[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 22, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46939-46949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16565]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2 and 25

[IB Docket No. 06-123; FCC 07-76]


Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-
Satellite Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rules.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission initiates a Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) to address technical issues 
related to potential interference unique to the ``reverse band'' 
operating environment in the 17/24 GHz BSS. In the NPRM in this 
proceeding, the Commission sought comment on what measures were needed 
to address issues concerning reverse band operations. These included 
measures to mitigate against space-path interference between DBS and 
17/24 GHz BSS satellites (space-path interference) and to protect 17/24 
GHz BSS subscribers from DBS feeder links (ground-path interference). 
The record on these issues is insufficient to develop requirements. 
While most commenters advocate certain general approaches, we need more 
information to build on the generalities and derive specific 
requirements. Thus, we seek further comment on the issues concerning 
reverse band operations.

DATES: Comments are due on or before November 5, 2007 and reply 
comments are due on or before December 5, 2007. Public and agency 
comments on the Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (IFRA) analysis 
are due October 22, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 06-123, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

[[Page 46940]]

     Mail: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Kelly (202) 418-7877, Satellite 
Division, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 
Washington, DC 20554. For additional information concerning the 
information collection(s) contained in this document, contact Judith B. 
Herman at 202-418-0214, or via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in IB Docket No. 06-123, 
FCC 07-76, adopted May 2, 2007 and released on May 4, 2007. The full 
text of the FNPRM is available for public inspection and copying during 
regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals 
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The 
document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, 
facsimile 202-488-5563, or via e-mail [email protected].
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has 
prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 
possible significant economic impact on small entities by the rules 
adopted in the R&O and the proposals considered in the FNPRM. The text 
of the IRFA is set forth in Appendix H of the R&O and FNPRM. Written 
public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be filed in 
accordance with the same filing deadlines for comments on the FNPRM, 
and they should have a separate and distinct heading designating them 
as responses to the IRFA.
    In addition, the Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments 
are due October 22, 2007. Comments should address: (a) Whether the 
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the 
information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 
Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the 
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might ``further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees.''

Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1097.
    Title: Service Rules and Policies for the Broadcasting Satellite 
Service (BSS).
    Form No.: Not Applicable.
    Type of Review: On-going collection.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities.
    Number of Respondents: 4 respondents; 24 responses.
    Estimated Time Per Response: 10 hours.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion and annual reporting 
requirements.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 240 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Costs: $12,451,700.00.
    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Not Applicable.
    Needs and Uses: The purpose of this information collection is to 
address the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requirements proposed in the 
Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 06-90) to establish 
policies and service rules for the new Broadcasting Satellite Service 
under IB Docket No. 06-123. In this FNPRM, the Commission proposes 
three new information collection requirements applicable to 
Broadcasting Satellite Service licensees: (1) Annual reporting 
requirement on status of space station construction and anticipated 
launch dates, (2) milestone schedules and (3) performance bonds that 
are posted within 30 days of the grant of the license.
    Without the information collected through the Commission's 
satellite licensing procedures, we would not be able to determine 
whether to permit applicants for satellite licenses to provide 
telecommunications services in the U.S. Therefore, we would be unable 
to fulfill our statutory responsibilities in accordance with the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended; as well as the obligations 
imposed on parties to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic Telecom 
Agreement.

Summary of Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: In the NPRM, the 
Commission sought comment on what measures were needed to address 
issues concerning reverse band operations. These included measures to 
mitigate against space-path interference between DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS 
satellites (space-path interference) and to protect 17/24 GHz BSS 
subscribers from DBS feeder links (ground-path interference). The 
record on these issues is insufficient to develop requirements. While 
most commenters advocate certain general approaches, we need more 
information to build on the generalities and derive specific 
requirements. Thus, we seek further comment on the issues concerning 
reverse band operations.
    2. Ground-Path Interference in Reverse Band Operations. As 
discussed in the NPRM, ground path interference will occur when the 
signals from transmitting DBS feeder link earth stations operating in 
the 17.3-17.7 GHz band are detected at the receiving earth stations of 
17/24 GHz BSS subscribers. This interference situation will be the most 
severe in areas surrounding the DBS feeder uplink stations. In 
addition, 17/24 GHz BSS operators who choose to co-locate their TT&C 
earth stations with DBS TT&C earth stations systems may experience 
difficulty in receiving the downlinked telemetry signal from the 17/24 
GHz BSS spacecraft. Although at present there are a relatively small 
number of DBS feeder link and TT&C earth stations, the NPRM recognized 
that DBS feeder link earth stations that transmit in the Earth-to-space 
direction may increasingly locate in populated areas, thereby 
escalating the potential for interference into 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber 
antennas. The NPRM also anticipated that future entrants, such as 
short-spaced DBS systems, or non-U.S. DBS satellites serving the U.S. 
market, could result in the deployment of an even greater number of 
feeder link earth stations at multiple sites within the United States. 
The NPRM also raised concerns that the interference problem could be 
further exacerbated by the

[[Page 46941]]

proliferation of small-diameter 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber receiving 
antennas with relatively poor off-axis discrimination properties.
    3. Grandfathering Existing DBS Uplink Facilities. DIRECTV notes 
that, although DBS operators have recently sought authority for 
additional feeder link earth stations to uplink local broadcast signals 
from regional collection sites, the number of such sites is still very 
small. DIRECTV states, by way of illustration, that it operates DBS 
feeder links from only four sites across the country, and has no plans 
for additional regional sites. DIRECTV proposes that we ``grandfather'' 
licensed and operating DBS uplink facilities so that they may continue 
to operate in the manner in which they were designed in reliance on the 
rules then in effect. Accordingly, DIRECTV does not support off-axis 
EIRP density or other transmitting power limits for existing DBS feeder 
link antennas, or a requirement that such be shielded. EchoStar also 
advocates ``grandfathering'' of existing DBS feeder link earth 
stations, arguing that there are relatively few in number, and that the 
majority are located in less populated areas so that they pose little 
problem.
    4. The Commission did not discuss this issue in the NPRM. 
Nevertheless, based on the record, we tentatively conclude that 
existing DBS feeder link earth stations should not be subject to new 
interference-mitigation requirements imposed as a result of this 
rulemaking. Accordingly, we intend to define an area around existing 
DBS feeder link earth stations that transmit in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band, 
within which 17/24 GHz BSS receiving earth stations cannot claim 
protection from the DBS feeder uplink transmissions. We discuss this 
issue in more detail below.
    5. Protection Zones for Existing DBS Uplink Facilities. We propose 
to limit any protection zone to some area surrounding the specific 
geographic location and frequencies within the 17.3-17.7 GHz BSS band 
in which the DBS feeder link earth station licensee is already 
authorized to transmit. In addition, we agree that the feeder link 
operator should have some ability to upgrade facilities at existing 
sites, as long as the modification does not cause any increase in 
interference to 17/24 GHz BSS receiving antennas outside of the defined 
protection zone.
    6. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions and on how a 
protection zone should be defined. One option is to define the boundary 
of the protection zone as a fixed distance away from the coordinates of 
the DBS Feeder Link Earth Station. DIRECTV presents an analysis 
demonstrating that, in the absence of shielding, the separation 
distance between a DBS feeder link earth station and a receiving 17/24 
GHz subscriber antenna can become significant, i.e., on the order of 22 
miles. EchoStar suggests that likely separation distances necessary to 
mitigate groundpath interference are on the order of 10 to 60 miles. 
SES Americom states that levels of interference could be harmful if the 
subscriber earth station is located within 20-30 km (12.5-18.6 miles) 
of the DBS feeder link station.
    7. We note too that the DBS feeder link earth station's 
transmissions will not be equal in all directions, but will vary in 
part as a function of azimuth and elevation angle, and this picture may 
be complicated by the presence of multiple transmitting antennas at a 
particular site. In addition, we recognize that different areas of the 
country will have differing climate, rainfall and terrain conditions 
that will also mitigate groundpath interference. Accordingly, a second 
option is to employ a more detailed methodology that takes into account 
these site-specific characteristics, rather than impose a uniform 
radius around the earth station coordinates. Parties supporting this 
approach should explain in detail how exactly they would adjust for 
climate, rainfall, or terrain conditions, or any other variables that 
they believe should be reflected in the protection zone.
    8. Thus, we invite comment on each of the two protection zone 
options set forth above: (1) To set the boundary at some fixed distance 
from the DBS feeder link earth station; or (2) to adjust that boundary 
to account for climate, terrain, or other considerations. We also seek 
comment on any other approaches we might adopt. Commenting parties 
should provide specific details on any such proposal.
    9. Upgrades to Grandfathered Facilities. EchoStar urges the 
Commission to make clear that any protection is afforded to existing 
DBS uplink sites, and not just to currently licensed earth stations to 
protect the operator's ability to expand their existing uplink sites. 
EchoStar argues that this approach would promote efficiency by reducing 
the number of new geographically diverse sites. Specifically, EchoStar 
proposes that ``grandfathering'' would apply both to existing earth 
stations and to new earth stations located ``within a mile of the 
easternmost, westernmost, northernmost and southernmost coordinates of 
existing earth stations in each site.'' We seek comment on EchoStar's 
proposal to extend ``grandfathered'' status to any new earth stations 
located within a mile of an existing earth station site. Parties 
commenting on this proposal should explain in detail the reasons for 
their positions. Among other things, we invite comment on whether, and 
to what extent, adding new DBS feeder link earth stations within a mile 
of an existing DBS feeder link earth station is likely to increase the 
probability of harmful interference to 17/24 GHz BSS receivers.
    10. As an alternative approach, we could define a pfd level at the 
boundary of the protection zone that would take into account the 
cumulative effect of any modified operations of the existing earth 
station site. If these modified operations do not exceed this pfd 
level, the modification would not be subject to the new coordination 
requirements. We seek comment on this approach. We also seek comment on 
what pfd level at the boundary might be suitable.
    11. Coordination between DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS Operators. 
Commenters addressing the issue of new DBS feeder link earth stations 
recognize that to protect the interests of 17/24 GHz BSS consumers, 
these earth stations will need to be subject to some restrictions. As 
detailed below, we seek comment on developing a coordination zone and a 
coordination methodology.
    12. Coordination Zone. In the NPRM, the Commission observed that 
its rules do not contain a procedure to coordinate co-frequency, DBS 
feeder link earth stations with BSS subscriber terminals. Consequently, 
the Commission proposed to establish ``coordination zones'' or, in 
other words, areas around DBS feeder link earth stations in which 
coordination would be required. The Commission proposed to define these 
areas based on the methodology outlined in Annex 3 of Appendix 7 of the 
ITU Radio Regulations.
    13. The Commission further observed that it had used Appendix 7 as 
the basis of other coordination rules it had adopted. The Commission 
also noted, however, that Table 9b of Appendix 7, which includes data 
needed for determining the coordination zone for services in several 
frequency bands, does not include some data needed for determining the 
coordination zone for services in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. Accordingly, 
the Commission invited parties to recommend data for a table based on 
Table 9b that would allow operators to calculate coordination areas for 
the 17.3-17.8 GHz band in a way comparable to the method operators in 
other frequency bands use Table 9b to determine their coordination 
distances.

[[Page 46942]]

    14. Consistent with our proposal in the NPRM, we tentatively 
conclude that use of the procedure in Table 9b to establish the 
coordination zone for DBS feeder link earth stations and BSS subscriber 
terminals is appropriate. In this FNPRM, we seek comment on the 
specific values for Table 9b as set forth below. We seek comment on the 
appropriateness of this approach. Parties proposing an alternative set 
of values should provide a detailed justification for those values.

 Table 9b.--Parameters Required for the Determination of Coordination Distance for a Transmitting Earth Station
                          in Bands Shared Bidirectionally With Receiving Earth Stations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Parameter(s)                                     Value              Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orbit..........................  ...................................  GSO...............  Orbit in which the
                                                                                           space service in
                                                                                           which receiving earth
                                                                                           station operates (GSO
                                                                                           or NGSO).
Modulation at receiving earth    ...................................  N.................  Analog or digital.
 station.
Receiving earth station          p0 (%).............................  0.003.............  Percentage of the time
 interference parameters and                                                               during which
 criteria.                                                                                 interference from all
                                                                                           sources may exceed
                                                                                           the threshold value.
                                 N..................................  2.................  Number of equivalent,
                                                                                           equal level, equal
                                                                                           probability entries
                                                                                           of interference,
                                                                                           assumed to be
                                                                                           uncorrelated for
                                                                                           small percentages of
                                                                                           the time.
                                 p (%)..............................  0.0015............  Percentage of the time
                                                                                           during which the
                                                                                           interference from one
                                                                                           source may exceed the
                                                                                           permissible
                                                                                           interference power
                                                                                           value; since the
                                                                                           entries of
                                                                                           interference are not
                                                                                           likely to occur
                                                                                           simultaneously, p=p0/
                                                                                           n.
                                 NL (dB)............................  1.................  Link noise
                                                                                           contribution.
                                 Ms (dB)............................  5.................  Link performance
                                                                                           margin.
                                 W (dB).............................  0.................  A thermal noise
                                                                                           equivalence factor
                                                                                           for interfering
                                                                                           emissions in the
                                                                                           reference bandwidth;
                                                                                           it is positive when
                                                                                           the interfering
                                                                                           emissions would cause
                                                                                           more degradation than
                                                                                           thermal noise.
Receiving earth station          Gm (dBi)...........................  36................  On-axis gain of the
 parameters.                                                                               receive earth station
                                                                                           antenna.
                                 Gr.................................  10................  Horizon antenna gain
                                                                                           for the receive earth
                                                                                           station.
                                 [egr]min...........................  5[deg]............  Minimum elevation
                                                                                           angle of operation in
                                                                                           degrees.
                                 Te (K).............................  300K..............  The thermal noise
                                                                                           temperature of the
                                                                                           receiving system at
                                                                                           the terminal of the
                                                                                           receiving antenna.
                                                                                           See 2.1 of Annex 7 to
                                                                                           Appendix 7 of the ITU
                                                                                           Radio Regulations
                                                                                           which provides a
                                                                                           default value for two
                                                                                           earth stations
                                                                                           operating in opposite
                                                                                           directions of
                                                                                           transmission at
                                                                                           frequencies greater
                                                                                           than 17/24 GHz.
Reference Bandwidth............  B (Hz).............................  1.0x10\6\.........  Reference bandwidth
                                                                                           (Hz), i.e., the
                                                                                           bandwidth in the
                                                                                           receiving station
                                                                                           that is subject to
                                                                                           the interference and
                                                                                           over which the power
                                                                                           of the interfering
                                                                                           emission can be
                                                                                           averaged.
Permissible interference power.  Pr(p) (dBW) in B...................  -139.5............  Permissible
                                                                                           interference power of
                                                                                           the interfering
                                                                                           emission (dBW) in the
                                                                                           reference bandwidth
                                                                                           to be exceeded no
                                                                                           more than p/ of the
                                                                                           time at the receiving
                                                                                           antenna terminal of a
                                                                                           station subject to
                                                                                           interference, from a
                                                                                           single source of
                                                                                           interference, using
                                                                                           the general formula:
                                                                                          Pr(p) = 10 log (k Te
                                                                                           B) + NL + 10 log (10
                                                                                           Ms/10 -1)-W.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. DIRECTV proposes that the Commission establish a coordination 
zone around any new DBS feeder uplink earth stations and that within 
this zone, a new the DBS operator would be required to coordinate its 
operations with 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber earth stations. DIRECTV 
asserts further that this process would be greatly facilitated if new 
DBS uplink facilities were required to operate with strict pfd limits 
on transmissions toward the horizon and/or to employ shielding. 
Although DIRECTV suggests that this coordination zone could be 
relatively large (e.g., 10 km) it proposes no specific methodology for 
how such a zone might be defined, nor does it propose pfd limits in the 
direction of the horizon.
    16. However, EchoStar proposes that, rather than defining a 
coordination zone, the Commission should define an area around any new 
DBS feeder link earth station within which 17/24 GHz BSS earth stations 
would become, in effect, secondary to the DBS operation and thus would 
required to accept all interference. For this reason, EchoStar contends 
that the methodology of Appendix 7 is not likely to determine 
particularly realistic separation distances, as it is intended to 
calculate threshold separations to initiate coordination. EchoStar also 
contends that there are several other methodologies that the Commission 
might consider for determining the spacing between DBS feeder link 
stations and 17/24 GHz BSS earth stations. Specifically, EchoStar 
suggests that ITU-R Recommendation P.452 defines a general propagation 
model that could be applied, and ITU-R Recommendation S.1712, although 
intended for the 14 GHz band, might provide additional useful 
methodologies that could be extrapolated to the 17 GHz band. In 
addition, EchoStar proposes that the choice of methodology for 
computing the separation distance should be left to the operators 
concerned.
    17. Accordingly, we seek comment on the above proposals, and which, 
if any we should adopt to facilitate reverse-band operations in the 17 
GHz band. As an initial matter, we request interested parties to 
discuss whether the Commission should adopt a coordination zone of any 
type, or whether the defined zone should be an area in which the 17/24 
GHz BSS is secondary to DBS as EchoStar recommends. We invite 
interested parties to discuss whether they prefer to define such a zone 
using a methodology

[[Page 46943]]

based on Appendix 7, Annex 3 as proposed in the NPRM, or based on one 
of the ITU recommendations suggested by EchoStar (i.e., ITU-R 
Recommendation P.452 or S.1712). We request comment on all these 
proposals, and invite commenters to propose different coordination or 
separation distances, provided that they can provide adequate 
justification on the record for their proposals.
    18. In addition, we seek comment on whether we should permit 
operators to determine jointly among themselves the choice of 
methodology to calculate the corresponding separation distance as 
EchoStar suggests. We also seek comment on how, under this approach, 
established 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber antennas might be protected from 
interference from newer DBS feeder link operations seeking to locate 
nearby. Such parties should explain in detail why they support their 
preferred methodology, and why they believe their methodology is 
superior to other options. Finally, we invite parties to recommend the 
appropriate parameter values necessary to employ the method they 
support.
    19. Coordination Methodology. We invite comment here on the 
methodology to be used within that zone to coordinate DBS feeder links 
and 17/24 GHz BSS earth stations, should the Commission adopt a 
coordination zone as discussed above. The NPRM envisioned that both DBS 
operators and 17/24 GHz BSS operators will be deploying new earth 
stations over time, so that new stations of one service will 
continually be established among existing stations from the other. The 
Commission made a similar observation in the MVDDS Second R&O, in which 
it addressed a frequency sharing situation that presented ground path 
interference issues and gradual build-out of interspersed earth 
stations similar to those we envision in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band.
    20. In the MVDDS Second R&O, the Commission concluded that careful 
MVDDS system design and the use of various mitigation techniques could 
achieve successful sharing of the 12 GHz frequency band by both 
services. To accomplish this goal, the Commission adopted, among other 
things, a coordination procedure that requires that a MVDDS operator 
entering a market where DBS receivers are already established must 
satisfy certain requirements in order to protect these customers. In 
addition, a mechanism is established for information exchange between 
the operators of both services, in particular to take into account 
recently acquired DBS customers. The NPRM sought comment on whether we 
should adopt a similar approach to sharing between DBS feeder link 
earth stations and 17/24 GHz BSS receiving earth stations. We seek 
further comment here. Specifically we ask whether we should adopt 
service rules similar to those in Sec.  25.203(c), requiring all 
applications for new (non-grandfathered) DBS feeder link earth stations 
or new 17 GHz transmitting TT&C stations to complete prior frequency 
coordination with existing and planned 17/24 GHz BSS receiving 
stations.
    21. The Commission recognizes that requiring 17/24 GHz BSS 
operators to make available a list of their subscriber earth stations 
raises issues of sensitive customer information, particularly if the 
DBS feeder link applicant is also a competitor. Accordingly, we 
tentatively conclude that use of a neutral, third-party frequency 
coordinator is appropriate to assuage such concerns. Thus, we propose 
that, prior to filing an application with the Commission, a DBS 
operator planning a new feeder link earth station or 17 GHz 
transmitting TT&C station must provide certain specified technical 
information to a qualified frequency coordinator. The frequency 
coordinator would make this technical information available to all 
licensed 17/24 GHz operators. Interested parties could obtain both a 
list of potentially-affected and active 17/24 GHz BSS customer 
locations that are within a defined coordination area, as well as a 
list of potentially-affected 17/24 GHz TT&C earth stations for which 
applications are on file with the Commission within the defined 
coordination area. The 17/24 GHz BSS operators would be required to 
provide these lists within 30 days upon receipt of the new DBS feeder 
link earth station technical information and the notice. A DBS operator 
would be allowed to file an application with the Commission for a new 
DBS feeder link or TT&C transmitting earth station within 6 months of 
successfully completing coordination with all stations on these lists. 
If the Commission grants a license for the newly proposed 17 GHz 
transmitting station, any 17/24 GHz receiving earth station not on 
these lists would be unable to claim protection from this new DBS 
feeder link earth station. We seek comment on this proposal, and on the 
method that should be employed to calculate such a coordination area.
    22. We also seek comment on the types of technical information DBS 
feeder link earth station operators should make available for the 
purposes of earth station coordination with 17/24 GHz BSS operators. In 
the case of satellite and terrestrial earth station coordination, 
Commission rules now require that all transmitting satellite earth 
station applicants submit an interference analysis as required by Sec.  
25.203 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 25.203(c)(2). Sec.  
25.203(c)(2) requires that the earth station applicant provide each 
terrestrial station licensee with specific technical details. 
Similarly, we propose that DBS feeder link earth station applicants 
provide the following information to the qualified frequency 
coordinator:
    i. The geographical coordinates of the proposed earth station 
antenna(s);
    ii. Proposed operating frequency band(s) and emission(s);
    iii. Antenna diameter (meters);
    iv. Antenna center height above ground and ground elevation above 
mean sea level;
    v. Antenna gain pattern(s) in the plane of the main beam;
    vi. Longitude range of geostationary satellite orbit (GSO) 
satellites at which an antenna may be pointed, for proposed earth 
station antenna(s) accessing GSO satellites;
    vii. Horizon elevation plot;
    viii. Antenna horizon gain plot(s) determined in accordance with 
the procedure in section 2.1 of Annex 5 to Appendix 7 of the ITU Radio 
Regulations;
    ix. Minimum elevation angle;
    x. Maximum equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) density 
in the main beam in any MHz band;
    xi. Maximum available RF transmit power density in any 1 MHz band 
at the input terminals of the antenna(s);
    xii. A plot of the coordination distance contour(s) and rain 
scatter coordination distance contour(s) as determined by Table 2 of 
section 3 to Appendix 7.
    23. We ask what reference bandwidths would be appropriate in items 
(x) and (xi). In addition, we seek comment on whether the parameters 
listed here or other technical information would be appropriate to 
provide in order to facilitate coordination between new DBS feeder link 
earth stations and receiving 17/24 GHz BSS antennas.
    24. Other Measures to Protect 17/24 GHz BSS Operations. In addition 
to the protection zone and coordination requirements proposed above, 
some commenters assert that further measures are necessary to protect 
17/24 GHz BSS earth stations from harmful interference from DBS feeder 
link earth stations. Those measures include: (1) Limits on DBS feeder 
link earth station EIRP toward the horizon; (2) placement of

[[Page 46944]]

new DBS feeder link facilities in low-population density areas; (3) 
technical showing requirements for co-located DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS 
earth stations; and (4) antenna shielding requirements. These proposed 
approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and it is entirely 
possible that we might employ several methods in combination with each 
other, as well as adopting the protection zone and coordination 
requirements discussed above. Moreover, as DIRECTV correctly notes, a 
decision to employ one approach may influence the extent to which we 
simultaneously apply another. However, no commenter has been specific 
in its proposals, nor provided a comprehensive approach necessary to 
definitively address the issue. Consequently, we do not believe that 
the record is sufficiently developed so that we may determine whether 
to adopt requirements at this time.
    25. Accordingly, we invite further comment on each of the 
additional measures suggested by commenters. In particular, commenters 
supporting any of these proposals should explain in detail why that 
additional measure would be necessary to protect 17/24 GHz BSS earth 
stations from harmful interference, in the event that we adopt 
coordination procedures of the kind discussed above. Moreover, such 
commenters should discuss whether they support adoption of all the 
additional measures discussed here, or whether some of the additional 
measures would provide adequate protection from harmful interference.
    26. Power Level Limits. In the NPRM, the Commission noted that 
Sec.  25.204(b) of the Commission's rules places limits on earth 
station EIRP in bands above 15 GHz shared coequally with terrestrial 
radiocommunication services, in order to facilitate sharing with these 
services. The Commission sought comment on whether the Commission 
should extend this requirement to new DBS feeder link earth stations 
operating in the entire 17.3-17.7 GHz band. The Commission also asked 
whether the EIRP density limits in Sec.  25.204(b) through (e) would be 
sufficient to protect 17/24 GHz BSS earth stations, or if DBS feeder 
link earth stations should meet some more stringent requirements. We 
seek further comment on these questions.
    27. Under EchoStar's power limit proposal, new DBS earth stations 
would be constrained only in terms of EIRP density toward the horizon. 
We invite comment on whether any such limit would be necessary if we 
adopt a coordination procedure as discussed above. Alternatively, we 
ask whether the adoption of EIRP density limits toward the horizon 
would obviate the need for coordination procedures. Advocates of EIRP 
density limits should include a specific limit in their discussions, 
and advocates of both approaches should provide adequate justification 
for their recommendations.
    28. Restrictions on Placement of New DBS Earth Stations. DIRECTV 
and EchoStar advocate requiring DBS feeder link earth station operators 
to locate their earth stations only in areas of low population density. 
Although neither define precisely how such sparely populated locations 
would be determined, DIRECTV notes that counties with populations less 
that ten people per square mile comprise a significant portion of the 
contiguous United States. We seek comment on this approach, either 
alone, or in conjunction with other proposals, and ask how the 
Commission should determine what constitutes a low-population density 
site. We also request parties to explain how DBS feeder link operators 
would be able to protect 17/24 GHz BSS consumer earth stations that are 
already deployed in these areas.
    29. EchoStar makes its proposal to restrict new DBS feeder link 
earth stations to low population-density areas in conjunction with its 
proposal to require those earth stations to meet strict off-axis EIRP 
density limits towards the horizon. Presumably however, even areas of 
low population density may contain 17/24 GHz BSS subscribers. Thus, 
although this approach might be applied to new DBS feeder uplink 
stations locating in areas yet unoccupied by 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber 
earth stations, EchoStar does not make clear how subscriber terminals 
would be protected if the DBS applicant sought to locate in an area 
where 17/24 GHz BSS consumer earth stations were already deployed. We 
request commenters to address this issue.
    30. Technical Showing Requirement for Co-Located Earth Stations. 
The NPRM also addressed groundpath interference that may occur between 
transmitting DBS feeder uplinks and the receiving telemetry stations of 
17/24 GHz BSS systems that choose to locate their TT&C facilities at or 
near to existing DBS feeder uplink sites. The Commission recognized 
that choice of facility site is a system design parameter that is under 
the control of the operator, and does not necessarily require a 
Commission action to remedy. Moreover, given the large financial 
investment required to launch and operate a satellite, we believe that 
17/24 GHz BSS operators have strong incentive to make correct technical 
decisions with regard to their choice of TT&C facility sites and 
equipment design. However, the NPRM also recognized that interference 
into TT&C systems can present a serious problem due to the potential 
for loss of satellite control, and sought comment on whether the 
Commission should adopt requirements to guard against such scenarios.
    31. Specifically, the Commission proposed to require earth station 
applicants planning to co-locate their 17/24 GHz BSS TT&C stations with 
DBS feeder link earth stations to make a technical showing to the 
Commission demonstrating their ability to maintain sufficient margin in 
their telemetry links in the presence of the interfering DBS signal. 
Similarly, the Commission proposed to require DBS feeder link earth 
station applicants planning to co-locate with their 17/24 GHz BSS 
telemetry earth stations to make an analogous technical showing to the 
Commission. The Commission sought comment on these proposals and asked 
what parameters would be appropriate in such a showing. It also asked 
whether it should preclude co-location of 17 GHz BSS TT&C and DBS 
feeder link facilities altogether, or whether it should require some 
minimum separation between such facilities.
    32. DIRECTV responds that, with careful planning, it should be 
possible to coordinate the operations of these two services, even to 
the point where the facilities can be co-located. Accordingly, DIRECTV 
does not believe that the Commission should limit operator flexibility 
by precluding such co-location or by requiring some minimum separation 
distance. Rather, DIRECTV supports the Commission's proposal that 
operators seeking to co-locate such facilities should be required to 
make a technical showing demonstrating their ability to maintain 
sufficient margin in the 17/24 GHz BSS telemetry links in the presence 
of the interfering DBS signal. DIRECTV asserts that this will enable 
those operators who want to capture the efficiencies of co-location to 
do so, provided they can prove to the Commission that receipt of 
critical 17/24 GHz BSS telemetry data will not be subject to 
disruption. EchoStar also believes that such interference can be 
avoided by careful frequency planning of the 17 GHz uplink and downlink 
signals, and believes that this frequency planning can be conducted by 
the operator alone, within its own earth station complex. Accordingly, 
we will restate the proposal to require a technical showing to the 
Commission in the event of co-location of DBS feeder link and 17/24

[[Page 46945]]

GHz BSS telemetry earth stations, and seek any further comment on the 
issue.
    33. Shielding. We also seek comment on whether we should impose any 
additional requirements on either DBS feeder link earth station 
operators or on 17/24 GHz BSS operators in order to mitigate 
interference into 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber receiving antennas. We ask 
whether, as most commenters suggest, a requirement to employ shielding 
should be adopted in conjunction with any of the approaches discussed 
above, and if so what form such a requirement might take.
    34. Space Path Interference in Reverse Band Operations. The NPRM 
sought comment on how best to manage the problem of space path 
interference arising when the transmitted signals from 17/24 GHz BSS 
satellites are received by the feeder link receivers on satellites 
operating in the DBS service. In addition, the NPRM sought comment on 
the particular instance where applicants sought to locate within the 
same cluster as co-frequency receiving DBS satellites and asked whether 
this was feasible at all, and if so what measures might be required to 
facilitate such co-clustering. The Commission also sought comment on 
the more general question of locating 17/24 GHz BSS satellites at close 
distances to co-frequency DBS satellites and asked what measures, 
including a minimum orbital separation requirement, off-axis EIRP 
limits, antenna discrimination requirements, or other requirements 
might be adopted to protect DBS receiving antennas from unacceptable 
interference. Finally, the NPRM sought comment on the particular 
problem of interference to DBS TT&C transmissions in the 17 GHz band 
that could result in loss of satellite control. The Commission proposed 
to require 17/24 GHz BSS space station applicants seeking to co-locate 
with DBS satellites to make a technical showing demonstrating their 
ability to sufficiently minimize interference such that adequate margin 
is maintained in the DBS telecommand links. An analogous requirement 
was proposed for any future DBS applicant seeking to co-locate with 17/
24 BSS satellites to make a similar technical showing demonstrating its 
ability to maintain sufficient TT&C link margin.
    35. Commenters addressing these issues all realize the potential 
for space path interference between 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS satellites, 
but generally maintain that co-location is feasible at relatively small 
orbital separations, typically on the order of a few tenths of a 
degree. EchoStar asserts that a separation of 0.4 degrees is 
sufficient, however only if the DBS and 17/24 BSS satellites are 
operated by the same licensee. EchoStar argues that the risk of 
interference in such situations is most severe, and is best avoided by 
assigning space-to-Earth frequencies at that location only to the 17/24 
GHz BSS operator that uses these same frequencies in the Earth-to-space 
direction for its DBS feeder link operations. DIRECTV also believes 
that co-frequency operation may be possible at small orbital 
separations, but that this will depend upon a number of factors 
including the gain toward the GSO of both transmitting and receiving 
satellites as well as the desired protection level of the DBS system. 
DIRECTV also believes that given the many uncertainties involved, it is 
best to permit only operators who control transmissions in both 
directions at a given location to locate in close proximity as they can 
best ``self coordinate'' their operations. DIRECTV also suggest that 
the Commission may want to consider a strict off-axis gain 
specification for 17/24 GHz BSS satellites wishing to locate within a 
certain distance of a DBS satellite.
    36. SES Americom and Intelsat oppose the idea that 17/24 GHz BSS 
satellites seeking to operate at the same frequency and location as DBS 
satellites should only be licensed to the corresponding DBS licensee, 
arguing that this restriction is unnecessary and unfairly favors 
incumbent DBS operators. SES Americom believes that spacepath 
interference issues can be resolved through the use of offset orbital 
locations and coordination between operators. Similarly, Intelsat 
believes that a four-degree orbital spacing plan with small offsets in 
combination with coordination between operators will be sufficient to 
mitigate spacepath interference issues between closely spaced 17/24 GHz 
BSS and DBS satellites. In section III. D. of this Order, we require 
17/24 GHz BSS satellite licensees to design their satellites to be 
capable of operating in a four-degree spacing environment. We will 
license satellites in this band only if they comply with the orbital 
spacing rules we adopt in this Order.
    37. EchoStar also proposes that the spacepath interference into DBS 
receivers can be managed by establishing a pfd value at the victim 
(i.e., DBS) receiver above which coordination is required. 
Specifically, EchoStar proposes a pfd threshold level at the victim 
satellite receiver of -93 dBW/m\2\/24 MHz and derives this value from 
the ITU 6% [Delta]T/T requirement used to determine the need for 
coordination between Administrations, contained in Appendix 30A of the 
Radio Regulations. EchoStar also proposes that the Commission should 
require a minimum separation between DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites 
of at least 0.2-0.3 degrees, although these parameters might be relaxed 
in the event of agreement among all affected parties.
    38. We concur with EchoStar's proposed approach to managing 
spacepath interference between 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS satellites by 
requiring coordination when pfd values are exceeded at the DBS 
satellite receiver. This approach is consistent with the method used by 
the ITU, See Annex 4 of Appendix 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations, and 
has proved workable for international coordination of satellite 
systems. However, as EchoStar notes, its proposed pfd value depends in 
part on certain assumptions about the DBS off-axis receiving antenna 
gain and may not afford sufficient to protection to all systems, 
particularly as DBS off-axis antenna gain patterns are not necessarily 
well known. Accordingly, in order to protect receiving DBS satellites 
from unacceptable levels of interference, we propose to adopt an off-
axis pfd coordination trigger of -93 dBW/m\2\/24 MHz at the DBS 
receiving antenna. Coordination with affected co-frequency licensees, 
both existing and planned, would be required in the event that the 17/
24 GHz BSS satellite exceeds this level at the DBS receiving antenna; 
coordination would not be required in cases where no frequency overlap 
occurs. We seek comment on this proposal and ask whether it is 
sufficient to protect existing DBS operations from interference, or 
whether some other approach or additional requirement might better 
protect DBS receiving antennas from unwanted spacepath interference. We 
also ask how such a requirement might apply to future DBS operations 
that might be affected, including in particular any replacement 
satellites.
    39. We also seek comment on the particular information that 17/24 
GHz BSS applicants should be required to submit to the Commission. 
Clearly, reliable information concerning the off-axis transmitting 
antenna gain of the 17/24 GHz BSS satellite will need to be made 
available. Presumably this information will need to include all 
frequencies in the 17.3-17.7(8) GHz range so that any future DBS 
applicant will also have sufficient information to protect its 
operations from unwanted interference. We seek comment on what form 
this information should take (i.e., measured data, charts, graphs). We 
ask whether off-axis gain in the plane of the GSO is sufficient and 
over what angular

[[Page 46946]]

range it should be provided (e.g., 30[deg], 45[deg] with respect to the plane passing through the x- and y-
axes of the satellite.)
    40. In its reply comments EchoStar also proposes the Commission 
adopt a minimum orbital separation between 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS 
satellites of 0.2-0.3 degrees. SES Americom also believes that an 
orbital offset of at least 0.2-0.3 degrees is necessary for co-
frequency operation of DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites. DIRECTV 
however indicates that a minimum orbital separation value as small as 
0.05 degrees would be sufficient to permit co-frequency operation, 
provided modest care in satellite antenna design is employed. We seek 
comment on EchoStar's proposal to require a minimum orbital separation 
between co-frequency operation of DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites, and 
we ask what separation value is appropriate should we adopt such a 
requirement. We also seek comment on whether such a requirement is 
necessary should we adopt the pfd threshold and coordination 
requirements discussed above, particularly if, as EchoStar suggests, 
this separation value might be relaxed by agreement among the affected 
operators.
    41. Finally, the NPRM sought comment on our proposal to protect DBS 
TT&C operations, particularly in recognition of the potential for loss 
of satellite control. DIRECTV comments on this proposal, asserting that 
the Commission should allow co-location of 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS space 
stations only if the affected DBS operator gives its consent, and only 
if the 17/24 GHz BSS applicant demonstrates its ability to maintain 
sufficient margin in the DBS telecommand links in the presence of the 
interfering 17/24 GHz BSS signal. We believe this proposal has merit, 
for both 17/24 GHz BSS operators seeking to locate in close proximity 
to DBS satellites, and also in the case where DBS operators may seek to 
locate in close proximity to established 17/24 BSS GHz satellites. 
Accordingly, we propose to adopt a requirement that a 17/24 GHz BSS 
applicant proposing to locate its satellite in the vicinity of a DBS 
space station make a technical showing to the Commission demonstrating 
its ability to sufficiently minimize interference into the DBS systems, 
such that adequate margin is maintained in the DBS telecommand links in 
the presence of the interfering BSS signal. Similarly we will require 
that a DBS applicant proposing to locate its satellite in the vicinity 
of existing 17/24 GHz BSS space station make a technical showing to the 
Commission demonstrating its ability to maintain sufficient margin in 
its telecommand links in the presence of the interfering BSS signal. We 
seek comment on these proposals. We ask under what circumstances such a 
technical showing should be required, e.g., co-location at less than 
some minimum distance, or on the basis of a threshold pfd value. We 
seek comment on whether the threshold pfd level of -93 dBW/m\2\/MHz 
proposed above is also a suitable coordination trigger for DBS 
telecommand links, or whether some other value might be more 
appropriate. We also seek comment on the maximum orbital separation 
distance at which would be appropriate to require such a technical 
showing.
    42. SES Americom also commented on 17/24 GHz BSS interference into 
DBS telecommand links, stating that issues relating to space path 
interference can be resolved through offset of orbital locations and 
coordination between the involved operators with respect to TT&C 
frequencies. SES Americom also stated that it believes that a frequency 
separation of as little as 500 kHz is adequate to prevent interference 
from the beacon of a 17/24 GHz BSS satellite into the command carrier 
of a DBS space station. We seek comment on whether some minimum 
frequency separation is required between the signals transmitted by a 
17/24 GHz BSS space station and the telecommand frequencies of DBS 
space station located in close proximity to the 17/24 GHz BSS space 
station, or a combination of frequency separation and pfd limits, and 
what the appropriate parameters would be.
    43. Conclusion. We adopt a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 
seek comment on technical issues related to reverse band operations to 
address potential interference concerns.

Ex Parte Presentations

    44. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance 
of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects 
discussed. More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views 
and arguments presented is generally required. Other rules pertaining 
to oral and written presentations are set forth in Sec.  1.1206(b) of 
the Commission's rules as well.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    45. The actions contained herein have been analyzed with respect to 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 at the initiation of the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding, and we have previously received 
approval of the associated information collection requirements from the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control No. 3060-1097. 
The Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does not 
contain any new or modified ``information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    46. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the 
policies and rules proposed in this item, the Establishment of Policies 
and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-Satellite Service at the 17.3-
17.7 GHz Frequency Band and at the 17.7-17.8 GHz Frequency Band 
Internationally, and at the 24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency Band for Fixed 
Satellite Services Providing Feeder Links to the Broadcasting-Satellite 
Service and for the Broadcasting Satellite Service Operating Bi-
Directionally in the 17.3-17.8 GHz Frequency Band, Report and Order and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (R&O and FNPRM). Written public 
comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as 
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments 
on the FNPRM provided in paragraph 194 of this NPRM. The Commission 
will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In 
addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published 
in the Federal Register.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    47. The objective of the proposed rules is to address potential 
interference scenarios which arise in the reverse band operating 
environment. In the NPRM, we sought comment on what measures were 
needed to address issues concerning reverse band operations. These 
included measures to mitigate against space-path interference between

[[Page 46947]]

DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites (space-path interference) and to 
protect 17/24 GHz BSS subscribers from DBS feeder links (ground-path 
interference). The record on these issues is insufficient to develop 
requirements. While most commenters advocate certain general 
approaches, we need more information to build on the generalities and 
derive specific requirements. Thus, we seek further comment on the 
issues concerning reverse band operations.
    48. The two types of interference which might occur in the reverse 
band operating environment are ground path interference and space path 
interference. Ground path interference will occur when the signals from 
transmitting DBS feeder link earth stations operating the 17.3-17.7 GHz 
band are detected at the receiving earth stations of 17/24 GHz BSS 
subscribers. This interference will be the most severe in areas 
surrounding the DBS feeder uplink stations. Space path interference 
will occur when the transmitted signals from 17/24 GHz BSS satellites 
are received by the feeder link receivers on satellites operating in 
the DBS service.
    49. In order to mitigate against ground path and space path 
interference, we are proposing a variety of measures, such as the 
establishment of protection zones, coordination zones, power level 
limits, geographic restrictions of earth stations, informational 
requirements for coordination, and required technical showings.

Legal Basis

    50. This NPRM is adopted pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 7(a), 301, 
303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 303(y), and 308 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 301, 
303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 303(y), 308.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the 
Proposals Will Apply

    51. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the 
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). Below, we further describe and estimate the 
number of small entity licensees that may be affected by the adopted 
rules.
    52. Satellite Telecommunications. The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for the two broad census categories of 
``Satellite Telecommunications'' and ``Other Telecommunications.'' 
Under both categories, a business is considered small if it has $13.5 
million or less in annual receipts. The category of Satellite 
Telecommunications ``comprises establishments primarily engaged in 
providing point-to-point telecommunications services to other 
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by 
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of 
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' For this 
category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 
371 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 307 firms 
had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 26 firms had receipts of 
$10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority 
of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be 
affected by our action.
    53. The category of Other Telecommunications ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in (1) providing specialized 
telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking, 
communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or (2) 
providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities 
operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications 
systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or receiving 
telecommunications from satellite systems.'' For this category, Census 
Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 332 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 259 firms had annual 
receipts of under $10 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $10 
million to $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of 
Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be 
affected by our action.
    54. Space Stations (Geostationary). Commission records reveal that 
there are 44 space station licensees. We do not request nor collect 
annual revenue information concerning such licensees, and thus are 
unable to estimate the number of geostationary space station licensees 
that would constitute a small business under the SBA definition cited 
above, or apply any rules providing special consideration for 
geostationary space station licensees that are small businesses.
    55. 17 GHz Transmitting Earth Stations. Currently there are 
approximately 47 operational earth stations in the 17.3-17.7 GHz bands. 
The Commission does not request or collect annual revenue information, 
and thus is unable to estimate the number of earth stations that would 
constitute a small business under the SBA definition.
    56. Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications. The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for Cellular and Other 
Wireless Telecommunications, which consists of all such firms having 
1,500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, in 
this category there were 1,397 firms that operated for the entire year. 
Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, 
and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under 
this category and size standard, the majority of firms can be 
considered small.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    57. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission 
invites comment on various issues related to the mitigation of harmful 
interference in the reverse band operating environment, which is unique 
to operation in the 17/24 GHz BSS. None of the proposed methods are 
intended to increase the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other 
compliance requirements.

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered

    58. The RFA requires that, to the extent consistent with the 
objectives of applicable statutes, the analysis shall discuss 
significant alternatives such as: (1) The establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use 
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
    59. The measures proposed are necessary to mitigate against space-
path interference between DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites (space-path 
interference) and to protect 17/24 GHz BSS subscribers from DBS feeder 
links

[[Page 46948]]

(ground-path interference). The measures include the establishment of 
protection zones, coordination zones, power level limits, geographic 
restrictions of earth stations, and technical showings. We believe that 
these proposals are the most equitable solutions to the potential 
interference problems posed by operation in the 17/24 GHz BSS. We seek 
comment on viable alternatives to these rules or their reporting 
requirements that would lessen the economic impact on small entities. 
We also seek comment on the establishment of differing compliance or 
reporting requirements that take into account the resources available 
to small entities.

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    60. None.

Comment Filing Procedures

    61. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments in 
response to this FNPRM no later than on or before 75 days after Federal 
Register publication. Reply comments to these comments may be filed no 
later than on or before 105 days after Federal Register publication. 
All pleadings are to reference IB Docket No. 06-123. Comments may be 
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or 
by filing paper copies. Parties are strongly encouraged to file 
electronically. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
    62. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic 
file via the Internet to http://www.fcc/gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Parties 
should transmit one copy of their comments to the docket in the caption 
of this rulemaking. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters 
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, 
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit 
an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions 
for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to [email protected] 
and should include the following words in the body of the message, 
``get form .'' A sample form and directions will 
be sent in reply.
    63. Parties choosing to file by paper must file an original and 
four copies of each filing in IB Docket No. 06-123. Filings can be sent 
by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue 
to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). If more 
than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this 
proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each 
additional docket or rulemaking number. The Commission's mail 
contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-
delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing 
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be 
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be 
disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail 
(other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be 
sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal 
Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be 
addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings 
must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    64. Comments submitted on diskette should be on a 3.5 inch diskette 
formatted in an IBM-compatible format using Word for Windows or 
compatible software. The diskette should be clearly labeled with the 
commenter's name, proceeding (including the docket number, in this 
case, IB Docket No. 06-123), type of pleading (comment or reply 
comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on 
the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase ``Disk 
Copy--Not an Original.'' Each diskette should contain only one party's 
pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file.
    65. All parties must file one copy of each pleading electronically 
or by paper to each of the following: (1) The Commission's duplicating 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room 
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 488-5300, facsimile 
(202) 488-5563, or via e-mail at [email protected].
    66. Comments and reply comments and any other filed documents in 
this matter may be obtained from Best Copy and Printing, Inc., in 
person at 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, via 
telephone at (202) 488-5300, via facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via e-
mail at [email protected]. The pleadings will be also available for 
public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554 and through the Commission's Electronic Filing 
System (ECFS) accessible on the Commission's World Wide Web site, 
http://www.fcc.gov.
    67. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise 
summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments 
and reply comments must also comply with Sec.  1.49 and all other 
applicable sections of the Commission's rules. All parties are 
encouraged to utilize a table of contents, and to include the name of 
the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their 
submission. We also strongly encourage that parties track the 
organization set forth in this NPRM in order to facilitate our internal 
review process.
    68. Commenters who file information that they believe is 
proprietary may request confidential treatment pursuant to Sec.  0.459 
of the Commission's rules. Commenters should file both their original 
comments for which they request confidentiality and redacted comments, 
along with their request for confidential treatment. Commenters should 
not file proprietary information electronically. See Examination of 
Current Policy Concerning the Treatment of Confidential Information 
Submitted to the Commission, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 24816 (1998), 
Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 20128 (1999). Even if the 
Commission grants confidential treatment, information that does not 
fall within a specific exemption pursuant to the Freedom of Information 
Act (FOIA) must be publicly disclosed pursuant to an appropriate 
request. See 47 CFR 0.461; 5 U.S.C. 552. We note that the Commission 
may grant requests for confidential treatment either conditionally or 
unconditionally. As such, we note that the Commission has the 
discretion to release information on public interest grounds that does 
fall within the scope of a FOIA exemption.
    69. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 
303(r), 303(y), and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 
303(r), 303(y), 308, this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 
adopted.
    70. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center shall send a 
copy of this Further Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking, including the 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with 
section 603(a) of the Regulatory

[[Page 46949]]

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (1981).
    71. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of 
this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to 
Congress and the General Accountability Office pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 2

    Telecommunications.

47 CFR Part 25

    Satellites.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-16565 Filed 8-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P