[Federal Register: August 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 162)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 46939-46949]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22au07-38]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2 and 25
[IB Docket No. 06-123; FCC 07-76]
Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-
Satellite Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission initiates a Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) to address technical issues
related to potential interference unique to the ``reverse band''
operating environment in the 17/24 GHz BSS. In the NPRM in this
proceeding, the Commission sought comment on what measures were needed
to address issues concerning reverse band operations. These included
measures to mitigate against space-path interference between DBS and
17/24 GHz BSS satellites (space-path interference) and to protect 17/24
GHz BSS subscribers from DBS feeder links (ground-path interference).
The record on these issues is insufficient to develop requirements.
While most commenters advocate certain general approaches, we need more
information to build on the generalities and derive specific
requirements. Thus, we seek further comment on the issues concerning
reverse band operations.
DATES: Comments are due on or before November 5, 2007 and reply
comments are due on or before December 5, 2007. Public and agency
comments on the Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (IFRA) analysis
are due October 22, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 06-123,
by any of the following methods:
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.
[[Page 46940]]
Mail: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 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: Andrea Kelly (202) 418-7877, 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
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in IB Docket No. 06-123,
FCC 07-76, adopted May 2, 2007 and released on May 4, 2007. The full
text of the FNPRM 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 rules
adopted in the R&O and the proposals considered in the FNPRM. The text
of the IRFA is set forth in Appendix H of the R&O and FNPRM. Written
public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be filed in
accordance with the same filing deadlines for comments on the FNPRM,
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 22, 2007. 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: 3060-1097.
Title: Service Rules and Policies for the Broadcasting Satellite
Service (BSS).
Form No.: Not Applicable.
Type of Review: On-going collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit 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 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 FNPRM, 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 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: In the NPRM, the
Commission sought comment on what measures were needed to address
issues concerning reverse band operations. These included measures to
mitigate against space-path interference between DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS
satellites (space-path interference) and to protect 17/24 GHz BSS
subscribers from DBS feeder links (ground-path interference). The
record on these issues is insufficient to develop requirements. While
most commenters advocate certain general approaches, we need more
information to build on the generalities and derive specific
requirements. Thus, we seek further comment on the issues concerning
reverse band operations.
2. Ground-Path Interference in Reverse Band Operations. As
discussed in the NPRM, ground path interference 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. Although at present there are a relatively small
number of DBS feeder link and TT&C earth stations, the NPRM recognized
that DBS feeder link earth stations that transmit in the Earth-to-space
direction may increasingly locate in populated areas, thereby
escalating the potential for interference into 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber
antennas. The NPRM also anticipated that 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 NPRM also raised concerns that the interference problem could be
further exacerbated by the
[[Page 46941]]
proliferation of small-diameter 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber receiving
antennas with relatively poor off-axis discrimination properties.
3. Grandfathering Existing DBS Uplink Facilities. DIRECTV notes
that, although DBS operators have recently sought authority for
additional feeder link earth stations to uplink local broadcast signals
from regional collection sites, the number of such sites is still very
small. DIRECTV states, by way of illustration, that it operates DBS
feeder links from only four sites across the country, and has no plans
for additional regional sites. DIRECTV proposes that we ``grandfather''
licensed and operating DBS uplink facilities so that they may continue
to operate in the manner in which they were designed in reliance on the
rules then in effect. Accordingly, DIRECTV does not support off-axis
EIRP density or other transmitting power limits for existing DBS feeder
link antennas, or a requirement that such be shielded. EchoStar also
advocates ``grandfathering'' of existing DBS feeder link earth
stations, arguing that there are relatively few in number, and that the
majority are located in less populated areas so that they pose little
problem.
4. The Commission did not discuss this issue in the NPRM.
Nevertheless, based on the record, we tentatively conclude that
existing DBS feeder link earth stations should not be subject to new
interference-mitigation requirements imposed as a result of this
rulemaking. Accordingly, we intend to define an area around existing
DBS feeder link earth stations that transmit in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band,
within which 17/24 GHz BSS receiving earth stations cannot claim
protection from the DBS feeder uplink transmissions. We discuss this
issue in more detail below.
5. Protection Zones for Existing DBS Uplink Facilities. We propose
to limit any protection zone to some area surrounding the specific
geographic location and frequencies within the 17.3-17.7 GHz BSS band
in which the DBS feeder link earth station licensee is already
authorized to transmit. In addition, we agree that the feeder link
operator should have some ability to upgrade facilities at existing
sites, as long as the modification does not cause any increase in
interference to 17/24 GHz BSS receiving antennas outside of the defined
protection zone.
6. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions and on how a
protection zone should be defined. One option is to define the boundary
of the protection zone as a fixed distance away from the coordinates of
the DBS Feeder Link Earth Station. DIRECTV presents an analysis
demonstrating that, in the absence of shielding, the separation
distance between a DBS feeder link earth station and a receiving 17/24
GHz subscriber antenna can become significant, i.e., on the order of 22
miles. EchoStar suggests that likely separation distances necessary to
mitigate groundpath interference are on the order of 10 to 60 miles.
SES Americom states that levels of interference could be harmful if the
subscriber earth station is located within 20-30 km (12.5-18.6 miles)
of the DBS feeder link station.
7. We note too that the DBS feeder link earth station's
transmissions will not be equal in all directions, but will vary in
part as a function of azimuth and elevation angle, and this picture may
be complicated by the presence of multiple transmitting antennas at a
particular site. In addition, we recognize that different areas of the
country will have differing climate, rainfall and terrain conditions
that will also mitigate groundpath interference. Accordingly, a second
option is to employ a more detailed methodology that takes into account
these site-specific characteristics, rather than impose a uniform
radius around the earth station coordinates. Parties supporting this
approach should explain in detail how exactly they would adjust for
climate, rainfall, or terrain conditions, or any other variables that
they believe should be reflected in the protection zone.
8. Thus, we invite comment on each of the two protection zone
options set forth above: (1) To set the boundary at some fixed distance
from the DBS feeder link earth station; or (2) to adjust that boundary
to account for climate, terrain, or other considerations. We also seek
comment on any other approaches we might adopt. Commenting parties
should provide specific details on any such proposal.
9. Upgrades to Grandfathered Facilities. EchoStar urges the
Commission to make clear that any protection is afforded to existing
DBS uplink sites, and not just to currently licensed earth stations to
protect the operator's ability to expand their existing uplink sites.
EchoStar argues that this approach would promote efficiency by reducing
the number of new geographically diverse sites. Specifically, EchoStar
proposes that ``grandfathering'' would apply both to existing earth
stations and to new earth stations located ``within a mile of the
easternmost, westernmost, northernmost and southernmost coordinates of
existing earth stations in each site.'' We seek comment on EchoStar's
proposal to extend ``grandfathered'' status to any new earth stations
located within a mile of an existing earth station site. Parties
commenting on this proposal should explain in detail the reasons for
their positions. Among other things, we invite comment on whether, and
to what extent, adding new DBS feeder link earth stations within a mile
of an existing DBS feeder link earth station is likely to increase the
probability of harmful interference to 17/24 GHz BSS receivers.
10. As an alternative approach, we could define a pfd level at the
boundary of the protection zone that would take into account the
cumulative effect of any modified operations of the existing earth
station site. If these modified operations do not exceed this pfd
level, the modification would not be subject to the new coordination
requirements. We seek comment on this approach. We also seek comment on
what pfd level at the boundary might be suitable.
11. Coordination between DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS Operators.
Commenters addressing the issue of new DBS feeder link earth stations
recognize that to protect the interests of 17/24 GHz BSS consumers,
these earth stations will need to be subject to some restrictions. As
detailed below, we seek comment on developing a coordination zone and a
coordination methodology.
12. Coordination Zone. In the NPRM, the Commission observed that
its rules do not contain a procedure to coordinate co-frequency, DBS
feeder link earth stations with BSS subscriber terminals. Consequently,
the Commission proposed to establish ``coordination zones'' or, in
other words, areas around DBS feeder link earth stations in which
coordination would be required. The Commission proposed to define these
areas based on the methodology outlined in Annex 3 of Appendix 7 of the
ITU Radio Regulations.
13. The Commission further observed that it had used Appendix 7 as
the basis of other coordination rules it had adopted. The Commission
also noted, however, that Table 9b of Appendix 7, which includes data
needed for determining the coordination zone for services in several
frequency bands, does not include some data needed for determining the
coordination zone for services in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. Accordingly,
the Commission invited parties to recommend data for a table based on
Table 9b that would allow operators to calculate coordination areas for
the 17.3-17.8 GHz band in a way comparable to the method operators in
other frequency bands use Table 9b to determine their coordination
distances.
[[Page 46942]]
14. Consistent with our proposal in the NPRM, we tentatively
conclude that use of the procedure in Table 9b to establish the
coordination zone for DBS feeder link earth stations and BSS subscriber
terminals is appropriate. In this FNPRM, we seek comment on the
specific values for Table 9b as set forth below. We seek comment on the
appropriateness of this approach. Parties proposing an alternative set
of values should provide a detailed justification for those values.
Table 9b.--Parameters Required for the Determination of Coordination Distance for a Transmitting Earth Station
in Bands Shared Bidirectionally With Receiving Earth Stations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ................................... N................. Analog or digital.
station.
Receiving earth station p0 (%)............................. 0.003............. Percentage of the time
interference parameters and during which
criteria. interference from all
sources may exceed
the threshold value.
N.................................. 2................. Number of equivalent,
equal level, equal
probability entries
of interference,
assumed to be
uncorrelated for
small percentages of
the time.
p (%).............................. 0.0015............ 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=p0/
n.
NL (dB)............................ 1................. Link noise
contribution.
Ms (dB)............................ 5................. Link performance
margin.
W (dB)............................. 0................. 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 Gm (dBi)........................... 36................ On-axis gain of the
parameters. receive earth station
antenna.
Gr................................. 10................ Horizon antenna gain
for the receive earth
station.
[egr]min........................... 5[deg]............ Minimum elevation
angle of operation in
degrees.
Te (K)............................. 300K.............. The thermal noise
temperature of the
receiving system at
the terminal of the
receiving antenna.
See 2.1 of Annex 7 to
Appendix 7 of the ITU
Radio Regulations
which provides a
default value for two
earth stations
operating in opposite
directions of
transmission at
frequencies greater
than 17/24 GHz.
Reference Bandwidth............ B (Hz)............................. 1.0x10\6\......... 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................... -139.5............ 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. DIRECTV proposes that the Commission establish a coordination
zone around any new DBS feeder uplink earth stations and that within
this zone, a new the DBS operator would be required to coordinate its
operations with 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber earth stations. DIRECTV
asserts further that this process would be greatly facilitated if new
DBS uplink facilities were required to operate with strict pfd limits
on transmissions toward the horizon and/or to employ shielding.
Although DIRECTV suggests that this coordination zone could be
relatively large (e.g., 10 km) it proposes no specific methodology for
how such a zone might be defined, nor does it propose pfd limits in the
direction of the horizon.
16. However, EchoStar proposes that, rather than defining a
coordination zone, the Commission should define an area around any new
DBS feeder link earth station within which 17/24 GHz BSS earth stations
would become, in effect, secondary to the DBS operation and thus would
required to accept all interference. For this reason, EchoStar contends
that the methodology of Appendix 7 is not likely to determine
particularly realistic separation distances, as it is intended to
calculate threshold separations to initiate coordination. EchoStar also
contends that there are several other methodologies that the Commission
might consider for determining the spacing between DBS feeder link
stations and 17/24 GHz BSS earth stations. Specifically, EchoStar
suggests that ITU-R Recommendation P.452 defines a general propagation
model that could be applied, and ITU-R Recommendation S.1712, although
intended for the 14 GHz band, might provide additional useful
methodologies that could be extrapolated to the 17 GHz band. In
addition, EchoStar proposes that the choice of methodology for
computing the separation distance should be left to the operators
concerned.
17. Accordingly, we seek comment on the above proposals, and which,
if any we should adopt to facilitate reverse-band operations in the 17
GHz band. As an initial matter, we request interested parties to
discuss whether the Commission should adopt a coordination zone of any
type, or whether the defined zone should be an area in which the 17/24
GHz BSS is secondary to DBS as EchoStar recommends. We invite
interested parties to discuss whether they prefer to define such a zone
using a methodology
[[Page 46943]]
based on Appendix 7, Annex 3 as proposed in the NPRM, or based on one
of the ITU recommendations suggested by EchoStar (i.e., ITU-R
Recommendation P.452 or S.1712). We request comment on all these
proposals, and invite commenters to propose different coordination or
separation distances, provided that they can provide adequate
justification on the record for their proposals.
18. In addition, we seek comment on whether we should permit
operators to determine jointly among themselves the choice of
methodology to calculate the corresponding separation distance as
EchoStar suggests. We also seek comment on how, under this approach,
established 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber antennas might be protected from
interference from newer DBS feeder link operations seeking to locate
nearby. Such parties should explain in detail why they support their
preferred methodology, and why they believe their methodology is
superior to other options. Finally, we invite parties to recommend the
appropriate parameter values necessary to employ the method they
support.
19. Coordination Methodology. We invite comment here on the
methodology to be used within that zone to coordinate DBS feeder links
and 17/24 GHz BSS earth stations, should the Commission adopt a
coordination zone as discussed above. The NPRM envisioned that both DBS
operators and 17/24 GHz BSS operators 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 made a similar observation in the MVDDS Second R&O, in which
it addressed a frequency sharing situation that presented ground path
interference issues and gradual build-out of interspersed earth
stations similar to those we envision in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band.
20. 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, among other
things, a coordination procedure that requires that a MVDDS operator
entering a market where DBS receivers are already established must
satisfy certain requirements in order to protect these customers. 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. The NPRM sought 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. We seek
further comment here. Specifically we ask whether we should adopt
service rules similar to those in Sec. 25.203(c), requiring all
applications for new (non-grandfathered) DBS feeder link earth stations
or new 17 GHz transmitting TT&C stations to complete prior frequency
coordination with existing and planned 17/24 GHz BSS receiving
stations.
21. The Commission recognizes that requiring 17/24 GHz BSS
operators to make available a list of their subscriber earth stations
raises issues of sensitive customer information, particularly if the
DBS feeder link applicant is also a competitor. Accordingly, we
tentatively conclude that use of a neutral, third-party frequency
coordinator is appropriate to assuage such concerns. Thus, we propose
that, prior to filing an application with the Commission, a DBS
operator planning a new feeder link earth station or 17 GHz
transmitting TT&C station must provide certain specified technical
information to a qualified frequency coordinator. The frequency
coordinator would make this technical information available to all
licensed 17/24 GHz operators. Interested parties could obtain both a
list of potentially-affected and active 17/24 GHz BSS customer
locations that are within a defined coordination area, as well as a
list of potentially-affected 17/24 GHz TT&C earth stations for which
applications are on file with the Commission within the defined
coordination area. The 17/24 GHz BSS operators would be required to
provide these lists within 30 days upon receipt of the new DBS feeder
link earth station technical information and the notice. A DBS operator
would be allowed to file an application with the Commission for a new
DBS feeder link or TT&C transmitting earth station within 6 months of
successfully completing coordination with all stations on these lists.
If the Commission grants a license for the newly proposed 17 GHz
transmitting station, any 17/24 GHz receiving earth station not on
these lists would be unable to claim protection from this new DBS
feeder link earth station. We seek comment on this proposal, and on the
method that should be employed to calculate such a coordination area.
22. We also seek comment on the types of technical information DBS
feeder link earth station operators should make available for the
purposes of earth station coordination with 17/24 GHz BSS operators. In
the case of satellite and terrestrial earth station coordination,
Commission rules now require that all transmitting satellite earth
station applicants submit an interference analysis as required by Sec.
25.203 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 25.203(c)(2). Sec.
25.203(c)(2) requires that the earth station applicant provide each
terrestrial station licensee with specific technical details.
Similarly, we propose that DBS feeder link earth station applicants
provide the following information to the qualified frequency
coordinator:
i. The geographical coordinates of the proposed earth station
antenna(s);
ii. Proposed operating frequency band(s) and emission(s);
iii. Antenna diameter (meters);
iv. Antenna center height above ground and ground elevation above
mean sea level;
v. Antenna gain pattern(s) in the plane of the main beam;
vi. Longitude range of geostationary satellite orbit (GSO)
satellites at which an antenna may be pointed, for proposed earth
station antenna(s) accessing GSO satellites;
vii. Horizon elevation plot;
viii. Antenna horizon gain plot(s) determined in accordance with
the procedure in section 2.1 of Annex 5 to Appendix 7 of the ITU Radio
Regulations;
ix. Minimum elevation angle;
x. Maximum equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) density
in the main beam in any MHz band;
xi. Maximum available RF transmit power density in any 1 MHz band
at the input terminals of the antenna(s);
xii. 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.
23. We ask what reference bandwidths would be appropriate in items
(x) and (xi). In addition, we seek comment on whether the parameters
listed here or other technical information would be appropriate to
provide in order to facilitate coordination between new DBS feeder link
earth stations and receiving 17/24 GHz BSS antennas.
24. Other Measures to Protect 17/24 GHz BSS Operations. In addition
to the protection zone and coordination requirements proposed above,
some commenters assert that further measures are necessary to protect
17/24 GHz BSS earth stations from harmful interference from DBS feeder
link earth stations. Those measures include: (1) Limits on DBS feeder
link earth station EIRP toward the horizon; (2) placement of
[[Page 46944]]
new DBS feeder link facilities in low-population density areas; (3)
technical showing requirements for co-located DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS
earth stations; and (4) antenna shielding requirements. These proposed
approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and it is entirely
possible that we might employ several methods in combination with each
other, as well as adopting the protection zone and coordination
requirements discussed above. Moreover, as DIRECTV correctly notes, a
decision to employ one approach may influence the extent to which we
simultaneously apply another. However, no commenter has been specific
in its proposals, nor provided a comprehensive approach necessary to
definitively address the issue. Consequently, we do not believe that
the record is sufficiently developed so that we may determine whether
to adopt requirements at this time.
25. Accordingly, we invite further comment on each of the
additional measures suggested by commenters. In particular, commenters
supporting any of these proposals should explain in detail why that
additional measure would be necessary to protect 17/24 GHz BSS earth
stations from harmful interference, in the event that we adopt
coordination procedures of the kind discussed above. Moreover, such
commenters should discuss whether they support adoption of all the
additional measures discussed here, or whether some of the additional
measures would provide adequate protection from harmful interference.
26. Power Level Limits. In the NPRM, the Commission noted that
Sec. 25.204(b) of the Commission's rules places limits on earth
station EIRP in bands above 15 GHz shared coequally with terrestrial
radiocommunication services, in order to facilitate sharing with these
services. The Commission sought comment on whether the Commission
should extend this requirement to new DBS feeder link earth stations
operating in the entire 17.3-17.7 GHz band. The Commission also asked
whether the EIRP density limits in Sec. 25.204(b) through (e) would be
sufficient to protect 17/24 GHz BSS earth stations, or if DBS feeder
link earth stations should meet some more stringent requirements. We
seek further comment on these questions.
27. Under EchoStar's power limit proposal, new DBS earth stations
would be constrained only in terms of EIRP density toward the horizon.
We invite comment on whether any such limit would be necessary if we
adopt a coordination procedure as discussed above. Alternatively, we
ask whether the adoption of EIRP density limits toward the horizon
would obviate the need for coordination procedures. Advocates of EIRP
density limits should include a specific limit in their discussions,
and advocates of both approaches should provide adequate justification
for their recommendations.
28. Restrictions on Placement of New DBS Earth Stations. DIRECTV
and EchoStar advocate requiring DBS feeder link earth station operators
to locate their earth stations only in areas of low population density.
Although neither define precisely how such sparely populated locations
would be determined, DIRECTV notes that counties with populations less
that ten people per square mile comprise a significant portion of the
contiguous United States. We seek comment on this approach, either
alone, or in conjunction with other proposals, and ask how the
Commission should determine what constitutes a low-population density
site. We also request parties to explain how DBS feeder link operators
would be able to protect 17/24 GHz BSS consumer earth stations that are
already deployed in these areas.
29. EchoStar makes its proposal to restrict new DBS feeder link
earth stations to low population-density areas in conjunction with its
proposal to require those earth stations to meet strict off-axis EIRP
density limits towards the horizon. Presumably however, even areas of
low population density may contain 17/24 GHz BSS subscribers. Thus,
although this approach might be applied to new DBS feeder uplink
stations locating in areas yet unoccupied by 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber
earth stations, EchoStar does not make clear how subscriber terminals
would be protected if the DBS applicant sought to locate in an area
where 17/24 GHz BSS consumer earth stations were already deployed. We
request commenters to address this issue.
30. Technical Showing Requirement for Co-Located Earth Stations.
The NPRM also addressed groundpath interference that may occur between
transmitting DBS feeder uplinks and the receiving telemetry stations of
17/24 GHz BSS systems that choose to locate their TT&C facilities at or
near to existing DBS feeder uplink sites. The Commission recognized
that 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. Moreover, given the large financial
investment required to launch and operate a satellite, we believe that
17/24 GHz BSS operators have strong incentive to make correct technical
decisions with regard to their choice of TT&C facility sites and
equipment design. However, the NPRM also recognized that interference
into TT&C systems can present a serious problem due to the potential
for loss of satellite control, and sought comment on whether the
Commission should adopt requirements to guard against such scenarios.
31. Specifically, the Commission proposed to require earth station
applicants planning to co-locate their 17/24 GHz BSS TT&C stations with
DBS feeder link 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.
Similarly, the Commission proposed to require DBS feeder link earth
station applicants planning to co-locate with their 17/24 GHz BSS
telemetry earth stations to make an analogous technical showing to the
Commission. The Commission sought comment on these proposals and asked
what parameters would be appropriate in such a showing. It also asked
whether it should preclude co-location of 17 GHz BSS TT&C and DBS
feeder link facilities altogether, or whether it should require some
minimum separation between such facilities.
32. DIRECTV responds that, with careful planning, it should be
possible to coordinate the operations of these two services, even to
the point where the facilities can be co-located. Accordingly, DIRECTV
does not believe that the Commission should limit operator flexibility
by precluding such co-location or by requiring some minimum separation
distance. Rather, DIRECTV supports the Commission's proposal that
operators seeking to co-locate such facilities should be required to
make a technical showing demonstrating their ability to maintain
sufficient margin in the 17/24 GHz BSS telemetry links in the presence
of the interfering DBS signal. DIRECTV asserts that this will enable
those operators who want to capture the efficiencies of co-location to
do so, provided they can prove to the Commission that receipt of
critical 17/24 GHz BSS telemetry data will not be subject to
disruption. EchoStar also believes that such interference can be
avoided by careful frequency planning of the 17 GHz uplink and downlink
signals, and believes that this frequency planning can be conducted by
the operator alone, within its own earth station complex. Accordingly,
we will restate the proposal to require a technical showing to the
Commission in the event of co-location of DBS feeder link and 17/24
[[Page 46945]]
GHz BSS telemetry earth stations, and seek any further comment on the
issue.
33. Shielding. We also seek comment on whether we should impose any
additional requirements on either DBS feeder link earth station
operators or on 17/24 GHz BSS operators in order to mitigate
interference into 17/24 GHz BSS subscriber receiving antennas. We ask
whether, as most commenters suggest, a requirement to employ shielding
should be adopted in conjunction with any of the approaches discussed
above, and if so what form such a requirement might take.
34. Space Path Interference in Reverse Band Operations. The NPRM
sought comment on how best to manage the problem of space path
interference arising when the transmitted signals from 17/24 GHz BSS
satellites are received by the feeder link receivers on satellites
operating in the DBS service. In addition, the NPRM sought comment on
the particular instance where applicants sought to locate within the
same cluster as co-frequency receiving DBS satellites and asked whether
this was feasible at all, and if so what measures might be required to
facilitate such co-clustering. The Commission also sought comment on
the more general question of locating 17/24 GHz BSS satellites at close
distances to co-frequency DBS satellites and asked what measures,
including a minimum orbital separation requirement, off-axis EIRP
limits, antenna discrimination requirements, or other requirements
might be adopted to protect DBS receiving antennas from unacceptable
interference. Finally, the NPRM sought comment on the particular
problem of interference to DBS TT&C transmissions in the 17 GHz band
that could result in loss of satellite control. The Commission proposed
to require 17/24 GHz BSS space station applicants seeking to co-locate
with DBS satellites to make a technical showing demonstrating their
ability to sufficiently minimize interference such that adequate margin
is maintained in the DBS telecommand links. An analogous requirement
was proposed for any future DBS applicant seeking to co-locate with 17/
24 BSS satellites to make a similar technical showing demonstrating its
ability to maintain sufficient TT&C link margin.
35. Commenters addressing these issues all realize the potential
for space path interference between 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS satellites,
but generally maintain that co-location is feasible at relatively small
orbital separations, typically on the order of a few tenths of a
degree. EchoStar asserts that a separation of 0.4 degrees is
sufficient, however only if the DBS and 17/24 BSS satellites are
operated by the same licensee. EchoStar argues that the risk of
interference in such situations is most severe, and is best avoided by
assigning space-to-Earth frequencies at that location only to the 17/24
GHz BSS operator that uses these same frequencies in the Earth-to-space
direction for its DBS feeder link operations. DIRECTV also believes
that co-frequency operation may be possible at small orbital
separations, but that this will depend upon a number of factors
including the gain toward the GSO of both transmitting and receiving
satellites as well as the desired protection level of the DBS system.
DIRECTV also believes that given the many uncertainties involved, it is
best to permit only operators who control transmissions in both
directions at a given location to locate in close proximity as they can
best ``self coordinate'' their operations. DIRECTV also suggest that
the Commission may want to consider a strict off-axis gain
specification for 17/24 GHz BSS satellites wishing to locate within a
certain distance of a DBS satellite.
36. SES Americom and Intelsat oppose the idea that 17/24 GHz BSS
satellites seeking to operate at the same frequency and location as DBS
satellites should only be licensed to the corresponding DBS licensee,
arguing that this restriction is unnecessary and unfairly favors
incumbent DBS operators. SES Americom believes that spacepath
interference issues can be resolved through the use of offset orbital
locations and coordination between operators. Similarly, Intelsat
believes that a four-degree orbital spacing plan with small offsets in
combination with coordination between operators will be sufficient to
mitigate spacepath interference issues between closely spaced 17/24 GHz
BSS and DBS satellites. In section III. D. of this Order, we require
17/24 GHz BSS satellite licensees to design their satellites to be
capable of operating in a four-degree spacing environment. We will
license satellites in this band only if they comply with the orbital
spacing rules we adopt in this Order.
37. EchoStar also proposes that the spacepath interference into DBS
receivers can be managed by establishing a pfd value at the victim
(i.e., DBS) receiver above which coordination is required.
Specifically, EchoStar proposes a pfd threshold level at the victim
satellite receiver of -93 dBW/m\2\/24 MHz and derives this value from
the ITU 6% [Delta]T/T requirement used to determine the need for
coordination between Administrations, contained in Appendix 30A of the
Radio Regulations. EchoStar also proposes that the Commission should
require a minimum separation between DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites
of at least 0.2-0.3 degrees, although these parameters might be relaxed
in the event of agreement among all affected parties.
38. We concur with EchoStar's proposed approach to managing
spacepath interference between 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS satellites by
requiring coordination when pfd values are exceeded at the DBS
satellite receiver. This approach is consistent with the method used by
the ITU, See Annex 4 of Appendix 30A of the ITU Radio Regulations, and
has proved workable for international coordination of satellite
systems. However, as EchoStar notes, its proposed pfd value depends in
part on certain assumptions about the DBS off-axis receiving antenna
gain and may not afford sufficient to protection to all systems,
particularly as DBS off-axis antenna gain patterns are not necessarily
well known. Accordingly, in order to protect receiving DBS satellites
from unacceptable levels of interference, we propose to adopt an off-
axis pfd coordination trigger of -93 dBW/m\2\/24 MHz at the DBS
receiving antenna. Coordination with affected co-frequency licensees,
both existing and planned, would be required in the event that the 17/
24 GHz BSS satellite exceeds this level at the DBS receiving antenna;
coordination would not be required in cases where no frequency overlap
occurs. We seek comment on this proposal and ask whether it is
sufficient to protect existing DBS operations from interference, or
whether some other approach or additional requirement might better
protect DBS receiving antennas from unwanted spacepath interference. We
also ask how such a requirement might apply to future DBS operations
that might be affected, including in particular any replacement
satellites.
39. We also seek comment on the particular information that 17/24
GHz BSS applicants should be required to submit to the Commission.
Clearly, reliable information concerning the off-axis transmitting
antenna gain of the 17/24 GHz BSS satellite will need to be made
available. Presumably this information will need to include all
frequencies in the 17.3-17.7(8) GHz range so that any future DBS
applicant will also have sufficient information to protect its
operations from unwanted interference. We seek comment on what form
this information should take (i.e., measured data, charts, graphs). We
ask whether off-axis gain in the plane of the GSO is sufficient and
over what angular
[[Page 46946]]
range it should be provided (e.g., 30[deg], 45[deg] with respect to the plane passing through the x- and y-
axes of the satellite.)
40. In its reply comments EchoStar also proposes the Commission
adopt a minimum orbital separation between 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS
satellites of 0.2-0.3 degrees. SES Americom also believes that an
orbital offset of at least 0.2-0.3 degrees is necessary for co-
frequency operation of DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites. DIRECTV
however indicates that a minimum orbital separation value as small as
0.05 degrees would be sufficient to permit co-frequency operation,
provided modest care in satellite antenna design is employed. We seek
comment on EchoStar's proposal to require a minimum orbital separation
between co-frequency operation of DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites, and
we ask what separation value is appropriate should we adopt such a
requirement. We also seek comment on whether such a requirement is
necessary should we adopt the pfd threshold and coordination
requirements discussed above, particularly if, as EchoStar suggests,
this separation value might be relaxed by agreement among the affected
operators.
41. Finally, the NPRM sought comment on our proposal to protect DBS
TT&C operations, particularly in recognition of the potential for loss
of satellite control. DIRECTV comments on this proposal, asserting that
the Commission should allow co-location of 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS space
stations only if the affected DBS operator gives its consent, and only
if the 17/24 GHz BSS applicant demonstrates its ability to maintain
sufficient margin in the DBS telecommand links in the presence of the
interfering 17/24 GHz BSS signal. We believe this proposal has merit,
for both 17/24 GHz BSS operators seeking to locate in close proximity
to DBS satellites, and also in the case where DBS operators may seek to
locate in close proximity to established 17/24 BSS GHz satellites.
Accordingly, we propose to adopt a requirement that a 17/24 GHz BSS
applicant proposing to locate its satellite in the vicinity of a DBS
space station make a technical showing to the Commission demonstrating
its ability to sufficiently minimize interference into the DBS systems,
such that adequate margin is maintained in the DBS telecommand links in
the presence of the interfering BSS signal. Similarly we will require
that a DBS applicant proposing to locate its satellite in the vicinity
of existing 17/24 GHz BSS space station make a technical showing to the
Commission demonstrating its ability to maintain sufficient margin in
its telecommand links in the presence of the interfering BSS signal. We
seek comment on these proposals. We ask under what circumstances such a
technical showing should be required, e.g., co-location at less than
some minimum distance, or on the basis of a threshold pfd value. We
seek comment on whether the threshold pfd level of -93 dBW/m\2\/MHz
proposed above is also a suitable coordination trigger for DBS
telecommand links, or whether some other value might be more
appropriate. We also seek comment on the maximum orbital separation
distance at which would be appropriate to require such a technical
showing.
42. SES Americom also commented on 17/24 GHz BSS interference into
DBS telecommand links, stating that issues relating to space path
interference can be resolved through offset of orbital locations and
coordination between the involved operators with respect to TT&C
frequencies. SES Americom also stated that it believes that a frequency
separation of as little as 500 kHz is adequate to prevent interference
from the beacon of a 17/24 GHz BSS satellite into the command carrier
of a DBS space station. We seek comment on whether some minimum
frequency separation is required between the signals transmitted by a
17/24 GHz BSS space station and the telecommand frequencies of DBS
space station located in close proximity to the 17/24 GHz BSS space
station, or a combination of frequency separation and pfd limits, and
what the appropriate parameters would be.
43. Conclusion. We adopt a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to
seek comment on technical issues related to reverse band operations to
address potential interference concerns.
Ex Parte Presentations
44. This 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 two-sentence description of the views
and arguments presented is generally required. Other rules pertaining
to oral and written presentations are set forth in Sec. 1.1206(b) of
the Commission's rules as well.
Paperwork Reduction Act
45. The actions contained herein have been analyzed with respect to
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 at the initiation of the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding, and we have previously received
approval of the associated information collection requirements from the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control No. 3060-1097.
The Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does not
contain any new or modified ``information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
46. 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 Broadcasting-Satellite 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 Broadcasting Satellite Service Operating Bi-
Directionally in the 17.3-17.8 GHz Frequency Band, Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (R&O and FNPRM). 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 FNPRM provided in paragraph 194 of this NPRM. The Commission
will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In
addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published
in the Federal Register.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
47. The objective of the proposed rules is to address potential
interference scenarios which arise in the reverse band operating
environment. In the NPRM, we sought comment on what measures were
needed to address issues concerning reverse band operations. These
included measures to mitigate against space-path interference between
[[Page 46947]]
DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites (space-path interference) and to
protect 17/24 GHz BSS subscribers from DBS feeder links (ground-path
interference). The record on these issues is insufficient to develop
requirements. While most commenters advocate certain general
approaches, we need more information to build on the generalities and
derive specific requirements. Thus, we seek further comment on the
issues concerning reverse band operations.
48. The two types of interference which might occur in the reverse
band operating environment are ground path interference and space path
interference. Ground path interference will occur when the signals from
transmitting DBS feeder link earth stations operating the 17.3-17.7 GHz
band are detected at the receiving earth stations of 17/24 GHz BSS
subscribers. This interference will be the most severe in areas
surrounding the DBS feeder uplink stations. Space path interference
will occur when the transmitted signals from 17/24 GHz BSS satellites
are received by the feeder link receivers on satellites operating in
the DBS service.
49. In order to mitigate against ground path and space path
interference, we are proposing a variety of measures, such as the
establishment of protection zones, coordination zones, power level
limits, geographic restrictions of earth stations, informational
requirements for coordination, and required technical showings.
Legal Basis
50. This NPRM is adopted pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 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.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposals Will Apply
51. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the rules adopted herein. 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.
52. Satellite Telecommunications. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for the two broad census categories of
``Satellite Telecommunications'' and ``Other Telecommunications.''
Under both categories, a business is considered small if it has $13.5
million or less in annual receipts. The category of Satellite
Telecommunications ``comprises establishments primarily engaged in
providing point-to-point telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' For this
category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of
371 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 307 firms
had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 26 firms had receipts of
$10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority
of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be
affected by our action.
53. The category of Other Telecommunications ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in (1) providing specialized
telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking,
communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or (2)
providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities
operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications
systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or receiving
telecommunications from satellite systems.'' For this category, Census
Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 332 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 259 firms had annual
receipts of under $10 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $10
million to $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of
Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be
affected by our action.
54. 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 station licensees
that would constitute a small business under the SBA definition cited
above, or apply any rules providing special consideration for
geostationary space station licensees that are small businesses.
55. 17 GHz Transmitting Earth Stations. Currently there are
approximately 47 operational earth stations in the 17.3-17.7 GHz 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.
56. 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 were 1,397 firms that operated for the entire year.
Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees,
and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under
this category and size standard, the majority of firms can be
considered small.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
57. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission
invites comment on various issues related to the mitigation of harmful
interference in the reverse band operating environment, which is unique
to operation in the 17/24 GHz BSS. None of the proposed methods are
intended to increase the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered
58. 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.
59. The measures proposed are necessary to mitigate against space-
path interference between DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites (space-path
interference) and to protect 17/24 GHz BSS subscribers from DBS feeder
links
[[Page 46948]]
(ground-path interference). The measures include the establishment of
protection zones, coordination zones, power level limits, geographic
restrictions of earth stations, and technical showings. We believe that
these proposals are the most equitable solutions to the potential
interference problems posed by operation in the 17/24 GHz BSS. 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.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
60. None.
Comment Filing Procedures
61. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments in
response to this FNPRM 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. 06-123. 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 24121 (1998).
62. 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 .'' A sample form and directions will
be sent in reply.
63. Parties choosing to file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing in IB Docket No. 06-123. 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, Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-
delivered 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.
64. 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. 06-123), 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.
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. 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 Sec. 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 NPRM in order to facilitate our internal
review process.
68. Commenters who file information that they believe is
proprietary may request confidential treatment pursuant to Sec. 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.
69. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g),
303(r), 303(y), and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g),
303(r), 303(y), 308, this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
adopted.
70. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center shall send a
copy of this Further Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
initial regulatory flexibility analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with
section 603(a) of the Regulatory
[[Page 46949]]
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (1981).
71. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of
this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to
Congress and the General Accountability Office pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 2
Telecommunications.
47 CFR Part 25
Satellites.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-16565 Filed 8-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P