WPCŁ 2 BP Courier 10cpi3|w le)CG Times Bold (Scalable)PCG Times (Scalable) room 254 lpt2:HPLAIIAD.PRSx  @H&$yX@2<L Zj3|w"Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxSxSxSrSrSrS{SiSiSiSiSxSxSxSxSxS{S{SS.SSSSz]SSuSiSiSk2g/a{S{SxSxSxoSoSZ?YSYSiSiSiS{S{S{S{SxxSkI8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxWxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ88`SJ8Muu]daqqZZnn{{xu{{M{aZZ5M5M҅P?kHP LaserJet IIISi in room 254 lpt2:HPLAIIAD.PRSc PE37H&$yP"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~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYCȐCddoddCdYds]xUvdYYCCCCx~oxoY~NYdYC8YooYdYxsdxdd~YYxoxxx~CdxYxxxxCCdddddddxCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L21<>XvCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times ItalicCG Times Bold Italic X-  Њ I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#C\  P6QP#X01Í ÍX01 Í   Í #XP\  P6Q[AXP#Ѣlx/c81,c P7Pm8wC;,[AXw P7XPn7zC;,ZXz_ p^7X&6uC;,-/Xu&_ x$&7XX><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxa4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2vtj a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2"   ,! !a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2C&"#j$C%a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2)u&E''S(a1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2+3))*B+a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 22+3,-e1a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:lV?$W@l%YA$YTechnical 3Technical 3> Technical 4Technical 4?` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1@ Technical 7Technical 7A` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2aB$[C ^D^E_Technical 8Technical 8B` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#WP Heading 2WP Heading 2C44#6X@C@##Xv6X@CX@#WP Heading 1WP Heading 1D44#6X@C@# #Xv6X@CX@#toc 1toc 1E` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#2SjFaGcHfI5htoc 2toc 2F` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3G` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4H` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5I` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#2UqJjKvlLmM7otoc 6toc 6J` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7K toc 8toc 8L` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9M` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#2WxNqOsPuQvwindex 1index 1N` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2O` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toa headingtoa headingP` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionQ 2zRlxSrxTgyUz_Equation Caption_Equation CaptionR endnote referenceendnote referenceS HeadingChapter HeadingTJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersU>a݅@  I.   X(# 2GVzW{X'|Yz|SubheadingSubheadingV0\ E A.  CG Times 9pW'@H'#Y PE37P##Y PE37P#CG Times 10pX'.3'#c PE37ƪP##c PE37ƪP#Word222NullWord222NullY#/x PX##/x PX#2ωZzy[\]NormalNormalZ#x6X@CX@##/x PX#Footnote referFootnote reference[  X` hp #/Z P##/x PX#Footnote textFootnote text\nX` hp #/d P##/x PX#IndentedIndented]--  X` hp#x6X@CX@#  #/x PX#2^_`eaTabsTabs^##n#x6X@CX@# #/x PX# HangingHanging_A-  ,X/#x6X@CX@#  #/x PX#Normal 2Normal 2`X` hp #x6X@CX@##/x PX#Bold HeadingBold Headinga  X` hp #x6X@CX@# #/x PX# 2bcsdEeBlock QuoteBlock Quoteb--  X` hp#x6X@CX@#  #/x PX#Hanging 2Hanging 2cG3  ,X#x6X@CX@#  #/x PX#SpecialSpeciald&n` hp #x6X@CX@##/x PX#Special 2Special 2eA0#x6X@CX@##/x PX#2yfȟg^hdޡi7Bpara numS3n6OMnumbered indented paragraphs 3H*_0F_8S\Ef/'0 1.#Xx{2 PQXP# 1.ҲFOOTNOTES9n6OMFootnote - Appearance8S 9H*_0F_8S\Eg78HIGHLIGHT 1n6OMItalics and Bold(_08S :H*_0F_8S\Eh9: DRAFT ONS;n6OMHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateH*_0F_8S\Ei;< X 8#Xx6X@QX@#`X (#EDRAFTă `H(#@D3 1, 4D  2pjkcGlcmc DRAFT OFF?n6OMTurn Draft Style off8S ?H*_0F_8S\EjD=>    LETTER LANDn6OMLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5 AH*_0F_8S\Ek AB '3   LEGAL LANDn6OMLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5S BH*_0F_8S\El CD 'A   LETTER PORTn6OMLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11S CH*_0F_8S\Em EF 3'   2AnconpdsqjתLEGAL PORTn6OMLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14S DH*_0F_8S\En GH A'   TITLESEn6OMTitle of a Document8S EH*_0F_8S\EoIJ* ăHIGHLIGHT 2n6OMLarge and Bold=(_08S IH*_0F_8S\EpQR HIGHLIGHT 3n6OMLarge, Italicized and UnderscoredH*_0F_8S\Eq S T2rssIt?u<PLETTERHEADn6OMLetterhead - date/marginsS KH*_0F_8S\Er!U V X  3'   * 3' Ѓ   INVOICE FEEn6OMFee Amount for Math Invoice LH*_0F_8S\EsWX X, $0  MEMORANDUMn6OMMemo Page Format(_08S MH*_0F_8S\EtYZ  * M E M O R A N D U M ă y<N dddy INVOICE EXPn6OMExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice*_0F_8S\Eu[\ ,p, $02v<wHx[By[INVOICE TOTn6OMTotals Invoice for Math MacroOH*_0F_8S\Ev]^ p,p, $0INVOICE HEADn6OMHeading Portion of Math InvoiceH*_0F_8S\Ewv_`l   p,X 9H#Xx6X@QX@# XX  *$HHީH  ӧ   XX H#Xx6X@QX@# XX  *$HHީHSMALLSTn6OMSmall Typestyle=(_08S TH*_0F_8S\ExcdFINE8SUn6OMFine Typestyle=(_08S UH*_0F_8S\Eyef2'z[*{[|[};LARGESVn6OMLarge Typestyle=(_08S VH*_0F_8S\EzghEXTRA LARGEn6OMExtra Large Typestyle8S WH*_0F_8S\E{ijVERY LARGEn6OMVery Large Typestyle8S XH*_0F_8S\E|klENVELOPESYn6OMStandard Business Envelope with Header0F_8S\E}mn V,  X  , 8N#Xx6X@QX@#   N `   2U~XYX MACNormal[n6OM Z/08=(_08S [H*_0F_8S\E~op2X_8S\n6OM Z/08=(_08S \H*_0F_8S\EqrStyle 14S]n6OMSwiss 8 Pt Without MarginsS ]H*_0F_8S\E's't#Co> PQP##)a [ PQXP#Style 12S`n6OMDutch Italics 11.508S `H*_0F_8S\E'u'v#)^ `> Xi QXX##)a [ P QXP#2P( s"Style 11Sbn6OMInitial Codes for Advanced IIbH*_0F_8S\Ewx#)a [ P QXP# dn  #  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ P QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi QXX#`e%%Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   #)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQXX#Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   #)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3Shn6OMDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs*_0F_8S\Eyz#)a [ PQXP# n  ## b, oT9 !Style 4Sin6OMSwiss 8 Point with MarginsS iH*_0F_8S\EG{|#Co> PQP# dd  #  Style 1Sjn6OMDutch Roman 11.5 Font8S jH*_0F_8S\E7}~#)a [ PQXP# dn 2MStyle 2Skn6OMDutch Italic 11.5_08S kH*_0F_8S\E'#)^ `> XiQXX#Style 5Sln6OMDutch Bold 18 Point8S lH*_0F_8S\E''#T~> pQp##)a [ PQXP#Style 7Snn6OMSwiss 11.5Z/08=(_08S nH*_0F_8S\E''#)ao> PQXP##)a [ PQXP#Style 6Spn6OMDutch Roman 14 Point8S pH*_0F_8S\E''#w [ PQP##)a [ PQXP#2JF %F kD U Style 10Srn6OMInitial Codes for AdvancedS rH*_0F_8S\E#)a [ PQXP# dn   #  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi QXX#`Ue%'Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P!QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi"QXX#Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P#QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi$QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ P%QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi&QXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8Swn6OMInitial Codes for Beginning wH*_0F_8S\E#)a [ P'QXP# dn  ## b, oT9  [ #)a [ P(QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi)QXX#`1e%&Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P*QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi+QXX#Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P,QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi-QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ P.QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi/QXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9S|n6OMInitial Codes for IntermediateH*_0F_8S\E#)a [ P0QXP# dn  ## b, oT9 Њ [ #)a [ P1QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi2QXX#`ke%%Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P3QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi4QXX#Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P5QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi6QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`e%APage  #)a [ P7QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi8QXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateSn6OMInitial Codes for Update ModuleH*_0F_8S\E#)a [ P9QXP# dn  ##  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ P:QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi;QXX#`e%"Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   #)a [ P<QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi=QXX#Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   #)a [ P>QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi?QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ P@QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiAQXX#   Page `5e%&Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2|Jpq9Default Paran6OMDefault Paragraph Font8S H*_0F_8S\E;;#Xx{2 PBQXP##Iz PCQP#head1Sn6OMb Z/08=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E'#2pDC #3X_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E` ` ` 4X_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  . 2eeAp95X_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  6X_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E  7X_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E*   8X_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E` ` ` 2Am9X_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\E8@   10_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EA@` `  ` ` ` 11_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\E0    12_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\EJ` ` @  ` `  2]s 13_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\ES` `  @  14_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\E\` `  @hh# hhh 15_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 16_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\En` `  hh#(@- ( 2$`17_8Sn6OMRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*_0F_8S\Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 18_8Sn6OMDocument Style=(_08S H*_0F_8S\EF D*  ׃  19_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 20_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 2V21_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E*    22_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E'   23_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&   24_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E4$     2 }25_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 26_8Sn6OMTechnical Document StyleS H*_0F_8S\E&  . 27_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E$ 28_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E/` ` ` 2>o29_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E:` ` `  30_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\EE` ` `  31_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\EP` ` ` hhh 32_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\E[ 2U}:33_8Sn6OM1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S H*_0F_8S\Efa1Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0F$ a2Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0F/` ` ` a3Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0F:` ` `  2A % a4Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0FE` ` `  a5Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0FP` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0F[ a7Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0Ff 2 s r=  rA a8Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0Fq a2Agendaa1AgendaAgenda Items7D yP ) I. a3Agenda2 u  a1Order8X X-I.xa2OrderAp X-xA.` ` a3OrderJ* X-x` ` 1. a4Order4 X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. 1.(1)(a) i) a)I.x2lannotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "OaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI "2c(dNormal,fendnote textendnote text;1#C\  P6QP##XP\  P6QXP#2^ ljindex heading,1USW Hindex heading,1USW Heading` hp x (#` hp x (##X\ P:+QXP##Xx6X@DQX@#` hp x (#` hp x (#"1P1_3HwSmall Circle+@1+c+1O@HwP+1HLP1 "toatoa` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#LetterDirect Dial Font (CG Times - 8pt)`oWI `F  XXXX * ddsn #O P7{P#у  XX  sndd #x6X@8QwX@#2X'pqe`1dfDocument[8]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B` ` ` Document[4]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCW -2( -Ct )B  . Document[6]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCe -2( -Ct )B  2e\p_Document[5]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCs -2( -Ct )B  Document[2]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B*    Document[7]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B  ` ` ` Right Par[1]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )B8@  2#SRight Par[2]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )BA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B0     Right Par[3]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )BJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )BS` ` `  @  2" K!"Right Par[5]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )B\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )Be` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers  -2( -Ct )Bn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )Bw ` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 2v%##U$$Document[1]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCE -2( -Ct )BF34   ׃  Technical[5]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCS -2( -Ct )B&56  . Technical[6]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCa -2( -Ct )B&78  . Technical[2]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCo -2( -Ct )B*9:    2(%=&&'Technical[3]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC} -2( -Ct )B';<   Technical[4]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )B&=>   Technical[1]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )B4?$@     Technical[7]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )B&AB  . 2U*8(}(:))Technical[8]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )B&CD  . Paragraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B$ab Paragraph[2]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B/cd` ` ` Paragraph[3]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B:ef` ` `  2A-*%++,Paragraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BEgh` ` `  Paragraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BPij` ` ` hhh Paragraph[6]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B[kl Paragraph[7]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bfmn 2u0s-=. //Paragraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bqop _Equation CaC^f_Equation CaptionF2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#endnote refeC^fendnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>>#PP##PP#footnote refC^ffootnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>#PP#22Z0d1e1q21, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.A, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .footnote tex6footnote text̺=(?. 0&ܺ*?.ںd 0E2(34`O5iT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5i.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  . 24e2e33p435`O5jT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5j.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  36`O5kT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5k.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  37`O5lT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5l.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>*   38`O5mT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5m.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 274K55{639`O5nT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>8@   40`O5oT(G2PRight-Aligne41`O5pT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5p.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>0    2:B778I942`O5qT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>J` ` @  ` `  43`O5rT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>S` `  @  44`O5sT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>\` `  @hh# hhh 45`O5tT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>e` `  hh#@( hh# 2=::;;<46`O5uT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>n` `  hh#(@- ( 47`O5vT(G2PRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 48`O5wT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5w.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>F *  ׃  49`O5xT(G2PTechnical Document Stylex.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . 2YZD==H/IT50`O5yT(G2PTechnical Document Styley.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>&  . "Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲdxN`xoȐCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddddddddCddddddddo8dddddϐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddxoddddddodddddddddood8doddrddoddN8ooddddoNododdddooooȐdYCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"Ȑdsd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUvŐdȐddCCCCŐzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYCȐCddoddCdYds`xUvdddCCCCxoxoYNYYYN8YooYdYxxdxddYYxoxxxNdxYxxxxCCdddddddxCxdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`LCG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)CG Times Italic (Scalable)ddddddddCCdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYddddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdXXddxxXxdxdxXdddddddD8ddddddddp8pHodp8p8dxddddxLxLxddLdLdLddpHp8oddddddodpLpLpLdoddddododxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddxxdddkddCddF"ddddCCxCdxdoddCdYds]xUvdYYCCCCxxxoxoYxLoYdYC8YooYdYxxdxddoYoYxxoxxxxxCdooxYxxxxCCddddxdddoooxCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"Sh5^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȰdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYddddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdddddxdxdxdxddddddddd8ddddddddododp8p8xddddxdxddLddddodododddddodpLCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"Ȑddd尰dCCȐzȰxCdzdodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC(H<5(xx}l7lTTlCHqqllllllF`RRqqAAleeeOejjObYYVT`jlllsqqqzn^}YsYllll7YvlFlllAAllllllllllllllllllllllxxxxxxxx&7&llllls7lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll}}}}xxxxxxxxxx``llllllvvll^^^^lljjjjllbbb^^^^:.M^ll2qZO`fk"i~'K2^!.22YN!!!2Y!!!!2222222222!!dYd,YH?EJ?;HJ!'F?[JH9HC6?JH^HHA!!!22!,2,2,!222N2222%'22H22,,2,d222222!222222222H,H,H,H,H,YCE,?,?,?,?,!!!!J2H2H2H2H2J2J2J2J2H2H,J2H2H2H2J292H,H2H,D,D,E2E2J<>,?2?2>,H2H2H2H2H2J2J2!2222I822F2>>$?2>>J2:J2J2H2H2YHB$B$C26&6&6&62>$>?2J2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,@,@,J2?2J262?2H2<!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22<i , zP#*  ԍSee United States v. Western Electric Co., Memorandum, Civil Action No. 820192, Misc. No. 820025  xP$*(PI), slip op. at 5 n.8. (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 1984). While the BOCs  v4use their automatic location identification databases to ensure the proper routing of E911 calls,  vthose databases also store information, including the name, address, and telephone number of  vindividual telecommunications subscribers, which helps emergency service personnel respond" >,))rr"  Y* v~to E911 calls.`?, zPy*ԍSeeĠ PARA. 77, supra.` This information goes far beyond what the BOCs need to ensure the proper  v&transmission of 911 calls to PSAPs and thus falls outside the "telecommunications management exception" to the information services definition.  Y* Z 18.` ` U S West argues that the BOCs' storage and retrieval of the information that  vemergency service personnel use to respond to E911 calls fall within the "telecommunications  Yv* vmanagement exception" because those functions are adjunct services, as defined in the NATA  Ya* vCentrexĠproceeding.D@&aZ, zPl * n ԍU S West Supplemental Showing at 46 (citing North American Telecommunications Association Petition  v"for Declaratory Ruling under Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Integration of Centrex,  zP * v"Enhanced Services, and Customer Premises Equipment, ENF No. 842, Memorandum Opinion & Order, 101 FCC  zP *2d 349 (1985) (NATA Centrex Order), on recon., 3 FCC Rcd 4385 (1988) (NATA Centrex Reconsideration Order)).D US West asserts that the Commission has the discretion to determine that  vfthe database functions of E911 services are adjunct services that fall outside the statutory  Y5* vdefinition of information services.VA5H, xP.*ԍU S West Supplemental Showing at 46.V U S West indicates that inclusion of a requirement to  vprovide "[n]ondiscriminatory access to . . . E911 services" in the competitive checklist that  vBOCs must meet in order to obtain authorization to provide inregion, interLATA service  Y * vzindicates that E911 services should be treated as adjunct services.7B , zPy*ԍId.7 We reject these arguments.  Y * vIn the NATA CentrexĠproceeding, the Commission defined adjunct services as services that  v8"facilitate the provision of basic services without altering their fundamental character," and  Y * vdetermined that such services should be treated as basic services for purposes of the Computer  Y* vII rules, even though they might fall within possible literal readings of the definition of enhanced  Y* vservices.Cj , zP*ԍNATA Centrex Reconsideration Order, 3 FCC Rcd at 438586,  4 & 8. In the NonAccounting Safeguards Order, the Commission determined that adjunct  vservices should be classified as telecommunications services, rather than information services,  v^because they are used for the management, control, or operation of telecommunications systems  Y@* vtor the management of telecommunications services.vD@ , zP*ԍNonAccounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21958,  107.v Although the "telecommunications  Y)* vmanagement exception" encompasses adjunct services,dE) , zPh!*ԍId. at 21958,  107, & 21965,  123.d the storage and retrieval functions  v associated with the BOCs' automatic location identification databases provide information that" E,))rrf"  Y* v^is useful to end users, rather than carriers.F, xPy*  ԍFor instance, when an individual calls 911 to report a fire, the PSAP and its associated emergency service providers respond to the call using the database information identifying the location from which the call was placed. As a consequence, those functions are not adjunct  Y*services and cannot be classified as telecommunications services on that basis.FGZ , zP*  ԍNATA Centrex Reconsideration Order, 3 FCC Rcd at 4391,  4546 (services that provide information  v"are not adjunct services unless a telephone company finds the information useful in providing or managing basic telephone services). F  Y* Z 19.` ` Our determination that E911 services are information services is not inconsistent  vwith the inclusion of "[n]ondiscriminatory access to... E911 services" in the competitive  Y* v&checklist.RHB, xP *ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(c)(2)(B)(vii).R In arguing to the contrary, US West implicitly assumes that Congress intended to  Yv* vzlimit that checklist item to telecommunications services.XIv, zP*ԍSee US West Aug. 5 Reply at 6. X US West, however, fails to identify  vany statutory language or legislative history that might support such an assumption, and we find  vno such support. In these circumstances, we conclude that the inclusion of "E911 services" in  v^the competitive checklist has no bearing on the question whether those services are information services.  Y * Z 20.` ` The record also makes clear that the E911 services described above are, in many  Y * vinstances, interLATA information services.J d , xP* ԍBell Atlantic Mar. 6 Comments at 2; NYNEX Petition at 1; SWBT Supplemental Showing at 2 & Attachment 1; US West Mar. 17 Reply Comments at 2; U S West Supplemental Showing at 3. For example, when a PSAP receives an E911 call,  vtequipment located on the PSAP premises automatically requests that the BOC's automatic  Y * vlocation identification database provide information regarding the calling station.K , zP* ԍE.g., Ameritech Supplemental Showing at 4; Bell Atlantic Supplemental Showing at 1; BellSouth  xP*Supplemental Showing at 17; NYNEX Supplemental Showing at 3. Both this  Y* v^request for information and any resulting response are transmitted over BOC facilities.cL, zPW*ԍE.g., NYNEX Supplemental Showing at 3. c Since  vmany, if not all, of the BOCs' automatic location identification databases serve multiple LATAs,  Yb* vmany of these transmissions cross LATA boundaries.Mb, xP!* :ԍAmeritech Supplemental Showing at 7; BellSouth Supplemental Showing at 1; NYNEX Supplemental  xP"*Showing at 3; SWBT Supplemental Showing at 2. In addition, it appears from the record  vTbefore us that this interLATA transmission component is a necessary bundled element of the  Y4* vBOCs' E911 services._N4, zP%*ԍSee, e.g., U S West Petition at 2._ The bundled services are, therefore, interLATA information services.O4, zPw'*ԍNon-Accounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21961,  115 & 2196364,  120. "4$O,))rr "  vSections 272(a)(1) and (a)(2)(C) direct that these services be provided through a separate  Y* v&subsidiary.aP, xPb*ԍ  47 U.S.C.  272(a)(1), (a)(2)(C). a The BOCs therefore may continue to provide them on an integrated basis only if  v4we have the authority to forbear from application of those sections to the BOCs' E911 services  v8and only if we conclude, in the exercise of such forbearance authority, that the forbearance  vcriteria set forth in section 10 of the Act are met. We now turn to the question whether we have such authority.  X_* _C.` ` Authority to Forbear  YH*  X1*` ` 1. Overview   Y * Z 21.` ` Section 10(a) of the Communications Act specifies that we "shall forbear from  vapplying... any provision of this Act to a telecommunications carrier" if we determine that  Y * vthe _specified forbearance criteria are met.GQ X, xP*ԍ47 U.S.C.  160(a).G Section 10(d) states, however, that we "may not  v forbear from applying the requirements of section 251 or 271 until [we] determine[] that those  Y * vrequirements have been fully implemented."GR , xP@*ԍ47 U.S.C.  160(d).G In this section, we address whether section 10(d) precludes our forbearing from the application of section 272 to the BOCs' E911 services.  Xb*` ` 2. Discussion   Y4* Z 22.` ` Whether section 10(d) precludes us from forbearing from the application of section  v.272 to the BOCs' E911 services depends on the meaning of several Communications Act  v&provisions and judicial actions in connection with the MFJ. Based on our interpretation of the  Y* vCommunications Act provisions, we conclude, as AT&T and MCI argue,MSZx, zP* ZԍAT&T Mar. 6 Comments at 3 n.6; MCI Mar. 17 Reply at 2. See also  Sprint Mar. 6 Comments at 4  v"(forbearance not warranted to the extent a BOC must obtain section 271 authorization to provide the service at  xP*issue).M that prior to their full  vimplementation we lack authority to forbear from application of the requirements of section 272  Y* vto any service for which the BOC must obtain prior authorization under section 271(d)(3).TX, xP !* ԍAn authorization under section 271(d)(3) allows a BOC or BOC affiliate to provide interLATA services  vT#originating in any of its inregion States. The Commission may grant such an authorization only if it finds that the BOC has met the competitive checklist set forth in section 271(c)(2)(B) and other statutory requirements. For  v~the reasons discussed below, we determine, however, that the MFJ Court had authorized the  vlBOCs to provide E911 services prior to enactment of the 1996 Act and that we, therefore, have authority to forbear from the application of the requirements of section 272 to those services.  YN* Z 23.` ` Section 271 provides three ways in which a BOC or BOC affiliate may have the  vauthority to provide inregion, interLATA service: the Commission may authorize the service"7 T,))rr"  vpursuant to section 271(d)(3); the service may have been previously authorized within the  v&meaning of section 271(f); or the service may be an incidental interLATA service as defined in  vsection 271(g). We recognize that under section 271(d)(3)(B), we may not grant a section  Y* v271(d)(3) authorization unless we find that "the requested authorization will be carried out in  vaccordance with the requirements of section 272." We believe that section 10(d), read in  vconjunction with section 271(d)(3)(B), precludes our forbearance for a designated period from  vsection 272 requirements with regard to any service for which a BOC must obtain prior  v authorization pursuant to section 271(d)(3). We further conclude that our authority to forbear  v&from application of section 272 to the BOCs' E911 services is dependent on whether the BOCs may provide such services in the absence of section 271(d)(3) authorization.  Y * Z "24.` ` As noted above, one category of such services that may include interLATA  vinformation services is the group of services previously authorized within the meaning of section  Y * v271(f). A service falls within that group only if the MFJ Court had authorized its provision,  Y * vpursuant to section VII or VIII(C) of the MFJ, prior to enactment of the 1996 Act.MU , xP7*ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(f). M Section  vTVII of that decree provided that the MFJ Court retained jurisdiction over the decree after its  Y* ventry to, among other purposes, modify the restrictions on BOC businesses.VX, zP* ԍUnited States v. Western Electric Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 231 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd sub nom. Maryland  zPc*v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983). Section VIII(C),  vin turn, provided that the restrictions would be removed upon a BOC's showing that "there is  v*no substantial possibility that it could use its monopoly power to impede competition in the  YK*market it seeks to enter."xWK, zP*ԍUnited States v. Western Electric Co., 552 F. Supp. at 231.x  Y* Z 25.` ` The BOCs argue that their E911 services are authorized within the meaning of  Y* vsection 271(f).XF, zP*ԍE.g. BellSouth Petition at 8; PacTel Petition at 2; US West Petition at 2. ĉ This argument is based on two Court decisions subsequent to the MFJ, and on  v8a DOJ letter interpreting those decisions. In the first decision, issued February 6, 1984, the  vCourt recognized that "the information storage and retrieval functions of E911 services are an  v'information service' within the meaning of the decree, and that such functions may not be  Y* vperformed without a waiver."Y, zP3!* ԍUnited States v. Western Elec. Co., Civil Action No. 820192, Misc. No. 820025 (PI), slip op. at 5 n.8 (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 1984). The Court, however, granted the BOCs waivers, pursuant to  Y* vsection VIII(C) of the decree, so that they could provide E911 services.EZ2 , zPv$*ԍId. at 2, 45.E In the second  vdecision, issued February 2, 1989, the Court waived the decree so the BOCs could "provide,  vlusing their own facilities, 911 emergency service across LATA boundaries to any 911 customer"e Z,))rr\"  Y* vwhose jurisdiction crosses a LATA boundary."[, zPy*ԍUnited States v. Western Electric Co., Civil Action No. 820192, slip op. at 1 (D.D.C. Feb. 2, 1989). In 1991, the DOJ interpreted these judicial  v2decisions as enabling "the BOCs to provide multiLATA 911 services, including E911  Y* vservices."(\Z, xP*  ԍLetter from Constance E. Robinson, Chief, Communications and Finance Section, Antitrust Division, U.S.  zP*Department of Justice, to Alan F. Ciamporcero, Pacific Telesis Group, 1 (Mar. 27, 1991) (1991 DOJ Letter).( NOTE 93  DOJ stated that the transmission of "data interLATA between an E911 data base  vTand E911 nodes, that may be in a different LATA, to public or private agency customers" is  Y* vwithin the scope of those waivers.@], zP *ԍId.@ Based on the foregoing, we conclude that E911 services  Y*are "previously authorized" within the meaning of section 271(f).^], xP * $!ԍIn view of this determination, we need not reach the question whether the information services components of the BOCs' E911 services consist of the information storage and retrieval as described in section 271(g)(4).  Y_* Z 26.` ` MCI questions whether we can legally forbear from the application of any non vdiscrimination requirements, including those in sections 272(c)(1) and (e), to dominant carriers  vsuch as the BOCs. MCI maintains that the marketplace cannot be relied upon to prevent a  vdominant carrier from unjustly or unreasonably discriminating and that our forbearance authority  Y * vis limited to circumstances that will not result in such discrimination.q_ , zPi*ԍE.g., MCI June 4 Comments at 3; MCI July 28 Comments at 3.q We agree with the BOCs  vbthat section 10 does not automatically foreclose forbearance from the application of sections  Y * v272(c)(1) and (e) to dominant carriers.` G , zP* ԍSee, e.g., Bell Atlantic Mar. 6 Comments at 12; SWBT July 25 Reply at 2; U S West Mar. 17 Reply at 2. Rather, section 10 mandates forbearance if the statutory  vcriteria are met. A concern about dominant carriers is, therefore, relevant only to the extent it  vrelates to one or more of the statutory criteria. Accordingly, we reject MCI's sweeping  vsuggestion that forbearance from provisions governing dominant carriers is not possible under any circumstance.  XK*_ D.` ` Application of Forbearance Criteria     Y4*  X*` ` 1. Section 10(a)(1) (#  Y* Z 27.` ` Section 10(a) requires us to forbear from application of section 272 to the BOCs'  vBE911 services if we determine that each of three statutory forbearance criteria is satisfied. The  v_first criterion requires that we analyze whether application of section 272 to the BOCs' E911  v|services is necessary to ensure that the BOCs' "charges, practices, classifications or  Y* vzregulations... are just and reasonable, and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory."Ja , xP%*ԍ47 U.S.C.  160(a)(1).J  vThe BOCs argue that they meet this forbearance criterion. AT&T and MCI disagree, claiming  vthat sections 272(c)(1) and (e) require that the BOCs make available to unaffiliated entities"e1 a,))rr"  vcertain information that the BOCs provide to their own E911 services operations. AT&T and  v@MCI contend that unaffiliated entities must have access to that information before the  vCommission may determine that the BOCs' practices with regard to their E911 services operations are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory.  Y* Z 28.` ` We conclude that this statutory forbearance criterion is satisfied with respect to  vTthe BOCs' E911 services, provided that the BOCs make available to unaffiliated entities that  vwish to provide E911 services all subscriber listing information, including unlisted numbers,  vBunpublished numbers, and the numbers of other LECs' customers, that the BOCs use to provide  Y1* v^their E911 services. In accordance with the NonAccounting Safeguards Order, the BOCs shall  vmake this information available at the same rates, terms, and conditions, if any, that they charge  Y *or impose on their own E911 services operations.b , zP~ * ` ԍNonAccounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2200001,  202. Part III.D.1.c, infra, discusses how the BOCs should implement this condition as it relates to rates for listing information.  X *` `  a.Just, Reasonable, and Nondiscriminatory Charges  Y * Z 29.` ` We consider first the effect, if any, that application of section 272 to the BOCs'  vE911 services would have on BOC charges. As BellSouth points out, the BOCs charge for E911  v*services by imposing a surcharge on enduser bills, the amount of which is regulated by the  Yd* vstates.Vcd", xP7*ԍBellSouth Supplemental Showing at 18.V While that fact in and of itself is not dispositive of whether the first forbearance  vcriterion is met, no commenter has alleged that application of any section 272 requirement to  vthe BOCs' E911 services is necessary to ensure that any of the BOCs' charges, including those  vfor E911 services, are just and reasonable. Indeed, the record shows that, as a result of the  v8Common Carrier Bureau and MFJ Court waivers, the BOCs realize substantial economies in  Y* vproviding E911 services on an integrated basis.d, zPT* BԍE.g., Bell Atlantic Mar. 6 Comments at 34; Bell Atlantic Supplemental Showing at 2; NYNEX Supplemental Showing at 6. Providing E911 services through separate  vbaffiliates or on an intraLATA basis would make the services more costly, which presumably  vwould only increase the amounts the BOCs or their affiliates would be entitled to recover for  Y* v2those services.e , xPi * !ԍNYNEX Supplemental Showing at 6; SWBT Supplemental Showing at 7; U S West Supplemental Showing at 10. In these circumstances, we find that application of the section 272  vrequirements is not necessary to ensure that the BOCs' charges are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory within the meaning of section 10(a).  XP* ` `  b.` Just, Reasonable, and Nondiscriminatory Practices,  X9*Classifications, and Regulations (# ""d e,))rr"Ԍ Y* Z 030.` ` Listing Information. The BOCs' automatic location identification databases  vFinclude unlisted and unpublished numbers as well as the numbers of other LECs' customers.  vxAT&T claims that the BOCs' exclusive access to this information discriminates against  Y* vcompetitors and precludes them from offering their own E911 services.f, zP6* :ԍE.g., AT&T July 22 Comments at 6, n.16. See also, e.g., MCI July 23 Comments at 9 (BOC practices discriminate within the meaning of section 272(c)(1)). We agree. If the  v&BOCs were providing E911 services through separate affiliates, their practice of not providing  v&unaffiliated entities with access to all the telephone numbers they use to provide those services  vwould be inconsistent with section 272(c)(1) of the Communications Act. That section specifies  v4that a BOC "may not discriminate between its [section 272] affiliate and any other entity in the  YJ* vBprovision of... information."JgJ", xP *ԍ47 U.S.C.  272(c)(1).J This provision makes clear that the BOCs could not provide  vztheir section 272 affiliates with listing information, including listing information obtained from  vother LECs, without also making that information available to third parties. As the Commission  Y * vstated in the NonéAccounting Safeguards Order, section 272(c)(1) "establishes an unqualified  v"prohibition against discrimination by a BOC in its dealings with its section 272 affiliate and other  Y * ventities."vh , zP<*ԍNonAccounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21998,  197.v This prohibition extends to listing information that a BOC provides to its section  Y *272 affiliate.Ri D, zP*ԍId. at 2200304,  210. R  Y* Z H31.` ` Under section 272(c)(1), a BOC's practice of not providing unaffiliated entities  vwith all of the subscriber listings that an affiliate of the BOC uses to provide E911 services  vwould be deemed discriminatory, if the BOC provided the affiliate with those listings. We must  v*consider, however, whether this practice would be unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory  vpwithin the meaning of section 10(a)(1). We conclude that it would be. Absent access to the  vtsubscriber listing information, including unlisted and unpublished numbers as well as the  vnumbers of other LECs' customers, in the BOCs' automatic location information databases,  vunaffiliated entities would be at a disadvantage in competing with the BOCs to provide E911  v~services. This disadvantage stems from the BOCs' position as the dominant providers of 911  vand E911 services within their regions. Ever since AT&T and its thenaffiliated BOCs  Y* v0designated 911 for access to emergency services approximately thirty years ago,j, zP5!* | ԍSee Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 5572, 5576, n.12 (1997). state and local  vTgovernmental bodies have relied on the BOCs to provide emergency services. By 1982, this  vlreliance had led to a situation in which it was "not clear that any other service provider would,  Yi* vor could, fill the void" if the BOCs were to cease providing E911 services.cki0 , zPJ&*ԍ1982 E911 Letter, supra note 49, at 1.c Indeed, the  vinclusion of "[n]ondiscriminatory access... to 911 and E911 services" in the competitive  vchecklist that a BOC must satisfy to obtain authorization to provide inregion interLATA services"; k,))rr"  vimplicitly recognizes the BOCs' unique position in the provision of those services. As the  Y* vCommission recently determined in the Ameritech Michigan Order,l^, zPb* ԍApplication of Ameritech Michigan Pursuant to Section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934, as  zP,* v8#amended, To Provide InRegion, InterLATA Services in Michigan, CC Docket No. 97137, Memorandum Opinion  zP*and Order, FCC 97298 (Aug. 19, 1997) (Ameritech Michigan Order). a BOC's failure to include  vcompetitive LECs' customers in its automatic location identification database "pose[s] very  Y*serious... competitive concerns."Vm, zP\*ԍId., slip op. at 148,  274.V  Y* Z 32.` ` Based on this prior history and the record before us, we conclude that the BOCs  vJhave competitive advantages in the provision of E911 services stemming from the BOCs'  vdominant positions in the provision of local exchange services in their respective regions. These  vfadvantages will persist if the BOCs continue to deny unaffiliated entities access to listing  vinformation that the BOCs use to provide their E911 services or if the BOCs fail to provide such  vzaccess at the rates, terms, and conditions, if any, that they charge or impose on themselves. We  vtherefore also conclude that, until they provide such access at those rates, terms, and conditions,  vthe BOCs' subscriber listing information practices will be unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory within the meaning of section 10(a)(1).  Y * Z , 33.` ` Because section 272(c)(1) literally applies only to BOC discrimination between  vTa separate affiliate and unaffiliated entities, a decision permitting the BOCs to provide E911  vXservices on an integrated basis would relieve those carriers of their obligation to provide  vunaffiliated entities with the listing information described above. MCI argues that it may  vtherefore be necessary to require separation of the E911 services from the BOCs' local exchange  Y6* vservices simply in order to apply the nondiscrimination safeguard in section 272(c)(1).Wn6, zPg*ԍE.g., MCI Apr. 21 Comments at 4.W  vAlternatively, MCI contends that we must condition any forbearance from the application of the  vsection 272 separate affiliate requirement on BOC compliance with nondiscrimination  Y*requirements at least equivalent to those in section 272(c)(1).Wo, zP*ԍE.g., MCI July 23 Comments at 9.W  Y* Z !34. PARA 35 ` ` Because application of the section 272 separate affiliate requirement to the BOCs'  vE911 services would impose substantial costs without increasing the quality of those services,  v<we conclude that the better approach is to forbear from application of section 272 while  vmaintaining the substance of the nondiscrimination safeguard through appropriate conditions.  vWe, therefore, condition our forbearance from the application of section 272's separate affiliate  vrequirement on each BOC's making available to unaffiliated entities all listing information,  vincluding unlisted and unpublished numbers as well as the numbers of other LECs' customers,  vthat it uses to provide E911 services. In accordance with the Commission's determination in the""o,))rr"  Y* vNonAccounting Safeguards Order, each BOC must provide those listings at the same rates,  Y*terms, and conditions, if any, it charges or imposes on its own E911 services.p, zPd* ` ԍNonAccounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2200001,  202. Part III.D.1.c, infra, discusses how the BOCs should implement this condition as it relates to rates for listing information.  Y* Z "35.` ` The Commission has previously recognized the interests of telephone subscribers  Y* vxin protecting the privacy of their telephone numbers.q", zPy* ԍSee, e.g., 47 C.F.R.  64.1601(b) (carriers precluded from revealing caller's name or number when the caller requests privacy). In doing so, the Commission  vTdistinguished between emergency and non-emergency calls, and allowed carriers to transmit  Yx* v>otherwise protected telephone numbers to public safety agencies in conjunction with 911 calls.r\x|, zP * ԍ 47 C.F.R. 61.1601(d)(2); Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Serv.--Caller  zPo * v"ID, CC Docket No. 91-281, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order, and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 11700, 11740, 111 (1995).   vThis distinction recognizes that consumers' expectation of privacy may be greater in  vBnon-emergency situations than in emergency situations. We believe it appropriate to recognize  vthis distinction in the context of our forbearance decision, especially since section 10(a)(2)of the  vAct instructs us to consider consumer protection. Accordingly, we require entities that obtain  Y * vunlisted or unpublished numbers pursuant to the conditions stated in paragraph PARA 3534 to use those numbers only to provide E911 services.  Y * Z #36.` ` Routing Information. We reject MCI's argument that application of section 272  vto the BOCs' E911 services is necessary to prevent discriminatory BOC practices from impeding  vMCI's delivery of emergency operator services. MCI claims that it needs access to the  v8information LECs use to route E911 calls to the appropriate PSAPs if it is to fulfill its legal  Yf* vobligation to provide emergency operator services on an interLATA basis.\sf, zP*ԍSee, e.g., MCI July 28 Comments at 4.\ This obligation  vapparently arises when a caller reaches a MCI operator after dialing "0" rather than "911" to  Y8* vreport an emergency.t82 , zP* ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  64.706 (operator services providers and aggregators must ensure immediate connection of emergency calls to the appropriate emergency services). MCI fails to demonstrate that, absent forbearance from section 272, the  v~BOCs would be required to provide information associated with the routing of E911 calls to  v&unaffiliated entities, pursuant to the nondiscrimination requirements in section 272. Thus, we  vdecline to require that the BOCs make such routing information available to unaffiliated entities,  v because we do not believe such a condition is necessary to ensure that BOC provision of E911 service is just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, in accordance with section 10(a). " t,))rr"Ԍ Y* Z &$37.` ` MCI also argues that we should require the BOCs to make E911 routing  Y* vinformation available to unaffiliated entities because the Local Competition OrderuP, zPb*  ԍImplementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report  zP,* v8#and Order, CC Docket No. 96-98, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 (1996) (Local Competition Order), aff'd in part and vacated  zP* vF#in part sub nom. Competitive Telecommunications Ass'n v. FCC, 117 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 1997) & Iowa Utils. Bd.  zP* v"v. FCC, 120 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1997), petition for cert. granted, Nos. 97826, 97829, 97830, 97831, 971075,  zP* v8#971087, 971099, and 971141 (U.S. Jan. 26, 1998), Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 13042 (1996) (Local  zPT* vJ"Competition First Reconsideration Order), Second Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 19738 (1996) (Local  zP* v"Competition Second Reconsideration Order), Third Order on Reconsideration and Further Proposed Rulemaking,  zP*FCC 97295 (rel. Aug. 18, 1997) (Local Competition Third Reconsideration Order), further recon. pending. requires  Y* vthem to do so as part of their obligation to provide access to unbundled local switching.v, zPe *ԍMCI Apr. 21 Comments at 5 (citing Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15706,  412). We  v*reject this request because it is beyond the scope of the current proceeding, which concerns  vbapplication of the section 272 separate affiliate and nondiscrimination requirements to BOC  vzprovision of certain previously authorized interLATA information services. Thus, while we do  Yx* vnot here decide the nature and extent of the obligations that the Local Competition Order places  Yc* vJon incumbent LECs to provide E911 routing information, we find that that order, which  v<implements the requirements of section 251, does not address whether the BOCs have an obligation to provide E911 routing information pursuant to section 272.  Y * Z r%38.` ` Uploading Data. We also reject MCI's argument that the application of section  v272 to the BOCs' E911 services is necessary to facilitate the "uploading" of data about MCI's  vtlocal exchange customers into the BOCs' E911 databases for purposes of delivering E911  Y * vcalls.Ww r , zP*ԍE.g., MCI Apr. 21 Comments at 5.W MCI points to no provision of section 272 that would require the BOCs to permit such  vuploading, and we find no such provision. We, therefore, conclude that MCI's argument has  vno bearing on whether application of section 272 is necessary to ensure that the BOCs' practices,  vclassifications, and regulations are just, reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory.  Y:* Z &39.` ` Additional NonDiscrimination Requirements. MCI contends that we must  vcondition any forbearance from the application of the section 272 separate affiliate requirements  vto the BOCs' E911 services on BOC compliance with nondiscrimination requirements at least  Y* vequivalent to those in sections 272(c)(1) and (e).hx , zP *ԍSee, e.g., MCI July 22 Comments at 9. h We find, based on the record before us, that  Y* vthe conditions set forth in paragraph PARA 3534, effectively impose the nondiscrimination safeguards  vcontained in section 272(c)(1) as they relate to the BOCs' E911 services, and are therefore  vresponsive to MCI's section 272(c)(1) argument. MCI, however, does not explain, and we do  vnot see, how the nondiscrimination provisions of section 272(e) might require the imposition  vof any additional requirements on BOC integrated provision of E911 services. In these circumstances, we decline to impose any conditions based on section 272(e). "V x,))rr"Ԍ Y* Z '40.` ` Overall Evaluation. The conditions set forth in paragraph PARA 3534 will enable  v4unaffiliated entities to compete with the BOCs for contracts to provide E911 services. In view  vof these conditions, we find that application of section 272 to the BOCs' E911 services is not  v necessary to ensure that the BOCs' practices, classifications, and regulations are just and reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory.  Xx*` `  c.` Other Conditions (#  YJ* Z (41.` ` AT&T suggests that we should require the BOCs to comply with the accounting  vrequirements of section 272 if we permit those companies to provide E911 services on an  Y * vintegrated basis.Ky , xP *ԍAT&T Mar. 6 Comments at 4.K Although we agree that accounting safeguards are essential to ensuring that  vthe BOCs' E911 operations do not result in unjust, unreasonable, or unjustly or unreasonably  v^discriminatory charges, practices, classifications, or regulations, the accounting requirements in  vzsection 272 assume that a section 272 affiliate will provide any interLATA information service,  Y * vxother than electronic publishing and alarm monitoring.Wz X, zP*ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 272(a)(2)(C).W We, therefore, adapt those  vrequirements to reflect our decision to permit the BOCs to provide E911 services on an  vBintegrated basis. Because the Commission's rules already require the BOCs to account for their  vE911 services on the books of account that they maintain in accordance with Part 32 of the  Yd* v^Commission's rules,C{d, xP*ԍ47 C.F.R. Part 32.C we decline to impose additional requirements as to where those carriers  v8should record the costs and revenues of their E911 services. We require, however, that the  vPBOCs treat their E911 services as nonregulated activities for federal accounting purposes to the  vextent they involve storage and retrieval functions included within the statutory definition of  vPinformation service. That accounting is consistent with the Commission's determination, in the  Y* vAccounting Safeguards Order,that the BOCs should account for any interLATA services they  Y*provide on an integrated basis as nonregulated activities for federal accounting purposes.l|^z, zP* *ԍImplementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Accounting Safeguards Under the  zP* v#Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96150, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 17539, 1757172, 73 zP*75 (1996) (Accounting Safeguards Order).l  Y* Z )42.` ` In part III.D.1.b, supra, we require the BOCs to make available to unaffiliated  ventities all listing information that they use to provide their E911 services at the same rates the  vBOCs charge or impose on their own E911 services operations. To the extent they charge  vunaffiliated entities for listing information that they use to provide E911 services on an  vintegrated basis, the BOCs must impute the same charges in order to comply with this condition.  Y=* vConsistent with the Accounting Safeguards Order, the BOCs shall record any charges they  Y(* vimpute for their E911 services in their revenue accounts.N}(, zPy'*ԍId. at 17576,  86. N The BOCs shall account for any"(2 },))rr "  v imputed charges by debiting their nonregulated operating revenue accounts and crediting their  Y* vpregulated revenue accounts by the amounts of the imputed charges.J~, zPb*ԍSeeĠid.J On or before May 4,  vz1998, `d$bj";Within sixty days of publication of notice of this Order in the Federal Register, `the BOCs shall make any changes to their cost allocation manuals necessary to reflect this  Y* vaccounting.QZ, zP*ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  64.903.Q The BOCs' independent auditors shall include this accounting in their review of  Y*the BOCs' compliance with their cost allocation manuals.Q, zPA *ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  64.904.Q  Y*  Xv* ` ` 2. Section 10(a)(2) (#  YH* Z *43.` ` In order to forbear from applying section 272's requirements to the BOCs' E911  v4services, section 10(a)(2) requires us to analyze whether such application is necessary to ensure  Y *the protection of consumers.J ~, xPI*ԍ47 U.S.C.  160(a)(2).J  Y * Z |+44.` ` For reasons similar to those that persuade us that the application of the section 272  vrequirements is not necessary to ensure that the BOCs' charges, practices, classifications, and  vregulations are just and reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory, we also  vconclude that application of those requirements is not necessary for the protection of consumers.  vNo party before us argues that application of section 272 is necessary to protect consumers in  vthis situation. The prices, terms, and conditions of E911 services are subject to state  Yb* vzregulation.b, zP!*ԍSee, e.g., SWBT Supplemental Showing at 5 n.8 (referencing state statutes governing tariffs). The record indicates that the BOCs realize substantial economies from providing  vE911 services on an integrated basis that would be lost if they were required to provide those  Y4* v4information services through separate affiliates.4, xP* !ԍNYNEX Supplemental Showing at 6; SWBT Supplemental Showing at 7; U S West Supplemental Showing at 10. The BOCs, in reliance on Common Carrier  vBureau and MFJ Court waivers, have configured their networks to provide E911 services  Y* v"efficiently and reliably. , zP * BԍE.g., Bell Atlantic Mar. 6 Comments at 34; Bell Atlantic Supplemental Showing at 2; NYNEX Supplemental Showing at 6. A decision not to forbear thus could compromise system integrity and  vzreliability, to consumers' detriment. Since these facts make it likely that consumers will benefit  vJfrom the BOCs' integrated provision of these services, we conclude that this forbearance criterion is met.  Y*  X* ` ` 3. Sections 10(a)(3) and 10(b)(#  Y|* "|R ,))rr"Ԍ Y* Z V,45.` ` In order to forbear, section 10(a)(3) requires us to analyze whether forbearance  Y* vwould be consistent with the public interest.J, xPb*ԍ47 U.S.C.  160(a)(3).J Section 10(b) of the Act elaborates on our obligation:  XIn making the determination under subsection (a)(3), the Commission shall  consider whether forbearance from the provision or regulation will promote  ,competitive market conditions, including the extent to which such forbearance  (will enhance competition among providers of telecommunications services. If the  HCommission determines that such forbearance will promote competition among   providers of telecommunications services, that determination may be the basis for  Y *a Commission finding that forbearance is in the public interest.G X, xP# *ԍ47 U.S.C.  160(b).G   Y * Z r-46.` ` We conclude that forbearance from application of the section 272 requirements  vto the BOCs' E911 services would be consistent with the public interest. In reaching this  vconclusion, we reject, as inconsistent with the statutory language, AT&T's suggestion that  v^section 10(b) precludes forbearance absent a showing that it would enhance competition among  Y* vproviders of telecommunications services., zP)*ԍSee, e.g., AT&T July 22 Comments at 2, 10; AT&T July 28 Comments at 2, 10. We conclude, instead, that the integrated provision  vof E911 services, as authorized by prior Common Carrier Bureau and MFJ Court waivers,  vproduces substantial cost savings and helps ensure the reliability of those vital public services.  vBThese cost savings and increases in reliability persuade us that forbearance would be consistent with the public interest.  Y* Z .47.` ` AT&T's argument that we cannot forbear absent an affirmative showing that  vforbearance would enhance competition among providers of telecommunications services is  Y* v apparently based on the language of section 10(b).z, zP* ԍE.g., AT&T July 22 Comments at 2 (most of the BOCs do not "discuss 'the extent to which forbearance will enhance competition among providers of telecommunications services,' as required by section 10(b)"). That subsection, however, requires that  vwe "consider" whether forbearance would "promote competitive market conditions, including  vthe extent to which such forbearance will enhance competition among providers of  Y* v~telecommunications services."G, xP"*ԍ47 U.S.C.  160(b).G In requiring us to "consider" this particular public interest  Y|* vfactor, Congress clearly did not intend to preclude our consideration of other factors.|d , zP$* rԍSee FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 9645, Report and Order, 12 FCC  xP[%*Rcd 8776, 8809,  61 (May 8, 1997). The"| ,))rrR "  vpublic interest is a broad standard, to be exercised consistent with the underlying goals of the  Y*Communications Act, as amended by the 1996 Act. , zPb*  ԍSee, e.g., Washington Util. & Transp. Comm'n v. FCC, 513 F.2d 1142, 1157 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423  zP,*U.S. 836 (1975); Network Project v. FCC, 511 F.2d 786, 793 (D.C. Cir. 1975).  Y* Z /48.` ` Section 10(b) also states that if we determine that "forbearance will promote  vFcompetition among providers of telecommunications services, that determination may be the  Y* vbasis for a Commission finding that forbearance is in the public interest."G$, xPb *ԍ47 U.S.C.  160(b).G The plain meaning  vof this statutory language is that a determination that forbearance would promote competition is  va possible, though not a necessary, basis for a finding that forbearance would be consistent with  vthe public interest. As SBC asserts, "[w]ere it otherwise, no petition could ever be granted that,  Y1*although neutral in competitive effect, would clearly advance the public interest. . . ."K1, xP*ԍSBC Aug. 11 Comments at 5.K  Y * Z 049.` ` The record in this proceeding, however, will not support a finding that  vforbearance from the application of section 272 to the BOCs' E911 services "will promote  vpcompetition among providers of telecommunications services" within the meaning of section  v10(b). Consistent with our conclusion above that the Act does not require such a finding, we  vtherefore conclude in this case that competitive effects should not form the basis of our public  vinterest determination under section 10(a). To support their argument that forbearance would  v.promote competition among providers of telecommunications services, the BOCs rely on  Yb* vCommon Carrier Bureau findings under the Computer II rules, and District Court and DOJ  YM* vfindings under the MFJ.\MD, zPB* ԍE.g., Bell Atlantic Supplemental Showing at 4; BellSouth Petition at 8; NYNEX Supplemental Showing  zP * v"at 910 (citing 1985 E911 Order, supraĠnote 49; 1982 E911 Letter, supraĠnote  FN 4850 ; & 1991 DOJ Letter, supra note 92); SWBT Supplemental Showing at 8. The BOCs observe that the Bureau concluded that BOC provision  vof E911 did not pose a threat to competition and that the service might not be provided absent  Y* vJBOC provision;h , zP8*ԍ1982 E911 Letter, supra note 49, at 12. See also 1985 E911 Order, supra note 49. that the MFJ Court found that BOC provision of E911 services on an  Y* vintegrated basis "will not endanger competition;" , zP * ԍUnited States v. Western Elec. Co., Civil Action No. 820192, Misc. No. 820025 (PI), 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19733, at *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 1984). and that DOJ found that "[a]llowing the  vzBOCs to provide interLATA 911 service and E911 service is in the public interest for it permits  v4customers to reach providers of emergency services conveniently and efficiently [and] does not  Y*present any threat to competition among interexchange service providers." \T , zP%*ԍ1991 DOJ Letter, supra note 92.\ ",))rr"Ԍ Y* Z (150.` ` We agree with AT&T that in making these findings, the Bureau, MFJ Court, and  vDOJ were concerned with the effects of BOC integrated provision of E911 services on  Y* vcompetition among interexchange carriers.r, zPK*ԍSee AT&T July 22 Comments at 2; AT&T July 28 Comments at 3.r We also recognize that section 10(b) is concerned  vmore broadly with "competitive market conditions" and "competition among providers of  Y* vBtelecommunication services," which include both local and interexchange service providers.GZ, xP*ԍ47 U.S.C.  160(b).G  v^The Bureau, MFJ Court, and DOJ findings, moreover, were made in 1982 and 1985, 1984, and  vX1991, respectively. Since those times, technological and regulatory changes have altered  vcompetitive conditions in the telecommunications markets. Thus, the Bureau, MFJ Court, and  vDOJ findings, though relevant, provide only a starting point for assessing the competitive effects  vof forbearance from the application of the section 272 requirements to the BOCs' E911 services.  vThe BOCs, however, provide no information or analysis to take us beyond this starting point.  Y * vIn addition, as the conditions set forth in paragraph PARA 3534 should ensure that unaffiliated entities  v obtain access to the same information that they would have obtained absent forbearance, grant of the BOCs' E911 petitions is unlikely to affect competitive conditions.  Y * Z ` 251.` ` In reliance on the Bureau and MFJ Court waivers, the BOCs have configured their  vnetworks to provide E911 services efficiently and reliably. We agree with the BOCs' claim that  Y{* v providing E911 services on an integrated basis saves money and enhances the reliability of those  v4services. Application of section 272 to the BOCs' E911 services would increase costs, because  vit would require the BOCs to construct new facilities to provide E911 services either on a purely  vintraLATA basis or through separate affiliates. We also agree that such a reconfiguration of  vpthe BOCs' E911 services could compromise system integrity and reliability, which would be  vBcontrary to the fundamental purpose of E911. Thus, applying the section 272 separate affiliate  vrequirements to BOC provision of E911 services would prevent them from continuing to realize  vFthe economies and efficiencies that the Bureau and MFJ Court waivers permitted. Since the  vBOCs' competitors can realize these economies and efficiencies through the provision of E911  vservices on an integrated basis, we conclude that forbearance from the application of section 272  v$to the BOCs' E911 services would serve the public interest, so long as forbearance is  v*conditioned as stated above. Because we also conclude that the first and second criteria for  Yg* vforbearance are met,`g, zP *ԍSee parts III.D.1 & III.D.2, supra.` section 10 mandates that we forbear from such application. We so  YP*forbear.P|, xP!*ԍOur forbearance decision does not relieve the BOCs of any requirement outside of section 272. ""#,))rr"Ԍ X*#XP\  P6QWXP# XX    S   IV. BELLSOUTH'S REVERSE DIRECTORY SERVICES  ĐlV  X* A.` ` Description of Services  X*` ` 1. OperatorAssisted Reverse Directory Services   Yv* Z 352.` ` Reverse directory services provide the user with a telephone customer's name,  Y_* vaddress, or both, upon the input of a telephone subscriber's number. _, zP*  ԍE.g., BellSouth Supplemental Showing at 3. In contrast, standard directory assistance services provide the user with a telephone subscriber's number upon the input of the subscriber's name and address.  BellSouth provides both  YH* vS operatorassisted and electronic reverse directory services.H", zP * ( ԍId. BellSouth also refers to its operatorassisted reverse directory service as "manual reverse search" and  zP *"customer name/address service." Id. The operatorassisted service uses  vthe same trunking and switching facilities, centrallylocated operator service centers, centralized  vFdatabases, and personnel that BellSouth uses to provide its traditional voicebased, directory  Y * v*assistance services.7 ~, zP2*ԍId.7 BellSouth states that, in addition to information regarding BellSouth  vcustomers, these databases contain the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of subscribers  vJof other carriers, including other incumbent LECs and competing LECs, in the BellSouth  Y * vregion.D , zP*ԍId. at 4 n.9.D The databases include nonlisted information (i.e., listings available through directory  v&assistance but not in printed white pages directories), but do not include nonpublished listings  Y* v|(i.e., listings available through neither directory assistance nor printed white pages  Y}* vdirectories).7}, zP*ԍId.7 BellSouth states that it has been providing operatorassisted reverse directory  Yf*services since the MFJ Court authorized it to do so in 1989.[fI , zP`*ԍId. at 3; BellSouth Petition at 24.[  Y8* Z r453.` ` To obtain reverse directory information for numbers within the customer's toll v free calling area, users of BellSouth's operatorassisted reverse directory services dial the same  Y * v local number (411) that they use to obtain standard directory assistance services.U  , xP *ԍBellSouth Supplemental Showing at 3.U BellSouth  vPstates that it routes operatorassisted reverse directory services over the same network using the  Y* vzsame resources as it uses for standard directory assistance services.@k , zP#*ԍId. at 5.@ BellSouth also states that  veach type of call terminates in an automatic answering system located in a traffic operator  Y* vBposition system (TOPS) switch located within the caller's LATA.@ , zP\'*ԍId. at 3.@ This system, according to  vBellSouth, prompts the caller to provide his or her information request, records the caller's",))rr"  vinformation request, and then signals a TOPS host, which finds an available directory assistance  Y* voperator who serves the caller's state.B, zPb*ԍId. at 34.B BellSouth states that this operator plays back the  vcaller's information request, retrieves the requested information from one of BellSouth's two  vcentrally located, directory assistance databases, and orally conveys the information to the  Y* vlcaller.[Z, zP*ԍId. at 4; BellSouth Petition at 34.[ BellSouth states further that it provides all facilities for communications between the  vcustomer and the operator, and between the operator and the database, for these reverse  Yv*directory and directory assistance services.vv, xP* *ԍBellSouth Supplemental Showing at 4; BellSouth Petition at 34. v  YH* Z 554.` ` To obtain reverse directory information for a location outside his or her tollfree  vcalling area using BellSouth's operatorassisted reverse directory service, the caller dials  Y * v&1+NPA+5551212. , xP^*ԍBellSouth Supplemental Showing at 4. NPA is an acronym for numbering plan area. These calls are routed to the caller's interexchange carrier. BellSouth  vstates that the call flow activity for these calls is identical to that for 411 calls, except that when  va caller seeks information for a number in a LATA other than the caller's LATA, an  vinterexchange carrier provides the transmission link between the caller and a TOPS switch  Y * vPlocated in a distant LATA.B #, zP*ԍId. at 45.B When an interexchange carrier routes a reverse directory call to  vpa BellSouth TOPS switch, BellSouth provides any transmissions between that switch and the  Y*directory assistance operator.D, zP*ԍSeeĠid.D  Xb*` ` 2. Electronic Reverse Directory Services   Y4* Z 655.` ` BellSouth offers electronic white pages and electronic reverse directory services  v4that allow subscribers to use their personal computers to obtain directory and reverse directory  Y* vpinformation.DG , zP*ԍId. at 1012.D These subscribers use personal identification number codes to access one of  Y* vBBellSouth's centralized, directory assistance databases.A , zPy!*ԍId. at 11.A BellSouth states that although it also  vuses this database to provide operatorassisted directory assistance and reverse directory services,  vits electronic services provide access to listings that are not available through its operator Y* vassisted services.Gk , zP%*ԍId. at 11, n.26.G These additional listings, according to BellSouth, consist of directory listing  vinformation that "independent or other telephone carriers" have authorized BellSouth to make" ,))rr"  Y* vavailable through its electronic, but not its operatorassisted, services.7, zPy*ԍId.7 BellSouth did not offer  Y* v8either of these electronic services prior to July 1996.UZ, xP*ԍ BellSouth Petition at 5.U In July 1996, BellSouth received a  Y*Common Carrier Bureau waiver authorizing it to provide electronic reverse directory services.), zPm* n ԍ  U S West Communications, Inc. Petition for Computer III Waiver, CC Docket No. 90623, Memorandum  zP7*Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 7997 (Com. Car. Bur. 1996) (CEI Waiver Order).)  Y* Z 756.` ` BellSouth subscribers have a choice of two types of electronic reverse directory  Y* vservices, a home numbering plan area service and a regional service.VF, xP *ԍBellSouth Supplemental Showing at 11.V BellSouth states that the  vhome numbering plan area service allows a subscriber to obtain reverse directory information  Y_* vonly for customers in the subscriber's numbering plan area.A_, zP*ԍId. at 12.A To access this service, the  vBsubscriber calls a local telephone number. BellSouth then uses its own facilities to transmit the  vcall to its centralized database and thus provides an interLATA transmission component  Y *whenever this transmission crosses LATA boundaries.7 h , zP3*ԍId.7  Y * Z 857.` ` BellSouth's "regional" electronic service lets the subscriber obtain reverse  vdirectory information for locations throughout BellSouth's region, including locations within the  Y * vcustomer's numbering plan area.D , zPi*ԍId. at 1112.D BellSouth does not provide any interLATA transmission  Y * vtassociated with this service.A , zP*ԍId. at 12.A Instead, subscribers to the "regional" service must use an  vXinterexchange carrier to obtain any interLATA service required to communicate with the  Yy*centralized database.]y, zPH*ԍId. at 1112; BellSouth Petition at 4.]  YK* Z 958.` ` BellSouth states that it has negotiated over 90 interconnection agreements that  Y4* vallow competing LECs to resell BellSouth's directory assistance services.U4, xP#*ԍBellSouth Supplemental Showing at 9.U BellSouth also states  vthat these resale offerings include reverse directory functions for every directory listing in  Y* v4BellSouth's database, including those of nonBellSouth subscribers.7@, zP&*ԍId.7 BellSouth states further  vthat competitive LECs that wish to provide their own directory assistance services (in lieu of",))rr"  vtreselling BellSouth's services) can obtain from BellSouth the information about BellSouth  vlcustomers necessary to populate their databases with the information about those customers that  Y* vPis in BellSouth's directory assistance database.7, zPK*ԍId.7 BellSouth states that it handles an average of  vabout 3.2 million directory assistance calls each day and that thousandsof these calls are reverse  Y*directory calls.AZ, zP*ԍId. at 10.A  Xv* B.` ` Need for Forbearance to Operate on an Integrated Basis   YH* Z :59.` ` As part III.B of this Order indicates, sections 272(a)(2)(B)(iii) and 272(a)(2)(C)  vlof the Communications Act preclude BellSouth from providing the services described in section  v8271(f) of the Act on an integrated basis only to the extent those services include interLATA  vinformation services. We address here the extent to which BellSouth's reverse directory services are such information services.  Y * Z v;60.` ` The Communications Act defines "information service" as "the offering of a  vcapability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or  vmaking available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but  vdoes not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a  Yb* vtelecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service."Hb, xP*ԍ47 U.S.C.  153(20).H The record  vlin this proceeding makes clear that each of BellSouth's reverse directory services provides users  vwith the capability to acquire and retrieve information (i.e., the names and addresses of  Y* v&telephone subscribers) via telecommunications.`|, xPJ*ԍBellSouth Supplemental Showing at 34 & 1012. ` Those services thus fall squarely within the  Y*statutory definition of information service.h , zP* D ԍ47 U.S.C.  153(20). See also United States v. Western Elec. Co., Civil Action No. 820192 (HHG), slip  v6 op. at 23 (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 1989) ("There can be no question but that [operatorassisted reverse directory]  vrconstitutes 'the offering of a capability for... retrieving... information which may be conveyed by  vp#telecommunications'... Indeed, the very purpose of the service is to provide, that is to sell, information, the very activity prohibited by... the decree.").h  Y* Z L<61.` ` The record also makes clear that three of the four types of reverse directory  v8services that BellSouth offers its operatorassisted service for numbers within the tollfree  v~calling area, its operatorassisted service for numbers outside that calling area, and its "home  vtNPA" electronic service are interLATA information services, whenever the centralized  vdatabase from which the reverse directory information is acquired or retrieved is located in a"| ,))rrR"  Y* vLATA different from that where the customer's call originates.yX, xPy* 2!ԍBecause BellSouth serves many LATAs, but uses only two centralized databases to provide operatorassisted  v#reverse directory services and only one centralized database to provide electronic reverse directory services, in most instances the database and the customer are located in different LATAs.y This is because each of these  vthree services incorporates as a necessary, bundled element for a single charge an interLATA  Y* vtelecommunications transmission component.y, zPk*ԍNon-Accounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2196162,  115.y In contrast, subscribers to BellSouth's  v"regional" electronic reverse directory service must purchase that service separately from the  v^interLATA transmissions that allow the subscriber to communicate with BellSouth's centralized  Y* vdatabase.Yz, xP *ԍBellSouth Supplemental Showing at 1011.Y This "regional" service, therefore, is an intraLATA information service that  Yv*BellSouth need not provide through a separate affiliate.v , zP1* ԍNon-Accounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2196364,  120; 47 U.S.C.  272(a)(2) (no separate affiliate requirement for intraLATA information services).  YH* Z =62.` ` BellSouth states that the MFJ Court classified operatorassisted reverse directory  vservices as information services, but points out that the Court required BellSouth to use revenues  Y * vfrom those services to support regulated operations.[ d , xP/*ԍBellSouth Supplemental Showing at 6, n.14.[ BellSouth argues that this judicial  vrequirement effectively rendered operatorassisted reverse directory services "adjunct to  vjexchange or exchange access service" for MFJ purposes, and thus telecommunications  Y * vservices.7 , zPz*ԍId.7 We reject the notion that the MFJ Court's actions require or permit us to treat  Y * vreverse directory services as telecommunications services. As AT&T points out,L , xP*ԍAT&T July 22 Comments at 9.L that Court  vbspecifically held that reverse directory services are "clearly" information services within the  vmeaning of the MFJ because they offer "a capability for... retrieving... information which  Yy* v0may be conveyed by telecommunications."y, zP@*ԍUnited States v. Western Elec. Co., Civil Action No. 820192 (HHG) (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 1989). If we were to follow the MFJ Court in this matter, we would determine that BellSouth's reverse directory services are information services.  Y4* Z :>63.` ` We also reject BellSouth's suggestion that we should treat its reverse directory  Y* vFservices as adjunct services, as defined in the NATA Centrex proceeding.Z, xPv$*ԍBellSouth Supplemental Showing at 6 n.14.Z As previously  Y* vindicated,X8, zP&*ԍSee section III.B.2, supra.X adjunct services "facilitate the provision of basic services without altering their  Y* v&fundamental character," and are treated as basic services for purposes of the Computer II rules," ,))rr"  vteven though they might fall within possible literal readings of the definition of enhanced  Y* vservices., zPb*ԍNATA Centrex Reconsideration Order, 3 FCC Rcd at 438586,  4 & 8. In the NonAccounting Safeguards Order, we determined that such adjunct services  vshould be treated as telecommunications, rather than information, services under the  Y* vFCommunications Act.|Z, zP*ԍNonAccounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21958,  107. | As explained below, BellSouth's reverse directory services do not  vz"facilitate the provision of basic services without altering their fundamental character" and thus cannot be classified as adjunct services.  Ya* Z r?64.` ` BellSouth's instant request is similar to an argument that it previously advanced  vthat its electronic reverse directory services should be classified as adjunct services so that  vBellSouth could offer them on an integrated basis without complying with, or obtaining a waiver  Y * vof, the Commission's comparably efficient interconnection (CEI) requirements. , zP*ԍCEI Waiver Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 8004,  14, & 800607,  22.  In rejecting  Y * vthat argument, the Common Carrier Bureau observed that the NATA Centrex Order had  vdistinguished between an enhanced service (AT&T's "Dialit" service) and an adjunct service (directory assistance) by stating:  6XThe only significant difference between Dialit and directory assistance is that the  latter service provides only that information about another subscriber's telephone  Y}* number which is necessary to allow use of the network to place a call to that  Yf*other subscriber._\f~, zP* ԍId. at 8004,  14 (quoting NATA Centrex Order, 101 FCC 2d at 360,  26 (emphasis added)). AT&T's  v"Dial-it service allowed news, stock price, and other information to be stored within the network for retrieval by  zP'*subscribers. Id._   v The Bureau determined that, like Dialit service, BellSouth's electronic reverse directory  vservices, provide information in addition to that necessary to use the network to place a call and  Y * vftherefore could not be classified as adjunct services. , zP]*ԍCEI Waiver Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 8004,  14, & 800607,  22.  BellSouth presents no reason for  vdeparting from this prior determination and for not applying it to BellSouth's operatorassisted  vreverse directory services, which also provide information in addition to that necessary to use  v^the network to place a call. We consequently find no basis in the record in this proceeding for  vconcluding that BellSouth's operatorassisted and electronic reverse directory services are adjunct services. "!4 ,))rrR"Ԍ X* C.` ` Authority to Forbear  Y* Z @65.` ` In part III.C of this Order, supra, we determine that we have authority to forbear  vTfrom the application of section 272 to BOC provision of the previously authorized activities  v^described in section 271(f) of the Communications Act and the incidental activities described in  vsection 271(g) of that Act. In the preceding section of this order, we determine that BellSouth's  voperatorassisted and "home NPA" electronic reverse directory services include interLATA  vinformation services. In this section, we address whether these services fall within the scope of either section 271(f) or section 271(g).  Y * Z A66.` ` BellSouth points to a June 2, 1989, Order of the MFJ Court that authorized it to  Y * vprovide reverse directory services. , zP~ * ԍBellSouth Petition at 3 (citing United States v. Western Electric Co., Civil Action No. 820192 (D.D.C.  zPH *June 22, 1989)(BellSouth Reverse Directory Order)). NOTE 207  BellSouth states that the waiver request leading to this  vOrder was a "me too" request based on a similar authorization the MFJ Court had previously  Y * vgranted Ameritech. $, zP*  ԍBellSouth Petition at 3 (citing United States v. Western Elec. Co., Civil Action No. 820192 (D.D.C. Feb.  zPv*6, 1989)(Ameritech Reverse Directory Order). NOTE 93  BellSouth also states that the Ameritech Reverse Directory Order broadly  vladdressed services under which "the company provides a customer's name, his address, or both,  Y * vupon the input of a telephone number." , zP*ԍBellSouth Mar. 17 Reply at 2 (quoting Ameritech Reverse Directory Order, supra note 206, at 1). MCI and Sprint maintain that the MFJ waiver  vBellSouth received during 1989 did not authorize it to provide electronic reverse directory  Y}* vlservices.g}, xP@*ԍSprint Mar. 6 Comments at 23; MCI Mar. 17 Reply at 2.g Sprint points out that BellSouth did not begin offering electronic reverse directory  Yf* v services until after receiving a CEI waiver in 1996.Mf, xP*ԍSprint Mar. 6 Comments at 3.M MCI and Sprint contend that the  vsignificant differences between BellSouth's operatorassisted reverse directory services and its  velectronic reverse directory services make the MFJ waiver inapplicable to the electronic  Y!* vservices.Z!2 , zP*ԍId. at 23; MCI Mar. 17 Reply at 2.Z Sprint states, in particular, that, unlike operatorassisted reverse director services  vin which interexchange carriers transmit any interLATA calls to BellSouth's operator centers,  Y*BellSouth's "home NPA" service involves interLATA transport by BellSouth.M , xPh"*ԍSprint Mar. 6 Comments at 3.M  Y* Z B67.` ` In the BellSouth Reverse Directory Order, the MFJ Court waived section II(D)(2)  vBof the MFJ to permit BellSouth to provide "customer name and address service" throughout the  Y* vBellSouth region.uT , zP'*ԍBellSouth Reverse Directory Order, supra note 205, at 1.u The parties addressing this issue all agree that this Order authorized"",))rr "  vPBellSouth to provide operatorassisted reverse directory services. We find that position correct  vand therefore determine that those services are previously authorized services within the meaning of section 271(f) of the Act and thus subject to our forbearance authority.  Y* Z C68.` ` BellSouth's "home NPA" electronic reverse directory service permits subscribers  vto obtain reverse directory information from a centrally located BellSouth database. We agree  Yv* vwith BellSouthNv, xP*ԍBellSouth Mar. 17 Reply at 3.N and find that this service falls squarely within section 271(g)(4) of the Act,  vbwhich permits the interLATA provision by a BOC or its affiliate "of a service that permits a  vcustomer that is located in one LATA to retrieve stored information from... information  Y1* vJstorage facilities of such company that are located in another LATA."J1X, xP: *ԍ47 U.S.C.  271(g)(4).J Since we have  vauthority to forbear from the application of section 272 to such storage and retrieval services,  Y * vwe see no need to resolve the dispute over whether the MFJ Court's BellSouth Reverse Directory  Y *Order authorized BellSouth to provide its "home NPA" reverse directory service.$ , zP*  ԍCompare BellSouth Petition at 3 & BellSouth Mar. 17 Reply at 2 (contending that the BellSouth Reverse  zPQ* vT#Directory Order authorized electronic reverse directory services) with Sprint Mar. 6 Comments at 23 & MCI Mar.  v#17 Reply at 2 (contending that the BellSouth Reverse Directory Order did not authorize electronic reverse directory services).  X * D.` ` Application of Forbearance Criteria (#`  Y* Z D69.` ` As set forth above, section 10(a) requires that we forbear from the application of  vsection 272 to BellSouth's reverse directory services if we conclude that section 272 is not  v<necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations are just and  vreasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; that it is not necessary for the  vprotection of consumers; and forbearance would be consistent with the public interest. BellSouth  vclaims that it satisfies these three statutory criteria. AT&T, MCI, and Sprint claim that it does not, for various reasons.  X* ` ` 1. Section 10(a)(1) (#  Y* Z E70.` ` First, we address whether application of section 272 to BellSouth's reverse  vdirectory services is "necessary to ensure" that BellSouth's "charges, practices, classifications  vor regulations... are just and reasonable, and are not unjustly or unreasonably  Yi* v"discriminatory."Ji, xP#*ԍ47 U.S.C.  160(a)(1).J As summarized above,Ri{, zP$*ԍSee part IV.B, supra.R BellSouth provides three types of reverse directory  vservices its operatorassisted service for numbers within the customer's tollfree calling area,  v8its operatorassisted service for numbers outside the customer's tollfree calling area, and its  v&"home NPA" electronic service that constitute interLATA information services to the extent  vthe centralized database from which the reverse directory information is acquired or retrieved" # ,))rr"  vis located in a LATA different from that where the customer's call originates. We conclude that  vthe first forbearance criterion is satisfied with regard to these services, provided BellSouth makes  Y* vavailable to unaffiliated entities all directory listing information that it uses to provide its reverse  vPdirectory services at the same rates, terms, and conditions, if any, BellSouth charges or imposes on its reverse directory operations.  Xv*` `  a.Just, Reasonable, and Nondiscriminatory Charges  YH* Z F71.` ` We consider first the effect, if any, that application of section 272 to BellSouth's  vreverse directory services would have on BellSouth's charges for operatorassisted reverse  Y * vdirectory services. , xP *  ԍWe address BellSouth's charges for providing directory listings to unaffiliated entities in section IV.D.1.b,  zP[ *infra. As BellSouth points out, the MFJ Court conditioned BellSouth's  vauthorization to provide reverse directory services on the use of the associated revenues to  Y * v*support regulated operations.U ", xP*ԍBellSouth Supplemental Showing at 6.U In compliance with this condition, BellSouth has included  v*operatorassisted services in its general subscriber tariffs for endusers, and intrastate access  vTtariffs, which are on file with the appropriate state agencies, and its interstate access tariffs.  vBellSouth indicates that it uses the revenues generated by the rates set in these tariffs to reduce  Y*the rates for its regulated telecommunications services.7, zP*ԍId.7  Yb* Z 6G72.` ` BellSouth argues that existing regulations, in the form of the tariffing process and  vcomplaint procedures, are sufficient to ensure that its charges for its operatorassisted reverse  Y4* vdirectory services are just and reasonable.@4D, zP)*ԍId. at 6.@ This argument implicitly assumes that BellSouth  vBwill continue to be subject to the MFJ Court's requirement that BellSouth use reverse directory  vJrevenues to support regulated operations. If, however, BellSouth receives authorization,  vpursuant to section 271(d)(3), to originate interLATA services in an inregion state, its provision  vof operatorassisted reverse directory services in that state will no longer be subject to the terms  Y* vof the MFJ Court's waiver.FD, zPH *  ԍCompare 47 U.S.C.  271(f) (although a BOC may engage in any activity that the MFJ Court authorized  vj!prior to enactment of the 1996 Act, subject to any terms and conditions imposed by that Court, "[n]othing in  v"[section 271(f)] shall be construed to limit, or to impose terms and conditions on, an activity in which a [BOC] is  zP"* vp#otherwise authorized to engage under any other provision of [section 271]") with 1996 Act,  601(a), 110 Stat. 56,  v<"143 (codified as 47 U.S.C.  152 note) ("Any conduct or activity that was, before the date of enactment of [the  v"1996] Act, subject to any restriction or obligation imposed by the AT&T Consent Decree shall, on and after such  vb#date, be subject to the restrictions and obligations imposed by the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by this Act and shall not be subject to the restrictions and the obligations imposed by such Consent Decree").F Once those terms cease to be effective, BellSouth will be free to  vretain any profits it earns from those services unless the relevant State commission requires to"$,))rr"  vthe contrary. We cannot forbear based on BellSouth's compliance with a condition that may cease to be effective.  Y* Z H73.` ` In these circumstances, we must assess the consequences if BellSouth were  vpermitted to provide its operatorassisted reverse directory services on an integrated basis and  vno longer were required to use the revenue from those services to support regulated  Yv* voperations.v, xP* @!ԍWe express no opinion on whether any State commission has authority under State law to require BellSouth to use reverse directory revenue to support telecommunications services. As an initial matter, BellSouth states, and opponents of its petition do not dispute,  vthat the costs of providing its reverse directory services through a separate affiliate would be  YH* vmuch higher than the costs of providing those services on an integrated basis.VH7, xP0 *ԍBellSouth Supplemental Showing at 14.V Consequently,  vBellSouth's charges for these services would almost certainly be higher. We find that BellSouth  vhas made a convincing showing that it achieves significant economies in using the same facilities  vand personnel to offer reverse directory services as it uses for its standard directory assistance  Y * vfoperation.M , zPd*ԍE.g., id. at 10.M If we were to preclude BellSouth from providing operatorassisted reverse  v&directory services on an integrated basis, BellSouth either would have to cease providing those  vservices or provide them through a separate affiliate. The first result would be contrary to the  v1996 Act's policy of encouraging competition in all markets. The second would significantly  vincrease BellSouth's costs of providing operatorassisted reverse directory services and, if the  vtState commissions were to allow BellSouth to recover the increased costs, the consequent charges to consumers.  Y4* Z I74.` ` As stated above, the MFJ Court condition will cease to be effective in any state  vfor which BellSouth receives section 271(d)(3) authorization. We recognize, of course, that this  vcondition may have constrained BellSouth's charges for operatorassisted reverse directory  vservices and that the elimination of that condition may induce BellSouth to increase those charges  v.to the extent the relevant State commissions permit. Our forbearance decision regarding  vToperatorassisted reverse directory services, however, will affect neither the efficacy of that  vcondition nor the State commissions' ability to regulate the prices for those services in the event  v&the Commission authorizes BellSouth to originate inregion interLATA services. We therefore  vconclude that the MFJ Court condition does not require that section 272 continue to apply to BellSouth's operatorassisted reverse directory services.  Y7* Z :J75.` ` In addition, BellSouth has provided operatorassisted reverse directory services  v&since 1989, using the same personnel and facilities that it uses to provide its standard directory  Y * vassistance services.C Y, zP%*ԍId. at 3.C Even though BellSouth's operatorassisted reverse directory services thus  vTare wellestablished, BellSouth's standard directory assistance operations dwarf its operator vassisted reverse directory operations. Of the roughly 3,200,000 calls to directory assistance that"%,))rrH"  Y* vBellSouth receives each day, only thousands seek reverse directory information.A, zPy*ԍId. at 10.A These  vrelative call volumes make clear that BellSouth's charges for services other than reverse  vdirectory services likely would not change significantly even if BellSouth were to cease using  vtrevenues from those services to support regulated operations, as the MFJ Court condition presently requires.  Yv* Z K76.` ` With respect to its electronic reverse directory services, BellSouth argues that  valthough the Commission has treated the service as "enhanced" and thus not subject to regulation  vand tariffing, competition is sufficient to ensure that its charges are just and reasonable, and non Y1* vdiscriminatory.^1Z, zP< * :ԍId. at 89, 13. As discussed below, BellSouth also offers this same competition as a reason its reverse  zP * v~#directory services satisfy the third forbearance criterion consistency with the public interest. See section IV.D.3,  zP *infra; BellSouth Supplemental Showing at 89. Ę BellSouth states that these services face competition from interexchange  vPcarriers, Internet service providers, information service providers, alternate directory assistance  v^providers (such as cellular service and payphone providers), and paper directories, among other  Y * vlsources.F , zP*ԍId. at 89, 13.F BellSouth also states that it facilitates this competition by making its own directory  vlisting information available under tariff and by allowing competing LECs to resell its operator Y * v0assisted directory assistance services.@ , zP*ԍId. at 9.@ BellSouth, however, provides no information or analysis  vthat might support a conclusion that its "home NPA" electronic reverse directory service will  vface meaningful competition from other providers of reverse directory services if BellSouth does  vnot provide unaffiliated entities with access to all listing information that BellSouth uses to  Yb* vprovide its "home NPA" service.b, xP* HԍFor instance, in contrast to the situation with regard to BellSouth's operatorassisted reverse directory  v#services, BellSouth's submissions fail to disclose the number of queries its "home NPA" operation expects to receive  v"for standard directory assistance and reverse directory service each day. As a consequence, we cannot conclude,  v as we did for the operatorassisted reverse directory services, that relative call volumes make clear that our  v forbearance decision regarding BellSouth's operatorassisted reverse directory services is unlikely to affect BellSouth's charges for services other than reverse directory services.  Indeed, the database BellSouth uses to provide its "home  v*NPA" electronic reverse directory service contains listing information for LECs throughout  vBellSouth's region, information that BellSouth uses to provide its "home NPA" electronic  vBreverse directory service, but refuses to provide unaffiliated entities that wish to maintain their  Y* vPown directory services databases.Y, xP#*ԍBellSouth Supplemental Showing at 7, 13.Y In view of this refusal, we cannot assume that alternative  vproviders of reverse directory services are able to compete effectively against BellSouth's "home NPA" electronic reverse directory service. "&,))rr"Ԍ Y* Z L77.` ` As discussed more fully below,Y, zPy*ԍSee section IV.D.1.b, infra.Y we conclude that we may forbear from the  vpapplication of section 272 to BellSouth's reverse directory services only if we condition that  vaction on BellSouth's providing any other entity with all listing information that it uses to  v4provide its reverse directory services at the same rates, terms, and conditions, if any, BellSouth  v charges or imposes on its reverse directory operations. Since this condition will require  v4BellSouth to make available to others listings for which it offers reverse directory services, we  vconclude that competition with BellSouth's reverse directory services will be sufficient to ensure  vthat forbearance in this instance will not result in BellSouth's charges being unjust, unreasonable,  YH*or unjustly or unreasonably nondiscriminatory.VHZ, xPS *ԍBellSouth Supplemental Showing at 13.V  X * ` `  b.` Just, Reasonable, and Nondiscriminatory Practices,  X *Classifications, and Regulations (#  Y * Z M78.` ` AT&T's and MCI's fundamental objection to our forbearing from the application  vof section 272 to BellSouth's reverse directory services is based on BellSouth's refusal to provide  vto unaffiliated entities listings for subscribers of other LECs that BellSouth uses to provide its  v&own reverse directory services. AT&T objects to forbearance from the nondiscrimination and  Yy* v4accounting requirements of sections 272(c) and (e).Ny, xP*ԍAT&T July 22 Comments at 89.N MCI maintains that BellSouth's practice  vof not providing information about subscribers of other LECs when it uses such information for  vlits own reverse directory services is unlawfully discriminatory and that we must apply the non vdiscrimination provisions of sections 272(c) and (e) to BellSouth's reverse directory operation  Y*to prevent continuation of the practice.Mz, xPH*ԍMCI July 22 Comments at 47.M  Y* Z dN79.` ` We agree that if BellSouth were providing reverse directory services through a  v4separate affiliate, BellSouth's practice of denying access to certain subscriber listings would be  Y* vTinconsistent with section 272(c)(1) of the Communications Act. That section specifies that a  vJBOC "may not discriminate between its [section 272] affiliate and any other entity in the  Y* vPprovision of... information."J , xPN!*ԍ47 U.S.C.  272(c)(1).J This provision makes clear that BellSouth could not provide  v^its section 272 affiliate with listing information obtained from other LECs without also making  Ye* v~that information available to third parties. As the Commission stated in the NonéAccounting  YP* vSafeguards Order, section 272(c)(1) "establishes an unqualified prohibition against discrimination"P',))rr"  Y* vby a BOC in its dealings with its section 272 affiliate and other entities."v, zPy*ԍNonAccounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21998,  197.v This prohibition  Y*extends to any information that a BOC provides to its section 272 affiliate.QZ, zP*ԍId. at 2200304,  210.Q  Y* Z O80.` ` BellSouth also uses directory listings for its own customers to provide its reverse  vdirectory services. If BellSouth were providing reverse directory services through a separate  vaffiliate, it would have to provide all the listing information that it uses to provide those services  Yv* v&to unaffiliated entities at the same rates, terms, and conditions, if any, it charges or imposes on  Y_* vits own reverse directory operations.]_, zP *ԍId. at 2200001,  202.] While BellSouth states that it provides directory listings  vfor its own customers to competitive providers of reverse directory services, it makes no claim  vthat it provides that information at the same rates, terms, and conditions that it charges or imposes on itself.  Y * Z P81.` ` Under section 272(c)(1), a practice of not providing unaffiliated entities with all  vof the subscriber listings that a BellSouth affiliate uses to provide reverse directory services at  vthe same rates, terms, and conditions that it charges or imposes on itself would be deemed  vdiscriminatory, if BellSouth provided the affiliate with those listings. We must consider,  vhowever, whether this practice would be unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory within the  vmeaning of section 10(a)(1). BellSouth argues that competitive providers of reverse directory  vservices can obtain listing information regarding other LECs' customers directly from those  YK* vcarriers and that the other carriers have an obligation to provide such information.VK~, xPz*ԍBellSouth Supplemental Showing at 13.V BellSouth  valso argues, in effect, that complaint procedures and nondiscrimination safeguards elsewhere  vzin the Communications Act make it unnecessary for the Commission to rely on section 272(c)(1)  vto guarantee BellSouth's competitors access to listing information that BellSouth obtains from  Y* vbother LECs and uses in its reverse directory services.N, xP*ԍBellSouth Mar. 17 Reply at 7.N We agree with MCI that BellSouth  vTobtained directory listings from other LECs for use in its directory assistance services solely  vbecause of its dominant position in the provision of local exchange services throughout its  Y* vlregion.W, zP!*ԍE.g., MCI July 22 Comments at 7.W That position enables BellSouth to include listings for customers of other incumbent  vLECs and competitive LECs as well as its own customers within the databases it uses to provide  vbreverse directory services. Because BellSouth has the vast majority of access lines within its  vPregion, it is to the advantage of independent LECs and competitive LECs to have the listings of  v^their customers included in BellSouth's directory listing databases so that callers throughout the  v region using BellSouth lines can obtain the telephone numbers of nonBellSouth customers. In  vsome instances at least, the other independent LEC or competitive LEC does not charge" (0 ,))rr"  v\BellSouth for including these listings within those databases, presumably because it is  v4economically beneficial for that independent or competitive LEC to have its customers' listings  Y*maintained in the BellSouth databases.\, zPK* ԍSee, e.g., Application by BellSouth for Provision of InRegion InterLATA Services in Louisiana, CC  zP* v"Docket No. 97231, Appendix B, Tab 76, Interconnection Agreement between BellSouth and AT&T at 22; id. at Appendix C, Tab 137, BellSouth Statement of Generally Available Terms at 13.  Y* Z Q82.` ` The circumstances described above indicate that BellSouth has competitive  vladvantages in the provision of reverse directory services within its region. Based on the record  vbefore us, we conclude that these competitive advantages stem from BellSouth's dominant  Y_* vposition in the provision of local exchange services in the BellSouth region.$_, xP *  ԍAlthough BellSouth maintains that its reverse directory services are subject to extensive competition, from  v!interexchange carriers, Internet service providers, information service providers, alternate directory assistance  v"providers, CDROM directories, and paper directories, among other sources, BellSouth has not shown that any of  vT#these alternative sources of reverse directory information offer the combination of uptodate listings for BellSouth  zP* v~#customers, other incumbent LEC customers, and competitive LEC customers that BellSouth offers. Compare AT&T  zP*July 22 Comments at 89 with BellSouth Aug. 5 Reply at 45.$ These advantages  v.will persist if BellSouth continues to deny unaffiliated entities access to all of the listing  vinformation that it uses to provide reverse directory services or if BellSouth fails to provide such  vaccess at the same rates, terms, and conditions, if any, that it charges or imposes on itself. We  vtherefore conclude that, until it provides such access at those rates, terms, and conditions,  vBellSouth's subscriber listing information practices will be unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory within the meaning of section 10(a)(1).  Y * Z ,R83. PARA 84 ` ` Because section 272(c)(1) literally applies only to BOC discrimination between  va separate affiliate and unaffiliated entities, a decision permitting BellSouth to provide its reverse  vdirectory services on an integrated basis would relieve that carrier of its obligation to provide  vunaffiliated entities all listing information that it uses to provide interLATA reverse directory  YK* vTservices. As AT&T and MCI suggest,Kh , xPd*ԍAT&T July 22 Comments at 89; MCI July 22 Comments at 9 (alternative argument). we conclude, consistent with our determination in  Y4* vsection III.D.1.b, supra, that we should forbear from application of section 272 to BellSouth's  v4interLATA reverse directory services, yet effectively impose the nondiscrimination safeguards  vcontained in section 272(c)(1)'s nondiscrimination safeguards through appropriate conditions.  v&We therefore condition our forbearance from the application of section 272's separate affiliate  vrequirement on BellSouth's making available to unaffiliated entities all directory listing  Y* v information that it uses to provide its interLATA reverse directory services. In accordance with  Y* vthe Commission's determination in the NonAccounting Safeguards Order, BellSouth must  vprovide those listings at the same rates, terms, and conditions, if any, it charges or imposes on  Y* vits own reverse directory operations. , zP)&*ԍNonAccounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2200001,  202. These conditions will enable unaffiliated entities to  vcompete effectively with BellSouth's interLATA reverse directory services. In view of these  vconditions, we find that application of section 272 to BellSouth's interLATA reverse directory"R) ,))rr"  v services is not necessary to ensure that the BOCs' practices, classifications, and regulations are  Y*just and reasonable, and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory., zPb* ԍConsistent with our decision with regard to E911 services, seeĠsection III.D.1.b, supra, we decline to impose any conditions based on section 272(e).  Y* Z (S84.` ` BellSouth contends that it is not legally obligated to provide, and absent the other  vpLECs' consent, is prohibited from providing, other carriers with access to information about  Y* vsubscribers of other LECs in its directory assistance databases.V", xP` *ԍBellSouth Supplemental Showing at 13.V Because BellSouth is not  vlegally obligated to provide reverse directory services, it can comply with any duty it has not  vzto disclose listing information obtained from other LECs by declining to use that information in  vits own interLATA reverse directory services. As a consequence, the conditions set forth above  vwill not force BellSouth to violate any nondisclosure obligation it may have regarding  vinformation about the other LECs' subscribers. In addition, while BellSouth suggests that  vCommunications Act provisions other than section 272 may give interexchange carriers the right  Y * vto obtain directory listing information, , zPO*ԍId. (citing 47 U.S.C. 251(b)(3)); BellSouth Mar. 17 Reply at 78 (citing 47 U.S.C. 202(b), 251(b)(3)). we conclude, based on the record before us, that  vPBellSouth to date has not given those carriers all the directory listing information that it uses to  vFprovide interLATA reverse directory services. In this circumstance, the conditions set forth  vzabove are necessary to ensure that our forbearance decision regarding reverse directory services does not result in unjustly and unreasonably discriminatory BellSouth practices.  Xb*` `  c.` Other Conditions (#  Y4* Z T85.` ` AT&T suggests that we should require BellSouth to comply with the accounting  vrequirements of section 272 if we permit BellSouth to provide reverse directory services on an  Y* vintegrated basis.ND, xP*ԍAT&T July 22 Comments at 89.N Although we agree that accounting safeguards are essential to ensuring that  vTBellSouth's reverse directory operations do not result in unjust, unreasonable, or unjustly or  vunreasonably discriminatory charges, practices, classifications, or regulations, the accounting  vrequirements in section 272 assume that a section 272 affiliate will provide any interLATA  Y* v4information service, other than electronic publishing and alarm monitoring.W, zP/!*ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 272(a)(2)(C).W We, therefore,  vadapt those requirements to reflect our decision to permit BellSouth to provide interLATA  vreverse directory services on an integrated basis. Because the Commission's rules already  v~require BellSouth to account for its reverse directory services on the books of account that it  YN* vmaintains in accordance with Part 32 of the Commission's rules,CNf , xPe&*ԍ47 C.F.R. Part 32.C we decline to impose  vadditional requirements as to where BellSouth should record its reverse directory costs and"7* ,))rr"  vrevenues. BellSouth, however, must treat its reverse directory services as nonregulated activities  Y*for federal accounting purposes.P, zPb*ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  32.23.P  Y* Z HU86.` ` To the extent it charges unaffiliated entities for directory listings that it uses to  vprovide reverse directory services, BellSouth must impute the same charge to itself in order to  vcomply with the condition that it charge itself and others the same rates for such directory  vlistings. BellSouth shall record any charges it imputes for its "home NPA" and operatorassisted  vpreverse directory services in its revenue accounts. BellSouth shall account for these imputed  vcharges by debiting its nonregulated operating revenue account and crediting a regulated revenue  Y1* vaccount by the amount of the imputed charges.|1Z, zP< *ԍSee Accounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 17576,  86. | On or before May 4, 1998, BellSouth shall  Y * vmake any changes to its cost allocation manual necessary to reflect this accounting.Q , zP*ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  64.903.Q  vfBellSouth's independent auditor shall include this accounting in its review of BellSouth's  Y *compliance with its cost allocation manual.Q ~, zP*ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  64.904.Q  X * ` ` 2. Section 10(a)(2)  Y* Z V87.` ` Under section 10(a)(2), we must evaluate whether the application of section 272 is necessary for the protection of consumers.   YK* Z \W88.` ` The 1996 Act's fundamental objective is to bring consumers of  Y4* vtelecommunications services in all markets the full benefits of competition.z4, zP*ԍNonAccounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21911,  7.z Section 272  vfattempts to further that objective by imposing on the BOCs requirements designed, in the  vPabsence of full local exchange competition, to prohibit anticompetitive discrimination and cost Y* v4shifting.C, zPB*ԍId.,  9.C The question before us is whether application of the section 272 safeguards to the  vspecific interLATA reverse directory services that BellSouth offers is necessary for the protection of consumers. Based on the present record, we conclude that it is not.  Y* Z X89.` ` BellSouth has offered its operatorassisted reverse directory services since 1989.  vIn granting BellSouth a waiver to provide those services, the MFJ Court required that the  vBellSouth operating companies "will use the revenues generated by [that] service solely to  vsupport their regulated operations and will not divert those revenues to support other business  Y7* vventures."T74 , xP(*ԍBellSouth Petition at Attachment 1.T In accordance with this condition, BellSouth has included the operatorassisted"7+ ,))rr "  Y* vlreverse directory services in its tariffs for directory assistance services.U, xPy*ԍBellSouth Supplemental Showing at 6.U BellSouth states that  vthe tariffing process protects consumers by ensuring that rates and terms are just and reasonable. BellSouth argues  xkthat application of the requirements of section 272 to its operatorassisted reverse directory  X-services would provide consumers no greater protection than that described above.@  {O-ԍxId. at 8.@  X- ` xY90.` ` We again recognize that if BellSouth receives authorization, pursuant to section  xz271(d)(3), to originate inregion, interLATA services, its ability to provide operatorassisted  x=reverse directory services will no longer be subject to the terms of the MFJ Court's waiver and  x=that we cannot forbear based on BellSouth's compliance with a condition that may cease to be  X- xeffective.V {O"-ԍxSeeĠpart IV.D.1.a, supra.V Despite this concern, our assessment of the potential consequences of regulatory  x-forbearance persuades us that application of section 272 to BellSouth's operatorassisted reverse  xdirectory services is not necessary for the protection of consumers. As our discussion of the first  xforbearance criterion makes clear, precluding BellSouth from providing operatorassisted reverse  xdirectory services on an integrated basis would result in either BellSouth's ceasing to provide"7+0 ,))qqM"  xthose services or, if BellSouth were to provide those services through a separate affiliate, higher  X-charges to consumers.D {Ob-ԍxSeeĠid.D Neither result would benefit consumers.  X- ` xZ91.` ` We also find that application of section 272 to BellSouth's "home NPA" electronic  xreverse directory services is not necessary for the protection of consumers. In our discussion of  xthe first forbearance criterion, we determine that BellSouth must make available to unaffiliated  Xv- x entities all directory listing information that it uses to provide interLATA reverse directory  x>services. We also determine that this condition should promote the development of a fully  xcompetitive market for those services. BellSouth's "home NPA" electronic reverse directory  xservice is a mechanization of operatorassisted reverse directory services that BellSouth has  x/offered since 1989 on an integrated basis. We find that, given the safeguards on which we  xLcondition our approval and the likely future availability of competitive alternatives, consumers  xwill benefit from allowing BellSouth to offer its previously authorized, operatorassisted reverse  x[directory services on an electronic basis, without moving the mechanized service to a separate affiliate.  X- ` x[92.` ` In concluding that application of section 272 to BellSouth's reverse directory  xservices is not necessary for the protection of consumers, we reject BellSouth's position that  Xb- xsection 272 has little direct bearing on consumer protection as a general matter.UbZ yOm-ԍxBellSouth Supplemental Showing at 8.U Although, as  xBellSouth points out, the specific safeguards in section 272 address a BOC's relationship with  xits separate affiliate, Congress designed those safeguards to prohibit anticompetitive  X-discrimination and costshifting while giving consumers the benefit of competition.x {O-ԍxSee NonAccounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21911,  9.x  X- ` x\93.` ` We also reject BellSouth's argument that compliance with the Commission's cost  xallocation, cost allocation manual, and independent audit requirements provides sufficient  x-consumer protection and that we should, therefore, find this forbearance criterion satisfied solely  X- xon that basis.V| yO-ԍxBellSouth Supplemental Showing at 14.V Congress was aware of these requirements when it required the BOCs to provide  X- x[interLATA information services only through separate affiliates.  yOP!-  ԍxSince the enactment of the 1996 Act, we have strengthened these requirements in response to specific  {O"-statutory directives. See Accounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 17588617,  11166. A finding that compliance  xmwith the Commission's cost allocation, cost allocation manual, and independent audit  x=requirements, and with parallel state requirements, is sufficient to protect consumers would be  xkinconsistent with the Congressional judgment that led to that separate affiliate requirement.  xInstead, we must analyze, as we have above, the conditions under which the carrier would  x[provide the specific services for which forbearance is sought to determine whether application of section 272 to those services is necessary for the protection of consumers." ,f ,))qq"Ԍ X-ԙ x` ` 3. Sections 10(a)(3) and 10(b)  X- ` x]94.` ` Section 10(a)(3) sets forth the third criterion for forbearance. We must evaluate  xwhether forbearance would be consistent with the public interest. This evaluation must include consideration of whether forbearance would promote competitive market conditions.  Xv- ` px^95.` ` We conclude that forbearance would be consistent with the public interest.  xConsumers benefit from BellSouth's providing operatorassisted reverse directory and electronic  xreverse directory services on an integrated basis. They benefit by being able to call a single  xnumber to obtain directory assistance and reverse directory services. As discussed above, if  xBellSouth were to offer reverse directory services through a separate affiliate, BellSouth's costs  xof providing those services would increase significantly. These costs would presumably be passed through to consumers in the form of increased charges.  X - ` Qx_96.` ` With respect to competition, we conclude that the market for reverse directory  xjservices likely will become increasingly competitive in BellSouth's region, given the conditions  X- xset forth in paragraph PARA 8483, supra. The record in this proceeding indicates that directory services  xare available through interexchange carriers, Internet services, CDROMs, alternate directory  Xd- xassistance providers (e.g., cellular providers, payphone service providers), white pages and yellow  XO- xpages, and electronic versions of white pages and yellow pages.UO yO-ԍxBellSouth Supplemental Showing at 9.U Reverse directory services,  xKin particular, are available through at least Internet services and CDROMs. As discussed above,  X!- xythese alternative providers will be able to obtain from BellSouth all directory listing information  xthat BellSouth uses to provide interLATA reverse directory services. Provision of these listings  xshould ensure that efficient alternative providers of reverse directory services will be able to compete against BellSouth.  X- ` #x`97.` ` We further conclude that forbearance would promote competition. As BellSouth  xexplains, application of section 272 would require it, and only it, to offer reverse directory  x0services only through a separate affiliate, and thus prohibit it, and only it, from realizing  xeconomies of scale from offering those services and its electronic directory assistance services  XR- xon an integrated basis.CRX {O[-ԍxId. at 910.C Opponents of forbearance are correct that section 272 is designed to  x/deprive BOCs and their affiliates of advantages derived from the BOCs' local exchange and  X$- xexchange access monopolies.K $ yO"-ԍxMCI July 22 Comments at 7.K When, as the conditions set forth in paragraph PARA 8483 should ensure  xNwith regard to reverse directory services, consumers can select from among a number of  xicompetitive alternatives, however, the BOC derives no undue advantages from those monopolies.  xConversely, allowing BellSouth to provide reverse directory services on an integrated basis would  xallow it to compete in a more efficient manner in the market for those services. Although, as" -z ,))qq+ "  X- xSprint suggests,F  yOy-ԍxSprint Comments at 5.F integration of BellSouth's reverse directory services and basic exchange service  xoperations may allow BellSouth to dissuade some consumers from using competitors' directory  xxassistance or reverse directory services, BellSouth's competitors also will be able to integrate their  X- xreverse directory services with other offerings. Because the conditions set forth in paragraph PARA 8483  x=should enable consumers to choose from among a number of competitive providers of reverse  xdirectory services, we conclude that forbearance from the application of section 272 to  xBellSouth's reverse directory services would be consistent with the public interest. Because we  X_- xalso conclude that the first and second criteria for forbearance are met,^ _X {Oh -ԍxSee parts IV.D.1 & IV.D.2, supra.^ section 10 mandates that  XH-we forbear from such application. We so forbear. H yO -ԍxOur forbearance decision does not relieve BellSouth of any requirement outside of section 272.  X - V. CONCLUSION אTP  X - ` xa98.` ` In this Order, we apply the forbearance criteria in section 10 of the  xCommunications Act to the BOCs' E911 services, BellSouth's operatorassisted reverse directory  xservices, and BellSouth's "home NPA" reverse directory service. Our conclusion that the  xZapplication of section 272 to those services would be inconsistent with those forbearance criteria,  xgiven the conditions we impose, reflects the unusual circumstances produced by the MFJ Court  xwaivers. Unlike virtually all of the interLATA information services that a BOC might wish to  xoffer directly, the BOCs' E911 services and BellSouth's operatorassisted reverse directory  x<services were the subject of such waivers. In accordance with those waivers, the BOCs provided  xtheir E911 services and BellSouth provided operatorassisted reverse directory services on an  X- xintegrated basis prior to the enactment of the 1996 Act.j z yO1-  ԍxBellSouth's "home NPA" reverse directory service mechanizes the operatorassisted services that the MFJ  xCourt authorized BellSouth to provide. Although BellSouth did not provide this "home NPA" service prior to the  x,enactment of the 1996 Act, our decision authorizing BellSouth to continue to provide that service on an integrated  xbasis reflects the benefits to consumers of online access to information that a carrier has made available through operators in accordance with a MFJ Court waiver. j For the reasons stated above, we  xconclude that it is in the public interest to allow the BOCs to continue to provide E911 service  xon an integrated basis, and to allow BellSouth to continue to provide reverse directory services  xon an integrated basis. Having concluded that the statutory criteria for forbearance are satisfied,  xsection 10 requires us to forbear from the application of section 272 to the BOC's E911 services, and BellSouth's reverse directory services. "e.* ,))qq1"Ԍ X- VI. ORDERING CLAUSES אTP  X- ` n xb99.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 10 of the Communications Act  xof 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  160, that the following petitions for forbearance are  xGRANTED, subject to the conditions regarding E911 services stated in Part III.D.1 and the conditions regarding reverse directory services stated in Part IV.D.1 of this Order:  X_-  px` ` a. Ameritech Corp., Amended and Restated Petition for Forbearance, dated  pMay 13, 1997, as supplemented by its showing, dated June 30, 1997, to the extent that petition concerns E911 services;(#  X - pex` ` b. Bell Atlantic, Petition for Forbearance, dated March 6, 1997, as supplemented by its showing, dated June 30, 1997 (involving E911); (#  X -  pbXxX` ` c.X BellSouth Corporation, Petition for Forbearance, dated February 7, 1997,  pas supplemented by its showing, dated June 30, 1997 (involving E911 and reverse directory services);(#  Xb-  pXxX` ` d.X NYNEX Telephone Companies, Petition for Forbearance, dated May 6,  p1997, as supplemented by its showing, dated June 30, 1997 (involving E911); (#  X- pcXxX` ` e.X Pacific Telesis Group, Petition for Forbearance, dated March 19, 1997 (involving E911);(#  X-  pSXxX` ` f.X Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Petition for Forbearance, dated  pTMarch 17, 1997, as supplemented by its showing, dated July 10, 1997 (involving E911); and(#  Xe- p%XxX` ` g.X U S West Communications, Inc., Petition for Forbearance, dated March 14,  p1997, as supplemented by its showing, dated June 30, 1997 (involving E911).(#  X - ` xc100.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 10 of the  x>Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) & 160, that each of the BOCs shall comply with the conditions stated in Part III.D.1 of this Order. " / ,))qq"Ԍ X- `  xd101.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 10 of the  x{Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) & 160, that BellSouth shall comply with the conditions stated in Part IV.D.1 of this Order. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@A. Richard Metzger, Jr. x` `  hh@Chief x` `  hh@Common Carrier Bureau  " 0 ,))qq "  X-) APPENDIX A ĐTP  X- FEBRUARY 14, 1997 PUBLIC NOTICE  X-XxPetition(# XxBellSouth Corporation (BellSouth) filed Feb. 7, 1997(#  X_-XxComments(# XxAmeritech Corp. (Ameritech) filed March 6, 1997(# XxAT&T Corp. (AT&T) filed March 6, 1997(# XxBell Atlantic filed March 6, 1997(# XxMCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) filed March 6, 1997(# XxSprint Communications Co., L.P. (Sprint) filed March 6, 1997(#  X -XxReply Comments(# XxAT&T filed March 17, 1997(# XxBell Atlantic filed March 17, 1997(# XxBellSouth filed March 17, 1997(# XxMCI filed March 17, 1997(# XxSouthwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) filed March 17, 1997(# XxU S West Communications, Inc. (U S West) filed March 17, 1997(#  X- MARCH 25, 1997 PUBLIC NOTICE  X-  X-XxPetitions(# XxBell Atlantic filed March 6, 1997(# XxPacific Telesis Group (PacTel) filed March 19, 1997(# XxSWBT filed March 17, 1997(# XxU S West filed March 14, 1997(#  XN-XxComments (# XxAT&T filed April 21, 1997(# XxMCI filed April 21, 1997(#  X-XxReply Comments(# XxBell Atlantic filed May 6, 1997(# XxNYNEX Telephone Companies (NYNEX) filed May 6, 1997(# XxSBC Communications, Inc. (SWBT) filed May 6, 1997(# XxU S West filed May 6, 1997(#  X#-  Xh$- Xx MAY 14, 1997 PUBLIC NOTICE (#  XQ%-  X:&-XxPetitions(# XxAmeritech filed May 13, 1997(# XxNYNEX filed May 6, 1997(#" (1 ,))qq&"Ԍ X-ԙXxComments(# XxAT&T filed June 4, 1997(# XxMCI filed June 4, 1997(# XxSWBT filed June 4, 1997(#  X-XxReply Comments(# XxAmeritech filed June 16, 1997(# XxNYNEX filed June 16, 1997(#  X1- JULY 3, 1997 PUBLIC NOTICE Đ X -  X -XxSupplemental Showings(# XxAmeritech filed June 30, 1997(# XxBell Atlantic filed June 30, 1997(# XxBellSouth filed June 30, 1997(# XxNYNEX filed June 30, 1997(# XxU S West filed June 30, 1997(#  Xb-XxComments(# XxAT&T filed July 22, 1997(# XxMCI filed July 22, 1997(#  X-XxReply Comments(# XxBell Atlantic and NYNEX filed Aug. 5, 1997(# XxBellSouth filed Aug. 5, 1997(# XxU S West filed Aug. 5, 1997(#  X- JULY 10, 1997 PUBLIC NOTICE  X|-  Xe-XxSupplemental Showing(# XxSWBT, Pacific Bell, and Nevada Bell (collectively, SWBT) filed July 10, 1997(#  X -XxComments(# XxAT&T filed July 28, 1997(# XxMCI filed July 28, 1997(# XxTexas Advisory Commission on State Emergency Communications filed July 28, 1997(#  X"-XxReply Comments(# XxSWBT filed Aug. 11, 1997(# XxTexas Advisory Commission on State Emergency Communications filed Aug. 17, 1997