Da 21-958

DA 21-958
Released: August 4, 2021
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
Comments Due: [15 days after publication in the Federal Register]
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.1 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.2 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.3 Filers responding to this
Public Notice should submit comments in GN Docket No. 21-320.4
In the 3.7 GHz Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules to make 280 megahertz of midband 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).5 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.6
1

See Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, Report and Order and Proposed Modification, 35 FCC
Rcd 2343, 2456-57, at paras. 297-300 (2020) (3.7 GHz Report and Order).
2Id.

at 2457, para. 298; 47 CFR § 27.1412(g); The Wireless Telecommunication Bureau Opens a New Docket and
Establishes the Process for C-band Space Station Operator Phase I Certification of Accelerated Relocation, GN
Docket Nos. 18-122 and 21-320, Public Notice, (WTB 2021) (Phase I ARP Certification Procedures PN).
3

3.7 GHz Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2456, para. 297; 47 CFR § 27.1422(d).

4

Responsive filings and any subsequent ex parte filings on this topic should be filed in GN Docket No. 21-320 and
do not also need to be filed in GN Docket No. 18-122.
5
6

3.7 GHz Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2345, para. 4.

Id. at 2391, 2465-66, paras. 111, 326; 47 CFR § 27.4. The 3.7 GHz Band Report and Order defined the
incumbents that will be eligible to be reimbursed for their reasonable relocation costs. An eligible space station
operator is defined as “an incumbent space station operator” that “must have demonstrated, no later than February 1,
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

DA 21-958

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, 2023.7 All five eligible
space station operators elected accelerated relocation.8 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.9 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."10 Once validated, the ARPs will be disbursed by the Relocation
Payment Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse).11
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.12 Further, “the
Bureau, Clearinghouse, and relevant stakeholders will have the opportunity to review the Certification of
Accelerated Relocation and identify potential deficiencies.”13
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
2020, that it has an existing relationship to provide service via C-band satellite transmission to one or more
incumbent earth stations in the contiguous United States.” See id. at 2426, para. 200; 47 CFR § 27.1411(b)(1)-(2).
Incumbent earth stations are defined as those Fixed Satellite Service earth stations that “(1) were operational as of
April 19, 2018; (2) are licensed or registered (or had a pending application for license or registration) in the IBFS
database as of November 7, 2018; and (3) have timely certified, to the extent required by the Order adopted in FCC
18-91 (as we clarify . . . to include certain renewal applications and license and registration applications filed
through November 7, 2018), the accuracy of information on file with the Commission.” 3.7 GHz Report and Order,
35 FCC Rcd at 2392, para. 116; 47 CFR §§ 25.138(c), 27.1411(b)(3). Incumbent Fixed Service licensees are
defined as “[i]ncumbent licensees of point-to-point Fixed Service links that relocate out of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band by
December 5, 2023.” 3.7 GHz Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2465, para. 326. The 3.7 GHz Band Report and
Order provided for limited instances in which earth stations outside of the contiguous United States are eligible for
reimbursement. See id. at 2428, para. 204 (providing for reimbursement for expenses of earth stations located
outside of the contiguous United States to the extent they can demonstrate that the system modifications for which
reimbursement is sought is a direct result of the C-band transition). The process by which costs will be determined
to be reimbursable is defined in 47 CFR § 25.1416. The 3.7 GHz Report and Order also established that incumbent
FSS earth station operators may opt out of the formal relocation process and, in lieu of reimbursement, elect to
receive a lump sum payment based on an amount to be announced by the Bureau. 3.7 GHz Report and Order, 35
FCC Rcd at 2427-28, paras. 202-03. Earth station operators electing the lump sum are “responsible for performing
any necessary actions” to accommodate the changes in the C-band. Id. at 2428, para. 203.
7

3.7 GHz Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2408, para. 155; 47 CFR § 27.1412(b)(1)-(2).

8

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Accelerated Clearing in the 3.7-4.2 GHz Band, GN Docket No.
18-122, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 5517 (WTB 2020).
9

3.7 GHz Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2455, para. 292.

10

Id. at 2456, para. 297; 47 CFR § 27.1412(b).

11

3.7 GHz Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2457, para. 300.

12

Id. at 2457, para. 298; 47 CFR § 27.1412(g).

13

3.7 GHz Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2457 para. 299; 47 CFR § 27.1412(g)(1).

2

Federal Communications Commission

DA 21-958

such challenges and will render a final decision as to the validity of the certification no later than 60 days
from its filing.”14 Absent notice from WTB of deficiencies in the Certification within 30 days of its
filing, the Certification will be deemed validated.15 Following validation, the Clearinghouse shall
promptly notify overlay licensees, who must pay the ARP to the Clearinghouse within 60 days of the
notice.16 The Clearinghouse must disburse the ARP to the eligible space station operator within seven (7)
days of receipt.17 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.18
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.19 On August 4, 2021, the Bureau issued a Public Notice implementing
filing procedures for Phase I Certifications and related challenges.20 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.21
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.22 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

14

3.7 GHz Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2457, para. 299; 47 CFR § 27.1412(g)(2).

15

Id.

16

3.7 GHz Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2457, para. 300; 47 CFR § 27.1422(c).

17

Id.

18

3.7 GHz Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2456, para. 297; 47 CFR § 27.1422(d).

19

3.7 GHz Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2457, paras. 298-99.

20

See Phase I ARP Certification Procedures PN. As with the Phase I ARP Certification Procedures PN, in the
instant PN the Bureau is only soliciting comment on impacts on the challenge and incremental reduction process for
Phase I of the C-band transition. Id. This targeted approach will enable the Bureau to evaluate how well these
procedures and processes work in practice and afford an opportunity to amend or revise them as appropriate for the
Phase II deadline.
21

We hereby waive section 1.415 of our rules. 47 CFR §1.415(c) (“A reasonable time will be provided for filing
comments in reply to the original comments, and the time provided will be specified in the notice of proposed
rulemaking”). The Commission may waive its rules for “good cause shown.” Id. at § 1.3. Good cause exists where
“particular facts would make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest.” Northeast Cellular Telephone
Co., L.P. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C.Cir.1990) (citing WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159
(D.C.Cir.1969), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1027, 93 S.Ct. 461, 34 L.Ed.2d 321 (1972)). We are not soliciting reply
comments to facilitate swift action on the incremental reduction and challenge process, which will in turn facilitate
ARP certifications and thus put “valuable spectrum to its highest valued use pursuant to statutory criteria designed to
promote competition and other important public interest goals, and provid[ing] reasonable accommodations to
eligible space station operators and incumbent earth stations.” 3.7 GHz Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2353,
para. 22.
22

This includes situations where: (1) the Bureau’s determination of validity falls after the Phase I deadline, so long
as the Certification was filed before such deadline; and (2) a Certification filed before the Phase I deadline is
credibly challenged and the Bureau nonetheless finds that such Certification – without amendment or refiling – is
valid.

3

Federal Communications Commission

DA 21-958

“Date of Completion” for determining the applicable percentage by which the ARP will be reduced.23 In
both situations, the challenge process laid out in our recent Public Notice would remain unaffected.24
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.”25 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,26 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.27 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.28 Thus, new challenges to this 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).29 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. 30
23

3.7 GHz Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2456, para. 297 (containing Incremental Reduction Schedule).

24

See Phase I ARP Certification Procedures PN.

25

3.7 GHz Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2456, para. 297.

26

Id.; 47 CFR § 27.1422(d).

27

See Phase I ARP Certification Procedures PN.

28

Thus, WTB would place the amended or refiled Certification on Public Notice for a new challenge cycle, i.e., ten
(10) days from the release of the Public Notice to file oppositions, and five (5) days to file replies, with a sixty (60)day total period from the date of the filing of the amended Certification for WTB to issue a decision on that
amended or refiled Certification.
29

Note, however, that the filing of an amended Certification would not cut off a potential challenger’s right to raise
objections to still-relevant aspects of the original Certification, to the extent that time remained within the cycle
established for filing challenges to the original Certification. Thus, potential challengers would have that remaining
time within the original cycle to raise such objections, and WTB would take those objections into account to the
extent relevant when adjudicating the validity of the amended Certification.
30

This includes situations where: (1) the Bureau’s determination of validity falls after the Phase I deadline, so long
as the amended or refiled Certification was filed before such deadline; and (2) an amended or refiled Certification
(continued….)

4

Federal Communications Commission

DA 21-958

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.31 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,
filed before the Phase I deadline is credibly challenged and the Bureau nonetheless finds such Certification is valid
without subsequent additional amendment or refiling.
31

3.7 GHz Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 2456, para. 297 (containing Incremental Reduction Schedule).

5

Federal Communications Commission

DA 21-958

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 greenmail32 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.33 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.
***
Filing Requirements. All comments must reference GN Docket No. 21-320. Submissions may be
filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).


Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the
ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.



Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each
filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial courier or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.


Commercial deliveries (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 445 12th
Street, SW, 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/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changeshand-delivery-policy
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



32

47 CFR § 1.935 (settlement agreements require Commission approval and applicants may not “receive any money
or other consideration in excess of the legitimate and prudent expenses incurred in preparing and prosecuting the
application, petition to deny, informal objection, or other pleading in exchange for withdrawal or dismissal of the
application, petition to deny, informal objection or other pleading, or threat to file a pleading . . . .”).
33

See e.g., 47 CFR § 73.3588.

6

Federal Communications Commission

DA 21-958

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.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities
(braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Government 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.34 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 section 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules. In proceedings governed by section 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, .xml., .ppt, searchable .pdf).35 Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
Additional Information. For further information concerning this Public Notice, please contact
Susan Mort, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-2429, [email protected].
-FCC-

34

See 47 CFR § 1.1200 et seq.

35

Id. § 1.1206(b).

7