Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 43687 

26See 5 U.S.C. 603(c). 

are invited to address whether other 

licensing approaches should be 

considered and discuss the relative 

benefits and disadvantages compared to 

our proposal. 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

23. 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 (among 

others): (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.26

24. We propose to establish a new 

Medical Data Service (MEDS) under Part 

95 that would encompass all medical 

devices permitted to operate in the 

entire 401–406 MHz band. We seek 

comment on options concerning 

whether and how the five megahertz of 

spectrum that would comprise this 

proposed MEDS band could be divided 

among the evolving varieties of 

implanted and body-worn medical 

transmitters, including low-power, lowduty-cycle (LPLDC) devices without 

listen-before-talk (LBT). 

25. For example, should both 

implantable and body-worn transmitters 

be permitted to operate in all, or just 

selected portions, of the five megahertz 

of the proposed 401–406 MHz MEDS 

band? Should the same technical 

standards that govern the existing MICS 

center band transmitters be applied 

uniformly across the entire band? 

Should an adjustment in the permissible 

operating power of body-worn 

transmitters be made to account for 

difference in body tissue attenuation as 

compared with implantable devices? 

Similarly, should LPLDC devices 

without LBT be permitted to operate 

throughout the entire five megahertz of 

the proposed MEDS band or be limited 

to segments such as the 401–402 MHz 

and 405–406 wing bands? Why or why 

not? Commenters should explain the 

rationale, and corresponding benefits 

and disadvantages, for whatever 

approach is recommended. Are there 

any other factors that should be 

considered with respect to 

distinguishing the applicable rules for 

implantable, body-worn devices, and 

LPLDC transmitters? Should other types 

of medical radiocommunication devices 

be considered for operation in this 

proposed MEDS band? We especially 

seek small entity comment on these 

issues. 

E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

26. None. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis 

27. The Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making contains proposed new or 

modified information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13. Public and 

agency comments are due 60 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register. Comments should address: (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; and (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek 

specific comment on how we might 

‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’

Ordering Clauses 

28. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 7(a), 

301, 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 316, and 

332 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, 47 U.S.C. sections 151, 

154(i), 157(a), 301, 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 

307, 316, and 332, the Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making and Notice of 

Inquiry, is adopted. 

29. The Biotronik Request for 

Extension of Waiver, is granted until 

one year from the effective date of final 

rules adopted in this proceeding. 

30. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

the Notice of Proposed Rule Making and 

Notice of Inquiry, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in Parts 2 and 95 

Communications equipment, Radio, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E6–12500 Filed 8–1–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 2 and 25 

[IB Docket No. 06–123; FCC 06–90] 

Establishment of Policies and Service 

Rules for the Broadcasting-Satellite 

Service 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission proposes application 

processing and service rules for the 17/ 

24 GHz Broadcasting Satellite Service 

(BSS). The Commission proposes and/or 

seeks comment on a number of issues, 

including: licensing procedures, posting 

of performance bonds, milestone 

schedules, limits on pending 

applications, annual reporting, license 

terms, replacement satellites, access to 

the U.S. market from non-U.S. satellites; 

public interest obligations, copyright 

and broadcast carriage, equal 

employment opportunity, geographic 

service coverage, and emergency alert 

system participation; use of 

internationally allocated spectrum by 

receiving stations located outside the 

United States; orbital spacing and 

antenna performance standards; 

technical requirements for intra-service 

sharing; other technical requirements, 

such as reverse band operations, 

tracking, telemetry, and command 

operations, polarization, and full 

frequency re-use requirements; and 

technical requirements for inter-service 

sharing in the 17 and 24 GHz bands. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

October 16, 2006 and reply comments 

are due on or before November 15, 2006. 

Public and agency comments on the 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(IFRA) analysis are due October 2, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by IB Docket No. 06–123, by 

any of the following methods: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS

43688 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Joanne Lucanik, Satellite 

Division, International Bureau, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 

Twelfth Street, SW., Rm. 6–A660, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

JoAnn Lucanik (202) 418–0719, Satellite 

Division, International Bureau, Federal 

Communications Commission, 

Washington, DC 20554. For additional 

information concerning the information 

collection(s) contained in this 

document, contact Judith B. Herman at 

202–418–0214, or via the Internet at 

Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in IB 

Docket No. 06–123, FCC 06–90, adopted 

June 21, 2006 and released on June 23, 

2006. The NRPM was subject to an 

Erratum, released on July 6, 2006. The 

full text of the NPRM is available for 

public inspection and copying during 

regular business hours at the FCC 

Reference Information Center, Portals II, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The document 

may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202–

488–5300, facsimile 202–488–5563, or 

via e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com. 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, the Commission has prepared an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) of the possible significant 

economic impact on small entities by 

the proposals considered in the NPRM. 

The text of the IRFA is set forth in 

Appendix A of the NPRM. Written 

public comments are requested on this 

IRFA. Comments must be filed in 

accordance with the same filing 

deadlines for comments on the NPRM, 

and they should have a separate and 

distinct heading designating them as 

responses to the IRFA. 

In addition, the Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13. Public and 

agency comments are due October 2, 

2006. Comments should address: (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; and (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

we seek specific comment on how we 

might ‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Requirements 

OMB Control Number: 3060–XXXX. 

Title: Service Rules and Policies for 

the Broadcasting Satellite Service (BSS). 

Form No.: Not Applicable. 

Type of Review: New collection. 

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit entities. 

Number of Respondents: 4 

respondents; 24 responses. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 10 

hours. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion 

and annual reporting requirements. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 240 

hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Costs: 

$12,451,700.00. 

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Not 

Applicable. 

Needs and Uses: The purpose of this 

new information collection is to address 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

requirements proposed in the 

Commission’s Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (FCC 06–90) to establish 

policies and service rules for the new 

Broadcasting Satellite Service under IB 

Docket No. 06–123. In this NPRM, the 

Commission proposes three new 

information collection requirements 

applicable to Broadcasting Satellite 

Service licensees: (1) Annual reporting 

requirement on status of space station 

construction and anticipated launch 

dates, (2) milestone schedules and (3) 

performance bonds that are posted 

within 30 days of the grant of the 

license. 

Without the information collected 

through the Commission’s satellite 

licensing procedures, we would not be 

able to determine whether to permit 

applicants for satellite licenses to 

provide telecommunications services in 

the U.S. Therefore, we would be unable 

to fulfill our statutory responsibilities in 

accordance with the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended; as well as the 

obligations imposed on parties to the 

World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic 

Telecom Agreement. 

Summary of Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

1. With the NPRM, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) proposes application 

processing and service rules for the 17/ 

24 GHz Broadcasting Satellite Service 

(BSS). Under the Commission’s rules 

and the International 

Telecommunication Union (ITU) Region 

2 allocation, the allocation for BSS at 

17/24 GHz will become effective on 

April 1, 2007. In the United States, 

satellites operating in the 17/24 GHz 

BSS will downlink in the 17.3–17.7 GHz 

frequency band and uplink in the 

24.75–25.25 GHz frequency band. 

2. The Commission proposes and/or 

seeks comment on procedures for 

processing applications and establishing 

service rules for operations in the 17/24 

GHz BSS. The Commission seeks 

comment on the appropriate licensing 

framework for the 17/24 GHz BSS. The 

Commission proposes and seeks 

comment on safeguards against 

speculation, an annual reporting 

requirement, license terms, replacement 

satellites, and operation by non-United 

States-licensed satellites operators in 

the 17/24 GHz BSS. 

3. The Commission also proposes and 

seeks comment on public interest and 

other statutory obligations of licensees 

in the 17/24 GHz BSS. Included among 

the statutory obligations are equal 

employment opportunities, geographic 

service rules, and participation in the 

emergency alert system. 

4. In the 18 GHz Report and Order, 15 

FCC Rcd at 13475, paras. 95–99, the 

Commission stopped the domestic 

allocation to the BSS at 17.7 GHz. 

Although the international allocation for 

Region 2 BSS in the space-to-Earth 

direction extends from 17.3–17.8 GHz, 

the Commission believed that it was 

important to keep as much spectrum 

mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 43689 

available to the terrestrial fixed services 

as possible, for as long as possible, in 

order to assist in relocating displaced 

facilities. In making this decision, the 

Commission took into account the 

ubiquitous nature of BSS services which 

we believed would preclude successful 

coordination with a terrestrial service 

that was similarly widely deployed, and 

the amount of terrestrial fixed spectrum 

being lost as a result of that proceeding. 

See also 16 FCC Rcd 19808, 19822–23, 

paras. 30–31 (2001). 

5. The Commission now has received 

several applications seeking authority to 

launch and operate satellites in the 

17.3–17.8 GHz band. DIRECTV, Pegasus, 

EchoStar and Intelsat all propose to 

operate their satellites in the full 500 

MHz of spectrum from 17.3–17.8 GHz. 

The intent of this proceeding is to 

establish service rules for use of the 17/ 

24 GHz BSS allocation that becomes 

effective on April 1, 2007, so that 

applicants may have sufficient time to 

design their systems in a manner that 

will conform to our rules. Recognizing 

the significant technical challenges 

posed by the question of BSS/FS bandsharing at 17.7–17.8 GHz, we believe 

that this goal would be disserved by 

engaging in the protracted rulemaking 

process that would inevitably result. 

Moreover, although 17/24 GHz BSS 

applicants seek to use the 17.7–17.8 

GHz band, none has provided evidence 

that terrestrial fixed service spectrum 

relocation requirements are less 

demanding than predicted. Nor has any 

applicant provided a convincing 

argument that coordination of widely 

deployed terrestrial services with 

ubiquitously located 17/24 GHz BSS 

receivers would be readily feasible. For 

these reasons, we do not find 

compelling motivation to reexamine the 

Commission’s earlier decision with 

regard to BSS use of the 17.7–17.8 GHz 

band in the United States. Therefore, we 

do not propose to authorize or to protect 

the reception of BSS (space-to-Earth) 

transmissions into the United States and 

its possessions in the 17.7–17.8 GHz 

band. 

6. We recognize however, that U.S. 

satellite operators may wish to use the 

17.7–17.8 GHz band to provide service 

to receiving earth stations located 

within Region 2, but outside of the 

United States. The operation of 17/24 

GHz BSS receiving earth stations 

outside of the United States and its 

possessions does not present the same 

coordination difficulties with regard to 

U.S.-licensed terrestrial fixed service 

stations, nor would it hinder the relocation of these services in the 18 GHz 

band. We propose to permit U.S. 

operators to use the international 

allocation to the BSS in the 17.7–17.8 

GHz band, but to limit use of that 

allocation to international service only, 

i.e., to receiving earth stations located 

outside of the U.S. and its possessions. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

proposal. 

7. The Commission seeks comment on 

other changes to our rules which might 

be necessary should we allow use of the 

17.7–17.8 GHz band to provide non-U.S. 

BSS service. We are proposing to permit 

transmissions in the 17.7–17.8 GHz 

band only to receiving earth stations 

located outside of the United States and 

its possessions. However, we recognize 

that the footprint of satellite beams 

serving near-by Region 2 countries 

could illuminate portions of the United 

States and that U.S. terrestrial service 

stations may be subject to interference 

from such space-to-Earth satellite 

transmissions, particularly at low 

elevation angles. Historically, the 

Commission has adopted power flux 

density (pfd) limits to protect terrestrial 

service antennas from interference from 

co-frequency space station 

transmissions. At present, neither the 

Commission’s rules nor the ITU define 

any pfd limits for BSS systems operating 

in the 17.7–17.8 GHz band. Prior to 

adoption of the 18 GHz Report and 

Order in 2002, § 25.208(c) of the 

Commission’s rules imposed pfd limits 

for the FSS in the entire 17.7–19.7 GHz 

band and Article 21 of the ITU Radio 

Regulations imposes the same pfd limits 

on the FSS operating in the 17.7–19.7 

GHz band in order to protect terrestrial 

stations. We propose to extend these 

same pfd limits to the BSS service 

(space-to-Earth) in the 17.7–17.8 GHz 

band. We seek comment on this 

proposal, and ask whether these pfd 

limits are sufficient to protect U.S. 

terrestrial operations in the band, or 

whether some other limits should be 

adopted. We note that these pfd limits 

were adopted to facilitate sharing 

between co-primary FS and FSS 

services. Recognizing that we do not 

intend to authorize receipt of (space-toEarth) BSS transmissions in the United 

States and its possessions in the 17.7–

17.8 GHz band, we ask whether more 

stringent pfd limits might be 

appropriate, particularly in areas of the 

U.S. located farther from the borders. 

8. We also seek comment on tracking, 

telemetry and command (TT&C) 

operations in the 17.7–17.8 GHz band. 

Section 25.202(g) of our rules requires 

that TT&C functions for all U.S. 

domestic satellites be conducted at 

either or both edges of the allocated 

band(s). The Commission has 

previously recognized that TT&C 

functions for U.S.-licensed satellites are 

best performed at facilities located 

within the United States, and that 

locating such facilities in a foreign 

country could adversely affect an 

operator’s ability to maintain control of 

its spacecraft. Accordingly, we ask how 

best to accommodate TT&C functions 

for 17/24 GHz BSS satellites seeking to 

use the 17.7–17.8 GHz band to provide 

international service. 

9. Orbital Spacing: To date the 

applications we have received from 

DIRECTV, EchoStar, Pegasus, and 

Intelsat are to operate GSO satellites in 

the 17/24 GHz band. Because we 

envision the service as a GSO service, 

we are not considering rules for NGSO 

satellite systems in this proceeding. 

However, we seek comment on the 

appropriateness of this approach and 

ask whether we should allow for the 

possibility of both GSO and NGSO 17/ 

24 GHz BSS systems. If so, we ask 

commenters to elaborate on how such 

GSO/NGSO sharing might be effected, 

and what additional or different rules 

might be necessary to accommodate 

both types of systems in the band. 

10. Minimum Antenna Diameter and 

Performance Standards: Because of the 

inverse relationship between antenna 

diameter and antenna off-axis 

discrimination performance, the orbital 

separation scheme will largely 

determine the minimum antenna 

diameter that can be accommodated in 

the 17/24 GHz BSS band. As the 

receiving antenna diameter decreases, 

greater orbital separation is required to 

compensate for the increase in off-axis 

interference received from neighboring 

satellites. However, because antenna offaxis discrimination performance for a 

given size antenna improves at shorter 

received-signal wavelengths, 

comparably-sized 17/24 GHz BSS-band 

receive-antennas may be able to deliver 

a quality of service comparable to 12 

GHz DBS-band systems, while operating 

with satellites at smaller orbital 

separations. 

11. Historically, the Commission has 

opted not to regulate explicitly the 

diameter or other technical 

characteristics of receive-only antennas. 

Rather, the Commission has typically 

chosen to establish limits on other 

system characteristics such as power 

flux density (pfd) levels or orbital 

spacing and has left the choice of 

receive-antenna characteristics to the 

operator with the understanding that 

receiver size has a bearing on 

availability, quality of service and the 

ability to market the service to 

consumers; however, the operator must 

then accept any resulting interference 

from other systems that are operating 

within the permitted levels. We believe 

mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS

43690 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

that this approach has afforded 

operators maximum technical 

flexibility, especially considering that 

earth station receive antenna size is a 

very important factor to potential 

consumers of DTH service. However, 

the Commission also seeks to ensure 

that U.S.-licensed BSS systems receive 

sufficient interference protection and 

that subscribers’ receive antennas will 

work effectively in current and future 

radio frequency interference 

environments. In particular, the receive 

earth station antenna off-axis 

discrimination performance will affect 

the amount of interference into BSS 

receivers from other systems. We note 

that, in implementing its two-degree 

spacing policy with respect to the FSS, 

the Commission has adopted certain 

earth station antenna performance 

requirements (see, e.g., 47 CFR 25.209). 

Accordingly, we request comment on 

whether the Commission should afford 

interference protection to 17/24 GHz 

BSS systems only to the extent that they 

meet certain receive antenna 

performance standards. Specifically, we 

request comment on what type of 

regulation might be appropriate, such as 

adopting side-lobe suppression or 

minimum gain requirements, or some 

other parameter. 

12. Uplink Power Levels: In order to 

implement the two-degree spacing 

policy for C- and Ku-band FSS satellites, 

the Commission established rules that 

define uplink power density limits and 

antenna performance standards. See 47 

CFR 25.134, 25.208, 25.209. In 

combination, these power density limits 

and antenna performance standards 

ensure that conforming FSS satellite 

systems will not emit power at off-axis 

angles at levels high enough to cause 

unacceptable interference to adjacent 

co-frequency satellites spaced at twodegree intervals. Similarly, in the Kaband the Commission adopted a twodegree blanket licensing requirement 

that included uplink off-axis equivalent 

isotropically radiated power (e.i.r.p.) 

density limits and a single-entry power 

flux density (pfd) limit in the downlink. 

See 47 CFR 25.138. Successful 

implementation of any orbital spacing 

regime for the 17/24 GHz BSS service 

will likely require that the Commission 

develop analogous criteria. However, we 

recognize that in the 17/24 GHz BSS 

band the choice of orbital spacing will 

be determined in large measure by the 

operator’s desire to serve its customers 

with a certain size of receiving antenna, 

and that 17/24 GHz BSS satellites may 

operate in an orbital spacing 

environment with greater than twodegrees of separation. Moreover, we 

recognize that feeder link earth stations 

typically operate with large diameter 

antennas that exhibit good off-axis 

rejection properties. For these reasons, 

the problem of off-axis interference into 

adjacent satellites may not be as 

significant in the 17/24 GHz band as it 

is in the FSS bands. Accordingly, we 

seek comment on our assumption 

regarding the need to establish off-axis 

uplink power limits for this service. In 

addition, the Commission’s rules 

provide for routine licensing of FSS 

earth stations in situations where (in 

combination with the antenna 

performance standards of § 25.209) 

specific minimum equivalent antenna 

diameters and maximum uplink power 

limits are met. See 47 CFR 25.211(d) 

and 25.212(c)–(d). We seek comment on 

whether analogous criteria might be 

developed for expedited licensing of 

feeder link earth stations in the 24 GHz 

band, and if so, what equivalent antenna 

diameters and power limits, or other 

technical characteristics might be 

appropriate. 

13. We recognize that absent a clearly 

defined orbital separation, the 

interference contribution resulting from 

uplink transmissions to adjacent 

satellites cannot be fully determined. 

However, we seek comment on whether 

the proposed clear-sky earth station 

antenna off-axis e.i.r.p. density values 

might be appropriate down to some 

minimum orbital separation value, and 

whether they would provide sufficient 

protection to adjacent GSO BSS 

satellites. We have chosen to propose 

accommodating the highest power level 

proposed by an applicant, but we seek 

comment on whether some mid-range or 

other value might be preferable, or 

whether a higher level might be better 

to allow for future higher-power 

systems. We seek further comment on 

whether there are other factors that 

should be considered when determining 

an off-axis e.i.r.p. density value, such as 

the potential for interference to/from 

other services sharing the band, 

including 24 GHz FS systems, or the 

radiolocation service. We also ask what 

form an uplink power density rule 

should take, whether it is most 

appropriate to specify some input power 

or power density level in combination 

with the antenna performance 

requirements of § 25.209, or to specify a 

composite curve of off-axis e.i.r.p. 

density levels as is done for blanket 

licensing of Ka-band GSO FSS earth 

stations. See 47 CFR 25.138(a). 

14. We anticipate that some future 

systems may wish to operate at higher 

e.i.r.p. density values than those 

proposed at this time. Our current FSS 

service rules provide a mechanism for 

licensing such non-conforming systems. 

See 47 CFR 25.220 and 25.138(b), (c). 

These rules place the burden on the 

applicant to provide a technical 

showing to the Commission, and to 

coordinate its non-conforming 

operations with adjacent operators. We 

propose to adopt a similar approach to 

accommodate satellite systems in the 

17/24 GHz BSS band wishing to uplink 

with higher power levels. We seek 

comment on this issue and ask whether 

this approach is appropriate or whether 

different rules should be adopted. Nonconforming FSS operators are required 

to coordinate with adjacent satellites at 

2°, 4° and 6° away. See 47 CFR 25.220 

and 25.138(c). Recognizing that 17/24 

GHz BSS satellites may not be operating 

in a two-degree spacing environment, 

we seek comment on the angular 

distance over which coordination 

should be required. 

15. The uplink off-axis e.i.r.p. density 

limits discussed above are for clear-sky 

operations only. GSO satellites 

operating in the 24 GHz band can suffer 

significant signal attenuation in the 

presence of precipitation and may likely 

need to transmit at higher powers 

during such weather conditions in order 

to overcome the effects of rain fade. 

Applicants have indicated a need to 

employ uplink adaptive power control 

to provide transmit power levels 

sufficient to meet the desired link 

performance during unfavorable 

weather events, while simultaneously 

ensuring that threshold power levels are 

not excessive at other times. In the 28 

GHz First Report and Order, we 

recognized that uplink power control 

limits would facilitate operations in the 

27.5–30.0 GHz band, and we amended 

§ 25.204 of our rules to require that all 

Ka-band FSS earth stations employ 

adaptive uplink power control or other 

methods of fade compensation. In the 18 

GHz Report and Order, we adopted 

rules for Ka-band FSS earth stations 

employing uplink power control which 

limit transmissions during conditions of 

uplink fading to 20 dB above those 

permitted under clear-sky conditions. 

See 47 CFR 25.138(a)(5). We seek 

comment on whether it is necessary to 

adopt a rule requiring 17/24 GHz BSS 

feeder link earth stations to employ 

uplink power control, similar to the FSS 

requirement of § 25.204. We also seek 

comment on what values or conditions 

might be applied to the use of 17/24 

GHz BSS uplink adaptive power 

control, including: a minimum signal 

attenuation required before uplink 

transmit power may be increased; an 

upper limit on permissible transmit 

power increase; an accuracy 

mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 43691 

requirement over the range of path 

attenuations; or other possible 

parameters such as the control-loop 

response time or limits on system 

overshoot. 

16. Downlink Power Limits: The 

downlink power levels transmitted by 

adjacent co-frequency satellites, in 

combination with the sidelobe 

performance characteristics of the 

receiving earth station antenna, will 

determine the carrier-to-interference 

ratio that an operator experiences at the 

receive antenna as a result of adjacent 

satellite interference. At present, neither 

the Commission nor the ITU have 

established power flux density 

requirements or other downlink power 

limits for BSS systems operating in the 

17.3–17.7 GHz band. Article 21 of the 

ITU Radio Regulations does define pfd 

limits for the FSS in the 17.7–17.8 GHz 

band in its Table 21–4. 

17. In other frequency bands, the 

Commission has frequently adopted 

downlink power limits for space 

stations transmissions in order to 

facilitate both inter-service and intraservice sharing. For example, our rules 

define power flux density limits in the 

4/6 GHz and 20/30 GHz FSS bands in 

§ 25.208, and impose additional pfd 

requirements for blanket licensing of 

Ka-band earth stations in § 25.137(a)(6). 

However, in other bands, no downlink 

power limits exist. We note that one 

advantage of imposing a downlink 

power limit is to establish a relatively 

homogeneous transmitting environment, 

and to ensure that established receiving 

antennas are not subject to unforeseen 

levels of adjacent satellite interference, 

particularly as newer generation 

satellites are brought into service. 

Moreover, application of downlink 

power limits may also influence the 

ability of 17/24 GHz BSS systems to 

operate in the vicinity of co-frequency 

receiving DBS satellites. However, 

adopting such limits can to some extent 

restrict the ability of future satellites to 

increase their power levels in response 

to improvements in technology, or to 

compensate for interference from other 

sources (e.g., foreign satellites or 

adjacent-band radars). 

18. A review of the 17/24 GHz BSS 

filings submitted to the Commission, 

indicates that applicants plan to operate 

digital systems with downlink 

maximum e.i.r.p. levels that range 

between 58.6 dBW and 64.7 dBW. It 

appears that worst case pfd levels are 

less than ¥117 dBW/MHz/m2 for all 

systems, with the exception of certain 

Intelsat spot beams that may have 

maximum saturated pfd levels of ¥115 

dBW/MHz/m2 at the Earth’s surface. 

Accordingly, we seek comment on 

whether the Commission should adopt 

pfd or other downlink power level 

values in the 17.3–17.7 GHz band. We 

ask what level of downlink power 

would be appropriate, and in particular 

whether the ITU’s FSS pfd limits, with 

an upper limit of ¥115 dBW/MHz/m2, 

should be applied in the 17.3–17.7 GHz 

band. We ask whether a different, 

perhaps higher power level is preferable 

in order to provide for future generation 

satellites, or to compensate for 

anticipated interference sources. The 

present operating downlink transmitted 

power levels proposed by applicants 

assume an orbital spacing environment 

of either 4-degrees or 4.5-degrees. We 

seek comment on what pfd limit would 

be preferable if the Commission were to 

establish an orbital spacing regime 

different from either 4-degrees or 4.5- 

degrees. 

19. Reverse Band Operations: When 

the Region 2 BSS allocation at 17.3–17.8 

GHz becomes effective in 2007, it will 

be shared with the current 17.3–17.8 

GHz DBS feeder-link allocation in the 

Earth-to-space direction. This operating 

scenario, in which the same frequency 

band is used for both Earth-to-space and 

space-to-Earth transmissions, is known 

as ‘‘reverse band’’ and results in 

additional interference paths which are 

different from those found in a 

conventional GSO satellite sharing 

situation. In the typical GSO satellite 

sharing scenario, interference paths 

occur between the earth stations of one 

system and the satellites of another, and 

vice versa. In such cases, co-frequency 

sharing is facilitated primarily through 

antenna off-axis discrimination at each 

end of the interference path, in 

combination with limits on spatial 

proximity (orbital separation) and 

transmission power. The reverse-band 

sharing scenario is different in that two 

new and distinct interference paths 

occur: (1) Between the earth stations of 

different systems; and (2) between the 

space stations of different systems. In 

effect, reverse-band operations create 

two additional interference paths: An 

earth station-into-earth station path 

(ground path), and a space station-intospace station path (space path). 

20. Ground Path Interference: Ground 

path interference (here, the terms ‘‘DBS’’

or ‘‘DBS earth station’’ refer to earth 

stations that are DBS feeder links) will 

occur when the signals from 

transmitting DBS feeder-link earth 

stations operating in the 17.3–17.7 GHz 

band are detected at the receiving earth 

stations of 17/24 GHz BSS subscribers. 

This interference situation will be the 

most severe in areas surrounding the 

DBS feeder uplink stations. In addition, 

17/24 GHz BSS operators who choose to 

co-locate their TT&C earth stations with 

DBS TT&C earth stations systems may 

experience difficulty in receiving the 

downlinked telemetry signal from the 

17/24 GHz BSS spacecraft. 

21. At present there are a relatively 

small number of DBS feeder-link earth 

stations. If the current situation were to 

remain unchanged, the ground path 

interference problem into 17/24 GHz 

BSS subscriber antennas might not pose 

a significant problem. However, we 

recognize that local programming is 

being uplinked from a growing number 

of metropolitan areas. We must 

anticipate that DBS feeder-link earth 

stations that transmit in the Earth-tospace direction may become 

increasingly common in populated 

areas, thereby escalating the potential 

for interference into 17/24 GHz BSS 

subscriber antennas. In addition, future 

entrants such as short-spaced DBS 

systems, or non-U.S. DBS satellites 

serving the U.S. market, could result in 

the deployment of an even greater 

number of feeder-link earth stations at 

multiple sites within the United States. 

The interference problem may be further 

exacerbated by the proliferation of 

small-diameter 17/24 GHz BSS 

subscriber receiving antennas with 

relatively poor off-axis discrimination 

properties. 

22. There is no procedure established 

in the Commission’s rules regarding 

coordination of co-frequency, DBS 

feeder-link satellite earth stations with 

BSS subscriber terminals. Instead, we 

note that Appendix 7 of the ITU Radio 

Regulations describes a procedure for 

determining the coordination area for an 

earth station transmitting in a frequency 

band allocated to space services in both 

Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth 

directions. In other sharing situations, 

the Commission has successfully relied 

upon the ITU Appendix 7 coordination 

methodologies to effect coordination 

between the co-frequency earth stations 

of different services. Specifically, 

§ 25.203 in combination with § 25.251 of 

our rules define a mechanism for 

coordination between terrestrial 

microwave stations and satellite earth 

stations that share frequency bands with 

equal rights. This mechanism is based 

upon the procedures set forth in 

Appendix 7 of the ITU Radio 

Regulations. Similarly, in the case of 

coordination between co-frequency 

reverse-band DBS feeder-link and BSS 

receiving earth stations operating in the 

17.3–17.7 GHz band, we propose to 

make use of the coordination 

methodology defined in Annex 3 of 

Appendix 7 of the ITU Radio 

Regulations. We seek comment on this 

proposal and ask whether this 

mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS

43692 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

coordination methodology may be 

appropriately applied in this situation. 

23. We also seek comment on the 

types of technical information DBS 

feeder-link earth station operators 

should make available to 17/24 GHz 

BSS operators for the purposes of earth 

station coordination. 

24. In addition, we envision that both 

the DBS feeder links and 17/24 GHz 

BSS services will be deploying new 

earth stations over time, so that new 

stations of one service will continually 

be established among existing stations 

from the other. The Commission wants 

to ensure that U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz 

BSS systems receive sufficient 

interference protection and that 

subscribers’ receive antennas will work 

effectively in both current and future 

radio frequency interference 

environments. However, we are also 

committed to preserving the prospect 

for growth and expansion of the DBS 

service, and to providing for future DBS 

market entrants. Therefore, we seek to 

adopt service rules that achieve an 

appropriate balance between 

accommodating both present and future 

DBS feeder-link operations and ensuring 

protection of 17/24 GHz BBS receiving 

systems from interference. 

25. In the MVDDS Second R&O, 17 

FCC Rcd 9614 (2002), the Commission 

addressed a frequency sharing situation 

that presented ground path interference 

issues and temporal build-out of 

interspersed earth stations, similar to 

those we envision resulting from reverse 

band satellite operations in the 17.3–

17.7 GHz band. In the 12 GHz band, two 

co-primary, co-frequency services 

sought to operate in a sharing scenario 

where ubiquitous and ongoing 

deployment of stations from both 

services was anticipated. The 

Commission recognized that the 

incumbent DBS receive-only antennas 

were subject to interference from the 

introduction of transmitting MVDDS 

stations. In the MVDDS Second R&O, 

the Commission concluded that careful 

MVDDS system design and the use of 

various mitigation techniques could 

achieve successful sharing of the 12 

GHz frequency band by both services. 

To accomplish this goal, the 

Commission adopted inter alia a 

coordination procedure that requires 

that an MVDDS operator entering a 

market where DBS receivers are already 

established must satisfy certain 

requirements in order to protect these 

customers. 47 CFR 101.1440(d). In 

addition, a mechanism is established for 

information exchange between the 

operators of both services, in particular 

to take into account recently acquired 

DBS customers. (see 17 FCC Rcd at 

9652, para. 88) Once the time period 

prescribed for this information exchange 

has passed, any new DBS receive 

antennas must be installed in a manner 

to avoid interference from the MVDDS 

signal. These later-installed DBS earth 

stations have no right of complaint 

against the notified MVDDS 

transmitting antenna. 

26. We seek comment on whether we 

should adopt a similar approach to 

sharing between DBS feeder-link earth 

stations and 17/24 GHz BSS receiving 

earth stations. Under such an approach, 

DBS operators planning new feeder-link 

earth stations would be required to 

provide the technical information 

discussed above to 17/24 GHz BSS 

licensees, at least 90 days prior to 

commencing operations of the new DBS 

feeder-link earth station. Within 30 days 

after receipt of the new DBS feeder-link 

earth station technical information, the 

17/24 GHz BSS licensees would be 

required to provide the DBS feeder-link 

earth station operator with a list of 

potentially-affected 17/24 GHz BSS 

customer locations within the 

coordination area described above. 

Before beginning operations, the new 

DBS feeder-link earth station operator 

would be required to take into account 

these 17/24 GHz BSS customers and to 

ensure that its operations do not cause 

them harmful interference. Once the 30- 

day time period prescribed for this 

information exchange has passed, any 

new 17/24 GHz BSS receiving earth 

stations would be required to accept or 

mitigate any interference from the DBS 

feeder-link transmissions. These laterinstalled 17/24 GHz BSS receiving earth 

stations would have no right of 

complaint against the new DBS feederlink transmitting earth station. We seek 

comment on this proposal. We 

recognize that there may be reluctance 

on the part of 17/24 GHz BSS operators 

to reveal their customer data, 

particularly to another DBS or BSS 

operator, and we seek comment on 

alternate approaches to coordinating 

DBS feeder-link and 17/24 GHz BSS 

earth station operations. We also ask 

whether some different approach would 

better facilitate sharing in the 17/24 GHz 

band. 

27. In the MVDDS Second R&O, the 

Commission took additional steps to 

ensure successful sharing in the 12 GHz 

band and adopted various equivalent 

power flux density (epfd) and power 

density limits for MVDDS systems, as 

well as rules governing their 

application. See MVDDS Second R&O, 

17 FCC Rcd at 9641–9642, para. 68. The 

Commission’s existing rules do not 

specify transmitting epfd or of-axis 

e.i.r.p. density limits for DBS feeder-link 

earth stations, except in the band 17.7–

17.8 GHz, which is shared co-equally 

with terrestrial services. Interference 

into 17/24 GHz BSS receivers could be 

reduced if the e.i.r.p. levels emitted 

towards the horizon by DBS feeder link 

antennas were minimized. Limiting DBS 

feeder link off-axis transmit power 

levels may facilitate co-existence of 17/ 

24 GHz BSS subscriber earth stations 

and DBS feeder link earth stations, 

while decreasing the coordination 

burden on both services. Accordingly, 

we ask whether off-axis e.i.r.p. density 

or other transmitting power limits 

should be applied to DBS feeder-link 

bands in order to protect 17/24 GHz BSS 

receiving earth stations from 

interference. 

28. Section 25.204(b) of the 

Commission’s rules places limits on 

earth station e.i.r.p. in bands above 15 

GHz shared coequally with terrestrial 

radiocommunication services, in order 

to facilitate sharing with these services. 

This rule was not intended to facilitate 

sharing among DBS and BSS earth 

stations, and it is applicable to DBS 

feeder link earth stations only in the 

band segment 17.7–17.8 GHz that is 

shared with terrestrial services. We seek 

comment on whether the Commission 

should extend this requirement to DBS 

feeder link earth stations operating in 

the entire 17.3–17.8 GHz band or adopt 

some other, more stringent off-axis 

e.i.r.p. requirement. We also seek 

comment on whether a different 

approach, such as requiring DBS feeder 

link antenna shielding, would be more 

appropriate. Similarly, we request 

comment on whether the Commission 

should afford interference protection to 

17/24 GHz BSS systems only to the 

extent that they meet certain receive 

antenna performance standards. 

Specifically, we request comment on 

what type of regulation, if any, would be 

appropriate, such as adopting antenna 

off-axis discrimination requirements or 

minimum gain requirements. We seek 

comment on whether the e.i.r.p density 

limits of § 25.204 (b)–(e) would be 

sufficient to protect 17/24 GHz BSS 

earth stations if applied to the 17.3–17.7 

GHz band, or whether some other limits 

would be more appropriate. We seek 

comment on whether it is necessary to 

adopt another approach, such as 

stipulating epfd limits, in order to 

facilitate coordination between DBS 

feeder-link earth stations and 17/24 GHz 

subscriber receivers, and if so, which 

methodology should be used in 

determining such limits. We also seek 

comment on whether we should impose 

any additional requirements on either 

DBS feeder-link earth station operators 

mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 43693 

or on 17/24 GHz BSS operators in order 

to mitigate interference into 17/24 GHz 

BSS subscriber receiving antennas. 

29. Ground Path Interference Into BSS 

Telemetry Earth Stations: Ground path 

interference may also occur between 

transmitting DBS feeder-links and the 

receiving TT&C stations of 17/24 GHz 

BSS systems that choose to co-locate 

their TT&C earth stations at existing 

DBS feeder-link earth station sites. 

Choice of facility site is a system design 

parameter that is under the control of 

the operator, and does not necessarily 

require a Commission action to remedy. 

Accordingly, we seek comment on 

whether the Commission should adopt 

requirements to guard against such 

interference scenarios. 

30. We propose to require earth 

station applicants planning to co-locate 

their 17/24 GHz BSS TT&C stations with 

DBS feeder-links earth stations to make 

a technical showing to the Commission 

demonstrating their ability to maintain 

sufficient margin in their telemetry links 

in the presence of the interfering DBS 

signal. Additionally, we propose to 

require DBS feeder link earth station 

applicants planning to co-locate with 

their 17/24 GHz BSS telemetry earth 

stations to make a similar technical 

showing to the Commission. We seek 

comment on this proposal and ask what 

parameters would be appropriate in 

such a showing. In addition, we seek 

comment on other interference 

measures we might consider such as 

mandating a level of equipment 

performance (e.g., filter rejection). 

31. Increased Flexibility of Spectrum: 

Footnote NG 167 of the Domestic Table 

of Frequency Allocations (see 15 FCC 

Rcd 7207 (1999)) limits use of the FSS 

allocation (Earth-to-space) in the 24.75–

25.25 GHz band to use by feeder links 

for the BSS operating in the band 17.3–

17.7 GHz. In the 18 GHz Report & Order, 

we noted that, although we were 

allocating 500 megahertz for BSS feeder 

links at 24.75–25.25 GHz for 400 

megahertz of BSS uplinks at 17.3–17.7 

GHz, we declined to reduce the amount 

of spectrum available for feeder links for 

the BSS. We stated that the flexibility 

that this additional 100 MHz of feeder 

link spectrum afforded might prove 

useful to 17/24 GHz BSS operators in 

some situations including occasional 

difficulties that might be encountered 

during coordination. The ability to use 

spectrum in the 24 GHz band for feederlinks operating with other BSS services, 

such as DBS, might afford operators 

increased flexibility in system design 

and spectrum use. Providing this 

increased flexibility might also assist 

operators in designing their systems so 

as to avoid ground path interference 

problems associated with reverse band 

operations in the 17.3–17.8 GHz band. 

The benefit of alternative feeder link 

spectrum might be particularly useful in 

situations where DBS feeder-link earth 

stations must be located in populated 

areas with a high density of 17/24 GHz 

BSS receiving antennas, or when 17/24 

GHz BSS telemetry receiving facilities 

are close by. We propose to modify 

footnote NG167 of the Domestic Table of 

Frequency Allocations in order to 

permit use of the 24.75–25.25 GHz FSS 

allocation (Earth-to-space) by feeder 

links operating with the BSS in 

frequency bands other than 17 GHz, e.g., 

the 12 GHz DBS band. We seek 

comment on this proposal. 

32. The 24.75–25.05 GHz band is 

shared on a co-primary basis with the 

radionavigation service and the 25.05–

25.25 GHz band is similarly shared on 

a co-primary basis with the fixed 

service. Permitting migration of BSS 

feeder link operations from other bands 

(such as 17.3–17.7 GHz) into the 24 GHz 

band could place an increased burden 

on these two services, and may hinder 

their ability to operate or to deploy 

additional stations. General 

requirements for sharing with the 

radionavigation service and the fixed 

service in the 24 GHz band are 

discussed in paragraphs 91–93 of the 

NPRM. However, we seek specific 

comment on any impact to these other 

co-primary services from our proposal 

to permit more flexible use of the 24 

GHz band by BSS feeder links. In the 18 

GHz Report & Order, we noted our 

belief that the feasibility of the sharing 

between these 17/24 GHz BSS feeder 

links and the fixed service at 24 GHz is 

based in part on the limited number of 

expected 17/24 GHz BSS feeder links. 

We ask whether these additional feeder 

link operations can be accommodated in 

the 24.75–25.25 GHz band, or whether 

they will unduly restrict operation and 

deployment of either new 

radionavigation or fixed service 

systems. We ask whether our existing 

FSS/FS coordination procedures set 

forth in § 25.203 of the Commission’s 

rules are sufficient to facilitate coexistence of additional BSS feeder link 

earth stations with the 24 GHz Fixed 

Service, or whether some additional 

requirement(s) should be imposed. 

33. Space Path Interference: Space 

path interference will occur when the 

signals from transmitting 17/24 GHz 

BSS satellites are detected by the 

receiving antennas of DBS satellites. 

The amount of interference received by 

the victim DBS satellite will depend on 

the specific orientation between the 

transmitting and receiving satellites, the 

extent of physical separation, the 

transmit power (e.i.r.p.) levels, and the 

off-axis gain discriminations of both 

transmitting and receiving antennas on 

the adjacent satellites. The problem is 

expected to be particularly problematic 

when satellites are nominally colocated, i.e., a receiving DBS satellite is 

located at the same nominal GSO orbital 

longitude as a transmitting 17/24 GHz 

BSS satellite. 

34. Recognizing the significant 

difficulties in preventing harmful 

interference in the case of co-clustered 

satellites, we ask whether transmitting 

17/24 GHz BSS satellites should be 

precluded from locating in the same 

cluster with receiving co-frequency DBS 

satellites. We seek comment on this 

issue. We also ask whether co-clustering 

of 17/24 GHz BSS and receiving cofrequency DBS satellites might be 

possible in instances where both 

spacecraft are controlled by the same 

operator. However, we also seek 

comment on methods we might employ 

to facilitate co-location, or co-clustering 

of DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites. 

35. We seek further comment on the 

feasibility in general of locating 

transmitting 17/24 GHz BSS satellites at 

close distances (i.e., within the same 

cluster, or at nearby adjacent locations) 

as receiving DBS satellites operating 

with 17 GHz feeder-links. We ask 

whether there is a minimum separation 

distance that we should mandate for the 

two co-frequency satellites, and if so, 

what that separation distance should be. 

We also ask whether we should impose 

an off-axis antenna discrimination 

requirement on satellites in the 17/24 

GHz BSS service, the DBS service, or 

both, and if so what the requirement(s) 

should be. We ask whether we should 

impose either an absolute e.i.r.p. limit 

on transmitting BSS satellites, and if so, 

what that value might be, or whether an 

e.i.r.p. mask might be more appropriate. 

If the latter, we seek comment on the 

angular range over which such a mask 

should be applied, and what power 

limits would be most appropriate at 

different angular values. Finally, we 

seek comment on whether there are any 

other requirements we should consider 

in order to prevent reverse-band 

adjacent satellite interference in the 17 

GHz band. Specifically, we ask 

applicants how they plan to address the 

problem of space path interference with 

the co-located satellites they have 

proposed. 

36. Space path interference from 

transmitting 17/24 GHz BSS satellites 

has the potential to cause loss of the 

telecommand signal at the receiving 

DBS satellite. As in the ground path 

telemetry case, we are aware that 

interference into TT&C systems can 

mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS

43694 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

present a serious problem due to the 

potential loss of satellite control, and we 

seek comment on what requirements the 

Commission should adopt to guard 

against such interference scenarios. As 

in the ground path case, we propose to 

require space station applicants 

planning to co-locate their 17/24 GHz 

BSS space stations within cluster 

locations occupied by DBS space 

stations to make a technical showing to 

the Commission demonstrating their 

ability to sufficiently minimize 

interference into nearby DBS systems, 

such that adequate margin is maintained 

in the DBS telecommand links in the 

presence of the interfering BSS signal. 

Similarly, we will ask DBS operators 

planning to locate their satellites at an 

orbital location already occupied by a 

transmitting 17/24 GHz BSS satellite to 

make a technical showing to the 

Commission demonstrating how they 

plan to maintain sufficient margin in 

their telecommand links in the presence 

of the interfering BSS signal. We seek 

comment on this proposal and ask what 

parameters would be appropriate in 

such a showing. 

37. Other Technical Requirements: 

We note that tracking, telemetry, and 

command (TT&C) issues have been 

raised in some of the 17/24 GHz 

applications filed with the Commission, 

and below, seek comment on need to 

establish requirements for these 

activities. Also, we seek comment on 

the need for polarization and frequency 

re-use requirements. In addition to these 

issues, we invite parties to comment on 

other technical matters that the 

Commission should address in this 

rulemaking, and seek comment on any 

further changes to our rules that should 

be adopted for 17/24 GHz BSS systems. 

38. Technical Requirements for InterService Operations—Sharing in the 24 

GHz Band: In 1997, the Commission 

modified the Domestic Table of 

Frequency Allocations to provide a 

primary allocation in the frequency 

band 25.05–25.25 GHz to support the 24 

GHz Fixed Service, formerly known as 

the Digital Electronic Messaging Service 

(DEMS) (See, 15 FCC Rcd 3471 (1997)). 

The band is now allocated on a coprimary basis to both the FS and to the 

FSS (Earth-to-space). Several 24 GHz FS 

systems have already been licensed and 

we must therefore consider the 

likelihood that additional systems will 

be deployed in the future. The potential 

exists for 17/24 GHz BSS feeder-link 

earth stations operating in the 25.05–

25.25 GHz band to interfere with 

existing and future 24 GHz FS hub and 

user stations that operate in the same 

frequency band. When we adopted this 

shared allocation at 24 GHz, we stressed 

that while the full extent of the 

interference was unknown at that time, 

our belief in the feasibility of sharing 

was based on limitations on the number 

of expected 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link 

facilities and on the fact that potential 

interference to the 24 GHz service 

would be limited to hub stations. It was 

noted that the rules relevant to the 24 

GHz service are subject to the outcome 

of the 24 GHz service rules proceeding. 

(See 15 FCC Rcd at 13479, para. 105). 

We noted that the successful 

implementation of this allocation would 

require the development of sharing 

criteria that will be considered in a 

future rulemaking. In light of the 

proposed expansion in this band for 12 

GHz BSS feeder links in the NPRM and 

the nature of the 24 GHz service, we 

seek to develop sharing criteria that 

would assure successful 

implementation of BSS feeder links and 

the 24 GHz service and request 

comment on what these criteria should 

be. Accordingly, we request comment 

on the feasibility of operating BSS 

feeder-links in this band on a cofrequency basis with 24 GHz FS systems 

and whether existing power levels and 

coordination procedures are sufficient 

given that 24 GHz FS systems have been 

licensed by geographic area and are not 

required to file site specific data. 

39. In Region 2, the International 

Table of Frequency Allocations provides 

only the FSS with primary status in the 

frequency band 24.75–25.05 GHz. In the 

Domestic Table of frequency allocations 

however, primary status is shared by 

both the FSS and the radionavigation 

service. (See 47 CFR 2.106). At this time 

we are aware of no operational 

radionavigation systems in the band. 

However, it is not inconceivable that 

future radionavigation systems might be 

deployed. Furthermore, we are aware of 

no specific sharing criteria or rules 

governing co-frequency operation of 

FSS and radionavigation systems. We 

seek comment on the feasibility of 

operating BSS feeder-links (Earth-tospace) in this band on a co-primary 

basis with potential future 

radionavigation systems. We seek 

comment on what are the most likely 

interference scenarios, and ask what 

measures might best provide for future 

operation of both services. We ask 

whether any changes to our rules such 

as power limits, coordination 

requirements, or antenna performance 

requirements might be considered in 

order to minimize inter-service 

interference in the 24.75–25.05 GHz 

band. We seek comment on technical or 

operational measures that might be 

adopted by either satellite system 

operators or by radionavigation system 

operators in order to facilitate cofrequency operation of these two 

services. 

40. Sharing in the 17GHz Band: In the 

Domestic table of Frequency 

Allocations, the Radiolocation Service is 

allocated use of the 15.7–17.3 GHz band 

on a primary basis for U.S. Government 

systems. (See 47 CFR 2.106). Military 

services are the largest users of the band 

and have a considerable investment in 

radiolocation operations in this 

frequency range, which include a large 

number of radar systems that perform 

ground-mapping, terrain-following 

maritime and target-identification 

functions. Numerous high-powered 

synthetic aperture radars (SARs) operate 

near the band edge adjacent to 17.3 

GHz. At present, these SARs are largely 

airborne, and are employed primarily 

for ground mapping and detection of 

airborne objects. The National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) has stated that 

future radar systems are likely to 

resemble existing radars, including the 

capability to operate differently in 

different azimuth and elevation sectors, 

and that future designs may seek to 

operate in a wide band extending to the 

edge of the authorized allocation. Future 

radar systems will likely employ 

electronically-steerable antennas, and 

the NTIA maintains that the 

introduction of newer phase-steered 

radars could facilitate electromagnetic 

compatibility in some circumstances. In 

addition, newer radar systems are 

expected to have average-power 

capabilities at least as high as those of 

current systems, although the NTIA 

expects that future designs will strive to 

reduce wideband noise emissions 

through the use of solid-state 

transmitter/antenna systems. These 

would employ longer pulse 

transmissions with substantially higher 

duty cycles, but probably at lower peak 

power levels, as compared to tube-type 

radar transmitters. 

41. The NTIA has provided the 

Commission with information 

concerning technical and operating 

characteristics of certain adjacent-band 

radiolocation systems that it considers 

likely to impact 17/24 GHz BSS 

receiving earth stations and sufficient 

for general calculations to asses the 

compatibility between these radars and 

BSS systems. The technical 

characteristics of the radiolocation 

systems operating in the 15.7–17.3 GHz 

band are provided in Appendix C of the 

NRPM. The NTIA has also identified 

two interference coupling scenarios that 

it believes are likely to exist between 

radiolocation systems and BSS receiving 

mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 43695 

antennas in the 17 GHz band: earth 

station receiver front-end overload and 

out-of-band interference from highpower pulsed emissions. With regard to 

adjacent band interference due to high 

power pulsed emissions, the NTIA cites 

measurements that it performed on a 4 

GHz digital earth station receiver that 

employed error correction signal 

processing. However, as the NTIA also 

notes, the applicability of these results 

to 17 GHz systems requires further 

study. Accordingly, we seek comment 

on the interference scenarios that are 

most likely to be encountered between 

adjacent-band radiolocation systems 

and BSS receiving antennas, and on the 

general applicability of the NTIA’s 

findings. Specifically, we ask what 

differences in 17/24 GHz BSS receiver 

design and signal processing should be 

taken into account when assessing 

interference from adjacent-band 

radiolocation systems. We also ask 17/ 

24 GHz BSS operators for comment on 

their systems’ sensitivity to unwanted 

adjacent-band emissions, and on the 

level of protection they may require. We 

also seek comment on what measures 

17/24 GHz BSS operators might adopt in 

order to mitigate such interference. 

42. The Commission’s rules do not 

establish unwanted emission limits for 

radiolocation systems operating in the 

15.7–17.3 GHz band. Appendix 3 of the 

ITU Radio Regulations defines limits for 

an attenuation value used to calculate 

maximum permitted power levels of 

unwanted emissions in the spurious 

domain in Table II of § II. For the 

Radiolocation Service this attenuation 

below the radiated emission power level 

is defined as 43 + 10Log10(PEP), where 

PEP is the peak envelope power in 

watts. We seek comment on the 

suitability of this value to protect 17/24 

GHz BSS receivers from interference 

caused by unwanted emissions from 

adjacent-band radars. 

43. In addition, the band 17.3–17.7 

GHz is allocated on a secondary basis to 

the Radiolocation Service for use by 

Federal Government systems. Numerous 

types of radiolocation stations have 

been operated in this band, including 

ship, ground and airborne equipment. 

There may be future radiolocations 

systems that seek to operate in this 

spectrum on a secondary basis, and the 

potential for interference into 17/24 

GHz BSS subscriber receiving antennas 

exists. We intend to ensure that 17/24 

GHz BSS receivers are adequately 

protected. However, the Commission is 

also committed to encouraging efficient 

use of spectrum whenever possible. 

Accordingly, we seek comment on 

approaches we might adopt to 

accommodate future secondary 

radiolocation operations in this band. 

We ask what types of interference 

scenarios may be anticipated and what 

criteria might be adopted to ensure 

protection of BSS systems while 

allowing for future secondary operation 

of radiolocation systems in the 17.3–

17.7 GHz band. We also ask 17/24 GHz 

BSS operators to address the level of 

protection required for their receiving 

earth stations and whether 17/24 GHz 

BSS and secondary radiolocation 

services could co-exist if appropriate 

protection criteria were in place. 

Finally, we note that Footnote US259 to 

the United States Table of Frequency 

Allocations requires that stations in the 

radiolocation service in the 17.3–17.7 

GHz band be restricted to operating 

powers of less than 51 dBW e.i.r.p. after 

feeder-link stations for the broadcastingsatellite service are authorized and 

brought into use. (See 47 CFR 2.106, 

footnote US259). This requirement was 

developed to protect GSO satellites 

operating with feeder-link transmissions 

defined by the Region 2 planned bands, 

and was not designed with protection of 

small-diameter 17/24 GHz BSS 

receiving earth stations in mind. 

Nonetheless, we seek comment on 

whether this restriction is adequate to 

protect 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber earth 

stations from harmful interference 

caused by transmitting radiolocation 

systems. 

44. The allocation to the radiolocation 

service is secondary relative to the BSS 

in the 17.3–17.7 GHz band. 

Accordingly, secondary radiolocation 

stations are precluded from causing 

harmful interference to the stations of a 

primary service such as the 17/24 GHz 

BSS. (See 47 CFR 2.105(c)(2)(i)). 

However, we recognize that Federal 

radiolocation systems are now operating 

in this band and have been in operation 

for some time. Further, in its March 29, 

2000 letter to the Commission, NTIA 

stated that radiolocation systems 

continuing to operate in the 17.3–17.7 

GHz band after April 1, 2007 may have 

to be accommodated, notwithstanding 

their allocation status with respect to 

BSS stations. Recently, NTIA again 

noted that it anticipates continued 

operation of Federal radiolocation 

systems in certain portions of the 17.3–

17.7 GHz band, in a limited number of 

geographic areas after April 1, 2007. The 

Commission is committed to protecting 

17/24 GHz BSS consumers from harmful 

interference. However we also wish to 

accommodate national defense interests 

and appreciate the Defense 

Department’s need to continue 

operating a limited number of existing 

radars in the 17.3–17.7 GHz band after 

April 1, 2007. Accordingly, we seek 

comment on what methods or criteria 

might be adopted to accommodate 

continued operation of these currently 

operating Federal radiolocation systems. 

Specifically, we seek comment on the 

typical interference scenarios that could 

occur between receiving 17/24 GHz BSS 

earth stations and existing Federal 

radiolocation systems. We ask whether 

case-by-case coordination or some other 

approach might best permit continued 

operation of Federal radiolocation 

systems in portions of the 17.3–17.7 

GHz band following the introduction of 

17/24 GHz BSS systems after April 1, 

2007. 

Ex Parte Presentations 

45. The proceeding shall be treated as 

a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one- or twosentence description of the views and 

arguments presented is generally 

required. Other rules pertaining to oral 

and written presentations are set forth 

in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules 

as well. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

46. The NPRM contains proposed new 

and modified information collection. 

The Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, invites the general public and 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to comment on the information 

collections contained in the NPRM, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Public 

and agency comments are due 60 days 

from the date of publication of the 

NPRM in the Federal Register. 

Comments should address: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the Commission, 

including whether the information shall 

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of 

the Commission’s burden estimates; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information collected; and 

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on the 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

In addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on 

how we might ‘‘further reduce the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS

43696 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’

47. A copy of any comments on the 

information collections contained 

herein should be submitted to Judy 

Boley Herman, Federal Communications 

Commission, Room 1–C804, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or 

via the Internet to jbHerman@fcc.gov 

and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk 

Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, or 

via the Internet to 

Kristy_L.LaLonde@omb.eop.gov, or via 

fax at 202–395–5167. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

48. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this present Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in this 

item, the Establishment of Policies and 

Service Rules for the BroadcastingSatellite Service at the 17.3–17.7 GHz 

Frequency Band and at the 17.7–17.8 

GHz Frequency Band Internationally, 

and at the 24.75–25.25 GHz Frequency 

Band for Fixed Satellite Services 

Providing Feeder Links to the 

Broadcasting-Satellite Service and for 

the Satellite Services Operating BiDirectionally in the 17.3–17.8 GHz 

Frequency Band, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. Written public comments 

are requested on this IRFA. Comments 

must be identified as responses to the 

IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines 

for comments on the NPRM provided in 

paragraph 106 of this NPRM. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

49. In the NPRM the Commission 

makes proposals and seeks comment on 

service rules that will apply to U.S. 

licensees authorized to operate in the 

17/24 GHz BSS band. Our objective in 

this proceeding is to promote prompt 

commencement of services in the 17/24 

GHz BSS band. This newly allocated 

band is expected to introduce a new 

generation of broadband services to the 

public, providing a mix of local and 

domestic video, audio, data, video-ondemand, and multimedia services to 

residential and business subscribers in 

the United States. As discussed in 

greater detail below, the Commission is 

provisionally considering a rulemaking 

which proposes rules and procedures 

for operation in the 17/24 GHz BSS 

band, including requirements for 

licensing, service obligations, orbital 

spacing, adjacent band operations, 

reverse band operations, and shared 

band operations. Potential interference 

from primary adjacent-band 

radiolocation systems and in-band 

secondary radiolocation systems is also 

addressed. In addition, the NPRM also 

considers proposals for use of the 17.7–

17.8 GHz BSS spectrum for provision of 

international services outside the 

United States. 

50. The Commission is provisionally 

considering whether to apply the 

processing rules and requirements set 

forth in the Space Station Licensing 

Reform Orders to the 17/24 GHz BSS or 

whether to adopt another licensing 

mechanism, such as competitive 

bidding. If the Commission decides to 

apply the Space Station Licensing 

Reform framework, it is provisionally 

considering that the 17/24 GHz BSS will 

be classified as a ‘‘GSO-like’’ service 

and therefore a ‘‘first-come, first-served’’

licensing framework will apply to the 

service. Under this processing option, 

the Commission is considering applying 

the package of safeguards that are 

contained within the first-come, firstserved processing scheme. These 

safeguards include a requirement that 

all GSO-like applicants awarded a 

license under this procedure to post a 

$3 million performance bond with the 

Commission within 30 days of license 

grant. They also require licensees to 

construct and launch the satellite 

consistent with a specified milestone 

schedule. If the licensee fails to meet an 

implementation milestone, the license 

becomes null and void and the bond is 

executed. The rules also limit applicants 

to a total of five pending applications 

and licenses for unbuilt satellites in a 

specific frequency band at any one time. 

In addition, the Commission is 

considering making 17/24 GHz BSS 

licensees subject to the same annual 

reporting requirements as most of our 

current space station licensees are 

subject to. These reports include, among 

other things, the status of space station 

construction and anticipated launch 

dates. 

51. The Commission is also 

provisionally considering the adoption 

of a ten-year license term for all nonbroadcast 17/24 GHz BSS licensees and 

an eight-year license term for 17/24 GHz 

BSS satellites that will operate as 

broadcast facilities. In addition, the 

Commission is provisionally 

considering the adoption of the grantstamp procedure to process unopposed 

replacement 17/24 GHz BSS 

applications with technical 

characteristics consistent with those of 

the satellite to be retired. 

52. Regarding non-U.S.-licensed 

satellite operators, the Commission is 

provisionally considering to evaluate 

requests for U.S. access by foreignlicensed 17/24 GHz BSS systems on a 

service-specific basis consistent with 

the framework established in the 1997 

DISCO II Order. Thus, if this approach 

is adopted, in cases where systems 

licensed by World Trade Organization 

(WTO)-member countries seek to 

provide FSS to U.S. customers from 

their 17/24 GHz BSS systems, we will 

presume that entry will further 

competition. In cases where non-WTOmember countries seek to use these 

systems to serve the United States or 

where WTO-member countries seek to 

provide services such as DTH and DBS 

over 17/24 GHz BSS systems, we will 

apply the effective competitive 

opportunities test (ECO–SAT) to ensure 

that entry will not distort competition in 

the U.S market. 

53. The Commission is also 

provisionally considering whether 17/ 

24 GHz BSS licensees should be subject 

to public interest obligations, such as 

those currently imposed on providers of 

direct broadcast satellite services. Under 

these obligations, these providers are 

required to meet certain political 

broadcast requirements, compliance 

with children’s television advertising 

limits, and to set aside four percent of 

channel capacity for noncommercial, 

educational or informational 

programming. Also, the Commission is 

provisionally considering rules that 

would result in the equal employment 

opportunity requirements set forth in 

Part 76 of the Commission’s rules being 

applied to 17/24 GHz BSS licensees. In 

addition, the Commission is 

provisionally considering adopting rules 

that would require 17/24 GHz BSS 

licensees to provide service to Alaska 

and Hawaii where such service is 

technically feasible from the authorized 

orbit location. In addition, the 

Commission is provisionally 

considering applying EAS requirements 

on 17/24 GHz BSS operators. 

54. The Commission is also 

provisionally considering rules that may 

apportion a specific frequency band for 

tracking, telemetry and command 

operations for 17/24 GHz BSS satellites. 

Also, the Commission is provisionally 

considering the adoption of rules for 

orbital spacing for 17/24 GHz BSS 

satellites. 

55. The Commission is also 

provisionally considering rules 

mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 43697 

regarding adjacent band operations, 

reverse band operations, and shared 

band operations. If adopted, these rules 

would: (a) Require Direct Broadcast 

Satellite (DBS) service applicants 

seeking to operate within [TBD] degrees 

of a geostationary orbital location where 

a space station has already been 

authorized to operate in the 

Broadcasting Satellite Service (BSS) in 

the 17.3–17.8 GHz band (space-to-Earth) 

to submit a technical showing 

demonstrating their ability to maintain 

sufficient telecommand link margin in 

the presence of the interfering BSS 

signal; (b) require 17/24 GHz BSS 

applicants seeking to operate within 

[TBD] degrees of a geostationary orbital 

location where a space station has 

already been authorized to operate in 

the DBS service in the 17.3–17.8 GHz 

band (Earth-to-space) to submit a 

technical showing demonstrating their 

ability to avoid causing harmful 

interference to the existing DBS 

telecommand link; (c) require applicants 

proposing to co-locate DBS feeder link 

earth stations at sites where they are 

already authorized to operate earth 

stations receiving telemetry signals from 

space stations operating in the 17/24 

GHz BSS service to submit a technical 

showing demonstrating their ability to 

maintain sufficient margin in their 17 

GHz band telemetry links in the 

presence of the interfering DBS signal; 

(d) require applicants proposing to colocate 17/24 GHz BSS TT&C earth 

stations at sites where they are already 

authorized to operate DBS feeder link 

earth stations to submit a technical 

showing demonstrating their ability to 

maintain sufficient margin in their 17 

GHz band telemetry links in the 

presence of the interfering DBS signal; 

and (e) require applicants for feeder-link 

earth station licenses that propose to 

transmit with e.i.r.p. spectral density 

levels in excess of 5.6 dBW/Hz, under 

clear sky conditions, to submit a 

showing demonstrating that their higher 

power levels will not cause harmful 

interference to nearby satellites. 

56. Establishing service rules for the 

17/24 GHz BSS bands will facilitate the 

delivery of a new generation of satellite 

services to the public, thus stimulating 

competition in the communications 

marketplace. The delivery of these 

services is anticipated to include 

standard-definition and high-definition 

formats and may complement existing 

DBS service offered by applicants. 

Operation in the 17/24 GHz BSS band 

is anticipated to provide a mix of local 

and national video, audio, data, and 

video-on-demand to residential and 

business subscribers in the United 

States. 

B. Legal Basis 

57. The NPRM is adopted pursuant to 

§§ 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 

303(g), 303(r), 303(y), and 308 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 51, 154(i), 154(j), 

157(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 

303(y), 308. 

C. Description and Estimate of Number 

of Small Entities Affected by Proposals 

58. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’

under the Small Business Act. A small 

business concern is one 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). Below, we 

further describe and estimate the 

number of small entity licensees that 

may be affected by the adopted rules. 

59. Satellite Telecommunications. 

The SBA has developed a small 

business size standard for Satellite 

Telecommunications, which consists of 

all such companies having $13.5 million 

or less in annual receipts. According to 

Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 

536 firms in the category Satellite 

Telecommunications, total that operated 

for the entire year. Of this total, 49 firms 

had annual receipts of $5 million to 

$9,999,999 and an additional 99 firms 

had annual receipts of $10 million or 

more. Thus, under this size standard, 

the majority of firms can be considered 

small. 

60. Space Stations (Geostationary). 

Commission records reveal that there 

are 44 space station licensees. We do 

not request nor collect annual revenue 

information concerning such licensees, 

and thus are unable to estimate the 

number of geostationary space stations 

that would constitute a small business 

under the SBA definition cited above, or 

apply any rules providing special 

consideration for Space Station 

(Geostationary) licensees that are small 

businesses. 

61. Fixed Satellite Transmit/Receive 

Earth Stations. Currently there are 

approximately 1142 operational fixedsatellite transmit/receive earth stations 

authorized for use in the Ku-bands. The 

Commission does not request or collect 

annual revenue information, and thus is 

unable to estimate the number of earth 

stations that would constitute a small 

business under the SBA definition. 

62. Cellular and Other Wireless 

Telecommunications. The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard for Cellular and Other Wireless 

Telecommunications, which consists of 

all such firms having 1,500 or fewer 

employees. According to Census Bureau 

data for 2002, in this category there was 

a total of 8,863 firms that operated for 

the entire year. Of this total, 401 firms 

had 100 or more employees, and the 

remainder had fewer than 100 

employees. 

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, 

and Other Compliance Requirements 

63. The proposed rules would, if 

adopted, require a Direct Broadcast 

Satellite (DBS) service applicant seeking 

to operate within [TBD] degrees of a 

geostationary orbital location where a 

space station has already been 

authorized to operate in the 

broadcasting-satellite service in the 

17.3–17.8 GHz band (space-to-Earth) to 

submit a technical showing which 

demonstrates its ability to maintain 

sufficient telecommand link margin in 

the presence of the interfering 

Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS) 

signal. This requirement will aid in 

ensuring that DBS operators seeking to 

operate in these locations will be able to 

maintain their telecommand link in 

order to maintain control of their 

satellites. 

64. Also, a 17/24 GHz BSS applicant 

seeking to operate within [TBD] degrees 

of a geostationary orbital location where 

a space station has already been 

authorized to operate in the DBS service 

in the 17.3–17.8 GHz band (Earth-tospace), will be required, under the 

proposed rules, to submit a technical 

showing which demonstrates its ability 

to maintain sufficient telecommand link 

margin in the presence of the interfering 

DBS service signal. This requirement 

will aid in ensuring that BSS operators 

seeking to operate in these locations 

will be able to maintain their 

telecommand link in order to maintain 

control of their satellites. 

65. The proposed rules would also 

require that applicants proposing to colocate DBS feeder link earth stations at 

sites where they are already authorized 

to operate earth stations receiving 

telemetry signals from space stations 

operating in the 17/24 GHz BSS service, 

must submit a technical showing 

demonstrating their ability to maintain 

sufficient margin in the 17 GHz band 

mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS

43698 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

telemetry links in the presence of an 

interfering DBS signal. This requirement 

will aid in ensuring that DBS earth 

station operators can monitor the health 

and status of their satellites in the 

presence of an interfering signal from 

the DBS feeder link. 

66. The proposed rules would also 

require that applicants proposing to colocate 17/24 GHz BSS TT&C earth 

stations at sites where they are already 

authorized to operate DBS feeder link 

earth stations must submit to the 

Commission a technical showing which 

demonstrates their ability to maintain 

sufficient margin in their 17 GHz band 

telemetry links in the presence of an 

interfering DBS signal. This requirement 

will aid in ensuring that the BSS TT&C 

earth station operators will be able to 

maintain their telecommand link in 

order to maintain control of their 

satellites. 

67. Finally, the proposed rules would 

require that each applicant for a feederlink earth station license that proposes 

to transmit with e.i.r.p. spectral density 

levels in excess of 5.6 dBW/Hz, under 

clear sky conditions, shall submit (1) 

link budget analyses of its proposed 

operations, along with a detailed written 

explanation of how each uplink and 

each transmitted satellite carrier density 

figure is derived, and (2) a narrative 

summary which indicates whether there 

are margin shortfalls in any of the 

current baseline services as a result of 

the addition of the applicant’s higher 

power service. If there are such 

shortfalls, each applicant must submit 

an explanation of how the applicant 

intends to resolve the margin shortfalls. 

In addition, such applicants shall certify 

that all potentially affected parties 

acknowledge, and do not object to, the 

applicant’s use of the higher power 

densities. This requirement will aid in 

ensuring that earth station operators 

proposing to operate in excess of the 

level described above will not cause 

harmful interference to adjacent cofrequency satellites. 

68. The Commission does not expect 

significant costs to be associated with 

these proposals, if adopted. Therefore, 

we do not anticipate that the burden of 

compliance would be greater for smaller 

entities. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

69. The RFA requires that, to the 

extent consistent with the objectives of 

applicable statutes, the analysis shall 

discuss significant alternatives such as: 

(1) The establishment of differing 

compliance or reporting requirements or 

timetables that take into account the 

resources available to small entities; (2) 

the clarification, consolidation, or 

simplification of compliance and 

reporting requirements under the rule 

for small entities; (3) the use of 

performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

70. The proposed rules are necessary 

for the efficient operation of the 17/24 

GHz BSS band, which is expected to 

introduce a new generation of 

broadband services to the public. We are 

provisionally considering rules and 

procedures for operation in the 17/24 

GHz BSS band, including requirements 

for a licensing framework, service 

obligations, license terms, non-U.S.- 

licensed satellite operators, public 

interest obligations, equal employment 

opportunity requirements, geographic 

service requirements, tracking, 

telemetry and command operations, and 

orbital spacing requirements. We seek 

comment on alternatives to these 

provisionally considered rules and 

procedures that would minimize the 

economic impact on small entities. We 

also seek comment on the establishment 

of differing compliance or reporting 

requirements that take into account the 

resources available to small entities. 

71. In addition, the Commission is 

provisionally considering the adoption 

of rules that would facilitate adjacent 

band operations, reverse band 

operations, and shared band operations. 

We believe that these proposed rules, 

which may require a technical showing 

demonstrating the licensee’s ability to 

operate without causing interference to 

other satellites, are necessary for the 

efficient administration of bandwidth 

because they will ensure that operators 

in the 17/24 GHz BSS band and the DBS 

service can operate compatibly. We 

have considered alternatives and believe 

these are the most equitable solutions to 

the potential interference problems 

posed by the operation of the 17/24 GHz 

BSS service. For example, one 

alternative is to require that technical 

showings be made after operation has 

begun. We rejected this alternative 

because we concluded that it would not 

be as efficient as requiring that technical 

showings be made before operation. 

This is because, in many instances, 

harmful interference will invariably 

occur, which will lead to disruptions in 

service. By requiring that technical 

showings be made prior to operation, 

we anticipate that there will be far fewer 

instances of harmful interference. We 

seek comment on viable alternatives to 

these rules or their reporting 

requirements that would lessen the 

economic impact on small entities. We 

also seek comment on the establishment 

of differing compliance or reporting 

requirements that take into account the 

resources available to small entities. The 

NPRM seeks comment on these 

proposals, including the effectiveness 

and utility of the proposals, and also 

seeks comment on how to minimize 

undue burdens on small business. 

E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

72. None. 

Comment Filing Procedures 

73. Pursuant to § 1.415 and 1.419 of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments in response to the NPRM no 

later than on or before 75 days after 

Federal Register publication. Reply 

comments to these comments may be 

filed no later than on or before 105 days 

after Federal Register publication. All 

pleadings are to reference IB Docket No. 

06–90. Comments may be filed using the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper 

copies. Parties are strongly encouraged 

to file electronically. See Electronic 

Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 

Proceedings, 63 FR 24,121 (1998). 

74. Comments filed through the ECFS 

can be sent as an electronic file via the 

Internet to http://www.fcc/gov/e-file/ 

ecfs.html. Parties should transmit one 

copy of their comments to the docket in 

the caption of this rulemaking. In 

completing the transmittal screen, 

commenters should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions 

for e-mail comments, commenters 

should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov 

and should include the following words 

in the body of the message, ‘‘get form 

<your e-mail address>.’’ A sample form 

and directions will be sent in reply. 

75. Parties choosing to file by paper 

must file an original and four copies of 

each filing in IB Docket No. 05–20. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). If more than one docket or 

rulemaking number appears in the 

caption of this proceeding, commenters 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. The Commission’s mail 

contractor, Vistronix, Inc. will receive 

hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 

mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 43699 

paper filings for the Commission’s 

Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, 

NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. 

The filing hours at this location are 8 

a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must 

be held together with rubber bands or 

fasteners. Any envelopes must be 

disposed of before entering the building. 

Commercial overnight mail (other than 

U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and 

Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East 

Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 

20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class 

mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail 

should be addressed to 445 12th Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings 

must be addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission. 

76. Comments submitted on diskette 

should be on a 3.5 inch diskette 

formatted in an IBM-compatible format 

using Word for Windows or compatible 

software. The diskette should be clearly 

labeled with the commenter’s name, 

proceeding (including the docket 

number, in this case, IB Docket No. 05–

20), type of pleading (comment or reply 

comment), date of submission, and the 

name of the electronic file on the 

diskette. The label should also include 

the following phrase ‘‘Disk Copy—Not 

an Original.’’ Each diskette should 

contain only one party’s pleadings, 

preferably in a single electronic file. 

77. All parties must file one copy of 

each pleading electronically or by paper 

to each of the following: (1) The 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 

488–5300, facsimile (202) 488–5563, or 

via e-mail at FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. 

78. Comments and reply comments 

and any other filed documents in this 

matter may be obtained from Best Copy 

and Printing, Inc., in person at 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, via telephone at 

(202) 488–5300, via facsimile (202) 488–

5563, or via e-mail at 

FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. The pleadings 

will be also available for public 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Room CY–A257, 

445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20554 and through the 

Commission’s Electronic Filing System 

(ECFS) accessible on the Commission’s 

World Wide Web site, http:// 

www.fcc.gov. 

79. Comments and reply comments 

must include a short and concise 

summary of the substantive arguments 

raised in the pleading. Comments and 

reply comments must also comply with 

§ 1.49 and all other applicable sections 

of the Commission’s rules. All parties 

are encouraged to utilize a table of 

contents, and to include the name of the 

filing party and the date of the filing on 

each page of their submission. We also 

strongly encourage that parties track the 

organization set forth in this Notice in 

order to facilitate our internal review 

process. 

80. Commenters who file information 

that they believe is proprietary may 

request confidential treatment pursuant 

to Section 0.459 of the Commission’s 

rules. Commenters should file both their 

original comments for which they 

request confidentiality and redacted 

comments, along with their request for 

confidential treatment. Commenters 

should not file proprietary information 

electronically. See Examination of 

Current Policy Concerning the 

Treatment of Confidential Information 

Submitted to the Commission, Report 

and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 24816 (1998), 

Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 

20128 (1999). Even if the Commission 

grants confidential treatment, 

information that does not fall within a 

specific exemption pursuant to the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

must be publicly disclosed pursuant to 

an appropriate request. See 47 CFR 

0.461; 5 U.S.C. 552. We note that the 

Commission may grant requests for 

confidential treatment either 

conditionally or unconditionally. As 

such, we note that the Commission has 

the discretion to release information on 

public interest grounds that does fall 

within the scope of a FOIA exemption. 

81. Accordingly, it is ordered 

pursuant to §§ 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 

303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 303(y), and 

308 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 

154(j), 157(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 

303(r), 303(y), 308, that this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in IB Docket No. 

06–123 is hereby adopted. 

82. It is further ordered that the 

Consumer Information Bureau, 

Reference Information Center, shall 

send a copy of this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects 

47 CFR Part 2 

Telecommunications. 

47 CFR Part 25 

Satellites. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Rule Changes 

For the reasons discussed above, the 

Federal Communications Commission 

proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 2 and 

25 as follows: 

PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS 

AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; 

GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 

336, unless otherwise noted. 

2. Section 2.106, the Table of 

Frequency Allocations, is amended as 

follows: 

a. Revise page 48. 

b. In the list of non-Federal 

Government footnotes, revise footnotes 

NG163 and NG 167. 

§ 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations. 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS

43700 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–C 


mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALSEP02AU06.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 43701 

Non-Federal Government Footnotes 

* * * * * 

NG163 The allocation to the broadcastingsatellite service in the band 17.3–17.7 GHz 

shall come into effect on 1 April 2007. Use 

of the 17.3–17.7 GHz band by the 

broadcasting-satellite service is limited to 

geostationary satellite orbit systems. 

* * * * * 

NG167 The use of the fixed-satellite service 

(Earth-to-space) in the band 24.75–25.25 GHz 

is limited to feeder links for the broadcastingsatellite service. The allocation to the fixedsatellite service (Earth-to-space) in the band 

24.75–25.25 GHz shall come into effect on 1 

April 2007. 

* * * * * 

PART 25—SATELLITE 

COMMUNICATIONS 

3. The authority citation for part 25 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 701–744. Interprets or 

applies §§ 4, 301, 302, 307, 309 and 332 of 

the Communications Act, as amended, 47 

U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332, 

unless otherwise noted. 

4. Section 25.114 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (d)(15) and (d)(16) to 

read as follows: 

§ 25.114 Application for Space Station 

Authorizations. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(15) For satellite applications in the 

Direct Broadcast Satellite service 

seeking to operate within [TBD] degrees 

of a geostationary orbital location where 

a space station has already been 

authorized to operate in the 

broadcasting-satellite service in the 

17.3–17.7 GHz band (space-to-Earth), a 

technical showing with regard to its 

telecommand link margin in accordance 

with § 25.148(g). 

(16) For satellite applications in the 

17/24 GHz broadcasting-satellite service 

seeking to operate within [TBD] degrees 

of a geostationary orbital location where 

a direct broadcast satellite (DBS) space 

station has already been authorized to 

operate that has feeder links in the 17.3–

17.8 GHz band (Earth-to-space), a 

technical showing with regard to the 

DBS system’s telecommand link margin 

as in accordance with § 25.141(e). 

5. Section 25.121 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 25.121 License term and renewals. 

(a) License Term. Except for licenses 

for DBS and 17/24 GHz facilities, 

licenses for facilities governed by this 

part will be issued for a period 15 years. 

Licenses for DBS and 17/24 GHz space 

stations licensed as broadcast facilities 

will be issued for a period of 8 years. 

Licenses for DBS and 17/24 GHz space 

stations not licensed as broadcast 

facilities will be issued for a period of 

10 years. 

* * * * * 

6. Add § 25.141 to subpart B to read 

as follows: 

§ 25.141 Licensing Provisions for the 17/24 

GHz Broadcasting Satellite Service. 

(a) License terms. License terms for 

17/24 GHz facilities are specified in 

§ 25.121(a). 

(b) Due Diligence. 

(c) Geographic service requirements. 

(d) Bond Requirement. 

(e) Co-location with DBS space 

stations. A 17/24 GHz BSS applicant 

seeking to operate within [TBD] degrees 

of a geostationary orbital location where 

a space station has already been 

authorized to operate in the direct 

broadcast satellite (DBS) service in the 

12.2–12.7 GHz band that is authorized 

to use feeder links in the 17.3–17.8 GHz 

band (Earth-to-space), must submit to 

the Commission a technical showing 

demonstrating its ability to avoid 

causing harmful interference to the DBS 

operator, such that the DBS system is 

able to maintain sufficient margin in its 

telecommand link in the presence of the 

interfering BSS signal. 

(f) Limit on pending applications. 

(g) Milestone requirements. 

(h) Replacement satellites. 

(i) Non-U.S.-licensed satellites. 

(j) Public interest. 

(k) Equal employment opportunity. 

7. Section 25.148 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 25.148 Licensing provisions for the 

Direct Broadcast Satellite Service. 

* * * * * 

(g) Co-location with 17/24 GHz BSS 

space stations. A DBS applicant seeking 

to operate within [TBD] degrees of a 

geostationary orbital location where a 

space station has already been 

authorized to operate in the 

broadcasting-satellite service in the 

17.3–17.7 GHz band (space-to-Earth), 

must submit to the Commission a 

technical showing demonstrating its 

ability to maintain sufficient 

telecommand link margin in the 

presence of the interfering BSS signal. 

(h) Co-location of DBS feeder links 

and 17/24 GHz BSS TT&C earth 

stations. Applicants proposing to colocate their DBS feeder link earth 

stations at sites where they are already 

authorized to operate earth stations 

receiving telemetry signals from space 

stations operating in the 17/24 GHz BSS 

service, must submit to the Commission 

a technical showing demonstrating their 

ability to maintain sufficient margin in 

their 17 GHz band telemetry links in the 

presence of the interfering DBS feederlink signal. 

8. Section 25.201 is amended by 

adding the following definition in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 25.201 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Broadcasting-Satellite Service. A 

radiocommunication service in which 

signals transmitted or retransmitted by 

space stations are intended for direct 

reception by the general public. In the 

broadcasting-satellite service, the term 

direct reception shall encompass both 

individual reception and community 

reception. 

* * * * * 

9. Amend § 25.202 as follows: 

a. In paragraph (a)(1), add a new entry 

and its footnote in numerical order to 

the ‘‘Earth-to-space (GHz)’’ column of 

the Table. 

b. Add paragraph (a)(9). 

§ 25.202 Frequencies, frequency tolerance 

and emission limitations. 

(a)(1) * * * 

Space-to-earth (GHz) Earth-to-space 

(GHz) 

* * * * * 1824.75–25.25

* * * * * 

18 Use of the band 24.75–25.25 GHz by the 

fixed-satellite service (Earth-to-space) is limited to feeder links for space stations in the 

broadcasting-satellite service. The allocation to 

the fixed-satellite service (Earth-to-space) in 

the band 24.75–25.25 GHz shall come into effect on 1 April 2007. 

* * * * * 

(9) The following frequencies are 

available for use by the BroadcastingSatellite Service after 1 April 2007: 

17.3–17.7 GHz (space-to-Earth) 

17.7–17.8 GHz (space-to-Earth) 

Use of the 17.3–17.7 GHz band by the 

broadcasting-satellite service is limited 

to geostationary satellite orbit systems. 

Use of the 17.7–17.8 GHz band (spaceto-Earth) by the broadcasting-satellite 

service is limited to transmissions from 

geostationary satellite orbit systems to 

receiving earth stations located outside 

of the United States and its Possessions. 

* * * * * 

10. Section 25.208 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 25.208 Power flux density limits. 

* * * * * 

(c) In the 17.7–17.8 GHz, 18.3–18.8 

GHz, 19.3–19.7 GHz, 22.55–23.00 GHz, 

23.00–23.55 GHz, and 24.45–24.75 GHz 

mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS

43702 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

frequency bands, the power flux-density 

at the Earth’s surface produced by 

emissions from a space station for all 

conditions for all methods of 

modulation shall not exceed the 

following values: 

* * * * * 

11. Add § 25.223 to read as follows: 

§ 25.223 Technical requirements for space 

stations operating in the 17/24 GHz 

broadcasting-satellite service. 

All space stations operating in the 17/ 

24 GHz broadcasting-satellite service 

shall employ state-of-the art full 

frequency re-use either through the use 

of orthogonal polarizations within the 

same beam and/or the use of spatially 

independent beams. 

12. Section 25.251 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) and adding 

paragraph (c) as follows: 

§ 25.251 Special requirements for 

coordination. 

* * * * * 

(b) The administrative aspects of the 

coordination process in the case of 

coordination of DBS feeder-link earth 

stations with 17/24 GHz BSS receiving 

earth stations are set forth in § 25.xxx in 

combination with the additional 

technical parameters set forth in [TBD]. 

(c) The technical aspects of 

coordination are based on Appendix 7 

of the International Telecommunication 

Union Radio Regulations and certain 

recommendations of the ITU 

Radiocommunication Sector (available 

at the FCC’s Reference Information 

Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20554). 

13. Add § 25.262 to subpart C to read 

as follows: 

§ 25.262 Technical requirements for 24 

GHz band feeder link earth stations 

transmitting to space stations in the 

broadcasting-satellite service. 

(a) All applications for an FSS feederlink earth station license in the 24.75–

25.25 GHz band shall meet the 

following requirements: 

(1) The feeder link earth station 

antenna shall not transmit with e.i.r.p. 

spectral density levels in excess of 5.6 

dBW/Hz, under clear sky conditions, 

except as otherwise provided by this 

part. 

(2) Each applicant for feeder-link 

earth station license(s) that proposes 

levels in excess of those defined in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall 

submit link budget analyses of the 

operations proposed along with a 

detailed written explanation of how 

each uplink and each transmitted 

satellite carrier density figure is derived. 

Applicants shall also submit a narrative 

summary which must indicate whether 

there are margin shortfalls in any of the 

current baseline services as a result of 

the addition of the applicant’s higher 

power service, and if so, how the 

applicant intends to resolve those 

margin short falls. Applicants shall 

certify that all potentially affected 

parties (i.e., those 17/24 GHz GSO BSS 

satellite networks that are [TBD] degrees 

apart) acknowledge and do not object to 

the use of the applicant’s higher power 

densities. 

(3) Licensees authorized pursuant to 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall 

bear the burden of coordinating with 

any future applicants or licensees whose 

proposed compliant operations at [TBD] 

degrees or smaller orbital spacing, as 

defined by paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section, is potentially or actually 

adversely affected by the operation of 

the non-compliant licensee. If no good 

faith agreement can be reached, 

however, the non-compliant licensee 

shall reduce its earth station power 

density levels to be compliant with 

those specified in paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section. 

(b) Applicants proposing to co-locate 

their 17/24 GHz BSS TT&C earth 

stations at sites where they are already 

authorized to operate DBS feeder link 

earth stations, must submit to the 

Commission a technical showing 

demonstrating their ability to maintain 

sufficient margin in their 17 GHz band 

telemetry links in the presence of the 

interfering DBS signal. 

14. Add § 25.263 to subpart C to read 

as follows: 

§ 25.263 Special coordination 

requirements for DBS feeder link earth 

stations to protect 17/24 GHz BSS receiving 

earth stations. 

(a) Coordination with 17/24 GHz BSS 

receiving earth stations. Feeder-link 

earth station applicant planning to 

operate in the 17.3–17.8 GHz band shall 

coordinate the proposed frequency 

usage with 17/24 GHz BSS receiving 

earth stations, including 17/24 GHz BSS 

TT&C earth stations, in accordance with 

the procedures set forth in § 25.251. 

(b) In computing the coordination 

distance for the transmitting DBS 

feeder-link earth station, the applicant 

shall use the following technical 

parameters: 

Parameter(s) Value Description 

Orbit .............................................................. GSO ....... Orbit in which the space service in which receiving earth station operates (GSO or 

NGSO). 

Modulation at receiving earth station ........... [TBD] ...... Analog or digital. 

Receiving earth station interference parameters and criteria: 

po (%) .................................................... [TBD] ...... Percentage of the time during which interference from all sources may exceed the 

threshold value. 

n ............................................................ [TBD] ...... Number of equivalent, equal level, equal probability entries of interference, assumed 

to be uncorrelated for small percentages of the time. 

p(%) ....................................................... [TBD] ...... Percentage of the time during which the interference from one source may exceed the 

permissible interference power value; since the entries of interference are not likely 

to occur simultaneously, p= po/n 

NL (dB) .................................................. [TBD] ...... Link noise contribution. 

Ms (dB) .................................................. [TBD] ...... Link performance margin. 

W (dB) ................................................... [TBD] ...... A thermal noise equivalence factor for interfering emissions in the reference bandwidth; it is positive when the interfering emissions would cause more degradation 

than thermal noise. 

Receiving earth station parameters: 

Gm (dBi) ................................................. [TBD] ...... On-axis gain of the receive earth station antenna. 

Gr ........................................................... [TBD] ...... Horizon antenna gain for the receive earth station. 

emin ........................................................ [TBD] ...... Minimum elevation angle of operation in degrees. 

Te (K) ..................................................... [TBD] ...... The thermal noise temperature of the receiving system at the terminal of the receiving 

antenna. 

Reference Bandwidth: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 2, 2006 / Proposed Rules 43703 

Parameter(s) Value Description 

B (Hz) .................................................... [TBD] ...... Reference bandwidth (Hz), i.e., the bandwidth in the receiving station that is subject to 

the interference and over which the power of the interfering emission can be averaged. 

Permissible interference power: 

Pr(p) (dBW) in B .................................... [TBD] ...... Permissible interference power of the interfering emission (dBW) in the reference 

bandwidth to be exceeded no more than p% of the time at the receiving antenna 

terminal of a station subject to interference, from a single source of interference, 

using the general formula: 

Pr(p) = 10 log (k Te B) + NL + 10 log (10 Ms/10 ¥1)¥W. 

(c) The feeder-link earth station 

applicant shall provide each such 17/24 

GHz BSS licensee, and prior-filed 

applicant with the technical details of 

the proposed earth station and the 

relevant coordination distance 

calculations that were made. At a 

minimum, the earth station applicant 

shall provide the 17/24 GHz BSS 

licensee, and/or prior filed applicants 

with the following technical 

information: 

(1) The geographical coordinates of 

the proposed earth station antenna(s); 

(2) Proposed operating frequency 

band(s) and emission(s); 

(3) Antenna center height above 

ground and ground elevation above 

mean sea level; 

(4) Antenna gain pattern(s) in the 

plane of the main beam; 

(5) Longitude range of geostationary 

satellite orbit (GSO) satellites at which 

antenna may be pointed, for proposed 

earth station antenna(s) accessing GSO 

satellites; 

(6) Horizon elevation plot; 

(7) Antenna horizon gain plot(s) 

determined in accordance with the 

procedure in Section 2.1 of Annex 5 to 

Appendix 7; 

(8) Minimum elevation angle; 

(9) Maximum equivalent isotropically 

radiated power (e.i.r.p.) density in the 

main beam in any [TBD] Hz band; 

(10) Maximum available RF transmit 

power density in any [TBD] Hz band at 

the input terminals of the antenna(s); 

(11) Maximum permissible RF 

interference power level as determined 

in accordance with Annex 7 to 

Appendix 7 for all applicable 

percentages of time; and 

(12) A plot of the coordination 

distance contour(s) and rain scatter 

coordination distance contour(s) as 

determined by Table 2 of Section 3 to 

Appendix 7. 

[FR Doc. 06–6630 Filed 8–1–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 06–1451; MB Docket No. 05–229; RM–

10780] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Madisonville and Rosebud, TX 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal. 

SUMMARY: This document, at the request 

of Petitioner Charles Crawford, 

dismisses his pending petition for 

rulemaking to allot Channel 267A at 

Rosebud, Texas. The dismissed proposal 

would have required a change in 

reference coordinates for Channel 267A 

at Madisonville, Texas, and the 

reclassification of Station KNUE(FM), 

Tyler, Texas to a Class C0 facility. The 

document therefore terminates this 

proceeding. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Helen McLean, Media Bureau (202) 

418–2738. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, MB Docket No. 05–229, 

adopted July 12, 2006, and released July 

14, 2006. The full text of this 

Commission decision is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center (Room CY–A257), 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. This document may also be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractors, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, 

telephone 1–800–378–3160 or http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. This document is 

not subject to the Congressional Review 

Act. (The Commission, is, therefore, not 

required to submit a copy of this Report 

and Order to the Government 

Accountability Office, pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

Section 801(a)(1)(A) since this proposed 

rule is dismissed, herein.) 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E6–12319 Filed 8–1–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

49 CFR Parts 1111, 1114, 1115 and 

1244 

[STB Ex Parte No. 646 (Sub-No. 1)] 

Simplified Standards for Rail Rate 

Cases 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation 

Board has instituted a proceeding to 

seek public comments on proposed 

changes to revise and clarify its 

guidelines for deciding small rate cases. 

In particular, the Board proposes to: 

create a simplified stand-alone cost 

(Simplified-SAC) method to be used in 

medium-size rate disputes for which a 

full stand-alone cost (Full-SAC) 

presentation would be too costly, given 

the value of the case; retain the ThreeBenchmark method for small rate 

disputes for which a Simplified-SAC 

presentation would be too costly; and 

establish eligibility presumptions to 

distinguish between large, medium-size, 

and small rail rate disputes. These 

changes are intended to advance 

Congress’ mandate to ‘‘establish a 

simplified and expedited method for 

determining the reasonableness of 

challenged rail rates in those cases in 

which a full SAC presentation is too 

costly, given the value of the case.’’ 49 

U.S.C. 10701(d)(3). 

DATES: Notices of intent to participate 

are due on September 1, 2006. 

Comments are due on September 29, 

2006. Replies are due on October 30, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS