61152 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Rate set 

For plans with a

valuation date Immediate

annuity rate

(percent) 

Deferred annuities

(percent) 

On or after Before i1 i2 i3 n1 n2

*******

133 11–1–04 12–1–04 2.75 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8 

PART 4044—ALLOCATION OF 

ASSETS IN SINGLE-EMPLOYER 

PLANS

■ 4. The authority citation for part 4044 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 

1341, 1344, 1362.

■ 5. In appendix B to part 4044, a new 

entry, as set forth below, is added to the 

table. (The introductory text of the table 

is omitted.) 

Appendix B to Part 4044—Interest 

Rates Used To Value Benefits

* * * * *

For valuation dates occurring in the month—

The values of it are: 

it for t = it for t = it for t = 

*******

November 2004 ................................................................ .0380 1–20 .0500 >20 N/A N/A 

Issued in Washington, DC, on this 12th day 

of October 2004. 

Joseph H. Grant, 

Deputy Executive Director and Chief 

Operating Officer, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 04–23180 Filed 10–14–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7708–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CC Docket No. 96–146; RM–8783; ENF–95–

20; FCC 04–162] 

Policies and Rules Governing 

Interstate Pay-Per-Call and Other 

Information Services, and Toll-free 

Number Usage; Truth-in-Billing and 

Billing Format

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rules.

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission closes CC Docket 96–146, a 

rulemaking initiated in 1996 to 

implement portions of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 

Act) governing pay-per-call and related 

information services. This docket was 

opened specifically for the purpose of 

implementing section 228 as amended 

by the 1996 Act. In 1996, the 

Commission released an Order and 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that 

adopted new rules, incorporating much 

of the statute verbatim, and completed 

implementation of the new provision of 

section 228. In the years since the rules 

took effect, the shape of the pay-per-call 

industry, technology in general, and 

regulatory perspectives have changed 

considerably. For reasons of 

administrative efficiency, the 

Commission now closes that docket. 

Furthermore, in this document, the 

Commission denies a related 

application for review, dismisses a 

petition to initiate a rulemaking, and 

corrects a word error in the existing 

rules.

DATES: Effective July 16, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ruth Yodaiken, of the Consumer & 

Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–2512 (voice), or e-mail 

ruth.yodaiken@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

Memorandum Opinion and Order 

(MO&O), Policies and Rules Governing 

Interstate Pay-Per-Call and Other 

Information Services Pursuant to the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, 

Policies and Rules Implementing the 

Telephone Disclosure and Dispute 

Resolution Act, Florida Public Service 

Commission Petition to Initiate 

Rulemaking to Adopt Additional 

Safeguards; Application for Review of 

Advisory Ruling Regarding Directly 

Dialed Calls to International 

Information Services, CC Docket No. 

96–146, RM 8783, ENF–95–20; FCC 04–

162, adopted July 1, 2004, and released 

July 16, 2004. This MO&O document 

does not contain new or modified 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new or modified ‘‘information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). On July 16, 2004, the 

Commission also released a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Policies 

and Rules Governing Interstate Pay-PerCall and Other Information Services 

Pursuant to the Telecommunications 

Act of 1996; Policies and Rules 

Governing Interstate Pay-Per-Call and 

Other Information Services, and Tollfree Number Usage; Truth-in-Billing and 

Billing Format, CC Docket Nos. 96–146 

and 98–170, CG Docket No. 04–244; 

FCC 04–162, that contains proposed 

information requirements. The full text 

of this document is available on the 

Commission’s website Electronic 

Comment Filing System and for public 

inspection during regular business 

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 

Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov, or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 61153

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice) or 

(202) 418–0432 (TTY). This MO&O can 

also be downloaded in Word and 

Portable Document Format (PDF) at 

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/

paypercall.html. 

Synopsis 

A. WKP Application for Review 

In 1995, WKP Communications, Inc. 

(WKP) filed an Application for Review

of a staff interpretation given in the 

Marlowe Letter. (Direct Dialed Calls to 

International Information Services, File 

No. ENF 95–20 (October 5, 1995) (WKP 

Application for Review). See also WKP 

Communications Files Application for 

Review of Common Carrier Bureau Staff 

Ruling Regarding Provisions of 

Interstate Information Services at 

Tariffed Rates, 10 FCC Rcd 11518 (rel. 

October 24, 1995).) The letter gave an 

opinion of how, among other things, 

§ 201(b) and 228 would apply to several 

hypothetical scenarios where 

international long distance service 

providers would be used to transmit 

information and entertainment services. 

(Marlowe Letter, 10 FCC Rcd 10945.) 

The scenarios described involved the 

transmission of calls by an authorized 

carrier at a tariffed rate through 10XXX 

dialing sequence, a 500 number, and a 

700 number. Both the Marlowe Letter 

and WKP’s Application for Review were 

drafted before the 1996 Act had gone 

into effect, and there was still an 

exemption for tariffed services under 

§ 228. (The exemption for tariffed 

services was removed by the 1996 Act.) 

In addition to Congress’ removal of the 

tariffed exemption, the Commission has 

spoken twice on the issue of revenue 

sharing in general, first in the 1996 

Order & NPRM and more recently in the 

chat-line orders discussed above. Since 

filing its initial Application for Review, 

WKP has done nothing to update its 

Application for Review. Further, WKP 

has apparently ceased acting as a 

common carrier and Commission staff 

has been unsuccessful in reaching WKP 

to determine whether it wanted to 

pursue the Application for Review. 

(Since 1998, all common carriers have 

been required to file 499A forms, but 

there is no record of WKP having done 

so. The law firm that filed the petition 

on behalf of WKP provided Commission 

staff with the last known address of 

WKP, and a letter sent to that address 

in September 2003 was returned as 

undeliverable.) The Commission, 

therefore, dismisses this application as 

moot. We note that some of the general 

topics raised in the Application for 

Review, which went well beyond the 

scope of the letter, are raised in the 

NPRM. 

B. Florida Public Service Petition for 

Rulemaking 

In 1995, the Florida Public Service 

Commission (FPSC) filed a Petition for 

Rulemaking with the Commission 

proposing, among other things, the 

establishment of a service to allow 

subscribers to have bill blocking, which 

would not be dependant upon the use 

of 900 numbers. (Policies and Rules 

Implementing the Telephone Disclosure 

and Dispute Resolution Act, Florida 

Public Service Commission Petition to 

Initiate Rulemaking to Adopt Additional 

Safeguards, RM–8783, filed December 8, 

1995 (FPSC Petition). See also Office of 

Public Affairs, Reference Operations 

Division, Petitions for Rulemaking File, 

Report No. 2127, Public Notice, April 1, 

1996; Florida Public Service 

Commission 1996 Reply, RM–8783; and 

Florida Public Service Commission 

1996 Comment.) In January 2004, the 

FPSC filed a notice withdrawing their 

petition. (Policies and Rules 

Implementing the Telephone Disclosure 

and Dispute Resolution Act, Florida 

Public Service Commission Notice of 

Withdrawal of Petition to Initiate 

Rulemaking, filed January 26, 2004.) 

Therefore, we dismiss the Petition for 

Rulemaking. 

C. Closing CC Docket 96–146 

Since the Commission released the 

1996 Order & NPRM in CC Docket No. 

96–146, the audiotext information 

services market, as well as related 

regulatory environment and technology 

have undergone significant changes. As 

noted earlier, the number of assigned 

900 numbers, dropped from a peak of 

447 in 1999 to 206 by the end of 2002 

and many are no longer used by end 

users. As noted above, many carriers 

decline to provide transport or bill for 

900 numbers. Consumers complain 

about different problems, as discussed 

above. Regulatory changes included 

detariffing, slamming verification, and 

adjudication of formal complaints by 

the FCC and outside agencies. Instant 

credit and electronic transactions are 

now common in e-commerce 

transactions.

As the comment cycle for the 1996 

Order & NPRM was completed before 

the rules actually took effect, the 

comments from 1996 provided no 

evidence of the impact of those rules. 

CGB’s effort to refresh the record in this 

docket in 2003 was not met with 

extensive comment, nor a full range of 

views. Only 15 parties, most in the payper-call industry, submitted comments, 

replies, or ex parte filings, contrasting to 

the more varied 38 parties that had filed 

comments in response to the 1996 Order 

& NPRM. Several of the parties argued 

that the record was too stale to reflect 

accurately the current market and 

regulatory environment. 

It is clear that the subject of this 

proceeding has changed significantly 

from when the 1996 Order & NPRM was 

released and when most comments were 

filed. While there are items in the 

comments and proposals that are still 

relevant, it would be impossible without 

further comment and review to ascertain 

which material is dated and which 

material is still viable. In the interest of 

administrative efficiency, therefore, we 

now close and terminate CC Docket No. 

96–146. To the extent that parties 

believe portions of their 1996 comments 

are still relevant, parties should 

resubmit the relevant parts of such 

comments, if any, in this new docket. 

Parties refiling portions of comments are 

asked to do so with particularity. 

(Parties should only refile the particular 

pages from their comments that they 

believe to still be relevant.) Comments 

filed in 2003 in response to the Notice

need not be filed again, as they will be 

included in this new rulemaking. 

D. Correction of Word Error 

The rules as adopted in 1996 contain 

a minor error in wording which is being 

corrected by this MO&O. In 

§ 64.154(c)(2)(vi), the word ‘‘up’’ was 

omitted. We correct this sentence to 

read: ‘‘Clearly states that the caller can 

hang up at or before the end of the 

introductory message without incurring 

any charge whatsoever.’’

Ordering Clauses 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority contained in sections 1–4, 

201(b), 228 and 303(r) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 201(b), 

228 and 303(r); and 47 CFR 64.1501–

1515 of the Commission’s rules, this 

Memorandum Opinion and Order is 

adopted. 

The proceedings in CC Docket No. 

96–146 are terminated, and the docket 

is closed. 

The Petition for Rulemaking filed by 

the Florida Public Service Commission

on December 8, 1995; and the 

Application for Review filed by WKP 

Communications, Inc., on October 5, 

1995 are dismissed. 47 CFR 64.1504 (c) 

is amended as set forth in the Final 

Rules. 

The Commission’s Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Memorandum Opinion and Order

61154 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

1See 64 FR 47566; August 31, 1999 (Docket No. 

NHTSA–99–6160) and 65 FR 46628; July 31, 2000 

(Docket No. NHTSA–7648) and 68 FR 38208; June 

27, 2003 (Docket No. NHTSA–15438) for later 

amendments of the rule.

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary.

Rule Change

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission is amending 47 CFR part 64 

as follows:

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 64 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); secs. 

403(b) (2)(B), (c), Public Law 104–104, 110 

Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 

218, 225, 226, 228, and 254(k) unless 

otherwise noted.

■ 2. Section 64.1504 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(2)(vi) to read as 

follows:

§ 64.1504 Restrictions on the use of tollfree numbers.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(vi) Clearly states that the caller can 

hang up at or before the end of the 

introductory message without incurring 

any charge whatsoever.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–23191 Filed 10–14–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2003–14711] 

RIN 2127–AI49 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Child Restraint Anchorage 

Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document makes 

permanent the temporary exclusion 

issued by the agency in an interim final 

rule published on May 8, 2003 to 

exclude funeral coaches (as defined in 

the rule) from the requirements of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

No. 225, ‘‘Child restraint anchorage 

systems.’’

DATES: This rule is effective November 

15, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

should refer to the docket number and 

be submitted to: Administrator, Room 

5220, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all petitions 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

petition (or signing the petition, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal questions, Mike Huntley, 

NHTSA Office of Crashworthiness 

Standards, Special Vehicle and Systems 

Division, 400 Seventh St., SW., 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202–

366–0029). For legal questions, Deirdre 

Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, 

400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 

20590 (telephone 202–366–2992).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On March 5, 1999, NHTSA published 

a final rule establishing a new Federal 

motor vehicle safety standard that 

required motor vehicle manufacturers to 

install child restraint anchorage systems 

that are standardized and independent 

of the vehicle seat belts.1 (64 FR 10786) 

(Docket No. 98–3390, Notice 2) (Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 

No. 225, 49 CFR 571.225.) Each system 

is composed of three anchorages: two 

lower anchorages and one upper 

anchorage. The lower anchorages are 

two 6 millimeter (mm) round steel bars 

fastened to the vehicle 720 mm apart 

and located at the intersection of the 

vehicle seat cushion and seat back. The 

upper anchorage is a permanent 

structure to which the hook of a child 

restraint upper tether may be attached 

for the purpose of transferring load from 

the child restraint to the vehicle 

structure.

II. Petition for Rulemaking From 

Accubuilt on Funeral Coaches 

FMVSS No. 225 requires a vehicle to 

be equipped with tether anchorages in 

front passenger seating positions if (1) 

the vehicle lacks a rear designated 

seating position (see S4.3(b)(3) and 

S4.4(c)), and (2) there is an air bag and 

no air bag on-off switch in the front 

passenger seating position. Accubuilt, a 

final-stage manufacturer of funeral 

coaches, submitted a petition for 

rulemaking requesting NHTSA to 

exclude funeral coaches from the 

requirement. Accubuilt stated that: 

‘‘[s]ince a Funeral Coach is a single 

purpose vehicle, transporting a body 

and casket, children do not ride in the 

front seat.’’

III. Interim Final Rule on Accubuilt 

Request 

On May 8, 2003, NHTSA published 

an interim final rule in the Federal 

Register (68 FR 24644; Docket 14711) 

which temporarily excluded ‘‘funeral 

coaches’’ from the requirements of 

FMVSS No. 225. We limited the 

exclusion to a one-year period, to 

receive and evaluate comments on the 

exclusion and to determine whether to 

make the exclusion permanent. 

We agreed with Accubuilt that it was 

unlikely that a funeral coach that had no 

rear seats would carry children in the 

front seat. We believed that the persons 

riding in the front seat of this type of 

vehicle would be the driver and an 

attendant to the casket, not a child. On 

the other hand, the agency believed that 

it was conceivable that a child may be 

carried in a funeral coach that carried 

passengers in the rear. Thus, the 

exclusion of funeral coaches was 

limited to funeral coaches that had only 

one row of occupant seats (the front 

row). 

To implement this limited exclusion, 

we added a definition of ‘‘funeral 

coach’’ to the standard. Accubuilt had 

stated that a funeral coach is a vehicle 

equipped with heavy duty components 

to handle the additional mass of a body 

and casket, and that manufacturers of 

funeral coaches conform to an industry 

standard that requires ‘‘front and rear 

stops’’ in the interior of the coach to 

keep the casket stationary. Based on the 

above information, we defined ‘‘funeral 

coach’’ as ‘‘a vehicle that contains only 

one row of occupant seats, is designed 

exclusively for transporting a body and 

casket and that is equipped with 

features to secure a casket in place 

during operation of the vehicle.’’

Comments were requested on the 

definition and on the exclusion of 

funeral coaches from FMVSS No. 225. 

IV. Agency Decision 

NHTSA did not receive any 

comments on the document. The agency 

has decided to make permanent the 

exclusion issued in the May 8, 2003 

interim final rule. This amendment