Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 11239 

§ 2553.12 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Adequate staffing level. The number 

of project staff or full-time equivalent 

needed by a sponsor to manage the 

AmeriCorps Seniors project operations 

considering such factors as: Number of 

budgeted volunteers, number of 

volunteer stations, and the size of the 

service area. 

AmeriCorps. The Corporation for 

National and Community Service, 

established pursuant to section 191 of 

the National and Community Service 

Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 

12651, which operates as AmeriCorps. 

AmeriCorps Seniors. The collective 

name for the Senior Companion 

Program (SCP), the Foster Grandparent 

Program (FGP), the Retired and Senior 

Volunteer Program (RSVP), and 

Demonstration Programs, all of which 

are established under parts A, B, C, and 

E, title II of the Act. 

* * * * * 

■ 24. In § 2553.25, revise paragraphs (c) 

and (h) to read as follows: 

§ 2553.25 What are a sponsor’s 

administrative responsibilities? 

* * * * * 

(c) Employ project staff, including a 

project director, to accomplish project 

objectives and manage the functions and 

activities delegated to project staff for 

AmeriCorps Seniors project(s) within its 

control. The project director may 

participate in activities to coordinate 

project resources with those of related 

local agencies, boards, or organizations. 

Staffing must be sufficient to support 

the size, scope, and quality of project 

operations. 

* * * * * 

(h) Comply with, and ensure that 

Memorandums of Understanding 

require all volunteer stations to comply 

with, all applicable civil rights laws and 

regulations, including nondiscrimination based on disability. 

■ 25. In § 2553.72, revise paragraph (a) 

paragraph heading and paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 2553.72 What are project funding 

requirements? 

(a) Is non-AmeriCorps support 

required? (1) An AmeriCorps grant may 

be awarded to fund up to 90 percent of 

the total project cost. 

* * * * * 

(c) May AmeriCorps restrict how a 

sponsor uses locally generated 

contributions in excess of the nonAmeriCorps support required? 

Whenever locally generated 

contributions to RSVP projects are in 

excess of the non-AmeriCorps funds 

required (10 percent of the total cost), 

AmeriCorps may not restrict the manner 

in which such contributions are 

expended, provided such expenditures 

are consistent with the provisions of the 

Act. 

* * * * * 

■ 26. In § 2553.91, revise paragraph 

(c)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 2553.91 What legal limitations apply to 

the operation of the RSVP volunteer 

program and to the expenditure of grant 

funds? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) An agency or organization to 

which AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers 

are assigned or which operates or 

supervises any AmeriCorps Seniors 

program shall not request or receive any 

compensation from AmeriCorps Seniors 

volunteers or from beneficiaries for 

services of AmeriCorps Seniors 

volunteers. 

* * * * * 

§§ 2553.12 through 2553.108 [Amended] 

■ 27. In addition to the amendments set 

forth above, in §§ 2552.12 through 

2552.108: 

■ a. Remove the word ‘‘CNCS’’ and add 

in its place the word ‘‘AmeriCorps’’, 

wherever it appears; and 

■ b. Remove the word ‘‘non-CNCS’’ and 

add in its place the word ‘‘nonAmeriCorps’’, wherever it appears. 

Fernando Laguarda, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2024–02772 Filed 2–13–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6050–28–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket Nos. 10–90, 16–271, 18–143, 

19–126; AU Docket No. 20–34; FCC 24–77; 

FR ID 201594] 

Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks 

Comment on Leveraging the 

Broadband Serviceable Location 

Fabric for High-Cost Support 

Mechanism Deployment Obligations 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB or 

the Bureau) seeks comment on using the 

data included in the Broadband 

Serviceable Location Fabric (Fabric) to 

update and verify compliance with 

certain High-Cost program support 

recipients’ deployment obligations. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

March 15, 2024, and reply comments 

are due on or before April 1, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Instructions for Filing 

Comments. 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 Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS). See 

Electronic Filing of Documents in 

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 

(1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://apps.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 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. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788, 2788–89 (OS 

2020). 

People with Disabilities. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, please contact, 

Heidi Lankau, Telecommunications 

Access Policy Division, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, at Heidi.Lankau@

fcc.gov or (202) 418–7400. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Bureau’s Public Notice 

in WC Docket Nos. 10–90, 16–271, 18– 

143, 19–126 and AU Docket No. 20–34; 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11240 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

DA 24–77, released on January 25, 2024. 

The full text of this document is 

available at the following internet 

address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ 

attachments/DA-24-77A1.pdf. 

Availability of Documents. 

Comments, reply comments, and ex 

parte submissions will be available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. These 

documents will also be available via 

ECFS. Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, 

and/or Adobe Acrobat. 

Filing Requirements. Comments and 

reply comments exceeding 10 pages 

must include a short and concise 

summary of the substantive arguments 

raised in the pleading. Comments and 

reply comments must also comply with 

§ 1.49 and all other applicable sections 

of the Commission’s rules. The Bureau 

directs all interested parties to include 

the name of the filing party and the date 

of the filing on each page of their 

comments and reply comments. All 

parties are encouraged to utilize a table 

of contents, regardless of the length of 

their submission. The Bureau also 

strongly encourages parties to track the 

organization set forth in this document 

in order to facilitate its internal review 

process. 

Ex Parte Presentations—Permit-ButDisclose. The proceeding this document 

initiates shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-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 

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. 

I. Introduction 

1. In this document, the Bureau seeks 

comment on using the data included in 

the Fabric to update and verify 

compliance with certain High-Cost 

program support recipients’ deployment 

obligations. Generally, the Bureau 

proposes to leverage the Fabric to 

provide support recipients a reliable 

data source for determining locations 

and to maximize the number of 

consumers that are served by recipients 

of various High-Cost support 

mechanisms. 

II. Discussion 

2. The Bureau proposes using the 

Fabric as the data source to revise and 

verify deployment obligations for a 

number of the high-cost support 

mechanisms, including Rural Digital 

Opportunity Fund (RDOF), AlternativeConnect America Cost Model (A–CAM) 

I and II, the Bringing Puerto Rico 

Together Fund (Uniendo a Puerto Rico 

Fund), the Connect USVI Fund, and the 

Alaska Plan to promote universal access 

to broadband across the areas funded by 

these programs. The Bureau seeks 

comment on the proposal and on 

specific issues related to location total 

adjustments or verifications for each 

program. 

3. The Commission proposes to use 

the Fabric to identify the actual number 

of residential and small business units 

in each relevant high-cost support 

recipient’s service area, i.e., the number 

of high cost-eligible locations. Because 

the Broadband Data Act directs the 

Commission to include in the Fabric 

‘‘all locations in the United States where 

fixed broadband internet access service 

can be installed,’’ and to iteratively 

update the Fabric, including by 

incorporating the results of challenges 

submitted by stakeholders, improved 

and more updated data sets, and 

updates to reflect on-the-ground 

changes, the Bureau expects the Fabric 

is and will continue to be the most 

comprehensive and up-to-date source 

available to identify all the high-cost 

eligible locations in the eligible census 

blocks within a support recipient’s 

service area. The Fabric identifies BSLs, 

which are locations ‘‘where fixed massmarket broadband internet access 

service has, or could be, installed.’’ 

Moreover, because the Fabric must 

‘‘serve as the foundation upon which all 

data relating to the availability of fixed 

broadband internet access service . . . 

shall be reported and overlaid,’’ the 

Fabric will help facilitate the Bureau’s 

future coordination with other agencies 

to avoid duplicative funding. 

4. In identifying the high-cost eligible 

locations that are relevant to a high-cost 

support recipient’s service area, the 

Bureau proposes to exclude group 

quarters locations, which are currently 

included as BSLs in the Fabric, from 

revised locations totals to remain 

consistent with its previous guidance to 

exclude such locations from the 

Bureau’s High-Cost support mechanism 

location counts. The Bureau also 

proposes that if a portion of a parcel is 

inside an eligible census block, but the 

BSL structure located on the parcel falls 

outside of the census block, the BSL 

will not be counted towards a support 

recipient’s location total, consistent 

with its other High-Cost programs. The 

Bureau notes that for support programs 

where the location totals were 

determined by the Connect America 

Cost Model (CAM) or A–CAM, these 

models assigned locations to census 

blocks using 2010 Census data that was 

updated to 2011 counts using Census 

Bureau 2011 county estimates. Because 

the Fabric incorporates 2020 Census 

data, the Bureau plans to overlay 2010 

census blocks over the Fabric locations 

to determine updated location counts. 

Are there are any further adjustments or 

implications the Bureau should 

consider in using this approach? 

5. The Bureau seeks comment on its 

proposal to use the Fabric as the source 

for data on supported locations and on 

the adjustments it proposes here. 

Should the Bureau use any sources to 

supplement its use of the Fabric? If the 

Bureau does rely on the Fabric as a 

source, are the adjustments it has 

identified appropriate? Are there other 

adjustments the Bureau would need to 

make to ensure it is accurately 

identifying the high cost-eligible 

locations located in the eligible census 

blocks in each support recipient’s 

service area? Commenters suggesting 

that different sources should be used or 

that different adjustments should be 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 11241 

made for one support mechanism and 

not another should explain the 

characteristics of the particular support 

mechanism that require different 

sources or adjustments. 

6. As directed by the Commission, the 

Bureau seeks comment on how to 

implement the Commission’s framework 

for adjusting required location totals 

based on an updated location data 

source for RDOF. Specifically, the 

Bureau seeks comment on the timing for 

when it should announce new location 

totals, how it should adjust support in 

certain circumstances where there are 

significantly more or fewer locations in 

a service area than estimated by the 

CAM, standards the Bureau should use 

for waivers and determining whether 

requests for service are reasonable, and 

how it should apply the framework to 

support recipients that have multiple 

performance tiers associated with their 

winning bids. 

7. Given the Commission’s direction 

that WCB adopt revised location totals 

by the end of the sixth calendar year, 

the Bureau seeks comment on when it 

should consult the location data source 

to identify the relevant residential and 

small business units and announce 

revised location totals. If WCB adopts its 

proposal to use the Fabric as the 

location source for RDOF, the Bureau 

proposes that it announce revised 

location totals for each support recipient 

within a reasonable time after the Fabric 

version expected to be released in June 

2027 is made available to licensees. The 

Federal Communications Commission 

(Commission) typically releases an 

updated Fabric approximately every six 

months, in around June and December. 

The Bureau expects that using the 

version of the Fabric that is expected to 

be released in June 2027 would provide 

sufficient time for WCB to recalculate 

location totals prior to December 31, 

2027, which is the sixth year service 

milestone for RDOF support recipients 

authorized in 2021. 

8. The Bureau anticipates that using 

the version of the Fabric expected to be 

released in June 2027 will balance its 

objectives of ensuring that the revised 

location totals are based on the most upto-date location data and also giving 

support recipients notice of their 

revised location totals prior to the sixth 

year service milestone. Because support 

recipients will have the opportunity to 

access earlier versions of the Fabric, 

they will be able to monitor the addition 

of any locations to the Fabric and plan 

accordingly so they are prepared to 

serve any new BSLs once revised 

location totals are announced. The 

Bureau seeks comment on this proposal 

and on whether there are any sound 

reasons for adopting and announcing 

revised location totals earlier or later 

than proposed. Commenters proposing 

that WCB use different location data 

sources for RDOF should address timing 

considerations for their proposed 

sources. 

9. The Bureau also proposes to adopt 

revised location totals for all support 

recipients at the same time, rather than 

waiting to the following year to adopt 

revised location totals for support 

recipients authorized in 2022 and 2023. 

Such an approach may mean that 

locations built after the Bureau 

announces revised location totals will 

not be included in the new totals and 

that support recipients authorized in 

2022 and 2023 will have an extra year 

to meet their eighth year service 

milestone if they have newly identified 

locations when compared to those 

authorized in 2021. However, the 

Bureau expects the benefits of the 

administrative efficiency of determining 

and announcing all revised location 

totals at once will outweigh any 

potential concerns this approach may 

raise, particularly given that any 

locations built after the revised location 

totals and prior the end of the eighth 

year of support will be subject to the 

requirement that the support recipient 

serve the location upon reasonable 

request. The Bureau seeks comment on 

this rationale and on any other 

suggestions for how it can reconcile the 

requirement to announce revised 

locations by the sixth year service 

milestone with the fact that RDOF 

authorizations span multiple years. 

10. The Bureau seeks comment on 

how to implement the Commission’s 

framework for support recipients that 

must deploy to additional locations 

once WCB announces revised location 

totals. Specifically, the Bureau seeks 

comment on implementing the 

Commission’s decision to give an 

opportunity for those support recipients 

to seek additional support relief if their 

new location count exceeds the CAM 

locations within their service area in 

each state by more than 35%. For such 

support recipients, the Bureau proposes 

to increase support on a pro rata basis 

for each location over the 35% 

threshold based on the average support 

amount per location. 

11. The Bureau also seeks comment 

on any alternatives. For example, the 

Bureau could require a support 

recipient to seek a waiver of the 

requirement to serve a certain number of 

locations, but it expects it would be 

administratively burdensome to have to 

address such waivers on a case-by-case 

basis. Further, such an approach would 

potentially leave locations stranded 

without service and ineligible for other 

funding programs. As another 

alternative, the Bureau could provide 

additional time for locations above the 

35% threshold to be served, but this 

would further delay the provision of 

broadband to these locations. 

12. Additionally, the Bureau seeks 

comment on whether WCB should set 

any parameters for the flexibility 

support recipients have to seek to have 

their new location counts adjusted to 

exclude additional locations. 

Specifically, the Commission explained 

that support recipients could seek to 

exclude additional locations that it 

determines are ineligible, unreasonable 

to deploy to, or part of a development 

newly built after year 6 for which the 

cost and/or time to deploy would be 

unreasonable. Should the Bureau set up 

a process by which support recipients 

must notify the Bureau that their new 

location total includes locations that 

they would like to be excluded so that 

those locations can become eligible for 

other funding programs? Should the 

Bureau require that support recipients 

notify them in the relevant docket by a 

specific date during the support term? 

Are there any standards or procedures 

the Bureau could adopt to balance this 

flexibility with the Commission’s goal of 

‘‘seek[ing] to ensure the availability of 

broadband and voice services to as 

many rural consumers and small 

businesses . . . by the end of the tenyear term as possible’’? 

13. For example, the Bureau proposes 

that if a support recipient seeks to have 

its new location total adjusted to remove 

locations it claims are ineligible, that 

support recipient must first successfully 

challenge the location as part of the 

Broadband Data Collection’s (BDC) 

Fabric challenge process if the Bureau 

uses the Fabric to revise location totals. 

This would enable the Bureau to 

conserve administrative resources by 

leveraging the Commission’s existing 

process and would also help to maintain 

consistency between the Fabric and the 

support recipient’s obligations. 

14. The Bureau also seeks comment 

on what criteria it should consider 

when determining whether a location is 

unreasonable to serve. Given the 

Commission’s goal of maximizing RDOF 

support to serve as many consumers and 

small businesses as possible, the Bureau 

expects that it would not routinely grant 

requests to exclude locations from a 

support recipient’s new location total. 

15. The Bureau seeks comment on 

how to implement the Commission’s 

framework for support recipients that 

have fewer actual locations in the 

eligible census blocks in their service 

area than estimated by the CAM. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11242 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

16. Prior to the sixth year service 

milestone. First, the Commission 

directed support recipients to notify 

WCB no later than March 1st following 

the fifth year of deployment if there are 

fewer locations than were included in 

the RDOF auction. The Bureau proposes 

that if such a support recipient claims 

to have served all existing locations in 

the eligible census blocks prior to WCB 

announcing revised location totals, it 

would permit the support recipient to 

rely on the latest version of the Fabric 

available to Fabric licensees to 

demonstrate that there are no other 

locations left to serve and to request a 

verification that it has served all the 

locations identified in the Fabric. If a 

verification determines that the support 

recipient has served all existing 

locations prior to the sixth year service 

milestone, the Bureau proposes 

permitting the support recipient to close 

out its letter of credit. The Bureau 

expects changes in the Fabric will not 

be significant enough that it would be 

necessary for support recipients to keep 

their letters of credit open to secure any 

additional deployment that may be 

required after WCB revises location 

totals. Moreover, any non-compliance 

issues can be handled pursuant to the 

Commission’s rules. The Bureau seeks 

comment on these assumptions and on 

whether it would be more advantageous 

to take another approach like requiring 

support recipients to wait until it 

announces the revised support totals 

before closing out their letters of credit 

once their deployment has been 

verified. 

17. Because a support recipient with 

fewer locations than estimated by the 

CAM must serve all of its initial, modelestimated locations by the sixth year 

service milestone, the Bureau seeks 

comment on requiring a support 

recipient that has already been verified 

to have served all existing locations to 

serve any locations that are newly 

identified prior to the sixth year service 

milestone, up to the CAM-estimated 

location total. If the Bureau were to 

adopt this approach, should it announce 

after each Fabric release whether there 

are any new locations identified by the 

Fabric in the eligible census blocks 

served by a support recipient which the 

Bureau already verified has served all 

previously existing locations? If so, 

should WCB require that the support 

recipient serve the newly identified 

locations by the sixth year service 

milestone at the latest or by some other 

reasonable amount of time after WCB 

announces the newly identified 

locations? The Bureau seeks comment 

on the administrative challenges of 

monitoring the Fabric to identify new 

locations on a rolling basis and on the 

burdens of having to serve newly 

identified locations prior to the sixth 

year service milestone. 

18. As an alternative, should WCB 

instead wait until it officially revises 

location totals for all support recipients 

to identify any newly added locations 

for those support recipients that it has 

already verified have served 100% of 

existing locations? If so, should such 

support recipients have until the eighth 

year service milestone to serve any of 

the newly identified locations? Are 

there any other alternatives for how the 

Bureau can ensure that new locations 

are timely served? 

19. The Bureau seeks comment on, for 

added protection, whether and how it 

should withhold a certain percentage of 

support for support recipients if it 

permits them to close out their letters of 

credit prior to sixth year service 

milestone because there are fewer 

existing locations than estimated by the 

CAM and the Bureau has verified they 

have served all existing locations. For 

example, should the Bureau withhold 

support for all RDOF support recipients, 

or because WCB will only reduce 

support once it announces revised 

location totals if the revised location 

total is less than 65% of the CAMestimated locations, should it only 

withhold support in circumstances 

where the number of locations the 

RDOF support recipient has served is 

less than 65% of the CAM-estimated 

total? Should the Bureau withhold 

support on a pro rata basis based on the 

gap between the CAM-estimated 

locations and the locations that do 

exist? As an alternative, should the 

Bureau withhold support on a pro rata 

basis for only the number of locations 

that bring the location total below the 

65% threshold, if applicable? Should 

the support recipient be entitled to have 

all of its withheld support restored and 

its support payments resumed for any 

newly added locations once it has 

demonstrated that it is now offering the 

required service to any newly added 

locations? Or, for administrative 

efficiency, should support be restored 

and support payments resumed after the 

six year service milestone once it has 

been verified how many locations the 

support recipient has served? Given the 

Commission’s rules provide broad 

authority to take other non-compliance 

measures, is it even necessary to 

withhold support to protect the public’s 

funds under these circumstances? The 

Bureau also seeks comment on any 

alternatives, with a particular focus on 

how to balance administrative efficiency 

with its responsibility to protect the 

public’s funds. 

20. If a support recipient is unable to 

meet interim service milestones because 

there are significantly fewer existing 

locations than estimated by the CAM, 

the Commission directed such support 

recipients to seek a waiver of the 

relevant interim service milestones. The 

Bureau proposes finding good cause 

exists to waive the relevant interim 

service milestones if the support 

recipient demonstrates with Fabric data 

that it has identified all existing 

locations in its service area and USAC 

verifies that the support recipient offers 

service meeting the relevant 

Commission requirements to all existing 

locations. Generally, the Commission’s 

rules may be waived for good cause 

shown. Waiver of the Commission’s 

rules is appropriate only if both: (1) 

special circumstances warrant a 

deviation from the general rule, and (2) 

such deviation will serve the public 

interest. 

21. The Bureau proposes finding that 

the fact that the Fabric shows that there 

are no more locations to serve in the 

relevant service area would constitute 

special circumstances to warrant a 

waiver. Moreover, the Bureau would 

find the waiver would serve the public 

interest because the support recipient 

could use any resources tied up by 

maintaining a letter of credit towards 

deploying more voice and broadband 

service, and the Commission would still 

have the ability to take further noncompliance measures if the support 

recipient does not serve any newly 

added locations as required. The Bureau 

seeks comment on its proposal and on 

any alternative approaches. For 

example, WCB could handle waivers on 

a case-by-case basis, but it expects such 

an approach to be unnecessarily 

onerous for both the petitioner and WCB 

when there is already an objective data 

source that both can rely on to confirm 

the existence of locations. 

22. Post WCB’s announcement of 

revised location totals. The Bureau 

seeks comment on how to implement 

the requirement that it reduce support 

for those support recipients for which 

the revised location count is less than 

65% of the CAM locations. The Bureau 

proposes interpreting the Commission’s 

direction that support be reduced on a 

pro rata basis by the number of reduced 

locations to mean that WCB would 

apply the pro rata support reduction to 

the number of locations that bring the 

location total below the 65% threshold. 

This would avoid the inequity of 

support recipients being subject to no 

support reduction if their revised 

location total is 65% of the CAMVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Feb 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 11243 

estimated location total, but being 

subject to a pro rata support reduction 

for all of the locations that make up the 

gap between the CAM estimated 

location total and the revised location 

total if their revised location total is 

64% or less of the CAM estimated 

location total. 

23. A number of support recipients 

were authorized to receive support for 

multiple performance tiers in a state. 

The Bureau proposes that when revising 

the location totals for such support 

recipients, it proportionally adjust their 

location totals for each performance tier 

so that the Bureau maintains the same 

ratio of locations across all performance 

tiers for the new location total as what 

was authorized under the initial 

deployment obligation. This approach is 

consistent with the Commission’s 

direction that compliance with service 

milestones be determined at the state 

level, so that a recipient will be in 

compliance with service milestones if it 

offers service meeting the relevant 

performance requirements to the 

required percentage of locations across 

all of the relevant eligible census blocks 

in the state. As an alternative, should 

the Bureau just require that the support 

recipient serve more locations at the 

higher speed tier than the lower speed 

tier without requiring the support 

recipient to serve a set percentage of 

locations at each speed tier? The Bureau 

seeks comment on these options and on 

whether any other approaches would 

better align with such support 

recipients’ deployment plans. For 

example, WCB could assign any new 

locations the performance tier 

associated with the census block where 

the location is located. This approach 

could better reflect RDOF support 

recipients’ initial plans given a winning 

bidder had to assign a performance tier 

to each census block group when 

bidding, but the approach would not 

account for the flexibility the 

Commission afforded RDOF support 

recipients when deciding to measure 

compliance on a state-level basis. 

24. RDOF support recipients must 

offer the required service upon 

reasonable request to any locations built 

after WCB announces revised location 

totals and prior to the end of the eighth 

year of support, excluding any locations 

that do not request service or that have 

exclusive arrangements with other 

providers. The Bureau proposes to rely 

on Fabric data to identify any new 

locations as of the end of the eighth year 

of support and confirm compliance with 

this requirement. The Bureau seeks 

comment on this proposal and on 

whether any other data sources should 

be consulted. 

25. The Bureau also seeks comment 

on criteria for determining whether a 

request is reasonable. What kinds of 

parameters would appropriately balance 

the burden on RDOF support recipients 

of serving newly built locations with the 

Commission’s goal of maximizing RDOF 

support to serve as many consumers and 

small businesses as possible? 

26. The Bureau proposes to leverage 

Fabric data to simplify the location 

adjustment process for the Bringing 

Puerto Rico Together Fund and the 

Connect USVI Fund. Specifically, the 

Bureau proposes to require support 

recipients to submit a document in the 

relevant docket that identifies when 

there is a discrepancy between 

estimated locations and actual locations 

as shown by the Fabric. Rather than 

duplicate the map data by requiring 

support recipients to submit individual 

geocodes for each location shown by the 

Fabric, the Bureau proposes it is 

sufficient for support recipients to 

incorporate the data from the Fabric in 

their filings by reference and certify that 

the Fabric accurately depicts the 

number of actual locations in their 

service area based on their independent 

review of the relevant area. To the 

extent a carrier claims that the Fabric 

does not accurately depict the number 

of locations, the service recipient must 

submit challenges as part of the BDC 

location challenge process to either add 

or remove locations from the Fabric. 

The Bureau seeks comment on whether 

this proposal meets the Commission’s 

requirement that support recipients 

submit evidence of existing locations 

and meets the Commission’s objective of 

adequately verifying the number of 

locations that exist in the Territories 

post-hurricane. 

27. Are there any alternatives that 

better achieve this objective? For 

example, since the process is mandatory 

for all support recipients, should WCB 

instead conduct an internal review of 

the Fabric data to identify where there 

might be discrepancies rather than 

having the support recipients conduct 

an independent review and file a 

notification with the Commission? How 

would this approach be consistent with 

the Commission’s requirement that the 

support recipient submit data as part of 

this process? 

28. The Bureau proposes that rather 

than provide a separate opportunity for 

stakeholders to comment on support 

recipients’ filings, it will rely on the 

BDC’s location challenge process for 

administrative efficiency. For example, 

once support recipients have notified 

the Bureau that there is a location 

discrepancy based on Fabric data or 

WCB alternatively conducts an internal 

review, it could wait a reasonable 

amount of time for stakeholders to file 

challenges to the Fabric to seek to have 

locations removed or added. The 

Commission seeks comment on this 

approach and suggestions for how much 

time it should provide to stakeholders to 

file challenges and for challenges to be 

resolved, understanding that the Fabric 

is only updated twice each year. If the 

Bureau adopts this approach, what 

would be a reasonable amount of time 

to wait for challenges? Should the 

Bureau require stakeholders to notify 

WCB if they are going to file challenges? 

Is it necessary to wait for challenges 

from stakeholders if they have already 

had ample opportunity to challenge the 

Fabric data prior to this process? That 

is, rather than set aside a certain amount 

of time for challenges, should the 

Bureau just rely on any challenges that 

have already been incorporated into the 

data at the time WCB conducts its 

review of the data? 

29. Once any challenges to the Fabric 

from stakeholders have been 

adjudicated, the Bureau proposes 

finding that the support recipient has 

met its burden of proof to receive a 

downward adjustment in its location 

total and a corresponding pro rata 

support reduction for the number of 

locations reflected in the Fabric data. 

Are there any alternative approaches 

that would better further the 

Commission’s objective of providing 

stakeholders with an opportunity to 

review and comment on the existence of 

locations without duplicating existing 

Commission processes? 

30. When should WCB conduct the 

location readjustment process? The 

Commission anticipated that the process 

would occur within one year of the 

announcement of winning bidders, but 

later explained the process had been 

delayed. How much time do service 

providers need to adjust to any changes 

to their support and location totals so 

that they can meet the 100% service 

milestone by December 31, 2027? 

31. The Bureau also seeks comment 

on leveraging Fabric data if a support 

recipient requests a reassessment of its 

obligations no later than the beginning 

of the fifth year of support, i.e., 2026. 

Should the Bureau adopt the same or 

similar process for the reassessment that 

it adopts for the location adjustment 

process? What other information might 

be instructive for WCB to collect from 

support recipients to reassess their 

obligations? Given that the adjustment 

process has been delayed, should the 

Bureau just combine this assessment 

with the location adjustment process for 

administrative efficiency? Are there any 

benefits or drawbacks for service 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11244 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

providers or the public in giving 

support recipients an opportunity to 

have their obligations reassessed 

independently of the location 

adjustment process? 

32. The Bureau also seeks comment 

on how to adjust support if the number 

of locations in a municipio or island is 

higher than what was initially 

determined. Should WCB increase 

support on a pro rata basis for any 

additional locations if the actual 

number of locations is higher? Are there 

any other approaches the Bureau should 

use for adjusting support? The 

Commission has reiterated that Bringing 

Puerto Rico Together Fund and the 

Connect USVI Fund support recipients 

must serve all locations in their 

supported areas. 

33. The Bureau proposes to permit A– 

CAM I & A–CAM II recipients to seek 

a downward adjustment in their 

location totals by using the Fabric to 

demonstrate the actual number of 

locations in their service areas. Should 

the Bureau adopt the same process it 

proposes in this document for support 

recipients of the Bringing Puerto Rico 

Together Fund and the Connect USVI 

Fund—i.e., requiring support recipients 

to request a downward adjustment in 

the docket and incorporating Fabric data 

by reference? If so, should the Bureau 

also provide an opportunity for 

stakeholders to file challenges to the 

Fabric through the National Broadband 

Map or in the BDC system in response 

to the notification or should the Bureau 

rely on prior challenges that are already 

incorporated into the data at the time of 

WCB’s review? Should WCB apply a 

preponderance of the evidence standard 

consistent with the standard adopted for 

the Connect America Fund Phase II 

auction Eligible Location Adjustment 

Process, The Bringing Puerto Rico 

Together Fund, and the Connect USVI 

Fund? If so, should WCB find that the 

standard has been met if it verifies that 

the Fabric data is consistent with the 

support recipient’s requested 

adjustment? The Bureau seeks comment 

on these issues and on any alternatives. 

34. Although A–CAM recipients have 

a variety of broadband speed obligations 

within their service areas, they are able 

to meet their obligations by deploying to 

any location within the eligible area. 

Accordingly, if the Bureau grants a 

downward adjustment in the location 

total, it proposes reducing the location 

total on a pro rata basis so that it would 

reduce the number of locations 

proportionally across all of the speed 

tiers. Similarly, the Bureau also 

proposes to reduce support on a pro rata 

basis. The Bureau seeks comment on 

these proposals and whether WCB 

should use any alternative approaches 

for reducing location totals and support 

amounts. 

35. The Bureau also seeks comment 

on the timing for when WCB should 

give A–CAM recipients an opportunity 

to seek a downward adjustment. For 

administrative efficiency, should the 

Bureau offer a one-time opportunity for 

A–CAM recipients to seek a downward 

adjustment? If so, when would it be an 

appropriate time to offer this 

opportunity so as to maximize the 

number of locations that are identified, 

but also give support recipients enough 

time to adjust their plans prior to the 

end of the support term? For example, 

the Bureau could require that A–CAM 

providers with support terms that end 

in 2028 to submit their request for a 

downward adjustment based on the 

latest release of Fabric data prior to end 

of the sixth year support, consistent 

with the Commission’s requirement that 

WCB make location adjustments for 

RDOF recipients, which also have a 10- 

year support term, prior to the sixth year 

of support. 

36. It is the Bureau’s expectation that 

Alaska Plan participants will offer voice 

and broadband service to 100% of the 

locations in remote communities, 

including those locations not connected 

to the road system, at performance 

levels consistent with the type of 

middle mile commercially available in 

the community. The rationale is that 

while the communities are remote and 

isolated, the locations within the 

communities are in relatively close 

proximity. To avoid stranding locations 

in the Alask Plan participants’ service 

areas without access to broadband 

service, the Bureau proposes to use 

Fabric data to identify all locations 

within each Alaska Plan participant’s 

service area and adjust the Alaska Plan 

recipient’s required location total to 

account for any locations not already 

included in the location total pursuant 

to WCB’s delegated authority to approve 

changes to deployment obligations. The 

Bureau seeks comment on whether 

Fabric data is the best source for 

identifying such locations, and whether 

other sources should be used including 

submissions from the carrier. 

37. Specifically, the Bureau could 

conclude that a comprehensive source 

like the Fabric had not been released 

when deployment obligations were 

reassessed in 2021 and that it would 

serve the public interest to further revise 

deployment obligations to ensure they 

accurately reflect the facts on the 

ground. If the Bureau were to take this 

step, when would be an appropriate 

time to revise deployment obligations so 

that Alaska Plan participants are able to 

complete deployment to all relevant 

locations by the end of the support term, 

i.e., December 31, 2026? Should 

stakeholders have a defined period of 

time to make any final challenges to the 

Fabric through the National Broadband 

Map or in the BDC system so that the 

revised obligations incorporate any 

successful challenges? What other steps 

could WCB take to make certain that all 

locations in Alaska Plan recipients’ 

service areas have access to voice and 

broadband service through the Alaska 

Plan? 

III. Procedural Matters 

A. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act 

38. This document contains proposed 

new or modified information collection 

requirements. The Commission as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, will invite the 

general public and OMB to comment on 

the information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

the Commission seeks specific comment 

on how it might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

39. Supplemental Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis. As required by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA), the Bureau has prepared this 

Supplemental Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental 

IRFA) of the possible significant 

economic impact on small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in this 

document. The supplemental IRFA 

supplements the Commission’s Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFAs) 

in connection with the USF/ICC 

Transformation FNPRM, 76 FR 78384, 

December 16, 2011, April 2014 Connect 

America FNPRM, 79 FR 39196, July 9, 

2014, 2018 Rate-of-Return Reform 

NPRM, 83 FR 17968, April 25, 2018, and 

Rural Digital Opportunity Fund NPRM 

(NPRMs and FNPRMs), 84 FR 43543, 

August 21, 2019, and Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analyses (FRFAs) in 

connection with the USF/ICC 

Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830, 

November 29, 2011, 2016 Rate-of-Return 

Reform Order, 81 FR 24282, April 25, 

2016, 2018 Rate-of-Return Reform 

Order, 83 FR 18951, May 1, 2018, 

Alaska Plan Order, 81 FR 69696, 

October 7, 2016, and Rural Digital 

Opportunity Fund Order, 85 FR 13773, 

March 10, 2020. Written public 

comments are requested on this 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 11245 

Supplemental IRFA. Comments must be 

identified as responses to the 

Supplemental IRFA and must be filed 

by the same deadline for comments 

specified in this document. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

document, including this Supplemental 

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration 

(SBA). In addition, the document and 

Supplemental IRFA (or summaries 

thereof) will be published in the Federal 

Register. 

40. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules. This document 

proposes to leverage the Fabric, the 

‘‘common dataset of all locations in the 

United States where fixed broadband 

internet access service can be installed, 

as determined by the Commission,’’ to 

provide recipients with a reliable data 

source for determining locations and to 

maximize the number of consumers that 

are served by recipients of various HighCost support mechanisms. This includes 

using the Fabric to identify the actual 

number of residential and small 

businesses in each relevant high-cost 

support recipient’s service area. The 

Commission delegated to WCB the 

authority to revise deployment 

obligations, and adjust funded locations 

and funding levels for support 

recipients’ service areas. For RDOF, this 

document seeks to determine how to 

implement the Commission’s framework 

for adjusting required location totals 

based on an updated location source. 

For the Bringing Puerto Rico Together 

Fund and the Connect USVI Fund, this 

document proposes and seeks comment 

on procedures for leveraging Fabric data 

to simplify the location adjustment 

process for these programs. For A–CAM 

I & II, this document considers 

permitting recipients to seek a 

downward adjustment in their location 

totals by using the Fabric to demonstrate 

the actual number of locations in their 

service areas. For the Alaska Plan, this 

document seeks to determine whether 

and how to adjust participants’ required 

location totals to include all locations 

within each Alaska Plan participants’ 

service area as identified by the Fabric. 

41. Legal Basis. The statutory basis for 

the Bureau’s proposed action is 

authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 

5(c), 214, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C 154(i), 155(c), 214, 

254, 303(r), and 403. 

42. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply. 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 and 

policies, 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. 

43. As noted in this document, 

Regulatory Flexibility Analyses were 

incorporated in the USF/ICC 

Transformation FNPRM, April 2014 

Connect America FNPRM, 2018 Rate-ofReturn Reform NPRM, Rural Digital 

Opportunity Fund NPRM, USF/ICC 

Transformation Order, 2016 Rate-ofReturn Reform Order, 2018 Rate-ofReturn Reform Order, Alaska Plan 

Order, and Rural Digital Opportunity 

Fund Order. In those analyses, the 

Commission described in detail the 

small entities that might be significantly 

affected. Accordingly, in the document, 

for the Supplemental IRFA, the Bureau 

hereby adopts by reference the 

descriptions and estimates of the 

number of small entities from these 

previous Regulatory Flexibility 

Analyses. 

44. Description of Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements for Small 

Entities. For the relevant High-Cost 

programs, the Public Notice proposes 

and seeks comment on streamlined 

procedures that will leverage existing 

processes for maintaining the accuracy 

of the Fabric to minimize the burdens 

on support recipients, including small 

businesses, in demonstrating how many 

actual locations are within their service 

areas. These proposals may require 

modifications to the current compliance 

obligations for small and other 

providers based upon the proposed 

methodologies for adjusting support for 

RDOF, A–CAM, Bringing Puerto Rico 

Together Fund, and Connect USVI Fund 

providers based on the number of 

locations in their service areas that may 

impact their ability to meet their service 

obligations. Additionally, the 

compliance obligations for small and 

other providers may be impacted by 

proposals on certain parameters for 

identifying the locations that high-cost 

recipients are required to serve—for 

generally identifying which Fabric 

locations are relevant to the high-cost 

support obligations, and more 

specifically for identifying which 

locations must be served after the 

Bureau conducts its recount for RDOF— 

which may result in an increase or 

decrease in the number of locations 

certain support recipients, including 

small businesses, are required to serve. 

The Commission anticipates the 

proposals discussed in the Public Notice 

will have minimal cost implications 

because they impact recipients who are 

currently receiving support from the 

relevant programs and much of the 

required information is already 

collected to ensure compliance with the 

terms and conditions of support. 

45. Steps Taken to Minimize 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered. The RFA requires an 

agency to describe any significant, 

specifically small business, 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 and 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.’’ 

46. Among the alternatives considered 

that may impact small entities is 

whether the Bureau should require 

RDOF support recipients to seek a 

waiver of, or require additional time to 

meet, the requirement to serve more 

locations when their new location count 

exceeds the CAM locations within their 

service areas in each state by more than 

35%, though addressing such waivers 

on a case-by-case basis may prove to be 

administratively burdensome and 

potentially leave locations stranded 

without service and ineligible for other 

funding programs. The Bureau also 

considers whether it should wait until 

the Bureau officially revises location 

totals for all support recipients to 

identify any newly added locations for 

those RDOF support recipients that 

WCB has already verified serve 100% of 

existing locations, and if so, whether 

these recipients should have until the 

eighth year service milestone to serve 

any of the newly identified locations. 

Additionally, in regards to multiple 

performance tier requirements, the 

Bureau considers whether after the 

recount it should require that the RDOF 

support recipients serve more locations 

at the higher speed tier than the lower 

speed tier without requiring that the 

support recipient serve a set percentage 

of locations at each speed tier, or 

instead whether the Bureau should 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
11246 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

assign locations the performance tier 

associated with the census block where 

the location is located. When a carrier 

receiving Bringing Puerto Rico Together 

Fund or Connect USVI Fund support 

claims that Fabric does not accurately 

depict the number of locations, the 

Bureau considers whether WCB should 

conduct an internal review of the Fabric 

data to identify where there might be 

discrepancies instead of having the 

support recipients conduct an 

independent review and file a 

notification with the Commission. 

Before reaching any final conclusions 

and taking any final actions however, 

the Bureau expects to review the 

comments filed in response to this 

document and more fully consider the 

economic impact and alternatives for 

small entities. 

47. As noted in this document, the 

Bureau seeks comment on how the 

proposals in the document could affect 

the IRFAs and FRFAs. Such comments 

must be filed in accordance with the 

same filing deadlines for responses to 

this document and have a separate and 

distinct heading designating them as 

responses to the IRFAs and FRFAs. 

48. Providing Accountability Through 

Transparency Act. Consistent with the 

Providing Accountability Through 

Transparency Act, Public Law 118–9, a 

summary of this document will be 

available on https://www.fcc.gov/ 

proposed-rulemakings. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–02971 Filed 2–13–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1