Source: http://ininet.org/review-of-sections-68-104-and-cc-docket-no-88-57-68-213-of-the.html
Timestamp: 2020-02-17 13:53:54
Document Index: 725527282

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 68', 'art 68', 'art 68', 'art 68', 'art 68', 'art 68', '§ 603', 'art 68', 'art 68', 'art 68', 'art 68', '§ 151']

Download 149.26 Kb.
Size 149.26 Kb.
THIRD REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: December 21, 1999 Released: January 10, 2000
III. DISCUSSION A. Inside Wiring Quality Standard
B. Gold or Gold Equivalent Standard
C. Designation of Schools and Hospitals as Multiunit Structures
D. Information Request Response Period
APPENDIX A AMENDED RULES
Federal Communications Commission FCC 99-405
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 )
Petition for Modification of ) RM-5643
Section 68.213 of the Commission's )
Rules filed by the Electronic )
Industries Association )
Adopted: December 21, 1999 Released: January 10, 2000
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
Appendix A: Rule Changes
Appendix B: Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
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
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
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 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.
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 68.12 We note that in response to these fora, we may undertake a substantial initiative to further privatize the Part 68 program.
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,13 and one late-filed petition to intervene14 were filed in response to the 1990 Order and FNPRM, and numerous comments were filed in response to those petitions.15 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.16
The Commission responded to those petitions and comments in the 1997 Rulemaking.17 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 Rulemaking requesting comment on proposed modifications to the demarcation point rule, BICSI's proposed enhanced wire quality standards, and the gold or gold equivalent standard.18
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.19 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.20
In a separate proceeding,21 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.
A. Inside Wiring Quality Standard
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.22 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.
We envision that consumers may enforce this rule by prosecuting claims against builders and contractors that have utilized inferior wiring in new construction.23 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.24
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."25 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.26
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,"27 resulting in a loss of privacy, interference with digital transmission, and disruption of telephone conversations.28 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.29 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.30
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.31 Commenters also state that once a problem is discovered, homeowners often must rewire the affected premises to rectify the problem,32 at a cost substantially higher than the cost of initially installing wire comporting with BICSI's proposed standards.33
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.34 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.35 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.36 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.37
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,"38 and that it is not uncommon for a single-family home to be later converted to a professional office or a multi-tenant dwelling.39 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.40 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,41 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.42
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.
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.43 Commenters also agree that they are not aware of current telephone wire or wire standards that do not use or specify copper-conductor material,44 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.45 In addition, commenters predict that copper conductor will remain the norm for telecommunications wiring for some time to come.46 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.47
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.48 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.
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.49 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.
We specifically recognize the International Code Council's (ICC) current effort to create a comprehensive and coordinated international building code.50 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.
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.51 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.52 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.53 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.54 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.
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.
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"55 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"56 and that an interim rule may be undermined by the perception that it is "merely precatory."57 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,58 the industry has so far been unsuccessful in promoting compliance.59
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.60 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.61 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.62 The record indicates that BICSI's proposal represents a voluntary, industry consensus standard, and should be adopted as a permanent standard.63 Thus, we find that BICSI's proposal represents industry consensus on the proper standards for inside wiring quality.
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.
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.64 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.65 These commenters explain that there often is less than two feet of wire available to the technician at a connection point.66 In these situations, wire markings at two foot intervals could be hidden within building walls.67 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.68 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.
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.69 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.70 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.71 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.
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.72 A 180-day period also will provide carriers with sufficient time to notify their customers of this new requirement.
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.
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.73 In the 1997 Rulemaking, 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.74 We requested identification of the industry body or bodies through which a permanent standard should be developed.75
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.76 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.77 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.78 Consequently, we decline to further revise section 68.500 with respect to the gold or gold equivalent standard.
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 premises79 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.80 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.
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.81 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.82 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.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. 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).
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 IS ADOPTED, and Part 68 of the Commission's Rules IS AMENDED as set forth in the attached Appendix A.
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.
Magalie Roman Salas Secretary
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:
Directory: Bureaus -> Common Carrier -> Orders -> 2000
Orders -> I. statutory framework
Orders -> Before the Federal Communications Commission
Orders -> Federal communications commission
2000 -> Federal Communications Commission da 00-1917
commission sought comment
authority contained