[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 153 (Thursday, August 12, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44329-44331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17034]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 27

[GN Docket No. 18-122; GN Docket No. 21-230; DA 21-958; FRS 42256]


Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seek Comment on Implementation 
of the Commission's Incremental Reduction Plan for Phase I Accelerated 
Relocation Payments

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB 
or Bureau) seeks comment on its proposed implementation of the 
Commission's incremental reduction plan for Phase I Accelerated 
Relocation Payments (ARP) relating to the ongoing transition of the 3.7 
GHz band. On August 4, 2021, as directed by the Commission in the 
Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band Report and Order, GN 
Docket No. 18-122, Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 
FCC 20-22 (Mar. 3, 2020) (3.7 GHz Report and Order), WTB issued a 
Public Notice to prescribe the filing procedures for eligible space 
station operators to submit Certifications of Accelerated Relocation 
(Certifications) and stakeholders to submit related challenges as part 
of the Phase I migration of incumbent services in this band. Related to 
this process, WTB hereby seeks comment on its proposed approach for 
calculating an incremental reduction for an eligible space station 
operator's ARP due to its failure to meet the Phase I Accelerated 
Relocation Deadline. Filers responding to this Public Notice should 
submit comments in GN Docket No. 21-320.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before August 27, 
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit Certification, identified by GN Docket No. 
21-320, by any of the following methods:
    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Elections may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ in 
docket number GN 21-320.
    [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file 
an original and one copy of each filing.
    [ssquf] 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.
    [ssquf] 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.
    [ssquf] Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must 
be addressed to 45 L ST NE, Washington, DC 20554.
    [ssquf] 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/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    [ssquf] During the time the Commission's building is closed to the 
general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers 
need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Mort, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f5a68086949bdbb89a8781b5939696db929a83"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="42113731232c6c0f2d3036022421216c252d34">[email protected]</span></a> or 202-418-2429.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Public Notice, 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Implementation of 
the Commission's Incremental Reduction Plan for Phase I Accelerated 
Relocation Payments, GN Docket No. 18-122; GN Docket No. 21-320; DA 21-
958 (Public Notice), released on August 4, 2021. The complete text of 
the Public Notice, is available on the Commission's website at https://www.fcc.gov/document/wtb-seeks-comment-c-band-phase-i-incremental-reducation-plan or by using the search function for GN Docket No. 18-
122 or GN Docket No. 21-320 on the Commission's ECFS web page at 
www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file elections on or 
before the date indicated on the first page of this document.
    People With Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#64020707515450240207074a030b12"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="680e0b0b5d585c280e0b0b460f071e">[email protected]</span></a> or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
    Ex Parte Rules: This proceeding 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 
presenters written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with Sec.  1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In 
proceedings governed by Sec.  1.49(f) of the 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,

[[Page 44330]]

.xml., .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should 
familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
    Synopsis: With this Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau (WTB or Bureau) seeks comment on its proposed implementation of 
the Commission's incremental reduction plan for Phase I Accelerated 
Relocation Payments (ARP) relating to the ongoing transition of the 3.7 
GHz band. On August 4, 2021, as directed by the Commission in the 3.7 
GHz Report and Order, WTB issued a Public Notice to prescribe the 
filing procedures for eligible space station operators to submit 
Certifications of Accelerated Relocation (Certifications) and 
stakeholders to submit related challenges as part of the Phase I 
migration of incumbent services in this band. Related to this process, 
WTB hereby seeks comment on its proposed approach for calculating an 
incremental reduction for an eligible space station operator's ARP due 
to its failure to meet the Phase I Accelerated Relocation Deadline. 
Filers responding to this Public Notice should submit comments in GN 
Docket No. 21-320.
    In the 3.7 GHz Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules to 
make 280 megahertz of mid-band spectrum available for flexible use 
(plus a 20 megahertz guard band) throughout the contiguous United 
States by transitioning existing services out of the lower portion of 
the band and into the upper 200 megahertz of the C-band (i.e., 4.0-4.2 
GHz). The 3.7 GHz Report and Order established that new 3.7 GHz Service 
licensees would reimburse the reasonable, actual relocation costs of 
eligible FSS space station operators, incumbent FSS earth station 
operators, and incumbent Fixed Service licensees (collectively, 
incumbents) to transition out of the band.
    The 3.7 GHz Report and Order established a deadline of December 5, 
2025, by which incumbent space station operators were to complete the 
transition of their operations to the upper 200 megahertz of the band, 
but it also provided an opportunity for accelerated clearing of the 
band by allowing eligible space station operators to voluntarily commit 
to relocate on a two-phased accelerated schedule, with a Phase I 
deadline of December 5, 2021, and a Phase II deadline of December 5, 
2023. All five eligible space station operators elected accelerated 
relocation. By electing accelerated relocation, the eligible space 
station operators, among other things, have voluntarily committed to 
perform all the tasks necessary to enable any incumbent earth station 
that receives or sends C-band signals to a space station owned by that 
operator to maintain that functionality in the upper 200 megahertz of 
the band. The 3.7 GHz Report and Order stated that ``[t]o the extent 
eligible space station operators can meet the Phase I and Phase II 
Accelerated Relocation Deadlines, they will be eligible to receive the 
accelerated relocation payments associated with those deadlines.'' Once 
validated, the ARPs will be disbursed by the Relocation Payment 
Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse).
    The 3.7 GHz Report and Order specified that an ``eligible space 
station operator's satisfaction of the Accelerated Relocation Deadlines 
will be determined by the timely filing of a Certification of 
Accelerated Relocation demonstrating, in good faith, that it has 
completed the necessary clearing actions to satisfy each deadline'' and 
directed WTB to prescribe the form of such Certifications. Further, 
``the Bureau, Clearinghouse, and relevant stakeholders will have the 
opportunity to review the Certification of Accelerated Relocation and 
identify potential deficiencies.''
    The 3.7 GHz Report and Order also directed that if ``credible 
challenges as to the space station operator's satisfaction of the 
relevant deadline are made, the Bureau will issue a public notice 
identifying such challenges and will render a final decision as to the 
validity of the certification no later than 60 days from its filing.'' 
Absent notice from WTB of deficiencies in the Certification within 30 
days of its filing, the Certification will be deemed validated. 
Following validation, the Clearinghouse shall promptly notify overlay 
licensees, who must pay the ARP to the Clearinghouse within 60 days of 
the notice. The Clearinghouse must disburse the ARP to the eligible 
space station operator within seven (7) days of receipt. Should an 
eligible space station operator miss the Phase I or Phase II deadline, 
it may still receive a reduced, but non-zero, ARP if it otherwise meets 
the Certification requirements within six months after the relevant 
Accelerated Relocation Deadline.
    The 3.7 GHz Report and Order directed WTB to: (1) ``prescribe the 
form'' of Certifications and any challenges by relevant stakeholders, 
and (2) establish the process for how such challenges will impact 
incremental decreases in the ARP. On August 4, 2021, the Bureau issued 
a Public Notice implementing filing procedures for Phase I 
Certifications and related challenges. With the instant Public Notice, 
the Bureau seeks comment on how different Phase I Certification 
scenarios will affect both the challenge process and incremental 
decreases in the ARP.
    At the outset, we recognize the two most straightforward scenarios. 
First, all Certifications filed without subsequent change--whether by 
amendment or superseded by a refiled Certification--will not be subject 
to any incremental decrease in the ARP if the Certification was filed 
before the Phase I deadline and is ultimately validated. Second, any 
Certifications filed for the first time after the Phase I deadline and 
later validated without amendment or refiling will be subject to the 
incremental reduction schedule established by the Commission in the 3.7 
GHz Report and Order, using the Certification filing date as the ``Date 
of Completion'' for determining the applicable percentage by which the 
ARP will be reduced. In both situations, the challenge process laid out 
in our recent Public Notice would remain unaffected. Below we seek 
comment on more complex scenarios involving the potential amendment or 
refiling of Certifications, as well as on how to take into account 
possible remedial actions and agreements between eligible space station 
operators and other stakeholders on the Certification process.
    Amending or Refiling a Certification by the Phase I Deadline. In 
the 3.7 GHz Report and Order, the Commission stated that it was 
adopting accelerated relocation rules ``to facilitate the expeditious 
deployment of next-generation services nationwide across the entire 280 
megahertz made available for terrestrial use.'' In furtherance of this 
goal, we propose that eligible space station operators may amend or 
refile an incomplete or invalid Certification without any incremental 
reduction in the ARP if, prior to the Phase I deadline, the eligible 
space station operator corrects any underlying problems and submits an 
amended or refiled Certification that has no invalidating infirmities. 
Such amendment or refiling may be either on the eligible space station 
operator's own motion, in response to a challenge, or in response to 
the Bureau's determination that the original Certification was invalid. 
In this scenario, any issues in the Certification would be resolved 
before the Phase I deadline, and the certifying space station operator 
would have, in fact, come into compliance with all the requirements for 
claiming the ARP by said deadline.
    In these circumstances, we propose that the amended or refiled 
Certification take the place of the original and start a new challenge 
process. Thus, new challenges to this amended or refiled

[[Page 44331]]

Certification would be permitted but would be limited to matters 
involving changes made to the original Certification (whether the 
addition of new information, modifications of information that had been 
included in the original Certification, or the deletion of previously 
included information). If, however, WTB has not already ruled on the 
original Certification, the Bureau could nevertheless consider all 
points raised during the original challenge cycle to the extent those 
points may still be relevant to the amended or refiled Certification. 
We seek comment on this approach.
    If WTB ultimately decides that the amended or refiled Certification 
was valid, the eligible space station operator's ARP would be based on 
the filing date of the amended or refiled Certification. As noted 
above, where the amended or refiled Certification is submitted before 
the Phase I deadline, we propose that there will be no reduction in the 
ARP.
    Amending or Refiling a Certification After the Phase I Deadline. 
Alternatively, if WTB rejects a Certification filed before the Phase I 
deadline (whether the original or an amended or refiled one), the 
eligible space station operator would have to finish any incomplete 
aspects of the transition and file a new, valid Certification before 
its entitlement to an ARP could be determined. Where the filing date of 
this new, valid Certification falls after the Phase I deadline, the ARP 
would thus be subject to the incremental reduction schedule established 
by the Commission in the 3.7 GHz Report and Order, as applicable based 
on such Certification's filing date. We propose the same treatment in 
cases where the Bureau has not yet ruled on a Certification and the 
eligible space station operator either submits an amended or refiled 
Certification on its own motion, or in response to a challenge, after 
the Phase I deadline. We seek comment on this approach.
    Where a Certification is amended or refiled after the Phase I 
deadline, we propose the same challenge process as where an amended or 
refiled Certification is filed before the Phase I deadline. Thus, new 
challenges to the amended or refiled Certification would be permitted 
but would be limited to matters involving changes made to the original 
Certification (whether the addition of new information, modifications 
of information that had been included in the original Certification, or 
the deletion of previously included information). If, however, WTB has 
not already ruled on the original Certification, the Bureau could 
nevertheless also consider all points raised during the original 
challenge cycle to the extent those points may still be relevant to the 
amended or refiled Certification. We seek comment on this approach.
    Accounting for Remedial Action by Eligible Space Station Operators. 
WTB proposes to consider remedial action that an eligible space station 
operator may take only if said operator has memorialized that action in 
a Certification (whether amended or refiled). Thus, if WTB issues a 
final determination rejecting a Certification, the fact that the 
eligible space station operator may have taken remedial action--after 
filing its Certification but before WTB's decision--to address the 
problems in said Certification that had prompted WTB's rejection would 
not in itself invalidate or otherwise affect WTB's determination. 
Rather, for such remedial action to be considered, the eligible space 
station operator would need to submit an amended or refiled 
Certification reflecting that remedial action. The amended or refiled 
Certification would initiate a new challenge process as to those 
aspects that had not yet been subject to the initial challenge process 
and would establish a new date by which the eligible space station 
operator's ARP was calculated. We seek comment on this approach.
    Agreements. Notwithstanding the proposals in the preceding 
sections, we propose to allow eligible space station operators and 
stakeholders (including, but not limited to, incumbent earth station 
operators) to enter into agreements to resolve any outstanding issues 
raised in a challenge to a Certification and submit any such agreements 
to WTB before the Bureau has made a final determination regarding the 
validity of the Certification. For instance, if an eligible space 
station operator submits a Certification (either before or after the 
Phase I deadline) that is credibly challenged, and it attempts to 
address any alleged deficiency before WTB has issued a decision, the 
eligible space station operator and challenging parties can enter into 
an agreement to resolve all outstanding issues between those parties 
and submit this agreement to WTB. If after review WTB accepts this 
agreement as a good faith resolution of issues in the eligible space 
station operator's Certification, the Bureau would find that the 
original Certification is valid and dismiss the related outstanding 
challenges. If such agreement resolved all outstanding challenges, the 
Bureau would calculate the ARP as of the date the original 
Certification was filed. If the agreement does not resolve all 
outstanding issues in an eligible space station operator's 
Certification and requires further remedial steps by the operator, then 
the Bureau proposes that it would calculate the ARP as of the date the 
eligible space station operator files an amended Certification, 
attesting that it has completed the remedial steps as per its agreement 
with the challenging parties (and assuming this Certification is found 
valid). We seek comment on this approach.
    Although we propose to allow eligible space station operators and 
stakeholders to enter into agreements to resolve issues raised in 
challenges, to ensure the integrity of the transition process we also 
propose to bar the use of greenmail in agreements to avoid incremental 
reductions. For example, whenever a challenge against a Certification 
is withdrawn through an agreement with an eligible space station 
operator, we propose to require that the written withdrawal agreement 
be accompanied by an affidavit certifying that no parties involved have 
received or will receive any money or other consideration in excess of 
legitimate and prudent expenses in exchange for the agreement or 
withdrawal of the challenge. We seek comment on this approach.
    Finally, we propose that if the eligible space station operator 
takes remedial action to address any challenges but does not attempt to 
negotiate with the challengers or such negotiations fail, WTB will 
proceed to make a decision based on the information submitted by the 
eligible space station operator in its Certification (original, 
amended, or refiled). We seek comment on this approach.

Amy Brett,
Acting Chief of Staff, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2021-17034 Filed 8-10-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>