# Before the

# FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

# Washington, D.C. 20554

)

In the Matter of )

)

Satelites Mexicanos, S.A. de C.V. ) File No. SAT-PDR-19991214-00131

)

Petition for Declaratory Ruling )

)

**ORDER**

Adopted: October 2, 2000 Released: October 3, 2000

By the Chief, Satellite and Radiocommunication Division, International
Bureau:

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1 In this Order, we add Satelites Mexicanos, S.A. de C.V.\'s (SatMex\'s)
Solidaridad 2 and Satmex 5 satellites, located at 113.0° W.L. and 116.8º
W.L. orbit locations, respectively, to the \"Permitted Space Station
List.\" The Permitted Space Station List denotes all satellites with
which U.S. earth stations with \"routinely\" authorized technical
parameters are permitted to communicate without additional Commission
action, provided that those communications fall within the same
technical parameters and conditions established in the earth stations\'
licenses.[^1] This list is intended to streamline the process by which
foreign-licensed satellites can access the U.S. market, and as a result,
stimulate competition in the United States, provide consumers more
alternatives in choosing communications providers and services, reduce
prices, and facilitate technological innovation.

**II. BACKGROUND**

2 The Commission\'s *DISCO II* *Order* adopted a framework under which
the Commission would consider requests for non-U.S. satellite systems to
serve the United States. To implement this framework, the Commission,
among other things, established a procedure by which a service provider
in the United States could request immediate access to a foreign
in-orbit satellite that would serve the U.S. market.[^2] In the *DISCO
II First Reconsideration Order*, the Commission streamlined this process
by allowing the *operators* of in-orbit non-U.S. satellites offering
fixed-satellite service to request authority to provide space segment
capacity service to licensed earth stations in the United States. Under
*DISCO II*, this request could be made only by an earth station
operator. Further, once a non-U.S. space station is permitted to access
the U.S. market pursuant to a complete *DISCO II* analysis, it is placed
on the Permitted Space Station List upon the applicant\'s request. This
list includes all satellites with which U.S. earth stations with
routinely-authorized technical parameters are permitted to communicate
without additional Commission action, provided that those communications
fall within the same technical parameters and conditions established in
the earth stations\' original licenses.[^3] The Permitted Space Station
List is maintained on our website, and is also available via fax or
e-mail.[^4]

3 On December 14, 1999, SatMex requested us to add Solidaridad 2 and
Satmex 5 to the Permitted List.[^5] GE American Communications, Inc. (GE
Americom) filed comments on January 24, 2000.[^6] SatMex filed a reply
on February 8, 2000.[^7]

**III. DISCUSSION**

**A. General Framework**

4 In *DISCO II*, the Commission set forth the public interest analysis
applicable in evaluating applications to use non-U.S. licensed space
stations to provide satellite service in the United States. This
analysis considers the effect on competition in the United States,[^8]
spectrum availability,[^9] eligibility and operating (*e.g.*, technical)
requirements,[^10] and national security, law enforcement, foreign
policy, and trade concerns.[^11] We evaluate SatMex\'s request under
this framework.

**B. Competition Considerations**

5 In *DISCO II*, the Commission established a rebuttable presumption in
favor of entry by non-U.S. satellites licensed by World Trade
Organization (WTO) Members to provide services covered by the U.S.
commitments under the WTO Agreement on Basic Telecommunications Services
(WTO Basic Telecom Agreement).[^12] These commitments included
fixed-satellite service, except for direct-to-home (DTH) service. The
Commission concluded that the market access commitments made by WTO
Members under the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement will help ensure the
presence and advancement of competition in the satellite services market
and yield the benefits of a competitive marketplace to consumers in the
United States and other countries.[^13] In this case, the presumption in
favor of entry is applicable to SatMex, because Mexico is a WTO Member
and a signatory to the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement.[^14]

6 No commenter in this proceeding has presented any arguments to rebut
this presumption. GE Americom, however, notes that it recently launched
a hybrid C/Ku-band satellite to the 101° W.L. orbit location, and plans
to provide service to Mexico, Central America, and South America.[^15]
GE Americom does not recommend any specific condition on the placement
of SatMex\'s satellites on the Permitted List. Rather, GE Americom
requests that \"the Commission preserve its ability to redress any
competitive issues that arise\" if Mexico chooses to place any
regulatory barriers to foreign entry to the Mexican satellite
market.[^16]

7 GE Americom\'s assertions do not address, let alone rebut, the
presumption in favor of entry adopted by the Commission in *DISCO II*.
The Commission adopted that presumption in lieu of the \"Effective
Competitive Opportunities for Satellites\" test (ECO-Sat test) it had
originally proposed in the DISCO *II Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking*.[^17] The ECO-Sat test requires parties to demonstrate that
U.S.-licensed satellite systems have effective competitive opportunities
in foreign markets.[^18] The Commission adopted a presumption in favor
of entry for WTO-Member satellites providing WTO-covered services, after
concluding that market access commitments made by WTO Members under the
WTO Basic Telecom Agreement and the general procompetitive obligations
of WTO Members under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)
would enhance competition in the U.S. satellite services market.[^19] GE
Americom is, in effect, requesting us to reopen this proceeding
periodically to conduct an ECO-Sat test, and to ignore the presumption
in favor of entry adopted by the Commission in *DISCO II*. The Bureau
rejected a similar proposal by GE Americom in the *Telesat Order*.[^20]
We reject GE Americom\'s proposal in this proceeding as well.

8 Mexico and the United States have reached a bilateral agreement that
allows Mexican satellites to offer fixed-satellite services in the
United States, including Direct-to-Home (DTH) service, Direct Broadcast
Satellite (DBS) service, and Digital Audio Radio Service (DARS), after
those satellites have been coordinated with the United States for these
services.[^21] Accordingly, we conclude that permitting ALSAT-designated
earth stations to access SatMex\'s two satellites for purposes of
offering fixed-satellite services, including DTH, will enhance
competition for these services.

**C. Spectrum Availability**

9 In *DISCO II*, the Commission determined that, given the scarcity of
orbit and spectrum resources, it would consider spectrum availability as
a factor in determining whether to allow a foreign satellite to serve
the United States.[^22] This is consistent with the Chairman\'s Note to
the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement, which states that WTO Members may
exercise their domestic spectrum/frequency management policies when
considering foreign entry.

10 In this case, the Solidaridad 2 and Satmex 5 satellites are located
at orbital positions in accordance with a trilateral agreement for C-
and Ku-band frequencies among the United States, Mexico, and
Canada.[^23] Consequently, the Commission has not licensed satellites in
these frequency bands at these locations. Allowing the Solidaridad 2 and
Satmex 5 satellites to serve the United States from their respective
orbit locations will not affect operations of any U.S.-licensed
satellites nor contravene the Commission\'s spectrum/frequency
management policies.

**D. Eligibility Requirements**

11 In *DISCO II*, the Commission stated it would require non-U.S. space
station operators to meet the same technical, legal, and financial
qualifications that U.S.-licensed space station operators must meet to
obtain a license.[^24] In this case, we need not, however, require
SatMex to demonstrate that it is financially qualified to construct and
launch a satellite, because Solidaridad 2 and Satmex 5 are already in
orbit.[^25]

12 We must determine whether SatMex has demonstrated its technical
qualifications, however. The Commission\'s satellite licensing policy is
predicated upon two-degree orbital spacing between geostationary
satellites.[^26] This policy permits the maximum use of the
geostationary satellite orbit.[^27] Applicants must demonstrate that
they comply with the Commission\'s technical requirements, designed to
permit two-degree orbital spacing, before being authorized to provide
service in the United States. The Commission may license satellites that
are not two-degree compliant (or earth stations seeking to access such),
but only when the applicants can demonstrate that their operations will
cause no harmful interference to existing compliant satellite
operations. Further, non-conforming operations are authorized
conditioned upon a licensee accommodating future satellite networks
serving the United States that are two-degree compliant.[^28]

13 SatMex has coordinated Solidaridad 2 and SatMex 5 with the United
States for routine earth stations.[^29] Accordingly, SatMex is not
required to submit technical information for these satellites.[^30]
Based on the information exchanged with Mexico during the coordination,
we can determine that the Solidaridad 2 and SatMex 5 satellites will not
cause harmful interference to U.S.-licensed satellites, the nearest of
which is more than two degrees away. The Bureau determined in 1997 that
Solidaridad 2 is not two-degree-compliant.[^31] SatMex has not provided
any new information that would justify a different conclusion here.
Furthermore, we cannot determine on the basis of the record in this
proceeding whether SatMex 5 can operate interference-free in a
two-degree spacing environment. SatMex cites three U.S. earth stations
that we have authorized to communicate with SatMex satellites, but those
earth station applications did not provide, and were not required to
provide, all the detailed technical information specified in Section
25.114.[^32] Although SatMex asserts that \"several\" earth station
operators have submitted Section 25.114 information on SatMex 5 in earth
station modification applications, SatMex does not identify any of those
applications in its petition for declaratory ruling.[^33] As a result,
there is nothing in the record before us in this proceeding that would
enable us to conclude that SatMex\'s two satellites are two-degree
compliant. Accordingly, consistent with our treatment of U.S.-licensed
systems, and with our treatment of Canada\'s ANIK E1 and E2,[^34] we
permit ALSAT-designated earth stations to communicate with the
Solidaridad 2 and SatMex 5 satellites to provide service in the United
States on a non-harmful interference basis relative to satellite systems
that have satellite services currently in operation compliant with
two-degree spacing requirements and authorized to serve the United
States.

14 Further, the Solidaridad 2 and SatMex 5 satellites are located at
orbital positions subject to a trilateral agreement among the United
States, Canada, and Mexico.[^35] In addition, SatMex and Telesat Canada
have coordinated all their satellites covered by the Trilateral
Agreement.[^36] Based on that agreement, we do not expect these
satellites to cause harmful interference to any U.S. or foreign licensed
satellite network now serving the United States. In addition, consistent
with the Trilateral Agreement, we do not anticipate assigning any
U.S.-licensed facilities within two degrees of these orbital locations.
In the future, however, should the Commission authorize access to the
U.S. market by a non-U.S.-licensed satellite that is providing services
that are two-degree-compliant, and is located within two degrees of
Solidaridad 2 or SatMex 5, SatMex would be expected to coordinate in
good faith with the licensee of that satellite. If a coordination
agreement is not reached, the operation of U.S. non-routine earth
stations communicating with the Solidaridad 2 or SatMex 5 satellites
must be on a non-harmful interference basis relative to
routinely-licensed U.S. services provided by the compliant satellite.

15 Finally, we note that one earth station operator, Tachyon, Inc., has
been authorized to communicate with SatMex 5 on a
non-harmful-interference basis to adjacent satellite systems using a
0.95-meter antenna.[^37] Section 25.212(c) establishes a minimum antenna
diameter of 1.2 meters for routine licensing of Ku-band earth stations
operating within certain power density requirements.[^38] Similarly,
Section 25.212(d) establishes a minimum antenna diameter of 4.5 meters
for routine licensing of C-band earth stations operating within certain
power density requirements.[^39] Because only routinely licensed earth
stations are permitted to access space stations on the Permitted
List,[^40] earth stations with antennas that do not comply with Section
25.212 cannot automatically access SatMex 5 without further Commission
action. To ensure that there is no confusion in this regard, we will
include conditions in the Permitted List entries for the two SatMex
satellites that require earth stations accessing those satellites to
comply with Sections 25.212(c) and (d), including the minimum antenna
size standards.[^41]

**E. Other Issues**

16 As described above, under *DISCO II*, national security, law
enforcement, foreign policy, and trade concerns are included in the
public interest analysis.[^42] Nothing in the record before us raises
any such concerns.

17 Finally, pursuant to the Bureau\'s Public Notice of December 17,
1999, placing a satellite on the Permitted List will permit
international common carriers holding appropriate global international
Section 214 authorizations to provide international telecommunications
services using the satellite without the need to obtain additional
Section 214 authority.[^43] We find that it is in the public interest to
allow common carriers with global international Section 214
authorizations to communicate with the two SatMex satellites addressed
in this Order.

**IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES**

18 We have performed a complete *DISCO II* analysis in this Order, and
have determined that certain conditions necessary to preclude
communications with the two SatMex satellites addressed in this Order
from causing harmful interference with other U.S.-licensed services.
Accordingly, we hereby place the SatMex satellites on the Permitted
Space Station List, subject to the conditions set forth in this
Order.[^44]

19 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 303(r), 308,
309, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
303(r), 308, 309, 310, and Sections 25.121(a) and 25.137(c) of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.121(a), 25.137(c), each earth
station with \"ALSAT\" designated as a point of communication, IS
GRANTED authority to provide Fixed Satellite Services (FSS), excluding
FSS Direct-to-Home services, to, from, or within the United States, by
accessing the Solidaridad 2 and SatMex 5 satellites, located at the
113.0° W.L. and 116.8º W.L. orbit locations, respectively, subject to
the conditions set forth in its earth station license and in this Order.

20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Solidaridad 2 and SatMex 5 satellites,
together with the conditions set forth in this Order, ARE PLACED on the
\"Permitted Space Station List\" with the following conditions.

21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that access to the Solidaridad 2, and SatMex 5
satellite networks SHALL BE in compliance with the satellite
coordination agreements reached between the United States and Mexico,
and any future modifications to such agreements.

22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that access to the Solidaridad 2 and SatMex 5
satellite networks SHALL BE in compliance with the satellite
coordination agreement between the SatMex of Mexico, Telesat Canada, and
Industry Canada, signed in Istanbul on May 31, 2000, and any future
modifications to which the parties agree.

23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that operations over the Solidaridad 2 and
SatMex 5 satellite networks shall not cause harmful interference to, nor
shall operators accessing these satellite networks claim protection
from, U.S. services provided over U.S.-authorized satellite networks
that are compliant with the Commission\'s two-degree spacing rules.

24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that operations over the Solidaridad 2 and
SatMex 5 satellite networks shall not cause harmful interference to, nor
shall operators accessing these satellite networks claim protection
from, U.S.-authorized services provided over non-U.S.-authorized
satellite networks that are providing service to the United States and
are compliant with the Commission\'s two-degree spacing rules.

25 ALSAT-designated earth stations communicating with the Solidaridad 2
or SatMex 5 satellite networks must meet the requirements of Section
25.212 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.212.

26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that operations over and access to the
Solidaridad 2 and SatMex 5 satellite networks shall cease immediately
upon notification of harmful interference. Complaints of all radio
interference shall be forwarded to the Commission in writing.

27 This Order is issued pursuant to Section 0.261 of the Commission's
rules on delegated authority, 47 C.F.R. § 0.261, and is effective upon
release. Petitions for reconsideration under Section 1.106 or
applications for review under Section 1.115 of the Commission's rules,
47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106, 1.115, may be filed within 30 days of the date of
the release of this Order. (*See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.4(b)(2).)

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Thomas S. Tycz

Chief, Satellite and Radiocommunication Division

International Bureau

[^1]: The Commission established the Permitted Space Station List in the
    *DISCO II First Reconsideration Order*. 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, Order, IB Docket No. 96-111, 15 FCC Rcd 7207
    (1999) (*DISCO II First Reconsideration Order*).

[^2]: ^?^ 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, IB Docket No.
    96-111, 12 FCC Rcd 24094, 24174 (para. 186) (1997) (*DISCO II*). For
    a more detailed summary of the *DISCO II* framework, see *DISCO II
    First Reconsideration Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7209-10 (paras. 4-5).

[^3]: ^?^ *DISCO II First Reconsideration Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7214-16
    (paras. 16-20).

[^4]: ^?^ *DISCO II First Reconsideration Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7215-16
    (para. 19).

[^5]: ^?^ Letter from Carmen Ochoa, General Counsel, Satelites
    Mexicanos, S.A. de C.V., to Thomas S. Tycz, Chief, Satellite and
    Radiocommunication Division, International Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission (dated Dec. 14, 1999) (SatMex Petition).
    SatMex originally included Solidaridad 1, located at 109.2° W.L., in
    its petition, but later withdrew its request for that satellite
    because it has ceased operation and was irretrievably lost. Letter
    from Carmen Ochoa, General Counsel, Satelites Mexicanos, S.A. de
    C.V., to Thomas S. Tycz, Chief, Satellite and Radiocommunication
    Division, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
    (dated Sept.18, 2000).

[^6]: ^?^ Telesat Canada also opposed SatMex\'s Permitted List request,
    but later withdrew its opposition. Letter from Carl R. Frank,
    Counsel for Telesat Canada, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary,
    Federal Communications Commission (dated June 7, 2000) (*June 7
    Letter*).

[^7]: ^?^ Replies were scheduled to be filed on February 3, 2000, 10
    days after comments were due. SatMex received Telesat\'s comments by
    mail. Section 1.4(h) of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.4(h)
    permits parties to take three additional business days to file
    pleadings when the notice period is 10 days or less and the party is
    served by mail.

[^8]: ^?^ *DISCO II*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24107-56 (paras. 30-145).

[^9]: ^?^ *DISCO II*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24157-59 (paras. 146-50).

[^10]: ^?^ *DISCO II*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24159-69 (paras. 151-74).

[^11]: ^?^ *DISCO II*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24169-72 (paras. 175-82).

[^12]: ^?^ *DISCO II*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24112 (para. 39).

[^13]: ^?^ *DISCO II*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24112 (para. 39).

[^14]: ^?^ See \<www.wto.org/wto/services/tel01.htm\> at n.2 for a list
    of all signatories to the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement. See
    \<www.wto.org/wto/about/organsn6.htm\> for a list of all WTO
    Members.

[^15]: GE Americom Comments at 2-3.

[^16]: ^?^ GE Americom Comments at 3.

[^17]: ^?^ 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, Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 96-111, 11 FCC Rcd 13178, 18180
    (para. 2) (1996) (*DISCO II Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*).

[^18]: ^?^ *DISCO II*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24112-13 (para. 40); 47 C.F.R. §
    25.137(a).

[^19]: ^?^ *DISCO II*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24112-13 (paras. 39-40).

[^20]: Telesat Canada Request for Declaratory Ruling or Petition for
    Waiver on Earth Stations\' Use of ANIK E1 and ANIK E2 Satellite
    Capacity to Provide Basic Telecommunications Service in the United
    States, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 3649 (Int\'l Bur., 1999) (*Telesat
    Order*).

[^21]: ^?^ *See* Protocol Concerning the Transmission and Reception of
    Signals from Satellites for the Provision of Direct-to-Home
    Satellite Television Services in the United States of America and
    the United Mexican States, November 8, 1996; Agreement Between the
    Government of the United States of America and the United Mexican
    States Concerning the Use of the 2310-2360 MHz Band, July 24, 2000.
    *See also* Televisa International, LLC, Order and Authorization, 13
    FCC Rcd 10074, 10075-76 (para. 5) (Int\'l Bur. 1997) (*Televisa
    Order*) (discussing DTH Protocol).

[^22]: ^?^ *DISCO II*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24159 (para. 150).

[^23]: Trilateral Arrangement Regarding Use of the Geostationary Orbit
    by Canada, Mexico, and the United States, Public Notice, Mimeo No.
    4406 (Sept. 2, 1988).

[^24]: ^?^ *DISCO II*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24161-63 (paras. 154-59).

[^25]: ^?^ *DISCO II*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24176 (para. 191) (financial
    qualification showing is not required for in-orbit satellite).

[^26]: ^?^ For more information regarding the Commission\'s two-degree
    spacing policy, see Licensing Space Stations in the Domestic
    Fixed-Satellite Service, 48 F.R. 40233 (Sept. 6, 1983).

[^27]: ^?^ Assignment of Orbital Locations to Space Stations in the
    Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service, 11 FCC Rcd 13788, 13790 (para. 6)
    (1996). Prior to the Commission\'s adoption of the two-degree
    spacing policy, satellites in the geostationary satellite orbit were
    usually spaced three or four degrees apart. By adopting rules that
    enabled satellite operators to place their space stations two
    degrees apart, the Commission was able to accommodate more
    geostationary satellites.

[^28]: ^?^ *See*, *e.g.*, Systematics General Corporation, Order and
    Authorization, 2 FCC Rcd 7550, 7550-51 (para. 9) (Com. Car. Bur.
    1987); New Skies Satellites, N.V., Order and Authorization, 14 FCC
    Rcd 13003, 13038 (para. 78) (1999).

[^29]: A \"routine\" earth station is one that operates consistently
    with the technical requirements of Part 25. *See* *DISCO II First
    Reconsideration Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7213 n.30. SatMex is still in
    the process of coordinating SatMex 5 with respect to non-routine
    earth stations in the United States.

[^30]: ^?^ *DISCO II*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24176 (para. 191) (non-U.S.
    satellite operators are not required to submit technical information
    for satellites for which international coordination has been
    completed).

[^31]: *Televisa Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 10077-78 (para. 10).

[^32]: The earth station applications cited by SatMex are File Nos.
    SES-MOD-19990401-00537; SES-MOD-19990401-00539; and
    SES-MOD-19990401-00544. SatMex Petition at 1 n.3.

[^33]: ^?^ SatMex Reply at 2-3.

[^34]: *Telesat Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3654-55 (paras. 15-16).

[^35]: ^?^ *See* Public Notice, Trilateral Arrangement Regarding Use of
    the Geostationary Orbit Reached by Canada, Mexico, and the United
    States (Sept. 2, 1988).

[^36]: ^?^ *June 7 Letter*.

[^37]: ^?^ Application No. SES-MOD-20000510-00754, granted July 14,
    2000.

[^38]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 25.212(c).

[^39]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 25.212(d).

[^40]: ^?^ *See DISCO II First Reconsideration Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    7214 (para. 16) (all future routinely licensed earth stations will
    be allowed to access any satellite on the Permitted Space Station
    list); 7214-15 (para. 17) (existing ALSAT-designated earth stations
    that are not two-degree compliant, *i.e.* are not \"routinely
    licensed,\" must show that operation of that earth station will not
    cause more interference than would be caused by a
    two-degree-compliant earth station or must be individually
    coordinated with all adjacent satellite operations).

[^41]: ^?^ The Bureau placed a similar condition on ANIK E1\'s entry on
    the Permitted List. *Telesat Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 3655 (para. 17).

[^42]: ^?^ *DISCO II*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24170-72 (paras. 178-82).

[^43]: *See* International Bureau Announced Process for Providing
    Service Under Global International Section 214 Authorizations Using
    Approved Non-U.S.-Licensed Satellite Systems Listed on the Permitted
    Space Station List, Public Notice, DA 99-2844 (released Dec. 17,
    1999).

[^44]: The Permitted Space Station List on the International Bureau\'s
    web site will be updated shortly to reflect this addition. This web
    site address is \<www.fcc.gov/ib/srd/se/permitted.html\>. In
    addition, pursuant to the Bureau\'s Public Notice of December 17,
    1999, these two satellites now fall within the scope of global
    international Section 214 authorizations. *See* International Bureau
    Announced Process for Providing Service Under Global International
    Section 214 Authorizations Using Approved Non-U.S.-Licensed
    Satellite Systems Listed on the Permitted Space Station List, Public
    Notice, DA 99-2844 (released Dec. 17, 1999).