WPC[ 2MBERK Z3|w  Y-#Xw PE37|XP#"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 5SiPCL)HPLAS5SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\d!:}XP2~'S2Times New RomanCG Times Њ#XP\  P6QynXP#3|oTimes New RomanCG TimesCG Times Bold PE37cXP#Times New RomanCG TimesCG Times BoldTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic8wC;,|Xw PE37XPD7zC;,EXz_ pi7Xy.X80,ɒX\  P6G;P[dCYddddd7>d<d<$YYdCCddooCYLtoc 2toc 2;` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3<` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4=` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5>` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#2U?N@vQA{QBStoc 6toc 6?` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7@ toc 8toc 8A` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9B` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#2\CUDXE%ZFvC\index 1index 1C` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2D` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoaE` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionF 2^Gl\HrW]I]J}H^_Equation Caption_Equation CaptionG endnote referenceendnote referenceH head1 #I'd#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfJ$ 2YaK^L_M`N`a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfK/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfL:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfME` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfNP  ` ` ` hhh 2:dOaP?bQbRrca6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfO[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfPf  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfQq a2AgendaR2_iSldTrdYpeKga1AgendaAgenda ItemsS7D yP ) I. a3AgendaTTimes New RomanCG TimesCG Times BoldTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicArialooof...N]%]]S]].]]%%S%]]]]8S.]SxSSS8+8a8.888888888888f.o]o]o]o]o]xSo]o]o]o]........x]]]]]x]x]x]x]oSo]x]f]oSx]o]o]o]xSxSxSxSx]o]o]o]o]]]]]]x]x]8f8f88.fS8oS]%]8]8]8]%x]x]x]]]x8x8x8oSoSoSoSf8f8f8x]x]x]x]xoSfSfSN:.Z]8f]]]]]>=]8{{]8 88]88]]SS%88"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNuJew7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP8wC;,|Xw PE37XPD7zC;,EXz_ pi7Xy.X80,ɒX\  P6G;Py.\80,'>\4  pG; 7nC:,'N X"4#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э` ` #]\  PCɒP#Chesnee Telephone Company Comments at 1; MCT Telecom Comments at 1; Pennsylvania  yO#'Telephone Association Comments at 1.#o\  PCynXP#> Several commenters contend that NECA has unique  X74 x3expertise to provide training in these areas.7T X<&4#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э` ` #]\  PCɒP#See, e.g., MCT Telecom Comments at 1; Randolph Telephone Membership Corporation at 1;  yO%''#X\  P6G;ɒP#Star Telephone Membership Corp. Comments at 1.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#р Other commenters maintain that NECA can provide"7 ,,(,([[+"  X4 x"unbiased" training Xy4` ` #X\  P6G;ɒP#Bledsoe Telephone Cooperative Comments at 1; Chesnee Telephone Company Comments at 1; Loretto Telephone Company Comments at 1. that is otherwise not readily affordable or available to independent ILECs.A X4` ` #]\  PCɒP#Loretto Telephone Company Comments at 1; Nelson Telephone Company Comments at 1.#o\  PCynXP#  xSeveral commenters also support NECA's request to provide additional INSadministered  X4 x_programs. Xu4#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э` ` #]\  PCɒP#Benton Ridge Comments at 23; Telephone Service Company Comments at 3.#o\  PCynXP# They contend that NECA can offer these services with greater operational and  X4 xcfinancial efficiencies than the individual independent ILECs.  X 4#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id.#o\  PCynXP#Ѹ In support of NECA's request to  xprovide international assistance, a number of commenters assert that there is a need among  X4 xlinternational entities for NECA's special expertise./!T X4#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э` ` #]\  PCɒP#IFC Comments at 1;#X\  P6G;ɒP# Miller Comments at 1; NTCA Comments at 13; USAID Comments at 1.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#/ USAID states that NECA has already  xprovided valuable advice in a USAIDfunded project, and that further telecommunications  X_4assistance will help foster economic growth and democracy in many countries.Q"_  X4#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э` ` #]\  PCɒP#USAID Comments at 1. "NECA has already offered valuable expert advice concerning  yO'USAIDfunded assistance efforts in Hungary in connection with settlements issues." Id.Q  X14 e 15.` ` Certain commenters give conditional support to NECA's request to engage in  x"additional activities. AT&T asserts that NECA acquired its telecommunications expertise as a  xresult of its role as administrator of the interstate access tariff and revenue distribution processes  x<that are supported by interexchange carriers ("IXCs") through revenues the ILECs derive from  X 4 xcthe provision of access services to the IXCs.# ~  X4#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э` ` #]\  PCɒP#AT&T Comments at 2.ħ AT&T argues that authorization to perform any  xadditional activities should be conditioned upon the contribution of some of the profits from the  X 4 xactivities being used to reduce interexchange access charges.:$A / X4` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id. (stating that some of the profits that NECA derives from additional Category II activities  yOp'should reduce access charges). See also MCI Opposition at 8 (stating that if NECA receives authorization to  yO8'engage in additional activities, which MCI opposes, all profits that NECA derives from additional activities  yO 'should reduce access charges).#o\  PCynXP#: GVNW conditions its support of  xpNECA's request on Commissionapproved accounting safeguards to prevent crosssubsidization  Xy4 xof new activities with pool administration revenues.%y8 Xb#4#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э` ` #]\  PCɒP#GVNW Reply at 2, 3.#o\  PCynXP# GVNW also states that the Commission  xshould prohibit NECA from providing consulting services to individual ILECs and bar NECA's  xuse of proprietary information obtained as a result of its Category I responsibilities because"K%,,(,([[7"  xRNECA will inevitably have access to this information before its competitors in the consulting  X4services market.& Xb4` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id. at 4, 5.#o\  PCynXP#њ  X4 e 16.` ` Other commenters, notably MCI and certain consultants, oppose NECA's proposal  X4 xto provide additional services.'y X4#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э` ` #]\  PCɒP#See, e.g., Itelco Comments at 2; MCI Opposition at 12; Staurulakis Comments at 12.#o\  PCynXP# These commenters contend that Commission approval of  xNECA's request would create conflicts between NECA's current role as impartial pool  Xv4 x<administrator and its proposed role as service provider for hire to individual ILECs,(v* XQ 4#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э` ` #]\  PCɒP#See, e.g., GVNW Reply at 45#X\  P6G;ɒP#; USIN Comments at 45#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#. and would  x+increase NECA's incentive to subsidize expenses of additional activities with access charge  XH4 x/revenues.)H X4` ` #X\  P6G;ɒP#MCI Opposition at 45.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#ў Opponents to NECA's request also contend that the Commission's authorization of  X14 xthese additional services would divert resources from NECA's necessary core functions*y1 Xn4#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э` ` #]\  PCɒP#See, e.g., MCI Opposition at 24 (citing Safeguards to Improve Administration of the Interstate Access Tariff and Revenue Distribution Processes and Consideration of NECA's Incentive Compensation Plan  yO'Order, Report and Order and Order to Show Cause, 10 FCC Rcd 6243 (1995)); Staurulakis Comments at 26.#o\  PCynXP# and  X 4 x3permit NECA to operate beyond its traditional areas of expertise.+  X4#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э` ` #]\  PCɒP#CHA Comments at 24; USIN Comments at 8. These commenters argue that  xa governmentcreated entity should not compete in the provision of forprofit services already  X 4 xcoffered by private companies and associations., ~  X4#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э` ` #]\  PCɒP#CHA Comments at 58; MCI Opposition at 7; USIN Comments at 611.#o\  PCynXP# Many commenters question who will bear the  X 4 x~risk of loss from these competitive offerings.- / X4` ` #]\  PCɒP#CHA Comments at 67; GVNW Reply at 2; USIN Comments at 13. CHA asserts that NECA's status as a  xZCommissioncreated administrator of the interstate access tariff and revenue distribution processes  xgives it an unfair competitive advantage by providing it with credibility, contacts, and access to  X4 xtproprietary information.. X! 4#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э` ` #]\  PCɒP#CHA Comments at 4.#o\  PCynXP# CHA argues that unless NECA structurally separates its Category I and  xRII operations, the Commission should allow the association to engage in an additional activity  xonly when it can show that the existing market fails to meet an industry need and that NECA has  XK4 x<unique qualifications to address that need./K X$4#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id. at 58.#o\  PCynXP# USIN distinguishes previously authorized activities  xfrom those presented in the current request in that the authorized activities relate more closely  xto NECA's core functions and arguably promote the public interest by facilitating the provision"B/,,(,([[%"  X4 xof necessary services in an efficient manner.t0 Xy4` ` #X\  P6G;ɒP#USIN Comments at 8.t Staurulakis argues that the Commission should  x+require NECA to show a quantitative analysis of its member companies' need for NECA to  X4provide these services before proceeding with the request.1y X4#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э` ` #]\  PCɒP#Staurulakis Comments at 8.#o\  PCynXP#  X4 e 17.` ` In its reply, NECA argues that its existing and proposed safeguards will ensure that  X4 xlit has no competitive advantage over its competitors.2* Xh 4#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э` ` #]\  PCɒP#NECA Reply at 1415.#o\  PCynXP# NECA claims that it actually faces a  x+competitive disadvantage because it must publicly file its business plan each time it requests  X_4authorization to provide a new service.3_ X 4#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id.#o\  PCynXP#Ѹ _  X1'H V. DISCUSSION \  X ' A.` ` Introduction  X 4 e i18.` ` We authorize NECA to engage in the requested activities provided that NECA  xh_meets the following criteria: first, costs must not be misallocated between Category I and  xCategory II activities; second, NECA's performance of an activity must have no anticompetitive effect; and third, NECA's performance of the activity must be consistent with the public interest.  Xb4 e 19.` ` We decline to impose an additional substantive threshold that NECA must meet  xuto perform future additional activities. In the past, we have authorized NECA to perform  X44 xadditional activities that have been outgrowths of core functions]4 4 Xq4` ` #]\  PCɒP# See, e.g., Interstate Services Order, DA 881610 at para. 7 (granting NECA's request to provide Tariff No. 4 services to nonexchange carriers because the activity complements NECA's maintenance of  yO"'the database, which is necessary for its tariff activities); Intrastate Services Order, 2 FCC Rcd. at 6853, para 2 (granting authorization to perform certain intrastate activities because of NECA's experience with similar interstate activities). ] specifically mandated by the  X4 xACommission.5]  X+!4` ` #X\  P6G;ɒP#See 47 C.F.R.  69.603.#X\  P6G;ɒP#Ѩ CHA urges that the Commission authorize additional activities only if an  X4 x<"unmet" need exists for which NECA is "uniquely qualified" to provide,{6 X#4` ` #]\  PCɒP#Staurulakis Comments at 8.{ while Staurulakis asks  X4 xthat NECA provide a "quantitative analysis" demonstrating a demand for the requested services.s7 X_&4` ` #]\  PCɒP#CHA Comments at 5.s " p7,,(,([["  xThese commenters appear to have underlying concerns about potential anticompetitive behavior,  xRparticularly about the risk of crosssubsidization. We find that NECA should be able to fully  xNcompete with other organizations in providing the requested activities as long as NECA's performance of Category I activities does not confer an unfair advantage.  X4 e 20.` ` Cost Misallocation: To minimize the risk of crosssubsidization resulting from the  Xx4 xmisallocation of costs between Category I and Category II discussed by some commenters,8x X4` ` #]\  PCɒP#See, e.g., GVNW Reply at 1; MCI Opposition at 45. we  xccondition our authorization of the additional activities as discussed in paragraphs 21 and 22. We  xyfind that the accounting requirements we now impose, in addition to those to which NECA is  xalready subject, will enable auditors to determine whether the costs of competitive Category II  xyactivities are being misallocated to Category I, which must include only the costs of activities  xfunded by interstate access charges. These safeguards meet the first criterion for authorizing  x<additional activities. Our analysis of each of the requested activities will therefore address only the two remaining criteria.  X 4 e ,21.` ` NECA has voluntarily engaged independent auditors to audit its Annual Report of  xCost Allocation Results ("Cost Allocation Report") since 1989. We find that, as a condition of  x our authorization of the requested additional activities, NECA must engage an independent auditor  xto perform an annual audit of the Cost Allocation Report that will be conducted in accordance  xwith the Professional Standards of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants  X64 x("AICPA")96y X`4` ` #]\  PCɒP#AICPA Professional Standards, Vol. 1 (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ed. 1996). and such additional procedures as the Common Carrier Bureau may require. Prior  xto each audit, NECA (or an independent auditor on behalf of NECA) must submit proposed audit  x}procedures to the Bureau and receive affirmative approval of the procedures. The Bureau may  xrequire additions to the proposed procedures before approving them. The audit procedures must  xallow the independent auditor to conclude whether NECA's cost allocations as reported in the  xcCost Allocation Report are in conformity with, and an accurate application of, the Commission's  X4 xexisting requirements, including those reflected in NECA's CAM./: XO4` ` #X\  P6G;ɒP#Separation of Costs of Regulated Telephone Service from Costs of Nonregulated Activities,  yO8'Report and Order, CC Docket No. 86111, 2 FCC Rcd 1298 (1987) ("Joint Cost Order"), recon., Separation of  yO 'Costs of Regulated Telephone Service from Costs of Nonregulated Activities, Order on Reconsideration, CC  yO 'Docket No. 86111, 2 FCC Rcd 6283 (1987), further recon., 3 FCC Rcd 6701 (1988), aff'd sub nom.  yO!'Southwestern Bell Corp. v. FCC, 896 F.2d 1378 (D.C. Cir. 1990). In interpreting the Commission's requirements, the independent auditors should seek guidance directly from the Commission./ The annual audit report must  x8be filed with the Cost Allocation Report annually, on or before April 1 of the following year.  xThese requirements will enable the Bureau to target areas of risk and will enhance its ability to monitor NECA's activities. "P :,,(,([[4"Ԍ X4 e S22.` ` With respect to the activities approved in this Order, NECA must comply with the  x"following conditions that have been imposed in previous authorizations of Category II activities:  xR(1) NECA must maintain all records of the costs and revenues of the activities; (2) NECA's  xcannual cost apportionment report must reflect the results of the activities; (3) with the exception  x}of the business evaluation project, each of NECA's activities must cover its own costs fully; and  X4(4) expenses relating to the activities must not be recovered through interstate access charges.; X4#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#э` ` #]\  PCɒP#Interstate Services Order, DA 881610 at paras. 89; NonMember Company Data Order, 11  yO'FCC Rcd at 1142, para. 9; Intrastate Services Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 6853, para. 3.#o\  PCynXP#Ġ  X_4 e 23.` ` Unfair Competition: To address the suggestions by commenters that NECA's  XJ4 xVstatus as a quasigovernmental entity may confer an unfair competitive advantage,<JA X< 4` ` #]\  PCɒP#CHA Comments at 7; USIN Comments at 6. we require  xcNECA to give all potential customers for its Category II services written notice that NECA is a  xprivate corporation and not an arm of the United States government. This notification must be  x/contained in the first correspondence or set of materials conveyed to potential clients, and must be included in all contracts for the provision of Category II services.  X 4 e 24.` ` Impartiality: A number of commenters expressed concern that NECA's  xMperformance of additional Category II activities may create an appearance of impropriety and may  X4 xundermine NECA's impartiality in carrying out its core functions.= X74` ` #]\  PCɒP#CHA Comments at 4; Staurulakis Comments at 78; USIN Comments at 3. While we agree that NECA's  xcompetitive activities must not jeopardize the integrity of its core functions, commenters do not  Xf4 xexplain how the additional activities may compromise NECA's neutrality.>af X4` ` #]\  PCɒP#Staurulakis questions how NECA could perform its pooling function in an impartial manner while assisting an individual ILEC in making a management decision that is not in the interests of other ILECs in the pool. Staurulakis Comments at 7. We distinguish this example from the activities authorized in this order because the proposed business management training will only address generic issues such as the performance of  yO'written and oral presentations, and does not include individual management consulting. See supra para. 10. Similarly, in discussing potential threats to NECA's neutrality, USIN offers a scenario that also could not arise as a result of this authorization. USIN states that it would be "patently absurd" for NECA to offer interexchange resale services, but this order authorizes no activity of this kind. USIN Comments at 3. To provide  xclarification for NECA's membership, however, we adopt NECA's proposal to give those  xpotential customers of Category II services that have contact with NECA as a result of its  x/Category I activities written disclosure that purchase of the service will confer no advantage to  xthe purchasers in Category I activities. This disclosure must be contained in the first  xRcorrespondence or set of materials conveyed to potential Category II clients that are NECA  xmembers, and must be included in all contracts for the provision of services to Category II customers that are NECA members. " >,,(,([["Ԍ X4 e 25.` ` Reducing Category I operating expenses: NECA represents that revenues resulting  xfrom Category II activities that exceed Category II costs will be used to reduce Category I  xEoperating expenses. We require that as a condition of performing the additional Category II  xactivities, NECA act consistently with this representation to ensure that NECA's membership,  xinterexchange carriers, and ultimately ratepayers will benefit from authorization of these additional activities.  Xa' B. ` ` International Assistance  XJ4  X34 e 26.` ` NECA requests authorization to provide to international entities on a compensatory  xbasis information and analysis relating to telecommunications access charges, tariffs, revenue  x+distribution, universal service, interconnection, and other activities in which NECA has been  X 4 xIauthorized to engage.?  Xg 4` ` #]\  PCɒP#See supra para. 8. NECA has developed expertise in these areas through its performance  xof Category I activities, and several commenters have stated that there is a demand for this  X 4 xcservice among international entities.@ y X4#]\  PCɒP#` ` #X\  P6G;ɒP#IFC Comments at 1; Miller Comments at 1; NTCA Comments at 13; USAID Comments at 1.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP# We therefore find that NECA's provision of international assistance is consistent with the public interest.  X{4 e 27.` ` Some consultants suggest that the proprietary information collected by NECA  Xd4 x/through its Category I activities may confer an unfair competitive advantage.Ad* X?4` ` #]\  PCɒP#CHA Comments at 4; GVNW Reply at 5. While NECA's  xability to provide such information to international entities would arguably confer an unfair  xcompetitive advantage, NECA is prohibited from releasing proprietary information without an  xILEC's written permission, according to the terms of agreements between NECA and ILECs  X4 xsubmitting proprietary information.By X4` ` #]\  PCɒP#See Assignment for the Distribution of Interstate Access Revenues, Section VIII, 1984/1985  yO}'(sample agreement to be signed by NECA and individual exchange carriers). See also Agreement Not To Disclose Proprietary Information (sample agreement to be signed by NECA and individual NECA employees). Furthermore, NECA is prohibited from using such  X4 xinformation for any purpose other than the distribution of access charge revenues.jC  X4` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id.j NECA's  xRFinancial Policy and Practice statement provides that proprietary information gained through  xCategory I or TRS activities may not be made available for use in Catgory II activities unless  xpermission is obtained from ILECs submitting such information to NECA and the information  X4 xis made available to all interested parties.D  X%4` ` #]\  PCɒP#NECA Financial Policy and Practice, No: A20, Subject: Category II Activities, Sept. 1, 1995. We therefore find that NECA's access to proprietary  xinformation will not enhance its competitive position in providing international assistance. We"~ ~ D,,(,([["  x/thus grant NECA's request to provide international assistance because NECA has satisfied the three criteria necessary for obtaining our authorization to engage in the requested activity.   X' C. ` ` Telecommunicationsrelated Training  X4  X4 e 28.` ` NECA requests authorization to provide, on a compensatory basis,  Xv4 xtelecommunicationsrelated training on emerging technologies and business management.Ev X4` ` #]\  PCɒP#See supra para. 9.#o\  PCynXP#Ѧ  xNECA's performance of this activity is consistent with the public interest because keeping ILECs  xinformed of changes in technology and updating telecommunicationsrelated management  xItechniques will enable ILECs to offer their customers new technologies and improved services.  x&For the reasons discussed in paragraph 27, we find that NECA's access to proprietary information  xwill not enhance its competitive position in providing telecommunicationsrelated training. We  xdo not agree with commenters who argue that training will distract NECA from its primary  X 4 xmission,xF y X4#]\  PCɒP#` ` #o\  PCynXP##]\  PCɒP##X\  P6G;ɒP#Interstate Telcom Consulting Comments at 1; Staurulakis Comments at 26; USIN Comments at  yO'5, 78.#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#x and find instead that the activity may enable NECA to make efficient use of its core  xoperations by drawing on the existing knowledge of NECA personnel. We therefore grant  xNECA's request to provide telecommunicationsrelated training because NECA has satisfied the three criteria necessary for obtaining our authorization to engage in the requested activity.  Xb' D. ` ` Evaluation of Potential Activities  X44 e 29.` ` NECA requests authorization to evaluate potential Category II activities and  X4 xactivities incidental to Category I activities.G X4` ` #]\  PCɒP#See supra para. 10. As proposed by NECA, each evaluation will  xtypically be completed within a oneyear period, and annual aggregate expenses for all  X4 xevaluations should not exceed one percent of annual NECA and INS operating expenses.H XC4` ` #]\  PCɒP#See supra para. 10. In  x"addition, no costs incurred by NECA for evaluating potential Category II activities or incidental  x@Category I activities should be recovered through interstate access charges. We therefore require NECA to treat all such costs as Category II expenses.  X|4 e z30.` ` One commenter has asserted that funding research and development for NECA is  xdifficult to justify because NECA lacks shareholders to bear the risks of loss in competitive  XN4 xareasqINT XS%4` ` #X\  P6G;ɒP#GVNW Reply at 4.q and therefore has an unfair competitive advantage. We find that NECA does not have an  xAunfair competitive advantage because, like its potential competitors, NECA must fund its  xcevaluation of competitive Category II activities either through the revenues of other Category II"   I,,(,([[""  x"activities or through loans. We will, however, evaluate potential anticompetitive advantages in  xa specific context if and when NECA requests authorization to engage in a particular activity.  xBecause NECA's performance of additional activities may be consistent with the public interest,  xas we have determined with regard to the activities addressed in this order, we find that  xevaluating the feasibility of performing such activities is also consistent with the public interest.  xWe therefore grant NECA's request to evaluate potential Category II activities and activities  xincidental to Category I activities because NECA has satisfied the three criteria necessary for obtaining our authorization to engage in the requested activities.  X14 e 931.` ` In our Joint Cost Order, we established four quantitative and qualitative tests for  xdetermining when we would permit carriers to account for incidental activities as regulated  X 4 xactivities.J  X~ 4` ` #]\  PCɒP#Joint Cost Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 1308, paras. 7678. Activities meeting these tests are determined to pose little threat of harm from cross X 4 xIsubsidizationK y X4` ` #]\  PCɒP#See id., 2 FCC Rcd at 1305, para. 56. and create such minimal financial impact that requiring them to be accounted for  X 4 xVas nonregulated would be unnecessarily burdensome. Applying the reasoning of the Joint Cost  X 4 x_Order, we conclude that NECA should apply the following criteria to its incidental activities:  x<each activity must be an outgrowth of NECA's Category I operations and must not constitute a  xseparate line of business. To ensure that the incidental activities are sufficiently minor, the  xaggregate costs of all of the incidental activities must not exceed one percent of total NECA and  Xh4 xINS operating expenses. We do not apply an additional test established in the Joint Cost Order,  xAthe requirement that the activity historically has been treated as incidental for accounting  X<4 x}purposes,}L<* X4` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id. at 1308, para. 78.} because unlike the carriers subject to the Joint Cost Order, NECA does not have a  xVlong history of engaging in activities that have been treated as incidental. We may determine at  x}a future date, however, that the threat of harm from crosssubsidization merits the application of other criteria to particular incidental activities.  X' E. ` ` INS Agent and Administrative Activities  X4   X4 e 32.` ` NECA requests authorization to provide, on a compensatory basis through INS,  xadditional agent and administrative services relating to the marketing of the services of both  Xo4 xILECs and thirdparty vendors.Mo X!4` ` #]\  PCɒP#See supra para. 11.#o\  PCynXP#ѧ Many ILECs state that they have a need for these services.No X#4` ` #]\  PCɒP#Benton Comments at 1; Chesnee Comments at 12; CST Comments at 1; CTC Comments at 1; MCT Comments at 1.  xWe therefore find that INS's provision of additional agent and administrative services is consistent with the public interest. "* N,,(,([["Ԍ X4 e O 33.` ` We also find that as a result of its Category I operations, NECA has access to  x}financial and operational information about individual LECs that could confer a direct, significant  xadvantage on INS in these marketing activities. INS could use this proprietary information,  xwhich is not available to its competitors, to determine the needs of specific LECs and develop  x}specialized marketing services. Rather than barring INS from all use of proprietary information,  X4 xas urged by GVNW,qO X4` ` #X\  P6G;ɒP#GVNW Reply at 5.q however, we ensure that access to such information is protected and is  Xv4 xmade available only on a competitively neutral basis by imposing the following requirement.PAvy X 4` ` #]\  PCɒP#Congress has allowed telecommunications carriers to use, for nonregulated purposes, proprietary information obtained initially through regulated activities, provided certain safeguards are in place. For example, carriers can use aggregate Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI") in their marketing of enhanced services if the information is made available to others upon request. 47 U.S.C.  222.  xEmployees of INS may not have access to proprietary information received or obtained from any  xcompany as a result of NECA's Category I or TRS operations unless prior affirmative written  xconsent is obtained from that company, and the information is made available to any interested  xparties on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms. We therefore grant NECA's request to  X 4 x3perform the additional agent and administrative services proposed by NECAQ  X64` ` #]\  PCɒP#See supra para. 11. because NECA has  xsatisfied the three criteria necessary for obtaining our authorization to engage in the requested activities.  X '  !IV. ORDERING CLAUSES \  Xy4 e  !34.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201205 and  x218220 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 201 x205 and 218220; and Sections 0.91, 0.291 and 69.603 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  x/0.91, 0.291 and 69.603, that the request for authorization to perform additional services filed  xby the HNational Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. IS GRANTED in accordance with the above discussion. ` `  hhCqFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCqRegina M. Keeney ` `  hhCqChief, Common Carrier BureauH