71380 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action also does not have 

federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. EPA will submit a report 

containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by February 7, 2005. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide.

Dated: November 30, 2004. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart Y—Minnesota

■ 2. Section 52.1237 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 52.1237 Control strategy: Carbon 

monoxide.

* * * * *

(d) Approval—On November 10, 

2004, Minnesota submitted a revision to 

the Carbon Monoxide (CO) maintenance 

plan for the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. 

These plans revised 1996 and 2009 

motor vehicle emission inventories and 

2009 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

(MVEB) recalculated using the 

emissions factor model MOBILE6. The 

MVEB for transportation conformity 

purposes for the Minneapolis-St. Paul 

maintenance area is 1961 tons per 

winter day of CO.

[FR Doc. 04–27026 Filed 12–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 2 and 15 

[ET Docket No. 01–278; FCC 04–262] 

Radio Frequency Device Rules

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document addresses 

three petitions for reconsideration of 

various aspects of the rule changes 

adopted in the Second Report and Order 

and Memorandum Opinion and Order

(Second Report and Order) in this 

proceeding. In particular, the 

Commission: Grants a request to permit 

compliance information statements for 

self-authorized equipment to be 

provided in alternative formats; grants a 

request to permit longer duration 

transmissions during the setup of 

security systems; and denies a requests 

to permit electronic labeling of selfauthorized equipment, to further relax 

the equipment authorization 

requirements for low frequency 

intentional radiators and to require 

foreign regulators to accept 

accreditations of United States 

laboratories.

DATES: Effective January 10, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hugh VanTuyl, Office of Engineering 

and Technology, (202) 418–7506, TTY 

(202) 418–2989, e-mail: 

Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET 

Docket No. 01–278, FCC 04–262, 

adopted November 5, 2004 and released 

November 9, 2004. The full text of this 

document is available on the 

Commission’s Internet site at 

www.fcc.gov. It is also available for 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th 

Street., SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

The full text of this document also may 

be purchased from the Commission’s 

duplication contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St., 

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554; telephone (202) 488–5300; fax 

(202) 488–5563. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 71381

Summary of the Report and Order 

1. In the Second Report and Order, 68 

FR 68531, December 9, 2003, the 

Commission updated certain regulations 

contained in parts 2, 15, and 18 of the 

rules. Three parties filed petitions for 

reconsideration of the changes adopted 

in the Second Report and Order. Cisco 

Systems, Inc. (Cisco) requests that the 

Commission expand the scope of the 

rule changes that allows manufacturers 

to provide part 15 information 

statements in alternative forms to 

include the compliance information 

statement supplied with equipment 

authorized under the Declaration of 

Conformity (DoC) procedure. G.E. 

Interlogix, Inc. requests that the 

Commission reconsider its decision on 

remote control devices that prohibits 

installers of security systems from 

exceeding the five second limit on 

manual and automatic transmissions in 

§ 15.231 during the equipment set-up 

process. The Information Technology 

Industry Council requests that the 

Commission: Make additional changes 

to the labeling requirements for selfauthorized equipment to permit 

electronic labeling for equipment 

subject to DoC as it does for software 

defined radios; allow manufacturers to 

provide the compliance information in 

alternative forms for equipment 

authorized under the DoC procedure as 

is now permitted for part 15 information 

statements; extend the relaxed 

equipment authorization requirements 

for low-frequency, low-powered 

intentional radiators to higher 

frequencies; and insist that foreign 

regulators accept accreditations of 

United States laboratories, including 

manufacturers’ laboratories.

DoC Compliance Information 

Statements 

2. In their petitions, Cisco and ITI 

note that the rule changes adopted in 

the Second Report and Order that allow 

information statements to be supplied in 

alternative forms do not apply to the 

compliance information statements that 

are required by § 2.1077 to be supplied 

with equipment authorized under the 

DoC procedure. Cisco states that the 

omission of § 2.1077 from the same 

treatment of other information was not 

recognized by the industry during the 

filing of comments during the FCC 

proceeding. It states that in reviewing 

the requirements and comparing the 

various types of information, it cannot 

identify any good reason why the DoC 

compliance information statement 

should not be included among the 

documents that manufacturers can 

provide to end users over the Internet. 

Cisco further states that because 

manufacturers cannot provide this 

information over the Internet, 

manufacturers and users will bear the 

cost of providing the information with 

a product with no clear regulatory 

benefit to anyone. ITI requests that the 

Commission revise § 2.1077 to make the 

rule consistent with the revised part 15 

rules for providing information 

statements in alternative formats. 

3. The exclusion of DoC compliance 

statements from the same treatment as 

part 15 information statements was an 

inadvertent omission by the 

Commission that, as Cisco notes, was 

not recognized by industry at the time 

comments were filed in this proceeding. 

We agree with Cisco and ITI that 

permitting DoC compliance information 

statements to be provided in alternative 

formats will offer increased flexibility to 

manufacturers and result in cost savings 

to the industry. Accordingly, we are 

amending § 2.1077 of the rules to allow 

DoC compliance statements to be 

provided in formats other than paper, 

such as on a computer disk or over the 

Internet. Consistent with the 

Commission’s actions in the Second 

Report and Order for part 15 

information statements, we will allow 

compliance information statements to 

be provided in alterative forms only 

when the instruction manual is 

provided in the same alternative form 

and the user can reasonably be expected 

to have the capability to access 

information in that form. These 

requirements will help ensure that the 

DoC compliance information statement 

is accessible to all persons using a given 

device. 

Remote Control Device Transmission 

Duration Limits 

4. In the Second Report and Order,

the Commission denied a request by 

G.E. Interlogix to modify § 15.231 of the 

rules to allow remote control devices to 

be operated with transmission durations 

greater than five seconds during 

equipment setup. In its petition for 

reconsideration, G.E. Interlogix states 

that it met with Commission 

representatives in January 2001 and 

discussed the problem of security 

systems requiring a lengthier setup 

period for new systems than could be 

accomplished within the five second 

period permitted under § 15.231. G.E. 

Interlogix states that it advised the 

Commission staff that while setup 

transmissions can, in theory, be 

performed in the manual mode, in 

practice, systems are designed for an 

automatic download of setup data and 

the five second transmission limitation 

can be too restrictive for certain 

sophisticated systems. It further advised 

that system setup generally occurs only 

once, but in rare cases such as a 

property changing hands or system 

failure, a system must be reinitialized. 

G.E. Interlogix submitted a copy of an 

interpretation letter issued by staff at the 

Commission’s Laboratory stating that a 

transmission that exceeds the five 

second limit in § 15.231 is permissible 

to initiate a system, provided it occurs 

only once. G.E. Interlogix states that 

while its comments filed in response to 

the NPRM requested that the 

Commission codify this interpretation, 

it did not supply supportive data 

because it considered the request to be 

non-controversial. It states that setup 

transmissions used by all wireless 

security systems are not control signals 

in the strict sense, nor are they 

recognition codes, and the part 15 rules 

were never specifically designed to 

account for them. It further states that 

setup transmissions are not performed 

by the user of the security equipment 

and are not transmissions that occur 

during the functioning of the security 

system. Rather, they are transmissions 

that provide a system with the initial 

programming required for operation. GE 

Interlogix states that in a sophisticated 

security system the setup process can 

exceed five seconds because a low data 

rate is required to reliably transmit the 

setup information at the low signal 

levels permitted by the rules. It requests 

that the Commission: Reconsider its 

decision in the Second Report and 

Order and permit transmission of setup 

information for security systems in 

excess of five seconds, provided such 

transmissions are under the control of a 

professional installer, and clarify that 

data transmissions during a setup 

procedure are permitted under § 15.231. 

G.E. Interlogix notes that none of its 

systems use setup transmissions in 

excess of ten seconds. 

5. The Commission denied G.E. 

Interlogix’s request to modify § 15.231 

in the Second Report and Order because 

it did not provide sufficient justification 

for a change to this rule section. Based 

upon the additional information 

supplied in G.E. Interlogix’s petition, we 

are persuaded that there is, in some 

cases, a need to allow installers of 

complex security systems to initiate 

transmissions of greater than the five 

second duration permitted by § 15.231. 

We are therefore amending § 15.231 of 

the rules to allow setup transmissions, 

including data, of greater than the five 

second limit in § 15.231(a)(1) and (a)(2), 

provided such transmissions are under 

the control of a professional installer. To 

minimize the likelihood of interference 

71382 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

1The Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, see 5 U.S.C. 

601 et. seq., has been amended by the Contract With 

America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 

104–121, 110 Stat. 847 (1966) (CWAAA). Title II of 

the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

2 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

3 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

4 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the 

definition of ‘‘small business concern’’ in the Small 

Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

601(3), the statutory definition of a small business 

applies ‘‘unless an agency, after consultation with 

the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration and after opportunity for public 

comment, establishes one or more definitions of 

such term which are appropriate to the activities of 

the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the 

Federal Register.’’

to authorized users of the spectrum, we 

will limit setup transmissions to no 

more than ten seconds, which G.E. 

Interlogix indicates is adequate for all of 

its systems. This action will allow 

manufacturers greater flexibility in the 

design of complex security systems 

while resulting in a negligible increase 

in interference potential for these 

systems because the longer duration 

transmissions are only five seconds 

longer than the rules currently allow 

and will generally occur only once per 

system. 

Declaration of Conformity (DoC) 

Labeling 

6. In the Second Report and Order,

the Commission simplified the labeling 

requirements for equipment authorized 

under the DoC procedure. For most 

devices authorized under the DoC 

procedure, the changed rule requires 

that the label show the FCC logo and the 

equipment trade name and model 

number. The Commission also clarified 

in the Second Report and Order that the 

trade name and model number may be 

placed on the equipment in a location 

other than on the DoC label when 

necessary. In addition, the Commission 

denied a request by ITI and other parties 

to permit electronic labeling for 

equipment authorized under the DoC 

procedure. In denying ITI’s request, the 

Commission stated that the part 2 rules 

permit electronic labeling for software 

defined radios because there is 

sometimes a need for a third party to 

change the identification number of a 

radio in the field when changes are 

made to the software that affect the 

device’s operating frequency, 

modulation type or maximum output 

power. This permits the identification 

number to be changed without physical 

re-labeling of a radio. The Commission 

stated that none of the comments in this 

proceeding have shown that there is a 

similar need to allow this capability in 

equipment subject to DoC. 

7. In its petition, ITI repeats its 

request that the Commission permit 

electronic labeling for equipment 

subject to DoC. It states that this change 

would reduce costs for products that 

already have displays because the 

identifying marks could be maintained 

in memory and displayed on startup or 

on demand while the product is 

operating. ITI further states that 

electronic labeling could be used by the 

Commission for product approval 

purposes such as the difficult 

administrative task of tracking grant 

notices.

8. The Commission considered and 

rejected ITI’s request to allow electronic 

labeling of equipment subject to DoC in 

the Second Report and Order. ITI has 

not provided any new information in its 

petition that would lead us to change 

our decision on this subject. The revised 

DoC labeling rules require only the FCC 

logo, equipment trade name and model 

number on a device, and manufacturers 

already place a trade name and model 

number on virtually all devices made. 

Therefore, the DoC labeling requirement 

is not a significant burden. Further, 

there is not a need to change the 

identification information for devices 

subject to DoC after manufacture as 

there is for software defined radios 

where the operating parameters and 

FCC identification number may be 

changed post-manufacture. ITI has also 

not shown how electronic labeling 

could be used by the Commission for 

product approval purposes, such as 

tracking grant notices, because there is 

no grant notice for equipment subject to 

DoC. Accordingly, we decline to allow 

electronic labeling for equipment 

subject to DoC. 

Other Matters 

9. Very low power intentional 

radiators. In the Second Report and 

Order, the Commission changed the 

equipment authorization requirement 

from certification to verification for 

intentional radiators operating below 

490 kHz in which all emissions are at 

least 40 dB below the part 15 limit. 

10. The Commission stated that 

because the interference potential of 

such devices is extremely low, requiring 

certification seems to be an unnecessary 

burden on manufacturers. ITI states that 

it supports the Commission’s decision 

to eliminate the certification 

requirement for very low powered 

intentional radiators, but requests that 

the Commission consider extending the 

verification process to higher frequency 

bands. However, ITI did not provide 

specific information on the operating 

parameters (e.g., frequency range or 

output signal level) for intentional 

radiators that it believes should be 

subject to verification or provide 

technical justification for making 

changes to the authorization 

requirement for certain intentional 

radiators. Based on the lack of a specific 

request and record on this issue, we 

decline to make further changes to the 

authorization requirements for very low 

power intentional radiators at this time. 

11. Accreditation of test laboratories. 

In the Second Report and Order, the 

Commission eliminated the requirement 

for an accredited laboratory to file a 

description of its measurement facilities 

with the Commission if the accrediting 

organization submitted certain 

information about the laboratory to the 

Commission. The purpose of this 

change was to reduce the burden on 

laboratories by eliminating the need to 

file duplicate information with both the 

Commission and an accrediting 

organization. ITI requests that in 

addition to this change, the Commission 

insist that foreign regulators also accept 

similar accreditations from U.S. 

laboratories, including manufacturer’s 

laboratories, but it did not identify any 

specific rule changes that the 

Commission could make to accomplish 

this objective. This issue is more 

appropriately addressed in the context 

of negotiating mutual recognition 

agreements or arrangements (MRAs) 

with other administrations than in this 

proceeding. We therefore decline to 

make any rule changes concerning the 

acceptance of U.S. laboratory 

accreditations by foreign regulators. 

Procedural Matters 

12. Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility 

Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1

requires that a regulatory flexibility 

analysis be prepared for rulemaking 

proceedings, unless the agency certifies 

that ‘‘the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.’’ 2 The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ 3 In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’

under the Small Business Act.4 A small 

business concern is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the Small Business 

Administration.

13. The Second Report and Order

modified the rules to allow part 15 

information statements to be provided 

to the user of equipment in alternative 

forms, such as on a CD–ROM or over the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 71383

5See 68 FR 68531, 68541, December 9, 2003.

6See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Internet. The Second Report and Order

also denied a request by G.E. Interlogix 

to allow security system setup 

transmissions of greater duration than 

the five second limit currently in 

§ 15.231(a) of the rules. A Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was 

incorporated in the Second Report and 

Order.5 Following publication of the 

Second Report and Order, Cisco and ITI 

filed their petitions seeking to allow the 

compliance information statement for 

equipment authorized under the DoC 

procedure to be provided in alternative 

forms. G.E. Interlogix filed a petition 

requesting that the Commission 

reconsider its denial of G.E. Interlogix’s 

request to permit longer duration 

transmissions during the setup of 

security systems. In the Memorandum 

Opinion and Order we are amending the 

rules to allow DoC compliance 

information statements to be included 

in alternative forms and to allow longer 

duration setup transmissions for 

security systems.

14. These amendments to the rules 

will affect manufacturers of radio 

frequency devices that are authorized 

under the DoC procedure and 

manufacturers of security systems, and 

it is the Commission’s belief that many 

of these manufacturers are small 

businesses. The changes in the 

Memorandum Opinion and Order are 

deregulatory in nature because they 

eliminate the need for manufacturers to 

supply paper statements with 

equipment subject to DoC and allow 

greater flexibility in the setup of 

security systems. For this reason, these 

changes will not result in a ‘‘significant 

economic burden’’ on manufacturers. 

Therefore, we certify that the 

amendments included in the 

Memorandum Opinion and Order will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

15. The Commission will send a copy 

of the Memorandum Opinion and 

Order, including a copy of this final 

certification, in a report to Congress 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996.6 In addition, the Memorandum 

Opinion and Order and this certification 

will be sent to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration.

Ordering Clauses 

16. Pursuant to the authority 

contained in sections 4(i), 301, 302, 

303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 

303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), this 

Memorandum Opinion and Order is 

adopted and parts 2 and 15 of the 

Commission’s Rules are amended as set 

forth in the attached appendix effective 

30 days after publication in the Federal 

Register. 

17. Pursuant to the authority 

contained in sections 4(i), 301, 302, 

303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 

303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the motion for 

partial reconsideration filed by Cisco 

Systems, Inc. on September 12, 2003 is 

granted to the extent indicated herein. 

18. Pursuant to the authority 

contained in sections 4(i), 301, 302, 

303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 

303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the motion for 

reconsideration and clarification filed 

by the Information Technology Institute 

on September 17, 2003 is granted in part 

and denied in part to the extent 

indicated herein. 

19. Pursuant to the authority 

contained in sections 4(i), 301, 302, 

303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 

303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the petition for 

reconsideration filed by G.E. Interlogix, 

Inc. on January 8, 2004 is granted to the 

extent indicated herein. 

20. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Memorandum Opinion and Order,

including the Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Certification, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration.

List of Subjects in Parts 2 and 15 

Communications equipment.

Federal Communications Commission. 

William F. Caton, 

Deputy Secretary.

Rule Changes

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR parts 2 and 

15 to read as follows:

PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS 

AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; 

GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 

336 unless otherwise noted.

■ 2. Section 2.1077 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 2.1077 Compliance information.

* * * * *

(c) The compliance information 

statement shall be included in the user’s 

manual or as a separate sheet. In cases 

where the manual is provided only in a 

form other than paper, such as on a 

computer disk or over the Internet, the 

information required by this section 

may be included in the manual in that 

alternative form, provided the user can 

reasonably be expected to have the 

capability to access information in that 

form.

PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY 

DEVICES

■ 3. The authority citation for part 15 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 

307, 336 and 544a.

■ 4. Section 15.231 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as 

follows:

§ 15.231 Periodic operation in the band 

40.66–40.70 MHz and above 70 MHz. 

(a) * * *

■ (5) Transmission of set-up information 

for security systems may exceed the 

transmission duration limits in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this 

section, provided such transmissions are 

under the control of a professional 

installer and do not exceed ten seconds 

after a manually operated switch is 

released or a transmitter is activated 

automatically. Such set-up information 

may include data.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–27048 Filed 12–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CC Docket No. 96–128; FCC 03–235] 

The Pay Telephone Reclassification 

and Compensation Provisions of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission received Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval for the new public information 

collection, Pay Telephone 

Reclassification and Compensation 

Provisions of the Telecommunications 

Act of 1996, CC Docket 96–128, OMB 

Control Number 3060–1046. The