[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 29, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50000-50033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16575]



[[Page 49999]]

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

Part IV





Federal Communications Commission





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



47 CFR Parts 2 and 25



Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-
Satellite Service; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 29, 2007 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 50000]]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission adopts processing and 
service rules for the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS). 
Specifically, the Commission adopts a first-come, first-served 
licensing procedure for the 17/24 GHz BSS, as well as various 
safeguards, reporting requirements, and licensee obligations. The 
Commission also adopts geographic service rules to require 17/24 GHz 
BSS licensees to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii as discussed 
herein. In addition, the Commission establishes rules and requirements 
for orbital spacing, minimum antenna diameter, and antenna performance 
standards. Also, the Commission establishes limits for uplink and 
downlink power levels to minimize the possibility of harmful 
interference. Finally, the Commission stipulates criteria to facilitate 
sharing in the 24 GHz and 17 GHz bands.

DATES: Effective September 28, 2007.

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 Report 
and Order (R&O) in IB Docket No. 06-123, FCC 07-76, adopted May 2, 2007 
and released on May 4, 2007. The full text of the R&O 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 a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact on small entities by the rules adopted in 
the R&O. The text of the FRFA is set forth in Appendix A of the R&O.
    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).

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 NPRM, 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 Report and Order

    1. With this Report and Order (R&O), the Federal Communications 
Commission (Commission) adopts processing and service rules for the 17/
24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS). Specifically, the 
Commission adopts a first-come, first-served licensing procedure for 
the 17/24 GHz BSS, as well as various safeguards, reporting 
requirements, and licensee obligations. The Commission also adopts 
geographic service rules to require 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to provide 
service to Alaska and Hawaii as discussed herein. In addition, the 
Commission establishes rules and requirements for orbital spacing, 
minimum antenna diameter, and antenna performance standards. Also, the 
Commission establishes limits for uplink and downlink power levels to 
minimize the possibility of harmful interference. Finally, the 
Commission stipulates criteria to facilitate sharing in the 24 GHz and 
17 GHz bands.
    2. In June 2006, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) in this proceeding, which proposed processing and 
service rules for the 17/24 GHz BSS. Eight parties filed comments in 
response to the NPRM, and six parties filed reply comments.
    3. As the Commission explained in the NPRM, the 1992 World 
Administrative Radio Conference (WARC-92) of the International 
Telecommunication Union (ITU) adopted an additional frequency 
allocation for BSS in Region 2. In 2000, the Commission implemented, in 
large part, the ITU Region 2 allocation for BSS domestically. The 
Commission recognized that although the allocation would not become 
effective for several years, its action would provide interested 
parties with sufficient notice and time to design their systems to use 
this spectrum in the most efficient manner. Specifically, the 
Commission adopted the following allocations and designations, which 
took effect on April 1, 2007: (1) Allocated the 17.3-17.7 GHz band, on 
a primary basis, to the BSS for downlink transmissions, recognizing 
that although the ITU Region 2 allocation apportioned the 17.3-17.8

[[Page 50001]]

GHz band for BSS use, the U.S. allocation would be limited to 17.3-17.7 
GHz to retain spectrum at 17.7-17.8 GHz for the relocation of fixed 
service (FS) facilities which were being displaced as a result of the 
new BSS allocation; (2) allocated 300 megahertz of spectrum at 24.75-
25.05 GHz on a primary basis for the Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) 
(uplink) and limited FSS uplink operations in this band to BSS feeder 
links; and (3) allocated 200 megahertz of spectrum at 25.05-25.25 GHz 
for co-primary use between the 24 GHz Fixed Service, formerly known as 
Digital Electronic Messaging Service (DEMS), and BSS feeder links. The 
Commission's objective was to accommodate new satellite services while 
providing adequate spectrum for existing FS operations.
    4. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed and sought comment on a 
variety of rules to facilitate the licensing of 17/24 GHz BSS space 
stations, and various obligations and requirements that will be applied 
to licensees. Also, the NPRM sought comment on technical rules designed 
to minimize interference and facilitate sharing in certain bands. The 
rules adopted in this Order establish licensing procedures and 
technical parameters that will enable prompt delivery of 17/24 GHz BSS 
satellite services to the public.
    5. Four entities--DIRECTV Enterprises, Inc. (DIRECTV), Pegasus 
Development DBS Corp. (Pegasus), EchoStar Satellite LLC (EchoStar), and 
Intelsat North America LLC (Intelsat)--have filed applications for 17/
24 GHz BSS space station licenses. These applications represent a wide 
range of system designs and business plans, from complementing existing 
DBS services to providing a new suite of services which will include 
standard-definition and high-definition formats. We adopt in this Order 
a method for processing these applications and accommodating entry by 
other qualified applicants.
    6. First-Come, First-Served Licensing Approach Adopted: In the 
NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the appropriate licensing 
approach to adopt for the 17/24 GHz BSS. The NPRM noted that, in the 
First Space Station Licensing Reform Order, the Commission adopted new 
licensing procedures for all satellite services except DBS and Digital 
Audio Radio Service (DARS). The Commission did not explain, however, 
whether 17/24 GHz BSS should be treated like DBS or other satellite 
services for purposes of processing applications. Thus, the NPRM sought 
comment on whether to process applications for the 17/24 GHz BSS space 
stations under the first-come, first-served licensing approach adopted 
in the First Space Station Licensing Reform Order for geostationary 
satellite orbit (GSO)-like space station applications. Under this 
approach, GSO-like satellite applications are processed on a first-
come, first-served basis. Thus, the Commission will grant a GSO-like 
application provided the applicant is qualified and the proposed system 
is not technically incompatible with a previously-licensed satellite or 
with a satellite proposed in a previously-filed application. 
Alternatively, we asked whether some other licensing approach would be 
more appropriate. In this regard, the NPRM specifically sought comment 
as to whether, pursuant to section 309(j) of the Communications Act, a 
competitive bidding system, or auction, could be designed to assign 
mutually exclusive applications for the use of this spectrum. The NPRM 
also sought comment on whether and how such an auction could be 
implemented consistent with the ORBIT Act, the D.C. Circuit's 
Northpoint ruling, and ITU procedures.
    7. The majority of commenters maintain that the first-come, first-
served licensing queue should be employed for processing applications 
for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations. EchoStar, however, argues that 17/24 
GHz BSS applications should not be processed under this approach, 
contending that this method does not result in the award of licenses to 
the applicant that is most able to put the spectrum to productive use. 
EchoStar believes that we should instead award 17/24 GHz BSS licenses 
by auction or by a processing round approach. To facilitate auctions, 
consistent with the ORBIT Act and the Northpoint ruling, EchoStar 
suggests that the Commission could limit 17/24 GHz BSS spectrum rights 
to the provision of domestic service if all competing applicants agree. 
Alternatively, EchoStar suggests that the Commission could require a 
percentage, such as 80%, of the 17/24 GHz BSS satellite's capacity be 
devoted to serving the United States. EchoStar further suggests that, 
if the Commission decides against an auctions approach, it should adopt 
a processing round procedure combined with strict financial 
requirements. No other commenters support the use of auctions or 
processing rounds.
    8. We find that the first-come, first-served licensing approach is 
well-suited for processing applications for 17/24 GHz BSS space 
stations. As noted in the NPRM, the proposed 17/24 GHz BSS space 
stations would provide services similar to those provided by the 
direct-to-home fixed satellite service (DTH FSS) satellites. We also 
note that all 17/24 GHz BSS applicants propose to operate GSO 
satellites. Because GSO satellites and constellations of non-
geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) satellites cannot generally share 
the same spectrum, and because, as evidenced by the pending 
applications, GSO technology is better suited to providing DTH video 
services, we limit operations in the 17/24 GHz BSS to GSO satellites. 
The Commission licenses GSO satellites and most other satellite 
services on a first-come, first-served basis. As both Intelsat and 
DIRECTV point out, the first-come, first-served processing method has 
proven to be an efficient approach for licensing GSO satellites. 
Indeed, our experience has shown that this licensing method has allowed 
the Commission to dramatically reduce the length of time required to 
process GSO applications. Moreover, with its associated package of 
safeguards, the first-come, first-served approach has increased the 
probability that those awarded licenses actually construct and launch 
their satellite systems. As commenters have noted, prompt deployment in 
this band is particularly important in light of the fact that the 17/24 
GHz BSS spectrum became available for use on April 1, 2007. In 
addition, the first-come, first-served licensing approach works well in 
conjunction with the ITU processes for unplanned bands, such as this 
one.
    9. We disagree with EchoStar that the first-come, first-served 
approach is legally unsound or that such an approach will be more 
likely to result in spectrum warehousing, speculation, and 
gamesmanship. To the contrary, as mentioned, this approach has reduced 
the number of speculative applications. Further, we have previously 
addressed the Commission's legal authority to adopt a first-come, 
first-served procedure. EchoStar has not provided any basis for 
revisiting that issue here.
    10. We also are not persuaded that EchoStar's comments warrant a 
conclusion in this instance that a competitive bidding system would 
best serve the public interest. Although auctions have proven to be an 
efficient means of assigning licenses for scarce spectrum resources to 
those parties that are able to use these resources efficiently and 
effectively for the benefit of the public, we conclude that restricting 
the provision of international service solely to remove 17/24 GHz BSS 
from the auction prohibition of the ORBIT Act is not in the public 
interest. We are concerned that such a restriction would likely 
interfere with applicants' business plans and would thus be an 
impediment to the efficient deployment

[[Page 50002]]

of service to consumers. Indeed, as Intelsat notes, three current 
applicants, including EchoStar, propose to provide international 
service. Thus, the record does not support agreement by competing 
applicants to provide 17/24 GHz BSS domestic service only. Further, 
such restrictions could put U.S.-licensed operators at a competitive 
disadvantage to foreign-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS systems, which are not 
similarly restricted in their own domestic markets. For these reasons, 
we will not award licenses for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations by auction.
    11. Further, we are not persuaded by EchoStar's proposal to adopt a 
processing round procedure. Prior to the adoption of the First Space 
Station Licensing Reform Order in 2003, we employed a processing round 
procedure in licensing GSO-like applications. Under this procedure, it 
normally took several years to issue satellite licenses, in one case 
nearly four years. Eliminating this regulatory delay was one of our 
primary motives in adopting the first-come, first served approach. 
Since the first-come, first-served approach has been adopted, the 
average processing time for GSO-like applications has decreased 
drastically and the backlog of applications is at an all-time low. The 
first-come, first-served processing queue provides a workable framework 
for timely and prompt processing of applications in this band and 
thereby facilitates the provision of service to the public. 
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we will adopt the first-
come, first-served procedure for processing 17/24 GHz BSS applications.
    12. Space Station Reform Safeguards Adopted, Including Bonds, 
Milestones, and Limits on the Number of Pending Applications: In the 
NPRM, the Commission noted that the First Space Station Licensing 
Reform Order adopted a package of safeguards designed to discourage 
speculative applications and to ensure that licensees remain committed 
and able to proceed with system implementation in a timely manner. 
Applying these safeguards to the 17/24 GHz BSS would require licensees 
to post a $3 million bond with the Commission within 30 days of license 
grant and construct and launch the satellite consistent with the 
milestone schedule specified in Sec.  25.164 of the Commission's rules. 
The bond becomes payable if a licensee fails to meet a milestone, 
rendering the license null and void. Further, GSO-like applicants are 
limited to a total of five pending applications and/or licensed but 
unlaunched satellites in a particular frequency band at any one time, 
and must submit substantially complete applications or face dismissal, 
and cannot sell their place in the processing queue. In the NPRM, the 
Commission requested comment on whether we should apply this package of 
safeguards if we decide to use the first-come, first-served processing 
approach for 17/24 GHz BSS. The Commission also sought comment on 
whether there are any public interest rationales for imposing a higher 
performance bond and/or tighter limits on the number of pending 
applications and licenses for unbuilt satellites that applicants for 
17/24 GHz systems may have at any one time.
    13. Commenters generally support applying the first-come, first-
served approach safeguards to the 17/24 GHz BSS. Intelsat states that 
applying the bond requirement and milestone policies should be 
sufficient to deter speculative filings in the 17/24 GHz BSS. Intelsat 
also notes that prohibiting the sale of places in the queue will 
further deter speculative applications. DIRECTV also supports the 
application of the safeguards that apply to other GSO-like services, 
i.e., milestones and performance bonds, to 17/24 GHz BSS systems. The 
Department of Telecommunications of the Government of Bermuda (Bermuda) 
notes that, although it does not support excessive reliance on the 
attainment of milestones nor the use of performance bonds for 
discouraging speculation, it supports the right of each administration 
to establish its own mechanisms to find a reasonable balance between 
commercial adventure and undue speculation. EchoStar raises concerns 
about the use of bonds and milestones to deter speculation and 
recommends reinstating the financial qualification rules applicable to 
FSS licensees prior to 2003. EchoStar contends that strict financial 
qualifications are needed because given the relatively limited number 
of orbital locations for operation in the 17/24 GHz BSS, the bond and 
milestone requirements are not enough to protect against speculation 
and could still result in an orbital location remaining fallow for 
several years.
    14. We adopt our proposal in the NPRM to apply the safeguards in 
place under the first-come, first-serve licensing approach to the 17/24 
GHz BSS. Contrary to EchoStar's assertions, our experience with these 
safeguards has shown them to be an effective measure for discouraging 
speculative applications. Indeed, the Commission adopted the bond 
requirement because the financial qualification requirements it had 
been using--and which EchoStar asks us to reinstate--did not accurately 
reflect whether a licensee would proceed with construction and launch 
of its space station. The Commission found requiring a surety company 
to assess the risk that a licensee would default on a bond would 
provide a more accurate market-driven determination of a licensee's 
ability to proceed than would a regulatory determination. EchoStar has 
not provided any evidence to support its assertion that the previously-
used financial standard was more effective. Consequently, we will not 
adopt EchoStar's proposal. Further, the record does not support more 
stringent bond requirements or different limits on the number of 
pending applications/unbuilt satellites for the 17/24 GHz BSS. Thus, we 
will apply the requirements in place for other GSO-like applicants to 
17/24 GHz BSS applicants.
    15. Accordingly, we will apply the same safeguards in place for 
other GSO-like bands to the 17/24 GHz BSS. These safeguards include 
requiring licensees to post a $3 million bond with the Commission 
within 30 days of license grant; to construct and launch satellite 
system(s) consistent with the milestone schedule for GSO satellites; to 
limit to five, the number of pending applications and/or licenses for 
unbuilt satellites in this band at any one time; and to file 
substantially complete applications. The safeguards also prohibit 
applicants from selling their places in the queue.
    16. With respect to the ``substantially complete'' requirement, we 
require applications to be complete in substance, and to provide all 
the information required in the application form. Furthermore, 
applications must not be defective under the Commission's rules, 
meaning that the applications must be complete with respect to answers 
to questions and informational showings, and must be free of internal 
inconsistencies. To be substantially complete, a 17/24 GHz BSS 
satellite application must include a complete Form 312 and Schedule S, 
and all the information requested in Sec.  25.114(d) of the 
Commission's rules. As amended in Appendix B of this Order, Sec.  
25.114(d) requires 17/24 GHz BSS satellite applicants to show that the 
proposed satellite will be able to function in a four-degree spacing 
environment. Applicants will be required to demonstrate that they 
comply with the pfd limits in new Sec.  25.208(w), or, if they do not, 
to demonstrate how they will affect adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS satellite 
networks, and that the operators of those networks agree to the 
applicant's proposed operations. Applicants whose proposed orbital 
locations are offset from the 17/24 GHz BSS orbital

[[Page 50003]]

locations listed in Appendix F will be required to show that they do 
not cause more interference than if they operated at an exact location 
listed in Appendix F, and that their satellite network's performance 
objectives will be met assuming that adjacent operators are operating 
at the maximum allowed power flux density levels.
    17. DISCO II Market Access Standard Adopted: The Commission's DISCO 
II Order implemented the market-opening commitments made by the United 
States in the World Trade Organization (``WTO'') Agreement on Basic 
Telecommunications Service (``WTO Basic Telecom Agreement''). In 
particular, the DISCO II Order established a framework under which the 
Commission will consider requests for non-U.S.-licensed space stations 
to serve the United States. This analysis considers the effect on 
competition in the United States, eligibility and operating 
requirements, spectrum availability, and national security, law 
enforcement, foreign policy, and trade concerns.
    18. Under DISCO II, the Commission evaluates the effect of foreign 
entry on competition in the United States in one of two ways. First, in 
cases where the non-U.S.-licensed space station is licensed by a 
country that is a member of the WTO and will provide services covered 
by the U.S. commitments under the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement, the 
Commission presumes that entry will further competition in the United 
States. The U.S. commitments include Mobile-Satellite Services (MSS) 
and many fixed-satellite services, but specifically exclude DTH, DBS, 
and DARS. In contrast, the Commission conducts an ``ECO-Sat'' analysis 
for non-U.S.-licensed space stations licensed by countries that are not 
WTO members and where the foreign operator, regardless of its licensing 
country's WTO status, proposes to provide a non-covered service. Under 
this analysis, applicants seeking to access a foreign space station 
must provide an analysis as part of their application demonstrating 
that U.S.-licensed space stations have effective competitive 
opportunities to provide analogous services in the country in which the 
space station is licensed (``home'' market) and in all countries in 
which communications with the U.S. earth station will originate or 
terminate (``route'' markets). In particular, the Commission examines 
whether there are any de jure or de facto barriers to entry in the 
foreign country for the provision of analogous services and whether any 
such barriers cause competitive distortions in the U.S. market. In the 
NPRM, the Commission proposed to apply this framework to non-U.S.-
licensed 17/24 GHz BSS satellite operators seeking to access the U.S. 
market.
    19. With respect to eligibility requirements, the Commission also 
proposed, in the NPRM, to extend to 17/24 GHz BSS operators the DISCO 
II policy that requires foreign-licensed space stations and operators 
to meet the same legal, technical, and financial requirements that we 
require U.S. applicants to meet. These include any requirements adopted 
in this proceeding, such as bond requirements, milestone requirements, 
geographic service requirements, public interest obligations, and 
spacecraft end-of-life disposal requirements.
    20. Further, as in other satellite services, the Commission also 
proposed to require entities requesting authority to serve the U.S. 
market from a non-U.S. satellite to provide the same information 
concerning the 17/24 GHz BSS satellite as U.S. applicants must provide 
when applying for a space station license. This allows us to determine 
whether the foreign-licensed satellite complies with all Commission 
technical and service requirements, and whether it may cause 
interference to satellites providing authorized services to U.S. 
customers.
    21. The commenters generally support this approach. EchoStar and 
SES Americom suggest that we should strictly enforce the ECO-Sat test 
because it allows us to ensure that U.S.-licensed operators have the 
same opportunity to provide 17/24 GHz BSS services to foreign countries 
as the satellites licensed by foreign countries have to serve the 
United States. In contrast, however, Bermuda notes that consumers would 
benefit if there was an increased presumption in all cases that entry 
to the market will further competition.
    22. We adopt the Commission's proposal in the NPRM to evaluate the 
applications of non-U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS satellite operators 
seeking to access the U.S. market under the DISCO II framework. Thus, 
our analysis will consider the effect on competition in the United 
States, eligibility and operating requirements, spectrum availability, 
and national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade 
concerns. We note in particular that all applications seeking authority 
to provide DTH services from non-U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS operators 
to the U.S. market must include an ECO-Sat analysis. We will not 
eliminate this analysis in favor of a presumption that entry, in all 
cases, will further competition, as Bermuda suggests. The ECO-Sat 
analysis assures us that a foreign entrant will not have a competitive 
advantage over U.S.-licensed operators derived from their ability to 
serve countries and customers that U.S. operators may be precluded from 
serving. Bermuda has not explained why, or to what extent, the 17/24 
GHz BSS is so different from other services that we need not be 
concerned about ensuring a level playing field among these systems. 
Further, any evaluation of whether to continue to apply the ECO-SAT 
analysis to non-covered services in general is beyond the scope of this 
proceeding.
    23. Last, as with all other services, we require all 17/24 GHz BSS 
operators seeking authority to serve the U.S. market from a non-U.S. 
satellite to provide the same information concerning their proposed 17/
24 GHz BSS space stations as U.S. applicants must provide when applying 
for a space station license. This includes filing FCC Form 312, 
information required in Schedule S, and all other information required 
by Sec.  25.114 of the Commission's rules. In addition, all non-U.S-
licensed satellite operators must meet the requirements adopted in this 
proceeding, including but not limited to bond requirements, milestone 
requirements, geographic service requirements, public interest 
obligations and spacecraft end-of-life disposal requirements.
    24. Licensing at Co-Located 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS Orbital 
Locations: EchoStar argues that we should award licenses for 17/24 GHz 
BSS satellites that will be co-located with DBS satellites only to 
existing DBS licensees at those locations. According to EchoStar, this 
restriction would minimize the risk of harmful interference which will 
occur when 17/24 GHz BSS satellites are located at or near the same 
orbital locations as DBS satellites. SES Americom and Intelsat oppose 
this proposal, claiming that it is anti-competitive and would block new 
entrants from the 17/24 GHz BSS.
    25. We agree with SES Americom and Intelsat. The effect of 
accepting EchoStar's argument would be an expansion of the 
authorizations of DBS licensees to include authority to operate in the 
17/24 GHz BSS on the same channel and orbital location at which they 
are currently operating. We find that providing such rights to existing 
DBS licensees would hinder competition while conferring a benefit on 
existing DBS licensees. Further, we note that, in the FNPRM section of 
this document below, we invite comment on various methods for 
coordinating DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites when located near each 
other in the

[[Page 50004]]

geostationary orbit, perhaps as close as 0.2[deg] or 0.3[deg] to each 
other. In light of this, we find that EchoStar's proposal to prohibit 
non-DBS operators from applying for 17/24 GHz BSS licenses at DBS 
orbital locations is not necessary to prevent harmful interference 
between DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites.
    26. Fifteen-year and Eight-Year License Terms Adopted, 
Respectively, for Non-Broadcast and Broadcast 17/24 GHz Licensees: In 
the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the license term it should 
apply to 17/24 GHz licenses. The Commission noted that Sec.  25.121 of 
the Commission's rules provides that licenses for space stations will 
be issued for a period of 15 years, except licenses for DBS space 
stations. DBS space stations licensed as broadcast facilities are 
issued licenses for eight-year terms, and those DBS space stations not 
licensed as broadcast facilities have 10-year terms. The Communications 
Act provides for a maximum licensing term of eight years for 
broadcasting facilities and allows the Commission to determine license 
terms for particular classes of stations, including satellite space and 
earth stations. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to adopt a 10-year 
license term for all non-broadcast 17/24 GHz BSS satellites. For 17/24 
GHz BSS satellites that will operate as broadcast facilities, the 
Commission proposed an eight-year license term, as provided under 
section 307(c)(1) of the Communications Act.
    27. DIRECTV, Intelsat, and Bermuda support a 15-year license term 
for 17/24 GHz systems. Bermuda states that most commercial satellites 
being planned or built today are intended for a service life-expectancy 
of longer than eight years, and notes that a 15-year term would also be 
consistent with international practices.
    28. Pursuant to our statutory authority to implement license terms 
for different classes of space and earth stations, with the exception 
of DBS stations, we adopt a 15-year license term for all non-broadcast 
17/24 GHz BSS licenses and an eight-year license term for 17/24 GHz BSS 
licensees operating as broadcasters. As noted by the parties, 
satellites being built today are intended for longer service life 
expectancy than in the past and should therefore be assigned a longer 
license term. A 15-year license term for non-broadcast 17/24 GHz BSS 
satellites accurately reflects the useful life of most GSO satellites 
today and therefore, we will extend the license terms applicable to 
other non-broadcast GSO-like licensees to 17/24 GHz BSS licensees.
    29. Streamlined Procedures Adopted: While the Commission has 
consistently said that all orbital assignments confer no permanent 
rights of use to the licensee, it has recognized the importance of 
giving satellite operators some assurance that they will be able to 
continue to serve their customers from the same orbital location as 
older satellites are retired. The Commission has stated that, without 
this assurance, operators may be discouraged from investing the hundred 
of millions of dollars needed to construct, launch, and operate each 
satellite. Further, the Commission has said that without follow-on 
capacity at the same orbit location, customers could experience service 
disruptions. When an orbit location remains available for a U.S. 
satellite with the technical characteristics of the proposed 
replacement satellite, we will generally authorize the replacement 
satellite at the same location.
    30. To facilitate grant of replacement satellites, the Commission 
has historically processed applications for replacement satellites as 
they are filed, rather than subjecting them to the procedures that 
otherwise govern applications for new satellites. Thus, Commission 
practice is to immediately consider an application for a replacement 
satellite--and grant it if the applicant is qualified--without 
subjecting the application to a ``processing queue'' or other procedure 
by which it considers other applications that may be mutually exclusive 
with the replacement satellite application. To further expedite 
replacement satellite licensing, the Commission considers unopposed 
replacement satellite applications with technical characteristics 
consistent with those of the satellite to be retired are processed 
under a grant-stamp procedure. In the NPRM, we proposed to treat 
replacement satellite applications in the 17/24 GHz BSS under these 
streamlined procedures.
    31. DIRECTV and Intelsat support this proposal. Bermuda also 
supports a replacement policy that allows operators to replace ``like 
with like,'' i.e., replace a satellite after a premature in-orbit 
failure (such as caused by solar activity or manufacturing flaw) but 
cautions against abuses in the satellite replacement grant-stamp 
process.
    32. In order to facilitate grant of 17/24 GHz BSS replacement 
satellite applications, we adopt the streamlined procedures applicable 
to the majority of the replacement satellite applications considered by 
the Commission. We have found that the grant-stamp procedure is an 
efficient method of processing replacement satellite applications and 
will apply this procedure to unopposed applications for replacement 
satellites in the 17/24 GHz BSS. Further, the procedure contains 
mechanisms against abuse. We will place 17/24 GHz replacement 
applications on Public Notice, as we do with replacement satellite 
applications in other services. Thus, interested parties will have an 
opportunity to comment on all applications. We will address any 
concerns raised when processing the replacement application and will 
issue an Order, instead of a grant stamp, when appropriate.
    33. Annual Reporting Requirements Adopted: In the NPRM, the 
Commission noted that most space station operators are subject to 
annual reporting requirements on June 30 of each year. These reports 
must include, among other things, the status of space station 
construction and anticipated launch dates. The Commission requested 
comment on whether we should require 17/24 GHz BSS U.S.-licensees and 
17/24 GHz BSS non-U.S. operators that are authorized to access the 
United States to submit similar annual reports.
    34. Bermuda and Intelsat support a reporting requirement, stating 
that annual reports can be useful for monitoring the progress of 
milestone compliance and helping to deter speculative applications. 
Bermuda adds that licensees should file reports regardless of whether 
they are U.S. operators or non-U.S. operators. Bermuda also states that 
requiring operators to report at intervals of less than one year would 
provide an increased opportunity to monitor progress. No party objects 
to a reporting requirement for 17/24 GHz BSS operators.
    35. We adopt the Commission's proposal to require 17/24 GHz BSS 
U.S.-licensees and 17/24 GHz BSS non-U.S. operators that are authorized 
to access the United States to submit annual reports similar to the 
annual reports required of most FSS satellite operators to the 
Commission on June 30 of each year. We believe such reports, filed on 
an annual basis, will help keep us apprised of the status of the space 
station, both while it is being built and once it is in-orbit. We are 
not convinced that more frequent reporting is needed to achieve this 
objective. In addition to annual reports, licensees must file 
documentation that they have met various milestones at each milestone 
deadline. This provides the most timely way to monitor licensees' 
compliance with the milestone conditions in their licenses. We also 
note that the Commission may request at any time additional information 
if such request is warranted.

[[Page 50005]]

    36. Operators should file their annual reports with the 
Commission's International Bureau and the Commission's Columbia 
Operations Center in Columbia, Maryland. Specifically, the annual 
reports must include: (1) Status of satellite construction and 
anticipated launch date, including any major problems or delays 
encountered; (2) a listing of any non-scheduled transponder outages for 
more than 30 minutes and the cause or causes of such outage; (3) a 
detailed description of the utilization made of each transponder on 
each of the in-orbit satellites, including the percentage of time that 
the system is actually used for U.S. domestic or transborder 
transmission, the amount of capacity (if any) sold but not in service 
within U.S. territorial geographic areas, and the amount of unused 
system capacity; and (4) identification of any transponder not 
available for service or otherwise not performing to specifications, 
the cause of these difficulties, and the date any space station was 
taken out of service or the malfunction identified.
    37. NPRM Proposal Adopted: In the NPRM, the Commission proposed 
that applicants for 17/24 GHz BSS satellites should pay fees associated 
with the ``Space Stations (Geostationary)'' service in Sec.  1.1107 of 
the Commission's rules. In addition, we proposed that applicants 
seeking authority to operate earth stations in the 17/24 GHz BSS should 
pay fees associated with the ``Fixed Satellite Transmit/Receive Earth 
Stations'' in Sec.  1.1107. There were no comments on our filing fee 
proposals and we adopt our fee proposals.
    38. DBS and DTH Public Interest Obligations Adopted for 17/24 GHz 
BSS: Sec.  25.701 of our rules requires DBS providers to comply with 
certain political broadcast requirements and children's television 
advertising limits, and to set aside four percent of channel capacity 
for noncommercial, educational or informational programming. The 
entities subject to Sec.  25.701 include entities licensed to operate 
satellites in the 12.2 to 12.7 GHz DBS frequency bands; entities 
licensed pursuant to part 25 of the Commission's rules to provide FSS 
via the Ku-band, that sell or lease transponder capacity to a video 
program distributor that offers a specified number of DTH video 
channels to consumers; and non-U.S. licensed satellites providing DBS 
or DTH-FSS services in the United States. The NPRM proposed that, to 
the extent a 17/24 GHz BSS space station is used to provide video 
programming to consumers in the United States (DBS-like services), the 
licensee should be subject to the public interest obligations contained 
in Sec.  25.701. We invited comment on this proposal.
    39. Commenters generally support applying public interest 
requirements to the 17/24 GHz BSS. SES Americom, however, contends that 
such requirements should be imposed only on 17/24 GHz BSS licensees 
that distribute programming to end users, and not on 17/24 GHz BSS 
licensees that are strictly satellite operators with no programming 
control, because they are not in a position to comply with the 
obligations. In reply, EchoStar states that if public interest 
obligations are imposed on any 17/24 GHz BSS licensees, they should be 
imposed uniformly on all such licensees. DIRECTV also believes that 
public interest obligations should be imposed equally on all 17/24 GHz 
BSS licensees, and states that the Commission has previously addressed 
and rejected SES Americom's arguments.
    40. We find that the obligations imposed on DBS providers by Sec.  
25.701 should apply uniformly if the 17/24 GHz BSS space station is 
used to provide video services to consumers in the United States. SES 
Americom's argument that program distributors using satellite capacity 
should be ultimately responsible for fulfilling these obligations was 
specifically addressed and rejected by the Commission when it 
originally adopted the public interest rules and on reconsideration of 
those rules. We see no reason to adopt a different approach for 
operations in the 17/24 GHz BSS. Accordingly, we adopt the proposal to 
amend Sec.  25.701 to apply to any 17/24 GHz BSS licensee, to the 
extent that the space station is used to provide video programming to 
consumers in the United States.
    41. Although Media Access Project supports the Commission's 
proposal to impose public interest obligations on 17/24 GHz BSS 
licensees that provide DBS-like services, it argues that the Commission 
should increase the amount of programming that service providers in 
this band are required to reserve for non-commercial programming of an 
educational or informational nature. It argues that, given the 
expansion of spectrum capacity being offered to service providers in 
this proceeding, the Commission should require that licensees offer an 
accompanying increase in their public interest programming from the 
statutory minimum of four percent to the statutory maximum of seven 
percent. According to Media Access Project, the increase would provide 
value to the public in return for their use of the scarce public 
resources of spectrum and orbital locations. EchoStar argues that a 
public interest programming set-aside requirement of seven percent 
would be a disincentive to development of the 17/24 GHz BSS and would 
``significantly limit'' the capacity available for sought-after 
services such as local-into-local television broadcast stations and 
high-definition programming.
    42. To the extent that Media Access Project is arguing that the 
channel reservation requirement should be increased for all DBS 
providers, including those originally covered by Sec.  25.701, that 
issue is beyond the scope of this proceeding. With respect to any 
argument that the reservation be increased for only licensees in the 
17/24 GHz BSS, we find that this might prove detrimental to development 
of this band by placing greater burdens on these licensees than those 
operating in others bands. Thus, we require 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to 
reserve four percent of their channel capacity, as defined in Sec.  
25.701, for use by qualified programmers for noncommercial programming 
of an educational or informational nature. See 47 CFR 25.701(c).
    43. The NPRM also sought comment on whether licensees in the 17/24 
GHz BSS qualify to use the compulsory copyright licenses granted under 
sections 119 and 122 of the Copyright Act and, if so, whether broadcast 
carriage requirements should apply. See 17 U.S.C. 119, 122. These 
statutory licenses permit satellite carriers, as defined in the 
Copyright Act, to provide television broadcast signals to their 
subscribers. Section 119 of the Copyright Act defines ``satellite 
carrier'' as an entity that uses a satellite operating in the FSS or 
DBS service for point-to-multipoint distribution of television signals. 
See 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(6). See also 47 U.S.C. 339. This section of the 
Copyright Act allows satellite carriers to offer distant broadcast 
signals under certain circumstances. Section 122 of the Copyright Act 
provides a license for local-into-local service and defines ``satellite 
carrier'' by reference to the definition in section 119. See 17 U.S.C. 
122(j)(3). See also 47 U.S.C. 338.
    44. Both DIRECTV and EchoStar, as well as NAB, support allowing 17/
24 GHz BSS licensees to qualify to use the compulsory copyright 
licenses. DIRECTV asserts that while the 17/24 GHZ BSS service is not 
totally in either the DBS or FSS frequency bands, the uplink for this 
service is in a frequency band allocated to FSS and, therefore, the 
copyright license could be construed to cover 17/24 GHz BSS. 
Alternatively,

[[Page 50006]]

DIRECTV asserts that the Commission could amend its definition of 
``DBS'' to include use of the 17/24 GHz BSS downlink band. Although we 
will not offer an opinion on the appropriate construction of the 
Copyright Act, we believe that sections 338 and 339 of the 
Communications Act would apply to 17/24 GHz BSS licensees and that 
operators in this band, to the extent that they provide DBS-like 
service, qualify for use of the statutory copyright licenses. These 
licensees will provide point-to-multipoint service, in part using FSS 
frequencies, and thus they appear to come within the definition of a 
satellite carrier. Licensees availing themselves of the statutory 
copyright licenses must, of course, abide by the accompanying broadcast 
carriage requirements in the statute and in Commission rules, and, if 
they offer service to more than 5 million customers, must provide 
television broadcast signals to subscribers in Alaska and Hawaii.
    45. EEO Requirements Adopted: The NPRM noted that Sec.  25.601 of 
the Commission's rules requires an entity that owns or leases an FSS or 
DBS service facility to provide video programming directly to the 
public on a subscription basis to comply with the equal employment 
opportunity (EEO) requirements. These requirements are set forth in 
part 76 of the Commission's rules and apply if the entity exercises 
control over the video programming it distributes. We proposed to apply 
Sec.  25.601 to 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to the extent such licensees 
provide DBS-like services. In addition, we proposed to require 17/24 
GHz BSS licensees to comply with any other EEO requirements that may be 
subsequently adopted or enforced by the Commission for broadcasters and 
multichannel video service distributors (MVPDs). We sought comment on 
this proposal.
    46. EchoStar states that if we impose EEO obligations on 17/24 GHz 
BSS licensees, we should apply them uniformly to all licensees. Bermuda 
states generally that it supports our proposals. We find that it is in 
the public interest to apply Sec.  25.601 of our rules to 17/24 GHz BSS 
licensees to the extent such licensees provide DBS-like services, as 
well as to require 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to comply with any other EEO 
requirements that may be subsequently adopted or enforced by the 
Commission for broadcasters and MVPDs. Accordingly, we will apply Sec.  
25.601 of our rules to 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to the extent such 
licensees provide DBS-like services, and 17/24 GHz BSS licensees will 
be required to comply with any other EEO requirements that may be 
subsequently adopted or enforced by the Commission for broadcasters and 
MVPDs.
    47. Service Requirements for Alaska and Hawaii Adopted: The 
Commission is committed to establishing policies and rules that will 
promote service to all regions in the United States, particularly to 
traditionally underserved areas, such as Alaska and Hawaii, and other 
remote areas. To achieve these goals, the NPRM proposed to apply 
geographic service rules for the states of Alaska and Hawaii in the 17/
24 GHz BSS. Specifically, to the extent that 17/24 GHz BSS space 
stations are used to provide video programming to consumers in the 
United States, we proposed to adopt rules analogous to those in effect 
for DBS satellites in Sec.  25.148(c) of the Commission's rules. These 
rules require DBS licensees to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii 
where such service is technically feasible from the authorized orbital 
location. DBS applicants who do not propose to serve Alaska and Hawaii 
at the licensing stage must provide technical analyses to the 
Commission demonstrating that such service is not feasible as a 
technical matter or that, while technically feasible, such service 
would require so many compromises in satellite design and operation as 
to make it economically unreasonable. The Commission sought comment on 
this proposal. In addition, the NPRM noted that it is likely that many 
of the satellite operators in the 17/24 GHz BSS will operate multiple 
satellites. We asked whether, in such instances, we should apply 
geographic service rules at each orbital location or on a system-wide 
basis.
    48. Commenters generally support adopting rules analogous to the 
DBS rules. DIRECTV and EchoStar also support applying the rules on a 
system-wide basis rather than on an orbital location basis. DIRECTV 
states that applying the rules on a system-wide basis will provide 
flexibility without compromising the goal of comparable service to all 
regions of the United States. EchoStar notes that the technical 
feasibility of service from a particular orbital location may not be 
the same for the 12 GHz and 17 GHz bands.
    49. Accordingly, 17/24 GHz BSS licensees, to the extent that such 
licensees provide DBS-like services, are required to certify that they 
will provide service to Alaska and Hawaii comparable to that provided 
to locations in the 48 contiguous United States (CONUS), unless such 
service is not technically feasible or not economically reasonable from 
the authorized orbital location. In addition, we require applicants to 
design and configure 17/24 GHz BSS satellites to be capable of 
providing service to Alaska and Hawaii that is comparable to the 
service that such satellites will provide to CONUS subscribers. 
Furthermore, we require applicants to design and configure these 
satellites to be able to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii from any 
orbital location capable of providing service to either Alaska or 
Hawaii to which they may be relocated in the future. Thus, regardless 
of the location to which the satellite is initially authorized to 
operate from, if moved to a location capable of providing coverage to 
Alaska and Hawaii, the satellite will be configured to provide service 
to Alaska and Hawaii at the new orbital location. Applying geographic 
service requirements to 17/24 GHz BSS operators in this manner will 
best ensure that 17/24 GHz BSS service provided to Alaska and Hawaii is 
comparable to that provided to CONUS locations. Although we are 
applying these requirements to each satellite where technically 
feasible instead of on a system-wide basis as proposed by DIRECTV and 
EchoStar, we believe that operators will have sufficient flexibility to 
design their systems in a manner that will be both technically and 
economically efficient. We also require licensees to certify that 
replacement and relocated satellites at locations from which service to 
Alaska and Hawaii had been provided by another 17/24 GHz BSS satellite 
will have the capability to provide at least the same level of service 
to Alaska and Hawaii as the previous 17/24 GHz BSS satellite at that 
location. 17/24 GHz BSS applicants who do not intend to provide service 
to Alaska and Hawaii must provide, in their initial application, 
technical analyses to the Commission demonstrating that such service is 
not feasible as a technical matter or that, while technically feasible, 
such service would require so many compromises in satellite design and 
operation as to make it economically unreasonable.
    50. EAS Requirements Adopted: In the NPRM, the Commission noted 
that, in the EAS First Report and Order and Further Notice, the 
Commission amended part 11 of its rules to require participation in the 
Emergency Alert System (EAS) by digital broadcast stations, digital 
cable systems, DBS services, and DARS. The NPRM also noted that in the 
EAS First Report and Order and Further Notice, the Commission defined 
DBS broadly to include the ``vast majority of DTH services, 
particularly those which viewers may have expectations as to available 
warnings based on experience

[[Page 50007]]

with broadcast television services.'' Because the same concerns the 
Commission addressed in the EAS First Report and Order and Further 
Notice are presented with the introduction of services by 17/24 GHz BSS 
providers, the NPRM proposed to apply the EAS requirements to providers 
of those services to the extent that 17/24 GHz BSS licensees provide 
DBS-like services.
    51. Commenters disagree as to whether the Commission should apply 
EAS requirements to all 17/24 GHz BSS licensees. SES Americom and 
Intelsat maintain that EAS requirements should apply only to 17/24 GHz 
BSS licensees that distribute programming to end users and not to FSS 
licensees that provide satellite capacity, such as SES Americom and 
Intelsat. According to SES Americom, FSS operators have conclusively 
demonstrated that placing EAS obligations on the licensee instead of 
the programming distributor impairs the effectiveness of the EAS 
program and prevents the Commission from penalizing a programming 
distributor that fails to deliver a required alert. SES concludes that 
if the Commission decides to apply EAS requirements to the 17/24 GHz 
BSS, it should ensure that they are placed only on programming 
distributors and not on the underlying satellite operators.
    52. EchoStar and DIRECTV disagree with SES Americom and Intelsat. 
On reply, EchoStar and DIRECTV argue that all 17/24 GHz BSS licensees, 
whether they provide programming or underlying capacity, should be 
subject to EAS requirements. DIRECTV also notes that the Commission has 
previously determined that satellite licensees, such as Intelsat, 
should be subject to EAS requirements for other satellite services. 
Consequently, DIRECTV argues, unless the Commission changes its policy 
regarding the application of EAS requirements to other services it 
should not adopt Intelsat and SES Americom's proposal for the 17/24 GHz 
service alone.
    53. Bermuda also submitted comments in support of applying EAS 
requirements to all 17/24 GHz BSS licensees that provide DBS-like 
services. Bermuda argues that imposing this requirement not only 
insures that all satellite operators providing DTH-like or DBS-like 
services will be subject to the same requirements, but also means that 
consumers will receive equal services in the event of an emergency. 
Bermuda further states that in the broader context of EAS, it has 
concerns regarding extreme weather conditions and recognizes that 
resilient communications are necessary for the dissemination of vital 
information to the public in times of emergency.
    54. We believe that customers of the new 17/24 GHz BSS services 
would likely have similar expectations regarding these services as they 
do towards those other satellite services where video programming is 
provided directly to consumers. The particular band in which DTH 
services are offered has no relevance to customers' expectations 
regarding their ability to receive warnings. In other words, the EAS 
obligations for these services should be uniform no matter what portion 
of spectrum a particular provider chooses for its services. In this 
regard, we note that, pursuant to the rules adopted in the EAS First 
Report and Order, entities providing DBS services as defined by Sec.  
25.701(a) of the Commission's rules, will be subject to the part 11 EAS 
rules effective May 31, 2007. In light of this precedent and the 
reasons stated above, we conclude that, where 17/24 GHz BSS space 
stations are used to provide video services directly to consumers, the 
EAS requirements will apply. This will ensure consistent application of 
the EAS requirements irrespective of the different spectrum being used. 
We note, however, that PanAmSat Corporation, SES Americom, Inc. and 
Intelsat, Ltd. (collectively the ``FSS Group'') filed a petition for 
partial reconsideration of the EAS First Report and Order, making 
arguments essentially identical to those raised in their comments in 
this proceeding. We will address these issues in an Order dealing with 
the reconsideration petitions in the EAS proceeding.
    55. Use of BSS Spectrum at 17.7-17.8 GHz: Although the 
international allocation for Region 2 BSS in the space-to-Earth 
direction extends from 17.3-17.8 GHz, in the 18 GHz Report and Order, 
the Commission extended the domestic allocation to the BSS only to 17.7 
GHz. As discussed in the NPRM, the Commission based its decision in 
part upon the ubiquitous nature of broadcasting-satellite services 
which we believed would preclude successful coordination with a 
terrestrial service that was similarly widely deployed, and taking into 
account the amount of terrestrial fixed spectrum being lost as a result 
of that proceeding. In the NPRM, the Commission recognized that U.S. 
satellite operators might wish to use the 17.7-17.8 GHz band to provide 
service to receiving earth stations located within ITU Region 2, but 
outside of the United States. Accordingly, the Commission proposed to 
permit U.S. operators to use the international allocation to the BSS, 
but to limit use of the downlink to international service only, i.e., 
to receiving earth stations located outside of the U.S. and its 
possessions. The NPRM sought comment on this proposal and any rule 
changes that might be necessary to effect its implementation. 
Recognizing that the footprint of satellite beams serving nearby Region 
2 countries could illuminate portions of the United States, the NPRM 
also proposed to adopt Power Flux Density (pfd) limits in order to 
protect terrestrial service antennas from co-frequency interference 
from space station transmissions. Specifically, it proposed to adopt 
the same pfd limits that were imposed on FSS transmissions in the 17.7-
17.8 GHz band by Sec.  25.208(c) of the Commission's rules prior to the 
adoption of the 18 GHz Report and Order in 2002, and are also the same 
limits that Article 21 of the ITU Radio Regulations currently imposes 
on FSS operators in this band. See Table 21-4 of the ITU Radio 
Regulations. The NPRM sought comment on extension of these proposed pfd 
limits to the 17/24 GHz BSS.
    56. Commenters responding to this issue consistently favor the 
Commission's proposal to permit use of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band outside 
of the United States and its possessions. However, many argue that the 
Commission's proposal did not go far enough with regard to domestic 
service. DIRECTV and EchoStar both request that the Commission also 
allow satellite operators to provide service to U.S.-based receiving 
earth stations on a non-protected, non-interference basis, arguing that 
there is very little chance that downlink transmissions from a BSS 
satellite would interfere with the much stronger terrestrial service 
transmissions in this portion of the band and stating that spectrum 
should not be required to remain fallow in areas where there is little 
terrestrial use. Intelsat further argues that coordination with Fixed 
Service (FS) operators in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band is feasible 
particularly if FS deployment is frozen after a certain date to permit 
BSS operators to deploy their earth stations with full knowledge of the 
locations of FS earth stations. Alternatively, Intelsat suggests that 
the Commission could grant BSS and FS co-primary status and protect 
receive earth station sites on a case-by-case basis while permitting FS 
deployment in the band to continue. Finally, SES Americom states that 
the Commission should entertain requests for a waiver of the 
Commission's rules to permit use of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band on a case-
by-case basis.

[[Page 50008]]

    57. The Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC) opposes 
satellite operators' requests for authority to provide domestic service 
in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. The FWCC claims that the FS used the band 
heavily even prior to the 1998 18 GHz Report and Order and that the 
number of FS links continues to increase. It argues that such an action 
on the Commission's part would be both bad policy and contrary to law 
as the NPRM expressly took such a possibility off the table. The FWCC 
further argues that satellite operators seek to reopen the issue of 
terrestrial service and satellite service sharing that has already been 
thoroughly aired and considered, and urges the Commission to state that 
the matter is closed. FiberTower also opposes 17/24 GHz BSS domestic 
use of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band, stating that it would not be possible to 
effect coordination with ongoing FS operations in the band and that 
such a reallocation would once again disrupt FS operations in order to 
rechannelize the 18 GHz band.
    58. In the NPRM, the Commission made clear that it did not intend 
to reexamine the question of BSS and FS sharing in the 17.7-17.8 GHz 
band in this rulemaking. We believe that undertaking examination of 
such a technically complex issue would only result in a protracted and 
contentious rulemaking. As stated in the NPRM, this could only disserve 
our goal of establishing technical and service rules for the 17/24 GHz 
BSS in a timely manner, particularly recognizing the April 1, 2007 date 
at which the allocation became effective. Moreover, the Commission also 
stated that no applicant had provided either convincing evidence that 
terrestrial FS spectrum relocation requirements are less demanding than 
predicted, or a compelling argument that coordination of widely 
deployed terrestrial services with ubiquitously located 17/24 GHz BSS 
receivers would be readily feasible. That remains true to date. For 
these reasons, we agree with the FWCC's assertion that reopening the 
issue in this rulemaking is not appropriate, and we decline to consider 
requests to make the 17.7-17.8 GHz band available for domestic BSS 
operations as a part of this proceeding.
    59. EchoStar, DIRECTV and SES Americom all suggest that reception 
of some non-protected BSS transmissions at U.S. earth stations might be 
accommodated successfully in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. EchoStar notes 
that a similar approach has been undertaken successfully with FSS DTH 
antennas in the extended Ku-bands. In certain instances, FSS applicants 
seeking to use extended Ku-band spectrum for domestic service, have 
obtained waivers of the Commission's rules and agreed to accept all 
interference from FS stations as a condition of authorization. However, 
in the extended Ku-bands, there is an existing primary allocation to 
the FSS in the 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz bands, although 
footnote NG 104 to the United States Table of Frequency Allocations 
(Table of Allocations) limits FSS use to international systems only. 
See 47 CFR 2.106 and NG 104. In the case of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band, 
neither a primary nor a secondary domestic allocation to the BSS exists 
in the space-to-Earth direction. The Commission will not modify the 
Table of Allocations to provide a secondary allocation to the BSS in 
this band for the reasons stated above--we do not intend to reexamine 
BSS/FS sharing issues in this rulemaking.
    60. Commenters also support the adoption of pfd limits in the 17.7-
17.8 GHz band to protect terrestrial networks. SES Americom and 
Intelsat agree with the Commission's proposal to apply the pfd limits 
of Article 21 of the ITU Radio Regulations for FSS systems operating in 
the 17.7-19.7 GHz band to BSS downlink transmissions in the 17.7-17.8 
GHz band. DIRECTV, although proposing a different (graduated) set of 
pfd values for 17/24 GHz BSS downlink transmissions in general, states 
that the ITU Article 21 pfd limits are sufficient to protect 
terrestrial services from interference. EchoStar also proposes a 
graduated set of pfd values for the entire 17.3-17.8 GHz band and 
compares its proposed values to the limits proposed in the NPRM, noting 
that at low elevation angles its values are actually 8 dB more 
stringent than those of Article 21, hence sufficient to protect 
terrestrial services from interference. Accordingly, as proposed in the 
NPRM, we extend the FSS pfd limits of Article 21 of the ITU Radio 
Regulations to 17/24 GHz BSS in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. Consistent with 
other pfd requirements in our rules, See, e.g., 47 CFR 25.208(a)-(c), 
the maximum values will apply to elevation angles ([dgr]) between 
25[deg] and 90[deg] above the horizontal plane. We will restrict pfd 
values by a factor of ([dgr] -5)/2 for elevation angles between 5[deg] 
and 25[deg] above the horizontal plane, and to values of 10 dB lower 
for elevation angles between 0[deg] and 5[deg] above the horizontal 
plane.
    61. The NPRM also sought comment on Tracking, Telemetry and Command 
(TT&C) operations in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. Section 25.202(g) of the 
Commission's rules requires that TT&C functions for all U.S. domestic 
satellites be conducted at either or both edges of the allocated 
band(s). See 47 CFR 25.202(g). In the case of the 17.3-17.7 GHz 
allocation, this rule would permit TT&C operations at frequencies just 
above 17.3 GHz or just below 17.7 GHz. The Commission's rules would not 
permit TT&C operations into U.S.-based earth stations at frequencies 
just below 17.8 GHz. Recognizing that reliance upon foreign-based TT&C 
facilities for on-station operations could adversely affect the U.S. 
operator's ability to maintain control of its spacecraft, the NPRM 
sought comment on how best to accommodate TT&C operations for those 
applicants seeking to use the 17.7-17.8 GHz band for international 
service. The NPRM asked further whether there was sufficient spectrum 
available above 17.3 GHz to accommodate these operations, particularly 
in light of the reverse-band sharing situation, and potential for out-
of-band interference from radar systems operating just below 17.3 GHz.
    62. EchoStar proposes that the Commission set aside 10 MHz 
guardbands at the edges of the 17/24 GHz bands for on-station TT&C 
operations. In the 17 GHz band, EchoStar asks us to define a guardband 
at the lower band edge near 17.3 GHz, but not at frequencies near 17.7 
GHz because of the planned use by many operators of the entire 17.3-
17.8 GHz bandwidth. Rather, EchoStar asserts that the upper guardband 
is better defined at 17.790-17.800 GHz. At present, Sec.  25.202(g) of 
our rules does not set aside any specific bandwidth for TT&C 
transmissions. Instead, it requires only that these functions be 
conducted at the edges of the allocated band. In the case of DBS 
satellites, the ITU Radio Regulations' Region 2 BSS and feederlink 
Plans of Appendices 30 and 30A do designate 12 MHz guardbands at either 
edge of the allocated band, and our rules require DBS operations to be 
in accordance with the technical characteristics contained in these 
appendices. However, the planned-band guardbands are set out in the 
larger context of a channelization scheme over the entire allocated 
bandwidth. Similarly, EchoStar makes its request for designated TT&C 
guardbands in the context of its more general request that the 24 MHz 
channelization scheme used for DBS satellites be applied to 17/24 GHz 
BSS satellites. The possibility of channelization schemes are addressed 
in more detail in this Order below, where the Commission declines to 
enforce a particular channelization scheme for the 17/24 GHz BSS.

[[Page 50009]]

    63. Moreover, we do not believe that it is practicable to plan for 
TT&C operations in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. Our rules require that TT&C 
operations take place at the edges of the allocated band. Although we 
may authorize operators to provide international service in the 17.7-
17.8 GHz band, there is no domestic allocation to the BSS in the 17.7-
17.8 GHz band, and we have declined to modify the Table of Allocations 
to provide for one. Accordingly, we do not propose to designate 
guardbands limited to on-station TT&C operations for \17/24\ GHz BSS 
systems. For these reasons we will make no changes to Sec.  25.202(g).
    64. Both EchoStar and Intelsat urge the Commission not to permit 
TT&C operations at the band edge just below 17.7 GHz, arguing that such 
transmissions would fall within band for those operators seeking to use 
the entire 17.3-17.8 GHz band, and as a result, TT&C transmissions of 
one operator could be incompatible with the communications 
transmissions of another operator. However, this request is made in 
conjunction with their assertions that the Commission should permit 
domestic BSS operations in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. Commenters do not 
offer alternatives in the event that the Commission declines this 
request. In addition, although commenters believe TT&C operations 
should occur at edge of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band segment, they do not 
address where to accommodate the TT&C transmissions of future 
applicants who choose not to provide international service in the 17.7-
17.8 GHz band. In addition, the NPRM recognized significant 
interference potential from both adjacent band and secondary in-band 
government radar systems at frequencies just above 17.3 GHz. DIRECTV 
cautions that higher frequencies correspond with higher reliability for 
TT&C operations due to their separation from government radar systems. 
For these reasons, we believe that operators should be afforded 
sufficient bandwidth, particularly at higher frequencies, to provide 
for flexibility and reliability in planning their TT&C operations.
    65. Moreover, we are not convinced that TT&C transmissions will 
present a significant interference problem to the communications 
transmissions of adjacent satellite operators using the 17.7-17.8 GHz 
band. The worst interference case likely will occur into small-diameter 
earth station antennas that receive off-axis telemetry signal 
transmissions from nearby 17/24 GHz BSS satellites. However, TT&C 
transmissions are relatively narrow-band--typically a few megahertz--
and the resulting interference would be averaged across the much wider 
bandwidth of the typical BSS signal. In addition, at four degrees or 
greater of orbital separation the interfering telemetry signal power 
should be significantly reduced. A somewhat analogous situation occurs 
in the extended Ku-bands between 11.45-11.7 GHz and the standard Ku-
band between 11.7-12.2 GHz. Although the adjacent, extended Ku-band 
(11.45-11.7 GHz) may be used to provide international service, and many 
operators choose to make use of the entire 11.45-12.2 GHz bandwidth, 
the Commission does not preclude TT&C operations at frequencies just 
above 11.7 GHz. Accordingly, we will not prohibit TT&C operations at 
frequencies just below 17.7 GHz.
    66. Orbital Spacing: The NPRM sought comment on whether the 
Commission should adopt an orbital spacing policy in the 17/24 GHz BSS, 
and if so, what separation would be appropriate. We asked specifically 
how best to balance our conflicting goals of making available the 
maximum GSO orbital capacity while simultaneously minimizing 
interference into small-diameter receiving antennas. Most commenters 
recognize the importance of adopting a well-considered orbital spacing 
policy, noting the critical role that spacing plays in determining 
required receive antenna diameters, quality of service, efficiency of 
design and types of services possible to deliver that result as a 
consequence of orbital separation. Only Bermuda differs in its view, 
advocating that the Commission should remove the minimum orbital 
separation requirement from all services, including DBS services, and 
instead should allow operators to coordinate their services using the 
procedures in the ITU Radio Regulations. Bermuda does not address how 
operators within the same administration should reconcile instances of 
interference arising among each other, which is a primary objective we 
seek to address by developing appropriate requirements within this 
proceeding.
    67. In their comments, DIRECTV, SES Americom, and Intelsat all 
propose orbital-separation schemes of four degrees, expressing a 
preference for alignment with existing Ku- and Ka-band FSS locations, 
some of which are currently used to provide DTH-FSS services. DIRECTV 
maintains that four degrees of orbital separation will support 
deployment of the 60 cm diameter antennas it plans to implement. SES 
Americom and Intelsat maintain that a four-degree separation scheme 
will permit their planned use of 45 cm antennas. DIRECTV also argues 
that a separation scheme of four degrees will facilitate use of hybrid 
BSS-FSS satellites enabling operators to capture the inherent 
efficiencies associated with these platforms thereby significantly 
reducing the cost of providing services. Intelsat supports a four-
degree orbital separation scheme, stating that it offers a good balance 
between the use of small diameter antennas and the need to achieve good 
coverage of the United States from a reasonable number of orbital 
positions.
    68. In contrast, EchoStar, in its comments, advocates a 4.5-degree 
orbital separation scheme centered upon current DBS locations. EchoStar 
plans to employ low-cost single-feed, dual-frequency (12/17 GHz) 45 cm 
diameter subscriber antennas, utilizing a system design predicated upon 
near co-location with its DBS satellites. EchoStar argues that a 
spacing scheme based on four degrees is not workable due to heavy use 
of many of the integer orbital locations for FSS satellites, and that 
non-integer (constant offset) spacing would be incompatible with Region 
2 BSS Plan assignments used by DBS satellites at many orbital 
locations. However, in its Reply Comments, EchoStar relaxes its 
position, stating that what is of primary importance is near co-
location with conventional DBS positions, and that the differences 
between four-degree and 4.5-degree spacing can easily be reconciled.
    69. To this end, EchoStar and SES Americom propose a mutually-
agreed orbital assignment framework for the portion of the 
geostationary arc between 56.9[deg] W.L. and 147.6[deg] W.L. This 
proposal seeks to reconcile the differing business models, system 
designs and accompanying concerns raised by the various commenters. The 
proposed orbital locations place new 17/24 GHz BSS satellites close 
enough to selected U.S. DBS locations to permit single-feed earth 
stations to simultaneously access downlink transmissions from both. 
Additionally, the proposal seeks to provide sufficient flexibility to 
allow alignment with FSS orbital positions as well as to permit any 
adjustments necessary to avoid other presumed unsuitable satellite 
positions, including those designated for non-U.S. DBS satellites. The 
orbital positions proposed by EchoStar and SES Americom range from 
4[deg] to 5.9[deg] in separation. In contrast, DIRECTV submits a 
proposal for the portion of the geostationary arc between 83[deg] W.L. 
and 123[deg] W.L. that assigns in-orbit satellites at four-degree 
spacing intervals. DIRECTV argues that this framework

[[Page 50010]]

accommodates most commenters' proposals to co-locate 17/24 GHz BSS 
satellites with FSS satellites. DIRECTV also submits that its proposed 
framework would preserve the flexibility to locate 17/24 GHz BSS 
satellites near certain U.S. DBS locations while avoiding orbital 
locations that are too close to Appendices 30 and 30A Plan assignments 
of other Region 2 administrations. Intelsat similarly supports 
assigning satellites at four-degree spacing. Later, in an ex parte 
statement, DIRECTV, EchoStar, and Intelsat proposed another spacing 
scheme, in which the proposed orbital positions ranged from 4[deg] to 
6.5[deg] in separation between 81[deg] and 124[deg] W.L.
    70. All operators agree that orbital separations as small as four 
degrees are feasible and will permit deployment of consumer antennas of 
a size consistent with their system designs and marketing strategies. 
Even EchoStar, who initially argued for a 4.5-degree separation 
requirement, agrees that four degrees of separation can be implemented 
if we allow some flexibility and in this context supports use of 45 cm 
antennas. After studying the technical discussions presented, we concur 
that a minimum orbital separation of four degrees between 17/24 GHz BSS 
satellites is feasible, and that it best affords all applicants the 
flexibility to design and deploy systems consistent with their stated 
plans. Moreover, we believe that such a minimum spacing requirement 
realizes our mutual goals of maximizing orbital capacity while 
accommodating small-diameter receiving antennas. Accordingly, we will 
require that BSS satellite networks operating in the 17/24 GHz BSS be 
capable of operating at four-degree orbital spacing.
    71. In discussing orbital spacing policy, all commenters stress the 
need for some flexibility relative to mandating adherence to a rigid 
in-orbit spacing grid. While we agree that some flexibility is 
beneficial, uniform orbital spacings maximize use of scarce orbital 
resources and opportunities for competitive entry. Indeed, uniform two-
degree spacing has been the cornerstone of the Commission's licensing 
framework for GSO FSS satellites since 1983, and has served to create a 
competitive and interference-free operating environment. Therefore, we 
will require 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to place their satellites in orbit 
so that all 17/24 GHz BSS satellites are placed at multiples of four 
degrees away from each other, as set forth in Appendix F of this Order. 
Allowing complete flexibility in orbital spacing would result in 
inefficient use of scarce geostationary satellite orbit resources and 
limit opportunities for competitive entry.
    72. Parties opposing uniform four-degree orbital spacing do not 
provide adequate justification for their positions. First, we find 
concerns regarding co-location with DBS to be unpersuasive. In the 
FNPRM below, we note that commenters argue that DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS 
satellites should be able to operate as close as 0.2[deg] to 0.4[deg] 
away from each other. Furthermore, we find concerns that the orbital 
assignment plan may need revision in the future to be speculative at 
best. In any case, the potential need for revision at some time in the 
future does not warrant allowing inefficient use of the geostationary 
orbit and limiting opportunities for competitive entry in the interim. 
Finally, we conclude that parties' concerns regarding potential 
physical interference between satellites operating with overlapping 
station-keeping volumes are misplaced. 17/24 GHz BSS satellite 
licensees will be able to offset their satellites in order to address 
any undesirable operational constraints arising from satellite co-
location.
    73. Consequently, we will adopt the orbital spacing framework set 
forth in Appendix F of this Order. This orbital spacing scheme is 
consistent with the locations of FSS satellites in the Ku-band and Ka-
band, as recommended by DIRECTV and Intelsat. Moreover, we agree with 
DIRECTV that this framework will accommodate most commenters' proposals 
for the portion of the geostationary arc between 83[deg] W.L. and 
123[deg] W.L. No one has suggested in the record another four-degree 
spacing configuration that accommodates other commenters' proposals 
better than DIRECTV's proposal.
    74. However, we also agree to some extent with the commenters who 
argue for some flexibility in orbital assignments. In particular, we 
recognize that it may not be possible to locate a 17/24 GHz BSS 
satellite precisely at some of the orbital locations specified in 
Appendix F, e.g., because there are undesirable operational constraints 
required to coordinate physical operations with co-located satellites, 
or because there is a DBS or other ITU Region 2 BSS satellite receiving 
feeder-link signals in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band at or very near that 
location. Thus, we will not require that 17/24 GHz BSS satellites be 
located precisely at the orbital locations specified in Appendix F. 
However, an applicant seeking an authorization to operate a 17/24 GHz 
BSS satellite at a location offset from an orbital location specified 
in Appendix F will be required to make a technical showing that the 
proposed satellite will not cause any more interference to any 17/24 
GHz BSS satellite operating at a location specified in Appendix F, and 
in compliance with the rules for this service, than if the proposed 
satellite were positioned precisely at the Appendix F orbital location. 
In addition, such applicants must also agree to accept any increased 
interference that may result from adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS space stations 
that are operating in compliance with the rules for this service. As 
with all applicants, such applicants must also make a technical showing 
demonstrating that their system design accommodates any additional 
interference from adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS space stations operating at 
the maximum allowed pfd levels, and otherwise in compliance with the 
rules for this service, that may result from the location offset of 
their proposed satellite. Applicants that have reached a coordination 
agreement with an operator at an Appendix F 17/24 GHz BSS orbital 
location up to 10[deg] away from the location listed in Appendix F from 
which their proposed satellite is offset to allow that operator to 
exceed the pfd levels specified in the rules for this service must use 
those higher pfd levels for the purposes of this showing.
    75. DIRECTV's Reference Interference Baseline Not Adopted: In its 
reply comments, DIRECTV advocates a broad approach proposing that the 
Commission define a ``reference interference baseline'' for the 17/24 
GHz BSS. Under this proposal, we would establish routine processing 
standards for satellite applications. A 17/24 GHz BSS satellite 
applicant would be allowed to receive routine processing even if it 
deviates from standard parameters set forward in the rules, provided it 
makes offsetting changes to create no additional interference beyond 
the reference situation. DIRECTV also advocates that applicants be able 
to receive routine processing by obtaining consent through coordination 
to operate outside of the reference situation parameters, and that more 
flexible requirements would apply outside of the domestic arc (i.e., at 
least four degrees below 83[deg] W.L. or above 123[deg] W.L.). DIRECTV 
argues that this approach would create opportunities for individual 
flexibility, eliminate the burden and delay of unnecessary coordination 
while maintaining the stability of the overall environment.
    76. We decline to adopt DIRECTV's approach of defining a reference 
interference baseline to be used for routine processing of satellite

[[Page 50011]]

applications in this proceeding. There is little information or comment 
on the record to develop or to support what would amount to a rather 
extensive set of interdependent values. Nor is DIRECTV specific in its 
proposal other than to say that the baseline should assume four-degree 
spacing and receiving antennas compliant with ITU Recommendation 
BO.1213. Accordingly, we find that DIRECTV has not adequately supported 
its proposal.
    77. Minimum Antenna Diameter and Performance Standards--45 cm/ITU-R 
Recommendation BO.1213-1 Minimum Antenna Standards Adopted: The NPRM 
sought comment on what minimum diameter earth stations the Commission 
should seek to accommodate in formulating service rules for the 17/24 
GHz BSS. In addition, the NPRM also asked whether we should afford 
interference protection to 17/24 GHz BSS systems only to the extent 
that they meet certain receive-antenna performance characteristics. The 
Commission also noted that it has typically chosen not to explicitly 
regulate receive-only antenna characteristics, but rather has opted to 
regulate other characteristics shaping the interference environment, 
thereby leaving the choice of antenna characteristics to the operator. 
However, the NPRM recognized that receiving earth station antenna off-
axis discrimination performance will affect the interference 
experienced by BSS subscribers arising from other systems and we asked 
whether in this instance we should depart from our established policy. 
In particular, the NPRM requested comment on what types of antenna 
performance regulation, if any, might be appropriate.
    78. Most commenters support accommodating a minimum antenna 
diameter of 45 cm and Intelsat proposes that the Commission adopt a 
specific 45 cm minimum antenna size requirement. EchoStar and SES 
Americom advocate less stringent approaches, urging the Commission to 
adopt rules and policies that would facilitate the deployment of 
receiving antennas as small as 45 cm or afford interference protection 
only to receiving antennas no smaller than 45 cm. DIRECTV expressed the 
view that 60 cm is the minimum antenna diameter that the Commission 
should accommodate when considering an orbital spacing policy. DIRECTV 
notes that 60 cm dishes have become more prevalent in recent years and 
have long been the consumer standard in Europe and elsewhere. DIRECTV 
states further that BSS operators needing to combine capacity from 
multiple orbital locations will likely require multi-feed receive 
antennas with an effective diameter greater than 60 cm. Alternatively, 
SES Americom argues that limiting interference protection to 17/24 GHz 
BSS receiving antennas that are greater than 45 cm would preclude new 
BSS entrants from successfully competing with established DBS operators 
for a customer base. SES Americom asserts that affording interference 
protection to receiving antennas as small as those commonly used for 
DBS today (45 cm) is critical to ensuring the usefulness of the band 
for new competition.
    79. As a general matter, commenters also favor adoption of 
reference antenna performance characteristics that will ensure 
sufficient interference protection for subscriber antennas and to 
establish a baseline for protection in licensing of 17/24 GHz BSS 
systems. Although advocating different minimum antenna diameters, SES 
Americom, DIRECTV, and Intelsat all propose that the reference antenna 
pattern given in ITU-R Recommendation BO.1213-1 be used as an 
appropriate standard for the protection of receiving antennas in the 
17/24 GHz BSS. DIRECTV cautions that while protection should be granted 
only to the extent that receiving antennas conform to the ITU-R 
standard, the Commission should continue its policy of letting 
operators retain the discretion to determine the characteristics of 
their equipment. As such, DIRECTV believes operators should remain free 
to deploy non-conforming antennas, but with the understanding that they 
must accept any resulting increase in interference levels. Bermuda, in 
contrast, argues that the Commission should not regulate 17/24 GHz BSS 
receiving antenna performance characteristics, but rather that they 
should be determined by the requirements of the system in which they 
are deployed.
    80. Although the Commission has historically chosen not to regulate 
the antenna performance characteristics of non-transmitting earth 
stations, we recognize that the 17/24 GHz BSS confronts an operating 
environment different from the one in which most other GSO satellite 
services, must operate. In particular, the reverse-band sharing 
situation that exists between BSS receiving antennas and transmitting 
DBS feeder link earth stations in the 17 GHz band creates significant 
potential for interference from sources other than neighboring co-
frequency space stations. Such an interference environment may not be 
as satisfactorily managed by the Commission's more traditional approach 
to regulating the downlink interference environment by establishing an 
orbital separation scheme and accompanying pfd limits, particularly 
given the widespread deployment of such small-diameter receiving 
antennas in a four-degree spacing environment. We agree with DIRECTV 
that establishing performance standards for receiving antennas could 
help to create a more stable and predictable interference environment. 
Moreover, we note that the majority of commenters concur as evidenced 
by their support for inclusion of the ITU antenna performance standards 
of Rec. BO.1213-1 in the Commission's rules. Accordingly, we adopt a 
rule that 17/24 GHz BSS receiving earth stations 45 cm or greater in 
diameter may claim protection from interference, but only to the extent 
that they meet the antenna performance characteristics given in ITU-R 
Recommendation BO.1213-1. This rule does not apply to 17/24 GHz BSS 
telemetry earth stations that are subject to the antenna performance 
requirements of Sec.  25.209.
    81. In adopting this rule, we recognize that we have already 
bounded the downlink interference environment by establishing a minimum 
orbital separation requirement in combination with the downlink pfd 
limits addressed in section III.E. Thus, by specifying a minimum 
antenna diameter and reference antenna pattern for interference 
protection, we are departing from past practice in our treatment of 
receive-only earth stations and adding an additional interference 
mitigation requirement. However, as discussed above, we concur with 
commenters' concerns regarding the need to establish a predictable 
environment, particularly in light of the unique reverse-band frequency 
operations in the 17 GHz band. In addition we support DIRECTV's request 
to preserve operator discretion with regard to choice of antenna 
characteristics. We note that this new antenna performance standard 
does not preclude operators from deploying receiving earth stations 
smaller than 45 cm, or antennas that do not conform to the reference 
patterns in the ITU-R Recommendation. However, the operator must accept 
the additional levels of interference that results from its use of the 
non-conforming antenna.
    82. Technical Requirements for Intra-Service Operations--Uplink 
Power Levels. Standards For Routine/Non-Routine Licensing of Feeder 
Link Antennas Adopted: In the NPRM, the Commission stated that 
successful implementation of any orbital spacing scheme in the 17/24 
GHz BSS will likely require adoption of uplink power density and 
antenna off-axis performance standards similar to those established for 
the FSS. However, we

[[Page 50012]]

also recognized that space stations in the 17/24 GHz BSS are likely to 
operate at orbital separations greater than those existing in the FSS, 
and that feeder uplink earth stations typically operate with larger 
diameter antennas that exhibit good off-axis rejection properties. Both 
of these factors will tend to mitigate the problem of off-axis 
interference into neighboring space stations. Consequently, we sought 
comment on the need to establish uplink off-axis power limits for this 
service. Additionally, the Commission's rules currently provide for 
routine licensing of FSS earth stations when specific antenna 
performance standards and uplink power levels are met. The NPRM sought 
comment on whether analogous criteria might be developed to expedite 
licensing of 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link stations, and if so, what 
criteria might be appropriate.
    83. Because, by definition, feeder links operate in the FSS, the 
NPRM stated that the antenna performance standards of Sec.  25.209, See 
47 CFR 25.209, could be applied to 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link earth 
stations. The Commission proposed to apply these off-axis performance 
standards in combination with the highest uplink Equivalent 
Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP) density proposed by an applicant, 
i.e., 5.6 dBW/Hz. We sought comment on this proposal, recognizing that 
absent a clearly defined orbital separation scheme at that time, the 
resulting contribution to adjacent satellite interference would be 
difficult to determine. We also asked what form any uplink off-axis 
power density requirement should take, and whether it would be most 
appropriate to specify separate off-axis antenna performance standards 
and uplink power density requirements, or a single composite off-axis 
EIRP density curve.
    84. Commenters in general acknowledge the need to apply uplink off-
axis uplink EIRP limits to 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link stations, 
recognizing that such limits would help to address off-axis 
interference concerns as well as facilitate coordination with other 
services. Intelsat initially stated that such requirements were 
unnecessary, but, in its reply comments, provides off-axis EIRP density 
limits that it believes would be adequate.
    85. Commenters addressing this issue support applying the Ka-band 
FSS uplink off-axis power density requirements contained in Sec.  
25.138(a)(1)--(4), See 47 CFR 25.138(a)(1)-(4), of our rules to feeder 
link earth stations in the 17/24 GHz BSS. Commenters assert that this 
rule has been effective in the Ka-band, sets limits that are consistent 
with levels proposed in applications already before the Commission, and 
will successfully address adjacent satellite interference concerns. 
Commenters also agree that in the case of the 17/24 GHz BSS, these 
values should be scaled to a 1 MHz reference bandwidth rather than the 
40 kHz resolution specified in our current rule. In addition, 
commenters suggest expressing the requirement as a limit on the off-
axis EIRP density (rather than as separate off-axis antenna 
requirements and uplink power density limits) such that the operators 
must meet this EIRP density value regardless of on-axis absolute EIRP 
or actual antenna performance.
    86. Although the off-axis EIRP density limits favored by commenters 
are approximately 3 dB greater than those tentatively proposed by the 
Commission, we agree with the commenters that the higher level has 
proven effective in the Ka-band FSS two-degree spacing environment and 
will effectively mitigate adjacent satellite interference in the 17/24 
GHz BSS four-degree spacing environment. Accordingly, for routine 
processing of feeder link antennas transmitting to GSO satellites in 
the 24.75-25.25 GHz band, we adopt the off-axis antenna performance 
requirements of Sec.  25.138(a) scaled to a 1 MHz reference bandwidth 
as follows:

    (1) 17/24 GHz BSS earth station antenna off-axis EIRP spectral 
density for co-polarized signals shall not exceed the following 
values, within 3[deg] of the GSO arc, under clear sky 
conditions:

32.5-25log([thgr])..........  dBW/MHz.............  for 2[deg] <= [thgr]
                                                     <= 7[deg]
11.4........................  dBW/MHz.............  for 7[deg] <= [thgr]
                                                     <= 9.2[deg]
35.5-25log([thgr])..........  dBW/MHz.............  for 9.2[deg] <=
                                                     [thgr] <= 48[deg]
3.5.........................  dBW/MHz.............  for 48[deg] <=
                                                     [thgr] <= 180[deg]
 
 

    Where [thgr] is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main 
lobe.
    (2) 17/24 GHz BSS earth station antenna off-axis EIRP spectral 
density for co-polarized signals shall not exceed the following 
values, for all directions other than within 3[deg] of 
the GSO arc, under clear sky conditions:

35.5-25log([thgr])..........  dBW/MHz.............  for 2[deg] <= [thgr]
                                                     <= 7[deg]
14.4........................  dBW/MHz.............  for 7[deg] <= [thgr]
                                                     <= 9.2[deg]
38.5-25log([thgr])..........  dBW/MHz.............  for 9.2[deg] <=
                                                     [thgr] <= 48[deg]
6.5.........................  dBW/MHz.............  for 48[deg] <=
                                                     [thgr] <= 180[deg]
 
 

    Where [thgr] is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main 
lobe.
    (3) The values given in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 
section may be exceeded by 3 dB, for values of [thgr] > 10[deg], 
provided that the total angular range over which this occurs does 
not exceed 20[deg] when measured along both sides of the GSO arc.
    (4) 17/24 GHz BSS earth station antenna off-axis EIRP spectral 
density for cross-polarized signals shall not exceed the following 
values, in all directions other relative to the GSO arc, under clear 
sky conditions:

22.5-25log([thgr])..........  dBW/MHz.............  for 2[deg] <= [thgr]
                                                     <= 7[deg]
1.4.........................  dBW/MHz.............  for 7[deg] <= [thgr]
                                                     <= 9.2[deg]
 

    Where [thgr] is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main 
lobe.

    87. The off-axis EIRP density curves given in Sec.  25.138(a)(1)-
(4) of our rules, See 47 CFR 25.138(a)(1)-(4), include the term N, 
which is defined as the likely maximum number of simultaneously 
transmitting co-frequency earth stations in the receive beam of the 
satellite. Commenters do not include this term in their proposed 
formulae and we have chosen not to include it in our rules. Section 
25.138 addresses blanket licensing of FSS earth stations where a number 
of co-frequency earth stations may be transmitting simultaneously in 
cases where contention protocols or CDMA may be used. We do not 
anticipate multiple simultaneous co-frequency transmissions from 17/24 
GHz BSS feeder link earth stations, and

[[Page 50013]]

as a consequence, these access schemes likely will not be relevant. 
Commenters do not explicitly address EIRP density envelopes for 
directions other than within 3 degrees of the GSO arc. Neither do they 
specifically address envelopes for cross-polarized signals or allowable 
exceedences, as contained in other parts of Sec.  25.138. Rather, they 
make more general references to a rule modeled on the framework of 
Sec.  25.138. We include these requirements here on the strength of 
those comments, and also because they are consistent with the 
Commission's approach to off-axis EIRP density limits in general.
    88. The NPRM also recognized that in some instances applicants 
might seek to operate at higher EIRP density levels than those 
permitted under the above requirement. Our current rules provide a 
mechanism for licensing such non-conforming systems operating in the 
FSS by placing the burden on the applicant to provide a technical 
showing to the Commission, and to coordinate its non-conforming 
operations with adjacent operators. We proposed a similar approach to 
licensing non-conforming systems in the 17/24 GHz BSS and sought 
comment on whether our proposal was appropriate to adopt. We also asked 
over what angular distance coordination should be required, recognizing 
that the orbital spacing in the 17/24 GHz service could very likely be 
greater than the two-degree separation typical of the FSS.
    89. Commenters consistently favor allowing a mechanism by which 
operators could be licensed for non-conforming systems seeking to 
operate at higher off-axis power levels than those permitted for 
routine licensing. All commenters favor the general approach employed 
for FSS systems whereby applicants for non-conforming earth stations 
must submit the necessary technical showing to the Commission and 
coordinate their non-conforming operations with adjacent space station 
operators. At present, our rules require non-compliant FSS operators to 
coordinate with potentially affected neighboring operations over an 
angular arc of six degrees, corresponding to up to three adjacent 
positions on each side. At an orbital separation of six degrees, off-
axis power levels are decreased by nearly 12 dB relative to those at 
the nearest neighbor at two degrees, and at a separation of eight 
degrees, power levels relative to the two-degree neighbor are decreased 
by more than 13 dB. These values are true for an antenna that complies 
with FSS antenna gain envelope rules of 29-25*log10([thgr]). 
Accordingly, we believe that an angular arc of 8 degrees, 
which in a four-degree spacing environment corresponds to the two 
nearest possible neighboring co-frequency space stations, is 
sufficient.
    90. Commenters differ somewhat on the precise angular separation 
over which operators should be required to coordinate their non-
conforming operations. DIRECTV and SES Americom, both of whom favor a 
four-degree orbital spacing scheme, propose coordination arcs of 8 degrees and 9 degrees, respectively. EchoStar 
proposes a slightly more complex coordination arc requirement whereby 
operators would be required to obtain the agreement only of the 
immediate neighboring satellites (spaced at approximately four degrees 
away) for exceedences up to 3 dB, with the additional agreement of the 
second adjacent operator for exceedences up to 6 dB; no exceedence 
greater than 6 dB would be permitted. We find that EchoStar's proposal 
affords significant interference protection to adjacent co-frequency 
satellites, while reducing the coordination burden on both the 
conforming and non-conforming parties. However, we also recognize that 
space stations may not always be located along a perfectly spaced four-
degree grid, but sometimes may be offset from the orbital locations 
specified in Appendix F. To accommodate such instances, we will extend 
the angular coordination distance proposed by EchoStar by two degrees.
    91. Accordingly, we will adopt a requirement that each applicant 
for an earth station license that proposes off-axis EIRP density levels 
in excess of those defined above shall certify that all potentially 
affected parties acknowledge and do not object to the use of the 
applicant's higher power densities. For proposed power levels less than 
3 dB in excess of the limits defined above, the affected parties shall 
be those co-frequency operators authorized to provide service to the 
U.S. at up to 6 degrees away; for excesses of greater than 
3 dB and up to 6 dB, affected parties shall be all those co-frequency 
U.S. licensed operators at up to 10 degrees away. We will 
not permit exceedences greater than 6 dB above the limits defined 
above. Although we take a slightly more flexible approach with regard 
to coordination of downlink pfd excedeences, we believe that the 
sharing situation with 24 GHz fixed service systems requires a somewhat 
more conservative approach. In addition, we require non-compliant 
operators to coordinate with any future applicants or licenses over 
these same orbital separation distances. We also require a non-
compliant licensee to reduce its power levels should a coordination 
agreement not be reached. In addition, non-conforming applicants will 
be required to submit link budget analyses of the operations proposed 
along with a detailed written explanation of how they have derived each 
uplink and each transmitted satellite carrier density figure. 
Applicants will also be required to submit a narrative summary that 
must indicate whether there are margin shortfalls in any other 
licensee's current baseline services as a result of the addition the 
applicant's higher power service, and if so, how the applicant intends 
to resolve those margin shortfalls.
    92. The NPRM also sought comment on the need for uplink adaptive 
power control, particularly in presence of rain fade, noting that Sec.  
25.204(g) of our rules, See 47 CFR 25.204(g), requires all Ka-band FSS 
earth stations to employ adaptive power control or other methods of 
rain fade compensation. Commenters recognize the need for uplink power 
control in the event of rain fade and cite the specification already 
contained in our rules, See, e.g., 47 CFR 25.138(a)(5), as appropriate 
for the 17/24 GHz BSS. We realize that systems operating in the 24 GHz 
band can suffer significant signal attenuation in the event of 
precipitation and concur that some provision for adaptive uplink power 
control is necessary. Accordingly, we amend our rules to require 17/24 
GHz BSS earth stations to employ adaptive uplink power control or other 
methods of fade compensation. We also adopt a requirement for the 17/24 
GHz BSS analogous to the Ka-band FSS requirement of Sec.  25.138(a)(5), 
47 CFR 25.138(a)(5). This rules provides that (1) The required clear-
sky uplink off-axis power limits may be exceeded by up to 20 dB in the 
presence of uplink fading due to precipitation; (2) that the amount of 
this increase relative to the excess attenuation over the clear sky 
propagation conditions shall not exceed 1.5 dB or 15% of the actual 
amount, whichever is greater; and (3) that this should occur with a 
confidence level of 90% except for transient periods of no more than 
0.5% during which the excess shall be no more than 4.0 dB.
    93. Some commenters also object to requiring applicants to provide 
measured radiation patterns as specified in Sec.  25.138(d), 47 CFR 
25.138(d), of our rules as a means of demonstrating compliance with 
off-axis EIRP limits. Intelsat argues that the requirement to provide 
measured radiation patterns for antennas not yet built is often not 
practical and unduly burdens the applicant. Intelsat asserts that, 
instead, the Commission's evaluation process for earth stations in the 
17/24 GHz service

[[Page 50014]]

should follow the approach for earth stations on vessels (ESVs) 
contained in Sec.  25.221, 47 CFR 25.221. That approach requires the 
applicant to submit a series of charts or tables calculated for a 
production earth station antenna, based on measurements taken on a 
calibrated antenna range. DIRECTV agrees that it is impractical to 
submit measured data, and argues further that because these very large 
feeder link antennas are typically assembled on site, it is simply not 
necessary to test these antennas on a range. Instead, DIRECTV proposes 
that 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link antennas be tested as they are built, 
using in-orbit satellite resources, with the earth station operator 
responsible for certifying after licensing that the tests were 
satisfactorily performed, as part of its notification to the Commission 
that construction has been completed. DIRECTV's proposed approach is 
based on a proposal submitted by the Satellite Industry Association in 
the Biennial Review docket, and are founded in part upon existing rules 
for large C- and Ku-band earth stations.
    94. At present, our rules extend different earth station licensing 
requirements to different satellite services. Typically, C- and Ku-band 
GSO FSS applicants are required to meet the antenna performance 
requirements of Sec.  25.209, 47 CFR 25.109, and may not exceed 
specified uplink power density levels and minimum antenna diameters. 
Those C- and Ku-band applicants who do not meet these requirements may 
still be licensed via the rules outlined in Sec.  25.220, 47 CFR 
25.220. In contrast, Ka-band earth station applicants must meet the 
off-axis EIRP density requirements of Sec.  25.138(a)(1)-(4), 47 CFR 
25.138(a)(4) and demonstrate such by providing the antenna radiation 
pattern measurements specified in Sec.  25.138(d), 47 CFR 25.138(d). 
The earth station licensing requirement to submit with its application 
a series of measured test values over a range of frequencies is applied 
to any FSS earth station other than ESVs not meeting the antenna 
performance requirements of Sec.  25.209, as well as to all earth 
stations operating in the 20/30 GHz service. We find that it will be 
generally unnecessary to constrain feeder link earth stations 
applicants in the 24 GHz band in this manner, particularly since such 
large-diameter earth stations generally comply easily with existing 
antenna performance requirements. Moreover, we agree with commenters 
that such a requirement could be both impractical and burdensome for 
very large diameter antennas typically used for feeder link operations. 
Accordingly, we do not restrict 17/24 GHz BSS earth station applicants 
to the approach of Sec.  25.138(d). However, we will retain the option 
to allow non-compliant applicants to submit measured data.
    95. We will require applicants for feeder link earth station 
licenses operating in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band to provide the 
particulars of operation identified on Form 312 and associated Schedule 
B, which may include an affirmative response that the earth station 
antenna conforms to the gain pattern criteria of Sec.  25.209(a) and 
(b) and that combined with the input power density entered in schedule 
B, demonstrates that the off-axis EIRP spectral density envelope set 
forth above will be met. Alternately, an applicant that does not meet 
the antenna performance requirements of Sec.  25.209(a) and (b) may 
demonstrate that it meets the required off-axis EIRP spectral density 
requirements by providing: (i) A copy of the manufacturer's range test 
plots of the antenna gain patterns as specified in Sec.  25.132(b)(3) 
as revised in this Order; and (ii) a series of EIRP density charts or 
tables similar to the current requirements for ESVs as set forth in 
Sec.  25.222(b)(1), 47 CFR 25.222(b)(1). Finally, an applicant that 
meets the antenna performance requirements of Sec.  25.209(a) and (b), 
but does not provide an input power density value in schedule B that 
will satisfy the off-axis EIRP spectral density envelope set forth 
above, may also demonstrate its compliance by providing a series of 
EIRP density charts or tables. Applicants seeking to operate with off-
axis power density values in excess of the specified envelope are 
subject to the coordination process discussed above.
    96. In addition, Sec.  25.132 of our rules sets forth the process 
for verification of earth station performance requirements. This rule 
is applicable to earth stations operating in the 24 GHz uplink band. 
Paragraph (a)(1) of this rule requires applicants to submit 
manufacturer certification of measurements demonstrating that the 
antenna is compliant with the requirements of Sec.  25.209, and 
stipulates that the applicant be prepared to demonstrate these 
measurements to the Commission upon request. For non-compliant 
antennas, as discussed above, the requirements of Sec.  25.132(b)(3), 
as revised in Appendix B of this Order, will apply. Finally, Paragraphs 
(c) and (d) of this section recognize that while testing is typically 
performed at the manufacturer's facility, very large earth stations 
that are assembled on-site may require on-site measurements. Paragraph 
(d) specifies the on-site verification measurements that must be 
performed for each new or modified transmitting antenna over three 
meters in diameter. Thus, for large-diameter 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link 
antennas, applicants must submit on-site verification measurements to 
the Commission as part of the notification of completion of the 
construction process as required in Sec.  25.133, 47 CFR 25.133.
    97. Downlink Power Limits. Geographical Downlink PFD Limits 
Adopted: The downlink power levels transmitted by adjacent co-frequency 
satellites, when combined with the off-axis performance characteristics 
of the receiving antenna will determine the carrier-to-interference (C/
I) value resulting from adjacent satellite interference. The NPRM 
sought comment on whether we should adopt pfd or other downlink power 
limits in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band to ensure that receiving antennas are 
not subject to unforeseen levels of adjacent satellite interference, 
particularly as newer-generation, higher-powered satellites are brought 
into use. The NPRM asked, in particular, whether the ITU Radio 
Regulations' pfd limit applicable to FSS systems in the 17.7-19.7 GHz 
band would be appropriate for BSS transmissions in the 17.3-17.7 GHz 
band.
    98. Commenters favor adopting pfd limits in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band 
to protect against unforeseen levels of adjacent satellite interference 
and to obviate the need for time-consuming coordination among co-
frequency networks. Intelsat favors adopting the ITU FSS pfd limits and 
maintains that these limits would satisfy the operational requirements 
in the band, provided that they are no more restrictive than the FSS 
pfd limits of Article 21 of the ITU Radio Regulations. All other 
commenters advocate adopting a system of graduated pfd limits. Under 
this approach, pfd limits would vary over different geographic regions 
of the United States, primarily to allow for the resulting signal 
attenuation arising from the variation in rainfall in different regions 
of the country. In formulating this approach, commenters considered the 
planned deployment of both wide-area beams, and more localized, high-
power spot beams by 17/24 GHz BSS operators. Due to the expected higher 
antenna gain for spot beams, in a given geographic area, EIRP 
imbalances of 10 dB or more may be anticipated between adjacent 
satellite transmissions. Potentially, the resulting interference could 
significantly affect quality of service to those consumers receiving

[[Page 50015]]

lower-power, wide-area beam signals. The various proposals' utilization 
of graduated pfd levels in differing regions seeks to balance the 
competing goals of permitting sufficient flexibility to spot beam 
operations while simultaneously protecting wide-area beams from 
unacceptable interference levels. This approach also considers the need 
to allow higher-power downlink transmissions in regions of the country 
where they are most needed in order to overcome rain fade effects. As a 
result, all proposals to adopt graduated power levels for downlink 
transmissions in the 17/24 GHz BSS recognize the need for the highest 
power limits in the Southeastern region of the United States, with 
lower levels in the Northeast and the lowest levels in the West.
    99. Although the various proposals to adopt graduated pfd limits 
are similar in their general approach, they differ in certain respects. 
EchoStar's proposal advocates four geographic regions with the highest 
pfd level in the Southeast of -113 dBW/m2/MHz; -114.5 dBW/
m2/MHz in the Northeast; -116 dBW/m2/MHz in the 
Upper Midwest; and -118 dBW/m2/MHz in the West. The 
westernmost region is defined by the 103[deg] West Longitude line; the 
northern regions are above the 40[deg] North Latitude line; and the 
85[deg] West Longitude line divides the Northeast Region from the Upper 
Midwest Region. For areas outside of the Contiguous United States 
(CONUS) including Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico, the pfd limit would 
be -113 dBW/m2/MHz. EchoStar notes that its proposal does 
not differ significantly from that of DIRECTV, discussed further below, 
and maintains that the somewhat lower power limits proposed by DIRECTV 
result from its plan to offer service using 60 cm diameter antennas 
contrasted with the 45 cm antennas planned by EchoStar, SES Americom 
and Intelsat. Accordingly, EchoStar urges the Commission to accommodate 
the requirements of all operators and to permit pfd levels on the 
higher side. SES Americom supports EchoStar's proposal.
    100. DIRECTV proposes adopting three geographic regions, with the 
highest power level in the Southeast of -115 dBW/m2/MHz; -
118 dBW/m2/MHz in the Northeast; and -121 dBW/m2/
MHz in the West. In DIRECTV's proposal the far western region is 
defined by the 100[deg] West Longitude line and the Northeast and 
Southeast Regions are divided by the 38[deg] North Latitude line. 
DIRECTV argues that its somewhat lower pfd levels are more appropriate 
because CONUS beams cannot match the higher power levels of -113 dBW/
m2/MHz proposed by EchoStar and SES Americom, and should the 
Commission adopt pfd values this high, the result would only be to 
codify the power disparity between wide-area and spot beams. Later, in 
an ex parte statement, DIRECTV, EchoStar, and Intelsat proposed a 
jointly-agreed scheme, which proposed geographic regions and pfd levels 
in a four-degree spacing environment consistent with the values 
proposed in DIRECTV's original proposal as discussed above. This new 
scheme also proposes a formula by which pfd levels could be allowed to 
vary as a function of orbital separation.
    101. We agree that there is merit in considering graduated pfd 
limits in differing regions of the country. We recognize the need to 
employ both wide-area and spot beams in the 17/24 GHz BSS and 
appreciate the inherent difficulties encountered in attempting to 
balance the requirements of both applications. While we wish to protect 
the more vulnerable wide-area beam receivers from adjacent satellite 
downlink interference, we also want to permit licensees the flexibility 
to achieve the power and spectral efficiencies attainable with spot 
beam transmissions, particularly when broadcasting local programming to 
restricted geographic areas. We concur with DIRECTV, EchoStar and SES 
Americom that the use of regional pfd values best balances these 
competing goals. Although it presents a somewhat more complex 
regulatory mechanism than does a uniform pfd limit, this approach has 
been applied to other services, notably MVDDS. Thus, after carefully 
considering the various regional pfd schemes, and recognizing the 
agreement among many of the commenting parties with regard to the 
regional boundaries and pfd levels, we believe that the proposal 
originally put forward by DIRECTV most successfully balances our goals 
of accommodating both beam technologies while best meeting the needs of 
all operators. Accordingly, we adopt the three-region graduated pfd 
plan presented by DIRECTV. We note that a key difference between 
DIRECTV's proposal and the approach contained in the Joint Ex Parte 
Statement, is the proposed use of formulae to determine the variation 
in pfd levels that would be permitted as a function of orbital 
separation. We decline to adopt this approach. Rather, we will adopt 
pfd levels consistent with a four-degree spacing environment, but will 
permit licensees to operate at higher levels subject to coordination, 
as discussed below.
    102. In most cases, commenters propose pfd limits for the entire 
17.3-17.8 GHz band and do not separate the question of pfd limits in 
the 17.7-17.8 GHz band from the issue of pfd limits for BSS downlink 
transmissions in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band. In adopting the graduated pfd 
scheme discussed above, the Commission seeks to facilitate intra-
service operations by establishing a relatively homogeneous 
transmitting environment that will accommodate both wide-area and spot 
beam operations. Because U.S. domestic service is not allocated in the 
17.7-17.8 GHz band, we do not believe these intra-service sharing 
challenges will be present to the same extent. In contrast, pfd limits 
in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band are intended to facilitate inter-service 
sharing by protecting terrestrial service receivers from satellite 
transmissions serving other Region 2 countries, but that may illuminate 
portions of the United States. We believe that the pfd limits that are 
adopted in section III.C. of this Order, that vary as a function of 
elevation angle, will best accomplish that goal. Accordingly, we 
clarify here that the graduated pfd limits adopted above will apply 
only to the 17.3-17.7 GHz band, and that the elevation-angle-based pfd 
limits adopted in section III.C. will apply in the 17.7-17.8 GHz BSS 
GHz band.
    103. Commenters also advocate applying the pfd levels in the 17.3-
17.7 GHz band in a manner similar to the Ka-band FSS requirement in 
Sec.  25.138(a)(6), See 47 CFR 25.138(a)(6). Under this approach an 
applicant seeking to operate outside the required pfd levels must 
submit a technical showing to the Commission that includes detailed 
link budgets and a narrative summary indicating whether there are 
margin shortfalls resulting from the applicant's higher powers, and if 
so, an explanation of how these shortfalls will be addressed. In 
addition, a non-conforming applicant must certify that its operations 
have been coordinated with all affected parties. EchoStar proposes that 
for non-conforming 17/24 GHz BSS operations, the angular separation 
over which coordination is required should be linked to the magnitude 
of the power excess. Specifically, EchoStar proposes that given the 
wider orbital spacing in the 17/24 GHz BSS as compared to the Ka-band 
FSS, the agreement of the immediately adjacent operators should be 
sufficient for excesses of no greater than 3 dB, and that coordination 
with the second adjacent neighboring satellite should also be required 
for

[[Page 50016]]

excesses between 3 dB and 6 dB. EchoStar also proposes prohibiting 
power levels greater than 6 dB. DIRECTV and SES Americom support 
EchoStar's proposal, although DIRECTV argues that power exceedences of 
greater than 6 dB should be permitted if a coordination agreement can 
be reached, however unlikely that may be.
    104. The Commission has always sought to afford satellite operators 
the maximum flexibility to design and operate their systems while 
simultaneously protecting other licensees from unacceptable levels of 
interference. Thus, we concur with commenter's proposals to provide a 
mechanism for licensing and coordinating systems operating with non-
compliant pfd levels. We also agree that there are advantages in 
linking the angular separation over which coordination is required to 
the degree of the power excess, as this approach may avoid placing an 
unnecessary coordination requirement on the parties. Accordingly, we 
adopt a requirement for non-compliant systems in the 17/24 GHz BSS 
similar to the Ka-band requirement of Sec.  25.138(b). However, to 
account for the different orbital spacing rules that we adopt for the 
17/24 GHz BSS environment, as well as the possibility of offset from 
the locations specified in Appendix F, we will require applicants to 
coordinate with adjacent satellites within an angular separation of 
6 degrees for exceedences of up to 3 dB, and to coordinate 
with adjacent operators within an angular separation of 10 
degrees for exceedences of more than 3 dB. In addition, consistent with 
the Ka-band FSS requirement of Sec.  25.138(c), we require non-
compliant operators to coordinate with any future applicants or 
licensees over these same orbital separation distances. We also require 
a non-compliant licensee to reduce its power levels should a 
coordination agreement not be reached.
    105. Other Technical Requirements: The NPRM sought comment on 
several additional technical matters, including issues relating to 
Tracking Telemetry and Control (TT&C) frequencies, full frequency re-
use, polarization requirements, cross-polarization isolation 
requirements, and channelization requirements.
    106. Tracking, Telemetry and Command (TT&C) Frequencies. No 
Additional Rules Adopted: With regard to TT&C frequencies, the NPRM 
recognized the present lack of 17/24 GHz ground facilities to support 
launch, transfer and testing operations, and sought comment on how best 
to address the issue. Commenters suggest that the Commission should 
take a flexible approach toward TT&C requirements, particularly 
recognizing the absence of the ground network necessary for support 
during critical launch and early operation phases. DIRECTV also points 
out that because the 17/24 GHz bands are not allocated for use by BSS 
satellites outside of Region 2, it is unlikely that such facilities 
will be deployed in other parts of the world. Commenters generally 
encourage the Commission to consider requests to use alternate TT&C 
frequencies on the merits of each individual application, but maintain 
that applicants should demonstrate their need for such non-standard 
uses and must coordinate their operations. Accordingly, we make no 
changes to our existing rules, but will consider the merits and needs 
for 17/24 GHz BSS systems to use alternate TT&C frequencies on a case-
by-case waiver basis. Applicants seeking alternative TT&C frequencies 
should include a request for waiver in their applications.
    107. The NPRM also sought comment on the problem of reverse-band 
interference between receiving 17 GHz telemetry stations and DBS feeder 
uplink transmissions, and in particular on the ramifications to TT&C 
operations when such operations are co-located or located in close 
proximity to one another. DIRECTV states that with careful planning it 
is possible to coordinate the operations of the two services, even to 
the point that the earth stations may be co-located. Thus, DIRECTV 
requests that the Commission not limit operator flexibility by 
precluding such co-location, or by requiring a minimum separation 
distance. Rather, DIRECTV supports the Commission's proposal to require 
that applicants submit a technical showing demonstrating its ability to 
maintain sufficient telemetry link margin in the presence of the 
interfering DBS signal. Bermuda also supports this proposal, stating 
that the applicant could demonstrate compliance through a technical 
showing and urges the Commission not to preclude the possibility of co-
locating DBS feeder link earth stations with 17/24 GHz BSS telemetry 
stations. EchoStar also argues that interference can be avoided by 
careful frequency planning.
    108. At this time, we will not modify our rules to preclude co-
location of DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS TT&C facilities, nor will we require 
a minimum separation distance between TT&C facilities for the two 
services. Although there was support for our proposal to require a 
technical showing on the part of applicants seeking to operate co-
located earth stations, we are not prepared to adopt such a requirement 
at this time. Rather, we recognize that the question of interference 
into 17/24 GHz BSS telemetry receivers from DBS feeder link 
transmissions is not separate from the larger issue of reverse-band, 
ground path interference into 17/24 GHz BSS receiving antennas in 
general. For this reason, we will not adopt specific rules concerning 
the question of DBS ground path interference into 17/24 GHz BSS 
telemetry stations in this Order, but will address this issue in the 
further notice, within the larger context of ground path interference 
in the presence of reverse-band operations. We believe that this 
approach will better permit us to develop the record more fully, treat 
the issue within its larger context, and ultimately adopt the most 
appropriate requirements.
    109. Polarization and Full Frequency Re-Use Requirements. Full 
Frequency Re-Use Required: The NPRM sought comment on requirements 
relating to antenna polarization and full frequency re-use. Most 
commenters agreed that the Commission should mandate full-frequency re-
use for 17/24 GHz BSS systems, but that it should maintain flexibility 
with regard to channelization and polarization, and therefore should 
not adopt any specific channelization or polarization requirements. 
DIRECTV argues, however, that all transmissions from a given orbital 
location should be of the same type, and SES Americom urges the 
Commission not to divide the spectrum at a given orbital location among 
multiple entrants as was done for the DBS service. Only EchoStar 
proposes a standardized polarization and channelization scheme in which 
the co-frequency polarization senses are alternated among adjacent 
satellites across the geostationary arc. EchoStar asserts that such a 
scheme would yield about 1 dB of reduction in adjacent-satellite 
interference through judicious placement of the guardbands of an 
interfering satellite within the transponder bandwidth of the victim 
satellite. DIRECTV notes that applicants have all proposed to implement 
different channelization schemes, and argues that the cost to re-
engineer their business plans cannot justify the modest 1 dB of 
interference reduction. We concur with DIRECTV that the potential for 1 
dB of interference reduction does not compensate for the accompanying 
loss of flexibility in system design that the Commission has 
historically sought to afford satellite operators. Accordingly, we will 
not mandate a polarization or channelization scheme for 17/24 GHz BSS 
systems. We will, however, mandate full frequency re-use,

[[Page 50017]]

through either the use of orthogonal polarizations within the same beam 
and/or through the use of spatially independent beams.
    110. Cross-Polarization Isolation Requirements. 25 dB Space Station 
Cross-Polarization Isolation Requirements Adopted: Commenters generally 
support some relaxation of the current FSS requirement for 30 dB cross-
polarization isolation contained in Sec.  25.210(i) of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 25.210(i). All commenters believe that this rule is too 
restrictive and should be relaxed for 17/24 GHz BSS systems, although 
they differ in the degree of relaxation that should be provided. SES 
Americom proposes a reduction of the cross-polarization isolation 
requirement from 30 dB to 25 dB, stating that this value will 
adequately protect adjacent operators and that licensees will be able 
to manage any accompanying intra-system interference (i.e., ``self-
interference''). DIRECTV also proposes a less strict value of 27 dB, 
arguing that this value is more than sufficient to avoid excess levels 
of intra-system interference, particularly in light of recent advances 
in digital transmission technology that reduce system sensitivity to 
cross-polarization interference. EchoStar argues that the Commission's 
existing FSS requirement is too stringent and notes that most antennas 
fail to meet this level in only a small part of their service area, 
usually by no more than a few dB. Accordingly, EchoStar initially 
proposes a multipart scheme wherein operators would be required to meet 
the 30 dB level over 90% of the land within its service area, and a 
value of at least 26 dB within the remaining 10%. In its Reply 
Comments, EchoStar proposed a compromise to take into account the 
comments from other parties and amended its proposal to require 27 dB 
cross-polarization isolation over 90% of the land within its service 
area and at least 25 dB within the remaining 10%. In its Reply 
Comments, DIRECTV offered support for EchoStar's original proposal.
    111. The Commission adopted its 30 dB FSS cross-polarization 
isolation requirement in an environment where satellites were 
predominantly using analog transmissions. Along with the C-band analog 
video frequency plan of Sec.  25.211(a), 47 CFR 25.211(a), and the 
polarization switchability requirement of Sec.  25.210(c), 47 CFR 
25.210(c), the cross-polarization requirement serves to minimize the 
interference between adjacent satellites when both are carrying analog 
video signals that have highly varying (peaked) power density levels. 
In addition, the cross polarization requirement serves to limit the 
level of self-interference, thus assuring that operators do not 
allocate an inordinate proportion of the interference budget to 
themselves. In this context, it is worth noting that the cross 
polarization performance of the satellite receive antenna has 
negligible effect on the interference into other systems.
    112. Moreover, in a four-degree spacing environment, the cross-
polarization performance of the downlink satellite antenna has only a 
second-order effect on the interference into the neighboring system. 
The impact of the satellite downlink antenna's cross polarization 
transmission is to raise slightly the interference level into the 
downlink of the victim satellite's wanted polarization. Thus, the earth 
station receiving the signal from the neighboring victim satellite 
receives a co-polar interfering signal at a level defined by its own 
antenna co-polar sidelobe performance. In addition, in the same 
polarization, it also receives a much lower interfering signal whose 
level is defined by the interfering satellite's downlink cross-
polarization performance. If the satellite antenna meets the 30 dB FSS 
requirement of Sec.  25.210(i) and if it transmits at the same level in 
both polarizations, this cross-polarization contribution will increase 
the co-polar interference level into the adjacent satellite's downlink 
signal by one part per thousand. This increase corresponds to a 
decrease in carrier-to-interference ratio (C/I) of 0.004 dB. For 17/24 
GHz BSS satellites meeting a cross-polarization isolation requirement 
of 25 dB, the co-polar interference will increase by about 3 parts per 
thousand with a corresponding C/I decrease of 0.014 dB. This level of 
increased interference resulting from the satellite downlink antenna's 
more relaxed performance remains negligible relative to the main 
interfering signal.
    113. We anticipate that 17/24 GHz BSS system will operate almost 
exclusively with digital transmissions. We also accept that operators 
will be able to manage intra-system interference if a more relaxed 
requirement is adopted. In addition, we agree with the commenters that 
a more relaxed off-axis cross-polarization isolation requirement should 
yield only a negligible increase in interference to adjacent satellite 
systems. Thus, we agree that the 30 dB antenna cross-polarization 
isolation requirement originally designed for the analog transmission 
environment is unnecessarily stringent for 17/24 GHz BSS systems. 
Moreover, we recognize that the Commission has frequently waived the 
cross-polarization requirement of Sec.  25.210(i) for FSS applicants, 
allowing these systems to operate with isolation levels less that 30 
dB. Consequently, we adopt the 25 dB antenna cross-polarization 
isolation requirement proposed by SES Americom.
    114. Spectrum Allocation Issue. Footnote NG176 Unchanged: The NPRM 
also proposed to modify footnote NG167 of the Domestic Table of 
Frequency Allocations, See 47 CFR 2.106, in order to permit use of the 
24.75-25.25 GHz FSS allocation (Earth-to-space) by feeder links 
operating with the BSS in frequency bands other than 17 GHz, e.g., the 
12 GHz DBS band. Only Intelsat supports this proposal asserting that 
this increase in flexibility of spectrum use would help alleviate 
groundpath interference problems associated with reverse-band 
operations. EchoStar disagrees strongly with the proposal, arguing that 
it would preclude co-location of 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS satellites, and 
would also be inconsistent with its planned uses of both multiple spot-
beam technology, and the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. Finally, DIRECTV responds 
that, although the flexibility to use this alternative uplink spectrum 
could be useful in avoiding ground-path interference problems 
associated with reverse-band operations in the DBS uplink band (17.3-
17.8 GHz), users of this band already face the challenges of sharing 
spectrum with co-primary commercial and government systems. DIRECTV 
also states that 17/24 GHz BSS operators will likely require more 
uplink locations than do traditional DBS systems due to the increased 
atmospheric attenuation at these higher frequencies, which will result 
in increased site-diversity requirements, further increasing the 
potential burdens on systems sharing the band. Accordingly, DIRECTV 
cautions the Commission to weigh carefully the offsetting disadvantages 
of increased interference in the band. Intelsat disagrees with 
DIRECTV's comments, which it believes overstate the difficulties 
associated with additional use of the 24 GHz band. Intelsat argues 
that, given the limited number of 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link sites 
anticipated overall, any increase in use of spectrum could still be 
easily accommodated.
    115. In light of the limited support in the record for this 
proposal, we decline to adopt the NPRM proposal to permit the 
additional use of the 24.75-25.25 GHz band by DBS feeder uplink earth 
stations. Specifically, only Intelsat offers any support for this 
proposal, and bases that support on a speculative assumption regarding 
growth of 17/24

[[Page 50018]]

GHz BSS feeder link sites. As a result, in this case, we find DIRECTV's 
and EchoStar's concerns regarding the potential complexities created by 
changing the spectrum allocation to be more persuasive.
    116. Technical Requirements for Inter-Service Operations: Sharing 
in the 24 GHz Band. -114 dBW/m2/MHz PFD Coordination 
Threshold Adopted at Edge of FS License Area: Feeder uplinks for 
satellites operating in the 17/24 GHz BSS are allocated use of the 
24.75-25.25 GHz band on a primary basis in both the U.S. Table of 
Allocations and the International Tables of Allocations. See 47 CFR 
2.106 and note NG 167. Domestically, the upper portion of this band 
from 25.05-25.25 GHz is also allocated on a primary basis to the Fixed 
Service (FS). Fixed service operations in the band include Digital 
Electronic Message Service (DEMS) systems as well as a variety of other 
fixed services licensed throughout the United States by Economic Areas 
(EAs). In the 18 GHz Report and Order, the Commission amended the Table 
of Allocations to allocate spectrum in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band for use 
by BSS feeder links consistent with the international allocation made 
at the 1992 World Administrative Radiocommunication Conference. The 
Commission adopted this shared allocation in part based on the belief 
that co-frequency operation would be feasible given the limited number 
of anticipated feeder link earth stations. It noted, however, that the 
successful implementation of this allocation would require the 
development of sharing criteria in a future rulemaking.
    117. Recognizing the potential for 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link earth 
stations operating in this portion of the band to interfere with 
existing and future 24 GHz FS operations, the NPRM sought comment on 
rules we might adopt to facilitate co-frequency operations of these two 
services. Specifically we asked whether the antenna off-axis 
performance requirements of Sec.  25.209, 47 CFR 25.109, in combination 
with earth station power limits in Sec.  25.204, 47 CFR 25.205, would 
afford sufficient protection to 24 GHz FS systems, or whether changes 
to our rules are required. The NPRM also recognized certain conditions 
unique to the 24 GHz band that may either facilitate or complicate 
inter-service sharing, including the relatively small number of 
anticipated BSS feeder uplink stations, their large diameters and 
accompanying good off-axis discrimination characteristics, as well as 
the geographic area licensing of 24 GHz FS systems wherein licensees 
are not required to file site-specific data.
    118. Commenters' responses were similar among the terrestrial and 
satellite communities. Satellite commenters generally believe that co-
frequency operation of 24 GHz FS systems and 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link 
earth stations should be feasible, given the Commission's well-
established procedures for coordination between terrestrial operations 
and satellite earth stations, in combination with the large-diameter 
and relatively small number of feeder link antennas, and the large 
regions of the country where no FS systems are licensed to operate. 
Terrestrial service commenters assert that the tests and analyses 
necessary to understand the inter-service sharing situation will be 
time-consuming and costly, and that the cost of complying with 
coordination procedures that are eventually developed will be 
substantial.
    119. FiberTower asserts that the technical data and assumptions 
before the Commission are outdated, and that Sec.  25.204(b) is overly 
permissive as it does not take into account present-day equipment 
evolution. FiberTower maintains that reliable answers concerning band 
sharing criteria will only become available following the substantial 
expenditure of time and resources devoted to that end. FiberTower 
details many questions that it believes need to be answered, and 
additional information it believes must be made available in the 
record, in order to begin the necessary sharing studies. Consequently, 
FiberTower asserts that the best course of action is to require 17/24 
GHz BSS feeder link earth stations to locate well beyond the boundaries 
of the FS licensed areas until such studies can be completed and non-
interference to FS operations can be assured. Specifically, FiberTower 
urges the Commission to require 17/24 GHz BSS earth stations to locate 
at least 100 miles from the edge of any FS licensed area. In addition, 
FiberTower maintains that the Commission may also need to limit the 
number of BSS feeder links allowed to no more than five nationally 
until mutually acceptable analyses and supporting data are available to 
demonstrate that additional BSS feeder links are actually necessary, 
and that they can be operated without causing interference to 24 GHz FS 
systems in existing license areas. The FWCC supports FiberTower's 
proposals, arguing that the characteristics of the BSS feeder links are 
not well known, and adding that FS operations are subject to recent 
developments in available equipment and architectures.
    120. DIRECTV and EchoStar take issue with FiberTower's argument 
that coordination between 24 GHz FS systems and 17/24 GHz BSS feeder 
link earth stations is unduly complicated. These commenters object to 
FiberTower's proposals to restrict feeder link earth stations to 
distances greater than 100 miles from a 24 GHz license area and to 
limit the number to no more that five. EchoStar and DIRECTV argue that 
such severe constraints are inequitable given the co-primary status of 
both services in the band and state further that these restrictions 
would place undue burden on 17/24 GHz operators. DIRECTV argues further 
that such draconian rules are unnecessary and that it is possible to 
establish interference protection criteria between 24 GHz FS and 17/24 
GHz BSS systems.
    121. We agree that FiberTower's proposed restrictions on BSS earth 
stations are too severe. This approach would obviate the coordination 
process traditionally employed in other frequency sharing situations, 
by placing the entire burden of interference mitigation onto the BSS 
earth station operator. Such a requirement is not consistent with the 
Commission's approach to frequency sharing among co-primary services 
wherein we have typically sought to distribute any coordination burden 
in an equitable manner among all affected parties. Nor is it consistent 
with our approach to efficient use of spectrum resources. Rather, the 
Commission has historically relied upon coordination among affected 
parties to resolve interference issues, only resorting to less 
spectrum-efficient methods such as geographic separation in cases where 
coordination was not considered feasible (e.g., ubiquitously-deployed, 
small-diameter earth stations.) In addition, we note that many of the 
technical parameters that FiberTower claims are required to fully 
understand the frequency sharing situation are best made available as 
part of the coordination process itself. Accordingly, we continue to 
believe that coordination is a viable approach to resolving inter-
service interference issues in this band, and note that this is also 
the approach 24 GHz FS licensees use to resolve interference issues 
among themselves. As all commenters agree, FS facilities are not 
operating in large parts of the country. These regions will be the 
likely locations for the majority of BSS feeder link earth stations so 
that the issue of coordination should be raised relatively 
infrequently. Moreover, given the relatively small number of 
anticipated feeder link earth stations in combination with their large-
diameter

[[Page 50019]]

antennas, we do not believe that the coordination burden on either 
party will be overly severe.
    122. Coordination Threshold: SES Americom states that Commission 
rules are sufficient to effect coordination and to protect 24 GHz FS 
operations, and consequently urges the Commission to adopt no new 
requirements. However, EchoStar and DIRECTV both propose an additional 
requirement to facilitate sharing in the case of 24 GHz FS and 17/24 
GHz BSS earth station operations. They note that the Commission's rules 
already establish interference protection criteria between adjacent 
terrestrial license areas in the 24 GHz band. Specifically, Sec.  
101.509(e) includes a recommendation that coordination is not necessary 
if the pfd at the boundary of the adjacent terrestrial licensing area 
is less than -114 dBW/m\2\/MHz, and that licensees should be able to 
deploy with a pfd of up to -94 dBW/m\2\/MHz at the boundary of the 
relevant adjacent area without negatively affecting the operations of 
the adjacent area licensee, See 47 CFR 101.509(e). EchoStar and DIRECTV 
urge the Commission to adopt this same approach for 24 GHz FS and 17/24 
GHz BSS systems. They assert that it has worked well among 24 GHz 
terrestrial service licensees for many years and argue that it will 
work equally well in the present case. In conjunction with this 
proposal, commenters submit analyses to demonstrate that with worst-
case assumptions, separation distances required to meet this 
coordination threshold are typically on the order of 50 miles.
    123. In its reply comments FiberTower submits a technical analysis 
to demonstrate the need for a minimum separation of 100 miles from the 
edge of a 24 GHz FS licensing area. FiberTower states that the results 
of its preliminary study indicate that pfd level specified in Sec.  
101.509(e) of our rules is insufficient and should be reduced from -114 
dBW/m\2\/MHz to at least -142 dBW/m\2\/MHz to protect FS operations. 
Consequently, FiberTower asserts that substantial changes are needed in 
the Commission's rule. Although FiberTower continues to urge the 
Commission to adopt a 100-mile exclusion zone at the edges of the FS 
license areas, it proposes as an alternative that the pfd criterion 
specified in Sec.  101.509(e) should be changed to -142 dBW/m\2\/MHz, 
and outlines an accompanying approach for determining compliance with 
this pfd limit.
    124. We adopt a pfd level as a coordination threshold at the edge 
of the FS license area. Under such a scheme, the operator of a 17/24 
GHz BSS feeder link earth station that produces a pfd level greater 
than the specified threshold value at the boundary of a 24 GHz FS 
license area would be required to coordinate its operations with the 
affected FS operations. Such an approach is relatively straightforward, 
and distributes the burden of coordination equitably among all parties. 
In addition, it is consistent with the approach currently contained in 
our rules to permit licensing of co-frequency 24 GHz FS operations in 
adjacent Economic Areas (EA's). In contrast to requiring an absolute 
separation distance, this approach will allow operators to take into 
account the various interference-mitigating factors that will vary at 
different locations around the country including foliage or terrain-
shielding, as well as regional differences in precipitation. Moreover, 
such an approach will permit operators the flexibility to implement 
various mitigation techniques and to mutually resolve their 
coordination problems with as little input from the Commission as 
possible.
    125. DIRECTV and EchoStar assert that the current pfd level in 
Sec.  101.509(e) can be successfully extended to the case of BSS feeder 
link earth station transmissions to serve as a threshold for FS/BSS 
coordination. FiberTower, however, argues that this pfd level should be 
reduced by 28 dB to afford sufficient protection to 24 GHz FS 
operations. The pfd coordination threshold of Sec.  101.509(e) was 
adopted in the 24 GHz Report and Order to facilitate coordination 
between U.S. licensed 24 GHz FS operations. The Commission adopted a -
114 dBW/m\2\/MHz value to be consistent with the coordination threshold 
value in the U.S. and Canada agreement for coordination between 
administrations in the border areas. Consequently, FiberTower's 
proposal would create more extensive difficulties in the general 
ability of 24 GHz FS licensees to coordinate with each other, and 
possibly with co-frequency operations across the border with Canada as 
well. Thus, changing the pfd threshold of Sec.  101.509(e) has 
ramifications far beyond the question of FS/BSS coordination and raises 
issues well outside the scope of this rulemaking. Accordingly, we 
decline to reduce the pfd coordination threshold of Sec.  101.509(e) in 
this rulemaking. Nor do we believe that there is justification for 
adopting a pfd coordination threshold for 17/24 GHz BSS operations 
different from the one applied to the transmissions of other co-
frequency operations. For these reasons, we extend the pfd coordination 
threshold value of -114 dBW/m\2\/MHz value now specified in our rules 
for coordination of fixed service operations, to BSS feeder link earth 
stations seeking to operate in the 24 GHz band. Further, to fully 
protect 24 GHz FS operations from multiple feeder link earth stations, 
any pfd level used as a coordination threshold at the FS license 
boundary must be cumulative. Accordingly, when determining whether the 
pfd threshold limit is exceeded at the 24 GHz FS licensing boundary, a 
feeder link earth station applicant must take into account not only the 
transmissions from its own antenna(s), but also those from any 
previously authorized feeder link earth stations. Thus, if the 
cumulative pfd level at the FS license boundary is in excess of -114 
dBW/m\2\/MHz, the earth station applicant must either modify its 
proposed operations such that this value is not exceeded, or enter into 
coordination with the affected FS licensee.
    126. Commenters raise the question of methodology used to compute 
the pfd level at the boundary of the FS license area. EchoStar states 
that the pfd calculation should be based on the actual characteristics 
of the proposed earth station, use a realistic propagation model such 
as ITU-R Recommendation P.452, with a reasonable probability of 
occurrence (e.g., 1%), and take into account the topography around the 
earth station. FiberTower asserts that the pfd should be determined at 
the boundary of the 24 GHz FS license area by establishing the EIRP of 
the earth station toward the horizon on the azimuth toward the FS 
boundary, and then applying the spreading loss for the distance between 
the feeder link station and the FS boundary. If transmit power control 
is used, the EIRP value used in the calculation should be the maximum 
value. We agree with FiberTower that in cases where adaptive uplink 
power control is used the EIRP value used for calculation should be the 
maximum. We also agree with EchoStar that calculations should be based 
on the actual characteristics of the proposed earth station. Consistent 
with our other pfd requirements, we also take into account only free-
space propagation loss when computing the pfd level at the FS license 
area. Although we recognize that many factors including terrain, 
atmospheric attenuation and climactic variations will likely further 
decrease pfd levels, we believe that a coordination threshold should be 
as simple and straightforward a calculation as possible. Other 
interference-mitigating factors may be taken into

[[Page 50020]]

account should the coordination process be invoked.
    127. We are establishing a procedure whereby 17/24 GHz BSS feeder 
link earth stations may be licensed, subject to coordination with 24 
GHz FS licensees when warranted. This procedure presumes that the earth 
station's location is outside of the 24 GHz FS license area. We need 
not address the case where 17/24 GHz BSS earth stations and 24 GHz FS 
systems might operate in the same EA since we do not intend to license 
17/24 GHz BSS feeder links to operate in an existing 24 GHz FS license 
area. Such a sharing situation is considerably more complicated, and in 
this instance, we agree that more information and study is necessary to 
develop appropriate sharing criteria. Moreover, we recognize that at 
some point in the future, additional 24 GHz FS licenses may be awarded, 
and that these operators may wish to consider locating their operations 
within an EA where a feeder link earth station has previously been 
licensed. Commenters have raised the possibility that BSS and FS 
working groups should complete the necessary technical studies and 
develop sharing criteria. The Commission supports all such efforts by 
the industry. It is possible that after further study and the 
development of more detailed sharing criteria, we may reconsider these 
requirements.
    128. As noted above, we anticipate that additional 24 GHz FS 
systems may be authorized subsequent to future Commission action. Such 
systems locating near an authorized 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link earth 
station may not claim protection from interference from the feeder link 
earth station's transmissions, provided that these transmissions are 
compliant with our rules. Rather, future 24 GHz FS applicants will be 
required to take into account the transmissions from the previously 
authorized earth station when considering system designs, including the 
choice of location for its license area. To make these decisions, 
future FS applicants must have access to relevant feeder link earth 
station characteristics. Accordingly, we make clear that all applicants 
for 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link earth stations are subject to the 
information filing requirements of Sec. Sec.  25.203 and 25.251 of our 
rules, whether or not coordination is required on the basis of the pfd 
levels adopted above.
    129. Sharing in the 17 GHz Band. Coordination with NTIA Encouraged: 
The Radiolocation Service is allocated use of the 15.7-17.3 GHz band on 
a primary basis, and the 17.3-17.7 GHz band on a secondary basis for 
U.S. Government systems, See 47 CFR 2.106. As stated in the NPRM, 
military services are the largest users of the 15.7-17.3 GHz band and 
their radiolocation operations include a large number of radar systems, 
particularly high-powered synthetic aperture radars operating near the 
17.3 GHz band edge. The Commission, noting similar concerns of the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), 
anticipated that unwanted emissions from high-power, adjacent-band 
radiolocation systems, could pose a significant harmful interference 
threat to 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber earth stations. The Commission also 
recognized that discussions between the radiolocation and BSS 
communities could help to resolve potential adjacent band interference 
issues between the two services. In the NPRM, the Commission noted its 
encouragement of operator-to-operator discussions as a means of 
resolving interference issues, and sought comment on this approach. 
Specifically, the Commission asked how best to address the issue of 
potential adjacent-band interference into 17/24 GHz BSS receivers.
    130. The NPRM also made available information that NTIA had 
provided concerning technical and operating characteristics of certain 
adjacent-band radiolocation systems that it considers likely to impact 
17/24 GHz BSS receiving earth stations. We sought comment on the 
general applicability of the NTIA's findings to planned 17/24 GHz BSS 
systems. The NPRM also sought comment on anticipated BSS receiver 
sensitivity to unwanted adjacent-band emissions, on the level of 
protection required, and on any measures 17/24 GHz BSS operators might 
adopt in order to mitigate such interference. Specifically, it asked 
whether the Commission should adopt requirements to limit 17/24 GHz BSS 
receiver susceptibility to unwanted emissions, and specifically what 
requirements might be appropriate.
    131. Finally, the NPRM recognized that Federal Government systems 
use the Radiolocation Service secondary allocation in the 17.3-17.7 GHz 
band by operating numerous types of radiolocation stations. NTIA 
indicates that radiolocation systems may seek to continue operating in 
this spectrum regardless of their allocation status with respect to the 
BSS, albeit at limited geographic areas and in limited portions of the 
band. The NPRM sought comment on approaches by which BSS operations 
could co-exist with secondary radiolocation operations.
    132. Commenters agree that radar interference into 17/24 GHz BSS 
receivers is a serious issue that must be addressed as early as 
possible. Commenters recognized the need for further exchange of 
information between industry and federal government concerns to better 
analyze the extent of the interference problem, and to develop 
appropriate mitigation strategies. Accordingly, commenters encourage 
the Commission to facilitate this process.
    133. EchoStar states that both in-band and adjacent-band 
interference mechanisms will prevent 17/24 GHz BSS receivers from 
operating when the radiolocation signal is present. EchoStar maintains 
that out-of-band interference will most severely affect those 
frequencies closest to 17.3 GHz, but that frequencies up to 100 MHz 
from the band edge are likely to be seriously impaired; the in-band 
interference will prevent receiver function on all channels while the 
signal is present.
    134. DIRECTV presents a generalized, worst-case analysis as well as 
a detailed examination of four interference scenarios for adjacent-band 
interference from airborne radar systems. The interference scenarios 
consider different antenna couplings between the radar and the BSS 
earth station: Mainbeam-to-mainbeam antenna coupling, mainbeam-to-
sidelobe antenna coupling, sidelobe-to-mainbeam antenna coupling, and 
sidelobe-to-sidelobe antenna coupling. The analysis results for 
mainbeam-to-mainbeam antenna coupling show significant interference 
from the adjacent band radars, but the estimated probability of this 
interference scenario occurring is 3x10-8 and the 
interference event only occurs for approximately 2 seconds. For the 
mainbeam-to-sidelobe and sidelobe-to-mainbeam antenna coupling again 
interference is shown, but the estimated probability of this scenario 
occurring is 2x10-4 and again the duration of the 
interference is around 2 seconds. From the DIRECTV analysis the most 
likely interference scenario is sidelobe-to-sidelobe antenna coupling. 
In this scenario the analysis shows that interference-to-carrier ratios 
as high as 9.1 dB may result, but that interference is limited 
primarily to the first transponder. In general, the analysis results 
indicate that for a single radar and BSS receiver interaction that the 
probability of interference is low and the duration of interference is 
relatively short. However, if the radars are operated over long 
durations and large geographic areas the probability and duration of 
interference can increase. DIRECTV believes that in

[[Page 50021]]

order to fully evaluate the potential impact on BSS receivers 
additional information is needed on the current and future radar 
systems in the 15.7-17.3 GHz band. We agree with DIRECTV that further 
exchanges of information are necessary in order to fully assess the 
potential impact on BSS receiver operations. We encourage the industry 
representatives to work directly with NTIA to obtain this information.
    135. DIRECTV also states that, in the measurement results presented 
by NTIA, a key finding was that the maximum interference tolerance is 
directly related to the ratio of the interference pulse length to the 
information signal length. DIRECTV questions whether error correction 
coding or data interleaving could significantly mitigate the effects of 
radar interference as the symbol rates of planned 17/24 GHz BSS systems 
will result in signal lengths on the order of 1000 times less than 
those planned for the radar systems. The DIRECTV assessment of the NTIA 
measurements is based on the in-band pulse characteristics (pulse width 
and pulse repetition frequency) of the radar systems provided by NTIA. 
However, the out-of-band radar signal that appears after the front-end 
filtering of a BSS earth station receiver may not have the same 
characteristics as the in-band radar signal (e.g., the pulse width may 
be shorter). Measurements of the effects of out-of-band pulsed 
interference on the BSS receiver could serve to quantify this effect. 
For example, as part of the above-mentioned discussion and information 
exchange between industry and NTIA, equipment representative of the 17/
24 GHz BSS earth station receivers could be provided to NTIA for 
testing and evaluation.
    136. Another sharing scenario was raised by NTIA in a letter dated 
March 21, 2007. In that letter, NTIA, on behalf of the Department of 
Defense (DoD), requested that we adopt the following footnote to the 
U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations:

    ''US402--In the band 17.3-17.7 GHz, existing Federal satellites 
and associated earth stations in the fixed-satellite service (Earth-
to-space) are authorized to operate on a primary basis in the 
frequency bands and areas listed below. Receiving earth stations in 
the broadcasting-satellite service within the bands and areas listed 
below shall not claim protection from Federal earth stations in the 
fixed-satellite service.
    (a) 17.600-17.700 GHz for stations within a 120 km radius of 
38[deg]49'N latitude and 76[deg]52'W longitude.
    (b) 17.375-17.475 GHz for stations within a 160 km radius of 
39[deg]42'N latitude and 104[deg]45'W longitude.''
    Additionally, NTIA states that Government Footnote G117 should 
be modified to limit Federal fixed-satellite use of these bands to 
military systems.

    137. NTIA states that the U.S. Government's implementation of this 
allocation supports military functions as well as specific national 
security interests of the United States and further asserts that this 
allocation is essential for these Federal space systems to perform 
satisfactorily. In addition, NTIA states that non-federal operations in 
this band are currently limited to existing transmitting feeder links 
for the BSS and future receiving BSS earth stations. According to NTIA, 
the Federal operations are limited to two sites and only utilize a 
portion of the 17.3-17.7 GHz band and have operated compatibly with the 
BSS feeder links for many years. We agree with NTIA that protecting 
these Federal operations at this time will ensure that BSS operators 
have sufficient time to design their future space-to-Earth systems 
accordingly.
    138. Based on the foregoing, we find that this change to the U.S. 
Table of Frequency Allocations is related to the exercise of military 
functions of the United States in support of urgent national security 
interests. Consequently, we also find that notice and public comment 
procedures are, for good cause shown, impracticable, unnecessary, and 
contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission is 
authorized to waive the public notice provisions of the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA) pursuant to 47 CFR 1.412(b)(1) and 1.412(c). Based 
on the representations of NTIA that adoption of a national footnote and 
an amendment of a government footnote specifically supports essential 
military functions of the national defense, we find that the public 
interest will best be served by accommodating NTIA's request to 
expeditiously add United States Footnote US402 to the U.S. Table of 
Frequency Allocations and amend Government Footnote G117 of the U.S. 
Table of Frequency Allocations.
    139. Finally, with regard to the secondary in-band interference 
issue, DIRECTV notes the lack of sufficient technical information 
necessary to perform an analysis of the problem, but suggests that 
given more information exchange between industry and the Federal 
Government it may be possible to adopt case-by-case solutions to 
accommodate such operations. We agree with DIRECTV that further 
exchanges of information are necessary in order to develop solutions to 
this issue. We encourage the parties to talk with NTIA directly to 
develop solutions to this issue.
    140. Pending Applications. As noted, we adopted a first-come, 
first-served licensing procedure for GSO-like applications and a 
modified processing round approach for NGSO-like applications in the 
First Space Station Licensing Reform Order. In doing so, we recognized 
that retroactively applying these procedures to all applications 
pending at that time may not best serve the public interest. Thus, we 
stated that we would apply the procedures ``in cases where doing so 
will help further the goals of this proceeding to expedite service to 
the public and discourage speculation.'' We decided to treat most 
pending GSO-applications under the first-come, first-served procedure. 
In other words, in most cases, we would grant a pending application if 
the applicant was qualified and if the proposed system would not cause 
harmful interference to any previously licensed satellite or to any 
satellite proposed in a previously filed application. The Commission 
adopted a somewhat different procedure for V-band applications, which 
had been filed pursuant to a processing round cut-off. There, the 
Commission treated all pending GSO V-band applications as though they 
were filed at the same time and entitled to concurrent consideration. 
This meant that if two or more V-band applications were mutually 
exclusive, the Commission would divide the available spectrum equally 
among the qualified licensees. The Commission employed a third 
processing approach for pending Ka-band NGSO applications. There, the 
Commission had already issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which 
it proposed a technical solution that would resolve mutual exclusivity 
and allow NGSO systems to share the same spectrum. Consequently, we 
determined that we did not need to use the band-splitting approach we 
adopted for mutually-exclusive NGSO applications in the First Space 
Station Reform Order. Instead, we granted each qualified NGSO Ka-band 
applicant authority to operate throughout the available spectrum.
    141. DIRECTV, EchoStar, and Intelsat make various suggestions as to 
how to process the pending 17/24 GHz space station applications. 
DIRECTV generally proposes that we should process the applications 
under the first-come, first-served approach. Nevertheless, they request 
that we exempt them from the rule that requires us to treat their 
amended applications as newly filed, See 47 CFR 25.116(b), (d). Newly 
filed applications move to the bottom of the

[[Page 50022]]

processing queue. In contrast, Intelsat recommends that we allow each 
applicant to amend a single application at a time, in order of the 
entity's date of filing its first application, ``round-robin'' style. 
This means that the entity with the oldest filing would be given the 
opportunity to file an amended application, with its choice of orbital 
location, first. The next entity to pick would be the remaining entity 
with the oldest application, and so on. Once all applicants had amended 
one application, each would be given an opportunity, in turn, to amend 
a second, third, fourth, and fifth application as warranted. Intelsat 
suggests that a ``round-robin'' procedure will ensure that orbital 
locations are assigned in a manner that promotes competition. For the 
reasons discussed below, we adopt another approach that treats all 
pending applications as filed simultaneously.
    142. There are 22 pending applications for 17/24 GHz BSS space 
station authorizations. Most of these filings are not at a four-degree-
compliant location or request an orbit location less than 4 degrees 
away from a location sought by another entity. As a result, under any 
processing method used for the pending applications, we will not be 
able to grant all the applications as originally filed. We further 
recognize that applicants will be required to amend their pending 
applications to conform to the new service and technical rules, 
including the rule limiting applicants to five pending 17/24 GHz BSS 
applications. At the same time, we will require applicants to select a 
location conforming to the four-degree spacing framework adopted today. 
Moreover, some applicants may choose not to continue prosecuting their 
pending applications due to changed business plans. Consequently, we 
expect the amended applications to look materially different than the 
pending applications.
    143. In light of these anticipated material changes and the new 
rules for the 17/24 GHz BSS, we will treat the applications before us, 
as amended, as though they were filed at the same time. Accordingly, as 
in the V-band proceeding, where two or more applications are mutually 
exclusive, we will divide the available spectrum equally among the 
applicants pursuant to Sec.  25.158(d). To the extent necessary, we 
will waive Sec. Sec.  25.116 and 25.155(c) of our Rules to process the 
applications in this manner. We find that this approach best serves the 
public interest by most equitably balancing our goals of maximizing use 
of scarce spectrum and orbital resources while at the same time 
retaining opportunities for competitive entry and speeding service to 
the public.
    144. We recognize that where the spectrum will be divided, the 
authorizations issued under this procedure may not be exactly what the 
applicants expected. This, by itself, would not bar the adoption of 
this procedure. As we explained in the First Space Station Reform 
Order, the Commission has the authority to apply new procedures to 
pending applications if doing so does not impair the rights an 
applicant possessed when it filed its application, increase an 
applicant's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties on 
applicants with respect to ``transactions already completed.'' 
Applicants do not gain any vested right merely by filing an 
application. Merely filing an application cannot be considered a 
``transaction already completed'' for purposes of this analysis. It 
would be within our authority to dismiss all the pending applications 
entirely and start the licensing process anew. Such an action, however, 
would not serve the policy goals articulated above. Thus, we conclude 
that there is no legal barrier to our processing the pending 
applications as filed simultaneously.
    145. To implement our decision here, we direct the Bureau to 
release a Public Notice shortly after these rules become effective, 
inviting applicants to amend the applications pending as of the date of 
this order consistent with the rules we adopt today. Applicants can 
amend their choice of orbital locations consistent with our spacing 
rules adopted today to reduce the likelihood of mutual exclusivity. In 
addition, applicants are limited to five pending 17/24 GHz BSS 
applications. Any application that is not amended by the date specified 
by the Bureau will be dismissed as defective. The Bureau will review 
the amended applications to determine whether they are substantially 
complete and acceptable for filing. The Bureau will place acceptable 
applications on public notice. The Bureau will return to the applicant 
as defective any amended applications that are not substantially 
complete. In the event that two or more amended applications are 
mutually exclusive, we direct the Bureau to consider the applications 
together and, if the applicants are qualified, to license them to 
operate in an equal portion of the spectrum.
    146. To facilitate the amendment process, we require each applicant 
to notify the Commission by letter, within 45 days of release of this 
Order, whether it intends to go forward with each of its pending 
applications. If an applicant fails to file a notification of its 
intent to proceed with a particular application, we will dismiss that 
application. By identifying applications that will not be pursued in 
advance of the amendment deadline, the remaining applicants may be in a 
better position to reach a compromise regarding their orbital 
assignment requests and minimize, or avoid, mutually exclusive 
situations.
    147. Finally, from the release date of this Order until a date and 
time designated by the Bureau after the pending applications are 
amended, we establish a freeze on new applications. The freeze on 17/24 
GHz BSS applications applies to any application for authority to 
provide service to the United States using the 17.3-17.7 GHz (space-to-
Earth) and 24.75-25.25 GHz (Earth-to-space) frequency bands or to 
provide international satellite service using the 17.7-17.8 GHz (space-
to-Earth) frequency band. This freeze is limited to applications for 
licenses for new space stations or for new requests for market access 
by foreign-licensed space stations. Further, the freeze does not apply 
to amendments to the 22 pending applications.
    148. Conclusion: With this Report and Order, we adopt licensing and 
service rules for the 17/24 GHz BSS that will facilitate the deployment 
of new broadband services. These rules include a first-come, first-
served processing approach for licensing 17/24 GHz BSS applications, 
several safeguards (e.g., bond requirements, milestones, and a limit on 
the number of pending applications), geographic service requirements to 
provide service to Alaska and Hawaii, and various public service 
obligations.

Ex Parte Presentations

    149. 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

    150. 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

[[Page 50023]]

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).

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    151. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in 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 Satellite 
Services Operating Bi-Directionally in the 17.3-17.8 GHz Frequency 
Band, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), adopted on June 21, 2006. 
The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the 
NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, The Report and Order

    152. The objective of the Report and Order is to adopt processing 
and service rules for the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service 
(BSS). This service will introduce a new generation of broadband 
services to the public, providing a mix of local and domestic video, 
audio, data, video-on-demand, and multimedia services to consumers in 
the United States. In some cases, these services will complement 
existing Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) services. Specifically, we 
adopt a first-come, first-served licensing procedure for the 17/24 GHz 
BSS, as well as various safeguards, reporting requirements, and 
licensee obligations. We also adopt geographic service rules to require 
17/24 GHz BSS licensees to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii. In 
addition, we establish rules and requirements for orbital spacing, 
minimum antenna diameter, and antenna performance standards. Also, we 
establish limits for uplink and downlink power levels to minimize the 
possibility of harmful interference. Finally, we stipulate criteria to 
facilitate sharing in the 24 GHz and 17 GHz bands. By these actions, we 
facilitate the introduction of new and innovative services to consumers 
in the United States and promote increased competition among satellite 
and terrestrial services.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    153. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the 
IRFA.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
Rules Will Apply

    154. 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.
    155. 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.
    156. 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.
    157. 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.
    158. 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.
    159. 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.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    160. Under the Commission's existing rules, all requests for space 
station

[[Page 50024]]

authorizations are required to be in the form of a comprehensive 
proposal submitted on the relevant FCC forms. Similarly, to obtain an 
earth station authorization, applicants must file the appropriate forms 
as required by the Commission's rules. In addition to our existing 
requirements, in this Report and Order, we adopt certain specific 
requirements for 17/24 GHz BSS earth and space station applications.
    161. Space Station Applications. The rules adopted will require an 
applicant proposing a satellite to be located at one of the orbit 
locations specified in Appendix F of the Report and Order and proposing 
to operate in the 17.3-17.7 GHz frequency band to provide a 
demonstration that the proposed space station shall comply with the 
power flux density limits set forth in Sec.  25.208(w) of the 
Commission's rules. In cases where an applicant will not comply with 
the power flux density limits set forth in Sec.  25.208(w), the 
applicant will be required to provide a certification that all 
potentially affected parties acknowledge and do not object to the use 
of the applicant's higher power flux densities.
    162. In cases where the proposed 17/24 GHz BSS space station will 
be operated in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band, or operated to provide 
international service in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band, and cannot be located 
precisely at one of the nominal 17/24 GHz BSS orbital locations 
specified in Appendix F of the Report and Order, the applicant must 
provide a demonstration that the proposed space station will not cause 
more interference to other 17/24 GHz BSS satellite networks operating 
in compliance with the rules for this service than if it were located 
at the precise 17/24 GHz BSS orbital location from which its proposed 
location is offset.
    163. An applicant proposing a 17/24 GHz BSS space station to be 
located at one of the orbit locations specified in Appendix F of the 
Report and Order and proposing to provide international service in the 
17.7-17.8 GHz band, must demonstrate that it will meet the power flux 
density limits set forth in Sec.  25.208(c) of the Commission's rules.
    164. An applicant proposing a 17/24 GHz BSS space station that 
proposes to provide ``DBS-like service'' within the meaning of Sec.  
25.225 of the Commission's rules, must either certify that it will meet 
the requirements of Sec.  25.225, or include as an attachment to its 
application a technical analysis demonstrating that comparable DBS-like 
service is not feasible as a technical matter or that, while 
technically feasible, such service would require so many compromises in 
satellite design and operation as to make it economically unreasonable.
    165. An applicant proposing a 17/24 GHz BSS space station must 
provide an interference analysis to demonstrate the compatibility of 
its proposed system 4[deg] from any current or future authorized space 
station in the 17/24 GHz BSS that complies with the Commission's 
technical rules.
    166. Earth Station Applications. Applications for feeder link earth 
stations operating in the 24.75--25.25 GHz band (Earth-to-space) and 
providing service to geostationary satellites in the 17/24 GHz BSS must 
include, for each earth station antenna type, in addition to the 
particulars of operation identified on FCC Form 312 and associated 
Schedule B, a series of EIRP density charts or tables, calculated for a 
production earth station antenna, based on measurements taken on a 
calibrated antenna range at 25 GHz, with the off-axis EIRP envelope set 
forth in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(iv) of Sec.  25.115 of the 
Commission's rules. These charts or tables should show (i) Off-axis co-
polarized EIRP spectral density in the azimuth plane, for off-axis 
angles from minus 10[deg] to plus 10[deg] and from minus 180[deg] to 
plus 180[deg]; (ii) off-axis co-polarized EIRP spectral density in the 
elevation plane, at off-axis angles from 0[deg] to plus 30[deg]; (iii) 
off-axis cross-polarized EIRP spectral density in the azimuth plane, at 
off-axis angles from minus 10[deg] to plus 10[deg]; and (iv) off-axis 
cross-polarized EIRP spectral density in the elevation plane, at off-
axis angles from minus 10[deg] to plus 10[deg]. In lieu of providing 
such charts or tables, applicants may provide a certification on 
Schedule B that the antenna conforms to the gain pattern criteria of 
Sec. Sec.  25.209(a) and (b) of the Commission's rules, that when 
combined with input power density (computed from the maximum on-axis 
EIRP density per carrier less the antenna gain entered in Schedule B), 
demonstrates that the off-axis EIRP spectral density envelope set forth 
in Sec. Sec.  25.223(b)(1) through (4) of the Commission's rules will 
be met.
    167. Earth station applicants seeking authority to use an antenna 
that does not meet the standards set forth in Sec. Sec.  25.209(a) and 
(b) of the Commission's rules, pursuant to the procedure set forth in 
Sec.  25.220 or Sec.  25.223(c), are required to submit a copy of the 
manufacturer's range test plots of the antenna gain patterns specified 
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    168. An applicant for an earth station license that proposes levels 
in excess of those defined in the new Sec.  25.223(b) of the 
Commission's rules, shall (1) Submit link budget analyses of the 
operations proposed along with a detailed written explanation of how 
each uplink and each transmitted satellite carrier density figure is 
derived; and (2) submit a narrative summary which must indicate whether 
there are margin shortfalls in any of the current baseline services as 
a result of the addition of the applicant's higher power service, and 
if so, how the applicant intends to resolve those margin short falls.
    169. The Commission does not expect significant costs to be 
associated with these rules. Therefore, we do not anticipate that the 
burden of compliance would be greater for smaller entities.

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

    170. 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.
    171. The rules adopted herein are necessary for the efficient 
operation of the 17/24 GHz BSS, which is expected to introduce a new 
generation of broadband services to the public. The technical rules 
adopted here are designed to be the least intrusive in terms of 
compliance requirements and the most effective in terms of facilitating 
the licensing of operations in the 17/24 GHz BSS without causing 
harmful interference to other authorized radiocommunication services. 
We have considered alternatives and believe these are the most 
equitable solutions to the potential interference problems posed by the 
operations in 17/24 GHz BSS. By requiring that technical showings be 
made prior to operation, we anticipate that there will be far fewer 
instances of harmful interference. This will have a positive economic 
impact on all satellite space station and earth station licensees, 
including small entities.

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

    172. None.

[[Page 50025]]

    173. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the 
Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to 
Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the 
Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this 
FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the 
Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published 
in the Federal Register.
    174. 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 Report and Order is adopted.
    175. It is further ordered that part 25 of the Commission's rules 
is amended as set forth in Appendix B. An announcement of the effective 
date of these rule revisions will be published in the Federal Register.
    176. It is further ordered that from the release date of this Order 
until a date and time designated by the International Bureau, no 
applications for authority to provide service to the United States 
using the 17.3-17.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 24.75-25.25 GHz (Earth-to-
space) frequency bands or to provide international satellite service 
using the 17.7-17.8 GHz (space-to-Earth) frequency band will be 
accepted for filing. The freeze does not apply to amendments to the 
pending applications listed in Appendix E to conform the applications 
to the rules adopted in this Order.
    177. It is further ordered that the International Bureau is 
delegated authority to issue Public Notices consistent with this Report 
and Order.
    178. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center shall send a 
copy of this Report And Order, including the final regulatory 
flexibility analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration, in accordance with Sec.  603(a) of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (1981).
    179. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of 
this Report and Order 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.

Rule Changes

0
For the reasons discussed above, the Federal Communications Commission 
amends 47 CFR parts 2 and 25 as follows:

PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL 
RULES AND REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise 
noted.


0
2. Section 2.106 is amended as follows:
0
a. Revise page 48.
0
b. In the list of United States (US) Footnotes, add footnote US402.
0
c. In the list of Non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes, revise 
footnotes NG163 and NG167.
0
d. In the list of Federal Government (G) Footnotes, revise footnote 
G117.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  2.106  Table of Frequency Allocations.

* * * * *
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

[[Page 50026]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29AU07.120

BILLING CODE 6712-01-C

United States (US) Footnotes

* * * * *
    US402 In the band 17.3-17.7 GHz, existing Federal satellites and 
associated

[[Page 50027]]

earth stations in the fixed-satellite service (Earth-to-space) are 
authorized to operate on a primary basis in the frequency bands and 
areas listed below. Receiving earth stations in the broadcasting-
satellite service within the bands and areas listed below shall not 
claim protection from Federal earth stations in the fixed-satellite 
service.
    (a) 17.600-17.700 GHz for stations within a 120 km radius of 
38[deg] 49' N latitude and 76[deg] 52' W longitude.
    (b) 17.375-17.475 GHz for stations within a 160 km radius of 
39[deg] 42' N latitude and 104[deg] 45' W longitude.

Non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes

* * * * *
    NG163 The allocation to the broadcasting-satellite service in 
the band 17.3-17.7 GHz shall come into effect on 1 April 2007. Use 
of the 17.3-17.7 GHz band by the broadcasting-satellite service is 
limited to geostationary satellite orbit systems.
* * * * *
    NG167 The use of the fixed-satellite service (Earth-to-space) in 
the band 24.75-25.25 GHz is limited to feeder links for the 
broadcasting-satellite service in the band 17.3-17.8 GHz. The 
allocation to the fixed-satellite service (Earth-to-space) in the 
band 24.75-25.25 GHz shall come into effect on 1 April 2007.
* * * * *

Federal Government (G) Footnotes

* * * * *
    G117 In the bands 7.25-7.75 GHz, 7.9-8.4 GHz, 17.3-17.7 GHz, 
17.8-21.2 GHz, 30-31 GHz, 33-36 GHz, 39.5-41 GHz, 43.5-45.5 GHz and 
50.4-51.4 GHz, the Federal fixed-satellite and mobile-satellite 
services are limited to military systems.

* * * * *

PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

0
3. The authority citation for Part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 701-744. Interprets or applies Sections 4, 
301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332 of the Communications Act, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332, 
unless otherwise noted.


0
4. Amend Sec.  25.114 by revising paragraph (d)(7) and adding 
paragraphs (d)(15) and (d)(16) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.114  Applications for space station authorizations.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (7) Applicants for authorizations for space stations in the fixed-
satellite service must also include the information specified in 
Sec. Sec.  25.140(b)(1) and (2) of this part. Applicants for 
authorizations for space stations in the 17/24 GHz broadcasting-
satellite service must also include the information specified in 
Sec. Sec.  25.140(b)(1) and (3) of this part.
* * * * *
    (15) Each applicant for a space station license in the 17/24 GHz 
BSS shall include the following information as an attachment to its 
application:
    (i) Except as set forth in paragraph (d)(15)(ii) of this section, 
an applicant proposing to operate in the 17.3-17.7 GHz frequency band, 
must provide a demonstration that the proposed space station will 
comply with the power flux density limits set forth in Sec.  25.208(w) 
of this part.
    (ii) In cases where the proposed space station will not comply with 
the power flux density limits set forth in Sec.  25.208(w) of this 
part, the applicant will be required to provide a certification that 
all potentially affected parties acknowledge and do not object to the 
use wof the applicant's higher power flux densities. The affected 
parties with whom the applicant must coordinate are those GSO 17/24 GHz 
BSS satellite networks located up to 6 away for excesses of up to 3 dB 
above the power flux-density levels specified in Sec.  25.208(w) of 
this part, and up to 10 away greater for excesses greater than 3 dB 
above those levels.
    (iii) In cases where the proposed 17/24 GHz BSS space station will 
be operated in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band, or operated to provide 
international service in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band, and cannot be located 
precisely at one of the nominal 17/24 GHz BSS orbital locations 
specified in Appendix F of the Report and Order, adopted May 2, 2007, 
IB Docket No. 06-123, FCC 07-76, the applicant must provide a 
demonstration that the proposed space station will not cause more 
interference to other 17/24 GHz BSS satellite networks operating in 
compliance with the rules for this service than if it were located at 
the precise 17/24 GHz BSS orbital location from which its proposed 
location is offset.
    (iv) An applicant proposing to provide international service in the 
17.7-17.8 GHz band must demonstrate that it will meet the power flux 
density limits set forth in Sec.  25.208(c) of this part.
    (16) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (d)(15) of this 
section, each applicant for a license to operate a 17/24 GHz BSS space 
station that will be used to provide video programming directly to 
consumers in the United States, that will not meet the requirements of 
Sec.  25.225 of this part, must include as an attachment to its 
application a technical analysis demonstrating that providing video 
programming service to consumers in Alaska and Hawaii that is 
comparable to the video programming service provided to consumers in 
the 48 contiguous United States (CONUS) is not feasible as a technical 
matter or that, while technically feasible, such service would require 
so many compromises in satellite design and operation as to make it 
economically unreasonable.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  25.115 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.115  Applications for earth station authorizations.

* * * * *
    (g) Applications for feeder link earth stations operating in the 
24.75--25.25 GHz band (Earth-to-space) and providing service to 
geostationary satellites in the 17/24 GHz BSS must include, in addition 
to the particulars of operation identified on Form 312 and associated 
Schedule B, the information specified in either paragraph (g)(1) or 
(g)(2) below for each earth station antenna type:
    (1) A series of EIRP density charts or tables, calculated for a 
production earth station antenna, based on measurements taken on a 
calibrated antenna range at 25 GHz, with the off-axis EIRP envelope set 
forth in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(iv) of this section 
superimposed, as follows:
    (i) Showing off-axis co-polarized EIRP spectral density in the 
azimuth plane, for off-axis angles from minus 10[deg] to plus 10[deg] 
and from minus 180[deg] to plus 180[deg];
    (ii) Showing off-axis co-polarized EIRP spectral density in the 
elevation plane, at off-axis angles from 0[deg]to plus 30[deg];
    (iii) Showing off-axis cross-polarized EIRP spectral density in the 
azimuth plane, at off-axis angles from minus 10[deg] to plus 10[deg]; 
and
    (iv) Showing off-axis cross-polarized EIRP spectral density in the 
elevation plane, at off-axis angles from minus 10[deg] to plus 10[deg]
    (2) A certification on Schedule B that the antenna conforms to the 
gain pattern criteria of Sec. Sec.  25.209(a) and (b), that when 
combined with input power density (computed from the maximum on-axis 
EIRP density per carrier less the antenna gain entered in Schedule B), 
demonstrates that the off-axis EIRP spectral density envelope set forth 
in Sec. Sec.  25.223(b)(1) through (4) of this part will be met.

0
6. Amend Sec.  25.121 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

[[Page 50028]]

Sec.  25.121  License term and renewals.

    (a) License term. (1) Except for licenses for DBS space stations 
and 17/24 GHz BSS space stations licensed as broadcast facilities, 
licenses for facilities governed by this part will be issued for a 
period of 15 years.
    (2) Licenses for DBS space stations and 17/24 GHz BSS space 
stations licensed as broadcast facilities will be issued for a period 
of 8 years. Licenses for DBS space stations not licensed as broadcast 
facilities will be issued for a period of 10 years.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  25.132 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.132  Verification of earth station antenna performance 
standards.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Applicants seeking authority to use an antenna that does not 
meet the standards set forth in Sec. Sec.  25.209(a) and (b) of this 
part, pursuant to the procedure set forth in Sec.  25.220 or Sec.  
25.223(c) of this part, are required to submit a copy of the 
manufacturer's range test plots of the antenna gain patterns specified 
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

0
8. Amend Sec.  25.140 by revising paragraph (b)(2) and adding 
paragraphs (b)(3) and (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.140  Qualifications of fixed-satellite space station 
licensees.

    (b) * * *
    (2) Except as set forth in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, all 
applicants must provide an interference analysis to demonstrate the 
compatibility of their proposed system 2 from any authorized space 
station. An applicant should provide details of its proposed r.f. 
carriers which it believes should be taken into account in this 
analysis. At a minimum, the applicant must include, for each type of 
r.f. carrier, the link noise budget, modulation parameters, and overall 
link performance analysis. (See, e.g., appendices B and C to Licensing 
of Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service (available at 
address in Sec. 0.445)).
    (3) Applicants for licenses for satellites in the 17/24 GHz BSS 
must provide an interference analysis of the kind described in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, except that the applicant must 
demonstrate the compatibility of its proposed system 4[deg] from any 
current or future authorized space station in the 17/24 GHz BSS that 
complies with the technical rules in this part. The link budget must 
take into account longitudinal stationkeeping tolerances and any 
existing orbital location offsets from the nominal 17/24 GHz BSS 
orbital locations of the adjacent prior-authorized 17/24 GHz BSS space 
stations. In addition, any 17/24 GHz BSS satellite applicant that has 
reached a coordination agreement with an operator of another 17/24 GHz 
BSS satellite located up to 10[deg]away to allow that 
operator to exceed the pfd levels specified in the rules for this 
service, must use those higher pfd levels for the purposes of this 
showing.
    (c) Any space station applicant for a space station authorization 
in the 17/24 GHz BSS must design its satellite network to be capable of 
operating with another 17/24 GHz BSS satellite as close as four degrees 
away from its 17/24 GHz BSS satellite.

0
9. Amend Sec.  25.201 to add a definition in alphabetical order for 
``17/24 GHz Broadcasting Satellite Service'' to read as follows:


Sec.  25.201  Definitions.

* * * * *
    17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service. A radiocommunications 
service using geostationary satellites between one or more feeder link 
earth stations and other earth stations, in the 17.3--17.7 GHz (space-
to-Earth) (domestic allocation), 17.3--17.8 GHz (international 
allocation) and 24.75--25.25 GHz frequency bands. This service is also 
known as ``17/24 GHz BSS.'' For purposes of the application processing 
provisions of this part, 17/24 GHz BSS is a GSO-like service. For 
purposes of the technical requirements of this part, we will treat 17/
24 GHz BSS as if it were FSS. Unless specifically stated otherwise, the 
17/24 GHz BSS systems are subject to the rules in this part applicable 
to FSS.
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec.  25.202 by revising the table in paragraph (a)(1) and 
adding footnote 18 to paragraph (a)(1) and by adding paragraph (a)(9), 
to read as follows:


Sec.  25.202  Frequencies, frequency tolerance and emission 
limitations.

    (a)(1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Space-to-Earth (GHz)                 Earth-to-space (GHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.65-3.7 \17\                        ...................................
3.7-4.2 \1\                          5.925-6.425 \1\
10.7-10.95 1 12                      12.75-13.25 1 12 14
10.95-11.2 1 2 12                    13.75-14 4 12
11.2-11.45 1 12                      14-14.2 \5\
11.45-11.7 1 2 12                    14.2-14.5
11.7-12.2 \3\                        17.3-17.8 \9\
12.2-12.7 \13\                       24.75-25.05 \18\
18.3-18.58 1 10                      25.05-25.25 1 18
18.58-18.8 6 10 11                   27.5-29.5 \1\
18.8-19.3 7 10                       29.5-30
19.3-19.7 8 10                       47.2-50.2 \1\
19.7-20.2 \10\                       ...................................
37.5-40 15 16                        ...................................
37.6-38.6                            ...................................
40-42 \16\                           ...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This band is shared coequally with terrestrial radio communication
  service.
\2\ Use of this band by geostationary satellite orbit satellite systems
  in the fixed-satellite service is limited to international systems;
  i.e., other than domestic systems.
\3\ Fixed-satellite transponders may be used additionally for
  transmissions in the broadcasting-satellite service.
\4\ This band is shared on an equal basis with the Government
  radiolocation service and grandfathered space stations in the Tracking
  and Data Relay Satellite System.
\5\ In this band, stations in the radionavigation service shall operate
  on a secondary basis to the fixed-satellite service.
\6\ The band 18.58-18.8 GHz is shared coequally with existing
  terrestrial radio communication systems until June 8, 2010.
\7\ The band 18.8-19.3 GHz is shared coequally with terrestrial radio
  communication services, until June 8, 2010. After this date, the sub-
  band 19.26-19.3 GHz is shared co-equally with existing terrestrial
  radio communication systems.
\8\ The use of the band 19.3-19.7 GHz by the fixed-satellite service
  (space-to-Earth) is limited to feeder links for the mobile-satellite
  service.
\9\ The use of the band 17.3-17.8 GHz by the fixed-satellite service
  (Earth-to-space) is limited to feeder links for broadcasting-satellite
  service, and the sub-band 17.7-17.8 GHz is shared co-equally with
  terrestrial fixed services.
\10\ This band is shared co-equally with the Federal Government fixed-
  satellite service.
\11\ The band 18.6-18.8 GHz is shared coequally with the non-Federal
  Government and Federal Government Earth exploration-satellite
  (passive) and space research (passive) services.
\12\ Use of this band by non-geostationary satellite orbit systems in
  the fixed-satellite service is limited to gateway earth station
  operations.
\13\ Use of this band by the fixed-satellite service is limited to non-
  geostationary satellite orbit systems.
\14\ Use of this band by NGSO FSS gateway earth station uplink
  operations is subject to the provisions of Sec.   2.106 NG53.
\15\ Use of this band by the fixed-satellite service is limited to
  ``gateway'' earth station operations, provided the licensee under this
  Part obtains a license under Part 101 of this Chapter or an agreement
  from a Part 101 licensee for the area in which an earth station is to
  be located. Satellite earth station facilities in this band may not be
  ubiquitously deployed and may not be used to serve individual
  consumers.
\16\ The band 37.5-40.0 GHz is designated as being available for use by
  the fixed and mobile services and the band 40.0-42.0 GHz is designated
  as being available for use by the fixed-satellite service.
\17\ FSS earth stations in this band must operate on a secondary basis
  to terrestrial radiocommunication services, except that the band is
  shared co-equally between certain grandfathered earth stations and the
  terrestrial radiocommunication services.

[[Page 50029]]

 
\18\ Use of the band 24.75-25.25 GHz by the fixed-satellite service
  (Earth-to-space) is limited to feeder links for space stations in the
  broadcasting-satellite service, and the sub-band 25.05-25.25 GHz is
  shared co-equally with terrestrial fixed services. The allocation to
  the fixed-satellite service (Earth-to-space) in the band 24.75-25.25
  GHz shall come into effect on 1 April 2007.

* * * * *
    (9) The following frequencies are available for use by the 
Broadcasting-Satellite Service after 1 April 2007:

17.3-17.7 GHz (space-to-Earth)
17.7-17.8 GHz (space-to-Earth)

    Note 1 to Paragraph (a)(9): Use of the 17.3-17.7 GHz band by the 
broadcasting-satellite service is limited to geostationary satellite 
orbit systems.


    Note 2 to Paragraph (a)(9): Use of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band 
(space-to-Earth) by the broadcasting-satellite service is limited to 
transmissions from geostationary satellite orbit systems to 
receiving earth stations located outside of the United States and 
its Possessions. In the United States and its Possessions, the 17.7-
17.8 GHz band is allocated on a primary basis to the Fixed Service.

* * * * *

0
11. Amend Sec.  25.203 by adding paragraph (l) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.203  Choice of sites and frequencies.

* * * * *
    (l) Applicants for feeder link earth station facilities operating 
in the 25.05-25.25 GHz band may be licensed only in Economic Areas 
where no existing FS licensee has been authorized, and shall coordinate 
their operations with 24 GHz fixed service operations if the power flux 
density of their transmitted signal at the boundary of the fixed 
service license area is equal to or greater than -114 dBW/m\2\ in any 1 
MHz.
    (1) When uplink adaptive power control is used, the EIRP used for 
calculation of the power flux density level should be the maximum 
possible, taking into account the adaptive power increase.
    (2) The power flux density levels should be calculated based on the 
actual off-axis gain characteristics of the earth station antenna, and 
should assume free space propagation conditions.
    (3) When determining whether the power flux density threshold limit 
is exceeded at the 24 GHz FS licensing boundary, a feeder link earth 
station applicant must take into account not only the transmissions 
from its own antenna(s), but also those from any previously authorized 
feeder link earth stations. Thus, if the cumulative power flux density 
level at the FS license boundary is in excess of -114 dBW/m\2\/MHz, the 
earth station applicant must either modify its proposed operations such 
that this value is not exceeded, or enter into coordination with the 
affected FS licensee.

0
12. Amend Sec.  25.204 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.204  Power limits.

* * * * *
    (g) All earth stations in the Fixed Satellite Service in the 20/30 
GHz band, and feeder link earth stations operating in the 24.75-25.25 
GHz band (Earth-to-space) and providing service to geostationary 
satellites in the 17/24 GHz BSS, shall employ uplink adaptive power 
control or other methods of fade compensation such that the earth 
station transmissions shall be conducted at the power level required to 
meet the desired link performance while reducing the level of mutual 
interference between networks.
* * * * *

0
13. Amend Sec.  25.208 by revising paragraph (c) and adding paragraph 
(w) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.208  Power flux density limits.

* * * * *
    (c) In the 17.7-17.8 GHz, 18.3-18.8 GHz, 19.3-19.7 GHz, 22.55-23.00 
GHz, 23.00-23.55 GHz, and 24.45-24.75 GHz frequency bands, the power 
flux density at the Earth's surface produced by emissions from a space 
station for all conditions for all methods of modulation shall not 
exceed the following values:
    (1) -115 dB (W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival 
between 0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane.
    (2) -115 + 0.5 ([delta]-5) dB (W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles 
of arrival d (in degrees) between 5 and 25 degrees above the horizontal 
plane.
    (3) -105 dB (W/m\2\) in any 1 MHz band for angles of arrival 
between 25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane.
* * * * *
    (w) The power flux density at the Earth's surface produced by 
emissions from a 17/24 GHz BSS space station operating in the 17.3-17.7 
GHz band for all conditions, including clear sky, and for all methods 
of modulation shall not exceed the regional power flux density levels 
defined below.
    (1) In the region of the contiguous United States, located south of 
38[deg] North Latitude and east of 100 West Longitude: -115 dBW/m\2\/
MHz.
    (2) In the region of the contiguous United States, located north of 
38[deg] North Latitude and east of 100[deg] West Longitude: -118 dBW/
m\2\/MHz.
    (3) In the region of the contiguous United States, located west of 
100 West Longitude: -121 dBW/m\2\/MHz.
    (4) For all regions outside of the contiguous United States 
including Alaska and Hawaii: -115 dBW/m\2\/MHz.

0
14. Amend Sec.  25.209 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.209  Antenna performance standards.

* * * * *
    (c) (1) Earth station antennas licensed for reception of radio 
transmissions from a space station in the fixed-satellite service are 
protected from radio interference caused by other space stations only 
to the degree to which harmful interference would not be expected to be 
caused to an earth station employing an antenna conforming to the 
referenced patterns defined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, 
and protected from radio interference caused by terrestrial radio 
transmitters identified by the frequency coordination process only to 
the degree to which harmful interference would not be expected to be 
caused to an earth station conforming to the reference pattern defined 
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (2) 17/24 GHz BSS telemetry earth stations are protected from 
harmful interference caused by other space stations to the extent set 
forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Receive-only earth stations 
in the 17/24 GHz BSS are protected from harmful interference caused by 
other space stations to the extent set forth in Sec.  25.224 of this 
part.
* * * * *

0
15. Amend Sec.  25.210 by revising paragraphs (f) and (i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  25.210  Technical requirements for space stations in the Fixed-
Satellite Service.

* * * * *
    (f) All space stations in the Fixed Satellite Service in the 3600-
3700 MHz, 3700-4200 MHz, 5091-5250 MHz, 5825-5925 MHz, 5925-6425 MHz, 
6425-6525 MHz, 6525-6700 MHz, 6700-7025 MHz, 10.7-10.95 GHz, 10.95-11.2 
GHz, 11.2-11.45 GHz, 11.45-11.7 GHz, 11.7-12.2 GHz, 12.2-12.7 GHz, 
12.75-13.15 GHz, 13.15-13.2125 GHz, 13.2125-13.25 GHz, 13.75-14.0 GHz, 
14.0-14.5 GHz, 15.43-15.63 GHz, and 24.75-25.25 GHz bands, or in the 
Broadcasting-Satellite Service in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band (space-to-
Earth), shall employ state-of-the-art full frequency reuse either 
through the use of orthogonal polarizations within the same beam and/or 
the use of spatially independent beams.
* * * * *

[[Page 50030]]

    (i)(1) Space station antennas in the Fixed-Satellite Service, other 
than antennas in the 17/24 GHz BSS, must be designed to provide a 
cross-polarization isolation such that the ratio of the on axis co-
polar gain to the cross-polar gain of the antenna in the assigned 
frequency band shall be at least 30 dB within its primary coverage 
area.
    (2) Space station antennas in the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting Satellite 
Service must be designed to provide a cross-polarization isolation such 
that the ratio of the on axis co-polar gain to the cross-polar gain of 
the antenna in the assigned frequency band shall be at least 25 dB 
within its primary coverage area.
* * * * *

0
16. Amend Sec.  25.212 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.212  Narrowband analog transmissions, digital transmissions, 
and video transmissions in the GSO Fixed-Satellite Service.

* * * * *
    (f) In the 24.75-25.25 GHz band, an earth station that meets the 
antenna gain pattern requirements set forth in Sec. Sec.  25.209(a) and 
(b) of this part may be routinely licensed if the maximum power density 
into the antenna does not exceed 3.5 dBW/MHz.

0
17. Amend Sec.  25.220 by revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text 
to read as follows:


Sec.  25.220  Non-conforming transmit/receive earth station operations.

    (a)(1) This section applies to earth station applications other 
than ESV and 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link applications in which:

0
18. Section 25.223 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  25.223  Off-axis EIRP spectral density limits for feeder link 
earth stations in the 17/24 GHz BSS.

    (a) This section applies to all applications for earth station 
licenses in the 17/24 GHz BSS frequency bands, except for applications 
in which the proposed antenna does not conform to the standards of 
Sec. Sec.  25.209(a) and (b), and/or the proposed power density levels 
are in excess of those specified in Sec.  25.212(f) of this part.
    (b) All applications for earth station licenses in the 24.75-25.25 
GHz portion of 17/24 GHz BSS shall be routinely processed if they meet 
the following requirements:
    (1) 17/24 GHz BSS earth station antenna off-axis EIRP spectral 
density for co-polarized signals shall not exceed the following values, 
within 3[deg] of the GSO arc, under clear sky conditions:

32.5-25log([thetas])........  dBW/MHz.............  for 2[deg] <=
                                                     [thetas] <= 7[deg]
11.4........................  dBW/MHz.............  for 7[deg] <=
                                                     [thetas] <=
                                                     9.2[deg]
35.5-25log([thetas])........  dBW/MHz.............  for 9.2[deg] <=
                                                     [thetas] <= 48[deg]
3.5.........................  dBW/MHz.............  for 48[deg] <=
                                                     [thetas] <=
                                                     180[deg]
 

    Where [thetas] is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main 
lobe.

    (2) 17/24 GHz BSS earth station antenna off-axis EIRP spectral 
density for co-polarized signals shall not exceed the following values, 
for all directions other than within 3[deg] of the GSO arc, 
under clear sky conditions:

35.5-25log([thetas])........  dBW/MHz.............  for 2[deg] <=
                                                     [thetas] <= 7[deg]
14.4........................  dBW/MHz.............  for 7[deg] <=
                                                     [thetas] <=
                                                     9.2[deg]
38.5-25log([thetas])........  dBW/MHz.............  for 9.2[deg] <=
                                                     [thetas] <= 48[deg]
6.5.........................  dBW/MHz.............  for 48[deg] <=
                                                     [thetas] <=
                                                     180[deg]
 

    Where [thetas] is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main 
lobe.

    (3) The values given in paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of this section 
may be exceeded by 3 dB, for values of [thetas] > 10[deg], provided 
that the total angular range over which this occurs does not exceed 
20[deg] when measured along both sides of the GSO arc.
    (4) 17/24 GHz BSS earth station antenna off-axis EIRP spectral 
density for cross-polarized signals shall not exceed the following 
values, in all directions greater than +3 relative to the GSO arc, 
under clear sky conditions:

22.5-25log([thetas])........  dBW/MHz.............  for 2[deg] <=
                                                     [thetas] <= 7[deg]
1.4.........................  dBW/MHz.............  for 7[deg] <=
                                                     [thetas] <=
                                                     9.2[deg]
 

    Where is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe.

    (c) Notwithstanding Sec.  25.220 of this part, each applicant for 
earth station license(s) that proposes levels in excess of those 
defined in paragraph (b) of this section shall:
    (1) Submit link budget analyses of the operations proposed along 
with a detailed written explanation of how each uplink and each 
transmitted satellite carrier density figure is derived;
    (2) Submit a narrative summary which must indicate whether there 
are margin shortfalls in any of the current baseline services as a 
result of the addition of the applicant's higher power service, and if 
so, how the applicant intends to resolve those margin short falls;
    (3) Certify that all potentially affected parties acknowledge and 
do not object to the use of the applicant's higher power densities. For 
proposed power levels less than or equal to 3 dB in excess of the 
limits defined above, the affected parties shall be those co-frequency 
U.S. licensed 17/24 GHz BSS satellite networks that are located at 
angular separations of up to 6[deg] away; for power levels 
greater than 3 dB and less than or equal to 6 dB in excess of the 
limits defined above, affected parties shall be all those co-frequency 
U.S. licensed operators at up to 10[deg] away. No power 
levels greater than 6 dB in excess of the limits defined above shall be 
permitted.
    (d) Licensees authorized pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section 
shall bear the burden of coordinating with any future applicants or 
licensees whose proposed compliant operations at 10 degrees or smaller 
orbital spacing, as defined by paragraph (b) of this section, is 
potentially or actually adversely affected by the operation of the non-
compliant licensee. If no good faith agreement can be reached, however, 
the non-compliant licensee shall reduce its earth station EIRP spectral 
density levels to be compliant with those specified in paragraph (b) of 
this section.

[[Page 50031]]

    (e) For earth stations employing uplink power control, the values 
in paragraphs (b) (1), (2), and (4) of this section may be exceeded by 
up to 20 dB under conditions of uplink fading due to precipitation. The 
amount of such increase in excess of the actual amount of monitored 
excess attenuation over clear sky propagation conditions shall not 
exceed 1.5 dB or 15% of the actual amount of monitored excess 
attenuation in dB, whichever is larger, with a confidence level of 90 
percent except over transient periods accounting for no more than 0.5% 
of the time during which the excess is no more than 4.0 dB.

0
19. Section 25.224 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  25.224  Protection of receive-only earth stations in the 17/24 
GHz BSS.

    (a) Notwithstanding Sec.  25.209(c) of this part, receive-only 
earth stations operating in the 17/24 GHz broadcasting-satellite 
service can claim no greater protection from interference than they 
would receive if the equivalent antenna diameter were equal to or 
greater than 45 cm and the antenna meets the co-polar and cross-polar 
performance patterns represented by the following set of formulas 
(adopted in Recommendation ITU-R BO.1213-1, dated November 2005) that 
are valid for D/[lgr] >= 11:

[[Page 50032]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29AU07.121

BILLING CODE 6712-01-C
    (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to 17/24 GHz BSS 
telemetry earth stations. Those earth stations are subject to the 
antenna performance

[[Page 50033]]

standards of Sec. Sec.  25.209(a) and (b) of this part.

0
20. Section 25.225 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  25.225  Geographic Service Requirements for 17/24 GHz 
Broadcasting Satellite Service.

    (a) Each operator of a 17/24 GHz BSS space station that is used to 
provide video programming directly to consumers in the 48 contiguous 
United States (CONUS) must provide comparable service to Alaska and 
Hawaii, unless such service is not technically feasible or not 
economically reasonable from the authorized orbital location.
    (b) Each operator of a 17/24 GHz BSS space station subject to 
paragraph (a) of this section must design and configure its space 
station to be capable of providing service to Alaska and Hawaii, that 
is comparable to the service that such satellites will provide to CONUS 
subscribers, from any orbital location capable of providing service to 
either Alaska or Hawaii to which it may be located or relocated in the 
future.
    (c) If an operator of a 17/24 GHz BSS space station that is used to 
provide video programming directly to consumers in the United States 
relocates or replaces a 17/24 GHz BSS space station at a location from 
which service to Alaska and Hawaii had been provided by another 17/24 
GHz BSS space station, the operator must use a space station capable of 
providing at least the same level of service to Alaska and Hawaii as 
previously provided from that location.

0
21. Section 25.262 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  25.262  Space station coordination requirements in the 17/24 GHz 
BSS.

    (a) Any space station licensee operating a space station in the 17/
24 GHz BSS, and required to provide information in its application 
pursuant to Sec.  25.114(d)(15)(ii) of this part, shall bear the burden 
of coordinating with any future co-frequency applicants or licensees 
under the following circumstances:
    (1) If the licensee's operations exceed the power flux-density 
limits set forth in Sec.  25.208(w) of this part by 3 dB or less, the 
licensee shall bear the burden of coordinating with any future 
applicants or licensees proposing a satellite in compliance with power 
flux-density limits set forth in Sec.  25.208(w) of this part and 
located within  6 degrees of the licensee's satellite.
    (2) If the licensee's operations exceed the power flux-density 
limits set forth in Sec.  25.208(w) of this part by more than 3 dB, the 
licensee shall bear the burden of coordinating with any future 
applicants or licensees proposing a satellite in compliance with power 
flux-density limits set forth in Sec.  25.208(w) of this part and 
located within  10 degrees of the licensee's satellite.
    (3) If no good faith agreement can be reached, the operator of the 
17/24 GHz satellite that does not comply with Sec.  25.208(w) of this 
part shall reduce its space station power flux-density levels to be 
compliant with those specified in Sec.  25.208(w) of this part.
    (b) Any space station licensee operating a space station in the 17/
24 GHz BSS, and required to provide information in its application 
pursuant to Sec.  25.114(d)(15)(iii) of this part, must accept any 
increased interference that may result from adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS 
space stations that are operating in compliance with the rules for this 
service.

0
22. Section 25.601 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  25.601  Equal employment opportunities.

    Notwithstanding other EEO provisions within these rules, an entity 
that uses an owned or leased fixed-satellite service or direct 
broadcast satellite service or 17/24 GHz broadcasting-satellite service 
facility (operating under this part) to provide video programming 
directly to the public on a subscription basis must comply with the 
equal employment opportunity requirements set forth in part 76, subpart 
E, of this chapter, if such entity exercises control (as defined in 
part 76, subpart E, of this chapter) over the video programming it 
distributes. Notwithstanding other EEO provisions within these rules, a 
licensee or permittee of a direct broadcast satellite station operating 
as a broadcaster must comply with the equal employment opportunity 
requirements set forth in part 73.

0
23. Amend Sec.  25.701 by revising paragraph (a)(3) and adding 
paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.701  Public interest obligations.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Non U.S. licensed satellite operators in the Ku band that offer 
video programming directly to consumers in the United States pursuant 
to an earth station license issued under part 25 of this title and that 
offer a sufficient number of channels to consumers so that four percent 
of the total applicable programming channels yields a set aside of one 
channel of noncommercial programming pursuant to paragraph (e) of this 
section, or
    (4) Entities licensed to operate satellites in the 17/24 GHz BSS 
that offer video programming directly to consumers or that sell or 
lease capacity to a video programming distributor that offers service 
directly to consumers providing a sufficient number of channels so that 
four percent of the total applicable programming channels yields a set 
aside of at least one channel of noncommercial programming pursuant to 
paragraph (e) of this section, or
    (5) Non U.S. licensed satellite operators in the 17/24 GHz BSS that 
offer video programming directly to consumers in the United States or 
that sell or lease capacity to a video programming distributor that 
offers service directly to consumers in the United States pursuant to 
an earth station license issued under part 25 of this title and that 
offer a sufficient number of channels to consumers so that four percent 
of the total applicable programming channels yields a set aside of one 
channel of noncommercial programming pursuant to paragraph (e) of this 
section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-16575 Filed 8-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P