# Before the

# Federal Communications Commission

# Washington, D.C. 20554

In the matter of

)

Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 ) CC Docket No. 92-297

of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the )

27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate )

the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish )

Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint )

Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite )

Services )

# MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

**Adopted: May 16, 2001 Released: May 25, 2001**

By the Commission

**[Introduction]{.underline}**

1.  This order disposes of petitions for clarification or
    reconsideration of the *First Report and Order* in this proceeding,
    in which the Commission adopted a band-segmentation plan for the Ka
    Band.[^1] In response to requests from petitioners and other
    parties, we are amending Section 25.258 of the Commission's rules to
    eliminate one requirement and clarify provisions concerning
    inter-system coordination in the 29.25-29.5 GHz band.

**[Background]{.underline}**

2.  In the *First Report and Order* the Commission designated two
    adjacent frequency bands, 29.1-29.25 GHz and 29.25-29.5 GHz, for
    feeder uplinks for Mobile Satellite Service systems using
    non-geostationary-orbit satellites (*i.e.*, "NGSO/MSS" systems). The
    Commission also designated these bands for use by other services.
    Specifically, the 29.1-29.25 GHz band was designated for
    hub-to-subscriber transmission by Local Multipoint Distribution
    Service ("LMDS") systems[^2] and the 29.25-29.5 GHz band for uplinks
    for Fixed Satellite Service systems using geostationary satellites
    (*i.e.*, "GSO/FSS" systems). The Commission adopted different rules
    for licensing and coordination of NGSO/MSS feeder uplinks in these
    two bands, tailored in light of the different sharing environments.
    Provisions pertaining specifically to authorization and inter-system
    coordination in the 29.25-29.5 GHz band are set forth in Section
    25.258 of the Commission's rules, which states as follows:

> \(a\) Operators of NGSO MSS feeder link earth stations and GSO FSS
> earth stations in the band 29.25 to 29.5 GHz where both services have
> a co-primary allocation shall cooperate fully in order to coordinate
> their systems. During the coordination process both service operators
> shall exchange the necessary technical parameters required for
> coordination.
>
> \(b\) Licensed GSO FSS systems shall, to the maximum extent possible,
> operate with frequency/polarization selections, in the vicinity of
> operational or planned NGSO MSS feeder link earth station complexes,
> that will minimize instances of unacceptable interference to the GSO
> FSS space stations.
>
> \(c\) NGSO MSS satellites operating in this frequency band shall
> compensate for nodal regression due to the oblate shape of the Earth,
> and thus maintain constant successive sub-satellite ground tracks on
> the surface of the Earth.
>
> \(d\) NGSO MSS systems applying to use the 29.25 - 29.5 GHz band, for
> feeder link earth station uplink, will have to demonstrate that their
> system can share with the authorized U.S. GSO/FSS systems operating in
> this band.[^3]

**[Discussion]{.underline}**

[Deletion of Repeating-Groundtracks Requirement]{.underline}

3.  In a "Petition for Partial Reconsideration" of the *First Report and
    Order*, Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc. asks for deletion of
    Subsection 25.258(c), the provision that limits eligibility for
    NGSO/MSS feeder uplink assignments in the 29.25-29.5 GHz band to
    systems with "constant successive sub-satellite ground tracks" --
    *i.e.*, NGSO/MSS systems whose satellites retrace the same path over
    the earth's surface. At the time of filing, Motorola, which held the
    space-station license for the "Iridium" Big LEO system, was one of
    two NGSO/MSS licensees that had applied for Ka-Band feeder-uplink
    assignments.[^4]

4.  Motorola argues that the repeating-ground-track requirement should
    be eliminated because it severely constrains NGSO/MSS system design,
    is unnecessary for coordination with GSO/FSS systems, and was
    adopted without prior notice required by law. According to
    Motorola's calculations, NGSO satellites must be placed at one of
    certain specific orbit altitudes in order to meet the requirement,
    and all but seven of those altitudes are useless for communications
    satellites because they lie within the Van Allen radiation belt.
    Motorola points out that the Report of the Conference Preparatory
    Meeting for the 1995 World Radiocommunication Conference ("CPM-95")
    concluded that if the number of satellites involved is large it
    would be difficult to derive any coordination advantage from placing
    NGSO satellites in repeating-ground-track orbits and that use of
    such a design would multiply the frequency of interference events
    involving earth stations positioned in non-protected areas.[^5]
    Motorola contends that interference mitigation predicated on
    repeating ground tracks is not a feasible means of coordinating more
    than one NGSO/MSS system for operation in the 29.25-29.5 GHz band
    and hence that the requirement makes that spectrum unusable for more
    than one NGSO/MSS system.

5.  Motorola also seeks clarification regarding a statement in the
    *First Report and Order* that "Motorola will be limited to operating
    \[Iridium\] feeder \[up\]links within ... \[the 29.1-29.25 GHz\]
    band, since Motorola indicates \[Iridium\] will be unable to share
    with GSO/FSS systems in the adjoining \[29.25-29.5 GHz\] band."[^6]
    Motorola fears that this statement might be construed to mean that
    Iridium will never be allowed to operate in the 29.25-29.5 GHz band
    under any circumstances. While conceding that it may not be possible
    to coordinate use of the 29.25-29.5 GHz band for Iridium feeder
    links with currently-proposed GSO/FSS uplinks from earth stations in
    the United States, Motorola asserts that such coordination is
    possible with respect to uplink operation in other countries.
    Motorola surmises, moreover, that techniques might be developed in
    the future that would enable Iridium to share the 29.25-29.5 GHz
    uplink band with GSO/FSS systems for domestic operation, as well.
    Therefore, Motorola asks the Commission to resolve any doubt in this
    regard by declaring that the Iridium licensee could obtain authority
    for feeder-link operation in 29.25-29.5 GHz if it were to
    demonstrate that such operation could be conducted compatibly with
    GSO/FSS operation in that band.

6.  AT&T Corporation, Lockheed Martin Corporation, GE American
    Communications, Inc. ("GE"), and Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc.
    ("Hughes"), all of which had previously filed license applications
    for GSO/FSS systems, filed comments in opposition to Motorola's
    petition. Hughes argues that the repeating-ground-track requirement
    should be retained because adjusting orbital parameters so that
    NGSO/MSS satellites trace constant ground tracks is an important
    technique for facilitating coordination with GSO/FSS systems. Hughes
    and Lockheed Martin assert that the Commission predicated its
    adoption of the pertinent rules on a compromise proposal endorsed by
    all the interested parties, including Motorola, and that one of the
    main principles they agreed upon was that the 29.25-29.5 GHz uplink
    band should be reserved for GSO/FSS systems to share only with
    NGSO/FSS systems that can be coordinated with co-frequency GSO/FSS
    operation. Hughes, Lockheed Martin, and AT&T contend that it has
    been amply shown by documents of record, including a study submitted
    by Motorola, that Iridium feeder uplinks cannot be coordinated with
    co-frequency GSO/FSS uplinks.

7.  We conclude that the repeating-ground-track requirement should be
    eliminated. While operation with repeating ground tracks could
    facilitate coordination under some circumstances, none of the
    parties has established that an NGSO/MSS system *must* operate with
    repeating ground tracks for coordination with GSO/FSS systems to be
    feasible. On the contrary, Lockheed Martin indicates that the
    crucial factors are the designed orbital altitude of the NGSO/MSS
    satellites and the number and location of an NGSO/MSS system's
    planned feeder-link earth stations.[^7] Furthermore, TRW asserts
    that it successfully coordinated its proposed NGSO/MSS system with
    the GSO/FSS applicants regarding sharing in the 29.25-29.5 GHz band
    without relying on repeating ground tracks.[^8] As we have no
    grounds for finding that operation with repeating ground tracks is
    indispensable for coordinated sharing of the 29.25-29.5 GHz uplink
    band, we will not require NGSO/MSS applicants to propose operation
    with repeating ground tracks in order to be eligible for an uplink
    assignment in that band. However, any applicant for an NGSO/MSS
    uplink assignment in the 29.25-29.5 GHz band will have to comply
    with the provisions pertaining to coordination in Subsections
    25.203(h) and 25.203(k).[^9] Such an applicant must also demonstrate
    that coordination with authorized GSO/FSS operation in that band is
    feasible, as required by the final paragraph of Section 25.258.

8.  To address Motorola's request for clarification concerning the
    possibility of future Iridium operation in the 29.25-29.5 GHz band:
    if the Iridium licensee were to apply for authority to operate in
    that band we would assess associated coordination showings submitted
    pursuant to the pertinent requirements of Sections 25.203 and 25.258
    on their merits.

[Other Requests for Amendment of Section 25.258]{.underline}

9.  *Geographic separation*. Lockheed Martin proposes that Subsection
    25.258(b) be amended by inserting the text indicated here by
    underlining:

> \(b\) Licensed GSO FSS systems shall, to the maximum extent possible,
> operate with frequency/polarization selections, in the vicinity of
> operational or planned NGSO MSS feeder link earth station complexes,
> [or alternatively GSO FSS and NGSO MSS systems shall operate with
> geometric separation to provide uplink beam isolation,]{.underline}
> that will minimize instances of unacceptable interference ....

Lockheed Martin contends that the rule should be amended in this way
because geographic separation of earth stations might be a more feasible
means of uplink coordination for some GSO/FSS systems than frequency
and/or polarity selection. In particular, Lockheed Martin asserts that
the uplink transmission of its proposed Astrolink GSO/FSS system could
be coordinated with some types of NGSO/MSS feeder-link operation by this
means alone. Lockheed Martin would prefer to coordinate by geographic
separation, rather than by frequency or polarity selection, because that
would allow Astrolink gateway stations to make use of the entire
29.25-29.5 GHz band in both polarities.

10. TRW and Hughes filed comments on this amendment proposal. TRW agrees
    that coordination through geographic separation should be a
    permissible alternative but objects to the wording of Lockheed
    Martin's proposed amendment because it implies that an affected
    NGSO/MSS licensee would bear equal responsibility for achieving
    geographic separation with respect to the earth stations of a
    GSO/FSS licensee preferring this coordination technique. TRW
    maintains that the burden of coordinating through geographic
    separation should be borne primarily by GSO/FSS licensees. The
    reason for allocating the responsibility in that way, according to
    TRW, is that siting options for Ka-Band NGSO/MSS feeder-link earth
    stations are already severely constrained by rule provisions adopted
    to enable NGSO/MSS systems to share 29.1-29.25 GHz uplink spectrum
    with each other and with LMDS systems.[^10] Hughes opposes the
    amendment request. Hughes argues that there is no need to amend
    Section 25.258 to indicate that GSO/FSS and NGSO/MSS operation in
    the 29.25-29.5 GHz band may be coordinated through geographical
    separation, because the rule already permits that. Hughes also
    argues that the proposed amendment should be rejected because it
    would "codify" a coordination method that would not work for GSO/FSS
    systems linking with numerous widely-distributed earth stations.

11. We deny this request because the proposed amendment is, as Hughes
    contends, unnecessary. As presently written, Subsection 25.258(b)
    merely requires GSO/FSS earth stations *in the vicinity of* NGSO/MSS
    feeder link earth stations to be coordinated through frequency or
    polarity selection. GSO/FSS licensees need not coordinate the uplink
    frequencies or polarity of earth stations that are sufficiently
    separated by distance from NGSO/MSS feederlink stations that they
    can operate in the same channels with the same polarity without
    interfering with NGSO/MSS uplink reception. Thus, Subsection
    25.258(b) does not preclude reliance on geographical separation for
    avoidance of interference.

12. *"Licensed".* Lockheed Martin contends that the word "Licensed"
    should be stricken from Subsection 25.258(b) because its use in that
    context might foster an impression that NGSO/MSS licensees need not
    coordinate sharing in the 29.25-29.5 GHz band with regard to GSO/FSS
    systems proposed in pending applications. We do not agree that there
    is any need for such an amendment. Lockheed Martin's concern is
    misplaced, as Subsection (b) merely prescribes a requirement for
    GSO/FSS licensees. In any event, merely deleting "Licensed" from
    Subsection (b) would not change the meaning of that provision.

13. *Unopposed amendment requests.* Hughes, TRW, and Lockheed Martin
    propose several minor changes to current Subsections (b) and (d) of
    Section 25.258 for purposes of clarification. In particular, they
    propose that (b) be amended to make it clear that interference is to
    be minimized with respect to both GSO FSS and NGSO MSS systems and
    that current Subsection (d) be amended to make it clear that the
    showing regarding sharing must be made with respect to
    previously-licensed systems that are not yet operational. These
    requests are unopposed. We agree that the proposed changes would
    usefully clarify those provisions and are amending the rule
    accordingly.

[Limits on LMDS Operation]{.underline}

14. Texas Instruments ("TI") seeks clarification regarding limitations
    on use of the 29.1-29.25 GHz frequency bands for LMDS. The
    Commission prohibited use of this band for LMDS subscriber-to-hub
    links, but indicated that the limitation might be reconsidered in
    the future based on evidence that sharing is feasible. TI seeks
    clarification regarding the process that would be used to reach a
    determination in this regard and the FCC's role in that process. We
    see no reason to prescribe a specific process for making such a
    determination at this time. Any such determination would be made
    based on current technical information, market conditions, and other
    factors that may be relevant to the public interest. TI's other
    request, concerning clarification of requirements that might be
    applicable to fixed service leasing of LMDS spectrum, is being
    addressed separately.[^11]

**Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification**

15. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended ("RFA")[^12]
    requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for
    rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that "the rule
    will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
    of small entities."[^13] The RFA generally defines "small entity" as
    having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small
    organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."[^14] In
    addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term
    "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.[^15] 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").[^16]

16. First, in this Memorandum Opinion and Order we eliminate a rule
    provision that barred use of the 29.25-29.5 GHz frequency band for
    transmission from earth stations to non-geostationary-orbit (i.e.,
    "NGSO") satellites that do not trace constant paths over the ground
    in successive orbits. Any applicant for a license for NGSO uplink
    transmission in that band is required by other provisions in the
    Commission's rules to demonstrate that the proposed operation (1)
    would not interfere with authorized operation in that band by
    previously-licensed systems or (2) would be conducted in accordance
    with coordination agreements with the licensees of such systems.
    With these protective measures in place, we believe that the
    elimination of the restriction on use of the 29.25-29.5 GHz
    frequency band will not have a significant economic impact on any
    small entities. Second, this Memorandum Opinion and Order adopts
    minor revisions to other rule provisions to make it clear that: (1)
    the frequencies and polarity of transmission to GSO satellites in
    the 29.25-29.5 GHz band from fixed earth stations in the vicinity of
    NGSO feeder-link stations must be chosen to minimize interference
    with reception of uplink transmission to NGSO, as well as GSO,
    satellites and (2) applicants for authority to use the 29.25-29.5
    GHz band for feeder uplinks must show that sharing is possible with
    other systems that have been previously-authorized to use that band,
    not just systems that are currently operational. These changes
    merely clarify the Commission's pertinent intentions, rather than
    altering its policies and therefore impose no additional burden on
    any small entities. We therefore certify that the adoption of this
    Memorandum Opinion and Order will not have a significant economic
    impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission
    will send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order, including a
    copy of this final certification, in a report to Congress pursuant
    to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
    1996.[^17] In addition, the Memorandum Opinion and Order and this
    final certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
    of the SBA and will be published in the Federal Register.

**[Ordering Clauses]{.underline}**

17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the "Petition for Partial
    Reconsideration" filed by Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc. on
    September 27, 1996 IS GRANTED.

18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the "Petition of TRW Inc. for
    Clarification and/or Partial Reconsideration of the First Report and
    Order" filed on September 24, 1996 IS GRANTED to the extent
    indicated herein and IS OTHERWISE DENIED and that the "Petition for
    Reconsideration of Texas Instruments, Inc." filed on August 28, 1996
    IS DENIED to the extent indicated herein.

19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Section 25.258 of the Commission's rules
    IS AMENDED as indicated in the appendix to this order, effective 30
    days after publication in the Federal Register. This action is taken
    pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) and 303(r).

20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
    Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the Regulatory Flexibility
    Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

**APPENDIX**

For the reasons discussed above, the Federal Communications Commission
amends 47 C.F.R. Part 25 as follows:

Part 25 -- Satellite Communications

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

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

2\. Section 25.258 is revised to read as follows:

**§25.258 Sharing between NGSO MSS Feeder link Stations and GSO FSS
services in the 29.25-29.5 GHz Bands**

\(a\) Operators of NGSO MSS feeder link earth stations and GSO FSS earth
stations in the band 29.25 to 29.5 GHz where both services have a
co-primary allocation shall cooperate fully in order to coordinate their
systems. During the coordination process both service operators shall
exchange the necessary technical parameters required for coordination.

\(b\) Licensed GSO FSS systems shall, to the maximum extent possible,
operate with frequency/polarization selections, in the vicinity of
operational or planned NGSO MSS feeder link earth station complexes,
that will minimize instances of unacceptable interference with GSO FSS
or NGSO MSS uplink reception.

\(c\) Applicants for authority to use the 29.25 - 29.5 GHz band for NGSO
MSS feeder uplinks will have to demonstrate that their systems can share
with GSO FSS and NGSO MSS systems that have been authorized for
operation in that band.

[^1]: *First Report and Order and Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*,
    11 FCC Rcd 19,005 (1996). Consistently with usage in previous orders
    in this proceeding, we use the term "Ka Band" to denote the spectrum
    at 17.7-20.2 GHz, which is allocated for satellite-to-earth (*i.e.*,
    downlink) transmission and that at 27.5-30.0 GHz, which is allocated
    for earth-to-satellite (*i.e.*, uplink) transmission.

[^2]: LMDS is a high-capacity, broadband terrestrial wireless service
    with cellular architecture, linking subscribers' fixed terminals via
    hub transceivers in each cell. LMDS systems could be used for
    facilities-based competition with local exchange telephone carriers
    and cable-television providers or for a variety of interactive
    services, including broadband video on demand.

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.258. Further provisions relevant to coordination
    between GSO and NGSO uplinks in the 29.25-29.5 GHz band are set
    forth in 47 C.F.R. § 25.203(h) and (k).

[^4]: The Iridium earth-station licenses were granted to corporations
    affiliated with Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc. For the sake
    of simplicity, in this order we refer indiscriminately to Motorola
    Satellite Communications, Inc. and/or its parent and sister
    corporations as "Motorola."

[^5]: *ITU-R/CPM-95, Conference Preparatory Meeting, Report to WRC-95*
    ¶3.1.7.

[^6]: *First Report and Order* at ¶63.

[^7]: *Consolidated Comments of Lockheed Martin Corporation* at p.10
    (filed Oct. 21, 1996.)

[^8]: TRW included these comments on point in a pleading filed in
    response to Motorola's petition for reconsideration:

    > \[T\]he prospect for successful sharing between NGSO/MSS feeder
    > link networks of the design of Odyssey and GSO/FSS networks in the
    > band 29.25-29.5 GHz is not dependent on TRW's maintenance of
    > constant successive ground tracks for Odyssey. The frequency with
    > which Odyssey satellites will cross through the geostationary
    > \[satellite orbital\] arc is unaffected by the use of this
    > feature. Coherent orbits simply have the effect of regularizing
    > the intersections; they have no impact whatsoever on the ability
    > of GSO/FSS operators to employ modest coordination measures
    > (already agreed to and incorporated into the Commission's *First
    > Report and Order* and associated new rules) to permit full
    > operation of both types of system even in cases where there are
    > orbit intersections at occupied GSO/FSS positions.

    Our staff's evaluation of evidence of record pertaining to the
    coordination principles that TRW and the GSO/FSS applicants agreed
    upon bears out TRW's assertion that the coordination did not depend
    on maintenance of repeating ground tracks.

[^9]: Subsection 25.203(h) requires any applicant for an earth-station
    license authorizing operation in a frequency band allocated on a
    co-primary basis for NGSO and GSO uplinks to select a site, or
    sites, where mainlobe-to-mainlobe coupling will not occur with
    respect to satellites of other systems and to pre-coordinate the
    proposed site and spectrum use with existing earth-station licensees
    and applicants. Subsection 25.203(k) requires an applicant for an
    earth-station license in a band designated for sharing by GSO and
    NGSO systems to show that the proposed operation will not cause
    unacceptable interference to any satellite system licensed for
    operation in the same band or else certify that the proposed
    operation would comport with established coordination agreements
    with the licensees of the affected satellite systems.

[^10]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §25.257.

[^11]: *See Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of
    Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets*, Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 00-230 (rel. Nov. 27, 2000), 2000
    W.L. 1736657.

[^12]: The RFA, 5 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").

[^13]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^14]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(6).

[^15]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consulting with the
    Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after
    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."

[^16]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^17]: 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).