76016 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a 

Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule does 

not have Tribal implications and will 

not impose substantial direct costs on 

Tribal governments or preempt Tribal 

law as specified by Executive Order 

13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies 

to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further 

defines the term fair treatment to mean 

that ‘‘no group of people should bear a 

disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality did not evaluate 

environmental justice considerations as 

part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and 

applicable implementing regulations 

neither prohibit nor require such an 

evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ 

analysis and did not consider EJ in this 

action. Due to the nature of the action 

being taken here, this action is expected 

to have a neutral to positive impact on 

the air quality of the affected area. 

Consideration of EJ is not required as 

part of this action, and there is no 

information in the record inconsistent 

with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of 

achieving environmental justice for 

people of color, low-income 

populations, and Indigenous peoples. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: September 11, 2024. 

KC Becker, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2024–20997 Filed 9–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 §§ 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 messengerdelivered 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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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 Kelly.Quinn@fcc.gov, 

or Valerie Barrish of the Office of 

Economics and Analytics, Auction 

Division, at (202) 418–0354 or 

Valerie.Barrish@fcc.gov. 

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/FCC24-89A1.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 longstanding precedent articulated in its 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 longstanding 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-togovernment 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
76018 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 longform 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 longstanding 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 

§§ 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 ‘‘smallbusiness 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 postauction 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 longform 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 longform 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
76020 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 17, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 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—PermitBut-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 § 1.1206(b) 

of the Commission’s rules. In 

proceedings governed by § 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 §§ 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 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Chapter I 

[CB Docket No. 24–245; DA 24–782; FR ID 

241932] 

Possible Revision or Elimination of 

Rules 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Regulatory review; comments 

requested. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communication Commission (FCC or 

Commission) invites the general public 

to comment on the Commission’s rules 

to be reviewed pursuant to the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. The 

purpose of the review is to determine 

whether Commission rules that the FCC 

adopted in calendar year 2013 should be 

continued without change, amended, or 

rescinded in order to minimize any 

significant impact the rule(s) may have 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. Upon receiving comments from 

the public, the Commission will 

evaluate those comments and consider 

whether action should be taken to 

rescind or amend the relevant rule(s), or 

retain the rule(s) without modification. 

DATES: Comments may be filed on or 

before November 18, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by CB Docket No. 24–245 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. 

All filings must be addressed to the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Hand-delivered or messengerdelivered 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1