[Federal Register: October 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 205)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60272-60280]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24oc07-17]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 25
[IB Docket No. 06-123; FCC 07-174]
Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-
Satellite Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this Order on Reconsideration, the Federal Communications
Commission (Commission) reconsiders, in part, sua sponte, its Report
and Order in this proceeding in which it adopted processing and service
rules for the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS). In the
Report and Order, the Commission adopted a framework in which 17/24 GHz
BSS space stations would operate at orbital locations spaced at four-
degree intervals, as set forth in Appendix F of the Report and Order.
In this Order on Reconsideration, the Commission provides additional
flexibility to 17/24 GHz BSS space station operators by allowing them
to operate their space stations, upon request, at locations other than
those specified in Appendix F of the Report and Order. Specifically,
the Commission will assign space stations to orbital locations that are
offset from the Appendix F locations by up to one degree, without
requiring them to reduce power or accept additional interference, if
there are no licensed or prior-filed applications for 17/24 GHz BSS
space stations less than four degrees away from the proposed offset
space station.
DATES: Effective November 23, 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 60273]]
Mail: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 Twelfth 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 Order
on Reconsideration in IB Docket No. 06-123, FCC 07-174, adopted
September 28, 2007 and released on September 28, 2007. The full text of
the Order on Reconsideration 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 issued a
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in the Report and Order in
this proceeding. None of the rule revisions adopted by the Commission
in this sua sponte Order on Reconsideration affect the analysis in the
Report and Order. We therefore incorporate by reference the
Commission's prior regulatory flexibility analysis. The text of the
FRFA is set forth in Appendix A of the Report and Order, 72 FR 49999,
August 29, 2007.
Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements
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, 71 FR 43687, August 2, 2006, 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 sua sponte Order on
Reconsideration 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).
Summary of Report and Order
1. In this Order on Reconsideration (Reconsideration Order), we
reconsider, in part, sua sponte, our Report and Order in this
proceeding, in which we adopted processing and service rules for the
17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS). In the Report and
Order, we adopted a framework in which 17/24 GHz BSS space stations
would operate at orbital locations spaced at four-degree intervals, as
set forth in Appendix F of the Report and Order. In this
Reconsideration Order, we provide additional flexibility to 17/24 GHz
BSS space station operators by allowing them to operate their space
stations, upon request, at locations other than those specified in
Appendix F. Specifically, we will assign space stations to orbital
locations that are offset from the Appendix F locations by up to one
degree, without requiring them to reduce power or accept additional
interference, if there are no licensed or prior-filed applications for
17/24 GHz BSS space stations less than four degrees away from the
proposed offset space station.
2. In the Report and Order, we adopted a four-degree orbital
spacing framework and a grid, in Appendix F of the Report and Order,
specifying the locations that could be assigned to 17/24 GHz BSS
satellites. We recognized, however, that it may not be possible to
locate a 17/24 GHz BSS space station precisely at some of the orbital
locations specified in Appendix F of the Report and Order. For example,
due to stationkeeping concerns, it may not be possible to locate a 17/
24 GHz BSS satellite at an Appendix F orbital location already occupied
by other satellites operating in different frequency bands. Further,
because of potential interference, it may not be possible to operate a
17/24 GHz BSS space station at or near locations where another
satellite, such as a U.S.-licensed Direct Broadcast Service (DBS) space
station, is receiving feeder-link signals in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band.
Thus, in the Report and Order, we stated that we would not require that
17/24 GHz BSS space stations be located precisely at the orbital
locations specified in Appendix F. Nevertheless, we required applicants
seeking to operate a 17/24 GHz BSS space station at a location offset
from an Appendix F location to make a technical showing that the
proposed satellite will not cause any more interference to a 17/24 GHz
BSS space station operating at an Appendix F location than would be
caused if the proposed offset space station were positioned precisely
at an Appendix F location. Further, we stated that applicants seeking
to operate at an offset location must agree to accept any increased
interference that may result from operating at that location.
3. Following release of the Report and Order, we received a number
of ex parte filings commenting on the four-degree orbital spacing
framework. Specifically, EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. (EchoStar) requests
that the Commission provide additional flexibility by allowing 17/24
GHz BSS space station operators to operate at locations that are offset
from the Appendix F locations by up to one degree, without reducing
power or accepting any additional interference, if the adjacent
Appendix F location is unassigned. EchoStar also requests that we
require future applicants seeking to operate at an Appendix F location
adjacent to an offset location to protect the offset licensee from
harmful interference. EchoStar states that this additional flexibility
is necessary to compensate for the technical limitations of a small-
dish satellite service such as the 17/24 GHz BSS. Specifically,
EchoStar states that a uniform four-degree spacing framework will not
allow certain operators, particularly those with in-orbit DBS space
stations, to utilize a small, single subscriber antenna that will allow
customers to receive service in both the DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS
frequency bands. EchoStar states that a second consumer dish would be
required to receive signals from two direct-to-home (DTH) satellites
located between 0.7 and 1.8 degrees apart, which would be the case for
the 110[deg] W.L. DBS orbital location and the 111[deg] W.L. 17/24 GHz
BSS Appendix F location, as well as the 61.5[deg] W.L. DBS orbital
location and 63[deg] W.L. 17/24 GHz BSS Appendix F location. As such,
EchoStar claims that it would be required to implement a ``two-dish''
solution or a larger dish at added expense and complexity to dish
design, manufacturing, and installation. EchoStar asserts this would
disparately impact its subscriber base.
4. DIRECTV, Inc. (DIRECTV) filed an ex parte letter stating that it
supports EchoStar's proposal in cases where the adjacent Appendix F
location remains
[[Page 60274]]
unassigned. DIRECTV contends that the Commission should not require
future operators assigned to Appendix F locations to protect operators
at offset locations. DIRECTV does not claim that EchoStar's proposal
would harm its current plans to align its 17/24 GHz BSS space stations
with its Ka-band fixed-satellite service (FSS)-DTH space stations.
Rather, DIRECTV focuses on future applications, asserting that
EchoStar's proposal would technically compromise a number of orbital
locations by rendering them less than optimally functional. DIRECTV
proposes a modified approach whereby a licensee operating at an offset
location would be allowed to operate at full power only until a 17/24
GHz BSS operator is licensed at the adjacent Appendix F location, at
which time the offset operator would have to modify its operations so
that it will not cause harmful interference to the licensee operating
at the Appendix F location. In response to DIRECTV's modified approach,
EchoStar asserts that DIRECTV's proposal does not provide sufficient
certainty that full-power offset operators will be able to continue to
provide quality service using single subscriber antennas. EchoStar
contends that DIRECTV's modified approach is essentially a reversion
back to our Report and Order with respect to how we would treat space
stations operating at offset locations. Furthermore, EchoStar asserts
that its own proposal would not adversely affect DIRECTV's planned use
of the 17/24 GHz BSS band.
5. Further, SES Americom, Inc. (SES Americom) filed an ex parte
letter opposing EchoStar's proposal. SES Americom states that EchoStar
has exaggerated the technical challenges inherent in a uniform four-
degree orbital spacing framework, and asserts that, with relatively
simple system design modifications, the framework can accommodate
single subscriber antennas with dual-band receivers. In addition, SES
Americom agrees with DIRECTV that adopting EchoStar's request would
render a number of Appendix F locations unusable for DTH video service.
Finally, SES Americom states that it would not object to a one-degree
shift to the east for Appendix F locations in the orbital arc from
43[deg] W.L. to 63[deg] W.L. SES Americom further states that this
shift would allow for utilization of a single-feed subscriber antenna
for DBS operations at the 61.5[deg] W.L. orbital location and 17/24 GHz
BSS operations at 62[deg] W.L. In response, EchoStar claims that SES
Americom underestimates the technical concerns EchoStar has with the
four-degree orbital spacing framework adopted in the Report and Order.
EchoStar also notes that the shift proposed by SES Americom would not
address all of EchoStar's concerns at the 110[deg] W.L. and 61.5[deg]
W.L. orbital locations.
6. On July 20, 2007, EchoStar filed an ex parte letter in which it
reiterated that the Commission should afford both current and future
applicants the flexibility to operate at offset locations at full
power. EchoStar asserts that this flexibility may be important for
future applicants that are seeking to co-locate existing or planned
satellites with 17/24 GHz BSS space stations. EchoStar states that its
approach would level the playing field for all current and future
applicants. In addition, EchoStar contends that its proposal may
provide satellite operators with authorizations from other countries
the flexibility to integrate 17/24 GHz BSS service with facilities
operating from orbital locations that do not conform with those in
Appendix F.
7. On September 12, 2007, Telesat Canada filed an ex parte letter
urging the Commission to include two conditions for each 17/24 GHz BSS
authorization. The first condition would make the grant subject to the
licensee coordinating with satellite operators having International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) date priority. The second condition
Telesat requests would make the orbital location specified in the grant
subject to modification to an offset location if necessary to
facilitate coordination with a satellite operator having ITU date
priority.
8. On September 14, 2007, EchoStar filed an ex parte letter
reiterating that licensees should have the flexibility to operate up to
one degree offset from Appendix F locations on a permanent basis at
full power and with full interference protection. EchoStar also
reiterates that ``all satellite providers should be on a level playing
field for new spectrum,'' and that ``all satellite providers need this
spectrum as soon as possible.''
9. On September 19, 2007, DIRECTV filed an ex parte letter
restating its earlier argument that a number of Appendix F locations
would suffer reduced usefulness and claiming that these locations would
experience a 90% reduction in received signal quality, thus requiring
an antenna diameter of 1.1 meter to compensate for this loss. DIRECTV
also restates its claim that operators will have increased incentive to
apply for offset locations due to the likelihood of wider orbital
separation, and that the worst case scenario would produce a 33%
decrease in orbital capacity relative to the current Appendix F plan.
DIRECTV also takes issue with EchoStar's need for a one-degree offset
to remedy its problem, and proposed several alternative solutions
including: Operation at smaller offsets; operation from nearby orbital
locations with use of an additional feed on one of EchoStar's current
antennas; or the use of case-by-case waivers.
10. On September 21, 2007, SES Americom filed an ex parte letter
reiterating its opposition to EchoStar's request for revisions to the
orbital spacing plan adopted in this proceeding and explains ``that
grant of the flexibility requested by EchoStar would fundamentally
undermine the four-degree spacing adopted in the Order.'' SES Americom
also notes ``that [its] affiliate, Ciel Satellite LP, was selected by
Industry Canada to operate in 17/24 GHz spectrum and is expected to
seek U.S. market access once the current application freeze has been
lifted.''
11. On September 25, 2007, SES Americom filed an ex parte letter
opposing EchoStar's proposal, arguing that it would undermine the
certainty established by the Commission's Appendix F plan, and
proposing alternative solutions including small offsets, alternate
locations or the use of waivers.
12. On September 26, 2007, Telesat filed an ex parte letter stating
that it generally supports EchoStar's proposal, because the resulting
additional flexibility potentially could resolve international
coordination issues at orbital locations that are of concern to
Telesat. Telesat asserts that a one degree change may be insufficient
for international coordination purposes. Telesat states that one of the
four 17/24 GHz BSS orbital locations for which it has been authorized,
at 72.5[deg] W.L., will be 1.5[deg] away from the nearest Appendix F
location. Telesat asserts that in the event that EchoStar's proposal is
adopted, departures from Appendix F locations of more than one degree
should be permitted if needed to facilitate international coordination.
13. On September 26, 2007, EchoStar filed an ex parte letter
stating that the current rules frustrate video competition, harm
consumers, and jeopardize delivery of HD services. EchoStar also states
that ``DIRECTV's waiver proposal is not a viable solution'' and that a
uniform four degree spacing plan will lead to higher prices, delays in
the provision of new services, and will force ``consumers to acquire a
second dish.'' EchoStar also contends that DIRECTV's DBS orbital
location line up with the Appendix F locations and EchoStar's do not.
[[Page 60275]]
14. In response, on September 27, 2007, DIRECTV filed an ex parte
letter stating that only three of its five full contiguous United
States (CONUS) orbital locations align with the Appendix F locations.
DIRECTV also argues that the fact that international coordination
presents a challenge in this band ``is all the more reason not to allow
operators to compromise DTH orbital locations that could otherwise be
used in the coordination process to the benefit of all U.S.
licensees.'' DIRECTV also notes that ``EchoStar's own analysis shows
that consumers will not need a second dish to receive signals from a
reverse band satellite that is slightly offset from a DBS orbital
location.''
15. As we explain below, we find, upon reconsideration, that it is
in the public interest to provide additional flexibility in the orbital
spacing framework adopted in the Report and Order. In adopting the
four-degree framework, our primary consideration was to balance the
dual goals of maximizing orbital capacity while minimizing interference
into small-diameter receive antennas. Based on the ex parte
presentations we have received, however, we are persuaded that this
balance would not be disrupted by permitting applicants to operate at
certain locations offset from the Appendix F locations by up to one
degree without being required to reduce power and accept additional
interference.
16. Sour Spot. In the ex parte filings received on this issue,
there is uniform agreement that fundamental principles of antenna
design make it difficult for a small subscriber antenna to receive
signals from two space stations if those space stations are located
between 0.7 and 1.8 degrees apart. We will call this 0.7 to 1.8 range a
``sour spot.'' The parties that filed ex partes, however, draw
different conclusions regarding how to compensate for these sour spots.
EchoStar requests the flexibility to offset future 17/24 GHz BSS space
stations at up to 1 degree while still retaining the ability to
transmit at full power and to receive full interference protection.
DIRECTV and SES Americom both argue that EchoStar's concerns could be
addressed by an offset of less than 1 degree and typically of between
0.3 to 0.5 degrees. DIRECTV argues further that such offsets would
require the offset operator to make only small reductions in power and
would have minimal impact on operations.
17. Assuming DIRECTV's assertion that small offsets would only
require small reductions in power is correct, we find that any
reduction in power to protect a later authorized Appendix F licensee
would unfairly penalize applicants whose existing infrastructure does
not comport with a uniform four-degree spacing framework. Allowing
applicants whose infrastructure is not compatible with the four-degree
spacing framework to use the flexibility we adopt here to operate at
full power will provide consumer with the most competitive service
options. We recognize that all offset operators may not need to take
advantage of full one-degree offsets. Nevertheless, providing the
flexibility for up to a one-degree offset should accommodate the
operating needs of most prospective applicants, such as antenna/dish
configuration, while maintaining the number of orbital slots and
minimizing the impact on satellite capability.
18. Orbital Efficiency. DIRECTV argues that up to a 33% reduction
of spectrum efficiency could result from allowing 17/24 GHz BSS space
station operators to locate their space stations up to one degree from
Appendix F locations at full power and with full interference
protection. DIRECTV bases this assertion on a highly unlikely scenario
that assumes for every three Appendix F locations, a space station is
offset by one degree, another location eight degrees away has a space
station at the Appendix F location, and no operator files for the
location in between. DIRECTV's scenario repeats this pattern across the
Appendix F grid of four-degree locations. In light of the ex partes
received and the interest expressed by operators, we do not expect this
scenario to occur. In addition, as discussed above, we do not believe
that many 17/24 GHz BSS space station operators will need for technical
reasons to avail themselves of the full one-degree offset. Further, as
a practical matter, because an applicant can only utilize this
flexibility if there are no licensed or prior-filed applications for
17/24 GHz BSS space stations less than four degrees away from the
proposed offset space station, use of this flexibility is less likely.
Finally, we note that in the scenario DIRECTV describes, the operator
at the location between the offset satellite and the satellite at the
precise Appendix F location could offset its satellite half a degree
away from the offset satellite and thus achieve 3.5-degree spacing
relative to the other two space stations. Based upon DIRECTV's analysis
of a 0.5 offset, such a 3.5-degree spacing should have minimal impact
on any satellite operations.
19. 10 dB Reduction. DIRECTV argues that allowing a one-degree
offset at full power and with full interference protection results in a
10 dB reduction in carrier-to-interference ratio (C/I) for the 17/24
GHz BSS space station that is required to protect the offset space
station. DIRECTV asserts that operators at the Appendix F orbital
locations closest to a one-degree offset satellite would be so
compromised in performance that these locations would be unlikely to be
used. DIRECTV, however, did not present an analysis of the reduction in
carrier-to-noise-plus-interference ratio (C/(N+I)), which is the more
appropriate signal quality metric that determines the satellite link
performance.
20. Waiver. Finally, both DIRECTV and SES Americom suggest that
where the existing flexibility adopted in our Report and Order is
insufficient, EchoStar and other applicants should avail themselves of
the waiver process under Sec. 1.3 of our rules. As we have concluded,
adopting the flexibility proposed by EchoStar best serves the public
interest. There is no public policy benefit from resolving this issue
in a piecemeal fashion through individual waiver requests. Acting here,
rather than through individual waiver requests, provides regulatory
certainty now to all parties.
21. Consequently, we conclude that adopting the additional
flexibility best addresses concerns regarding the compatibility of 17/
24 GHz BSS orbital locations with the existing DBS infrastructure. This
additional flexibility will allow for an orbital assignment framework
that is better aligned with applicants' existing infrastructure and
plans for launching satellite systems in this band. Providing both
current and future applicants the flexibility to locate their 17/24 GHz
BSS satellites at preferred orbital locations relative to their
existing infrastructure will enable them to serve subscribers with one
small multiple-feed antenna. While we acknowledge that this flexibility
may reduce the number of orbital locations capable of operating at full
power, we conclude that, on balance, the public interest is best served
by affording operators the greatest opportunity to provide expanded DTH
service to customers using a small single antenna.
22. Under our revised orbital spacing framework, we will assign 17/
24 GHz BSS space stations to orbital locations offset from Appendix F
locations by up to one degree, and allow them to operate at full power
and with full interference protection, if there is no 17/24 GHz BSS
space station assigned to, or a prior-filed application requesting
assignment to, an orbital location less than four degrees from the
applicant's proposed offset location. Thus, a full-power offset space
station operator may operate at the
[[Page 60276]]
maximum power flux density levels specified in Sec. Sec. 25.208(c) and
(w) of our rules, and will be accorded the same interference protection
that it would receive if the space station were located precisely at an
Appendix F location. Further, once we have authorized a full-power
offset space station, subsequently licensed space stations operating
less than four degrees away from the offset space station will be
required to reduce transmitted power levels to protect the offset space
station from excessive interference. Moreover, the newly licensed
reduced-power space station must accept any interference from the full-
power offset space station that results from the reduced orbital
spacing. This will be the case regardless of whether the new space
station is operating at an Appendix F location or an offset location.
To accommodate this more flexible framework, we must make several
changes to the technical rules we adopted in the Report and Order. We
discuss these changes below.
23. Section 25.262. We make a number of changes to Sec. 25.262 of
the rules, which governs domestic coordination requirements for space
stations operating in the 17/24 GHz BSS. First, we redesignate Sec.
25.262(a) as Sec. 25.262(f). Further, we add new Sec. Sec. 25.262(a)
and (b) to recognize the classes of 17/24 GHz BSS space stations that
may operate at the maximum power flux density levels permitted by our
rules, and with full interference protection. This includes both space
stations operating at Appendix F locations and full-power offset space
stations. In addition, we add Sec. 25.262(c) to govern power levels on
replacement space stations and space stations authorized at orbital
locations previously assigned to 17/24 GHz BSS space stations that have
become available for reassignment.
24. We also add Sec. 25.262(d) to our rules, which provides that
space stations located less than four degrees away from a space station
authorized to operate at full power under Sec. 25.262(b) may not cause
any more interference to the full-power network than would be caused if
the proposed space station was four degrees away. The rule also
requires the reduced-power space station to accept any increased
interference from the full-power Appendix F or full-power offset space
station than would be caused if the proposed reduced-power space
station were located four degrees away. Finally, we also add Sec.
25.262(e), which requires reduced-power satellites to accept any
increased interference from 17/24 GHz BSS space stations operating in
conformance with our rules.
25. Section 25.140(b). Section 25.140(b) of our rules addresses the
interference analysis that must be submitted with each 17/24 GHz BSS
application. As with all FSS space station applications, 17/24 GHz BSS
applicants are required to submit an interference analysis
demonstrating the compatibility of their proposed system with satellite
networks operating at the two nearest adjacent orbital locations. Under
the uniform four-degree spacing framework adopted in the Report and
Order, we presumed that the nearest adjacent orbital positions would be
no closer than four degrees away. As a consequence of the more flexible
licensing framework adopted in this Order, this assumption is no longer
valid and the interference coordination scenario for 17/24 GHz BSS
space stations becomes more complex. Specifically, the coordination
requirements and operating burdens will vary, depending upon a
combination of factors including: (1) Whether, and to what extent, the
applicant seeks to operate at an offset orbital location; and (2) the
location and authorized power levels of other licensed and proposed 17/
24 GHz BSS space stations. To provide 17/24 GHz BSS space station
applicants with guidance when filing their applications, we modify
Sec. 25.140(b) to codify the multiple interference scenarios and
associated filing requirements.
26. The first scenarios arise where an applicant proposes to
operate at an Appendix F location. In most of these cases, the
applicant will be required to submit an interference analysis
demonstrating its compatibility with current or future 17/24 GHz BSS
space stations at least four degrees away. However, an applicant
proposing to operate at an Appendix F orbital location that is less
than four degrees away from an operator authorized pursuant to Sec.
25.262(b) of our rules, will be required to reduce its power to protect
the full-power offset operator's network, and will be required to
accept the additional interference that results from the full-power
operation at the adjacent offset location. Thus, in such cases, the
applicant must demonstrate that it will cause no more interference to
the full-power offset operator's 17/24 GHz BSS network than if the
offset operator's space station were located four degrees away. We
amend Sec. 25.140(b)(3) of our rules, and add Sec. Sec. 25.140(b)(5),
and (b)(6), to reflect these scenarios.
27. Applicants that propose to operate 17/24 GHz BSS space stations
at offset locations fall under one of three scenarios. We adopt Sec.
25.140(b)(4)(i) to cover the situation where there is no other
previously authorized or proposed 17/24 GHz BSS space station located
less than four degrees away from the proposed offset space station and
the applicant proposes to operate the offset space station at full-
power and with full interference protection. In this case, we require
the applicant to provide an interference analysis demonstrating the
compatibility of its proposed offset network with other 17/24 GHz BSS
space stations at least four degrees away from its proposed location.
28. Section 25.140(b)(4)(ii) reflects the situation where the
applicant proposes to operate its space station at an offset location,
but there is a licensed or a prior-filed application for a space
station within four degrees of the proposed offset location. In this
case, the applicant must provide an interference analysis demonstrating
that its proposed space station will not cause any more interference to
adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS satellite networks than if it were located at
the Appendix F location from which it is offset.
29. Finally, Sec. 25.140(b)(4)(iii) reflects the situation where
an applicant proposes to operate an offset space station but does not
seek to take advantage of the full-power, full interference protection
option in Sec. 25.262(b). In this case, we require the applicant to
provide an interference analysis demonstrating that its proposed space
station will not cause any more interference to adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS
satellite networks than if it were at the Appendix F location from
which it is offset.
30. Section 25.140(c). Section 25.140(c) of our rules requires 17/
24 GHz BSS space stations to be designed to be compatible with other
17/24 GHz BSS space stations as close as four degrees away. As
discussed above, however, full-power offset satellites are entitled to
interference protection from adjacent space stations operating less
than four degrees away. Accordingly, we modify Sec. 25.140(c) of our
rules to reflect this. We also modify this rule to clarify that
operators seeking to operate at offset orbital locations, but at
reduced powers and without full interference protection, must design
their systems to be compatible with adjacent space stations at reduced
orbital separations.
31. Section 25.114(d)(17). To facilitate processing, we adopt a new
rule, Sec. 25.114(d)(17), that requires applicants to indicate, in the
narrative to their application, whether they propose to operate
pursuant to Sec. 25.262(b) of our rules. Given the different classes
of 17/24 GHz BSS space stations, e.g., full-power Appendix F space
station, full-
[[Page 60277]]
power offset space station, reduced-power Appendix F space station, and
reduced-power offset space station, requiring applicants to state
explicitly that they seek to operate a full-power space station with
full interference protection will expedite staff review of the
application.
32. Other rule changes. We make a number of other rule changes to
correct cross-references to rule sections changed by this
Reconsideration Order and to add cross-references to new rules, as
appropriate. Accordingly, we revise the application filing requirements
in Sec. 25.114(d)(7) to require applicants to include the interference
analysis described in new rule Sec. Sec. 25.140(b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5),
or (b)(6), as appropriate for their circumstances. We also remove the
version of Sec. 25.114(d)(15)(iii) that was adopted in the Report and
Order as the showing that was required by that rule is now incorporated
into Sec. 25.140 of the rules.
33. In the Report and Order, we decided to treat all pending
applications as simultaneously filed under Sec. 25.158(d) of our
rules. We also recognized that all applicants will need to amend their
pending applications to comply with the new 17/24 GHz BSS rules. Thus,
we directed the International Bureau to release a Public Notice after
the effective date of the new rules, inviting applicants to file
conforming amendments and to consider those applications that are
accepted for filing together. The Bureau would then process and grant
those applications, provided that the applicant was otherwise
qualified. In the event two or more applicants requested authority to
operate at the same orbital location, we directed the Bureau to
consider the applications concurrently and, if the applicants were
qualified, to license them to operate in an equal portion of the
spectrum. We will continue to follow this approach. Nevertheless, as
the result of the modifications to the orbital spacing framework we
adopt here, we implement an additional processing step under which we
will permit certain applicants an opportunity to amend their
applications for a second time. Adding this additional step does not
change our decision to treat the pending applications as simultaneously
filed under Sec. 25.158(d).
34. Specifically, we recognize that some current applicants may
wish to take advantage of the flexibility to operate full-power offset
satellites. These applicants will not know, however, when filing their
initial amendments, whether another existing applicant will request
authority to operate a satellite at an adjacent Appendix F location. If
we grant the Appendix F request, we will not be in a position to grant
the application to operate at full power at the offset location. In
these situations, denying the application for the offset location or
requiring the licensee to operate at reduced powers would unfairly
penalize the applicant for not correctly anticipating another
applicant's filings. Consequently, in cases where an application for
authority to operate at an offset location at full power conflicts with
an application for an Appendix F location, we will permit the offset
applicant a second opportunity to amend its application. The full-power
offset applicant may change the orbital location to the Appendix F
orbital location from which it was offset or may remain at the offset
location at reduced power and with reduced interference protection.
35. To implement this decision, we direct the Bureau to release a
Public Notice shortly after these rules become effective, inviting
current applicants to amend the applications pending as of the date of
this Order consistent with the rules we adopt today. We further direct
the Bureau to dismiss, as defective, any application that is not
amended by the date specified in the Public Notice. These applicants
can amend their choice of orbital locations consistent with the
modifications adopted today. Applicants must specify in the narrative
portion of their application the type of authorization being sought,
e.g., an authorization to operate at an Appendix F location, an
authorization to operate at a full-power offset location, or an
authorization to operate at an offset location at reduced power and
without full interference protection. Applicants seeking to operate at
an offset location must specify the Appendix F location from which they
propose to be offset. Applicants must provide the appropriate technical
showing to support the request.
36. Any applicant proposing a full-power offset space station that
conflicts with an application for an adjacent Appendix F space station
will have thirty days after the deadline for amended applications
discussed in the preceding paragraph to amend its application as
discussed above. No other applicants will be permitted to file second
amendments. In this regard, each applicant bears the burden of
discerning, through the Bureau's electronic filing system, other
potentially conflicting applications after the first deadline for
amended applications.
37. Once the two deadlines for filing amendments have passed, the
Bureau will review the amended applications to determine whether they
are substantially complete and acceptable for filing. The Bureau will
place acceptable applications on public notice. The Bureau will dismiss
as defective any amended applications that are not substantially
complete. In the event that two or more amended applications are filed
at a single Appendix F location or its associated offsets, we direct
the Bureau to consider the applications together and, if the applicants
are qualified, to license them to operate in an equal portion of the
spectrum. For example, if Applicant A requests authority to operate at
the Appendix F location of 91[deg] W.L. and Applicant B seeks authority
to operate either a full-power offset or reduced-power offset from
91[deg] W.L. at 92[deg] W.L., the Bureau would consider these
applications together. In this example, if the applications are
substantially complete and the applicants are qualified, the Bureau
would license each applicant in an equal portion of spectrum. Thus, for
purposes of determining whether the spectrum should be split, the
Appendix F location and any offset from a particular Appendix F
location are considered the same orbital location.
38. In the Report and Order, we decided to treat future
applications for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations under a first-come,
first-served procedure. We will continue to follow this approach. Given
our decision in this Report and Order to award licenses for offset
space stations with full power and interference protection, we provide
further clarification here as to how the first-come, first-served
procedure will work.
39. Initially, we note that the freeze on new applications
established in the Report and Order remains in effect. Once we lift the
freeze, applicants may file applications for new 17/24 GHz BSS space
stations. We will consider these applications on a first-come, first-
served basis. This means that we will grant the application if the
applicant is qualified and the proposed space station is not
technically incompatible with any licensed space station or a space
station proposed in a previously-filed application. For example, if we
have authorized a full-power offset space station to a particular
offset location, we will deny, as technically incompatible, an
application for authority to operate a full-power space station at the
adjacent Appendix F location. We would, however, grant the Appendix F
application if the applicant is otherwise
[[Page 60278]]
qualified, proposes to operate the Appendix F space station at reduced
power, and demonstrates that the proposed operations will not interfere
with those of the full-power offset space station. Further, we would
consider granting an application for a full-power space station at an
Appendix F location if the adjacent offset operator is authorized to
operate at reduced power only and without interference protection.
40. We also recognize that additional 17/24 GHz BSS orbital
locations may become available as licensees decide to surrender
licenses or lose their licenses for failure to meet the required
implementation milestones. Where we do not issue an Order cancelling
the license, we will announce the cancellation through a Public Notice.
As is our custom, once the Order or Public Notice has been issued,
applicants may file applications for new space stations, modification
applications for licensed space stations, or amendments to pending
applications that take the cancellation into account. Thus, if a
license for a space station at an Appendix F location is cancelled, the
licensee of an adjacent offset location space station authorized to
operate at reduced power and without full interference protection may
file a modification application to increase the power and receive full
interference protection. Similarly, another applicant may apply for a
license for a new space station at the Appendix F location. As with all
applications processed under a first-come, first-served framework,
processing will be governed by the applicant's position in the
processing queue. Thus, if the modification request to increase power
on an offset space station is filed first, and the applicant is
qualified, we will grant it; if the application for a new space station
at the Appendix F location is filed first, and the applicant is
qualified, we will grant that application. In this manner, we will
maintain an interference-free operating environment for 17/24 GHz BSS
space stations, while still providing licensees the opportunity to
design their satellite networks to best serve their customers.
41. Conclusion. With this Order, we provide additional flexibility
to 17/24 GHz BSS space station operators by allowing them, under
certain circumstances, to operate their space stations at full power
and with full interference protection at locations other than those
specified in Appendix F to the Report and Order. We find that this
approach best addresses applicants' concerns regarding the
compatibility of 17/24 GHz BSS orbital locations with the existing DBS
infrastructure. We emphasize that this approach provides the same
advantages to both current and future 17/24 GHz BSS applicants. This
additional flexibility will also allow for an orbital assignment
framework that is better aligned with applicants' business plans and
existing infrastructure and will thus afford operators the greatest
opportunity to provide expanded DTH service using a single multiple-
feed antenna.
42. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Commission issued a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in the
Report and Order in this proceeding. None of the rule revisions adopted
by the Commission in this Sua Sponte Reconsideration Order affect the
analysis in the Report and Order. We therefore incorporate by reference
the Commission's prior regulatory flexibility analysis. The Commission
will provide a copy of this certification to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA, and include it in the report to Congress pursuant
to the SBREFA.
43. 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 Order on Reconsideration is adopted.
44. It is further ordered that part 25 of the Commission's rules is
amended as set forth in Appendix A. An announcement of the effective
date of these rule revisions will be published in the Federal Register.
45. It is further ordered that the International Bureau is
delegated authority to issue Public Notices consistent with this Order
on Reconsideration.
46. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center shall send a
copy of this Order on Reconsideration, including the final regulatory
flexibility act certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration, in accordance with section 603(a) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (1981).
47. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of
this Order on Reconsideration 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 in 47 CFR Part 25
Satellites.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Rule Changes
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR part 25 to read as follows:
PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 701-744. Interprets or applies Sections 4,
301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332 of the Communications Act, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 25.114 by revising paragraphs (d)(7) and (d)(15), and by
adding paragraph (d)(17) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.114 Applications for space station authorizations.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(7) Applicants for authorizations for space stations in the fixed-
satellite service must also include the information specified in
Sec. Sec. 25.140(b)(1) and (2) of this part. Applicants for
authorizations for space stations in the 17/24 GHz broadcasting-
satellite service must also include the information specified in Sec.
25.140(b)(1) and Sec. Sec. 25.140(b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), or (b)(6) of
this part.
* * * * *
(15) Each applicant for a space station license in the 17/24 GHz
broadcasting-satellite service shall include the following information
as an attachment to its application:
(i) Except as set forth in paragraph (d)(15)(ii) of this section,
an applicant proposing to operate in the 17.3-17.7 GHz frequency band,
must provide a demonstration that the proposed space station will
comply with the power flux density limits set forth in Sec. 25.208(w)
of this part.
(ii) In cases where the proposed space station will not comply with
the power flux density limits set forth in Sec. 25.208(w) of this
part, the applicant will be required to provide a certification that
all potentially affected parties acknowledge and do not object to the
use of the applicant's higher power flux densities. The affected
parties with whom the applicant must coordinate are those GSO 17/24 GHz
[[Page 60279]]
BSS satellite networks located up to 6[deg] away for
excesses of up to 3 dB above the power flux-density levels specified in
Sec. 25.208(w) of this part, and up to 10[deg] away
greater for excesses greater than 3 dB above those levels.
(iii) An applicant proposing to provide international service in
the 17.7-17.8 GHz band must demonstrate that it will meet the power
flux density limits set forth in Sec. 25.208(c) of this part.
* * * * *
(17) An applicant seeking to operate a space station in the 17/24
GHz broadcasting-satellite service pursuant to the provisions of Sec.
25.262(b) of this part, at an offset location no greater than one
degree offset from an orbital location specified in Appendix F of the
Report and Order adopted May 2, 2007, IB Docket No. 06-123, FCC 07-76,
must submit a written request to that effect as part of the narrative
portion of its application.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 25.117 by adding paragraph (d)(2)(v) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.117 Modification of station license.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) Any 17/24 GHz BSS space station operator whose license is
conditioned to operate at less than the power level otherwise permitted
by Sec. Sec. 25.208(c) and/or (w) of this part, and is conditioned to
accept interference from a neighboring 17/24 GHz BSS space station, may
file a modification application to remove those two conditions in the
event that the license for that neighboring space station is cancelled
or surrendered. In the event that two or more such modification
applications are filed, and those applications are mutually exclusive,
the modification applications will be considered on a first-come,
first-served basis pursuant to the procedure set forth in Sec. 25.158
of this part.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 25.140 by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3), by
adding paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(6), and by revising paragraph
(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.140 Qualifications of fixed-satellite space station
licensees.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Except as set forth in paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), and
(b)(6) of this section, all applicants must provide an interference
analysis to demonstrate the compatibility of their proposed system two
degrees from any authorized space station. An applicant should provide
details of its proposed r.f. carriers which it believes should be taken
into account in this analysis. At a minimum, the applicant must
include, for each type of r.f. carrier, the link noise budget,
modulation parameters, and overall link performance analysis. (See,
e.g., appendices B and C to Licensing of Space Stations in the Domestic
Fixed-Satellite Service (available at address in Sec. 0.445)).
(3) Except as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, an
applicant for a license to operate a 17/24 GHz BSS space station that
will be located precisely at one of the 17/24 GHz BSS orbital locations
specified in Appendix F of the Report and Order adopted May 2, 2007, IB
Docket No. 06-123, FCC 07-76, must provide an interference analysis of
the kind described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, except that the
applicant must demonstrate the compatibility of its proposed network
with any current or future authorized space station in the 17/24 GHz
BSS that complies with the technical rules in this part and that will
be located at least four degrees from the proposed space station.
(4) Except as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, an
applicant for a license to operate a 17/24 GHz BSS space station that
will not be located precisely at one of the nominal 17/24 GHz BSS
orbital locations specified in Appendix F of the Report and Order
adopted May 2, 2007, IB Docket No. 06-123, FCC 07-76, must make one of
the following showings:
(i) In cases where there is no previously licensed or proposed
space station to be located closer than four degrees from the
applicant's space station, and the applicant seeks to operate pursuant
to Sec. 25.262(b) of this part, the applicant must provide an
interference analysis of the kind described in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, except that the applicant must demonstrate the compatibility
of its proposed network with any current or future authorized space
stations in the 17/24 GHz BSS that are operating in compliance with the
technical rules of this part and that will be located at least four
degrees from the applicant's proposed space station;
(ii) In cases where there is a previously licensed or proposed 17/
24 GHz BSS space station to be located within four degrees of the
applicant's proposed space station, the applicant must provide an
interference analysis of the kind described in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, except that the applicant must demonstrate that its proposed
network will not cause more interference to the adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS
satellite networks operating in compliance with the technical
requirements of this part, than if the applicant were located at the
precise Appendix F orbital location from which it seeks to offset;
(iii) In cases where there is no previously licensed or proposed
17/24 GHz BSS space station to be located within four degrees of the
applicant's proposed space station, and the applicant does not seek to
operate pursuant to Sec. 25.262(b) of this part, the applicant must
provide an interference analysis of the kind described in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, except that the applicant must demonstrate that
its proposed operations will not cause more interference to any current
or future 17/24 GHz BSS satellite networks operating in compliance with
the technical requirements of this part, than if the applicant were
located at the precise Appendix F orbital location from which it seeks
to offset.
(5) An applicant for a license to operate a 17/24 GHz BSS space
station, in cases where there is a previously licensed or proposed
space station operating pursuant to Sec. 25.262(b) of this part
located within four degrees of the applicant's proposed 17/24 GHz BSS
space station, must provide an interference analysis of the kind
described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, except that the
applicant must demonstrate that its proposed operations will not cause
more interference to the adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS satellite network than
if the adjacent space station were located four degrees from the
applicant's space station.
(6) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4),
and (b)(5) of this section, the link budget for any satellite in the
17/24 GHz BSS must take into account longitudinal stationkeeping
tolerances and, where appropriate, any existing orbital location
offsets from the 17/24 GHz BSS orbital locations of the adjacent prior-
authorized 17/24 GHz BSS space stations. In addition, any 17/24 GHz BSS
satellite applicant that has reached a coordination agreement with an
operator of another 17/24 GHz BSS satellite to allow that operator to
exceed the pfd levels specified in the rules for this service, must use
those higher pfd levels for the purposes of this showing.
(c) Operators of satellite networks using 17/24 GHz BSS space
stations must design their satellite networks to be capable of
operating with another 17/24 GHz BSS space station as follows:
(1) Except as described in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) and (b)(4)(iii) of
this section, all satellite network operators using 17/24
[[Page 60280]]
GHz BSS space stations must design their satellite networks to be
capable of operating with another 17/24 GHz BSS space station as close
as four degrees away.
(2) Satellite network operators located less than four degrees away
from a space station to be operated pursuant to Sec. 25.262(b) of this
part must design their satellite networks to be capable of operating
with that adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS space station.
(3) Satellite network operators using 17/24 GHz BSS space stations
located at an orbital location other than those specified in Appendix F
of the Report and Order adopted May 2, 2007, IB Docket No. 06-123, FCC
07-76, and that are not operating pursuant to Sec. 25.262(b) of this
part, must design their satellite networks to be capable of operating
with another 17/24 GHz BSS space station closer than four degrees away,
as a result of the operator's offset position.
* * * * *
0
5. Revise Sec. 25.262 to read as follows:
Sec. 25.262 Licensing and domestic coordination requirements for 17/
24 GHz BSS space stations.
(a) Except as described in paragraphs (b), (c) or (e) of this
section, applicants seeking to operate a space station in the 17/24 GHz
BSS must locate that space station at one of the orbital positions
described in Appendix F of the Report and Order adopted May 2, 2007, IB
Docket No. 06-123, FCC 07-76.
(b) An applicant may be authorized to operate a 17/24 GHz BSS space
station at an orbital location described in Appendix F as set forth in
paragraph (a) of this section, or at a location with a geocentric
angular separation of one degree or less from an Appendix F location,
and may operate at the maximum power flux density limits defined in
Sec. Sec. 25.208(c) and (w) of this part, without coordinating its
power flux density levels with adjacent licensed or permitted
operators, only if there is no licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space station or
prior-filed application at a location less than four degrees from the
offset orbital location at which the applicant proposes to operate.
(c)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, licensees
and permittees will be allowed to apply for a license or authorization
for a replacement satellite that will be operated at the same power
level and interference protection as the satellite to be replaced.
(2) In addition, applicants for licenses or authority for a
satellite to be operated at an orbit location that was made available
after a previous 17/24 GHz BSS license was cancelled or surrendered
will be permitted to apply for authority to operate a satellite at the
same power level and interference protection as the previous licensee
at that orbit location, to the extent that their proposed operations
are consistent with the provisions of this part. Such applications will
be considered pursuant to the first-come, first-served procedures set
forth in Sec. 25.158 of this part.
(d) Any U.S. licensee or permittee using a 17/24 GHz BSS space
station that is located less than four degrees away from a prior-
authorized 17/24 GHz BSS space station that is authorized to operate in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this section:
(1) may not cause any more interference to the adjacent satellite
network than would be caused if the adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS space
station were located four degrees away from the proposed space station;
and
(2) must accept any increased interference that results from the
adjacent space station network operating at the offset orbital location
less than four degrees away.
(e) Any 17/24 GHz BSS U.S. licensee or permittee that is required
to provide information in its application pursuant to Sec. Sec.
25.140(b)(4)(ii) or (b)(4)(iii) of this part must accept any increased
interference that may result from adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS space stations
that are operating in compliance with the rules for this service.
(f) Any 17/24 GHz BSS U.S. licensee or permittee that does not
comply with the power flux-density limits set forth in Sec. 25.208(w)
of this part shall bear the burden of coordinating with any future co-
frequency licensees and permittees of a 17/24 GHz BSS network under the
following circumstances:
(1) If the operator's space-to-Earth power flux-density levels
exceed the power flux-density limits set forth in Sec. 25.208(w) of
this part by 3 dB or less, the operator shall bear the burden of
coordinating with any future operators proposing a 17/24 GHz BSS space
station in compliance with power flux-density limits set forth in Sec.
25.208(w) of this part and located within 6 degrees of the
operator's 17/24 GHz BSS space station.
(2) If the operator's space-to-Earth power flux-density levels
exceed the power flux-density limits set forth in Sec. 25.208(w) of
this part by more than 3 dB, the operator shall bear the burden of
coordinating with any future operators proposing a 17/24 GHz BSS space
station in compliance with power flux-density limits set forth in Sec.
25.208(w) of this part and located within 10 degrees of the
operator's 17/24 GHz BSS space station.
(3) If no good faith agreement can be reached, the operator of the
17/24 GHz BSS satellite network that does not comply with Sec.
25.208(w) of this part shall reduce its space-to-Earth power flux-
density levels to be compliant with those specified in Sec. 25.208(w)
of this part.
[FR Doc. E7-20971 Filed 10-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P