[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 17, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76016-76020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20979]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[GN Docket No. 20-32; FCC 24-89; FR ID 243903]
Establishing a 5G Fund for Rural America
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) seeks comment on whether to require a winning
bidder in the 5G Fund Phase I auction to demonstrate during the long-
form application process that it has obtained the consent of the
relevant Tribal government(s) for any necessary access to deploy
network facilities using its 5G Fund support on Tribal lands within the
area(s) of its winning bid(s).
DATES: Comments are due on or before October 17, 2024; reply comments
are due on or before November 1, 2024.
ADDRESSES: 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 and
reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of
this document. You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 20-
32, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service Express Mail. All
filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class
Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L
Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
People With Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format) send an email to [email protected] or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Quinn of the Office of Economics
and Analytics, Auction Division, at (202) 418-0660 or
[email protected], or Valerie Barrish of the Office of Economics and
Analytics, Auction Division, at (202) 418-0354 or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM) in GN Docket No.
20-32, FCC 24-89, adopted on August 14, 2024 and released on August 29,
2024. The full text of this document is available for public inspection
at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-89A1.pdf.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent with
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-
9, a summary of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be available on
https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
Synopsis
1. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether to
require a winning bidder in the 5G Fund Phase I auction to demonstrate
during the long-form application process, and prior to being authorized
to receive support, that it has obtained the consent of the relevant
Tribal government(s) for any necessary access to deploy network
facilities using its 5G Fund support on Tribal lands within the area(s)
of its winning bid(s). For purposes of a requirement such as this, the
Commission would follow the long-standing precedent articulated in its
[[Page 76017]]
Statement of Policy on Establishing a Government-to-Government
Relationship with Indian Tribes (Policy Statement), 16 FCC Rcd 4078
(2020), of using the term ``Tribal Government'' to mean ``the
recognized government of an Indian Tribe that has been determined
eligible to receive services from the Department of Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs.'' The term ``Indian Tribe,'' in turn, is defined in the
Policy Statement to mean ``any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band,
nation, pueblo, village or community which is acknowledged by the
federal government to constitute a government-to-government
relationship with the United States and eligible for the programs and
services established by the United States for Indians.'' The Commission
recognizes that the definition of ``Tribal lands'' adopted by the
Commission for the 5G Fund in the 5G Fund Report and Order, 85 FR 75770
(Nov. 25, 2020), may not fully align with a Tribal Government's
jurisdiction for purposes of providing Tribal consent for all of the
areas within a particular winning bid. In that circumstance, a winning
bidder would nonetheless need to obtain Tribal consent for any area(s)
within the area of a winning bid for which the relevant Tribal
Government has jurisdiction to grant such consent before we would award
support for that particular winning bid.
2. In its reply comments concerning the 5G Fund Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 88 FR 66781 (Sept. 28, 2024), National Tribal
Telecommunications Association (NTTA) supports the adoption of a Tribal
consent requirement during the long-form process and before the
Commission authorizes any 5G Fund support to serve Tribal lands.
3. The Commission seeks comment on whether including a Tribal
consent requirement would advance the goals of the 5G Fund and would be
administratively efficient for all parties and the Commission. The
Commission tentatively concludes that adopting a Tribal consent
requirement in its 5G Fund rules is consistent with its long-standing
recognition that engagement between Tribal governments and
communications providers, particularly early engagement, is an
important element to promote the successful deployment and provision of
service on Tribal lands.
4. In seeking comment on this issue, the Commission asks commenters
to provide input on how it can best assess an applicant's eligibility
to be authorized to receive 5G Fund support for the purpose of
deploying network facilities that would enable 5G mobile broadband
service located on Tribal lands, while incorporating Tribal government
consent into the Commission's approval process. The Commission notes
that, under the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD)
Program, ``an Eligible Entity may not treat as `unserved' or
`underserved' any location that is already subject to an enforceable
federal, state, or local commitment to deploy qualifying broadband''
and a commitment to deploy broadband will not be considered an
enforceable commitment ``unless it includes a legally binding
agreement, which includes a Tribal Government Resolution, between the
Tribal Government of the Tribal Lands encompassing that location, or
its authorized agent, and a service provider offering qualifying
broadband service to that location.'' Does including a requirement for
a winning bidder to demonstrate that it has obtained Tribal consent
during the 5G Fund Phase I long-form application process ensure that
evidence of Tribal government consent will be included in the
Commission's process of authorizing the winning bidder to receive
support? Does such a requirement also provide such evidence during a 5G
Fund support recipient's deployment of network facilities to provide 5G
mobile broadband service that are located on Tribal lands?
5. The Commission envisions that any Tribal consent requirement it
may adopt for the 5G Fund will be a continuation of the Commission's
commitment to ensuring Tribal engagement by service providers that
receive high-cost universal service support and in furtherance of the
Commission's Policy Statement establishing a government-to-government
relationship with Tribes. In the Policy Statement, the Commission
stated that it ``recognizes the unique legal relationship that exists
between the federal government and Indian Tribal governments, as
reflected in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, federal
statutes, Executive orders, and numerous court decisions.'' Most
recently, in the Enhanced Alternative-Connect America Cost Model Report
and Order (Enhanced A-CAM Report and Order), 88 FR 55918 (Aug. 17,
2023), the Commission recognized ``the deep digital divide that
persists between Tribal lands and the rest of the country and
emphasized that engagement between Tribal governments and
communications providers, either currently providing service or
contemplating the provision of service on Tribal lands, is vitally
important to the successful deployment and provision of service.''
6. As the Commission explained in the Enhanced A-CAM Report and
Order, the rules governing the disbursement of high-cost universal
service support already include an annual requirement for high-cost
recipients whose support areas include Tribal lands to undertake Tribal
engagement. Pursuant to Sec. 54.313(a)(5) of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 54.313(a)(5), a recipient of high-cost support that serves
Tribal lands must demonstrate that it has engaged with the relevant
Tribal government on a range of issues, including compliance with local
rights of way, land use permitting, facilities siting, and
environmental and cultural preservation review processes, as well as
Tribal business and licensing requirements, that are necessary for a
carrier to obtain. The Commission also has historic preservation
requirements. See 47 CFR 1.1305-1.1320; 47 CFR 17.4; 47 CFR part 1,
Appendix B and C. The Commission also reasoned in the Enhanced A-CAM
Report and Order that ``[t]hrough these obligatory Tribal engagements,
and as demonstrated through successfully satisfying the deployment
obligations through previous high-cost programs, carriers receiving
high-cost support through previous universal service programs should
have received consent from the local Tribal government to satisfy the
requisite permissions to deploy to certain locations.'' Building on its
existing rules, and in order to leverage any preexisting coordination
and collaboration obligations that a service provider has with a Tribal
government to complete the deployment required by the Enhanced A-CAM
program, the Commission also determined that it would require carriers
receiving Enhanced A-CAM support to initiate engagement with any
relevant Tribal government within 90 days of the Wireline Competition
Bureau extending an Enhanced A-CAM offer in the Enhanced A-CAM Report
and Order. In so doing, the Commission explained that it expects
``carriers that intend to accept Enhanced A-CAM offers will act in good
faith to provide the relevant Tribe(s) with an opportunity to consent
to the Enhanced A-CAM carrier's deployment of broadband in the Tribal
area.''
7. Referencing the Tribal engagement rules the Commission adopted
in the Enhanced A-CAM proceeding, NTTA states ``[a] similar process for
the 5G Fund is perhaps even more important due to the structure of the
5G Fund award system (reverse auction) and the fact that, as it now
stands, any provider
[[Page 76018]]
may bid on eligible Tribal areas.'' The Commission is mindful that, as
NTTA advocates, a similar or even more developed process for the 5G
Fund may be appropriate because, whereas an Enhanced A-CAM carrier
already had a history of tribal engagement, in the 5G Fund Phase I
auction any applicant may bid on support to serve eligible Tribal
areas. Given the potential challenges that incorporating a Tribal
consent requirement might raise in the 5G Fund long-form application
process, should the Commission consider following the same Tribal
engagement approach as the Commission adopted in the Enhanced A-CAM
Report and Order? Are the provisions included in the Enhanced A-CAM
and/or the BEAD programs good analogues for the 5G Fund, given the
differences between fixed service and mobile service? Are there other
alternatives that the Commission should consider that would result in
more equitable and informed outcomes in connection with using 5G Fund
support to fund proposed projects to provide advanced, 5G mobile
broadband service using facilities that would be located on Tribal
lands that would benefit Tribal communities and serve the public
interest? Should the Commission use existing high-cost universal
service Tribal engagement requirements to develop the criteria
necessary to evidence Tribal consent in order to provide more
consistency and predictability for both Tribal governments and service
providers during the 5G Fund long-form application authorization
process?
8. If the Commission adopts a Tribal consent requirement during the
5G Fund long-form application process, how could it structure a
requirement for a 5G Fund Phase I auction winning bidder to demonstrate
during the long-form application process, and prior to being authorized
to receive support, that it has obtained the relevant Tribal
government's consent? Given Tribal sovereignty, how should the
Commission address circumstances in which a Tribal government neither
declines nor provides consent? How might the Commission use existing
Tribal engagement requirements to assess the winning bidder's efforts
to obtain Tribal consent? What are the costs and burdens of such
requirements to providers? How might they be expected to influence
auction participation or bidding for support in Tribal lands? As the
Commission considers how to frame a requirement for Tribal consent, it
also seeks comment on whether it should include parameters similar to
the those that the Commission includes for a winning bidder that is
applying for a Tribal Land Bidding Credit (TLBC) to demonstrate its
compliance with any Tribal consent requirement the Commission may
adopt.
9. For instance, using the TLBC requirements as a guide, the
Commission could include a requirement that within 180 calendar days
after the filing deadline for a 5G Fund long-form application, an
applicant seeking 5G Fund support to provide service on Tribal lands
must amend its application to submit a certification from the Tribal
government(s) that it has granted any required Tribal consent. See 47
CFR 1.2110(f)(3)(ii)(A). In particular, the Commission could require
that the certification of Tribal consent include: the signature of an
official of the Tribal Government and their title; a statement that the
Tribal government has not and will not enter into an exclusive contract
with the applicant to preclude entry by other carriers and will not
unreasonably discriminate among wireless carriers seeking to provide
service on the eligible Tribal land; and a statement that the Tribal
government will, as applicable, permit the applicant to locate and
deploy facilities on the Tribal land consistent with the 5G Fund public
interest obligations and performance requirements. The Commission's
existing 5G Fund long-form application rules already require an
applicant to certify that it will comply with all 5G Fund program
requirements, including its public interest obligations and performance
requirements, in the areas for which it is a winning bidder, including
any such areas that are on Tribal lands. See 47 CFR 54.1014(b)(2)(vii).
Would using the TLBC certification model, together with this existing
long-form application certification required of an applicant seeking to
be authorized for 5G Fund support, adequately reflect the contours of
Tribal government consent in this context? Under this model, once the
certifications from the applicant and the consent of the Tribal
government(s) being served are received and reviewed by the Commission
and determined to be consistent with the 5G Fund rules, 5G Fund support
may be authorized. Should the Commission consider revising the TLBC
certification parameters for the purposes of the 5G Fund? Should the
Commission include any additional provisions to demonstrate Tribal
consent if it adopts such a requirement? Should the Commission require
fewer or alternative provisions? Should a process such as the TLBC
certification process be adopted, the Commission seeks comment on how
it might be able to incorporate flexibility in such a process.
10. In the event that the Commission adopts a Tribal consent
requirement for the 5G Fund Phase I auction long-form application
process, how can it ensure that consent is valid throughout the term of
support? Should a winning bidder's failure to obtain Tribal consent be
considered an auction default under the Commission's existing rules?
Should there be additional or alternative compliance or enforcement
mechanisms?
11. Finally, if the Commission adopts a Tribal consent requirement
for the 5G Fund, how can it assist in dispute resolution in the event
that a Tribal government reconsiders its consent? Would the Commission
need to adopt a specific Tribal consent dispute resolution process?
Commenters should address any other issues the Commission should
consider in adopting rules related to a Tribal consent requirement for
a 5G Fund Phase I auction long form applicant to demonstrate that it
has obtained the consent of the relevant Tribal government(s) for any
necessary access to deploy network facilities using its 5G Fund support
on Tribal lands within the area(s) of its winning bid(s).
12. Are there any reasons why the Commission should decline to
adopt such a requirement? Should the Commission consider requiring
something less than Tribal consent (e.g., a different type of
engagement than the current requirement in Sec. 54.313(a)(5) of the
Commission's rules, 54 CFR 313(a)(5))?
Procedural Matters
13. Regulatory Flexibility Act. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared
this Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental
IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the
Second FNPRM to supplement the Commission's Regulatory Flexibility
Analyses completed in the 5G Fund NPRM, 85 FR 31616 (May 26, 2020), 5G
Fund Report and Order, 5G Fund FNPRM, and 5G Fund Second Report and
Order and Order on Reconsideration. The Commission requests written
public comment on this Supplemental IRFA. Comments must be identified
as responses to the Supplemental IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments on the
[[Page 76019]]
Second FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the Second FNPRM,
including this Supplemental IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration (SBA).
14. The Commission seeks comment in the Second FNPRM on whether to
require a winning bidder in the 5G Fund Phase I auction to demonstrate
during the long-form application process, and prior to being authorized
to receive support, that it has obtained the consent of the relevant
Tribal government(s) for any necessary access to deploy network
facilities using its 5G Fund support on Tribal lands within the area(s)
of its winning bid(s). The Commission seeks comment on whether
including a Tribal consent requirement would advance the goals of the
5G Fund and would be administratively efficient for all parties and the
Commission. The Commission tentatively concludes that adopting a Tribal
consent requirement in its 5G Fund rules is consistent with its long-
standing recognition that engagement between Tribal governments and
communications providers, particularly early engagement, is an
important element to promote the successful deployment and provision of
service on Tribal lands. In seeking comment on this issue, the
Commission asks commenters to provide input on how it can best assess
an applicant's eligibility to be authorized to receive 5G Fund support
for the purpose of deploying network facilities that would enable 5G
mobile broadband service located on Tribal lands, while incorporating
Tribal government consent into the Commission's approval process.
15. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i),
214, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 214, 254, 303(r), and 403, and Sec. Sec.
1.1 and 1.421 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1 and 1.421.
16. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small-business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
17. Regulatory Flexibility Analyses were incorporated into the 5G
Fund NPRM, 5G Fund Report and Order, 5G Fund FNPRM, and 5G Fund Second
Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration. In those analyses, the
Commission described in detail the small entities that might be
significantly affected. In this Supplemental IRFA, the Commission
hereby adopts by reference the descriptions and estimates of the number
of small entities from the previous Regulatory Flexibility Analyses in
the 5G Fund NPRM, 5G Fund Report and Order, 5G Fund NPRM, 5G Fund
Report and Order, 5G Fund FNPRM, and 5G Fund Second Report and Order
and Order on Reconsideration.
18. In the 5G Fund Report and Order, the Commission adopted
requirements for winning bidders to submit a post-auction long-form
application in which they must submit ownership, agreement, and
spectrum access information, as well as information about their
qualifications, funding, and the networks they intend to use to meet
their 5G Fund public interest obligations and performance requirements.
In the Second FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether to add to
the existing long-form application requirements a requirement that a
winning bidder in the 5G Fund Phase I auction demonstrate during the
long-form application process that it has obtained the consent of the
relevant Tribal government(s) for any necessary access to deploy
network facilities using its 5G Fund support on Tribal lands within the
area(s) of its winning bid(s). If the Commission ultimately adopts a
rule that would amend its existing rules to require that 5G Fund Phase
I auction winning bidders make this demonstration during the long-form
application process, it would impact the reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements for small business and other carriers
that apply for 5G Fund support to serve Tribal lands within the area(s)
of their winning bid(s).
19. In assessing the cost of compliance for small entities, record
does not include a detailed cost-benefit analysis that would allow the
Commission to quantify such costs, including whether small entities
will be required to hire professionals, and therefore cannot currently
quantify the cost of compliance resulting from an adopted requirement
that winning bidders demonstrate during the long-form application
process that they have obtained the consent of the relevant Tribal
government(s) for any necessary access to deploy network facilities
using its 5G Fund support on Tribal lands within the area(s) of their
winning bid(s). The Commission anticipates, however, that the comments
the Commission receives will discuss the compliance costs or burdens
resulting from any potential changes to the long-form application
rules, and may help the Commission identify and evaluate other relevant
compliance matters for small entities associated with this possible
requirement, should changes be adopted in this proceeding.
20. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that could minimize impacts to small entities 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 such 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 such small
entities.''
21. The Commission has taken steps to minimize any economic impact
from a potential requirement that a winning bidder in the 5G Fund Phase
I auction demonstrate during the long-form application process that it
has obtained the consent of the relevant Tribal government(s) for any
necessary access to deploy network facilities using its 5G Fund support
on Tribal lands within the area(s) of its winning bid(s) on small
entities. For example, given the potential challenges that
incorporating a Tribal consent requirement might raise in the 5G Fund
long-form application process, the Commission seeks comment in the
Second FNPRM on whether it should consider following the same Tribal
engagement approach used by the Commission in the Enhanced A-CAM
program, rather than adopting a Tribal consent requirement. The
Commission also asks in the Second FNPRM whether there are other
alternatives to a Tribal consent requirement we should consider that
would result in more equitable and informed outcomes in connection with
using 5G Fund support to fund proposed projects to provide advanced, 5G
mobile broadband service using facilities that would be located on
Tribal lands that would benefit Tribal communities and serve the public
interest.
22. The Commission likewise seeks comment in the Second FNPRM on
how it could structure a potential requirement for a 5G Fund Phase I
[[Page 76020]]
auction winning bidder to demonstrate during the long-form application
process that it has obtained the relevant Tribal government's consent
and, for example, whether we should include parameters similar to the
those that the Commission includes for a spectrum auction winning
bidder that is applying for a Tribal land bidding credit (TLBC) for a
5G Fund winning bidder to demonstrate its compliance with any Tribal
consent demonstration requirement the Commission may adopt. The
Commission also seeks comment on whether, if it were to include
parameters similar to the those that the Commission includes for a
spectrum auction winning bidder that is applying for a Tribal land
bidding credit in any such 5G Fund Tribal consent requirement it may
adopt, whether it should include all of the TLBC certification
parameters for the purposes of the 5G Fund or, alternatively, whether
it should adopt additional or fewer provisions than required for
spectrum auction winning bidders seeking a TLBC. Further, the
Commission seeks comment on how it might be able to incorporate
flexibility if we were to adopt a process such as the TLBC
certification process in connection with any Tribal consent
demonstration requirement it may adopt. Finally, the Commission seeks
comment on whether it should consider requiring something less than
Tribal consent of winning bidders (e.g., a different type of engagement
than the current requirement in Sec. 54.313(a)(5)).
23. The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic
impact and alternatives for small entities following the review of
comments and costs and benefits analyses filed in response to the
Second FNPRM. The Commission's evaluation of this information will
shape the final alternatives it considers, the final conclusions it
reaches, and any final actions it ultimately takes in this proceeding
to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on small
entities.
24. There are no federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with the rules proposed herein.
25. Ex Parte Presentations--Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding
this document initiates 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 Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In
proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules 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.
Ordering Clauses
26. It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 4(i), 214, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 214, 254, 303(r), 403, and
Sec. Sec. 1.1 and 1.421 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.421,
this Second FNPRM is adopted.
27. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Secretary, shall send a copy of this Second FNPRM, including the
Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-20979 Filed 9-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P