**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Review of Sections 68.104 and ) CC Docket No. 88-57

68.213 of the Commission\'s Rules )

Concerning Connection of )

Simple Inside Wiring )

to the Telephone Network )

)

and )

)

Petition for Modification of ) RM-5643

Section 68.213 of the Commission\'s )

Rules filed by the Electronic )

Industries Association )

)

**THIRD REPORT AND ORDER**

**Adopted: December 21, 1999 Released: January 10, 2000**

By the Commission:

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

[Paragraph No.]{.underline}

I. Introduction 1

II\. Background 5

III\. Discussion 9

A. Inside Wiring Quality Standard 9

B. Gold or Gold Equivalent Standard 30

C. Designation of Schools and Hospitals as Multiunit Structures 32

D. Information Request Response Period 33

IV\. Procedural Matters 34

V. Ordering Clauses 35

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Rule Changes

Appendix B: Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

**I. INTRODUCTION**

I.  

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Part 68 of the Commission\'s Rules governs the interconnection of
    customer premises telecommunications terminal equipment and its
    associated wiring with the public switched telecommunications
    network (\"PSTN\" or \"network\").[^1] Part 68 sets standards to
    ensure that the connection of such customer premises equipment (CPE)
    to the PSTN will not cause harm to the network,[^2] such as
    electrical hazards to telephone company personnel and equipment,
    malfunctioning of billing equipment, and the degradation of
    telecommunications services to third parties.[^3] In addition, Part
    68 contains rules designed to ensure that persons with hearing aids
    are afforded reasonable access to the telephone network.[^4]

2.  In 1984, the Commission adopted section 68.213 of the rules to
    permit telecommunications subscribers and premises owners to install
    and connect telecommunications equipment and inside wiring to the
    PSTN.[^5] The term \"inside wiring\" describes wiring installations
    located on the customer premises side of the demarcation point.[^6]
    The demarcation point is the interface point between the PSTN and
    the inside wiring, and is the juncture at which the
    telecommunications carrier\'s responsibilities end and the
    customer\'s control begins.[^7] Inside wiring connects CPE to the
    PSTN and to other CPE. Simple inside wiring refers to wiring
    installations of up to four lines in residential or business
    telephone service.[^8] Complex inside wiring refers to wiring
    installations that exceed four subscriber access lines.[^9]

3.  Recently, in the *Advanced Services* proceeding, we took action to
    promote the deployment of broadband services to consumers and small
    businesses.[^10] The *Advanced Services* proceeding, however,
    focused on the deployment of advanced services through the local
    loop, to the customer's demarcation point[^11][^12] Bringing
    broadband capability to the customer's demarcation point is for
    naught, however, if customers cannot rely on the availability of
    quality inside wiring to connect their CPE to the demarcation point.
    Thus, in this action, we examine the potentially deleterious effect
    of poor quality inside wiring on advanced services, as well as on
    traditional voiceband services, and establish minimum inside wiring
    quality standards to ensure that consumer utility of those services
    will not be hampered by poor quality inside wiring.

4.  Specifically, in this *Third Report and Order* we amend the rules to
    establish quality standards for inside wiring, to promote the
    availability of quality telecommunications facilities that will not
    frustrate consumer access to existing and advanced
    telecommunications services. We anticipate that in the future,
    industry will assume greater responsibility for the further
    elaboration of inside wiring quality standards to the extent
    necessary. We also affirm the gold or gold equivalent standard for
    connectors, and decline to (1) designate schools and hospitals as
    multiunit structures, (2) establish requirements compelling
    notification of building owners and tenants with respect to
    additional network protectors, and (3) establish a standard time
    period for carrier responses to customer requests for inside wiring
    information. We have recently concluded a series of three technical
    fora, examining potential strategic and policy choices for Part
    68.[^13] We note that in response to these fora, we may undertake a
    substantial initiative to further privatize the Part 68 program.

**II. BACKGROUND**

5.  In 1990, the Commission issued an *Order and FNPRM* that revised the
    definition of \"demarcation point\" to ensure customer access to
    carrier-installed inside wiring, and proposed rules to enable
    customers to connect up to four access lines directly to the PSTN.
    Eleven petitions for reconsideration and/or clarification,[^14] and
    one late-filed petition to intervene[^15] were filed in response to
    the *1990 Order and FNPRM*, and numerous comments were filed in
    response to those petitions.[^16] In addition, the Building Industry
    Consulting Service International (BICSI) filed a petition for
    rulemaking requesting that the Commission adopt quality standards
    for simple inside wiring.[^17]

6.  The Commission responded to those petitions and comments in the
    *1997 Rulemaking*.[^18] In that action, the Commission amended the
    demarcation point definition to: (1) clarify that the demarcation
    point may be located within twelve inches of the point at which the
    wiring enters the customer\'s premises, or as close as otherwise
    practicable; (2) indicate that only major additions or
    rearrangements of existing wiring are to be treated as new
    installations under the rule; (3) allow owners of multiunit
    buildings to restrict customer access to wiring located within the
    customer\'s individual unit; and (4) require local telephone
    companies to supply customers with information about their inside
    wiring. Finally, the Commission included with the *1997 Rulemaking*
    a *Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemakin*g requesting comment
    on proposed modifications to the demarcation point rule, BICSI\'s
    proposed enhanced wire quality standards, and the gold or gold
    equivalent standard.[^19]

7.  Numerous comments, reply comments, and *ex parte* comments were
    filed in response to the *1997 Rulemaking*, addressing the
    Commission\'s inquiries regarding its demarcation point definition,
    the adoption of inside wire quality standards, and the Commission\'s
    gold and gold equivalence standard. Two petitions for clarification
    and reconsideration were also filed in response to issues discussed
    on reconsideration in the *1997 Rulemaking*. One petition requested
    that the Commission clarify that its rules do not authorize
    unilateral changes to demarcation point location.[^20] The other
    petition requested that the Commission clarify that it intended to
    give only prospective effect to its interpretation of the
    demarcation point definition in the *1997 Rulemaking*.[^21]

8.  In a separate proceeding,[^22] we are considering how we can
    facilitate the development of telecommunications networks providing
    competitive alternatives to local services supplied by incumbent
    wireline local exchange carriers (LECs). In particular, the
    *Competitive Networks Notice* proposes actions to ensure that
    competitive network providers will have reasonable and
    non-discriminatory access to buildings, rooftops, and facilities in
    multiunit premises for the purpose of providing telecommunications
    services through wireline and wireless transmission systems. The
    scope of the review of the demarcation point rules that we undertake
    in the *Competitive Networks* proceeding encompasses the demarcation
    point issues that remain open in this docket. Consequently, we defer
    further consideration of demarcation point issues, including the two
    petitions for clarification and reconsideration remaining open in
    this proceeding, to the *Competitive Networks* proceeding.

**III. DISCUSSION**

**A. Inside Wiring Quality Standard**

9.  We adopt material standards for copper, twisted pair wire used in
    new, simple inside wiring installations. We introduce this standard
    into our regulations to identify a \"standard industry practice.\"
    Our intention in this action is to encourage builders to install
    quality inside wiring to ensure that consumers will continue to have
    access to widely available communications services. This action will
    also benefit consumers as carriers deploy broadband systems that are
    more demanding on inside wiring than traditional voice
    telecommunications services. For instance, broadband transmission
    systems operate at higher power levels and utilize a greater
    frequency range than traditional voice services, placing additional
    demands on the inside wiring. Poor quality inside wiring can
    substantially degrade the performance of these high-powered or
    sensitive broadband technologies, and can cause problems in
    telephone lines that are installed nearby.[^23] Thus, the use of
    adequate quality inside wiring becomes even more important as
    broadband technology becomes more widely deployed in residential and
    small business installations. As a result, this action will benefit
    consumers and small businesses using legacy voice telecommunications
    services as well as those seeking to access broadband services.

10. We envision that consumers may enforce this rule by prosecuting
    claims against builders and contractors that have utilized inferior
    wiring in new construction.[^24] For example, an aggrieved consumer
    or building owner, beset by problems caused by poor quality inside
    wire, may make a civil claim against a builder or contractor for
    breach of implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a
    particular purpose. We also anticipate that telecommunications
    wiring standards will be adopted by building industry organizations,
    and reflected in local building codes.[^25]

11. As noted in the *1997 Rulemaking*, BICSI has filed a petition
    requesting that we amend section 68.213(c) to require that inside
    wiring \"\[c\]onductors shall be solid, 24 gauge or larger, twisted
    copper pairs \[marked to indicate compliance with\] the electrical
    specifications for Category 3 or higher as defined in the
    ANSI/EIA/TIA Building Wiring Standards.\"[^26] In the *1997
    Rulemaking*, the Commission sought comment on BICSI\'s proposed
    inside wiring quality standard. In addition, the Commission sought
    comment describing how the use of poor quality wiring in one
    building might affect service in other buildings and asked whether
    BICSI\'s proposed copper only requirement is overly restrictive. The
    Commission proposed adopting the BICSI petition as a two-year
    interim standard, so that during the tenure of the interim standard
    the industry could work together to develop a voluntary inside
    wiring standard, and sought comment identifying the appropriate
    industry body or bodies to develop that voluntary industry standard.
    Finally, the Commission requested comment describing the most
    appropriate wire markings and marking intervals.[^27]

12. Commenters responding to the Commission\'s inquiries agree that
    poor-quality, non-twisted pair inside wiring can cause network harm
    in the form of \"cross-talk,\"[^28] resulting in a loss of privacy,
    interference with digital transmission, and disruption of telephone
    conversations.[^29] Commenters state that cross‑talk is likely to
    occur in homes and small businesses utilizing simple inside wiring
    configurations in which poor quality wires serving multiple
    telephones are bundled together. Commenters contend that the use of
    poor quality inside wiring in new installations is growing, creating
    a nationwide cross‑talk problem.[^30] Commenters also state that
    cross‑talk caused by poor quality building wire can affect telephone
    service in other buildings and that third-party and network harm
    could occur between adjacent buildings as well as among parties in
    the same structure.[^31]

13. Commenters state that the presence of inferior wiring may not be
    immediately apparent to homeowners and homebuyers, since the
    potential for future problems may be difficult to detect. Symptoms
    such as cross-talk may not emerge until additional telephone lines
    or new services are added to the premises wiring. Commenters note
    that these additions may not be made for a substantial amount of
    time after installation of the original, sub-standard inside
    wiring.[^32] Commenters also state that once a problem is
    discovered, homeowners often must rewire the affected premises to
    rectify the problem,[^33] at a cost substantially higher than the
    cost of initially installing wire comporting with BICSI\'s proposed
    standards.[^34]

14. Commenters and petitioners explain that a primary cause of this
    troublesome situation is that the simple inside wiring market does
    not function correctly because homebuyers are shut out of the inside
    wire selection process.[^35] They argue that building contractors
    and developers generally select telecommunications wire long before
    the homebuyer has entered the picture, and that this situation
    allows builders to prioritize lower cost over quality when
    purchasing wire to be used for simple inside wiring.[^36] Commenters
    further explain that when homeowners become aware of the problem,
    such as when they attempt to install an additional line or
    experience audible cross‑talk, it is often too late to seek
    reparations from the builder or contractor.[^37] Thus, commenters
    and petitioners argue that since the \"purchasing entity,\" in this
    case the builder or contractor, is not held accountable for the
    problems caused by its least-cost-based decision, market forces will
    not protect the consumer\'s interest in quality inside wiring and
    that the Commission must establish a wire quality standard to
    correct this market malfunction.[^38]

15. Commenters note a number of additional factors that contribute to
    the problems associated with poor-quality inside wiring. For
    example, commenters state that a building\'s use and users generally
    change through a building\'s \"lifespan,\"[^39] and that it is not
    uncommon for a single-family home to be later converted to a
    professional office or a multi-tenant dwelling.[^40] Moreover, there
    has been an exponential increase in the installation of additional
    lines to accommodate Internet, fax, and voice traffic in residential
    and mixed-use structures.[^41] These factors increase the likelihood
    that inferior wiring will lead to communications problems that can
    only be resolved by installing good-quality wire to replace the poor
    quality wire used in the original construction. Arguing that in
    these circumstances, it is all too often the homeowner who \"foots
    the bill\" to correct the problems created by the building
    contractor\'s poor choice of wire,[^42] commenters and petitioners
    claim that these problems can be minimized, at least with respect to
    new installations, if we adopt inside wiring quality standards
    sufficient to protect basic telephony service.[^43]

16. We agree with commenters and petitioners that poor quality inside
    wiring can cause cross-talk, disrupting basic telephone service and
    causing network harm. We find that it is in the public interest to
    adopt inside wiring quality standards in order to protect consumers
    and the PSTN from such harm. We find that BICSI\'s proposed inside
    wiring quality standard is a reasonable means by which to accomplish
    this task. We anticipate that consumers will benefit from the
    establishment of an inside wire quality standard for new simple
    wiring installations. Thus, we amend section 68.213(c) of the
    Commission\'s rules to adopt enhanced wire quality standards for
    simple inside wiring. Specifically, we require that copper inside
    wiring installed 180 days after the date of this Order's publication
    in the Federal Register, shall be, at a minimum, solid, 24 gauge or
    thicker, twisted pairs, marked to indicate compliance with the
    electrical specifications for Category 3, as defined in the
    ANSI/EIA/TIA Building Wiring Standards. Inside wiring material
    exceeding the minimum requirements specified in section 68.213(c) as
    amended by this *Order* may be used and should be marked to indicate
    those characteristics.

17. In the *1997 Rulemaking*, the Commission asked if the BICSI proposal
    is overly restrictive because it would require that only copper wire
    may be used. In response, commenters attest that the BICSI proposal,
    including the copper-only standard, is not overly restrictive, as
    copper is the most commonly used medium that suffers from cross‑talk
    problems.[^44] Commenters also agree that they are not aware of
    current telephone wire or wire standards that do not use or specify
    copper-conductor material,[^45] that the Commission\'s Part 68
    inside wiring rules only address copper transmission medium, and
    that cross-talk only seems to be an issue with copper wire
    installations.[^46] In addition, commenters predict that copper
    conductor will remain the norm for telecommunications wiring for
    some time to come.[^47] Finally, commenters note that the
    Commission\'s flexibility to modify its rules in response to future
    wire technology developments mitigates against the likelihood that a
    copper conductor requirement is overly restrictive.[^48]

18. We note that the inside wiring requirements that we adopt in this
    *Order* apply only to copper conductor specifically installed for
    use as simple inside wiring for telecommunications service.[^49] We
    define the scope of this regulation specifically to avoid precluding
    the development and use of other transmission media that may be able
    to function in place of twisted pair copper inside wiring. We
    strongly support the development and utilization of alternative
    customer premises transmission media, such as optical fiber, coaxial
    cable, electrical cabling, and wireless technology. Our intention in
    this action is purely to establish a minimum quality standard for
    what is, at present, the least costly, practically functional option
    that provides consumers with unrestricted ability to utilize basic
    telephony and other widely available communications devices.

19. Thus, we adopt these inside wiring requirements to protect consumers
    from the degradation of basic telephony service that can be caused
    by the installation of substandard wiring. We believe that this
    action is a necessary response to a demonstrated problem in the
    market as it now operates. We stress, however, that we intend these
    inside wiring requirements to be a minimum standard. We believe it
    is preferable for private industry to undertake self-regulation in
    this area. Industry organizations are, in all likelihood, capable of
    developing and maintaining customer premises transmission media
    standards that reflect ongoing technological advances. We observe
    that industry organizations, such as the Building Officials Code
    Administrators (BOCA), the International Conference of Building
    Officials (ICBO), and the Southern Building Code Congress
    International (SBCCI), continually update and publish model building
    codes, and that local building codes often reflect the content of
    these private industry publications.[^50] Government-authorized
    inspectors enforce these local building codes. We believe that
    consumers will most benefit if standards for customer premises
    transmission media are similarly developed by industry organizations
    working in conjunction with the telecommunications industry and
    other interested parties, and if these standards are adopted and
    enforced on a local level, through existing mechanisms such as
    building code requirements and inspections. The advantage of
    industry self-regulation is that emerging technological developments
    in transmission media can quickly be incorporated into the
    applicable code, in response to consumer desire for such technology.

20. We specifically recognize the International Code Council\'s (ICC)
    current effort to create a comprehensive and coordinated
    international building code.[^51] We understand that the ICC is now
    developing a single international code for one- and two-family
    residential construction. We encourage the ICC, and similar
    organizations, to assume responsibility for further elaboration of
    the inside wire quality standards we adopt in this *Order*, and
    incorporate these standards into future code development activities.
    We also hope that the ICC or a similar organization will become the
    primary public forum for the establishment of material,
    installation, and performance requirements for customer premises
    transmission media. We intend that the inside wiring quality
    standards that we adopt in this *Order* will serve as a basis and
    guideline for such private sector efforts.

21. We also emphasize that because the inside wiring quality standards
    we adopt in this *Order* are minimum standards, they do not imply
    that inferior materials may be used instead of copper. Although the
    use of inferior, non-copper customer premises transmission media may
    not be explicitly precluded by these rules, we note that, pursuant
    to section 68.108, a carrier need not connect, or remain connected,
    to inside wiring that the carrier reasonably suspects will cause
    harm to the PSTN.[^52] Under section 68.108 of our rules, carriers
    are afforded certain self-help privileges enabling them to take
    necessary actions to protect the PSTN, such as temporarily
    disconnecting or refusing to connect inside wiring or CPE that is
    likely to cause harm to the PSTN.[^53] Carriers seeking to utilize
    those self-help privileges must notify the customer of their
    intended action, give the customer an opportunity to correct
    problems, and inform the customer of his right to complain to the
    Commission should the carrier act improperly.[^54] We emphasize that
    for the purposes of section 68.108, a carrier may reasonably
    determine that inside wiring not conforming with the inside wiring
    quality requirements set forth in this *Order*, and installed after
    these rules go into effect, is a potential source of harm to the
    PSTN.[^55] In such cases, the carrier should notify the customer
    that the inside wiring does not comply with our rules. The customer
    will then have the opportunity to seek redress from the party that
    installed the wire or, alternatively, to assume the risk of
    connecting to the PSTN. We expect, however, that before the new rule
    is effective, carriers will notify homebuilders, homebuyers,
    building code organizations, and other interested parties of the
    overall importance of installing inside wiring that meets or exceeds
    the enhanced standards we now require. Furthermore, we anticipate
    that the new inside wiring standard will be recognized in consumer
    complaints or claims against homebuilders, contractors, or other
    parties that may, for example, be liable under breach of implied
    warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

22. Finally, we intend that this regulation will benefit consumers by
    ensuring that their interests are protected before they encounter
    problems caused by poor inside wiring. We seek to ensure that
    consumers will not be frustrated with barriers to service or other
    concerns. Consequently, carriers must fully comply with the
    connection requirements of 68.104 and the consumer protection
    provisions of section 68.108, and are subject to the filing of
    consumer complaints pursuant to section 68.400.

23. In the *1997 Rulemaking*, the Commission proposed adopting inside
    wire quality standards as a two-year interim rule. The Commission
    also proposed that while the two-year interim rule is in effect, the
    industry should \"work together to solve the problems caused by poor
    quality inside wiring.\" In addition, the Commission requested
    comment identifying \"what industry body . . . should be the entity
    through which members work to develop a permanent standard\"[^56]
    The vast majority of commenters responded by urging the Commission
    to adopt the BICSI proposal as a permanent rule, arguing that \"an
    interim standard will not have the same impact on builders and
    electrical contractors\"[^57] and that an interim rule may be
    undermined by the perception that it is \"merely precatory.\"[^58]
    Commenters also note that an interim rule followed by a voluntary
    industry standard would not improve upon the current situation,
    since a voluntary standard currently exists, but, despite an
    \"explicit educational push\" by telephone companies,[^59] the
    industry has so far been unsuccessful in promoting compliance.[^60]

24. We agree with commenters that the inside wire quality standard
    should be adopted as a permanent standard. In the *1997 Rulemaking*,
    we requested that commenters identify the appropriate body through
    which the industry may work to develop a voluntary standard.[^61]
    The record indicates that the TIA TR 41 Committee for User Premises
    Equipment Requirements (TIA UPED), specifically the TIA TR 41.8
    Subcommittee is a suitable industry forum and an appropriate body to
    develop a permanent standard, as it represents a diversity of
    industry viewpoints.[^62] The TIA UPED engineering committee,
    telecommunications industry representatives, and other
    telecommunications industry standards organizations developed
    ANSI/EIA/TIA-570-91, entitled \"Residential and Light Commercial
    Telecommunications Wiring Standard,\" the standard proposed by BICSI
    for adoption as the Commission\'s inside wiring quality
    standard.[^63] The record indicates that BICSI\'s proposal
    represents a voluntary, industry consensus standard, and should be
    adopted as a permanent standard.[^64] Thus, we find that BICSI\'s
    proposal represents industry consensus on the proper standards for
    inside wiring quality.

25. In the *1997 Rulemaking*, the Commission requested comment on its
    proposal that wire meeting the standards proposed by BICSI be marked
    at specific intervals to ensure that the markings are visible when
    the wiring is installed. The Commission expressed its belief that
    clear labeling would help the public detect and avoid problematic
    and poor quality inside wiring.

26. In response, commenters agree that inside wiring should be marked
    for performance and quality at specific intervals in order to enable
    easy identification of conforming wiring, even where only a small
    amount of wiring is exposed.[^65] Commenters, however, are divided
    in support of marking the wire at one-foot intervals or two-foot
    intervals. Commenters supporting a one-foot marking interval argue
    that it is important that service providers are able to easily
    determine the type and quality of inside wiring, and only a small
    amount of wire is available for visual inspection at wall
    jacks.[^66] These commenters explain that there often is less than
    two feet of wire available to the technician at a connection
    point.[^67] In these situations, wire markings at two foot intervals
    could be hidden within building walls.[^68] Other commenters,
    however, recommend marking the wire at two-foot intervals, reasoning
    that industry practice is to mark electrical cables with NEC\'s fire
    rating every two feet.[^69] We establish that wire must be marked
    for compliance with the Commission\'s inside wiring quality standard
    at one-foot intervals, as described in section 68.213(c)(3) of our
    rules as amended by this *Third Report and Order*. We find that this
    represents a practical approach, in light of the comments of
    interested parties describing industry practice relating to the
    installation of simple inside wiring.

27. We note that commenters indicate that they will cooperate in
    implementation of the inside wire quality standard by educating
    homeowners and the building industry about the requirements and
    importance of conformity.[^70] Commenters suggest that interested
    parties will lead an effort to educate communities and encourage
    incorporation of the Commission\'s inside wiring quality standards
    into local building codes.[^71] Commenters also predict that the
    inclusion of inside wiring quality standards into local building
    codes will facilitate enforcement by causing simple inside wiring
    installations to be subject to the same inspection and approval
    process as electrical wiring.[^72] We agree that such efforts will
    amplify the benefits of our amendment of section 68.213 in this
    *Third Report and Order* and strongly encourage these and further
    efforts by interested private parties.

28. The new standard will become effective 180 days from the date of
    publication of this *Third Report and Order* in the Federal
    Register. This 180 day period should be sufficient time to permit
    builders, wire manufacturers, and other interested parties to
    manufacture and to obtain adequate inventory of category 3
    wire.[^73] A 180-day period also will provide carriers with
    sufficient time to notify their customers of this new requirement.

29. We adopt these standards with the intention that consumers will
    benefit from a standard requiring the use of materials that an
    informed consumer would probably select if given the opportunity. We
    expect that carriers will utilize the 180-day period before this
    regulation becomes effective to inform consumers, as well as
    builders and interested standards organizations, of the meaning and
    impact of the enhanced inside wiring standards that we adopt in this
    *Order*.

**B. Gold or Gold Equivalent Standard**

30. Section 68.500 of the Commission\'s rules specifies that the
    plug/jack interface should be \"hard gold to hard gold,\" and that
    any non-gold contact material must be compatible with gold and
    provide equivalent performance.[^74] In the 1997 R*ulemaking*, the
    Commission amended section 68.500 of our rules to incorporate TIA\'s
    standard for determining gold and gold equivalence for network
    interface devices. In so doing, the Commission acknowledged that the
    TIA standard meets the requirements for determining when a material
    conforms to the gold or gold equivalent standard. The Commission
    also requested comment on whether gold or gold equivalence is
    necessary in all cases and whether the standard adopted in the 1997
    *Rulemaking* should be an interim standard, effective for two years
    until the industry adopts a permanent standard.[^75] We requested
    identification of the industry body or bodies through which a
    permanent standard should be developed.[^76]

31. Commenters agree that the gold or gold equivalent standard should be
    developed by a body composed of representatives from all industry
    sectors, and that the TIA TR-41 Committee is a suitable forum since
    its membership represents a diversity of viewpoints from within the
    industry.[^77] The same commenters agree that the standard adopted
    in the 1997 *Rulemaking* represents industry consensus on the
    matter, and that the standard would be undermined by identification
    as an interim measure.[^78] Commenters do not support rolling back
    the current standard, and indicate that the public interest would
    not be served by doing so. The growing market presence of
    communications equipment and technology, such as facsimiles, modems,
    and ISDN, that have low tolerance for transmission anomalies and
    interference, such as those caused by poor connectors, indicates
    that the public interest will be served by supporting industry
    initiatives that pursue improved telecommunications transmission
    quality. Furthermore, the current standard has been in place for
    more than a year and has not been the subject of any criticism.[^79]
    Consequently, we decline to further revise section 68.500 with
    respect to the gold or gold equivalent standard.

**C. Designation of Schools and Hospitals as Multiunit Structures**

32. In the *1997 Rulemaking*, the Commission proposed that schools,
    hospitals and other similar facilities be considered multiunit
    premises under the Commission\'s demarcation point rule. Commenters
    addressing this issue argue that whether a school, hospital, or
    similar facility should be considered multiunit premises[^80] would
    be more appropriately determined on a case by case basis, and that
    the Commission\'s current definition of multiunit premises is
    sufficient to cover any foreseeable situations.[^81] We note that
    nothing in the record evinces difficulties in this area or indicates
    that case-by-case resolution of this issue would be problematic.
    Thus, we decline to determine that schools, hospitals, and similar
    facilities should be classified as multiunit premises under the
    demarcation point rule.

**D. Information Request Response Period**

33. In the *1997 Rulemaking*, the Commission requested comment
    identifying a reasonable time for telephone companies to respond to
    requests for disclosure of information regarding the wiring layout
    of buildings, including information about inside wiring on the
    customer\'s side of the demarcation point.[^82] Commenters
    addressing this issue agree that thirty days is a reasonable time
    period to respond to customer requests for inside wiring information
    regarding the wiring layout of buildings, schematic diagrams, and
    service records. Commenters also agree that telephone companies may
    charge for this service, or in the alternative, may make these
    documents available for review and copying by the building
    owner.[^83] Although thirty days may in fact be reasonable, the
    record does not indicate uncertainty or problems in this area. Thus,
    rather than risk a premature or speculative decision, we decline to
    identify a specific period as reasonable for the purposes of
    customer requests for inside wiring information. We note, however,
    that we may revisit this issue in the future, as circumstances
    warrant.

**IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS**

34. [Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis.]{.underline} As required by
    Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. § 603
    (RFA) an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
    incorporated In the Matter of Review of Sections 68.104 and 68.213
    of the Commission\'s Rules Concerning Connection of Simple Inside
    Wiring to the Telephone Network, CC Docket No. 88-57, *Order on
    Reconsideration, Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking* in this proceeding. The Commission sought
    written public comments on the proposals in the *1997 Rulemaking*,
    including the IRFA. Appendix B of this *Third Report and Order*
    contains the Commission\'s Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    (FRFA) in compliance with the RFA, as amended by the Contract with
    America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110
    Stat. 847 (1996).

**V. ORDERING CLAUSES**

35. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in
    Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 11, 201-205, 218, 220, 256, and 405 of the
    communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. sections 151, 154(i),
    151(j), 161, 201-205 and 218, 220, 256, and 405, and 5 U.S.C.
    sections 552 and 553, this [Third Report and Order and Order on
    Reconsideration]{.underline} IS ADOPTED, and Part 68 of the
    Commission\'s Rules IS AMENDED as set forth in the attached Appendix
    A.

36. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rule amendments set forth in Appendix
    A SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 180 days after publication of this Order in the
    Federal Register.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**AMENDED RULES**

Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 68 is amended as
follows:

Part 68 - CONNECTION OF TERMINAL EQUIPMENT TO THE TELEPHONE NETWORK

1\. The authority citation for Part 68 continues to read as follows:

**AUTHORITY: Sections 1, 4, 5, 201-5, 208, 215, 218, 226, 227, 303, 313,
314, 403, 404, 410, 522 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154, 155, 201-5, 208, 215, 218, 226, 227, 303, 313,
314, 403, 404, 410, 522.**

2\. Section 68.213 is amended by revising paragraph (c) as follows:

**§ 68.213 Installation of other than \"fully protected\" non-system
simple customer premises wiring.**

**\* \* \* \* \***

\(c\) [Material requirements]{.underline}.

\(1\) For new installations and modifications to existing installations,
copper conductors shall be, at a minimum, solid, 24 gauge or larger,
twisted pairs that comply with the electrical specifications for
Category 3, as defined in the ANSI EIA/TIA Building Wiring Standards.

\(2\) 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 inches) (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.

\(3\) 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, with the symbol \"CAT 3\" or a symbol consisting of a
\"C\" with a \"3\" contained within the \"C\" character, at intervals
not to exceed one foot (12 inches) along the length of the wire.

**\* \* \* \* \***

**APPENDIX B**

**FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

1\. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^84] the
Commission has prepared this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA) of the expected significant economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in the [Order on Reconsideration, Second
Report and Order, and Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking]{.underline}.
*See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules**

2\. The Commission, in compliance with section 1 and Title II of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended in the Telecommunications Act of
1996, promulgates rules in this [Third Report and Order]{.underline} by
amending section 68.213 of its rules to establish minimum standards for
simple inside wiring to be connected to the public switched
telecommunications network. This rule change will benefit consumers and
small businesses by ensuring that telecommunications wiring in new
installations will be capable of accommodating clear telecommunications
and digital transmissions. Consumers and small businesses will also
benefit from the decreased necessity for the expensive replacement of
poor quality simple inside wiring, as may be required to accommodate
extra lines for additional telephones, personal computers, fax machines,
and ISDN or xDSL services. Furthermore, this rule change will staunch
the increasing incidence of cross‑talk and the risk of network harm
associated with the installation of poor quality inside wiring.

**B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in
Response to the IRFA:**

3\. We have reviewed the general comments to identify issues that may
have significant economic impact on small businesses, and find that not
issues were raised in direct response to the IRFA. Furthermore, all
commenters addressing the issue of amending Part 68 our rules to provide
enhanced standards for inside wiring supported the proposed amendment.

> **C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
> the Proposed Rules Will Apply**

4\. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be
affected by the proposed rules. The RFA defines the term \"small
entity\" as having the same meaning as the terms \"small business,\"
\"small organization,\" and \"small business concern\" under section 3
of the Small Business Act.[^85] A small business concern is one that (1)
is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation, and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.[^86] SBA has defined a small business for Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) category 4813 (Telephone Communications, except
Radiotelephone) to be a small entity when it has no more than 1,500
employees.[^87] We first discuss generally the total number of small
telephone companies falling within both of these SIC categories. We then
discuss the number 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. Finally, we discuss the number of electrical contractors that may
be affected by the proposed rules, and the extent to which they may be
affected.

5\. Consistent with our prior practice, we here exclude small incumbent
local exchange carriers (LECs) from the definition of \"small entity\"
and \"small business concern.\" While such a company may have 1,500 or
fewer employees and thus fall within the SBA\'s definition of a small
telecommunications entity, such companies are either dominant in their
field or operation or are not independently owner and operated. Out of
an abundance of caution, however, for regulatory flexibility analysis
purposes, we will consider small incumbent LECs within this present
analysis and use the term \"small incumbent LECs\" to refer to any
incumbent LEC that arguably might be defined by the SBA as a small
business concern.[^88]

6\. [Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected]{.underline}. Many of
the decisions and rules adopted herein may have a significant effect on
a substantial number of the small telephone companies identified by the
SBA. The United States Bureau of the Census (\"the Census Bureau\")
reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3,497 firms engaged in
providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at least one
year.[^89] This number contains a variety of different categories of
carriers, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers,
competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile service
carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, PCS
providers, covered SMR providers and resellers. It seems certain that
some of those 3.497 telephone service firms may not qualify as small
entities or small incumbent LECs because they are not \"independently
owned and operated.\"[^90] For example, a PCS provider that is
affiliated with an interexchange carrier having more than 1,500
employees would not meet the definition of a small business. It seems
reasonable to conclude, therefore, that fewer than 3,497 telephone
service firms are small entity telephone service firms or small
incumbent LECs that may be affected by this [Third Report and
Order]{.underline}.

7\. [Wireline Carriers and Service Providers]{.underline}. SBA has
developed a definition of small entities for telephone communications
companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The Census
Bureau reports that there were 2,321 such telephone companies in
operation for at least one year at the end of 1992.[^91] According to
the SBA\'s definition, a small business telephone company other than a
radiotelephony company is one employing fewer than 1,500 persons.[^92]
All but 26 of the 2,321 non-radiotelephone companies listed by the
Census Bureau were reported to have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus,
even if all 26 of those companies had more than 1,500 employees, there
would still be 2,295 non-radiotelephone companies that might qualify as
small entities or small incumbent LECs. Although it seems certain that
some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, we are
unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of
wireline carriers and service providers that would qualify as small
businesses under the SBA\'s definition. Consequently, we estimate that
there are fewer than 2,295 small entity telephone communications
companies other than radiotelephone companies that may be affected buy
the decisions and rules adopted in this [Third Report and
Order]{.underline}.

8\. [Local Exchange Carriers]{.underline}. Neither the Commission nor
SBA has developed a definition of small providers of local exchange
services (LECs). The closest applicable definition under SBA rules is
for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone
(wireless) companies. The most reliable source of information regarding
the number of LECs nationwide of which we are aware appear to be the
data that we collect annually in connection with the Telecommunications
Relay Service (TRS). According to our most recent data, 1,347 companies
reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange
services.[^93] Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are
not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1,500 employees,
we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number
of LECs that would quality as small business concerns under the SBA\'s
definition. Consequently we estimate that there are fewer than 1,347
small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the decisions and rules
adopted in this [Third Report and Order]{.underline}.

9\. [Manufacturers of Telecommunications Equipment]{.underline}. The
Commission has not developed a definition for small manufacturers of
telecommunications terminal equipment. The closest applicable definition
under SBA rules is for manufacturers of telephone and telegraph
apparatus (SIC 3661) which defines a small manufacturer as one having
1,000 or fewer employees.[^94] According to 1992 Census Bureau data,
there were 479 such manufacturers, and of those, 436 had 999 or fewer
employees, and seven had between 1,000 and 1,499 employees.[^95]
Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 443 small
manufacturers of telecommunications terminal equipment that may be
affected by the decision and rules proposed in this [Third Report and
Order]{.underline}.

10\. [Electrical Contractors]{.underline}. Electrical Contractors in
this category (SIC 1731) are primarily engaged in electrical work at the
construction site. This category includes establishments engaged in the
installation of telecommunication equipment, sound equipment, burglar
alarms, fire alarms, and telephones. According to the 1997 Economic
Census there are 61, 414 electrical contractors. Of that number, 61,405
electrical contractors have fewer than 1000 employees, and 61,375 have
fewer than 500 employees.[^96] Consequently, we estimate that up to
61,405 small electrical contractors may be affected by the decision and
rules proposed in this [Third Report and Order]{.underline}.

11\. [Telecommunications Wiring Manufacturers]{.underline}.
Manufacturers in this category (SIC 3357B) are primarily engaged in
manufacturing telephone and telegraph wire and cable. This category
includes establishments engaged in the manufacture of inside wiring
cable. According to the 1997 Economic Census there are 28 telephone and
telegraph wire and cable manufacturers, of which 18 are involved in the
manufacture of inside wiring cable. The Small Business Administration
has determined that manufacturing establishments in this category with
few than 750 employees qualify as small manufacturers.[^97]
Consequently, we estimate that no more than 18 inside wiring cable
manufacturers may be affected by the decision and rules proposed in this
[Third Report and Order]{.underline}.

> **D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
> Compliance Requirements.**

12\. [Reporting]{.underline}. None.

13\. [Recordkeeping]{.underline}. It appears that recordkeeping would
not increase or significantly decrease as a result of our affirmation
and clarification of our demarcation point definition gold and gold
equivalence standard, and modification of our inside wiring material
requirements rules. We anticipate that no new skills are necessary to
comply with this amendment by telephone companies, wire maintenance and
installation companies, and wire manufacturers.

14\. [Other Compliance Requirements]{.underline}. None.

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

15\. We have considered the effect of enhanced wiring requirements on
the building industry in general, and specifically with regard to the
following entities: General Contractor, Single Family Houses (SIC 1521);
General Contractor, Residential Buildings, Other than Single Family (SIC
1522); General Contractors, Nonresidential Buildings (SIC 1542), and
Building Construction Trade Contractors, Electrical (SIC 1731), and find
that these rule modifications will not cause significant negate impact.
To the extant that enhanced wire quality standards for simple inside
wiring may adversely affect small building contractor, it appears to be
an insignificant cost in comparison to the value and public interest in
the elimination of cross‑talk interference to the service of third party
customers that is directly attributable to the use of low-quality
telephone inside wiring.

> **F. Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with These
> Rules**

16\. None.

> **G. Report to Congress**

17\. The Commission shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, along with this Report and Order, in a report to
Congress pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this FRFA will
also be published in the [Federal Register]{.underline}.

[^1]: 47 C.F.R. § 68.1.

[^2]: ^?^ *See* In the Matter of Proposals for New and Revised Classes
    of Interstate and Foreign Message Toll Telephone Service (MTS) and
    Wide Area Telephone Service (WATS), *First Report and Order*, 56
    F.C.C. 2d 593 (1975) (*First R&O*). For an early history of Part 68,
    *see* Proposals for New or Revised Classes of Interstate and Foreign
    Message Toll Telephone Service (\"MTS\") and Wide Area Telephone
    Service (\"WATS\"); Revision of Part 68 of the Commission\'s Rules
    to Specify Standard Plugs and Jacks for the Connection of Telephone
    Equipment of the Nationwide Telephone Network; and Amendment of Part
    68 of the Commission\'s Rules (\"Telephone Equipment Registration\")
    to Specify Standards for and Means of Connection of Telephone
    Equipment to Lamp and/or Annunciator Functions of Systems,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, Docket Nos. 19528, 20774, 21182, 70
    FCC 2d 1800 (1979).

[^3]: ^?^ Network harm occurs when persons other than the user of the
    subject terminal equipment and that user\'s calling or called party
    suffer service degradation. 47 C.F.R. § 68.3. The Order establishing
    the Part 68 program identified four areas of potential harm that may
    arise as a consequence of permitting the uncontrolled direct
    connection of telecommunications equipment to the telecommunications
    network: (1) hazardous voltages, (2) excessive signal power levels,
    (3) excessive longitudinal imbalance, and (4) improper network
    control signaling. *First R&O*, 56 F.C.C. 2d at 602.

[^4]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 68.1.

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 68.213. *See* Petitions Seeking Amendment of Part 68
    of the Commission\'s Rules Concerning Connection of Telephone
    Equipment, Systems, and Protective Apparatus to the Telephone
    Network, *Report and Order*, CC Docket No. 81-216, 97 FCC 2d 527,
    527 (1984); *stay denied*, *Order*, FCC No. 84-564, released Nov.
    20, 1984, *recon. granted* *in part*, Section 68.213 Reconsideration
    Order, 50 Fed. Reg. 29384 (1985) (*1985 Order*); *see also* In the
    Matter of Review of Sections 68.104 and 68.213 of the Commission\'s
    Rules Concerning Connection of Simple Inside Wiring to the Telephone
    Network and Petition for Modification of Section 68.213 of the
    Commission\'s Rules filed by the Electronic Industries Association,
    *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, CC
    Docket No. 88-57, 5 FCC Rcd 4686 (1990) (*1990 Order*), *stay
    denied*, Order, 5 FCC Rcd 5228 (Com. Car. Bur. 1990).

[^6]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 68.3.

[^7]: ^?^ Specifically, the Commission added a demarcation point
    definition to section 68.3, stating that the demarcation point is
    \"located on the subscriber\'s side of the telephone company\'s
    protector, or the equivalent . . . where a protector is not
    employed, as provided under the local telephone company\'s
    reasonable and non-discriminatory standard operating practices.\"
    *1985 Order*, 97 FCC 2d at 566. The telephone company protector is a
    device designed to protect equipment, buildings, and persons by
    preventing the transmission of hazardous voltages through the
    telephone line. Hazardous voltages can result from lightning or
    power surges.

[^8]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 68.213(a).

[^9]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 68.215.

[^10]: ^?^ *See* Deployment of Wireline services Offering Advanced
    Telecommunications Capability, *Third Report and Order*, CC Docket
    No. 98-147, and Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions
    of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, *Fourth Report and Order*, CC
    Docket No. 96-98, FCC 99-355, (Adopted Nov. 19, 1999), at para. 4
    ("we adopt measures to promote the availability of competitive
    broadband . . . services, especially to residential and small
    business customers).

[^11]: ^.^

[^12]: The local loop is defined as the transmission facility between a
    distribution frame (or its equivalent) in an incumbent LEC central
    office and the loop demarcation point at an end-user customer
    premises, including inside wire owned by the incumbent LEC. 47
    U.S.C. § 51.319(a)(1).

[^13]: Common Carrier Bureau Will Hold Fora on
    Deregulation/Privatization of Equipment Registration and Telephone
    Network Connection Rules, *Public Notice*, CC Docket No. 99-216, DA
    99-1108, rel. June 10, 1999.

[^14]: ^?^ Petitions were filed by AT&T, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, the
    State of California and the Public Utilities Commission of the State
    of California (CAPUC), Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company (Cincinnati
    Bell), GTE Service Corporation (GTE), NYNEX, Pacific Bell,
    Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC), the User Premises
    Equipment Division of the Telecommunications Industry Association
    (TIA), and US West Communications (US West).

[^15]: ^?^ On Oct. 13, 1992, the Building Owners and Managers
    Association of Pittsburgh, Inc. (BOMA) filed a petition \"(1) To
    Intervene in Rulemaking Proceedings and (2) for a Declaratory
    Judgement that Rule 68.213 Does Not Apply to Inside Wiring in High
    Rise Multi-Tenant Buildings, or (3) For the Amendment or Repeal of
    FCC Rule 68.213.\" In the Matter of Review of Sections 68.104 and
    68.213 of the Commission\'s Rules Concerning Connection of Simple
    Inside Wiring to the Telephone Network and Petition for Modification
    of Section 68.213 of the Commission\'s Rules filed by the Electronic
    Industries Association, *Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and
    Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, CC Docket
    No. 88-57, RM-5643, 12 FCC Rcd 11897, 11900 n.6 (1997) (*1997
    Rulemaking*).

[^16]: ^?^ Comments were filed by AT&T, the Ameritech Operating
    Companies (Ameritech), Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, BOMA, BICSI,
    Central Telephone Company (Central), GTE, Independent Data
    Communications Manufacturers Association, Inc. (IDCMA), MFS
    Communications (MFS), NYNEX, North American Telecommunications
    Association (NATA), Pacific Bell, Southern New England Telephone
    Company (SNET), SBC, TIA, United States Telephone Association
    (USTA), the United Telephone System companies (UTS), Utilities
    Telecommunications Council (UTC), and US West. The Commission also
    received numerous letters from individual BOMA chapters and letters
    of support for the BOMA petition from individual building owners,
    managers, and others.

[^17]: *See* Petition for Expedited Rulemaking, filed August 22, 1995
    (*BICSI Petition*).

[^18]: ^?^ *1997 Rulemaking*, 12 FCC Rcd at 11897.

[^19]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^20]: ^?^ BellSouth petition at 3-4.

[^21]: ^?^ Bell Atlantic petition at 2.

[^22]: ^?^ Promotion of Competitive Networks in Local Telecommunications
    Markets, WT Docket No. 99-217; Wireless Communications Association
    International, Inc., Petition for Rulemaking to Amend Section 1.4000
    of the Commission\'s Rules to Preempt Restrictions on Subscriber
    Premises Reception or Transmission Antennas Designed To Provide
    Fixed Wireless Services; Cellular Telecommunications Industry
    Association Petition for Rule Making and Amendment of the
    Commission\'s Rules to Preempt State and Local Imposition of
    Discriminatory and/or Excessive Taxes and Assessments:
    Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry in WT Docket No. 99-217,
    and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No.
    96-98*, FCC 99-141, (rel. July 7, 1999) (*Competitive Networks
    Notice*).

[^23]: For instance, the higher electrical energy levels associated with
    broadband transmission can cause interference in adjacent telephone
    lines, resulting in audible static during voice telephone
    communications and slowing or preventing broadband data
    transmissions.

[^24]: *See* *North Carolina Utilities Comm\'n v. FCC*, 552 F.2d 1036
    (4^th^ Circ. 1977), ("the FCC has jurisdiction to prescribe the
    conditions under which terminal equipment may be interconnected with
    the interstate telephone line network"), *cert. denied*, 434 U.S.
    874, 98 S.Ct. 222, 54 L.Ed.2d 154 (1977);).

[^25]: *See infra* paras. 17-18.

[^26]: *1997 Rulemaking*, 12 FCC Rcd at 11927-28.

[^27]: *Id*. at 11928.

[^28]: ^?^ Cross‑talk is the undesired capacitive, inductive, or
    conductive coupling from one circuit, part of a circuit, or channel,
    to another. Cross‑talk also describes any phenomenon by which a
    signal transmitted on one circuit or channel of a transmission
    system creates an undesired effect in another circuit or channel. In
    telephony, cross‑talk is usually distinguishable as speech or
    signaling tones, and often results from the use of poor quality
    wiring. *Id.* at 11927.

[^29]: ^?^ Bell Atlantic/NYNEX comments, Attachment A (\"Intelligible
    cross-talk eliminates the privacy associated with telephone
    conversations.\"); BellSouth Memorandum in Support of Proposed Rule
    Changes in CC Docket 88-57, Apr. 28. 1998 (*BellSouth Ex Parte*),
    Affidavit of John R. Gunter; Cable Services International (CSI);
    United Homeowners Association (UHA) comments at 1 (UHA is a
    non-profit organization representing 65 million American
    homeowners); Letter from BellSouth, GTE, Pacific Telesis, and NYNEX
    to Chairman Hundt and Commissioners Ness, Chong, and Quello, FCC
    (Oct. 28, 1996).

[^30]: ^?^ Over 90,000 Bell South customers currently experience
    cross‑talk, and the continuing installation of poor quality inside
    wiring, the \"exponential increase\" in second line installations,
    and the rollout of high frequency services such as ISDN is causing
    this figure to rise. Letter from Ben G. Almond, BellSouth, to
    William F. Caton, FCC, dated October 21, 1997 (*BellSouth October 21
    ex parte*); BICSI petition at 2; UHA comments at 1.

[^31]: ^?^ CSI comments at 1 (\"\[f\]irst, we believe that cross‑talk
    caused by poor wiring originating in building A can affect the
    transmission quality between building A and building B even if
    building B has high quality wire installed).; *see also* 47 C.F.R. §
    68.3 (network harm includes \"degradation of service to persons
    other than the user of the subject terminal equipment, his calling
    or called party\"). Bell Atlantic/NYNEX doubts that the use of poor
    quality inside wiring in one building will significantly affect
    service in another building, but notes that poor inside wiring in
    one building can, and generally does affect individual calls to
    other buildings. Bell Atlantic/NYNEX comments at 5, Attachment A
    (demonstrating that when two callers in a building with poor quality
    wiring (i.e. non-twisted pair conductors in multiple-pair cables)
    simultaneously call third parties, cross-talk interference may occur
    and may be discernable by some or all of the parties to the calls).
    BICSI states that cross-talk between adjacent buildings is
    theoretically possible, although unlikely. BICSI comments at 5.

[^32]: BICSI comments at 2.

[^33]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^34]: ^?^ Replacement of inside wiring can cost \$1,000 or more. *Id.*
    TIA comments at 4; BICSI comments at 2 (noting that in some cases,
    the original, sub-standard wiring could not be replaced, and new,
    good quality wire had to remain exposed).

[^35]: ^?^ \"If a builder installs sub-standard wire, the user is not
    likely to experience cross-talk until the homeowner decides to link
    a second access line. . . . \[T\]hat point may not occur until years
    after the initial installation, when it is too late for the
    homeowner to secure corrective action from the builder.\" *BellSouth
    Ex Parte* at 12; BICSI petition at 5.

[^36]: ^?^ *BellSouth Ex Parte* at 12; BICSI comments at 3.

[^37]: ^?^ *BellSouth Ex Parte* at 12, 22; BICSI comments at 3; UHA
    comments at 1.

[^38]: ^?^ *BellSouth Ex Parte* at 12.

[^39]: ^?^ TIA comments at 2-3.

[^40]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^41]: ^?^ Bell Atlantic/NYNEX comments at 5; BellSouth Ex Parte at 13,
    22.

[^42]: ^?^ UHA comments at 1.

[^43]: ^?^ *Id.* at 12-13; CSI comments at 1, 5; BellSouth Comments at 2
    (citing Public Notice, Part 68 Plug/Jack and Wiring Attestation
    Lists No. 61267 (Jan. 25, 1996); No. 43517 (Jun. 17, 1994); No.
    42269 (Mar. 23, 1994); No. 34955 (Sep. 17, 1993)); *BellSouth Ex
    Parte* at 23 (noting that since 1993 the Commission has regularly
    recommended the use of inside wiring equal to or exceeding \"TIA/EIA
    570 category 3 standards to avoid third-party cross‑talk\"); GTE
    comments at 6. Bell Atlantic/NYNEX notes two specific advantages of
    BICSI\'s proposal: (1) installations that conform with the proposed
    standard are not likely to experience cross-talk when additional
    lines are installed, and (2) inside wiring installations that meet
    or exceed the proposed standard are more likely to be compatible
    with new high-bandwidth transmission technologies. Bell
    Atlantic/NYNEX comments at 2. We note that no commenters opposed
    adoption of these rules.

[^44]: ^?^ *BellSouth Ex Parte* at 23; BICSI comments at 4, CSI comments
    at 1.

[^45]: ^?^ *BellSouth Ex Parte* at 23; CSI comments at 1.

[^46]: ^?^ BICSI comments at 4; TIA comments at 5.

[^47]: *BellSouth Ex Parte* at 23.

[^48]: ^?^ *BellSouth Ex Parte* at 23; GTE comments at 7; TIA comments
    at 5.

[^49]: ^?^ Thus, multiple-purpose copper conductor, such as electrical
    or coaxial cabling, that may coincidentally be used for
    telecommunications as well as power conducting or cable television
    access, as well as non-copper conductors, are not subject to simple
    inside wiring quality requirements.

[^50]: ^?^ We note that there is no single uniform building code for the
    United States. We understand, however, that federal, state and local
    governments adopt rules from various sources, such as these,
    providing minimum requirements for building construction.

[^51]: ^?^ The ICC is an nonprofit organization dedicated to developing
    a single set of comprehensive and coordinated national building
    codes. The ICC founders - the Building Officials and Code
    Administrators (BOCA), the International Conference of Building
    Officials (ICBO), and the Southern Building Code Congress
    International (SBCCI) created the ICC to respond to technical
    disparities among the three sets of model codes now used for
    construction in the United States. *See* ICC Info Online,
    http://www.codes.icbo.org.

[^52]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 68.108.

[^53]: ^?^ Carriers reasonably determining that CPE, plugs, jacks,
    inside wiring, etc. will cause harm to the PSTN may discontinue
    service, but must first notify the customer, if practicable, afford
    the customer the opportunity to correct the situation, and inform
    the customer of his or her right to bring a complaint to the
    Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 68.108.

[^54]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^55]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^56]: *1997 Rulemaking*, 12 FCC Rcd at 11928.

[^57]: ^?^ BellSouth comments at 2; *BellSouth Ex Parte* at 23; BICSI
    comments at 2; GTE comments at 7; TIA comments at 5. Only Bell
    Atlantic/NYNEX supported the Commission\'s adoption of the BICSI
    standard as an interim measure, pending development of a permanent
    standard. Bell Atlantic/NYNEX comments at 5.

[^58]: ^?^ BellSouth Comments at 2.

[^59]: ^?^ BellSouth adds that it has repeatedly contacted Home Builders
    Associations and made presentations at home shows to stress the
    importance of wire quality, and has even conducted clinics for
    electrical subcontractors. *BellSouth Ex Parte* at 14, Gunter
    Affidavit at para. 6.

[^60]: ^?^ GTE comments at 7; TIA comments at 4; BellSouth comments at
    2; *Bell South Memo* at 12, 14, Gunter Affidavit at para. 6; BICSI
    comments at 2 (arguing that the construction industry largely
    ignores the current standard, claiming that it is too costly).

[^61]: ^?^ *1997 Rulemaking*, 12 FCC Rcd at 11928.

[^62]: ^?^ TIA comments at 6.

[^63]: ^?^ *Id.* at 3, 4.

[^64]: *Id.* at 5. We note that commenters did not submit any
    alternative proposals.

[^65]: ^?^ BellSouth comments at 3; *BellSouth Ex Parte* at 25; CSI
    comments at 2.

[^66]: ^?^ BellSouth comments at 3; BellSouth reply at 4; CSI comments
    at 2 (recommending the marking of wire with pair and gauge
    information as well as the Category classification of the
    transmission performance, at one-foot intervals); GTE comments at 8.
    Although GTE initially endorsed a one foot interval, it agreed in
    its reply comments that a two foot interval represented a
    \"reasonable alternative.\" GTE reply at 7. TIA also recommends
    labeling wire packaging to facilitate the identification of
    conforming wiring at the point of purchase. TIA comments at 6.

[^67]: ^?^ *See e.g.,* BellSouth reply at 4.

[^68]: ^?^ *See* BellSouth comments at 3; BellSouth reply at 4, GTE
    comments at 8.

[^69]: ^?^ Bell Atlantic/NYNEX comments at 6; BICSI comments at 4.

[^70]: Commenters state that \"even though a voluntary industry standard
    exists today, it does not adequately protect the . . . consumer\"
    because of its lack of legal force. UHA comments at 1-2. *See also*
    GTE comments at 6; Bell Atlantic/NYNEX comments at 2; BellSouth
    comments at 2; *BellSouth Ex Parte* at 12.

[^71]: *BellSouth Ex Parte* at 7

[^72]: ^?^ *Id*.; *see also* Bell Atlantic/NYNEX comments at 5 (noting
    the need for industry education efforts).

[^73]: ^?^ *See* BICSI, Response to Request for Information in CC Docket
    No. 88-57, Aug. 14, 1998.

[^74]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 68.500.

[^75]: ^?^ *1997 Rulemaking*, 12 FCC Rcd at 11928-929.

[^76]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^77]: Bell Atlantic/NYNEX comments at 7; TIA comments at 7.

[^78]: ^?^ Bell Atlantic/NYNEX comments at 7; TIA comments at 7.

[^79]: ^?^ *BellSouth Ex Parte* at 17.

[^80]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R §§ 68.3(b), 68.215.

[^81]: ^?^ Ameritech comments at 3-4; GTE reply at 8.

[^82]: ^?^ *1997 Rulemaking*, 12 FCC Rcd at 11938.

[^83]: ^?^ BellSouth comments on Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    at 2; GTE reply at 8.

[^84]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et. seq.*,
    has been amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^85]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating the definition of \"small
    business concern\" in 5 U.S.C. § (632).

[^86]: ^?^ 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^87]: ^?^ *See* 13 C.F.R. §§ 121.201, (SIC 3661).

[^88]: ^?^ *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (SIC 4813).

[^89]: ^?^ United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
    *1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities:
    Establishment and Firm Size*, at Firm Size 1-123 (1995) (*1992
    Census*).

[^90]: ^?^ 15 U.S.C. § 632(a)(1).

[^91]: *1992 Census, supra*, at Firm Size 1-123.

[^92]: ^?^ 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, (SIC 4812).

[^93]: ^?^ Federal Communications Commission, Common Carrier Bureau,
    Industry Analysis Division, *Telecommunications Industry Revenue:
    TRS Fund Worksheet Data*, Tbl. 21 (Average Telecommunications
    Revenue Reported by Class of Carrier) (Dec. 1996) (*TRS Worksheet*).

[^94]: *Id.*

[^95]: ^?^ 1992 Economic Census, Industry and Employment Size of Firm,
    Table 1D (data prepared by U.S. Census Bureau under contract to the
    U.S. Small Business Administration).

[^96]: ^?^ 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series, Construction,
    Electrical Contractors, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of
    Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration, Document
    EC97C-2353A, June 1999, Table 5.

[^97]: 13 C.F.R. §§ 121-201.