Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 44329 

(3) The Coast Guard will provide 

notice of the regulated area by Marine 

Safety Information Bulletins, Local 

Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners, and on-scene designated 

representatives. 

(d) Enforcement officials. The U.S. 

Coast Guard may be assisted in the 

patrol and enforcement of the safety 

zone by Federal, State, and local 

agencies. 

(e) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced during inbound transit 

of the M/V ZHEN HUA 24 through 

Coastal Virginia and Chesapeake Bay on 

the way to the Port of Baltimore. 

Dated: August 6, 2021. 

Jennifer A. Stockwell, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain 

of the Port Virginia. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17187 Filed 8–11–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

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: 

D 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. 

D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

D 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. 

D 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. 

D Postal Service first-class, Express, 

and Priority mail must be addressed to 

45 L ST NE, Washington, DC 20554. 

D 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. 

D 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 

Susan.Mort@fcc.gov 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/wtbseeks-comment-c-band-phase-iincremental-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 §§ 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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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 § 1.1206(b) 

of the Commission’s rules. In 

proceedings governed by § 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, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
44330 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

.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 nextgeneration 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1