WPC 21BJZ7Courier3|jbx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si 2000M RM 290HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\!RX@ X-#XP\  P6QynXP##X\  P6G;ɒP#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#2icK{XKCourierTimes New Roman"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd<?xxx,bx6X@`7X@47jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XPy.X80,ɒX\  P6G;P 2BVJ Z7Courier<?xxx"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN3,e3Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O g)` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g*  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g+  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g,  2j6-:4.p4/=505Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g-*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g.  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g/8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g0A@` ` `  ` ` ` 289162173748Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g10     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g2J` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g3S` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g4\` ` `  @hhh hhh 2|<5j96):7:8;Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g5e` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g6n` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g7w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g8F    ׃  2>9<:3=;=<T>Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g9&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g:&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g;*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g<''(   2iA=?>??_@@@Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g=&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g>4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g?&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g@&/0  . 2hPAv ABoNCNDiNMACNormalA;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#FootnoteBÍčfootnote tex#C'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#headerDAx 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2rUEPF~-QGiRH^TreferenceE;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1F&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2GI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3HF` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# 23YIOUJ VKXLrXfooter!I!!#d\  PCP#CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileJW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentKiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#a2AgendaL2[MeYNrYOiZP[a1AgendaAgenda ItemsM7D yP ) I. a3AgendaNHeadingChapter HeadingOJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersP>a݅@  I.   X(# 2^Q[Rd\S\T]SubheadingSubheadingQ0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and BoldldeddR+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateS X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offT@@    2cU1^V1_W1(aX1YbLETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5U 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5Vf 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11WL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14X 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   2yeYncZ*d[dd\jeTITLETitle of a DocumentYK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedZN X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large[B*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored\ V -q2tk]e^Eg_-i`8 PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5l$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO 2{mOtnl.yozp6{Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IImJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabsn )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsoDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Fontp4h )a [ PfQO  dddn 2P~q|{rp|s}t}Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5q$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Pointr$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5s$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Pointt$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO 2u~vwxStyle 10oInitial Codes for Advancedu U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggvi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediatew )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update Modulex )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2ȕyݒzm{| a1Ordery8X X-I.xa2OrderzAp X-xA.` ` a3Order{J* X-x` ` 1. a4Order|4 X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. 1.(1)(a) i) a)I.x2}l~ef ˖footnote textf}footnote reference#~ MACDocument4     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP##u\4 PXP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# ,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP##:}D4PXP#para numnumbered indented paragraphs' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.#Xw P7[hXP# 1. 1.Ҳ2vvWvͦvCheading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 2vlavͨrCheading 8heading 8 Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font endnote textendnote text endnote referenceendnote reference 2_#Atoc 1toc 1` hp x (#(#`(#`` hp x (#toc 2toc 2` hp x (#` (#`` (#`` hp x (#toc 3toc 3` hp x (#` (#` (#` hp x (#toc 4toc 4` hp x (# (# (#` hp x (#2avͶCtoc 5toc 5` hp x (#h(#h(#` hp x (#toc 6toc 6` hp x (#(# (# ` hp x (#toc 7toc 7 toc 8toc 8` hp x (#(# (# ` hp x (#2 Ͻtoc 9toc 9` hp x (#(#`(#`` hp x (#index 1index 1` hp x (#` (#` (#` hp x (#index 2index 2` hp x (#` (#`` (#`` hp x (#toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#2v=lZdycaptioncaption _Equation Caption_Equation Caption 1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.A, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .2hfootnote refK&7>footnote referenceGw) "7>NGI "+WXpage numberK&7>page number"Gw* "7>NGI "(YZDefault ParaK&7>Default Paragraph Fontw+ "7>NGI "([(\endnote refeK&7>endnote referenceGw- "7>NGI "+_+`2oBannotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "OaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI "2c(d2G2*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "8ij@  3G3*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Akl@` ` `  ` ` ` 2gE4G4*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Jmn` ` ` @  ` ` ` 5G5*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Sop` ` `  @  6G6*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "\qr` ` `  @hhh hhh 7G7*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "est` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2Rap28G8*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "nuv` ` `  hhh@  9G9*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "wwx` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 10G0*(Q&7tDocument Style Gl0 "7t GI "קGH` ` ` 11G1*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "ר4I$J     2 I12G2*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "ש*KL    13G3*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "ת'MN   14G4*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׫&OP   15G5*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׬&QR  . 2! 16G6*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׭&ST  . 17G7*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׮&UV  . 18G8*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "ׯ&WX  . 19G9*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "װ8YZ@  2S?20G:*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "ױA[\@` ` `  ` ` ` 21G;*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "ײJ]^` ` ` @  ` ` ` 22G<*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׳S_`` ` `  @  23G=*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "״\ab` ` `  @hhh hhh 2#'24G>*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׵ecd` ` `  hhh@ hhh 25G?*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׶nef` ` `  hhh@  26G@*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׷wgh` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 27wSg K6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJmn` ` @  ` `  2?Uw28wSg L6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ESop` `  @  29wSg M6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\qr` `  @hh# hhh 30wSg N6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Eest` `  hh#@( hh# 31wSg O6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Enuv` `  hh#(@- ( 2qpBb32wSg P6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ewwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 33wSg R6w Document Style=(H8g Rܺ*HںwSg E{|` ` ` 34wSg S6w Technical Document Styleg Sܺ*HںwSg E4}$~     35wSg T6w Technical Document Styleg Tܺ*HںwSg E*    2c0Y36wSg U6w Technical Document Styleg Uܺ*HںwSg E'   37wSg V6w Technical Document Styleg Vܺ*HںwSg E&   38wSg W6w Technical Document Styleg Wܺ*HںwSg E&  . 39wSg X6w Technical Document Styleg Xܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2140wSg Y6w Technical Document Styleg Yܺ*HںwSg E&  . 41wSg Z6w Technical Document Styleg Zܺ*HںwSg E&  . 42wSg [6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   43wSg \6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 2O44wSg ]6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  45wSg ^6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  46wSg _6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 47wSg `6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2I48wSg a6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 49wSg b6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 50wSg c6w Document Style=(H8g cܺ*HںwSg EF *  ׃  51wSg d6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  2 A52wSg e6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  53wSg f6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 54wSg g6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 55wSg h6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 2;p |,56wSg i6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 57wSg j6w Document Style=(H8g jܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 58wSg k6w Technical Document Styleg kܺ*HںwSg E4$     59wSg l6w Technical Document Styleg lܺ*HںwSg E*    2-#60wSg m6w Technical Document Styleg mܺ*HںwSg E'   61wSg n6w Technical Document Styleg nܺ*HںwSg E&   62wSg o6w Technical Document Styleg oܺ*HںwSg E&  . 63wSg p6w Technical Document Styleg pܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2_i64wSg q6w Technical Document Styleg qܺ*HںwSg E&  . 65wSg r6w Technical Document Styleg rܺ*HںwSg E&  . 66wSg s6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   67wSg t6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 2l68wSg u6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  69wSg v6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  70wSg w6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 71wSg x6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2Y72wSg y6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 73wSg z6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 74wSg {6w Document Style=(H8g {ܺ*HںwSg EF *  ׃  75wSg |6w Document Style=(H8g |ܺ*HںwSg E*   2qmeeC76wSg }6w Document Style=(H8g }ܺ*HںwSg E0    77wSg ~6w Document Style=(H8g ~ܺ*HںwSg E  . 78wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  79wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  2ppJj80wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 81wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 82wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E4$     83wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E*    2k8a84wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E'   85wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&   86wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 87wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2"988wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 89wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 90wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   91wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 2W 92wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  93wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  94wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 95wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2-K K 96wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 97wSg 6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp "i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""(-((((((((((---#J:55:2-:::2F::-:5-2::K::2%(#(#(#(((>((((((:((#&&++%((:#:#:#:#:#F45#2#2#2#2#:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:#:(:':(:(:(-(:#:#:#5#5#5+5#:22#2#2#2#:(:(:(:+:(:+:(((8-++:(22 222:(/:(:(:(:(F:555----+2"22%:(:(:(:(:(:(K::+2#2#2#:(2:(-2:(2((W888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN00%(#((((M(==(==(=##(P0P((N0=PP00/BB--P#(CP"5555==JPP(=P0.+(-N00P("i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  64.901904.Ą  xto classify inside wiring services as nonregulated activities for federal accounting purposes on a  X -permanent basis." H Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Detariffing Remand Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 1334.  Xy-  mx8. In 1988, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in this  xproceeding to address some of the restrictions that it had previously imposed on customers'  XK- xlability to connect simple inside wiring to the telephone network.u#KYy yO!-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See supra para. 5.u The Commission was  xconcerned that these restrictions might no longer be necessary for network protection and might  ximpose an unnecessary burden on customers. In particular, the Commission requested comment  xon the need for the notice, testing, and extraordinary procedure provisions contained in Section  x.68.213. The Commission also proposed to eliminate the requirement that all access to network"h#,-(-(ZZ "  X- xKwiring be through a carrierinstalled jackx$Yy yOy-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  68.104 (1988).x and to allow customers to connect simple inside wiring  xdirectly to the telephone network by severing carrierinstalled wire and installing a standard jack.  xIn addition, the Commission asked for comment on whether these proposed rule changes would  xnecessitate a change in the demarcation point definition. Finally, the Commission requested  X- xcomment on: (1) a petition for rule making filed by the Electronic Industries Association (EIA)%XYy yO- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э EIA has been succeeded by TIA. For simplicity, we refer to EIA/TIA as TIA for the remainder of this order.  yOu-See TIA Petition at 1.   xrequesting that the Commission rule that all plugs and jacks used in inside wiring must conform  Xv- xto the technical specifications of Subpart F of Part 68 of our rules,y&vYy yO -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  68.500506.y and (2) an AT&T request  xthat Subpart F be modified to indicate that gold is the only permissible contact material that can  xbe used for plugs and jacks at the network interface and to eliminate language allowing materials equivalent to gold to be used.  X -  x9. In 1990, the Commission issued the Order and FNPRM, which is the subject of this  X - x decision. In the Order and FNPRM, the Commission eliminated as unnecessary the notice,  xtesting, and extraordinary procedure provisions contained in Section 68.213. Second, the  xCommission also amended Section 68.104 to delete the requirement that simple inside wiring  x\must be connected to the network through a carrierinstalled jack and allowed customers to  x[connect to the network through access and direct attachment to carrier installed wiring. Third,  xthe Commission amended the definition of the demarcation point for both simple and complex  xwiring that appears in Section 68.3 of the rules to ensure that the demarcation point would be  xZnear the point where the wiring entered the customer's premises. Fourth, the Commission granted  xTIA's request and amended Section 68.213 to require that all plugs and jacks used in connection  xwith inside wiring conform to technical specifications of Subpart F. Fifth, the Commission  xdeclined to eliminate the gold equivalency language in Subpart F, but asked TIA to develop  xiproposed technical specifications for determining gold equivalence under the Commission's rules.  X- xLFinally, the Commission issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to expand  x=the scope of Section 68.213 to allow "simple inside wiring" to constitute wiring installations of  x.up to four access lines. The Commission believed that allowing customers to install three and  xfourline installations under the less stringent requirements of Section 68.213, rather than the  X|- xyrequirements for complex wiring installations contained in Section 68.215,s'|@Yy yOm!-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See supra notes 2, 22.s would significantly  xreduce the burden on customers imposed by our rules, thereby increasing consumer options,  XN-without presenting any significant risk of harm to the network.m(NYy yO$-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 5 FCC Rcd at 4701.m   !x10. In revising the demarcation point definition, the Commission sought to ensure that"  ` (,-(-(ZZ"  xKthe demarcation point would not be a significant distance from the point where the wiring entered  xthe customer's premises. The Commission noted that under the original definition, carriers were  xmerely required to locate the demarcation point on the customer's side of the protector, in  xaccordance with the carrier's standard operating practices. The Commission was concerned that  xcarriers could establish a practice of locating the demarcation point well inside the customer's  xpremises, at a considerable distance from the protector, thus leaving a substantial run of wiring  Xv- xinside the premises, but on the carrier's side of the demarcation point.m)vYy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 5 FCC Rcd at 4692.m Because customers are  X_- xnot permitted to access wiring on the carrier's side of the demarcation point,m*_XYy yOh -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Section 68.213(b).m such a practice  x!would prevent customer access to wiring within their premises and would interfere with  X1-customers' ability to connect simple inside wiring to the network.m+1Yy yO -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 5 FCC Rcd at 4692.m   x11. Accordingly, the Commission revised the demarcation point definition to require that  xthe demarcation point generally be no further than twelve inches inside the customer's premises.  xFor single unit installations, the demarcation point must be within twelve inches of the protector,  xor if there is no protector, within twelve inches of the point at which the wiring enters the  X - xjcustomer's premises.x, xYy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  68.3(a).x In the case of multiunit installations, the Commission believed that the  X- xnew definition should be flexible enough to accommodate existing situations.m-Yy yOI-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 5 FCC Rcd at 4693.m Accordingly, for  xjexisting multiunit installations, the demarcation point is determined in accordance with carrier's  xZreasonable and nondiscriminatory standard operating practices, provided that if there are multiple  xdemarcation points, the demarcation point for any particular customer may not be further inside  xlthe customer's premises than twelve inches from the point at which the wiring enters the  X- x.customer's premises.w.Yy yOf-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  68.3(b)(1). w For new wiring installations in multiunit premises, including additions,  xjmodifications and rearrangements of existing wiring, the carrier may establish a reasonable and  X- xnondiscriminatory practice of placing the demarcation point at the minimum point of entry.g/ ( Yy yO - x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э 47 C.F.R.  68.3(b)(2). The minimum point of entry is defined as either the closest practicable point to the  xlocation at which the wiring crosses a property line or the closest practicable point to the location at which the wiring  yOX"- x,enters a multiunit building. See Section 68.3. The telephone company's reasonable and nondiscriminatory standard  yO #-operating practices determine which of these two standards applies. Id.  g  xWhen the carrier does not have such a practice, the multiunit premises owner determines the  X- xlocation of the demarcation point or points.n0Yy yO&-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Section 68.3(b)(2).n If there are multiple demarcation points, however," 0,-(-(ZZ"  xthe demarcation point for any particular customer may not be further inside the customer's  X- xpremises than twelve inches from the point at which the wiring enters the customer's premises.f1Yy yOb-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See id. f  xFinally, the Commission stated that the revised demarcation point definition would apply to both  X- xsimple and complex wiring.h2XYy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э 5 FCC Rcd at 4706 n.24.h The Commission noted that the previous definition had applied to  xzboth simple and complex wiring and that there was nothing in the record that would warrant  X-establishing different demarcation point definitions.Z3Yy yO& -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.Z x  X_-  III. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION ĐTP  X -%  A. DEMARCATION POINT DEFINITION TP  X - 1.xApplication to Complex Wiring  X -  x 12. Background/Position of the Parties. Several Petitioners argue that the Commission  X - xerred in applying the new demarcation point definition to complex wiring.C4  xYy yO- xh#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See AT&T Petition at 24; BellSouth Petition at 1318; Cincinnati Bell Petition at 35; GTE Petition at 25;  yO- xNYNEX Petition at 1012; Southwestern Bell Petition at 47; TIA Petition at 35; US West Petition at 36. See also  xBOMA Petition at 8 (new requirements imposed without notice or opportunity to be heard); Ameritech Comments at 23; Central Comments at 45; USTA Comments at 23; UTS Comments at 23. C They argue that the  X- xcaption and text of the NPRM indicated that this proceeding was only concerned with simple  Xy- xxinside wiring and that a footnote to the NPRM stated that the Commission was not proposing any  Xb- xchange in the requirements for complex wiring.5b` Yy yOs-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See NPRM, 3 FCC Rcd at 1127 n.7. See also Order and FNPRM, 5 FCC Rcd at 4706 n.20. Accordingly, Petitioners assert that the  xCommission did not provide notice that a change in complex wiring rules was being considered  xand that it failed to meet the notice requirements of Section 5 of the Administrative Procedure  X- xAct (APA).d6 Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э 5 U.S.C.  553.d Petitioners also argue that the rule change was made without an adequate record  xon the complex wiring issue. They note that the only reason given by the Commission for  xapplying the new rule to complex wiring was that nothing in the record would warrant two  xseparate demarcation point definitions. Petitioners contend that there was nothing in the record  xon this issue because they did not have notice that a change in the complex wiring demarcation  X- x[point definition was being considered.7 Yy yO%-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See, e.g. Cincinnati Bell Petition at 4. Finally, some Petitioners argue that because there are  xspecial technical requirements for the installation of complex wiring, such matters should be left" 7,-(-(ZZ"  X- xwith the carriers rather than transferred to customers or building owners.8Yy yOy-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See, e.g., BellSouth Petition at 1518. Two commenters,  xhowever, argue that the Commission provided adequate notice and met the requirements of the  X- xAPA.9XYy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See IDCMA Comments at 39; NATA Comments at 34. These Commenters argue that the Commission gave adequate notice because the NPRM  X- xxspecifically requested comment on whether the demarcation point definition should be changed.:Yy yOT-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See IDCMA Comments at 56; NATA Comments at 4.  X-  Xv-  1x13. Discussion. We conclude that applying the new demarcation point definition to  X_- x.complex inside wiring was a "logical outgrowth" of the NPRM. ;_xYy yO - x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See, e.g., Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Nuclear Reg. Commission, 673 F2d 525, 533, (D.C. Cir. 1982),  yOP-cert. denied, 459 US 835 (1982).  In the NPRM we specifically  x{stated that "interested parties should . . . comment on the extent to which any of our rule  xproposals . . . necessitate amendment of other rules, notably our definition of the network  X - xinterface or demarcation point."o< Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э NPRM, 3 FCC Rcd at 1122.o Furthermore, the Commission has always had the same  x=demarcation point definition for both simple and complex wiring, and parties should thus have  xbeen aware that a change in the definition of the demarcation point would likely be applied to  xall wiring installations unless the Commission were presented with persuasive arguments to the  x.contrary. We also note that although the footnote Petitioners cite states that the Commission  xyproposed no changes in the requirements for complex wiring, it follows a statement concerning  xonly the issue of whether connections to the network should be made through a carrierinstalled  Xy- xZjack,q=y` Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  68.104.q and thus did not apply to the entire NPRM.>y Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See NPRM, 3 FCC Rcd at 1122, 1127 n.7. See also Order and FNPRM, 5 FCC Rcd at 4691, 4706 n.20. In fact, contrary to Petitioners' assertion that  Xb- xit addressed only matters concerning simple wiring, the NPRM clearly proposed and sought  xcomment on at least one other rule change that would affect both simple and complex wiring,  x=specifically, the gold equivalency standard for jacks used to connect both simple and complex  X- xwiring to the telephone network.? Yy yON!-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 3 FCC Rcd at 1124. See also 5 FCC Rcd at 46994700. ģ Finally, regarding Petitioners' argument that there are special  x.technical requirements for the installation of complex wiring, we note our rules require that the  xinstallation of complex wiring be done under the supervision of specially trained personnel, with  xindustry standards and training programs covering such installations. We, therefore, find that our  xcurrent rules are sufficient to ensure proper installation of complex wiring, even when that wiring  xis on the customer's side of the demarcation point, and thus is the responsibility of the customer  xor building owner. Accordingly, the petitions for reconsideration on this issue are denied." ?,-(-(ZZ"  x<Although we are denying the petitions for reconsideration on this issue, we acknowledge several  xLparties' concern about the application of the demarcation point definition to complex wiring by  X- xissuing a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SFNPRM) requesting comment on  X- x=certain additional aspects of our demarcation point rule.@Yy yO4-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See infra paras. 4950. Accordingly, we urge parties to file  xzcomments discussing whether our demarcation point definition should continue to apply to  xcomplex wiring. We stress that we will evaluate this issue anew based on the new record presented to us. x  XH- 2.xLocation of the Demarcation Point h  X -xa.` ` Within Twelve Inches of Entry to Customer Premises xx 0(#(#X  X -  ^x14. Background/Position of the Parties. Section 68.3 of the rules requires that, under  x.certain circumstances, (1) the demarcation point for single unit installations must be "within . .  x. [twelve inches] of where the telephone wire enters the customer's premises," and (2) the  xdemarcation point for multiunit installations must "not be further inside the customer's premises  X- xthan [twelve inches] from where the wiring enters the customer's premises."vAXYy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  68.3(a)(b).v Some Petitioners  xargue that sometimes such factors as existing physical conditions, size of equipment to be  xyinstalled, location of the power source, or safety considerations make it impossible to place the  x>demarcation point within twelve inches of the point at which the wiring enters a customer's  X4- xpremises.B4Yy yO- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See BellSouth Petition at 2123; Cincinnati Bell Petition at 7; NYNEX Petition at 3; Southwestern Bell Petition at 1012. Petitioners suggest that we should amend Section 68.3 to allow the demarcation  xpoint to be located within twelve inches of the point at which the wiring enters the customer's  X-premises, "or as close thereto as practicable.""C@Yy yO- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Cincinnati Bell Petition at 7; NYNEX Petition at 34. See also Ameritech Comments at 34; BICSI Comments at 2; Central Comments at 24; GTE Comments at 5; USTA Comments at 4."  X-  ]x15. Discussion. We agree that there may be instances under which physical conditions  xLor safety considerations make the twelveinch requirement difficult to meet. We also note that  xthe language proposed by Petitioners is consistent with similar language that appears elsewhere  x=in the rule defining the demarcation point. In particular, that rule defines the minimum point of  X|- xentry as "the closest practicable point to the point at which the wiring crosses a property line or  Xe- x. . . enters a multiunit building."DeYy yO$-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  68.3 (emphasis added). We also agree that allowing the demarcation to be located  xwithin twelve inches of the point at which the wiring enters the customer's premises, "or as close  xthereto as practicable" is a reasonable modification of our rules. We find that this change poses"7 ( D,-(-(ZZ"  x[little risk that carriers or building owners would undermine the purpose of the rule by routinely  xattempting to place the demarcation point deeper inside the customer's premises than necessary.  x?In fact, we expect that the "closest practicable point" could just as easily be outside the  xcustomer's premises as deeper inside those premises. Accordingly, we amend Section 68.3 to  X-make the change proposed.fEYy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Appendix A.f  Xv-x b.` ` Within Twentyfive Feet of Equipment  XH-  x16. Section 68.215 requires that, for installations involving complex wiring, fully X1- xprotected premises wiring5F1XYy yO: - x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Fully protected premises wiring is wiring specially designed so that connection by untrained persons will not  yO -result in harm. See 47 C.F.R.  68.3 (definition of system premises wiring).5 must be used to connect equipment to the network interface (i.e.,  X - xdemarcation point) unless the carrier is "unwilling or unable" to locate the interface within  X - xtwentyfive feet of the equipment on reasonable request..G Yy yOd- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  68.215. Complex wiring is generally used in commercial rather than residential settings and is commonly used in connection with PBX systems, key systems and other similar equipment. . In this case other than fully protected  X - xlwiring may be used.fH Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See id. f Cincinnati Bell notes that if it locates the demarcation point at the  x>minimum point of entry for a multiunit building, it will often be unable to locate the network  X - xinterface within twentyfive feet of the equipment.oI Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Cincinnati Bell Petition at 6.o Accordingly, Cincinnati Bell contends that  X - xjthere is a conflict between Section 68.3 and Section 68.215bJ ( Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 56.b and requests that we clarify which  xrule is controlling. We do not agree with Cincinnati Bell that there is an inconsistency in our  xrules. We note that Section 68.215 does not require that equipment be placed within twentyfive  xfeet of the demarcation point and specifically authorizes a wiring alternative if the carrier is  x"unwilling or unable" to locate its network interface within twentyfive feet of the equipment.  xyAccordingly, we find that because there is no inconsistency between Sections 68.3 and 68.215, no further clarification is necessary.  X-  X-x c.` ` Location Away From a Buildingh  X-  "x17. Background/Position of the Parties. Some PetitionersK Yy yO*$- x;#X\  P6G;ɒP#э AT&T Petition at 7; GTE Petition at 6; Southwestern Bell Petition at 15; TIA Petition at 7. See also BICSI Comments at 2. express concern that the  xrevised definition appears to authorize placement of the demarcation point (and thus the telephone"K,-(-(ZZ"  X- xcompany protectoroLYy yOy-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See supra note 21.o) some distance from the building in which the telephone wiring is installed.  xIn particular, Petitioners note that Section 68.3 allows carriers, under certain circumstances, to  X- xkplace the demarcation point at the property line.MXXYy yO- xx#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Section 68.3 allows carriers to place the demarcation point for new multiunit installations at the minimum  yO- xipoint of entry, which is defined as "the closest practicable point to where the wiring crosses a property line or . .  yOk-. enters a multiunit building." 47 C.F.R.  68.3 (emphasis added). Petitioner's state that under the National  xlElectric Code (NEC), however, protection is required to be placed at or near the building.  xyPetitioners contend that, if the carrier places its demarcation point (and protector) at a property  xxline, a second protector would be required at the building, that proper coordination between these  xjtwo protectors might not occur, and that this could endanger the safety of telephone company  xpersonnel, customers and others on the property. Petitioners suggest that we modify our rules  XH- xto prohibit placement of the demarcation point away from a building,eNHxYy yOq-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э AT&T Petition at 7. e or clarify whether the  X1-NEC precludes such placement.sO1Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Southwestern Bell Petition at 15. s  X -  ? x18. Discussion. We decline to make the proposed modification to our rules at this time.  xNothing in the record indicates that it would be difficult to coordinate the two protectors, and  x[thus meet safety standards and the requirements of the NEC. We also note that protectors are  xfrequently located outside a building or close to a property line, and that property owners must  x\comply with many safety standards regarding the buildings and equipment located on their  X- xproperty. Given the safety concerns raised by Petitioners, however, as part of our SFNPRM  Xy-below, we are requesting additional comment on this issue.wPyYy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See infra para. 52. w  XK- 3.x Modifications to Existing Wiring x  X-  Ax19. Background/Position of the Parties. Section 68.3(b)(2) states that in multiunit  xPpremises in which new wiring is installed, including "additions, modifications and  xrearrangements" of existing wiring, the carrier may establish a reasonable and nondiscriminatory  xpractice of placing the demarcation point at the minimum point of entry, and that if the carrier  xkdoes not elect to establish such a practice, the multiunit premises owner shall determine the  X- xlocation of the demarcation point or points.kQ( Yy yO#-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э 47 C.F.R.  68.3(b)(2).k NYNEX notes that minor changes in wiring occur  X- x"frequently,eR Yy yO%-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э NYNEX Petition at 5.e and urges the Commission to clarify that "additions, modifications and  xrearrangements" of existing wiring should be considered new installations under Section"|H R,-(-(ZZn"  xN68.3(b)(2) only if these changes are "so substantial in scope as to constitute virtual new  X-installations."`SYy yOb-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 4.`  X-  x20. Discussion. We clarify that we do not view minor additions or rearrangements that  xdo not materially change the character of the inside wiring installation to be new installations  xunder our rules. For example, the movement of a single jack in a suite or the addition of a few  xlines would not constitute a material change. To make this point clear, however, we are  xamending Section 68.3 by deleting the word "modification" from the first sentence of Section  XH- x[68.3(b)(2), and adding the word "major" before the word "additions," so that Section 68.3(b)(2)  xwill now explicitly apply only to new wiring installations, including "major additions or  X -rearrangements" of existing wiring.fT XYy yO# -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Appendix A.f  X - 4.xMultiunit Premises hh  X -  X -x a.` ` Defining Multiunit Premises  X-  x21. Petitioners request clarification as to whether buildings with shared walls, such as row  xhouses, town houses, duplexes, or strip shopping centers should be considered single or multiunit  Xb- xpremises under the Commission's rules.UbYy yO- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э GTE Petition at 67; Southwestern Bell Petition at 1516. See also USTA Comments at 4; UTS Comments at 5. One Petitioner also asks whether single or multiunit  xrules would apply in a building that normally has a single tenant, but has an additional tenant for  X4- x-a short period of time.rV4@Yy yO%-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Southwestern Bell Petition at 16.r We find that in such situations the issue of whether the building should  xybe considered a single or multiunit premises generally can be resolved by applying the carrier's  xreasonable and nondiscriminatory standard operating practice. If questions arise regarding a particular situation, however, parties may seek guidance from the Commission.  X-  X-x b. ` `  Customer Access to Carrier Services  X-  Ax22. Some parties argue that in multiunit buildings with a single demarcation point  x.customers would no longer have direct access to carrier services, and would be dependent on  Xe- xxbuilding owners and managers for the inside wiring necessary to connect to the network.WeYy yO#-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See BellSouth Petition at 7; BICSI Comments at 1; IDCMA Comments at 1416; UTS Comments at 4. These  xLparties contend that the building owner could frustrate the customer's ability to obtain desired  xservices. Accordingly, these parties ask the Commission to reconsider its revised telephone demarcation point rule. For the reasons stated above, we deny the requests for reconsideration " ` W,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X-on this issue.oXYy yOy-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See supra para. 2.o  X- xc.` ` Limiting Customer Access To Inside Wiring  X-  l x23. Background/Position of the Parties. Some Petitioners express concern that our rules  x.could be interpreted to allow customers in a multiunit premises to work on wiring outside their  xyown individual units, and thus to pose a risk to the telephone service of other customers in the  X_- x-building.Y_XYy yOh -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э AT&T Petition at 57; GTE Petition at 69; TIA Petition at 67. Under the demarcation point definition either the carrier or building owner may create  XH- xa single demarcation point for all customers in a multiunit building.uZHYy yO -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  68.3(b). u The Commission's rules  xalso allow the "subscriber and/or premises owner" to install, remove or rearrange telephone wiring  X - xon the customer's side of the demarcation point,|[ xYy yOC-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  68.213(b). | and to attach simple inside wiring directly  X - xthrough such means as splicing, twisting, bridging, or soldering.u\ Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  68.104(a). u Petitioners note that if the  xdemarcation point is located in the basement of a multiunit building, individual customers could  X - xarguably have access to wiring anywhere in the building.] Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э GTE Petition at 78. See also TIA Petition at 67. Similarly, in commonly owned  xjmultiunit buildings such as condominiums, telephone wiring in a basement or main utility room  xcould be considered to be on the customer's premises and thus accessible by all customers with  X- xunits in the building.\^( Yy yOi-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. \ Petitioners suggest that the Commission revise its rule to state that a  Xy- xcustomer in a multiunit building can only work on wiring in the customer's own individual unit_y Yy yO- xy#X\  P6G;ɒP#э AT&T Petition at 7; GTE Petition at 8; TIA Petition at 7. See also Central Comments at 56; USTA Comments at 34.  Xb-that serves only that customer.c`bYy yO# -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э GTE Petition at 8.c  X4-  x24. Discussion. We agree that customers working on wiring outside their own individual  x.unit in a multiunit building could pose a risk of harm to the telephone service of other tenants.  xWe do not believe, however, that we need a new federal rule specifically prohibiting such  xZactivity. We can address Petitioners' concerns by amending our demarcation point definition and  xSection 68.213(b) to state that, in the case of multiunit premises, the premises owner may prohibit  x[tenants from working on wiring located outside of the tenant's individual unit or on wiring that"`,-(-(ZZ"  X-serves other customers. Accordingly, we amend our rules to make that change.faYy yOy-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Appendix A.f  X-x  X-5.xBuilding Owners and Managers Responsibilities  X-x a.` ` BOMA Petition  Xv-  Ox25. The BOMA petition expresses concerns about the responsibilities that would be  ximposed on the owners or managers of multistory, multiunit buildings if the carrier moves the  xdemarcation point to the minimum point of entry, thus making the building owner responsible  X1- xfor all wiring inside the building.sb1XYy yO: - x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See BOMA Petition at 2. The title of the petition suggests that BOMA is seeking amendment, repeal, or a  yO - xdeclaratory ruling regarding Section 68.213, the Commission's simple inside wiring rule. See supra note 6. The  xtext of the petition, however, indicates that BOMA is actually concerned with the Commission's revisions to Section  yO- x68.3, the demarcation point rule. BOMA also discusses the regulatory treatment of riser cable, i.e., cable that runs  xvertically from floor to floor in a multistory building. We note that riser cable generally involves complex wiring  yO"-which is governed by Section 68.215 rather than Section 68.213. s BOMA contends that the riser cablec1Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Riser cable is cable that runs vertically from floor to floor in a multistory building. in multiunit buildings  xis there for the benefit of carriers and their subscribers and that building owners should not have  xyto bear the cost of maintaining such cable. BOMA further argues that many tenants have long  xterm leases that will prevent building owners from passing on these additional costs to their  X - xjtenants.dd ` Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э BOMA Petition at 5.d In addition, BOMA states that, unlike carriers, building owners and managers have  xno limitation of liability for failure to maintain or upgrade riser cable systems. Finally, BOMA  xstates that the exact layout of carrierinstalled riser cable systems is generally unknown to  xkbuilding owners and managers, making it difficult for building owners to carry our their new  Xy-wiring responsibilities successfully.cey Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 34. c  Xb-  XK-  xb.` ` Moving the Demarcation Point to the Minimum Point of Entry  X-   x26. In addressing BOMA's petition, we first clarify the circumstances under which the  xkdemarcation point in an existing building may be moved to the minimum point of entry. Our  x[rules state that the demarcation point for existing multiunit installations is to be determined "in  x]accordance with the local carrier's reasonable and nondiscriminatory standard operating  X- x[practices."fX Yy yO$- xJ#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Section 68.3(b)(1). By contrast, for new multiunit installations (including major additions or rearrangements  xZof existing wiring) carriers must either adopt a policy of placing the demarcation point at the minimum point of  yO&-entry, or leave establishment of the demarcation point or points to the building owner. See Section 68.3(b)(2).  We adopted this rule to accommodate multiunit arrangements in existence at the"f,-(-(ZZq"  X- x=time when our new demarcation point rule went into effect, i.e., August 13, 1990.gYy yOy-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Order and FNPRM, 5 FCC Rcd at 4693. See also Section 68.3(b)(1)(2). It appears,  xhowever, that some carriers may have imposed new operating practices on existing multiunit  xjpremises and then moved demarcation points for those premises to the minimum point of entry  xwithout the building owner's permission. The Commission did not intend that carriers establish  xnew operating procedures to govern multiunit buildings existing on August 13, 1990 that would  xautomatically relocate those buildings' demarcation points. We now clarify that the standard  xoperating practices to which Section 68.3(b)(1) refers are those practices in effect on August 13,  x1990. Thus, Section 68.3(b)(1) does not authorize changing the demarcation point for an existing  x/building to the minimum point of entry. Such a change can occur only pursuant to Section  X1- x.68.3(b)(2), i.e., if the building owner makes major additions, modifications or rearrangements in  X -existing wiring.fhX XYy yO# - x;#X\  P6G;ɒP#э We note that a request by the building owner to move the demarcation point to the minimum point of entry  x;would constitute a major modification or rearrangement of existing wiring and that such a request may be met under Section 68.3(b)(2).f  X -   X -  xc.` ` Maintenance of Inside Wiring  X -  ! x27. When our rules authorize location of the demarcation point at the minimum point of  x<entry, we find no reason why building owners and managers should not be responsible for inside  xwiring within their building. The Commission has found that the public interest is served by  x=detariffing the installation and maintenance of both simple and complex inside wiring and thus  xMtransferring responsibility for such wiring activities from carriers to customers and building  XK- x<owners.iKxYy yOt-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See, e.g., Detariffing Recon., 1 FCC Rcd at 1191. See supra para. 6. In particular, through its detariffing orders, the Commission sought "to make the cost xcausative customer bear the costs of connecting CPE to the telephone network, to foster  xcompetition in the inside wiring installation and maintenance markets, to promote new entry into  xthose markets, to produce cost savings which would be passed on to ratepayers, and to foster the  X- x.development of an unregulated, competitive telecommunications marketplace."jYy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Detariffing Recon., 1 FCC Rcd at 1191. Ė BOMA has  xoffered no argument that would counter such public policy considerations. We note that our rules  X- x]do require a level of expertise on the part of those performing work on complex wiring.xkYy yO !-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  68.215(b)(c).x  xBuilding owners may contract for such work as needed, employ trained personnel, or enter into  xwire maintenance agreements with the telephone company or other qualified providers. We also  xnote that building owners may negotiate lease terms that reflect their new wiring responsibilities.  xIn short, building owners should recover any additional costs involved directly from the cost  XN- xcausative entity, i.e., the tenant, in the same way that owners recoup other costs of maintaining  xthe building. Moreover, nothing in the record supports including the cost of maintenance of"7( k,-(-(ZZ" complex building wiring in the general rate base.  X-x d.` ` Liability Issues  X-  x28. Several commenters observe that although telephone company tariffs limit carriers'  xliability to the customer for service disruptions, building owners do not enjoy similar liability  Xv- xMprotection.lvYy yO- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See, e.g., Building Owners and Managers Association of California (BOMA CA) Comments at 2; BOMA Petition at 45, BOMA Comments at 7. These building owner commenters fear that they will be held liable for tenant  xlosses, such as loss of revenues, attributable to disruption in service caused by faulty inside  xwiring. Nothing in the Commission's demarcation point policies or inside wiring requirements  x{is intended to impose extraordinary liability on the building owners or managers for non xcommunications service losses incurred by tenants. Such liability issues are for courts of  xicompetent jurisdiction to resolve based upon an analysis of all contractual arrangements between  xka landlord, tenant and insurers. We note that building owners can negotiate for commercial insurance that addresses liability issues.  X -  X -x e.` ` Information on Inside Wiring  Xy-  2x29. Background/Position of the Parties. BOMA argues that building owners and  x{managers lack essential information about the carrierinstalled wiring located within their  XK- xbuildings.mK Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See BOMA Petition at 67.   BOMA states that building owners and managers do not possess, nor have they been  X4- x<offered dependable schematic diagrams or other information about existing inside wiring.{n4Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See, e.g., BOMA Comments at 6.{ They  xalso complain that where schematics do exist, carriers cannot guarantee that the diagrams  X- xcorrespond to what actually exists within the building.`o@Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.` BOMA states that this lack of  xinformation on building wiring makes it difficult for building owners and managers to assume responsibility for such wiring.  X-  x30. Discussion. In the Order and FNPRM, the Commission stated that "[w]e further  xLexpect carriers at the request of customers to provide complete information on customer's [sic]  xrights to install inside wiring and to fully disclose their standard operating practices concerning  Xe- xlocation of the demarcation point."{peYy yO#-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Order and FNPRM, 5 FCC Rcd at 4701. { We now find that in addition to needing information about  x carrier practices, building owners and subscribers must have information about the carrier xinstalled wiring that is on their premises. We agree that lack of such information is a significant  xproblem whether owners decide to maintain and service wiring systems themselves, to retain an" ` p,-(-(ZZ"  xLinside wiring maintenance and management firm, or to negotiate with the former provider the  xtelephone company. In addition, in a competitive environment, exclusive possession of such  xyinformation may give the telephone company an unfair market advantage. Accordingly, we are  X- x-amending Section 68.110 of our rulesgqYy yO4-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э 47 C.F.R.  68.110.g to require that telephone companies give building owners  xor their agents, upon request, all available information regarding the wiring layout of their  X- xbuildings including copies of existing schematic diagrams and service records.frXYy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Appendix A.f The telephone  xcompany may charge the building owner a reasonable fee for this service, which shall not exceed  x>the cost involved in locating and copying the documents. In the alternative, the telephone  xcompany may make these documents available for review and copying by the building owner.  xKIn this case, the telephone company may charge a reasonable fee, which shall not exceed the cost  x.involved in making the documents available, and may also require the building owner to pay a deposit to guarantee the documents' return.  X -  X -6.xOwnership and Accounting Issues  X -x a.` ` Ownership of Inside Wiring  Xy-  x31. Some Petitioners ask the Commission to clarify whether carriers can require the  xcustomer or building owner to purchase or charge for continued use of carrierinstalled wiring  XK- x(including riser cable) that is now on the customer's side of the demarcation point.sKYy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э NYNEX Petition at 67; Southwestern Bell Petition at 1415. Petitioners also ask whether carriers may remove such wiring.  X-  x32. The Commission has already addressed some of these issues.txYy yO/-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Detariffing Recon., 1 FCC Rcd at 1195. The Commission has  xheld that moving the demarcation point does not transfer ownership and that carriers may retain  X- xyownership over carrierinstalled inside wiring.`uYy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.` Premises owners or customers, however, have  xya right of access to wiring on the customer's side of the demarcation point, and a responsibility  X- xto maintain such wiring.vYy yO!-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See, e.g., 47 C.F.R.  68.104, 68.213. Accordingly, the Commission has restricted carriers' ability to  xinterfere with customer access and maintenance activities. Carriers may not use claims of  xownership as a basis for imposing restrictions on the customer's or building owner's removal,  Xe- x?rearrangement, replacement or maintenance of such wiring.cwe( Yy yO>&-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э 1 FCC Rcd at 1195.c Because there are already  xLprocedures under which carriers recover the costs of inside wiring that was originally installed"N w,-(-(ZZ0"  X- xor maintained under tariff, carriers are not entitled to additional compensation for such wiring.[xYy yOy-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. [  xxAccordingly, carriers may not require that such wiring be purchased and may not impose a charge  X- xfor the use of such wiring.`yXYy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.` Finally, because carrier removal of carrierinstalled wiring would  x-prevent customer access and maintenance of that wiring and because the threat of removal could  xbe used to force the customer to purchase the wiring, we conclude that the carrier may not  X-remove carrierinstalled inside wiring.   X_-x b.` ` Accounting Issues  X1-  x33. Three Petitioners ask the Commission to clarify the accounting treatment of wiring  xonce provided as part of the telephone network, but now on the customer's side of the  X - xkdemarcation point.1z Yy yO- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Bell Atlantic Petition at 13; Pacific Bell's Amended Petition at 35; Southwestern Bell Petition at 1415.  yOd-See also Central Comments at 67; NATA Comments on Petitions at 9 n.15.1 In the Order and FNPRM, the Commission stated that the accounting  xtreatment and regulatory status of such wiring would be addressed in connection with the  X - x/Commission's deliberations concerning NARUC v. FCC.{X @Yy yO- xK#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Order and FNPRM, 5 FCC Rcd at 4700. In NARUC, the Court remanded a Commission decision that  xheld that the Commission's detariffing of the installation and maintenance of inside wiring preempted state regulation  yOV-in this area. See 880 F.2d at 422. See also supra para. 7. The Commission subsequently  xdetermined that, to help ensure that interstate rate payers do not bear the costs and risks of the  x>telephone companies' inside wiring activities, inside wiring services should be classified as  xnonregulated for federal accounting purposes and that this determination was not precluded by  Xy- xNARUC v. FCC.|y` Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Detariffing Remand Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 1339. Accordingly, carrier maintenance services for wiring that by reason of the  xredefinition of the demarcation point has become inside wiring, are now nonregulated. These  xmaintenance activities would have been treated as a regulated expense prior to the change in the  x\definition of the demarcation point. After the change, the costs of these activities are to be  xexcluded from interstate costs. Carriers may have had unrecovered investment in the affected  X- x[wiring. If they did, this investment remains on the books as regulated investment.} Yy yO -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Detariffing Recon., 1 FCC Rcd at 1198 n. 74. It should  xbe amortized at precisely the rate at which it would have been depreciated had there been no  xdemarcation point change. If the carrier sells wiring to a customer (or to the premises owner)  X-it must follow the normal retirement procedures.u~ Yy yO$-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See id. at 1196. u   x34. Some Petitioners request clarification that the revised rules only affect the regulatory"~,-(-(ZZ"  xtreatment of wiring, and that network equipment located on the customer side of the demarcation  x\point continues to be classified as network equipment, and does not change in character to  X- xjunregulated CPE.Yy yOK-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See NYNEX Petition at 9; Pacific Bell Amended Petition at 1011. We recognize that in certain limited circumstances some carrier equipment  xmay be located on the customer side of the demarcation point. The rules and policies in this  x>docket are not intended to affect the Commission's current or future policies that determine  xwhether equipment is network equipment or customer premises equipment. Such determinations  xwill be made on a casebycase basis depending on the type of equipment involved. We also  xclarify that the regulatory treatment of equipment located on the customer's premises, but on the  xcarrier's side of the demarcation point, is not affected by the change in our demarcation point  X1-rules.e1XYy yO: -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See id. e  X -x` ` Tă  X - 7.xPreemption of State Regulation  X -  x 35. Two Petitioners express concern that the Commission's revised demarcation point rule  xkwould conflict with existing state requirements that the demarcation point be located on the  X - xcustomer's premises. Yy yO@-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э BellSouth Petition at 1013; NYNEX Petition at 56. In particular, Petitioners are concerned that such state requirements might  xbe inconsistent with the Commission's demarcation point rule for new multiunit premises, which  xallows the carrier to set the demarcation point at the minimum point of entry, or, if the carrier  x-does not establish such a policy, allows premises owners to place the demarcation point virtually  XK-anywhere they choose.wKxYy yOt-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  68.3(b)(2). w   mx36. The record at this point reveals no specific local policies that must be preempted.  xTo the extent that local inside wiring policies would negate federal policies, the Commission will  X- xzreview the need to preempt at that time. Yy yO- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Louisiana PSC v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355 (1986); California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1990); NARUC  yOp-v. FCC, 880 F.2d at 422.  We also note that our rules grandfather multiunit  xwiring installations existing as of August 13, 1990, and thus establish no minimum point of entry demarcation point policy for existing buildings.  X-    B. CONNECTION TO THE NETWORK X|-TP   XN- 1. Direct Attachment  X -  x37. Background/Position of the Parties. In the Order and FNPRM, we revised Section" ` ,-(-(ZZ"  x/68.104 to allow customers and premises owners to connect simple wiring to the network by  X- xeither: (1) installing a standard jack; Yy yOb- xJ#X\  P6G;ɒP#э In this order, the term "standard jack" refers to jacks conforming to the requirements of Subpart F. Pursuant  xto Sections 68.213(b), all plugs and jacks used in connection with simple inside wiring must conform to Subpart F.  yO- x See also Section 68.104(a) (jacks used to connect simple or complex wiring to the network must conform to Subpart F).  or (2) directly attaching to carrierinstalled wiring through  X- xsuch means as splicing, bridging, twisting or soldering.,Yy yO3- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 5 FCC Rcd at 4691; 47 C.F.R.  68.104(a). Previously all connections to the network were required  yO-to be made through a carrierinstalled jack. See 3 FCC Rcd at 1122., Some parties argue that all connections  X- xxto the network should be made through a standard jack.2Yy yOt - x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See, e.g., IDCMA Comments at 18; GTE Petition at 5 n.6 (expressing belief that rule is not in the public interest, but not specifically requesting reconsideration at this time).2 These parties assert that plug and jack  X- xconnections allow malfunctioning equipment to be easily disconnected,f` Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э IDCMA Comments at 18.f and that jacks can act  x/as circuit breakers to help minimize the risk of injury when customers are performing simple  Xv- xwiring operations.{v Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.; GTE Petition at 5 n.6. { In addition, NYNEX asks the Commission to clarify that the connection of  X_-complex wiring to the network still must be made through a carrierprovided jack.o_ Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See NYNEX Petition at 8.o  X1-  x38. Discussion. We find that requiring all simple wiring connections to be made through  X - xa standard jack is not in the public interest. In many situations a plug and jack configuration will  x=not meet the needs of the end user and a hard wired installation is required. This is often true,  x[for example, in the installation of security systems or remote access utility meters. Addressing  xsafety concerns, we note that consumers often perform minor electrical wiring work and that the  xgeneral public is aware of the need to turn off the power to the area involved. In the case of  xsimple telephone wiring, voltage concerns arise only when a ring message is transmitted through  xthe inside wiring. Before performing work on the inside wiring, the end user should disconnect  xMthe system at the demarcation point as a safety precaution. Accordingly, we conclude that  xLbecause direct attachment of simple wiring to the network can be performed safely, the parties'  xconcerns are misplaced, and that the direct attachment provision in Section 68.104 should be  xretained. Finally, regarding NYNEX's request for clarification, the Commission has clearly  X- xstated, both in the rules and in the Order and FNPRM, that complex wiring must be connected  X-to the network through a carrierprovided jack.Yy yO#-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  68.104(a); 5 FCC Rcd at 4706 n.20. ē   X-  X- 2.xTechnical Specifications for Connectors ",-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X-  lx39. Three Petitioners ask the Commission to revise Subpart F to include TIA's proposed  xtechnical specifications for the following: (1) gold used in the plug/jack interface; (2) 8position  X- xjacks; and (3) wall mounting plates.Yy yOK-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See AT&T Petition at 78; GTE Petition at 1516; TIA Petition at 810. Petitioners state that TIA proposed these changes in  X- xcomments filed in response to the NPRM, but that the Commission did not address these  X- xproposals in the Order and FNPRM. Petitioner's also note that, as requested by the Commission  X- xjin the Order and FNPRM,XYy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 5 FCC Rcd at 4700; supra para. 9. TIA has now developed and submitted a test for determining gold  Xv- x[equivalence for materials used in the plug/jack interface.xvYy yO -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See TIA Petition at 9, Appendix. x Petitioners urge the Commission to  X_-adopt TIA's proposed gold equivalence standard._xYy yO -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See GTE Petition at 16; AT&T Petition at 2; TIA Petition at 2. ĝ  X1-x a.` ` Standards for Gold and Gold Equivalence  X -   x40. Section 68.500 of our rules specifies that the plug/jack contact interface should be  xj"hard gold to hard gold," and that any nongold contact material must be compatible with gold  X - xand must provide equivalent contact performance.i Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э 47 C.F.R.  68.500. i Some Petitioners, noting the need to provide  xa standard for determining gold and gold equivalence under Section 68.500, have argued that such  X - xystandards are in the public interest and would provide necessary technical information. Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See GTE Petition at 16; AT&T Petition at 2; TIA Petition at 2. TIA  X- xLproposed a standard for gold in comments filed in response to the NPRM,( Yy yOi-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See TIA Comments, filed April 29, 1988, at 24. and has now also  Xy- xsubmitted a proposed test for determining "equivalent performance" to gold.wy Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See TIA Petition at 9, Appendix.w TIA notes that  xjits test for determining gold equivalence is necessarily based on its standard for gold, and that  xZboth standards should be adopted by the Commission. We agree that there should be a standard  xfor determining whether a material meets the requirements for gold or gold equivalence under  xour rules. In addition, we find that TIA has provided a reasonable standard and note that no  xparties to this proceeding have objected to the proposal. Accordingly, we amend Section 68.500  xto indicate that gold and gold equivalence under that section are to be determined using the TIA  X-standard.fH Yy yO$-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Appendix A.f  X-x b.` ` 8Position Jacks ",-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X-  ԙ x41. Section 68.500 in Subpart F of our rules includes diagrams and technical  xspecifications for various plugs and jacks that can be used as standard connectors for connection  xito the telephone network. Some Petitioners suggest that Subpart F should be amended to include  X- xZtechnical specifications for an 8position unkeyed jack.XYy yO4- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See, e.g., GTE Petition at 15; AT&T Petition at 78; TIA Petition at 2, 8. Keyed jacks have an extension  yO- xYon one side that ensures the user properly interconnects the plug and jack, i.e., the user can only insert the plug into one side of a keyed jack. Unkeyed jacks are jacks that lack this special feature.  The issue of whether specifications for  x=8position unkeyed jacks should be included in our rules has been rendered moot because the  X-necessary corrections have been made in 47 C.F.R.  68.500.xYy yO& -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 58 FR 44907 (August 25, 1993).x  X_-x c.` ` Wall Mounting Plates  X1-  ] x42. Some Petitioners suggest that our rules should include a standard for wall mounting  X - xiplates and setback and projection specifications for such plates. xYy yOC-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See, e.g., GTE Petition at 15; TIA Petition at 8. We agree that standardization  xof the plate improves subscribers' ability to interchange equipment easily. Although we endorse  xa standardization process for the plate, we do not believe a federal rule on the subject is required  xto achieve this. The characteristics of plugs and jacks that may be used in conjunction with wall  xmounting plates are already governed by Part 68 and it is only the wall mounting plate that is  xnot addressed by our rules. We do not believe that federally mandated standards for wall  X- xjmounting plates are necessary to address issues of harm to the network. We note that there is  xnow a voluntary mounting standard in the TIA/EIA 570 premises wiring standard, and that a  xynumber of manufacturers of wall mounted phones now provide adapter plates that can be used  xwith virtually any standard wall outlet. Accordingly, we conclude that specifications for wall  xKmounting plates in Part 68 are unnecessary, and the petitions for reconsideration requesting them are denied.  X- 3.xAttestation Requirement for Plugs and Jacks  X-  x43. In the Order and FNPRM, the Commission revised Section 68.213(b) to require that  xall plugs and jacks used in connection with simple inside wiring must conform to technical  X- xspecifications appearing in Subpart F.tYy yOL!-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 5 FCC Rcd at 4700. t TIA states that the effectiveness of this requirement  X|- xwould be substantially enhanced if the Commission required manufacturers to attest to such  Xe- x\compliance and to provide the Commission with supporting test data.ceYy yO$-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э TIA Petition at 9.c We note that sub xstandard plugs and jacks have posed a significant problem for consumers. In particular, such  xplugs and jacks may be difficult to interconnect and may lack the gold plating on the contact"7( ,-(-(ZZ"  xinterface needed to prevent interference. We conclude, however, that an attestation requirement  xis not essential for the prevention of network harm and, therefore, we will not amend  68.104  X-to impose an attestation requirement for plugs and jacks.   X-  C. APPLICATION FOR REVIEW ĐTP  X_-  ?x44. Background/Position of the Parties. Thirteen parties filed requests for deferral, stay  XH- x=or waiver of the effective date of the revised rules adopted in the Order and FNPRM.XHYy yO - x<#X\  P6G;ɒP#э These rules became effective August 13, 1990. See Bureau Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 5228. The requests were  xzfiled by Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, Cincinnati Bell, GTE, NATA, NYNEX, Pacific Bell, SNET,  yOQ -Southwestern Bell, TIA, USTA and US West.  These  X1- xrequests were denied by the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) on August 10, 1990.v1Yy yO -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Bureau Order at 5228.v The  xBureau found that the parties had not made a strong showing that they would prevail on  x@reconsideration, that there was no showing of irreparable harm, and that the planned  X - ximplementation of the revised rules would serve the public interest.i xYy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 5230.i GTE has filed an  x=application for review of the Bureau's decision and some comments in this proceeding express  xzsupport for that application. GTE argues that it is likely to prevail on the merits because the  x.Commission failed to comply with the APA in adopting a new demarcation point definition for  X- xcomplex wiring.uYy yOI-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э GTE Application for Review at 1418.u GTE also argues that failure to grant a stay would result in irreparable harm  xxbecause of industry confusion regarding the new rule, disruption of service to customers, damage  xxto telephone company equipment and potential danger to persons resulting from exposure to high  XK-voltages.uKYy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э GTE Application for Review at 1930.u  X-  x45. Discussion. We dismiss GTE's application for review as moot. The rules went into  xeffect August 13, 1990. Moreover, as discussed above, we find that we complied with the APA  X- x.in adopting the revised demarcation point rule.p( Yy yO -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See supra para. 13.p Finally, we have, in denying reconsideration on the issue[s] of concern to GTE, addressed the merits of the issues.  X-  X-=  IV. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER TP  X|-  A. DEFINING SIMPLE INSIDE WIRING ĐTP "N ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X-  x46. Background/Position of the Parties. Pursuant to Section 68.213, customers may  X- xiconnect simple wiring installations involving one or two access lines, to the telephone network.qYy yOb-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  68.213.q  xWiring installations terminating in more than two access lines are governed by Section 68.215  X- xand may only be connected to the network under the supervision of specially trained personnel.qXYy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  68.215.q  X- xIn the Order and FNPRM, we proposed expanding the scope of Section 68.213 to allow  xcustomers to connect wiring installations of up to four access lines without complying with the  Xv- xrequirements of Section 68.215.mvYy yO -#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 5 FCC Rcd at 4701.m We tentatively concluded that allowing customers to connect  xwiring installations of up to four access lines directly to the network would reduce regulatory  xburdens on customers and increase their options, without presenting any significant risk of harm  X1-to the network.Z1xYy yOZ-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.Z  X -  x47. All commenters addressing this issue indicate support for amending Section 68.213  X - xto govern wiring installations of up to four access lines.( Yy yO- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 12; BellSouth Comments at 13; GTE Comments at 24; GTE Reply Comments at 2; Southwestern Bell Comments at 15; TIA Comments at 13; USTA Reply Comments at 12. ( The Commenters agree that such  x.wiring generally could be safely installed by consumers and that allowing connection of up to  xMfour access lines would better reflect the current practices of residential and small business  xcustomers, who often need extra lines for additional telephones, personal computers or fax  xMmachines. Some parties however, argue that simple wiring under Section 68.213 should not  Xy- xinclude certain special types of wiring, such as house or riser cable, circuits that require special  xconditioning, single circuit high capacity metallic wiring, or wiring serving special services, even  XK- xkif four or fewer access lines are involved.K` Yy yO\- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See BellSouth Petition at 1821; GTE Petition at 911; NYNEX Petition at 9. See also UTS Comments at 5. These Commenters argue that such wiring may  xrequire special handling and should be subject to the rules for complex wiring or other special rules adopted by the Commission.  X-  lx48. Discussion. Based on the comments filed in this proceeding, we adopt our proposal  xand amend Section 68.213 to include wiring installations of up to four access lines. We find that  xythis rule change will increase consumer options without presenting a significant risk of harm to  xthe network. The revised rule also more accurately reflects the wiring practices of residential and  xsmall business users, who often need extra lines for additional telephones, personal computers,  xyfax machines, or ISDN facilities. In addition, to ensure consistency among our rules, we amend  xthe definition of nonsystem premises wiring in Section 68.3 to state that such wiring includes"e ,-(-(ZZ1"  X- xywiring installations of up to four access lines.Yy yOy- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Section 68.3 currently defines nonsystem premises wiring as "[w]iring which is used with one and twoline business and residence services, located at the subscriber's premises." As a matter of clarification, we also amend the  x=title of Section 68.215 to state that this section applies to wiring installations of more than four  x-access lines. We do not adopt the suggestion of some Commenters that various special types of  x>wiring should be excluded from Section 68.213. As discussed below, we propose to amend  xSection 68.213 to require that all new simple wiring installations and modifications to existing  X- xinstallations, must involve a minimum of Category 3 type wiring. Yy yO^ - x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Specifically, we propose that conductors must meet the electrical specifications for Category 3 or higher as  xKdefined in ANSI EIA/TIA 568A Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling Standard and ANSI EIA/TIA  yO - x570 Residential and Light Commercial Premises Wiring Standard. See infra paras. 5354. TIA has designated five  xZcategories or grades of wire. Category 3 wire has a twisted pair construction and is the minimum grade necessary  yO~ -to prevent "crosstalk." See id. ľ We believe that wiring  xmeeting this standard can be safely installed by customers and that no special exclusions are  xrequired. We also find that relaxing our rules to allow customers to connect wiring installations  xof up to four access lines is consistent with the national policy goals set forth in Section 257 of  x=the Communications Act by providing more options for small businesses to interconnect their  xCPE to the public switched telephone network and thus take advantage of the full panoply of  X - xtelecommunications and information services available.m Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 U.S.C.  257.m Moreover, as a consequence, this  xamendment of Section 68.213 will further the national policy goal of encouraging vigorous  xeconomic competition by expanding the market for installation and maintenance of unprotected,  xnonsystem simple customer premises wiring and accordingly providing increased opportunities for entrepreneurs and small businesses in the provision of such services.  X-  Xy- V. SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKINGTP h A. DEMARCATION POINT DEFINITIONTP  X-  X- 1.xApplication to Complex Wiring @  X-  /x49. As indicated above, we find that our revised demarcation point definition was adopted  xin a rulemaking proceeding that complied fully with the requirements of the APA and thus is  X- xproperly applied to both simple and complex wiring.`` Yy yO#-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.` We note, however, that several  xPetitioners expressed concern about our decision to apply the revised demarcation point definition  Xe- xto complex wiring.oe Yy yO'-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See supra para. 15.o In order to ensure that our ultimate decision on this subject is based on the"e ,-(-(ZZ"  X- xmost complete record possible, we are issuing a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking  X-("SFNPRM") requesting comment on our demarcation point definition.   x50. We tentatively conclude that retaining our revised definition for complex wiring is  xin the public interest. In particular, retaining the revised definition avoids the confusion that  x<could otherwise result from having separate demarcation point definitions for simple and complex  xzwiring. In addition, because in the case of new multiunit installations, the revised definition  X_- xencourages placement of the demarcation point at the minimum point of entry,_Yy yO- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Under Section 68.3(b)(2), if a carrier does not place the demarcation point at the minimum point of entry, it must leave selection of the demarcation point or points to the premises owner. the revised  xdefinition expands the amount of wiring that would be on the customer's side of the demarcation  xpoint, and thus the amount of wiring that is deregulated. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude  xthat retaining the revised definition for complex, as well as simple wiring, also furthers the  xCommission's previously stated goal of "foster[ing] competition in the inside wiring installation  x^and maintenance markets . . . and . . . the development of an unregulated, competitive  X - xtelecommunications marketplace." Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Detariffing Recon., 1 FCC Rcd at 1191; supra para. 6. But we stress that further comment may convince us otherwise.  X- 2.x Location Away From a Building  Xy-x  Xb-  x51. Background. As noted above, some PetitionersbYy yO- xh#X\  P6G;ɒP#э AT&T Petition at 7; GTE Petition at 6; Southwestern Bell Petition at 15; TIA Petition at 7. See also BICSI Comments at 2. express concern that the revised  x>definition appears to authorize placement of the demarcation point (and thus the telephone  xcompany protector) some distance from the building in which the telephone wiring is located.  xIn particular, Petitioners note that Section 68.3 allows carriers, under certain circumstances, to  X- x\place the demarcation point at the property line.XYy yO- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Section 68.3 allows carriers to place the demarcation point for new multiunit installations at the minimum  yO- xipoint of entry, which is defined as "the closest practicable point to where the wiring crosses a property line or . .  yOO-. enters a multiunit building." 47 C.F.R.  68.3 (emphasis added). Petitioners state that the NEC, however,  xrequires that protection be placed at or near the building. Petitioners contend that, if the carrier  x]places its demarcation point (and protector) at a property line, a second protector would  xnonetheless be required at the building. They assert that if proper coordination between these two  xxprotectors did not occur, this could pose a danger to the safety of telephone company personnel,  xcustomers and others on the property. Petitioners suggest that we modify our rules to prohibit  X|- xplacement of the demarcation point away from a building,e|( Yy yOU%-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э AT&T Petition at 7. e or clarify whether the NEC"| ,-(-(ZZ"  X- xprecludes such placement.sYy yOy-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Southwestern Bell Petition at 15. s In our Order on Reconsideration, we have declined to make the  X- x\requested modification in our rules at this time.vXYy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See supra para. 18.v We also noted that nothing in the record  x]indicates that the two protectors could not be coordinated and that property owners are  xresponsible for many safety standards regarding buildings and equipment located on their property.  Xv-  mx52. Request for Comments. Because of the safety concerns raised by Petitioners, we  xrequest additional comment on whether we should continue to allow the telephone company  x.demarcation point (and thus protector) to be placed away from a building, at the property line.  x/Commenters should discuss actual experience with our revised demarcation point rule, and  xjwhether the presence and coordination of a second protector is any different from other safety  xmatters for which property owners are routinely made responsible. If commenters believe the  xcurrent rule does create significant safety problems, they should indicate whether some rule  x[change, such as requiring carriers to notify building owners of the need for a second protector  xand protector coordination, could adequately address these concerns, while allowing the  X -demarcation point to remain located at the property line.  X-  Xy- B. WIRE QUALITY TP  XK-   x53. BICSI Petition. BICSI has filed a petition asking the Commission to amend Section  X4- x68.213(c) to adopt enhanced wire quality standards for simple inside wiring.o4Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See supra note 10.o BICSI states that  X- x{this rule change is necessary to protect against the growing problem of "crosstalk," i.e.,  X- xinterference to the service of other customers resulting from the use of poor quality wiring.ixYy yO/-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э BICSI Petition at 12. i  x0BICSI states that the extra cost of installing good quality wiring initially is small, and far  X- xoutweighed by the costs of rewiring a building when crosstalk problems make this necessary.bYy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 45.b  x.Because of competitive pressures in the building industry, and contractors' lack of knowledge  xabout inside wiring, however, BICSI indicates that contractors often simply choose the least  X- xexpensive wiring option.cYy yO"-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 3, 5.c BICSI states that enhanced wire quality standards will also help  X|- xprovide an infrastructure that can support advanced telecommunications services.`|( Yy yOU%-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 4.` Accordingly,  x-BICSI proposes amending Section 68.213(c) to require that "[c]onductors shall be solid, 24 gauge  x[or larger, twisted copper pairs which comply with the electrical specifications for Category 3 or"N ,-(-(ZZ0"  X- xhigher as defined in the ANSI EIA/TIA Building Wiring Standards."Yy yOy- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. at 6. BICSI cites the ANSI EIA/TIA 568A Commercial Building Telecommunications Cabling Standard and ANSI EIA/TIA 570 Residential and Light Commercial Premises Wiring Standard.  BICSI also states that  X-wiring and connectors should be marked to indicate compliance with this standard.\ Yy yO-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id. \  X-  x54. Discussion. We agree that the use of poor quality inside wiring can create a risk of  x[network harm. We are aware of numerous incidents of crosstalk apparently resulting from the  x use of poor quality simple inside wiring. In addition, we agree that the use of good quality  xwiring involves little additional cost and that the BICSI proposal should effectively address the  X_- xxcrosstalk problem. Although the Commission has received numerous complaints concerning the  xzproblem of crosstalk, the record before us does not indicate whether there are any physical  xmechanisms by which the use of poor quality inside wiring in one building affects service in  X - xother buildings. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether the use of poor quality inside wiring  xin one building affects service in other buildings, and propose adopting the amendments described  X - x.in the BICSI petition as a twoyear interim standard.f Yy yOM-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Appendix B.f  We also seek comment on whether the  xBICSI proposal is overly restrictive, particularly with respect to the requirement that only copper  X - x.be used. We propose that, while the twoyear interim standard is effective, industry members  x-shall work together to develop a voluntary standard to solve the problems posed by poor quality  xinside wiring. We seek comment on what industry body or bodies should be the entity through  Xy- xwhich members work to develop the permanent standard.  A voluntary industry standard could  xbe more easily updated and could work in tandem with industry efforts to inform the public of  xits quality standard, for example just as the use of product labels in the personal computer  X4- x>industry has affected consumers' perceptions.  In addition, we propose requiring that wire  X- xmeeting the proposed interim standards be marked at specific intervals to ensure that the markings  xcan be seen, and the wire quality identified, even if only a short length of wiring installed in the  X- xwalls is exposed. We believe that clear labeling will inform the public of the problem and may  xhelp prevent the problems presented by poor quality inside wiring. We request comment on these  X-proposals including comments on what marking interval should be required.@Yy yO- x-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э We will later institute a proceeding to reexamine the scope of our Part 68 rules, and as appropriate, any longterm enforcement mechanism for ensuring the enforcement of Part 68.  X-  ?x 55. We amended Section 68.500 to incorporate TIA's standard for determining gold and  X|- xygold equivalence.z|Yy yO#-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See supra para. 40.z We acknowledge that TIA provided a standard for determining whether a  xmaterial meets the requirements for gold and gold equivalence in comments filed in response to  XN- xthe NPRM.dN( Yy yO''-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.d We also seek comment on whether gold or gold equivalence is necessary in all"N ,-(-(ZZ"  xcases, and whether the new standard in Section 68.500 of the Commission's Rules, for  xdetermining whether a material meets the requirements for gold or gold equivalence, should also  X- xbe an interim standard effective for two years, until industry develops a permanent standard.Yy yOK-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э 47 C.F.R.  68.500; See supra para 40.  X- xAgain, we seek comment concerning through which industry body or bodies a permanent standard  xshould be developed if the standard in Section 68.500 adopted today becomes only an interim standard.  Xv- x  X_-} VI. CONCLUSION ĐTP  X1-  x56. In this Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order and Second Further  X - xZNotice of Proposed Rulemaking, we deny petitions for reconsideration of our revised demarcation  x=point definition and hold that the rule properly applies to complex wiring. We also clarify how  xour demarcation point rule applies to multiunit premises, what rights and responsibilities related  xto inside wiring building owners and managers possess, and what ownership rights and accounting  xtreatment apply to inside wiring under current Part 68 rules. In addition, we revise our  xdemarcation point rule to: (1) allow the demarcation point to be located within twelve inches of  xthe customer's premise "or as near thereto as practicable;" (2) indicate that only major  xKrearrangements or additions are to be treated as new installations under the rule; (3) allow owners  xof multiunit buildings to restrict customer access to only that wiring located in the customer's  xindividual unit; and (4) require local telephone companies to provide building owners with all  xavailable information regarding carrierinstalled wiring in the building. We also request comment on additional changes that we propose to our demarcation point rule.   mx57. In addition, we address other Part 68 rules relevant to inside wiring. In particular,  xwe affirm our rule allowing customers to attach simple inside wiring directly to the telephone  x[network and clarify that complex wiring can only be connected through a carrier provided jack.  xWe also amend our Part 68 rules to: (1) allow customers to attach wiring installations of up to  x]four access lines to the network; and (2) adopt a standard for determining gold and gold  X|- xequivalence under our rules. Further, we request comment on BICSI's proposal for enhanced  xwire quality standards. Our actions in this order are designed to clarify our demarcation point  xdefinition and other rules in Part 68 applicable to inside wiring needed for access to  xtelecommunications services and to ensure the availability of quality telecommunications service  x\to consumers. Finally, we request comment on whether BICSI's proposal and TIA's test for determining gold equivalence should be interim standards.  X-. VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ĐTP  X"-  A. REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT ANALYSISTP "h$!X,-(-(ZZF#"Ԍ X-  FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS X-TP   X-  x58. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C.  603 (RFA),  X- xan Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated In the Matter of Review of  xjSections 68.104 and 68.213 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Connection of Simple Inside  Xv- xWiring to the Telephone Network, CC Docket No. 8857, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this  xLproceeding. The Commission sought written public comments on the proposals in the NPRM,  xincluding the IRFA. The Commissioner's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in this  X1- x.Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order and SFNPRM, and conforms to the RFA,  xas amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA), Pub. L. No.  X -104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).  Yy yO| - x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Title II of the CWAAA is "The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996" (SBREFA),  {OD -codified at 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq.   X - Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rule:  x59. The Commission, in compliance with Sections 1 and 251(e)(1), and Title II of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, promulgates  Xy- x/rules in this Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order by amending Section  x68.213 to allow customers to connect wiring installations of up to four access lines to the  xtelephone network. This rule change would increase consumer options without presenting any  xzsignificant risk of harm to the network. Furthermore, the revised rule would more accurately  xreflect the wiring practices of residential and small business users, who often need extra lines for additional telephones, personal computers, fax machines, or ISDN facilities.  X- xj60. Additionally, this Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order amends Section  x[68.3, the demarcation point rule to: (1) clarify that the demarcation point may be located within  xtwelve inches of the point at which the wiring enters the customer's premises "or as near thereto  xas practicable;" (2) indicate that only major additions or rearrangements of existing wiring are  X|- xLto be treated as new installations under the rule; and (3) allow owners of multiunit build ings to restrict customer access to only that wiring located in the customer's individual unit.  XN-  X7-Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments In Response to the IRFA:   x61. We have reviewed the general comments to identify issues that may have a significant  xjeconomic impact on small businesses, and find that no issues were raised in direct response to  xjthe IFRA. Furthermore, all commenters addressing the issue of allowing customers the option  xof installation of up to four access line to the telephone network without assistance from the telephone carrier supported the proposed amendment. """",-(-(ZZ!"Ԍ X- Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which Rule Will Apply:  X-   x62. For the purposes of this Order, the RFA defines a "small business" to be the same  xNas a "small business concern" under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632, unless the  X- x-Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its activities.Yy {O- x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 5 U.S.C. 632). Under  xthe Small Business Act, a "small business concern" is one that: (1) is independently owned and  xoperated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria  X_- xLestablished by the Small Business Administration (SBA)._"Yy {O2 - x#X\  P6G;ɒP#э 15 U.S.C.  632. See, e.g., Brown Transport Truckload, Inc. v. Southern Wipers, Inc., 176 B.R. 82 (N.D.Ga. 1994). SBA has defined a small business  xfor Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812 (Radiotelephone Communications)  xand 4813 (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they  X - xhave fewer than 1,500 employees.g |Yy yOG-#X\  P6G;ɒP#э 13 C.F.R. 121.201.g We first discuss generally the total number of small  xtelephone companies falling within both of those SIC categories. Then, we discuss the number  x<of small businesses within the two subcategories, and attempt to refine further those estimates to correspond with the categories of telephone companies that are commonly used under our rules.  X -  lX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:proceeding, you must file an original and four copies of all comments, reply comments, and  x>supporting documents. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your  xcomments, you must file an original plus nine copies. Comments and reply comments should be  xzsent to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C.  xM20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular  xNbusiness hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239) of the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC.   nx94. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information  X- x?collections are due July 17 "y~ , 1997  . Written comments must be submitted by the Office of  xManagement and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information collections on or  x.before 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments  xzwith the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections contained herein  xshould be submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919  xlM Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to dconway@fcc.gov and to  xlTimothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov.  X-x  VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES  X!-   x95. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 201205, 218, 220,  xand 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154, 201205, 218,  X#- xz220 and 405, and 5 U.S.C.  552 and 553, this Order on Reconsideration and Second Report  Xh$- xand Order IS ADOPTED, and Part 68 of the Commission's Rules IS AMENDED as set forth in the attached Appendix A.   Px96. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rule amendments set forth in Appendix A"#'+,-(-(ZZ%"  X-  SHALL BE EFFECTIVE thirty days after publication in the Federal Register. The collection of   information contained within is contingent upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget.   97. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4 and 405 of the   OCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154 and 405, the petitions for  Xv-  Lreconsideration or clarification of the Report and Order, CC Docket 8857, RM 5643, 5 FCC Rcd   4686 (1990), filed by BellSouth Corporation, GTE Service Corporation, Southwestern Bell   iTelephone Company, United Telephone System Companies, New York Telephone Company, New   England Telephone Company, North American Telecommunications Association, Independent   Data Communications Manufacturer's Association, Telecommunications Industry Association,   LUnited States Telephone Association, AT&T, Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies, Ameritech,   yCentral Telephone Company, Southern New England Telephone Companies, Building Industry   ?Consulting Service International, Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company, Pacific Bell, MFS   <Communications Company, Building Owners and Managers Association of California, the People   of the State of California and Public Utilities Commission of the State of California and   jMountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company, Northwestern Bell Telephone Company,   jPacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company doing business as US West Communications ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated herein, and OTHERWISE ARE DENIED.  98. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4, 5, and 405 of the   Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154, 155, and 405, the petition filed by   0Building Owners and Managers Association of Pittsburgh, Inc., on October 13, 1992, IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein, and OTHERWISE IS DENIED.  99. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4, 5, and 405 of the   Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154, 155, and 405, the application for  X-  zreview of the Common Carrier Bureau's Order, CC Docket 8857, 5 FCC Rcd 5228 (1990), filed by GTE Service Corporation IS DISMISSED.  m100. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 201205, 218, and 220   of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154, 201205, 218, and 220,   and 5 U.S.C.  552 and 553, the petition for expedited rulemaking filed by the Building Industry   Consulting Service International IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein, and OTHERWISE IS DISMISSED.  101. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 201205, 218, and 220,   of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154, 201205, 218, and 220,  X"-  \and 5 U.S.C.  552 and 553, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS PROVIDED to amend Part 68 of the Commission's rules, as described herein and as set forth in Appendix B.  102. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pacific Bell's amended petition for clarification or reconsideration is accepted into the record. "#',,-(-(ZZ%"ԌX4 hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:building owner or agent thereof. The telephone company may charge the building owner a   reasonable fee for this service, which shall not exceed the cost involved in locating and copying   the documents. In the alternative, the telephone company may make these documents available   for review and copying by the building owner. In this case, the telephone company may charge   a reasonable fee, which shall not exceed the cost involved in making the documents available, and may also require the building owner to pay a deposit to guarantee the documents' return.  X-  XN- !4.Section 68.213 is amended by revising paragraph (a), and adding a new fourth sentence to paragraph (b), to read as follows:  X -  8"  68.213 Installation of other than "fully protected" nonsystem simple customer premises  X-wiring.  X -   (a) Scope of this rule. Provisions of this rule apply only to "unprotected" premises wiring used   with simple installations of wiring for up to four line residential and business telephone service.   More complex installations of wiring for multiple line services, for use with systems such as PBX and key telephone systems, are controlled by  68.215 of these rules.  Xh$- (b) Wiring authorized. * * *   /In multiunit premises with more than one customer, the premises owner may adopt a policy   restricting a customer's access to wiring on the premises to only that wiring located in the"#'/,-(-(ZZ%"  X-  customer's individual unit wiring that serves only that particular customer. See Demarcation   point definition, Section 68.3(b)(3). The customer or premises owner may not access carrier   wiring and facilities on the carrier's side of the demarcation point. Customers may not access   ythe telephone companyinstalled protector. All plugs and jacks used in connection with inside wiring shall conform to subpart F of the Commission's rules. * * * * *  XH-5.Section 68.215 is amended by revising the title to read as follows:  X -  9!  68.215 Installation of other than "fully protected" system premises wiring that serves  X -more than four subscriber access lines. * * * * *  X - }6.Section 68.500 is amended by adding a new sentence at the end of the general text paragraph, and prior to the specifications for a 6position plug, to read as follows:  Xy-  68.500 Specifications.  X4- General. * * *   For the purposes of this section, hard gold and contact performance equivalent to gold shall be  X-  -determined in accordance with the standards detailed in Appendix H of TIA Telecommunications  X-  Systems Bulletin No. 31 Part 68 Rationale and Measurement Guidelines (TSB.31), prepared by  X-  EIA/TIA TR41 Committee on Telephone Terminals (1992). This publication may be obtained   =by contacting Global Engineering Documents, 7730 Carondelet Avenue, Suite # 407, St. Louis, Missouri, 63105. (Telephone number 18008547179).  X|- (a) Miniature 6position plug: * * * * * * * * "70,-(-(ZZ?"  X- AAPPENDIX B  X- Proposed Rule Changes  X-l l  X-  lU Part 68 (Chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations) is proposed to be amended as follows:  XH- PART 68 CONNECTION OF TERMINAL EQUIPMENT TO THE NETWORK  X - 1.The authority citation for Part 68 continues to read as follows:   m Authority: Secs. 1, 4, 5, 2015, 208, 215, 218, 226, 227, 303, 313, 314, 403, 404, 410, 602   of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 155, 2015, 208, 215, 218, 226, 227, 303, 313, 314, 403, 404, 410, 602.  X -  X-2.Section 68.213 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:  Xb-  8"  68.213 Installation of other than "fully protected" nonsystem simple customer premises  XK-wiring. * * * * *  X- (c) Material requirements.  X- N(1) For new installations and modifications to existing installations, conductors shall be   solid, 24 gauge or larger, twisted copper pairs which comply with the electrical specifications for Category 3 or higher as defined in the ANSI EIA/TIA Building Wiring Standards.  m(2) Conductors shall have insulation with a 1500 Volt rms minimum breakdown rating.   This rating shall be established by covering the jacket or sheath with at least 15 cm (6 in)   (measured linearly on the cable) of conductive foil, and establishing a potential difference   between the foil and all of the individual conductors connected together, such potential difference   gradually increased over a 30 second time period to 1500 Volts rms, 60 Hertz, then applied   continuously for one minute. At no time during this 90 second time interval shall the current between these points exceed 10 milliamperes peak.  l(3) All wire and connectors meeting the requirements set forth in subparagraphs (1) and   (2) above shall be marked in a manner visible to the consumer, as recommended in the ANSI EIA/TIA premises cabling standards. * * * * *  Xh$-