Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 74985

DELEGATION STATUS FOR PART 63 STANDARDS—STATE OF LOUISIANA 1—Continued

Subpart Source Category LDEQ 2,3

MMM ................. Pesticide Active Ingredient Production ......................................................................................................................... X 

NNN .................. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing .................................................................................................................................... X 

OOO ................. Amino/Phenolic Resins ................................................................................................................................................. X 

PPP .................. Polyether Polyols Production ........................................................................................................................................ X 

QQQ ................. Primary Copper Smelting ............................................................................................................................................. X 

RRR .................. Secondary Aluminum Production ................................................................................................................................. X 

SSS .................. (Reserved) 

TTT ................... Primary Lead Smelting ................................................................................................................................................. X 

UUU .................. Petroleum Refineries—Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units and Sulfur Recovery Plants ................. X 

VVV .................. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) .................................................................................................................. X 

WWW ............... (Reserved) 

XXX .................. Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese ................................................................................ X 

AAAA ................ Municipal Solid Waste Landfills .................................................................................................................................... X 

CCCC ............... Nutritional Yeast Manufacturing ................................................................................................................................... X 

GGGG .............. Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production .......................................................................................................... X 

HHHH ............... Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production ....................................................................................................................... X 

JJJJ .................. Paper and other Web Coating ...................................................................................................................................... X 

NNNN ............... Surface Coating of Large Appliances ........................................................................................................................... X 

OOOO .............. Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles ...................................................................................... X 

QQQQ .............. Surface Coating of Wood Building Products ................................................................................................................ X 

RRRR ............... Surface Coating of Metal Furniture .............................................................................................................................. X 

SSSS ................ Surface Coating for Metal Coil ..................................................................................................................................... X 

TTTT ................. Leather Finishing Operations ....................................................................................................................................... X 

UUUU ............... Cellulose Production Manufacture ................................................................................................................................ X 

VVVV ................ Boat Manufacturing ....................................................................................................................................................... X 

WWWW ............ Reinforced Plastic Composites Production .................................................................................................................. X 

XXXX ................ Tire Manufacturing ........................................................................................................................................................ X 

BBBBB .............. Semiconductor Manufacturing ...................................................................................................................................... X 

CCCCC ............. Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching and Battery Stacks ............................................................................................... X 

FFFFF ............... Integrated Iron and Steel .............................................................................................................................................. X 

JJJJJ ................. Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing ...................................................................................................... X 

KKKKK .............. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing ...................................................................................................................................... X 

LLLLL ................ Asphalt Roofing and Processing .................................................................................................................................. X 

MMMMM ........... Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operation ..................................................................................................... X 

NNNNN ............. Hydrochloric Acid Production, Fumed Silica Production .............................................................................................. X 

PPPPP .............. Engine Test Facilities ................................................................................................................................................... X 

QQQQQ ............ Friction Products Manufacturing ................................................................................................................................... X 

SSSSS .............. Refractory Products Manufacturing .............................................................................................................................. X 

1 Program delegated to Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). 2 Authorities which may not be delegated include: 63.6(g), Approval of Alternative Non-Opacity Emission Standards; 63.6(h)(9), Approval of Alternative Opacity Standards; 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Test Methods; 63.8(f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Monitoring; 6.3.10(f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Recordkeeping and Reporting; and all authorities identified in the subparts (e.g., under ‘‘Delegation of Authority’’) that cannot be delegated. 3 Federal rules adopted unchanged as of July 1, 2003. 

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–27361 Filed 12–14–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[CC Docket No. 96–45; FCC 04–237] 

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal 

Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission addresses various petitions 

for reconsideration filed in response to 

the rules adopted in the First Report and 

Order and the Fourth Order on 

Reconsideration. We grant, in part, a 

petition filed by American Public 

Communications Council (APCC) and 

deny petitions filed by APCC and 

others. We make minor clarifications to 

our rules based on the issues raised in 

these petitions as needed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cathy Carpino, Deputy Chief, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, (202) 418–7400, TTY (202) 

418–0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order on 

Reconsideration, in CC Docket No. 96–

45, FCC 04–237, released November 29, 

2004. The full text of this document is 

available for public inspection during 

regular business hours in the FCC 

Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 

12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Order on Reconsideration,

we address various petitions for 

reconsideration filed in response to the 

rules adopted in the First Report and 

Order, 62 FR 32862, June 17, 1997, in 

CC Docket No. 96–45 and the Fourth 

Order on Reconsideration, 63 FR 02093, 

January 13, 1998, in CC Docket Nos. 96–

45, 96–262, 94–1, 91–213, 95–72. We 

grant, in part, a petition filed by 

American Public Communications 

Council (APCC). Based on the record 

before us, we deny petitions filed by 

APCC, AT&T, Cellular 

Telecommunications and Internet 

Association (CTIA), Lan Neugent and 

Greg Weisiger (LN/GW), Mobile Satellite 

Ventures (MSV), National Public Radio 

(NPR), Puerto Rico Telephone Company 

74986 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

(PRTC), Rural Telephone Coalition 

(RTC), Southern Educational 

Communications Association (SECA), 

United States Telecommunications 

Association (USTA), Wireless Cable 

Association (WCA), and Wyoming 

Public Service Commission (Wyoming 

Commission); these petitions either 

raise no facts which have not previously 

been presented to the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) or are moot. We make 

minor clarifications to our rules based 

on the issues raised in these petitions as 

needed. 

II. Discussion 

2. In this Order on Reconsideration,

the Commission addresses petitions for 

reconsideration of the Commission’s 

First Report and Order and Fourth 

Order on Reconsideration to the extent 

described below. 

A. Eligible Telecommunications Carrier 

3. We deny MSV’s petition for 

reconsideration of our determination 

regarding the eligibility of pure resellers 

to receive universal service support. 

MSV’s petition does not rely on facts 

that have not previously been presented 

to the Commission. Rather, MSV merely 

wishes to argue its different 

interpretation of the statute. As the 

Commission already concluded, the 

statute expressly mandates that, in order 

to be eligible for universal service 

subsidies, a carrier must use its ‘‘own 

facilities’’ or a combination of its own 

facilities and another carrier’s services 

in the provision of supported services. 

Resellers providing resold services from 

facilities-based carriers do not use their 

‘‘own facilities’’ to provide the 

supported services. As such, pure 

resellers cannot receive support 

consistent with this statutory 

requirement. 

4. Moreover, we decline to adopt 

MSV’s request to conclude that 

advertising in a nationally circulated 

publication satisfies, per se, the 

statutory requirement to advertise the 

availability of supported services under 

section 214(e)(1)(B). In the First Report 

and Order, the Commission declined to 

adopt nationwide standards for 

interpreting section 214(e)(1)(B), 

because it agreed with the Joint Board 

that states are in a better position to 

evaluate local conditions and establish 

advertising guidelines appropriate for 

the state. MSV has presented no facts 

that were not previously considered by 

the Commission at that time. 

Accordingly, we deny MSV’s petition 

for reconsideration. 

B. Rural, Insular, and High Cost Support 

1. Indexed Cap on High-Cost Loop Fund 

5. We deny RTC’s petition for 

reconsideration. RTC has presented no 

facts that have not already been 

presented to the Commission or that 

warrant reconsideration of the 

Commission’s earlier determinations. 

2. Sale of Exchanges 

6. We conclude that the issues raised 

in RTC’s supplemental comments 

concerning § 54.305 of the 

Commission’s rules have already been 

addressed in the Rural Task Force 

Order, 66 FR 30080, June 5, 2001. RTC 

has presented no facts that were not 

already considered at that time. 

Moreover, RTC’s assertion that the rule 

ignores the need for rural carriers to 

upgrade facilities they have acquired 

from non-rural carriers disregards the 

Commission’s amendment of § 54.305 to 

provide additional funds in such 

instances. Finally, we note that the 

Commission recently asked the Joint 

Board to review whether to retain or 

modify § 54.305 and we expect that the 

Joint Board and the Commission will 

address this issue in that proceeding 

based on a fresh record. We therefore 

deny RTC’s request. 

3. Sufficiency of Support 

7. We conclude that PRTC has 

presented no facts that were not 

previously considered by the 

Commission or would lead us to 

reconsider the Commission’s decision in 

the First Report and Order not to treat 

PRTC as a rural carrier. PRTC simply 

reiterated previous arguments rejected 

by the Commission. We also note that 

PRTC raised similar arguments 

requesting to be treated as a rural carrier 

in response to the Ninth Report and 

Order, 64 FR 67416, December 1, 1999, 

which the Commission denied. We 

therefore deny PRTC’s request for 

reconsideration of this issue. We note 

that we do not address at this time 

PRTC’s petition for clarification and/or 

reconsideration of the Remand Order,

68 FR 69622, December 15, 2003, or its 

request in an ex parte letter, filed on 

June 6, 2003, that the Commission 

create a separate category of ‘‘non-rural 

insular’’ carriers for purposes of 

intrastate high-cost support. 

8. As the Wyoming Commission 

acknowledged in its supplemental 

comments, its specific concerns with 

the Commission’s First Report and 

Order (i.e., the 25 percent limit for nonrural carriers described above and the 

decision to limit funding for the federal 

high-cost support mechanism to 

interstate revenues) have been 

subsequently addressed. In these 

supplemental comments, the Wyoming 

Commission makes only general 

assertions about the continued 

insufficiency of the federal high-cost 

support mechanism for non-rural 

carriers and the affordability of the total 

bill to be paid by Wyoming consumers. 

We find that the Wyoming Commission 

fails to state with particularity the 

respects in which it believes the action 

taken should be changed and, therefore, 

we deny its petition for reconsideration 

of First Report and Order.

9. We note that since the Wyoming 

Commission filed its supplemental 

comments, the Commission has 

revisited how non-rural carriers receive 

high-cost support. In the Remand Order,

the Commission modified the cost 

benchmark used to calculate support for 

non-rural carriers, established a rate 

review process to assess whether rates 

in rural areas served by non-rural 

carriers are reasonably comparable to 

urban rates nationwide, and concluded 

that states should be permitted to 

request further federal action, if 

necessary, based on a showing that 

federal and state action together are not 

sufficient to achieve reasonable 

comparability. The Commission sought 

further comment on the procedures for 

filing and processing state requests for 

further federal action, as well as 

additional inducements for state action, 

including additional targeted federal 

support. In the Remand Order, the 

Commission also denied the Wyoming 

Commission’s petition for 

reconsideration of the Ninth Report and 

Order, in which the Wyoming 

Commission raised similar arguments 

regarding the sufficiency of support for 

non-rural carriers.

C. Schools, Libraries, and Rural Health 

Care Providers 

1. Wide Area Networks 

10. We deny SECA’s petition for 

reconsideration of the Fourth Order on 

Reconsideration. We conclude that 

SECA failed to present facts that were 

not previously considered by the 

Commission or would lead us to 

reconsider the Commission’s findings. 

Moreover, we note that, subsequent to 

the filing of SECA’s petition for 

reconsideration, the Commission held 

that support may be provided under 

telecommunications service or Internet 

access for service provider charges for 

capital investments for WANs. This 

subsequent action effectively provided 

SECA an avenue to obtain support for 

the functionality provided by either a 

WAN or ITFS technology, thereby 

largely mooting its petition for 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 74987

reconsideration. Therefore, we deny 

SECA’s request to provide discounts to 

schools and libraries for either the 

purchase of WANs or ITSF systems. We 

note that pursuant to the Third Schools 

Order and Second Further Notice, 69 FR 

6181, February 10, 2004, the issue of 

WAN’s eligibility is currently under 

consideration by the Commission. 

SECA’s concerns regarding this issue 

will be considered in that open 

proceeding. 

2. Accounting and Reporting 

Requirements 

11. We clarify requirements as set 

forth herein and otherwise deny USTA’s 

petition for reconsideration in this area. 

With regard to USTA’s request 

concerning record-keeping 

responsibility under the schools and 

libraries program, we note that 

§ 54.501(d)(3) of the Commission’s rules 

provides that service providers shall 

keep and retain records of rates charged 

to and discounts allowed for eligible 

schools and libraries—on their own or 

as part of a consortium. In the Fifth 

Schools Order, 69 FR 55097, September 

13, 2004, the Commission amended 

§ 54.516 of its rules to require both 

beneficiaries and service providers to 

retain all records related to the 

application for, receipt and delivery of 

discounted services for a period of five 

years after the last day of service 

delivered for a particular Funding Year. 

As a result, USTA’s arguments in its 

petition concerning record-keeping are 

now moot. 

12. As for the proper allocation of 

benefits, we note that as part of the 

application process for the schools and 

libraries program, an applicant is 

required to provide specific information 

on its FCC Form 471 about the eligible 

services that it has ordered, its cost, and 

the discount that it is requesting for 

such services. If the applicant is 

representing a consortium, the applicant 

is required to calculate either the 

specific discount for each member of the 

consortium or the shared discount for 

the consortium as a whole. The 

allocation methodology should be set 

forth in the contract for services 

executed with the service provider. If 

there is no contract for services, as 

might be the case with some tariffed 

services, the applicant should provide 

the service provider with a copy of its 

allocation methodology. After the 

applicant has received approval of its 

request for universal service support, it 

may notify the provider to begin service. 

Once the applicant receives service from 

the provider, the applicant must notify 

the Administrator to approve the flow of 

universal service funds to the provider 

as set forth on its FCC Form 471. 

3. Support for Advanced Services 

13. We conclude that LN/GW raise no 

facts that have not previously been 

considered by the Commission or would 

warrant expanding the services eligible 

for discounts under the schools and 

libraries program at this time. In the 

First Report and Order, the Commission 

found that the broad purposes of section 

254(h)(2) supported its decision to 

provide discounts for internal 

connections and Internet access. After 

analyzing the statute and the record, the 

Commission determined that the public 

interest would not be served at that time 

by providing discounts for additional 

non-telecommunications services. We 

find no reason to depart from the 

Commission’s previous decisions in this 

area based on the current record. 

Accordingly, we deny LN/GW’s request 

to redefine or expand the list of services 

that may be eligible for support under 

the schools and libraries program at this 

time. We note, however, that in the 

Third Schools Order and Second 

Further Notice the Commission 

formalized the process for updating the 

eligible services list, beginning with 

Funding Year 2005, in order to promote 

greater transparency of what is eligible 

for support under the schools and 

libraries support mechanism. Under the 

new rule, the eligible services list is 

open to comment on an annual basis, 

allowing any party to provide comments 

concerning the content and application 

of the eligible services list. As stated 

above, the issue of the eligibility of 

WANs is currently under consideration 

by the Commission, and LN/GW’s 

concerns regarding this issue will be 

considered in that open proceeding. 

D. Administration of Support 

Mechanisms 

1. Contribution Methodology 

14. We deny AT&T’s petition to 

reconsider the universal service 

contribution methodology. The 

Commission released an order adopting 

interim modifications to the 

contribution methodology in December 

2002. In that order, the Commission, 

among other things, eliminated the lag 

between the accrual and assessment of 

universal service contribution 

obligations as of April 1, 2003, by basing 

contributions on projected collected 

end-user telecommunications revenues. 

The Commission also explicitly rejected 

a collect-and-remit system. We note, 

however, that the Commission 

requested further comment on three 

specific connection-based proposals. We 

find that AT&T raises no facts that were 

not considered and addressed in the 

Contribution Methodology Order, 67 FR 

79525, December 30, 2002. Therefore, 

we dismiss AT&T’s request to eliminate 

the lag as moot and deny the remainder 

of its petition. 

2. Payphone Service Providers 

15. We deny APCC’s petition to 

reconsider the Commission’s decision to 

require payphone service providers to 

contribute to universal service. APCC’s 

petition does not rely on facts that have 

not previously been presented to the 

Commission. APCC merely disagrees 

with the Commission’s policy decision. 

16. We clarify, however, that to the 

extent an independent payphone service 

provider purchases telecommunications 

for resale in a payphone service and 

contributes directly to universal service, 

it should not be considered an end user 

for purposes of reporting assessable 

interstate telecommunications revenues 

and therefore should not be subject to 

federal universal service pass-through 

charges. Allowing such a practice 

results in a double burden for payphone 

providers that use resold 

telecommunications services. As 

described in more detail in the 

instructions to the Telecommunications 

Reporting Worksheet, FCC Form 499, 

such revenues are considered ‘‘carrier’s 

carrier revenues’’ or ‘‘revenues from 

resellers.’’ For example, if an 

independent payphone service provider 

purchased a payphone line from a local 

exchange carrier to provide payphone 

service and contributed directly to 

universal service for that line, that local 

exchange carrier should report the 

payphone line revenues on Line 115, 

‘‘Telecommunications provided to other 

universal service contributors for 

resale’’ on the FCC Form 499–Q. 

Accordingly, that local exchange carrier 

would not be directly assessed on the 

basis of those payphone line revenues 

and should not pass through universal 

service charges for that payphone line to 

the independent payphone service 

provider. We, therefore, grant APCC’s 

request for clarification as provided 

herein. 

3. Broadcasters 

17. We deny the petitions filed by 

NPR and WCA, to the extent described 

herein. Our rules already make clear 

that all broadcasters, including NPR and 

ITFS licensees, are not required to 

contribute to the universal service fund 

to the extent they provide interstate 

telecommunications on a non-common 

carrier basis. Since the release of the 

Fourth Order on Reconsideration and 

subsequent Errata, § 54.706(d) has 

74988 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

remained unchanged. To reiterate, the 

Commission found that the public 

interest would not be served if the 

Commission were to require 

broadcasters, including NPR, to 

contribute to universal service based on 

the provision of non-common carrier 

telecommunications. In addition, by 

specifically mentioning ITFS licensees 

in its discussion for why broadcasters 

should not have to contribute to 

universal service, the Commission 

intended to treat ITFS licensees in the 

same manner as other broadcasters for 

universal service purposes. As such, 

modification of § 54.706(d) is 

unnecessary.

4. Multipoint Distribution Service 

18. Although we deny WCA’s petition 

and do not revise our rules to include 

MDS licensees that lease capacity to 

wireless cable operators on the list of 

those entities exempt from universal 

service obligations, we clarify that MDS 

licensees are not required to contribute 

to the universal service fund on the 

basis of revenues derived from 

broadcasting services. We further clarify 

that MDS licensees providing interstate 

telecommunications to others for a fee 

on a non-common carrier basis will not 

be exempt from contribution 

requirements. Such a result is consistent 

with section 254(d) of the 1996 Act and 

§§ 54.706(b) and (c) of the Commission’s 

rules. We find WCA has raised no facts 

that would prompt us to exempt an 

MDS licensee that chooses a noncommon carrier status but provides 

services identical to a common carrier 

licensee, and thus competes with the 

common carrier, from universal service 

contribution obligations. 

5. De Minimis Exemption 

19. We conclude that CTIA has 

presented no facts that were not 

previously considered by the 

Commission or that warrant 

reconsideration of the Commission’s 

determination that underlying carriers 

should account for revenues from 

resellers that fall under the de minimis

exemption. Section 254(d) explicitly 

allows the Commission to exempt 

carriers or classes of carriers from 

contribution requirements if their 

contributions would be de minimis. 

Moreover, contrary to CTIA’s assertions, 

directing underlying carriers to exclude 

revenues from de minimis resellers 

would reduce, rather then enlarge, the 

total contribution base. We therefore 

deny CTIA’s request for reconsideration 

of this matter. 

20. We clarify, however, that CMRS 

carriers are required to report revenues 

derived from providing 

telecommunications to entities 

qualifying for the de minimis exemption 

as end-user revenues on the appropriate 

lines of the Telecommunications 

Reporting Worksheet. Nothing in the 

Commission’s rules or implementing 

orders relieves CMRS carriers of this 

obligation. We further clarify that our 

current rules do not require underlying 

facilities-based carriers or CMRS 

carriers to identify specifically on the 

Telecommunications Reporting 

Worksheet their resale customers 

qualifying for the de minimis

exemption. 

21. The Commission will not send a 

copy of this Order on Reconsideration,

in CC Docket No. 96–45, FCC 04–237, 

released November 29, 2004, pursuant 

to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

III. Ordering Clauses 

22. Pursuant to the authority 

contained in sections 1–4, 201–205, 

218–220, 214, 254, 303(r), 403, and 410 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 201–205, 

218–220, 214, 254, 303(r), 403, and 410, 

this Order on Reconsideration is 

adopted. Pursuant to the authority 

contained in section 405 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 405, and 0.291 and 

1.429 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

0.291 and 1.429, the petitions for 

reconsideration and supplemental 

notices of the petitions for 

reconsideration of the First Report and 

Order filed by the American Public 

Communications Council in CC Docket 

No. 96–45 is granted, in part, and 

denied, in part. 

23. Pursuant to the authority 

contained in section 405 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 405, and sections 

0.291 and 1.429 of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 0.291 and 1.429, the 

petitions for reconsideration and 

supplemental notices of the petitions for 

reconsideration of the First Report and 

Order filed by the AMSC/Mobile 

Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC, 

AT&T, Puerto Rico Telephone 

Company, Rural Telephone Coalition, 

United States Telephone Association, 

and Wyoming Public Service 

Commission in CC Docket No. 96–45 are 

denied. 

24. Pursuant to the authority 

contained in section 405 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 405, and sections 

0.291 and 1.429 of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 0.291 and 1.429, the 

petitions for reconsideration of the 

Fourth Order on Reconsideration filed 

by the Cellular Telecommunications 

and Internet Association, Lan Neugent 

and Greg Weisiger, National Public 

Radio, Southern Education 

Communications Association, and 

Wireless Cable Association in CC 

Docket No. 96–45 are denied.

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–27438 Filed 12–14–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 04–3815, MB Docket No. 04–192, RM–

10966] 

Digital Television Broadcast Service; 

Honolulu, HI

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the 

request of Pacifica Broadcasting 

Company, licensee of noncommercial 

educational station KALO(TV), 

substitutes DTV channel *10c for DTV 

channel *39c. See 69 FR 34112, June 18, 

2004. DTV channel *10c can be allotted 

to Honolulu in compliance with the 

principle community coverage 

requirements of Section 73.625(a) at 

reference coordinates 21–23045 N. and 

158–05–58 W. with a power of 25, 

HAAT of 577 meters and with a DTV 

service population of 767 thousand. 

With this action, this proceeding is 

terminated.

DATES: Effective January 21, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam 

Blumenthal, Media Bureau, (202) 418–

1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, MB Docket No. 04–192, 

adopted December 2, 2004, and released 

December 7, 2004. The full text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC. This document may 

also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 301–

816–2820, facsimile 301–816–0169, or 

via-e-mail joshir@erols.com.

This document does not contain (new 

or modified) information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork