they have met this  Y -requirement. X< xP-ԍId. SWBT must provide quarterly reports on installation and maintenance of its basic services. See id. at 105556,  192193.  Yy-:59.` ` SWBT represents that its internal methods for installing, maintaining, and repairing all of its basic services are sufficiently mechanized to prevent discrimination against  YK-any given customer or type of customer.K< xP-ԍSWBT CEI Plan at 8. SWBT states that its methods are all either random in nature or involve  xPt-mechanized prioritization techniques. Id. In the context of this CEI plan, we interpret  Y4-SWBT's representations to mean, inter alia, that the periods for installation, maintenance, and repair of underlying basic services will be the same for alarm monitoring service providers for which SWBT acts as a sales agent or provides marketing services and alarm monitoring service providers for which SWBT does not perform such services. No party has objected to, or commented on, this aspect of SWBT's CEI Plan. Based on our interpretation  Y-of SWBT's representations, we find that its CEI Plan comports with the Commission's  Y-technical characteristics requirement. < xPc -ԍWe note that the Bureau has previously approved other SWBT CEI plans for different enhanced services that rely on the same methods for ensuring compliance with the installation, maintenance, and repair  xP!-requirement. See, e.g., SWBT CEI Plan for PC Backup and Recovery Service and SWBT CEI Plan for  xP"-Facsimile Service, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7041 (Com. Car. Bur. 1996). " 0*%%[["Ԍ X-` ` f. EndUser Access  Y-;60.` ` This requirement obligates the carrier to provide to all end users the same abbreviated dialing and signaling capabilities that are needed to activate or obtain access to  Y-enhanced services that use the carrier's facilities. This requirement provides end users equal opportunities to obtain access to basic facilities through derived channels, whether the end  Yv-user utilizes the enhanced service offering of the carrier or of a competing provider.cv< xP-ԍPhase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 1041,  162.c  Y_-  YH-<61.` ` SWBT represents that end users will access SWBT's Security Service via the same tariffed services that end users can use to access the competing services of other  Y -ESPs.D X< xP# -ԍSWBT CEI Plan at 9.D SWBT further represents that no abbreviated dialing or signaling arrangements nor any special derived channel access arrangements are uniquely associated with SWBT's  Y -Security Service offering.: < xP-ԍId.: In the context of this CEI plan, we interpret SWBT's  Y -representations to mean, inter alia, that: (1) all end users accessing the alarm monitoring services for which SWBT provides sales agency or marketing services will use the same tariffed services that end users can use to access all other alarm monitoring services; and (2) no abbreviated dialing or signaling arrangements or any special derived channel access arrangements will be uniquely available to end users that are customers of alarm monitoring service providers for which SWBT provides marketing or sales agency services. No party has objected to, or commented on, this aspect of SWBT's CEI Plan. Based on our interpretation of SWBT's representations, we find that its CEI Plan comports with the Commission's enduser access requirement.   X-` ` g. CEI Availability  Y-=62.` ` This requirement obligates a carrier providing or marketing a CEI offering to make that CEI offering available and fully operational on the date that the carrier offers or begins to market the corresponding enhanced service to the public. The requirement also obligates the carrier to provide a reasonable time prior to that date when prospective users of  Ye-the CEI offering can use the CEI facilities and services for purposes of testing their enhanced  YN-service offerings. Nx< xPw"-ԍPhase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 1041,  163. The testing period is necessary "to balance the conflicting interests of the carrier, which should have a reasonable period to develop, test, and 'debug' its CEI offerings before making them publicly available, and other CEI users, such as competitors, that might suffer an unfair competitive disadvantage if carriers were able to test and perfect their . . . services particularly, their"$0*%%$" interconnection with the basic underlying facilities while withholding those same basic facilities from others."  xPX-Id.Ĩ Past decisions also have referred to this as the 90day notice"N 0*%%[[M"  Y-requirement.  < xP-ԍSee, e.g., Bell Operating Companies' Joint Petition for Waiver of Computer II Rules, Ameritech's Request for Waiver Related to Minor Amendment to Ameritech's Plan to Provide Comparably Efficient  xPa-Interconnection to Providers of Voice Mail Messaging Service, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 14624 (Com. Car. Bur. 1996).  Y->63.` ` SWBT represents that the underlying basic services it will utilize in the provision of its Security Service are currently offered under tariff in all jurisdictions served by SWBT, and therefore, the underlying services will be made available to any ESP on the  Y-same terms and conditions.D< xPF -ԍSWBT CEI Plan at 9.D SWBT further represents that, in jurisdictions where access arrangements are not currently available, SWBT will make testing capability available to  Y_-ESPs at the same time that such capability is available to itself.:_< xP-ԍId.: In the context of this CEI  YH-plan, we interpret SWBT's representations to mean, inter alia, that: (1) all underlying basic service used by alarm monitoring service providers for which SWBT will provide sales agency or marketing services are currently available under tariff to any alarm monitoring service provider in all jurisdictions served by SWBT; and (2) where access arrangements are not currently available, SWBT will make testing capability available to alarm monitoring service providers for which it does not act as a sales agent or provide marketing services, at the same time it makes testing capability available to alarm monitoring providers for which it does act as a sales agent or provides marketing. No party has objected to, or commented on, this aspect of SWBT's CEI Plan. Based on our interpretation of SWBT's representations, we find that its CEI Plan comports with the Commission's CEI availability requirement.  XK-` ` h. Minimization of Transport Costs  Y4-  Y-?64.` ` This requirement obligates carriers providing or marketing enhanced services to provide other ESPs (including ESPs whose services the carrier is not marketing) with  Y-interconnection facilities that minimize transport costs.c( < xP -ԍPhase I Order, 104 FCC 2d at 1042,  164.c SWBT represents that interconnection to all facilities used to provide the underlying basic services supporting its Security Service will be offered under tariff, and will therefore be made available at the same  Y-rates, and on the same terms and conditions, to both affiliated and nonaffiliated providers of" 0*%%[["  Y-SWBT Security Service.H< xPy-ԍSWBT CEI Plan at 1011.H SWBT further represents that, as other configurations and  Y-serving arrangements are requested by end users and/or become technically feasible, SWBT will work in good faith with customers to develop and implements new techniques which  Y-minimize transport costs.AX< xP-ԍId. at 11.A Finally, SWBT represents that the unaffiliated entity on whose  Y-behalf SWBT will act as sales agent will own and operate all alarm monitoring equipment on  Y-its own premises, not on SWBT premises.:< xP& -ԍId.: In the context of this CEI plan, we interpret  Yv-SWBT's representations to mean, inter alia, that interconnection to all facilities used to provide the underlying basic services supporting the alarm monitoring service offered by entities for which SWBT provides sales agency or marketing services will be available to all other alarm monitoring service providers under tariff at the same rates, terms, and conditions. No party has objected to, or commented on, this aspect of SWBT's CEI Plan. Based on our interpretation of SWBT's representations, we find that its CEI Plan comports with the Commission's minimization of transport costs requirement.  X -` ` i. Recipients of CEI  Y-@65.` ` This requirement prohibits a BOC from restricting the availability of the CEI  Yy-offering it is providing or marketing to any particular class of customer or enhanced service  Yb-competitor.`bx< xP-ԍPhase I Order, 104 FCC 2d 1042,  165.` SWBT represents that the availability of the underlying basic services required  YK-for its Security Service will not be limited to any class of customer or service provider.EK< xP-ԍSWBT CEI Plan at 11.E SWBT states that all such services are available on a tariffed basis and will be accessible by  Y-all users for any lawful purpose.:< xPf-ԍId.: SWBT further represents that, if any new arrangements are to be made available for SWBT's Security Service, they will be made available to other  Y-home security service providers at the same time, in the same jurisdictions and on the same terms and conditions, and the Commission and the industry will be notified of such  Y-arrangements.:( < xP"-ԍId.: In the context of this CEI plan, we interpret SWBT's representations to  Y-mean, inter alia, that: (1) the underlying basic services used by alarm monitoring service providers for which SWBT provides sales agency or marketing services will not be limited to" 0*%%[[" any class of customer or service provider and such services will be accessible by all users for any lawful purpose; and (2) SWBT will make available to all alarm monitoring service providers, at the same time, in the same jurisdictions and on the same terms and conditions, any new arrangements made available to alarm monitoring service providers for which SWBT provides sales agency or marketing services. No party has objected to, or commented on, this aspect of SWBT's CEI Plan. Based on our interpretation of SWBT's representations, we find that SWBT has proposed to provide service to CEI recipients in compliance with the Commission's requirements.  X - C.Other Nonstructural Safeguards  Y -  Y -A66.` ` In addition to the CEI requirements established in Computer III, a BOC  Y -proposing to provide enhanced services on a structurally integrated basis must comply with requirements regarding the use of CPNI, disclosure of network information, and  Y -nondiscrimination reporting.o < xP -ԍPhase II Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3082,  7375.o As in the case of the CEI requirements, there are certain instances in which SWBT's representations concerning compliance with the nonstructural safeguards use language that is more suited to circumstances in which SWBT would be providing alarm monitoring service itself rather than acting as a sales agent or providing marketing services for others. To the extent that SWBT's representations with respect to these nonstructural safeguards do not reflect the fact that SWBT is providing sales agency and marketing services for unaffiliated alarm monitoring service providers, we interpret SWBT's representations in a manner that reflects SWBT's sales agency and marketing role and approve the individual aspects of the plan predicated on these interpretations. We interpret only those representations that do not appear to be worded to reflect SWBT's provision of sales agency and marketing. Other representations which do not appear to require clarification are accepted as stated. The provision of sales agency and marketing services by SWBT pursuant to this plan will be deemed to constitute acceptance of our interpretations of SWBT's representations, and SWBT will be required to comply with these representations as we have interpreted them.  YN-  X7- 1.` ` Customer Proprietary Network Information  Y -B67.` ` Under our Computer III requirements, SWBT is required to describe the  Y-procedures it intends to establish to comply with the Commission's CPNI safeguards.MX< xP"-ԍId. at 3095,  156.M In" 0*%%[["  Y-addition, we note that section 222 of the 1996 Act contains CPNI requirements.E< xPy-ԍ47 U.S.C.  222.E Although the requirements of section 222 became effective immediately upon enactment, the Commission has initiated a proceeding to consider regulations interpreting and specifying in  Y-more detail a telecommunications carrier's obligations under this provision.;XX< xP-ԍImplementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Telecommunications Carriers' Use of  xP-Customer Proprietary Network Information, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 12513, 12514,  2  xPT-(1996) (CPNI NPRM).; The Commission has concluded that its existing CPNI regulations remain in effect, pending  Y-completion of the CPNI rulemaking, to the extent they do not conflict with section 222.x< xP -ԍId. at 12515,  3 (noting that, to the extent that the 1996 Act requires more of a carrier, or imposes greater restrictions on a carrier's use of CPNI, the statute governs). Moreover, section 275(d) of the 1996 Act prohibits LECs from recording or using in any fashion "the occurrence or contents of calls received by providers of alarm monitoring services for the purposes of marketing such services on behalf of such LECs, or any other  Y1-entity."G1< xP-ԍ47 U.S.C. 275(d).G  Y -C68.` ` SWBT represents that it will continue to abide by the Commission's existing  Y -rules and requirements regarding the use of CPNI in all respects.E ` < xP-ԍSWBT CEI Plan at 13.E It is SWBT's position that, as long as it remains in full compliance with the Commission's existing rules governing the use of CPNI for enhanced service or CPE purposes, it will be in compliance with the  Y -CPNI provisions of the 1996 Act.: < xPH-ԍId.: SWBT represents that, in any event, it plans to obtain customer approval for use of its CPNI to sell SWBT Security Service during each telephone  Yy-conversation between a SWBT sales representative and a prospective customer of the  Yb-service.:b < xP-ԍId.:  YK-  Y4-D69.` ` AICC asks the Bureau to require SWBT to amend its CEI plan to demonstrate  Y-how it would comply with the CPNI provisions of section 222 and 275(d) of the Act.J< xP"-ԍAICC Comments at 6, n. 8.J  Y-SWBT states that contrary to AICC's concern, there is no need for SWBT to amend its CEI"!0*%%[["  Y-plan with respect to its use of CPNI.K< xPy-ԍSWBT Reply Comments at 13.K SWBT states on reply that it intends to comply with  Y-the Act and the Commission's rules implementing these sections in all respects.AX< xP-ԍId. at 14.A Based on SWBT's representation that it will comply with all preexisting CPNI rules, and with sections 222 and 275(d) of the Act and any regulations adopted by the Commission pursuant to these sections, we find SWBT's CEI Plan comports with the Commission's CPNI requirements.  Xv- 2.` ` Network Information Disclosure  YH-E70.` ` SWBT is also required to disclose to the enhanced services industry information about network changes and new network services that affect the interconnection of enhanced services with the network. SWBT must make that disclosure at the "make/buy" point, that is, when SWBT decides whether to make or to procure from an unaffiliated entity  Y -any product whose design affects or relies on the network interface.c < xP-ԍPhase II Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3086,  107.c SWBT must provide that information to members of the enhanced services industry that sign a nondisclosure  Y -agreement, within 30 days after the execution of such nondisclosure agreement.Z x< xP-ԍId. at 30913093,  134140.Z SWBT also must publicly disclose technical information about a new or modified network service  Y-twelve months before that service is introduced.M< xPI-ԍId. at 3092,  136.M If a BOC is able to introduce the service within twelve months of the make/buy point, however, it may make public disclosure at the  Yb-make/buy point. It may not, however, introduce the service earlier than six months after the  YK-public disclosure.:K< xP-ԍId.: BOCs need not describe network disclosure procedures in their CEI  Y4-plans, because they are obligated to obey those rules.a4( < xP -ԍBOC ONA Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 252,  490.a  Y-F71.` ` SWBT states that the interconnection between its proposed enhanced services and the underlying basic services will be achieved through existing, previously published  Y-standard network interfaces.E < xPA#-ԍSWBT CEI Plan at 14.E Consequently, SWBT represents that no changes to existing""H 0*%%[["  Y-network interface specifications or publication of any new interfaces are required.:< xPy-ԍId.: In the  Y-context of this CEI plan, we interpret SWBT's representations to mean, inter alia, that interconnection between the alarm monitoring service providers for which SWBT provides sales agency and marketing services and the underlying basic services these alarm monitoring service providers use will be achieved through existing, previously published standard network interfaces. Insofar as SWBT changes any existing network interfaces specifications or uses new interface specifications for basic underlying services, it must comply fully with our network disclosure rules, including any changes in these requirements. No party has objected to, or commented on, this aspect of SWBT's CEI Plan. Based on our interpretation of SWBT's representations, we approve this aspect of SWBT's CEI Plan.  X - = 3.` ` Nondiscrimination Reporting  Y -G72.` ` BOCs are required to file quarterly nondiscrimination reports with respect to their basic services, thereby ensuring that they provide the access promised in their CEI  Y -plans.Q X< xP-ԍSee BOC ONA Reconsideration Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3084, 3096, Appendix B (1990), BOC ONA  xPx-Amendment Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3101 (1990), Erratum, 5 FCC Rcd 4045, pets. for review denied, California II,  xP@-4 F.3d 1505 (9th Cir. 1993), recon., 8 FCC Rcd 7646 (1991), BOC ONA Second Further Amendment Order, 8  xP-FCC Rcd 2606 (1993), pet. for review denied, California II, 4 F.3d 1505 (1993); and Phase II Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 3082,  73.Q SWBT represents that it will continue to abide by the Commission's existing=  Y-nondiscrimination reporting rules.E< xPI-ԍSWBT CEI Plan at 13.E No party has objected to, or commented on, this aspect of SWBT's CEI Plan. Based on SWBT's representations, we find that its CEI Plan comports with the Commission's nondiscrimination reporting requirements.  X4- D.Accounting Safeguards  Y-  Y-H73.` ` The BOCs must adhere to certain accounting procedures to protect ratepayers from bearing misallocated costs. This system consists of five principal elements: (1) the establishment of effective accounting rules, in accordance with the Commission's Part 32 Uniform System of Accounts requirements, and cost allocation standards; (2) the filing of cost allocation manuals reflecting the accounting rules and cost allocation standards adopted by the BOC; (3) mandatory audits of carrier cost allocations by independent auditors, who must state affirmatively whether the audited carrier's allocations comply with its cost  Ye-allocation manual; (4) the establishment of detailed reporting requirements and the  YN-development of an automated system to store and analyze the data; and (5) the performance"N#0*%%[[M"  Y-of onsite audits by Commission staff.h< xPy-ԍBOC Safeguards Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 7591,  46.h SWBT must comply with these accounting safeguards.  Y-  X- X)V. CONCLUSION ă  Y-  Yv-I74.` ` We conclude that SWBT's CEI Plan complies with the Commission's  Y_-Computer III requirements. If SWBT offers new enhanced services not described in this CEI  YH-plan, or if SWBT uses additional, underlying basic services, it must file a CEI plan amendment. Accordingly, in this Order, we approve SWBT's CEI Plan for Security Service, as described herein.  Y - VI. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  Y -J75.` ` IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and 4(j), 201, 202, 203, 205, 218, 222, and 275 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. sections 1, 4(i) and 4(j), 201, 202, 203, 205, 218, 222, and 275, and authority delegated thereunder pursuant to Sections 0.91, 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. sections 0.91, 0.291, SWBT's Comparably Efficient Interconnection Plan for Security Service is hereby APPROVED, subject to the requirements and conditions discussed herein.  Y-1K76.` ` It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Hold In Abeyance, filed by the Alarm Industry Communications Committee, is DISMISSED as moot. Federal Communications Commission ` `  A. Richard Metzger, Jr. ` `  Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau1