Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-Satellite Service, 43687-43703 [06-6630]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 2, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43687-43703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6630]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2 and 25

[IB Docket No. 06-123; FCC 06-90]


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

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission proposes application 
processing and service rules for the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting Satellite 
Service (BSS). The Commission proposes and/or seeks comment on a number 
of issues, including: licensing procedures, posting of performance 
bonds, milestone schedules, limits on pending applications, annual 
reporting, license terms, replacement satellites, access to the U.S. 
market from non-U.S. satellites; public interest obligations, copyright 
and broadcast carriage, equal employment opportunity, geographic 
service coverage, and emergency alert system participation; use of 
internationally allocated spectrum by receiving stations located 
outside the United States; orbital spacing and antenna performance 
standards; technical requirements for intra-service sharing; other 
technical requirements, such as reverse band operations, tracking, 
telemetry, and command operations, polarization, and full frequency re-
use requirements; and technical requirements for inter-service sharing 
in the 17 and 24 GHz bands.

DATES: Comments are due on or before October 16, 2006 and reply 
comments are due on or before November 15, 2006. Public and agency 
comments on the Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (IFRA) analysis 
are due October 2, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 06-123, 
by any of the following methods:

[[Page 43688]]

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Joanne Lucanik, Satellite Division, International 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Rm. 
6-A660, Washington, DC 20554.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 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: JoAnn Lucanik (202) 418-0719, 
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 Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in IB Docket No. 06-123, FCC 06-90, 
adopted June 21, 2006 and released on June 23, 2006. The NRPM was 
subject to an Erratum, released on July 6, 2006. The full text of the 
NPRM 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 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 
possible significant economic impact on small entities by the proposals 
considered in the NPRM. The text of the IRFA is set forth in Appendix A 
of the NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. 
Comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for 
comments on the NPRM, and they should have a separate and distinct 
heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.
    In addition, the Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments 
are due October 2, 2006. Comments should address: (a) Whether the 
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the 
information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 
Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the 
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might ``further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees.''

Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements

    OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.
    Title: Service Rules and Policies for the Broadcasting Satellite 
Service (BSS).
    Form No.: Not Applicable.
    Type of Review: New 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 new 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 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. With the NPRM, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) proposes application processing and service rules for the 
17/24 GHz Broadcasting Satellite Service (BSS). Under the Commission's 
rules and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Region 2 
allocation, the allocation for BSS at 17/24 GHz will become effective 
on April 1, 2007. In the United States, satellites operating in the 17/
24 GHz BSS will downlink in the 17.3-17.7 GHz frequency band and uplink 
in the 24.75-25.25 GHz frequency band.
    2. The Commission proposes and/or seeks comment on procedures for 
processing applications and establishing service rules for operations 
in the 17/24 GHz BSS. The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate 
licensing framework for the 17/24 GHz BSS. The Commission proposes and 
seeks comment on safeguards against speculation, an annual reporting 
requirement, license terms, replacement satellites, and operation by 
non-United States-licensed satellites operators in the 17/24 GHz BSS.
    3. The Commission also proposes and seeks comment on public 
interest and other statutory obligations of licensees in the 17/24 GHz 
BSS. Included among the statutory obligations are equal employment 
opportunities, geographic service rules, and participation in the 
emergency alert system.
    4. In the 18 GHz Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 13475, paras. 95-
99, the Commission stopped the domestic allocation to the BSS at 17.7 
GHz. Although the international allocation for Region 2 BSS in the 
space-to-Earth direction extends from 17.3-17.8 GHz, the Commission 
believed that it was important to keep as much spectrum

[[Page 43689]]

available to the terrestrial fixed services as possible, for as long as 
possible, in order to assist in relocating displaced facilities. In 
making this decision, the Commission took into account the ubiquitous 
nature of BSS services which we believed would preclude successful 
coordination with a terrestrial service that was similarly widely 
deployed, and the amount of terrestrial fixed spectrum being lost as a 
result of that proceeding. See also 16 FCC Rcd 19808, 19822-23, paras. 
30-31 (2001).
    5. The Commission now has received several applications seeking 
authority to launch and operate satellites in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. 
DIRECTV, Pegasus, EchoStar and Intelsat all propose to operate their 
satellites in the full 500 MHz of spectrum from 17.3-17.8 GHz. The 
intent of this proceeding is to establish service rules for use of the 
17/24 GHz BSS allocation that becomes effective on April 1, 2007, so 
that applicants may have sufficient time to design their systems in a 
manner that will conform to our rules. Recognizing the significant 
technical challenges posed by the question of BSS/FS band-sharing at 
17.7-17.8 GHz, we believe that this goal would be disserved by engaging 
in the protracted rulemaking process that would inevitably result. 
Moreover, although 17/24 GHz BSS applicants seek to use the 17.7-17.8 
GHz band, none has provided evidence that terrestrial fixed service 
spectrum relocation requirements are less demanding than predicted. Nor 
has any applicant provided a convincing argument that coordination of 
widely deployed terrestrial services with ubiquitously located 17/24 
GHz BSS receivers would be readily feasible. For these reasons, we do 
not find compelling motivation to reexamine the Commission's earlier 
decision with regard to BSS use of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band in the United 
States. Therefore, we do not propose to authorize or to protect the 
reception of BSS (space-to-Earth) transmissions into the United States 
and its possessions in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band.
    6. We recognize however, that U.S. satellite operators may wish to 
use the 17.7-17.8 GHz band to provide service to receiving earth 
stations located within Region 2, but outside of the United States. The 
operation of 17/24 GHz BSS receiving earth stations outside of the 
United States and its possessions does not present the same 
coordination difficulties with regard to U.S.-licensed terrestrial 
fixed service stations, nor would it hinder the re-location of these 
services in the 18 GHz band. We propose to permit U.S. operators to use 
the international allocation to the BSS in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band, but 
to limit use of that allocation to international service only, i.e., to 
receiving earth stations located outside of the U.S. and its 
possessions. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    7. The Commission seeks comment on other changes to our rules which 
might be necessary should we allow use of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band to 
provide non-U.S. BSS service. We are proposing to permit transmissions 
in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band only to receiving earth stations located 
outside of the United States and its possessions. However, we recognize 
that the footprint of satellite beams serving near-by Region 2 
countries could illuminate portions of the United States and that U.S. 
terrestrial service stations may be subject to interference from such 
space-to-Earth satellite transmissions, particularly at low elevation 
angles. Historically, the Commission has adopted power flux density 
(pfd) limits to protect terrestrial service antennas from interference 
from co-frequency space station transmissions. At present, neither the 
Commission's rules nor the ITU define any pfd limits for BSS systems 
operating in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. Prior to adoption of the 18 GHz 
Report and Order in 2002, Sec.  25.208(c) of the Commission's rules 
imposed pfd limits for the FSS in the entire 17.7-19.7 GHz band and 
Article 21 of the ITU Radio Regulations imposes the same pfd limits on 
the FSS operating in the 17.7-19.7 GHz band in order to protect 
terrestrial stations. We propose to extend these same pfd limits to the 
BSS service (space-to-Earth) in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. We seek comment 
on this proposal, and ask whether these pfd limits are sufficient to 
protect U.S. terrestrial operations in the band, or whether some other 
limits should be adopted. We note that these pfd limits were adopted to 
facilitate sharing between co-primary FS and FSS services. Recognizing 
that we do not intend to authorize receipt of (space-to-Earth) BSS 
transmissions in the United States and its possessions in the 17.7-17.8 
GHz band, we ask whether more stringent pfd limits might be 
appropriate, particularly in areas of the U.S. located farther from the 
borders.
    8. We also seek comment on tracking, telemetry and command (TT&C) 
operations in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. Section 25.202(g) of our rules 
requires that TT&C functions for all U.S. domestic satellites be 
conducted at either or both edges of the allocated band(s). The 
Commission has previously recognized that TT&C functions for U.S.-
licensed satellites are best performed at facilities located within the 
United States, and that locating such facilities in a foreign country 
could adversely affect an operator's ability to maintain control of its 
spacecraft. Accordingly, we ask how best to accommodate TT&C functions 
for 17/24 GHz BSS satellites seeking to use the 17.7-17.8 GHz band to 
provide international service.
    9. Orbital Spacing: To date the applications we have received from 
DIRECTV, EchoStar, Pegasus, and Intelsat are to operate GSO satellites 
in the 17/24 GHz band. Because we envision the service as a GSO 
service, we are not considering rules for NGSO satellite systems in 
this proceeding. However, we seek comment on the appropriateness of 
this approach and ask whether we should allow for the possibility of 
both GSO and NGSO 17/24 GHz BSS systems. If so, we ask commenters to 
elaborate on how such GSO/NGSO sharing might be effected, and what 
additional or different rules might be necessary to accommodate both 
types of systems in the band.
    10. Minimum Antenna Diameter and Performance Standards: Because of 
the inverse relationship between antenna diameter and antenna off-axis 
discrimination performance, the orbital separation scheme will largely 
determine the minimum antenna diameter that can be accommodated in the 
17/24 GHz BSS band. As the receiving antenna diameter decreases, 
greater orbital separation is required to compensate for the increase 
in off-axis interference received from neighboring satellites. However, 
because antenna off-axis discrimination performance for a given size 
antenna improves at shorter received-signal wavelengths, comparably-
sized 17/24 GHz BSS-band receive-antennas may be able to deliver a 
quality of service comparable to 12 GHz DBS-band systems, while 
operating with satellites at smaller orbital separations.
    11. Historically, the Commission has opted not to regulate 
explicitly the diameter or other technical characteristics of receive-
only antennas. Rather, the Commission has typically chosen to establish 
limits on other system characteristics such as power flux density (pfd) 
levels or orbital spacing and has left the choice of receive-antenna 
characteristics to the operator with the understanding that receiver 
size has a bearing on availability, quality of service and the ability 
to market the service to consumers; however, the operator must then 
accept any resulting interference from other systems that are operating 
within the permitted levels. We believe

[[Page 43690]]

that this approach has afforded operators maximum technical 
flexibility, especially considering that earth station receive antenna 
size is a very important factor to potential consumers of DTH service. 
However, the Commission also seeks to ensure that U.S.-licensed BSS 
systems receive sufficient interference protection and that 
subscribers' receive antennas will work effectively in current and 
future radio frequency interference environments. In particular, the 
receive earth station antenna off-axis discrimination performance will 
affect the amount of interference into BSS receivers from other 
systems. We note that, in implementing its two-degree spacing policy 
with respect to the FSS, the Commission has adopted certain earth 
station antenna performance requirements (see, e.g., 47 CFR 25.209). 
Accordingly, we request comment on whether the Commission should afford 
interference protection to 17/24 GHz BSS systems only to the extent 
that they meet certain receive antenna performance standards. 
Specifically, we request comment on what type of regulation might be 
appropriate, such as adopting side-lobe suppression or minimum gain 
requirements, or some other parameter.
    12. Uplink Power Levels: In order to implement the two-degree 
spacing policy for C- and Ku-band FSS satellites, the Commission 
established rules that define uplink power density limits and antenna 
performance standards. See 47 CFR 25.134, 25.208, 25.209. In 
combination, these power density limits and antenna performance 
standards ensure that conforming FSS satellite systems will not emit 
power at off-axis angles at levels high enough to cause unacceptable 
interference to adjacent co-frequency satellites spaced at two-degree 
intervals. Similarly, in the Ka-band the Commission adopted a two-
degree blanket licensing requirement that included uplink off-axis 
equivalent isotropically radiated power (e.i.r.p.) density limits and a 
single-entry power flux density (pfd) limit in the downlink. See 47 CFR 
25.138. Successful implementation of any orbital spacing regime for the 
17/24 GHz BSS service will likely require that the Commission develop 
analogous criteria. However, we recognize that in the 17/24 GHz BSS 
band the choice of orbital spacing will be determined in large measure 
by the operator's desire to serve its customers with a certain size of 
receiving antenna, and that 17/24 GHz BSS satellites may operate in an 
orbital spacing environment with greater than two-degrees of 
separation. Moreover, we recognize that feeder link earth stations 
typically operate with large diameter antennas that exhibit good off-
axis rejection properties. For these reasons, the problem of off-axis 
interference into adjacent satellites may not be as significant in the 
17/24 GHz band as it is in the FSS bands. Accordingly, we seek comment 
on our assumption regarding the need to establish off-axis uplink power 
limits for this service. In addition, the Commission's rules provide 
for routine licensing of FSS earth stations in situations where (in 
combination with the antenna performance standards of Sec.  25.209) 
specific minimum equivalent antenna diameters and maximum uplink power 
limits are met. See 47 CFR 25.211(d) and 25.212(c)-(d). We seek comment 
on whether analogous criteria might be developed for expedited 
licensing of feeder link earth stations in the 24 GHz band, and if so, 
what equivalent antenna diameters and power limits, or other technical 
characteristics might be appropriate.
    13. We recognize that absent a clearly defined orbital separation, 
the interference contribution resulting from uplink transmissions to 
adjacent satellites cannot be fully determined. However, we seek 
comment on whether the proposed clear-sky earth station antenna off-
axis e.i.r.p. density values might be appropriate down to some minimum 
orbital separation value, and whether they would provide sufficient 
protection to adjacent GSO BSS satellites. We have chosen to propose 
accommodating the highest power level proposed by an applicant, but we 
seek comment on whether some mid-range or other value might be 
preferable, or whether a higher level might be better to allow for 
future higher-power systems. We seek further comment on whether there 
are other factors that should be considered when determining an off-
axis e.i.r.p. density value, such as the potential for interference to/
from other services sharing the band, including 24 GHz FS systems, or 
the radiolocation service. We also ask what form an uplink power 
density rule should take, whether it is most appropriate to specify 
some input power or power density level in combination with the antenna 
performance requirements of Sec.  25.209, or to specify a composite 
curve of off-axis e.i.r.p. density levels as is done for blanket 
licensing of Ka-band GSO FSS earth stations. See 47 CFR 25.138(a).
    14. We anticipate that some future systems may wish to operate at 
higher e.i.r.p. density values than those proposed at this time. Our 
current FSS service rules provide a mechanism for licensing such non-
conforming systems. See 47 CFR 25.220 and 25.138(b), (c). These rules 
place the burden on the applicant to provide a technical showing to the 
Commission, and to coordinate its non-conforming operations with 
adjacent operators. We propose to adopt a similar approach to 
accommodate satellite systems in the 17/24 GHz BSS band wishing to 
uplink with higher power levels. We seek comment on this issue and ask 
whether this approach is appropriate or whether different rules should 
be adopted. Non-conforming FSS operators are required to coordinate 
with adjacent satellites at 2[deg], 4[deg] and 6[deg] away. See 47 CFR 
25.220 and 25.138(c). Recognizing that 17/24 GHz BSS satellites may not 
be operating in a two-degree spacing environment, we seek comment on 
the angular distance over which coordination should be required.
    15. The uplink off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits discussed above are 
for clear-sky operations only. GSO satellites operating in the 24 GHz 
band can suffer significant signal attenuation in the presence of 
precipitation and may likely need to transmit at higher powers during 
such weather conditions in order to overcome the effects of rain fade. 
Applicants have indicated a need to employ uplink adaptive power 
control to provide transmit power levels sufficient to meet the desired 
link performance during unfavorable weather events, while 
simultaneously ensuring that threshold power levels are not excessive 
at other times. In the 28 GHz First Report and Order, we recognized 
that uplink power control limits would facilitate operations in the 
27.5-30.0 GHz band, and we amended Sec.  25.204 of our rules to require 
that all Ka-band FSS earth stations employ adaptive uplink power 
control or other methods of fade compensation. In the 18 GHz Report and 
Order, we adopted rules for Ka-band FSS earth stations employing uplink 
power control which limit transmissions during conditions of uplink 
fading to 20 dB above those permitted under clear-sky conditions. See 
47 CFR 25.138(a)(5). We seek comment on whether it is necessary to 
adopt a rule requiring 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link earth stations to 
employ uplink power control, similar to the FSS requirement of Sec.  
25.204. We also seek comment on what values or conditions might be 
applied to the use of 17/24 GHz BSS uplink adaptive power control, 
including: a minimum signal attenuation required before uplink transmit 
power may be increased; an upper limit on permissible transmit power 
increase; an accuracy

[[Page 43691]]

requirement over the range of path attenuations; or other possible 
parameters such as the control-loop response time or limits on system 
overshoot.
    16. Downlink Power Limits: The downlink power levels transmitted by 
adjacent co-frequency satellites, in combination with the sidelobe 
performance characteristics of the receiving earth station antenna, 
will determine the carrier-to-interference ratio that an operator 
experiences at the receive antenna as a result of adjacent satellite 
interference. At present, neither the Commission nor the ITU have 
established power flux density requirements or other downlink power 
limits for BSS systems operating in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band. Article 21 
of the ITU Radio Regulations does define pfd limits for the FSS in the 
17.7-17.8 GHz band in its Table 21-4.
    17. In other frequency bands, the Commission has frequently adopted 
downlink power limits for space stations transmissions in order to 
facilitate both inter-service and intra-service sharing. For example, 
our rules define power flux density limits in the 4/6 GHz and 20/30 GHz 
FSS bands in Sec.  25.208, and impose additional pfd requirements for 
blanket licensing of Ka-band earth stations in Sec.  25.137(a)(6). 
However, in other bands, no downlink power limits exist. We note that 
one advantage of imposing a downlink power limit is to establish a 
relatively homogeneous transmitting environment, and to ensure that 
established receiving antennas are not subject to unforeseen levels of 
adjacent satellite interference, particularly as newer generation 
satellites are brought into service. Moreover, application of downlink 
power limits may also influence the ability of 17/24 GHz BSS systems to 
operate in the vicinity of co-frequency receiving DBS satellites. 
However, adopting such limits can to some extent restrict the ability 
of future satellites to increase their power levels in response to 
improvements in technology, or to compensate for interference from 
other sources (e.g., foreign satellites or adjacent-band radars).
    18. A review of the 17/24 GHz BSS filings submitted to the 
Commission, indicates that applicants plan to operate digital systems 
with downlink maximum e.i.r.p. levels that range between 58.6 dBW and 
64.7 dBW. It appears that worst case pfd levels are less than -117 dBW/
MHz/m\2\ for all systems, with the exception of certain Intelsat spot 
beams that may have maximum saturated pfd levels of -115 dBW/MHz/m\2\ 
at the Earth's surface. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether the 
Commission should adopt pfd or other downlink power level values in the 
17.3-17.7 GHz band. We ask what level of downlink power would be 
appropriate, and in particular whether the ITU's FSS pfd limits, with 
an upper limit of -115 dBW/MHz/m\2\, should be applied in the 17.3-17.7 
GHz band. We ask whether a different, perhaps higher power level is 
preferable in order to provide for future generation satellites, or to 
compensate for anticipated interference sources. The present operating 
downlink transmitted power levels proposed by applicants assume an 
orbital spacing environment of either 4-degrees or 4.5-degrees. We seek 
comment on what pfd limit would be preferable if the Commission were to 
establish an orbital spacing regime different from either 4-degrees or 
4.5-degrees.
    19. Reverse Band Operations: When the Region 2 BSS allocation at 
17.3-17.8 GHz becomes effective in 2007, it will be shared with the 
current 17.3-17.8 GHz DBS feeder-link allocation in the Earth-to-space 
direction. This operating scenario, in which the same frequency band is 
used for both Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth transmissions, is known 
as ``reverse band'' and results in additional interference paths which 
are different from those found in a conventional GSO satellite sharing 
situation. In the typical GSO satellite sharing scenario, interference 
paths occur between the earth stations of one system and the satellites 
of another, and vice versa. In such cases, co-frequency sharing is 
facilitated primarily through antenna off-axis discrimination at each 
end of the interference path, in combination with limits on spatial 
proximity (orbital separation) and transmission power. The reverse-band 
sharing scenario is different in that two new and distinct interference 
paths occur: (1) Between the earth stations of different systems; and 
(2) between the space stations of different systems. In effect, 
reverse-band operations create two additional interference paths: An 
earth station-into-earth station path (ground path), and a space 
station-into-space station path (space path).
    20. Ground Path Interference: Ground path interference (here, the 
terms ``DBS'' or ``DBS earth station'' refer to earth stations that are 
DBS feeder links) will occur when the signals from transmitting DBS 
feeder-link earth stations operating in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band are 
detected at the receiving earth stations of 17/24 GHz BSS subscribers. 
This interference situation will be the most severe in areas 
surrounding the DBS feeder uplink stations. In addition, 17/24 GHz BSS 
operators who choose to co-locate their TT&C earth stations with DBS 
TT&C earth stations systems may experience difficulty in receiving the 
downlinked telemetry signal from the 17/24 GHz BSS spacecraft.
    21. At present there are a relatively small number of DBS feeder-
link earth stations. If the current situation were to remain unchanged, 
the ground path interference problem into 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber 
antennas might not pose a significant problem. However, we recognize 
that local programming is being uplinked from a growing number of 
metropolitan areas. We must anticipate that DBS feeder-link earth 
stations that transmit in the Earth-to-space direction may become 
increasingly common in populated areas, thereby escalating the 
potential for interference into 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber antennas. In 
addition, future entrants such as short-spaced DBS systems, or non-U.S. 
DBS satellites serving the U.S. market, could result in the deployment 
of an even greater number of feeder-link earth stations at multiple 
sites within the United States. The interference problem may be further 
exacerbated by the proliferation of small-diameter 17/24 GHz BSS 
subscriber receiving antennas with relatively poor off-axis 
discrimination properties.
    22. There is no procedure established in the Commission's rules 
regarding coordination of co-frequency, DBS feeder-link satellite earth 
stations with BSS subscriber terminals. Instead, we note that Appendix 
7 of the ITU Radio Regulations describes a procedure for determining 
the coordination area for an earth station transmitting in a frequency 
band allocated to space services in both Earth-to-space and space-to-
Earth directions. In other sharing situations, the Commission has 
successfully relied upon the ITU Appendix 7 coordination methodologies 
to effect coordination between the co-frequency earth stations of 
different services. Specifically, Sec.  25.203 in combination with 
Sec.  25.251 of our rules define a mechanism for coordination between 
terrestrial microwave stations and satellite earth stations that share 
frequency bands with equal rights. This mechanism is based upon the 
procedures set forth in Appendix 7 of the ITU Radio Regulations. 
Similarly, in the case of coordination between co-frequency reverse-
band DBS feeder-link and BSS receiving earth stations operating in the 
17.3-17.7 GHz band, we propose to make use of the coordination 
methodology defined in Annex 3 of Appendix 7 of the ITU Radio 
Regulations. We seek comment on this proposal and ask whether this

[[Page 43692]]

coordination methodology may be appropriately applied in this 
situation.
    23. We also seek comment on the types of technical information DBS 
feeder-link earth station operators should make available to 17/24 GHz 
BSS operators for the purposes of earth station coordination.
    24. In addition, we envision that both the DBS feeder links and 17/
24 GHz BSS services will be deploying new earth stations over time, so 
that new stations of one service will continually be established among 
existing stations from the other. The Commission wants to ensure that 
U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS systems receive sufficient interference 
protection and that subscribers' receive antennas will work effectively 
in both current and future radio frequency interference environments. 
However, we are also committed to preserving the prospect for growth 
and expansion of the DBS service, and to providing for future DBS 
market entrants. Therefore, we seek to adopt service rules that achieve 
an appropriate balance between accommodating both present and future 
DBS feeder-link operations and ensuring protection of 17/24 GHz BBS 
receiving systems from interference.
    25. In the MVDDS Second R&O, 17 FCC Rcd 9614 (2002), the Commission 
addressed a frequency sharing situation that presented ground path 
interference issues and temporal build-out of interspersed earth 
stations, similar to those we envision resulting from reverse band 
satellite operations in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band. In the 12 GHz band, two 
co-primary, co-frequency services sought to operate in a sharing 
scenario where ubiquitous and ongoing deployment of stations from both 
services was anticipated. The Commission recognized that the incumbent 
DBS receive-only antennas were subject to interference from the 
introduction of transmitting MVDDS stations. In the MVDDS Second R&O, 
the Commission concluded that careful MVDDS system design and the use 
of various mitigation techniques could achieve successful sharing of 
the 12 GHz frequency band by both services. To accomplish this goal, 
the Commission adopted inter alia a coordination procedure that 
requires that an MVDDS operator entering a market where DBS receivers 
are already established must satisfy certain requirements in order to 
protect these customers. 47 CFR 101.1440(d). In addition, a mechanism 
is established for information exchange between the operators of both 
services, in particular to take into account recently acquired DBS 
customers. (see 17 FCC Rcd at 9652, para. 88) Once the time period 
prescribed for this information exchange has passed, any new DBS 
receive antennas must be installed in a manner to avoid interference 
from the MVDDS signal. These later-installed DBS earth stations have no 
right of complaint against the notified MVDDS transmitting antenna.
    26. We seek comment on whether we should adopt a similar approach 
to sharing between DBS feeder-link earth stations and 17/24 GHz BSS 
receiving earth stations. Under such an approach, DBS operators 
planning new feeder-link earth stations would be required to provide 
the technical information discussed above to 17/24 GHz BSS licensees, 
at least 90 days prior to commencing operations of the new DBS feeder-
link earth station. Within 30 days after receipt of the new DBS feeder-
link earth station technical information, the 17/24 GHz BSS licensees 
would be required to provide the DBS feeder-link earth station operator 
with a list of potentially-affected 17/24 GHz BSS customer locations 
within the coordination area described above. Before beginning 
operations, the new DBS feeder-link earth station operator would be 
required to take into account these 17/24 GHz BSS customers and to 
ensure that its operations do not cause them harmful interference. Once 
the 30-day time period prescribed for this information exchange has 
passed, any new 17/24 GHz BSS receiving earth stations would be 
required to accept or mitigate any interference from the DBS feeder-
link transmissions. These later-installed 17/24 GHz BSS receiving earth 
stations would have no right of complaint against the new DBS feeder-
link transmitting earth station. We seek comment on this proposal. We 
recognize that there may be reluctance on the part of 17/24 GHz BSS 
operators to reveal their customer data, particularly to another DBS or 
BSS operator, and we seek comment on alternate approaches to 
coordinating DBS feeder-link and 17/24 GHz BSS earth station 
operations. We also ask whether some different approach would better 
facilitate sharing in the 17/24 GHz band.
    27. In the MVDDS Second R&O, the Commission took additional steps 
to ensure successful sharing in the 12 GHz band and adopted various 
equivalent power flux density (epfd) and power density limits for MVDDS 
systems, as well as rules governing their application. See MVDDS Second 
R&O, 17 FCC Rcd at 9641-9642, para. 68. The Commission's existing rules 
do not specify transmitting epfd or of-axis e.i.r.p. density limits for 
DBS feeder-link earth stations, except in the band 17.7-17.8 GHz, which 
is shared co-equally with terrestrial services. Interference into 17/24 
GHz BSS receivers could be reduced if the e.i.r.p. levels emitted 
towards the horizon by DBS feeder link antennas were minimized. 
Limiting DBS feeder link off-axis transmit power levels may facilitate 
co-existence of 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber earth stations and DBS feeder 
link earth stations, while decreasing the coordination burden on both 
services. Accordingly, we ask whether off-axis e.i.r.p. density or 
other transmitting power limits should be applied to DBS feeder-link 
bands in order to protect 17/24 GHz BSS receiving earth stations from 
interference.
    28. Section 25.204(b) of the Commission's rules places limits on 
earth station e.i.r.p. in bands above 15 GHz shared coequally with 
terrestrial radiocommunication services, in order to facilitate sharing 
with these services. This rule was not intended to facilitate sharing 
among DBS and BSS earth stations, and it is applicable to DBS feeder 
link earth stations only in the band segment 17.7-17.8 GHz that is 
shared with terrestrial services. We seek comment on whether the 
Commission should extend this requirement to DBS feeder link earth 
stations operating in the entire 17.3-17.8 GHz band or adopt some 
other, more stringent off-axis e.i.r.p. requirement. We also seek 
comment on whether a different approach, such as requiring DBS feeder 
link antenna shielding, would be more appropriate. Similarly, we 
request comment on whether the Commission should afford interference 
protection to 17/24 GHz BSS systems only to the extent that they meet 
certain receive antenna performance standards. Specifically, we request 
comment on what type of regulation, if any, would be appropriate, such 
as adopting antenna off-axis discrimination requirements or minimum 
gain requirements. We seek comment on whether the e.i.r.p density 
limits of Sec.  25.204 (b)-(e) would be sufficient to protect 17/24 GHz 
BSS earth stations if applied to the 17.3-17.7 GHz band, or whether 
some other limits would be more appropriate. We seek comment on whether 
it is necessary to adopt another approach, such as stipulating epfd 
limits, in order to facilitate coordination between DBS feeder-link 
earth stations and 17/24 GHz subscriber receivers, and if so, which 
methodology should be used in determining such limits. We also seek 
comment on whether we should impose any additional requirements on 
either DBS feeder-link earth station operators

[[Page 43693]]

or on 17/24 GHz BSS operators in order to mitigate interference into 
17/24 GHz BSS subscriber receiving antennas.
    29. Ground Path Interference Into BSS Telemetry Earth Stations: 
Ground path interference may also occur between transmitting DBS 
feeder-links and the receiving TT&C stations of 17/24 GHz BSS systems 
that choose to co-locate their TT&C earth stations at existing DBS 
feeder-link earth station sites. Choice of facility site is a system 
design parameter that is under the control of the operator, and does 
not necessarily require a Commission action to remedy. Accordingly, we 
seek comment on whether the Commission should adopt requirements to 
guard against such interference scenarios.
    30. We propose to require earth station applicants planning to co-
locate their 17/24 GHz BSS TT&C stations with DBS feeder-links earth 
stations to make a technical showing to the Commission demonstrating 
their ability to maintain sufficient margin in their telemetry links in 
the presence of the interfering DBS signal. Additionally, we propose to 
require DBS feeder link earth station applicants planning to co-locate 
with their 17/24 GHz BSS telemetry earth stations to make a similar 
technical showing to the Commission. We seek comment on this proposal 
and ask what parameters would be appropriate in such a showing. In 
addition, we seek comment on other interference measures we might 
consider such as mandating a level of equipment performance (e.g., 
filter rejection).
    31. Increased Flexibility of Spectrum: Footnote NG 167 of the 
Domestic Table of Frequency Allocations (see 15 FCC Rcd 7207 (1999)) 
limits use of the FSS allocation (Earth-to-space) in the 24.75-25.25 
GHz band to use by feeder links for the BSS operating in the band 17.3-
17.7 GHz. In the 18 GHz Report & Order, we noted that, although we were 
allocating 500 megahertz for BSS feeder links at 24.75-25.25 GHz for 
400 megahertz of BSS uplinks at 17.3-17.7 GHz, we declined to reduce 
the amount of spectrum available for feeder links for the BSS. We 
stated that the flexibility that this additional 100 MHz of feeder link 
spectrum afforded might prove useful to 17/24 GHz BSS operators in some 
situations including occasional difficulties that might be encountered 
during coordination. The ability to use spectrum in the 24 GHz band for 
feeder-links operating with other BSS services, such as DBS, might 
afford operators increased flexibility in system design and spectrum 
use. Providing this increased flexibility might also assist operators 
in designing their systems so as to avoid ground path interference 
problems associated with reverse band operations in the 17.3-17.8 GHz 
band. The benefit of alternative feeder link spectrum might be 
particularly useful in situations where DBS feeder-link earth stations 
must be located in populated areas with a high density of 17/24 GHz BSS 
receiving antennas, or when 17/24 GHz BSS telemetry receiving 
facilities are close by. We propose to modify footnote NG167 of the 
Domestic Table of Frequency Allocations in order to permit use of the 
24.75-25.25 GHz FSS allocation (Earth-to-space) by feeder links 
operating with the BSS in frequency bands other than 17 GHz, e.g., the 
12 GHz DBS band. We seek comment on this proposal.
    32. The 24.75-25.05 GHz band is shared on a co-primary basis with 
the radionavigation service and the 25.05-25.25 GHz band is similarly 
shared on a co-primary basis with the fixed service. Permitting 
migration of BSS feeder link operations from other bands (such as 17.3-
17.7 GHz) into the 24 GHz band could place an increased burden on these 
two services, and may hinder their ability to operate or to deploy 
additional stations. General requirements for sharing with the 
radionavigation service and the fixed service in the 24 GHz band are 
discussed in paragraphs 91-93 of the NPRM. However, we seek specific 
comment on any impact to these other co-primary services from our 
proposal to permit more flexible use of the 24 GHz band by BSS feeder 
links. In the 18 GHz Report & Order, we noted our belief that the 
feasibility of the sharing between these 17/24 GHz BSS feeder links and 
the fixed service at 24 GHz is based in part on the limited number of 
expected 17/24 GHz BSS feeder links. We ask whether these additional 
feeder link operations can be accommodated in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band, 
or whether they will unduly restrict operation and deployment of either 
new radionavigation or fixed service systems. We ask whether our 
existing FSS/FS coordination procedures set forth in Sec.  25.203 of 
the Commission's rules are sufficient to facilitate co-existence of 
additional BSS feeder link earth stations with the 24 GHz Fixed 
Service, or whether some additional requirement(s) should be imposed.
    33. Space Path Interference: Space path interference will occur 
when the signals from transmitting 17/24 GHz BSS satellites are 
detected by the receiving antennas of DBS satellites. The amount of 
interference received by the victim DBS satellite will depend on the 
specific orientation between the transmitting and receiving satellites, 
the extent of physical separation, the transmit power (e.i.r.p.) 
levels, and the off-axis gain discriminations of both transmitting and 
receiving antennas on the adjacent satellites. The problem is expected 
to be particularly problematic when satellites are nominally co-
located, i.e., a receiving DBS satellite is located at the same nominal 
GSO orbital longitude as a transmitting 17/24 GHz BSS satellite.
    34. Recognizing the significant difficulties in preventing harmful 
interference in the case of co-clustered satellites, we ask whether 
transmitting 17/24 GHz BSS satellites should be precluded from locating 
in the same cluster with receiving co-frequency DBS satellites. We seek 
comment on this issue. We also ask whether co-clustering of 17/24 GHz 
BSS and receiving co-frequency DBS satellites might be possible in 
instances where both spacecraft are controlled by the same operator. 
However, we also seek comment on methods we might employ to facilitate 
co-location, or co-clustering of DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites.
    35. We seek further comment on the feasibility in general of 
locating transmitting 17/24 GHz BSS satellites at close distances 
(i.e., within the same cluster, or at nearby adjacent locations) as 
receiving DBS satellites operating with 17 GHz feeder-links. We ask 
whether there is a minimum separation distance that we should mandate 
for the two co-frequency satellites, and if so, what that separation 
distance should be. We also ask whether we should impose an off-axis 
antenna discrimination requirement on satellites in the 17/24 GHz BSS 
service, the DBS service, or both, and if so what the requirement(s) 
should be. We ask whether we should impose either an absolute e.i.r.p. 
limit on transmitting BSS satellites, and if so, what that value might 
be, or whether an e.i.r.p. mask might be more appropriate. If the 
latter, we seek comment on the angular range over which such a mask 
should be applied, and what power limits would be most appropriate at 
different angular values. Finally, we seek comment on whether there are 
any other requirements we should consider in order to prevent reverse-
band adjacent satellite interference in the 17 GHz band. Specifically, 
we ask applicants how they plan to address the problem of space path 
interference with the co-located satellites they have proposed.
    36. Space path interference from transmitting 17/24 GHz BSS 
satellites has the potential to cause loss of the telecommand signal at 
the receiving DBS satellite. As in the ground path telemetry case, we 
are aware that interference into TT&C systems can

[[Page 43694]]

present a serious problem due to the potential loss of satellite 
control, and we seek comment on what requirements the Commission should 
adopt to guard against such interference scenarios. As in the ground 
path case, we propose to require space station applicants planning to 
co-locate their 17/24 GHz BSS space stations within cluster locations 
occupied by DBS space stations to make a technical showing to the 
Commission demonstrating their ability to sufficiently minimize 
interference into nearby DBS systems, such that adequate margin is 
maintained in the DBS telecommand links in the presence of the 
interfering BSS signal. Similarly, we will ask DBS operators planning 
to locate their satellites at an orbital location already occupied by a 
transmitting 17/24 GHz BSS satellite to make a technical showing to the 
Commission demonstrating how they plan to maintain sufficient margin in 
their telecommand links in the presence of the interfering BSS signal. 
We seek comment on this proposal and ask what parameters would be 
appropriate in such a showing.
    37. Other Technical Requirements: We note that tracking, telemetry, 
and command (TT&C) issues have been raised in some of the 17/24 GHz 
applications filed with the Commission, and below, seek comment on need 
to establish requirements for these activities. Also, we seek comment 
on the need for polarization and frequency re-use requirements. In 
addition to these issues, we invite parties to comment on other 
technical matters that the Commission should address in this 
rulemaking, and seek comment on any further changes to our rules that 
should be adopted for 17/24 GHz BSS systems.
    38. Technical Requirements for Inter-Service Operations--Sharing in 
the 24 GHz Band: In 1997, the Commission modified the Domestic Table of 
Frequency Allocations to provide a primary allocation in the frequency 
band 25.05-25.25 GHz to support the 24 GHz Fixed Service, formerly 
known as the Digital Electronic Messaging Service (DEMS) (See, 15 FCC 
Rcd 3471 (1997)). The band is now allocated on a co-primary basis to 
both the FS and to the FSS (Earth-to-space). Several 24 GHz FS systems 
have already been licensed and we must therefore consider the 
likelihood that additional systems will be deployed in the future. The 
potential exists for 17/24 GHz BSS feeder-link earth stations operating 
in the 25.05-25.25 GHz band to interfere with existing and future 24 
GHz FS hub and user stations that operate in the same frequency band. 
When we adopted this shared allocation at 24 GHz, we stressed that 
while the full extent of the interference was unknown at that time, our 
belief in the feasibility of sharing was based on limitations on the 
number of expected 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link facilities and on the fact 
that potential interference to the 24 GHz service would be limited to 
hub stations. It was noted that the rules relevant to the 24 GHz 
service are subject to the outcome of the 24 GHz service rules 
proceeding. (See 15 FCC Rcd at 13479, para. 105). We noted that the 
successful implementation of this allocation would require the 
development of sharing criteria that will be considered in a future 
rulemaking. In light of the proposed expansion in this band for 12 GHz 
BSS feeder links in the NPRM and the nature of the 24 GHz service, we 
seek to develop sharing criteria that would assure successful 
implementation of BSS feeder links and the 24 GHz service and request 
comment on what these criteria should be. Accordingly, we request 
comment on the feasibility of operating BSS feeder-links in this band 
on a co-frequency basis with 24 GHz FS systems and whether existing 
power levels and coordination procedures are sufficient given that 24 
GHz FS systems have been licensed by geographic area and are not 
required to file site specific data.
    39. In Region 2, the International Table of Frequency Allocations 
provides only the FSS with primary status in the frequency band 24.75-
25.05 GHz. In the Domestic Table of frequency allocations however, 
primary status is shared by both the FSS and the radionavigation 
service. (See 47 CFR 2.106). At this time we are aware of no 
operational radionavigation systems in the band. However, it is not 
inconceivable that future radionavigation systems might be deployed. 
Furthermore, we are aware of no specific sharing criteria or rules 
governing co-frequency operation of FSS and radionavigation systems. We 
seek comment on the feasibility of operating BSS feeder-links (Earth-
to-space) in this band on a co-primary basis with potential future 
radionavigation systems. We seek comment on what are the most likely 
interference scenarios, and ask what measures might best provide for 
future operation of both services. We ask whether any changes to our 
rules such as power limits, coordination requirements, or antenna 
performance requirements might be considered in order to minimize 
inter-service interference in the 24.75-25.05 GHz band. We seek comment 
on technical or operational measures that might be adopted by either 
satellite system operators or by radionavigation system operators in 
order to facilitate co-frequency operation of these two services.
    40. Sharing in the 17GHz Band: In the Domestic table of Frequency 
Allocations, the Radiolocation Service is allocated use of the 15.7-
17.3 GHz band on a primary basis for U.S. Government systems. (See 47 
CFR 2.106). Military services are the largest users of the band and 
have a considerable investment in radiolocation operations in this 
frequency range, which include a large number of radar systems that 
perform ground-mapping, terrain-following maritime and target-
identification functions. Numerous high-powered synthetic aperture 
radars (SARs) operate near the band edge adjacent to 17.3 GHz. At 
present, these SARs are largely airborne, and are employed primarily 
for ground mapping and detection of airborne objects. The National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has stated 
that future radar systems are likely to resemble existing radars, 
including the capability to operate differently in different azimuth 
and elevation sectors, and that future designs may seek to operate in a 
wide band extending to the edge of the authorized allocation. Future 
radar systems will likely employ electronically-steerable antennas, and 
the NTIA maintains that the introduction of newer phase-steered radars 
could facilitate electromagnetic compatibility in some circumstances. 
In addition, newer radar systems are expected to have average-power 
capabilities at least as high as those of current systems, although the 
NTIA expects that future designs will strive to reduce wideband noise 
emissions through the use of solid-state transmitter/antenna systems. 
These would employ longer pulse transmissions with substantially higher 
duty cycles, but probably at lower peak power levels, as compared to 
tube-type radar transmitters.
    41. The NTIA has provided the Commission with information 
concerning technical and operating characteristics of certain adjacent-
band radiolocation systems that it considers likely to impact 17/24 GHz 
BSS receiving earth stations and sufficient for general calculations to 
asses the compatibility between these radars and BSS systems. The 
technical characteristics of the radiolocation systems operating in the 
15.7-17.3 GHz band are provided in Appendix C of the NRPM. The NTIA has 
also identified two interference coupling scenarios that it believes 
are likely to exist between radiolocation systems and BSS receiving

[[Page 43695]]

antennas in the 17 GHz band: earth station receiver front-end overload 
and out-of-band interference from high-power pulsed emissions. With 
regard to adjacent band interference due to high power pulsed 
emissions, the NTIA cites measurements that it performed on a 4 GHz 
digital earth station receiver that employed error correction signal 
processing. However, as the NTIA also notes, the applicability of these 
results to 17 GHz systems requires further study. Accordingly, we seek 
comment on the interference scenarios that are most likely to be 
encountered between adjacent-band radiolocation systems and BSS 
receiving antennas, and on the general applicability of the NTIA's 
findings. Specifically, we ask what differences in 17/24 GHz BSS 
receiver design and signal processing should be taken into account when 
assessing interference from adjacent-band radiolocation systems. We 
also ask 17/24 GHz BSS operators for comment on their systems' 
sensitivity to unwanted adjacent-band emissions, and on the level of 
protection they may require. We also seek comment on what measures 17/
24 GHz BSS operators might adopt in order to mitigate such 
interference.
    42. The Commission's rules do not establish unwanted emission 
limits for radiolocation systems operating in the 15.7-17.3 GHz band. 
Appendix 3 of the ITU Radio Regulations defines limits for an 
attenuation value used to calculate maximum permitted power levels of 
unwanted emissions in the spurious domain in Table II of Sec.  II. For 
the Radiolocation Service this attenuation below the radiated emission 
power level is defined as 43 + 10Log10(PEP), where PEP is 
the peak envelope power in watts. We seek comment on the suitability of 
this value to protect 17/24 GHz BSS receivers from interference caused 
by unwanted emissions from adjacent-band radars.
    43. In addition, the band 17.3-17.7 GHz is allocated on a secondary 
basis to the Radiolocation Service for use by Federal Government 
systems. Numerous types of radiolocation stations have been operated in 
this band, including ship, ground and airborne equipment. There may be 
future radiolocations systems that seek to operate in this spectrum on 
a secondary basis, and the potential for interference into 17/24 GHz 
BSS subscriber receiving antennas exists. We intend to ensure that 17/
24 GHz BSS receivers are adequately protected. However, the Commission 
is also committed to encouraging efficient use of spectrum whenever 
possible. Accordingly, we seek comment on approaches we might adopt to 
accommodate future secondary radiolocation operations in this band. We 
ask what types of interference scenarios may be anticipated and what 
criteria might be adopted to ensure protection of BSS systems while 
allowing for future secondary operation of radiolocation systems in the 
17.3-17.7 GHz band. We also ask 17/24 GHz BSS operators to address the 
level of protection required for their receiving earth stations and 
whether 17/24 GHz BSS and secondary radiolocation services could co-
exist if appropriate protection criteria were in place. Finally, we 
note that Footnote US259 to the United States Table of Frequency 
Allocations requires that stations in the radiolocation service in the 
17.3-17.7 GHz band be restricted to operating powers of less than 51 
dBW e.i.r.p. after feeder-link stations for the broadcasting-satellite 
service are authorized and brought into use. (See 47 CFR 2.106, 
footnote US259). This requirement was developed to protect GSO 
satellites operating with feeder-link transmissions defined by the 
Region 2 planned bands, and was not designed with protection of small-
diameter 17/24 GHz BSS receiving earth stations in mind. Nonetheless, 
we seek comment on whether this restriction is adequate to protect 17/
24 GHz BSS subscriber earth stations from harmful interference caused 
by transmitting radiolocation systems.
    44. The allocation to the radiolocation service is secondary 
relative to the BSS in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band. Accordingly, secondary 
radiolocation stations are precluded from causing harmful interference 
to the stations of a primary service such as the 17/24 GHz BSS. (See 47 
CFR 2.105(c)(2)(i)). However, we recognize that Federal radiolocation 
systems are now operating in this band and have been in operation for 
some time. Further, in its March 29, 2000 letter to the Commission, 
NTIA stated that radiolocation systems continuing to operate in the 
17.3-17.7 GHz band after April 1, 2007 may have to be accommodated, 
notwithstanding their allocation status with respect to BSS stations. 
Recently, NTIA again noted that it anticipates continued operation of 
Federal radiolocation systems in certain portions of the 17.3-17.7 GHz 
band, in a limited number of geographic areas after April 1, 2007. The 
Commission is committed to protecting 17/24 GHz BSS consumers from 
harmful interference. However we also wish to accommodate national 
defense interests and appreciate the Defense Department's need to 
continue operating a limited number of existing radars in the 17.3-17.7 
GHz band after April 1, 2007. Accordingly, we seek comment on what 
methods or criteria might be adopted to accommodate continued operation 
of these currently operating Federal radiolocation systems. 
Specifically, we seek comment on the typical interference scenarios 
that could occur between receiving 17/24 GHz BSS earth stations and 
existing Federal radiolocation systems. We ask whether case-by-case 
coordination or some other approach might best permit continued 
operation of Federal radiolocation systems in portions of the 17.3-17.7 
GHz band following the introduction of 17/24 GHz BSS systems after 
April 1, 2007.

Ex Parte Presentations

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

    46. The NPRM contains proposed new and modified information 
collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce 
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collections 
contained in the NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due 60 days 
from the date of publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register. 
Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In 
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment 
on how we might ``further reduce the

[[Page 43696]]

information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees.''
    47. A copy of any comments on the information collections contained 
herein should be submitted to Judy Boley Herman, Federal Communications 
Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or 
via the Internet to jbHerman@fcc.gov and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk 
Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, 
or via the Internet to Kristy--L.LaLonde@omb.eop.gov, or via fax at 
202-395-5167.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    48. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the 
policies and rules proposed in this item, the Establishment of Policies 
and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-Satellite Service at the 17.3-
17.7 GHz Frequency Band and at the 17.7-17.8 GHz Frequency Band 
Internationally, and at the 24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency Band for Fixed 
Satellite Services Providing Feeder Links to the Broadcasting-Satellite 
Service and for the Satellite Services Operating Bi-Directionally in 
the 17.3-17.8 GHz Frequency Band, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 
Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be 
identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines 
for comments on the NPRM provided in paragraph 106 of this NPRM. The 
Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). 
In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published 
in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    49. In the NPRM the Commission makes proposals and seeks comment on 
service rules that will apply to U.S. licensees authorized to operate 
in the 17/24 GHz BSS band. Our objective in this proceeding is to 
promote prompt commencement of se