Je veux savoir à propos de…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 153 / Thursday, August 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 operators 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 Certifications 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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014

22:35 Aug 11, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 actionafter filing its Certification but before WTBs decisionto address the problems in said Certification that had prompted WTBs rejection would not in itself invalidate or otherwise affect WTBs 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 operators 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
PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 9990

44331

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 operators 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 operators 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. 202117034 Filed 81021; 4:15 pm BILLING CODE 671201P

E:FRFM12AUP1.SGM

12AUP1