Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, 65906-65908 [2014-26038]
Download as PDF
65906
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Article XX or
XXI citation
Title/Subject
2101.20 ........
Definitions ......................................
*
EPA Approval date
*
6/8/13
*
Additional
explanation/
§ 52.2063 citation
11/6/14 [Insert Federal Register
citation].
State
effective date
Added seven definitions related to
Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers.
*
*
*
*
Part D—Pollutant Emission Standards
*
2104.09 ........
*
*
Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers .........
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–26300 Filed 11–5–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 2, 15, 27, 73, and 74
[GN Docket No. 12–268; FCC 14–143]
Expanding the Economic and
Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum
Through Incentive Auctions
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Clarification.
AGENCY:
This document clarifies how
the Commission intends to preserve the
‘‘coverage area’’ as well as the
‘‘population served’’ of eligible
broadcasters in the repacking process
associated with the broadcast television
spectrum incentive auction. This action
is taken in order to remove any
uncertainty regarding the repacking
approach the Commission adopted in
the Incentive Auction R&O.
DATES: Effective November 6, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Aspasia Paroutsas, Office of Engineering
and Technology, 202–418–7285,
Aspasia.Paroutsas@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s
Declaratory Ruling, GN Docket No. 12–
268, FCC 14–143, adopted September
20, 2014 and released September 30,
2014. The full text of this document is
available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the
FCC Reference Center (Room CY–A257),
445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC
20554. The complete text of this
document also may be purchased from
the Commission’s copy contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:26 Nov 05, 2014
*
6/8/13
Jkt 235001
*
11/6/14 [Insert Federal Register
citation].
*
*
SW., Room, CY–B402, Washington, DC
20554. The full text may also be
downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. People
with Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with
disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an
email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
Summary of Declaratory Ruling
1. In this Declaratory Ruling, the
Commission clarifies how it intends to
preserve the ‘‘coverage area’’ as well as
the ‘‘population served’’ of eligible
broadcasters in the repacking process
associated with the broadcast television
spectrum incentive auction. The
Commission takes this action in order to
remove any uncertainty regarding the
repacking approach it adopted in the
Incentive Auction R&O, 79 FR48442,
August 15, 2014. The Commission
addresses each of these factors
independently and in a manner that
fully comports with Congress’s mandate
to make ‘‘all reasonable efforts’’ to
‘‘preserve’’ both coverage area and
population served as of the enactment
date of the Spectrum Act.
Background
2. The Spectrum Act requires the
Commission, in repacking the television
bands to repurpose spectrum through
the incentive auction, to ‘‘make all
reasonable efforts to preserve, as of the
date of the enactment of the Act
[February 22, 2012], the coverage area
and population served of each broadcast
television licensee, as determined using
the methodology described in OET
Bulletin 69.’’ In the Incentive Auction
R&O, the Commission interpreted
‘‘coverage area,’’ consistent with the
definition of ‘‘service area’’ in OET
Bulletin 69 (OET–69) and 47 CFR
73.622(e), as the area within a full
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
*
*
Added new regulation.
Sfmt 4700
*
*
power station’s noise-limited F(50,90)
contour where the signal strength is
predicted to exceed the noise-limited
service level, and as the area within a
Class A station’s protected contour. The
Commission interpreted ‘‘population
served,’’ consistent with OET–69 and 47
CFR 73.616(e), to mean persons who
reside within a station’s ‘‘coverage area’’
at locations where the signal is not
subject to interference from other
stations.
3. Section 6403(b)(2) requires that the
Commission determine each eligible
station’s ‘‘coverage area’’ and
‘‘population served’’ using ‘‘the
methodology described in OET Bulletin
69.’’ The OET–69 methodology has two
major steps. First, ‘‘service area or
coverage’’—the area within a station’s
relevant contour where the signal
strength is predicted to exceed a
specified level—is determined using 2kilometer spacing increments or ‘‘cells.’’
Second, interference from other stations
is evaluated on a cell-by-cell basis
within that area. The result of the
interference analysis is data that
indicate the population and area (in
square kilometers) within the ‘‘coverage
area’’ lost to interference from other
stations.
4. While OET–69 does not provide
standards for preserving a television
station’s coverage area or population
served, the Commission’s rules provide
that applications for new or modified
digital television station facilities are
acceptable if they are not predicted to
cause interference ‘‘to more than an
additional 0.5 percent of the population
served . . . by another DTV station.’’ In
other words, the rules protect from
interference populated portions of a
station’s coverage area that are not lost
to existing interference from other
stations. Consistent with this standard,
the Commission adopted a 0.5 percent
interference threshold in the Incentive
Auction R&O. The Commission also
E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM
06NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
determined that preserving service for
the specific viewers who had access to
a station’s signal as of February 22,
2012, would best comport with the ‘‘all
reasonable efforts’’ mandate. However,
the Commission rejected arguments that
section 6403(b)(2) ‘‘is a ‘hold harmless’
provision that requires the Commission
to identify ‘extraordinary’ or ‘truly
exceptional’ circumstances before
altering a station’s coverage area and
population served.’’
Discussion
5. The Commission is concerned that
the Incentive Auction R&O left some
uncertainty regarding how it intends to
carry out the statutory preservation
mandate in the repacking process. The
Commission now clarifies that it will
independently protect each eligible
station’s ‘‘coverage area’’ and its
‘‘population served’’ as defined in the
Incentive Auction R&O. In doing so, the
Commission will seek to preserve each
station’s coverage area as determined
using the methodology described in
OET–69. If the station is reassigned to
a different channel, its coverage area on
its original channel will be replicated as
closely as possible, using the same
antenna pattern and other technical
parameters and allowing power
adjustments as necessary to enable the
signal to reach the same geographic area
at the same field strength as before the
repacking process. As the Commission
explained in the Incentive Auction R&O,
this ‘‘equal area’’ approach will enable
a station to ‘‘replicat[e] the area within
the station’s existing contour as closely
as possible using the station’s existing
antenna pattern.’’ Consistent with OET–
69 and our rules, the Commission will
seek to preserve coverage area without
regard to interference from other
stations or population.
6. Independent of our efforts to
preserve each station’s ‘‘coverage area,’’
the Commission also will seek to
preserve its population served, again as
determined using the methodology
described in OET–69, by prohibiting
any channel assignment in the
repacking process that would cause one
station to interfere with 0.5 percent or
more of another station’s population
served. As ‘‘population served’’ by
definition excludes unpopulated areas
and areas where a station’s signal
cannot be received due to existing
interference from other stations, the
Commission will not protect such areas
from new interference in the repacking
process.
7. The Incentive Auction R&O stated
that the constraint files the Commission
will use during the repacking process
‘‘will match the coverage area of a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:26 Nov 05, 2014
Jkt 235001
station to the degree that the area is
populated.’’ The Commission clarifies
that this statement concerns the
mechanics of the repacking process, not
the ‘‘coverage area’’ or ‘‘population
served’’ that it will seek to preserve for
each eligible station as set forth above.
The Commission further clarifies that
area’s where a station’s signal is lost to
existing interference from other stations,
as determined using the methodology in
OET–69, will not be protected in the
repacking process.
8. The Commission’s approach is
consistent with the statutory
preservation mandate. First, as
indicated, our approach comports with
OET–69 and FCC rules. ‘‘Congress is
presumed to be cognizant of, and
legislate against the background of,
existing interpretations of law.’’
Although the statutory terms ‘‘coverage
area’’ and ‘‘population served’’ are
related—in particular, ‘‘population
served’’ is limited by the boundaries of
‘‘coverage area’’—they have
independent significance under OET–69
and our rules. ‘‘Coverage area’’ defines
the geographic region within which a
signal is predicted to have a specified
field strength, whereas ‘‘population
served’’ represents the populated areas
within that region where the signal is
not subject to existing interference from
other stations. The Commission fulfills
the statutory obligation to ‘‘preserve’’ a
station’s coverage area in our repacking
process by ensuring that they can
continue to operate at technical
parameters sufficient to maintain their
coverage areas as of February 22, 2012.
The Commission ‘‘preserves’’ the
station’s population served by
protecting it from interference from
other stations in areas where viewers
received the station’s signal as of that
date. Our interpretation does not negate
the statutory mandate for preservation
of a station’s coverage area — as would
arguably be the case, for instance, if we
required a station to reduce its
transmission power or otherwise modify
their facilities to reduce their coverage
area to conform it to the area of
population served. By contrast,
according interference protection to
‘‘coverage area’’ without regard to
‘‘population served’’ would depart from
OET–69 and our rules.
9. Second, the Commission’s
interpretation is consistent with
Congress’s mandate to ‘‘preserve’’
service as of the statutory enactment
date, which we observed in the
Incentive Auction R&O ‘‘suggests that
the goal is to maintain the status quo,’’
consistent with the Commission’s
historical concern ‘‘with avoiding
disruption of service to existing
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
65907
viewers.’’ By seeking to preserve each
station’s ‘‘coverage area’’ as set forth, the
Commission will ensure that its signal
reaches substantially the same
geographic area at the same field
strength after the repacking process as it
did before. By independently protecting
each station’s ‘‘population served’’ from
interfering signals, the Commission will
ensure that its signal reaches the same
viewers before and after the repacking
process, subject only to the de minimis
interference permitted under the
Commission’s rules for new or modified
station facilities. In contrast, protecting
a station’s ‘‘coverage area’’ from
interfering signals without regard to its
‘‘population served’’ would result in
more expansive protection than stations
received under the rules in effect at the
time the Spectrum Act was enacted.
10. Third, the Commission’s
interpretation is consistent with
Congress’s ‘‘all reasonable efforts’’
mandate. As explained in the Incentive
Auction R&O, in the context of a statute
with important goals other than
preservation of existing television
service, in particular the goal of
repurposing spectrum, the ‘‘all
reasonable efforts’’ mandate militates
against a statutory interpretation that
would limit our ability to repack the
television bands efficiently and thereby
threaten the auction’s overall success in
repurposing spectrum. Expanding the
interference protection provided in the
repacking process beyond that provided
under the pre-Spectrum Act rules to
unpopulated or unserved (due to
existing interference from other stations)
portions of each station’s coverage area
would significantly constrain our
flexibility in the repacking process and
impair the efficiency of the final
television channel assignment scheme:
A station could not be assigned to a
channel if the assignment would cause
signal overlap with another station
within either station’s coverage area,
even if such overlap occurred only in
geographic areas where the stations do
not have viewers because the areas are
uninhabited, uninhabitable, or service
was unavailable in the areas due to
existing interference from other stations.
As a result of such inefficiency, the
prospects for the auction’s overall
success would be substantially
threatened.
Ordering Clauses
11. The actions in this Declaratory
Ruling has not changed the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA),
which was set forth in the Incentive
Auction R&O. Thus, no supplemental
FRFA is necessary. In addition, the
action contained herein does not change
E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM
06NOR1
65908
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
the information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (‘‘PRA’’), Public Law 104–13,
contained in the Incentive Auction R&O.
As a result, no new submission to the
Office of Management and Budget is
necessary to comply with the PRA
requirements.
12. Pursuant to the authority found in
Sections 1, 4, 301, 303, and 307 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, and sections 6402 and 6403 of
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:26 Nov 05, 2014
Jkt 235001
Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112–
96, 126 Stat. 156, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154,
301, 303, and 307, and section 1.2 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.2, the
Declaratory Ruling is adopted.
13. The Declaratory Ruling adopted
herein shall be effective upon release.
14. The Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Declaratory Ruling in GN Docket
No. 12–268 to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
15. The Commission will not send a
copy of the Declaratory Ruling pursuant
to the Congressional Review Act, see 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because the
Commission did not adopt any new
rules here.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–26038 Filed 11–5–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\06NOR1.SGM
06NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 215 (Thursday, November 6, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65906-65908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26038]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 2, 15, 27, 73, and 74
[GN Docket No. 12-268; FCC 14-143]
Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum
Through Incentive Auctions
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Clarification.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document clarifies how the Commission intends to preserve
the ``coverage area'' as well as the ``population served'' of eligible
broadcasters in the repacking process associated with the broadcast
television spectrum incentive auction. This action is taken in order to
remove any uncertainty regarding the repacking approach the Commission
adopted in the Incentive Auction R&O.
DATES: Effective November 6, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aspasia Paroutsas, Office of
Engineering and Technology, 202-418-7285, Aspasia.Paroutsas@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Declaratory Ruling, GN Docket No. 12-268, FCC 14-143, adopted September
20, 2014 and released September 30, 2014. The full text of this
document is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document also may be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. People
with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432
(tty).
Summary of Declaratory Ruling
1. In this Declaratory Ruling, the Commission clarifies how it
intends to preserve the ``coverage area'' as well as the ``population
served'' of eligible broadcasters in the repacking process associated
with the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction. The
Commission takes this action in order to remove any uncertainty
regarding the repacking approach it adopted in the Incentive Auction
R&O, 79 FR48442, August 15, 2014. The Commission addresses each of
these factors independently and in a manner that fully comports with
Congress's mandate to make ``all reasonable efforts'' to ``preserve''
both coverage area and population served as of the enactment date of
the Spectrum Act.
Background
2. The Spectrum Act requires the Commission, in repacking the
television bands to repurpose spectrum through the incentive auction,
to ``make all reasonable efforts to preserve, as of the date of the
enactment of the Act [February 22, 2012], the coverage area and
population served of each broadcast television licensee, as determined
using the methodology described in OET Bulletin 69.'' In the Incentive
Auction R&O, the Commission interpreted ``coverage area,'' consistent
with the definition of ``service area'' in OET Bulletin 69 (OET-69) and
47 CFR 73.622(e), as the area within a full power station's noise-
limited F(50,90) contour where the signal strength is predicted to
exceed the noise-limited service level, and as the area within a Class
A station's protected contour. The Commission interpreted ``population
served,'' consistent with OET-69 and 47 CFR 73.616(e), to mean persons
who reside within a station's ``coverage area'' at locations where the
signal is not subject to interference from other stations.
3. Section 6403(b)(2) requires that the Commission determine each
eligible station's ``coverage area'' and ``population served'' using
``the methodology described in OET Bulletin 69.'' The OET-69
methodology has two major steps. First, ``service area or coverage''--
the area within a station's relevant contour where the signal strength
is predicted to exceed a specified level--is determined using 2-
kilometer spacing increments or ``cells.'' Second, interference from
other stations is evaluated on a cell-by-cell basis within that area.
The result of the interference analysis is data that indicate the
population and area (in square kilometers) within the ``coverage area''
lost to interference from other stations.
4. While OET-69 does not provide standards for preserving a
television station's coverage area or population served, the
Commission's rules provide that applications for new or modified
digital television station facilities are acceptable if they are not
predicted to cause interference ``to more than an additional 0.5
percent of the population served . . . by another DTV station.'' In
other words, the rules protect from interference populated portions of
a station's coverage area that are not lost to existing interference
from other stations. Consistent with this standard, the Commission
adopted a 0.5 percent interference threshold in the Incentive Auction
R&O. The Commission also
[[Page 65907]]
determined that preserving service for the specific viewers who had
access to a station's signal as of February 22, 2012, would best
comport with the ``all reasonable efforts'' mandate. However, the
Commission rejected arguments that section 6403(b)(2) ``is a `hold
harmless' provision that requires the Commission to identify
`extraordinary' or `truly exceptional' circumstances before altering a
station's coverage area and population served.''
Discussion
5. The Commission is concerned that the Incentive Auction R&O left
some uncertainty regarding how it intends to carry out the statutory
preservation mandate in the repacking process. The Commission now
clarifies that it will independently protect each eligible station's
``coverage area'' and its ``population served'' as defined in the
Incentive Auction R&O. In doing so, the Commission will seek to
preserve each station's coverage area as determined using the
methodology described in OET-69. If the station is reassigned to a
different channel, its coverage area on its original channel will be
replicated as closely as possible, using the same antenna pattern and
other technical parameters and allowing power adjustments as necessary
to enable the signal to reach the same geographic area at the same
field strength as before the repacking process. As the Commission
explained in the Incentive Auction R&O, this ``equal area'' approach
will enable a station to ``replicat[e] the area within the station's
existing contour as closely as possible using the station's existing
antenna pattern.'' Consistent with OET-69 and our rules, the Commission
will seek to preserve coverage area without regard to interference from
other stations or population.
6. Independent of our efforts to preserve each station's ``coverage
area,'' the Commission also will seek to preserve its population
served, again as determined using the methodology described in OET-69,
by prohibiting any channel assignment in the repacking process that
would cause one station to interfere with 0.5 percent or more of
another station's population served. As ``population served'' by
definition excludes unpopulated areas and areas where a station's
signal cannot be received due to existing interference from other
stations, the Commission will not protect such areas from new
interference in the repacking process.
7. The Incentive Auction R&O stated that the constraint files the
Commission will use during the repacking process ``will match the
coverage area of a station to the degree that the area is populated.''
The Commission clarifies that this statement concerns the mechanics of
the repacking process, not the ``coverage area'' or ``population
served'' that it will seek to preserve for each eligible station as set
forth above. The Commission further clarifies that area's where a
station's signal is lost to existing interference from other stations,
as determined using the methodology in OET-69, will not be protected in
the repacking process.
8. The Commission's approach is consistent with the statutory
preservation mandate. First, as indicated, our approach comports with
OET-69 and FCC rules. ``Congress is presumed to be cognizant of, and
legislate against the background of, existing interpretations of law.''
Although the statutory terms ``coverage area'' and ``population
served'' are related--in particular, ``population served'' is limited
by the boundaries of ``coverage area''--they have independent
significance under OET-69 and our rules. ``Coverage area'' defines the
geographic region within which a signal is predicted to have a
specified field strength, whereas ``population served'' represents the
populated areas within that region where the signal is not subject to
existing interference from other stations. The Commission fulfills the
statutory obligation to ``preserve'' a station's coverage area in our
repacking process by ensuring that they can continue to operate at
technical parameters sufficient to maintain their coverage areas as of
February 22, 2012. The Commission ``preserves'' the station's
population served by protecting it from interference from other
stations in areas where viewers received the station's signal as of
that date. Our interpretation does not negate the statutory mandate for
preservation of a station's coverage area -- as would arguably be the
case, for instance, if we required a station to reduce its transmission
power or otherwise modify their facilities to reduce their coverage
area to conform it to the area of population served. By contrast,
according interference protection to ``coverage area'' without regard
to ``population served'' would depart from OET-69 and our rules.
9. Second, the Commission's interpretation is consistent with
Congress's mandate to ``preserve'' service as of the statutory
enactment date, which we observed in the Incentive Auction R&O
``suggests that the goal is to maintain the status quo,'' consistent
with the Commission's historical concern ``with avoiding disruption of
service to existing viewers.'' By seeking to preserve each station's
``coverage area'' as set forth, the Commission will ensure that its
signal reaches substantially the same geographic area at the same field
strength after the repacking process as it did before. By independently
protecting each station's ``population served'' from interfering
signals, the Commission will ensure that its signal reaches the same
viewers before and after the repacking process, subject only to the de
minimis interference permitted under the Commission's rules for new or
modified station facilities. In contrast, protecting a station's
``coverage area'' from interfering signals without regard to its
``population served'' would result in more expansive protection than
stations received under the rules in effect at the time the Spectrum
Act was enacted.
10. Third, the Commission's interpretation is consistent with
Congress's ``all reasonable efforts'' mandate. As explained in the
Incentive Auction R&O, in the context of a statute with important goals
other than preservation of existing television service, in particular
the goal of repurposing spectrum, the ``all reasonable efforts''
mandate militates against a statutory interpretation that would limit
our ability to repack the television bands efficiently and thereby
threaten the auction's overall success in repurposing spectrum.
Expanding the interference protection provided in the repacking process
beyond that provided under the pre-Spectrum Act rules to unpopulated or
unserved (due to existing interference from other stations) portions of
each station's coverage area would significantly constrain our
flexibility in the repacking process and impair the efficiency of the
final television channel assignment scheme: A station could not be
assigned to a channel if the assignment would cause signal overlap with
another station within either station's coverage area, even if such
overlap occurred only in geographic areas where the stations do not
have viewers because the areas are uninhabited, uninhabitable, or
service was unavailable in the areas due to existing interference from
other stations. As a result of such inefficiency, the prospects for the
auction's overall success would be substantially threatened.
Ordering Clauses
11. The actions in this Declaratory Ruling has not changed the
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), which was set forth in
the Incentive Auction R&O. Thus, no supplemental FRFA is necessary. In
addition, the action contained herein does not change
[[Page 65908]]
the information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA''), Public Law 104-13, contained in the
Incentive Auction R&O. As a result, no new submission to the Office of
Management and Budget is necessary to comply with the PRA requirements.
12. Pursuant to the authority found in Sections 1, 4, 301, 303, and
307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 6402
and 6403 of Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,
Public Law 112-96, 126 Stat. 156, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303, and
307, and section 1.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.2, the
Declaratory Ruling is adopted.
13. The Declaratory Ruling adopted herein shall be effective upon
release.
14. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Declaratory
Ruling in GN Docket No. 12-268 to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
15. The Commission will not send a copy of the Declaratory Ruling
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A),
because the Commission did not adopt any new rules here.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26038 Filed 11-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P