**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | IB Docket No. 05-20          |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Service Rules and Procedures to  | ) |                              |
| Govern the Use of Aeronautical   | * |                              |
| Mobile Satellite Service Earth   | * |                              |
| Stations in Frequency Bands      |   |                              |
| Allocated to the Fixed Satellite | * |                              |
| Service                          | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING**

**Adopted: January 18, 2005 Released: February 9, 2005**

Comment Date: 75 days after Federal Register publication

Reply Comment Date: 105 days after Federal Register publication

By the Commission:

Table of Contents

Heading Paragraph \#

I. introduction 1

II\. Background 5

A. Current AMSS Use 5

B. Petition for Rulemaking 7

III\. DISCUSSION 10

A. Basis For AMSS Operations and U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations
Issues 12

1\. Ku-Band 13

a\. 10.95-11.2 GHz & 11.45-12.2 GHz Bands 13

\(i\) 11.7-12.2 GHz Band 14

\(i\) 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz Bands 18

b\. 14.0-14.5 GHz Band 19

\(i\) 14.0-14.2 GHz Band 21

\(ii\) 14.2-14.4 GHz Band 26

\(iii\) 14.4-14.5 GHz Band 27

c\. Proposed Footnotes 31

B. Technical and Operational Requirements for AES of AMSS networks in
the band 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space) 34

1\. Essential Requirements Related to the Protection of Adjacent
Satellite Operators 34

a\. Off-Axis e.i.r.p. Density Limits and Associated Conditions 34

b\. Antenna Pointing Accuracy 41

c\. Additional Requirements 42

2\. Essential Requirements Related to the Protection of the Fixed
Service 45

C. AES Licensing Considerations 47

D. Tracking AES Terminals 54

E. Regulation of AMSS Operations Based on Aircraft Country of Registry
56

1\. U.S.-Registered Aircraft 57

2\. Non-U.S.-Registered Aircraft Using U.S.-Operated AMSS Systems in
U.S. Airspace 60

3\. Non-U.S.-Registered Aircraft Using Foreign-Based and
Foreign-Licensed AMSS Systems 65

IV\. Conclusion 68

V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 69

A. Ex Parte Presentations 69

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 70

C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 71

D. Comment Filing Procedures 73

E. Further Information 81

VI\. ORDERING CLAUSES 82

Appendix A: Petition for Rulemaking Commenters

Appendix B: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Appendix C: ITU Recommendation ITU-R M.1643

# introduction

1.  In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (*Notice* or NPRM), we make
    proposals and seek comment on a regulatory framework for licensing
    the operation of Aeronautical Mobile Satellite Service (AMSS)[^1]
    systems to communicate with fixed-satellite service (FSS) networks
    in the Ku-Band[^2] frequencies. Aircraft Earth stations (AES)[^3] in
    the AMSS can be used to provide broadband telecommunications
    services on passenger, government, and executive/private aircraft.
    Our goal is to promote more efficient use of the spectrum while
    protecting and providing regulatory certainty to the existing
    primary allocations, including the fixed satellite service (FSS)
    operators, and sharing spectrum with other secondary operations in
    these frequency bands, including government space research (SRS)
    stations. Our proposals would enable important new communications
    services to be provided to crew and consumers on board aircraft.
    They would also protect existing terrestrial FS and FSS operations
    from harmful interference from AMSS stations and allow for future
    growth of FS and FSS networks. With regard to the secondary
    government space research stations and radio astronomy operations in
    parts of the Ku-Band, our proposals would provide protection to
    existing and accommodate future stations of these national assets.
    Our proposals also seek to establish a regulatory scheme that could
    enable foreign-licensed AES terminals to operate in the United
    States airspace without causing harmful interference to domestic
    operations.

2.  This Notice continues our efforts to meet the growing demand for
    two-way broadband data and communications capabilities for
    commercial aircraft passengers and crew. The 2003 World
    Radiocommunications Conference (WRC-03) added a worldwide secondary
    AMSS allocation in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band.[^4] In 2003, the
    Commission conformed the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations ("U.S.
    Table" or "Table") to this international allocation, finding it
    desirable because it will facilitate an important new use of the
    14.0-14.5 GHz band.[^5] Examining alternative approaches for
    licensing AMSS in the Ku-band also advances the Commission's goals
    and objectives for market-driven deployment of broadband
    technologies and efficient spectrum usage. Broadband technologies,
    which encompass all evolving high-speed digital technologies that
    provide consumers integrated access to e-mail, voice, high-speed
    data, video-on-demand, and interactive delivery services, are a
    fundamental component of modern communications.[^6] Fully evolved
    digital broadband will virtually eliminate geographic distance as an
    obstacle to acquiring information, and dramatically reduce the time
    it takes to access information. Consumers benefit as broadband
    technologies are developed and deployed.[^7] AMSS potentially offers
    consumers the benefits of broadband services while traveling by air,
    both domestically and internationally.[^8] Such service might be
    particularly attractive to passengers on long-haul flights. AMSS
    provides a means for passengers to access high-speed Internet and
    interactive entertainment, while broadband capability for crews
    could "enhance aircraft operations through real-time equipment and
    supply information, weather updates, \[and\] security
    monitoring."[^9] This *Notice* responds to an emerging marketplace
    need by potentially permitting more flexible use of the Ku-band
    while protecting existing services from harmful interference.[^10]

3.  In this *Notice,* we seek comment on methods for authorizing and
    licensing AMSS stations that are consistent with the WRC-03 outcome
    and that would also help ensure that AMSS operations would not cause
    harmful interference to terrestrial and satellite operations. First,
    we examine frequency allocation issues in the Ku-band, where AMSS
    will operate. Next, we discuss and seek comment on rules and
    procedures to license AMSS networks that consist of hub earth
    stations and/or aircraft earth stations (AESs) for operation over
    geostationary satellite orbit (GSO) FSS satellites in the Ku-band.
    The AMSS licensing procedure that we propose for the Ku-band would
    permit blanket licensing of an AMSS network similar to the licensing
    rules for very small aperture terminals (VSATs) that currently
    operate in the Ku-band.

4.  This *Notice* seeks comment on licensing procedures for AMSS with a
    goal of maximizing the efficient use of Ku-band spectrum, and
    respecting the operational and protection expectations of incumbent
    licensees. Our proposals are designed to encourage AES terminals to
    utilize the Ku-band to the maximum extent possible. The Notice also
    seeks comments on licensing methods for AES terminals that will
    minimize the burdens upon applicants and licensees, while
    maintaining operational limitations necessary to avoid harmful
    interference. Finally, the *Notice* seeks comment on procedures to
    protect both space research service and radio astronomy service
    sites from AMSS operations in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band.[^11]

# Background

## Current AMSS Use

In December 2000, the Boeing Company ("Boeing") filed an application for
blanket authority to operate up to 800 transmit and receive earth
stations aboard aircraft in the Ku-band (using the 12 GHz band for
space-to-Earth transmissions and the 14 GHz band for Earth-to-space
transmissions).[^12] In April 2001, the International Bureau and the
Office of Engineering and Technology granted a waiver to Boeing so that
it could operate up to 800 receive-only mobile earth stations aboard
aircraft in the 12 GHz band.[^13] In December 2001, that waiver grant
was expanded to include the operation of two-way mobile earth stations
(in a phased array antenna design) aboard aircraft in the 14.0-14.5 GHz
band (uplink) and the 11.7-12.2 GHz (downlink) band.[^14] Boeing was
initially authorized to communicate with the Telstar 6 satellite at 93º
W.L., and later received authority to communicate with the Americom 4
satellite at 101º W.L. as well.[^15] Under its current authorization,
Boeing is not permitted to cause harmful interference to other allocated
services in the 11.7-12.2 GHz and 14-14.5 GHz frequency bands, and must
accept all interference from authorized users of these bands.[^16]
According to its authorization, Boeing is permitted to operate AES
terminals on board U.S.-registered aircraft traveling through United
States airspace,[^17] including airspace over United States territorial
waters.[^18] In 2003, the Commission authorized a number of changes to
the Boeing's non-conforming use license, including authority for
reflector antenna AES terminals in place of the initially licensed
phased array antennas.[^19] In 2004, Connexion by Boeing launched its
satellite-based broadband in-flight Internet, data, and entertainment
service on international flights.[^20] Each plane equipped with the
Connexion service offers either an Ethernet Local Area Network (LAN)
connection or a wireless 802.11b network connection, or both.[^21] The
company has entered into agreements with numerous carriers[^22] and
expects to generate service revenues of \$500,000 per airplane per year
and annual revenues of \$2 billion.[^23] The Boeing service currently is
available in the United States on government aircraft and executive jet
platforms the size of a Boeing 737 and larger, including Airbus
aircraft.[^24] While Boeing's Connexion commercial service is currently
available only on foreign airlines such as Lufthansa, Boeing has
approached a number of U.S. airlines regarding installation of the
Connexion service on their U.S.-registered aircraft.[^25]

Aeronautical Radio Inc. ("ARINC") has filed an application seeking
authority to offer, on a non-interference basis, a service similar to
Boeing's Connexion.[^26] While this application remains pending before
the Commission, ARINC has begun testing its Ku-band AMSS system pursuant
to a grant of experimental authority.[^27] ARINC says that its SKYLink
service can offer aircraft passengers uplink speeds between 512 kbps and
3 Mbps and downlink speeds up to 128 kbps.[^28]

## Petition for Rulemaking

On July 21, 2003, Boeing filed a Petition for Rulemaking, requesting
that the Commission amend its rules to allocate AMSS in the 14.0-14.5
GHz band on a secondary basis and to adopt licensing and service rules
for AMSS in the Ku-band.[^29] Boeing generally supports Recommendation
ITU-R M.1643, the ITU's recommended technical and operational
requirements for AES terminals operating satellite uplinks in the
14.0-14.5 GHz band.[^30] For example, Boeing recommends that to protect
adjacent FSS networks in the Ku-band, the Commission should "ensure that
the aggregate e.i.r.p. \[effective isotropically radiated power\]
spectral density of all co-frequency AES transmissions will not exceed
the levels generated by a routinely authorized VSAT under Section
25.134(a)(1) of the Rules. . . ."[^31] Boeing also proposes that AMSS
earth stations be subject to blanket licensing because AMSS systems
"will employ large numbers of AES terminals operating on aircraft all
over the world."[^32] On October 2, 2003, the Commission released a
public notice seeking comment on the Boeing Petition.[^33]

The Commission received three comments and five reply comments,
representing seven different parties, regarding the Boeing
Petition.[^34] The commenters generally supported the Boeing Petition,
although PanAmSat Corporation objected to Boeing's proposals that AMSS
license applications be subject to routine processing and that the
Commission adopt a fixed effective isotropically radiated power
("e.i.r.p" or EIRP) density standard equivalent to that of VSAT power
levels.[^35] The portion of the Boeing Petition regarding a domestic
secondary allocation for AMSS is now moot since the Commission has
already made such an allocation.[^36] The remainder of the issues raised
in the petition are addressed in the relevant portions of the Discussion
section below.

We recognize that AMSS operations on-board moving aircraft in the FSS
spectrum present novel challenges to AMSS operators. The record
established in this proceeding will allow the Commission to determine
the effect of authorizing AES terminals and will facilitate the
development of any future rules. Thus, in an effort to generate
solutions to these novel challenges, throughout this proceeding we make
proposals about the status of AMSS operations, and then we follow our
proposals by seeking comment on alternatives to our proposals. Our goal
is to develop approaches for licensing AES terminals that would maximize
the efficient use of Ku-band spectrum while balancing the expectations
of incumbent operators to operate free from harmful interference and to
have growth potential in the bands.

#  DISCUSSION

5.  We seek comment on rules for allocation and procedures for licensing
    AES terminals in the AMSS. Authorizing secondary status AES
    terminals in the Ku-band presents the challenge of protecting
    adjacent, primary status FSS satellites from the AES's potential
    harmful interference. We intend that, if adopted, such a licensing
    program would support the deployment of AMSS networks to the benefit
    of the American public without adversely affecting the operation and
    continued growth of incumbent radio services. We also intend to
    create a licensing program that ensures incumbent radio services are
    protected against harmful interference. To that end, we seek comment
    from individual operators of incumbent radio services in the
    Ku-band, including both federal government and non-government users.
    We request comments on the proposals addressed in this *Notice*.
    Further, we encourage all commenters to address any other issues
    concerning AMSS operations in the Ku-band. The record established in
    this proceeding will allow the Commission to determine the impact of
    authorizing AMSS aircraft earth stations and will facilitate the
    development of any future rules. Establishing a licensing procedure
    for AMSS networks would advance our continuing effort to maximize
    the flexible use of the radiofrequency spectrum for earth station
    operations.[^37]

6.  Although the Commission adopted a secondary allocation for AMSS in
    the 14.0-14.5 GHz band in the *Above 28 MHz Order*, we propose to
    amend the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations with the addition of a
    footnote regarding protection of co-secondary services. In this
    *Notice*, we also propose modifications of Part 25 of our rules to
    permit licensing of AES terminals in the Ku-band. We agree with the
    Boeing Petition commenters who state that the current system of
    granting AMSS operators non-conforming use licenses, on a
    non-interference basis, places an unnecessary administrative burden
    on operators and on the Commission, and casts too much regulatory
    uncertainty over AMSS providers.[^38] We agree with Boeing and ARINC
    that non-conforming use licenses are not a long-term solution for
    addressing the licensing requirements of AMSS.[^39] As explained
    below, a licensing procedure with established technical and
    operational requirements for AMSS network operations would provide a
    stable regulatory environment for AMSS operators, aircraft
    operators, service providers, and FSS licensees. Establishing a
    licensing procedure would also allow us to implement, in part, the
    decisions of the WRC-03.

## Basis For AMSS Operations and U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations Issues

WRC-03 modified the International Table of Allocations to include a
secondary allocation for AMSS in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band.[^40] Following
this action, the Commission amended the U.S. Table of Frequency
Allocations ("U.S. Allocations Table") in Section 2.106 of the its Rules
to include a secondary allocation for AMSS in the 14-14.5 GHz band.[^41]
However, the Commission did not make an allocation for AMSS in the
11.7-12.2 GHz band, which is used for satellite downlinks to AES
terminals. We propose to adopt a footnote to the U.S. Table of Frequency
Allocations to address this issue.

### Ku-Band

#### Downlink: 10.95-11.2 GHz & 11.45-12.2 GHz Bands

The allocations and operating conditions for portions of the Ku-band
downlink spectrum will differ based on several factors, including the
fact that commercial and government operations currently operate in
portions of the Ku-downlink band. As such, we discuss each band
separately below.

##### 11.7-12.2 GHz

The 11.7-12.2 GHz band is allocated to the FSS for downlink operations
on a primary basis and is extensively used for VSAT downlink
operations.[^42] In the *ESV Report and Order*, we added a footnote to
the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations stating that earth stations on
board vessels (ESVs) are an application of the fixed-satellite service
in the 11.7-12.2 GHz (space to Earth) and 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth to space)
bands.[^43] In the *ESV Report and Order*, we also removed a secondary
footnote allocation for Government and non-government fixed systems, and
a secondary mobile (except aeronautical mobile) allocation in the
11.7-12.1 GHz band, under which the Local Television Transmission
Service (LTTS) was licensed.[^44] As of March 1, 2005, we will no longer
consider LTTS license applications for the 11.7-12.1 GHz band, though we
did "grandfather" pre-existing LTTS licensees to operate as a secondary
mobile service in the 11.7-12.1 GHz band with the understanding that
there will be no expectation of renewal.[^45]

We propose to establish a new non-Federal government footnote for the
11.7-12.2 GHz band to indicate that AES terminals in the AMSS may
operate with FSS space stations, so that parties are aware that mobile
receivers may be operating in the band. This footnote would implement
international footnote 5.504A, adopted at WRC-03. We believe our rules
should clearly reflect the various types of operations that use a
spectrum band. We also seek comment on whether AES terminals receiving
in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band should be secondary to the FSS or, if they can
maintain pointing accuracy toward geostationary satellite orbit (GSO)
satellites, we should treat AES terminals the same as if they were earth
stations in the FSS band (*i.e*., as primary and, therefore, be subject
to the receive antenna protection levels set forth in Section
25.209(c)[^46]).

The ITU-R recognized that the use of the 14.0-14.5 GHz band for AMSS on
a secondary basis was compatible with current FSS systems and was
supported by studies leading up to WRC-03. Studies within the ITU-R
assessed compatibility of the usage of the 11/12 GHz downlink band that
is associated with the 14 GHz uplink band, and found that these downlink
signals could co-exist with FSS systems. There is currently no domestic
AMSS downlink allocation; thus domestic downlink signals currently
operate under ITU Radio Regulation 4.4 in the 11/12 GHz band. [^47] We
tentatively conclude that matching the secondary AMSS uplink in the 14
GHz band with a secondary downlink allocation in the 11/12 GHz band
would aid in the acceptance and standardization of these applications
and we seek comment in this regard.

In the alternative, we seek comment on Boeing's argument that AMSS
operations in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band continue to be authorized on a
non-conforming use (*i.e.,* non-protected) basis.[^48] Boeing argues
that proposed AMSS operations use standard Ku-band FSS satellite
transponders to provide service, and thus "\[f\]rom an interference
perspective, there is no difference between an FSS transponder used for
FSS downlink operations and the same FSS transponder used for AMSS
downlink operations."[^49] Boeing also argues that AMSS downlinks can
operate effectively on an unprotected basis because "AES receivers must
be designed to tolerate the 'noise' generated by other operations in the
band."[^50] Boeing also contends that authorizing AMSS downlinks as a
non-conforming use provides AMSS systems with flexibility to operate in
different frequency bands in different administrations.[^51] We seek
comment on these arguments.

##### 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz

The frequency band 10.7-11.7 GHz is allocated internationally for FSS on
a primary basis. Within the United States, this band is referred to as
the "extended" Ku-band,[^52] and FSS use of this band is reserved for
international systems by footnote NG104.[^53] In the United States,
these bands are also used by the fixed service for LTTS, Microwave
Business, Microwave Public Safety, and Common Carrier Fixed
Point-to-Point.[^54] Boeing notes that Ku-band FSS downlinks are not
restricted to the 11.7-12.2 GHz outside the United States, causing
Boeing to design its AES terminals to receive "throughout the entire
10.7-12.75 GHz band to facilitate operations outside the United
States."[^55] Boeing suggests that "authorizing AMSS downlinks as a
non-conforming use throughout internationally allocated FSS downlink
spectrum" gives AMSS systems flexibility to operate globally and
simultaneously protect other authorized band users.[^56] We recognize
that AES terminals on U.S.-registered aircraft may need to access
foreign satellites while traveling outside of the United States (*e.g*.,
over international waters), and therefore may need to downlink in the
extended Ku-band in certain circumstances. [^57] Within the United
States, we do not anticipate that unprotected receive-only operations in
the extended Ku-band would interfere with or restrict other authorized
operations in the band. We seek comment whether AMSS operations in the
10.95-11.2 and 11.45-11.7 GHz bands should be permitted on a
non-protected basis.[^58] If not, we seek comment on alternative methods
for permitting use of the extended Ku-band frequencies for AMSS
downlinks.

#### 14.0-14.5 GHz Band

The U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations for the 14.0-14.5 GHz band
includes a primary allocation for non-federal government FSS uplink
operations.[^59] This band is heavily used by Very Small Aperture
Terminals ("VSATs") for uplinking to geostationary satellites.[^60]
These VSAT systems provide video and data communications and are widely
deployed at business locations, ranging from the largest corporate
headquarters to the smallest convenience stores. In 2001, the Commission
also permitted NGSO FSS gateway and user terminal uplinks to operate in
the 14.0-14.5 GHz band.[^61] The 14.0-14.5 band GHz is also allocated
for MSS, including aeronautical MSS, uplinks on a secondary basis for
non-Federal government use.[^62] This MSS allocation is presently used
by OmniTracs, a satellite-based land mobile communications and tracking
system that provides real-time messaging and position reporting between
fleets and their operations centers.[^63] As noted above, in the *ESV
Report and Order*, we added a footnote to the U.S. Table of Frequency
Allocations stating that earth stations on board vessels (ESVs) are an
application of the fixed-satellite service in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band
(for satellite uplinks).[^64]

With regard to these services that operate across the entire 14.0-14.5
GHz band, we propose applying the standard primary/secondary sharing
environment. We seek comment whether the co-secondary operations of AMSS
and other MSS present any protection issues, and if so, how we should
address them. We seek comment on whether ESV operations, operating on a
primary basis, present any issues for consideration in connection with
the authorization of AES terminals in the 14.0-14.5 GHz portion of the
Ku-band. We concluded in the *ESV Report and Order* that AMSS secondary
operations do not pose a concern for ESV primary operations.[^65]
Regarding normal FSS operations, we believe that following our
two-degree spacing policy will protect existing and future FSS
operations from harmful interference.[^66] Accordingly, we propose to
allow AES terminals to communicate with FSS space stations in the
14.0-14.5 GHz band on a secondary basis. We request comments on this
approach. It should be noted that there are no primary fixed service
allocations in any portion of the 14.0-14.5 GHz band. Below, we will
consider how AMSS will co-exist with the various operations in sub-bands
of the 14.0-14.5 band.

##### 14.0-14.2 GHz Band 

The 14.0-14.2 GHz portion of the Ku-band is allocated on a primary basis
in the United States to FSS for non-Federal government operations and to
radionavigation services for non-Federal government and Federal
government operations. In WT Docket No. 01-289, the Commission has
proposed to remove the radionavigation allocation from the 14.0-14.2 GHz
band because it is not significantly used and could potentially conflict
with various satellite operations in the band.[^67] Therefore, we do not
anticipate any interference conflicts between AES terminals and
radionavigation operations, especially if the Commission adopts its
proposal in WT Docket No. 01-289.

Space research services (for both Federal and non-Federal government
use) are allocated to the 14.0-14.2 GHz sub-band on a secondary
basis.[^68] The only currently authorized non-FSS facilities in this
portion of the Ku-band uplink are two National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) space research Tracking and Data Relay Satellite
System (TDRSS) receive facilities (located in Guam and White Sands, New
Mexico), which operate with frequency assignments in the 14.0-14.05 GHz
band.[^69] We note that the interference rejection filtering associated
with the existing TDRSS leaves them vulnerable to interference to
varying degrees. The White Sands facility, for example, has only minimal
interference rejection filtering across the entire 14.0-14.5 GHz band,
while the Guam facility is somewhat better protected above 14.2
GHz.[^70] We also note that NASA plans to establish another TDRSS
receive facility on the east coast of the United States within 2-3
years, with several mid-Atlantic region sites under consideration. We
would expect that any future NASA facilities operating in this band
would be equipped with state-of-the-art interference rejection
filtering.

We recognize the importance of protecting these space research
facilities from receiving harmful interference. In the case of airborne
transmitters which fly through the main beam or the near-in sidelobes of
the TDRSS ground terminal, saturation may occur to current TDRSS
receiver at frequencies throughout a significant portion of the
14.0-14.5 GHz band. With this is in mind, we propose to require that, as
a prerequisite to licensing, AMSS operations in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band
be coordinated with the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA)[^71] to resolve any potential concerns regarding
space research facilities. We seek comment on this proposal. One option
for completion of coordination may be an agreement on the part of the
AES operator that it simply will not operate in the "vicinity of" the
TDRSS station.[^72]

With respect to future TDRSS sites, we also envision a coordination
process. Under this process, NTIA would need to notify the Commission's
International Bureau at least six months prior to operational status of
any such new site. The Bureau would then issue a notice requiring all
Ku-Band AMSS operators to complete coordination of their operations in
the 14.0-14.5 GHz band through the FCC with the NTIA for the new TDRSS
site, prior to the planned start date for operation of the new TDRSS
site.[^73] Due to the wideband nature of the TDRSS downlink signal,
coordination between AES and TDRSS operations in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band
is desirable for future TDRSS earth stations. However, we anticipate
that NASA would endeavor to design any future TDRSS earth stations to
minimize the coordination impact on AESs from TDRSS operations. Prior to
the initiation of operations of any new TDRSS sites, during the
coordination process, AES stations will continue to operate throughout
the 14.0-14.5 GHz band in the vicinity of the future TDRSS site. After
NTIA coordination has been completed for the new TDRSS receive site and
the TDRSS site has become operational, AMSS operations would be
permitted to operate in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band in the vicinity of the
new TDRSS site, subject to any operational constraints developed in the
coordination process. During the coordination period after NTIA
notification of a new TDRSS site, should either party feel that an
acceptable coordination agreement cannot be reached, the FCC and the
NTIA will jointly resolve the matter.[^74] If necessary, the Commission
may be required to invoke Section 316 of the Communications Act to
modify an authorization in order to protect TDRSS stations.[^75] We seek
comment on these proposals for the protection of space research sites.
Additionally, we seek comment on whether a footnote should be added to
the U.S. Table of Allocations that states that AES terminals operating
in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band must ensure the protection of the space
research operations.

Since NASA will have a very limited number of space research Earth
stations that will be receiving from the government data relay
satellites, we believe that coordination between AMSS and TDRSS
operations is possible and will not prove to be a burden for AMSS
operators. In fact, Boeing has already provided us with evidence of a
successful coordination with NASA regarding its TDRSS sites, including
provision for future TDRSS sites.[^76] In addition, the TDRSS sites
provide an important service, and we do not anticipate that the number
of TDRSS sites will increase significantly, and in any event, future
expansion of the SRS could be severely curtailed if AMSS operators have
no obligation to protect future TDRSS sites. For these reasons, we
believe that protection of future co-secondary sites would be warranted.
NTIA coordination should not unnecessarily delay Ku-band AMSS operators
from initiating their licensed service in areas that may interfere with
TDRSS sites. Indeed, Boeing and ARINC have already committed to
protecting government users in this band.[^77]

##### 14.2-14.4 GHz Band 

Similar to the 11.7-12.2 GHz band, until recently, a secondary mobile
allocation at 14.2-14.4 GHz was available for LTTS for television pickup
and television non-broadcast pickup stations under Part 101 of our
rules.[^78] As of March 1, 2005, no new LTTS applications will be
considered for this band, though pre-existing licensees have been
grandfathered to operate as a secondary mobile service in the 14.2-14.4
GHz band with the understanding that there will be no expectation of
renewal.[^79] We propose making AMSS co-secondary with the grandfathered
LTTS operations, and invite comment.

##### 14.4-14.5 GHz Band 

In addition to the non-Federal government primary FSS and secondary MSS
allocations in the 14.4-14.5 GHz segment, the Federal government has
secondary FS and mobile allocations in the band. Our records indicate
that there are several fixed point-to-point operations and a limited
number of fixed stations used by the Federal government for terrestrial
telecommand. There are also several Federal government aeronautical
mobile stations, land-based aeronautical mobile stations, and land
mobile stations in the band. Furthermore, there are several Federal
government surface telemetering mobile stations in the band that are
used to send telemetry information to other stations on the ground. The
14.4-14.5 GHz band appears to be used predominately by fixed, mobile,
and transportable telemetry microwave systems. The band is also used to
transmit air traffic control video links, closed circuit television, and
range test data (including airborne downlink data transmissions). We
seek comment on the extent to which the 14.4-14.5 GHz band is used to
provide these various services.[^80] Is it necessary to adopt any
technical requirements or coordination procedures to protect these
services adequately from AMSS operations in the 14.4-14.5 GHz band? If
so, we invite parties to propose such technical or coordination
requirements.

The Radio Astronomy Service (RAS) is allocated on a secondary basis
internationally in the 14.47-14.5 GHz band, and pursuant to footnote
US203 of the U.S. Table, radio astronomy observations of the
formaldehyde line frequencies are permitted in this band at certain
sites.[^81] In keeping with our desire to provide full access to the
14.0-14.5 GHz uplink spectrum we propose to allow Ku-Band AMSS operators
access to the spectrum between 14.47-14.5 GHz.[^82] However, we do
recognize the importance of radio astronomy for studying the universe.
We also realize that ubiquitous airborne AES terminals have the
potential to interfere significantly with RAS sites on the ground. With
this is in mind, we propose to require that, as a prerequisite to
licensing, AMSS operations in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band be coordinated with
the NTIA to resolve any potential concerns regarding radio astronomy
facilities. We seek comment on this proposal. One option for completion
of coordination may be an agreement on the part of the AES operator that
it simply will not operate in the "vicinity of" the RAS site.[^83] We
note that this proposal would require coordination for operations
occurring outside the 14.47-14.5 GHz band in which radio astronomers
observe the formaldehyde line. Although the U.S. Table of Frequency
Allocations does not provide an allocation for radio astronomy in the
14.47-14.5 GHz band, the International Table of Frequency Allocations
does provide a secondary allocation for RAS in this band.[^84] In
addition, Recommendation ITU-R M.1643 recommends protection of radio
astronomy services by AMSS operations in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band, as
opposed to only the 14.47-14.5 GHz sub-band.[^85] We specifically seek
comment on whether the sensitivity of U.S. RAS sites, combined with the
limited signal attenuation of signals from AMSS stations, as compared to
non-aeronautical platforms, may warrant coordination between RAS and
AMSS operations throughout the 14.0-14.5 GHz band. We also seek comment
on whether we should modify the status of RAS in the U.S. Table of
Frequency Allocations to secondary, relative to AMSS. Under this
proposal, RAS sites would have co-secondary status with regard to AMSS,
but would retain their permissive status with regard to other services
in the 14.47-14.5 GHz band. We seek comment on whether co-secondary
status would be sufficient to protect the RAS from AMSS operations. We
also seek comment on whether protection of co-secondary RAS sites should
be limited to those sites listed in footnote US203.

We also seek comment on whether, and if so how, AMSS licensees should
coordinate their operations with future RAS sites. If we require AMSS
licensees to coordinate only with sites listed in footnote US203, the
addition of new sites would be subject to the notice and comment
rulemaking process in order to achieve modification of footnote US203.
Alternatively, should coordination for future sites proceed on an ad hoc
basis with each AMSS licensee, and if so, what framework should we
establish to guide that coordination?

We note that radio observations in the 14.47-14.5 GHz band are not
performed on a continuous basis and are usually scheduled in
advance.[^86] Thus, coordination between AMSS and RAS operations should
be possible and should not unnecessarily delay Ku-band AMSS operators
from initiating their licensed service in areas that may interfere with
RAS sites. Nor do we believe that such coordination would be a burden
for AESs. Indeed, both Boeing and ARINC have coordinated their AMSS
operations with the National Science Foundation in this band.[^87] We
seek comment on whether Boeing's suggestion that, where practical, RAS
observatories should be required to provide advance notice to AMSS
operators regarding their observations,[^88] should be implemented as
part of the coordination proposal described above.

#### Proposed Footnotes

Based on our proposals to permit AES terminals in the 11.7-12.2 GHz and
14.0-14.5 GHz bands to communicate with space stations of the FSS, we
propose to add the following non-Federal government footnote NGyyy to
the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations for these bands:

**NGyyy** In the bands 11.7-12.2 GHz (space-to-Earth) and 14.0-14.5 GHz
(Earth-to-space), aircraft earth stations in the aeronautical
mobile-satellite service are an application of the Fixed-Satellite
Service (FSS). The provisions of ITU Radio Regulations Nos. 5.29, 5.30
and 5.31[^89] apply, except that reception from geostationary space
stations in the fixed-satellite service in the 11.7-12.2 GHz shall be
protected in the United States on a primary basis, provided that the
aircraft earth stations operate under the same parameters as earth
stations in the fixed-satellite service.

We seek comment on this proposal.

7.  In order to protect government space research operations, we propose
    to add the following Federal government footnote USxxx to the U.S.
    Allocations Table for the 14.0-14.5 GHz band:

> **USxxx** In the band 14.0-14.5 GHz, operations of Aeronautical
> Mobile-Satellite Service earth stations are subject to coordination
> with NTIA in order to minimize interference to NASA\'s Tracking and
> Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) earth stations and the radio
> astronomy sites listed in US203 that observe in the 14.47-14.5 GHz
> band.

We seek comment on this proposal.

8.  We take this opportunity to seek comment on updating the list of RAS
    sites currently listed in footnote US203 to the U.S. Table of
    Allocations. This footnote lists sites used for radioastronomy
    observations of the formaldehyde line frequencies 14.470-14.500 GHz
    at specific observatories (presently, National Radio Astronomy
    Observatory, Green Bank, W. Va.; National Radio Astronomy
    Observatory, Socorro, New Mexico; Hat Creek Observatory (U. of
    Calif.), Hat Creek, Cal.; Haystack Radio Observatory (MIT-Lincoln
    Lab), Tyngsboro, Mass.; Owens Valley Radio Observatory (Cal. Tech.),
    Big Pine, Cal.; Five College Radio Astronomy Observatory Quabbin
    Reservoir (near Amherst), Mass.).[^90] We seek comment whether the
    sites currently described in US203 accurately reflect all the sites
    actually observing the formaldehyde frequency lines at 14.470-14.500
    GHz. For example, the Technical Operational Coordination Agreement
    that Boeing and the National Science Foundation entered into in 2001
    ("NSF Agreement") regarding protection of radio astronomy sites that
    observe in the 14.47-14.5 GHz band lists a number of sites that are
    not currently listed in footnote US203.[^91] The sites listed in the
    NSF Agreement are:

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Observatory                                    West          North        Elevation
                                                 Longitude     Latitude     
  ---------------------------------------------- ------------- ------------ --------------------
  Arecibo                                        ......66°     ....18° 20\' ...\..........496 m
  Observatory............................\....   45\' 11\"     46\"         

  Green Bank Telescope (GBT).................... .......79°    ....38° 25\' ...\..........825 m
                                                 50\' 24\"     59\"         

  Very Large Array (VLA), Socorro, NM........    .....107°     ....34° 04\' ...........2126 m
                                                 37\' 04\"     44\"         

  Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) Stations:                                 

  Brewster,                                      .....119°     ....48° 07\' .............255 m
  WA...................................          40\' 55\"     53\"         

  Fort Davis,                                    .....103°     ....30° 38\' ...........1615 m
  TX..................................           56\' 39\"     06\"         

  Hancock,                                       ...\....71°   ....42° 56\' ...\..........309 m
  NH.................................\...        59\' 12\"     01\"         

  Kitt Peak,                                     .....111°     ....31° 57\' ...\...\......1916 m
  AZ.................................\...        36\' 42\"     22\"         

  Los Alamos,                                    .....106°     ....35° 46\' ...........1967 m
  NM...........................\.....            14\' 42\"     30\"         

  Mauna Kea,                                     .....155°     ....19° 48\' ...........3720 m
  HI...............................\...          27\' 29\"     16\"         

  North Liberty,                                 \.......91°   ....41° 46\' .............241 m
  IA...............................              34\' 26\"     17\"         

  Owens Valley,                                  .....118°     ....37° 13\' ...........1207 m
  CA...........................\...              16\' 34\"     54\"         

  Pie Town,                                      .....108°     ....34° 18\' ...........2371 m
  NM..............................\.....         07\' 07\"     04\"         

  St. Croix,                                     ...\....64°   ....17° 45\' ..............16 m
  VI.................................\.....      35\' 03\"     31\"         
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> We seek comment on revising footnote US203 to list these, or other,
> sites as the ones that observe the formaldehyde line frequencies in
> the 14.47-14.5 GHz band. We also seek comment on whether the current
> list is accurate, *i.e*., whether any of the observatories listed are
> no longer active.[^92]

## Technical and Operational Requirements for AES of AMSS networks in the band 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space)

### Essential Requirements Related to the Protection of Adjacent Satellite Operators 

#### Off-Axis e.i.r.p. Density Limits and Associated Conditions 

Adopted at WRC-03, ITU recommendation ITU-R M.1643 suggests that the
AMSS networks should be coordinated and operated in such a manner that
the aggregate off-axis e.i.r.p. density levels produced by all
co-frequency AES terminals within AMSS networks are no greater than the
interference levels that have been published and coordinated for the
specific and/or typical earth station(s) pertaining to FSS networks
where FSS transponders are used. [^93] As Boeing notes, this means that
"AMSS systems should be designed, coordinated and operated in such a
manner that the aggregate off-axis e.i.r.p. density levels produced by
all co-frequency AES terminals are no greater than the interference
levels that have been coordinated for the FSS satellite system being
used."[^94]

In its Petition, Boeing states that for Ku-band AES terminals
communicating with FSS satellites, the starting point for protecting
adjacent FSS networks is contained in 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.134(a)(1) and
25.209, relying on the Commission's 2-degree orbital spacing rules
rather than operator-to-operator coordination agreements.[^95] Based on
its experience, Boeing believes that instead of imposing separate
antenna performance requirements and input power levels, AMSS licensing
rules need only ensure that the aggregate off-axis EIRP density of all
co-frequency AES transmissions will not exceed the levels generated by a
routinely authorized VSAT under Section 25.134(a) (1) (maximum input
power density of -14 dBW/4 kHz into an antenna with side lobes specified
in section 25.209 (a) (1)) to protect satellite operations in a 2-degree
spacing environment.[^96] Boeing suggests that in the view of maximum
VSAT power and antenna gain requirements noted above, AES aggregate
off-axis EIRP density along the geostationary satellite's orbital arc
for co-polarized signals should not exceed the following values:

> [Angle off-axis]{.underline} [Maximum e.i.r.p density in any 4 KHz
> band]{.underline}
>
> 1.0º ≤ Ө ≤ 7.0º 15 -25 log Ө dBW
>
> 7.0º \< Ө ≤ 9.2º -6 dBW
>
> 9.2º \< Ө ≤ 48º 18-25 log Ө dBW
>
> Ө \> 48º -24 dBW[^97]

9.  In its comments on the Boeing Petition, PanAmSat suggests that the
    Commission should develop AMSS power limits on a case-by-case basis
    rather than adopting a fixed e.i.r.p density standard for AMSS
    stations equivalent to that of VSAT power levels, as Boeing
    suggested.[^98] Boeing asserts that PanAmSat "seeks to reopen the
    debate on power limits in the context of each and every AMSS
    licensing proceeding."[^99] We recognize that for Ku-band AES
    terminals communicating with FSS satellites, the starting point for
    protecting adjacent FSS networks is contained in 47 C. F.R. §§
    25.134(a)(1) and 25.209. We understand that adopting an aggregate
    off-axis EIRP density limit will give more flexibility to Network
    Control and Monitoring Centers (NCMCs) in assigning power limits to
    AES for simultaneous co-frequency transmissions, while satisfying
    the aggregate value. Specifically, this will permit AES terminals to
    have different off-axis e.i.r.p. density values depending on each
    AES characteristics. However, considering the fact that AES
    terminals are moving rapidly and a network's topology is changing
    continuously, enforcement and control of off-axis EIRP density
    limits on individual AES terminals might be simpler for NCMCs than
    controlling an aggregate value. Therefore, alternatively, we seek
    comment on adjusting the AES off-axis EIRP envelope in Boeing's
    proposal to apply to individual AES terminals. Specifically, we
    invite comment on limiting the AES off-axis e.i.r.p. density along
    the geostationary satellite orbital arc for co-polarized signals to
    the following values:

    [Angle off-axis]{.underline} [Maximum e.i.r.p density in any 4 KHz
    band]{.underline}

> 1.0º ≤ Ө ≤ 7.0º 15 -25 log Ө dBW
>
> 7.0º \< Ө ≤ 9.2º -6 dBW
>
> 9.2º \< Ө ≤ 48º 18-25 log Ө dBW
>
> Ө \> 48º -24 dBW

Where: Ө is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe.

The off-axis EIRP density limits listed here pertain to emissions from a
single transmitter if the selected modulations permit one carrier per
channel at the satellite receiver. If an AMSS operator chooses to
implement a modulation technique, such as CDMA, that can operate with
multiple co-frequency transmissions from different AES terminals being
simultaneously received at the same satellite, we propose introducing
equal off-axis EIRP density limits on each individual AES. That is, if
\"N\" AES transmitters were implemented, each operating on the same
channel, transmitting to the same satellite, at the same time, the EIRP
density limit on each individual transmitter would be reduced by a
factor of 10\*log(N), in dB. For example, if five AES terminals were
equipped with CDMA AMSS transmitters all operating to the same
satellite, in the same uplink bandwidth, the e.i.r.p. density of the
individual transmitters would be reduced by a factor of 10\*log(5) = 7.0
dB.

10. We believe that both of the proposed approaches mentioned above
    (*i.e*., Boeing's aggregate off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits and our
    individual off-axis e.i.r.p. density limits) have their own
    advantages and disadvantages. Therefore we seek comment on both
    approaches and feasibility of each in practice. Also we seek comment
    whether we should be concerned about the approach used by an
    applicant as long as the applicant's system meets the aggregate
    envelope.

11. In addition, Boeing argues that the Commission should permit minor
    variances in the off-axis e.i.r.p density values to account for
    variations in antenna performance where such variances would not
    adversely affect adjacent satellite operators.[^100] We recognize
    that the antenna gain variations captured in §25.209(a), for Ku-band
    antennas, are part of the VSAT antenna envelope, therefore, we
    propose that the e.i.r.p density of an individual sidelobe may not
    exceed the envelope defined above for Ө between 1.0 and 7.0 degrees.
    For Ө greater than 7.0 degrees, we propose that the envelope may be
    exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes, provided no
    individual sidelobe exceeds the e.i.r.p density envelope given above
    by more than 3 dB. We seek comment on these values.

12. Boeing states that, since AMSS receivers will operate on an
    unprotected basis in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band, there is no need to
    specify the antenna performance requirements which protect receive
    operations from interference caused by adjacent satellite
    downlinks.[^101] PanAmSat in its comments suggests a modification to
    Boeing's draft AMSS rules. PanAmSat asserts that Boeing is proposing
    that the applications for blanket licenses be subject to routine
    processing, without regard to the diameter of the AMSS stations and
    the angle at which the AMSS stations conform to the "29-25 log Ө"
    standard.[^102] PanAmSat believes that "the Commission has
    well-established procedures for processing small diameter antennas,
    and has established a dividing line between those that are eligible
    for routine processing and those that are not."[^103] Furthermore
    PanAmSat argues that if FSS earth stations that fall "below the
    line," and that are operating on a primary basis in the Ku-band, are
    not eligible for routine processing, neither should "below the line"
    AMSS stations that are operating on a secondary basis.[^104] In its
    reply comments, Boeing states that the primary purpose of specifying
    the gain characteristics of FSS earth station antennas is to define
    the protection they receive as a primary service.[^105] Boeing
    asserts that in contrast, AMSS receive operations are conducted in
    the 11.7-12.2 GHz band on an unprotected basis only and by
    definition, cannot claim protection from other conforming users of
    the band; therefore, Boeing argues that it is illogical to suggest
    that AMSS service rules must specify the gain characteristic of AMSS
    receive antennas in that frequency band.[^106] We seek comment on
    the relationship between unprotected receive operations of AES
    terminals in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band and technical standards (*e.g*.,
    antenna performance standards, if necessary), applicable to those
    operations.

13. Boeing also asserts that, like Ku-band VSAT operators, AMSS systems
    should have the flexibility to coordinate AES transmissions in
    excess of these e.i.r.p. density values, subject to an additional
    technical showing and the rights of future Ku-band licensees to
    require compliant operations in certain circumstances.[^107] ARINC
    supports Boeing's proposed rule.[^108] Boeing argues that evidence
    of operator-to-operator coordination regarding adjacent satellite
    interference can be demonstrated "by obtaining a certification from
    their satellite providers that the aggregate off-axis e.i.r.p.
    density levels produced by all co-frequency AES terminals
    communicating with the relevant satellite will be no greater than
    the interference levels that have been accepted by adjacent
    satellite systems through the operator-to-operator coordination
    process."[^109] Our first question for comment is whether, in the
    first instance, we should consider granting any AMSS application for
    a system that exceeds our proposed EIRP density levels. If such
    applications should be considered, we propose a certification
    procedure similar to what Boeing recommends. We note that the
    Commission proposed a certification procedure similar to the Boeing
    proposal for FSS earth stations considered "non-routine" under the
    current Part 25 rules.[^110] We seek comment on whether those
    streamlined procedures are appropriate for AMSS in the event that
    either we do, or do not, adopt our off-axis EIRP envelope proposal.

#### Antenna Pointing Accuracy

14. Consistent with ITU Recommendation ITU-R M.1643,[^111] Boeing's
    Petition,[^112] and the *Boeing Transmit-Receive Order*,[^113] we
    propose that an AMSS applicant will need to provide information
    demonstrating that it has accounted for the following factors in the
    design, coordination and operation of an AES and we seek comment in
    this regard. These factors could vary the aggregate off-axis
    e.i.r.p. density levels generated by the AES:

    i.  [Mispointing of AES antennas]{.underline}. This includes,
        *e.g*., effects caused by bias and latency of their pointing
        systems, tracking error of closed loop tracking systems,
        misalignment between transmit and receive apertures for systems
        that use separate apertures, and misalignment between transmit
        and receive feeds for systems that use combined apertures;
        therefore, consistent with WRC-03, we are proposing that the AES
        operator should maintain pointing accuracy within 0.2 degrees
        for all antennas within its licensed network.

    ii. [Variations in the antenna pattern of AES]{.underline}. This
        includes, *e.g.*, effects caused by manufacturing tolerances,
        ageing of the antenna and environmental effects. AMSS networks
        using certain types of AES antennas, such as phased arrays,
        should account for variation in antenna pattern with scan angles
        (elevation and azimuth). Networks using phased arrays should
        also account for element phase error, amplitude error and
        failure rate;

    iii. [Variations in the transmit e.i.r.p. density from
         AES.]{.underline} This includes, *e.g.*, effects caused by
         measurement error, control error and latency for closed loop
         power control systems. Network control and monitoring centers
         (NCMCs) that calculate the e.i.r.p. density of AES based on the
         received signal need to take into account error sources and
         latency in this calculation. NCMCs that calculate the e.i.r.p.
         density of AES based on input power must account for
         measurement error and reporting latency.

We seek comment on each of these proposals.

#### Additional Requirements

15. We seek comment on several rule revisions that would be consistent
    with ITU Recommendation ITU-R M.1643,[^114] and Boeing's proposed
    rules.[^115] First, we propose that AES terminals that use closed
    loop tracking[^116] of the satellite signal need to employ an
    algorithm that is resistant to capturing and tracking adjacent
    satellite signals. AES terminals would have to immediately inhibit
    transmission when they detect that unintended satellite tracking has
    happened or is about to happen. We seek comment on this proposal.

16. We also propose that the AES terminals should be subject to the
    monitoring and control of a NCMC or equivalent facility, located
    within the United States. Under this proposal AES terminals must be
    able to receive at least "enable transmission" and "disable
    transmission" commands from the NCMC. AES terminals would have to
    automatically cease transmissions immediately upon receiving any
    "parameter change" command, which may cause harmful interference
    during the change, until the AES receives an "enable transmission"
    command from its NCMC. In addition, it should be possible for the
    NCMC to monitor the operation of an AES to determine if it is
    malfunctioning. ARINC in its comments supported Boeing's proposed
    rule in this regard.[^117] Our proposal regarding NCMC control is
    consistent with the Bureau's action in *Boeing Transmit-Receive
    Order*.[^118]

17. Finally, we propose that AES terminals need also to be
    self-monitoring and if an individual AES detects a fault which can
    cause harmful interference to FSS networks, the AES must
    automatically mute its transmissions until the cause of harmful
    interference has been remedied. This would also be consistent with
    the Bureau's action in *Boeing Transmit-Receive Order*.[^119] We
    seek comment in this regard.

### Essential Requirements Related to the Protection of the Fixed Service 

18. In its Petition, Boeing argues that since there is no allocation for
    terrestrial FS operations in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band in the United
    States or any bordering countries, there should not be any
    requirements for protection of fixed service in the Commission's
    Rules with respect to domestic operations.[^120] However, Boeing
    states that AMSS providers operating in the international airspace
    near territories with co-frequency FS operations should be required
    to protect such operations from harmful interference.[^121] Further,
    in its comments, Boeing suggests that, when operating co-frequency
    with terrestrial FS stations within the line of sight of the
    territory of a foreign Administration that has a primary FS
    allocation in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band, the operations of an AES
    should be in accordance with Annex 1, Part B of the latest version
    of Recommendation ITU-R M.1643, unless the foreign Administration
    has imposed other conditions for protecting its FS stations.[^122]
    Boeing says that such alternative conditions may be included in the
    authorization of the AMSS network to operate within the territory of
    a foreign Administration (*i.e*., the authorization issued by the
    foreign administration) or pursuant to a coordination agreement with
    the foreign administration governing the operations of the AMSS
    network.[^123]

19. Boeing's recommendation on this issue warrants further
    consideration. Accordingly, we propose that, when AMSS providers
    operate in the 14.0-14.5 GHz frequency band in the international
    airspace within line-of-sight of the territory of a foreign
    administration where fixed service networks have primary allocation
    in this band, the maximum power flux density (pfd) produced at the
    surface of the Earth by emissions from a single AES of an AMSS
    network should not exceed the following values unless the foreign
    Administration has imposed other conditions for protecting its FS
    stations:

--132 + 0.5 · θ  dB(W/(m^2^ · MHz)) for Ө ≤ 40º

--112 dB(W/(m^2^ · MHz)) for 40º \< Ө ≤ 90º

Where: θ is the angle of arrival of the radio-frequency wave (degrees
above the horizontal) and the aforementioned limits relate to the pfd
and angles of arrival would be obtained under free‑space propagation
conditions.

We seek comment on an alternative proposal that these pfd limits apply
only in the absence of an explicit adoption of different conditions by a
foreign administration.[^124] We also invite comment on Boeing's
proposal that in cases where AMSS operations may affect FS operations in
more than one country simultaneously, the protection requirement to be
applied "should be the most stringent requirement needed to protect a FS
station within the jurisdiction of a potentially affected
administration."[^125]

## AES Licensing Considerations

20. In establishing a new regulatory framework for AMSS, we endeavor to
    craft rules that will minimize licensees' regulatory burden.
    Therefore, we invite commenters to identify, either generally or in
    connection with specific proposals, any licensing methods that may
    simplify and speed the licensing process, while still addressing our
    core regulatory concern with avoiding harmful interference.

21. *Blanket licensing*. We are proposing that AMSS networks operate
    under the direct control of a Network Control and Monitoring Center
    (NCMC) located within the United States.[^126] The individual AES
    stations can operate anywhere in the satellite footprint. We seek
    comment on whether AES terminals should be permitted to operate
    under blanket licensing rules[^127] that are similar to those under
    which VSATs and ESVs operate.[^128] Boeing advocates the blanket
    licensing approach in its Petition.[^129] Generally, blanket
    licensing for VSATs requires applicants to request a single license
    for the overall earth station network including the hub earth
    station and remote earth stations without site-specific information
    on each remote earth station.[^130] As with ESVs, AMSS networks may
    or may not require the licensing of a hub earth station,
    however.[^131] We propose that we will issue an AMSS system license
    (consisting of a hub, located in the U.S., and/or blanket earth
    station license) to applicants who demonstrate that they are capable
    of controlling all aspects of the AMSS network. Whether or not an
    applicant requests hub authority, we propose that the system license
    will also require that the licensee maintain in the United States
    both a NCMC and a 24 hours a day, seven days a week point of
    contact. We believe that, by making the AMSS system licensee
    responsible for meeting the operational considerations we propose,
    we ensure the protection of other in-band and out-of-band licensees.

22. We consider blanket licensing for AES terminals because the number
    and mobility of AES locations would make it impractical to license
    AES terminals on a site-by-site basis. Under a blanket licensing
    approach, applicants would be required to file a narrative
    describing the overall system operation as well as specific
    information on the antennas, power density, and emission
    characteristics for each class of earth station comprising the
    network. We propose requiring a point of contact to maintain
    information about the location of aircraft and the frequencies that
    they use. After the applicant submits point of contact and other
    relevant information, the Commission can then issue a blanket
    authorization for the system, which would encompass each hub station
    in the United States and/or each class of the AES terminals.[^132]

23. We also seek comment on whether we should provide for the licensing
    of individual earth stations, using the same technical criteria that
    are applied to the antennas in a blanket-licensed AMSS
    network.[^133] Although we believe that demand for such uses will be
    limited, we seek comment on whether there are any specific rule
    provisions that might be required to address such cases. In
    addition, we invite comment regarding any modifications to FCC Form
    312 that might be necessary to accommodate applications for AMSS
    systems.[^134]

24. *ALSAT authority*. We also seek comment on whether we should
    authorize Ku-band AMSS operators to operate with any U.S.-licensed
    satellite (*i.e.* ALSAT authority[^135]) and non-U.S satellites on
    the Permitted List using the parameters consistent with earth
    stations, specifically that the AES terminals comply with the
    proposed off-axis EIRP density requirements proposed herein. Or, for
    reasons relating to potential interference to two-degree spaced
    satellites, should AMSS operators be granted authority to access
    individual satellites only? Boeing argues that no technical reason
    exists to prohibit Ku-band AMSS from operating pursuant to ALSAT
    authority because these systems must be compliant with the
    Commission's 2-degree spacing rules, and cannot interfere with
    adjacent satellite operators.[^136] In the *Part 25 Earth Station*
    proceeding, the Commission proposed a procedure under which ALSAT
    authority is not available to FSS earth station applicants whose
    operations must be coordinated with adjacent satellite
    operators.[^137] Similarly, in the event that we decide to apply
    that procedure to AMSS applicants, ALSAT authority would not be
    available to those AMSS applicants whose operations must be
    coordinated with adjacent satellite operators, especially if the AES
    terminals exceed the proposed off-axis EIRP density
    requirements.[^138] We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

25. *License term*. Other licensed networks of earth stations have
    fifteen-year license terms. [^139] In the context of Ku-band AMSS
    operations, we seek comment on whether there is any reason to
    diverge from the fifteen-year license terms. Nevertheless, we
    tentatively conclude that fifteen-year license terms for Ku-band
    AMSS networks are reasonable. We seek comment on this tentative
    conclusion.

26. We believe that these proposals for licensing Ku-band AMSS
    operations are consistent with the decisions of WRC-03.
    Additionally, our proposals would alleviate concerns that the
    current system of authorizing AMSS operations through case-by-case
    licensing procedures results in longer overall processing times,
    additional administrative burdens, and increased uncertainty in the
    marketplace. Furthermore, licensing Ku-band AMSS operations would
    promote more intensive and efficient use of this band by encouraging
    development of new services for aircraft without restricting current
    usage and the expansion of current services. We seek comment on the
    above proposals and any other proposals or comments that may be
    raised in the record.

## Tracking AES Terminals 

27. We seek comment on the need to track AES operations because opening
    the Ku-band to swiftly mobile AES terminals requires additional
    steps to allow proper enforcement. A necessary part to identifying
    sources of interference has always been the knowledge of exactly
    where the transmitting and receiving stations are, the frequency
    channels used and, the exact pointing angles of the antennas. We
    seek comment whether AMSS operators should maintain aircraft
    tracking data for a one-year period of time and provide the
    Commission, NTIA, or other interested parties (*e.g*., a frequency
    coordinator or fixed-satellite system operator) with detailed
    information on the operating channels of its AES terminals on a
    particular air route within 24 hours upon request. Recognizing that
    "real time" public access to exact aircraft location information may
    present a security risk for the aircraft, the Commission would not
    make it public, but would use the operating frequency information
    provided by the AMSS operator for harmful interference resolution
    and enforcement purposes. The Commission would have a record of
    where AES terminals have operated and, if it receives a complaint of
    harmful interference, the interference could be eliminated or the
    AMSS operator could be ruled out as having caused the harmful
    interference. We seek comment on the anticipated effectiveness and
    utility of this process and whether a trial period could be
    implemented to gain experience with the process. We seek comment on
    whether this process would be adequate to protect SRS users of
    Ku-band spectrum from harmful interference. The ability to track AES
    terminals in real time would present FSS, FS,[^140] space research
    and radio astronomy operators with an opportunity to identify a
    potentially interfering AES and take immediate steps to have the
    harmful interference resolved, including through termination of the
    AES operations, if necessary.

28. We seek comment whether AMSS operators should be required to make
    exact aircraft location information accessible, in a secure fashion,
    to individual operators in the Ku-band so that they can identify a
    potentially interfering AES, or should AMSS operators be required to
    make this information accessible to a third-party, single point of
    contact representing commercial or government agencies? We will
    consider all alternative methods for identifying harmful
    interference sources in a secure and controlled environment.

## Regulation of AMSS Operations Based on Aircraft Country of Registry

29. As set forth in detail above, AES terminals are a mobile application
    of FSS technology and, therefore, have a higher potential for
    creating interference to terrestrial and space systems than other
    FSS applications operating in the same frequencies. We have proposed
    rules in this *Notice* with the goal of controlling this potential
    interference to other co-frequency applications. There are three
    very important regulatory factors related to the technical rules
    under which AES terminals must operate: the aircraft's country of
    registry; the country in which the AMSS operator and its control
    systems are located; and the physical location of the aircraft if a
    claim of interference occurs.[^141] This section proposes the U.S.
    requirements that would apply to AMSS operations under the possible
    combinations of these factors.

### U.S.-Registered Aircraft

30. Aircraft routes are not confined within the borders of the United
    States. U.S.-registered aircraft travel international routes both to
    and from the United States. At the outset, we observe that the
    Commission has the responsibility under the ITU Radio
    Regulations[^142] and the Communications Act[^143] for licensing AES
    operations of U.S.-registered aircraft, other than stations owned
    and operated by the federal government. Section 301(e) of the Act
    provides that no person shall engage in radio communication "upon
    any vessel or aircraft of the United States" without a Commission
    license.[^144] The Act does not indicate, nor do we believe, that
    such jurisdiction is restricted to the location of vessels or
    aircraft. Therefore, the Commission's licensing obligation would
    apply regardless of whether the AES operates with a U.S. or foreign
    hub or is traveling though U.S. or international airspace.[^145]
    Consequently, we are concerned with the potential for interference
    that may be caused by AES terminals operating on U.S.-registered
    aircraft. For this reason, to comply with our proposal that all AMSS
    systems maintain an NCMC in the United States, we propose that
    operators of any AES terminals on U.S.-registered aircraft must have
    a 24 hour point of contact within the United States that will have
    the capability and authority to cause such AES terminals to cease
    transmitting.[^146] We propose that this obligation would apply
    regardless of whether or not the hub through which the AES
    communicates is in the United States, and without concern for the
    location of the aircraft (*i.e.*, in U.S. airspace, over
    international waters, or in a foreign administration's airspace).
    Specifically, the point of contact would need to have a direct
    connection to the hub's or NCMC's network functions controlling AES
    terminals on U.S. aircraft. We do not wish to have U.S. sovereignty
    and regulatory control of U.S.-licensed AES terminals to be subject
    to the sovereignty and regulatory control of a foreign
    administration.

31. Next, we seek comment on rules to prevent interference that AMSS
    operations on U.S.-registered aircraft might cause to other
    services (i) in or near foreign airspace and (ii) over international
    waters (*i.e*., "high seas," or regions beyond the territorial
    limits of any country). With regard to AES operations in or near the
    airspace of foreign nations, we propose that the AMSS operator
    follow a procedure similar to the one we adopted regarding ESV
    operations on U.S.-registered vessels near foreign coasts.[^147]
    Under this proposal, we would require that prior to operations
    within the foreign nation's airspace, the AMSS operator would have
    to ascertain whether the relevant administration has operations that
    could be affected by AES terminals, and determine whether that
    administration has adopted specific requirements concerning AES
    operations. Once the aircraft enters foreign airspace, the AES would
    have to operate under our technical rules, or those of the foreign
    administration, which ever is more constraining.[^148] To the extent
    that all relevant administrations have identified geographic areas
    from which AMSS operations would not affect their radio operations,
    AMSS operators would be free to operate within those identified
    areas without further action. To the extent that the foreign
    administration has not adopted requirements regarding AES
    operations, we propose that AMSS operators would be required to
    coordinate their operations with any potentially affected
    operations. We seek comment on this proposal.

32. With regard to the authorization of AES operations of
    U.S.-registered aircraft flying over international waters, we seek
    comment whether the only concern should be the protection of
    adjacent satellite operators. If this is the only concern, we seek
    comment on whether to require any AMSS operator seeking to operate
    over international waters to certify that the operator(s) of all
    satellites to be accessed over international waters have confirmed
    that the proposed AMSS operations would be within the coordinated
    parameters of the satellite. Alternatively, we request comment on
    whether such confirmation is necessary for AMSS operators that
    comply with off-axis envelope proposed above, in the event that the
    Commission adopts that proposal.

### Non-U.S.-Registered Aircraft Using U.S.-Operated AMSS Systems in U.S. Airspace

33. Foreign aircraft equipped with AES terminals are just as likely to
    travel through U.S. airspace[^149] as United States-registered
    aircraft. Presently, Boeing's Connexion service is not available on
    any U.S.-registered aircraft, although it is available on Lufthansa
    flights that travel through United States airspace.[^150] We seek
    comment on whether we should develop rules to authorize AES
    communications of foreign-registered aircraft that are traveling
    through U.S. airspace and communicating with U.S.-located hub
    stations and/or are controlled by a U.S.-located AMSS
    operator.[^151] In the ESV proceeding, we addressed a similar issue,
    given that foreign-registered vessels would be likely to use ESVs
    while approaching or in U.S. territorial waters. We concluded that,
    because both Section 301 and 306 of the Communications Act give the
    Commission the authority and responsibility to adopt regulations to
    protect U.S. licensed radio communications systems from receiving
    harmful interference from foreign vessels,[^152] and given the
    likelihood of U.S. ESV hub operators communicating with ESVs on
    foreign-registered ships, we believed that adoption of some measure
    to protect both U.S satellite and terrestrial licensees from ESV
    operations was warranted.[^153] We believe measures are warranted
    for regulation of AES terminals on foreign-registered aircraft when
    these AES terminals are traveling through U.S. airspace and are part
    of a U.S. AMSS operator's network (as is the case with Boeing's
    Connexion service, which is installed on foreign-registered
    aircraft).[^154]

34. Although Section 306 of the Act prohibits the Commission from
    licensing earth stations on foreign-registered ships, this section
    does not apply to aircraft.[^155] The United States is a signatory
    to the Convention on International Civil Aviation ("Chicago
    Convention"), which states that aircraft registered to a member
    country may use radio transmitter equipment over another country's
    territory provided that the transmitter is licensed by the country
    that registered the aircraft and that said use is in compliance with
    the regulations of the country over which the aircraft is
    flying.[^156] The Commission could require the operator of the AES
    on the foreign-registered aircraft to apply for a license
    authorizing transmissions while traveling through U.S. airspace. The
    licensee would then be subject to any and all rules we may adopt
    concerning AMSS operations. We invite comment on this approach. We
    also seek comment whether a U.S. licensee's blanket AES license
    could permit the licensee to install terminals on any aircraft,
    regardless of the country of registration. As long as the aircraft
    is within U.S. airspace, the AES would operate pursuant to the U.S.
    operator's blanket license. We seek comment on these proposals.

35. In its petition, Boeing proposes that foreign-licensed AES terminals
    onboard foreign-registered aircraft and associated with a U.S.
    operator "be temporarily associated with and licensed to the U.S.
    AMSS licensee (or service vendor authorized by the operator) when
    the AES is operating within U.S. airspace."[^157] During this
    temporary period, Boeing suggests that the U.S.-licensed AMSS
    operator assume responsibility for the foreign AES "as if the AES
    were regularly licensed to it."[^158] Boeing notes that such an
    approach is similar to the Commission's treatment of MSS
    transceivers designed to operate with U.S.-licensed systems.[^159]
    We seek comment on whether this approach to authorizing
    foreign-registered aircraft AES terminals would be preferable to the
    approaches described above.

36. A different approach would be to prohibit operations by non-U.S.
    licensed AES terminals on aircraft of foreign registry in U.S.
    airspace, and to prohibit U.S. hub stations from serving and or U.S.
    AMSS operators from operating such AES terminals. We tentatively
    conclude that this approach would be overly restrictive and preclude
    a number of AMSS operations, including those already provided by
    Boeing on foreign carriers. Bilateral agreements between the United
    States and the relevant administrations of foreign registered
    aircraft may help provide U.S. licensees with adequate protection
    from AES terminals on foreign-registered aircraft. However, the
    extent of protection will depend on the specific language in these
    bilateral agreements, which may not be adequate to fully protect
    U.S. licensed services if the AES terminals have not been licensed
    by the Commission. In such cases, we tentatively conclude that we
    need to require operators of non-U.S. licensed AES terminals onboard
    foreign-registered aircraft communicating with U.S. hubs to be
    responsible for complying with all FCC rules in order to provide the
    necessary safeguards for protecting U.S. licensed services. We seek
    comment on this tentative conclusion.

37. We propose that the AMSS operator using a U.S. hub to communicate
    with non-U.S. licensed AES terminals (or using a U.S.-located NCMC
    to control the AMSS network) on foreign-registered aircraft be
    responsible for ensuring that the operations of the AES terminals
    comply with all of our rules, and that failure to do so could result
    in sanctions, including possible license forfeiture. Accordingly,
    the AMSS operator communicating with foreign-registered aircraft
    through a U.S. hub would need to have a 24 hour point of contact in
    the U.S. with the capability and authority to terminate
    transmissions of AES terminals that cause interference or otherwise
    fail to comply with any rules that we may eventually adopt.
    Authorizing AMSS operators in a manner that requires such control
    over all AES terminals with which the hub communicates ensures an
    environment where potential interference can be properly managed. We
    invite comment on this proposal.

### Non-U.S.-Registered Aircraft Using Foreign-Based and Foreign-Licensed AMSS Systems

38. We next seek comment whether we should develop policies or rules to
    prevent any harmful interference that could result when
    foreign-licensed AES terminals traveling through U.S. airspace are
    communicating with foreign-licensed, rather than U.S.-licensed, hubs
    and/or are controlled by foreign-located NCMCs (in other words, a
    situation in which a foreign-registered aircraft has onboard a
    foreign-licensed AMSS system that does not communicate with and is
    not controlled by any U.S. network components). Although the Act
    specifically states that the Commission may not license radio
    communications on foreign ships while they are within United States
    jurisdiction, no such provision exists regarding foreign
    aircraft.[^160] Therefore, similar to the proposal above regarding
    U.S. AMSS operators operating on foreign-registered aircraft, we
    propose that a foreign-licensed AMSS operator obtain U.S. approval
    prior to operating its system in U.S. airspace. As noted above, the
    United States is a signatory to the Chicago Convention.[^161] By its
    terms, the Chicago Convention does not prohibit the nation over
    which the foreign registered aircraft is flying from also issuing a
    license for the transmitter.

39. We also seek comment on an alternative framework that we recently
    adopted for foreign-licensed ESVs operating on foreign-registered
    vessels within U.S. territorial waters.[^162] Article 4 of the ITU
    Radio Regulations sets forth the general international principles
    and rules regarding the assignment and use of frequencies. ITU Radio
    Regulation 4.4 (ITU RR 4.4) permits licensing of services that do
    not otherwise conform to the Radio Regulations so long as those
    services do not cause interference to, or claim protection from
    interference by, other services licensed in compliance with the
    Radio Regulations.[^163] Some administrations may authorize AMSS
    operations for their registered aircraft based on ITU RR 4.4.
    However, we believe that operations of such systems in U.S. airspace
    may not provide adequate protection to U.S. services because of the
    typically high speeds involved in aircraft operations which, unlike
    those involved in maritime operations, may cause transient
    interference where identification of the source is extremely
    difficult.

40. We propose to permit foreign AES terminals to operate on aircraft
    registered with foreign administrations through hubs located outside
    of the United States while flying through U.S. airspace by requiring
    the AMSS operator to apply for and obtain U.S. authorization, as
    proposed above in paragraph 65. We also seek comment whether, as an
    alternative to licensing, such foreign AES terminal operations
    should be permitted in the vicinity of radio astronomy and TDRSS
    sites[^164] only after the technical parameters and operational
    procedures of these terminals and their associated hubs have been
    coordinated with the FCC/NTIA and been determined to satisfy
    Commission rules established for this service. We seek comment
    whether foreign AMSS systems should be subject to any or all of the
    operational requirements that we have proposed for U.S. systems,
    including, for example, the U.S.-located 24 hour point of contact
    that would be capable of terminating AES transmissions.[^165] We are
    concerned that foreign AES terminal/hub operations over
    international waters and in the vicinity of U.S. TDRSS stations,
    such as the Guam station, may cause interference to those TDRSS
    stations. We invite comment on methods for preventing such
    interference, including whether we should adopt a regulation
    implementing Part D of ITU-R M.1643, which recommends a procedure
    for protection of space research systems.[^166] Additionally, should
    we find evidence that AES terminals on aircraft of foreign registry
    communicating with non-U.S. hubs cause harmful interference to any
    U.S.-licensed satellite or terrestrial systems, we expect the
    Commission to take all appropriate actions, including requesting
    that the Department of State request that the appropriate foreign
    administration require the foreign-registered aircraft to cease
    further AES operations in the vicinity of TDRSS and radio astronomy
    sites. We invite comment on these proposals.

#  Conclusion

41. The proposed licensing procedures described above for Ku-band AMSS
    reflect our interest in providing regulatory certainty to both new
    and incumbent operators in the Ku frequency band. The proposals set
    forth in this *Notice* are designed to: 1) address existing
    government, space research, RAS, and FSS operations that may be
    affected by AES terminals; 2) allow for future growth of FSS
    networks; 3) establish rules and a regulatory framework that
    minimize the regulatory burden on AMSS licensees to the extent
    possible; 4) promote more efficient use of the spectrum by
    permitting new uses of the band by AES terminals, thereby enabling
    important new communications services to be provided to consumers on
    board aircraft. We seek comment on each of the matters set forth
    above.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

## Ex Parte Presentations

42. This proceeding shall be treated as a \"permit-but-disclose\"
    proceeding in accordance with the Commission\'s ex parte
    rules.[^167] 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.[^168]
    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 Analysis

43. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^169] the
    Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities
    by the policies and actions considered in this Notice. The text of
    the IRFA is set forth in Appendix B. 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
    Notice as provided in paragraph 73 below. The Commission will send a
    copy of the Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
    Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.[^170]

## Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

44. *Paperwork Reduction Act*. This 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 No. 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 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."

45. A copy of any comments on the information collections contained
    herein should be submitted to Judy Boley Herman, Federal
    Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW,
    Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jbHerman@fcc.gov and to
    Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th
    Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503, via the Internet to [Kristy_L.
    LaLonde@omb.eop.gov](mailto:Kim_A._Johnson@omb.eop.gov), or via fax
    at 202-395-5167.

## Comment Filing Procedures

46. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission\'s rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments in
    response to this Notice 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. 05-20.
    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 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998).

47. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
    via the Internet to http://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
    and e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov and should include the following words in
    the body of the message, \"get form \<your e-mail address\>.\" A
    sample form and directions will be sent in reply.

48. Parties choosing to file by paper must file an original and four
    copies of each filing in IB Docket No. 05-20. 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, N.E., Suite
    110, Washington, D.C. 20002. The filing hours at this location are
    8:00 a.m. to 7:00p.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 12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. All
    filings must be addressed to the Commission\'s Secretary, Office of
    the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

49. 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. 05-20), 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.

50. 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, S.W.,
    Room CY-B402, Washington, D.C. 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 12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554; e-mail
    [Arthur.Lechtman@fcc.gov](mailto:bnixon@fcc.gov).

51. 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, S.W., Room CY-B402, Washington, D.C. 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, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 and through the Commission\'s
    Electronic Filing System (ECFS) accessible on the Commission\'s
    World Wide Website, www.fcc.gov.

52. 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.[^171] 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 Notice in order to facilitate our
    internal review process.

53. 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 C.F.R. § 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 a FOIA exemption.

## Further Information

54. For further information regarding this proceeding, contact Arthur
    Lechtman, Attorney, Satellite Division, International Bureau
    at (202) 418-0719. Information regarding this proceeding and others
    may also be found on the Commission\'s website at www.fcc.gov.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

55. 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. Sections 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.

56. 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).

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Marlene H. Dortch
>
> Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**Parties Filing Comments**

(3 Commenters)

[Name of Party]{.underline}

Aeronautical Radio Inc.

The Boeing Company

PanAmSat Corporation

**Parties Filing Reply Comments**

(5 Reply Commenters)

[Name of Party]{.underline}

The Boeing Company

Intelsat LLC

Loral Space & Communications Ltd.

Rockwell Collins Inc.

SES Americom, Inc.

**Parties Filing *Ex Parte* Comments**

(1 *ex parte*)

SES Americom, Inc.

**APPENDIX B**

**INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA),[^172] 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 Service Rules and Procedures to Govern the Use of
Aeronautical Mobile Satellite Service Earth Stations in the Frequency
Bands Allocated to the Fixed Satellite Service, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Notice).[^173] 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 Notice provided in paragraph
73 of the Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA).[^174] In addition, the Notice and IRFA
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.[^175]

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

In this Notice 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 (FSS) operators
regarding operations of the Aeronautical Mobile Satellite Service
(AMSS). As discussed in greater detail below, the Commission proposes
rules and procedures to license aeronautical earth stations (AES) for
operation in the Ku-band similar to the Commission's current licensing
rules for very small aperture terminals (VSATs) that operate in the
Ku-band, with appropriate modifications. However, rather than propose
rules requiring minimum earth station antenna sizes and power limits,
the NPRM proposes an off-axis EIRP envelope that, if adopted, would give
AES operators more flexibility over their operations. This off-axis EIRP
envelope proposal would provide for a minimally intrusive licensing
regime for AESs that would maximize the efficient use of the Ku-band
spectrum, by allowing a new service to be provided in that band, while
respecting the legitimate expectations of incumbent operators.
Establishing a licensing regime for AMSS also facilitates provision of a
new service in the Ku-band, which would also advance the Commission's
continuing effort to provide licensees with greater authority to most
efficiently use of the spectrum that they occupy.

It is the Commission's view that if adopted, the off-axis EIRP licensing
methodology proposed in the Notice would benefit businesses both large
and small by streamlining the process for obtaining authority from the
Commission to provide AMSS service, which currently must be obtained on
a case-by-case basis. The proposed procedures would provide license
terms of fifteen years and would permit parties to seek authorization
using simplified procedures. The proposed procedures would also require
AMSS operators to provide aircraft tracking information to the
Commission upon request. This would benefit businesses large and small
by providing businesses that might be affected by AMSS operations with a
simple, clear mechanism with minimal administrative burden to resolve
any possible claims of harmful interference resulting from those
operations.

**B. Legal Basis**

The Notice 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.[^176] The RFA generally
defines the term \"small entity\" as having the same meaning as the
terms \"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small
governmental jurisdiction.\"[^177] In addition, the term \"small
business\" has the same meaning as the term \"small business concern\"
under the Small Business Act.[^178] 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).[^179] 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, which
consists of all such companies having \$12.5 million or less in annual
receipts.[^180] According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 324
firms in the category Satellite Telecommunications, total that operated
for the entire year.[^181] Of this total, 273 firms had annual receipts
of \$5 million to \$9,999,999 and an additional 24 firms had annual
receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,990.[^182] Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

***Space Stations (Geostationary).*** Commission records reveal that
there are 15 space station licensees. 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 3,390 operational fixed-satellite transmit/receive
earth stations authorized for use in the C- and Ku-bands. 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 and Other Wireless Telecommunications.*** The SBA has
developed a small business size standard for Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunication, which consists of all such firms having 1,500 or
fewer employees.[^183] According to Census Bureau data for 1997, in this
category there was a total of 977 firms that operated for the entire
year.[^184] Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees, and an additional twelve firms had employment of 1,000
employees or more.[^185] Thus, under this size standard, the majority of
firms can be considered small.

***Paging.*** The SBA has developed small business size standard for
Paging, which consists of all such firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees.[^186] According to Census Bureau data for 1997, in this
category there was a total of 1,320 firms that operated for the entire
year.[^187] Of this total, 1,303 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees, and an additional seventeen firms had employment of 1,000
employees or more.[^188] Thus, under this size standard, the majority of
firms can be considered small.

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

The proposed rules would, if adopted, require satellite
telecommunications operators to establish a database for tracking the
location of AES remote earth stations. This database would assist
investigations of interference claims. The Notice seeks comment on this
proposal, including the effectiveness and utility of the proposal, and
seeks comment regarding possible alternatives. The proposed rules, if
adopted, would also require AMSS operators to name a point of contact to
maintain information about aircraft location and frequencies used by
AESs. 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 Notice seeks comment on possible methods for coordinating AMSS
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.[^189]

This Notice solicits comment on alternatives for more efficient
processing of aircraft earth station (AES) applications and simplifying
AMSS 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 Notice also seeks comment on streamlining
the application process for AMSS operations by permitting blanket
licensing of multiple AES terminals in a single application, as an
alternative to requiring all AESs to be licensed individually. Adoption
of some of these proposals would simplify the application process for
AESs and establish license terms consistent with other satellite-based
services (such as Earth Stations on Vessels). Accordingly, the
Commission believes that adoption of these proposed rules would benefit
all AMSS applicants, including small entities, by significantly reducing
the cost associated with obtaining and maintaining authority to operate
an AMSS network.

As described above, the Commission also seeks comment on a number of
alternative compliance and coordination processes. For example, the
Commission seeks on whether to base the off-axis EIRP requirement on an
aggregate limit or on a per-earth station limit. The Commission has
taken care to consider the costs on business both large and small and
has solicited comment on alternatives to its proposals.

> **F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
> Proposed Rules**

None.

**APPENDIX C**

ITU Recommendation ITU-R M.1643

![](media/image1.png){width="5.354166666666667in"
height="8.291666666666666in"}

![](media/image2.png){width="5.322916666666667in"
height="8.135416666666666in"}

![](media/image3.png){width="5.28125in" height="7.979166666666667in"}

![](media/image4.png){width="5.375in" height="8.197916666666666in"}

![](media/image5.png){width="5.28125in" height="7.958333333333333in"}

![](media/image6.png){width="5.427083333333333in"
height="8.072916666666666in"}

[^1]: The Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) is a radio communication
    service between mobile earth stations and one or more space
    stations. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1 A mobile earth station is an earth
    station intended for use while in motion or during halts at
    unspecified points. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.201. The Mobile Satellite
    Service encompasses the land mobile-satellite service, the maritime
    mobile-satellite service, and the aeronautical mobile-satellite
    service.

[^2]: For purposes of this *Notice*, the \"conventional\" Ku-band refers
    to frequencies in the 11.7-12.2 GHz (downlink) and 14.0-14.5 GHz
    (uplink) bands and excludes the so-called "extended Ku-band" at
    12.75-13.25 GHz, 13.75-14.0 GHz, 10.7-10.95 GHz, 10.95-11.2 GHz,
    11.2-11.45 GHz, and 11.45-11.7 GHz. The \"conventional\" Ku-bands
    are allocated on a primary basis to the FSS. *See generally* 47
    C.F.R. § 2.106.

[^3]: The term "aircraft Earth station" refers to any mobile earth
    station in the aeronautical mobile-satellite service located on
    board an aircraft. *See*, *e.g*., 47 C.F.R. § 87.5.

[^4]: *See WRC-03 Provisional Final Acts* at 34-38. These pages show a
    new "Mobile-satellite (Earth-to-space)" allocation in this band in
    all three Regions, as well as new footnote 5.AA13 (since re-numbered
    as 5.504A), which reads: "In the band 14-14.5 GHz, aircraft earth
    stations in the secondary aeronautical mobile-satellite service may
    also communicate with space stations in the fixed-satellite service.
    The provisions of Nos. 5.29, 5.30 and 5.31 apply." ITU Radio
    Regulation Nos. 5.29. 5.30, 5.31 state that stations of a secondary
    service:

    > 5.29 a) shall not cause harmful interference to stations of
    > primary services to which frequencies are already assigned or to
    > which frequencies may be assigned at a later date;
    >
    > 5.30 b) cannot claim protection from harmful interference from
    > stations of a primary service to which frequencies are already
    > assigned or may be assigned at a later date;
    >
    > 5.31 c) can claim protection, however, from harmful interference
    > from stations of the same or other secondary service(s) to which
    > frequencies may be assigned at a later date.

[^5]: Amendment of Parts 2, 25, and 87 of the Commission's Rules to
    Implement Decisions from the World Radiocommunications Conferences
    Concerning Frequency Bands Between 28 MHz and 36 GHz and to
    Otherwise Update the Rules in this Frequency Range, ET Docket No.
    02-305, *Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 23426 at para. 76 (2003)
    ("*Above 28 MHz Allocation Order*").

[^6]: *See* Federal Communications Commission Strategic Plan FY 2003-FY
    2008, page 10, Means and Strategies to meet Goal 1 - Broadband,
    <http://www.fcc.gov/omd/strategicplan/strategicplan2003-2008.pdf>.

[^7]: We note that in a separate proceeding, the Commission has launched
    an examination of the appropriate legal and policy framework of the
    Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), including
    the applicability of CALEA to broadband internet access services
    (including those delivered by satellite systems). *See*
    Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act and Broadband
    Access and Services, ET Docket No. 04-295, *Notice of Propose
    Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling*, 19 FCC Rcd 15676 (2004). To the
    extent any rules are adopted in that proceeding regarding CALEA
    obligations of satellite-based providers of broadband internet
    access, we anticipate that AMSS operators might also be subject to
    such rules.

[^8]: We note that AMSS is distinct from AMS(R)S. AMS(R)S is a radio
    service providing communications via satellite between an aircraft
    earth station (AES) and land stations or other AESs, regulated under
    Part 87 (Aviation Services) of our rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 87.
    AMS(R)S is allocated to the 1549.5-1558.5 MHz and 1651-1660 MHz
    bands on a co-primary basis with the mobile satellite service and in
    the 1545-1549.5 MHz and 1646.5-1651 MHz bands on a primary basis.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106. AMS(R)S was formerly referred to as
    AMSS(R). The "(R)" in both terms indicates that the spectrum is used
    for aeronautical communications related to the safety and regularity
    of flights primarily along national and international civil air
    routes. AMS(R)S provides communications supporting operational
    control of both domestic and international air traffic. Such
    communications are important to the safe, efficient and economical
    operation of aircraft, and may convey information critical to
    aviation, such as aircraft position reports, performance, essential
    services and supplies, and weather information. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    87.261(a). Public correspondence -- private or personal messages of
    passengers or crew -- is prohibited. By contrast, AMSS is a service
    for aircraft passengers that can also be used by crew, but is not
    necessarily intended to provide critical flight support. Because of
    this dual nature (*i.e*., AMSS can be used by passengers and/or crew
    for personal use and/or flight support), we find that it is
    appropriate to consider AMSS within the scope of Part 25 (Satellite
    Communications) of our rules.

[^9]: Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate
    Spectrum in the 14-14.5 GHz Band to the Aeronautical
    Mobile-Satellite Service ("AMSS") and To Adopt Licensing and Service
    Rules for AMSS Operations in the Ku-Band, The Boeing Company,
    Petition for Rulemaking at 27, filed July 21, 2003 ("Boeing
    Petition" or "Petition").

[^10]: *See* Federal Communications Commission Strategic Plan FY 2003-FY
    2008, page 14, Means and Strategies to meet Goal 2 -- Spectrum,
    <http://www.fcc.gov/omd/strategicplan/strategicplan2003-2008.pdf>.

[^11]: *See* \"Memorandum of Understanding Between the Federal
    Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and
    Information Administration Addressing the Aeronautical
    Mobile-Satellite Service In the 14.0-14.5 GHz Band,\" July 8, 2002

[^12]: *See* Application of The Boeing Company for Blanket Authority to
    Operate up to Eight Hundred Technically-Identical Transmit and
    Receive Mobile Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft in the 11.7-12.2 and
    14.0-14.5 GHz Frequency Bands, File No. SES-LIC-20001204-02300
    (December 4, 2000, supplemented January 10, 2001) ("*Boeing Two-Way
    AMSS Application*").

[^13]: Boeing Company Application for Blanket Authority to Operate Up to
    Eight Hundred Technically Identical Transmit and Receive Mobile
    Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft in the 14.0-14.5 GHz and 11.7-12.2
    GHz Frequency Bands, *Order and Authorization*, 16 FCC Rcd 5864
    (International Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology,
    2001).

[^14]: Boeing Company Application for Blanket Authority to Operate Up to
    Eight Hundred Technically Identical Transmit and Receive Mobile
    Earth Stations Aboard Aircraft in the 14.0-14.5 GHz and 11.7-12.2
    GHz Frequency Bands, *Order and Authorization*, 16 FCC Rcd 22645
    (International Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology,
    2001) ("*Boeing Transmit-Receive Order*"). A waiver of Section 2.106
    of the Commission's rules was necessary because at that time the
    U.S. Table of Allocations did not include an allocation for AMSS
    downlinks in the 12 GHz band, nor did it include an allocation for
    AMSS uplinks in the 14 GHz band. As noted above, the Commission has
    since added a secondary allocation for AMSS in the 14.0-14.5 GHz
    band. *See* *Above 28 MHz Allocation Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 23454,
    para. 76.

[^15]: *See* Satellite Communications Services Information, *Public
    Notice*, Report No. SES-00421 (rel. Aug. 21, 2002) and Report No.
    SES-00433, license re-issued to correct typographical errors (rel.
    Oct. 2, 2002).

[^16]: *Boeing Transmit-Receive Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 22653-54, para.
    19.

[^17]: Currently pending before the Commission is an application in
    which Boeing seeks authority for AES terminals to communicate with
    foreign-licensed satellites from aircraft located over the high seas
    (*i.e*., international waters) and additional satellites for use
    while an AES is over the United States. *See* The Boeing Company,
    Application to Modify Blanket AMSS Earth Station Authorization Call
    Sign E000723, File No. SES-MOD-20040301-00304 (filed March 1, 2004)
    ("Boeing International Waters Modification Application"). The Office
    of Engineering and Technology granted Boeing an experimental license
    to test 10 AES terminals over international waters. *See* Call Sign
    WC2XVE, File No. 0002-EX-ML-2004 (Jan. 13, 2004).

[^18]: Consistent with Presidential proclamation and the United Nations
    Convention on the Law of the Sea, the territorial waters would
    extend 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the geographic areas
    described in 47 U.S.C. § 153(51). *See* Presidential Proclamation
    No. 5928, 54 Fed. Reg. 777 (1988). This approach is consistent with
    the international law principle that each nation has exclusive
    jurisdiction over the airspace above its land territory and
    territorial waters. *See* U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, 21
    I.L.M. 1261, at Part II, Art. 2 (opened for signature 1982).

[^19]: Boeing intended to keep 125 of its phased array antennas, while
    substituting 675 of them for reflector antennas, thereby maintaining
    a total of 800 AES terminals. *See* Boeing Modification Application,
    File No. SES-MOD-20030512-00639 and Satellite Communications
    Services Information re: Actions Taken, *Public Notice*, Report No.
    SES-00561, rel. Dec. 17, 2003.

[^20]: *See* "The New Era of Inflight Connectivity Is Here: Connexion by
    Boeing and Lufthansa Announce the World Premiere of Airborne
    Internet," Boeing Press Release,
    <http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q2/nr_040511j.html> (May
    11, 2004).

[^21]: *See* Airline Advantages,
    <http://www.connexionbyboeing.com/index.cfm?p=cbb.airlinesolutions&l=en.US&ec>=.
    Boeing's website indicates that Connexion's "broadband speeds are
    comparable to land-based broadband networks such as cable or DSL."
    *Id*.

[^22]: Connexion had service agreements with Lufthansa, Scandinavian
    Airlines System (SAS), and Japan Airlines to equip their long-haul
    fleets with the Connexion service beginning in early 2004. In
    addition, British Airways has completed a successful service
    demonstration, and both All-Nippon Airways and Singapore Airlines
    have announced their intent to install the Connexion service on
    their long-range aircraft. *See* Boeing Petition at 2-3; "ANA and
    Connexion by Boeing Sign Definitive Internet Services Agreement,"
    *Press Release*,
    <http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q1/nr_040115j.html> and
    "Singapore Airlines Selects Connexion by Boeing for In-Flight
    Connectivity," *Press Release*,
    <http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q4/nr_031111j.html>.

[^23]: Coffee, Tea or Broadband, Quentin Hardy, *Forbes* (June 17,
    2004), available at
    <http://www.forbes.com/technology/networks/2004/06/17/cz_qh_0617wifi.html>.

[^24]: *See* Connexion by Boeing Executive Services Information Page at
    [http://www.connexionbyboeing.com/
    index.cfm?p=cbb.executivejet&l=en.US&ec=](http://www.connexionbyboeing.com/ index.cfm?p=cbb.executivejet&l=en.US&ec=)
    and Boeing Petition at 3.

[^25]: Boeing Petition at 2; *see also* Boeing International Waters
    Modification Application, Public Interest Statement at 5. Some
    routes of these foreign carriers cover United States territory.
    *Id*.

[^26]: Aeronautical Radio Inc., Application for Blanket Authority to
    Operate Aboard Aircraft up to 1000 Technically-Identical Transmit
    and Receive Mobile Earth Stations in the 11.7-12.2 and 14.0-14.5 GHz
    Frequency Bands, File No. SES-LIC-20030910-01261, filed Sept. 10,
    2003, and Amendment, File No. SES-AMD-20031223-01860, filed Dec. 23,
    2003.

[^27]: *See* File No. 0054-EX-PL-2001, modified by File No.
    0029-EX-ML-2003 and File No. 0029-EX-ML-2004 (Call Sign WC2XPE). The
    Office of Engineering and Technology recently extended ARINC's
    experimental authority to conduct a limited market study of its
    SKYLink service on 15 aircraft until May 1, 2006. *See* File No.
    0130-EX-RR-2004.

[^28]: ARINC comments at 1-2.

[^29]: Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate
    Spectrum in the 14-14.5 GHz Band to the Aeronautical
    Mobile-Satellite Service ("AMSS") and To Adopt Licensing and Service
    Rules for AMSS Operations in the Ku-Band, The Boeing Company,
    Petition for Rulemaking filed July 21, 2003 ("Boeing Petition" or
    "Petition").

[^30]: Boeing Petition at 15-20. Recommendation ITU-R M.1643 is
    reprinted in Appendix C.

[^31]: Boeing Petition at 15.

[^32]: Boeing Petition at 21.

[^33]: *See* Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Reference
    Information Center, Petition for Rulemaking Filed, *Public Notice*,
    Report No. 2632, rel. Oct. 10, 2003.

[^34]: *See* Appendix A for list of commenters.

[^35]: PanAmSat Corporation ("PanAmSat") comments at 1-3. PanAmSat
    argues that the Commission "has well-established procedures for
    processing of small diameter antennas, and has established a
    dividing line between those that are eligible for routine processing
    and those that are not." PanAmSat comments at 2. Further arguing
    that Ku-band AMSS systems "are anything but 'routine'," PanAmSat
    proposes that the Commission develop AMSS power limits on a
    case-by-case basis rather than adopt a fixed EIRP density standard.
    *Id*. In its reply comments, Boeing argues that "station parameters
    designed to provide interference protection are irrelevant to
    Ku-band AES operations." Boeing reply at 3. Boeing also says that
    development of case-by-case AMSS power limits reopens an issue
    already settled by the Commission in issuing Boeing's non-conforming
    use license to operate an AMSS system (*i.e*., that routinely
    licensed VSAT power limits are appropriate for Ku-band operations),
    and moreover that such an approach would waste Commission resources.
    *Id*. at 3-5. These issues and arguments are addressed in greater
    detail in Section B (Technical and Operational Requirements for AES
    of AMSS networks in the band 14.0-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space)),
    *infra*.

[^36]: *See Above 28 MHz Allocation Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 23454, para.
    76.

[^37]: *See* Principles for Reallocation of Spectrum to Encourage the
    Development of Technologies Telecommunications for the New
    Millennium*, Policy Statement*, 14 FCC Rcd 19868, 19870, ¶9 (1999)
    ("In the majority of cases," the Commission noted in 1999,
    "efficient spectrum markets will lead to use of spectrum for the
    highest value end use," and "\[f\]lexible allocations may result in
    more efficient spectrum markets."). *See also Amendment of the U.S.
    Table of Frequency Allocations to Designate the 2500-2520/2670-2690
    MHz Frequency Bands for the Mobile-Satellite Service*, First Report
    and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 17222, 17223,
    para. 2 (2001) (finding that investing incumbent licensees with more
    flexibility in the use of their assigned spectrum would foster the
    introduction of new services, promote competition, and permit market
    forces to determine the best use for the spectrum).

[^38]: Boeing Petition at 3; ARINC comments at 4; Rockwell Collins
    Corporation reply at 1-2.

[^39]: Boeing Petition at 3; ARINC comments at 4. However, we do seek
    comment below on whether to permit AMSS downlink operations in the
    11.7-12.2 GHz on a non-conforming use basis. *See* para. 17,
    *infra*.

[^40]: ITU footnote 5.504A provides: "In the band 14-14.5 GHz, aircraft
    earth stations in the secondary aeronautical mobile-satellite
    service may also communicate with space stations in the fixed
    satellite service. The provisions of Nos. 5.29, 5.30 and 5.31
    apply." ITU Radio Regulation Nos. 5.29. 5.30, 5.31 state that
    stations of a secondary service:

    > 5.29 a) shall not cause harmful interference to stations of
    > primary services to which frequencies are already assigned or to
    > which frequencies may be assigned at a later date;
    >
    > 5.30 b) cannot claim protection from harmful interference from
    > stations of a primary service to which frequencies are already
    > assigned or may be assigned at a later date;
    >
    > 5.31 c) can claim protection, however, from harmful interference
    > from stations of the same or other secondary service(s) to which
    > frequencies may be assigned at a later date.

[^41]: *See Above 28 MHz Order,*18 FCC Rcd at 23454, para. 76 and 47
    C.F.R. § 2.106.

[^42]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.

[^43]: Procedures to Govern the Use of Satellite Earth Stations on Board
    Vessels in the 5925-6425 MHz/3700-4200 MHz Bands and 14.0-14.5
    GHz/11.7-12.2 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 02-10, *Report and Order*,
    FCC 04-286 (rel. Jan. 6, 2005) at para. 79 ("*ESV Report and
    Order"*).

[^44]: *ESV Report and Order* at paras. 82-84.

[^45]: *ESV Report and Order* at para. 84.

[^46]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.209(c).

[^47]: *See* Draft Preliminary views of IWG-2 on WRC-07, Agenda Item
    1.6. ITU Radio Regulation 4.4. permits operation in any band on a
    non-interference and non-protected basis. The full text of ITU Radio
    Regulation 4.4 reads as follows: "Administrations of the Member
    States shall not assign a station to any frequency in derogation of
    either the Table of Frequency Allocations in this Chapter or the
    other provisions of these Regulations, except on the express
    condition that such a station, when using such a frequency
    assignment, shall not cause harmful interference to , and shall not
    claim protection from harmful interference caused by, as station
    operating in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the
    Convention and these Regulations." *See* ITU Radio Regulation 4.4.

[^48]: Boeing Petition at 11. As Boeing points out in its petition,
    non-conforming use requires that (i) operations shall not cause
    harmful interference to any authorized station operating in
    compliance with the U.S. Table of Allocations, either domestically
    or internationally; (ii) operations must immediately cease upon
    notification of such harmful interference resulting from operations;
    and (iii) the non-conforming user must accept any interference from
    any authorized station.

[^49]: Boeing Petition at 11.

[^50]: Boeing Petition at 12.

[^51]: Boeing Petition at 12.

[^52]: The so-called "extended Ku-band" includes allocations at
    12.75-13.25 GHz, 13.75-14.0 GHz, 10.7-10.95 GHz, 10.95-11.2 GHz,
    11.2-11.45 GHz, and 11.45-11.7 GHz. Within the "extended" Ku-band
    downlink, the 10.7-10.95 GHz and 11.2-11.45 GHz bands are authorized
    for use in accordance with ITU-R Appendix 30 B, which provides for
    the planned use of the GSO FSS. The rules we propose today would
    only apply to extended Ku-band downlink operations at 10.95-11.2 GHz
    and 11.45-11.7 GHz.

[^53]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 n. NG 104 (stating that "\[t\]he use of
    the bands 10.7-11.7 GHz (space to Earth)...by the fixed satellite
    service in the geostationary-satellite orbit shall be limited to
    international systems, *i.e.*, other than domestic systems.").

[^54]: A search of the ULS database reveals that the majority of
    services using the band are Common Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point.
    There are a total of 2106 active Common Carrier Fixed Point to Point
    licensees, 164 active Microwave Business licensees, 410 active
    Microwave Public Safety licensees, and 73 active LTTS licensees.

[^55]: Boeing Petition at 12.

[^56]: Boeing Petition at 12.

[^57]: For example, Boeing requests authority to use extended Ku-band in
    its International Waters Modification Application. *See* Boeing
    International Waters Modification Application.

[^58]: Footnote NG 104 would not be applicable because the AES receivers
    would not need any coordination with fixed terrestrial services
    since they would operate on an unprotected basis.

[^59]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.

[^60]: Our database indicates that there are 2672 authorizations issued
    for GSO FSS earth stations in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band. The
    authorizations indicate the maximum number of earth stations or
    antennas that a licensee may deploy. For example, since this is a
    VSAT band, a single GSO FSS authorization could cover several
    thousand VSAT Earth terminals.

[^61]: *See* 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, ET Docket No.
    98-206, *First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making*, 16 FCC Rcd 4096 (2001). To date, the Commission has not
    issued any NGSO licenses in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band.

[^62]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.

[^63]: Qualcomm's OmniTracs service processes more than six million
    transactions each day sent to and from a quarter-million trucks.
    *See* Qualcomm Service Keeps on Trucking, July 13, 2001 at
    http://www.business2.com/articles/web/print/0,1650,16490,FF.html.

[^64]: *ESV Report and Order* at para. 79.

[^65]: *ESV Report and Order* para. 88.

[^66]: In 1983, the Commission established a two-degree orbital spacing
    policy to maximize the number of in-orbit satellites serving the
    United States in either the C-band or the Ku-band. *See Licensing of
    Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service and Related
    Revisions of Part 25 of the Rules and Regulations*, CC Docket No.
    81-704, Report and Order, FCC 83-184, 54 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 577
    (1983); *summary printed in* Licensing Space Stations in the
    Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service, 48 Fed. Reg. 40,233 (Sept. 6,
    1983), *on reconsideration*, *Licensing of Space Stations in the
    Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service and Related Revisions of Part 25 of
    the Rules and Regulations*, CC Docket No. 81-704, Report and Order,
    FCC 84-487, 99 FCC 2d 737 (1985). At that time, the Commission began
    assigning adjacent in-orbit satellites to orbit locations two
    degrees apart in longitude, rather than the three-to-four degrees
    longitude previously used.

[^67]: *See* Review of Part 87 of the Commission's Rules Concerning the
    Aviation Radio Service, WT Docket No. 01-289, *Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 18 FCC Rcd 21432, para. 85
    (2003).

[^68]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.

[^69]: *See Amendment of Parts 2, 25 and 73 of the Commission's Rules to
    Implement Decisions from the World Radiocommunication Conference
    (Geneva, 2003) (WRC-03) Concerning Frequency Bands Between 5900 KHz
    and 27.5 GHz and to Otherwise Update the Rules in this Frequency
    Range*, ET Docket No. 04-139, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC
    04-74, 19 FCC Rcd 6592, 6609 n.74 (2004).

[^70]: The diplexer for the White Sands earth stations provides only 35
    dB or less of interference attenuation from 14.35 to 14.5 GHz, while
    the diplexer at the Guam earth station provides little to no
    interference protection from 14.05 to 14.23 GHz, but provides 70 dB
    of attenuation at 14.48 GHz. *See* Letter from Robert E. Spearing,
    Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Communications, Office of
    Space Flight, NASA, to Craig Holman, Regulatory Counsel, The Boeing
    Company, at Figure 2 (December 18, 2001), *cited in* The Boeing
    Company, *Order and Authorization*, 16 FCC Rcd 22645, 22648 n.21
    (Int'l Bur./OET 2001).

[^71]: NTIA is responsible for managing the government portion of the
    Table of Frequency Allocations. In bands shared between Federal and
    non-Federal Government services, the Commission and NTIA operate
    under a long-standing coordination agreement. *See* NTIA Manual,
    Basic Coordination Arrangement Between IRAC and the FCC,
    <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/redbook/NTIAmanual_May2003.pdf> at
    Chapter 8.3.1.

[^72]: We understand that the "vicinity of a TDRSS site" refers to the
    area where an AES is in line-of-sight of the TDRSS site.
    Determination of the particular distance at which line-of-sight
    terminals must coordinate can be accomplished in a number of ways.
    For example, Section 25.213 uses a formula for determining the
    distance (d) at which airborne mobile earth stations in the 1.6/2.4
    GHz band must coordinate with radio astronomy sites. That formula is
    d (km) = 4.1 square root of (h), where h is the altitude of the
    aircraft in meters above ground level. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    25.213(a)(1)(iv).

[^73]: This public notice would also indicate that the final operating
    parameters for the new site would be subject to coordination through
    the Frequency Assignment Subcommittee (\"FAS\") of NTIA\'s
    Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee, if such coordination has
    not already been completed.

[^74]: We would expect that approximately three months prior to
    operation of the new TDRSS station, either party would, if
    circumstances require, notify the Commission and NTIA that a
    coordination agreement is not likely and Commission/NTIA decisions
    are necessary.

[^75]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 316.

[^76]: Letter from Robert E. Spearing, Deputy Associate Administrator
    for Space Communications, Office of Space Flight, National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration, to Craig Holman, Regulatory
    Counsel, The Boeing Company (dated Dec. 18, 2001). In connection
    with its pending AMSS application, ARINC filed a coordination
    agreement that it reached with NASA concerning its AES/TDRSS
    coordination. *See* Coordination Agreement Between the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration (hereinafter "NASA") and ARINC,
    Incorporated (hereinafter "ARINC") for Operation of the ARINC
    SKYLink AMSS in the 14.0-14.5 GHz-Band, dated Sept. 3, 2004.

[^77]: *See* Letter from Robert E. Spearing, Deputy Associate
    Administrator for Space Communications, Office of Space Flight,
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to Craig Holman,
    Regulatory Counsel, The Boeing Company (dated Dec. 18, 2001) and
    Coordination Agreement Between the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration (hereinafter "NASA") and ARINC, Incorporated
    (hereinafter "ARINC") for Operation of the ARINC SKYLink AMSS in the
    14.0-14.5 GHz-Band, dated Sept. 3, 2004.

[^78]: *See* *ESV Report and Order* at para. 93; *see also* 47 C.F.R. §
    101.147, note 24.

[^79]: *See* *ESV Report and Order* para. 94.

[^80]: In the *ESV Report and Order*, we noted that we received no
    comment on secondary Federal Government mobile, fixed and
    transportable use of the 14.4-14.5 GHz band, and concluded that the
    standard primary/secondary sharing environment applies. *See ESV
    Report and Order* at para. 95.

[^81]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, footnote US203. The sites identified in
    this footnote are the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Green
    Bank, W. Va.; the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro, New
    Mexico; Hat Creek Observatory (U of Calif.), Hat Creek, Cal.;
    Haystack Radio Observatory (MIT-Lincoln Lab), Tyngsboro, Mass.;
    Owens Valley Radio Observatory (Cal. Tech.), Big Pine, Cal.; and
    Five College Radio Observatory Quabbin Reservoir (near Amherst),
    Massachusetts. Below, we propose a modification to update the list
    of sites contained in this footnote.

[^82]: We note that an interim process is currently in place to protect
    both SRS and RAS sites from AMSS operations in the 14.0-14.5 GHz
    band. By the conditions of its current non-conforming use license,
    Boeing may not constrain deployment of additional Federal Government
    stations operated by NASA in the SRS and Boeing must operate its
    system in accordance with its Technical Operational Coordination
    Agreement with the National Science Foundation to facilitate the
    protection of RAS. *See* *Boeing Transmit-Receive Order*, 16 FCC Rcd
    22645. In the *Above 28 MHz Allocation Order*, we stated that until
    we adopt final rules relating to allocation changes in the 14.0-14.5
    GHz band or licensing of AMSS terminals in that band, we will place
    the following conditions on any additional system authorizations
    that we may issue in that band for a service similar to Boeing's:

    The system shall be designed and operated so as not to cause harmful
    interference to TDRSS or RAS operations in the United States; and

    The system shall not constrain future deployment of additional
    Federal Earth Stations in the SRS and RAS authorized pursuant to
    existing allocations.

    *See* *Above 28 MHz Allocation Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 23454, para.
    76. *See also* \"Memorandum of Understanding Between the Federal
    Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and
    Information Administration Addressing the Aeronautical
    Mobile-Satellite Service In the 14.0-14.5 GHz Band,\" July 8, 2002,
    at 2.

[^83]: We understand that the "vicinity" of a radio astronomy site
    refers to the area where an AES is in line-of-sight of the radio
    astronomy site. *See also supra* n. 72.

[^84]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.

[^85]: *See* Recommendation ITU-R M.1643 at Part C ("Essential
    requirements related to sharing with the RAS").

[^86]: *See* *ESV Report and Order* at para. 97.

[^87]: *See* Technical Operational Coordination Agreement for the Joint
    Usage of the Band 14.0-14.5 GHz Between the National Science
    Foundation and Aircraft Earth Stations Operating in the Boeing
    Connexion Aeronautical Mobile Network, dated Dec. 13, 2001 ("NSF
    Agreement") and A Coordination Agreement Between the National
    Science Foundation (herinafter "NSF") and ARINC, Incorporated
    (hereinafter "ARINC") for Operation of the ARINC SKYLink AMSS and
    Radio Astronomy Sites Jointly Sharing the 14.0-14.5 GHz-Band, dated
    September 24, 2004.

[^88]: Boeing Petition at 19-20, *citing* 47 C.F.R. § 25.213(a)(1)(vi).

[^89]: ITU Radio Regulation Nos. 5.29. 5.30, 5.31 state that stations of
    a secondary service:

    > 5.29 a) shall not cause harmful interference to stations of
    > primary services to which frequencies are already assigned or to
    > which frequencies may be assigned at a later date;
    >
    > 5.30 b) cannot claim protection from harmful interference from
    > stations of a primary service to which frequencies are already
    > assigned or may be assigned at a later date;
    >
    > 5.31 c) can claim protection, however, from harmful interference
    > from stations of the same or other secondary service(s) to which
    > frequencies may be assigned at a later date.

[^90]: Specifically, this footnote says that "\[e\]very practicable
    effort will be made to avoid assignment of frequencies to stations
    in the fixed or mobile services in these bands \[*i.e*., 4825-4835
    MHz and 14.470-14.500 GHz\]. Should such assignment result in
    harmful interference to these observations, the situation will be
    remedied to the extent practicable." *See* 47 CF.R. § 2.106, US203.

[^91]: *See* Technical Operational Coordination Agreement for the Joint
    Usage of the Band 14.0-14.5 GHz Between the National Science
    Foundation and Aircraft Earth Stations Operating in the Boeing
    Connexion Aeronautical Mobile Network, dated Dec. 13, 2001 ("NSF
    Agreement").

[^92]: Specifically, we note that in comments filed in IB Docket No.
    02-10, the National Academy of Sciences, through the National
    Research Council's Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF), stated
    that radio observations are no longer performed in the 14.47-14.5
    GHz band at the Hat Creek, Tyngsboro, or Amherst sites. CORF
    comments at 5, IB Docket No. 02-10, at 5 (March 3, 2004).

[^93]: *See* Recommendation ITU-R M.1643 at Annex 1, Part A, Section 1.

[^94]: Boeing Petition at 14.

[^95]: Boeing Petition at 14.

[^96]: Boeing Petition at 14-15. *See also* 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.134, 25.209.

[^97]: Boeing Petition at 15.

[^98]: PanAmSat comments at 2.

[^99]: Boeing Reply Comments at 3.

[^100]: Boeing Petition at 16.

[^101]: Boeing Petition at 15.

[^102]: PanAmSat comments at 2.

[^103]: PanAmSat comments at 2.

[^104]: PanAmSat comments at 2. We believe that in referring to "below
    the line" applications for Earth stations, PanAmSat is referring to
    stations with a diameter smaller than that referenced under current
    Section 25.209, therefore making the application ineligible for
    routine processing. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.209.

[^105]: Boeing reply at 3.

[^106]: Boeing reply at 3.

[^107]: Boeing Petition at 15.

[^108]: ARINC comments at 6.

[^109]: Boeing Petition at 16.

[^110]: *See* 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review Streamlining and Other
    Revisions of Part 25 of the Commission\'s Rules Governing the
    Licensing of, and Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network Earth
    Stations and Space Stations, IB Docket No. 00-248, *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 15 FCC Rcd 25128 (2000) ("*Part 25 Earth
    Station NPRM*").

[^111]: *See* Recommendation ITU-R M.1643 at Annex 1, Part A, Section 2.

[^112]: Boeing Petition at 17.

[^113]: *See Boeing Transmit-Receive Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 22655.

[^114]: *See* Recommendation ITU-R M.1643 at Annex 1, Part A, Section 3.

[^115]: Boeing Petition at 18.

[^116]: Closed loop logic is deployed to overcome various faults that
    may cause unintended satellite tracking. In closed loop systems a
    feedback is used to see if the desired tracking has taken place by
    measuring the difference between the input and output signals and
    the corrective action takes place as the result of comparison.

[^117]: ARINC Comments at 6.

[^118]: *See Boeing Transmit-Receive Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 22654, para.
    19h.

[^119]: *See Boeing Transmit-Receive Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 22654-55,
    para. 19h.

[^120]: Boeing Petition at 19.

[^121]: Boeing Petition at 19.

[^122]: Boeing comments at 10. *See also* Recommendation ITU-R M.1643.

[^123]: Boeing comments at 10.

[^124]: *Cf*. Boeing comments at 9. Boeing suggests that an AMSS
    operator may be subject to alternative operating conditions in a
    foreign administration via either a coordination agreement or
    conditions included in a foreign authorization. *See also* Boeing
    comments at 9-10.

[^125]: Boeing comments at 9.

[^126]: *See* *supra* para. 43.

[^127]: Routine Licensing of Large Networks of Small Antenna Earth
    Stations Operating in the 12/14 GHz Frequency Bands*,* *Declaratory
    Order*, 1986 WL291567 at paras. 4-6 ("*VSAT Order*"). A Form 312 is
    required for each large (*i.e*., diameter of 5 meters or more) hub
    station in addition to one Form 312 for each representative type of
    small (*i.e*., diameter of less than 5 meters) earth terminal to be
    employed in the network. *Id.*

[^128]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.134 and *ESV Report and Order* at paras.
    114-17.

[^129]: Boeing Petition at 21.

[^130]: The satellites used in an AMSS network must be authorized to
    serve the United States. If an AMSS network operator proposes to
    communicate with a non-U.S.-licensed satellite the AMSS operator
    would be required to receive a case-by-case authorization to access
    the non-U.S. satellite. Amendment of the Commission\'s Regulatory
    Policies to Allow Non-U.S. Licensed Satellites Providing Domestic
    and International Service in the United States, *Report and Order*,
    12 FCC Rcd 24094 (1997) ("*DISCO II*"). AMSS providers operating a
    network out of the United States would have to get Commission
    authorization for four situations: access to U.S. satellites; access
    to non-U.S. satellites; service to U.S. aircraft; and service to
    non-U.S. aircraft.

[^131]: For example, Boeing's current non-conforming use AMSS
    authorization is only for the remote terminals. Boeing did not seek
    authority to operate a fixed hub. The Bureau required that Boeing's
    AES terminals be monitored and controlled by the NCMC. In such an
    AMSS system, transmissions between the satellite and the ground are
    carried out using one or more fixed Earth station hubs that are
    separately licensed by the Commission. *See* *Boeing
    Transmit-Receive Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 22654, paras. 3, 19. *See
    also ESV Report and Order* at paras. 114-17 (noting that an ESV
    system license consists of "a hub and/or blanket earth station
    license").

[^132]: *See* *VSAT Order*, 1986 WL291567 at para. 20.

[^133]: Specifically, we seek comment on whether to license AES
    terminals on an individual basis pursuant to the proposed off-axis
    EIRP requirements discussed in Section III.B.1.a. of this NPRM.

[^134]: Applications for new or modified transmitting and/or receiving
    earth stations must be filed on FCC Form 312. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§
    25.130, 25.131.

[^135]: \"ALSAT\" means \"all U.S.-licensed space stations.\"
    Originally, under an ALSAT earth station license, an earth station
    operator providing fixed-satellite service in the conventional C-
    and Ku-bands could access any U.S. satellite without additional
    Commission action, provided that those communications are in
    accordance with the same technical parameters and conditions
    established in the earth stations\' licenses. *See* Amendment of the
    Commission\'s Regulatory Policies to Allow Non-U.S. Licensed Space
    Stations to Provide Domestic and International Satellite Service in
    the United States, *Report and Order*, IB Docket No. 96-111, 15 FCC
    Rcd 7207, 7210-11, at para. 6 (1999) (*DISCO II First
    Reconsideration Order*). The *DISCO II First Reconsideration Order*
    expanded ALSAT earth station licenses to allow access to any
    satellite on the Permitted List. *DISCO II First Reconsideration
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7215-16 (para. 19).

[^136]: Boeing Petition at 23-24. Boeing adds that AMSS's secondary
    status reinforces that no interference risk exists for adjacent
    satellites. *Id*. at 24.

[^137]: *Part 25 Earth Station NPRM*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25137 (para. 23);
    25140 (para. 32).

[^138]: *See also* discussion in para. 40, *supra,* regarding our
    proposals for authorizing non-routine operations.

[^139]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.121.

[^140]: We are referring to foreign FS operators, since there is no U.S.
    allocation for FS in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band.

[^141]: In the *ESV Report and Order*, we identified similar regulatory
    factors that affect ESV operations. *See ESV Report and Order* at
    para. 119. Accordingly, the proposals and analysis in this section
    are modeled after our decision in the ESV proceeding.

[^142]: *See, e.g*., ITU Radio Regulation 18.8.

[^143]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 301(e).

[^144]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 301(e).

[^145]: We reached a similar conclusion regarding our obligations to
    license ESVs on U.S.-registered vessels. *See* *ESV Report and
    Order* at para. 120.

[^146]: *See* NCMC discussion in para. 43, *supra*.

[^147]: *See ESV Report and Order* at para. 121.

[^148]: We also would encourage bilateral arrangements between the
    United States and the foreign administration that would spell out
    the specific technical rules that an AES must meet in foreign
    airspace.

[^149]: U.S. airspace includes the airspace over territorial waters.
    Consistent with Presidential proclamation and the United Nations
    Convention on the Law of the Sea, the territorial waters would
    extend 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the geographic areas
    described in 47 U.S.C. § 153(51). *See, e.g.,* Presidential
    Proclamation No. 5928, 54 Fed. Reg. 777 (1988).

[^150]: *See* "The New Era of Inflight Connectivity Is Here: Connexion
    by Boeing and Lufthansa Announce the World Premiere of Airborne
    Internet," Boeing Press Release,
    <http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q2/nr_040511j.html> (May
    11, 2004); Boeing Petition at 2.

[^151]: Boeing identifies such AMSS systems as "associated with a U.S.
    AMSS licensee." Boeing Petition at 22.

[^152]: 47 U.S.C §§ 301, 306. We noted in the ESV proceeding that
    Section 306 of the Act prohibits the Commission from licensing earth
    stations on foreign-flagged ships. *ESV Report and Order* at para.
    122. However, this section does not apply to aircraft. *See* 47
    U.S.C. §§ 306, 3(39)(A) (definition of "ship" excludes aircraft).

[^153]: *ESV Report and Order* at para. 122.

[^154]: In the next section, we propose a regulatory framework for
    foreign-based (*i.e*., the hub and or network control systems are
    located outside the United States) and foreign-licensed AMSS
    operators operating on foreign-registered aircraft that fly through
    U.S. airspace.

[^155]: *See* 47 U.S.C. §§ 306, 3(39)(A) (definition of "ship" excludes
    aircraft).

[^156]: Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed Dec. 7, 1944,
    Article 30. By its terms, the Chicago Convention does not prohibit
    the nation over which the foreign registered aircraft is flying from
    also issuing a license for the transmitter. Therefore, a single AES
    onboard a single aircraft could have a separate license for each
    nation through which it passes.

[^157]: Boeing Petition at 22.

[^158]: Boeing Petition at 22.

[^159]: Boeing Petition at 22 *citing* 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.136(c),
    25.135(d), and Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish
    Rules and Policies Pertaining to a Mobile Satellite Service in the
    1610-1626.5/2483.5-2500 MHz Frequency Bands, CC Docket No. 92-166,
    *Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 5936, at 6016, para. 208 (1995) ("*Big
    LEO Order*").

[^160]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 306. This section also provides that
    communications from a foreign vessel located in U.S. jurisdiction
    still must be in accordance with any relevant rules designed to
    prevent interference. *Id*.

[^161]: Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed Dec. 7, 1944,
    Article 30. The Commission implemented this Article in the Part 87,
    the regulations concerning aviation services. Section 87.191(a)
    provides:

    > Aircraft of member States of the International Civil Aviation
    > Organization may carry and operate radio transmitters in the
    > United States airspace only if a license has been issued by the
    > State in which the aircraft is registered and the flight crew is
    > provided with a radio operator license of the proper class, issued
    > or recognized by the State in which the aircraft is registered.
    > The use of radio transmitters in the United States airspace must
    > comply with these rules and regulations. 47 C.F.R. § 87.191(a).

[^162]: *ESV Report and Order* at paras. 127-28.

[^163]: The full text of ITU RR 4.4 reads as follows: "Administrations
    of the Member States shall not assign a station to any frequency in
    derogation of either the Table of Frequency Allocations in this
    Chapter or the other provisions of these Regulations, except on the
    express condition that such a station, when using such a frequency
    assignment, shall not cause harmful interference to , and shall not
    claim protection from harmful interference caused by, as station
    operating in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the
    Convention and these Regulations."

[^164]: *See supra* fn. 72.

[^165]: *See supra* paras. 48-49, 57.

[^166]: Part D provides, in part:

    > Coordination agreements should be developed between AMSS and space
    > research systems based on controlling the emissions levels of the
    > AES in the frequency band used by the SRS systems, and, in severe
    > cases, may require cessation of AES emissions on frequencies used
    > by the SRS system when operating in the vicinity of the space
    > research earth station. ITU Recommendation ITU-R M.1643, Part D.

[^167]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200, 1.1206; Amendment of 47 C.F.R. § 1.1200 et
    seq. Concerning Ex Parte Presentations in Commission Proceedings, GC
    Docket No. 95-21, *Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 7348 (1997).

[^168]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2).

[^169]: *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. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA
    is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
    (SBREFA).

[^170]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^171]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.49.

[^172]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. 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. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^173]: *See* Service Rules and Procedures to Govern the Use of
    Aeronautical Mobile Satellite Service Earth Stations in the
    Frequency Bands Allocated to the Fixed Satellite Service, IB Docket
    No. 05-20, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice).

[^174]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^175]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^176]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^177]: *Id.* § 601(6).

[^178]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"small business concern\" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to the RFA,
    the statutory definition of a small business applies \"unless an
    agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration and after the opportunity for public
    comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register.\" 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^179]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^180]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517410.

[^181]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Receipt Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income Tax:
    1997," Table 4, NAICS code 517410 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^182]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 513340 (issued October 2000)*.*

[^183]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^184]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 513322 (issued October 2000).

[^185]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest
    category provided is "Firms with 1,000 employees or more."

[^186]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517211.

[^187]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 513321 (issued October 2000).

[^188]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is "Firms with 1,000
    employees or more."

[^189]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).