12088 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 76 

[MB Docket No. 05–311; FCC 15–3] 

Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of 

the Cable Communications Policy Act 

of 1984 as Amended by the Cable 

Television Consumer Protection and 

Competition Act of 1992 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; petition for 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘we’’) respond to 

Petitions for Reconsideration of the 

Second Report and Order, interpreting 

Section 621 of the Communications Act 

of 1934, which deals with local 

franchising of cable companies. We 

clarify the applicability of the Second 

Report and Order in states that have 

state-level franchising, grant the request 

that we reconsider our Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis to align with the 

text of the Second Report and Order, 

and deny the petitions in all other 

respects. 

DATES: Effective April 6, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Brendan Murray, 

Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov, of the Media 

Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–1573 

or Holly Saurer, Holly.Saurer@fcc.gov, 

of the Media Bureau, (202) 418–7283. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order on 

Reconsideration, FCC 15–3, adopted on 

January 20, 2015 and released on 

January 21, 2015. The full text of these 

documents is available for public 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY– 

A257, Washington, DC, 20554. These 

documents will also be available via 

ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). 

(Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ 

or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text 

may be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. To request these 

documents in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an email to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). 

Summary of the Order on 

Reconsideration 

1. In the Order on Reconsideration 

(‘‘Order’’), we respond to several 

Petitions for Reconsideration. 

Petitioners sought reconsideration of 

our rulings regarding most favored 

nation (MFN) clauses, in-kind 

payments, mixed-use networks, and the 

applicability of the Second Report and 

Order, 72 FR 65670, November 23, 2007, 

to state level franchising. They also 

brought to our attention an 

inconsistency between the rules 

adopted and the rules analyzed in the 

accompanying Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (‘‘FRFA’’). We 

reaffirm that (1) prior rulings were 

intended to apply only to the local 

franchising process, and not to 

franchising laws or decisions at the state 

level; (2) MFN clauses are contractual 

terms that are not affected by any of the 

Commission’s prior findings; and (3) 

‘‘in-kind’’ payments—non-cash 

payments, such as goods, or services— 

count toward the five percent franchise 

fee cap for incumbent operators and 

new entrants. We decline to modify our 

conclusions regarding mixed-use 

networks. We grant Petitioner’s request 

that we depart from our Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis and submit a 

revised FRFA in order to comply with 

the mandates of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

I. Background 

2. In the Cable Communications 

Policy Act of 1984, Congress added 

section 621(a)(1) to the Communications 

Act. That section requires a local 

franchise for the provision of cable 

service. A local franchising authority 

(‘‘LFA’’) may not grant an exclusive 

franchise and may not unreasonably 

refuse to award an additional 

competitive franchise. Section 621 

prohibits a cable franchise authority 

from prohibiting, limiting, or restricting 

the provision of telecommunications 

service by a cable operator. Congress, in 

enacting this section, sought to enhance 

cable competition and accelerate 

broadband deployment. 

3. In 2007, the Commission adopted 

the First Report and Order and Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 72 FR 

13189, March 21, 2007, to implement 

section 621(a)(1). The order adopted 

rules and provided guidance to ensure 

that LFAs do not unreasonably refuse to 

award competitive franchises for the 

provision of cable services. The First 

Report and Order found that certain 

LFA practices violated section 621(a)(1) 

by: (1) Failing to issue a decision on a 

competitive application within the 

order’s specified timeframes; (2) failing 

to grant a franchise when an applicant 

did not agree to unreasonable build-out 

mandates; (3) refusing to grant a 

competitive franchise when an 

applicant did not agree to impermissible 

franchise fee requirements; (4) denying 

applications based on a new entrant’s 

refusal to undertake certain obligations 

relating to public, educational, and 

government channels (‘‘PEG’’), and 

institutional networks (‘‘I-Nets’’); and 

(5) refusing to grant a franchise based on 

issues related to non-cable services or 

facilities. The Commission issued a 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(‘‘FNPRM’’) for comment on whether or 

not these findings should be made 

applicable to incumbent providers and 

how that should be done. 

4. In the Second Report and Order, 

the Commission determined that the 

prior findings involving franchise fees 

relied on statutory provisions that did 

not distinguish between incumbents 

and new entrants, and therefore should 

be applicable to incumbent operators. 

The Commission also determined that 

most favored nation clauses would 

provide some franchisees the option and 

ability to adjust their existing 

obligations if and when a competing 

provider obtains more favorable 

franchise provisions. Petitioners sought 

reconsideration of these rulings and 

brought to our attention an 

inconsistency between the rules 

adopted and the rules analyzed in the 

accompanying Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (‘‘FRFA’’). We 

respond to those petitions in the Order. 

II. Discussion 

A. State Level Franchising 

5. Petitioners request clarification 

regarding whether the Second Report 

and Order applies to state level 

franchises. We clarify that the prior 

rulings were intended to apply only to 

the local franchising process, and not to 

franchising laws or decisions at the state 

level. The First Report and Order stated 

that its rulings were limited to 

competitive franchises ‘‘at the local 

level,’’ as the Commission did not have 

a sufficient record to determine what 

constitutes an ‘‘unreasonable refusal to 

award an additional competitive 

franchise’’ with respect to franchising 

decisions where a state is involved 

versus a local franchising authority. The 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Sixth Circuit agreed, holding that the 

Commission, in the First Report and 

Order, did not to preempt state law, 

state-level franchising decisions, or 

local franchising decisions authorized 

by state law because the Commission 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12089 

lacked the information necessary to 

evaluate state-level franchising laws. 

6. In both the FNPRM and the Second 

Report and Order, the Commission 

expressed its intent to extend the First 

Report and Order’s rulings to incumbent 

cable operators, but said nothing about 

extending those rulings to state-level 

franchising laws. The State of Hawaii 

argues that because the Commission did 

not address this issue in the Second 

Report and Order, it did not apply its 

findings to state-level franchising. Both 

NCTA and Verizon argue that the 

Commission unambiguously applied the 

Second Report and Order’s findings to 

state-level franchising because it stated 

that the statutory interpretations at issue 

in the proceeding are ‘‘valid throughout 

the nation.’’ The Commission reaffirms 

that it did not extend those rulings in 

the Second Report and Order to statelevel franchising laws or decisions. 

B. Most Favored Nation Clauses and 

Disruption of Existing Contracts 

7. Petitioners argue that the 

Commission’s conclusions on MFN 

clauses are inconsistent with our 

preemption of level playing field 

regulations in the First Report and 

Order. NCTA counters that the 

decisions on MFN clauses should not be 

reconsidered because of their procompetitive and public policy purposes. 

NATOA disagrees with that assertion 

because both the Department of Justice 

and the Federal Trade Commission have 

labeled MFN clauses as ‘‘anticompetitive’’ in certain instances. We 

decline to modify the conclusions 

concerning MFN clauses and disruption 

of existing contracts. In the Second 

Report and Order the Commission 

concluded that the determinations in 

the First Report and Order may allow 

competitive providers to enter markets 

with franchise provisions more 

favorable than those of the incumbent 

provider, and expected that MFN 

clauses, ‘‘pursuant to the operation of 

their own design, will provide some 

franchisees the option and ability to 

change provisions of their existing 

agreements.’’ We reaffirm the prior 

conclusion that MFN clauses are 

contractual terms that are not affected 

by any of the Commission’s findings in 

the First Report and Order. 

C. In-Kind Payments 

8. LFAs petitioned for reconsideration 

of the inclusion of in-kind payments in 

calculating the franchise fee cap, 

arguing that the Commission’s 

determinations give an overly expansive 

scope of section 622(g)(2)(D), which 

exempts ‘‘charges incidental to the 

awarding or enforcing of the franchise’’ 

from the five percent franchise fee cap 

and also expand the definition of inkind payments in the First Report and 

Order. We disagree with Petitioners and 

adhere to our previous conclusions in 

the Second Report and Order. In the 

First Report and Order, the Commission 

interpreted Section 622, which limits 

the amount of franchise fees that an LFA 

may collect from a cable operator to five 

percent of the cable operator’s gross 

revenues, subject to certain exceptions 

in subsection (g). The Commission 

concluded that in-kind payments count 

toward the five percent franchise fee 

cap. In the Second Report and Order, 

the Commission concluded that its 

interpretation of Section 622 ‘‘applies to 

both incumbent operators and new 

entrants.’’ 

9. We disagree with the Petitioners 

that the Commission’s interpretation of 

the phrase ‘‘incidental to’’ in section 

622(g)(2)(D) goes beyond or is 

inconsistent with our interpretation in 

the First Report and Order. The 

Commission concluded in the first order 

that that the term ‘‘incidental’’ in 

section 622(g)(2)(D) should be limited to 

the list of incidental charges provided in 

the statute, as well as other minor 

expenses. The Commission examined 

the existing case law under section 

622(g)(2)(D) and determined that certain 

fees are not necessarily to be regarded 

as ‘‘incidental’’ and thus exempt from 

the five percent franchise fee cap. The 

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld 

this interpretation. The Commission’s 

interpretation of section 622(g)(2)(D) in 

the Second Report and Order mirrors, 

and does not expand, the interpretation 

in the First Report and Order. 

10. Further, we disagree with 

Petitioners that the First Report and 

Order limited the exemption of in-kind 

payments only when such in-kind 

payments are unrelated to cable service. 

The First Report and Order identified 

‘‘free or discounted services provided to 

an LFA’’ as one type of ‘‘nonincidental’’ cost that counted toward the 

franchise fee cap. In that context, the 

Commission was referring to free or 

discounted cable services. The Sixth 

Circuit also referenced these different 

types of in-kind payments separately 

when it upheld the FCC’s interpretation 

of the five percent cap on fees. For these 

reasons, we reaffirm our conclusion that 

in-kind payments count toward the five 

percent franchise fee cap. 

D. Mixed Use Networks 

11. Petitioners argue that the Second 

Report and Order’s findings that LFA 

jurisdiction is limited to cable service is 

incorrect, as the Act ‘‘recognizes local 

authority with respect to ‘cable systems’ 

or ‘cable operators’ without restriction 

to ‘cable service.’ ’’ We adhere to our 

previous determination on this issue. 

The Commission’s First Report and 

Order and the Second Report and Order 

make clear that LFAs may not use their 

franchising authority to regulate noncable services provided by either an 

incumbent or new entrant. As 

petitioners have not raised any new 

arguments, we reaffirm the prior 

conclusion. 

E. Conclusion 

12. We reaffirm that (1) prior rulings 

were intended to apply only to the local 

franchising process, and not to 

franchising laws or decisions at the state 

level; (2) MFN clauses are contractual 

terms that are not affected by any of the 

Commission’s prior findings; and (3) 

‘‘in-kind’’ payments—non-cash 

payments, such as goods, or services— 

count toward the five percent franchise 

fee cap for incumbent operators and 

new entrants. We decline to modify our 

conclusions regarding mixed-use 

networks. We grant Petitioner’s request 

that we depart from our Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis and submit a 

revised FRFA in order to comply with 

the mandates of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

III. Procedural Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 

13. The Order does not contain new 

or modified information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (‘‘PRA’’), Public 

Law 104–13. In addition, we note there 

is no new or modified ‘‘information 

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). 

B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

14. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, the Commission has 

prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) relating to the 

Report and Order. 

C. Congressional Review Act 

15. The Commission will send a copy 

of this Order on Reconsideration in a 

report to be send to Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

IV. Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

16. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
12090 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

FNPRM. The Commission sought 

written public comment on the 

proposals in the FNPRM, including 

comment on the IRFA. The Commission 

received one comment on the IRFA. 

Subsequently, the Commission adopted 

a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(‘‘FRFA’’) in the Second Report and 

Order in this proceeding. Following the 

release of the Second Report and Order, 

petitioners sought reconsideration of the 

FRFA based on an inconsistency 

between the rules adopted and the rules 

analyzed in the accompanying FRFA. 

As explained in the Order, we submit 

this Supplemental Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis to reflect the rules 

adopted in the Second Report and Order 

and to conform to the RFA. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Second Report and Order 

17. The need for FCC regulation in 

this area derives from eliminating 

barriers to competitive entry of cable 

operators into local markets. This Order 

extends a number of the rules and 

findings promulgated in the First Report 

and Order dealing with Section 611 and 

Section 622 of the Communications Act 

of 1934. The objectives of the rules we 

adopt are to support a competitive 

market for both new and incumbent 

cable operators to further the 

interrelated goals of enhanced cable 

competition and broadband 

deployment. 

18. Specifically, we reaffirm that (1) 

prior rulings were intended to apply 

only to the local franchising process, 

and not to franchising laws or decisions 

at the state level; (2) most favored nation 

(‘‘MFN’’) clauses are contractual terms 

that are not affected by any of the 

Commission’s prior findings; and (3) 

‘‘in-kind’’ payments—non-cash 

payments, such as goods, or services— 

count toward the five percent franchise 

fee cap for incumbent operators and 

new entrants. We decline to modify our 

conclusions regarding mixed-use 

networks. We grant Petitioner’s request 

that we depart from our Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis and submit a 

revised FRFA in order to comply with 

the mandates of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

by Public Comments in Response to the 

IRFA 

19. Only one commenter, the Local 

Government Lawyer’s Roundtable, 

submitted a comment that specifically 

responded to the IRFA. The Local 

Government Lawyer’s Roundtable 

contends that the Commission should 

issue a revised IRFA because of the 

erroneous determination that the 

proposed rules would have a de 

minimus effect on small governments, 

specifically engendering additional 

training and hiring. 

20. We disagree with the Local 

Government Lawyer’s Roundtable’s 

assertion that our rules will have any 

more than a de minimus effect on small 

governments. LFAs will continue to 

review and decide upon competitive 

and renewal cable franchise 

applications. Additional training and 

hiring of additional personnel is not 

necessary to understand these actions. 

The Order simply extends existing, 

limited requirements, and therefore 

should not need additional training or 

personnel to implement. 

21. After issuing the FRFA in the 

Second Report and Order, the 

Commission received a Petition for 

Reconsideration and Clarification from 

the National Association of 

Telecommunications Officers and 

Advisors (‘‘NATOA’’) et al. regarding 

the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The 

petition repeated the Local Government 

Lawyer’s Roundtable’s arguments, and 

also argued that the Commission failed 

to consider actual alternatives, failed to 

include small organizations in the IRFA, 

and that the FRFA provided an analysis 

of the tentative conclusions set forth in 

the IRFA rather than the rules adopted. 

22. The Commission determined that 

since the findings in the Second Report 

and Order were matters of statutory 

interpretation, the result was statutorily 

mandated regardless of the RFA 

analysis, and that, therefore, no 

meaningful alternatives existed. 

Additionally, we find that the IRFA and 

FRFA discuss the economic impact on 

small entities. No commenter suggested 

that further entities should be 

additionally considered in the analysis. 

However, the Commission does agree 

with the analysis was inadvertently 

based on the tentative conclusions 

presented in the IRFA. In order to 

comply with the mandates of the RFA, 

we are submitting this Supplemental 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to 

correctly reflect the rules adopted in the 

Second Report and Order. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Rules Will Apply 

23.The RFA directs the Commission 

to provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that will be affected by the 

proposed rules. The RFA generally 

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as 

having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ 

and ‘‘small governmental entity’’ under 

Section 3 of the Small Business Act. 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’’). 

24. The rules adopted by the Order 

will streamline the local franchising 

process by adopting rules that provide 

guidance as to the applicability or prior 

findings in this procedure to 

incumbents and the limitations on the 

Commission’s authority regarding 

customer service regulations. The 

Commission has determined that the 

group of small entities directly affected 

by the rules adopted herein consists of 

small governmental entities (which, in 

some cases may be represented in the 

local franchising process by not-forprofit enterprises). Therefore, in this 

SFRFA, we consider the impact of the 

rules on small governmental 

organizations. 

D. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, and Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions 

25.Our action may, over time, affect 

small entities that are not easily 

categorized at present. Small businesses 

represented 99.9% of the 27.5 million 

businesses in the United States in 2009. 

There were 1,621,315 small 

organizations nationwide in 2007, 

which are defined as independently 

owned and operated not-for-profit 

enterprises that are not dominant in 

their perspective fields. Finally, there 

were 89,527 small governmental 

jurisdictions in 2007, which are defined 

as governments of cities, towns and 

other entities with a population of less 

than fifty thousand. 

E. Cable and Other Subscription 

Programming 

26. This category includes 

establishments primarily engaged in 

operating studios and facilities for the 

broadcasting of programs on a 

subscription or fee basis. Census data 

for 2007 shows that there were 396 such 

firms that operated for the entire year. 

Of that number, 349 operated with 

annual revenues below $25 million and 

47 operated with annual revenues of 

$25 million or more. Therefore, under 

this size standard, the majority of such 

businesses can be considered small. 

F. Cable Companies and Systems 

27. The Commission defines a small 

cable company as one that serves 

400,000 or fewer subscribers 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 44 / Friday, March 6, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12091 

nationwide. There are 1,258 cable 

operators—all but 10 incumbent cable 

companies are small under this size 

standard. In addition, the Commission 

defines a small cable system as one that 

serves 15,000 or fewer subscribers. 

There are 4,584 cable systems 

nationwide. Of this total, 4,012 cable 

systems have 20,000 subscribers or 

more. Thus, under this standard, we 

estimate that most cable systems are 

small. 

G. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act 

Standard) 

28. The Communication Act of 1934 

defines a small cable system operator as 

‘‘a cable operator that, directly or 

through an affiliate, serves in the 

aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all 

subscribers in the United States and is 

not affiliated with any entity or entities 

whose gross annual revenues in the 

aggregate exceed $250,000,000.’’ The 

Commission has determined that an 

operator serving fewer than 677,000 

subscribers shall be deemed a small 

operator, if its annual revenues, when 

combined with the total annual 

revenues of all its affiliates, do not 

exceed $250 million in the aggregate. 

Industry data indicate that, of 1,076,934 

cable operators nationwide, all but 13 

are small under this size standard. 

H. Open Video Systems (‘‘OVS’’) 

29. The OVS framework provides 

opportunities for the distribution of 

video programming other than through 

cable systems. Because OVS operators 

provide subscription services, OVS falls 

within the SBA small business size 

standard covering cable services, which 

is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 

A small business in this category is a 

business that has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Census data for 2007 shows 

that there were 3,188 firms that operated 

that year. Of this total, 3,144 had fewer 

than 1,000 employees and 44 had 1,000 

or more employees. Therefore, under 

this size standard, we estimate that a 

majority of businesses can be 

considered small entities. 

I. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

30. The rule and guidance adopted in 

the Order imposes no additional 

reporting or record keeping 

requirements and imposes de minimus 

other compliance requirements. Because 

the rules limit the terms than an LFA 

may consider and impose in a franchise 

agreement, the rules will decrease the 

procedural burdens faced by LFAs. 

Therefore, the rules adopted will not 

require any additional special skills 

beyond any already needed in the cable 

franchising context. 

J. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

31. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

32. In the FNPRM, the Commission 

sought comment on the extension of its 

findings in the First Report and Order 

to incumbent cable operators, and to 

comment on the basis for the 

Commission’s authority to do so. The 

Commission tentatively concluded that 

the rules adopted in the Second Report 

and Order likely would have at most a 

de minimus impact on small 

governmental jurisdictions, and that the 

interrelated, high-priority federal 

communications policy goals of 

enhanced cable competition and 

accelerated broadband deployment 

necessitated the extension of its rules to 

incumbent cable providers. We agree 

with those tentative conclusions and we 

believe that the rules in the Second 

Report and Order will not impose a 

significant impact on any small entity. 

K. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the 

Commission’s Proposals 

33. None. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

34. Accordingly, it is ordered that 

pursuant to the sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303, 

405, 602, 611, 621, 622, 625, 626, and 

632 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 405, 522, 

531, 541, 542, 545, 546, and 552, and 

§ 1.429 of the Commission’s rules, 47 

CFR 1.429, the Order on 

Reconsideration is adopted. 

35. It is further ordered that the 

petitions for reconsideration filed by the 

City of Albuquerque, New Mexico et al, 

the City of Breckenridge Hills, Missouri 

and National Association of 

Telecommunications Officers and 

Advisors, et al. are hereby granted in 

part and denied in part as described 

above. This action is taken pursuant to 

the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 

4(i), 303, 405, 602, 611, 621, 622, 625, 

626, and 632 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

303, 405, 522, 531, 541, 542, 545, 546, 

and 552, and § 1.429 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.429. 

36. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

the Order on Reconsideration, including 

the Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. 

37. It is further ordered that the 

Commission shall send a copy of the 

Order on Reconsideration in a report to 

be sent to Congress and the General 

Accounting Office pursuant to the 

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

801(a)(1)(A). 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05180 Filed 3–5–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES