**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

2000 Biennial Regulatory Review \-- )

Streamlining and Other Revisions of )

Part 25 of the Commission\'s Rules )

Governing the Licensing of, and ) IB Docket No. 00-248

Spectrum Usage by, Satellite Network )

Earth Stations and Space Stations )

)

Streamlining the Commission\'s Rules and )

Regulations for Satellite Applications and ) IB Docket No. 95-117

Licensing Procedures )

)

**EIGHTH REPORT AND ORDER**

**AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION**

**Adopted:** **October 10, 2008** **Released:** **October 17, 2008**

By the Commission:

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

> [Paragraph]{.underline}

I. Introduction
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
1

II\.
Background\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
4

A. Two-Degree Spacing
Framework\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
4

B. Current Earth Station Licensing
Procedures\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
8

C. Procedural History
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
9

D. Off-Axis EIRP
Approach\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
15

III\. Off-Axis EIRP
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
18

A. Review of Earth Station Applications Based on Off-Axis EIRP Envelope
\..... 18

B. Development of Off-Axis EIRP Envelope for FSS Earth Stations
\...\...\...\...\..... 21

1\. Circular C-band and Ku-band Earth Stations
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\..... 21

2\. Elliptical C-band Earth Stations
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
25

3\. Analog Video Services
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
30

4\. Other Issues
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
33

C. Protection from Interference
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
35

D. Resolution of Harmful Interference Complaints
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\..... 37

E. Alterative Pointing Error Proposals
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
38

1\. SIA Alternative Proposal
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
38

2\. AVL Proposal
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
40

F. Exceeding Off-Axis EIRP Envelope
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
44

1\. Certification Procedure
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
44

2\. Alternative Procedure
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
52

G. Information Requirements
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
56

IV\. Other
Issues\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
60

A. Contention Protocols
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
60

1\.
Background\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
60

2\. Procedural
History\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
63

3\. Current Commission Proposal
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
68

4\. Alternative
Proposals\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
\...\...\.... 74

5\.
Discussion\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
77

6\. Contention Protocol Information
Requirements\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.... 83

7\.
Grandfathering\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
84

8\. Other Contention Protocol
Issues\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
86

B. Quiet Zone for Radio
Astronomy\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
87

C. Downlink EIRP Density Limits for Ku-band Earth Stations
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\..... 92

V. Reconsideration
Issues\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
94

A. Background
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
94

B. Rule References to Smaller-than-Routine Earth
Stations\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\..... 95

C. Protection from Interference for Non-Routine Earth
Stations\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.... 97

D. Signing of
Certifications\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
100

E. Determination of Need for
Coordination\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
102

F. Other Reconsideration
Issues\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
103

VI\. Summary and
Conclusions\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
107

VII\. Procedural
Matters\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
112

VIII\. Ordering Clauses
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
115

Appendix A: List of Commenters

Appendix B: Rule Revisions

Appendix C: Proposed Off-Axis EIRP Envelopes for FSS Earth Station
Applications

Appendix D: Technical Arguments

Appendix E: Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1 In this *Eighth Report and Order*, we further streamline the
Commission\'s non-routine earth station processing rules, by adopting a
new earth station procedure that will enable the Commission to treat
more applications routinely than is possible under the current earth
station procedures.[^1] By expediting the processing of such earth
station applications, the rules adopted in this Order today will
facilitate the provision of broadband Internet access services.[^2] The
Commission has determined that satellite facilities provide a
competitive platform for delivery of broadband services, which is
especially well suited for extending these services to rural and
unserved areas.[^3] In other words, satellite services employ
cost-effective technology to serve communities with low penetration
rates, especially those in remote areas.[^4] In addition, the threat of
competition from satellite-based broadband Internet access and other
alternatives will stimulate deployment of broadband infrastructure,
including more advanced infrastructure such as fiber to the home.[^5]
Moreover, the number of consumers who receive their broadband connection
through satellite or other wireless technologies will continue to
increase as new satellite services are launched.[^6]

2 Specifically, in this *Eighth Report and Order*, we adopt an off-axis
equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP)[^7] envelope approach as
one method for applicants to apply for Fixed Satellite Service (FSS)
earth station licenses in the conventional C-band and Ku-band.[^8] The
Commission proposed off-axis EIRP envelopes for FSS earth stations based
on recommendations from satellite industry commenters in an earlier
phase in this proceeding.[^9] In fact, throughout this proceeding, the
Commission has provided multiple opportunities for interested parties to
recommend rule revisions.[^10]

3 This off-axis EIRP approach gives earth station applicants the
flexibility to reduce their power levels to compensate for a small
antenna diameter. Thus, using these envelopes as criteria for licensing
should enable us to license more earth station applications routinely,
expediting the provision of satellite services to consumers and
enhancing the types of services available, without increasing the
likelihood of harmful interference to adjacent satellite operators or to
terrestrial wireless operators. In addition, we address a number of
petitions for reconsideration of several previous streamlining
proceedings, particularly the *Fifth Report and Order* and *Sixth*
*Report and Order*.[^11]

**II. BACKGROUND**

**A. Two-Degree Spacing Framework**

4 The Communications Act mandates that transmitting radiocommunication
facilities must be licensed before they can operate.[^12] The rules
governing transmit-only and transmit/receive earth stations are
contained in Part 25 of the Commission's rules.[^13] The rules are
intended primarily to ensure that satellite networks of space stations
and earth stations can operate with a minimum of interference with
respect to each other and with respect to other telecommunications
services. Earth stations provide a critical link between satellites and
terrestrial networks, and satellite networks depend on the Commission's
earth station licensing rules to maintain an operating environment with
a minimum of interference to other users operating in the band.[^14]

5 As the satellite industry developed in the 1980s, the Commission
instituted a 2° orbital spacing policy to maximize the number of
in-orbit satellites operating in either the C-band or the Ku-band.[^15]
Previously, satellites had been operating 3º to 4º apart. Under the 2°
orbital spacing framework, the Commission assigns adjacent in-orbit
satellites to orbit locations 2° apart in longitude. This framework also
established technical rules to govern earth stations communicating with
these satellites, to ensure that their operations do not cause
unacceptable interference to adjacent satellite systems. Primarily,
earth station technical requirements consist of minimum antenna size and
maximum power level limits.[^16]

6 Antenna size is important because it affects the antenna gain. The
antenna gain is the ratio of the power required at the input of a
loss-free reference antenna to the power supplied to the input of a
given antenna to produce, in a given direction, the same field strength
or the same power flux-density at the same distance.[^17] When not
specified otherwise, the gain refers to the direction of maximum
radiation.[^18] In other words, gain refers to an antenna's ability to
collect, concentrate, and direct energy in a particular fashion, *i.e.*,
a beam.[^19] Many antennas are shaped like parabolas, or like large,
curved bowls. The \"axis,\" or boresight, is the line running through
the center of the bowl and perpendicular to the plane of the edge of the
bowl.[^20] The boresight should extend directly into the antenna on the
satellite with which the earth station is communicating. The majority of
the energy is transmitted along the boresight in what is called the main
beam of the antenna. The \"off-axis\" angle is the angle formed by the
axis and any other line running through the center of the bowl.[^21] The
energy transmitted from an antenna forms \"ripples,\" alternately
increasing and decreasing in magnitude as the off-axis angle
increases.[^22] These ripples are called \"side lobes.\"[^23]

7 The antenna gain at various off-axis angles provides a measure of the
interference potential of that earth station to other in-orbit
satellites. For example, the antenna gain in the vicinity of 2° off-axis
provides a measure of the potential of that earth station to cause
interference to satellites located 2° away in orbit from the satellite
with which the earth station is communicating. The gain of any earth
station antenna must fall within the limits defined by equations in the
Commission's rules. In other words, the main beam and side lobes of an
antenna must fall within the limits specified by those equations.[^24]
Decreasing the antenna diameter produces wider main beams and larger
side lobes. Thus, the antenna gain pattern envelope results in a minimum
earth station antenna diameter because at some point the main beam will
become wide enough to potentially cause unacceptable interference to
adjacent satellites.[^25]

**B. Current Earth Station Licensing Procedures**

8 Currently, we \"routinely\" license C-band and Ku-band earth station
facilities that meet the 2° orbital spacing technical requirements set
forth in Part 25 of the Commission's rules.[^26] In other words, if the
earth station meets certain antenna diameter and power level
restrictions,[^27] we grant the earth station application without
conducting a further technical review to verify that the earth station
will not cause unacceptable interference into other satellite
systems.[^28] However*,* as the Commission explained previously in this
proceeding, it is possible in some cases for an earth station that does
not meet all of the technical standards of Part 25 to operate without
causing unacceptable interference in a 2° orbital spacing
environment.[^29] The Commission explained further that it conducts a
case-by-case review of each of these \"non-routine\" earth stations to
determine whether the application can be granted.[^30]

**C. Procedural History**

9 Over the years, we have taken action to streamline our satellite and
earth station licensing rules and procedures when warranted.[^31] In
addition, Section 11 of the Communications Act requires that the
Commission, in every even-numbered year beginning in 1998, review all
regulations that apply to the operations and activities of any provider
of telecommunications service and determine whether any of these
regulations are no longer necessary as the result of meaningful economic
competition between providers of the service.[^32] Section 11 further
instructs the Commission to \"repeal or modify any regulation it
determines to be no longer necessary in the public interest.\"[^33]
Accordingly, in 2000, the Commission initiated a comprehensive review of
telecommunications and other regulations to promote meaningful
deregulation and streamlining where competition and other considerations
warrant such action.[^34]

10 At the time the Commission started this review, its policy was to
require non-routine earth station applicants to submit a technical study
demonstrating that the proposed earth station will not cause
unacceptable interference to 2°-complaint operations.[^35] The preferred
form of that technical study was the Adjacent Satellite Interference
Analysis (ASIA) program as described in Section 25.134(b).[^36] This
analysis was often difficult and time consuming to perform, because the
information needed for the analysis is not readily available from any
one source, and the ASIA results can be subject to interpretation.[^37]
Some of the data needed for ASIA are available only from individual
satellite operators.[^38] Further, the operation of the non-compliant
earth station antenna must still be coordinated with adjacent satellite
operations.[^39]

11 The Commission proposed and later adopted several earth station
streamlining measures in this proceeding. Among other things, it
established a 15-year license term for earth station licenses,[^40] and
eliminated the licensing requirement for receive-only earth stations
receiving transmissions from non-U.S.-licensed satellites on the
Permitted List.[^41] The Commission has also adopted a streamlined form
for routine earth station applications, called Form 312 EZ, eliminated
several outdated rules, and mandated electronic filing for all earth
station filings.[^42]

12 The primary focus of the *Notice*, however, was to streamline
processing for two types of non-routine earth station applications: (1)
those seeking authority to operate an earth station with an antenna
diameter too small to meet the routine processing standards of Part
25;[^43] and (2) those seeking authority to operate an earth station at
a power level greater than those specified in Part 25.[^44] For
applications seeking authority to use a small antenna, the Commission
proposed two alternative procedures. One procedure would allow the
Commission to require the applicant proposing a small antenna to operate
at a lower power level to compensate for the smaller antenna
diameter.[^45] The second procedure, as proposed by the Commission in
the *Notice*, would allow applicants to submit certifications from
target satellite operators, verifying that the operation of the small
earth station antenna has been coordinated with other satellite
operators potentially affected by the proposed non-routine earth
station.[^46] For applications to operate at non-routine power levels,
the Commission proposed a certification procedure substantially similar
to that it proposed for applications for earth stations with non-routine
antenna diameters.[^47] Finally, the Commission proposed codifying these
procedures in Section 25.220 of its rules.[^48]

13 A significant number of parties commented on the proposals in the
*Notice*.[^49] In addition, SIA filed several *ex parte* statements
proposing a different approach.[^50] Although the Commission had serious
concerns with SIA\'s proposal, it adopted a *Further Notice* to allow
interested parties to comment on it.[^51] Based on the record developed
in response to the *Notice* and the *Further Notice*, the Commission
decided in the *Fifth Report and Order* not to adopt SIA\'s alternative
procedure for non-routine earth stations because it was unduly complex
and unnecessarily burdensome for earth station applicants.[^52] The
Commission instead adopted its original proposal as described in the
*Notice*.[^53]

14 In addition, in response to the *Notice*, some parties recommended
increasing the starting point for the earth station antenna gain pattern
envelope. This would enable the Commission to decrease the minimum
routine earth station size. Therefore, in the *Further Notice*, the
Commission invited comment on several issues related to revising the
earth station antenna gain pattern envelope.[^54] The Commission decided
to increase the starting point for the antenna gain pattern envelope in
the *Sixth Report and Order*, from 1.0° in the C-band and 1.25° in the
Ku-band to 1.5° in both bands.[^55] The Commission stayed the
effectiveness of its antenna gain pattern revisions, however, while it
considered a proposal for an off-axis EIRP approach for FSS earth
stations, set forth in the *Third Further Notice* which was adopted
together with the *Sixth Report and Order*.[^56] We discuss this further
below.

**D. Off-Axis EIRP Approach**

15 In response to the *Notice*, some commenters recommended adopting a
new envelope establishing off-axis EIRP spectral density limits.[^57]
Commenters argued that an off-axis EIRP envelope would combine power
density and antenna gain pattern requirements into one rule, and would
give earth station license applicants more flexibility because they
would be able to adjust their power to compensate for their antenna gain
pattern, and vice versa.[^58] The Commission adopted the *Third Further
Notice* in part to invite comment on adopting an off-axis EIRP density
envelope for FSS earth stations.[^59] The Commission agreed that earth
station license applicants should have the flexibility to reduce their
power levels to compensate for a higher antenna gain pattern.[^60] The
Commission also reasoned that an off-axis EIRP envelope might enable it
to act on earth station applications more quickly than would be possible
under the substantially similar procedure adopted in the *Fifth Report
and Order*. Under that previous procedure, earth station applicants
proposing to use antennas with non-routine antenna gain patterns were
required to reduce their transmit power levels dB for dB to compensate
for the amount that its antenna gain pattern exceeds the envelope in
Section 25.209.[^61] Moreover, the Commission noted that an off-axis
EIRP approach for conventional C-band and Ku-band FSS earth stations
would be consistent with our treatment of Ka-band FSS earth stations,
and earth stations on vessels (ESVs).[^62]

16 Eight parties filed comments in response to the *Third Further
Notice*, and six filed replies.[^63] In addition, AVL filed an *ex
parte* statement on February 13, 2006, to clarify and in some cases to
revise the proposals in its applications.[^64] SIA and ViaSat also filed
*ex parte* statements.[^65] Based on that record, and for the reasons
discussed below, we adopt the Commission\'s off-axis EIRP proposal, but
not as the only means of reviewing earth station applications as was
originally proposed. Instead, the Commission will continue to treat as
routine applications for earth stations that fall within the traditional
routine earth station processing parameters. In Section III. of this
Order below, we address these issues in more detail.

17 In addition, in the *Third Further Notice*, the Commission invited
additional comment on two issues for which it needed to supplement the
record. For the first issue, regarding use of contention protocols in
Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) networks, we adopt a requirement
that requires such contention protocol usage to be \"reasonable.\" The
second issue involved coordination requirements for VSAT networks with
remote terminals located in the \"Quiet Zone,\" a 13,000 square mile
area in Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland in which the National
Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) conducts radioastronomy.[^66] We find
that no further revisions to the Quiet Zone coordination procedures are
needed at this time. We discuss these two issues in Section IV. below.
Finally, we address petitions for reconsideration of the *Fifth Report
and Order* and *Sixth Report and Order* in Section V.[^67] We grant in
part and deny in part the petitions for reconsideration.

**III. OFF-AXIS EIRP**

**A. Review of Earth Station Applications Based on Off-Axis EIRP
Envelope**

18 *Background*. In the *Third Further Notice*, the Commission invited
comment on reviewing FSS earth station applications in the C-band and
Ku-band solely on the basis of an off-axis EIRP envelope.[^68] The
Commission noted that this approach would give earth station license
applicants the flexibility to reduce their power levels to compensate
for a higher antenna gain pattern, and might also allow the Commission
to act on certain earth station applications faster than would be
possible under a substantially similar procedure adopted in the *Fifth
Report and Order*.[^69] Moreover, the Commission noted that an off-axis
EIRP approach for conventional C-band and Ku-band FSS earth stations
would be consistent with its treatment of Ka-band FSS earth stations,
and earth stations on vessels (ESVs).[^70] In the event that the
Commission decided not to adopt off-axis EIRP envelopes for FSS earth
stations, it requested proposals for new minimum routine antenna sizes
based on the revised antenna gain pattern requirements adopted in the
*Sixth Report and Order*.[^71]

19 *Discussion*. SIA and Spacenet generally support adoption of an
off-axis EIRP envelope approach for FSS earth stations,[^72] and none of
the commenters opposed this proposal. Accordingly, for the reasons set
forth in the *Third Further Notice* and summarized above, we adopt such
off-axis EIRP envelopes. However, we will not review earth station
applications *solely* on the basis of off-axis EIRP envelopes, as
proposed in the *Third Further Notice*. This is in part because, as
explained further below, an off-axis EIRP approach is not well-suited
for analog video earth station applications.[^73] In addition, by
continuing to give earth station applicants the option of having their
applications reviewed on the basis of antenna size and power levels as
the Commission has done in the past, we can continue to take advantage
of our experience with 4.5 meter antennas in the C-band, and 1.2 meter
antennas in the Ku-band.

20 In the *Sixth Report and Order*, the Commission adopted a number of
revisions to its antenna gain pattern rules. Specifically, the
Commission decided to begin the antenna gain pattern envelope at 1.5°
off-axis within the GSO orbital arc for C-band and Ku-band earth
stations, and 3.0° off-axis outside the GSO orbital arc for Ku-band
earth stations.[^74] The Commission also increased its backlobe
requirements for Ku-band earth stations to 0 dBi for off-axis angles
greater than 85°.[^75] The Commission stayed the effectiveness of these
rule revisions, however, pending its decision on whether to adopt an
off-axis EIRP envelope methodology for reviewing FSS earth station
applications.[^76] Here, we have decided to adopt an off-axis EIRP
envelope methodology as one option for earth station applicants.
Accordingly, the antenna gain pattern rule revisions adopted in the
*Sixth Report and Order* will take effect concurrently with the other
rule revisions we adopt in this Order.

**B. Development of Off-Axis EIRP Envelope for FSS Earth Stations**

**1. Circular C-band and Ku-band Earth Stations**

21 *Background*. Generally, an off-axis EIRP envelope is determined by
the applicable earth station antenna gain pattern envelope and the
allowed EIRP density into the antenna.[^77] The allowed EIRP density
from the antenna decreases as the off-axis angle increases. In the
*Third Further Notice*, the Commission invited comment on basing the
off-axis EIRP envelopes for C-band and Ku-band earth stations on the
antenna gain pattern envelopes and power requirements in Part 25 that
were revised to begin at the angles established in the *Sixth Report and
Order*.[^78] Those off-axis EIRP envelopes were set forth in the *Third
Further Notice*,[^79] and are reprinted in Appendix C to this Order.

22 SIA supports the Commission\'s proposed off-axis EIRP envelopes for
C-band earth station antennas greater than or equal to 2.4 meters in
diameter, and for Ku-band earth station antennas greater than or equal
to 0.7 meters in diameter.[^80] SIA, however, asserts that the
Commission\'s proposal to start the off-axis EIRP envelope at 1.5° does
not adequately protect against mispointing of an antenna by 0.5° or
less, as the Commission found in the *Sixth Report and Order*.[^81] SIA
further recommends that, for C-band earth station antennas less than 2.4
meters in diameter, and for Ku-band earth station antennas less than 0.7
meters in diameter, the Commission adopt off-axis EIRP envelopes that
limit off-axis EIRP in the sidelobes greater than 6° slightly more than
as proposed in Appendix C. Specifically, SIA recommends that those
off-axis EIRP limits be applied at off-axis angles 0.5° less than they
would be under the Commission\'s proposals.[^82] Examples of SIA\'s
proposed off-axis EIRP envelopes are set forth below. Global VSAT Forum
supports SIA\'s proposal to establish a different set of off-axis EIRP
envelopes for smaller earth station antennas.[^83] AVL questions whether
SIA\'s proposal is too regulatory.[^84] ViaSat argues that a separate
mask for small earth station antennas might discourage technological
developments involving such antennas.[^85]

**[Table 1]{.underline}**

**Off-Axis EIRP Envelope Proposed for**

**C-Band Digital Earth Station Applications in**

**the *Third Further Notice*, Appendix C,**

**Table II(1), with SIA\'s Proposed Revisions for**

Earth Stations Less Than 2.4 Meters in Diameter

  ------------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------------
  26.3 - 10log~10~(N) -     dBW/4 kHz          For       1.5° ≤ θ ≤ 6.5°
  25log~10~θ                                             

  5.3 -10log~10~(N)         dBW/4 kHz          For       6.5° \< θ ≤ 8.7°

  29.3 -10log~10~(N) -      dBW/4 kHz          For       8.7° \< θ ≤ 47.5°
  25log~10~θ                                             

  \- 12.7 -10log~10~(N)     dBW/4 kHz          For       47.5° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ------------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------------

**[Table 2]{.underline}**

**Off-Axis EIRP Envelope Proposed for**

**Ku-Band Digital Earth Station Applications in**

**the *Third Further Notice*, Appendix C,**

**Table IV(1), with SIA\'s Proposed Revisions for**

Earth Stations Less than 0.7 Meters in Diameter

  ------------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------------
  15 - 10log~10~(N) -       dBW/4 kHz          For       1.5° ≤ θ ≤ 6.5°
  25log~10~θ                                             

  -6 -10log~10~(N)          dBW/4 kHz          For       6.5° \< θ ≤ 8.7°

  18 -10log~10~(N) -        dBW/4 kHz          For       8.7° \< θ ≤ 47.5°
  25log~10~θ                                             

  \- 24 -10log~10~(N)       dBW/4 kHz          For       47.5° \< θ ≤
                                                         84.5°

  \- 14 -10log~10~(N)       dBW/4 kHz          For       84.5° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ------------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------------

23 *Discussion*. We decide against adopting SIA\'s proposal. First, we
disagree with SIA\'s contention that the antenna gain pattern
requirements adopted in the *Sixth Report and Order* do not adequately
account for the potential for pointing error. In the *Sixth Report and
Order*, the Commission explained why it decided to start the antenna
gain pattern envelope at 1.5° off-axis. That decision was based on
comments in the record from several parties, including SIA, that the
main beams of a number of sub-meter Ku-band antennas could meet this
requirement.[^86] Furthermore, the Commission observed that, in the
United States, the difference between the geocentric angle and the
topocentric angle is 0.1° to 0.2°, depending on the elevation angle of
the earth station.[^87] The difference between these two angles provides
an additional safeguard against adjacent satellite interference.[^88]

24 Furthermore, even assuming that SIA is correct that starting the
antenna gain pattern envelope at 1.5° off-axis does not adequately
protect against adjacent satellite interference, we disagree that SIA\'s
proposal before us now would remedy the issue it raised. Other than
changing the starting point for the antenna gain pattern, the antenna
gain pattern envelope was unchanged in the *Sixth Report and Order*. In
other words, the *Sixth Report and Order* revised the earth station
antenna gain requirements only for the main beam of the antenna. The
limits on side lobe gain were not affected by the *Sixth Report and
Order*. In effect, SIA claims that the *Sixth Report and Order* allows
the main lobe to be too wide. However, SIA\'s recommendation would
result in only slight revisions to the Commission\'s side lobe
requirements.[^89] Adopting SIA\'s recommendation would not have any
effect on the width of the main lobe.[^90]

**2. Elliptical C-band Earth Stations**

25 *Background*. When viewed from any point on the earth's surface,
satellites near each other in the geostationary satellite orbit (GSO)
appear to lie approximately in one plane.[^91] In the *Sixth Report and
Order*, the Commission decided to begin the Ku-band antenna gain pattern
envelope outside the GSO orbital plane at 3.0° off-axis, in order to
facilitate development of more advanced elliptical antennas.[^92] The
Commission also tentatively concluded that it would start the Ku-band
off-axis EIRP envelope outside the GSO orbital plane at 3.0°
off-axis.[^93]

26 With respect to the C-band, however, the Commission specifically
invited comment in the *Third Further Notice* on whether it should start
the C-band antenna gain pattern envelope outside the GSO orbital plane,
and the comparable C-band off-axis EIRP envelope, at 3.0° off-axis,
rather than 1.5° off-axis.[^94] The Commission noted that adopting this
proposal would facilitate routine processing standards for elliptical
C-band earth station antennas.[^95] The Commission also invited comment
on whether the existing coordination procedure in Section 25.203(c) of
the Commission's rules is adequate for coordinating elliptical C-band
earth stations with terrestrial wireless operations.[^96] Finally, the
Commission inquired whether it should increase the minimum angle of
elevation for elliptical C-band earth stations above the 5° minimum
currently in the rules, to further reduce the possibility of harmful
interference to terrestrial wireless operations, in the event that the
Commission adopts the rule proposed here. [^97]

27 *Discussion*. None of the commenters in this proceeding directly
address the Commission\'s proposal to start the C-band and Ku-band
off-axis EIRP envelopes outside the GSO orbital plane at 3° off-axis.
Accordingly, we adopt the Commission\'s proposal, to facilitate
elliptical earth station antennas. We also conclude that, since no one
advocated new coordination procedures for elliptical C-band earth
stations, none are needed at this time.

28 SIA opposes increasing the minimum elevation angle for elliptical
C-band earth stations because it might unreasonably limit the use of
such earth stations in northern latitudes.[^98] No one argues in favor
of this restriction. On the basis of the record on this issue, we find
that SIA is persuasive, and no revision to the current minimum elevation
angle rules is needed at this time.

29 AVL recommends requiring that the major axis of elliptical antennas
be aligned with the GSO plane.[^99] We conclude that starting the
off-axis EIRP envelope at 1.5° off-axis within the GSO orbital plane,
and at 3.0° outside that plane, has the same effect as requiring
elliptical antennas to be aligned with the GSO plane in most cases.
Thus, AVL\'s recommendation would simply state explicitly a requirement
that is now implicit in the Commission\'s rules. Therefore, we adopt
AVL\'s suggestion.

**3. Analog Video**

30 *Background*. As noted above, the Commission proposed replacing the
current routine earth station licensing standards, based on antenna size
and power levels, with procedures based exclusively on off-axis EIRP
envelopes.[^100] In addition, the Commission based its proposed off-axis
EIRP envelopes on the antenna gain pattern envelopes and EIRP density
limits in Part 25, revised to begin at the angles established in the
*Sixth Report and Order*.[^101] Analog video services present unique
issues under this approach, because Part 25 has historically provided
EIRP limits rather than EIRP density limits on analog video
transmissions.[^102] In the *Third Further Notice*, the Commission
requested comment on three options for addressing these analog video
transmission issues: (1) applying the off-axis EIRP envelopes for other
narrowband analog transmissions to analog video transmissions; (2)
developing new off-axis EIRP envelopes for analog video transmissions;
or (3) prohibiting analog video transmissions, after a one-year
transition period.[^103] The Commission assumed that eliminating analog
video might be reasonable because the use of analog generally in
satellite transmissions is declining.[^104] The Commission also
explained that analog video transmissions are more susceptible to
harmful interference from other transmissions and more likely to cause
harmful interference to other transmissions.[^105]

31 *Discussion*. SIA claims that it is not possible to develop an
off-axis EIRP envelope for analog video signals because the power
spectral density of such signals fluctuates.[^106] SES Americom opposes
new analog video regulations because the current rules are working
well.[^107] In addition, a number of commenters oppose eliminating
analog video transmissions, because a substantial number of customers
are still using analog video.[^108] Several maintain that neither a
prohibition nor a transition requirement is necessary because analog
video users are in the process of converting to digital video
already.[^109] Many parties assert that a one-year transition period
would not be adequate.[^110] Commenters also maintain that a premature
transition to digital would be prohibitively expensive.[^111] Several
commenters argue that the relative susceptibility to harmful
interference of analog video signals is not relevant, because satellite
operators have been accommodating those signals for years.[^112] NPS
claims that digital transmissions are more likely to be perceived as a
potential root cause of harmful interference.[^113]

32 We adopt SES Americom\'s and SIA\'s proposal to retain the current
regulatory framework for analog video services at this time.[^114] The
record in this proceeding has shown convincingly that requiring the
transition from analog to digital video transmissions proposed in the
*Third Further Notice* would be unreasonably expensive and burdensome.

**4. Other Issues**

33 The Commission included a \"10log(N)\" term in its proposed off-axis
EIRP envelopes to account for the use of frequency division multiple
access (FDMA), time division multiple access (TDMA), or code division
multiple access (CDMA) technique for digital earth stations in VSAT
networks.[^115] The effect of these terms is to regulate off-axis EIRP
on a per-earth station basis rather than an aggregate basis. SIA
supports the per earth station approach.[^116] SIA asserts, however,
that this approach might not be best for the Aeronautical Mobile
Satellite Service (AMSS) operating in the Ku-band.[^117] We are
considering AMSS in another proceeding and will determine how best to
treat AMSS on the basis of the record in that proceeding.[^118]
Similarly, we have considered separately various approaches to
regulating off-axis EIRP for ESVs in the C- and Ku-bands,[^119] and are
considering vehicle-mounted earth stations in the Ku- and extended
Ku-bands.[^120]

34 Finally, SIA asserts that it has found some mathematical errors in
the Commission\'s proposed off-axis EIRP envelopes in Appendix C of the
*Third Further Notice*.[^121] We agree with SIA in some cases, and
disagree in others. These issues are discussed in more detail in
Appendix D to this Order.[^122]

**C. Protection from Interference**

35 *Background*. In the *Third Further Notice*, the Commission noted
that its rules protect earth stations from interference to the extent
that the antenna conforms to the antenna gain reference patterns
specified in its rules.[^123] Accordingly, the Commission invited
comment on whether to adopt a standard comparable to Section 25.209(c)
to protect earth stations from harmful interference, in the event that
it decided to replace the current antenna gain reference pattern
requirements in Section 25.209 with an off-axis EIRP envelope for earth
stations in the fixed satellite service.[^124] The Commission also asked
whether its decision to start the antenna gain reference pattern at 1.5°
from the main lobe affect an earth station operator's ability to claim
protection from harmful interference.[^125]

36 *Discussion*. SIA supports the Commission\'s proposal to provide
protection from interference starting at 1.5° off-axis, to be consistent
with the off-axis EIRP envelope starting point.[^126] None of the other
commenters opposed this approach. We find that it would be reasonable to
adopt the Commission\'s proposal to require earth stations licensed
under the off-axis EIRP procedure we adopt here to be protected from
interference starting at 1.5° off-axis. This is consistent with the
Commission\'s historical practice of protecting earth stations from
interference to the extent that a routine earth station would be
expected to receive interference.

**D. Resolution of Harmful Interference Complaints**

37 The Commission concluded that its existing procedures for resolving
complaints of harmful interference has been generally effective, and
proposed continuing to apply those procedures under an off-axis EIRP
envelope approach for earth station licensing.[^127] SIA supports
retaining the current resolution procedure,[^128] and no one else
commented on this issue. Accordingly, we find that there is no reason to
depart from our current procedures for resolving complaints of harmful
interference.

**E. Alterative Pointing Error Proposals**

**1. SIA Alternative Proposal**

38 *Background*. As an alternative, SIA proposes that the Commission
allow small antenna earth station applicants to show that they can
maintain a pointing error of less than 0.5° off-axis, and meet off-axis
EIRP envelopes that are slightly less restrictive than those proposed by
SIA and set forth in Tables 1 and 2 above.[^129] Specifically, for small
Ku-band digital earth station applications, and for any pointing error
\"p\" less than 0.5°, SIA would use the off-axis EIRP envelope set forth
below. SIA maintains that this would give earth station operators an
incentive to improve their pointing accuracy.[^130]

**[Table 3]{.underline}**

**Off-Axis EIRP Envelope Proposed for**

**Ku-Band Digital Earth Station Applications in**

**the *Third Further Notice*, Appendix C,**

**Table IV(1), with SIA\'s Proposed Pointing Error Adjustment**

  ------------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------------
  15 - 10log~10~(N) -       dBW/4 kHz          For       1.5° ≤ θ ≤ (7-p)°
  25log~10~(θ-p)                                         

  -6 -10log~10~(N)          dBW/4 kHz          For       (7-p)° \< θ ≤
                                                         (9.2-p)°

  18 -10log~10~(N) -        dBW/4 kHz          For       (9.2-p)° \< θ ≤
  25log~10~(θ-p)                                         (48-p)°

  \- 24 -10log~10~(N)       dBW/4 kHz          For       (48-p)° \< θ ≤
                                                         (85-p)°

  \- 14 -10log~10~(N)       dBW/4 kHz          For       (85-p)° \< θ ≤
                                                         180°
  ------------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------------

39 *Discussion*. We do not adopt SIA\'s alternative proposal. First, as
the Commission has explained before, the purpose of distinguishing
between routine and non-routine earth stations is to identify classes of
earth stations that can be authorized without a detailed, case-by-case
engineering review.[^131] Under SIA\'s alternative proposal, earth
station applicants would be required to provide some kind of technical
showing to demonstrate their pointing accuracy, and this requirement is
inconsistent with the Commission\'s goal of establishing new routine
earth station standards. Second, in the *Sixth Report and Order*, the
Commission found that starting the antenna gain pattern envelope for FSS
earth stations at 1.5° off-axis adequately accounts for the potential
for pointing error.[^132] Accordingly, we conclude here that we do not
need any rules other than those adopted in this Order to account for the
potential for pointing error in FSS earth station antennas.

**2. AVL Proposals**

40 *Background*. AVL recommends routine processing for applications for
earth stations that can be pointed very accurately. Specifically, AVL
notes that it manufactures an earth station antenna with a computerized
pointing mechanism. AVL also asserts that this mechanism by itself
should be adequate to process the earth station routinely, regardless of
whether the antenna gain pattern intersects the antenna gain pattern
envelope at an off-axis angle greater than 1.5°.[^133] AVL maintains
that any FSS antenna could become mispointed due to wind, refers to the
effects of wind as \"backlash,\" and suggests adopting standards for
limiting backlash.[^134] AVL contends that the risk from harmful
interference to adjacent satellites resulting from a mispointed main
beam is greater than the risk resulting from larger side lobes, and
suggests that the Commission should focus its attention on preventing
the edge of the main beam of antennas from being pointed at an adjacent
satellite.[^135] SIA and Global VSAT Forum support AVL\'s goal of
establishing incentives for better pointing accuracy, but only if it can
be done in a technologically neutral manner.[^136] In addition, SIA
points out that AVL\'s proposal appears to assume, incorrectly, that
pointing accuracy is the only factor that might cause adjacent satellite
interference, and contends that an off-axis EIRP approach is a more
effective method for addressing adjacent satellite interference.[^137]

41 AVL also proposes requiring all non-routine temporary-fixed earth
station applicants to demonstrate the pointing accuracy of their
antennas.[^138] SIA replies that such detailed increases in regulation
are not necessary.[^139] SIA further contends that AVL has not explained
why there should be additional regulations for temporary-fixed earth
stations, nor provided sufficient detail for its proposal.[^140]

42 *Discussion*. We decline adopting AVL\'s proposals. First, we agree
with SIA that AVL appears to assume, incorrectly, that antenna pointing
accuracy is the only factor that might cause adjacent satellite
interference. Clearly, sidelobe transmissions are another factor, and
SIA is correct in asserting that an off-axis EIRP envelope would address
sidelobe issues more effectively than AVL\'s proposal would. Although we
agree with AVL that the width of the main beam of an antenna is also an
important factor, AVL does not explain how its suggested pointing
accuracy requirements by themselves, without antenna gain pattern rules
or off-axis EIRP rules that result in limiting the width of the main
beam, would be effective in preventing harmful interference. Second,
AVL\'s proposal appears to require a case-by-case review of pointing
accuracy showings, and therefore would not be well-suited for a routine
licensing approach. Third, we share SIA\'s and Global VSAT Forum\'s
concerns regarding whether AVL\'s proposal is technologically neutral.

43 In addition, we conclude that AVL has not shown that the new
requirements it recommends for non-routine temporary-fixed earth
stations are warranted at this time. Generally, the Commission has
received few, if any, complaints of harmful interference resulting from
temporary-fixed earth stations.[^141] Thus, we have no basis for
concluding that the procedures for non-routine earth stations adopted in
the *Fifth Report and Order* might be inadequate for non-routine
temporary-fixed earth stations. Moreover, we agree with SIA that, if
there were some basis for additional regulations for non-routine
temporary-fixed earth stations, AVL does not describe its proposal in
sufficient detail to adopt it here.

**F. Exceeding Off-Axis EIRP Envelope**

**1. Certification Procedure**

44 *Background*. As the Commission explained in the *Fifth Report and
Order*, among other places, the Commission has historically
distinguished between routine and non-routine earth station
applications.[^142] Earth station operators have been allowed to exceed
the Commission\'s earth station technical requirements, provided that
they can show that they will not cause harmful interference to other
licensed operations.[^143] In the *Third Further Notice*, the Commission
solicited comment on whether earth station operators should continue to
be allowed to exceed the applicable off-axis EIRP envelope, in the event
it adopted such envelopes.[^144] Alternatively, the Commission invited
comment on allowing only earth stations operating in bands that are not
shared with other services to exceed the applicable off-axis EIRP
envelope.[^145]

45 The Commission requested comment on issues that would be raised if
earth station applicants were allowed to exceed the applicable off-axis
EIRP envelope. In particular, the Commission proposed requiring such
earth station applicants to follow one of the streamlined procedures
adopted in the *Fifth Report and Order* for considering non-routine
earth station applications.[^146] Under that procedure, an applicant
must obtain certifications from the operators of satellites with which
the earth station operator plans to communicate, showing that those
satellite operators have coordinated with the operators of satellites
located within six degrees of the target satellite.[^147] The Commission
also invited parties to propose alternative procedures.[^148]

46 Finally, the Commission requested comment on whether it can continue
to expect satellite operators to coordinate their operations in good
faith.[^149] If not, the Commission invited comment on whether it would
be necessary to impose some kind of penalty for failing to coordinate in
good faith, and if so, a number of options for such a penalty.[^150]

47 *Discussion*. None of the commenters address the proposal to prohibit
all or some earth station operators from exceeding the off-axis EIRP
envelope. Instead, the parties focus on the showing that should be
required of such earth station applicants. Spacenet recommends retaining
the coordination procedure adopted in the *Fifth Report and Order* for
earth station applications that exceed the off-axis EIRP envelope.[^151]
SIA asserts that affidavits should be signed by both the target and
adjacent satellite operators.[^152] SIA opposes any punitive measures to
enforce coordination agreements as unnecessary, however.[^153]

48 As an initial matter, we will allow earth station applicants to
exceed the off-axis EIRP envelope upon an appropriate showing that such
operations will not cause harmful interference to other licensees. This
is consistent with the Commission\'s past practice, as explained in the
*Fifth Report and Order*.[^154] Furthermore, nothing in the record
suggests that we should change our practice as a result of our adoption
of an off-axis EIRP envelope approach for FSS earth stations.

49 We also find that the certification procedure adopted in the *Fifth
Report and Order* provides a good basis for determining whether any
particular earth station operator should be allowed to exceed the
off-axis EIRP envelope.[^155] The Commission found in that Order that
this certification procedure is a reasonable method for expediting
review of non-routine earth stations without increasing the risk of
harmful interference to other licensed operations.[^156] Spacenet
supports this approach.[^157] SIA, the only other commenter on this
issue, recommends requiring both target satellite operators and adjacent
satellite operators to certify that coordination has been
completed,[^158] but does not sufficiently justify its recommendation.
SIA also suggested that both target satellite operators and adjacent
satellite operators submit certifications as part of its 2001
alternative to the Commission\'s proposed non-routine earth station
procedure.[^159] At the time, the Commission tentatively concluded that
requiring additional certifications from adjacent satellite operators
would create unnecessary additional administrative burdens on
non-routine earth station applicants,[^160] and specifically asked
parties to address that tentative conclusion.[^161] SIA did not address
that issue at that time.[^162]

50 In the *Third Further Notice*, the Commission again noted that it has
historically relied on satellite operators to work together
cooperatively to reach coordination agreements,[^163] and
\"request\[ed\] comment on whether our expectation of good-faith
coordination among satellite system operators is well-founded and is
self-policing.\"[^164] Neither SIA nor any other commenter has provided
a basis to question the Commission\'s expectation of good-faith
coordination. Moreover, even if a target satellite operator neglected to
coordinate with an affected adjacent satellite operator, the
Commission\'s procedure includes an additional opportunity for those
satellite operators to comment.[^165] Accordingly, we find again that
requiring certifications from adjacent satellite operators would be
unnecessarily burdensome for non-routine earth station operators, and we
have decided not to adopt this proposal.

51 Finally, we agree with SIA that punitive measures to enforce
coordination agreements are not necessary. We base this conclusion on
our discussion above that we have always relied on satellite operators
to work together to coordinate their operations, and we expect that
cooperation to continue.

**2. Alternative Procedure**

52 *Background*. Spacenet would also give earth station operators an
opportunity to submit technical demonstrations of harmful interference
potential, so that satellite operators are not given too much influence
over the earth station licensing process.[^166] SIA responds that
allowing earth station operators to exceed the off-axis EIRP envelope
without coordination could result in harmful interference, because
adjacent satellite operators might not be aware of the earth station
operations at issue.[^167]

53 AVL also recommends an alternative to the streamlined procedure
adopted in the *Fifth Report and Order*. AVL would focus on the actual
earth station antenna gain pattern in reviewing non-routine earth
station applications, rather than simply whether the earth station\'s
antenna gain pattern falls within the envelope specified in Section
25.209.[^168] AVL further suggests that the Commission consider whether
the earth station will use an electronic pointing mechanism.[^169]
Alternatively, AVL recommends requiring that non-routine earth station
applications include only a certification from a professional
engineer.[^170]

54 *Discussion*. In the *Fifth Report and Order*, the Commission
recognized that, in rare instances, a target satellite operator might be
unable to complete coordination, even though it might be possible for a
non-routine earth station to operate interference-free in a
two-degree-spacing environment without reducing its power. In those
cases, the Commission stated that it would entertain requests for waiver
of the streamlined non-routine earth station procedures.[^171] The
Commission also stated that parties requesting such waivers were
permitted but not required to submit an ASIA.[^172] We will continue to
allow this. As the Commission discussed briefly in the *Fifth Report and
Order*, the burden would lie with the earth station applicant to show
that its proposed operations would not cause harmful interference.[^173]
In response to AVL, non-routine earth station applicants are free to
attempt to support their applications with any demonstration that they
think the Commission will find persuasive. We also agree with AVL that
such a showing may include a statement that the earth station antenna
has an electronic pointing mechanism. However, we reach no conclusion
here regarding whether any specific showing would or would not be
sufficient in any particular instance, except that the earth station
applicants in these cases bear the burden of proof of showing that their
proposed operations will not cause harmful adjacent satellite
interference. We disagree with SIA that adjacent satellite operators
might not be aware of the earth station operations at issue, because any
such waiver request would be placed on public notice to give all
interested parties an opportunity to comment.

55 Finally, we will not adopt AVL\'s proposal of requiring non-routine
earth station applicants to provide only a professional engineer\'s
certification. Non-routine earth stations by definition create some
increased risk of harmful interference, and so a more extensive showing
is required to enable the Commission to determine that the proposed
earth station operations will not cause harmful interference before any
license is issued.

**G. Information Requirements**

56 *Background*. In the *Third Further Notice*, the Commission observed
that there are two options for revising its information requirements to
collect off-axis EIRP data for earth stations. Under one option, the
Commission could require earth station applicants to submit a graph
showing that their proposed earth station will meet the applicable
off-axis EIRP envelope. Under the other option, earth station applicants
would be required to provide a table showing the EIRP of the antenna at
various specific off-axis angles.[^174] The Commission proposed
requiring a table, because it would be easier to develop a computer
program to automate the review of tabular information than it would to
develop a program for reviewing graphs.[^175] The Commission also
explained that it would need a computer program to act on earth station
applications under off-axis EIRP requirements as quickly as it acts on
routine earth station applications under the current rules.[^176]

57 The Commission also proposed delegating authority to the
International Bureau (Bureau) to develop and implement revisions to the
electronic application forms and the International Bureau Filing System
(IBFS) necessitated by an off-axis EIRP requirement for earth
stations.[^177] This delegation would include determining when the
revised IBFS program should be initiated, establishing any procedures
needed to assure security, and addressing any other issues that may
arise regarding the electronic filing of earth station applications
under an off-axis EIRP approach.[^178] In addition, the Commission
proposed directing the Bureau to consult with industry and potential
users informally, to share plans for its proposed implementation, and to
make any necessary adjustments in light of industry and user views, as
appropriate.[^179] Finally, the Commission proposed directing the Bureau
to implement this program in coordination with other electronic filing
initiatives within the agency, as appropriate.[^180] The Commission
pointed out that the proposed delegation of authority is comparable to
delegations the Commission has adopted in the past to implement
electronic filing requirements.[^181]

58 *Discussion*. SIA supports the Commission\'s proposal to establish a
table for showing compliance with the off-axis EIRP envelope. SIA
recommends a table showing the EIRP level for each 0.1° up to 10°, and
for every 5° for angles greater than 10°.[^182] No one else commented on
this issue. We find this proposal to be reasonable, and we adopt it.
Furthermore, we adopt the Commission\'s proposal to delegate authority
to the International Bureau to modify IBFS and the FCC Form 312,
Schedule B, to reflect this decision. Until such time that this revision
is available, we will require parties filing earth station applications
pursuant to the off-axis EIRP envelope procedure we adopt herein to
include tables in the format recommended by SIA as attachments to their
applications.

59 We emphasize that the off-axis EIRP rules we adopted in this Order
above are based in part on the revisions to the antenna gain pattern
envelope rules adopted in the *Sixth Report and Order*. Those rule
revisions, in turn, were based on evidence in the record at that time
that showed that earth station operators can limit their pointing error
to 0.5° or less.[^183] As a result, there is no basis for concluding
that an earth station operator who does not maintain that level of
pointing accuracy could comply with the off-axis EIRP envelopes adopted
above, unless the operator lowers its input power sufficiently.
Therefore, in cases in which an earth station applicant using the
off-axis EIRP procedure will not limit its pointing error to 0.5°, we
will expect that applicant to demonstrate in an attachment to its
application that it will comply with the applicable off-axis EIRP
envelope when the antenna is mispointed at its maximum pointing error.
Alternatively, we would expect such an applicant to apply for its
license pursuant to the certification of coordination procedure adopted
for non-routine earth stations in the *Fifth Report and Order* and
discussed briefly above.[^184]

**IV. OTHER ISSUES**

**A. Contention Protocols**

**1. Background**

60 The Commission's rules permit parties to obtain a license for
networks comprised of a number of technically identical small aperture
antenna earth stations. These networks are referred to as very small
aperture terminal (VSAT) networks. VSATs are generally comprised of a
hub station transmitting to a satellite, which then transmits the signal
to multiple technically identical remote small aperture antennas.[^185]
The remote antennas can also transmit to the satellite, which then
retransmits the signal to the hub station.[^186]

61 In the *Notice* and the *Further Notice*, the Commission explained
that VSAT networks employ a number of techniques to prevent or limit
interference among the multiple remote earth stations, and to prevent
them from interfering with other adjacent satellite networks.[^187] The
original VSAT systems used a Single Channel Per Carrier (SCPC)
channelization approach, in which each remote earth station was assigned
its own block of spectrum. Subsequently, VSAT system operators developed
techniques that enabled some remote earth stations to share frequencies.
One sharing technique is known as time division multiple access (TDMA).
The TDMA technique assigns each remote earth station a different time to
transmit and receive information. Another technique is frequency
division multiple access (FDMA). The FDMA technique assigns different
frequencies or frequency band segments to different remote earth
stations. The SCPC described above is an example of the FDMA technique.
A third approach, code division multiple access (CDMA), prevents
interference between remote earth stations by assigning a different
digital code to different earth stations.[^188] We refer to TDMA, FDMA,
and CDMA as \"reservation\" protocols, because these techniques
\"reserve\" a time, frequency, or different digital code for each
transmission in a VSAT network.[^189]

62 Reservation protocols are distinguished from contention protocols. In
contention protocols, transmissions from different VSAT remote earth
stations compete or "contend" for the same resource, which could be a
frequency, a time slot, or a hub earth station receiver. One example of
a contention protocol is the slotted Aloha protocol.[^190] In this
technique, the hub earth station synchronizes all remote VSAT stations
so that they transmit only in discrete time slots, like TDMA, typically
tens of milliseconds in duration.[^191] Unlike TDMA, however, two or
more remote earth stations are permitted to transmit in the same time
slot in slotted Aloha. Slotted Aloha relies on the statistical
characteristics of unrelated transmissions from different earth stations
to limit the number and duration of transmissions that occur from more
than one VSAT remote earth station in the same time slot. When two or
more remote earth stations using a contention protocol transmit
simultaneously using the maximum allowed EIRP density per carrier, those
transmissions can \"collide.\" The resulting power level caused by these
collisions at a received satellite exceeds the level specified in the
Commission's rules during the time period of simultaneous transmission,
although for no more than tens of milliseconds.[^192]

**2. Procedural History**

63 Before the Commission adopted the *Notice*, Spacenet, Inc. (Spacenet)
filed a petition for declaratory ruling that the Commission allow VSAT
networks to use the slotted Aloha contention protocol. According to
Spacenet, because the collisions in its VSAT network are infrequent and
of short duration, they do not cause unacceptable interference to
adjacent satellite systems.[^193] In its petition for declaratory
ruling, Spacenet requested that the Bureau conclude that the
Commission's rules allow the slotted Aloha technique as a general
matter, provided that the VSAT network operator limits the amount of
traffic on its network sufficiently to reduce the probability of a
collision to an acceptable level.[^194]

64 The Bureau denied Spacenet's petition for declaratory ruling because
the power level resulting from transmission signal collisions could
exceed the routine processing limits specified in Section 25.134(a) of
the Commission's rules.[^195] The Bureau concluded, however, that
Spacenet had shown that use of the slotted Aloha method is not currently
causing unacceptable interference to other satellite systems.
Accordingly, the Bureau granted Spacenet and other VSAT operators that
employ various multiple access techniques a waiver of Section 25.134 for
purposes of continuing to use existing multiple access methods while
this rulemaking is pending.[^196] The Bureau noted that its waiver does
not prejudge our actions in this rulemaking proceeding.[^197]

65 In the *Notice*, the Commission developed its own set of proposed
rules for reservation protocols and contention protocols. The Commission
did not consider the statistical equation that Spacenet recommended in
its petition for declaratory ruling, because the Commission believed
that a more general and simplified approach addressing both reservation
protocols and contention protocols would better facilitate the licensing
of earth stations than a rule limited to a single contention
protocol.[^198]

66 The Commission ultimately adopted parts of its proposal, dealing with
reservation protocols, in the *Sixth Report and Order*.[^199]
Specifically, the Commission did not require any power adjustment for
TDMA and FDMA systems, but required earth stations in CDMA systems to
reduce their power by 10log(N), where N is the maximum number of earth
stations transmitting simultaneously in the same frequency band segment
in the same satellite beam.[^200]

67 With respect to other contention protocols, such as Aloha, however,
the Commission found in the *Further Notice* that the rules proposed in
the *Notice* were too restrictive.[^201] Therefore, the Commission
revised its proposals for rules applicable to contention protocols, and
invited further comment.[^202] Similarly, in the *Third Further Notice*,
the Commission determined that the record did not adequately support
adoption of the contention protocol rules proposed in the *Further
Notice*. Accordingly, the Commission further refined its proposals for
contention protocols, and invited additional comment.[^203]

**3. Current Commission Proposal**

68 In the *Third Further Notice*, the Commission observed that all the
new contention protocol rule proposals suggested by commenters in
response to the *Further Notice* had four elements: (i) a power density
limit on individual earth stations in the VSAT network; (ii) a limit on
the power generated during collisions, (iii) a limit on the probability
of collisions, and (iv) a limit on the duration of any collision.[^204]
The Commission also found that the record at that time provided an
adequate basis to adopt some of these contention protocol elements, but
needed further development on other elements.[^205]

69 First, the Commission questioned whether any of the proposals in the
*Third Further Notice* record would be consistent with the off-axis EIRP
envelope approach adopted above.[^206] This was because all the
parties\' recommendations in the *Third Further Notice* included a power
density limit on individual earth stations, which is inconsistent with
an off-axis EIRP approach which gives earth station operators
flexibility to increase or decrease power density levels of individual
earth stations depending on antenna size.[^207] Therefore, the
Commission invited comment on adopting aggregate off-axis EIRP limits
for VSAT systems using a contention protocol, instead of EIRP limits for
individual earth stations.[^208]

70 Second, the Commission found that, generally, the commenters\'
proposed rules would allow power during collisions to increase as the
probability of collision decreases. However, there were a number of
competing proposals regarding how much the power level should be allowed
to increase as the probability of collision decreases.[^209] Therefore,
the Commission invited comment on a variation of one of the commenters\'
proposal in the record.[^210]

71 In summary, the Commission requested comment on the following
proposal:

> \(i\) For VSAT networks using a contention protocol, the aggregate
> off-axis EIRP shall not exceed the applicable off-axis EIRP envelope
> by more than the amounts set forth in Table 5 below;
>
> \(ii\) The maximum duration of any single collision is less than 100
> milliseconds.

Table 4 is the off-axis EIRP envelope adopted in this Order for digital
transmissions from a single earth station in the Ku-band in the plane of
the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at the particular earth
station location:

**[Table 4]{.underline}**

**Off-Axis EIRP Envelope for**

**Ku-Band Digital Earth Station Applications**

**[for an Individual Earth Station]{.underline}**

  ---------------- --------------------- ----------- ---------------------
  15 - 25log~10~θ  dBW/4 kHz             For         1.5° ≤ θ ≤ 7°

  -6               dBW/4 kHz             For         7° \< θ ≤ 9.2°

  18 - 25log~10~θ  dBW/4 kHz             For         9.2° \< θ ≤ 48°

  \- 24            dBW/4 kHz             For         48° \< θ ≤ 85°

  \- 14            dBW/4 kHz             For         85° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ---------------- --------------------- ----------- ---------------------

where θ is the angle in degrees from the line connecting the focal point
of the antenna to the target satellite, within the plane determined by
the focal point of the antenna and the line tangent to the arc of the
geostationary satellite orbit at the position of the target satellite.
Table 5 below allows VSAT network operators to exceed the aggregate
off-axis EIRP envelope by 2 dB for each decrease in order of magnitude
in percentage of time.[^211] This was based on proposals from SIA and
Spacenet. However, SIA and Spacenet recommended allowing VSAT network
operators to exceed the off-axis EIRP envelope for as much as 10 percent
of the time. Therefore, the Commission modified the proposal to allow
VSAT network operators to exceed the envelope for no more than 1 percent
of the time, as set forth in Table 5 below.[^212]

**[Table 5]{.underline}**

**EIRP Limits For VSAT**

**Networks Using Contention Protocols**

**Proposed By the Commission**

**in the *Third Further Notice***[^213]

+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Percentage of Time              | Increase in Aggregate              |
|                                 |                                    |
|                                 | EIRP Allowed                       |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 10% (10^-1^)                    | 0 dB                               |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 1% (10^-2^)                     | 2 dB                               |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 0.1% (10^-3^)                   | 4 dB                               |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 0.01% (10^-4^)                  | 6 dB                               |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 0.001% (10^-5^)                 | 8 dB                               |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 0.0001% (10^-6^)                | 10 dB                              |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 0.00001% (10^-7^)               | 12 dB                              |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 0.000001% (10^-8^)              | 14 dB                              |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| 0.0000001% (10^-9^)             | 16 dB                              |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+

72 In the *Third Further Notice*, the Commission suggested that this
approach would strike a reasonable balance between protecting adjacent
satellites from harmful interference and allowing VSAT network operators
to make efficient use of their facilities.[^214] The Commission also
stated that parties opposing this proposal must provide an alternative
proposal, and must explain in sufficient detail why they believe that
their proposal strikes a better balance than the Commission\'s proposal
between these policy goals.[^215]

73 The Commission also provided some guidance on what kinds of
demonstrations it might find useful if filed in support of various kinds
of alternative contention protocol proposals.[^216] For example, the
Commission recommended that parties arguing that no power limit is
required for collisions limited to 100 milliseconds should provide more
extensive justification for their recommendations.[^217] The Commission
also observed that it was originally concerned that an earth station's
transmission data would be significantly degraded, possibly beyond
recovery, in cases where the earth station experiencing interference is
operating in a narrower bandwidth or approximately the same bandwidth as
the interfering earth station.[^218] Therefore, the Commission
recommended that parties advocating no power limit should provide an
adequate basis in the record for concluding that concerns regarding
narrow-bandwidth transmissions do not warrant some limit on power levels
during collisions.[^219]

**4. Alternative Proposals**

74 SIA and Global VSAT Forum assert that there is no need for contention
protocol rules because there have not been any instances of harmful
interference resulting from use of contention protocols in the
past.[^220] SIA further maintains that only Aloha Networks has suggested
that there is a need for contention protocol rules, and that Aloha
Networks may have designed its proposals to make its proprietary
technology more competitive.[^221] SIA also emphasizes that use of
contention protocols makes VSAT networks much more efficient, and it
would be very costly to stop using them.[^222] On the other hand, ViaSat
supports the development of some kind of off-axis EIRP envelope for
contention protocol use, to provide regulatory certainty for contention
protocol users.[^223]

75 According to SIA, its technical analysis demonstrates that a VSAT
network using a contention protocol is less likely to cause harmful
interference than it would be if it did not use a contention
protocol.[^224] The SIA analysis compares the outage percentage that
would accrue given an interferer which continuously operates at the
uplink power limit for VSATs, -14 dBW per 4 kHz as required by Section
25.134 of our rules,[^225] with the outage that would result if the
interferer operates a contention protocol which transmits at the same
power limit when a single burst is transmitted without contention.[^226]
SIA conducted this analysis for Washington, D.C., Miami, and Los
Angeles, representing, respectively, typical, wet, and dry climates in
the United States. According to SIA, the results show that, for the
loading of 70 percent on the contention system, typical of the Aloha
type of system implicit in the SIA-proposed mask, the outage time
resulting from the contention protocol interferer is less than that
caused by the continuous interferer for typical modulation techniques
presently in use.[^227]

76 SIA claims that the proposal in the *Third Further Notice* would
require excessive power reductions and result in prohibiting contention
protocol operations at their current levels.[^228] Therefore, SIA
proposes an alternative contention protocol rule, in the event that the
Commission decides to adopt a rule. Instead allowing a 2 dB increase in
power for each decimal place decrease in the likelihood of collision, as
set forth in Table 5 above, SIA proposes slightly different allowed
power increases and probabilities, as set forth below. SIA bases these
figures on the formula for predicting collisions in a Slotted Aloha
network using a 70 percent loading factor.[^229]

**[Table 6]{.underline}**

**EIRP Limits For VSAT**

**Networks Using Contention Protocols**

**Proposed By SIA**[^230]

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Number of Packets in    Maximum Allowed         Maximum Percentage of
  Slot                    Increase in Aggregate   Time for which the
                          EIRP                    Aggregate EIRP Level
                                                  can be Exceeded

  0                       (No power transmitted)  50.3414696209 %

  1                       0                       15.5804983555 %

  2                       3.0                     3.4141584126 %

  3                       4.77                    0.5753457592 %

  4                       6.0                     0.0785535449 %

  5                       7.0                     0.0090026349 %

  6                       7.78                    0.0008883621 %

  7                       8.5                     0.0000769348 %

  8                       9.0                     0.0000059349 %

  9                       9.54                    0.0000004127 %

  10                      10                      0.0000000261 %
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**5. Discussion**

77 The Commission has determined on a number of occasions that Section
25.134 must be revised to allow use of any contention protocol in VSAT
networks.[^231] Section 25.134 of the Commission's rules establishes
specific limits for individual earth station antenna input power
densities.[^232] These power density limits have been put in place to
limit the interference power received in the receivers of adjacent FSS
satellites. Use of contention protocols results in aggregate power
densities in the adjacent satellite receivers that exceed the limits
that would be produced by a single VSAT operating with the power density
specified in Section 25.134. The Commission observed in the *Further
Notice* that use of contention protocols can increase the efficiency of
VSAT networks.[^233] We agree with SIA that VSAT network operators
should be allowed to take advantage of those efficiencies. Accordingly,
we revise Section 25.134 as set forth below to allow use of contention
protocols.

78 We will not adopt SIA\'s alternative EIRP envelope because it is
substantially similar to a proposal Spacenet made in a petition for
rulemaking it filed in 2000.[^234] As noted above, the Commission
declined to seek comment on Spacenet\'s proposal in the *Notice* in this
proceeding, concluding that a more general and simplified approach would
better facilitate the licensing of earth stations that use contention
protocols.[^235]

79 However, we agree with SIA that use of contention protocols tends to
*decrease* the likelihood of harmful interference in almost all cases.
This result stems from the fact that, with any contention system with
randomly-timed requests for access, there will be a portion of the time
when there is no demand for access. For a satellite network, this means
that there will be no transmission to the satellite for part of the
time. For a system with 70 percent loading,[^236] there will be no
transmission to the satellite, and therefore no interference to the
neighboring satellites, for about 50 percent of the time. This serves to
reduce the outages caused to neighboring victim satellites by the system
with the contention protocol. For the conditions assumed in the SIA
study, this reduction mostly offsets the outages that may be caused by
the multiple simultaneous transmissions which occur when multiple earth
stations simultaneously seek access.[^237] Specifically, there was a
decrease in unavailability in five of the six case studies examined in
the SIA study, ranging from 1.3 percent to 5.1 percent.[^238] In the one
case of an increase in unavailability, SIA\'s study shows that increase
to be *de minimis*.[^239] The SIA study also shows that a system meeting
the mask proposed by the Commission in the *Third Further Notice*[^240]
would increase the unavailability of a \"static system,\"[^241] a VSAT
system that does not employ a contention protocol, from about 0.13
percent to about 0.43 percent.[^242] This would generally be more
interfering than the mask proposed by SIA.

80 We conclude that there is no requirement at this time to develop
detailed regulations to govern the use of contention protocols in VSAT
networks in the FSS whose demand statistics normally allow for
significant percentages of time during which no transmissions
occur.[^243] Our conclusion is based primarily on the results of the SIA
study that: 1) the contention protocol system operating at reasonable
loading factors produces less outage to the neighboring satellites than
a static system; and 2) the envelope proposed in the *Third Further
Notice* would allow more outage than a static system. In reaching our
conclusion, we also considered the long history of no identified harmful
interference associated with contention protocols.

81 Accordingly, we adopt an exception to Section 25.134 that allows VSAT
system operators to exceed the -14 dBW/4 kHz power limit, in the
aggregate when multiple earth stations simultaneously transmit, for
purposes of \"reasonable use\" of a contention protocol. In this Order,
we do not define \"reasonable use\" in terms of specific limits for
probability of collision, length of collision, or increase in power
during collisions, as the Commission has proposed in the past. Instead,
we allow licensees flexibility in their contention protocol usage. We
anticipate that we will resolve any issues regarding \"reasonableness\"
of contention protocol usage in the complaint process. If a Commission
licensee believes that its operations are experiencing harmful
interference as the result of another licensee\'s unreasonable
contention protocol usage, that licensee will have the burden of showing
that it is experiencing harmful interference, and that the other
licensee is the cause of that interference. If the complainant can meet
this burden of proof, the burden will then shift to the defendant to
show that its use of contention protocols is reasonable. By requiring
reasonable contention protocol use rather than specifying limits for
length of collision and increase in power allowed during a collision, we
expect that our contention protocol rule will not interfere with
technological developments in the area of contention protocols. We also
expect that requiring contention protocol usage to be reasonable will
provide sufficient regulatory certainty to address the concern raised by
ViaSat.[^244]

82 We do not prescribe any particular method for demonstrating that a
licensee\'s contention protocol usage is reasonable. One possible method
would be to show that the licensee was using a contention protocol in a
manner that does not result in an increase in unavailability relative to
a static system throughout most of its service area, that any increases
in unavailability occur only in limited areas, and such increases are no
greater than the increase found in SIA\'s study. If the defending
licensee chooses not to make this kind of showing, it would be free to
make any other demonstrations that it believes the Commission would find
persuasive, in the event that we receive a contention protocol-related
complaint in the future.

**6. Contention Protocol Information Requirements**

83 In the *Third Further Notice*, the Commission invited comment on
requiring applicants to certify that they will comply with any
contention protocol requirements that it adopts, rather than requiring a
detailed mathematical showing.[^245] This proposal was based on
recommendations from commenters in response to prior comments.[^246] In
addition, the Commission reasoned that a detailed showing in this case
did not appear to be necessary to prevent harmful interference.[^247] No
one commented on this issue in response to the *Third Further Notice*.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the *Third Further Notice* and
summarized here, we adopt the proposal to require earth station
licensees planning to use a contention protocol to certify that their
contention protocol usage will be reasonable.

**7. Grandfathering**

84 *Background*. In the *Third Further Notice*, the Commission requested
comment on applying the contention protocol requirements it proposed in
the *Third Further Notice* only to VSAT networks licensed after those
rules take effect, in the event that it were to adopt its
proposal.[^248] SIA asserts that, at minimum, a 15-year transition
period for all VSAT networks is needed to allow VSAT operators a
reasonable opportunity to revise their VSAT networks.[^249]

85 *Discussion*. As noted above, we did not adopt the proposal in the
*Third Further Notice*, but rather, we require VSAT network operators
using contention protocols to be reasonable in their use. Based on
comments in the record in this proceeding that there have been no
reported cases of harmful interference resulting from contention
protocol usage,[^250] we conclude that current VSAT network operators
using contention protocols are meeting this standard already. We also
find that this is consistent with SIA\'s recommendation, in that we do
not anticipate that any current VSAT network operators will be required
to revise their networks to comply with the new contention protocol
rule. Accordingly, we require all Ku-band VSAT network operators using
contention protocols to use reasonable parameters in conjunction with
their contention protocols.[^251] We will also revise Form 312 to
provide a streamlined method for earth station applicants planning to
use a contention protocol to make this certification.

**8. Other Contention Protocol Issues**

86 In the *Third Further Notice*, the Commission tentatively concluded
that it was not necessary to develop specific rules to govern VSAT
networks that use a combination of reservation and contention
protocols.[^252] No one commented on this proposal. We find that the
requirement that we adopted above, that use of a contention protocol is
allowed provided that it is reasonable, should also be applicable to
VSAT networks that use a combination of reservation and contention
protocols. Therefore, we will require such new license applicants to
certify that their contention protocol usage will be reasonable.

**B. Quiet Zone for Radio Astronomy**

87 *Background*. Section 25.203(f) of the Commission's rules establishes
a \"Quiet Zone\" for radio astronomy in a 13,000 square mile area in
Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland.[^253] Under Section 25.203(f),
anyone seeking a license in that area must notify the National Radio
Astronomy Observatory (NRAO).[^254] NRAO is given 20 days to file an
objection to the proposed operations with the Commission. If NRAO files
an objection, Section 25.203(f) states that the Commission may take
whatever action it deems appropriate.[^255]

88 In its 2001 reply in this proceeding, NRAO proposed a revision to
Section 25.203(f) that was outside the scope of the original 2000
*Notice*.[^256] Specifically, NRAO proposed adding the following
language to the end of Section 25.203(f).[^257]

> Licensees or permittees of systems serving geographic areas which are
> authorized to add transmission facilities without further application
> to, or approval by, the Commission, and which additional transmission
> facilities are located within the coordinates specified above, shall,
> prior to allowing such additional transmission facilities to operate,
> notify the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) and coordinate
> the construction and operation to minimize possible harmful
> interference to the NRAO. A certificate of coordination signed by an
> authorized representative of the NRAO shall be made available to the
> Commission upon request. Comments or objections by the NRAO in
> response to such coordination, or non-coordination if appropriate,
> will be considered by the Commission in the same manner as comments or
> objections to applications as stated above.

89 Accordingly, the Commission requested comment on NRAO's proposed
coordination requirements for remote terminals within the Quiet Zone.
Specifically, the Commission invited interested parties to discuss
whether VSAT network operators should be required to complete
coordination with NRAO prior to placing any remote earth stations in the
Quiet Zone, rather than simply notifying NRAO as they have been required
to do since 1958.[^258] The Commission further observed that its Quiet
Zone rules were designed to create a balance between protecting NRAO's
radio astronomy operations,[^259] and allowing the development of radio
services in the Quiet Zone.[^260] Finally, the Commission noted that the
Commission currently has only a notification requirement, rather than a
coordination requirement, for terrestrial wireless operations in the
Quiet Zone.[^261]

90 *Discussion*. Several parties contend that NRAO\'s proposal is
unnecessary, and that NRAO has not shown that new coordination
procedures are needed to prevent any current or reasonably anticipated
interference.[^262] SIA and WildBlue note that NRAO\'s proposed
coordination procedure would be very burdensome to VSAT operators, and
result in substantial delay of service to end users.[^263] SIA further
argues that the Commission\'s current procedures give NRAO a full and
fair opportunity to voice its interference concerns.[^264] SIA also
maintains that NRAO\'s proposal would result in usurping the
Commission\'s jurisdiction over interference disputes in the Quiet
Zone.[^265] Finally, SIA asserts that NRAO\'s proposal is beyond the
scope of this proceeding to the extent that NRAO intends it to apply to
anything other than VSAT systems.[^266] None of the commenters support
NRAO\'s proposal. NRAO did not respond to the *Third Further Notice*.

91 We will not adopt NRAO\'s proposal. The current notification
requirement has been in place since 1958, and neither NRAO nor any other
commenter has suggested that any of NRAO\'s operations have suffered
harmful interference as a result of the current requirement.
Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that NRAO might begin to
receive harmful interference as a result of the decision in the *Fifth
Report and Order* to allow multiple hub earth stations in VSAT
networks.[^267] This is because licensees are not permitted to place
hubs in the Quiet Zone without filing a modification application
specifying the location and operating parameters of those hubs.[^268] In
addition, in 2004, the Commission completed a review of its Quiet Zone
rules applicable to terrestrial wireless operators. In that proceeding,
the Commission decided to permit, but not require, terrestrial wireless
operators to coordinate their planned operations within the Quiet Zone
before filing a license application with the Commission.[^269] In fact,
in that proceeding, NRAO advocated an informal, non-mandatory
coordination rather than codifying a specific time frame for those
coordination discussions.[^270] There is no basis in the record in this
proceeding to place a more restrictive requirement on VSAT operators
than the Commission has placed on terrestrial wireless operators.

**C. Downlink EIRP Density Limits for Ku-band Earth Stations**

92 Here, we revise Section 25.212(c) to correct a previous oversight
regarding EIRP density limits for Ku-band earth stations. The *Fifth
Report and Order* increased the downlink EIRP density limits applicable
to Ku-band VSAT networks, from 6 dBW/4 kHz to 10 dBW/4 kHz.[^271] In
adopting this increase, the Commission determined that the types of
systems likely to be adversely affected by increasing the downlink EIRP
density limit were analog narrowband hub-type systems.[^272] To
compensate for the potential inference that these systems might
otherwise experience from the VSAT downlink EIRP density increase, the
Commission allowed analog narrow band hub-type systems to increase their
power by 4 dB, from 13 dBW/4 kHz to 17 dBW/4 kHz.[^273] The Commission
found that this increase would not significantly increase the potential
for harmful or unacceptable interference among adjacent satellite
networks because there are few narrowband analog hub systems currently
in operation.[^274]

93 At that time, the Commission also decided to increase the routine
EIRP density levels for other types of Ku-band downlink
transmissions.[^275] Although the Commission concluded it could increase
the Ku-band downlink EIRP density limit, this change was inadvertently
excluded from the rules. Consequently, we make the downlink EIRP density
limits for other Ku-band earth stations in Section 25.212(c) consistent
with the power levels adopted in Section 25.134. The correct power
levels are set forth in Appendix B.

**V. RECONSIDERATION ISSUES**

**A. Background**

94 On July 5, 2005, SIA filed a petition for reconsideration of the
*Fifth Report and Order*, raising concerns regarding a number of details
of the new earth station procedures. No comments or replies were filed
in response to SIA\'s petition. For the reasons set forth below, we
grant SIA\'s petition in part, and deny it in part.[^276] In addition,
as noted briefly above, this is the latest in a series of rulemakings in
which the Commission has streamlined its satellite and earth station
procedures. We take this opportunity to resolve several issues raised in
three petitions for reconsideration of another streamlining proceeding,
the *1996 Streamlining Order*.[^277]

**B. Rule References to Smaller-than-Routine Earth Stations**

95 *Background*. At the time SIA filed its petition for reconsideration,
Sections 25.209(a) and (b) of the Commission\'s rules specified antenna
gain limits at each off-axis angle starting at 1° off-axis.[^278]
Section 25.209(g) relaxed the antenna gain pattern requirements for
Ku-band earth stations, by starting the Ku-band antenna gain pattern at
1.25° off-axis instead of 1° off-axis.[^279] SIA notes that Section
25.220, the new rule specifying the procedures for smaller-than-routine
diameter earth station applications, refers to only Sections 25.209(a)
and (b). SIA argues that the rule should refer to Section 25.209(g) as
well.[^280] According to SIA, it is necessary to start the Ku-band
antenna gain pattern at 1.25° off-axis to include 1.2-meter Ku-band
earth stations in the \"routine\" classification.[^281]

96 *Discussion*. SIA is correct. By neglecting to refer to Section
25.209(g) in the streamlined non-routine earth station procedures set
forth in Sections 25.132(b)(3) and 25.220 as revised in the *Fifth
Report and Order*, the Commission had inadvertently made some routine
Ku-band earth station applications subject to the non-routine earth
station procedures. However, those rule revisions are superceded by the
revisions to the antenna gain pattern envelope requirements adopted in
the *Eighth Report and Order* above.[^282]

**C. Protection from Interference for Non-Routine Earth Stations**

97 *Background*. Under Section 25.209(c) of the Commission\'s Rules,
receive-only earth stations and the receive operations of
transmit-receive earth stations are protected from harmful interference
to the extent that an earth station that meets the antenna gain pattern
envelope specified in Sections 25.209(a) and (b).[^283] SIA claims that,
under the new procedures for non-routine earth station applications,
non-routine receive antennas would not be entitled to any protection
from harmful interference unless those non-routine receive operations
were coordinated.[^284]

98 *Discussion*. When the Commission adopted Section 25.220, it intended
that the receive operations of uncoordinated non-routine earth stations
would be protected from harmful interference to the extent to which the
parties agreed in their coordination.[^285] In the absence of such an
agreement, the Commission intended that the earth station would be
protected from interference only to the extent that a routine earth
station would.[^286]

99 We agree with SIA to the extent that it argues that non-routine
receive-only earth stations should be given the same level of protection
from interference as a routine earth station, or in other words, the
same protection level it would enjoy if it met the antenna gain pattern
requirements of Sections 25.209(a) and (b), in the absence of a
coordination agreement. We also agree with SIA that parts of Section
25.220 could be interpreted as inconsistent with this intent.[^287] We
disagree, however, that the Commission\'s rules should mandate a
particular level of interference protection rather than allowing parties
to negotiate a different level of protection, as SIA appears to
suggest.[^288] Accordingly, we will revise Section 25.220 to make clear
that, in the absence of a coordination agreement, non-routine earth
stations will be protected from interference to the same extent as
routine earth stations, but we will not adopt SIA\'s apparent suggestion
to preclude parties from negotiating a different level of protection.

**D. Signing of Certifications**

100 *Background*. In its petition for reconsideration, SIA again
proposes revising the certification procedure to require adjacent
satellite operators to sign certifications showing that the proposed
non-routine earth station operations have been coordinated, in cases
where both the target satellite and the adjacent satellites are
U.S.-licensed. SIA states that this procedure will prevent any
misunderstanding with respect to the coordination agreement, and ensure
that adjacent satellite operators have current information regarding the
interference environment in which they operate.[^289] SIA also asserts
that obtaining these signatures would not be burdensome for either
satellite operator because they are generally in regular contact.[^290]
Alternatively, SIA contends that the benefits of adjacent satellite
operator signatures would be outweighed by the potential for delay in
cases where the adjacent satellite is not U.S.-licensed.[^291]

101 *Discussion*. We find that SIA has not adequately justified its
proposal. SIA suggests that adjacent satellite operator signatures are
needed to prevent misunderstandings of coordination agreements, and
ensure that they have current information regarding their interference
environment.[^292] However, SIA\'s concerns about current information
are inconsistent with its assertion that U.S.-licensed satellite
operators are in regular contact with each other. [^293] Furthermore, in
the Order above, the Commission considered and declined another SIA
proposal to require signatures from both the target satellite operator
and adjacent satellite operators on certifications, because it was
unnecessary in light of the Commission\'s historical reliance on
satellite operators to work together cooperatively to reach coordination
agreements.[^294] Moreover, even if a target satellite operator
neglected to coordinate with an affected adjacent satellite operator,
the Commission\'s procedure includes an additional opportunity for those
satellite operators to comment.[^295] There is nothing in the record to
justify a different result here.

**E. Determination of Need for Coordination**

102 In the *Fifth Report and Order*, the Commission concluded that the
target satellite operator should not be required to coordinate with an
adjacent satellite operator in cases where the non-routine earth station
in question will not generate a side lobe in the direction of the
adjacent satellite that will be large enough to cause harmful
interference.[^296] SIA recommends stating this exception in more
precise terms. SIA would require coordination with all adjacent
satellites within 6° of the target satellite unless the earth station is
routine, or the earth station operator plans to reduce its input power
or power density into the antenna by a sufficient amount to meet the
antenna gain pattern envelope in Section 25.209 within [+]{.underline}
1° of the nominal location of the adjacent satellite.[^297] We agree
that a more precise statement of the coordination requirement would
reduce confusion on this issue. Accordingly, we will revise Section
25.220 of the Commission\'s rules based on SIA proposal.

**F. Other Reconsideration Issues**

103 In the context of its pleadings filed in response to the *Third
Further Notice*, AVL raises a number of issues regarding decisions made
in the *Fifth Report and Order* and *Sixth Report and Order*. First, AVL
recommends that the Commission not require any certifications or power
reductions for routine earth stations.[^298] SIA replies that nothing in
the *Fifth Report and Order* suggests that the procedures adopted in
that Order were intended for routine earth stations.[^299] SIA is
correct. The procedures adopted in the *Fifth Report and Order* are
intended to streamline the review of non-routine earth station
applications.[^300] We do not plan to apply those procedures to routine
earth station applications.

104 AVL also assumes that the certification procedure adopted by the
Commission in the *Fifth Report and Order* requires non-routine earth
station operators to obtain certifications from adjacent satellite
operators, and complains that such a procedure would be unreasonably
burdensome.[^301] AVL is mistaken. The Commission in the *Fifth Report
and Order* explicitly stated that earth station applicants must submit
certifications from their target satellite operators, not all the
adjacent satellite operators.[^302]

105 In addition, AVL claims that the Commission has eliminated a
provision that allows earth station operators to exceed the antenna gain
pattern in the sidelobes by up to three dB in this proceeding.[^303] SIA
counters that allowing such \"excursions\" would result in an
unacceptable increase in the potential for interference
environment.[^304] AVL misunderstands the Commission\'s actions. In the
*Sixth Report and Order*, the Commission made only one change to the
antenna gain pattern envelope: it increased the starting point to 1.5°
off-axis, up from 1.0° off-axis for C-band antennas and 1.25° off-axis
for Ku-band antennas. The Commission did not eliminate any provision
with respect to \"excursions.\" Furthermore, these excursions are
reflected in the off-axis EIRP envelopes proposed in the *Third Further
Notice*.[^305] In response to SIA\'s argument, we note that Section
25.209 has allowed earth station operators the flexibility allowed to
exceed that envelope by up to three dB for several years. SIA does not
provide any reason to depart from this practice. Accordingly, we
conclude that no further revisions to Section 25.209 are warranted.

106 Finally, we take this opportunity to address some petitions for
reconsideration of another Part 25 streamlining proceeding.[^306] EDS
asserts that Form 312, adopted in the *1996 Streamlining Order*,
required disclosure of foreign ownership that is in excess of the
disclosure required by the Communications Act.[^307] When the Form 312
filing requirement took effect, the Form included instructions that made
clear that the foreign ownership reporting requirements are limited to
broadcast, common carrier, aeronautical en route or aeronautical fixed
earth stations. We conclude that the instructions adequately address
EDS\'s concern, and no further action is needed. GE observes that there
was a typographical error in Section 25.212(c) of the Commission\'s
rules,[^308] but that error was later corrected.[^309] Accordingly, we
dismiss this petition as moot. Finally, Telquest does not raise issues
related to any rule adopted in the *1996 Streamlining Order*, but rather
criticizes the dismissal of its Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS)
application about nine months before the *1996 Streamlining Order* was
released.[^310] We therefore dismiss Telquest\'s petition as outside the
scope of this proceeding.[^311]

**VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS**

107 In this Order, we continue the process we began in 2000 to
streamline the Commission\'s non-routine earth station processing rules.
Throughout this proceeding, the Commission has provided multiple
opportunities for interested parties to recommend rule revisions,[^312]
and based the streamlining measures adopted in this *Eighth Report and
Order* on recommendations from satellite industry commenters in an
earlier phase in this proceeding.[^313] As a result of this Order, we
now have three procedures for earth station applications. First,
applications for earth stations with antennas of routine diameter or
greater,[^314] to be operated at routine power levels or lower,[^315]
will be processed routinely. This is consistent with the procedure for
routine earth station applications in place now.

108 Second, earth station applications that do not meet these standards,
but fall within the applicable off-axis EIRP envelope, will be processed
routinely and placed on 30 days\' public notice. The Commission will
develop a form for these earth station applications. In the meantime,
applicants choosing to use this procedure must file their information in
the form of a table as set forth in this Order above and include the
table as an attachment to their applications.[^316] As the Commission
noted in the *Third Further Notice*, this procedure is substantially
similar to the power reduction procedure adopted in the *Fifth Report
and Order*.[^317] Accordingly, we replace the power reduction procedure
adopted in the *Fifth Report and Order* with the off-axis EIRP procedure
we adopt here, as proposed in the *Third Further Notice*.[^318] In
addition, licenses granted pursuant to this procedure will be eligible
for ALSAT treatment, consistent with the power reduction procedure
adopted in the *Fifth Report and Order*.[^319]

109 Third, license applications for earth stations that will exceed the
off-axis EIRP envelope will be considered pursuant to the certification
procedure adopted in the *Fifth Report and Order*. In other words,
applicants will need to provide a certification from the operator of
each space station with which the applicant plans to communicate,
showing that the space station operator has coordinated the non-routine
earth station operations with its neighboring satellite operators.[^320]
We emphasize that earth station operators are not required to coordinate
directly with the neighboring satellite operators.[^321] If for any
reason the applicant is unwilling or unable to obtain such
certifications, it is free to attempt to show that its proposed earth
station operations would not cause harmful adjacent satellite
interference in the context of a waiver of the certification
requirement. Such applicants are also free to include any information
they believe will support their arguments, including but not limited to
an ASIA analysis, as discussed in the *Fifth Report and Order*,[^322] or
a statement that the earth station antenna has an electronic pointing
mechanism, as suggested by AVL. However, we reach no conclusion here
regarding whether any specific showing would or would not be sufficient
in any particular instance. Instead, we repeat that the earth station
applicant in these cases bear the burden of proof of showing that their
proposed operations will not cause harmful interference to adjacent
satellites.

110 Applicants for Ku-band VSAT network licenses planning to use a
contention protocol, and filing their applications after the rules in
this Order take effect, will be required to certify in their
applications that their use of that contention protocol will be
reasonable. We also considered NRAO\'s proposal to require VSAT network
operators to coordinate with NRAO prior to filing their applications
with the Commission, and decided not to depart from the current
procedures requiring NRAO notification, which appear to have been
working adequately since 1958. Finally, we act on several petitions for
reconsideration as indicated above.

111 All the rule revisions adopted in this Order are set forth in
Appendix B of this Order. In addition, we incorporate into Appendix B
the rule revisions adopted in the *Sixth Report and Order* and stayed
pending consideration of the issues in the *Third Further Notice*, to
the extent necessary.[^323] The Commission will publish a summary of
this Order in the Federal Register, in which it will announce the
effective date of all these rule revisions.

**VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS**

112 *Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.* As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^324] an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the *Third* *Further
Notice*.[^325] The Commission sought written public comments on the
possible significant economic impact of the proposed policies and rules
on small entities in the *Third Further Notice*, including comments on
the IRFA. No one commented specifically on the IRFA. Pursuant to the
RFA,[^326] a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is contained in
Appendix D.

113 *Paperwork Reduction Act*. This Order contains new and modified
information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA.
OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to
comment on the new or modified information collection(s) contained in
this proceeding. Implementation of these new or modified reporting
and/or recordkeeping requirements will be subject to approval by the
OMB, as prescribed by the Act, and will go into effect upon announcement
in the Federal Register of OMB approval.

114 *Privacy Impact Assessment*. The Commission has performed a Privacy
Impact Assessment as required by the Privacy Act, as amended by the
E-Government Act of 2002.[^327] The Commission has determined that this
information collection does not affect individuals or household; thus,
there are no impacts under the Privacy Act.

**VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES**

115 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 303(c),
303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 157(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r),
that this *Eighth Report and Order* in IB Docket No. 00-248 is hereby
ADOPTED.

116 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Part 25 of the Commission's rules IS
AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B. An announcement of the effective
date of these rule revisions will be published in the Federal Register.

117 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Order,
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

118 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commission's
rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration of the
*Fifth Report and Order* filed by SIA is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART, as indicated above.

119 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commission's
rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration of the
*Sixth Report and Order* filed by SIA is GRANTED.

120 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commission's
rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration of the
*Sixth Report and Order* filed by Boeing is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

121 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commission's
rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that the Petitions for Reconsideration of the
*1996 Streamlining Order* filed by EDS and GE Americom are DISMISSED AS
MOOT.

122 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commission's
rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration of the
*1996 Streamlining Order* filed by Telquest IS DENIED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**List of Commenters**

**I. Comments filed September 6, 2005**

1.  AvL Technologies, Inc. (AVL)

2.  CBS Broadcasting, Inc., Fox Broadcasting Company, Microspace
    Communications Corporation, MTV Networks, Showtime Networks Inc.,
    Twentieth Television, and the Walt Disney Company (together, Joint
    Commenters)

3.  National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA)

4.  National Programming Service, Inc. (NPS)

5.  Satellite Industry Association (SIA)

6.  SES Americom, Inc. (SES Americom)

7.  Spacenet Inc. and Starband Communications Inc. (Spacenet)

8.  Time Warner, Inc. (Time Warner)

**II. Replies filed October 6, 2005**

1.  AVL

2.  EchoStar

3.  Global VSAT Forum

4.  NPS

5.  SIA

6.  WildBlue Communications, Inc. (WildBlue)

**III. *Ex Parte* Statements**

1.  Letter from James L. Oliver, President, AvL Technologies, to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Feb. 13, 2006) (AVL *Ex
    Parte* Statement).

2.  Letter from Carolyn Tatum Roddy, Director of Regulatory Affairs,
    SIA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Oct. 27, 2006) (SIA
    *Ex Parte* Statement).

3.  Letter from Elizabeth R. Park, Counsel for ViaSat, Inc., to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Dec. 14, 2006) (ViaSat *Ex
    Parte* Statement).

4.  Letter from Carlos M. Nalda, Counsel for The Boeing Company, to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Apr. 5, 2007) (Boeing *Ex
    Parte* Statement).

**IV.** **Petitions for Reconsideration, Comments, and Replies**

**A. *Fifth Report and Order***

1.  SIA

**B. *Sixth Report and Order***

1.  Boeing

2.  SIA

3.  Intelsat (Comments)

4.  Boeing (Reply)

**C. *1996 Streamlining Order*, IB Docket No. 95-117, Filed March 12,
1997**

1.  EDS Corporation (EDS)

2.  GE American Communications, Inc. (GE Americom)

3.  Telquest Ventures, Inc. (Telquest)

**APPENDIX B**

**Rule Changes**

For the reasons discussed above, the Federal Communications Commission
amends title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 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, 332, unless otherwise
noted.

2\. In Section 25.115, add paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:

[§ 25.115 Application for earth station authorizations.]{.underline}

\* \* \* \* \*

\(h\) Any earth station applicant filing an application pursuant to §
25.218 of this chapter must file three tables showing the off-axis EIRP
level of the proposed earth station antenna of the plane of the
geostationary orbit, the elevation plane, and towards the horizon. In
each table, the EIRP level must be provided at increments of 0.1° for
angles between 0° and 10° off-axis, and at increments of 5° for angles
between 10° and 180° off-axis.

> \(1\) For purposes of the off-axis EIRP table in the plane of the
> geostationary orbit, the off-axis angle is the angle in degrees from
> the line connecting the focal point of the antenna to the target
> satellite, within the plane determined by the focal point of the
> antenna and the line tangent to the arc of the geostationary satellite
> orbit at the position of the target satellite.
>
> \(2\) For purposes of the off-axis EIRP table in the elevation plane,
> the off-axis angle is the angle in degrees from the line connecting
> the focal point of the antenna to the target satellite, within the
> plane perpendicular to the plane determined by the focal point of the
> antenna and the line tangent to the arc of the geostationary satellite
> orbit at the position of the target satellite.
>
> \(3\) For purposes of the off-axis EIRP table towards the horizon, the
> off-axis angle is the angle in degrees from the line determined by the
> intersection of the horizontal plane and the elevation plane described
> in paragraph (h)(2) of this Section, in the horizontal plane. The
> horizontal plane is the plane determined by the focal point of the
> antenna and the horizon.
>
> \(4\) In addition, in an attachment to its application, the earth
> station applicant must certify that it will limit its pointing error
> to 0.5°, or demonstrate that it will comply with the applicable
> off-axis EIRP envelopes in Section 25.218 of this Part when the
> antenna is mispointed at its maximum pointing error.

\(i\) Any earth station applicant filing an application for a VSAT
network made up of FSS earth stations and planning to use a contention
protocol must include in its application a certification that it will
comply with the requirements of § 25.134(g)(4).

3\. In Section 25.134, add paragraph (g)(4) to read as follows:

[§ 25.134 Licensing provisions of Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT)
and C-band Small Aperture Terminal (CSAT) networks.]{.underline}

\* \* \* \* \*

\(g\) \* \* \*

\(4\) Any earth station applicant filing an application to operate a
VSAT network after **\[Insert effective date of rule\]** in the Ku-band
and planning to use a contention protocol must certify that its
contention protocol usage will be reasonable.

\* \* \* \* \*

4\. In Section 25.138, add paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:

[§ 25.138 Blanket Licensing provisions of GSO FSS Earth Stations in the
18.3-18.8 GHz (space-to-Earth), 19.7-20.2 GHz (space-to-Earth),
28.35-28.6 GHz (Earth-to-space), and 29.25-30.0 GHz (Earth-to-space)
bands]{.underline}.

\(a\) \* \* \*

\(4\) GSO FSS earth station antenna off-axis EIRP spectral density for
cross-polarized signals shall not exceed the following values, in all
directions relative to the GSO arc, under clear sky conditions:

  ----------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------
  8.5-25log(θ)-10log(N)   dBW/40 kHz        for               2.0° \< θ
                                                              [\<]{.underline}
                                                              7.0°

  -12.63-10log(N)         dBW/40 kHz        for               7.0° \< θ
                                                              [\<]{.underline}
                                                              9.23°
  ----------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------

Where:

θ is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe;

For systems where more than one earth station is expected to transmit
simultaneously in the same bandwidth, e.g., CDMA systems, N is the
likely maximum number of simultaneously transmitting co-frequency earth
stations in the receive beam of the satellite;

N=1 for TDMA and FDMA systems.

\* \* \* \* \*

5\. In Section 25.209, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)(1), remove
and reserve paragraph (d), revise paragraph (f), and remove and reserve
paragraph (g), to read as follows:

[§ 25.209 Antenna performance standards.]{.underline}

\(a\) The gain of any antenna to be employed in transmission from an
earth station in the fixed-satellite service shall lie below the
envelope defined below:

\(1\) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at
the particular earth station location, for earth stations not operating
in the Ka-band or conventional Ku-band:

  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  29 - 25log~10~θ    dBi               For               1.5° ≤ θ ≤ 7°

  8                  dBi               For               7° \< θ ≤ 9.2°

  32 - 25log~10~θ    dBi               For               9.2° \< θ ≤ 48°

  -10                dBi               For               48° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

where θ is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe, and dBi
refers to dB relative to an isotropic radiator. For the purposes of this
section, the peak gain of an individual sidelobe may not exceed the
envelope defined above for θ between 1.5 and 7.0 degrees. For θ

greater than 7.0 degrees, the envelope may be exceeded by no more than
10% of the sidelobes, provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the gain
envelope given above by more than 3 dB.

\(2\) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at
the particular earth station location, for earth stations operating in
the Ka-band or conventional Ku-band:

  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  29 - 25log~10~θ    dBi               For               1.5° ≤ θ ≤ 7°

  8                  dBi               For               7° \< θ ≤ 9.2°

  32 - 25log~10~θ    dBi               For               9.2° \< θ ≤ 48°

  -10                dBi               For               48° \< θ ≤ 85°

  0                  dBi               For               85° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

\(3\) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including
any out-of-plane potential terrestrial interference paths, for all earth
stations not operating in the Ka-band or conventional Ku-band:

Outside the main beam, the gain of the antenna shall lie below the
envelope defined by:

  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  32 - 25log~10~θ    dBi               For               3° \< θ ≤ 48°

  -10                dBi               For               48° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

where θ and dBi are defined above. For the purposes of this section, the
envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes provided
no individual sidelobe exceeds the gain envelope given above by more
than 6 dB. The region of the main reflector spillover energy is to

be interpreted as a single lobe and shall not exceed the envelope by
more than 6 dB.

\(4\) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including
any out-of-plane potential terrestrial interference paths, for all earth
stations operating in the Ka-band or conventional Ku-band:

Outside the main beam, the gain of the antenna shall lie below the
envelope defined by:

  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------
  32 - 25log~10~θ    dBi               For               3° \< θ ≤ 48°

  -10                dBi               For               48° \< θ ≤ 85°

  0                  dBi               For               85° \< θ
                                                         [\<]{.underline}
                                                         180°
  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------

where θ and dBi are defined above. For the purposes of this section, the
envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes provided
no individual sidelobe exceeds the gain envelope given above by more
than 6 dB. The region of the main reflector spillover energy is to

be interpreted as a single lobe and shall not exceed the envelope by
more than 6 dB.

\(5\) Elliptical earth station antennas may be operated only when the
major axis of the antenna is aligned with the plane of the geostationary
satellite orbit as it appears at the particular earth station location.

\(b\) The off-axis cross-polarization gain of any antenna to be employed
in transmission from an earth station to a space station in the domestic
fixed-satellite service shall be defined as follows:

\(1\) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at
the particular earth station location:

  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  19 - 25log~10~θ    dBi               For               1.8° \< θ ≤ 7°

  -2                 dBi               For               7° \< θ ≤ 9.2°
  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

where θ is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe, and dBi
refers to dB relative to an isotropic radiator.

\(2\) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including
any out-of-plane potential terrestrial interference paths:

  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  19 - 25log~10~θ    dBi               For               3° \< θ ≤ 7°

  -2                 dBi               For               7° \< θ ≤ 9.2°
  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

where θ and dBi are defined above.

(c)(1) Earth station antennas licensed for reception of radio
transmissions from a space station in the fixed-satellite service are
protected from radio interference caused by other space stations only to
the degree to which harmful interference would not be expected to be
caused to an earth station employing an antenna conforming to the
referenced patterns defined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section,
and protected from radio interference caused by terrestrial radio
transmitters identified by the frequency coordination process only to
the degree to which harmful interference would not be expected to be
caused to an earth station conforming to the reference pattern defined

in paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this section.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(d\) \[removed and reserved.\]

\* \* \* \* \*

\(f\) An earth station with an antenna not conforming to the standards
of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section will be authorized only if the
applicant meets its burden of demonstrating that its antenna will not
cause unacceptable interference. For ESVs in the C-band, this
demonstration must comply with the procedures set forth in § 25.221. For
ESVs in the Ku-band, this demonstration must comply with the procedures
set forth in § 25.222. For feeder-link earth stations in the 17/24 GHz
BSS, this demonstration must comply with the procedures set forth in §
25.223. For other FSS earth stations, this demonstration must comply
with the procedures set forth in §§ 25.218 or 25.220. In any case, the
Commission will impose appropriate terms and conditions in its
authorization of such facilities and operations.

\(g\) \[removed and reserved.\]

\* \* \* \* \*

6\. In Section 25.212, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:

[§25.212 Narrowband analog transmissions, digital transmissions, and
video transmissions in the GSO Fixed-Satellite Service.]{.underline}

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) In the 14.0-14.5 GHz band, an earth station with an antenna
equivalent diameter of 1.2 meters or greater may be routinely licensed
for transmission of narrowband analog services with bandwidths up to 200
kHz if the maximum input power spectral density into the antenna does
not exceed -8 dBW/4 kHz and the maximum transmitted satellite carrier
EIRP density does not exceed 17 dBW/4 kHz. Such earth stations may be
routinely licensed for transmission of narrowband and/or wideband
digital services, including digital video services, if the maximum input
spectral power density into the antenna does not exceed -14 dBW/4 kHz,
and the maximum transmitted satellite carrier EIRP density does not
exceed +10.0 dBW/4 kHz. Antennas transmitting in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band
with a major and/or minor axis smaller than 1.2 meters are subject to
the provisions of §25.220, which may include power reduction
requirements.

\* \* \* \* \*

7\. Revise Part 25 by adding new § 25.218 to read as follows:

[§ 25.218 Off-Axis EIRP Envelopes for FSS earth station
operations]{.underline}.

\(a\) This section applies to all earth station applications, except for

> \(1\) ESV applications,
>
> \(2\) Analog video earth station applications,
>
> \(3\) Applications for feeder-link earth stations in the 17/24 GHz
> BSS.

\(b\) Earth station applications subject to this Section are eligible
for routine processing if they meet the applicable off-axis EIRP
envelope set forth in this Section below. For purposes of this Section,
the term \"extended Ku-band\" is the 10.7-11.7 GHz, 12.75-13.25 GHz, and
13.75-14.0 GHz band. The term \"conventional Ku-band\" is defined in
Section 25.201 of this chapter.

\(c\) *C-band Analog Earth Station Operations*

\(1\) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at
the particular earth station location:

  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  29.5 - 25log~10~θ  dBW/4 kHz         For               1.5° ≤ θ ≤ 7°

  8.5                dBW/4 kHz         For               7° \< θ ≤ 9.2°

  32.5 - 25log~10~θ  dBW/4 kHz         For               9.2° \< θ ≤ 48°

  -9.5               dBW/4 kHz         For               48° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

where θ is the angle in degrees from the line connecting the focal point
of the antenna to the target satellite, and the geostationary orbit
plane is determined by the focal point of the antenna and the line
tangent to the arc of the geostationary satellite orbit at the position
of the target satellite. For the purposes of this section, the peak EIRP
of an individual sidelobe may not exceed the envelope defined above for
θ between 1.5° and 7.0°. For θ greater than 7.0°, the envelope may be
exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes, provided no individual
sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more than 3 dB.

\(2\) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including
any out-of-plane potential terrestrial interference paths:

  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  32.5 - 25log~10~θ  dBW/4 kHz         For               3° ≤ θ ≤ 48°

  -9.5               dBW/4 kHz         For               48° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

where θ is the angle in degrees from the line connecting the focal point
of the antenna to the target satellite, within any plane that includes
that line, with the exception of the plane determined by the focal point
of the antenna and the line tangent to the arc of the geostationary
satellite orbit at the position of the target satellite. For the
purposes of this section, the envelope may be exceeded by no more than
10% of the sidelobes provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the
envelope given above by more than 6 dB. The region of the main reflector
spillover energy is to be interpreted as a single lobe and shall not
exceed the envelope by more than 6 dB.

\(d\) *C-band Digital Earth Station Operations*

\(1\) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at
the particular earth station location:

  ------------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------------
  26.3 - 10log~10~(N) -     dBW/4 kHz          For       1.5° ≤ θ ≤ 7°
  25log~10~θ                                             

  5.3 -10log~10~(N)         dBW/4 kHz          For       7° \< θ ≤ 9.2°

  29.3 -10log~10~(N) -      dBW/4 kHz          For       9.2° \< θ ≤ 48°
  25log~10~θ                                             

  \- 12.7 -10log~10~(N)     dBW/4 kHz          For       48° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ------------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------------

where θ and the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit are defined
in paragraph (c)(1) of this Section, and N is defined below. For the
purposes of this section, the peak EIRP of an individual sidelobe may
not exceed the envelope defined above for θ between 1.5° and 7.0°. For θ
greater than 7.0°, the envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of
the sidelobes, provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope
given above by more than 3 dB.

For digital SCPC using frequency division multiple access (FDMA) or time
division multiple access (TDMA) technique, N is equal to one.

For digital SCPC using code division multiple access (CDMA) technique, N
is the maximum number of co-frequency simultaneously transmitting earth
stations in the same satellite receiving beam.

\(2\) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including
any out-of-plane potential terrestrial interference paths:

  ----------------------- ------------------- --------- -----------------
  29.3 - 10log~10~(N) -   dBW/4 kHz           For       3° ≤ θ ≤ 48°
  25log~10~θ                                            

  -12.7 - 10log~10~(N)    dBW/4 kHz           For       48° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ----------------------- ------------------- --------- -----------------

where θ is defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this Section, and N is defined
in paragraph (d)(1) of this Section. For the purposes of this section,
the envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes
provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more
than 6 dB. The region of the main reflector spillover energy is to be
interpreted as a single lobe and shall not exceed the envelope by more
than 6 dB.

\(e\) *Conventional Ku-band Analog Earth Station Operations*:

\(1\) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at
the particular earth station location:

  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  21 - 25log~10~θ    dBW/4 kHz         For               1.5° ≤ θ ≤ 7°

  0                  dBW/4 kHz         For               7° \< θ ≤ 9.2°

  24 - 25log~10~θ    dBW/4 kHz         For               9.2° \< θ ≤ 48°

  -18                dBW/4 kHz         For               48° \< θ ≤ 85°

  \- 8               dBW/4 kHz         For               85° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

where θ and the plane of the geostationary satellite are defined in
paragraph (c)(1) of this Section. For the purposes of this section, the
peak EIRP of an individual sidelobe may not exceed the envelope defined
above for θ between 1.5° and 7.0°. For θ greater than 7.0°, the envelope
may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes, provided no
individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more than 3 dB.

\(2\) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including
any out-of-plane potential terrestrial interference paths:

  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  24 - 25log~10~θ    dBW/4 kHz         For               3° ≤ θ ≤ 48°

  -18                dBW/4 kHz         For               48° \< θ ≤ 85°

  \- 8               dBW/4 kHz         For               85° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

where θ is defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. For the purposes
of this section, the envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the
sidelobes provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given
above by more than 6 dB. The region of the main reflector spillover
energy is to be interpreted as a single lobe and shall not exceed the
envelope by more than 6 dB.

\(f\) *Conventional Ku-band Digital Earth Station Operations*:

\(1\) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at
the particular earth station location:

  ------------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------------
  15 - 10log~10~(N) -       dBW/4 kHz          For       1.5° ≤ θ ≤ 7°
  25log~10~θ                                             

  -6 -10log~10~(N)          dBW/4 kHz          For       7° \< θ ≤ 9.2°

  18 -10log~10~(N) -        dBW/4 kHz          For       9.2° \< θ ≤ 48°
  25log~10~θ                                             

  \- 24 -10log~10~(N)       dBW/4 kHz          For       48° \< θ ≤ 85°

  \- 14 -10log~10~(N)       dBW/4 kHz          For       85° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ------------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------------

where θ and the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit are defined
in paragraph (c)(1) of this Section, and N is defined below. For the
purposes of this section, the peak EIRP of an individual sidelobe may
not exceed the envelope defined above for θ between 1.5° and 7.0°. For θ
greater than 7.0°, the envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of
the sidelobes, provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope
given above by more than 3 dB.

For digital SCPC using frequency division multiple access (FDMA) or time
division multiple access (TDMA) technique, N is equal to one.

For digital SCPC using code division multiple access (CDMA) technique, N
is the maximum number of co-frequency simultaneously transmitting earth
stations in the same satellite receiving beam.

\(2\) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including
any out-of-plane potential terrestrial interference paths:

  ----------------------- ------------------- --------- -----------------
  18 - 10log~10~(N) -     dBW/4 kHz           For       3° ≤ θ ≤ 48°
  25log~10~θ                                            

  -24 - 10log~10~(N)      dBW/4 kHz           For       48° \< θ ≤ 85°

  \- 14 - 10log~10~(N)    dBW/4 kHz           For       85° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ----------------------- ------------------- --------- -----------------

where θ is defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, and N is defined
in paragraph (f)(1) of this section. For the purposes of this section,
the envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes
provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more
than 6 dB. The region of the main reflector spillover energy is to be
interpreted as a single lobe and shall not exceed the envelope by more
than 6 dB.

\(g\) *Extended Ku-band Analog Earth Station Operations*:

\(1\) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at
the particular earth station location:

  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  21 - 25log~10~θ    dBW/4 kHz         For               1.5° ≤ θ ≤ 7°

  0                  dBW/4 kHz         For               7° \< θ ≤ 9.2°

  24 - 25log~10~θ    dBW/4 kHz         For               9.2° \< θ ≤ 48°

  -18                dBW/4 kHz         For               48° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

where θ and the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit are defined
in paragraph (c)(1) of this Section. For the purposes of this section,
the peak EIRP of an individual sidelobe may not exceed the envelope
defined above for θ between 1.5° and 7.0°. For θ greater than 7.0°, the
envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes, provided
no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more than 3
dB.

\(2\) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including
any out-of-plane potential terrestrial interference paths:

  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  24 - 25log~10~θ    dBW/4 kHz         For               3° ≤ θ ≤ 48°

  -18                dBW/4 kHz         For               48° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

where θ is defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this Section. For the purposes
of this section, the envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the
sidelobes provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given
above by more than 6 dB. The region of the main reflector spillover
energy is to be interpreted as a single lobe and shall not exceed the
envelope by more than 6 dB.

\(h\) *Extended Ku-band Digital Earth Station Operations*:

\(1\) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at
the particular earth station location:

  ------------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------------
  15 - 10log~10~(N) -       dBW/4 kHz          For       1.5° ≤ θ ≤ 7°
  25log~10~θ                                             

  -6 -10log~10~(N)          dBW/4 kHz          For       7° \< θ ≤ 9.2°

  18 -10log~10~(N) -        dBW/4 kHz          For       9.2° \< θ ≤ 48°
  25log~10~θ                                             

  \- 24 -10log~10~(N)       dBW/4 kHz          For       48° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ------------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------------

where θ and the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit are defined
in paragraph (c)(1) of this Section, and N is defined below. For the
purposes of this section, the peak EIRP of an individual sidelobe may
not exceed the envelope defined above for θ between 1.5° and 7.0°. For θ
greater than 7.0°, the envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of
the sidelobes, provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope
given above by more than 3 dB.

For digital SCPC using frequency division multiple access (FDMA) or time
division multiple access (TDMA) technique, N is equal to one.

For digital SCPC using code division multiple access (CDMA) technique, N
is the maximum number of co-frequency simultaneously transmitting earth
stations in the same satellite receiving beam.

\(2\) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including
any out-of-plane potential terrestrial interference paths:

  ----------------------- ------------------- --------- -----------------
  18 - 10log~10~(N) -     dBW/4 kHz           For       3° ≤ θ ≤ 48°
  25log~10~θ                                            

  -24 - 10log~10~(N)      dBW/4 kHz           For       48° \< θ ≤ 85°
  ----------------------- ------------------- --------- -----------------

where θ is defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and N is defined
in paragraph (h)(1) of this section. For the purposes of this section,
the envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes
provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more
than 6 dB. The region of the main reflector spillover energy is to be
interpreted as a single lobe and shall not exceed the envelope by more
than 6 dB.

8\. Revise § 25.220 by revising paragraphs (a) and (d), and removing and
reserving paragraphs (c), (e), and (f), to read as follows:

[§ 25.220 Non-conforming transmit/receive earth station
operations.]{.underline}

(a)(1) This section applies to earth station applications, other than
ESV applications and 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link applications, in which
the proposed earth station operations do not fall within the applicable
off-axis EIRP envelope specified in Section 25.218 of this Chapter.

\(2\) The requirements for petitions to deny applications filed pursuant
to this section are set forth in § 25.154.

\(b\) \* \* \*

\(c\) \[removed and reserved.\]

(d)(1) The applicant must submit the certifications listed in paragraphs
(d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(iv) of this Section. The applicant will be
authorized to transmit only to the satellite systems included in the
coordination agreements referred to in the certification required by
paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section. The applicant will be granted
protection from receiving interference only with respect to the
satellite systems included in the coordination agreements referred to in
the certification required by paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, and
only to the extent that protection from receiving interference is
afforded by those coordination agreements.

> \(i\) A statement from the satellite operator acknowledging that the
> proposed operation of the subject non-conforming earth station with
> its satellite(s) has the potential to receive interference from
> adjacent satellite networks that may be unacceptable.
>
> \(ii\) A statement from the satellite operator that it has coordinated
> the operation of the subject non-conforming earth station accessing
> its satellite(s), including its required downlink power density based
> on the information contained in the application, with all adjacent
> satellite networks within 6° of orbital separation from its
> satellite(s), and the operations will operate in conformance with
> existing coordination agreement for its satellite(s) with other
> satellite systems, except as set forth in paragraph (d)(4) of this
> paragraph.
>
> \(iii\) A statement from the satellite operator that it will include
> the subject non-conforming earth station operations in all future
> satellite network coordinations, and
>
> \(iv\) A statement from the earth station applicant certifying that it
> will comply with all coordination agreements reached by the satellite
> operator(s).
>
> \(2\) A license granted pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section
> will include, as a condition on that license, that if a good faith
> agreement cannot be reached between the satellite operator and the
> operator of a future 2° compliant satellite, the earth station
> operator shall accept the power density levels that would accommodate
> the 2° compliant satellite.
>
> \(3\) In the event that a coordination agreement discussed in
> paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section is reached, but that coordination
> agreement does not address protection from interference for the earth
> station, that earth station will be protected from interference to the
> same extent that an earth station that meets the requirements of §
> 25.209 of this title would be protected from interference.
>
> \(4\) Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, a party
> applying for an earth station license pursuant to this section will
> not be required to certify that its target satellite operator has
> reached a coordination agreement with another satellite operator whose
> satellite is within 6° of orbital separation from its satellite in
> cases where the off-axis EIRP density level of the proposed earth
> station operations will be less than or equal to the levels specified
> by the applicable off-axis EIRP envelope set forth in § 25.218 of this
> Chapter in the direction of the part of the geostationary orbit arc
> within 1° of the nominal orbit location of the adjacent satellite.

\(e\) \[removed and reserved.\]

\(f\) \[removed and reserved.\]

\(g\) \* \* \*

\* \* \* \* \*

**APPENDIX C**

**Proposed Off-Axis EIRP Envelopes for FSS Earth Station Applications**

In this Appendix, we list several off-axis EIRP envelopes for various
types of FSS earth station transmissions, as originally proposed in
Appendix C of the *Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*.

**I. Power Limits for C-band Analog Earth Stations**

\(1\) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at
the particular earth station location:

  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  29.5 -- 25log~10~θ dBW/4 kHz         For               1.5° ≤ θ ≤ 7°

  8.5                dBW/4 kHz         For               7° \< θ ≤ 9.2°

  32.5 - 25log~10~θ  dBW/4 kHz         For               9.2° \< θ ≤ 48°

  -9.5               dBW/4 kHz         For               48° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

where θ is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe. For the
purposes of this section, the peak EIRP of an individual sidelobe may
not exceed the envelope defined above for θ between 1.5° and 7.0°. For θ
greater than 7.0°, the envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of
the sidelobes, provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope
given above by more than 3 dBW/4 kHz.

\(2\) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including
any out-of-plane potential terrestrial interference paths:

  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  32.5 -- 25log~10~θ dBW/4 kHz         For               3° ≤ θ ≤ 48°

  -9.5               dBW/4 kHz         For               48° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

where θ is defined above. For the purposes of this section, the envelope
may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes provided no
individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more than 6
dBW/4 kHz. The region of the main reflector spillover energy is to

be interpreted as a single lobe and shall not exceed the envelope by
more than 6 dBW/4 kHz.

**II. Power Limits for C-band Digital Earth Stations**

\(1\) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at
the particular earth station location:

  ------------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------------
  26.3 - 10log~10~(N) -     dBW/4 kHz          For       1.5° ≤ θ ≤ 7°
  25log~10~θ                                             

  5.3 -10log~10~(N)         dBW/4 kHz          For       7° \< θ ≤ 9.2°

  29.3 -10log~10~(N) -      dBW/4 kHz          For       9.2° \< θ ≤ 48°
  25log~10~θ                                             

  \- 12.7 -10log~10~(N)     dBW/4 kHz          For       48° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ------------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------------

where θ is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe, and N is
defined below. For the purposes of this section, the peak EIRP of an
individual sidelobe may not exceed the envelope defined above for θ
between 1.5° and 7.0°. For θ greater than 7.0°, the envelope may be
exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes, provided no individual
sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more than 3 dBW/4 kHz.

For digital SCPC using frequency division multiple access (FDMA) or time
division multiple access (TDMA) technique, N is equal to one.

For digital SCPC using code division multiple access (CDMA) technique, N
is the maximum number of co-frequency simultaneously transmitting earth
stations in the same satellite receiving beam.

\(2\) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including
any out-of-plane potential terrestrial interference paths:

  ----------------------- ------------------- --------- -----------------
  29.3 - 10log~10~(N)--   dBW/4 kHz           For       3° ≤ θ ≤ 48°
  25log~10~θ                                            

  -12.7 - 10log~10~(N)    dBW/4 kHz           For       48° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ----------------------- ------------------- --------- -----------------

where θ and N are defined above. For the purposes of this section, the
envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes provided
no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more than 6
dBW/4 kHz. The region of the main reflector spillover energy is to

be interpreted as a single lobe and shall not exceed the envelope by
more than 6 dBW/4 kHz.

**III. Power Limits for Ku-band Analog Earth Stations**

\(1\) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at
the particular earth station location:

  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  21 -- 25log~10~θ   dBW/4 kHz         For               1.5° ≤ θ ≤ 7°

  0                  dBW/4 kHz         For               7° \< θ ≤ 9.2°

  24 - 25log~10~θ    dBW/4 kHz         For               9.2° \< θ ≤ 48°

  -18                dBW/4 kHz         For               48° \< θ ≤ 85°

  \- 8               dBW/4 kHz         For               85° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

where θ is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe. For the
purposes of this section, the peak EIRP of an individual sidelobe may
not exceed the envelope defined above for θ between 1.5° and 7.0°. For θ
greater than 7.0°, the envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of
the sidelobes, provided no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope
given above by more than 3 dBW/4 kHz.

\(2\) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including
any out-of-plane potential terrestrial interference paths:

  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  24 -- 25log~10~θ   dBW/4 kHz         For               3° ≤ θ ≤ 48°

  -18                dBW/4 kHz         For               48° \< θ ≤ 85°

  \- 8               dBW/4 kHz         For               85° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

where θ is defined above. For the purposes of this section, the envelope
may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes provided no
individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more than 6
dBW/4 kHz. The region of the main reflector spillover energy is to

be interpreted as a single lobe and shall not exceed the envelope by
more than 6 dBW/4 kHz.

**IV. Power Limits for Ku-band Digital Earth Stations**

\(1\) In the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit as it appears at
the particular earth station location:

  ------------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------------
  15 - 10log~10~(N) -       dBW/4 kHz          For       1.5° ≤ θ ≤ 7°
  25log~10~θ                                             

  -6 -10log~10~(N)          dBW/4 kHz          For       7° \< θ ≤ 9.2°

  18 -10log~10~(N) -        dBW/4 kHz          For       9.2° \< θ ≤ 48°
  25log~10~θ                                             

  \- 24 -10log~10~(N)       dBW/4 kHz          For       48° \< θ ≤ 85°

  \- 14 -10log~10~(N)       dBW/4 kHz          For       85° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ------------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------------

where θ is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main lobe, and N is
defined below. For the purposes of this section, the peak EIRP of an
individual sidelobe may not exceed the envelope defined above for θ
between 1.5° and 7.0°. For θ greater than 7.0°, the envelope may be
exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes, provided no individual
sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more than 3 dBW/4 kHz.

For digital SCPC using frequency division multiple access (FDMA) or time
division multiple access (TDMA) technique, N is equal to one.

For digital SCPC using code division multiple access (CDMA) technique, N
is the maximum number of co-frequency simultaneously transmitting earth
stations in the same satellite receiving beam.

\(2\) In all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including
any out-of-plane potential terrestrial interference paths:

  ----------------------- ------------------- --------- -----------------
  18 - 10log~10~(N)--     dBW/4 kHz           For       3° ≤ θ ≤ 48°
  25log~10~θ                                            

  -24 - 10log~10~(N)      dBW/4 kHz           For       48° \< θ ≤ 85°

  \- 14 - 10log~10~(N)    dBW/4 kHz           For       85° \< θ ≤ 180°
  ----------------------- ------------------- --------- -----------------

where θ and N are defined above. For the purposes of this section, the
envelope may be exceeded by no more than 10% of the sidelobes provided
no individual sidelobe exceeds the envelope given above by more than 6
dBW/4 kHz. The region of the main reflector spillover energy is to

be interpreted as a single lobe and shall not exceed the envelope by
more than 6 dBW/4 kHz.

**APPENDIX D**

**Technical Arguments**

SIA identifies certain minor errors in Appendix C of the *Third Further
Notice*. First, throughout Appendix C, in each place that the phrase
\"No individual sidelobe would exceed 3 dB/4 kHz\" appears, SIA
recommends replacing \"3 dBW/4 kHz\" with simply \"3 dB\".[^328] We
agree, and we correct this typographical error in the rule revisions we
adopt in this Order. Similarly, we replace \"6 dBW/4 kHz\" with \"6 dB\"
as SIA suggests.[^329]

SIA also claim that the Commission misstated two of the equations in
Appendix C of the *Third Further Notice*, in which the Commission
proposed an off-axis EIRP envelope for C-band digital
transmissions.[^330] SIA\'s claims are illustrated below.

*Table II(1) in Appendix C of Third Further Notice*

  ------------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------------
  27.3 - 10log~10~(N) -     dBW/4 kHz          For       1.5° ≤ θ ≤ 7°
  25log~10~θ                                             

  5.3 -10log~10~(N)         dBW/4 kHz          For       7° \< θ ≤ 9.2°
  ------------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------------

Table II(1) as Proposed by SIA

  ------------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------------
  **26.3** - 10log~10~(N) - dBW/4 kHz          For       1.5° ≤ θ ≤ 7°
  25log~10~θ                                             

  **5.2** -10log~10~(N)     dBW/4 kHz          For       7° \< θ ≤ 9.2°
  ------------------------- ------------------ --------- -----------------

SIA is correct that the Commission misstated the first line of Table
II(1). This figure is derived by combining the antenna gain pattern in
Section 25.209 with the C-band power level permitted by Section 25.212.
In this case, for angles between 1.5° and 7°, that is 29 -- 2.7, which
is 26.3 as SIA points out.

However, we disagree that the second line of Table II(1) is misstated.
When the antenna gain pattern in Section 25.209 is combined with the
C-band power level permitted by Section 25.212, for angles between 7°
and 9.2°, the figure is 8 -- 2.7, which is 5.3, not 5.2 as SIA claims.

**APPENDIX E**

**Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in
the *Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third Further Notice*)
in IB Docket No. 00-248.[^331] The Commission sought written public
comment on the proposals in the *Third Further Notice*, including
comment on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
conforms to the RFA.[^332]

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order**

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the Commission in every
even-numbered year beginning in 1998 to review all regulations that
apply to the operations or activities of any provider of
telecommunications service and to determine whether any such regulation
is no longer necessary in the public interest due to meaningful economic
competition. Our objective is to repeal or modify any rules in Part 25
that are no longer necessary in the public interest, as required by
Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

We codify streamlined procedures that allow for routine treatment of
applications for earth stations that will comply with an of-axis EIRP
envelope.

**B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments In Response
to the IRFA**

No comments were submitted directly in response to the IRFAs in the
*Third Further Notice*.

**C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
Rules 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 rules adopted herein.[^333] The RFA generally defines
the term \"small entity \" as having the same meaning as the terms
\"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small governmental
jurisdiction.\"[^334] In addition, the term \"small business\" has the
same meaning as the term \"small business concern\" under the Small
Business Act.[^335] 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).[^336]

[1. Cable Services]{.underline}. The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution, which consists
of all such firms having \$12.5 million or less in annual
receipts.[^337] According to Census Bureau data for 1997, in this
category there was a total of 1,311 firms that operated for the entire
year.[^338] Of this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under \$10
million, and an additional fifty-two firms had receipts of \$10 million
to \$24,999,999.[^339] Thus, under this size standard, the majority of
firms can be considered small.

The Commission has developed its own small business size standard for a
small cable operator for the purposes of rate regulation. Under the
Commission\'s rules, a \"small cable company\" is one serving fewer than
400,000 subscribers nationwide.[^340] Based on our most recent
information, we estimate that there were 1,439 cable operators that
qualified as small cable companies at the end of 1995.[^341] Since then,
some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000
subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that
caused them to be combined with other cable operators. Consequently, we
estimate that there are fewer than 1,439 small cable companies that may
be affected by the proposed rules.

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size
standard for a \"small cable operator,\" which is \"a cable operator
that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer
than one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in
the aggregate exceed \$250,000,000.\"[^342] The Commission has
determined that there are 67,700,000 subscribers in the United
States.[^343] Therefore, an operator serving fewer than 677,000
subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues,
when combined with the total annual revenues of all of its affiliates,
do not exceed \$250 million in the aggregate.[^344] Based on available
data, we estimate that the number of cable operators serving 677,000
subscribers or less totals approximately 1,450.[^345] We do not request
or collect information on whether cable operators are affiliated with
entities whose gross annual revenues exceed \$250,000,000,[^346] and
therefore are unable to estimate accurately the number of cable system
operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the
definition in the Communications Act.

2\. [Satellite Telecommunications]{.underline}. The rules proposed in
this *Further Notice* would affect providers of satellite
telecommunications services, if adopted. Satellite telecommunications
service providers include satellite operators and earth station
operators. The Commission has not developed a definition of small
entities applicable to satellite operators. Therefore, the applicable
definition of small entity is generally the definition under the SBA
rules applicable to Satellite Telecommunications.[^347] This definition
provides that a small entity is expressed as one with \$12.5 million or
less in annual receipts.[^348] 1997 Census Bureau data indicate that,
for 1997, 273 satellite communication firms had annual receipts of under
\$10 million. In addition, 24 firms had receipts for that year of \$10
million to \$24,999,990.[^349]

[3. Auxiliary, Special Broadcast and other program distribution
services.]{.underline} This service involves a variety of transmitters,
generally used to relay broadcast programming to the public (through
translator and booster stations) or within the program distribution
chain (from a remote news gathering unit back to the station). The
Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable
to broadcast auxiliary licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition
of small entity is the definition under the Small Business
Administration (SBA) rules applicable to radio broadcasting
stations,[^350] and television broadcasting stations.[^351] These
definitions provide that a small entity is one with either \$6.0 million
or less in annual receipts for a radio broadcasting station or \$12.0
million in annual receipts for a TV station.[^352] There are currently
3,237 FM translators and boosters, 4913 TV translators.[^353] The FCC
does not collect financial information on any broadcast facility and the
Department of Commerce does not collect financial information on these
auxiliary broadcast facilities. We believe, however, that most, if not
all, of these auxiliary facilities could be classified as small
businesses by themselves. We also recognize that most translators and
boosters are owned by a parent station which, in some cases, would be
covered by the revenue definition of small business entity discussed
above. These stations would likely have annual revenues that exceed the
SBA maximum to be designated as a small business (as noted, either \$6.0
million for a radio station or \$12.0 million for a TV station).
Furthermore, they do not meet the Small Business Act\'s definition of a
\"small business concern\" because they are not independently owned and
operated.

[4. Microwave Services.]{.underline} Microwave services include common
carrier,[^354] private‑operational fixed,[^355] and broadcast auxiliary
radio services.[^356] At present, there are approximately 22,015 common
carrier fixed licensees and 61,670 private operational‑fixed licensees
and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services. The
Commission has not yet defined a small business with respect to
microwave services. For purposes of this FRFA, we will use the SBA\'s
definition applicable to cellular and other wireless communications
companies \-- *i.e.*, an entity with no more than 1,500 persons.[^357]
We estimate that all of the Fixed Microwave licensees (excluding
broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small entities under the
SBA definition for radiotelephone (wireless) companies.

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

The rules adopted in this *Eighth Report and Order* are not intended to
increase the reporting, record keeping and other compliance requirements
of any licensee, and we do not anticipate any differential treatment to
be received by larger and smaller entities. The reporting requirements
associated with the off-axis EIRP envelope method for reviewing earth
station applications are the same as the reporting requirements
associated with one of the earth station application procedures adopted
in the *Fifth Report and Order*. These requirements will not affect
small businesses differently from other non-routine earth station
applicants.

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

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives: (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 or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of
performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.[^358]

In this *Eighth Report and Order*, the Commission considers and rejects
a proposal to require analog video earth station operators to comply
with an off-axis EIRP envelope. Commenters persuasively argued that such
a requirement would have been burdensome for all analog video earth
station operators, including small business analog video earth station
operators.

**F. Report to Congress**

The Commission will send a copy of the *Eighth Report and Order*,
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). In addition,
the Commission will send a copy of the *Eighth Report and Order*,
including FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. A copy of the *Eighth Report and Order* and FRFA (or
summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register. *See*
5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

[^1]: 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, *Sixth Report and Order* *and Third
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, IB Docket No. 00-248, 20 FCC
    Rcd 5593, 5622 (2005) (*Third Further Notice*). When we cite to the
    *Sixth Report and Order* portions of the document, we will refer to
    it as the *Sixth Report and Order*. When we cite to the *Third
    Further Notice* portions of the document, we will refer to it as the
    *Third Further Notice*.

[^2]: *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, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, IB
    Docket No. 00-248, 15 FCC Rcd 25128, 25131 (para. 4) (2000)
    (*Notice*); 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, *Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, IB Docket No. 00-248, 17 FCC Rcd 18585, 18588-59 (para.
    4) (2002) (*Further Notice*).

[^3]: Use of Returned Spectrum in the 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service
    Frequency Bands, *Order*, IB Docket Nos. 05-220 and 05-221, 20 FCC
    Rcd 19696, 19710 (para. 30) (2005) (*2 GHz MSS Spectrum Assignment
    Order*).

[^4]: *2 GHz MSS Spectrum Assignment Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 19710 (para.
    30).

[^5]: Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over
    Wireline Facilities, *Report and Order and Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, CC Docket No. 02-33, 20 FCC Rcd 14853, 14884 (para. 57)
    (2005).

[^6]: Written Statement of the Honorable Kevin J. Martin, Chairman,
    Federal Communications Commission, Before the Committee on Commerce,
    Science & Transportation, U.S. Senate, February 1, 2007, 2007 WL
    283773 (F.C.C.).

[^7]: Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP) is the product of the gain of
    the antenna in a given direction relative to an isotropic antenna
    and the power supplied to that antenna. 47 C.F.R. § 2.1.

[^8]: For purposes of this Order, the conventional C-band is the
    3700-4200 MHz and 5925-6425 MHz bands. The conventional Ku-band is
    the 11.7-12.2 GHz and 14.0-14.5 GHz bands.

[^9]: *See* *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 74).

[^10]: *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, *Fifth Report and Order*, IB Docket No.
    00-248, 20 FCC Rcd 5666, 5672 (para. 13) (2005) (*Fifth Report and
    Order*).

[^11]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd 5666 (2005); 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,
    *Sixth Report and Order* *and Third Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, IB Docket No. 00-248, 20 FCC Rcd 5593 (2005) (*Sixth
    Report and Order*).

[^12]: 47 U.S.C. § 301, *cited in Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at
    5670 (para. 8); *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5595 (para.
    2).

[^13]: 47 C.F.R. Part 25, *cited in Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd
    at 5670 (para. 8); *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5595
    (para. 2).

[^14]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5670 (para. 8); *Sixth
    Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5595 (para. 2); *Notice*, 15 FCC
    Rcd at 25130 (para. 3).

[^15]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5674 (para. 17); *Sixth
    Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5595 (para. 3). *See also Notice*,
    15 FCC Rcd at 25132 (para. 7), *citing* Licensing of Space Stations
    in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service and Related Revisions of
    Part 25 of the Rules and Regulations, *Report and Order*, CC Docket
    No. 81-704, FCC 83-184, 54 Rad. Reg. 2d 577 (released Aug. 16,
    1983); *summary printed in* Licensing Space Stations in the Domestic
    Fixed-Satellite Service, 48 F.R. 40233 (Sept. 6, 1983) (*Two Degree
    Spacing Order*). *See also* Licensing of Space Stations in the
    Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service and Related Revisions of Part 25 of
    the Rules and Regulations, *Report and Order*, CC Docket No. 81-704,
    99 FCC 2d 737 (1985) (*Two Degree Spacing Reconsideration Order*).

[^16]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5674 (para. 17); *Sixth
    Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5595-96 (para. 3).

[^17]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5596 (para. 4).

[^18]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5596 (para. 4), *citing
    Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25133 (para. 9), 47 C.F.R. § 2.1.

[^19]: ^?^ *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5596 (para. 4),
    *citing Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25133 (para. 9).

[^20]: ^?^ *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5596 (para. 4),
    *citing Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25133 (para. 9). This is true for
    center-fed antennas. However, since any portion of the bowl will
    effectively reflect the energy from the feed in the direction of the
    boresight, \"offset fed antennas\" can be constructed where the
    boresight is not necessarily perpendicular to the plane of the
    antenna\'s edge.

[^21]: ^?^ *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5596 (para. 4),
    *citing Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25133 (para. 9).

[^22]: ^?^ *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5596 (para. 4),
    *citing Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25133 (para. 9). Examples of these
    ripples can be seen in the antenna gain pattern diagrams in Appendix
    A of the *Notice*. *Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25162-73 (App. A).

[^23]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5596 (para. 4), *citing
    Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25133 (para. 9).

[^24]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5596 (para. 5), *citing*
    *Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25133 (para. 10), 47 C.F.R. § 25.209.

[^25]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5596 (para. 5), *citing
    Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25133 (para. 11), *Two Degree Spacing Order*,
    54 Rad. Reg. 2d at 605 (para. 93).

[^26]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5674 (para. 17); *Sixth
    Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5597 (para. 6). *See also*
    *Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25132 (para. 7), *citing* 47 C.F.R. Part 25.

[^27]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.134, 25.209, 25.211, 25.212. *See also* Routine
    Licensing of Earth Station in the 6 GHz and 14 GHz Bands Using
    Antennas Less than 9 Meters and 5 Meters in Diameter, respectively,
    for Both Full Transponder and Narrowband Transmissions, *Declaratory
    Order*, 2 FCC Rcd 2149 (Com. Car. Bur., 1987), *cited in* 47 C.F.R.
    § 25.134.

[^28]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5674 (para. 17); *Sixth
    Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5597 (para. 6); *Notice*, 15 FCC
    Rcd at 25132 (para. 7). For purposes of this Order, we define
    \"routine\" earth stations as those that can be licensed without a
    case-by-case review. The Commission also grants \"non-routine\"
    earth station applications, but those applications require a
    case-by-case review to ensure that they will not cause harmful
    interference in a two-degree spacing environment.

[^29]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5675 (para. 18), *citing
    Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25132 (para. 7).

[^30]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5675 (para. 18), *citing
    Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25132 (para. 7).

[^31]: Amendment of Part 25 of the Commission\'s Rules and Regulations
    to Reduce Alien Carrier Interference Between Fixed-Satellites at
    Reduced Orbital Spacing and to Revise Application Processing
    Procedures for Satellite Communications Services, *First Report and
    Order*, CC Docket No. 86-496, 6 FCC Rcd 2806 (1991) (*1991
    Streamlining Order*); Streamlining the Commission\'s Rules and
    Regulations for Satellite Application and Licensing Procedures,
    *Report and Order*, IB Docket No. 95-117, 11 FCC Rcd 21581 (1996)
    (*1996 Streamlining Order*). *See also Fifth Report and Order*, 20
    FCC Rcd at 5670-71 (para. 9).

[^32]: *See Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5671 (para. 10),
    *citing* 47 U.S.C. § 161(a).

[^33]: *See Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5671 (para. 10),
    *citing* 47 U.S.C. § 161(b).

[^34]: Federal Communications Commission Biennial Regulatory Review
    2000, *Staff Report*, CC Docket No. 00-175, 15 FCC Rcd 21084 (2000)
    (*2000 Biennial Review Staff Report*), *cited in* *Fifth Report and
    Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5671 (para. 10).

[^35]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5675 (para. 18), *citing*
    *Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25134 (para. 13), 47 C.F.R. § 25.209(f).

[^36]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5675 (para. 18), *citing
    Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25134 (para. 13), 47 C.F.R. § 25.134(b).
    Concurrently with the *Two Degree Spacing Reconsideration Order*,
    the Commission formed an Advisory Committee to obtain technical and
    operational expertise in implementing Two Degree Spacing standards.
    Establishment of an Advisory Committee on Implementation of Reduced
    Orbit Spacing Between Domestic Fixed Satellites, *Order*, 102 FCC 2d
    390 (1985). Among the Advisory Committee\'s recommendations was to
    adopt ASIA as the generally accepted procedure for calculating
    adjacent satellite interference. The Commission confirmed this
    determination in 1996, but also decided to permit licensees and
    applicants to use their own interference analysis programs, provided
    that the program is made available to the Commission and the public
    for review. *1996 Streamlining Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 21601-02 (para.
    50).

[^37]: Conducting an interference assessment using the ASIA program
    requires the collection of very specific modulation and link budget
    parameters for all of the communication links being analyzed.
    Parameters such as modulation indices, baseband frequencies, data
    and error correction coding rates, noise temperatures, antenna
    gains, powers, and sometimes carrier frequency plans are required
    for the interfering and desired communication links. Once these
    parameters are collected, the ASIA computer program computes
    carrier-to-interference (C/I) ratios between the desired and
    interfering links. Such detailed parameters are not collected in the
    earth station licensing process and are generally available only
    from the individual satellite system operators. *See* *Fifth Report
    and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5675 (para. 18), *citing Notice*, 15 FCC
    Rcd at 25134 (para. 13).

[^38]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5675 (para. 18), *citing
    Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25134 n.24.

[^39]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5675 (para. 18), *citing
    Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25134 (para. 13).

[^40]: *See Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25143-44 (paras. 44-45); Amendment of
    the Commission\'s Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, 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, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and First Report and
    Order*, IB Docket Nos. 02-34 and 00-248, 17 FCC Rcd 3847, 3894-96
    (paras. 139-46) (2002) (*First Report and Order*).

[^41]: Amendment of the Commission\'s Space Station Licensing Rules and
    Policies, 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, *Second Report and Order*, IB Docket
    Nos. 02-34 and 00-248, 18 FCC Rcd 12507 (2003) (*Second Report and
    Order*). For more on the Permitted List, 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, *Order*, IB Docket No. 96-111, 15 FCC Rcd 7207
    (1999) (*DISCO II First Reconsideration Order*).

[^42]: Amendment of the Commission\'s Space Station Licensing Rules and
    Policies, 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, *Third Report and Order and Second
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, IB Docket Nos. 02-34 and
    00-248, 18 FCC Rcd 13486 (2003) (*Third Report and Order*);
    Amendment of the Commission\'s Space Station Licensing Rules and
    Policies, 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, *Fourth Report and Order*, IB Docket
    Nos. 02-34 and 00-248, 19 FCC Rcd 7419 (2004) (*Fourth Report and
    Order*).

[^43]: The smallest diameter antenna routinely licensed at C-band is 4.5
    meters, and the smallest antenna routinely licensed at Ku-band is
    1.2 meters in diameter. *See* *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd
    at 5676 (para. 20), *citing Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25133 (para. 11).
    The size of the earth station antenna is important since, in
    general, smaller antennas produce wider transmission beams, which,
    in turn, can create more potential interference to adjacent
    satellite operations. *Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25132 (para. 7).

[^44]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.134 (VSAT networks), 25.211 (video
    transmissions), 25.212 (narrowband transmissions). *See also Fifth
    Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5676 (para. 20), *citing Notice*,
    15 FCC Rcd at 25140 (para. 31).

[^45]: As explained further below, reducing the diameter of an earth
    station antenna increases the side lobes. Reducing the transmit
    power of the earth station reduces the off-axis EIRP, however, and
    so can compensate for the reduction in antenna diameter. *See*
    *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5676 (para. 20), *citing
    Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25135-36 (paras. 15-19).

[^46]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5676 (para. 20), *citing
    Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25136-37 (paras. 20-24).

[^47]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5676 (para. 20), *citing
    Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25140-41 (paras. 31-33).

[^48]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5676 (para. 20), *citing
    Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25187-88 (App. B).

[^49]: Specifically, 13 comments were filed on March 26, 2001, and 11
    replies were filed on May 7, 2001. *See* *Fifth Report and Order*,
    20 FCC Rcd at 5731 (App. A).

[^50]: *See*, *e.g.*, Letter from Dori K. Bailey of Latham and Watkins,
    to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC (dated Dec. 11, 2001) (SIA
    December 10 *Ex Parte* Statement) (While the ex parte meeting was
    held on December 10, 2001, the letter summarizing that meeting was
    filed on December 11, 2001).

[^51]: 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, *Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, IB Docket No. 00-248, 17 FCC Rcd 18585, 18631-33
    (paras. 127-32) (2002) (*Further Notice*).

[^52]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5680-82 (paras. 30-34).

[^53]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5699 (para. 84). In this
    Order below, we make minor modifications to the procedure for
    non-routine earth stations based on proposals in a petition for
    reconsideration of the *Fifth Report and Order*. *See* Section V.
    below.

[^54]: *Further Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 18599-18613 (paras. 29-73).

[^55]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5604-06 (paras. 22-25).

[^56]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5614 (para. 50).

[^57]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5621 (para. 72).

[^58]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5621 (para. 72).

[^59]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 74).

[^60]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 74).

[^61]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 74), *citing
    Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5684-85 (paras. 41-42), 47
    C.F.R. § 25.209(a).

[^62]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 74), *citing*
    47 C.F.R § 25.138 (Ka-band earth stations); 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,
    *Report and Order*, IB Docket No. 02-10, 20 FCC Rcd 674, 699 (para.
    55) (2005) (*ESV Order*).

[^63]: These parties are listed in Appendix A.

[^64]: Letter from James L. Oliver, President, AvL Technologies, to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Feb. 13, 2006) (AVL *Ex
    Parte* Statement).

[^65]: ^?^ Letter from Carolyn Tatum Roddy, Director of Regulatory
    Affairs, SIA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Oct. 27,
    2006) (SIA *Ex Parte* Statement); Letter from Elizabeth R. Park,
    Counsel for ViaSat, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC
    (dated Dec. 14, 2006) (ViaSat *Ex Parte* Statement).

[^66]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.203(f).

[^67]: In this Order, we also dismiss three petitions for
    reconsideration of the *1996 Streamlining Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 21581,
    as moot or outside the scope of that proceeding.

[^68]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 75). In the
    *Third Further Notice*, the Commission also explained why it decided
    to exclude Ka-band FSS earth stations and mobile satellite service
    (MSS) earth stations from the off-axis EIRP envelopes it proposed
    for FSS earth stations in the C-band and Ku-band. *Third Further
    Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5625-26 (paras. 89-90). No one commented on
    that decision.

[^69]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 74).

[^70]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 74).

[^71]: ^?^ *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 75).

[^72]: SIA Comments at 6-7; Spacenet Comments at 1-3. *See also* AVL *Ex
    Parte* Statement at 3.

[^73]: *See* Section III.B.4. below.

[^74]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5614 (para. 49).

[^75]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5614 (para. 49).

[^76]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5614 (para. 50).

[^77]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5623 (para. 77), *citing
    ESV Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 699 (para. 55).

[^78]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5623 (para. 77).

[^79]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5653-56 (App. C).

[^80]: SIA Comments at 16.

[^81]: SIA Comments at 12-15.

[^82]: SIA Comments at 17-18. *See also* SIA *Ex Parte* Statement at 4.

[^83]: Global VSAT Forum Reply at 1-2.

[^84]: AVL Reply at 1.

[^85]: ViaSat *Ex Parte* Statement at 4-8.

[^86]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5604 (para. 22).

[^87]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5604 (para. 22). The
    geocentric angle is the angle measured from the center of the earth,
    and the topocentric angle is the angle measured from the surface of
    the earth. *See Further Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 18640-41 (App. B).

[^88]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5604 (para. 22), *citing*
    *Further Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 18640-41 (App. B).

[^89]: Specifically, SIA\'s proposal would revise the earth station
    antenna gain pattern envelope from 6.5° to 7°, 8.7° to 9.2°, or
    47.5° to 48° off-axis.

[^90]: Although we disagree with SIA\'s contention that the antenna gain
    pattern requirements adopted in the *Sixth Report and Order* do not
    adequately account for the potential for pointing error, we find
    that a relatively minor adjustment to those antenna gain pattern
    requirements would further reduce the potential for harmful
    interference resulting from pointing error. Specifically, in the
    *Third Further Notice*, the Commission proposed defining the
    off-axis EIRP envelope for C-band and Ku-band FSS earth stations on
    the basis of degrees away from the axis of the main lobe. *Third
    Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5653-56 (App. C). Instead of that
    approach, we could define the off-axis EIRP envelope on the basis of
    a line from the focal point of the antenna to the target satellite,
    within the plane determined by the focal point of the antenna and
    the line tangent to the arc of the geostationary satellite orbit at
    the position of the target satellite. This approach would cause VSAT
    network operators with excessively mispointed antennas to violate
    the antenna gain pattern rules. Accordingly, as a logical outgrowth
    of the off-axis EIRP envelopes proposed in the *Third Further
    Notice*, and in response to SIA\'s concerns regarding pointing error
    expressed in the record, we define the off-axis EIRP envelopes for
    C-band and Ku-band FSS earth stations consistently with the off-axis
    EIRP envelopes for ESVs.

[^91]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5599 n.25.

[^92]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5610 (para. 38).

[^93]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5623 (para. 78).

[^94]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5624 (para. 82).

[^95]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5624 (para. 82).

[^96]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5624 (para. 82).

[^97]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5624 (para. 82), *citing*
    47 C.F.R. § 25.205.

[^98]: SIA Comments at 7.

[^99]: AVL Comments at 4; AVL *Ex Parte* Statement at 2.

[^100]: Section III.A. above, *citing* *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC
    Rcd at 5622 (paras. 74-75).

[^101]: Section III.B.1. above, *citing Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC
    Rcd at 5623 (para. 77).

[^102]: *See* *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5624 (para. 84).

[^103]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5624-25 (paras. 85-88).

[^104]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5625 (para. 87).

[^105]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5625 (para. 87), *citing*
    *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5706 (para. 106); Amendment
    of Part 25 of the Commission\'s Rules and Regulations to Reduce
    Alien Carrier Interference Between Fixed-Satellites at Reduced
    Orbital Spacings and to Revise Application Processing Procedures for
    Satellite Communications Services, *Second Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, CC Docket No. 86-496, 8 FCC
    Rcd 1316, 1320 (para. 24) (1993) (*Ku-band Antenna Gain Pattern
    Revision Order*).

[^106]: SIA Comments at 21-22. *See also* EchoStar Reply at 4; NPS Reply
    at 4; SIA *Ex Parte* Statement at 5.

[^107]: SES Americom Comments at 7.

[^108]: SES Americom Comments at 6-7; NCTA Comments at 1-4; Time Warner
    Comments at 3-4; NPS Comments at 2-3; Joint Commenters Comments at
    3-6. *See also* EchoStar Reply at 5.

[^109]: SES Americom Comments at 7; Time Warner Comments at 5-6; SIA
    Comments at 26; NPS Comments at 6; Joint Commenters Comments at 6;
    EchoStar Reply at 4; NPS Reply at 5; SIA Reply at 5. *See also* SIA
    *Ex Parte* Statement at 6.

[^110]: NCTA Comments at 3-4; Time Warner Comments at 3-4; SIA Comments
    at 27-29; NPS Comments at 7-8; NPS Reply at 5.

[^111]: NCTA Comments at 1-4; Time Warner Comments at 3-5; SIA Comments
    at 27-29; Joint Commenters Comments at 6-7; EchoStar Reply at 2-3;
    NPS Reply at 4; SIA Reply at 6-8. *See also* SIA *Ex Parte*
    Statement at 6.

[^112]: SIA Comments at 23-26; SES Americom Comments at 4-6; Time Warner
    Comments at 6; NPS Comments at 5; Joint Commenters Comments at 2-3;
    EchoStar Reply at 3-4; SIA Reply at 5. *See also* SIA *Ex Parte*
    Statement at 6.

[^113]: NPS Comments at 3-6.

[^114]: SES Americom Comments at 3-4; SIA Reply at 4.

[^115]: *See* *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5653-56 (App. C).
    Specifically, the Commission included a \"10log(N)\" term for the
    EIRP limits of digital earth stations, where N is set equal to 1 for
    TDMA and FDMA networks, and N is the maximum number of co-frequency
    simultaneously transmitting earth stations in the same satellite
    receiving beam for CDMA networks.

[^116]: SIA Comments at 11.

[^117]: SIA Comments at 11; SIA Reply at 8-9.

[^118]: *See* 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
    Rulemaking*, IB Docket No. 05-20, 20 FCC Rcd 2906 (2005) (*AMSS
    NPRM*).

[^119]: *See* 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, *Report and Order*, IB Docket No.
    02-10, 20 FCC Rcd 674 (2005) (*ESV Order*) (*petitions for
    reconsideration pending*).

[^120]: *See* Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to
    Allocate Spectrum and Adopt Service Rules and Procedures to Govern
    the Use of Vehicle-Mounted Earth Stations in Certain Frequency Bands
    Allocated to the Fixed-Satellite Service, *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, IB Docket No. 07-101, 22 FCC Rcd 9649 (2007).

[^121]: SIA Comments at 11 and 16 n.25; *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC
    Rcd at 5653-56 (App. C).

[^122]: In particular, we disagree with SIA\'s implicit assumption that
    the Commission overstated the off-axis EIRP limit between 7° and
    9.2° off-axis by 0.1 dB/4 kHz. We explain this conclusion in
    Appendix D. When we discuss SIA\'s alternative proposal in Section
    III.E. below, we adjust its proposal by 0.1 dB/4 kHz to correct for
    SIA\'s assumption.

[^123]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5626 (para. 91), *citing*
    47 C.F.R. § 25.209(c).

[^124]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5626 (para. 91).

[^125]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5626 (para. 91).

[^126]: SIA Comments at 8.

[^127]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5627 (para. 92), *citing*
    47 C.F.R. § 25.274.

[^128]: SIA Comments at 9.

[^129]: SIA Comments at 19-20.

[^130]: SIA Comments at 19.

[^131]: *See Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5680 (para. 30).

[^132]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5604 (para. 22).

[^133]: AVL Comments at 1-4.

[^134]: AVL Comments at 4.

[^135]: AVL *Ex Parte* Statement at 2; AVL Reply at 1.

[^136]: SIA Reply at 9-10; Global VSAT Forum Reply at 2.

[^137]: SIA Reply at 11.

[^138]: AVL Comments at 4.

[^139]: SIA Reply at 13-14.

[^140]: SIA Reply at 14.

[^141]: *See Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5709 (para. 113) (no
    complaints of harmful interference resulting from Ku-band earth
    stations from 1993 to the time the Order was adopted in 2005).

[^142]: *See* *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5674-75 (paras.
    17-18).

[^143]: *See* *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5675 (para. 18).

[^144]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5627 (para. 94).

[^145]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5627 (para. 94).

[^146]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5627-28 (paras. 94-95).
    *See also* *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5685-88 (paras.
    44-52).

[^147]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5688-89 (para. 52), 5699
    (para. 84).

[^148]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5627-28 (para. 95).

[^149]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5628 (para. 96).

[^150]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5628 (para. 96).

[^151]: Spacenet Comments at 2-3.

[^152]: SIA Comments at 9.

[^153]: SIA Comments at 10.

[^154]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5674-75 (paras. 17-18).

[^155]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5685-89 (paras. 44-52).

[^156]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5688-89 (para. 52).

[^157]: ^?^ Spacenet Comments at 2-3.

[^158]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5674-75 (paras. 17-18).

[^159]: *See Further Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 18632 (para. 129).

[^160]: *See Further Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 18632 (para. 129).

[^161]: *See Further Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 18633 (para. 132).

[^162]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5681 (para. 31) (\"In
    addition, other than clarifying and explaining its proposal to treat
    an earth station\'s transmit operations differently from its receive
    operations, SIA has not addressed many of the concerns the
    Commission raised in the *Further Notice*.\")

[^163]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5627 (para. 93).

[^164]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5628 (para. 96).

[^165]: *See Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5694-97 (paras.
    70-79).

[^166]: Spacenet Comments at 2-3.

[^167]: SIA Reply at 12-13.

[^168]: AVL *Ex Parte* Statement at 2.

[^169]: AVL *Ex Parte* Statement at 1-3.

[^170]: AVL Reply at 2. *See also* AVL *Ex Parte* Statement at 3.

[^171]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5700 (para. 87).

[^172]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5700 (para. 87).

[^173]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5700 (para. 87),
    *citing* 47 C.F.R. § 1.3; WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159
    (D.C. Cir. 1969); Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d
    1164, 1166 (D.C.Cir. 1990).

[^174]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5628 (para. 97).

[^175]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5628 (para. 98).

[^176]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5628 (para. 98).

[^177]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5628 (para. 99).

[^178]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5628 (para. 99).

[^179]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5628 (para. 99).

[^180]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5628 (para. 99).

[^181]: Implementation of Section 402(b)(1)(A) of the Telecommunications
    Act of 1996, *Report and Order*, CC Docket No. 96-187, 12 FCC Rcd
    2170, 2195 (para. 48) (1997).

[^182]: SIA Comments at 10.

[^183]: *See* *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5604 (para. 22).

[^184]: *See Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5687-89 (paras.
    49-52); Section III.F.1. above. *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 25.220.

[^185]: *Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25145 (para. 50), *citing* Routine
    Licensing of Large Networks of Small Antenna Earth Stations
    Operating in the 12/14 GHz Frequency Bands, 51 Fed. Reg. 15067 (Apr.
    22, 1986) (*1986 VSAT Order*); 47 C.F.R. § 25.134(a).

[^186]: VSAT networks were originally permitted only in the Ku‑band.
    *See Notice,* 15 FCC Rcd at 25145 (para. 50). Subsequently, VSAT
    networks have been allowed in the C-band and Ka-band under certain
    conditions. *See* FWCC Request for Declaratory Ruling on
    Partial-Band Licensing of Earth Stations in the Fixed-Satellite
    Service that Share Terrestrial Spectrum, *First Report and Order*,
    IB Docket No. 00-203, 16 FCC Rcd 11511 (2001) (*FWCC/Onsat First
    Report and Order*). Redesignation of the 17.7-19.7 GHz Frequency
    Band, Blanket Licensing of Satellite Earth Stations in the 17.7-20.2
    GHz and 27.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Bands, and the Allocation of
    Additional Spectrum in the 17.3-17.8 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz
    Frequency Bands for Broadcast Satellite-Service Use, *Report and
    Order*, IB Docket No. 98-172, 15 FCC Rcd 13430 (2000). Nevertheless,
    the Commission in the *Third Further Notice* invited comment on
    contention protocol requirements only for Ku-band VSAT networks.
    *See Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5639-40 (paras. 130-31).
    Accordingly, the contention protocol requirements we adopt in this
    Order below are applicable only to Ku-band VSAT networks.

[^187]: *Notice,* 15 FCC Rcd at 25145 (para. 50).

[^188]: For a more detailed discussion of each of these techniques, *see
    Notice,* 15 FCC Rcd at 25206-10 (App. E).

[^189]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5615 (para. 52).

[^190]: Petition of Spacenet, Inc. for a Declaratory Ruling that Section
    25.134 of the Commission\'s Rules Permits VSAT Remote Stations in
    the Fixed Satellite Service to Use Network Access Schemes that Allow
    Statistically Infrequent Overlapping Transmissions of Short
    Duration, or, in the Alternative, For Rulemaking to Amend that
    Section, *Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 23712 (Int\'l Bur., 2000) (*Spacenet
    Order*). With the \"unslotted Aloha\" technique, remote earth
    stations in the VSAT network can transmit randomly at any time,
    meaning that the transmissions are not synchronized in time or
    duration. The \"unslotted Aloha\" technique is distinguishable from
    the \"slotted Aloha\" technique, in which remote earth stations
    transmit in specific time slots, which means that the transmissions
    are synchronized but not coordinated. In other words, the remote
    earth stations transmitting in a given time slot can transmit
    regardless of whether there are other earth stations transmitting in
    the same time slot. G. Maral, *VSAT Networks* at 144-45 (John Wiley
    and Sons, ed. 1995); *Spacenet Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 23713 (para.
    3).

[^191]: *Spacenet Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 23713 (para. 3).

[^192]: Spacenet maintained that the duration of an inbound transmission
    is typically between 15 and 50 milliseconds. *Spacenet Order,* 15
    FCC Rcd at 23713 (para. 3), *citing* Spacenet Petition at 8.

[^193]: *See Spacenet Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 23713 (para. 3).

[^194]: *See Spacenet Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 23714-15 (para. 7).

[^195]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.134(a). *See also Spacenet Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at
    23715 (para. 9).

[^196]: *Spacenet Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 23716 (para.12).

[^197]: *Spacenet Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 23716 (para.12).

[^198]: *Notice,* 15 FCC Rcd at 25146-47 (para. 54).

[^199]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5620-21 (para. 70).

[^200]: *Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5618 (para. 63).

[^201]: *Further Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 18618 (para. 85).

[^202]: *Further Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 18620-21 (paras. 92-95). In the
    *Further Notice*, the Commission found some support for its
    reservation protocol proposals, but invited comment on whether any
    such rule revisions would be necessary in the event that it adopted
    the contention protocol rule proposed in the *Further Notice*.
    *Further Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 18622 (paras. 98-99). This issue
    became moot when the Commission rejected the contention protocol
    rule proposed in the *Further Notice*. *See Sixth Report and Order*,
    20 FCC Rcd 5618 (para. 60).

[^203]: *Third* *Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5629-41 (paras. 100-37).

[^204]: *Third* *Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5634 (para. 113).

[^205]: *Third* *Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5634 (para. 113).

[^206]: *Third* *Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5635 (para. 119).

[^207]: *Third* *Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5634 (para. 114).

[^208]: *Third* *Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5635-36 (para. 119).

[^209]: *Third* *Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5634-35 (paras. 115-17).

[^210]: *Third* *Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5636-37 (para. 119).

[^211]: *Third* *Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5636 (para. 119).

[^212]: *Third* *Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5636 (para. 119).

[^213]: The baseline for the power increase shown in Table 5 is power
    received in an FSS receiver from a single VSAT transmitter meeting
    the antenna gain requirements of Section 25.209 with a power density
    at the input to the antenna of -14 dBW/4 kHz.

[^214]: *Third* *Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5637 (para. 120).

[^215]: *Third* *Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5637 (para. 121).

[^216]: *Third* *Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5637-38 (paras. 122-24).

[^217]: *Third* *Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5637 (para. 122).

[^218]: *Third* *Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5637 (para. 122),
    *citing Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25146-47 (para. 54), *Spacenet
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 23716 (para. 10).

[^219]: *Third* *Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5637 (para. 122).

[^220]: SIA Comments at 29-30; SIA Reply at 3-4; Global VSAT Forum Reply
    at 3. *See also* SIA *Ex Parte* Statement at 9.

[^221]: SIA Comments at 30-31; SIA Reply at 4. *See also* Spacenet
    Comments at 3.

[^222]: SIA Comments at 38-40.

[^223]: ViaSat *Ex Parte* Statement at 9-13.

[^224]: SIA Comments at 32.

[^225]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.134.

[^226]: *See* SIA Comments, Att. 1.

[^227]: According to SIA, the difference ranges from about 1.25 to 5.1
    percent, depending on the climate, for victim systems using
    convolutional coding and Viterbi decoding. SIA Comments, Att. 1 at
    19. For the case representing a dry climate using turbo coding and
    operating at the edge of the satellite receive beam (typified by Los
    Angeles in SIA's study), the contention system would increase a very
    low unavailability from 0.0114 percent (about 60 minutes per year)
    to 0.0117 percent (about 61.5 minutes per year), an increase of
    about 2.9 percent.

[^228]: SIA Comments at 39. *See also* SIA *Ex Parte* Statement at 9-11.

[^229]: SIA Comments at 34-36 and App. 1.

[^230]: The baseline for the power increase shown in Table 6 is power
    received in an FSS receiver from a single VSAT transmitter meeting
    the antenna gain requirements of Section 25.209 with a power density
    at the input to the antenna of -14 dBW/4 kHz.

[^231]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5630 (para. 103); *Further
    Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 18618-19 (para. 86). *See also* *Spacenet
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 23715 (para. 9).

[^232]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.134(a), (b).

[^233]: *Further Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at 18618 (para. 85).

[^234]: *See Spacenet Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 23712.

[^235]: *Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25146 (para. 54).

[^236]: The loading factor represents the ratio of the total number of
    packets transmitted to the total number of time slots available
    irrespective of whether the packets experience contention or not.

[^237]: In Aloha-type networks with a loading factor of 70 percent,
    transmissions occur only about 50.3 percent of the time and
    collisions occur about 15.6 percent of the time. If the loading
    increases to 100 percent, transmissions occur about 63.2 percent of
    the time and collisions occur about 26.4 percent of the time.

[^238]: The case studies were based in Miami, Washington, D.C., and Los
    Angeles, to represent different rain attenuation conditions. SIA
    assumed Viterbi coding and Turbo coding at each of these three
    locations. SIA Comments, App. 1 at 19.

[^239]: In the case of a slotted Aloha VSAT network using turbo coding
    in Los Angeles, there was an increase in unavailability over the
    static case of 2.9 percent. This is equivalent to a decrease in
    availability from 99.9886 percent to 99.9883 percent. SIA Comments,
    App. 1 at 19.

[^240]: *Third* *Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5635 (para. 119).

[^241]: By \"static system,\" we mean a VSAT system operating
    continuously at the power limit of our current rules.

[^242]: SIA suggests that contention protocol services should be allowed
    to increase the outage of transmissions over neighboring satellites
    by 10 percent relative to continuous interferers based on
    *recommends* 3.1 of ITU Recommendation S.1323-2 for aggregate
    interference from all entries from all other satellite networks
    operating in the same frequency band that can potentially cause
    interference of a time-varying nature. SIA Comments at 33. SIA
    characterizes the Commission-proposed mask as overly protective
    because it would not allow the increase in outage of 10 percent. SIA
    Comments at 36-37. We do not consider this to be an appropriate
    application of Recommendation S.1323-2. First, Note 1 in the
    recommendation specifically excludes application of *recommends* 3
    to interference between GSO FSS networks. Second, if the
    recommendation did apply, the 10 percent should be the aggregate of
    all the interference entries (particularly including NGSO entries).
    Third, we do not consider that the use of a different modulation
    technique or protocol within the same GSO FSS service should justify
    a 10 percent increase in the outage that its use may impart to other
    GSO FSS transmissions using other techniques and access protocols.

[^243]: As we noted above, we are considering issues related to off-axis
    EIRP envelopes for AMSS earth stations in another proceeding. *See*
    Section III.B.4. above, *citing* *AMSS NPRM*, 20 FCC Rcd 2906.

[^244]: ViaSat *Ex Parte* Statement at 9-13.

[^245]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5640 (para. 133).

[^246]: *See Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5640 (para. 133).

[^247]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5640 (para. 133).

[^248]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5641 (para. 135).

[^249]: SIA Comments at 41-42.

[^250]: SIA Comments at 29-30; SIA Reply at 3-4; Global VSAT Forum Reply
    at 3.

[^251]: Current VSAT network operators that meet this requirement will
    not be required to submit anything to show that they comply with
    this requirement. However, operators that do not meet this
    requirement will be required to file a request for waiver of this
    requirement within 60 days of the effective date of this rule
    revision. VSAT operators using a contention protocol that does not
    meet this standard, that do not file a request for waiver within
    this deadline, may become subject to forfeiture liability.

[^252]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5639 (paras. 127-29).

[^253]: The Quiet Zone is an area bounded by 39° 15' N.L., 78° 30' W.L.,
    37° 30' N.L., and 80° W.L. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.203(f).

[^254]: NRAO Reply at 1-2, *citing* 47 C.F.R. § 25.203(f); Amendment of
    Part 2 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations to Give
    Interference Protection to Frequencies Utilized for Radio Astronomy,
    Amendment of Part 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 20, and 21 of the
    Commission's Rules and Regulations to Give Interference Protection
    to Frequencies Utilized for Radio Astronomy, *Report and Order*,
    Docket No. 11745, FCC 58-1111, 17 Rad. Reg. 1738 (1958) (*Quiet Zone
    Order*).

[^255]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.203(f).

[^256]: *See Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25131.

[^257]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5642 (para. 139), *citing*
    NRAO Reply of May 7, 2001, at 2-3.

[^258]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5643 (para. 142). *See
    also* *Quiet Zone Order*, 17 Rad. Reg. 1738.

[^259]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5642 (para. 141), *citing*
    *Quiet Zone Order*, 17 Rad. Reg. at 1741 (para. 7); Amendment of the
    General Mobile Radio Service (Part 95) and Amateur Mobile Radio
    Service (Part 97) Rules to Establish Procedures to Minimize
    Potential Interference to Radio Astronomy Operations, *Report and
    Order*, SS Docket No. 78-352, 85 FCC 2d 738, 742 (para. 17) (1981),
    *aff\'d.* 88 FCC 2d 78 (1981) (extending Quiet Zone protection to
    Amateur radio and General Mobile radio station licenses); Review of
    Quiet Zones Application Procedures, *Report and Order*, WT Docket
    No. 01-319, 19 FCC Rcd 3267 (2004) (Streamlining procedures for
    terrestrial wireless applications requiring Quiet Zone coordination
    without reducing or eliminating Quiet Zone protection).

[^260]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5642 (para. 141), *citing
    Quiet Zone Order*, 17 Rad. Reg. at 1741 (para. 10). *See also*
    Amendment of Section 22.949 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for
    a Moratorium on Acceptance of Unserved Area Cellular Applications
    Within the National Radio Quiet Zone, *Order*, RM-8647, 15 FCC Rcd
    2728 (Wireless Bur., 2000) (granting waivers to two cellular
    licensees to allow them to expand their networks into Quiet Zone).

[^261]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5642 (para. 141), *citing*
    47 C.F.R. § 1.924.

[^262]: SIA Comments at 42; WildBlue Reply at 3-5; Global VSAT Forum
    Reply at 3-4.

[^263]: SIA Comments at 43-44; WildBlue Reply at 5-6. *See also*
    WildBlue Reply at 2 (NRAO\'s proposal could cause delays in
    broadband deployment in the Quiet Zone).

[^264]: SIA Comments at 44.

[^265]: SIA Comments at 44.

[^266]: SIA Comments at 45.

[^267]: In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed revising Section 25.134
    to explicitly permit multiple hub stations under a single VSAT
    network license. *Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 25148 (paras. 58-59). The
    Commission adopted its proposed revisions to Section 25.134 in the
    *Fifth Report and Order*. *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at
    5713 (para. 125).

[^268]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5714 (para. 127).

[^269]: Review of Quiet Zone Procedures, *Report and Order*, WT Docket
    No. 01-319, 19 FCC Rcd 3267, 3271-72 (para. 8) (2004) (*Quiet Zone
    Streamlining Order*). *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 1.924(a)(4).

[^270]: *See Quiet Zone Streamlining Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 3272 (para.
    9).

[^271]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5702 (para. 93). *See
    also* Section 25.134 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.134.

[^272]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5702-03 (para. 94).

[^273]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5702-03 (para. 94).

[^274]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5702-03 (para. 94).

[^275]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5704 (para. 99).

[^276]: On July 8, 2005, SIA and Boeing filed petitions for
    reconsideration of the *Sixth Report and Order*. SIA requested only
    that the Commission consider its comments filed in response to the
    *Third Further Notice*. We considered SIA\'s comments together with
    all other comments filed in response to the *Third Further Notice*
    in this Order above. Accordingly, we grant SIA\'s petition for
    reconsideration of the *Sixth Report and Order*. Boeing later
    withdrew its petition for reconsideration. *See* Letter from Carlos
    M. Nalda, Counsel for The Boeing Company, to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, FCC (dated Apr. 5, 2007) (Boeing *Ex Parte* Statement).
    We therefore dismiss Boeing\'s petition as moot.

[^277]: *1996 Streamlining Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 21581. These petitioners,
    EDS Corporation (EDS), GE American Communications, Inc. (GE
    Americom), and Telquest Ventures, Inc. (Telquest), are listed in
    Appendix A. In 2002, Telquest withdrew a petition for stay that it
    filed concurrently with its petition for reconsideration, but did
    not withdraw its petition for reconsideration. Letter from Patricia
    Paoletta, Counsel for Telquest, to Secretary, FCC (dated Nov. 6,
    2002).

[^278]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.209(a), (b).

[^279]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.209(g).

[^280]: SIA Petition at 2-3.

[^281]: SIA Petition at 3.

[^282]: *See* Section III.A. above, *citing Sixth Report and Order*, 20
    FCC Rcd at 5614 (paras. 49-50).

[^283]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.209(c).

[^284]: SIA Petition at 3-4.

[^285]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.220(d)(1).

[^286]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.220(d)(2).

[^287]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.220(c)(3), *cited in* SIA Petition at 3.

[^288]: SIA Petition at 3-4.

[^289]: SIA Petition at 4.

[^290]: SIA Petition at 4-5.

[^291]: SIA Petition at 5.

[^292]: SIA Petition at 4.

[^293]: SIA Petition at 4-5.

[^294]: Section III.F.1. above, *citing* *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC
    Rcd at 5627 (para. 93).

[^295]: Section III.F.1. above, *citing* *Fifth Report and Order*, 20
    FCC Rcd at 5694-97 (paras. 70-79).

[^296]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5686 (para. 47).

[^297]: SIA Petition at 5-6.

[^298]: AVL Comments at 3.

[^299]: SIA Reply at 11.

[^300]: *See* *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5669 (para. 3)
    (\"We adopt streamlined procedures for considering non-routine earth
    station applications\"). *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 25.220(a)(1).

[^301]: AVL Comments at 4.

[^302]: *See* *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5688 (para. 52).
    *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 25.220(d)(1).

[^303]: AVL Comments at 4-5; AVL Reply at 1-2. *See also* AVL *Ex Parte*
    Statement at 2-3.

[^304]: SIA Reply at 12.

[^305]: *See Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5653-56 (App. C).

[^306]: *See 1996 Streamlining Order*.

[^307]: EDS Petition at 2-9.

[^308]: GE Americom Petition at 2-3.

[^309]: *See* Satellite Application and Licensing Procedures, Correction
    to Final Rule, 62 FR 51378 (Oct. 1, 2001).

[^310]: TelQuest Ventures, L.L.C., Western Tele-Communications, Inc.,
    *Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 8151 (Int\'l Bur., 1996) (*Telquest
    Dismissal Order*).

[^311]: Telquest also filed an application for review of the *Telquest
    Dismissal Order*, raising arguments substantially similar to those
    in its petition for reconsideration of the *1996 Streamlining
    Order*. The Commission dismissed that petition in 2001. Application
    of Telquest Ventures, L.L.C. For a License for a Fixed-Satellite
    Transmit/Receive Earth Station to Communicate with a Canadian DBS
    Satellite to be located at 91 Degrees W.L. and for Blanket License
    Authority to Construct and Operate One Million Receive-Only Earth
    Stations for use with a Canadian DBS Satellite to be Located at 91
    Degrees W.L., *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 15026
    (2001).

[^312]: *See Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5672 (para. 13).

[^313]: *See* *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 74).

[^314]: By \"routine diameter,\" we mean 1.2 meters for Ku-band earth
    stations, and 4.5 meters for C-band earth stations.

[^315]: By \"routine power level,\" we mean the power levels specified
    in Sections 25.134, 25.211, or 25.212 of the Commission\'s rules.

[^316]: *See* Section V.

[^317]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 74).

[^318]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5622 (para. 75).

[^319]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5684-85 (paras. 41-42).
    \"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 (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).

[^320]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5687-88 (para. 50).

[^321]: *See Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5683-84 n.99.

[^322]: *Fifth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5700 (para. 87).

[^323]: *See Sixth Report and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5614 (para. 50).
    Among other stayed rule revisions adopted in the *Sixth Report and
    Order*, the Commission increased the backlobe gain limits to 0 dBi
    in portions of the Ka-band that are not shared by the FSS and MSS or
    other services, as proposed by SIA. *See* *Sixth Report and Order*,
    20 FCC Rcd at 5611 (paras. 40-41); *Further Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd at
    18612 (para. 69), *citing* Letter from Richard DalBello, Executive
    Director, Satellite Industry Association, to Magalie Roman Salas,
    Secretary, FCC (dated Nov. 5, 2001) (SIA November 5 *Ex Parte*
    Statement) at 12. However, a backlobe gain limit of 0 dBi was
    incorporated into the off-axis EIRP envelope adopted for Ka-band
    earth stations in another proceeding, based in part on
    recommendations from a Ka-band Blanket Licensing Working Group.
    *See* Section 25.138 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.138;
    Letter from John P. Stern, Associate General Counsel, to Magalie
    Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, IB Docket No. 98-172 (dated Sept. 27,
    1999); Letter from Carlos M. Nalda, Dow, Lohnes, and Albertson, to
    Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, IB Docket No. 98-172 (dated
    Oct. 28, 1999). Accordingly, the Ka-band antenna gain pattern rule
    revision adopted in the *Sixth Report and Order* is no longer
    necessary.

[^324]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603.

[^325]: *Third Further Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd at 5662-65 (App. E).

[^326]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^327]: 5 U.S.C. § 552a.

[^328]: SIA Comments at 11.

[^329]: SIA Comments at 11.

[^330]: SIA Comments at 11 and 16 n.25.

[^331]: 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, *Sixth Report and Order and Third
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, IB Docket No. 00-248, 20 FCC
    Rcd 5593 (2005) (*Third Further Notice*).

[^332]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^333]: 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).

[^334]: ^?^ 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^335]: ^?^ 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 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).

[^336]: ^?^ 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^337]: ^?^ 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510.

[^338]: ^?^ U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, \"Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization),\" Table 4, NAICS code 513220 (issued October 2000).

[^339]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^340]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e). The Commission developed this
    definition based on its determinations that a small cable company is
    one with annual revenues of \$100 million or less. *See
    Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer
    Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation*, MM Doc.
    Nos. 92-266 and 93-215, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on
    Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408-7409 ¶¶ 28-30 (1995).

[^341]: ^?^ Paul Kagan Assocs., Inc., Cable TV Investor, Feb. 29, 1996
    (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995).

[^342]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2).

[^343]: ^?^ *See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition
    of Small Cable Operator,* Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 2225 (2001).

[^344]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.1403(b).

[^345]: ^?^ *See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition
    of Small Cable Operator,* Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 2225 (2001).

[^346]: ^?^ We do receive such information on a case-by-case basis only
    if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's finding
    that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator
    pursuant to section 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 76.990(b).

[^347]: ^?^ \"This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged
    in providing point-to-point telecommunications services to other
    establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries
    by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
    satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.\" Small
    Business Administration, NAICS code 517310.

[^348]: ^?^ 13 C.F.R. § 120.121, NAICS code 517310.

[^349]: ^?^ U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Service:
    Information, \"Establishment and Firm Size,\" Table 4, NAICS 513340
    (Issued Oct. 2000).

[^350]: ^?^ 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 515112.

[^351]: ^?^ 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 515120.

[^352]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201.

[^353]: FCC News Release, [Broadcast Station Totals as of September 30,
    1999]{.underline}, No. 71831 (Jan. 21, 1999).

[^354]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 101 *et seq*. (formerly, part 21 of the
    Commission\'s Rules).

[^355]: ^?^ Persons eligible under parts 80 and 90 of the Commission\'s
    rules can use Private Operational-Fixed Microwave services. *See* 47
    C.F.R. parts 80 and 90. Stations in this service are called
    operational-fixed to distinguish them from common carrier and public
    fixed stations. Only the licensee may use the operational-fixed
    station, and only for communications related to the licensee\'s
    commercial, industrial, or safety operations.

[^356]: ^?^ Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by part 74 of Title
    47 of the Commission\'s Rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. part 74 *et seq*.
    Available to licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and
    cable network entities, broadcast auxiliary microwave stations are
    used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to
    the transmitter, or between two points such as a main studio and an
    auxiliary studio. The service also includes mobile TV pickups, which
    relay signals from a remote location back to the studio.

[^357]: ^?^ *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^358]: 5 U.S.C. §§ 603(c)(1) -- (c)(4).