[Federal Register: August 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 167)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 49999-50033] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29au07-14] [[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 [[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 Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov. 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 FCC@BCPIWEB.com. 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 operatio