[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 24, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60272-60280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-20971]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket No. 06-123; FCC 07-174]


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

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this Order on Reconsideration, the Federal Communications 
Commission (Commission) reconsiders, in part, sua sponte, its Report 
and Order in this proceeding in which it adopted processing and service 
rules for the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS). In the 
Report and Order, the Commission adopted a framework in which 17/24 GHz 
BSS space stations would operate at orbital locations spaced at four-
degree intervals, as set forth in Appendix F of the Report and Order. 
In this Order on Reconsideration, the Commission provides additional 
flexibility to 17/24 GHz BSS space station operators by allowing them 
to operate their space stations, upon request, at locations other than 
those specified in Appendix F of the Report and Order. Specifically, 
the Commission will assign space stations to orbital locations that are 
offset from the Appendix F locations by up to one degree, without 
requiring them to reduce power or accept additional interference, if 
there are no licensed or prior-filed applications for 17/24 GHz BSS 
space stations less than four degrees away from the proposed offset 
space station.

DATES: Effective November 23, 2007.

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

[[Page 60273]]

     Mail: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
on Reconsideration in IB Docket No. 06-123, FCC 07-174, adopted 
September 28, 2007 and released on September 28, 2007. The full text of 
the Order on Reconsideration 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 issued a 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in the Report and Order in 
this proceeding. None of the rule revisions adopted by the Commission 
in this sua sponte Order on Reconsideration affect the analysis in the 
Report and Order. We therefore incorporate by reference the 
Commission's prior regulatory flexibility analysis. The text of the 
FRFA is set forth in Appendix A of the Report and Order, 72 FR 49999, 
August 29, 2007.

Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements

    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, 71 FR 43687, August 2, 2006, 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 sua sponte Order on 
Reconsideration 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).

Summary of Report and Order

    1. In this Order on Reconsideration (Reconsideration Order), we 
reconsider, in part, sua sponte, our Report and Order in this 
proceeding, in which we adopted processing and service rules for the 
17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS). In the Report and 
Order, we adopted a framework in which 17/24 GHz BSS space stations 
would operate at orbital locations spaced at four-degree intervals, as 
set forth in Appendix F of the Report and Order. In this 
Reconsideration Order, we provide additional flexibility to 17/24 GHz 
BSS space station operators by allowing them to operate their space 
stations, upon request, at locations other than those specified in 
Appendix F. Specifically, we will assign space stations to orbital 
locations that are offset from the Appendix F locations by up to one 
degree, without requiring them to reduce power or accept additional 
interference, if there are no licensed or prior-filed applications for 
17/24 GHz BSS space stations less than four degrees away from the 
proposed offset space station.
    2. In the Report and Order, we adopted a four-degree orbital 
spacing framework and a grid, in Appendix F of the Report and Order, 
specifying the locations that could be assigned to 17/24 GHz BSS 
satellites. We recognized, however, that it may not be possible to 
locate a 17/24 GHz BSS space station precisely at some of the orbital 
locations specified in Appendix F of the Report and Order. For example, 
due to stationkeeping concerns, it may not be possible to locate a 17/
24 GHz BSS satellite at an Appendix F orbital location already occupied 
by other satellites operating in different frequency bands. Further, 
because of potential interference, it may not be possible to operate a 
17/24 GHz BSS space station at or near locations where another 
satellite, such as a U.S.-licensed Direct Broadcast Service (DBS) space 
station, is receiving feeder-link signals in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. 
Thus, in the Report and Order, we stated that we would not require that 
17/24 GHz BSS space stations be located precisely at the orbital 
locations specified in Appendix F. Nevertheless, we required applicants 
seeking to operate a 17/24 GHz BSS space station at a location offset 
from an Appendix F location to make a technical showing that the 
proposed satellite will not cause any more interference to a 17/24 GHz 
BSS space station operating at an Appendix F location than would be 
caused if the proposed offset space station were positioned precisely 
at an Appendix F location. Further, we stated that applicants seeking 
to operate at an offset location must agree to accept any increased 
interference that may result from operating at that location.
    3. Following release of the Report and Order, we received a number 
of ex parte filings commenting on the four-degree orbital spacing 
framework. Specifically, EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. (EchoStar) requests 
that the Commission provide additional flexibility by allowing 17/24 
GHz BSS space station operators to operate at locations that are offset 
from the Appendix F locations by up to one degree, without reducing 
power or accepting any additional interference, if the adjacent 
Appendix F location is unassigned. EchoStar also requests that we 
require future applicants seeking to operate at an Appendix F location 
adjacent to an offset location to protect the offset licensee from 
harmful interference. EchoStar states that this additional flexibility 
is necessary to compensate for the technical limitations of a small-
dish satellite service such as the 17/24 GHz BSS. Specifically, 
EchoStar states that a uniform four-degree spacing framework will not 
allow certain operators, particularly those with in-orbit DBS space 
stations, to utilize a small, single subscriber antenna that will allow 
customers to receive service in both the DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS 
frequency bands. EchoStar states that a second consumer dish would be 
required to receive signals from two direct-to-home (DTH) satellites 
located between 0.7 and 1.8 degrees apart, which would be the case for 
the 110[deg] W.L. DBS orbital location and the 111[deg] W.L. 17/24 GHz 
BSS Appendix F location, as well as the 61.5[deg] W.L. DBS orbital 
location and 63[deg] W.L. 17/24 GHz BSS Appendix F location. As such, 
EchoStar claims that it would be required to implement a ``two-dish'' 
solution or a larger dish at added expense and complexity to dish 
design, manufacturing, and installation. EchoStar asserts this would 
disparately impact its subscriber base.
    4. DIRECTV, Inc. (DIRECTV) filed an ex parte letter stating that it 
supports EchoStar's proposal in cases where the adjacent Appendix F 
location remains

[[Page 60274]]

unassigned. DIRECTV contends that the Commission should not require 
future operators assigned to Appendix F locations to protect operators 
at offset locations. DIRECTV does not claim that EchoStar's proposal 
would harm its current plans to align its 17/24 GHz BSS space stations 
with its Ka-band fixed-satellite service (FSS)-DTH space stations. 
Rather, DIRECTV focuses on future applications, asserting that 
EchoStar's proposal would technically compromise a number of orbital 
locations by rendering them less than optimally functional. DIRECTV 
proposes a modified approach whereby a licensee operating at an offset 
location would be allowed to operate at full power only until a 17/24 
GHz BSS operator is licensed at the adjacent Appendix F location, at 
which time the offset operator would have to modify its operations so 
that it will not cause harmful interference to the licensee operating 
at the Appendix F location. In response to DIRECTV's modified approach, 
EchoStar asserts that DIRECTV's proposal does not provide sufficient 
certainty that full-power offset operators will be able to continue to 
provide quality service using single subscriber antennas. EchoStar 
contends that DIRECTV's modified approach is essentially a reversion 
back to our Report and Order with respect to how we would treat space 
stations operating at offset locations. Furthermore, EchoStar asserts 
that its own proposal would not adversely affect DIRECTV's planned use 
of the 17/24 GHz BSS band.
    5. Further, SES Americom, Inc. (SES Americom) filed an ex parte 
letter opposing EchoStar's proposal. SES Americom states that EchoStar 
has exaggerated the technical challenges inherent in a uniform four-
degree orbital spacing framework, and asserts that, with relatively 
simple system design modifications, the framework can accommodate 
single subscriber antennas with dual-band receivers. In addition, SES 
Americom agrees with DIRECTV that adopting EchoStar's request would 
render a number of Appendix F locations unusable for DTH video service. 
Finally, SES Americom states that it would not object to a one-degree 
shift to the east for Appendix F locations in the orbital arc from 
43[deg] W.L. to 63[deg] W.L. SES Americom further states that this 
shift would allow for utilization of a single-feed subscriber antenna 
for DBS operations at the 61.5[deg] W.L. orbital location and 17/24 GHz 
BSS operations at 62[deg] W.L. In response, EchoStar claims that SES 
Americom underestimates the technical concerns EchoStar has with the 
four-degree orbital spacing framework adopted in the Report and Order. 
EchoStar also notes that the shift proposed by SES Americom would not 
address all of EchoStar's concerns at the 110[deg] W.L. and 61.5[deg] 
W.L. orbital locations.
    6. On July 20, 2007, EchoStar filed an ex parte letter in which it 
reiterated that the Commission should afford both current and future 
applicants the flexibility to operate at offset locations at full 
power. EchoStar asserts that this flexibility may be important for 
future applicants that are seeking to co-locate existing or planned 
satellites with 17/24 GHz BSS space stations. EchoStar states that its 
approach would level the playing field for all current and future 
applicants. In addition, EchoStar contends that its proposal may 
provide satellite operators with authorizations from other countries 
the flexibility to integrate 17/24 GHz BSS service with facilities 
operating from orbital locations that do not conform with those in 
Appendix F.
    7. On September 12, 2007, Telesat Canada filed an ex parte letter 
urging the Commission to include two conditions for each 17/24 GHz BSS 
authorization. The first condition would make the grant subject to the 
licensee coordinating with satellite operators having International 
Telecommunication Union (ITU) date priority. The second condition 
Telesat requests would make the orbital location specified in the grant 
subject to modification to an offset location if necessary to 
facilitate coordination with a satellite operator having ITU date 
priority.
    8. On September 14, 2007, EchoStar filed an ex parte letter 
reiterating that licensees should have the flexibility to operate up to 
one degree offset from Appendix F locations on a permanent basis at 
full power and with full interference protection. EchoStar also 
reiterates that ``all satellite providers should be on a level playing 
field for new spectrum,'' and that ``all satellite providers need this 
spectrum as soon as possible.''
    9. On September 19, 2007, DIRECTV filed an ex parte letter 
restating its earlier argument that a number of Appendix F locations 
would suffer reduced usefulness and claiming that these locations would 
experience a 90% reduction in received signal quality, thus requiring 
an antenna diameter of 1.1 meter to compensate for this loss. DIRECTV 
also restates its claim that operators will have increased incentive to 
apply for offset locations due to the likelihood of wider orbital 
separation, and that the worst case scenario would produce a 33% 
decrease in orbital capacity relative to the current Appendix F plan. 
DIRECTV also takes issue with EchoStar's need for a one-degree offset 
to remedy its problem, and proposed several alternative solutions 
including: Operation at smaller offsets; operation from nearby orbital 
locations with use of an additional feed on one of EchoStar's current 
antennas; or the use of case-by-case waivers.
    10. On September 21, 2007, SES Americom filed an ex parte letter 
reiterating its opposition to EchoStar's request for revisions to the 
orbital spacing plan adopted in this proceeding and explains ``that 
grant of the flexibility requested by EchoStar would fundamentally 
undermine the four-degree spacing adopted in the Order.'' SES Americom 
also notes ``that [its] affiliate, Ciel Satellite LP, was selected by 
Industry Canada to operate in 17/24 GHz spectrum and is expected to 
seek U.S. market access once the current application freeze has been 
lifted.''
    11. On September 25, 2007, SES Americom filed an ex parte letter 
opposing EchoStar's proposal, arguing that it would undermine the 
certainty established by the Commission's Appendix F plan, and 
proposing alternative solutions including small offsets, alternate 
locations or the use of waivers.
    12. On September 26, 2007, Telesat filed an ex parte letter stating 
that it generally supports EchoStar's proposal, because the resulting 
additional flexibility potentially could resolve international 
coordination issues at orbital locations that are of concern to 
Telesat. Telesat asserts that a one degree change may be insufficient 
for international coordination purposes. Telesat states that one of the 
four 17/24 GHz BSS orbital locations for which it has been authorized, 
at 72.5[deg] W.L., will be 1.5[deg] away from the nearest Appendix F 
location. Telesat asserts that in the event that EchoStar's proposal is 
adopted, departures from Appendix F locations of more than one degree 
should be permitted if needed to facilitate international coordination.
    13. On September 26, 2007, EchoStar filed an ex parte letter 
stating that the current rules frustrate video competition, harm 
consumers, and jeopardize delivery of HD services. EchoStar also states 
that ``DIRECTV's waiver proposal is not a viable solution'' and that a 
uniform four degree spacing plan will lead to higher prices, delays in 
the provision of new services, and will force ``consumers to acquire a 
second dish.'' EchoStar also contends that DIRECTV's DBS orbital 
location line up with the Appendix F locations and EchoStar's do not.

[[Page 60275]]

    14. In response, on September 27, 2007, DIRECTV filed an ex parte 
letter stating that only three of its five full contiguous United 
States (CONUS) orbital locations align with the Appendix F locations. 
DIRECTV also argues that the fact that international coordination 
presents a challenge in this band ``is all the more reason not to allow 
operators to compromise DTH orbital locations that could otherwise be 
used in the coordination process to the benefit of all U.S. 
licensees.'' DIRECTV also notes that ``EchoStar's own analysis shows 
that consumers will not need a second dish to receive signals from a 
reverse band satellite that is slightly offset from a DBS orbital 
location.''
    15. As we explain below, we find, upon reconsideration, that it is 
in the public interest to provide additional flexibility in the orbital 
spacing framework adopted in the Report and Order. In adopting the 
four-degree framework, our primary consideration was to balance the 
dual goals of maximizing orbital capacity while minimizing interference 
into small-diameter receive antennas. Based on the ex parte 
presentations we have received, however, we are persuaded that this 
balance would not be disrupted by permitting applicants to operate at 
certain locations offset from the Appendix F locations by up to one 
degree without being required to reduce power and accept additional 
interference.
    16. Sour Spot. In the ex parte filings received on this issue, 
there is uniform agreement that fundamental principles of antenna 
design make it difficult for a small subscriber antenna to receive 
signals from two space stations if those space stations are located 
between 0.7 and 1.8 degrees apart. We will call this 0.7 to 1.8 range a 
``sour spot.'' The parties that filed ex partes, however, draw 
different conclusions regarding how to compensate for these sour spots. 
EchoStar requests the flexibility to offset future 17/24 GHz BSS space 
stations at up to 1 degree while still retaining the ability to 
transmit at full power and to receive full interference protection. 
DIRECTV and SES Americom both argue that EchoStar's concerns could be 
addressed by an offset of less than 1 degree and typically of between 
0.3 to 0.5 degrees. DIRECTV argues further that such offsets would 
require the offset operator to make only small reductions in power and 
would have minimal impact on operations.
    17. Assuming DIRECTV's assertion that small offsets would only 
require small reductions in power is correct, we find that any 
reduction in power to protect a later authorized Appendix F licensee 
would unfairly penalize applicants whose existing infrastructure does 
not comport with a uniform four-degree spacing framework. Allowing 
applicants whose infrastructure is not compatible with the four-degree 
spacing framework to use the flexibility we adopt here to operate at 
full power will provide consumer with the most competitive service 
options. We recognize that all offset operators may not need to take 
advantage of full one-degree offsets. Nevertheless, providing the 
flexibility for up to a one-degree offset should accommodate the 
operating needs of most prospective applicants, such as antenna/dish 
configuration, while maintaining the number of orbital slots and 
minimizing the impact on satellite capability.
    18. Orbital Efficiency. DIRECTV argues that up to a 33% reduction 
of spectrum efficiency could result from allowing 17/24 GHz BSS space 
station operators to locate their space stations up to one degree from 
Appendix F locations at full power and with full interference 
protection. DIRECTV bases this assertion on a highly unlikely scenario 
that assumes for every three Appendix F locations, a space station is 
offset by one degree, another location eight degrees away has a space 
station at the Appendix F location, and no operator files for the 
location in between. DIRECTV's scenario repeats this pattern across the 
Appendix F grid of four-degree locations. In light of the ex partes 
received and the interest expressed by operators, we do not expect this 
scenario to occur. In addition, as discussed above, we do not believe 
that many 17/24 GHz BSS space station operators will need for technical 
reasons to avail themselves of the full one-degree offset. Further, as 
a practical matter, because an applicant can only utilize this 
flexibility if there are no licensed or prior-filed applications for 
17/24 GHz BSS space stations less than four degrees away from the 
proposed offset space station, use of this flexibility is less likely. 
Finally, we note that in the scenario DIRECTV describes, the operator 
at the location between the offset satellite and the satellite at the 
precise Appendix F location could offset its satellite half a degree 
away from the offset satellite and thus achieve 3.5-degree spacing 
relative to the other two space stations. Based upon DIRECTV's analysis 
of a 0.5 offset, such a 3.5-degree spacing should have minimal impact 
on any satellite operations.
    19. 10 dB Reduction. DIRECTV argues that allowing a one-degree 
offset at full power and with full interference protection results in a 
10 dB reduction in carrier-to-interference ratio (C/I) for the 17/24 
GHz BSS space station that is required to protect the offset space 
station. DIRECTV asserts that operators at the Appendix F orbital 
locations closest to a one-degree offset satellite would be so 
compromised in performance that these locations would be unlikely to be 
used. DIRECTV, however, did not present an analysis of the reduction in 
carrier-to-noise-plus-interference ratio (C/(N+I)), which is the more 
appropriate signal quality metric that determines the satellite link 
performance.
    20. Waiver. Finally, both DIRECTV and SES Americom suggest that 
where the existing flexibility adopted in our Report and Order is 
insufficient, EchoStar and other applicants should avail themselves of 
the waiver process under Sec.  1.3 of our rules. As we have concluded, 
adopting the flexibility proposed by EchoStar best serves the public 
interest. There is no public policy benefit from resolving this issue 
in a piecemeal fashion through individual waiver requests. Acting here, 
rather than through individual waiver requests, provides regulatory 
certainty now to all parties.
    21. Consequently, we conclude that adopting the additional 
flexibility best addresses concerns regarding the compatibility of 17/
24 GHz BSS orbital locations with the existing DBS infrastructure. This 
additional flexibility will allow for an orbital assignment framework 
that is better aligned with applicants' existing infrastructure and 
plans for launching satellite systems in this band. Providing both 
current and future applicants the flexibility to locate their 17/24 GHz 
BSS satellites at preferred orbital locations relative to their 
existing infrastructure will enable them to serve subscribers with one 
small multiple-feed antenna. While we acknowledge that this flexibility 
may reduce the number of orbital locations capable of operating at full 
power, we conclude that, on balance, the public interest is best served 
by affording operators the greatest opportunity to provide expanded DTH 
service to customers using a small single antenna.
    22. Under our revised orbital spacing framework, we will assign 17/
24 GHz BSS space stations to orbital locations offset from Appendix F 
locations by up to one degree, and allow them to operate at full power 
and with full interference protection, if there is no 17/24 GHz BSS 
space station assigned to, or a prior-filed application requesting 
assignment to, an orbital location less than four degrees from the 
applicant's proposed offset location. Thus, a full-power offset space 
station operator may operate at the

[[Page 60276]]

maximum power flux density levels specified in Sec. Sec.  25.208(c) and 
(w) of our rules, and will be accorded the same interference protection 
that it would receive if the space station were located precisely at an 
Appendix F location. Further, once we have authorized a full-power 
offset space station, subsequently licensed space stations operating 
less than four degrees away from the offset space station will be 
required to reduce transmitted power levels to protect the offset space 
station from excessive interference. Moreover, the newly licensed 
reduced-power space station must accept any interference from the full-
power offset space station that results from the reduced orbital 
spacing. This will be the case regardless of whether the new space 
station is operating at an Appendix F location or an offset location. 
To accommodate this more flexible framework, we must make several 
changes to the technical rules we adopted in the Report and Order. We 
discuss these changes below.
    23. Section 25.262. We make a number of changes to Sec.  25.262 of 
the rules, which governs domestic coordination requirements for space 
stations operating in the 17/24 GHz BSS. First, we redesignate Sec.  
25.262(a) as Sec.  25.262(f). Further, we add new Sec. Sec.  25.262(a) 
and (b) to recognize the classes of 17/24 GHz BSS space stations that 
may operate at the maximum power flux density levels permitted by our 
rules, and with full interference protection. This includes both space 
stations operating at Appendix F locations and full-power offset space 
stations. In addition, we add Sec.  25.262(c) to govern power levels on 
replacement space stations and space stations authorized at orbital 
locations previously assigned to 17/24 GHz BSS space stations that have 
become available for reassignment.
    24. We also add Sec.  25.262(d) to our rules, which provides that 
space stations located less than four degrees away from a space station 
authorized to operate at full power under Sec.  25.262(b) may not cause 
any more interference to the full-power network than would be caused if 
the proposed space station was four degrees away. The rule also 
requires the reduced-power space station to accept any increased 
interference from the full-power Appendix F or full-power offset space 
station than would be caused if the proposed reduced-power space 
station were located four degrees away. Finally, we also add Sec.  
25.262(e), which requires reduced-power satellites to accept any 
increased interference from 17/24 GHz BSS space stations operating in 
conformance with our rules.
    25. Section 25.140(b). Section 25.140(b) of our rules addresses the 
interference analysis that must be submitted with each 17/24 GHz BSS 
application. As with all FSS space station applications, 17/24 GHz BSS 
applicants are required to submit an interference analysis 
demonstrating the compatibility of their proposed system with satellite 
networks operating at the two nearest adjacent orbital locations. Under 
the uniform four-degree spacing framework adopted in the Report and 
Order, we presumed that the nearest adjacent orbital positions would be 
no closer than four degrees away. As a consequence of the more flexible 
licensing framework adopted in this Order, this assumption is no longer 
valid and the interference coordination scenario for 17/24 GHz BSS 
space stations becomes more complex. Specifically, the coordination 
requirements and operating burdens will vary, depending upon a 
combination of factors including: (1) Whether, and to what extent, the 
applicant seeks to operate at an offset orbital location; and (2) the 
location and authorized power levels of other licensed and proposed 17/
24 GHz BSS space stations. To provide 17/24 GHz BSS space station 
applicants with guidance when filing their applications, we modify 
Sec.  25.140(b) to codify the multiple interference scenarios and 
associated filing requirements.
    26. The first scenarios arise where an applicant proposes to 
operate at an Appendix F location. In most of these cases, the 
applicant will be required to submit an interference analysis 
demonstrating its compatibility with current or future 17/24 GHz BSS 
space stations at least four degrees away. However, an applicant 
proposing to operate at an Appendix F orbital location that is less 
than four degrees away from an operator authorized pursuant to Sec.  
25.262(b) of our rules, will be required to reduce its power to protect 
the full-power offset operator's network, and will be required to 
accept the additional interference that results from the full-power 
operation at the adjacent offset location. Thus, in such cases, the 
applicant must demonstrate that it will cause no more interference to 
the full-power offset operator's 17/24 GHz BSS network than if the 
offset operator's space station were located four degrees away. We 
amend Sec.  25.140(b)(3) of our rules, and add Sec. Sec.  25.140(b)(5), 
and (b)(6), to reflect these scenarios.
    27. Applicants that propose to operate 17/24 GHz BSS space stations 
at offset locations fall under one of three scenarios. We adopt Sec.  
25.140(b)(4)(i) to cover the situation where there is no other 
previously authorized or proposed 17/24 GHz BSS space station located 
less than four degrees away from the proposed offset space station and 
the applicant proposes to operate the offset space station at full-
power and with full interference protection. In this case, we require 
the applicant to provide an interference analysis demonstrating the 
compatibility of its proposed offset network with other 17/24 GHz BSS 
space stations at least four degrees away from its proposed location.
    28. Section 25.140(b)(4)(ii) reflects the situation where the 
applicant proposes to operate its space station at an offset location, 
but there is a licensed or a prior-filed application for a space 
station within four degrees of the proposed offset location. In this 
case, the applicant must provide an interference analysis demonstrating 
that its proposed space station will not cause any more interference to 
adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS satellite networks than if it were located at 
the Appendix F location from which it is offset.
    29. Finally, Sec.  25.140(b)(4)(iii) reflects the situation where 
an applicant proposes to operate an offset space station but does not 
seek to take advantage of the full-power, full interference protection 
option in Sec.  25.262(b). In this case, we require the applicant to 
provide an interference analysis demonstrating that its proposed space 
station will not cause any more interference to adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS 
satellite networks than if it were at the Appendix F location from 
which it is offset.
    30. Section 25.140(c). Section 25.140(c) of our rules requires 17/
24 GHz BSS space stations to be designed to be compatible with other 
17/24 GHz BSS space stations as close as four degrees away. As 
discussed above, however, full-power offset satellites are entitled to 
interference protection from adjacent space stations operating less 
than four degrees away. Accordingly, we modify Sec.  25.140(c) of our 
rules to reflect this. We also modify this rule to clarify that 
operators seeking to operate at offset orbital locations, but at 
reduced powers and without full interference protection, must design 
their systems to be compatible with adjacent space stations at reduced 
orbital separations.
    31. Section 25.114(d)(17). To facilitate processing, we adopt a new 
rule, Sec.  25.114(d)(17), that requires applicants to indicate, in the 
narrative to their application, whether they propose to operate 
pursuant to Sec.  25.262(b) of our rules. Given the different classes 
of 17/24 GHz BSS space stations, e.g., full-power Appendix F space 
station, full-

[[Page 60277]]

power offset space station, reduced-power Appendix F space station, and 
reduced-power offset space station, requiring applicants to state 
explicitly that they seek to operate a full-power space station with 
full interference protection will expedite staff review of the 
application.
    32. Other rule changes. We make a number of other rule changes to 
correct cross-references to rule sections changed by this 
Reconsideration Order and to add cross-references to new rules, as 
appropriate. Accordingly, we revise the application filing requirements 
in Sec.  25.114(d)(7) to require applicants to include the interference 
analysis described in new rule Sec. Sec.  25.140(b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), 
or (b)(6), as appropriate for their circumstances. We also remove the 
version of Sec.  25.114(d)(15)(iii) that was adopted in the Report and 
Order as the showing that was required by that rule is now incorporated 
into Sec.  25.140 of the rules.
    33. In the Report and Order, we decided to treat all pending 
applications as simultaneously filed under Sec.  25.158(d) of our 
rules. We also recognized that all applicants will need to amend their 
pending applications to comply with the new 17/24 GHz BSS rules. Thus, 
we directed the International Bureau to release a Public Notice after 
the effective date of the new rules, inviting applicants to file 
conforming amendments and to consider those applications that are 
accepted for filing together. The Bureau would then process and grant 
those applications, provided that the applicant was otherwise 
qualified. In the event two or more applicants requested authority to 
operate at the same orbital location, we directed the Bureau to 
consider the applications concurrently and, if the applicants were 
qualified, to license them to operate in an equal portion of the 
spectrum. We will continue to follow this approach. Nevertheless, as 
the result of the modifications to the orbital spacing framework we 
adopt here, we implement an additional processing step under which we 
will permit certain applicants an opportunity to amend their 
applications for a second time. Adding this additional step does not 
change our decision to treat the pending applications as simultaneously 
filed under Sec.  25.158(d).
    34. Specifically, we recognize that some current applicants may 
wish to take advantage of the flexibility to operate full-power offset 
satellites. These applicants will not know, however, when filing their 
initial amendments, whether another existing applicant will request 
authority to operate a satellite at an adjacent Appendix F location. If 
we grant the Appendix F request, we will not be in a position to grant 
the application to operate at full power at the offset location. In 
these situations, denying the application for the offset location or 
requiring the licensee to operate at reduced powers would unfairly 
penalize the applicant for not correctly anticipating another 
applicant's filings. Consequently, in cases where an application for 
authority to operate at an offset location at full power conflicts with 
an application for an Appendix F location, we will permit the offset 
applicant a second opportunity to amend its application. The full-power 
offset applicant may change the orbital location to the Appendix F 
orbital location from which it was offset or may remain at the offset 
location at reduced power and with reduced interference protection.
    35. To implement this decision, we direct the Bureau to release a 
Public Notice shortly after these rules become effective, inviting 
current applicants to amend the applications pending as of the date of 
this Order consistent with the rules we adopt today. We further direct 
the Bureau to dismiss, as defective, any application that is not 
amended by the date specified in the Public Notice. These applicants 
can amend their choice of orbital locations consistent with the 
modifications adopted today. Applicants must specify in the narrative 
portion of their application the type of authorization being sought, 
e.g., an authorization to operate at an Appendix F location, an 
authorization to operate at a full-power offset location, or an 
authorization to operate at an offset location at reduced power and 
without full interference protection. Applicants seeking to operate at 
an offset location must specify the Appendix F location from which they 
propose to be offset. Applicants must provide the appropriate technical 
showing to support the request.
    36. Any applicant proposing a full-power offset space station that 
conflicts with an application for an adjacent Appendix F space station 
will have thirty days after the deadline for amended applications 
discussed in the preceding paragraph to amend its application as 
discussed above. No other applicants will be permitted to file second 
amendments. In this regard, each applicant bears the burden of 
discerning, through the Bureau's electronic filing system, other 
potentially conflicting applications after the first deadline for 
amended applications.
    37. Once the two deadlines for filing amendments have passed, 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 dismiss 
as defective any amended applications that are not substantially 
complete. In the event that two or more amended applications are filed 
at a single Appendix F location or its associated offsets, 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. For example, if Applicant A requests authority to operate at 
the Appendix F location of 91[deg] W.L. and Applicant B seeks authority 
to operate either a full-power offset or reduced-power offset from 
91[deg] W.L. at 92[deg] W.L., the Bureau would consider these 
applications together. In this example, if the applications are 
substantially complete and the applicants are qualified, the Bureau 
would license each applicant in an equal portion of spectrum. Thus, for 
purposes of determining whether the spectrum should be split, the 
Appendix F location and any offset from a particular Appendix F 
location are considered the same orbital location.
    38. In the Report and Order, we decided to treat future 
applications for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations under a first-come, 
first-served procedure. We will continue to follow this approach. Given 
our decision in this Report and Order to award licenses for offset 
space stations with full power and interference protection, we provide 
further clarification here as to how the first-come, first-served 
procedure will work.
    39. Initially, we note that the freeze on new applications 
established in the Report and Order remains in effect. Once we lift the 
freeze, applicants may file applications for new 17/24 GHz BSS space 
stations. We will consider these applications on a first-come, first-
served basis. This means that we will grant the application if the 
applicant is qualified and the proposed space station is not 
technically incompatible with any licensed space station or a space 
station proposed in a previously-filed application. For example, if we 
have authorized a full-power offset space station to a particular 
offset location, we will deny, as technically incompatible, an 
application for authority to operate a full-power space station at the 
adjacent Appendix F location. We would, however, grant the Appendix F 
application if the applicant is otherwise

[[Page 60278]]

qualified, proposes to operate the Appendix F space station at reduced 
power, and demonstrates that the proposed operations will not interfere 
with those of the full-power offset space station. Further, we would 
consider granting an application for a full-power space station at an 
Appendix F location if the adjacent offset operator is authorized to 
operate at reduced power only and without interference protection.
    40. We also recognize that additional 17/24 GHz BSS orbital 
locations may become available as licensees decide to surrender 
licenses or lose their licenses for failure to meet the required 
implementation milestones. Where we do not issue an Order cancelling 
the license, we will announce the cancellation through a Public Notice. 
As is our custom, once the Order or Public Notice has been issued, 
applicants may file applications for new space stations, modification 
applications for licensed space stations, or amendments to pending 
applications that take the cancellation into account. Thus, if a 
license for a space station at an Appendix F location is cancelled, the 
licensee of an adjacent offset location space station authorized to 
operate at reduced power and without full interference protection may 
file a modification application to increase the power and receive full 
interference protection. Similarly, another applicant may apply for a 
license for a new space station at the Appendix F location. As with all 
applications processed under a first-come, first-served framework, 
processing will be governed by the applicant's position in the 
processing queue. Thus, if the modification request to increase power 
on an offset space station is filed first, and the applicant is 
qualified, we will grant it; if the application for a new space station 
at the Appendix F location is filed first, and the applicant is 
qualified, we will grant that application. In this manner, we will 
maintain an interference-free operating environment for 17/24 GHz BSS 
space stations, while still providing licensees the opportunity to 
design their satellite networks to best serve their customers.
    41. Conclusion. With this Order, we provide additional flexibility 
to 17/24 GHz BSS space station operators by allowing them, under 
certain circumstances, to operate their space stations at full power 
and with full interference protection at locations other than those 
specified in Appendix F to the Report and Order. We find that this 
approach best addresses applicants' concerns regarding the 
compatibility of 17/24 GHz BSS orbital locations with the existing DBS 
infrastructure. We emphasize that this approach provides the same 
advantages to both current and future 17/24 GHz BSS applicants. This 
additional flexibility will also allow for an orbital assignment 
framework that is better aligned with applicants' business plans and 
existing infrastructure and will thus afford operators the greatest 
opportunity to provide expanded DTH service using a single multiple-
feed antenna.
    42. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 
Commission issued a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in the 
Report and Order in this proceeding. None of the rule revisions adopted 
by the Commission in this Sua Sponte Reconsideration Order affect the 
analysis in the Report and Order. We therefore incorporate by reference 
the Commission's prior regulatory flexibility analysis. The Commission 
will provide a copy of this certification to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the SBA, and include it in the report to Congress pursuant 
to the SBREFA.
    43. 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 Order on Reconsideration is adopted.
    44. It is further ordered that part 25 of the Commission's rules is 
amended as set forth in Appendix A. An announcement of the effective 
date of these rule revisions will be published in the Federal Register.
    45. It is further ordered that the International Bureau is 
delegated authority to issue Public Notices consistent with this Order 
on Reconsideration.
    46. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center shall send a 
copy of this Order on Reconsideration, including the final regulatory 
flexibility act certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration, in accordance with section 603(a) of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (1981).
    47. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of 
this Order on Reconsideration 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 in 47 CFR Part 25

    Satellites.

    Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Rule Changes

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications 
Commission amends 47 CFR part 25 to read as follows:

PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

0
1. 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
2. Amend Sec.  25.114 by revising paragraphs (d)(7) and (d)(15), and by 
adding paragraph (d)(17) 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.  
25.140(b)(1) and Sec. Sec.  25.140(b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), or (b)(6) of 
this part.
* * * * *
    (15) Each applicant for a space station license in the 17/24 GHz 
broadcasting-satellite service 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 of the applicant's higher power flux densities. The affected 
parties with whom the applicant must coordinate are those GSO 17/24 GHz

[[Page 60279]]

BSS satellite networks located up to 6[deg] 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[deg] away 
greater for excesses greater than 3 dB above those levels.
    (iii) 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.
* * * * *
    (17) An applicant seeking to operate a space station in the 17/24 
GHz broadcasting-satellite service pursuant to the provisions of Sec.  
25.262(b) of this part, at an offset location no greater than one 
degree offset from an orbital location specified in Appendix F of the 
Report and Order adopted May 2, 2007, IB Docket No. 06-123, FCC 07-76, 
must submit a written request to that effect as part of the narrative 
portion of its application.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  25.117 by adding paragraph (d)(2)(v) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.117  Modification of station license.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) Any 17/24 GHz BSS space station operator whose license is 
conditioned to operate at less than the power level otherwise permitted 
by Sec. Sec.  25.208(c) and/or (w) of this part, and is conditioned to 
accept interference from a neighboring 17/24 GHz BSS space station, may 
file a modification application to remove those two conditions in the 
event that the license for that neighboring space station is cancelled 
or surrendered. In the event that two or more such modification 
applications are filed, and those applications are mutually exclusive, 
the modification applications will be considered on a first-come, 
first-served basis pursuant to the procedure set forth in Sec.  25.158 
of this part.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  25.140 by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3), by 
adding paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(6), and by revising paragraph 
(c) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Except as set forth in paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), and 
(b)(6) of this section, all applicants must provide an interference 
analysis to demonstrate the compatibility of their proposed system two 
degrees 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) Except as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, an 
applicant for a license to operate a 17/24 GHz BSS space station that 
will be located precisely at one of the 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, 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 network 
with any current or future authorized space station in the 17/24 GHz 
BSS that complies with the technical rules in this part and that will 
be located at least four degrees from the proposed space station.
    (4) Except as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, an 
applicant for a license to operate a 17/24 GHz BSS space station that 
will not 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, must make one of 
the following showings:
    (i) In cases where there is no previously licensed or proposed 
space station to be located closer than four degrees from the 
applicant's space station, and the applicant seeks to operate pursuant 
to Sec.  25.262(b) of this part, the applicant 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 network with any current or future authorized space 
stations in the 17/24 GHz BSS that are operating in compliance with the 
technical rules of this part and that will be located at least four 
degrees from the applicant's proposed space station;
    (ii) In cases where there is a previously licensed or proposed 17/
24 GHz BSS space station to be located within four degrees of the 
applicant's proposed space station, the applicant must provide an 
interference analysis of the kind described in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section, except that the applicant must demonstrate that its proposed 
network will not cause more interference to the adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS 
satellite networks operating in compliance with the technical 
requirements of this part, than if the applicant were located at the 
precise Appendix F orbital location from which it seeks to offset;
    (iii) In cases where there is no previously licensed or proposed 
17/24 GHz BSS space station to be located within four degrees of the 
applicant's proposed space station, and the applicant does not seek to 
operate pursuant to Sec.  25.262(b) of this part, the applicant must 
provide an interference analysis of the kind described in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section, except that the applicant must demonstrate that 
its proposed operations will not cause more interference to any current 
or future 17/24 GHz BSS satellite networks operating in compliance with 
the technical requirements of this part, than if the applicant were 
located at the precise Appendix F orbital location from which it seeks 
to offset.
    (5) An applicant for a license to operate a 17/24 GHz BSS space 
station, in cases where there is a previously licensed or proposed 
space station operating pursuant to Sec.  25.262(b) of this part 
located within four degrees of the applicant's proposed 17/24 GHz BSS 
space station, must provide an interference analysis of the kind 
described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, except that the 
applicant must demonstrate that its proposed operations will not cause 
more interference to the adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS satellite network than 
if the adjacent space station were located four degrees from the 
applicant's space station.
    (6) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4), 
and (b)(5) of this section, the link budget for any satellite in the 
17/24 GHz BSS must take into account longitudinal stationkeeping 
tolerances and, where appropriate, any existing orbital location 
offsets from the 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 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) Operators of satellite networks using 17/24 GHz BSS space 
stations must design their satellite networks to be capable of 
operating with another 17/24 GHz BSS space station as follows:
    (1) Except as described in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) and (b)(4)(iii) of 
this section, all satellite network operators using 17/24

[[Page 60280]]

GHz BSS space stations must design their satellite networks to be 
capable of operating with another 17/24 GHz BSS space station as close 
as four degrees away.
    (2) Satellite network operators located less than four degrees away 
from a space station to be operated pursuant to Sec.  25.262(b) of this 
part must design their satellite networks to be capable of operating 
with that adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS space station.
    (3) Satellite network operators using 17/24 GHz BSS space stations 
located at an orbital location other than those specified in Appendix F 
of the Report and Order adopted May 2, 2007, IB Docket No. 06-123, FCC 
07-76, and that are not operating pursuant to Sec.  25.262(b) of this 
part, must design their satellite networks to be capable of operating 
with another 17/24 GHz BSS space station closer than four degrees away, 
as a result of the operator's offset position.
* * * * *

0
5. Revise Sec.  25.262 to read as follows:


Sec.  25.262  Licensing and domestic coordination requirements for 17/
24 GHz BSS space stations.

    (a) Except as described in paragraphs (b), (c) or (e) of this 
section, applicants seeking to operate a space station in the 17/24 GHz 
BSS must locate that space station at one of the orbital positions 
described in Appendix F of the Report and Order adopted May 2, 2007, IB 
Docket No. 06-123, FCC 07-76.
    (b) An applicant may be authorized to operate a 17/24 GHz BSS space 
station at an orbital location described in Appendix F as set forth in 
paragraph (a) of this section, or at a location with a geocentric 
angular separation of one degree or less from an Appendix F location, 
and may operate at the maximum power flux density limits defined in 
Sec. Sec.  25.208(c) and (w) of this part, without coordinating its 
power flux density levels with adjacent licensed or permitted 
operators, only if there is no licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space station or 
prior-filed application at a location less than four degrees from the 
offset orbital location at which the applicant proposes to operate.
    (c)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, licensees 
and permittees will be allowed to apply for a license or authorization 
for a replacement satellite that will be operated at the same power 
level and interference protection as the satellite to be replaced.
    (2) In addition, applicants for licenses or authority for a 
satellite to be operated at an orbit location that was made available 
after a previous 17/24 GHz BSS license was cancelled or surrendered 
will be permitted to apply for authority to operate a satellite at the 
same power level and interference protection as the previous licensee 
at that orbit location, to the extent that their proposed operations 
are consistent with the provisions of this part. Such applications will 
be considered pursuant to the first-come, first-served procedures set 
forth in Sec.  25.158 of this part.
    (d) Any U.S. licensee or permittee using a 17/24 GHz BSS space 
station that is located less than four degrees away from a prior-
authorized 17/24 GHz BSS space station that is authorized to operate in 
accordance with paragraph (b) of this section:
    (1) may not cause any more interference to the adjacent satellite 
network than would be caused if the adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS space 
station were located four degrees away from the proposed space station; 
and
    (2) must accept any increased interference that results from the 
adjacent space station network operating at the offset orbital location 
less than four degrees away.
    (e) Any 17/24 GHz BSS U.S. licensee or permittee that is required 
to provide information in its application pursuant to Sec. Sec.  
25.140(b)(4)(ii) or (b)(4)(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.
    (f) Any 17/24 GHz BSS U.S. licensee or permittee that does not 
comply with the power flux-density limits set forth in Sec.  25.208(w) 
of this part shall bear the burden of coordinating with any future co-
frequency licensees and permittees of a 17/24 GHz BSS network under the 
following circumstances:
    (1) If the operator's space-to-Earth power flux-density levels 
exceed the power flux-density limits set forth in Sec.  25.208(w) of 
this part by 3 dB or less, the operator shall bear the burden of 
coordinating with any future operators proposing a 17/24 GHz BSS space 
station in compliance with power flux-density limits set forth in Sec.  
25.208(w) of this part and located within 6 degrees of the 
operator's 17/24 GHz BSS space station.
    (2) If the operator's space-to-Earth power flux-density levels 
exceed the power flux-density limits set forth in Sec.  25.208(w) of 
this part by more than 3 dB, the operator shall bear the burden of 
coordinating with any future operators proposing a 17/24 GHz BSS space 
station in compliance with power flux-density limits set forth in Sec.  
25.208(w) of this part and located within 10 degrees of the 
operator's 17/24 GHz BSS space station.
    (3) If no good faith agreement can be reached, the operator of the 
17/24 GHz BSS satellite network that does not comply with Sec.  
25.208(w) of this part shall reduce its space-to-Earth power flux-
density levels to be compliant with those specified in Sec.  25.208(w) 
of this part.

 [FR Doc. E7-20971 Filed 10-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P