******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the 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) ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION, SECOND REPORT AND ORDER AND SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: June 12, 1997 Released: June 17, 1997 Comment Date: July 17, 1997 Reply Comment Date: August 1, 1997 By the Commission: TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph No. I.Introduction1 II.Background4 III.Order on Reconsideration12 A.Demarcation Point Definition 12 1.Application to Complex Wiring12 2.Location of the Demarcation Point 14 a.Within Twelve Inches of Entry to Customer Premises 14 b.Within Twenty-Five Feet of Equipment 16 c.Location Away From a Building17 3.Modifications to Existing Wiring19 4.Multiunit Premises21 a.Defining Multiunit Premises21 b.Customer Access to Carrier Services 22 c.Limiting Customer Access to Inside Wiring23 5.Building Owners and Managers Responsibilities25 a.BOMA Petition25 b.Moving the Demarcation Point to the Minimum Point of Entry 26 c.Maintenance of Inside Wiring27 d.Liability Issues28 e.Information on Inside Wiring29 6.Ownership and Accounting Issues31 a.Ownership of Inside Wiring31 b.Accounting Issues33 7.Preemption of State Regulation35 B.Connection to the Network 37 1.Direct Attachment 37 2.Technical Specifications for Connectors 39 a.Standards for Gold and Gold Equivalency40 b.8-Position Jacks41 c.Wall Mounting Plates42 3.Attestation Requirement for Plugs and Jacks43 C.Application for Review44 IV.Second Report and Order 46 A.Defining Simple Inside Wiring46 V.Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 49 A.Demarcation Point Definition 49 1.Application to Complex Wiring49 2.Location Away From a Building 51 B.Wire Quality 53 VI.Conclusion 56 VII.Procedural Matters58 A.Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis58 B.Ex Parte Presentations 92 C.Comment Dates 93 VIII.Ordering Clauses95 APPENDICES Appendix A:Rule Changes Appendix B:Proposed Rule Changes I. INTRODUCTION 1. In a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted in CC Docket 88-57, the Commission revised its rules to make it easier for customers to connect simple inside wiring to the telephone network. Inside wiring is the customer premises portion of the telephone plant that connects customer premises equipment (CPE) to the public switched telephone network and to other CPE. Together with CPE, inside wiring constitutes all facilities located on the customer's side of the demarcation point required to transmit telecommunications services over a wireline network. The demarcation point is the point at which the telephone company's facilities and responsibilities end and customer-controlled wiring begins. In the Order and FNPRM, the Commission eliminated several special requirements that it had previously imposed on the connection of simple inside wiring to the public switched network. The Commission also eliminated a requirement that simple inside wiring be connected to the network through a carrier-installed jack. Instead, the Commission allowed customers to make such connections by severing wiring previously installed by the carrier and either attaching a standard jack, or directly attaching new wiring through such means as splicing, twisting, bridging, or soldering. The Commission also revised its definition of the demarcation point to ensure that customers would have access to the carrier-installed wiring within their premises and thus be able to connect new wiring to the network. Finally, the Commission proposed to revise its rules to allow customers themselves to connect wiring installations of up to four access lines to the public switched network. 2. Eleven petitions for reconsideration and/or clarification and one late filed petition to intervene have been filed in response to the Order and FNPRM. Numerous comments also have been filed both in response to these petitions and in response to the Commission's FNPRM. In addition, an application for review has been filed concerning a Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) order refusing to stay the effective date of the revised rules adopted in the Order and FNPRM. Also, Building Industry Consulting Service International (BICSI) has filed a petition for rulemaking asking the Commission to adopt enhanced wire quality standards for simple inside wiring. Finally, we note that the Commission has a separate on-going proceeding to address whether the Commission should modify our existing cable service and telephone inside wiring rules and policies in light of today's evolving and converging telecommunications technologies and markets (CS Docket No. 95- 184). We have received some recent ex parte presentations in this docket which raise issues that are more appropriately addressed in the cable services docket. We will incorporate those ex parte presentations into the cable services record. We emphasize that the decisions made herein are for the purpose of clarifying the telephone inside wire rules we adopted in 1991 and are without prejudice to the decisions we make in the cable services proceeding. The record in CS Docket No. 95-184 more fully addresses the issues surrounding access to telecommunications services by consumers who reside in multiunit buildings. Accordingly, we will deny the requests for reconsideration on this issue in the instant proceeding and defer these issues for consideration in CS Docket No. 95-184. 3. In this order, we deny the petitions for reconsideration and the application for review. We also clarify how the demarcation point rule applies to multiunit premises, the rights and responsibilities of building owners and managers, and the ownership and accounting treatment of inside wiring. In addition, we amend our rule defining the demarcation point 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 near thereto as 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 only that wiring located in the customer's individual unit; and (4) require local telephone companies to provide building owners with all available information regarding carrier-installed wiring on the customer's side of the demarcation point. We also affirm our rule allowing direct attachment of simple inside wiring to the network and amend our rules to allow customers to connect wiring installations of up to four access lines to the network. Finally, we issue a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SFNPRM) requesting comment on the BICSI proposal for enhanced wire quality standards and additional proposed changes in our demarcation point rule. II. BACKGROUND 4. Part 68 of the Commission's rules governs the terms and conditions under which customer provided equipment and wiring may be connected to the telephone network. Part 68 is designed to ensure that terminal equipment and wiring can be connected to the network without causing harm. We have previously stated that Part 68 restrictions should be no greater than that necessary to ensure network protection. Furthermore, carriers generally have the burden of showing that any particular Part 68 restriction is necessary. 5. In 1984, the Commission adopted Section 68.213 of the rules, which allowed customers to connect one and two-line business and residential telephone wiring to the network. In adopting Section 68.213, the Commission noted that there was little likelihood that one and two-line wiring would be improperly installed and cause network harm. As a precaution, however, the Commission included several special requirements in Section 68.213. These requirements included: (1) a subscriber obligation to notify the telephone company in advance of any changes in inside wiring; (2) special testing of inside wiring whenever wiring changes are made; and (3) certain extraordinary procedures that the telephone company could invoke if there was reason to believe that the Commission's rules would be violated or if harm occurred. The Commission also extended to customer-provided inside wiring the preexisting requirement in Section 68.104 of the rules, that all connections to the network must be made through a carrier-installed jack. Finally, the Commission established a demarcation point to mark the end of the carrier network and the beginning of customer-controlled wiring. In particular, the Commission added a definition to Section 68.3 of the rules which stated that the demarcation point would "be located on the subscriber's side of the telephone company's protector, or the equivalent thereof in cases where a protector is not employed, as provided under the local telephone company's reasonable and nondiscriminatory standard operating practices." 6. In 1983 and 1986, the Commission also determined that installation and maintenance of inside wiring no longer constituted a common carrier offering under Title II of the Communications Act and issued orders detariffing the installation and maintenance of inside wiring. The Commission first detariffed the installation of complex wiring. Subsequently, the Commission issued an order extending detariffing to the installation of simple inside wiring and the maintenance of all inside wiring. The Commission allowed carriers to retain ownership of inside wiring, but prohibited carriers from using their ownership to restrict the removal, replacement, rearrangement or maintenance of inside wiring. The Commission also held that carriers could not require customers to purchase inside wiring and could not impose a charge for the use of such wiring. By these detariffing orders, the Commission sought to "foster competition in the inside wiring installation and maintenance markets, to promote new entry into those markets, . . . and to foster the development of an unregulated, competitive telecommunications marketplace." 7. The Commission initially held that its order detariffing the installation and maintenance of inside wiring preempted state regulation. This decision was remanded to the Commission by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court held that the Commission could require states to unbundle inside wiring from basic transmission services so that consumers could choose from among available providers. The Court found, however, that the Commission had not demonstrated that all state regulation of the intrastate portion of carrier inside wiring maintenance and installation pricing would necessarily thwart the Commission's legitimate goal of subjecting interstate inside wiring installation and maintenance to competition. On remand, the Commission preempted only state regulation that allowed telephone companies to bundle charges for simple inside wiring services with charges for tariffed services. The Commission also required all telephone companies subject to the joint cost rules to classify inside wiring services as nonregulated activities for federal accounting purposes on a permanent basis. 8. In 1988, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in this proceeding to address some of the restrictions that it had previously imposed on customers' ability to connect simple inside wiring to the telephone network. The Commission was concerned that these restrictions might no longer be necessary for network protection and might impose an unnecessary burden on customers. In particular, the Commission requested comment on the need for the notice, testing, and extraordinary procedure provisions contained in Section 68.213. The Commission also proposed to eliminate the requirement that all access to network wiring be through a carrier-installed jack and to allow customers to connect simple inside wiring directly to the telephone network by severing carrier-installed wire and installing a standard jack. In addition, the Commission asked for comment on whether these proposed rule changes would necessitate a change in the demarcation point definition. Finally, the Commission requested comment on: (1) a petition for rule making filed by the Electronic Industries Association (EIA) requesting that the Commission rule that all plugs and jacks used in inside wiring must conform to the technical specifications of Subpart F of Part 68 of our rules, and (2) an AT&T request that Subpart F be modified to indicate that gold is the only permissible contact material that can be used for plugs and jacks at the network interface and to eliminate language allowing materials equivalent to gold to be used. 9. In 1990, the Commission issued the Order and FNPRM, which is the subject of this decision. In the Order and FNPRM, the Commission eliminated as unnecessary the notice, testing, and extraordinary procedure provisions contained in Section 68.213. Second, the Commission also amended Section 68.104 to delete the requirement that simple inside wiring must be connected to the network through a carrier-installed jack and allowed customers to connect to the network through access and direct attachment to carrier installed wiring. Third, the Commission amended the definition of the demarcation point for both simple and complex wiring that appears in Section 68.3 of the rules to ensure that the demarcation point would be near the point where the wiring entered the customer's premises. Fourth, the Commission granted TIA's request and amended Section 68.213 to require that all plugs and jacks used in connection with inside wiring conform to technical specifications of Subpart F. Fifth, the Commission declined to eliminate the gold equivalency language in Subpart F, but asked TIA to develop proposed technical specifications for determining gold equivalence under the Commission's rules. Finally, the Commission issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to expand the scope of Section 68.213 to allow "simple inside wiring" to constitute wiring installations of up to four access lines. The Commission believed that allowing customers to install three and four-line installations under the less stringent requirements of Section 68.213, rather than the requirements for complex wiring installations contained in Section 68.215, would significantly reduce the burden on customers imposed by our rules, thereby increasing consumer options, without presenting any significant risk of harm to the network. 10. In revising the demarcation point definition, the Commission sought to ensure that the demarcation point would not be a significant distance from the point where the wiring entered the customer's premises. The Commission noted that under the original definition, carriers were merely required to locate the demarcation point on the customer's side of the protector, in accordance with the carrier's standard operating practices. The Commission was concerned that carriers could establish a practice of locating the demarcation point well inside the customer's premises, at a considerable distance from the protector, thus leaving a substantial run of wiring inside the premises, but on the carrier's side of the demarcation point. Because customers are not permitted to access wiring on the carrier's side of the demarcation point, such a practice would prevent customer access to wiring within their premises and would interfere with customers' ability to connect simple inside wiring to the network. 11. Accordingly, the Commission revised the demarcation point definition to require that the demarcation point generally be no further than twelve inches inside the customer's premises. For single unit installations, the demarcation point must be within twelve inches of the protector, or if there is no protector, within twelve inches of the point at which the wiring enters the customer's premises. In the case of multiunit installations, the Commission believed that the new definition should be flexible enough to accommodate existing situations. Accordingly, for existing multiunit installations, the demarcation point is determined in accordance with carrier's reasonable and nondiscriminatory standard operating practices, provided that if there are multiple demarcation points, the demarcation point for any particular customer may not be further inside the customer's premises than twelve inches from the point at which the wiring enters the customer's premises. For new wiring installations in multiunit premises, including additions, modifications and rearrangements of existing wiring, the carrier may establish a reasonable and nondiscriminatory practice of placing the demarcation point at the minimum point of entry. When the carrier does not have such a practice, the multiunit premises owner determines the location of the demarcation point or points. If there are multiple demarcation points, however, the demarcation point for any particular customer may not be further inside the customer's premises than twelve inches from the point at which the wiring enters the customer's premises. Finally, the Commission stated that the revised demarcation point definition would apply to both simple and complex wiring. The Commission noted that the previous definition had applied to both simple and complex wiring and that there was nothing in the record that would warrant establishing different demarcation point definitions. III. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION A. DEMARCATION POINT DEFINITION 1.Application to Complex Wiring 12. Background/Position of the Parties. Several Petitioners argue that the Commission erred in applying the new demarcation point definition to complex wiring. They argue that the caption and text of the NPRM indicated that this proceeding was only concerned with simple inside wiring and that a footnote to the NPRM stated that the Commission was not proposing any change in the requirements for complex wiring. Accordingly, Petitioners assert that the Commission did not provide notice that a change in complex wiring rules was being considered and that it failed to meet the notice requirements of Section 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Petitioners also argue that the rule change was made without an adequate record on the complex wiring issue. They note that the only reason given by the Commission for applying the new rule to complex wiring was that nothing in the record would warrant two separate demarcation point definitions. Petitioners contend that there was nothing in the record on this issue because they did not have notice that a change in the complex wiring demarcation point definition was being considered. Finally, some Petitioners argue that because there are special technical requirements for the installation of complex wiring, such matters should be left with the carriers rather than transferred to customers or building owners. Two commenters, however, argue that the Commission provided adequate notice and met the requirements of the APA. These Commenters argue that the Commission gave adequate notice because the NPRM specifically requested comment on whether the demarcation point definition should be changed. 13. Discussion. We conclude that applying the new demarcation point definition to complex inside wiring was a "logical outgrowth" of the NPRM. In the NPRM we specifically stated that "interested parties should . . . comment on the extent to which any of our rule proposals . . . necessitate amendment of other rules, notably our definition of the network interface or demarcation point." Furthermore, the Commission has always had the same demarcation point definition for both simple and complex wiring, and parties should thus have been aware that a change in the definition of the demarcation point would likely be applied to all wiring installations unless the Commission were presented with persuasive arguments to the contrary. We also note that although the footnote Petitioners cite states that the Commission proposed no changes in the requirements for complex wiring, it follows a statement concerning only the issue of whether connections to the network should be made through a carrier-installed jack, and thus did not apply to the entire NPRM. In fact, contrary to Petitioners' assertion that it addressed only matters concerning simple wiring, the NPRM clearly proposed and sought comment on at least one other rule change that would affect both simple and complex wiring, specifically, the gold equivalency standard for jacks used to connect both simple and complex wiring to the telephone network. Finally, regarding Petitioners' argument that there are special technical requirements for the installation of complex wiring, we note our rules require that the installation of complex wiring be done under the supervision of specially trained personnel, with industry standards and training programs covering such installations. We, therefore, find that our current rules are sufficient to ensure proper installation of complex wiring, even when that wiring is on the customer's side of the demarcation point, and thus is the responsibility of the customer or building owner. Accordingly, the petitions for reconsideration on this issue are denied. Although we are denying the petitions for reconsideration on this issue, we acknowledge several parties' concern about the application of the demarcation point definition to complex wiring by issuing a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SFNPRM) requesting comment on certain additional aspects of our demarcation point rule. Accordingly, we urge parties to file comments discussing whether our demarcation point definition should continue to apply to complex wiring. We stress that we will evaluate this issue anew based on the new record presented to us. 2.Location of the Demarcation Point a.Within Twelve Inches of Entry to Customer Premises 14. Background/Position of the Parties. Section 68.3 of the rules requires that, under certain circumstances, (1) the demarcation point for single unit installations must be "within . . . [twelve inches] of where the telephone wire enters the customer's premises," and (2) the demarcation point for multiunit installations must "not be further inside the customer's premises than [twelve inches] from where the wiring enters the customer's premises." Some Petitioners argue that sometimes such factors as existing physical conditions, size of equipment to be installed, location of the power source, or safety considerations make it impossible to place the demarcation point within twelve inches of the point at which the wiring enters a customer's premises. Petitioners suggest that we should amend Section 68.3 to allow the demarcation point to be located within twelve inches of the point at which the wiring enters the customer's premises, "or as close thereto as practicable." 15. Discussion. We agree that there may be instances under which physical conditions or safety considerations make the twelve-inch requirement difficult to meet. We also note that the language proposed by Petitioners is consistent with similar language that appears elsewhere in the rule defining the demarcation point. In particular, that rule defines the minimum point of entry as "the closest practicable point to the point at which the wiring crosses a property line or . . . enters a multiunit building." We also agree that allowing the demarcation to be located within twelve inches of the point at which the wiring enters the customer's premises, "or as close thereto as practicable" is a reasonable modification of our rules. We find that this change poses little risk that carriers or building owners would undermine the purpose of the rule by routinely attempting to place the demarcation point deeper inside the customer's premises than necessary. In fact, we expect that the "closest practicable point" could just as easily be outside the customer's premises as deeper inside those premises. Accordingly, we amend Section 68.3 to make the change proposed. b.Within Twenty-five Feet of Equipment 16. Section 68.215 requires that, for installations involving complex wiring, fully-protected premises wiring must be used to connect equipment to the network interface (i.e., demarcation point) unless the carrier is "unwilling or unable" to locate the interface within twenty-five feet of the equipment on reasonable request. In this case other than fully protected wiring may be used. Cincinnati Bell notes that if it locates the demarcation point at the minimum point of entry for a multiunit building, it will often be unable to locate the network interface within twenty-five feet of the equipment. Accordingly, Cincinnati Bell contends that there is a conflict between Section 68.3 and Section 68.215 and requests that we clarify which rule is controlling. We do not agree with Cincinnati Bell that there is an inconsistency in our rules. We note that Section 68.215 does not require that equipment be placed within twenty-five feet of the demarcation point and specifically authorizes a wiring alternative if the carrier is "unwilling or unable" to locate its network interface within twenty-five feet of the equipment. Accordingly, we find that because there is no inconsistency between Sections 68.3 and 68.215, no further clarification is necessary. c.Location Away From a Building 17. Background/Position of the Parties. Some Petitioners express concern that the revised definition appears to authorize placement of the demarcation point (and thus the telephone company protector) some distance from the building in which the telephone wiring is installed. In particular, Petitioners note that Section 68.3 allows carriers, under certain circumstances, to place the demarcation point at the property line. Petitioner's state that under the National Electric Code (NEC), however, protection is required to be placed at or near the building. Petitioners contend that, if the carrier places its demarcation point (and protector) at a property line, a second protector would be required at the building, that proper coordination between these two protectors might not occur, and that this could endanger the safety of telephone company personnel, customers and others on the property. Petitioners suggest that we modify our rules to prohibit placement of the demarcation point away from a building, or clarify whether the NEC precludes such placement. 18. Discussion. We decline to make the proposed modification to our rules at this time. Nothing in the record indicates that it would be difficult to coordinate the two protectors, and thus meet safety standards and the requirements of the NEC. We also note that protectors are frequently located outside a building or close to a property line, and that property owners must comply with many safety standards regarding the buildings and equipment located on their property. Given the safety concerns raised by Petitioners, however, as part of our SFNPRM below, we are requesting additional comment on this issue. 3.Modifications to Existing Wiring 19. Background/Position of the Parties. Section 68.3(b)(2) states that in multiunit premises in which new wiring is installed, including "additions, modifications and rearrangements" of existing wiring, the carrier may establish a reasonable and nondiscriminatory practice of placing the demarcation point at the minimum point of entry, and that if the carrier does not elect to establish such a practice, the multiunit premises owner shall determine the location of the demarcation point or points. NYNEX notes that minor changes in wiring occur frequently, and urges the Commission to clarify that "additions, modifications and rearrangements" of existing wiring should be considered new installations under Section 68.3(b)(2) only if these changes are "so substantial in scope as to constitute virtual new installations." 20. Discussion. We clarify that we do not view minor additions or rearrangements that do not materially change the character of the inside wiring installation to be new installations under our rules. For example, the movement of a single jack in a suite or the addition of a few lines would not constitute a material change. To make this point clear, however, we are amending Section 68.3 by deleting the word "modification" from the first sentence of Section 68.3(b)(2), and adding the word "major" before the word "additions," so that Section 68.3(b)(2) will now explicitly apply only to new wiring installations, including "major additions or rearrangements" of existing wiring. 4.Multiunit Premises a.Defining Multiunit Premises 21. Petitioners request clarification as to whether buildings with shared walls, such as row houses, town houses, duplexes, or strip shopping centers should be considered single or multiunit premises under the Commission's rules. One Petitioner also asks whether single or multiunit rules would apply in a building that normally has a single tenant, but has an additional tenant for a short period of time. We find that in such situations the issue of whether the building should be considered a single or multiunit premises generally can be resolved by applying the carrier's reasonable and nondiscriminatory standard operating practice. If questions arise regarding a particular situation, however, parties may seek guidance from the Commission. b.Customer Access to Carrier Services 22. Some parties argue that in multiunit buildings with a single demarcation point customers would no longer have direct access to carrier services, and would be dependent on building owners and managers for the inside wiring necessary to connect to the network. These parties contend that the building owner could frustrate the customer's ability to obtain desired services. Accordingly, these parties ask the Commission to reconsider its revised telephone demarcation point rule. For the reasons stated above, we deny the requests for reconsideration on this issue. c.Limiting Customer Access To Inside Wiring 23. Background/Position of the Parties. Some Petitioners express concern that our rules could be interpreted to allow customers in a multiunit premises to work on wiring outside their own individual units, and thus to pose a risk to the telephone service of other customers in the building. Under the demarcation point definition either the carrier or building owner may create a single demarcation point for all customers in a multiunit building. The Commission's rules also allow the "subscriber and/or premises owner" to install, remove or rearrange telephone wiring on the customer's side of the demarcation point, and to attach simple inside wiring directly through such means as splicing, twisting, bridging, or soldering. Petitioners note that if the demarcation point is located in the basement of a multiunit building, individual customers could arguably have access to wiring anywhere in the building. Similarly, in commonly owned multiunit buildings such as condominiums, telephone wiring in a basement or main utility room could be considered to be on the customer's premises and thus accessible by all customers with units in the building. Petitioners suggest that the Commission revise its rule to state that a customer in a multiunit building can only work on wiring in the customer's own individual unit that serves only that customer. 24. Discussion. We agree that customers working on wiring outside their own individual unit in a multiunit building could pose a risk of harm to the telephone service of other tenants. We do not believe, however, that we need a new federal rule specifically prohibiting such activity. We can address Petitioners' concerns by amending our demarcation point definition and Section 68.213(b) to state that, in the case of multiunit premises, the premises owner may prohibit tenants from working on wiring located outside of the tenant's individual unit or on wiring that serves other customers. Accordingly, we amend our rules to make that change. 5.Building Owners and Managers Responsibilities a.BOMA Petition 25. The BOMA petition expresses concerns about the responsibilities that would be imposed on the owners or managers of multi-story, multiunit buildings if the carrier moves the demarcation point to the minimum point of entry, thus making the building owner responsible for all wiring inside the building. BOMA contends that the riser cable in multiunit buildings is there for the benefit of carriers and their subscribers and that building owners should not have to bear the cost of maintaining such cable. BOMA further argues that many tenants have long term leases that will prevent building owners from passing on these additional costs to their tenants. In addition, BOMA states that, unlike carriers, building owners and managers have no limitation of liability for failure to maintain or upgrade riser cable systems. Finally, BOMA states that the exact layout of carrier-installed riser cable systems is generally unknown to building owners and managers, making it difficult for building owners to carry our their new wiring responsibilities successfully. b.Moving the Demarcation Point to the Minimum Point of Entry 26. In addressing BOMA's petition, we first clarify the circumstances under which the demarcation point in an existing building may be moved to the minimum point of entry. Our rules state that the demarcation point for existing multiunit installations is to be determined "in accordance with the local carrier's reasonable and nondiscriminatory standard operating practices." We adopted this rule to accommodate multiunit arrangements in existence at the time when our new demarcation point rule went into effect, i.e., August 13, 1990. It appears, however, that some carriers may have imposed new operating practices on existing multiunit premises and then moved demarcation points for those premises to the minimum point of entry without the building owner's permission. The Commission did not intend that carriers establish new operating procedures to govern multiunit buildings existing on August 13, 1990 that would automatically relocate those buildings' demarcation points. We now clarify that the standard operating practices to which Section 68.3(b)(1) refers are those practices in effect on August 13, 1990. Thus, Section 68.3(b)(1) does not authorize changing the demarcation point for an existing building to the minimum point of entry. Such a change can occur only pursuant to Section 68.3(b)(2), i.e., if the building owner makes major additions, modifications or rearrangements in existing wiring. c.Maintenance of Inside Wiring 27. When our rules authorize location of the demarcation point at the minimum point of entry, we find no reason why building owners and managers should not be responsible for inside wiring within their building. The Commission has found that the public interest is served by detariffing the installation and maintenance of both simple and complex inside wiring and thus transferring responsibility for such wiring activities from carriers to customers and building owners. In particular, through its detariffing orders, the Commission sought "to make the cost- causative customer bear the costs of connecting CPE to the telephone network, to foster competition in the inside wiring installation and maintenance markets, to promote new entry into those markets, to produce cost savings which would be passed on to ratepayers, and to foster the development of an unregulated, competitive telecommunications marketplace." BOMA has offered no argument that would counter such public policy considerations. We note that our rules do require a level of expertise on the part of those performing work on complex wiring. Building owners may contract for such work as needed, employ trained personnel, or enter into wire maintenance agreements with the telephone company or other qualified providers. We also note that building owners may negotiate lease terms that reflect their new wiring responsibilities. In short, building owners should recover any additional costs involved directly from the cost causative entity, i.e., the tenant, in the same way that owners recoup other costs of maintaining the building. Moreover, nothing in the record supports including the cost of maintenance of complex building wiring in the general rate base. d.Liability Issues 28. Several commenters observe that although telephone company tariffs limit carriers' liability to the customer for service disruptions, building owners do not enjoy similar liability protection. These building owner commenters fear that they will be held liable for tenant losses, such as loss of revenues, attributable to disruption in service caused by faulty inside wiring. Nothing in the Commission's demarcation point policies or inside wiring requirements is intended to impose extraordinary liability on the building owners or managers for non-communications service losses incurred by tenants. Such liability issues are for courts of competent jurisdiction to resolve based upon an analysis of all contractual arrangements between a landlord, tenant and insurers. We note that building owners can negotiate for commercial insurance that addresses liability issues. e.Information on Inside Wiring 29. Background/Position of the Parties. BOMA argues that building owners and managers lack essential information about the carrier-installed wiring located within their buildings. BOMA states that building owners and managers do not possess, nor have they been offered dependable schematic diagrams or other information about existing inside wiring. They also complain that where schematics do exist, carriers cannot guarantee that the diagrams correspond to what actually exists within the building. BOMA states that this lack of information on building wiring makes it difficult for building owners and managers to assume responsibility for such wiring. 30. Discussion. In the Order and FNPRM, the Commission stated that "[w]e further expect carriers at the request of customers to provide complete information on customer's [sic] rights to install inside wiring and to fully disclose their standard operating practices concerning location of the demarcation point." We now find that in addition to needing information about carrier practices, building owners and subscribers must have information about the carrier-installed wiring that is on their premises. We agree that lack of such information is a significant problem whether owners decide to maintain and service wiring systems themselves, to retain an inside wiring maintenance and management firm, or to negotiate with the former provider -- the telephone company. In addition, in a competitive environment, exclusive possession of such information may give the telephone company an unfair market advantage. Accordingly, we are amending Section 68.110 of our rules to require that telephone companies give building owners or their agents, upon request, all available information regarding the wiring layout of their buildings including copies of existing schematic diagrams and service records. The telephone company may charge the building owner a reasonable fee for this service, which shall not exceed the cost involved in locating and copying the documents. In the alternative, the telephone company may make these documents available for review and copying by the building owner. In this case, the telephone company may charge a reasonable fee, which shall not exceed the cost involved in making the documents available, and may also require the building owner to pay a deposit to guarantee the documents' return. 6.Ownership and Accounting Issues a.Ownership of Inside Wiring 31. Some Petitioners ask the Commission to clarify whether carriers can require the customer or building owner to purchase or charge for continued use of carrier-installed wiring (including riser cable) that is now on the customer's side of the demarcation point. Petitioners also ask whether carriers may remove such wiring. 32. The Commission has already addressed some of these issues. The Commission has held that moving the demarcation point does not transfer ownership and that carriers may retain ownership over carrier-installed inside wiring. Premises owners or customers, however, have a right of access to wiring on the customer's side of the demarcation point, and a responsibility to maintain such wiring. Accordingly, the Commission has restricted carriers' ability to interfere with customer access and maintenance activities. Carriers may not use claims of ownership as a basis for imposing restrictions on the customer's or building owner's removal, rearrangement, replacement or maintenance of such wiring. Because there are already procedures under which carriers recover the costs of inside wiring that was originally installed or maintained under tariff, carriers are not entitled to additional compensation for such wiring. Accordingly, carriers may not require that such wiring be purchased and may not impose a charge for the use of such wiring. Finally, because carrier removal of carrier-installed wiring would prevent customer access and maintenance of that wiring and because the threat of removal could be used to force the customer to purchase the wiring, we conclude that the carrier may not remove carrier-installed inside wiring. b.Accounting Issues 33. Three Petitioners ask the Commission to clarify the accounting treatment of wiring once provided as part of the telephone network, but now on the customer's side of the demarcation point. In the Order and FNPRM, the Commission stated that the accounting treatment and regulatory status of such wiring would be addressed in connection with the Commission's deliberations concerning NARUC v. FCC. The Commission subsequently determined that, to help ensure that interstate rate payers do not bear the costs and risks of the telephone companies' inside wiring activities, inside wiring services should be classified as nonregulated for federal accounting purposes and that this determination was not precluded by NARUC v. FCC. Accordingly, carrier maintenance services for wiring that by reason of the redefinition of the demarcation point has become inside wiring, are now nonregulated. These maintenance activities would have been treated as a regulated expense prior to the change in the definition of the demarcation point. After the change, the costs of these activities are to be excluded from interstate costs. Carriers may have had unrecovered investment in the affected wiring. If they did, this investment remains on the books as regulated investment. It should be amortized at precisely the rate at which it would have been depreciated had there been no demarcation point change. If the carrier sells wiring to a customer (or to the premises owner) it must follow the normal retirement procedures. 34. Some Petitioners request clarification that the revised rules only affect the regulatory treatment of wiring, and that network equipment located on the customer side of the demarcation point continues to be classified as network equipment, and does not change in character to unregulated CPE. We recognize that in certain limited circumstances some carrier equipment may be located on the customer side of the demarcation point. The rules and policies in this docket are not intended to affect the Commission's current or future policies that determine whether equipment is network equipment or customer premises equipment. Such determinations will be made on a case- by-case basis depending on the type of equipment involved. We also clarify that the regulatory treatment of equipment located on the customer's premises, but on the carrier's side of the demarcation point, is not affected by the change in our demarcation point rules. 7.Preemption of State Regulation 35. Two Petitioners express concern that the Commission's revised demarcation point rule would conflict with existing state requirements that the demarcation point be located on the customer's premises. In particular, Petitioners are concerned that such state requirements might be inconsistent with the Commission's demarcation point rule for new multiunit premises, which allows the carrier to set the demarcation point at the minimum point of entry, or, if the carrier does not establish such a policy, allows premises owners to place the demarcation point virtually anywhere they choose. 36. The record at this point reveals no specific local policies that must be preempted. To the extent that local inside wiring policies would negate federal policies, the Commission will review the need to preempt at that time. We also note that our rules grandfather multiunit wiring installations existing as of August 13, 1990, and thus establish no minimum point of entry demarcation point policy for existing buildings. B. CONNECTION TO THE NETWORK 1. Direct Attachment 37. Background/Position of the Parties. In the Order and FNPRM, we revised Section 68.104 to allow customers and premises owners to connect simple wiring to the network by either: (1) installing a standard jack; or (2) directly attaching to carrier-installed wiring through such means as splicing, bridging, twisting or soldering. Some parties argue that all connections to the network should be made through a standard jack. These parties assert that plug and jack connections allow malfunctioning equipment to be easily disconnected, and that jacks can act as circuit breakers to help minimize the risk of injury when customers are performing simple wiring operations. In addition, NYNEX asks the Commission to clarify that the connection of complex wiring to the network still must be made through a carrier-provided jack. 38. Discussion. We find that requiring all simple wiring connections to be made through a standard jack is not in the public interest. In many situations a plug and jack configuration will not meet the needs of the end user and a hard wired installation is required. This is often true, for example, in the installation of security systems or remote access utility meters. Addressing safety concerns, we note that consumers often perform minor electrical wiring work and that the general public is aware of the need to turn off the power to the area involved. In the case of simple telephone wiring, voltage concerns arise only when a ring message is transmitted through the inside wiring. Before performing work on the inside wiring, the end user should disconnect the system at the demarcation point as a safety precaution. Accordingly, we conclude that because direct attachment of simple wiring to the network can be performed safely, the parties' concerns are misplaced, and that the direct attachment provision in Section 68.104 should be retained. Finally, regarding NYNEX's request for clarification, the Commission has clearly stated, both in the rules and in the Order and FNPRM, that complex wiring must be connected to the network through a carrier- provided jack. 2.Technical Specifications for Connectors 39. Three Petitioners ask the Commission to revise Subpart F to include TIA's proposed technical specifications for the following: (1) gold used in the plug/jack interface; (2) 8-position jacks; and (3) wall mounting plates. Petitioners state that TIA proposed these changes in comments filed in response to the NPRM, but that the Commission did not address these proposals in the Order and FNPRM. Petitioner's also note that, as requested by the Commission in the Order and FNPRM, TIA has now developed and submitted a test for determining gold equivalence for materials used in the plug/jack interface. Petitioners urge the Commission to adopt TIA's proposed gold equivalence standard. a.Standards for Gold and Gold Equivalence 40. Section 68.500 of our rules specifies that the plug/jack contact interface should be "hard gold to hard gold," and that any non-gold contact material must be compatible with gold and must provide equivalent contact performance. Some Petitioners, noting the need to provide a standard for determining gold and gold equivalence under Section 68.500, have argued that such standards are in the public interest and would provide necessary technical information. TIA proposed a standard for gold in comments filed in response to the NPRM, and has now also submitted a proposed test for determining "equivalent performance" to gold. TIA notes that its test for determining gold equivalence is necessarily based on its standard for gold, and that both standards should be adopted by the Commission. We agree that there should be a standard for determining whether a material meets the requirements for gold or gold equivalence under our rules. In addition, we find that TIA has provided a reasonable standard and note that no parties to this proceeding have objected to the proposal. Accordingly, we amend Section 68.500 to indicate that gold and gold equivalence under that section are to be determined using the TIA standard. b.8-Position Jacks 41. Section 68.500 in Subpart F of our rules includes diagrams and technical specifications for various plugs and jacks that can be used as standard connectors for connection to the telephone network. Some Petitioners suggest that Subpart F should be amended to include technical specifications for an 8-position unkeyed jack. The issue of whether specifications for 8-position unkeyed jacks should be included in our rules has been rendered moot because the necessary corrections have been made in 47 C.F.R.  68.500. c.Wall Mounting Plates 42. Some Petitioners suggest that our rules should include a standard for wall mounting plates and setback and projection specifications for such plates. We agree that standardization of the plate improves subscribers' ability to interchange equipment easily. Although we endorse a standardization process for the plate, we do not believe a federal rule on the subject is required to achieve this. The characteristics of plugs and jacks that may be used in conjunction with wall mounting plates are already governed by Part 68 and it is only the wall mounting plate that is not addressed by our rules. We do not believe that federally mandated standards for wall mounting plates are necessary to address issues of harm to the network. We note that there is now a voluntary mounting standard in the TIA/EIA 570 premises wiring standard, and that a number of manufacturers of wall mounted phones now provide adapter plates that can be used with virtually any standard wall outlet. Accordingly, we conclude that specifications for wall mounting plates in Part 68 are unnecessary, and the petitions for reconsideration requesting them are denied. 3.Attestation Requirement for Plugs and Jacks 43. In the Order and FNPRM, the Commission revised Section 68.213(b) to require that all plugs and jacks used in connection with simple inside wiring must conform to technical specifications appearing in Subpart F. TIA states that the effectiveness of this requirement would be substantially enhanced if the Commission required manufacturers to attest to such compliance and to provide the Commission with supporting test data. We note that sub-standard plugs and jacks have posed a significant problem for consumers. In particular, such plugs and jacks may be difficult to interconnect and may lack the gold plating on the contact interface needed to prevent interference. We conclude, however, that an attestation requirement is not essential for the prevention of network harm and, therefore, we will not amend  68.104 to impose an attestation requirement for plugs and jacks. C. APPLICATION FOR REVIEW 44. Background/Position of the Parties. Thirteen parties filed requests for deferral, stay or waiver of the effective date of the revised rules adopted in the Order and FNPRM. These requests were denied by the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) on August 10, 1990. The Bureau found that the parties had not made a strong showing that they would prevail on reconsideration, that there was no showing of irreparable harm, and that the planned implementation of the revised rules would serve the public interest. GTE has filed an application for review of the Bureau's decision and some comments in this proceeding express support for that application. GTE argues that it is likely to prevail on the merits because the Commission failed to comply with the APA in adopting a new demarcation point definition for complex wiring. GTE also argues that failure to grant a stay would result in irreparable harm because of industry confusion regarding the new rule, disruption of service to customers, damage to telephone company equipment and potential danger to persons resulting from exposure to high voltages. 45. Discussion. We dismiss GTE's application for review as moot. The rules went into effect August 13, 1990. Moreover, as discussed above, we find that we complied with the APA in adopting the revised demarcation point rule. Finally, we have, in denying reconsideration on the issue[s] of concern to GTE, addressed the merits of the issues. IV. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER A. DEFINING SIMPLE INSIDE WIRING 46. Background/Position of the Parties. Pursuant to Section 68.213, customers may connect simple wiring installations involving one or two access lines, to the telephone network. Wiring installations terminating in more than two access lines are governed by Section 68.215 and may only be connected to the network under the supervision of specially trained personnel. In the Order and FNPRM, we proposed expanding the scope of Section 68.213 to allow customers to connect wiring installations of up to four access lines without complying with the requirements of Section 68.215. We tentatively concluded that allowing customers to connect wiring installations of up to four access lines directly to the network would reduce regulatory burdens on customers and increase their options, without presenting any significant risk of harm to the network. 47. All commenters addressing this issue indicate support for amending Section 68.213 to govern wiring installations of up to four access lines. The Commenters agree that such wiring generally could be safely installed by consumers and that allowing connection of up to four access lines would better reflect the current practices of residential and small business customers, who often need extra lines for additional telephones, personal computers or fax machines. Some parties however, argue that simple wiring under Section 68.213 should not include certain special types of wiring, such as house or riser cable, circuits that require special conditioning, single circuit high capacity metallic wiring, or wiring serving special services, even if four or fewer access lines are involved. These Commenters argue that such wiring may require special handling and should be subject to the rules for complex wiring or other special rules adopted by the Commission. 48. Discussion. Based on the comments filed in this proceeding, we adopt our proposal and amend Section 68.213 to include wiring installations of up to four access lines. We find that this rule change will increase consumer options without presenting a significant risk of harm to the network. The revised rule also more accurately reflects the wiring practices of residential and small business users, who often need extra lines for additional telephones, personal computers, fax machines, or ISDN facilities. In addition, to ensure consistency among our rules, we amend the definition of non- system premises wiring in Section 68.3 to state that such wiring includes wiring installations of up to four access lines. As a matter of clarification, we also amend the title of Section 68.215 to state that this section applies to wiring installations of more than four access lines. We do not adopt the suggestion of some Commenters that various special types of wiring should be excluded from Section 68.213. As discussed below, we propose to amend Section 68.213 to require that all new simple wiring installations and modifications to existing installations, must involve a minimum of Category 3 type wiring. We believe that wiring meeting this standard can be safely installed by customers and that no special exclusions are required. We also find that relaxing our rules to allow customers to connect wiring installations of up to four access lines is consistent with the national policy goals set forth in Section 257 of the Communications Act by providing more options for small businesses to interconnect their CPE to the public switched telephone network and thus take advantage of the full panoply of telecommunications and information services available. Moreover, as a consequence, this amendment of Section 68.213 will further the national policy goal of encouraging vigorous economic competition by expanding the market for installation and maintenance of unprotected, non-system simple customer premises wiring and accordingly providing increased opportunities for entrepreneurs and small businesses in the provision of such services. V. SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING A. DEMARCATION POINT DEFINITION 1.Application to Complex Wiring 49. As indicated above, we find that our revised demarcation point definition was adopted in a rulemaking proceeding that complied fully with the requirements of the APA and thus is properly applied to both simple and complex wiring. We note, however, that several Petitioners expressed concern about our decision to apply the revised demarcation point definition to complex wiring. In order to ensure that our ultimate decision on this subject is based on the most complete record possible, we are issuing a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("SFNPRM") requesting comment on our demarcation point definition. 50. We tentatively conclude that retaining our revised definition for complex wiring is in the public interest. In particular, retaining the revised definition avoids the confusion that could otherwise result from having separate demarcation point definitions for simple and complex wiring. In addition, because in the case of new multiunit installations, the revised definition encourages placement of the demarcation point at the minimum point of entry, the revised definition expands the amount of wiring that would be on the customer's side of the demarcation point, and thus the amount of wiring that is deregulated. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that retaining the revised definition for complex, as well as simple wiring, also furthers the Commission's previously stated goal of "foster[ing] competition in the inside wiring installation and maintenance markets . . . and . . . the development of an unregulated, competitive telecommunications marketplace." But we stress that further comment may convince us otherwise. 2.Location Away From a Building 51. Background. As noted above, some Petitioners express concern that the revised definition appears to authorize placement of the demarcation point (and thus the telephone company protector) some distance from the building in which the telephone wiring is located. In particular, Petitioners note that Section 68.3 allows carriers, under certain circumstances, to place the demarcation point at the property line. Petitioners state that the NEC, however, requires that protection be placed at or near the building. Petitioners contend that, if the carrier places its demarcation point (and protector) at a property line, a second protector would nonetheless be required at the building. They assert that if proper coordination between these two protectors did not occur, this could pose a danger to the safety of telephone company personnel, customers and others on the property. Petitioners suggest that we modify our rules to prohibit placement of the demarcation point away from a building, or clarify whether the NEC precludes such placement. In our Order on Reconsideration, we have declined to make the requested modification in our rules at this time. We also noted that nothing in the record indicates that the two protectors could not be coordinated and that property owners are responsible for many safety standards regarding buildings and equipment located on their property. 52. Request for Comments. Because of the safety concerns raised by Petitioners, we request additional comment on whether we should continue to allow the telephone company demarcation point (and thus protector) to be placed away from a building, at the property line. Commenters should discuss actual experience with our revised demarcation point rule, and whether the presence and coordination of a second protector is any different from other safety matters for which property owners are routinely made responsible. If commenters believe the current rule does create significant safety problems, they should indicate whether some rule change, such as requiring carriers to notify building owners of the need for a second protector and protector coordination, could adequately address these concerns, while allowing the demarcation point to remain located at the property line. B. WIRE QUALITY 53. BICSI Petition. BICSI has filed a petition asking the Commission to amend Section 68.213(c) to adopt enhanced wire quality standards for simple inside wiring. BICSI states that this rule change is necessary to protect against the growing problem of "cross-talk," i.e., interference to the service of other customers resulting from the use of poor quality wiring. BICSI states that the extra cost of installing good quality wiring initially is small, and far outweighed by the costs of rewiring a building when cross-talk problems make this necessary. Because of competitive pressures in the building industry, and contractors' lack of knowledge about inside wiring, however, BICSI indicates that contractors often simply choose the least expensive wiring option. BICSI states that enhanced wire quality standards will also help provide an infrastructure that can support advanced telecommunications services. Accordingly, BICSI proposes amending Section 68.213(c) to require that "[c]onductors shall be solid, 24 gauge or larger, twisted copper pairs which comply with the electrical specifications for Category 3 or higher as defined in the ANSI EIA/TIA Building Wiring Standards." BICSI also states that wiring and connectors should be marked to indicate compliance with this standard. 54. Discussion. We agree that the use of poor quality inside wiring can create a risk of network harm. We are aware of numerous incidents of cross-talk apparently resulting from the use of poor quality simple inside wiring. In addition, we agree that the use of good quality wiring involves little additional cost and that the BICSI proposal should effectively address the cross-talk problem. Although the Commission has received numerous complaints concerning the problem of cross-talk, the record before us does not indicate whether there are any physical mechanisms by which the use of poor quality inside wiring in one building affects service in other buildings. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether the use of poor quality inside wiring in one building affects service in other buildings, and propose adopting the amendments described in the BICSI petition as a two-year interim standard. We also seek comment on whether the BICSI proposal is overly restrictive, particularly with respect to the requirement that only copper be used. We propose that, while the two-year interim standard is effective, industry members shall work together to develop a voluntary standard to solve the problems posed by poor quality inside wiring. We seek comment on what industry body or bodies should be the entity through which members work to develop the permanent standard. A voluntary industry standard could be more easily updated and could work in tandem with industry efforts to inform the public of its quality standard, for example just as the use of product labels in the personal computer industry has affected consumers' perceptions. In addition, we propose requiring that wire meeting the proposed interim standards be marked at specific intervals to ensure that the markings can be seen, and the wire quality identified, even if only a short length of wiring installed in the walls is exposed. We believe that clear labeling will inform the public of the problem and may help prevent the problems presented by poor quality inside wiring. We request comment on these proposals including comments on what marking interval should be required. 55. We amended Section 68.500 to incorporate TIA's standard for determining gold and gold equivalence. We acknowledge that TIA provided a standard for determining whether a material meets the requirements for gold and gold equivalence in comments filed in response to the NPRM. We also seek comment on whether gold or gold equivalence is necessary in all cases, and whether the new standard in Section 68.500 of the Commission's Rules, for determining whether a material meets the requirements for gold or gold equivalence, should also be an interim standard effective for two years, until industry develops a permanent standard. Again, we seek comment concerning through which industry body or bodies a permanent standard should be developed if the standard in Section 68.500 adopted today becomes only an interim standard. VI. CONCLUSION 56. In this Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we deny petitions for reconsideration of our revised demarcation point definition and hold that the rule properly applies to complex wiring. We also clarify how our demarcation point rule applies to multiunit premises, what rights and responsibilities related to inside wiring building owners and managers possess, and what ownership rights and accounting treatment apply to inside wiring under current Part 68 rules. In addition, we revise our demarcation point rule to: (1) allow the demarcation point to be located within twelve inches of the customer's premise "or as near thereto as practicable;" (2) indicate that only major rearrangements or additions are to be treated as new installations under the rule; (3) allow owners of multiunit buildings to restrict customer access to only that wiring located in the customer's individual unit; and (4) require local telephone companies to provide building owners with all available information regarding carrier- installed wiring in the building. We also request comment on additional changes that we propose to our demarcation point rule. 57. In addition, we address other Part 68 rules relevant to inside wiring. In particular, we affirm our rule allowing customers to attach simple inside wiring directly to the telephone network and clarify that complex wiring can only be connected through a carrier provided jack. We also amend our Part 68 rules to: (1) allow customers to attach wiring installations of up to four access lines to the network; and (2) adopt a standard for determining gold and gold equivalence under our rules. Further, we request comment on BICSI's proposal for enhanced wire quality standards. Our actions in this order are designed to clarify our demarcation point definition and other rules in Part 68 applicable to inside wiring needed for access to telecommunications services and to ensure the availability of quality telecommunications service to consumers. Finally, we request comment on whether BICSI's proposal and TIA's test for determining gold equivalence should be interim standards. VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT ANALYSIS FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS 58. 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, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comments on the proposals in the NPRM, including the IRFA. The Commissioner's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in this Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order and SFNPRM, and conforms to the RFA, as amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996). Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rule: 59. The Commission, in compliance with Sections 1 and 251(e)(1), and Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, promulgates rules in this Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order by amending Section 68.213 to allow customers to connect wiring installations of up to four access lines to the telephone network. This rule change would increase consumer options without presenting any significant risk of harm to the network. Furthermore, the revised rule would more accurately reflect the wiring practices of residential and small business users, who often need extra lines for additional telephones, personal computers, fax machines, or ISDN facilities. 60. Additionally, this Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order amends Section 68.3, the demarcation point rule 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 near thereto as practicable;" (2) indicate that only major additions or rearrangements of existing wiring are to be treated as new installations under the rule; and (3) allow owners of multiunit buildings to restrict customer access to only that wiring located in the customer's individual unit. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments In Response to the IRFA: 61. We have reviewed the general comments to identify issues that may have a significant economic impact on small businesses, and find that no issues were raised in direct response to the IFRA. Furthermore, all commenters addressing the issue of allowing customers the option of installation of up to four access line to the telephone network without assistance from the telephone carrier supported the proposed amendment. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which Rule Will Apply: 62. For the purposes of this Order, the RFA defines a "small business" to be the same as a "small business concern" under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632, unless the Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its activities. Under the Small Business Act, a "small business concern" is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). SBA has defined a small business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812 (Radiotelephone Communications) and 4813 (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they have fewer than 1,500 employees. We first discuss generally the total number of small telephone companies falling within both of those SIC categories. Then, we 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. 63. Because the small incumbent LECs subject to these rules are either dominant in their field of operations or are not independently owned and operated, consistent with our prior practice, they are excluded from the definition of "small entity" and "small business concerns." Accordingly, our use of the terms "small entities and "small business" does not encompass small incumbent LECs. Out of an abundance of caution, however, for regulatory flexibility analysis purposes, we will consider small incumbent LECs within the analysis and use the term "small incumbent LECs" to refer to any incumbent LECs that arguably might be defined by SBA as "small business concerns." Telephone Companies (SIC 4813) 64. Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. Many of the decisions and rules adopted herein may have a significant effect on a substantial number of the small telephone companies identified by 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. 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." 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 Order on Reconsideration Second Report and Order. 65. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. 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. According to SBA's definition, a small business telephone company other than a radiotelephone company is one employing fewer than 1,500 persons. 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 business concerns under 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 by the decisions and rules adopted in this Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order. 66. Local Exchange Carriers. 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 appears 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. 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 qualify as small business concerns under 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 Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements: 67. Reporting. None. 68. Recordkeeping. It appears that recordkeeping would not increase or significantly decrease by allowing customers the option to connect wiring installations of up to four access lines to the telephone network without technical assistance from the telephone company. We anticipate that no new skills are necessary to comply with this amendment by telephone companies, or other wire maintenance contractors. We do not anticipate any increased recordkeeping requirements to result from the demarcation point rule modifications. 69. Other Compliance Requirements. None. Significant Alternatives and Steps Taken By Agency to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities Consistent with Stated Objectives: 70. We considered making a proposed modification to our rules to prohibit placement of the demarcation point away from a building. The record did not support this proposal, and we are not inclined to decrease carriers' (including small businesses') flexibility in choosing a demarcation point for a particular building. However, we are seeking additional comment on whether allowing demarcation points to be located away from buildings presents any safety concerns. 71. We are amending  68.3 to state that  68.3(b)(2) will explicitly apply to new wiring installations, including "major additions or rearrangements" of existing wiring. The current  68.3(b)(2) provides that in multiunit premises in which new wiring is installed, including "additions, modifications, and rearrangements" of existing wiring, the carrier may establish a reasonable and nondiscriminatory practice of placing the demarcation point at the minimum point of entry, and that if the carrier does not elect to establish such a practice, the multiunit premises owner shall determine the location of the demarcation point or points. It was noted in comments that minor changes in wiring frequently occur, and it was urged that only changes that are substantial enough to constitute virtual new installations be considered new installations. We believe that the modification will increase flexibility and options for both carriers and building owners, including those that are small businesses, by allowing minor changes in wiring without automatic repercussions regarding the demarcation point that could be time consuming and costly. 72. We considered the suggestion of some parties that we amend 47 C.F.R.  68.104 to require that all connections to the network should be made through a standard jack, rather than allowing direct attachment to carrier-installed wiring through such means as splicing, bridging, twisting, or soldering. We concluded that such a requirement would not be in the public interest, because in many situations a plug and jack configuration will not meet the needs of the end user and a hard wired installation is required. Although our conclusion was based on the fact that direct attachment of simple wiring to the network can be performed safely, we also believe that the increased flexibility allowed by the direct attachment provision will benefit all end users, including small businesses, by allowing them to connect to the network in whatever safe manner best fits their economic situation. Similarly, we considered suggestions that our rules be amended to include a standard for wall mounting plates, but determined that federally mandated standards for wall mounting plates are not necessary to address issues of harm to the network. Again, increased flexibility in choosing and installing wall mounting plates will benefit all end users, including small business entities. 73. We considered amending  68.104 to require that manufacturers of plugs and jacks attest that their plugs and jacks conform to the technical specifications of Subpart F of Part 68 and provide the Commission with supporting test data. Such a requirement would have required reports to the Commission. We rejected the proposal because an attestation requirement is not essential for the prevention of harm to the network. Report to Congress: 74. 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. INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS 75. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking . Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing procedures as other comments in this proceeding, but they must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Secretary shall send a copy of the SFNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the Flexibility Act. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rule: 76. The Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking responds to concerns regarding the Section 68.213 amendment to require enhanced wire quality standards for simple inside wiring. Building Industry Consulting Service International (BICSI) has filed a petition asking the Commission to amend Section 68.213 to adopt enhanced wire quality standards for simple inside wiring. 77. As BICSI indicates, there is a growing problem of "cross-talk," i.e., interference to the service of other customers, resulting from the use of poor quality wiring. Furthermore, the use of good quality wiring initially involves little additional cost, and is far less costly than rewiring a building after cross-talk problems have developed. Because of competitive pressures in the building industry and contractor's lack of knowledge about telephone wiring, however, contractors often simply use the least expensive wire available. To solve this problem BICSI proposes amending Section 68.213 to require that "[c]onductors . . . be solid, 24 gauge or larger, twisted copper pairs which comply with the electrical specifications for Category 3 or higher as defined in the ANSI EIA/TIA Building Wiring Standards." BICSI's suggested amendment should effectively address the cross-talk problem. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comments on the BICSI proposal. 78. Furthermore, the item proposes amending Section 68.110 to (1) require that local telephone companies provide building owners with all available information regarding carrier- installed wiring on the customer's side of the demarcation point; (2) that schools, hospital and other similar facilities be considered multiunit premises under the Commission's demarcation point rule, and (3) makes minor amendments to the demarcation point rule and to other rules in Part 68. Specifically, clarification regarding our demarcation point rule. Therefore, the Commission seeks comment on: (a) whether the revised demarcation point definition should continue to apply to complex wiring; and (b) whether allowing the demarcation point, and thus the telephone company protector, to be located at the property line presents a safety hazard. This action is in response to concerns raised in the petitions and to develop a better record on these issues. Legal Basis: 79. The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 4, 201-205, 218, 220, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154, 201-205, 218, 220 and 405, and 5 U.S.C.  552 and 553. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply: 80. For the purposes of this Order, the RFA defines a "small business" to be the same as a "small business concern" under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632, unless the Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate to its activities. Under the Small Business Act, a "small business concern" is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). SBA has defined a small business for Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories 4812 (Radiotelephone Communications) and 4813 (Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone) to be small entities when they have fewer than 1,500 employees. We first discuss generally the total number of small telephone companies falling within both of those SIC categories. Then, we 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. 81. Because the small incumbent LECs subject to these rules are either dominant in their field of operations or are not independently owned and operated, consistent with our prior practice, they are excluded from the definition of "small entity" and "small business concerns." Accordingly, our use of the terms "small entities and "small business" does not encompass small incumbent LECs. Out of an abundance of caution, however, for regulatory flexibility analysis purposes, we will consider small incumbent LECs within the analysis and use the term "small incumbent LECs" to refer to any incumbent LECs that arguably might be defined by SBA as "small business concerns." Telephone Companies (SIC 4813) 82. Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected. Many of the decisions and rules adopted herein may have a significant effect on a substantial number of the small telephone companies identified by 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. 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." 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 Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 83. Wireline Carriers and Service Providers. 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. According to SBA's definition, a small business telephone company other than a radiotelephone company is one employing fewer than 1,500 persons. 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 business concerns under 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 by the decisions and rules proposed in this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 84. Local Exchange Carriers. 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 appears 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. 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 qualify as small business concerns under 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 proposed in this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 85. Additionally, we have considered enhanced wire 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 propose that the impact appears to be de minimis. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements: 86. Reporting. None. 87. Recordkeeping. See below. 88. Other Compliance Requirements. The proposed rule requires local telephone companies to provide building owners with all available information regarding carrier-installed wiring on the customer's side of the demarcation point. We seek additional comment on what would be considered a reasonable time frame for telephone companies to respond to requests for disclosure of information regarding the wiring layout of buildings, to include copies of existing schematic diagrams and service records. The telephone company may charge for this service, or alternatively, make available the documents for review and copying by the building owner. Comments regarding this issue should address possible impact on telephone company staffing requirements, and possible additional recordkeeping beyond existing records maintained by local telephone companies of carrier-installed wiring. Significant Alternatives To Proposed Rule Which Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Accomplish Stated Objectives: 89. To the extent that the above proposed requirement for enhanced wire quality standards for simple inside wiring may adversely effect small building contractors, it appears to be an insignificant cost in comparison to value placed on the elimination of "cross-talk," i.e., interference to the service of other customers which is directly attributed to the use of cheaper, lesser-quality wiring used by contractors in the building industry. 90. To the extent that the above requirement to provide information to building owners regarding carrier-installed wiring on the customer's side of the demarcation point would have a possible adverse economic impact on a small telephone company, please provide comment on this issue. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule: 91. None. B. EX PARTE PRESENTATIONS 92. This Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206. C. COMMENT DATES 93. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before July 17, 1997, and reply comments on or before August 1, 1997. To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an original and four copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting documents. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original plus nine copies. Comments and reply comments should be sent to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239) of the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC. 94. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information collections are due July 17, 1997. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information collections on or before 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to dconway@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 - 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov. VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES 95. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 201-205, 218, 220, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154, 201-205, 218, 220 and 405, and 5 U.S.C.  552 and 553, this Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order IS ADOPTED, and Part 68 of the Commission's Rules IS AMENDED as set forth in the attached Appendix A. 96. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rule amendments set forth in Appendix A SHALL BE EFFECTIVE thirty days after publication in the Federal Register. The collection of information contained within is contingent upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget. 97. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4 and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154 and 405, the petitions for reconsideration or clarification of the Report and Order, CC Docket 88-57, RM 5643, 5 FCC Rcd 4686 (1990), filed by BellSouth Corporation, GTE Service Corporation, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, United Telephone System Companies, New York Telephone Company, New England Telephone Company, North American Telecommunications Association, Independent Data Communications Manufacturer's Association, Telecommunications Industry Association, United States Telephone Association, AT&T, Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies, Ameritech, Central Telephone Company, Southern New England Telephone Companies, Building Industry Consulting Service International, Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company, Pacific Bell, MFS Communications Company, Building Owners and Managers Association of California, the People of the State of California and Public Utilities Commission of the State of California and Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company, Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company doing business as US West Communications ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated herein, and OTHERWISE ARE DENIED. 98. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4, 5, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154, 155, and 405, the petition filed by Building Owners and Managers Association of Pittsburgh, Inc., on October 13, 1992, IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein, and OTHERWISE IS DENIED. 99. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4, 5, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154, 155, and 405, the application for review of the Common Carrier Bureau's Order, CC Docket 88-57, 5 FCC Rcd 5228 (1990), filed by GTE Service Corporation IS DISMISSED. 100. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 201-205, 218, and 220 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154, 201-205, 218, and 220, and 5 U.S.C.  552 and 553, the petition for expedited rulemaking filed by the Building Industry Consulting Service International IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein, and OTHERWISE IS DISMISSED. 101. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 201-205, 218, and 220, of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154, 201-205, 218, and 220, and 5 U.S.C.  552 and 553, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS PROVIDED to amend Part 68 of the Commission's rules, as described herein and as set forth in Appendix B. 102. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pacific Bell's amended petition for clarification or reconsideration is accepted into the record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary APPENDIX A Rule Changes Part 68 (Chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations) is amended as follows: PART 68 - CONNECTION OF TERMINAL EQUIPMENT TO THE NETWORK 1.The authority citation for Part 68 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 1, 4, 5, 201-5, 208, 215, 218, 226, 227, 303, 313, 314, 403, 404, 410, 602 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 155, 201-5, 208, 215, 218, 226, 227, 303, 313, 314, 403, 404, 410, 602. 2.Section 68.3 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) of the demarcation point definition, and by revising the definition of non-system premises wiring, to read as follows:  68.3 Definitions. * * * * * Demarcation point: * * * (a) Single unit installations. For single unit installations existing as of August 13, 1990, and installations installed after that date the demarcation point shall be a point within 30 cm (12 in) of the protector or, where there is no protector, within 30 cm (12 in) of where the telephone wire enters the customer's premises, or as close thereto as practicable. (b) Multiunit installations. (1) In multiunit premises existing as of August 13, 1990, the demarcation point shall be determined in accordance with the local carrier's reasonable and non- discriminatory standard operating practices. Provided, however, that where there are multiple demarcation points within the multiunit premises, a demarcation point for a customer shall not be further inside the customer's premises than a point twelve inches from where the wiring enters the customer's premises, or as close thereto as practicable. (2) In multiunit premises in which wiring is installed after August 13, 1990, including major additions or rearrangements of wiring existing prior to that date, the telephone company may establish a reasonable and nondiscriminatory practice of placing the demarcation point at the minimum point of entry. If the telephone company does not elect to establish a practice of placing the demarcation point at the minimum point of entry, the multiunit premises owner shall determine the location of the demarcation point or points. The multiunit premises owner shall determine whether there shall be a single demarcation point location for all customers or separate such locations for each customer. Provided, however, that where there are multiple demarcation points within the multiunit premises, a demarcation point for a customer shall not be further inside the customer's premises than a point 30 cm (12 in) from where the wiring enters the customer's premises, or as close thereto as practicable. (3) In multiunit premises with more than one customer, the premises owner may adopt a policy restricting a customer's access to wiring on the premises to only that wiring located in the customer's individual unit that serves only that particular customer. * * * * * Non-system premises wiring: Wiring that is used with up to four-line business and residence services, located at the subscriber's premises. * * * * * 3.Section 68.110 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:  68.110 Compatibility of the telephone network and terminal equipment. * * * * * (c) Availability of inside wiring information. Any available technical information concerning wiring on the customer side of the demarcation point, including copies of existing schematic diagrams and service records, shall be provided by the telephone company upon request of the building owner or agent thereof. The telephone company may charge the building owner a reasonable fee for this service, which shall not exceed the cost involved in locating and copying the documents. In the alternative, the telephone company may make these documents available for review and copying by the building owner. In this case, the telephone company may charge a reasonable fee, which shall not exceed the cost involved in making the documents available, and may also require the building owner to pay a deposit to guarantee the documents' return. 4.Section 68.213 is amended by revising paragraph (a), and adding a new fourth sentence to paragraph (b), to read as follows:  68.213 Installation of other than "fully protected" non-system simple customer premises wiring. (a) Scope of this rule. Provisions of this rule apply only to "unprotected" premises wiring used with simple installations of wiring for up to four line residential and business telephone service. More complex installations of wiring for multiple line services, for use with systems such as PBX and key telephone systems, are controlled by  68.215 of these rules. (b) Wiring authorized. * * * In multiunit premises with more than one customer, the premises owner may adopt a policy restricting a customer's access to wiring on the premises to only that wiring located in the customer's individual unit wiring that serves only that particular customer. See Demarcation point definition, Section 68.3(b)(3). The customer or premises owner may not access carrier wiring and facilities on the carrier's side of the demarcation point. Customers may not access the telephone company- installed protector. All plugs and jacks used in connection with inside wiring shall conform to subpart F of the Commission's rules. * * * * * 5.Section 68.215 is amended by revising the title to read as follows:  68.215 Installation of other than "fully protected" system premises wiring that serves more than four subscriber access lines. * * * * * 6.Section 68.500 is amended by adding a new sentence at the end of the general text paragraph, and prior to the specifications for a 6-position plug, to read as follows:  68.500 Specifications. General. * * * For the purposes of this section, hard gold and contact performance equivalent to gold shall be determined in accordance with the standards detailed in Appendix H of TIA Telecommunications Systems Bulletin No. 31 Part 68 Rationale and Measurement Guidelines (TSB.31), prepared by EIA/TIA TR-41 Committee on Telephone Terminals (1992). This publication may be obtained by contacting Global Engineering Documents, 7730 Carondelet Avenue, Suite # 407, St. Louis, Missouri, 63105. (Telephone number 1-800-854-7179). (a) Miniature 6-position plug: * * * * * * * * APPENDIX B Proposed Rule Changes Part 68 (Chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations) is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 68 - CONNECTION OF TERMINAL EQUIPMENT TO THE NETWORK 1.The authority citation for Part 68 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 1, 4, 5, 201-5, 208, 215, 218, 226, 227, 303, 313, 314, 403, 404, 410, 602 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 155, 201-5, 208, 215, 218, 226, 227, 303, 313, 314, 403, 404, 410, 602. 2.Section 68.213 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:  68.213 Installation of other than "fully protected" non-system simple customer premises wiring. * * * * * (c) Material requirements. (1) For new installations and modifications to existing installations, conductors shall be solid, 24 gauge or larger, twisted copper pairs which comply with the electrical specifications for Category 3 or higher as defined in the ANSI EIA/TIA Building Wiring Standards. (2) Conductors shall have insulation with a 1500 Volt rms minimum breakdown rating. This rating shall be established by covering the jacket or sheath with at least 15 cm (6 in) (measured linearly on the cable) of conductive foil, and establishing a potential difference between the foil and all of the individual conductors connected together, such potential difference gradually increased over a 30 second time period to 1500 Volts rms, 60 Hertz, then applied continuously for one minute. At no time during this 90 second time interval shall the current between these points exceed 10 milliamperes peak. (3) All wire and connectors meeting the requirements set forth in subparagraphs (1) and (2) above shall be marked in a manner visible to the consumer, as recommended in the ANSI EIA/TIA premises cabling standards. * * * * *