Proposal to Allocate Spectrum and Adopt Rules to License Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations in Certain Ku-band Frequencies Allocated to the Fixed-Satellite Service, 39357-39370 [E7-13718]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 18, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39357-39370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13718]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2 and 25

[IB Docket No. 07-101; FCC 07-86]


Proposal to Allocate Spectrum and Adopt Rules to License Vehicle-
Mounted Earth Stations in Certain Ku-band Frequencies Allocated to the 
Fixed-Satellite Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission seeks comment on whether 
to license Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations as an application of the 
Fixed-Satellite Service in the conventional and extended Ku-band 
frequencies. The Commission initiates this proceeding in response to a 
petition for rulemaking filed by General Dynamics SATCOM Technologies, 
Inc. General Dynamics asks the Commission to amend parts 2 and 25 of 
the rules to allocate spectrum for use with VMES in the FSS in the Ku-
band uplink at 14.0-14.5 GHz and Ku-band downlink at 11.7-12.2 GHz on a 
primary basis, and in the extended Ku-band downlink at 10.95-11.2 GHz 
and 11.45-11.7 GHz on a non-protected basis, and to adopt Ku-band VMES 
licensing and service rules modeled on the Commission's rules for Ku-
band Earth Stations on Vessels. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks 
comment on the proposed adoption of co-primary allocation for VMES 
applications in the conventional Ku-band frequencies, and also seeks 
comment on service rules for VMES, possibly modeled on the current ESV 
rules. The NPRM observes that some of the broader applications of VMES, 
involving use, by the general public, of ultra-small antennas on cars 
and trucks, raise additional technical questions with respect to 
compliance with the Commission's Ku-band interference avoidance 
requirements. The NPRM therefore seeks comment on whether the broad 
commercial use, by the general public, of ultra-small antennas on 
vehicles traversing throughout the United States raises the potential 
for harmful interference to other FSS licensees or Federal government 
space research service and radio astronomy service operations, and, if 
so, whether there are technical rules that the Commission could adopt 
to mitigate against such harms.

DATES: Comments are due on or before August 17, 2007 and reply comments 
are due on or before September 4, 2007. Public and agency comments on 
the

[[Page 39358]]

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 analysis are due September 17, 
2007.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 07-101, 
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: Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal 
Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to the Commission 
at 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. 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. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary at 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the Commission 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: Paul Locke, Policy Division, 
International Bureau at (202) 418-0765. 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. 07-101, FCC 07-86, 
adopted May 9, 2007 and released on May 15, 2007. The full text of the 
NPRM is available for public inspection and copying during regular 
business hours at the Commission's Reference Information Center, 
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. 
The document also may 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 C 
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 September 17, 2007. 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 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: Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations (VMES).
    Form No.: Not applicable.
    Type of Review: New Collection.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities.
    Number of Respondents: 15 respondents; 15 responses.
    Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours (average).
    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, third party 
disclosure requirement, and on occasion and one-time reporting 
requirements.
    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 240 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $15,000.
    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No.
    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission does not 
provide assurances of confidentiality to entities submitting their 
filings and applications. However, entities may request confidential 
treatment of their applications and filings under 47 CFR 0.459 of the 
Commission's rules. With regard to certifications filed pursuant to 
part 2 of the Commission's rules, parties receive minimal exemption 
from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
    Needs and Uses: The purpose of this new information collection is 
to address the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requirements proposed in 
the Commission's NPRM (FCC 07-86) to establish rules for the licensing 
of the VMES service. In the NPRM, the Commission proposes new 
information collection requirements applicable to potential VMES 
licensees. The Commission proposes that potential VMES operators submit 
applications (FCC Form 312) and exhibits thereto to the Commission to 
demonstrate that they comply with the Commission's legal and/or 
engineering rules. (Note: FCC Form 312 is approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget under OMB Control Number 3060-0678. There are 
additional and ongoing rulemakings that may require modification to FCC 
Form 312. Because the Commission intends to modify FCC Form 312 only 
after all the applicable rulemakings have been completed, there may be 
a period of time during which FCC Form 312 may not be altered to 
accommodate potential VMES applications. In the interim, potential VMES 
applicants would utilize FCC Form 312 and submit attachments providing 
the relevant information and certifications reflected any adopted 
rules). Additionally, the Commission proposes to apply data logging 
requirements, requiring network operators to maintain information on 
the satellites that each terminal uses, the operating frequencies and 
bandwidths used, the time of day, the location, and a point of contract 
within the United States with the authority and capability to mute the 
potential VMES transmitters. The potential VMES operator must maintain 
the information for a year and make it available to appropriate 
entities within 24 hours of request. The Commission also seeks comment 
on requiring an automatic transmitter identification systems (ATIS) for 
each satellite uplink transmission. Without the information collected 
through the Commission's

[[Page 39359]]

proposed VMES licensing procedures, it may not be feasible to identify 
sources of harmful interference and to ensure, if needed, that the 
interfering transmissions are ceased.

Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Background

    With the NPRM, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) 
seeks comment on whether to license VMES as an application of the FSS 
in the conventional and extended Ku-band frequencies.
    In its petition for rulemaking (Petition), General Dynamics asks 
the Commission to amend parts 2 and 25 of the rules to allocate 
spectrum for use with VMES in the FSS in the Ku-band uplink at 14.0-
14.5 GHz and Ku-band downlink at 11.7-12.2 GHz on a primary basis, and 
in the extended Ku-band downlink at 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz 
on a non-protected basis, and to adopt Ku-band VMES licensing and 
service rules modeled on the Commission's rules for Ku-band ESVs.
    As the Petition urges, the NPRM seeks comment on the proposed 
adoption of a co-primary allocation for VMES applications in the 
conventional Ku-band frequencies, and also seeks comment on service 
rules for VMES, possibly modeled on the current ESV rules. The NPRM 
discusses and seeks comment on rules and procedures to license VMES 
networks for operation only over GSO FSS satellites in the Ku-band.
    Earth stations on mobile land vehicles currently operate as Land 
Mobile Satellite Service (LMSS) applications, and not as FSS 
applications, in the conventional Ku-band. In the Ku-band uplinks, LMSS 
operates on a secondary, and not a primary, basis. A primary allocation 
for VMES would provide protection from interference to VMES terminals 
as well as give VMES equal status in coordinating emissions from VMES 
terminals with adjacent FSS systems, as if VMES terminals were FSS 
earth stations.
    Certain commenters on the Petition propose to promote VMES 
terminals that use smaller antennas and less accurate antenna pointing 
systems than those that General Dynamics currently uses for the VMES 
system it has been operating since November 2004 pursuant to special 
temporary authority and experimental authority. We have concerns that 
some classes of proposed VMES terminals would not operate compatibly in 
the Commission's Ku-band two-degree satellite spacing environment for 
the FSS. The NPRM seeks comment on how to differentiate compatible and 
non-compatible VMES terminals. In addition, we invite comment on 
whether we should treat applications that may not be able to meet the 
VMES requirements that we would adopt, but that otherwise might be able 
to engineer their systems to meet Ku-band FSS interference avoidance 
requirements, as applications for LMSS systems that might be licensed 
under the existing secondary LMSS allocation in the 14.0-14.5 GHz FSS 
uplink band and as non-conforming in the 11.7-12.2 GHz downlink band, 
with specific license conditions to protect FSS licensees and their 
customers from harmful interference.
    We also seek comment on licensing and service rules for VMES 
terminals if they are granted primary allocation status.

B. Allocation Issues

    In asking for comment on whether we should grant primary status to 
VMES, or classes of VMES, in the conventional Ku-band, we observe that 
VMES, like ESV, is a mobile system, but with significant differences. 
We seek comment on these differences in the context of evaluating 
whether VMES, or classes of VMES, can operate compatibly in the FSS 
two-degree spacing environment. The significant identified differences 
include:
    Antenna Size. The Petition suggests that, although General Dynamics 
proposes to provide VMES for U.S. military applications, there will be 
commercial applications for this technology. Commenters suggest that 
the Commission should develop rules that would permit large-scale 
deployment of mobile broadband systems to the public using ultra-small 
antennas. Both military and commercial VMES applications would use 
antennas smaller than those typically found on VSATs or ESVs. The 
original two-degree FSS VSAT interference rules were predicated on the 
use of antennas with a diameter of 1.2 meters or greater (i.e., 3.9 
feet or larger), operating from fixed locations. ESVs typically use 
antennas with a diameter on the order of 1.2 meters. General Dynamics 
currently is using antennas as small as 0.45 meters (17.7 inches) and 
supporters of the commercial applications of VMES are in favor of 
licensing even smaller antennas. The ultra-small antennas operating in 
a mobile environment envisioned for large-scale commercial deployment 
of VMES have a greater potential of causing interference to adjacent 
satellites than the antennas currently authorized for the band and 
would lack the interference rejection qualities of the larger antennas.
    Antenna Tracking Systems. ESV operators are required to use antenna 
systems that accurately track the wanted satellite as the ship moves, 
pitches and rolls. General Dynamics uses very precise, and very 
expensive, tracking systems for its military VMES antennas. Some 
proponents of commercial applications would lower the pointing accuracy 
requirements for VMES, resulting in lower-cost tracking systems and, 
potentially, increasing the level of interference to other FSS 
satellites.
    Ubiquity. ESVs are likely to be used only by relatively large 
vessels, capable of carrying the large ESV dishes, and are 
geographically limited to operating on waterways and in port. VMESs 
have been placed on vehicles capable of off-road travel and would have 
access to practically all of the United States.
    Tracking Accuracy. Because of the size of the vessels on which ESVs 
are mounted, ESVs undergo smaller accelerations than earth stations on 
mobile land vehicles, making it easier for the ESV antenna tracking 
system to track the wanted satellite. In fact, General Dynamics 
concedes that it is impossible to construct a VMES antenna tracking 
system that will meet the 0.2 degree antenna pointing requirement under 
all possible conditions.
    Quantity. If applications of VMES are permitted for use by the 
general public, the number of VMES terminals that potentially could be 
operated is significantly larger than the number of ESV systems.
    We seek comment on the relevance of these differences between VMESs 
and ESVs to the question of whether we should grant primary status for 
VMES as an application of the FSS. Additionally, we ask commenters to 
consider other factors, not listed, that may be relevant.
    We discuss each Ku-band separately.
    11.7-12.2 GHz Band. We seek comment on whether to establish a new 
non-Federal footnote for the 11.7-12.2 GHz downlink band to reflect 
that VMES terminals may operate with FSS space stations. Currently, in 
this band, there is no allocation in the U.S. Table of Frequency 
Allocations for the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS), including LMSS, and 
domestic downlink signals operate under ITU Radio Regulation 4.4 (non-
interference and non-protection) in the band.
    10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz Bands. We seek comment on whether 
VMES operations in these extended Ku-bands should be permitted on a 
non-protected basis with respect the Fixed Service (FS). The FS uses 
these bands

[[Page 39360]]

and ESV operators, for example, must accept interference from all 
current and future FS operations in the bands. Because VMES downlink 
operations would not interfere with current or future FS operations, 
and because VMESs would not receive protection from the FS in these 
bands, we would propose to make the determination that VMESs operating 
domestically in these bands would not be likely to interfere with or 
restrict other authorized operations in the bands.
    14.0-14.2 GHz Band. Space research services (SRS) are allocated to 
this band on a secondary basis. We recognize the importance of 
protecting these facilities from receiving harmful interference. We 
seek comment on the feasibility of allowing VMES operations within a 
125 kilometer protection zone around operational National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration (NASA) space research Tracking and Data Relay 
Satellite Systems (TDRSS) facilities. We propose, as a condition of the 
VMES license, to prohibit VMES operators from operating in the band 
within 125 kilometers of the two existing TDRSS sites. We solicit 
comment on whether we should allow VMES operators to coordinate their 
proposed operations to resolve any potential harmful interference 
concerns regarding SRS facilities. VMES operators would need to 
complete coordination prior to operating within 125 kilometers of the 
two existing TDRSS sites. Should NASA seek to provide similar 
protection to future TDRSS sites, the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA) should notify the Commission's 
International Bureau (Bureau) that a TDRSS site is nearing operational 
status. The Bureau then would issue a notice requiring all Ku-band VMES 
operators to cease operations in the band within 125 kilometers of the 
new site until they had coordinated with the new site. We solicit 
comment on which technical measures should be incorporated into VMES 
terminals to assist operators in meeting any coordination obligations. 
We seek comment on how the coordination process should work and whether 
VMES licensees should go directly to NASA or work through the 
Commission. We would expect the coordination to be conducted on an 
equal basis between NASA and the VMES operator, even though the SRS is 
a secondary allocation.
    14.2-14.4 GHz Band. We seek comment on whether to allow VMES 
operations to communicate with FSS space stations in the band. The band 
is an exclusive non-Federal band allocated on a primary basis to FSS 
for uplink operations and on a secondary basis to the MSS.
    14.4-14.5 GHz Band. We seek comment on the feasibility of 
coordination between VMES and Radio Astronomy Service (RAS) sites to 
preclude harmful interference to the RAS as observations are performed. 
Specifically, we seek comment on adopting license conditions that would 
require VMES licensees planning to travel in the vicinity of certain 
radio observatories to coordinate their proposed operations to resolve 
any potential interference concerns. We seek comment on how the 
coordination process would work and whether VMES licensees should go 
directly to the National Science Foundation (NSF) or work through the 
Commission. Additionally, we seek comment on technical measures to be 
incorporated into terminals to assist with coordination and ask whether 
unwanted emissions from VMES terminals need to be regulated to protect 
RAS stations.
    Proposed Footnotes to U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations. We 
propose to add the following footnotes to the U.S. Table of Frequency 
Allocations set out in 47 CFR 2.106:
    NGxxx In the bands 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz (space-to-
Earth), Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations (VMES) as regulated under 47 CFR 
part 25 may be authorized to communicate with space stations of the 
fixed-satellite service but must accept interference from stations of 
the fixed service operating in accordance with the Commission's Rules.
    NGyyy In the bands 11.7-12.2 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 14.0-14.5 GHz 
(Earth-to-space), Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations (VMES) as regulated 
under 47 CFR part 25 are an application of the fixed-satellite service 
and may be authorized to communicate with space stations of the fixed-
satellite service on a primary basis.
    We seek comment on the proposed footnotes.

C. Technical and Operational Issues

    ESV Rules as Possible Model for VMES. We seek comment on whether, 
given the significant differences between ESVs and VMES, the ESV rules, 
as applied to VMES, would provide sufficient protection to the FSS. We 
seek comment on applying 47 CFR 25.222 and related rules to VMES 
terminals communicating with FSS networks. The use of ultra-small 
antennas proposed by some commenters implies the use of FSS earth 
stations with broad beam widths and reduced side-lobe isolation that, 
in turn, raises the potential for increased interference power being 
received by other FSS satellites. We seek comment on whether VMES 
systems are sufficiently similar in operation to ESV systems to support 
adoption of the ESV rules to VMES without weakening the Commission's 
two-degree satellite spacing environment.
    We ask whether it is reasonable to structure service rules for VMES 
that use an EIRP-density envelope that is lower than that used for 
VSATs and ESVs. For example, would a rule requiring a one-dB reduction 
in the EIRP-density envelope, or a certification from adjacent 
satellite operators, be reasonable for VMES applications? Is there a 
reason to use a larger or smaller reduction than one db in EIRP-density 
to protect FSS neighboring satellites?
    Proposed Deviations from ESV Rules. We also seek comment on VMES 
service rules that certain commenters on the Petition suggest should 
deviate from the ESV model. For example, we ask if adopting a 
``fraction of the antenna beam width'' approach, proposed by some 
commenters, seems reasonable and, if so, how we should determine the 
fraction that would apply. Should adoption of this approach be limited 
to peak EIRP-densities from a single terminal or to the aggregate 
emissions from multiple, co-frequency terminals and, if so, what should 
that value be? We seek technical descriptions and typical link-budgets 
from commenters, to indicate the types of modulation and random access 
techniques, and the types and quality of services, that might be 
expected to be supplied by very low-gain, broad-beam antennas. We also 
seek technical comment on antenna technologies that would protect 
adjacent satellites without the need for stringent antenna pointing 
accuracies.
    In response to suggested revisions to the ESV power-density rules, 
as applied to VMES, to accommodate VMES networks using aggregate system 
power control, we seek comment on the desirability of adopting rules 
for variable data rates, and thus variable power-density, spread-
spectrum VMES systems. Should the Commission change the 10*log(N) rule, 
as applied to VMES? Commenters should address the specific changes to 
the rules that would be required to allow the efficient use of variable 
power-density spread-spectrum systems while still ensuring that the 
systems meet the EIRP-density envelope in the aggregate.
    We propose to await the results of an ongoing proceeding 
streamlining the part 25 rules rather than seek additional comment in 
this proceeding on the use of contention tables, as proposed by 
commenters.

[[Page 39361]]

    Data Logging Requirements. We seek comment on General Dynamics' 
proposal that we not apply the ESV data logging requirements to VMES. 
We seek comment on how, if at all, the use of VMES terminals in the Ku-
band might suggest a different approach from the data logging rule 
applied to ESV terminals in the Ku-bands.
    Threshold Antenna Size Downlink Protections. We seek comment on a 
commenter's proposal to amend 47 CFR 25.209 to set a threshold antenna 
size, in the 11.7-12.2 GHz downlink band, above which a VMES allocation 
would be primary and receive appropriate interference protection and 
below which it would be secondary and thus less protected. What would 
be an appropriate threshold size and how would this threshold 
requirement compare with the existing requirement in 47 CFR 25.209?
    Power Densities in Directions Other than the GSO Plane. We seek 
comment on adopting, for VMES antennas as we did for ESVs operating in 
the conventional Ku-band, a three-degree starting angle for the EIRP 
envelope in all directions other than along the Geo-stationary Orbit 
(GSO). We ask whether we should modify the current ESV non-GSO plane 
EIRP-density envelopes to accommodate small VMES antennas. We seek 
comment on the potential for interference to and from possible NGSO FSS 
systems as well as the possible trade-offs between relaxing off-axis 
EIRP-density limits in directions away from the GSO plane, and the 
types, sizes and costs of antenna technology under existing versus 
related power-density limits.
    Radiation Hazard Requirements. We ask commenters to describe what 
radiation hazards concerns may exist and what steps might be taken to 
resolve any potential concerns. We ask for comment on how exposure 
concerns and necessary rules for military applications, such as those 
proposed by General Dynamics, may differ from VMES use as a general 
commercial application. We seek comment on whether to require 
cautionary labeling for all VMES terminals and whether we should 
recommend professional installation for subscriber transceiver 
antennas.
    Equipment Certification. We would propose to certify VMES terminals 
pursuant to our part 2 rules to ensure that they comply with the 
technical rules adopted for the service. We seek comment on this and 
other procedures that commenters may consider warranted, asking 
commenters to explain why other procedures would serve the public 
interest better than certification.
    Limitations on the Use of VMES. We seek comment on our concern that 
the aggregation of emissions from ultra-small terminals may increase 
the risk of harmful interference to other FSS users, including adjacent 
satellites farther than six degrees from the target satellite. We seek 
comment on whether the use of ultra-small antennas potentially could 
expose FSS satellites farther away from the target satellite to the 
same or higher level of interference power than satellites directly 
adjacent to the target satellite and, if this scenario is likely, 
whether we should adopt rules designed to prevent such potential 
interference concerns. Should we propose an EIRP-density envelope that 
is different from the envelope for ESVs? Should a different EIRP 
envelope apply if VMES pointing restrictions are based on some fraction 
of the antenna beam width? Are there other methods by which we might 
ensure that VMES use of the 14.0-14.5 GHz band would not cause harmful 
interference to adjacent FSS satellites, including those farther than 
six degrees from the target satellite? For example, should we propose 
to limit the use of VMES only to commercial contracts for government 
uses? Finally, should the Commission apply an automatic transmitter 
identification system (ATIS) to VMES terminals? ATIS transmits encoded 
subcarrier messages that assist with identifying a source of 
interference. Which characteristics of the signal should be identified?
    Blanket Licensing. We would propose to require that an applicant 
provide a point of contact for maintaining information about the 
frequencies that each individual vehicle uses and then to issue a 
blanket authorization for an applicant's system of VMES terminals. In 
addition, we seek comment on whether to provide for the licensing of 
individual earth stations, using the same technical criteria applied to 
antennas in a blanket-licensed VMES network. We ask for comment on 
specific rule revisions and modifications to FCC Form 312 to 
accommodate applications for VMES systems.
    ALSAT Authority. We seek comment on whether we should authorize Ku-
band VMES operators to operate with any U.S.-license satellite and non-
U.S. satellites on the Permitted Space Station List using the 
parameters consistent with earth stations, or whether we instead should 
limit VMES access only to individual satellites. We would propose that 
ALSAT authority not be available to those VMES applicants that must 
coordinate with adjacent satellite operators, especially if the VMES 
terminals exceed the proposed off-axis EIRP-density requirements.
    License Terms. We seek comment on licensing VMES operations for a 
term of fifteen years, similar to the license terms for other licensed 
networks of earth stations.

Ex Parte Presentations

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

    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 the NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, Public Law No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due 
September 17, 2007. 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 No. 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.''
    A copy of any comments on the information collections contained 
herein should be submitted to Judy Boley Herman, Federal Communications 
Commission, Room 1-B441, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or 
via the Internet to Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov, and to Jasmeet

[[Page 39362]]

Seehra, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20503, via the Internet to Jasmeet--K.--
Seehra@omb.eop.gov, or via fax at 202-395-5167.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    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 Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules 
to Allocate Spectrum and Adopt Service Rules and Procedures to Govern 
the Use of Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations in Certain Frequency Bands 
Allocated to the Fixed Satellite Service, 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 88 of 
the 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

    In the NPRM the Commission makes proposals and seeks information on 
measures to provide a level of regulatory certainty to government, 
space research, radio astronomy, and fixed satellite service operators 
regarding operations of Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations (VMES). As 
discussed in greater detail below, the Commission seeks comment on 
rules and procedures to license VMES for operation in the Ku-band 
similar to the Commission's current licensing rules for Earth Stations 
on Vessels (ESVs) that operate in the Ku-band, with appropriate 
modifications. The record established in the proceeding will allow the 
Commission to determine the effect of authorizing VMES terminals and 
will facilitate the development of any future rules for VMES. Any 
future rules would be designed to support the deployment of VMES 
terminals to the benefit of the American public without adversely 
affecting the operation and continued growth of incumbent radio 
services. In this regard, the objective is to create a licensing 
program that ensures incumbent radio services protection against 
harmful interference.

B. Legal Basis

    The NPRM is adopted pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 
303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 303(y), and 308 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 
157(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 303(y), 308.

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

    The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 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 that: (1) Is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Below, we 
further describe and estimate the number of small entity licensees that 
may be affected by the adopted rules.
    Satellite Telecommunications. The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for Satellite Telecommunications Carriers. This 
category ``comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing 
point-to-point telecommunications services to other establishments in 
the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and 
receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or 
reselling satellite telecommunications.'' According to Census Bureau 
data for 2002, there were 371 firms in the category that operated for 
the entire year. Of this total, 307 firms had annual receipts of under 
$10 million, 26 firms had annual receipts of $10 million to 
$24,999,990, and 38 firms had annual receipts of $25 million or more. 
Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered 
small.
    A second category for international service providers, called 
``Other Telecommunications,'' ``comprises establishments primarily 
engaged in (1) providing specialized telecommunications applications, 
such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station 
operations; or (2) providing satellite terminal stations and associated 
facilities operationally connected with one or more terrestrial 
communications systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications 
to or receiving telecommunications from satellite systems.'' For this 
category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 
332 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 303 firms 
had annual receipts of under $10 million, 15 firms had annual receipts 
of $10 million to $24,999,999, and 14 firms had annual receipts of $25 
million or more. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Other 
Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by 
our action.
    Space Stations (Geostationary). Commission records reveal that 
there are approximately 15 space station licensees authorized for use 
in the Ku-band. We do not request nor collect annual revenue 
information, and thus are unable to estimate of the number of 
geostationary space stations that would constitute a small business 
under the SBA definition cited above, or apply any rules providing 
special consideration for Space Station (Geostationary) licensees that 
are small businesses.
    Fixed Satellite Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. Currently there 
are approximately 2,532 operational fixed-satellite transmit/receive 
earth stations authorized for use in the Ku-band. The Commission does 
not request or collect annual revenue information, and thus is unable 
to estimate the number of earth stations that would constitute a small 
business under the SBA definition.
    Cellular Licensees. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic census 
categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications.'' Under both categories, the SBA deems a wireless 
business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census 
category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 
807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three 
firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this 
category and associated small business size standard, the majority of 
firms can be considered small. For the census category of Cellular and 
Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show 
that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the 
entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer 
employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. 
Thus, under this second category

[[Page 39363]]

and size standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered 
small.

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

    The NPRM seeks comment on whether to expand the applicability of 
the current ESV rules to VMES. The proposed VMES rules, if adopted, 
would require satellite telecommunications operators to establish a 
database for tracking the location of VMES remote earth stations. This 
database would assist investigations of interference claims. The NPRM 
seeks comment on this proposal, including the effectiveness and utility 
of the proposal, and seeks comment regarding possible alternatives. The 
proposed rules, if adopted, also would require VMES operators to name a 
point of contact to maintain information about location and frequencies 
used by VMES terminals. Such information would assist in investigating 
interference claims. The Commission does not expect significant costs 
associated with these proposals, if adopted. Therefore, we do not 
anticipate that the burden of compliance would be greater for smaller 
entities.
    The NPRM seeks comment on possible methods for coordinating VMES 
operations with space research service and radio astronomy operations.

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

    The RFA requires that, to the extent consistent with the objectives 
of applicable statutes, the analysis shall discuss significant 
alternatives such as: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or 
reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the 
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, 
consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting 
requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of 
performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from 
coverage or the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
    This NPRM solicits comment on alternatives for more efficient 
processing of VMES applications and simplification of VMES procedures, 
for example, by migrating from non-conforming use licensing to a 
licensing method that would provide for licenses with terms of fifteen 
years. The NPRM also seeks comment on streamlining the application 
process for VMES operations by permitting blanket licensing of multiple 
VMES terminals in a single application, as an alternative to requiring 
all VMES terminals to be licensed individually. Adoption of some of 
these proposals would simplify the application process for VMES and 
establish licensing terms consistent with other satellite-based 
services, such as ESV. Thus, adoption of the proposed rules should 
reduce the costs associated with obtaining and maintaining authority to 
operate a VMES network.

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

    None.

Comment Filing Procedures

    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  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 August 17, 2007. Reply comments 
to these comments may be filed no later than on or before September 4, 
2007. All pleadings are to reference IB Docket No. 07-101. 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 24121, May 1, 1998.
    Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file 
via the Internet to https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. 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.
    Parties choosing to file by paper must file an original and four 
copies of each filing in IB Docket No. 07-101. Filings can be sent by 
hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class 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.
    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. 07-101), 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.
    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) Howard Griboff, 
International Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, e-
mail Howard.Griboff@fcc.gov; (3) Paul Locke, International Bureau, 445 
12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, e-mail Paul.Locke@fcc.gov; (4) 
Kathleen Collins, International Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554, e-mail Kathleen.Collins@fcc.gov.
    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 also will be 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 ECFS,

[[Page 39364]]

accessible on the Commission's World Wide Web site, https://www.fcc.gov.
    Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise 
summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments 
and reply comments also must comply with Sec.  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.
    Commenters who file information that they believe is proprietary 
may request confidential treatment pursuant to Sec.  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, FCC 99-262, 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. 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.
    Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 
303(r), 303(y), and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 
303(r), 303(y), 308, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    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 analysis, 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).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 2 and 25

    Telecommunications, Satellites.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 2 and 25 to 
read as follows:

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

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

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

    2. Amend Sec.  2.106 as follows:
    a. Revise pages 45, 46 and 47 of the Table.
    b. In the list of Non-Federal Government footnotes, add footnotes 
NGxxx and NGyyy in numerical order.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  2.106  Table of Frequency Allocations.

* * * * *
BILLING CODE 6212-01-P

[[Page 39365]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY07.000


[[Page 39366]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY07.001


[[Page 39367]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18JY07.002

BILLING CODE 6712-01-C

[[Page 39368]]

* * * * *

NON-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (NG) FOOTNOTES

* * * * *
    NGxxx In the bands 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz (space-to-
Earth), Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations (VMES) as regulated under 47 
CFR part 25 may be authorized to communicate with space stations of 
the fixed-satellite service but must accept interference from 
stations of the fixed service operating in accordance with the 
Commission's rules.
    NGyyy In the bands 11.7-12.2 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 14.0-14.5 
GHz (Earth-to-space), Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations (VMES) as 
regulated under 47 CFR part 25 are an application of the fixed-
satellite service and may be authorized to communicate with space 
stations of the fixed-satellite service on a primary basis.
* * * * *

PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

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

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

    4. Amend Sec.  25.115 by revising paragraph (a)(2)(iii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  25.115  Application for earth station authorizations.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) The earth station is not an ESV or a VMES.
* * * * *
    5. Amend Sec.  25.130 by revising the introductory text of 
paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.130  Filing requirements for transmitting earth stations.

    (a) Applications for a new or modified transmitting earth station 
facility shall be submitted on FCC Form 312, and associated Schedule B, 
accompanied by any required exhibits, except for those earth station 
applications filed on FCC Form 312EZ pursuant to Sec.  25.115(a). All 
such earth station license applications must be filed electronically 
through the International Bureau Filing System (IBFS) in accordance 
with the applicable provisions of part 1, subpart Y of this chapter. 
Additional filing requirements for Earth Stations on Vessels are 
described in Sec. Sec.  25.221 and 25.222 of this part. Additional 
filing requirements for Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations are described in 
Sec.  25.XXX of this part. In addition, applicants not required to 
submit applications on Form 312EZ, other than ESV or VMES applicants, 
must submit the following information to be used as an ``informative'' 
in the public notice issued under Sec.  25.151 as an attachment to 
their application:
* * * * *
    6. Amend Sec.  25.132 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  25.132  Verification of earth station antenna performance 
standards.

    (b) * * *
    (3) Applicants seeking authority to use an antenna that does not 
meet the standards set forth in Sec.  25.209(a) and (b), pursuant to 
the procedure set forth in Sec.  25.220 or subject to rules in Sec.  
25.XXX, are required to submit a copy of the manufacturer's range test 
plots of the antenna gain patterns specified in paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    7. Amend Sec.  25.201 by adding the definition of ``Vehicle-Mounted 
Earth Station (VMES)'' to read as follows:


Sec.  25.201  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Vehicle-Mounted Earth Station (VMES). A VMES is an earth station, 
operating from a motorized vehicle that travels primarily on land, that 
receives from and transmits to fixed-satellite space stations and 
operates pursuant to the requirements set out in Sec.  25.XXX of this 
part.
    8. Amend Sec.  25.202 by adding paragraph (a)(9) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  25.202  Frequencies, frequency tolerance and emission 
limitations.

    (a) * * *
    (9) The following frequencies are available for use by Vehicle-
Mounted Earth Stations (VMESs):

10.95-11.2
    GHz (space-to-Earth)
11.45-11.7
    GHz (space-to-Earth)
11.7-12.2
    GHz (space-to-Earth)
14.0-14.5
    GHz (Earth-to-space)

    VMESs shall be authorized as set forth in Sec.  25.XXX of this 
chapter.
* * * * *
    9. Amend Sec.  25.203 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), the 
introductory text in paragraph (c) and paragraphs (d) and (k) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  25.203  Choice of sites and frequencies.

    (a) Sites and frequencies for earth stations, other than ESVs or 
VMESs, operating in frequency bands shared with equal rights between 
terrestrial and space services, shall be selected, to the extent 
practicable, in areas where the surrounding terrain and existing 
frequency usage are such as to minimize the possibility of harmful 
interference between the sharing services.
    (b) An applicant for an earth station authorization, other than an 
ESV or a VMES, in a frequency band shared with equal rights with 
terrestrial microwave services shall compute the great circle 
coordination distance contour(s) for the proposed station in accordance 
with the procedures set forth in Sec.  25.251. The applicant shall 
submit with the application a map or maps drawn to appropriate scale 
and in a form suitable for reproduction indicating the location of the 
proposed station and these contours. These maps, together with the 
pertinent data on which the computation of these contours is based, 
including all relevant transmitting and/or receiving parameters of the 
proposed station that are necessary to assess the likelihood of 
interference, an appropriately scaled plot of the elevation of the 
local horizon as a function of azimuth, and the electrical 
characteristics of the earth station antenna(s), shall be submitted by 
the applicant in a single exhibit to the application. The coordination 
distance contour plot(s), horizon elevation plot, and antenna horizon 
gain plot(s) required by this section may also be submitted in tabular 
numerical format at 5[deg] azimuthal increments instead of graphical 
format. At a minimum, this exhibit shall include the information listed 
in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. An earth station applicant shall 
also include in the application relevant technical details (both 
theoretical calculations and/or actual measurements) of any special 
techniques, such as the use of artificial site shielding, or operating 
procedures or restrictions at the proposed earth station which are to 
be employed to reduce the likelihood of interference, or of any 
particular characteristics of the earth station site which could have 
an effect on the calculation of the coordination distance.
    (c) Prior to the filing of its application, an applicant for 
operation of an earth station, other than an ESV or a VMES, shall 
coordinate the proposed frequency usage with existing terrestrial users 
and with applicants for terrestrial station authorizations with 
previously filed applications in accordance with the following 
procedure:
* * * * *
    (d) An applicant for operation of an earth station, other than an 
ESV or a VMES, shall also ascertain whether the great circle 
coordination distance contours and rain scatter coordination

[[Page 39369]]

distance contours, computed for those values of parameters indicated in 
Sec.  25.251 (Appendix 7 of the ITU RR) for international coordination, 
cross the boundaries of another Administration. In this case, the 
applicant shall furnish the Commission copies of these contours on maps 
drawn to appropriate scale for use by the Commission in effecting 
coordination of the proposed earth station with the Administration(s) 
affected.
* * * * *
    (k) An applicant for operation of an earth station, other than an 
ESV or a VMES, that will operate with a geostationary satellite or non-
geostationary satellite in a shared frequency band in which the non-
geostationary system is (or is proposed to be) licensed for feeder 
links, shall demonstrate in its applications that its proposed earth 
station will not cause unacceptable interference to any other satellite 
network that is authorized to operate in the same frequency band, or 
certify that the operations of its earth station shall conform to 
established coordination agreements between the operator(s) of the 
space station(s) with which the earth station is to communicate and the 
operator(s) of any other space station licensed to use the band.
    10. Amend Sec.  25.204 by revising the introductory text for 
paragraph (a) and by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.204  Power limits.

    (a) In bands shared coequally with terrestrial radio communication 
services, the equivalent isotropically radiated power transmitted in 
any direction towards the horizon by an earth station, other than an 
ESV or a VMES, operating in frequency bands between 1 and 15 GHz, shall 
not exceed the following limits except as provided for in paragraph (c) 
of this section:
* * * * *
    (j) Within 125 km of the Tracking and Data Relay System Satellite 
(TDRSS) sites identified in Sec.  25.XXX(a)(11) of this chapter, VMES 
transmissions in the 14.0-14.2 GHz (Earth-to-space) band shall not 
exceed an EIRP spectral density towards the horizon of 12.5 dBW/MHz, 
and shall not exceed an EIRP towards the horizon of 16.3 dBW.
    11. Amend Sec.  25.205 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.205  Minimum angle of antenna elevation.

* * * * *
    (c) VMESs making a special showing requesting angles of elevation 
less than 5[deg] measured from the horizontal plane to the direction of 
maximum radiation pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must still 
meet the EIRP and EIRP density towards the horizon limits contained in 
Sec.  25.204(j) of this chapter.
    12. Section 25.XXX is added to read as follows:


Sec.  25.XXX  Blanket Licensing provisions for Vehicle-Mounted Earth 
Stations (VMESs) receiving in the 10.95-11.2 GHz (space-to-Earth), 
11.45-11.7 GHz (space-to-Earth), 11.7-12.2 GHz (space-to-Earth) 
frequency bands and transmitting in the 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space) 
frequency band, operating with Geostationary Satellites in the Fixed-
Satellite Service.

    (a) All applications for licenses for VMESs receiving in the 10.95-
11.2 GHz (space-to-Earth), 11.45-11.7 GHz (space-to-Earth), and 11.7-
12.2 GHz (space-to-Earth) frequency bands, and transmitting in the 
14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space) frequency band, to geostationary 
satellites in the fixed-satellite service shall provide sufficient data 
to demonstrate that the VMES operations meet the following criteria, 
which are ongoing requirements that govern all VMES licensees and 
operations in these bands:
    (1) The off-axis EIRP spectral density for co-polarized signals, 
emitted from the VMES in the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit 
as it appears at the particular earth station location (i.e., the plane 
determined by the focal point of the antenna and the line tangent to 
the arc of the geostationary satellite orbit at the position of the 
target satellite), shall not exceed the following values:

15-25log([thetas]) - 10*log(N) dBW/4kHz for 1.25[deg] <= [thetas] <= 
7.0[deg]
-6 - 10*log(N) dBW/4kHz for 7.0[deg] < [thetas] <= 9.2[deg]
18-25log([thetas]) - 10*log(N) dBW/4kHz for 9.2[deg] < [thetas] <= 
48[deg]
-24 - 10*log(N) dBW/4kHz for 48[deg] < [thetas] <= 180[deg]


where ([thetas]) is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main 
lobe. For a VMES network using frequency division multiple access 
(FDMA) or time division multiple access (TDMA) technique, N is equal to 
one. For a VMES network using code division multiple access (CDMA) 
technique, N is the maximum number of co-frequency simultaneously 
transmitting earth stations in the same satellite receiving beam.

    (2) In all other directions, the off-axis EIRP spectral density for 
co-polarized signals emitted from the VMES shall not exceed the 
following values:

18 - 25log([thetas]) - 10*log(N) dBW/4kHz for 1.25[deg] <= [thetas] <= 
48.0[deg]
-24-10*log(N) dBW/4kHz for 48.0[deg] < [thetas] <= 180[deg]


where [thetas] and N are defined as set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section.

    (3) For [thetas] >7.0[deg], the values given in paragraphs (a)(1) 
of this Section may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes, 
provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the criteria given by more than 
3 dB.
    (4) In all directions, the off-axis EIRP spectral density for 
cross-polarized signals emitted from the VMES shall not exceed the 
following values:

5 - 25log([thetas]) - 10*log(N) dBW/4kHz for 1.8[deg] <= [thetas] <= 
7.0[deg]
-16 - 10*log(N) dBW/4kHz for 7.0[deg] < [thetas] <= 9.2[deg]


where ([thetas]) and N are defined as set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section.

    (5) For non-circular VMES antennas, the major axis of the antenna 
will be aligned with the tangent to the geostationary satellite orbital 
arc at the target satellite point, to the extent required to meet 
specified off-axis EIRP criteria.
    (6) A pointing error of less than 0.2[deg], between the orbital 
location of the target satellite and the axis of the main lobe of the 
VMES antenna.
    (7) All emissions from the VMES shall automatically cease within 
100 milliseconds if the angle between the orbital location of the 
target satellite and the axis of the main lobe of the VMES antenna 
exceeds 0.5[deg], and transmission will not resume until such angle is 
less than 0.2[deg].
    (8) There shall be a point of contact in the United States, with 
phone number and address included with the application, available 24 
hours a day, 7 days a week, with authority and ability to cease all 
emissions from the VMES.
    (9) A VMES that exceeds the radiation guidelines of section 1.1310 
of this chapter, Radiofrequency radiation exposure limits, must 
provide, with its environmental assessment, a plan for mitigation of 
radiation exposure to the extent required to meet those guidelines.
    (10) A VMES receiving in the 10.95-11.2 GHz (space-to-Earth), 
11.45-11.7 GHz (space-to-Earth), 11.7-12.2 GHz (space-to-Earth) 
frequency bands, and transmitting in the 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space) 
frequency band shall operate with the following provisions:
    (i) For each VMES transmitter a record of the vehicle location 
(i.e., latitude/longitude), transmit frequency, channel bandwidth, and 
satellite used shall be time annotated and maintained for a period of 
not less than one year. Records