WPC 2BVT 3|P )7PC2X DXP\  P6QXPTimes New Roman (TT)pt_230_1HPLAS4.WRSSx  @,, PX@2F@ ZP3X3|j HP LaserJet 4/4MtScript_230_1HPLAS4.WRSSXj\  P6G;,, PXP7nC:,Xn4  pG;XW!@(#,9h@\  P6G;hPW!B(#,|qhB4  pG;h<r5ddd,%sd6X@`7@s4ddd,-Ρd `7\5hC:,:Xh*f9 xr G;XXTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)r BoldTimes New Roman Italic7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.7UC2XxXU4  pQXW!0(X h0\  P6QhP.W!3(Xh34  pQhd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd2h ZxK K HP LaserJet 4M 844A_1 LPT2HPLA4MPC.PRSXj\  P6G;\EXP"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd)>F)))))))))<)C"VV5VYO5O5O5O5^<^<^<^>^<^C^F.".C.).CaC>>^CO"O6O)O0O"VCVVCVC^<^O=O)OFVCVCVCVCVCVCxVV>O5O5O5VCO)VCC.O)V<X<<( (WTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN+HH+@<)<<<<d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd2b@S@@""5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCdddddd((((01(<CW]]](<&4and MCI result in increases to the U.S. settlements deficit. See IDB Comments at 10;  X''4see also Response of IDB Communications Group Inc. (IDB Response) at 46. (#ƛ We do not find it persuasive. "60*(("Ԍ X4ԙ15.` ` As many commenters point out, end user private line traffic that is being terminated in the U.S. PSN at a carrier's central office is not necessarily traffic that otherwise would be subject to the settlements process. Some end users that would be precluded from  X4interconnecting their private lines at the U.S. carrier's central office may move their traffic to private lines interconnected on their own premises, or may simply reduce their U.S. inbound  X4calls rather than pay high foreign collection rates.Z X4#Xj\  P6G; XP#э XSee supra,  13. (#Ɔ In its reply to these comments, AT&T suggests that the Commission should assess end user interconnections at the PBX and, if necessary, take steps to minimize any artificial incentives to bypass existing IMTS networks. We decline to revisit our policy of permitting end users to interconnect their private lines to the PSN through a PBX. Prohibiting such interconnection is likely to harm U.S. businesses' ability to compete globally in the same manner as prohibiting interconnection at the carrier's central office. Further, in neither instance is there any evidence demonstrating an adverse impact on U.S. consumer prices as a result of our policy allowing this type of interconnection.  X 416.` ` We also disagree with AT&T's argument that an equivalency requirement on end user international private lines is necessary to place downward pressure on high foreign  X4IMTS collection rates. Other measures such as call back services,oyZ X4ԍX Via USA Ltd.et al., 10 FCC Rec 9540 (1995) (#o country direct services and the introduction of private line services that compete with switched service offerings,  Xb4impose more direct pressure on the high foreign collection rates.b*Z X=4#Xj\  P6G; XP#ЍX IDB observes, for example, that foreign markets are more open to private line competition and that private line interconnection is a principal mechanism by which new entrants in foreign markets compete against the monopoly IMTS carriers, thereby  X4placing significant pressure on the foreign IMTS collection rates. See IDB Comments  X4at 2022. (#  X4417.` ` While AT&T's proposal could reduce the need to investigate instances of unauthorized resale, this administrative benefit does not outweigh the burden that would be imposed on end users if we were to prohibit interconnection of their private lines at a carrier's central office. We also agree with the other parties that allowing the interconnection of end user private lines may promote greater liberalization in the international regulation of private line interconnections, consistent with the intent of the U.S.led CCITT Recommendation D.1, Article 4.1 which encourages countries to permit the interconnection of international private lines. Thus, we conclude that the record does not justify imposing an equivalency requirement or an ISP filing and notification process on the interconnection of end user international private lines to the U.S. PSN at a carrier's central office.   X74B.Notification of Private Line Interconnection  X 41.  Modification of Section 43.51(a)(3) "  0*(("Ԍ X4ԙ 18. ` ` In our Order and Third Further Notice we said that under the International  X4Resale Order, whenever a U.S. carrier agrees with another carrier to interconnect an international private line to the U.S. PSN at its central office, (whether for a resale carrier or an end user) it must notify the Commission under Section 43.51(a)(3) of the rules. We  X4specified that the notification include a copy of the interconnection agreement.Z X4#Xj\  P6G; XP#эX Order and Third Further Notice, 7 FCC Rcd at 7930, n.23. (#Ƥ In the Order  X4and Third Further Notice we also requested comment on whether to extend this notification  Xv4requirement to interconnection agreements between a U.S. carrier and an end user.~vyZ X 4#Xj\  P6G; XP#эX Id. at 7930, n.18. (#~  XH419.` ` CITU filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Order and Third Further  X14Notice requesting that: 1) we clarify our notification requirement and allow carriers to file redacted versions of intercarrier agreements entered into on behalf of an end user; or 2) we eliminate our requirement that U.S. carriers notify us of and file carriertocarrier agreements for interconnection of end user private lines to the PSN at the carrier's central office. CITU  X 4is concerned that the notification requirement could result in the disclosure of commercially sensitive business information of end users. Parties commenting on our proposal to extend this notification requirement to agreements between a U.S. carrier and an end user expressed similar concern that such a requirement could result in the disclosure of commercially sensitive information such as customer identity, routing information, network configurations, the location and nature of the interconnection, customer specific tariff information and  XK4network equipment.K*Z X&4#Xj\  P6G; XP#Ѝ XSee, generally, Comments of CITU, First National, IDB, MotorColumbus, and Sprint.  X4See also, CITU Petition for Reconsideration. (#  X420.` ` In an ex parte filing, WorldCom recommends that we permit carriers to submit aggregate data on international private lines which are interconnected to the U.S. PSN at the carrier's central office, or that we at least keep the country of origin confidential. WorldCom fears that public disclosure of the country of origin of the private lines might encourage  X4foreign regulatory authorities or carriers to restrict such practices.NZ X64ЍX See Ex Parte Letter from Robert J. Aamoth, Counsel for WorldCom Inc., and Robert S. Koppel, VicePresident Legal and Regulatory Affairs, WorldCom Inc., to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, August 1, 1995, at 4. (#N It also is concerned that  X4competing carriers might be able to identify specific customers from such data.E0 Z X$4ԍ XId.(#E WorldCom also argues that international private lines to Canada, the United Kingdom, and any other countries which the Commission finds satisfy its equivalency standard should be exempted from any such notification requirement. WorldCom contends that an equivalency finding"e 0*(("  X4obviates the need for such data.N Z Xy4ԍX Id. at 3. (#N Finally, it recommends that we clarify which carrier is responsible for reporting this type of interconnection by specifying that any U.S. carrier that interconnects an international private line to the U.S. PSN at its switch is to notify the  X4Commission of such interconnection.^!yZ X4ЍX  Id. (#^ WorldCom argues that only the switchbased carrier operating the entry switch into the United States will know whether the international private  X4line is interconnected to the U.S. PSN at its central office.>"*Z Xh 4ԍ Id. >  X_421.` ` Section 43.51 now requires that carriers notify us of all intercarrier private line interconnection agreements, whether entered into on behalf of an end user or a reseller. We hereby amend Section 43.51 to also require that carriers notify us of all such interconnection agreements entered into directly between a U.S. carrier and an end user. Based on the record before us, we see no reason to distinguish between intercarrier interconnection agreements entered into on behalf of end users, and interconnection agreements entered into directly by the end users themselves. We are mindful, however, of commenters' concerns over the potential disclosure of commercially sensitive information. Therefore, we also modify 47  X 4C.F.R  43.51 to require only certain limited information. Specifically, we will require carriers interconnecting an international private line to the U.S. PSN to report on the country  Xy4of origin and the number and type (e.g., 64kbps circuit) of private lines interconnected for each customer (whether a reseller or end user). The identity of the customer need not be reported. In recognition of commenters' concerns over the disclosure of the country of origin,  X44we will treat the country of origin information as confidential.E#4Z X4ԍX Id.(#E Further, we only require that this information be reported on an annual basis. We clarify that the carrier that we require to report the interconnection is the carrier that is itself making the physical interconnection at its switch, including any switch in which the carrier obtains capacity, whether by lease or otherwise.  X422.` ` We believe that this data will assist us in reviewing the impact, if any, that end user private line interconnections have on our international settlements policies, and will also enhance the ability of the Commission and interested parties to monitor for unauthorized resale, thus preserving the integrity of our international resale policy. We further conclude that, by requiring interconnecting carriers to file only this limited information, and by keeping the country of origin confidential, we address the commenting parties' concern that we not require the disclosure of commercially sensitive or proprietary information. We believe that this policy strikes the proper balance between our need for such data and the need to protect against the unnecessary disclosure of such data. Finally, we agree with WorldCom that, because the equivalency of such markets obviates the need for such data, interconnections of" #0*((" international private lines to Canada, the United Kingdom, and any other countries which we find to satisfy our equivalency standard need not be reported. We exempt private lines to these points from this requirement.  X423. ` ` By making these changes to Section 43.51 we grant in part CITU's Petition for  X4Reconsideration. Rather than require that carriers file copies of their intercarrier agreements for private line interconnection, we require only that carriers file certain limited information. This change responds to CITU's concern that we permit carriers to file redacted versions of interconnection agreements. It is also less burdensome than requiring that the actual interconnection agreement be filed. While CITU's Petition appeared concerned primarily with disclosure of proprietary information of end users, as opposed to resellers, we find no reason on reconsideration to require copies of any agreements for private line interconnection to be  X 4filed.@$ Z Xe 4#Xj\  P6G; XP#Ѝ XWhile the U.S. carrier shall not disclose in its Section 43.51(a)(3) notification the identity of the end user and is not required to include other information contained in any such arrangement, the Commission retains the authority to request the disclosure of any such information contained in either end user or intercarrier interconnection  X 4arrangements, if the Commission determines it necessary. #d6X@`7s@#(#@  X 4  X 4^ Conclusion ă  Xy424.` ` In this Third Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration we determine that the record before us does not justify the imposition of an equivalency requirement to interconnections of end user private lines at U.S. carriers' central offices, nor does it justify subjecting these type of interconnections to an ISP filing and notification requirement.  X4Second, we amend 47 C.F.R.  43.51 to require that any carrier that interconnects an  X4international private line to the U.S. PSN to report on an annual basis all of their  X4arrangements for the interconnection of such private lines. However, we require these carriers to fulfill their Section 43.51 notification requirements by filing only information on the country of origin, and number and type of private lines interconnected for each customer during the reporting period.  Xe4`  Procedural Matters; Ordering Clauses ă  X 425.` ` The analysis pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. S 608 (1995), is contained in Appendix B.  X426.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to authority contained in Sections 1, 4, 201205, 211, 214, 218220, and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended," $0*((U" 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154, 201205, 211, 214, 218220, and 303, Part 43 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 43 IS AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A.  X427.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the policies, rules, and requirements set forth herein ARE ADOPTED.  Xv428.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CITU's Petition for Clarification and in the Alternative for Partial Reconsideration IS GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth herein.  X 429.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the policies, rules, and requirements adopted herein, except those needing OMB approval, WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE thirty days after publication in the Federal Register  X 430.` ` Matters subject to OMB approval, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 10413, WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE upon such approval. ` `  hhCFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` ` hhCWilliam F. Caton ` ` hhCActing Secretary  " $0*(("  X4U APPENDIX A ă Part 43 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:  X' Part 43 Reports of Communication Common Carriers and Certain Affiliates 1. The authority citation for Part 43 continues to read as follows: XAuthority: Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply secs. 211, 219, 220, 48 Stat. 1073, 1077, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 211, 219, 220.(# X2. In 43.51, paragraph (a) (3) is removed, paragraph (4) is redesignated as paragraph (3), paragraph (d) is redesignated as paragraph (e), and new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:(#  Xb'  43.51 Contracts and concessions.  * * * * *\ X(d) any U.S. carrier that interconnects an international private line to the U.S. Public Switched Network, at its switch, including any switch in which the carrier obtains capacity either through lease or otherwise, shall file annually with the Chief of the International Bureau a certified statement containing the number and type (e.g., 64kbps circuits) of private lines interconnected in such a manner. The certified statement shall specify the number and type of interconnected private lines on a country specific basis. The identity of the customer need not be reported, and the Commission will treat the country of origin information as confidential. Carriers need not file their contracts for such interconnections, unless they are specifically requested to do so. These reports shall be filed on a consolidated basis on February 1 (covering international private lines interconnected during the preceding January 1 to December 31 period) of each year. International private lines to countries which we find to satisfy our equivalency standard at any time during a particular reporting period are exempt from this requirement.(# * * * * * "#' $0*((,%"Ԍ wYAPPENDIX B b FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS Pursuant to Section 603 of Title 5, United States Code 5 U.S.C.  603, an initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in CC Docket No. 90337. Written comments on the Notice, including the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis were requested.  X 4A.NEED AND PURPOSE OF RULES  X 4With this Order we decline to extend our equivalency requirement for international private line resale to the interconnection of end user international private lines to the public switched network (PSN) at U.S. carriers' central offices. Instead, we modify Section 43.51 of our Rules to require any carrier that interconnects an international private line to the U.S. PSN to report all such interconnections on an annual basis. We are requiring only certain limited information, however, such as the country of origin and the number and type of circuits for each customer. This reporting requirement enhances our ability to monitor and assess the impact of end user interconnections on our international settlements policies, while also being sensitive to end users' reluctance to disclose commercially sensitive, or proprietary information.  X4B.ISSUES RAISED BY THE PUBLIC IN RESPONSE TO THE INITIAL ANALYSIS In this proceeding we sought comment on whether we should extend our equivalency requirement to any interconnections a U.S. carrier makes for end users at its central office. We also asked for comment on whether a filing and notification requirement, or some alternative approach, would be the appropriate means of implementing such an equivalency requirement. Finally, we asked parties opposing the proposed equivalency requirement to comment on whether the Section 43.51 (a)(3) notification requirements should apply not only to intercarrier interconnection agreements, but also to agreements entered into between a U.S. carrier and an end user to interconnect the end user's private line at the U.S. carrier's central office. Many commenters opposed extension of the equivalency requirement arguing that such a requirement would, in effect, prohibit virtually all interconnections of end user private lines at U.S. carriers' central offices. They were further concerned that this result would harm both U.S. business' ability to compete globally and would also harm the competitiveness of small international private line carriers. Additionally, commenters also requested that we clarify our current notification requirements, protect from disclosure commercially sensitive":& $0*((B$" business information of end users, and exempt from the notification requirement interconnections of private lines to countries found to offer equivalent resale opportunities.  X4C.SIGNIFICANT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED We have attempted to balance all of the commenters' concerns with our public interest mandate under the Act. We declined to extend our equivalency requirement for the resale of international private lines to the interconnection of end user international private lines to the PSN for their private use . Based on the record, we do not believe that current interconnections of this kind are having a negative impact on settlements payments. Additionally, such a requirement could detrimentally effect U.S. businesses.  We modify Section 43.51 to require that carriers notify us of all private line interconnection agreements. Based on the record before us, we see no reason to distinguish between intercarrier interconnection agreements entered into on behalf of end users, and interconnection agreements entered into directly on behalf of end users themselves. We modify this section, however, to require notification only on an annual basis and to require only certain limited information, such as the country of origin and the number and type of private lines interconnected for each customer. Additionally, we will treat the country of origin as confidential, and exempt from the scope of Sec. 34.51 private lines to countries that we find to satisfy our equivalency standard. These modifications will reduce unnecessarily burdensome filing requirements and responds to carriers' concerns over disclosing commercially sensitive information.