Incentive Auction Task Force Releases Initial Clearing Target Optimization Simulations, 30021-30030 [2015-12806]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business
hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, 629 East Main
Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Asrah Khadr, (215) 814–2071, or by
email at khadr.asrah@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For
further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final
action, with the same title, that is
located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’
section of this Federal Register
publication.
Dated: May 7, 2015.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015–12349 Filed 5–22–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 27, and 73
[AU Docket No. 14–252; GN Docket No. 12–
268; DA 15–606]
Incentive Auction Task Force Releases
Initial Clearing Target Optimization
Simulations
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Incentive Auction Task
Force provides the results of several
staff simulations of the initial clearing
target optimization procedure proposed
in the Auction 1000 Comment PN and/
or Comment PN as discussed further in
this under the Supplementary
Information. In this document, the
Federal Communications Commission’s
(Commission) Incentive Auction Task
Force seeks comment on the data and
analyses released in this document and
the attached Appendix.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
June 3, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by the docket numbers in this
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:06 May 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
proceeding, AU Docket No. 14–252 and
GN Docket No. 12–268, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS): https://fcc.gov/
ecfs//. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail): Federal
Communications Commission, 9300
East Hampton Dr., Capitol Heights, MD
20743.
• U.S. Postal Service (First-class,
Express, and Priority): Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th
St. SW., Washington, DC 20554.
• Hand-delivered/Courier: Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th
St. SW., Room TW–A325, Washington,
DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be
held together with rubber bands or
fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes
must be disposed of before entering the
building.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) for this
document. All comments received will
be posted without change to ECFS at
https://fcc.gov/ecfs//, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document. Docket: This document
is in AU Docket No. 14–252 and GN
Docket No. 12–268. For access to the
docket to read background documents
or comments received, go to ECFS at
https://fcc.gov/ecfs//.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Madelaine Maior of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau,
Broadband Division, at (202) 418–1466
or email to madelaine.maior@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Documents
FCC Information relating to the
Incentive Auction will be posted to and
available on the LEARN Web site at:
https://www.fcc.gov/learn. This
document was released on May 20,
2015, and is available electronically at
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/
attachmatch/DA-15-606A1.pdf and
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/
attachmatch/DA-15-606A2.pdf. The
complete text of this document as well
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30021
as any comments and ex parte
submissions will also be available for
public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center (CY–A257) at the Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
These documents will be available
electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word,
and/or Adobe Acrobat.
Public Participation
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments on or before the dates
indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed
using the Commission’s ECFS. See
Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121
(1998).
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
active docket or rulemaking number
appears in the caption of this
proceeding, filers must submit two
additional copies for each additional
docket or rulemaking number. Filings
can be sent by commercial overnight
courier, or by first-class or overnight
U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings
must be addressed to the Commission’s
Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
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), or
202–418–0432 (tty).
I. Synopsis
1. The clearing target selection
procedure proposed in the Auction 1000
Comment PN 1 would, inter alia, impose
a nationwide cap on impairments.2 To
1 Comment Sought on Competitive Bidding
Procedures for Broadcast Incentive Auction 1000,
Including Auctions 1001 and 1002, GN Docket No.
12–268, AU Docket No. 14–252, Public Notice, FCC
14–191, 29 FCC Rcd 15750 (Dec. 17, 2014)
(‘‘Auction 1000 Comment PN’’ or ‘‘Comment PN’’).
2 Impairments are the result of assigning TV
stations to channels in the 600 MHz Band in order
to accommodate market variation. Expanding the
Economic and Innovation Opportunities of
Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, GN Docket
No. 12–268, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6567,
6604–6607, paras. 81–87 (2014) (‘‘Incentive Auction
R&O’’). See Expanding the Economic and
Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through
Incentive Auctions, GN Docket No. 12–268, Second
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 13071 (2014) (adopting
methodology for use during the incentive auction
to predict inter-service interference between
impairing TV stations and licensed wireless
services in the 600 MHz Band).
E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM
26MYP1
30022
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
conduct the simulations, the staff
applied the clearing target selection
procedure proposed in the Auction 1000
Comment PN,3 with the following
exceptions reflecting the range of
comments in response to the Comment
PN. Instead of accommodating
impairments up to 20 percent, the
simulations apply a standard of up to
(but not equal to) the equivalent of one
license block nationwide, as measured
by weighted population (‘‘weightedpops’’).4 The simulations also apply
equal weighting to impairments
regardless of whether they are in the
uplink or downlink portion of the
band.5 The data and information we
release are illustrative only.6 The
Commission will adopt final decisions
regarding the proposed initial clearing
target selection procedure in a
forthcoming Auction 1000 Procedures
PN.7
3 Auction 1000 Comment PN, 29 FCC Rcd at
15762–69, paras. 27–45.
4 ‘‘Weighted-pops’’ refers to the proposed
approach of weighting the population in a given
PEA based on an index of area-specific prices from
prior auctions and counting population in each
block in the PEA. See id., 29 FCC Rcd at 15766–
67, para. 38, 15803, paras. 162–63. The standard
applied in the simulations would allow
impairments at a smaller percentage of impaired
weighted-pops at higher clearing targets and a larger
percentage of impaired weighted-pops at lower
clearing targets. We note that ‘‘the equivalent of one
block nationwide’’ does not mean that one block
would be impaired in each market, but rather that
the total number of impaired weighted-pops cannot
exceed the equivalent weighted-pops of one block
nationwide in the aggregate. For example, under the
clearing targets and associated band plans adopted
in the Incentive Auction R&O, the equivalent of one
block under an 84 megahertz clearing target would
be approximately 14 percent of total weighted-pops
nationwide, the equivalent of one block under a 114
megahertz clearing target would be approximately
11 percent, and the equivalent of one block under
a 126 megahertz clearing target would be 10
percent.
5 This variation from the Comment PN eliminates
the proposed weighting on impairments in the
downlink band, under which a downlink
impairment would be counted as impairing the
corresponding uplink band, but an uplink
impairment would not be counted as impairing the
corresponding downlink band. Auction 1000
Comment PN, 29 FCC Rcd at 15762, para. 29. We
also note that the simulations apply a 10 percent
standard for treating a county’s entire population as
impaired for the purposes of applying the primary
objective; the Comment PN proposed a range
between 10 and 20 percent. See id.
6 See Incentive Auction Task Force Releases
Updated Constraint File Data Using Actual
Channels and Staff Analysis Regarding Pairwise
Approach to Preserving Population Served, GN
Docket No. 12–268, ET Docket No. 13–26, Public
Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 5687, 5687 (June 2, 2014)
(‘‘Aggregate Interference PN’’).
7 Auction 1000 Comment PN, 29 FCC Rcd at
15753–54, para. 7.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 May 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
2. In order to conduct the simulations
released with this document, the staff
had to make certain assumptions about
protection of foreign TV stations. With
respect to Canada, the simulations
assume for illustrative purposes only
that the Commission will not need to
protect vacant allotments in Canada’s
TV bands, an option put forth in
Industry Canada’s Consultation on
Repurposing the 600 MHz Band
proceeding.8 Mexico has not yet put
forward any public plans for
repurposing the 600 MHz Band; as a
result, for purposes of these simulations
all Mexican allotments are protected.9
Due to insufficient data at this time, the
simulations do not reflect any
interference from Mexican TV stations
into the United States.10
3. The simulations released with this
document reflect three different
illustrative broadcaster participation
scenarios: (1) Participation by between
40 and 50 percent of broadcast stations;
(2) participation between 50 and 60
percent; and (3) participation between
60 and 70 percent. We emphasize that
these simulations model only the
number of spectrum blocks that would
be available under various initial
clearing targets that would be feasible
based on broadcaster participation in
the auction. The simulations reflect no
assumptions about auction outcomes in
terms of which reverse auction
participants would be selected as
winning bidders, the winning bid
amounts, the total proceeds of the
forward auction, or whether the
Commission would be able to close the
auction at the initial clearing target.
4. For each of the three broadcaster
participation scenarios, the Appendix
provides information on the number of
8 We emphasize that this proposal remains
pending and has not been adopted by Industry
Canada. We also note that, although Canada’s
Consultation indicates it is considering pursuing a
joint repacking plan with the United States, for
purposes of the simulations we do not assume a
joint repacking plan. See Consultation on
Repurposing the 600 MHz Band, Spectrum
Management and Telecommunications, Industry
Canada, SLPB–005–14, para. 41 (rel. December 18,
2014), https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/
sf10891.html (‘‘Consultation on Repurposing the
600 MHz Band’’).
9 See Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at
6677–80, paras. 246–57.
10 We anticipate the Commission will have the
data necessary to make these calculations in
advance of the incentive auction, however. We note
that including the predicted interference from
Mexican stations would increase the impairment
level in each of the scenarios. The simulations do
reflect predicted interference from Canadian TV
stations into the United States.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
spectrum blocks that would be offered
in the forward auction in each proposed
license category (including totals
nationwide, in the high-demand
markets,11 and by Partial Economic
Area or ‘‘PEA’’), and the same
breakdown showing the total weightedpops for the licenses in each category.
Under each scenario, the Appendix also
shows results based on two approaches
to assigning impairing stations to the
600 MHz Band: (1) The approach
proposed in the Comment PN, under
which the optimization software assigns
stations within the 600 MHz Band so as
to minimize impaired weighted-pops;
and (2) an alternative approach that
minimizes impaired weighted-pops but
restricts the software from assigning
stations to channels that could impair
the duplex gap.12
5. The simulations indicate that the
procedure proposed in the Comment PN
for setting the initial clearing target,
with the modifications described above,
results in the selection of an initial
clearing target of 84 megahertz in a
scenario where 40 to 50 percent of
broadcasters participate in the reverse
auction (Scenario 1); an initial clearing
target of 114 megahertz in a scenario
where 50 to 60 percent participate
(Scenario 2); and an initial clearing
target of 126 megahertz in a scenario
where 60 to 70 percent participate
(Scenario 3). Under each scenario, the
vast majority of the licenses offered in
the band plan associated with
eachclearing target are Category 1
licenses.13 In Scenario 1, of the 2,842
possible
11 ‘‘High-demand markets’’ is defined as the 40
largest PEAs by population. Auction 1000 Comment
PN, 29 FCC Rcd at 15770, para. 51. These markets
are considered high demand because the geographic
areas they cover have usually generated the highest
average prices per MHz-pop in prior spectrum
license auctions and accounted for a substantial
fraction of total auction revenues. Id.
12 Auction 1000 Comment PN, 29 FCC Rcd at
15765–66, paras. 35–36. The Appendix refers to (1)
as ‘‘protecting the duplex gap’’ and the alternative
approach as ‘‘not protecting the duplex gap.’’
13 In each of the simulations, at least 93.4 percent
of licenses are Category 1 licenses, and Category 2
licenses comprise at most 1.3 percent of total
possible licenses. Under the Comment PN proposal,
‘‘Category 1’’ licenses are licenses that contain
impairments affecting between zero and 15 percent
of the population in a PEA, ‘‘Category 2’’ licenses
are licenses that contain impairments affecting
greater than 15 percent but less than or equal to 50
percent of the population, and licenses with
impairments affecting more than 50 percent of the
population would not be offered in the auction. See
Auction 1000 Comment PN, 29 FCC Rcd at 15797–
98, paras. 145–46.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM
26MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
licenses,14 only 46 are Category 2
licenses. For Scenario 2, of the 3,654
possible licenses, only 50 are Category
2 licenses. And for Scenario 3, of the
4,060 possible licenses, only 48 are
Category 2 licenses. In all three
scenarios, 88 to 93 percent of the
licenses in the high-demand markets are
Category 1 licenses and 84 to 88 percent
of PEAs contain only Category 1
licenses.15 The results also reflect that,
in lower broadcaster participation
scenarios, excluding stations altogether
from the duplex gap would increase the
number of Category 2 licenses and
heavily impaired licenses that the
Commission proposed not to offer in the
incentive auction.16
II. Procedural Matters
6. This document is being issued
pursuant to sections 0.31, 0.51, 0.61,
and 0.131 of the Commission’s rules by
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
14 We note that for purposes of this impairment
analysis, the total number of licenses analyzed at
each clearing target level includes only those
licenses that could be offered in the continental
United States.
15 For example, out of 406 PEAs, all but 62 will
have only Category 1 licenses in the 84 megahertz
initial clearing target scenario. The same is true for
all but 53 in the 114 megahertz scenario and all but
47 in the 126 megahertz scenario. The total number
of PEAs is 416, but the simulations results evaluate
only impairments that affect the 406 PEAs in the
continental United States. See generally Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau Provides Details
About Partial Economic Areas, GN Docket No. 12–
268, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 6491 (June 2, 2014).
Further, under this scenario, of the 2,654 Category
1 licenses, 2,535 are entirely free of impairments
(i.e. zero percent of the weighted-pops in the PEA
are impaired). In Scenario 2, of the 3,469 Category
1 licenses, 3,334 are entirely free of impairments
and in Scenario 3, of the 3,886 Category 1 licenses,
3,753 are entirely free of impairments. Once again,
these totals reflect only those licenses that would
be offered in the continental U.S. that are subject
to impairments.
16 In addition, the simulation results reflect that
protecting the duplex gap at lower participation
scenarios would result in the selection of lower
clearing targets.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 May 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau and the Incentive Auction Task
Force.17
A. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose
Proceeding
7. Pursuant to § 1.1200(a) of the
Commission’s rules, this matter shall be
treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’
proceeding in accordance with the
Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file
a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine
period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with rule
§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule § 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a
17 47
PO 00000
CFR 0.31, 0.51, 0.61, 0.131.
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30023
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
B. Paperwork Reduction Analysis
8. This document does not change, or
propose to change, the information
collection requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(‘‘PRA’’), Public Law 104–13, contained
in the Incentive Auction R&O.18 As a
result, no new submission to the Office
of Management and Budget is necessary
to comply with the PRA requirements.
In addition, it does not contain any new
or modified ‘‘information collection
burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to
the Small Business Paperwork Relief
Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
9. The actions in this document have
not changed, or proposed to change, the
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(‘‘FRFA’’), which was set forth in the
Incentive Auction R&O.19 Thus, no
supplemental FRFA is necessary.
Federal Communications Commission.
Roger Sherman,
Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
18 See Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at
6893, paras. 808–09.
19 See Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at
6893, para. 807.
E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM
26MYP1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30024
VerDate Sep<11>2014
I.
Overview
Nationwide
PEA Analysis
High-Demand Markets**
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Scenario
Clearing
(MHz)
Nationwide
Impairment Nationwide
Threshold
Impairment
Number
Number of
Licenses
Number of Unimpaired Number of Not
Category 1 Category 1 Category2 Offered
Number
Number
of
Number of
Licenses
Category Unimpaired Numberof Not
1
Category 1 Category2 Offered
Number of
PEAs with
only
Categoryl
Number of
PEAs
Nationwide
With less
Licenses in
High-
Licenses
Nationwide
Number of
PEAs With
Number of
PEAs with
only
Categoryl
Than 3 Blocks Demand
Available
Markets
Less Than
3Biocks
Available
in HighDemand
Markets
1 (40-50%
participation)
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
84
14%
13.1%
2654
2535
46
142
247
222
9
24
344
12
29
3
84
14%
16.7%*
2631
2500
50
161
241
224
9
30
334
17
27
4
114
11%
9.1%
3469
3334
50
135
329
302
13
18
353
9
32
1
114
11%
11.5%*
3434
3282
56
164
321
298
17
22
339
11
29
2
126
10%
4.1%
3886
3753
48
126
373
355
13
14
359
10
32
2
126
10%
4.4%
3884
3750
45
131
373
355
12
15
358
10
32
2
1 (40-50%
participation;
protecting
Duplex Gap
2 (50-60%
participation)
E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM
participation;
26MYP1
2 (50-60%
protecting DG)
protecting DG)
3 (60-70%
participation)
3 (60-70%
participation;
* The highlighted cells indicate impairment that exceeds the standard considered so these clearing targets would not be chosen and the
initial clearing target would be lowered.
**"High-demand markets" is defined as the 40 largest PEAs by population.
EP26MY15.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
15:06 May 22, 2015
Appendix
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 235001
Number of Licenses Available in the Forward Auction Nationwide and in High-Demand Markets (Not Protecting the
Duplex Gap)
PO 00000
Number of Licenses: Nationwide
Number of Licenses: High-Demand Markets
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
"'
5I
Sfmt 4725
..
c
"
·s
...
0
E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM
26MYP1
• Category 2
Offered
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
15:06 May 22, 2015
II.
30025
EP26MY15.001</GPH>
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30026
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 235001
Weighted MHz Available in the Forward Auction Nationwide and in High-Demand Markets (Not Protecting the
Duplex Gap)
PO 00000
Weighted MHz: Nationwide
Weighted MHz: High-Demand Markets
Frm 00039
uo
120
110 '·······································································································································································································································································
110
Fmt 4702
N
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM
26MYP1
EP26MY15.002</GPH>
N
:z:
:z:
:i!
.E
.!!!'
...
::
.!!!'
:i!
...
..,
$
.z::
...
::
•
1
• Category 2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
15:06 May 22, 2015
III.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 235001
Weighted MHz-Pops Available in the Forward Auction Nationwide and in High-Demand Markets (Not Protecting the
Duplex Gap)
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Weighted MHz-Pops: Nationwide
Weighted MHz-Pops: High-Demand Markets
J
"'
~
il
il
Fmt 4702
N
N
Sfmt 4725
::z::
::z::
...
:iE
.,
.
.E
E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM
..
3$
~
:iE
15
~
.!!!'
...
3$
26MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
15:06 May 22, 2015
IV.
30027
EP26MY15.003</GPH>
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:06 May 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM
26MYP1
New York, NY
los
N
Los ~nge 1es,
CA
VI
n
Baltimore,
I'D
:::J
I»
Boston, MA
Dallas, TX
'0""
-·
N
..
Miami, FL
Houston, TX
Atlanta, GA
"'tt
'0"
"
Detroit, Ml
-a
Orlando, FL
Cleveland, OH
0
Ul
a.J
'"
-·
0"
Dallas, TX
..
Miami, FL
Houston, TX
Atlanta, GA
~
"'tt
'""
Detroit, Ml
0
-a
Orlando, FL
Cleveland, OH
0
Ul
I'D
Q.
l>
'""
0
I»
• •
n
n
-OJ
z
0
=
"0
~
.....
(')
0
""'l
.,=
"'
0
.....
.....
~
(')
...
=
.....
=0
=
"0
(JCi
~
~
~
~
-a
-a
'""
Denver, CO
n
:::r
Jll
0
(1)
01:>
0
OJ
(1)
01:>
0
< <
,_,.
< <
....
N
(j
n
:::r
0
"0
I»
• •
n
n
,..,.
OJ
"0
0
-a
-a
Denver, CO
(1)
I'D
:::J
l>
CA
Portl.:md, OR
01:>
0
VI
n
Baltimore, MD· ..
PA
Boston, MA
Q.
San
<"+
""""
IL
San Francisco, CA
I'D
Phoenix, AZ
Seattle, WA
Minneapolis-St...
OJ
~.~
~
-.
=
.,
...
"'
=
c.
""'l
z
a
~
~
0
(1)
0
(1)
"""'l
.,
~
.,
0
~
Los Angeles, CA -
VI
San Francisco, CA
n
I'D
:::J
Baltimore,
Philadelphia, PA
a.J
-·
'""
0
- - - OU'-'
--
San Francisco, CA
Baltimore, MD-..
PA
Boston, MA
Dallas, TX
N
..
l>
FL
Houston, TX
Atlanta, GA
::;'
I'D
'""
a.J
:::J
.....
Miami~
Detroit, Ml
FL
Cleveland, OH
c:·
Ill
(1)
OQ
0
Ill
fti
01::1
0
< <
z
0
<"+
0
=I<
!:!:
'""
-·
l>
.....
-
0
I'D
'""
.....
::::1
I»
(')
0
...
(')
~
=
"'
"'
~
>
e:.
<
s·
~
0"
~
.....
=....,
-a
"0
"'C
Denver, CO
a.J
• n
•
n
a.J
>
=
.....
...
=
r
l>
l>
n
:::r
I'D
:::J
c::-
-a
-a
'""
n
I'D
I'D
0
VI
• •
n
'""
0
a.J
n
:::r
"'
fti
01::1
0
~
0
N
0
"'=
t'l'j
>
"'
<
,_,.
30028
los Amreles, CA
Q.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
EP26MY15.004</GPH>
~
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
15:06 May 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
en
n
tD
:J
aJ
....
-·
0
w
..
E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM
26MYP1
Boston, MA
"tti
....
0
"C
0
U'l
tD
a..
J>
"C
"C
....
0
aJ
• •
n
w
Q
,...,
cRl
0
n
- sg
:J"
z
('!)
Ci:l
0
< <
....,.
""
ro
..,
ro
0.
Los
en
n
San Francisco, CA
Baltimore,
Philadelphia, PA
Boston, MA
tD
:J
aJ
....
-·
w
0
Dallas, TX
..
J>
;:;'
tD
....
:J
aJ
c:·
""
tD
J>
"C
"C
0
aJ
n
....
• •
n
....,.
:J"
"'
Iii
Ci:l
0
<
"'
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Chica,go, ll
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
EP26MY15.005</GPH>
Los
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
30029
30030
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules
allow 30 days for posting of comments
submitted by mail).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Johnson, telephone 571–372–
6176.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
48 CFR Parts 204, 232, 239, and
Appendix F to Chapter 2
RIN 0750–AI54
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement: Uniform
Procurement Identification (DFARS
Case 2015–D011)
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
DoD is proposing to amend
the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to
comply with the uniform procurement
identification procedures implemented
in the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR).
SUMMARY:
Comments on the proposed rule
should be submitted in writing to the
address shown below on or before July
27, 2015, to be considered in the
formation of a final rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
identified by DFARS Case 2015–D011,
using any of the following methods:
Æ Regulations.gov: https://
www.regulations.gov. Submit comments
via the Federal eRulemaking portal by
entering ‘‘DFARS Case 2015–D011’’
under the heading ‘‘Enter keyword or
ID’’ and selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the
link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that
corresponds with ‘‘DFARS Case 2015–
D011.’’ Follow the instructions provided
at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen.
Please include your name, company
name (if any), and ‘‘DFARS Case 2015–
D011’’ on your attached document.
Æ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include
DFARS Case 2015–D011 in the subject
line of the message.
Æ Fax: 571–372–6094.
Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Jennifer
Johnson, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS,
Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301–3060.
Comments received generally will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. To
confirm receipt of your comment(s),
please check www.regulations.gov,
approximately two to three days after
submission to verify posting (except
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:06 May 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I. Background
BILLING CODE 6712–01–C
subject to review under section 6(b) of
E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, dated September 30, 1993. This
rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C.
804.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 2015–12806 Filed 5–22–15; 8:45 am]
DoD does not expect this proposed
rule to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities within the meaning of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
et seq., because the rule implements
procurement instrument identification
procedures that are similar to
procedures DoD has used for many
years. However, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis has been performed
and is summarized as follows:
DoD is proposing to amend the
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
Supplement (DFARS) to comply with
the uniform procurement identification
procedures implemented in the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) through
final FAR rule 2012–023.
Final FAR rule 2012–023
implemented a uniform award
identification system among various
procurement transactions across the
Federal Government, as recommended
by the Government Accountability and
Transparency Board. DFARS coverage of
uniform procurement identification
must be synchronized with the FAR
coverage so that the identification
numbers of DoD-issued contracts,
orders, and other procurement
instruments will comply with FAR
subpart 4.16 as amended by final rule
2012–023.
DoD does not expect this rule to have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. The
proposed rule affects all DoD
contractors who will receive new task or
delivery orders against DoD-issued
contracts, purchase orders, calls against
DoD-issued blanket purchase
agreements, orders against DoD-issued
basic ordering agreements, and certain
types of contracts beginning in fiscal
year 2016. At this time, the exact
number of small entities is unknown.
The projected recordkeeping is
limited to that required to properly
record contract and other procurement
instrument identification numbers and
input them in documents (e.g., invoices)
as required under Government
contracts. Preparation of these records
requires clerical and analytical skills to
create the documents and input them
into the appropriate electronic systems.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap,
or conflict with any other Federal rules.
DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS
to comply with the uniform
procurement identification procedures
implemented in the FAR through final
rule 2012–023 (79 FR 61739, effective
November 13, 2014). The final FAR rule
implemented a uniform award
identification system among various
procurement transactions across the
Federal Government, as recommended
by the Government Accountability and
Transparency Board. DFARS coverage of
uniform procurement identification
must be synchronized with the FAR
coverage so that the identification
numbers of DoD-issued contracts,
orders, and other procurement
instruments will comply with FAR
subpart 4.16 as amended by final FAR
rule 2012–023.
II. Discussion
This rule proposes to make the
following amendments to the DFARS
and its Appendix F:
• Subpart 204.70, Uniform
Procurement Instrument Identification
Numbers, is amended to relocate all text
to subpart 204.16 and to revise the
relocated text to comply with FAR
subpart 4.16. Subpart 204.70 is reserved.
• Subpart 232.9, Prompt Payment, is
amended to clarify the task and delivery
order numbers for use on invoices and
receiving reports.
• Subpart 239.74,
Telecommunications Services, is
amended to remove text on the type of
procurement instrument.
• Appendix F, Material Inspection
and Receiving Report, is amended to
clarify the task and delivery order
numbers for use on receiving reports.
III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and
13563 direct agencies to assess all costs
and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This is not a significant
regulatory action and, therefore, was not
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26MYP1.SGM
26MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30021-30030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12806]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 27, and 73
[AU Docket No. 14-252; GN Docket No. 12-268; DA 15-606]
Incentive Auction Task Force Releases Initial Clearing Target
Optimization Simulations
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Incentive Auction Task Force provides the results of
several staff simulations of the initial clearing target optimization
procedure proposed in the Auction 1000 Comment PN and/or Comment PN as
discussed further in this under the Supplementary Information. In this
document, the Federal Communications Commission's (Commission)
Incentive Auction Task Force seeks comment on the data and analyses
released in this document and the attached Appendix.
DATES: Submit comments on or before June 3, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the docket numbers in
this proceeding, AU Docket No. 14-252 and GN Docket No. 12-268, by any
of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS): https://fcc.gov/ecfs//. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail): Federal Communications Commission,
9300 East Hampton Dr., Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service (First-class, Express, and Priority):
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St. SW., Washington, DC
20554.
Hand-delivered/Courier: Federal Communications Commission,
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
document. All comments received will be posted without change to ECFS
at https://fcc.gov/ecfs//, including any personal information provided.
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: This document is in AU Docket No. 14-252 and GN Docket No. 12-
268. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments
received, go to ECFS at https://fcc.gov/ecfs//.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madelaine Maior of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at (202) 418-1466 or
email to madelaine.maior@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Documents
FCC Information relating to the Incentive Auction will be posted to
and available on the LEARN Web site at: https://www.fcc.gov/learn. This
document was released on May 20, 2015, and is available electronically
at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-15-606A1.pdf and
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-15-606A2.pdf. The
complete text of this document as well as any comments and ex parte
submissions will also be available for public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference Center (CY-A257) at the Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
These documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft
Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
Public Participation
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before
the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be
filed using the Commission's ECFS. See Electronic Filing of Documents
in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
original and one copy of each filing. If more than one active docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier,
or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings
must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
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), or 202-
418-0432 (tty).
I. Synopsis
1. The clearing target selection procedure proposed in the Auction
1000 Comment PN \1\ would, inter alia, impose a nationwide cap on
impairments.\2\ To
[[Page 30022]]
conduct the simulations, the staff applied the clearing target
selection procedure proposed in the Auction 1000 Comment PN,\3\ with
the following exceptions reflecting the range of comments in response
to the Comment PN. Instead of accommodating impairments up to 20
percent, the simulations apply a standard of up to (but not equal to)
the equivalent of one license block nationwide, as measured by weighted
population (``weighted-pops'').\4\ The simulations also apply equal
weighting to impairments regardless of whether they are in the uplink
or downlink portion of the band.\5\ The data and information we release
are illustrative only.\6\ The Commission will adopt final decisions
regarding the proposed initial clearing target selection procedure in a
forthcoming Auction 1000 Procedures PN.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Comment Sought on Competitive Bidding Procedures for
Broadcast Incentive Auction 1000, Including Auctions 1001 and 1002,
GN Docket No. 12-268, AU Docket No. 14-252, Public Notice, FCC 14-
191, 29 FCC Rcd 15750 (Dec. 17, 2014) (``Auction 1000 Comment PN''
or ``Comment PN'').
\2\ Impairments are the result of assigning TV stations to
channels in the 600 MHz Band in order to accommodate market
variation. Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of
Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, GN Docket No. 12-268, Report
and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6567, 6604-6607, paras. 81-87 (2014)
(``Incentive Auction R&O''). See Expanding the Economic and
Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, GN
Docket No. 12-268, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 13071 (2014) (adopting methodology
for use during the incentive auction to predict inter-service
interference between impairing TV stations and licensed wireless
services in the 600 MHz Band).
\3\ Auction 1000 Comment PN, 29 FCC Rcd at 15762-69, paras. 27-
45.
\4\ ``Weighted-pops'' refers to the proposed approach of
weighting the population in a given PEA based on an index of area-
specific prices from prior auctions and counting population in each
block in the PEA. See id., 29 FCC Rcd at 15766-67, para. 38, 15803,
paras. 162-63. The standard applied in the simulations would allow
impairments at a smaller percentage of impaired weighted-pops at
higher clearing targets and a larger percentage of impaired
weighted-pops at lower clearing targets. We note that ``the
equivalent of one block nationwide'' does not mean that one block
would be impaired in each market, but rather that the total number
of impaired weighted-pops cannot exceed the equivalent weighted-pops
of one block nationwide in the aggregate. For example, under the
clearing targets and associated band plans adopted in the Incentive
Auction R&O, the equivalent of one block under an 84 megahertz
clearing target would be approximately 14 percent of total weighted-
pops nationwide, the equivalent of one block under a 114 megahertz
clearing target would be approximately 11 percent, and the
equivalent of one block under a 126 megahertz clearing target would
be 10 percent.
\5\ This variation from the Comment PN eliminates the proposed
weighting on impairments in the downlink band, under which a
downlink impairment would be counted as impairing the corresponding
uplink band, but an uplink impairment would not be counted as
impairing the corresponding downlink band. Auction 1000 Comment PN,
29 FCC Rcd at 15762, para. 29. We also note that the simulations
apply a 10 percent standard for treating a county's entire
population as impaired for the purposes of applying the primary
objective; the Comment PN proposed a range between 10 and 20
percent. See id.
\6\ See Incentive Auction Task Force Releases Updated Constraint
File Data Using Actual Channels and Staff Analysis Regarding
Pairwise Approach to Preserving Population Served, GN Docket No. 12-
268, ET Docket No. 13-26, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 5687, 5687 (June
2, 2014) (``Aggregate Interference PN'').
\7\ Auction 1000 Comment PN, 29 FCC Rcd at 15753-54, para. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. In order to conduct the simulations released with this document,
the staff had to make certain assumptions about protection of foreign
TV stations. With respect to Canada, the simulations assume for
illustrative purposes only that the Commission will not need to protect
vacant allotments in Canada's TV bands, an option put forth in Industry
Canada's Consultation on Repurposing the 600 MHz Band proceeding.\8\
Mexico has not yet put forward any public plans for repurposing the 600
MHz Band; as a result, for purposes of these simulations all Mexican
allotments are protected.\9\ Due to insufficient data at this time, the
simulations do not reflect any interference from Mexican TV stations
into the United States.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ We emphasize that this proposal remains pending and has not
been adopted by Industry Canada. We also note that, although
Canada's Consultation indicates it is considering pursuing a joint
repacking plan with the United States, for purposes of the
simulations we do not assume a joint repacking plan. See
Consultation on Repurposing the 600 MHz Band, Spectrum Management
and Telecommunications, Industry Canada, SLPB-005-14, para. 41 (rel.
December 18, 2014), https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10891.html (``Consultation on Repurposing the 600 MHz Band'').
\9\ See Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6677-80, paras.
246-57.
\10\ We anticipate the Commission will have the data necessary
to make these calculations in advance of the incentive auction,
however. We note that including the predicted interference from
Mexican stations would increase the impairment level in each of the
scenarios. The simulations do reflect predicted interference from
Canadian TV stations into the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The simulations released with this document reflect three
different illustrative broadcaster participation scenarios: (1)
Participation by between 40 and 50 percent of broadcast stations; (2)
participation between 50 and 60 percent; and (3) participation between
60 and 70 percent. We emphasize that these simulations model only the
number of spectrum blocks that would be available under various initial
clearing targets that would be feasible based on broadcaster
participation in the auction. The simulations reflect no assumptions
about auction outcomes in terms of which reverse auction participants
would be selected as winning bidders, the winning bid amounts, the
total proceeds of the forward auction, or whether the Commission would
be able to close the auction at the initial clearing target.
4. For each of the three broadcaster participation scenarios, the
Appendix provides information on the number of spectrum blocks that
would be offered in the forward auction in each proposed license
category (including totals nationwide, in the high-demand markets,\11\
and by Partial Economic Area or ``PEA''), and the same breakdown
showing the total weighted-pops for the licenses in each category.
Under each scenario, the Appendix also shows results based on two
approaches to assigning impairing stations to the 600 MHz Band: (1) The
approach proposed in the Comment PN, under which the optimization
software assigns stations within the 600 MHz Band so as to minimize
impaired weighted-pops; and (2) an alternative approach that minimizes
impaired weighted-pops but restricts the software from assigning
stations to channels that could impair the duplex gap.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``High-demand markets'' is defined as the 40 largest PEAs
by population. Auction 1000 Comment PN, 29 FCC Rcd at 15770, para.
51. These markets are considered high demand because the geographic
areas they cover have usually generated the highest average prices
per MHz-pop in prior spectrum license auctions and accounted for a
substantial fraction of total auction revenues. Id.
\12\ Auction 1000 Comment PN, 29 FCC Rcd at 15765-66, paras. 35-
36. The Appendix refers to (1) as ``protecting the duplex gap'' and
the alternative approach as ``not protecting the duplex gap.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. The simulations indicate that the procedure proposed in the
Comment PN for setting the initial clearing target, with the
modifications described above, results in the selection of an initial
clearing target of 84 megahertz in a scenario where 40 to 50 percent of
broadcasters participate in the reverse auction (Scenario 1); an
initial clearing target of 114 megahertz in a scenario where 50 to 60
percent participate (Scenario 2); and an initial clearing target of 126
megahertz in a scenario where 60 to 70 percent participate (Scenario
3). Under each scenario, the vast majority of the licenses offered in
the band plan associated with eachclearing target are Category 1
licenses.\13\ In Scenario 1, of the 2,842 possible
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ In each of the simulations, at least 93.4 percent of
licenses are Category 1 licenses, and Category 2 licenses comprise
at most 1.3 percent of total possible licenses. Under the Comment PN
proposal, ``Category 1'' licenses are licenses that contain
impairments affecting between zero and 15 percent of the population
in a PEA, ``Category 2'' licenses are licenses that contain
impairments affecting greater than 15 percent but less than or equal
to 50 percent of the population, and licenses with impairments
affecting more than 50 percent of the population would not be
offered in the auction. See Auction 1000 Comment PN, 29 FCC Rcd at
15797-98, paras. 145-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30023]]
licenses,\14\ only 46 are Category 2 licenses. For Scenario 2, of the
3,654 possible licenses, only 50 are Category 2 licenses. And for
Scenario 3, of the 4,060 possible licenses, only 48 are Category 2
licenses. In all three scenarios, 88 to 93 percent of the licenses in
the high-demand markets are Category 1 licenses and 84 to 88 percent of
PEAs contain only Category 1 licenses.\15\ The results also reflect
that, in lower broadcaster participation scenarios, excluding stations
altogether from the duplex gap would increase the number of Category 2
licenses and heavily impaired licenses that the Commission proposed not
to offer in the incentive auction.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ We note that for purposes of this impairment analysis, the
total number of licenses analyzed at each clearing target level
includes only those licenses that could be offered in the
continental United States.
\15\ For example, out of 406 PEAs, all but 62 will have only
Category 1 licenses in the 84 megahertz initial clearing target
scenario. The same is true for all but 53 in the 114 megahertz
scenario and all but 47 in the 126 megahertz scenario. The total
number of PEAs is 416, but the simulations results evaluate only
impairments that affect the 406 PEAs in the continental United
States. See generally Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Provides
Details About Partial Economic Areas, GN Docket No. 12-268, Public
Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 6491 (June 2, 2014). Further, under this
scenario, of the 2,654 Category 1 licenses, 2,535 are entirely free
of impairments (i.e. zero percent of the weighted-pops in the PEA
are impaired). In Scenario 2, of the 3,469 Category 1 licenses,
3,334 are entirely free of impairments and in Scenario 3, of the
3,886 Category 1 licenses, 3,753 are entirely free of impairments.
Once again, these totals reflect only those licenses that would be
offered in the continental U.S. that are subject to impairments.
\16\ In addition, the simulation results reflect that protecting
the duplex gap at lower participation scenarios would result in the
selection of lower clearing targets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Procedural Matters
6. This document is being issued pursuant to sections 0.31, 0.51,
0.61, and 0.131 of the Commission's rules by the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau and the Incentive Auction Task Force.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 47 CFR 0.31, 0.51, 0.61, 0.131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding
7. Pursuant to Sec. 1.1200(a) of the Commission's rules, this
matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in
accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex
parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule Sec.
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule Sec. 1.49(f) or for which
the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
B. Paperwork Reduction Analysis
8. This document does not change, or propose to change, the
information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (``PRA''), Public Law 104-13, contained in the Incentive
Auction R&O.\18\ As a result, no new submission to the Office of
Management and Budget is necessary to comply with the PRA requirements.
In addition, it does not contain any new or modified ``information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6893, paras. 808-
09.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
9. The actions in this document have not changed, or proposed to
change, the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``FRFA''), which was
set forth in the Incentive Auction R&O.\19\ Thus, no supplemental FRFA
is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Incentive Auction R&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 6893, para. 807.
Federal Communications Commission.
Roger Sherman,
Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[[Page 30024]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY15.000
[[Page 30025]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY15.001
[[Page 30026]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY15.002
[[Page 30027]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY15.003
[[Page 30028]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY15.004
[[Page 30029]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY15.005
[[Page 30030]]
[FR Doc. 2015-12806 Filed 5-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-C
