11490 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

New Tolerances for Non–Inerts 

1. PP 0E8847. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2020– 

0419). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 

P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, 

requests to establish a tolerance in 40 

CFR part 180 for residues of the 

fungicide, fludioxonil, [4-(2,2-difluoro1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3- 

carbonitrile] in or on carrot, roots at 7 

parts per million (ppm); celtuce at 15 

ppm; cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.05 

ppm; dragon fruit at 20 ppm; durian at 

20 ppm; fennel, florence, fresh leaves 

and stalk at 15 ppm; jackfruit at 20 ppm; 

leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 

15 ppm; leafy greens subgroup 4–16A at 

30 ppm; mangosteen at 5 ppm; 

persimmon, Japanese at 5 ppm; 

sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.01 ppm; 

tropical and subtropical, small fruit, 

inedible peel, subgroup 24A at 20 ppm; 

vegetable, legume, group 6, except bean, 

dry and bean, succulent at 0.01 ppm; 

vegetable, root, except sugar beet, 

subgroup 1B, except carrot and ginseng 

at 0.75 ppm; and vegetable, tuberous 

and corm, subgroup 1C, except yam, 

true, tuber at 6 ppm. Upon approval of 

the aforementioned tolerances, it is 

proposed that 40 CFR 180.516 be 

amended to remove established 

tolerances for the residues of 

fludioxonil, [4-(2,2-difluoro-1,3- 

benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3- 

carbonitrile] in or on the raw 

agricultural commodities: Carrots at 7.0 

ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.05 

ppm; dragon fruit at 1.0 ppm; leaf 

petioles subgroup 4B at 15 ppm; leafy 

greens subgroup 4A at 30 ppm; longan 

at 20 ppm; lychee at 20 ppm; melon 

subgroup 9A at 0.03 ppm; safflower, 

seed at 0.01 ppm; Spanish lime at 20 

ppm; sunflower, seed at 0.01 ppm; 

vegetable, legume, group 6 at 0.01 ppm; 

vegetable, root, except sugar beet, 

subgroup 1B at 0.75 ppm; and vegetable, 

tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 6.0 

ppm. The analytical method uses 

Syngenta Crop Protection Method AG– 

597B. This method has passed an EPA 

petition method validation for several 

commodities, which is currently the 

enforcement method for fludioxonil. 

Contact: RD. 

2. PP 0E8862. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2020– 

0603). The Interregional Research 

Project No. 4 (IR–4), Rutgers, The State 

University of New Jersey, 500 College 

Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 

08540, requests to establish a tolerance 

in 40 CFR part 180.677 for residues of 

the insecticide cyflumetofen, 2- 

methoxyethyl a-cyano-a-[4-(1,1- 

dimethylethyl)phenyl]-b-oxo-2- 

(trifluoromethyl)benzenepropanoate in 

or on Hop, dried cones at 30 parts per 

million (ppm). The ‘‘Method for 

Determination of Residues of 

Cyflumetofen (BAS 9210 I) and its 

Metabolites in Plant Matrices Using LC– 

MS/MS; BASF Analytical Method 

Number: D1003; Dated: September 26, 

2011’’ and ‘‘Independent Laboratory 

Validation of BASF Method D1003 for 

BAS 9210 I and B–1 in Hops using LC– 

MS/MS; Author: Nadzeya Homazava, 13 

June 2017.’’ BASF Doc ID 2017/1002961 

are used to measure and evaluate the 

chemical. Contact: RD. 

3. PP 0F8853. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2020– 

0375). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 

P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, 

requests to establish a tolerance in 40 

CFR part 180 for residues of the 

herbicide, bicyclopyrone in or on 

banana at 0.01 parts per million (ppm); 

broccoli at 0.01 ppm; garlic, bulb at 0.02 

ppm; hops, dried cones at 0.04 ppm; 

horseradish at 0.015 ppm; onion, bulb: 

0.02 ppm, onion, green at 0.05 ppm; 

papaya at 0.01 ppm; plantains at 0.01 

ppm; strawberry at 0.01 ppm; sweet 

potato, roots at 0.02 ppm; timothy, 

forage at 0.9 ppm; timothy, hay at 1.5 

ppm; and watermelon at 0.01 ppm. The 

Analytical methods GRM030.05A, 

GRM030.05B, GRM030.08A is used to 

measure and evaluate the chemical 

bicyclopyrone. Contact: RD. 

4. PP 0F8855. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2020– 

0607). Bayer CropScience, 800 N 

Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63167 

requests to establish a tolerance in 40 

CFR part 180.661 for residues of the 

fungicide fluopyram (N-[2-[3-chloro-5- 

(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]ethyl]-2- 

(trifluoromethyl)benzamide) in or on 

coffee at 0.03 parts per million (ppm). 

High performance liquid 

chromatography-electrospray 

ionization/tandem mass spectrometry 

(LC/MS/MS) is used to measure and 

evaluate the chemical fluopyram. 

Contact: RD 

5. PP 0F8858. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2021– 

0020). Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 

P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, 

requests to establish a tolerance in 40 

CFR part 180 for residues of the 

fungicide, fludioxonil, [4-(2,2-difluoro1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3- 

carbonitrile] in or on tree nut crop group 

14–12, except pistachios at 0.2 parts per 

million (ppm) and almond hulls at 15 

ppm. The analytical method uses 

Syngenta Crop Protection Method AG– 

597B. This method has passed an EPA 

petition method validation for several 

commodities, which is currently the 

enforcement method for fludioxonil. 

Contact: RD. 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a. 

Dated: February 12, 2021. 

Delores Barber, 

Director, Information Technology and 

Resources Management Division, Office of 

Program Support. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03714 Filed 2–24–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 15 

[ET Docket No. 20–36; FCC 20–156; FRS 

17403] 

Unlicensed White Space Device 

Operations in the Television Bands 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission seeks comment on the use 

of a terrain-based propagation model 

such as Longley-Rice for determining 

white space channel availability and 

seeks to develop a record on whether or 

not to implement such a model. In 

particular, the Commission seeks 

comment on the effect use of such a 

model would have on availability of 

channels for white space devices, how 

a terrain-based model such as LongleyRice could be implemented within the 

current white space device framework, 

the technical parameters necessary to 

use such a model for identifying 

available spectrum while protecting 

incumbents from harmful interference, 

and various database and device 

implementation issues. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

March 29, 2021; reply comments are 

due on or before April 26, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ET Docket No. 20–36, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Website: http://

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering 

and Technology, 202–418–7506, 

Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov. 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 11491 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s further 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

(FNPRM), in ET Docket No. 20–36, FCC 

20–156, adopted on October 27, 2020, 

and released on October 28, 2020. The 

full text of this document is available for 

public inspection and can be 

downloaded at: https://www.fcc.gov/ 

document/fcc-increases-unlicensedwireless-operations-tv-white-spaces-0 or 

by using the search function for ET 

Docket No. 20–36 on the Commission’s 

ECFS web page at www.fcc.gov/ecfs. 

Synopsis 

1. Discussion. The Commission 

addresses Dynamic Spectrum Alliance, 

Wireless Internet Service Providers 

Association (WISPA), and Public 

Interest Spectrum Coalition arguments 

that the Commission should determine 

white space channel availability using a 

terrain-based model, such as the 

Longley-Rice Irregular Terrain Model 

(Longley-Rice model), which they assert 

will determine channel availability 

more accurately than the current 

contour-based model used by the 

Commission. For example, a terrainbased model could permit a white space 

device to deploy at a location where the 

television signal is shielded by a large 

hill or mountain, whereas the existing 

methodology does not account for such 

shielding. National Association of 

Broadcasters (NAB) and Sennheiser, 

however, oppose using the Longley-Rice 

model due to concerns about its 

accuracy in protecting TV receivers and 

because it may slow operation of the 

white space database. 

2. Current protection model. Under 

current rules, white space devices must 

generally operate outside the defined 

co-channel and adjacent channel 

television station protected contours. 

The rules provide a table of separation 

distances beyond the protected contour 

that white space devices must meet that 

is based on the white space device’s 

equivalent isotropic radiated power 

(EIRP) and height above average terrain 

(HAAT). These distances are based on a 

desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal ratio 

of 23 dB at the edge of the protected 

contour for co-channel operation, and 

¥33 dB at the edge of the protected 

contour for adjacent channel operation, 

with a 14 dB allowance for TV receive 

antenna front-to-back ratio. The 

distances were calculated using the 

F(50,10) curves for separation distances 

of greater than 15 kilometers, the 

F(50,50) curves for separation distances 

of 1.5 to 15 kilometers, and the TM–91– 

1 model for separation distances of less 

than 1.5 kilometers. 

3. Longley-Rice model. The LongleyRice model is used to make predictions 

of radio signal field strength using the 

median attenuation calculated as a 

function of distance and the signal 

variability in time and space. The model 

can be run in point-to-point mode 

where it examines a specific radio signal 

path between a transmitter and a 

receiver, or in area mode in which it 

predicts field strength at many 

geographic points within a specified 

area. Each operational mode uses a 

terrain elevation profile in making 

predictions; in the point-to-point mode 

path-specific parameters can be 

determined from the terrain profile 

between the transmitter and receiver, 

and in area mode the elevation profile 

between the transmitter and each 

specific reception point is examined. 

The model may require a large number 

of reception points to be individually 

examined. It also requires a large set of 

input parameters encompassing system 

parameters (e.g., frequency, 

polarization, antenna heights), 

environmental parameters (e.g., terrain 

irregularity, electrical ground constants, 

surface refractivity, climate 

information), deployment parameters, 

and statistical parameters (e.g., 

reliability and confidence level). Based 

on the predicted radio signal 

attenuation and using additional factors 

such as transmitter power and antenna 

directivity, the D/U signal ratio can be 

estimated and compared against the 23 

dB co-channel and ¥33 dB adjacent 

channel standards used as the basis 

when developing the white space device 

rules to predict whether harmful 

interference is likely to occur to 

television reception. 

4. The Longley-Rice model can be 

implemented using a variety of 

methodologies. For example, the area 

subject to calculation can be divided 

into rectangular cells, e.g., a 1-by-1 

kilometer grid, and the field strength 

predictions are calculated at a point in 

each cell, such as the geographic center 

or the population centroid. The 

Commission notes that as computing 

power has increased over the years, it is 

most common to execute the model in 

point-to-point mode and use a batch 

process to evaluate each grid cell within 

a specified area. Nevertheless, the 

Commission seeks comment on various 

implementations for white space device 

evaluation which include both area and 

point to point mode as it is concerned 

about the available processing power, 

capabilities and time requirements to 

run many simultaneous batch processes 

to evaluate a large number of white 

space devices that may query the 

database for available channel 

information at the same time. The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should specify a specific operational 

mode and how the model should be 

implemented under a specific mode or 

both operational modes. 

5. As a threshold matter, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

using a terrain-based model, and in 

particular the Longley-Rice model, 

would better serve the white space 

device community as well as television 

broadcasters and other protected entities 

in the television bands. Commenters 

should specify the pros and cons of 

their preferred approach as it relates 

either to the Commission’s existing 

contour method or other terrain-based 

propagation models. The Commission 

seeks comment on how the LongleyRice model could be used to determine 

available white space channels. Would 

it be used only to determine if a white 

space device at a specific geographic 

location and power level meets the coand adjacent channel D/U ratios? Or 

should the propagation model be used 

for wider applicability such as for 

determining separation distances 

necessary to ensure other protected 

entities such as licensed wireless 

microphones, television translator 

receive sites, cable headends, and land 

mobile stations do not experience 

harmful interference? In such cases, 

what criteria should be used to 

determine the protection distances? 

Should D/U ratios be used here too, or 

some other metric such as an 

interference-to-noise ratio? Commenters 

should provide detailed technical 

reasoning regarding how the metric they 

support achieves the necessary 

protection levels. In addition, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the propagation model can be used to 

determine which areas are ‘‘less 

congested’’ and thus subject to more 

flexible rules. In this case, what criteria 

should be used as the basis for 

determining a ‘‘less congested’’ area as 

it relates to use of the propagation 

model? Could using the Longley-Rice 

propagation model for this purpose 

permit additional areas to be designated 

as ‘‘less congested’’ to provide more 

flexibility for white space devices? 

Similarly, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the propagation 

model can be applied not only to fixed 

white space devices, but also to 

personal/portable, mobile and 

narrowband IoT white space devices. In 

each context, are there specific 

provisions required for how the model 

is implemented to account for the 

11492 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

different white space device operational 

modes and use cases? 

6. What mode—point-to-point or 

area—is appropriate for each situation? 

For fixed white space devices, it would 

seem intuitive to use the point-to-point 

mode to examine a specific radio path 

to the television station contour. 

However, the Commission seeks 

comment on what specific path should 

be examined—the shortest path to the 

contour or possibly a different path 

where the white space device and 

television contour are further apart, but 

due to terrain shielding effects, may 

have less attenuation. How would each 

path be determined and how many 

specific paths would need to be 

evaluated before a determination can be 

made as to whether a channel is 

available for white space device use? Or 

would it be better to run the propagation 

model in area mode to determine the 

points along the television contour with 

the highest co- and adjacent channel D/ 

U ratios and then run the model again 

in point-to-point mode for those specific 

transmission paths? Should a D/U 

threshold be set to determine which 

paths need further examination? If so, 

how close to the 23 dB co-channel and 

¥33 dB adjacent channel thresholds do 

they need to be? And if an initial area 

mode calculation must be performed, 

what grid size is appropriate and what 

point within each grid cell should be 

used for analysis purposes? Using 

similar logic, how could the model be 

applied to determine ‘‘less congested’’ 

areas and operating locations for 

personal/portable, mobile or 

narrowband white space devices? 

Should it be run only in area mode or 

must additional point-to-point 

calculations also be performed? 

Commenters should provide detail 

regarding how the model can be applied 

to each of the situations likely to be 

encountered for various white space 

device types. 

7. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether the Longley-Rice 

model would always determine the 

same or shorter separation distances 

from a TV contour than the current 

model, or whether there are cases where 

it could require greater separation 

distances, and therefore reduce white 

space device channel availability. How 

justified are the concerns expressed by 

the NAB regarding the use of the 

Longley-Rice model to protect television 

reception? NAB argues that the LongleyRice model requires transmitter and 

receiver locations to be known with 

precision, while television receiver 

locations are not reflected in any 

database and cannot be passively 

detected, and that current television 

receiver protection requirements for 

white space devices are not overly 

conservative or based on worst-case 

assumptions. The Commission seeks 

comment on NAB’s assertions. 

Commenters that favor use of the 

Longley-Rice model should provide 

specific reasons regarding how NAB’s 

concerns can be addressed. 

8. The Commission further seeks 

comment on whether the Longley-Rice 

model should be the exclusive means of 

determining white space channel 

availability, or whether it should be an 

optional alternative to the current 

protection model. As an alternative 

model, would it be more appropriate to 

use the Longley-Rice model in 

combination with other propagation 

models in some circumstances such as 

the Commission requires for 6 GHz 

unlicensed devices, where different 

propagation models are specified at 

different distances? Finally, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

the Longley-Rice model can or should 

be used for modeling the TV coverage 

itself, and therefore possibly allowing 

white space device operation within a 

TV protected contour as calculated 

using the F(50,90) curves so long as the 

minimum D/U ratios are met. 

9. The Commission also seeks 

comment on the technical requirements 

that need to be specified if the 

Commission permits the use of the 

Longley-Rice model. What inputs are 

necessary for using the model in either 

point-to-point mode or area mode for 

each white space device type, potential 

use situation as well as for determining 

‘‘less congested’’ areas and protection 

distances for each type of protected 

entity? Which of these inputs should be 

specified by rule and which can be 

determined either by the white space 

device operator or the database? 

Commenters should be as specific as 

possible regarding their preference for 

input parameters and provide 

engineering justification for those 

preferences. What grid size and which 

location within each grid cell should be 

used for determining white space 

channel availability? 

10. The Commission further seeks 

comment on the terrain database that 

should be used with the Longley-Rice 

model or any alternative terrain-based 

model that the Commission specifies. 

Should the Commission require the use 

of a particular terrain database, such as 

one based on 3-arc second data or 1-arc 

second data? Should the Commission 

instead simply specify some minimum 

criteria for a terrain database, e.g., 

granularity, and allow the use of any 

terrain database that meets or exceeds 

that criteria? 

11. Model Implementation. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

various implementation factors that 

must be considered if the Commission 

adopts rules to allow the use of the 

Longley-Rice model or another terrainbased propagation model. As an initial 

matter, the white space database 

administrator would need time to 

implement this change to its system. 

How long should the Commission 

provide for the database administrator 

to implement these necessary changes? 

What type of testing should be 

performed to ensure that a white space 

database using a terrain-based model 

provides accurate results? Should the 

Commission perform its own testing or 

should it require public testing as it did 

when initially designating white space 

database administrators? The 

Commission also seeks comment on any 

effect that these changes might have on 

database and network performance. If 

the amount of overhead data necessary 

to use the Longley-Rice model 

significantly increases over what is 

necessary under the existing rules, 

would the result be slower response 

times as Sennheiser suggests? If so, 

would this detrimentally affect the 

utility of white space devices? Would 

such changes affect the capacity of the 

database to handle large numbers of 

white space devices simultaneously? 

12. Are changes needed to white 

space devices if the database is modified 

to base channel availability on the 

Longley-Rice model? Does the 

information sent from white space 

devices to the database need to change 

from the data set currently sent? If so, 

could all existing devices be updated? If 

not, how should the database deal with 

devices that can send the necessary data 

and those that cannot? Should the 

Commission require that devices be 

updated within a specific time period? 

What should that time period be? 

Would any of the needed changes to a 

white space device affect its emissions 

and necessitate a change to its 

equipment authorization records? 

13. How would the database using the 

Longley-Rice model account for any 

device location uncertainty? What 

actions should be taken if the 

propagation model determines that an 

existing operational white space device 

on a specific channel based on current 

protection distances no longer meets the 

D/U ratios after performing the required 

calculations? Should that device no 

longer be permitted to operate on that 

channel at its current power level or 

could the existing separation distances 

specified in the rules be considered a 

safe harbor for operations? 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 11493 

14. The operational changes and 

effects of implementing the LongleyRice model for determining white space 

device channel availability range from 

technical and modelling considerations 

to specific model implementation 

factors to database and device matters. 

The Commission asks that commenters 

comprehensively examine all aspects of 

the rule changes that would be needed 

and the effect they would have if it were 

to modify the white space device rules 

to specify use of the Longley-Rice model 

rather than the current contour-based 

method of protecting television stations 

and other protected entities in the TV 

bands. 

Procedural Matters 

15. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Analysis. This document contains new 

or modified information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. It will be submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) 

of the PRA. OMB, the general public, 

and other Federal agencies will be 

invited to comment on the new or 

modified information collection 

requirements contained in this 

proceeding. In addition, the 

Commission note that pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), it previously sought specific 

comment on how the Commission might 

further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

16. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, the Commission has 

prepared an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities of 

the proposals addressed in this FNPRM. 

The Full IRFA is found in Appendix D 

at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fccincreases-unlicensed-wirelessoperations-tv-white-spaces-0. Written 

public comments are requested on the 

IRFA. These comments must be filed in 

accordance with the same filing 

deadlines for comments on the FNPRM, 

and they should have a separate and 

distinct heading designating them as 

responses to the IRFA. The 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, will send a copy of 

this FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration, in accordance 

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

17. The Commission requests written 

public comment on the IRFA. 

Comments must be filed in accordance 

with the same filing deadlines as 

comments filed in response to the 

FNPRM and must have a separate and 

distinct heading designating them as 

responses to the IRFA. The 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, will send a copy of 

this FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration, in accordance 

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

18. Ex Parte Presentations. The 

proceeding this FNPRM 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 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. 

19. Filing Requirements. 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. 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, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020). 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy. 

20. 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). 

Ordering Clauses 

21. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to Sections 4(i), 201, 302, and 

303 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 302a, 

303, that this further notice of proposed 

rulemaking is hereby adopted. 

22. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this further notice of proposed 

rulemaking, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the 

11494 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03437 Filed 2–24–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P