[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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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