Processing Applications in the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service; Feasibility of Reduced Orbital Spacing for Provision of Direct Broadcast Satellite Service in the United States, 56923-56931 [E6-15951]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 188 (Thursday, September 28, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56923-56931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-15951]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket No. 06-160; FCC 06-120]


Processing Applications in the Direct Broadcast Satellite 
Service; Feasibility of Reduced Orbital Spacing for Provision of Direct 
Broadcast Satellite Service in the United States

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission proposes licensing 
procedures and service rules for satellites providing Direct Broadcast 
Satellite (DBS) service. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeks 
comment on proposals that will apply to any application for authority 
to provide DBS service in the United States using the 12.2-12.7 GHz 
band and associated feeder links in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. This 
includes both unassigned channels at orbit locations assigned to the 
United States under the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) 
Region 2 Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS) and feeder-link Plans, 
and applications for DBS service from space stations located at orbital 
locations not assigned to the United States in the ITU Region 2 BSS and 
feeder-link Plans. The NPRM seeks comment on new licensing procedures, 
including the use of the first-come, first-served process for all DBS 
applications, regardless of the proposed orbit location. Alternatively, 
the NPRM requests comment on whether DBS should continue to be licensed 
outside the scope of the Commission's first-come, first-served 
satellite application processing procedures, and if so, what processing 
framework should be used to license DBS. The NPRM also seeks comment 
on: What additional issues the Commission should consider in situations 
involving non-nine-degree spaced DBS applications; whether all the 
licensing procedures applicable to other satellite services (e.g., 
performance bonds, milestones, and annual reports) should apply to DBS 
systems; how to resolve impasses in operator-to-operator coordination 
negotiations; whether new license terms should be adopted for all 
current and future U.S.-licensed DBS systems; and other issues, 
including what, if any, action is needed to address the impact of 
reduced spacing DBS on other services.

DATES: Comments are due on or before December 12, 2006, and reply 
comments are due on or before January 11, 2007. Public and agency 
comments on the Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (IFRA) analysis 
are due November 27, 2006.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the 
Secretary, a copy of any Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments on the 
information

[[Page 56924]]

collection(s) proposed herein should be submitted to Judith B. Herman, 
Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov, 
and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 via the Internet to Kristy--L.--
LaLonde@omb.eop.gov or by fax to 202-395-5167.
    You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 06-160, by any 
of the following methods:
     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: Filings not submitted electronically must be sent to 
the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 
12th St., SW., Room TW-B204, Washington, DC 20554.
     Mail courtesy copies to: JoAnn 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. 06-160, FCC 06-120, 
adopted August 14, 2006 and released on August 18, 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 Certification (IRFC) of the 
possible significant economic impact on small entities by the proposals 
considered in the NPRM. The text of the IRFC is set forth in Appendix A 
of the NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFC. 
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 IRFC.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (The RFA, see 5 
U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. 104-121, Title II, 
110 Stat. 857 (1996)) requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis 
be prepared for notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the 
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as 
having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small 
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, 
the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small 
business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A ``small business 
concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is 
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA).
    The rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, if 
adopted, would affect applicants for the Direct Broadcast Satellite 
Service (DBS). The rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
apply only to entities providing DBS. Because DBS provides subscription 
services, DBS falls within the SBA-recognized definitions of ``Cable 
and Other Program Distribution'' or ``Satellite Telecommunications.'' 
These definitions provide that small entities are ones with $12.5 
million or less in annual receipts. Small businesses of that size 
(i.e., $12.5 million or less in annual receipts) will not have the 
financial ability to become DBS system operators because of the high 
implementation costs, including construction of satellite space 
stations and the rocket launch process, associated with satellite 
systems and services.
    The Commission therefore certifies, pursuant to the RFA, that the 
proposals in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, if adopted, will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities because all entities affected are large. The Commission will 
send a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including a copy of 
this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the SBA. This initial certification will also be 
published in the Federal Register.
    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 November 27, 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 for Direct Broadcast Service (DBS).
    Form No.: Not Applicable.
    Type of Review: New information collection.
    Respondents: 5 respondents.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 41 responses.
    Estimated Time Per Response: 10 hours.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion and annual reporting 
requirements.

[[Page 56925]]

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 410 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Costs: $15,562,000.
    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 06-120) to 
establish service rules for the Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) 
Service under IB Docket No. 06-160. Among other requirements, the 
Commission proposes several new information collection requirements 
applicable to DBS licensees: (1) Annual reporting requirement on the 
status of construction and anticipated launch dates, (2) milestone 
schedules and (3) performance bonds that are posted within 30 days of 
the grant of the license. Additionally, applicants may be required to 
provide a technical showing that the proposed DBS system could operate 
satisfactorily if all assignments in the BBS and feeder link plans were 
implemented. If applicants seek U.S. licenses to launch and operate DBS 
satellites with characteristics that differ from those in the ITU's 
Plan, the Commission submits plan modifications to the ITU on behalf of 
such applicants. For U.S. plan modifications, the ITU Radio Regulations 
Appendix 4 information is prepared by the satellite operators and 
submitted to the Commission, which reviews the information and forwards 
it to the International Telecommunication Union's Radiocommunication 
Bureau (ITU/BR).
    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. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission 
invites comment on revisions to our licensing procedures and technical 
rules governing direct broadcast satellite (DBS) Service. The 
Commission proposes service rules for geostationary satellite orbit 
(GSO) DBS space stations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz frequency band. The 
Commission expects that adopting these procedures for DBS applications 
will expedite the provision of beneficial services to the public, just 
as these procedures have done in other satellite services.
    2. The approaches the Commission proposes in the NPRM are prompted, 
in part, by a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit that the Commission's July 2004 auction of 
DBS licenses was unauthorized. Northpoint Technology, Ltd. and Compass 
Systems, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 412 F.3d 145 (DC 
Cir. 2005) (Northpoint v. FCC). The proposed rules would replace 
processing procedures that were designed to assign DBS licenses by 
auctions. If adopted, these rules will apply to any application for 
authority to provide DBS service to the United States using the 12.2-
12.7 GHz band and associated feeder links in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band, 
including unassigned channels at orbit locations assigned to the United 
States under the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Region 2 
Broadcasting Satellite Service and feeder-link Plans, as well as 
applications for DBS service from space stations located at orbital 
locations not assigned to the United States in the ITU Region 2 BSS and 
feeder-link Plans. As described in more detail in the following 
paragraphs, the Commission has authorized only DBS satellites that are 
a minimum of nine degrees apart on the geostationary arc. Nine degree 
spacing derives from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) 
Region 2 Broadcast Satellite Service (BSS) Plan, which assigned to the 
United States eight DBS orbital locations, each spaced a minimum of 
nine degrees away from the next. In this NPRM, the Commission refers to 
orbital locations other than those in the original Region 2 Plan as 
``reduced spacing'' or ``non-nine-degree-spaced'' locations.
    3. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on using first-come, 
first-served processing procedures for all DBS applications, regardless 
of the proposed orbit location. (As used in this NPRM, unless otherwise 
indicated, the term ``DBS applications'' refers to any application, 
including requests for market access relating to a foreign-licensed 
space station, for authority to provide DBS service to the United 
States using the 12.2-12.7 GHz band and associated feeder links in the 
17.3-17.8 GHz band, including unassigned channels at orbit locations 
assigned to the United States under the ITU Region 2 BSS and feeder-
link Plans as well as requests to provide DBS service from space 
stations located at orbital locations not assigned to the United States 
in the ITU Region 2 BSS and feeder-link Plans (requests by both foreign 
and domestic operators.)) Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment 
on whether DBS should continue to be licensed outside the scope of the 
First Space Station Licensing Reform Order's first-come, first-served 
processing procedures, and if so, what processing framework should be 
used to license DBS. See Amendment of the Commission's Space Station 
Licensing Rules and Policies, First Report and Order and Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 02-34, 18 FCC Rcd 10760 (2003) 
(``First Space Station Licensing Reform Order''). The Commission 
specifically seeks comment on whether, pursuant to Section 309(j) of 
the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(j), and in light of the 
Northpoint case, the Commission could design a competitive bidding 
system, or auction, to assign mutually exclusive applications for DBS 
licenses or spectrum.
    4. As a threshold matter, the Commission observes that up until the 
recent Northpoint ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC 
Circuit, applications for DBS licenses to operate at any orbital 
location assigned to the United States under the ITU Region 2 Plan were 
filed in accordance with an auctions track, as specified by section 
25.148(d) and (e) of the Commission's rules. (47 CFR 25.148). This 
track included both filing requirements for applications and a method 
by which to process them. Given the recent Northpoint ruling by the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, however, we cannot conduct an 
auction to award DBS licenses unless we change our current policy that 
permits DBS licensees to provide both domestic and international 
services. (See Amendment to the Commission's Regulatory Policies 
Governing Domestic Fixed Satellites and Separate International 
Satellite Systems, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 2429 (1996)). 
Consequently, we cannot now use the auction filing requirements. 
Nevertheless, residual application filing requirements exist for DBS 
applications--i.e., the general application filing requirements set 
forth in sections 25.114 and 25.156 of the Commission's rules. In 2002, 
when the Commission merged the Part 100 rules governing DBS into Part 
25, these sections became applicable on their face to DBS and can 
consequently be used for any DBS space station authorization 
application that was not covered by a more specific filing procedure. 
(See Policies and Rules for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, 
Report and

[[Page 56926]]

Order, IB Docket No. 98-21, 17 FCC Rcd 11331 (2002) (``Part 100 
Order'')). Thus, for DBS applications that specified operations at 
locations other than the eight U.S. orbital locations covered by the 
ITU Region 2 Plan--and which were consequently ineligible for filing 
under the auction rules--the filing requirements under sections 25.114 
and 25.156 applied. There have been, however, no processing rules in 
place for such applications; the only processing track currently in our 
rules for DBS is the now-defunct auctions track, which, prior to 
Northpoint, clearly applied to ITU Region 2 Plan locations only. 
Despite the lack of specific rules, the Commission can process the DBS 
applications for non-ITU Region 2 Plan locations that are currently on 
file on an ad hoc basis, pursuant to our existing statutory authority. 
Specifically, given our general statutory authority under sections 308 
and 309 of the Communications Act, coupled with the application filing 
requirements and rules regarding non-interference showings, we may 
process the existing DBS applications provided that they are complete 
and consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity. 
Any application granted prior to resolution of this proceeding would be 
conditioned upon operator to operator coordination and the applicant 
would be required to comply with the outcome of this proceeding.
    5. Licensing Procedures: In the First Space Station Licensing 
Reform Order, the Commission adopted various procedural reforms to 
expedite the licensing process for most satellite services, with an 
exception for DBS and the Digital Audio Radio Satellite (DARS) Service. 
In light of the Northpoint decision, the Commission requests comment on 
the appropriate procedures to be used in licensing future DBS systems.
    6. The Commission proposes to treat applications for GSO DBS space 
stations at both Region 2 Plan orbital locations and reduced spacing 
locations under a ``first-come, first-served'' licensing approach. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission also proposes 
that the first-come, first-served license procedures, if adopted for 
DBS, should also apply to requests from foreign-licensed DBS space 
station operators to serve the United States. The Commission notes that 
it decided in the DISCO II proceeding that entities wishing to serve 
the United States with a non-U.S. satellite, including DBS satellites, 
must file the same information as applicants for a U.S. space station 
license, whether or not that satellite is already licensed by another 
administration. (See Amendment of the Commission's Regulatory Policies 
to Allow Non-U.S. Licensed Space Stations to Provide Domestic and 
International Service in the United States, Report and Order, IB Docket 
No. 96-111, 12 FCC Rcd 24094, 24175 at ] 190 (1997) (DISCO II or DISCO 
II Order). DISCO II specifically said that foreign DBS operators 
seeking access to the United States must file the same information as 
U.S. applicants under Section 100.13, but that rule has since been 
eliminated as DBS applications are now filed in accordance with the 
general part 25 satellite rules. See Part 100 Order, 17 FCC Rcd 11349 
at ]] 35-36.) Consequently, if we adopt a first-come, first-served 
licensing procedure, foreign-licensed DBS operators seeking U.S. market 
access and entities filing earth station applications to access 
foreign-licensed DBS satellites must file the same information 
requested under section 25.114 of the Commission's rules that U.S. DBS 
applicants must file (including, without limitation, the technical 
characteristics of the satellite as specified in sections 25.114(c) and 
25.114(d)(1)-(5) and the analyses required under section 
25.114(d)(13)). (See 47 CFR 25.114. The analyses required under section 
25.114(d)(13) must take into account both the Appendix 30 BSS Plans and 
the Appendix 30A feeder link Plans. Id.)
    7. Our experience with the first-come, first-served approach 
indicates that it would also allow us to issue licenses for DBS 
satellites quickly, while still accommodating existing or new 
competitive systems in the same spectrum. Further, this approach would 
give applicants flexibility to design systems that will best serve 
their targeted customers. As evidenced by the reduced-spacing DBS 
applications and petitions received to date, reduced spacing proposals 
are likely to vary based on the location selected, the operating 
parameters of adjacent operators, and the applicant's own system 
design. These factors would then guide the ITU agreement-seeking 
process, which must be completed before a proposed modification can be 
entered into the Region 2 Plans. The Commission believes that the 
first-come, first-served approach permits interested parties to find, 
through the negotiation process, the most suitable technical solutions 
to operate DBS satellites. The Commission seeks comment on this 
approach for processing future applications and petitions to operate 
all DBS satellites in the 12.2-12.7 GHz service bands.
    8. If, however, the Commission decides that it is more appropriate 
to treat all DBS satellites in the 12.2-12.7 GHz service bands outside 
the scope of the Space Station Reform Order, the Commission seeks 
comment on what processing framework it should use for licensing these 
satellites. The Commission specifically seeks comment on whether, 
pursuant to section 309(j) of the Communications Act, ( 47 U.S.C. 
309(j)) a competitive bidding system, or auction, could be designed to 
assign mutually exclusive license applications for all DBS satellites 
in the 12.2-12.7 GHz service bands in the United States. In this 
regard, we note that the U.S. Court of Appeals' decision in the 
Northpoint v. FCC case found the Commission's July 2004 auction of DBS 
licenses was unauthorized in light of section 647 of the ORBIT Act, 
which prohibits the Commission from using competitive bidding to assign 
orbital locations or spectrum used ``for the provision of international 
or global satellite communications services.'' (See Open-Market 
Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications 
Act, Pub. L. 106-180, 114 Stat. 48 section 647 (enacted Mar. 12, 2000), 
codified at 47 U.S.C. 765f (ORBIT Act)). The Commission seeks comment 
on whether the Commission could conduct an auction for all DBS 
satellites in the 12.2-12.7 GHz service bands consistent with the 
Northpoint ruling and, if so, how such an auction would be implemented. 
The Commission also seeks comment on what, if any, limitations ITU 
procedures may place on a Commission auction (for example, the ITU 
first in time filing policy applies to the 12.2-12.7 GHz service). 
Thus, a country filing first at the ITU obtains superior international 
coordination rights at that orbital location. See ITU Appendices 30 and 
30A. Further, if future legislative action authorizes the Commission to 
award DBS licenses in the 12.2-12.7 GHz service bands via competitive 
bidding, we request comment on how we could structure the auction. 
Commenters should specify whether, and the extent to which, such an 
auction would be different from one conducted without such legislation.
    9. Safeguards against Speculation. The Commission's first-come, 
first-served approach for processing space station applications 
contains several safeguards to ensure that licensees remain committed 
and able to proceed with system implementation in a timely manner. The 
Commission's rules require all GSO-like applicants awarded a

[[Page 56927]]

license under this procedure to post a $3 million performance bond with 
the Commission within 30 days of license grant. They also require 
licensees to construct and launch the satellite consistent with a 
specified milestone schedule. If the licensee fails to meet an 
implementation milestone, the license becomes null and void and the 
bond is executed. The rules also limit applicants to a total of five 
pending applications and licenses for unbuilt satellites in a specific 
frequency band at any one time. If the Commission adopts a first-come, 
first-served processing procedure for DBS satellites, the Commission 
proposes to apply these accompanying safeguards, including applying the 
standard milestone schedule in section 25.164 of the Commission's rules 
(which includes completion of critical design review within two years 
of license grant) to DBS systems, in lieu of the due diligence 
milestones set forth in section 25.148(b). The Commission requests 
comment on these proposals. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment 
on whether there are any public interest rationales for imposing a 
higher performance bond and/or whether it should impose tighter limits 
on the number of pending applications and licenses that applicants for 
DBS systems may have for unbuilt satellites at any one time.
    10. Annual Reporting Requirement. Most space station operators, 
both GSO and NGSO, other than DBS operators, are subject to annual 
reporting requirements. These reports must include, among other things, 
the status of space station construction and anticipated launch dates. 
We believe that these reports help to keep us apprised of whether DBS 
operators are taking all necessary action to meet their milestones. A 
reporting requirement would also put DBS operators on equal regulatory 
footing with other satellite operators that must file annual reports, 
including FSS operators providing direct-to-home services. We seek 
comment on whether DBS licensees and foreign DBS operators that are 
authorized to access the United States should be required to submit 
similar annual reports regardless of the licensing mechanism we 
ultimately adopt in this proceeding.
    11. Technical Rules for the Operation of Reduced Spacing DBS 
Satellites: As previously noted, the Commission believes that current 
Commission rules can accommodate the filing of DBS applications that 
specify operations at locations other than the eight orbital slots 
assigned to the United States in the ITU Region 2 Plan (as specified in 
Appendices 30 and 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations). Nevertheless, the 
Commission seeks comment whether new technical DBS rules for processing 
applications are necessary. The Commission's part 25 rules refer to and 
incorporate provisions of the ITU Radio Regulations for purposes of 
analyzing applications for DBS with technical parameters that differ 
from those in the Region 2 Plan. Specifically, section 25.114(d)(13)(i) 
requires that for satellites in the DBS service, applicants must submit 
a ``sufficient technical showing that the proposed system could operate 
satisfactorily if all assignments in the BSS and feeder link Plans were 
implemented.'' (25 CFR 25.114(d)(13)(i)). This showing is intended to 
demonstrate that the proposed system will meet its performance 
objectives given the Region 2 Plan assignments. Section 
25.114(d)(13)(ii) requires ``[a]nalyses of the proposed systems with 
respect to the limits in Annex 1 to Appendices 30 and 30A'' of the 
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio Regulations. (25 CFR 
25.114(d)(13)(ii)). This showing is intended to demonstrate how the 
proposed system will affect operating DBS systems and those systems 
that are subject to pending Region 2 modification proposals. Section 
25.148(f) requires that ``DBS operations must be in accordance with the 
sharing criteria and technical characteristics contained in Appendices 
30 and 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations. Operation of systems using 
differing technical characteristics may be permitted, with adequate 
technical showing, and if a request has been made to the ITU to modify 
the appropriate Plans to include the system's technical parameters.'' 
(47 CFR 25.148(f). Section 25.111(c) provides additional guidance 
regarding the filing of plan modifications at the ITU. In particular, 
this rule indicates what U.S. applicants and licensees must provide to 
the Commission so that it may file plan modifications on the 
licensee's/applicant's behalf. See 47 CFR 25.111(c)). Further, as noted 
previously, the Part 100 Report and Order contemplated reduced 
spacings. Thus, if an applicant can coordinate its proposal with other 
U.S. DBS operators and secure agreement with other operators already 
having assignments in the Region 2 Plans or with prior requests for 
Plan modifications, the Commission believes its rules allow it to 
consider these applications without establishing technical/operational 
rules. However, the Commission recognizes that the DBS agreement 
seeking process can be complex, and therefore the Commission seeks 
comment below on methods to facilitate the coordination process should 
we decline to establish new technical rules.
    12. In its DBS Reduced Spacing Public Notice (International Bureau 
Seeks Comments on Proposals to Permit Reduced Orbital Spacings Between 
U.S. Direct Broadcast Satellites, Public Notice, Report No. SPB-196, 18 
FCC Rcd 25683 (2003) (DBS Reduced Spacing Public Notice)) comments, 
DIRECTV suggested that reduced-spacing DBS satellites may not be a 
matter of urgency because a number of other capacity options are 
available for the provision of DTH to U.S. consumers. In particular, 
DIRECTV points out that ``there is an abundance of FSS Ku and Ka band 
capacity that could be used to provide direct-to-home * * * video and 
broadband services, as well as the prospect of future BSS capacity * * 
* in the 17 GHz band * * *.'' (DIRECTV Comments at 3). The Commission 
agrees that existing and potential DBS operators have other options at 
their disposal to expand their service. Reduced spacing DBS would 
provide existing and potential DBS operators with another valuable 
option with which they can expand their service offerings. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether existing Plan modification 
processes are sufficient to allow room for expansion of existing DBS 
service.
    13. Resolution of Impasse in Operator Negotiations and Protection 
Margins: The Commission foresees three possible scenarios in which 
interference issues could be presented with respect to an application 
seeking to provide DBS service from an orbital location spaced less 
than nine-degrees from an existing DBS space station or seeking to 
provide DBS service from a ``nine-degree'' location with parameters 
different from those contained in the Plan (including requests from 
foreign satellite operators to access the United States from such a 
satellite), namely:
    (i) The applicant has negotiated an operating arrangement with the 
other potentially-affected U.S. DBS service providers,
    (ii) The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed DBS system 
would not affect the systems of other U.S. DBS service providers as 
defined by the ITU in Annex 1 of Appendix 30 and 30A, and has not 
negotiated operating arrangements, or
    (iii) The applicant has conducted interference analyses, the 
results of which the applicant considers should be acceptable to other 
U.S. DBS service providers, but one or more of the U.S. DBS service 
providers disagree.

[[Page 56928]]

    14. In the first two scenarios, the Commission could proceed with 
public notice and review, and, taking any comments into account, could 
take action on the application. In the third scenario, the Commission 
could also proceed with public notice and review, although it could not 
take action on the application until agreements are reached. 
Furthermore, if the application is for a U.S.-licensed space station, 
the Commission will not submit it to the ITU until agreement has been 
reached with affected U.S. operators. In the case of such a 
coordination impasse, the Commission could take one of several 
approaches.
    15. The simplest approach would be to set a deadline for reaching 
agreement and to dismiss the application when the deadline expires if 
no agreement has been reached. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
this should be the preferred approach and, if so, what would be the 
appropriate time period to allow for additional negotiations before 
dismissing the application.
    16. Another approach would be to grant or dismiss the application 
depending on the acceptability of the interference as evaluated by the 
Commission. The Commission seeks comment of whether this should be the 
preferred approach and, if so, what criteria the Commission should use 
in evaluating what constitutes ``acceptable'' interference.
    17. The DIRECTV Petition suggests certain levels of C/I and certain 
other technical parameters an applicant should use in designing its 
system. DIRECTV proposes single-entry C/I levels of 24 dB for 
``acceptable'' interference into an existing system and 12 dB from the 
existing system into the new system. While this is an approach that 
operators may take in negotiating operating arrangements, we do not 
believe that such asymmetries, which would lead to dictating two 
different classes of service in our rules, are appropriate for 
regulatory enforcement.
    18. The Commission could use the ITU's approach in resolving cases 
of disagreement between the applicant and the licensees concerning the 
acceptability of interference. However, the calculations are difficult 
and complex and the acceptable C/I levels depend on the reference 
situation such that, the higher the interference level initially, the 
higher the acceptable level of interference would be. As discussed 
above, the ITU considers a network to be ``affected'' by a proposed 
Plan modification if it were to experience a change in OEPM of more 
than 0.25 dB. In order to reduce the OEPM by less than 0.25 dB, the 
single entry C/I needs to be at least 12.25 dB higher than the 
aggregate C/I implicit in the reference situation. Thus, for example, 
if the reference OEPM were -10 dB (aggregate reference C/I = 18 dB), 
the single entry C/I from the new network would have to be at least 
30.25 dB in order to maintain the OEPM within 0.25 dB of the reference 
situation. By way of comparison, a single entry C/I level of 24 dB 
would reduce the OEPM by about 1.0 dB in this example. Indeed, a single 
entry C/I of 24 dB would reduce by more than 0.25 dB any OEPM higher 
than -17.25 dB (aggregate reference C/I = 11.75 dB).
    19. Another benchmark the Commission can use when coordination 
negotiations reach an impasse is system ``unavailability.'' This DBS 
performance criterion is meaningful to the consumer, as it is the 
amount of time each year that the consumer's DBS receiver is not 
providing video and audio signals to the consumer's television display 
and sound system. When the total time that signals are available during 
some time period is divided by the length of the time period, the 
resulting metric is known as ``availability.'' This metric is usually 
expressed in percentage terms. The complementary metric, the total time 
that signals are not available in some time period, divided by the 
length of the time period, is called ``unavailability,'' or ``outage.'' 
Mathematically, unavailability is equal to 100%--availability, when 
availability is expressed in terms of a percentage. The ITU Region 2 
BSS Plan was based on a target of 99.7% availability, which corresponds 
to an outage of about 26.3 hours per year. (Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 
of the Commission's Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-
Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency 
Range; Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Authorize Subsidiary 
Terrestrial Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite 
Licensees and Their Affiliates; and Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC 
Broadband Corporation, and Satellite Receivers, Ltd. to Provide A Fixed 
Service in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, First Report and Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 4096, 4177 at ] 214 (2000) 
(NGSO-FSS/MVDDS First R&O)). This target is usually exceeded by the 
domestic DBS operators, who typically aim for at least 99.9% 
availability for their systems, except in the high-precipitation and 
fringe coverage areas.
    20. In the NGSO-FSS/MVDDS First R&O, the Commission adopted 
criteria to protect DBS systems from interference from non-
geostationary orbit fixed-satellite (NGSO-FSS) systems. These 
interference protection criteria took the form of equivalent power flux 
density (EPFD) limits. These limits were based on a goal of limiting 
the increase in the unavailability of DBS systems due to interference 
from the NGSO-FSS systems to 10%, without interference from the MVDDS 
systems. In the NGSO-FSS/MVDDS Second R&O (Amendment of parts 2 and 25 
of the Commission's Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO-FSS Systems Co-
Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency 
Range; Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Authorize Subsidiary 
Terrestrial Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite 
Licensees and Their Affiliates; and Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC 
Broadband Corporation, and Satellite Receivers, Ltd. to Provide A Fixed 
Service in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, Memorandum Opinion and Order and 
Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614 (2002) (NGSO-FSS/MVDDS Second 
R&O)), the Commission adopted EPFD limits for Multichannel Video 
Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) systems, again based on a goal of 
limiting the increase in unavailability of DBS systems to 10% over the 
unavailability that the DBS systems would experience without 
interference from the MVDDS systems. (Amendment of parts 2 and 25 of 
the Commission's Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-
Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency 
Range; Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Authorize Subsidiary 
Terrestrial Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite 
Licensees and Their Affiliates; and Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC 
Broadband Corporation, and Satellite Receivers, Ltd. to Provide A Fixed 
Service in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, Memorandum Opinion and Order and 
Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614 (2002) (NGSO-FSS/MVDDS Second 
R&O)). This increase in unavailability is in addition to the 10% 
increase in unavailability that is allocated to NGSO-FSS systems. The 
Commission noted that the typical service availability of DBS systems 
is on the order of 99.8 to 99.9%, corresponding to a level of 
unavailability of 0.1 to 0.2%. The Commission stated that a 10% 
increase in unavailability is insubstantial and does not approach a 
level that could be considered harmful interference. The Commission 
also noted that the increase in unavailability might be below or above 
the 10% nominal level in different parts of the country.

[[Page 56929]]

    21. The unavailability of a digital radiocommunication system, such 
as a DBS system, is dependent on the ratio of the carrier power (C) of 
the desired signal to the sum of the powers of the thermal noise and 
interference (N + I) at the receiver. The received carrier power of 
microwave signals, such as DBS signals, is reduced by precipitation in 
the path between the DBS satellite and the subscriber's receiver. (If 
the interfering signal seen by a DBS receiver is from another DBS 
satellite, the power of the interfering signal will probably be reduced 
as well, but most likely by a different amount than the power of the 
desired signal.) The thermal noise seen by the receiver is also 
increased by precipitation. The resulting reduction in C/N ratio in the 
presence of precipitation is commonly known as a ``rain fade.'' The 
intensity of the rain in the path between the satellite and the 
subscriber's receiver is the determining factor in how much the C/N 
ratio will be reduced. Therefore, the precipitation statistics at each 
specific DBS receiver location will influence the average carrier-to-
noise-plus-interference ratio (C/(N+I)) experienced at that location, 
and hence the average unavailability at that location. The Commission 
took this into account in the NGSO-FSS/MVDDS Second R&O, in which it 
recognized that a single EPFD limit for all areas of the country was 
inappropriate, due to the differing precipitation-induced propagation 
degradations in different geographic regions. The Commission therefore 
adopted four different EPFD limits for four different geographic 
regions of the contiguous United States, based on the statistics 
describing the precipitation characteristics of these regions.
    22. Given the Commission's previous use of increase in 
unavailability as an indirect DBS metric, the Commission seeks comment 
on whether it could use a limit on the percentage of increase in 
unavailability in various cities distributed around the United States 
as the criterion for acceptability of the interference caused by 
reduced spacing satellites, as evaluated by the Commission. 
Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment as to whether it could use 
regional EPFD limits, similar to what the Commission established in the 
NGSO-FSS/MVDDS Second R&O. The Commission notes that it is not 
revisiting the unavailability criteria previously adopted as they 
pertain to MVDDS and NGSO-FSS systems.
    23. The Commission seeks comment on whether there is a single 
symmetric interference criterion that the Commission could use to make 
findings of acceptability of interference to existing DBS systems and, 
if there is, what that criterion should be. If such a criterion exists, 
the Commission seeks comment on what would be the appropriate 
calculation methodology to determine the value of this criterion for a 
particular coordination, and what would be the appropriate values for 
any parameters, such as antenna mispointing angle, antenna pattern 
mask, and DBS receiver threshold C/(N+I) level to existing DBS systems, 
that the Commission should use in its calculations.
    24. License Term: The Commission proposes to continue the ten year 
non-broadcast DBS license term, and we seek comment on this proposal. 
Licensees for Reduced Spacing DBS satellites will, of course, be 
subject to geographic service requirements imposed by 47 CFR 25.148(c) 
and public interest obligations imposed by 47 CFR 25.701.
    25. Effect of Reduced Spacing DBS Satellites on Multichannel Video 
Distribution and Data Service: The Commission proposes that MVDDS 
protection of DBS (and DBS protection of MVDDS) under Part 101.1440 
applies to less-than-nine-degree-spaced DBS satellites. The Commission 
requests comment on whether there is a need to revisit these rules as a 
result of authorization of additional U.S. services in the future at 
orbital locations that are not currently assigned to the United States 
in the Region 2 BSS plan. The Commission believes that all DBS service 
in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band should be subject to the same regulatory 
treatment.
    26. Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit Fixed Satellite Services: The 
Commission's rules apply footnote 5.487A of the International Radio 
Regulations to the frequency band 12.2-12.7 GHz in the U.S. domestic 
allocation. Thus, the Commission tentatively concludes that since it 
intends to treat reduced spacing DBS space stations the same as Region 
2 Plan DBS space stations, reduced spacing DBS satellites need not 
consider interference into NGSO/FSS systems, and NGSO/FSS systems must 
protect any non-nine-degree-spaced DBS satellite that is a part of the 
Region 2 Plan. The Commission requests comment on whether the 
Commission's rules are adequate to accommodate new DBS systems relative 
to NGSO/FSS sharing, and whether there is a need to revise its rules to 
account for non-nine-degree-spaced DBS satellites.
    27. Mobile DBS Receivers: The Commission concluded in the NGSO-FSS 
Order that it was not necessary to adopt any additional measures to 
protect DBS service to aircraft. (NGSO-FSS Ku-Band R&O & FNPRM, 16 FCC 
Rcd at 4173 ] 204). The Commission also notes that the original Region 
2 Plan was based on 1.0-meter-diameter subscriber antennas. The current 
ITU Radio Regulations require that the gain, beam width, co-polar 
radiation pattern, cross-polar radiation pattern, and antenna diameter 
in meters be supplied as part of the information filed in accordance 
with Appendix 4 of the ITU Radio Regulations for a new Region 2 Plan 
modification. In their filings requesting modifications to the Region 2 
Plan, DBS applicants and licensees have specified subscriber antenna 
diameters as small as 45 cm, but no smaller. Consequently, the smallest 
antenna diameter that must be considered in the international 
agreement-seeking process for U.S. Region 2 Plan modification requests 
is currently 45 cm. Thus, DBS receiving antennas smaller than 45 cm in 
diameter are not protected under the ITU Radio Regulations or the 
Commission's rules. The Commission requests comment on whether 
Commission rules can or should accommodate smaller antennas in order to 
facilitate DBS service to mobile receivers. If we rely on the ITU 
process for protection of mobile antennas, and decide not to adopt new 
rules for their protection, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
mobile antenna manufacturers' earth station licenses should be 
conditioned to require disclosure to customers that their mobile 
equipment is not protected from interference.
    28. Full-CONUS Spectrum Cap: As the Commission observed in 2002, 
DBS offers a strong competitive alternative to cable systems, and we 
have not found any competitive problems with allowing a DBS operator to 
operate in more than one full-CONUS orbital position. Indeed, allowing 
such operation may enable DBS operators to better compete with cable 
systems in the future. As recently as 2004, the Commission declined to 
adopt any eligibility restrictions based on spectrum usage for the 
three DBS licenses available in Auction No. 52. The Commission requests 
comment on whether a spectrum cap on the number of full-CONUS orbital 
locations that one satellite company can control is now necessary in 
light of the rule changes proposed in this NPRM.
    29. For the reasons discussed above, the Commission invites comment 
on revising the processing procedures for DBS applications. Parties 
opposing the proposed approaches should explain their reasons for 
opposition with

[[Page 56930]]

particularity, recommending alternatives or explaining in detail why 
they believe the proposed approaches are unnecessary. Interested 
parties are also invited to recommend alternative license processing 
procedures. Based on our experience with space station processing over 
the past several years with comparable first-come, first-served 
procedures, the Commission believes the proposed approaches will 
similarly expedite the provision of new DBS service to the public.

Ex Parte Presentations

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

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    31. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), (See 5 U.S.C. 
603. The RFA, see U.S.C. 601 et seq., has been amended by the Contract 
with America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 
(1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)) the Commission has prepared 
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification of the possible 
significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and 
actions considered in this NPRM. The text of the Certification is set 
forth in Appendix B. Written public comments are requested on this 
Certification. Comments must be identified as responses to the RFA 
Certification, and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the 
NPRM as provided in the caption, above. The Commission will send a copy 
of the NPRM, including the Certification, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    32. Paperwork Reduction Act. The NPRM contains proposed new and 
modified information collection(s). 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(s) contained in this NPRM, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency 
comments are due 60 days from 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 information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.''

Comment Filing Procedures

    33. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments in response 
to this NPRM no later than on or before 75 days after Federal Register 
publication. Reply comments to these comments may be filed no later 
than on or before 105 days after Federal Register publication. All 
pleadings are to reference IB Docket No. 06-160. Comments may be filed 
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by 
filing paper copies. Parties are strongly encouraged to file 
electronically. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 
Proceedings, 63 FR 24,121 (1998).
    34. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic 
file via the Internet to https://www.fcc/gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Parties 
should transmit one copy of their comments to the docket in the caption 
of this rulemaking. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters 
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, 
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit 
an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions 
for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov 
and should include the following words in the body of the message, 
``get form .'' A sample form and directions will 
be sent in reply.
    35. Parties choosing to file by paper must file an original and 
four copies of each filing in IB Docket No. 06-160. Filings can be sent 
by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue 
to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). If more 
than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this 
proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each 
additional docket or rulemaking number. The Commission's mail 
contractor, Vistronix, Inc. will receive hand-delivered or messenger-
delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing 
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be 
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be 
disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail 
(other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be 
sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal 
Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be 
addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings 
must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    36. Comments submitted on diskette should be on a 3.5-inch diskette 
formatted in an IBM-compatible format using Word for Windows or 
compatible software. The diskette should be clearly labeled with the 
commenter's name, proceeding (including the docket number, in this 
case, IB Docket No. 06-160), type of pleading (comment or reply 
comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on 
the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase: 
``Disk Copy--Not an Original.'' Each diskette should contain only one 
party's pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file.
    37. All parties must file one copy of each pleading electronically 
or by paper to each of the following: (1) The Commission's duplicating 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room 
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 488-5300, facsimile 
(202) 488-5563, or via e-mail at FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. (2) Arthur Lechtman, 
Attorney, Satellite Division, International Bureau, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20554; e-mail Arthur.Lechtman@fcc.gov. (3) Mark 
Young, Attorney, Satellite Division, International Bureau, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554; e-

[[Page 56931]]

mail Mark.Young@fcc.gov. (4) John Martin, Sr. Engineer, Satellite 
Division, International Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20554; e-mail John.Martin@fcc.gov. (5) Chip Fleming, Engineer, 
Satellite Division, International Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554; e-mail Chip.Flemming@fcc.gov. (5) JoAnn Lucanik, 
Associate Bureau Chief, Satellite Division, International Bureau, 445 
12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554; e-mail JoAnn.Lucanik@fcc.gov.
    38. Comments and reply comments and any other filed documents in 
this matter may be obtained from Best Copy and Printing, Inc., in 
person at 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, via 
telephone at (202) 488-5300, via facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via e-
mail at FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. The pleadings will be also available for 
public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554 and through the Commission's Electronic Filing 
System (ECFS) accessible on the Commission's World Wide Web site, 
www.fcc.gov.
    39. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise 
summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments 
and reply comments must also comply with Section 1.49 and all other 
applicable sections of the Commission's rules. All parties are 
encouraged to utilize a table of contents and to include the name of 
the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their 
submission. We also strongly encourage that parties track the 
organization set forth in this NPRM in order to facilitate our internal 
review process.
    40. Commenters who file information that they believe is 
proprietary may request confidential treatment pursuant to Section 
0.459 of the Commission's rules. Commenters should file both their 
original comments for which they request confidentiality and redacted 
comments, along with their request for confidential treatment. 
Commenters should not file proprietary information electronically. See 
Examination of Current Policy Concerning the Treatment of Confidential 
Information Submitted to the Commission, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 
24816 (1998), Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 20128 (1999). Even 
if the Commission grants confidential treatment, information that does 
not fall within a specific exemption pursuant to the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA) must be publicly disclosed pursuant to an 
appropriate request. See 47 CFR 0.461; 5 U.S.C. 552. We note that the 
Commission may grant requests for confidential treatment either 
conditionally or unconditionally.
    41. As such, we note that the Commission has the discretion to 
release information on public interest grounds that does fall within 
the scope of an FOIA exemption.

Further Information

    42. For further information regarding this proceeding, contact 
Arthur Lechtman, Attorney, Mark Young, Attorney, Chip Fleming, 
Engineer, or John Martin, Sr. Engineer, Satellite Division, 
International Bureau at (202) 418-0719. Information regarding this 
proceeding and others may also be found on the Commission's Web site at 
https://www.fcc.gov.

Ordering Clauses

    43. Accordingly, It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(j) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and 309(j), this 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    44. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center shall send a 
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the initial 
regulatory flexibility certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with Section 603(a) 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (1981).

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15951 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P