720 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

read Vegetable, tuberous and corm, 

except potato, subgroup 1D.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 05–89 Filed 1–4–05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 96–128; FCC 04–251] 

The Pay Telephone Reclassification 

and Compensation Provisions of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petitions for 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: By this document, we 

consider four petitions for 

reconsideration of our Report and Order

which established detailed rules (the 

‘‘rules’’ or ‘‘Payphone Compensation 

Rules’’) ensuring that payphone service 

providers (PSPs) are ‘‘fairly 

compensated’’ for each and every 

completed payphone-originated call. 

This Order on Reconsideration does not 

change the compensation framework 

adopted last year, but rather refines and 

builds upon its approach. The 

Commission provides guidance on the 

types of contracts that it would deem to 

be reasonable methods of compensating 

PSPs, extends the time period that 

carriers must retain certain payphone 

records, and clarifies the rules’

reporting, certification, and audit 

requirements.

DATES: Effective January 5, 2005, except 

for § 64.1310(g) which contains 

information collection requirements that 

are not effective until approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget. The 

Commission will publish a document in 

the Federal Register announcing the 

effective date of that section.

ADDRESSES: A copy of any comments on 

the Paperwork Reduction Act 

information collection requirements 

contained herein should be submitted to 

Judith B. Herman, Federal 

Communications Commission, Room 1–

C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20554, or via the Internet to JudithB.Herman@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Darryl Cooper Attorney-Advisor, 

Competition Policy Division, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, at (202) 418–7131, 

or via the Internet at 

darryl.cooper@fcc.gov or Denise A. 

Coca, Attorney-Advisor, Competition 

Policy Division, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, at (202) 418–0574, or via the 

Internet at denise.coca@fcc.gov. For 

additional information concerning the 

Paperwork Reduction Act information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, contact Judith B. 

Herman at 202–418–0214, or via the 

Internet to Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order on 

Reconsideration, CC Docket No. 96–128, 

FCC 04–251, adopted October 20, 2004, 

and released October 22, 2004. Filings 

and comments are also available for 

public inspection and copying during 

regular business hours at the FCC 

Reference Information Center, Portals II, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC, 20554. They may also 

be purchased from the Commission’s 

copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, 

Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–

B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 

1 (800) 378–3160 or (202) 4880–5300, 

facsimile (202) 488–5563, or via e-mail 

at http://www.bcpiweb.com.

Synopsis of the Order on 

Reconsideration and the Report and 

Order 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Order on Reconsideration, 

we consider four petitions for 

reconsideration of our Report and Order

adopted on September 30, 2003, which 

established detailed rules ensuring that 

PSPs are ‘‘fairly compensated’’ for each 

and every completed payphoneoriginated call (Implementation of the 

Pay Telephone Reclassification and 

Compensation Provisions of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC 

Docket No. 96–128, Report and Order, 

68 FR 62751–01, (November 6, 2003)). 

This Order on Reconsideration, released 

on October 22, 2004, does not change 

this compensation framework, but 

rather refines and builds upon its 

approach. In the Order on 

Reconsideration, the Commission 

provides guidance on the types of 

contracts that it would deem to be 

reasonable methods of compensating 

PSPs, extends the time period that 

carriers must retain certain payphone 

records, and clarifies the rules’

reporting, certification, and audit 

requirements. 

II. Background 

2. The Report and Order held that the 

last facilities-based long distance carrier 

in a call path—either an interexchange 

carrier (IXC) or a switched-based 

reseller (SBR)—is responsible for 

compensating PSPs. For local calls, 

where a local exchange carrier (LEC) 

completes a call, that LEC is responsible 

for compensation. The Payphone 

Compensation Rules define these 

responsible carriers as ‘‘Completing 

Carriers’’ and require them to develop 

their own system of tracking calls to 

completion, the accuracy of which must 

be confirmed and attested to by a third 

party auditor. Completing Carriers are 

required to compensate the PSPs on a 

quarterly basis for calls that are 

completed on the Competing Carriers’

platforms; to provide quarterly reports 

to the PSPs; and their chief financial 

officers (CFOs) must attest to the 

accuracy of the quarterly payment 

amount. The Payphone Compensation 

Rules also imposed reporting 

requirements on an ‘‘Intermediate 

Carrier,’’ defined in the rules as ‘‘a 

facilities-based long distance carrier that 

switches payphone calls to other 

facilities-based long distance carriers.’’

Additionally, the Payphone 

Compensation Rules also give parties 

flexibility to agree to alternative 

compensation arrangements (ACA) so 

that small Completing Carriers may 

avoid the expense of instituting a 

tracking system and undergoing an 

audit. 

III. Discussion 

3. In the Order on Reconsideration, 

the Commission considers four petitions 

for reconsideration filed in response to 

the Report and Order in this docket. The 

Order on Reconsideration clarifies and 

modifies the Report and Order by 

adopting the following changes: (1) 

Clarifying that a Completing Carrier 

must give a PSP adequate notice of an 

ACA prior to its effective date, with 

sufficient time for the PSP to object to 

an ACA, and prior to the termination of 

an ACA; (2) clarifying that, in a 

complaint proceeding under the 

Payphone Compensation Rules, a 

Completing Carrier may assert as an 

affirmative defense that the PSP’s 

objection to an ACA was unreasonable; 

(3) clarifying that Completing Carriers 

are required to report only completed 

calls in their quarterly reports; (4) 

extending the time period that carriers 

must retain certain payphone records, 

for dispute resolution purposes, from 18 

to 27 months; (5) clarifying that 

quarterly reports should use industry 

standard formats; (6) clarifying the 

responsibilities of LECs under the 

Payphone Compensation Rules; (7) 

clarifying that a Completing Carrier may 

post its System Audit Report and 

§ 64.1320(e) statement on its website or 

on a clearinghouse’s website, instead of 

transmitting these documents to every 

PSP; (8) clarifying that a Completing 

Carrier’s CFO may issue a single blanket

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 721

certification addressed to all PSPs to 

which the carrier owes compensation, 

and such certification may be 

transmitted electronically or posted on 

the web; and (9) clarifying that where a 

clearinghouse is performing some of a 

Completing Carrier’s compensation 

obligations, the Completing Carrier’s 

auditor may rely upon, under certain 

circumstances, a third party’s audit of 

the clearinghouse. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

4. Final Paperwork Reduction Act 

Analysis. This document contains 

modified information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. It will be submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under section 3507(d) 

of the PRA. OMB, the general public, 

and other Federal agencies are invited to 

comment on the new or modified 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proceeding. In 

addition, we note that pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), we previously sought 

specific comment on how the 

Commission might ‘‘further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’

5. In this present document, we have 

assessed the effects of extending the 

time period that carriers must maintain 

verification data. The amendment to 

§ 64.1310(g), which extends the time 

carriers must maintain verification data 

from 18 to 27 months, will not adversely 

affect businesses with fewer than 25 

employees. This amendment only 

requires carriers to maintain the data an 

additional 9 months and the cost and 

paperwork burden on carriers should be 

minimal. Furthermore, the amendment 

to § 64.1310(g) is in the public interest 

because it will help to ensure that the 

data is available throughout the statute 

of limitations period. We seek comment 

on this amendment.

6. The Commission will send a copy 

of the Order on Reconsideration,

including a copy of this Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in a 

report to Congress pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act. In addition, 

the Order on Reconsideration and this 

final certification will be sent to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, 

and will be published in the Federal 

Register. 

7. Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility 

Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires 

that a regulatory flexibility analysis be 

prepared for notice-and-comment 

rulemaking proceedings, unless the 

agency certifies that ‘‘the rule will not, 

if promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.’’ The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

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

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’

under the Small Business Act. 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 (SBA). 

8. As required by the RFA, an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

was incorporated in the Federal 

Register summary of the Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking

(Implementation of the Pay Telephone 

Reclassification and Compensation 

Provisions of the Telecommunications 

Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96–128, 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

68 FR 32720, (June 2, 2003)). The 

Commission sought written public 

comments on the proposals in the 

FNPRM, including comments on the 

IRFA. On September 30, 2003, the 

Commission adopted a Report and 

Order that included a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) that 

conformed to the RFA. In response to 

four petitions for reconsideration of the 

Report and Order, the Commission 

adopted this Order on Reconsideration.

9. In this Order on Reconsideration,

the Commission clarifies its payphone 

compensation rules in ways that will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. As described below, the Order 

on Reconsideration essentially refines 

and builds upon the payphone 

compensation rules by clarifying certain 

ambiguities in the rules and by 

decreasing certain administrative 

burdens on carriers. 

10. Specifically, we clarify the 

conditions that a payphone service 

provider (PSP) may impose on an 

alternative compensation arrangement 

(ACA) between an interexchange carrier 

(IXC) and a switch-based reseller (SBR). 

In the preceding Report and Order, the 

rules give parties flexibility to agree to 

ACAs to avoid compliance with any or 

all of the payphone compensation rules. 

However, in this Order on 

Reconsideration, we clarify that an ACA 

may be posted on the web to give PSPs 

adequate notice and time to object to the 

ACA. We also clarify that notice of 

termination may be placed on the web. 

This way, Completing Carriers will not 

be required to send a copy of the ACA 

and seek affirmative consent from as 

many as 5500 PSPs. We believe that 

these clarifications are merely 

administrative, and therefore the result 

of the use of the web will be to confer 

benefits rather than impose burdens on 

small SBRs. Therefore, these 

clarifications will not have a significant 

economic impact on small entities. 

11. Additionally, the record in this 

proceeding demonstrates that PSPs 

might use their veto power over ACAs 

in a manner that would unreasonably 

interfere with an SBR’s ability to enter 

into ACAs. For instance, demands by 

PSPs that an ACA contain a provision 

that forces IXCs to assume ultimate 

responsibility for the payphone 

compensation obligations of SBRs 

would undermine the Commission’s 

determination in the Report and Order

that IXCs are not liable for such 

payphone compensation. Such behavior 

would have the effect of deterring IXCs 

and SBRs from entering into ACAs. 

Accordingly, to ensure a level playing 

field for IXCs, SBRs, and PSPs, we 

clarify our rules to make clear that PSPs 

do not hold unlimited veto power over 

an ACA. This Order on Reconsideration

therefore clarifies that, in a complaint 

proceeding under the rules, a 

Completing Carrier may assert as an 

affirmative defense that the PSP’s 

objection to an ACA was unreasonable. 

We believe this clarification confers a 

benefit on small SBRs by allowing them 

to freely enter into ACAs, thereby 

avoiding the costs of maintaining a 

tracking system as well as the costs of 

a large audit liability. Small PSPs will 

not be burdened by this ACA procedure 

because they will likely receive 

compensation for 100% of all 

payphone-originated calls, regardless of 

whether they are completed. For these 

reasons, we believe this clarification 

will not impose a significant economic 

impact on small entities. 

12. We also clarify that Completing 

Carriers are only required to report 

completed payphone calls and not 

uncompleted calls or the duration that 

a circuit is kept open for such calls. In 

the preceding Report and Order, the 

Commission had already placed 

extensive requirements on carriers to 

ensure that payment is based on 

accurate data: they were obliged to 

create tracking systems, file System 

Audit Reports, create a dispute 

resolution process, provide Completing 

and Intermediate Carrier Reports, and 

have their chief financial officer (CFO) 

certify their quarterly payments. With 

respect to uncompleted and call 

duration, we find that the burden and

722 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

cost to carriers to report this information 

outweigh any marginal, additional 

benefit to PSPs. By not adding 

additional costly reporting requirements 

on carriers, this clarification instead 

confers a benefit on small SBRs. Since 

no additional costs are being incurred or 

additional duties imposed on carriers, 

this clarification adopted in this Order 

on Reconsideration will not have a 

significant economic impact on small 

entities. 

13. The rules also extend the data 

retention requirement for completed call 

data from 18 months to 27 months, 

because the statute of limitations for 

bringing lawsuits for payphone 

compensation is 24 months after the 

close of a calendar quarter, and because 

the PSPs need access to this data. 

Although a number of small SBRs will 

have to retain records for an additional 

9 months, we believe the effect of this 

revision will not be economically 

significant. Carriers were already 

required to retain this data for 18 

months under the rules we adopted last 

year and therefore the effect of this 

change will be minimal. As we explain 

in the Order on Reconsideration, no 

commenter provided any data to 

support its position that it would 

unacceptably increase the cost for small 

entities. Should there be a minor 

increase in costs, that burden is 

outweighed by having the benefit of a 

more efficient record-keeping system. 

14. To encourage consistency between 

the various reports required by the 

payphone compensation rules, we also 

clarify that carriers should follow one of 

the standard industry formats 

established by national clearinghouses. 

In this Order on Reconsideration, we do 

not require carriers to follow a 

particular format because we believe 

that it is neither appropriate nor 

necessary for the Commission to make 

up a format. Furthermore, parties did 

not quantify the cost to update the 

reports. In the event a small SBR 

decides to update the reports to meet 

industry standards, we believe the cost 

to do so will be minimal and therefore 

this clarification will not have a 

significant economic impact on small 

entities. 

15. Similarly, the Commission’s 

clarification concerning the 

responsibilities of local exchange 

carriers (LECs) as Completing Carriers 

does not significantly impact small 

entities. This clarification addresses a 

concern that some LECs who pay PSPs 

through bill credits are not 

compensating PSPs when a PSP is not 

served by the LEC or when the LEC acts 

as an IXC. In this Order on 

Reconsideration, we simply clarify that 

a LEC is responsible for compensation 

for calls made to access code numbers 

or subscriber toll-free numbers that a 

LEC maintains. We do not impose any 

additional responsibilities on LECs and 

therefore the clarification will not have 

a significant economic impact on small 

entities. 

16. This Order on Reconsideration

further clarifies and removes potentially 

burdensome paperwork requirements 

allowing the use of electronic methods 

to comply with our audit and CFO 

reporting requirements. First, we clarify 

that system audit reports may be posted 

on a website instead of requiring them 

to be sent to as many as 5500 PSPs. 

Second, these rules also clarify that a 

Completing Carrier CFO may certify the 

carrier’s quarterly payments to all PSPs 

in a single document and may post this 

certification on the web, instead of 

sending individualized certifications to 

PSPs. The Commission believes that 

complying with the rules electronically 

is no more burdensome than submitting 

copies. It will also be less expensive for 

carriers to post the reports and 

certifications on the web rather than to 

send paper copies to PSPs. Therefore, 

these clarifications will not have a 

significant economic impact on small 

entities.

17. We also clarify that SBRs and 

other Completing Carriers may rely on 

a system audit of a payphone 

clearinghouse (instead of re-auditing the 

clearinghouse themselves). We expect 

that this clarification will benefit small 

SBRs economically because they will 

not have to pay for a separate audit of 

the clearinghouse. 

18. Therefore, we certify that the 

requirements of the Order on 

Reconsideration will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Ordering Clauses 

19. Accordingly, pursuant to authority 

contained in sections 1, 4, and 276 of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, and 276, 

it is ordered that the policies, rules, and 

requirements set forth herein are 

adopted.

20. It is further ordered that part 64 

of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR part 

64, is amended by revising § 64.1310(a) 

and (g), and § 64.1320(a), (b), and (e) as 

set forth in Appendix B to this Order on 

Reconsideration.

21. It is further ordered that the 

Petition for Clarification or Partial 

Reconsideration filed by APCC is 

granted in part and denied in part, to 

the extent discussed herein. 

22. It is further ordered that the 

petition for Clarification or, in the 

Alternative, Reconsideration filed by 

AT&T is granted, to the extent discussed 

herein. 

23. It is further ordered that the 

Petition for Reconsideration and 

Clarification filed by the RBOC 

Coalition is denied.

24. It is further ordered that the 

Petition for Reconsideration filed by 

Sprint is denied.

25. It is further ordered that the 

Request for Stay filed by APCC is denied 

as moot.

26. It is further ordered that for good 

cause found, the rules set forth in 

Appendix B are effective January 5, 

2005, except for § 64.1310(g) which 

contains information collection 

requirements that are not effective until 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget. The Commission will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date 

of that section. 

27. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Order on Reconsideration,

including the Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Certification, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

Telephone, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary.

Final Rules

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 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 64.1310 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, 

(a)(3), (a)(4)(i) and paragraph (g) to read 

as follows:

§ 64.1310 Payphone compensation 

procedures. 

(a) Unless the payphone service 

provider consents to an alternative 

compensation arrangement, each 

Completing Carrier identified in 

§ 64.1300(a) shall compensate the 

payphone service provider in

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 723

accordance with paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (a)(4) of this section. A 

payphone service provider may not 

unreasonably withhold its consent to an 

alternative compensation arrangement.

* * * * *

(3) When payphone compensation is 

tendered for a quarter, the chief 

financial officer of the Completing 

Carrier shall submit to each payphone 

service provider to which compensation 

is tendered a sworn statement that the 

payment amount for that quarter is 

accurate and is based on 100% of all 

completed calls that originated from 

that payphone service provider’s 

payphones. Instead of transmitting 

individualized statements to each 

payphone service provider, a 

Completing Carrier may provide a 

single, blanket sworn statement 

addressed to all payphone service 

providers to which compensation is 

tendered for that quarter and may notify 

the payphone service providers of the 

sworn statement through any electronic 

method, including transmitting the 

sworn statement with the § 64.1310(a)(4) 

quarterly report, or posting the sworn 

statement on the Completing Carrier or 

clearinghouse website. If a Completing 

Carrier chooses to post the sworn 

statement on its website, the Completing 

Carrier shall state in its § 64.1310(a)(4) 

quarterly report the web address of the 

sworn statement. 

(4) * * *

(i) A list of the toll-free and access 

numbers dialed and completed by the 

Completing Carrier from each of that 

payphone service provider’s payphones 

and the ANI for each payphone;

* * * * *

(g) Each Completing Carrier and each 

Intermediate Carrier must maintain 

verification data to support the quarterly 

reports submitted pursuant to 

paragraphs (a)(4) and (c) of this section 

for 27 months after the close of that 

quarter. This data must include the time 

and date that each call identified in 

paragraphs (a)(4) and (c) of this section 

was made. This data must be provided 

to the payphone service provider upon 

request.

■ 3. Section 64.1320 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) to 

read as follows:

§ 64.1320 Payphone call tracking system 

audits. 

(a) Unless it has entered into an 

alternative compensation arrangement 

pursuant to § 64.1310(a) that relieves it 

of its § 64.1310(a)(1) tracking system 

obligation, each Completing Carrier 

must undergo an audit of its 

§ 64.1310(a)(1) tracking system by an 

independent third party auditor whose 

responsibility shall be, using audit 

methods approved by the American 

Institute for Certified Public 

Accountants, to determine whether the 

call tracking system accurately tracks 

payphone calls to completion. 

(b) By the effective date of these rules, 

each Completing Carrier in paragraph 

(a) of this section must file an audit 

report from the auditor (the ‘‘System 

Audit Report’’) regarding the 

Completing Carrier’s compliance with 

§ 64.1310(a)(1) as of the date of the 

audit: 

(1) With the Commission’s Secretary 

in CC Docket No. 96–128; 

(2) With each payphone service 

provider for which it completes calls 

and a Completing Carrier may comply 

with this paragraph’s requirement to file 

copies of the System Audit Report with 

each payphone service provider by 

posting the System Audit Report on its 

website or a clearinghouse website; and 

(3) With each facilities-based long 

distance carrier from which it receives 

payphone calls.

* * * * *

(e) At the time of filing of a System 

Audit Report with the Commission, the 

Completing Carrier shall file with the 

Commission’s Secretary, the payphone 

service providers and the facilitiesbased long distance carriers identified 

in paragraph (b) of this section, a 

statement that includes the name of the 

Completing Carrier, and the name, 

address and phone number for the 

person or persons responsible for 

handling the Completing Carrier’s 

payphone compensation and for 

resolving disputes with payphone 

service providers over compensation, 

and this statement shall be updated 

within 60 days of any changes of such 

persons. If a Completing Carrier chooses 

to notify payphone service providers of 

this statement and its System Audit 

Report by posting these two documents 

on its website or a clearinghouse 

website, then this statement shall 

include the web address for these two 

documents.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 05–173 Filed 1–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 04–3849; MM Docket No. 00–226; RM–

10001] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Fair 

Bluff, NC, Johnsonville, Litchfield 

Beach, and Olanta, SC

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; dismissal of petition 

for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: At the request of Joint 

Petitioner Waccamaw Neck 

Broadcasting Company, licensee of 

Station WPDT(FM), Channel 286A, 

Johnsonville, South Carolina this 

document dismisses the Joint Petition 

for Reconsideration of the Report and 

Order, 66 FR 18088 (October 24, 2001), 

in this proceeding, filed by Atlantic 

Broadcasting Co., Inc., permittee of 

Station WSIM(FM), Channel 287C3, Fair 

Bluff, North Carolina, and Waccamaw 

Neck Broadcasting Company.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Victoria M. McCauley, Media Bureau 

(202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM 

Docket No. 00–226, adopted December 

15, 2004, and released December 17, 

2004. The full text of this Commission 

decision is available for inspection and 

copying during normal business hours 

in the FCC’s Reference Information 

Center at Portals II, 445 12th Street, 

SW., Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 

20554. The document may also be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

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

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554, telephone 1–800–378–3160 or 

http://www.BCPIWEB.com. Document is 

not subject to the Congressional Review 

Act. The Commission, is, therefore, not 

required to submit a copy of this Report 

and Order to GAO, pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A) because the proposed rule 

was dismissed, herein.

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 05–116 Filed 1–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P