Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the) ET Docket No. 98-206 Commission's Rules to Permit Operation) RM-9147 of NGSO FSS Systems Co-Frequency with ) RM-9245 GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the Ku- ) Band Frequency Range ) and ) Amendment of the Commission's Rules) to Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use) of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band by Direct ) Broadcast Satellite Licensees and Their) Affiliates ) ) NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: November 19, 1998 Released: November 24, 1998 Comment Date: February 16, 1999 Reply Comment Date: March 15, 1999 By the Commission: Commissioner Ness issuing a statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS Para. I. Introduction 1 II. Background 1. SkyBridge Petition and Application 2-3 WRC-97/2000 4-7 2. Northpoint Petition 8 III. Discussion 9-10 NGSO Proposals 11-13 A. NGSO FSS Gateway Bands 14-15 1. NGSO Gateway Downlink Band (10.7-11.7 GHz) Current allocations 16-17 Protection of fixed service (pfd limits) 18-20 Coordination with fixed service stations 21-22 Gateway siting restrictions 23-25 Protection of GSO FSS downlinks (epfd limits) 26-28 Protection of Telemetry, Tracking and Command links 29-31 2. NGSO Gateway Uplink Bands a. 12.75-13.25 GHz band Current allocations 32-33 Sharing with fixed and mobile services 34 OpTel petition 35 Sharing with GSO FSS uplinks (apfd limits) 36-37 b. 13.75-14.0 GHz band Current allocations 38-39 Coordination with Government operations 40-43 Sharing with GSO FSS uplinks 44 c. 14.4-14.5 GHz band Current allocations 45 Sharing with GSO FSS uplinks 46 d. 17.3-17.8 GHz band Current allocations 47-48 BSS downlinks 49-50 Radiolocation 51 B. NGSO FSS Service Link Bands(11.7-12.7 GHz and 14.0-14.4 GHz bands) 52 1. NGSO Service Downlink Bands a. 11.7-12.2 GHz band Current allocations 53 Sharing with GSO FSS downlink operations 54 b. 12.2-12.7 GHz band Current allocations 55 Protection of BSS downlinks (epfd limits) 56-60 Other DBS applications 61-62 2. NGSO Service Uplink Bands a. 14.0-14.4 GHz band Current allocations 63-64 Sharing with GSO FSS uplinks 65-66 C. Accommodation of Multiple NGSO FSS Systems 1. Spectrum Sharing Among Multiple NGSO FSS Systems 67-71 2. Impact of Multiple NGSO FSS Systems On Sharing With Other Services 72-74 D. Other Technical Rules GSO Arc avoidance 75 GSO earth station off-axis eirp density limits 76-77 NGSO earth station antenna reference pattern 78-79 Validation of pfd/epfd/apfd limits 80-81 Emission limits 82 RF Bio-Hazard 83 E. Licensing and Service Rules Coverage requirement 84 Financial qualifications 85 System license and license terms 86 Implementation milestones 87 Reporting requirements 88 Exclusionary arrangements in foreign countries 89 Sale of license 90 F. Northpoint Petition for Rulemaking 91 Northpoint sharing with DBS 92-95 Northpoint sharing with NGSO FSS 96-98 IV. Procedural Information 99-108 V. Appendix A: Proposed Rules Appendix B: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Appendix C: Incumbent Terrestrial Operations Plot with Exclusion Areas I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Notice"), we propose to permit non- geostationary satellite orbit ("NGSO") fixed-satellite service ("FSS") operations in certain segments of the Ku-band and propose rules and policies to govern such operations. We also propose or seek comment on, technical criteria to ensure that such NGSO FSS operations do not cause unacceptable interference to existing users or do not unduly constrain future growth of incumbent services. Specifically, we ask commenters to analyze the spectrum sharing criteria developed at the 1997 International Telecommunication Union ("ITU") World Radiocommunication Conference ("WRC- 97") to permit NGSO FSS operations in various segments of the Ku-band, and address whether these proposals are adequate to protect existing services in the Ku-band from unacceptable interference from NGSO FSS operations. In addition, we request comment on a petition to permit terrestrial use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz band for the retransmission of local television and provision of one-way data services by direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") service operators and their affiliates. This action responds to petitions filed by SkyBridge L.L.C. ("SkyBridge") and Northpoint Technology ("Northpoint"). II. BACKGROUND 1. SkyBridge Petition and Application 2. On July 3, 1997, SkyBridge filed a Petition for Rulemaking ("Petition") requesting that the Commission amend Parts 2 and 25 of its rules to permit NGSO FSS systems to operate in the United States ("U.S.") in the 10.7-12.7 GHz band for NGSO space-to-earth links ("downlinks") (a total of 2 gigahertz) and in the 12.75-13.25 GHz, 13.75-14.5 GHz, and 17.3-17.8 GHz bands for NGSO earth-to-space links ("uplinks") (a total of 1.75 gigahertz). The requested downlink bands are generally used by geostationary-satellite orbit ("GSO") FSS, DBS and fixed services. The requested uplink bands are used by GSO FSS operations, fixed services, mobile services, and Government operations. SkyBridge states that NGSO FSS systems should be permitted to operate in these bands according to the following conditions: 1) NGSO FSS systems operating in these bands would cause no noticeable degradation to the quality of service or availability of GSO satellite operations and terrestrial links, and 2) NGSO FSS systems operating in these bands would impose no operational constraints on GSO satellite and terrestrial operators. SkyBridge proposes technical criteria which it claims would protect GSO satellite and terrestrial operations in these bands from interference from NGSO FSS systems. SkyBridge states that its proposal would provide advanced satellite services to the public and increase competition within the broadband market without having to dedicate additional spectrum resources to this end. By using NGSO satellites that operate in the Ku-band with lower earth orbits, SkyBridge expects that its system's propagation times would be similar to those for landline broadband transmission systems, and the costs for some key items, such as user terminals, would be similar to those for GSO FSS systems. 3. In addition to its Petition, SkyBridge filed an application for authority to launch and operate an NGSO FSS system. SkyBridge's application requests use of 1.05 gigahertz of spectrum for its uplink transmissions and use of 1.05 gigahertz for its downlink transmissions. For its system, SkyBridge proposes a constellation of 80 satellites operating in non-geostationary satellite orbit. The system is organized as two satellite sub-constellations, providing continuous global coverage between +68 degrees and -68 degrees latitude. The satellites would communicate with users and then forward all communications to a limited number of regional gateway earth stations. All switching and routing would occur through such gateway stations. The SkyBridge gateway earth stations would control the routing of information within the SkyBridge system and connect users to terrestrial telecommunications networks (via the NGSO satellite hops). SkyBridge anticipates placing thirty to forty gateway stations in the U.S., each serving an area of approximately 350 km radius. SkyBridge contends that its system would provide high-speed Internet and on-line access services, video conferencing and telephony, entertainment services, interactive video on demand, and a variety of substitutes for terrestrial infrastructure links. SkyBridge states that at least one satellite would be visible at all times within the coverage area of a gateway, although two or more satellites may be visible at many gateway locations. While this proceeding focuses on NGSO FSS systems in general and discusses certain characteristics of the proposed SkyBridge system, SkyBridge's application will be addressed in a separate, future proceeding. 4. WRC-97/2000. To promote spectrum sharing between NGSO systems and other services, WRC-97 adopted power flux density ("pfd"), provisional equivalent power flux-density ("epfd") and provisional aggregate power flux density ("apfd") limits for certain segments of the Ku and Ka-bands. Pfd is a measure of the amount of energy emitted by a transmitter that is present over a unit area at the Earth's surface or at the satellite, and it is a critical factor in determining whether satellite systems can successfully share spectrum with other services or satellite systems. Epfd is the sum of the power levels of all possible interfering transmissions from all satellites in a particular NGSO constellation into a particular GSO earth station receiver. Epfd limits are intended to control the level of signal energy on the earth's surface. Because each epfd limit applies to a particular GSO earth station receiver with a specific antenna diameter and sidelobe pattern, different GSO FSS earth station receivers may require different epfd protection requirements. Apfd is the sum of the power levels at a location on the GSO arc created by all visible earth station transmitters in an NGSO system. 5. To protect incumbent GSO FSS and broadcasting-satellite service ("BSS") operations in the Ku-band, WRC-97 adopted provisional epfd and apfd limits. Because the technical studies justifying the WRC-97 NGSO action had not been fully studied in the usual ITU Radiocommunication Sector ("ITU-R") study group process, these epfd and apfd limits were deemed provisional until they could be analyzed by the relevant ITU-R study groups and reviewed at WRC-2000. Based on the results of the ITU-R study group analyses, administrations at WRC- 2000 will confirm or revise the epfd and apfd limits. The epfd and apfd limits adopted by WRC-97 only apply, however, to a single NGSO FSS system ("single-entry" limits) and do not consider the impact of multiple NGSO systems. Further, the WRC-97 epfd and apfd limits include short term (sidelobe to mainbeam interference) and long term (sidelobe to sidelobe and backlobe interference) protection requirements. Finally, WRC-97 also adopted limits for GSO earth station off-axis equivalent isotropically radiated power ("eirp") density to facilitate sharing among the allocated services. However, these limits were subsequently suspended by WRC-97 and will be reviewed by WRC-2000. If approved at WRC-2000, these limits would require GSO earth stations to limit their energy beyond what is currently required for GSO-GSO sharing in the equatorial plane. 6. To protect terrestrial services and facilitate spectrum sharing between satellite systems and terrestrial receivers, the international Radio Regulations include pfd limits to control the level of satellite signal energy on the Earth's surface. Although the pfd limits currently in use were developed to protect terrestrial services from GSO satellite downlink transmissions, WRC-97 concluded that these limits should also apply to NGSO satellite transmissions. While the pfds to protect terrestrial services from NGSO FSS are not provisional, they are subject to review and possible modification at WRC-2000 to determine whether they adequately protect terrestrial services from NGSO FSS transmissions. 7. Joint Task Group ("JTG") 4-9-11, in which the U.S. participates, is conducting technical analyses of these sharing issues in preparation for WRC-2000. The JTG 4-9-11, as well as each of the other relevant ITU-R working groups, have met twice since WRC-97 and the comments on SkyBridge's Petition were filed. As a result, significant progress on NGSO/GSO sharing issues has been made. Further, we highlight that studies on these issues are ongoing in the ITU-R. We will consider the outcome of this international work, and particularly WRC-2000, for possible domestic NGSO FSS operations. The results of WRC-97 and implications of these results will be discussed in detail below. 2. Northpoint Petition 8. On March 6, 1998, Northpoint filed a Petition for Rulemaking with the Commission aimed at providing terrestrial retransmission of local television signals and one-way data services to DBS receivers in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band on a secondary basis to BSS operations. Northpoint states that its proposal would allow DBS subscribers to receive local television programming and one-way data services with minimal additional equipment and thus would permit the DBS service to compete more fully with cable television services. Because Northpoint is requesting that its terrestrial services be permitted to operate in some of the same spectrum requested by SkyBridge, we are addressing both petitions in this proceeding. III. DISCUSSION 9. We undertake this proceeding to address the spectrum sharing issues presented by SkyBridge's and Northpoint's proposed use of spectrum in the Ku-band range. If adopted, these proposals could increase competition and provide new advanced services to the public. Specifically, SkyBridge's proposal could provide new high-speed data services and offer additional competition to other satellite services, and terrestrial wireless and wireline services. Similarly, Northpoint's proposal could provide local video and new one-way data services and facilitate competition to cable television systems. There is, however, extensive use of the requested frequency bands in the U.S. and these incumbent operations provide important and valuable services to the public. Accordingly, while we desire to promote competition and innovation by allowing for new services or additional spectrum use, we also need to consider the competing interests of the incumbent services in these bands. 10. The following tables provide a concise summary of the existing U.S. incumbent operations, the SkyBridge proposals for downlink and uplink NGSO FSS operations, and the Northpoint proposal. U. S. Incumbent Operations and SkyBridge (Downlink) and Northpoint Requests Band 10.7-11.7 GHz 11.7-12.2 GHz 12.2-12.7 GHz Incumbent Operations FIXED FSS DOWNLINK BSS FSS DOWNLINK Mobile FIXED Northpoint Proposal Fixed (video and data service) SkyBridge Proposal NGSO GATEWAY NGSO SERVICE LINKS NGSO SERVICE LINKS U. S. Incumbent Operations and SkyBridge (Uplink) Requests Band 12.75-13.25 13.75-14.0 14.0-14.2 14.2-14.4 14.4-14.5 17.3-17.7 17.7-17.8 Incumbent Operations FIXED GOVT. RADIO- LOCATION FSS UPLINK FSS UPLINK FSS UPLINK FSS UPLINK FIXED FSS UPLINK FSS UPLINK Govt. Radio- navigation Mobile Radio Astronomy FSS UPLINK23 MOBILE Standard Freq & Time Signal- Satellite Non-Govt. Radio Navigation25 Land Mobile Satellite Uplink Land Mobile Satellite Uplink Govt. Radio- location MOBILE SPACE RESEARCH (deep space) SPACE RESEARCH Land Mobile Satellite Uplink Govt. Mobile FSS DOWNLINK Space Research Govt. Fixed SkyBridge Proposal NGSO GATEWAY NGSO GATEWAY NGSO SERVICE LINKS NGSO SERVICE LINKS NGSO GATEWAY NGSO GATEWAY NGSO GATEWAY 11. NGSO Proposals. While our decisions in this proceeding will ultimately determine whether NGSO FSS systems, including earth stations, will be licensed to operate in the U.S. in these bands, we recognize that NGSO FSS satellites authorized by other countries under international criteria could transmit signals over North America, especially when serving neighboring countries. The NGSO FSS proposals require that we analyze the technical sharing issues in the Ku-band, and are committed to doing so. The U.S. participates actively in the work of the JTG 4-9-11 in analyzing these sharing issues. Nonetheless, ITU-R study group deliberations are based on the technical input of many administrations that often have different domestic spectrum uses that result in different potentials for spectrum sharing. The conclusions of the study group may have general technical applicability, based on each administration's input and the resultant compromise, but may not adequately address specific, domestic sharing conditions. Consequently, it is essential that we develop in this proceeding an independent record regarding the possibility of implementing NGSO FSS in the U.S., given our unique and extensive use of the Ku-band. By doing so, we will be able to develop and, if appropriate, adopt technical limits and spectrum sharing criteria suitable for domestic NGSO FSS operations. In this Notice, we will refer at times to issues being addressed by the JTG 4-9-11, and we may include in this docket contributions to the JTG 4-9-11, as appropriate, so that parties to this proceeding may comment on them. In this way, we expect to develop an extensive and comprehensive record of the various sharing issues under consideration domestically and internationally. 12. The U.S. also has obligations under the World Trade Organization ("WTO") Basic Agreement on Telecommunications. In a recent Report and Order, we set forth our policies implementing the commitments made by the U.S. In that Report and Order, we addressed the issue of spectrum availability. We stated that spectrum availability concerns often impact the licensing process, as applications for spectrum assignments often exceed available spectrum. We committed to follow procedures that are transparent and nondiscriminatory, treating applications by non-U.S. entities the same way we treat applications by U.S. entities, regardless of whether this resulted in granting the applicant's request. We intend to uphold these commitments in this proceeding where spectrum availability is a significant concern. Although spectrum has been allocated on an international basis for NGSO FSS systems, incumbent services (e.g., GSO FSS, BSS, fixed service and government system operations) in the Ku-band in the U.S. create unique problems for assigning NGSO FSS systems to the Ku-band domestically, regardless of nationality of the operator. 13. Further, while we are not considering the grant of SkyBridge's license application in this proceeding, we will refer to some of the technical aspects of and comments on the SkyBridge application in order to facilitate developing a more complete record. The purpose of this proceeding is to consider generally whether multiple NGSO FSS systems can share the Ku-band with each other and with FSS, BSS, fixed service and government incumbent operations. Thus, we ask interested parties to file comments that will enable us to make technically accurate and fair decisions regarding all potential NGSO FSS operations in the Ku-band and their impact on all incumbent operations. A. NGSO FSS Gateway Bands 14. In the following discussion, we consider each of the bands proposed for NGSO FSS gateway operations and their viability for sharing with other services. We tentatively propose to allow NGSO FSS gateway downlink operations on a co-primary basis in the 10.7-11.7 GHz band; and allow NGSO FSS gateway uplink operations on a co-primary basis in the 12.75-13.25 GHz, 13.8-14.0 GHz, and 14.4-14.5 GHz bands. In addition, we propose to adopt the WRC-97 pfd limits, and coordination and other procedures to facilitate sharing between NGSO operations and terrestrial services. In light of the ongoing JTG 4-9-11 meetings, we seek comment regarding the WRC-97 provisional epfd and apfd limits for NGSO sharing with GSO operations and request thorough analysis concerning the adequacy of these limits. Further, we do not propose to allow NGSO FSS gateway uplink operations in the 13.75-13.8 GHz band due to potential interference with Government operations and the 17.3-17.8 GHz band because of a conflict with use of this band for BSS and radiolocation services. A discussion of each of the gateway bands is provided below. Additional technical issues affecting these proposals (e.g., multiple NGSO systems, antenna reference pattern requirements and others) are discussed in Section D below and should be taken into account when addressing issues in this section. 15. For the purpose of NGSO FSS in the Ku-band, we propose that gateway operations should be defined as earth station operations that are not intended to originate and terminate traffic but are primarily intended for interconnecting to other networks. A gateway complex may include multiple antennas, and each would be required to meet the antenna performance standards specified in Section D below. Further, the multiple antennas in a gateway complex must be located within a one second latitude and longitude square. We request comment on this NGSO FSS gateway definition, whether a minimum antenna size requirement also should be adopted for NGSO FSS gateway earth stations in the Ku-band, in particular, to facilitate sharing with the terrestrial services. Further, should the number of NGSO FSS gateways per system be limited to facilitate sharing with terrestrial services. 1. NGSO Gateway Downlink Band (10.7-11.7 GHz) 16. Current allocations. SkyBridge proposes to use the 10.7-11.7 GHz band for gateway downlinks. The 10.7-11.7 GHz band is currently allocated on a co-primary basis to the fixed service, licensed under Part 101 of the Commission's rules, and to the FSS for international systems (downlinks), licensed under Part 25 of the Commission's rules. There are more than 32,000 terrestrial fixed links in the 10.7-11.7 GHz band. These links support a wide array of communication services used by utilities, railroads, telephone companies, state and local governments, public safety agencies, and others. Moreover, this band was identified in 1993 in the Emerging Technologies proceeding and in 1997 the mobile satellite service ("MSS") 2 GHz allocation proceeding as a future home for fixed point-to-point operations to be relocated from the 2 GHz band. There are also several GSO FSS earth stations in this band. These stations are limited to international systems under non-Government footnote NG104 of the Table of Frequency Allocations. Further, this band is also used for telemetry, tracking, and command ("TT&C") functions for GSO satellites. This band is important to existing GSO FSS and fixed service systems. Consequently, NGSO FSS gateway downlink operations must be carefully considered to determine their impact on these incumbent operations. 17. We believe that NGSO FSS gateway downlink operations can share the 10.7-11.7 GHz band with incumbent fixed service and GSO FSS operations provided the gateway stations are not extensively deployed and proper coordination is performed. GSO FSS earth stations currently share this spectrum with fixed operations. We find that NGSO FSS gateway stations should also be able to share the spectrum subject to proper sharing criteria, as discussed below. Therefore, we propose to permit NGSO FSS gateway downlink operations in the 10.7-11.7 GHz band. To permit such operations, we propose to amend footnote NG104 to permit domestic NGSO FSS systems to operate in this band. We propose to maintain the international systems only requirement for GSO FSS systems to control the number of satellite earth stations deployed in the band. Alternatively, we invite comment as to whether we might permit domestic GSO FSS gateway operations in the U.S. subject to the qualifications proposed in this proceeding. 18. Protection of fixed services (pfd limits). In the proposed NGSO FSS gateway downlink band (10.7-11.7 GHz), NGSO satellites transmitting signals earthward may cause interference to terrestrial fixed receivers. SkyBridge argues that such interference can be controlled by requiring the satellite transmissions to meet the long term pfd limits which were adopted at WRC- 97 to apply to NGSO FSS operations in this spectrum. SkyBridge indicates that since the elevation angle of a fixed service station is generally less than a few degrees and NGSO satellite beams typically would not be directed at such low elevation angles towards the Earth, mainbeam-to- mainbeam interference from NGSO satellite transmitters should not occur. SkyBridge claims that there would be a low probability of an NGSO satellite at a low elevation angle passing through the mainbeam of a fixed service receiver pointed towards the horizon, i.e., 0.001% of the time. Further, SkyBridge argues that the NGSO satellite's antenna gain decreases rapidly at elevation angles less than 10 degrees so that the magnitude of the interfering signals would be small. 19. Fixed service interests question SkyBridge's NGSO spectrum sharing analysis, arguing that SkyBridge has failed to demonstrate that its system would not interfere with fixed services. The Telecommunications Industry Association ("TIA") asserts that the pfd levels adopted at WRC-97 need further study and will be revisited at WRC-2000. TIA argues that the WRC-97 pfd limits intended to protect fixed receivers from satellite downlink transmissions could not be verified at recent ITU-R meetings and therefore asserts that SkyBridge has no basis to state that the proposed NGSO operations would have no effect on fixed links. Additionally, TIA states that any short term interference caused by an NGSO satellite transmitting into the mainbeam of a fixed service receiver could impair critical public safety and public utility fixed services and would be unacceptable. 20. We propose to adopt the NGSO pfd limits adopted at WRC-97 because they have generally proven reliable for sharing between GSO FSS and fixed services. We recognize, however, that there are important differences between GSO FSS and NGSO FSS systems. In GSO FSS systems, the satellites remain at a fixed position relative to terrestrial fixed receivers, and therefore the antenna alignments and interfering signal levels remain constant. In NGSO FSS systems, the satellites are in constant motion relative to the terrestrial fixed receivers, and therefore the antenna alignments and interfering signal levels are constantly changing and have different statistical interference characteristics. Given these differences, we invite comment as to whether the pfd limits being proposed for long term interference protection are adequate to protect terrestrial fixed operations against interference from NGSO FSS operations. We note that Resolution 131 (WRC-97) recognizes "that further studies are required of the power flux-density limits applicable to non-GSO FSS systems for the protection of terrestrial services in the bands 10.7-12.75 GHz...", and that ITU-R Study Group 9 is actively studying the need for short-term interference criteria in this band. We invite comment on the work done to date on this issue in the ITU-R and on whether specific short-term limits are necessary. We note that some terrestrial fixed links operate over mountains, where the mainbeam of the fixed receiver antenna is pointed well above the horizon. It appears that mainbeam to mainbeam interference could occur under such circumstances. Parties advocating short term limits should provide specific recommendations supported by a thorough technical analysis. 21. Coordination with fixed service stations. Protection of NGSO FSS gateway receivers in the downlink (10.7-11.7 GHz) band from terrestrial transmitters would be accomplished through coordination. In the coordination process, new facilities from either service are responsible for determining the location of existing operations within a specified coordination distance and may use various factors, such as antenna directionality, terrain shielding, radio frequency ("RF") shielding, or frequency or geographic separation to ensure that new operations can be accommodated. 22. We propose to apply the existing prior coordination procedures used for GSO earth stations and terrestrial stations as prescribed in Parts 25 and 101 of the Commission's rules. We note that ITU recommendations for coordination areas generally specify smaller coordination areas for NGSO systems as opposed to GSO systems. This is because interference occurrences between NGSO gateway stations and terrestrial stations would have a time-varying nature, as opposed to the constant interference signal level within the mainbeam of a GSO FSS earth station. Nevertheless, we continue to believe that the present coordination procedures are adequate to ensure that existing fixed operations are fully protected. We request comment on this approach. After we gain experience with NGSO FSS systems sharing with fixed operations, we may modify our coordination procedures to shorter distances as a result of the time-varying nature of the tracking of the NGSO FSS earth station. 23. Gateway siting restrictions. The 10.7-11.7 GHz band was identified for future use by fixed operations that must be relocated from the 2 GHz frequency band. Thus, fixed operators need a reasonable assurance that coordination with NGSO FSS gateway stations would not hinder fixed service deployment. In order to maintain the opportunity for relocation and growth of fixed operations to the 10.7-11.7 GHz band, we propose to establish exclusion areas around the most populated cities of the U.S., in which NGSO FSS gateway earth stations could not be located. We note that the nature of the proposed NGSO FSS gateway operations generally permits them to be located away from heavily populated areas where most fixed operations are deployed. The establishment of exclusion areas requires identifying how large each area should be and for which cities. We are mindful of the fact that too large an area or too many areas could preclude the implementation of NGSO FSS gateways in this band. However, we seek to balance the need to accommodate fixed service growth with the ability to accommodate the gateways of multiple NGSO FSS systems, thus allowing for NGSO FSS operations in the U.S. 24. Specifically, we propose to establish exclusion areas around the 50 most populated cities, as defined by the 1990 Census. Each exclusion area would consist of a 100 km radius around the city center. Appendix B provides the coordinates for these cities and a visual representation of the proposed exclusion areas. We believe that the proposed exclusion areas provide a workable compromise to ensure fixed service growth and enable NGSO FSS gateway deployment. We request comment on the proposed exclusion areas and seek specific suggestions for implementing this proposal. Particularly, we request comment on the number of areas, which areas, and appropriate exclusion distances, supported by both operational requirements and technical justification. Further, commenters should address whether exclusion areas should be considered for non-urban areas where, for example, numerous fixed links exist and where it may be difficult to coordinate additional links under existing topographical conditions (e.g., several western states have numerous fixed links to convey information in mountainous regions where it may be difficult to run fiber optic cables). 25. The intent of the exclusion area is to provide deployed fixed operations an opportunity to move from the 2 GHz frequency band. We, therefore, propose that any exclusion area requirement have a sunset date. That is, we would require NGSO FSS gateway stations to avoid deployment in the designated areas for a specified number of years (e.g., 5 or 10 years) to permit fixed service relocation. After this date, new NGSO FSS gateway stations would be able to locate facilities within these areas and standard coordination procedures would apply. Further, since fixed service relocation and future deployment is a major justification of the exclusion area concept, we request comment on which bands should have exclusion areas and on an appropriate sunset date for the suggested band. We seek comment on this proposal. 26. Protection of GSO FSS downlinks (epfd limits). Some commenters support the concept of NGSO FSS sharing with GSO FSS operations, but others assert that SkyBridge has not demonstrated that its proposal would avoid causing interference to GSO FSS operations. The provisional epfd limits adopted at WRC-97 are intended to protect GSO FSS operations against interference from NGSO operations. The Region 2 (which includes the U.S.) epfd limits include associated percentages of time during which the levels are not to be exceeded for specific GSO FSS receiver reference antenna diameter and patterns as depicted in Table 1. We believe, based primarily on studies carried out within the ITU-R, that the epfd levels needed to protect GSO FSS operations will not vary greatly from the WRC-97 provisional limits. If no acceptable alternative is developed, we believe these provisional limits will be adopted as the international sharing criteria at WRC-2000. Considering this, and that there is no alternative before us at this time, we seek comment on the provisional epfd limits contained in Table 1. Any proposed modifications to these epfd limits must be supported with sufficient technical justification. If the record developed in this proceeding demonstrates that these limits are not appropriate to protect GSO FSS operations, we will explore alternative limits. Table 1 EPFD Limits To Protect GSO FSS Systems Frequency Band (GHz) Equivalent pfd dB (W/m2) (epfd) Percentage of time during which equivalent pfd level may not be exceeded Reference bandwidth (kHz) Reference antenna diameter, and reference radiation pattern 10.7-12.2 -179 -192 -186 -195 -170 -173 -178 -170 99.7 99.9 99.97 99.97 99.999 99.999 99.999 100 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 60 cm, Rec. ITU-R S.465-5 3 m, Rec. ITU-R S.465-5 3 m, Rec. ITU-R S.465-5 10 m, Rec. ITU-R S.465-5 60 cm, Rec. ITU-R S.465-5 3 m, Rec. ITU-R S.465-5 10 m, Rec. ITU-R S.465-5 ò60c m, Rec. ITU-R S.465- 5 27. We note that not all GSO antenna sizes are addressed in Table 1, such as GSO FSS receiver antennas greater than 10 meters in diameter. We believe that any NGSO FSS system would have to protect all existing GSO FSS receivers from unacceptable interference and that coordination rather than epfd limits would be required to protect GSO FSS networks with large earth station antennas. Therefore, we request comment on the appropriate coordination procedures to be used for GSO FSS operations with large earth station antennas and what sized antennas should qualify for any special coordination procedures (e.g., 10 meters or greater). Additionally, protection also should be extended to GSO FSS earth stations receiving signals from satellites in inclined orbit. The satellite industry relies on slightly inclined GSO operations to extend the life of a GSO satellite and continue service to customers. Permitting GSO satellites to drift some degree of inclination in the north/south direction has no impact on other GSO satellites, which are separated in the east/west direction. However, protection of satellites with a large north/south inclination could hamper NGSO system capacity. Therefore, we propose to protect only those GSO FSS satellites that do not exceed a certain degree of inclination and request comment on what that inclination angle should be. We request comment on whether the epfd limits in Table 1 adequately protect all FSS earth stations. Further, we ask that commenters include adequate technical analysis to support their position. 28. We note that WRC-97 developed spectrum sharing criteria for NGSO operations based on the avoidance of "unacceptable" interference to incumbent services. The Commission's rules define "accepted" interference, rather than "acceptable" interference. We believe, however, that the two terms are substantially the same. "Unacceptable" interference would be occurrences exceeding a defined "acceptable" level of interference. We also note that the term "acceptable" interference or "unacceptable" interference happens to be more commonly used for international satellite coordinations. In order to determine whether "unacceptable" interference is occurring between an NGSO FSS system and an incumbent user in the Ku-band, we propose that the Ku-band sharing criteria, including provisions necessary to take into account any exceptional cases, ultimately adopted for NGSO FSS operations in this proceeding constitute an acceptable level of interference under our rules. Consequently, NGSO operations in the Ku-band that exceed such sharing criteria would constitute unacceptable interference to incumbent operations which must be avoided. We note that requiring NGSO FSS operations to avoid causing "unacceptable" interference is consistent with the terminology of S22.2 of the ITU Radio Regulations. We request comment on this proposal. 29. Protection of Telemetry, Tracking, and Command Links. The JTG 4-9-11 has been analyzing how NGSO FSS systems would protect GSO TT&C during the launch (i.e., transfer orbit) and operational (i.e., on-station and the emergency operations) phases. With respect to protection of GSO transfer orbit operations, the impact of NGSO FSS would be infrequent and of short duration. These events can be planned to avoid interference. Due to the critical nature of transfer orbit operations, we propose that GSO (FSS and BSS) and NGSO FSS licensees consult with each other to ensure a successful deployment of the GSO spacecraft. We ask for comment on this proposal. 30. The contributions to the JTG 4-9-11 on the effects of the provisional epfd limits on the operational phase telemetry links are mixed. Although some contributions state that the effects would be insignificant, one contribution states that it would be possible for some telemetry downlinks to be degraded below the required link threshold. Although the probability of such occurrences would be low, such an event could have significant and possibly catastrophic impact on TT&C operations. Given the potential seriousness of such occurrences, we seek comment on the adequacy of the provisional epfd limits on the telemetry downlink operations. 31. On rare occasions due to satellite or launch malfunctions, communications between the ground control station and a GSO satellite become severely impaired. During these emergency situations, the measures required to reacquire communications and regain control of the GSO satellite cannot be predetermined. We believe that it is necessary to protect GSO operations from NGSO interference in these situations and request comment on how this can be accomplished. Similarly, communications with NGSO satellites can become impaired and we seek comment on how to protect GSO operations from malfunctioning NGSO satellites. 2. NGSO Gateway Uplink Bands. a. 12.75-13.25 GHz band 32. Current allocations. The 12.75-13.25 GHz band requested for NGSO FSS gateway uplinks is allocated on a co-primary basis to fixed, FSS uplink, and mobile operations. This band is primarily used by Part 74 broadcast auxiliary service ("BAS") and cable television relay ("CARS") operations and Part 101 fixed microwave operations. Television stations use the fixed allocation for BAS studio-transmitter links and the mobile allocation for electronic news gathering ("ENG"). CARS licensees use this band to send video signals between points in their networks. Part 101 licensees use it for various point-to-point microwave links. According to our license data base, the 12.7-13.25 GHz band has more than 105,000 terrestrial operations. GSO FSS operations in this band must meet the requirements of the ITU Appendix 30B plan and Part 2 limits these operations to international systems. Similar to the 10.7-11.7 GHz band, the international system only requirement for GSO FSS uplink operations has limited the number of GSO FSS earth stations in this band. Further, the band may also be used for vital TT&C functions for the GSO FSS satellites. 33. While the terrestrial deployment in this band is extensive, we believe that NGSO FSS gateway stations (uplink) should be able to coordinate into some areas without interference problems with incumbent operations. Due to the level of incumbent service deployment, a large number of NGSO earth stations would not be possible in this band. We, therefore, propose to limit NGSO uplink operations in the 12.75-13.25 GHz band to gateway type uplink operations subject to the coordination and the sharing criteria discussed below. Further, we propose to amend footnote NG104 of the Table of Frequency Allocations to permit domestic NGSO FSS systems to operate in the 12.75-13.25 GHz band. We propose to maintain the international systems only requirement for GSO FSS systems to control the number of satellite earth stations deployed in the band. Alternatively, we invite comment as to whether we might permit domestic GSO gateway operations in the U.S. subject to the qualifications proposed in this proceeding. 34. Sharing with fixed and mobile services. NGSO uplink transmitters have the potential to cause interference to terrestrial fixed and mobile receivers. We propose to facilitate sharing with fixed services by requiring coordination, as discussed above for the 10.7-11.7 GHz band. We invite comment on this proposal. We note that the 12.75-13.25 GHz band already includes over 3 times as many terrestrial operations as the 10.7-11.7 GHz band. Given the maturity of the use of this spectrum and that it is not specifically targeted for relocated fixed systems, we tentatively conclude that exclusion areas are not needed in the 12.75-13.25 GHz band. We request comment on this conclusion. Further, we request comments as to what measures, if any, may be required to facilitate sharing with mobile services operating in this band. 35. OpTel petition. On April 1, 1998, OpTel, Inc. ("OpTel"), an operator of private cable systems, filed a petition for rulemaking with the Commission to amend Parts 78 and 101 of the Commission's rules to allow licensees in the fixed microwave service to use frequencies in the 12.7- 13.25 GHz band to transmit video programming material to end users. Specifically, OpTel proposes to amend Part 78 to make fixed licensees eligible for licenses in the CARS band and to amend Part 101 to allow fixed licensees to use the 12 GHz band for video programming. Additionally, the Commission has initiated a proceeding to consider the carriage of digital broadcast television signals over the cable TV infrastructure which may create capacity demands on the CARS frequencies. Both of these proceedings could greatly increase the terrestrial use of the 12.75-13.25 GHz band. Therefore, we request comment on whether these proceedings would conflict with potential NGSO FSS operations in the 12.75-13.25 GHz band. 36. Sharing with GSO FSS uplinks (apfd limits). WRC-97 adopted a provisional apfd limit of -170 dB(W/m2) to protect GSO FSS satellite receivers in the 12.75-13.25 GHz band from NGSO FSS earth station uplink interference. This apfd limit may not be exceeded at any time. Similar to the epfd discussion above, we believe that any apfd limit adopted in this proceeding should protect all existing GSO FSS satellites, including uplink command TT&C communications. We believe, based primarily on studies carried out within the ITU-R, that the apfd limit needed to protect GSO FSS operations will not vary greatly from the WRC-97 provisional limit. If no acceptable alternative is developed, we believe this provisional limit will be adopted as the international sharing criteria at WRC-2000. Considering this, and that there is no alternative before us at this time, we seek comment on the provisional -170 dB(W/m2) apfd limit. Any proposed modifications to this apfd limit must be supported by sufficient technical justification. If the record developed in this proceeding demonstrates that this limit is not appropriate to protect GSO FSS operations, we will explore an alternative limit. Further, we ask for technical analysis to support the appropriate apfd limit to protect inclined orbit operations and for proposals regarding the appropriate level of inclination that merits protection. 37. We also seek comment on whether the apfd definition should take into account GSO satellite receive antenna directivity. The definition of apfd contained in Article S22 adopted at WRC-97 did not take into account GSO satellite receive antenna directivity, but JTG 4-9-11 is now considering whether it should. We believe that the definition of apfd overestimates the number of NGSO earth stations that would contribute to the apfd for GSO satellites with directive antennas. If JTG 4-9-11 recommends a modification to the apfd definition and it were adopted at WRC-2000, the number of NGSO FSS earth stations that are taken into account when calculating the apfd from a NGSO FSS system would likely decrease. However, this change may not affect the apfd level itself, as that level is based on the required protection for the GSO FSS satellite. We seek comment on whether a new definition of apfd, taking into account the directivity of the GSO satellite antenna, would necessitate a corresponding change to the apfd levels. In addition, we request information on the appropriate satellite receive antenna reference pattern(s) that should be considered in developing a modified apfd definition. b. 13.75-14.0 GHz band 38. Current allocations. The 13.75-14.0 GHz band requested for NGSO FSS gateway uplinks is allocated on a co-primary basis to Government radiolocation operations, such as high powered mobile radar systems. The band is also used on a co-primary basis by standard frequency and time satellite operations and space research/earth exploration-satellite operations, such as the National Aeronautical and Space Administration ("NASA") tracking data and relay satellite system ("TDRSS") and spaceborne sensors that provide weather and other significant data. Further, the Commission recently allocated this band on a co-primary basis for FSS uplinks subject to certain sharing criteria. The technical constraints on FSS are as follows: 1) the eirp of any emission from an earth station in the FSS shall be at least 68 dBW, and should not exceed 85 dBW, with a minimum antenna diameter of 4.5 meters; and 2) the eirp density of emissions from any earth station in the FSS shall not exceed 71 dBW in any 6 megahertz band in the 13.772-13.778 GHz frequency range. At this time, the FSS uplink use is relatively light due to the short time that the FSS has been allocated in the band and the prevalence of the Government operations. We have, however, licensed satellites to provide international operations in the band. 39. As we discuss below, we propose to allow NGSO FSS operations in the 13.8-14.0 GHz portion of this band. However, we are not proposing to allow NGSO FSS operation in the 13.75-13.8 GHz band segment in order to protect NASA TDRSS operations. NGSO FSS gateway uplink operations should be able to share the 13.8-14.0 GHz band with incumbent Government and GSO FSS operations, subject to proper coordination and spectrum sharing criteria, as discussed below. 40. Coordination with Government operations. The 13.75-14.0 GHz band was allocated to the FSS in the Report and Order ("R&O") in ET Docket No. 96-20, released September 26, 1996. In the R&O, the Commission stated that the 13.75-14.0 GHz band contained a number of important incumbent Government operations which must be protected. To promote spectrum compatibility, the R&O adopted operating parameters for FSS operations designed to facilitate sharing in the 13.75-14.0 GHz band. SkyBridge contends that its gateways in the 13.75-14.0 GHz band would comply with the eirp and antenna restrictions of S5.502 of the ITU Radio Regulations. However, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense ("DoD") notes that the operating parameters adopted for GSO FSS operations in this band are based on ITU-R studies that did not consider NGSO operations. DoD contends that interference from Government radiolocation operations to NGSO FSS is probable. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA") states that if NGSO operations are permitted to operate in the 13.75-14.0 GHz band, they must operate in accordance with the ET Docket No. 96-20 R&O and would have to accept interference from radiolocation stations. 41. SkyBridge also claims that the interference power received by TDRSS spacecrafts in the 13.75-13.80 GHz range from SkyBridge gateways would be well below the noise floor of the TDRSS receiver. However, NASA asserts that SkyBridge's analysis is incorrect because it assumed a TDRSS receiving antenna gain of -45 dBi rather than the actual value of -5 dBi. NASA asserts that even if SkyBridge's intended analysis used a 45 dB antenna isolation value from the mainbeam, the analysis would have resulted in an interference-to-noise density of 29.9 dB, an interference level NASA considers unacceptable for TDRSS operations. More recently, NASA prepared and submitted a study to the July JTG 4-9-11 meeting that is more comprehensive than its previous analysis regarding sharing with NGSO FSS systems. It should be noted that the NASA study was based on the original SkyBridge system and did not include recent modifications (e.g., from 64 to 80 satellites) and the technical information utilized indicated that SkyBridge was not operating in accordance with S5.502. 42. To facilitate sharing with incumbent Government operations, we propose to apply the eirp and minimum antenna diameter limits for GSO FSS operations set forth in international footnotes S5.502 and S5.503 to new NGSO FSS operations in this band. As noted in the R&O, since the 13.8-14.0 GHz band is a shared Government/non-Government band, we propose to require coordination of all FSS earth stations located in the U.S.&P., including NGSO gateway stations, with Government radiolocation stations through the normal Frequency Assignment Subcommittee ("FAS") process of the Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee ("IRAC"). Further consideration will have to be given on how to facilitate sharing between the TDRSS forward link-to- LEO and earth stations not located in the U.S.&P. The R&O also adopted coordination requirements to permit new GSO FSS earth stations to share spectrum with NASA TDRSS operations. In the coordination process, GSO FSS earth stations proposing to operate in this band would be coordinated with TDRSS earth stations and with the TDRSS forward link-to-LEO satellite in order to minimize harmful interference to their operations. Moreover, the FAS would apply the methods and criteria of Appendix 28 of the ITU Radio Regulations in order to protect the TDRSS earth stations. The R&O indicated that NASA converted the Appendix 28 requirements into a 390 kilometer (242.3 mile) coordination radius centered at 106.6o West Longitude and 32.5o North Latitude. We propose to use the same coordination process adopted in the R&O for NGSO FSS earth stations operating in this band and request comment on whether this coordination process is appropriate for NGSO earth stations. Considering DoD's statement that interference to NGSO FSS would be probable, we ask if these proposals would enable spectrum sharing in this band for NGSO FSS operations. 43. Nevertheless, we realize that coordinating and sharing spectrum with GSO operations can be different from sharing spectrum with NGSO operations. Particularly, we are concerned with NASA's argument that NGSO FSS uplinks would interfere with its TDRSS downlink to LEO (i.e., shuttle) operations in the 13.75-13.80 GHz band. At this time, the record does not support permitting NGSO FSS operations in this 50 megahertz segment. Therefore, we do not propose to permit NGSO FSS systems to operate in the 13.75-13.80 GHz segment. However, if the JTG progress continues and sufficient technical analysis is submitted to demonstrate the feasibility of NGSO FSS sharing with NASA operations, we may permit NGSO FSS operations in this band segment. Nevertheless, we request comment on this proposal and further analysis on whether NGSO FSS operations would be able to share with the various Government operations in the entire 13.75- 14.0 GHz band. Additionally, commenters should address whether any modifications to the proposed apfd limits would be necessary to protect Government operations in this band or whether different spectrum sharing criteria are needed to address these operations. 44. Sharing with GSO FSS uplinks. The issues discussed above regarding spectrum sharing between NGSO FSS gateway uplinks and GSO FSS uplinks (e.g., apfd limits, inclined orbit operations, TT&C, etc.) would also apply in the 13.8-14.0 GHz band. We, therefore, request comment and proposals on the appropriate technical requirements to enable NGSO FSS gateway uplink operations to share the 13.8-14.0 GHz band with GSO FSS operations and Government operations. c. 14.4-14.5 GHz band 45. Current allocations. The 14.4-14.5 GHz band is allocated on a primary basis to FSS uplinks. The primary use of this band is ubiquitously deployed GSO FSS uplink operations, including very small aperture terminal ("VSAT") operations. This band is also allocated on a secondary basis for land mobile satellite uplinks, Government fixed and Government mobile operations. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") uses this band to transmit television microwave links that convey radar and video imagery between air facilities. Qualcomm uses this band for its Omnitracs system, a data service in the mobile satellite service providing tracking and data service to various entities such as the trucking industry. 46. Sharing with GSO FSS uplinks. We tentatively conclude that NGSO gateway uplink operations could share the 14.4-14.5 GHz band with the incumbent services provided an appropriate spectrum sharing criteria is adopted. The issues discussed above regarding spectrum sharing between NGSO FSS gateway uplinks and GSO FSS uplinks (e.g., apfd limits, inclined orbit operations, TT&C, etc.) also apply in the 14.4-14.5 GHz band. We, therefore, request comment and proposals on the appropriate technical requirements to enable NGSO FSS gateway uplink operations to share the 14.4-14.5 GHz band with GSO FSS uplink operations. Additionally, Government use of this band appears light and should not present sharing problems with NGSO gateway operations, but we request comment on the impact of the proposed NGSO FSS operations on secondary uses of the band. Further, we request comment as to whether NGSO FSS user terminals could be accommodated in this band. d. 17.3-17.8 GHz Band 47. Current allocations. The 17.3-17.8 GHz band is allocated on a primary basis to FSS uplinks, but US footnote US271 limits such operations in the U.S. to BSS feeder link operations. BSS feeder links are used by various DBS licensees to support 12 GHz DBS downlinks. Further, the 17.7-17.8 GHz portion is allocated on a primary basis to fixed operations, mobile operations, and the FSS in the downlink direction. Additionally, the 17.3-17.7 GHz portion is allocated for secondary Government radiolocation operations. This band is also allocated internationally for BSS downlinks in Region 2, but this BSS allocation does not come into effect until April 1, 2007. In September 1998, the Commission initiated a proceeding, in response to a petition received from DIRECTV, Inc. ("DIRECTV"), to implement this BSS allocation domestically. 48. While SkyBridge argues that its gateway uplink operations could share this spectrum with the GSO FSS and terrestrial services, it contends that maintaining the proper coordination distance between BSS downlink operations and NGSO FSS gateway uplink operations would be impractical. We tentatively conclude that spectrum sharing between ubiquitous BSS downlink to subscriber operations and NGSO FSS uplink operations, both service and gateway links, would not be possible. Therefore, we do not propose to permit NGSO FSS operations in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. Below we discuss this assessment and seek comment on NGSO FSS sharing with the incumbent radiolocation operations and with BSS. We note that the spectrum sharing principles between NGSO FSS uplink stations and fixed operations in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band would be the same as those discussed in Section A2 with respect to the 12.75-13.25 GHz band. Since we are not proposing to permit NGSO operations in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band, we will not reiterate fixed sharing issues in this section. 49. BSS downlinks. The sharing scenario in this section is called reverse band operation, as the NGSO FSS is transmitting in the uplink direction, while the BSS transmission is in the downlink direction. WRC-97 designated this band for further study and did not adopt pfd limits for the band because of sharing difficulties between transmitting NGSO FSS earth stations and ubiquitous BSS receivers. The U.S. recently submitted a document to JTG 4-9-11 with a preliminary assessment on reverse band sharing between BSS downlinks and NGSO FSS uplinks in the 17.3 17.8 GHz frequency band in Region 2. The document states that there would be potential sharing difficulties between NGSO FSS earth station transmitters (user terminal and gateways) and ubiquitous GSO BSS receive earth stations using the same frequency band. For example, the required coordination distances for co-existence between BSS receive earth stations and NGSO FSS user terminal uplinks were found to be about 678 km without shielding and about 68 km with shielding. The required coordination distances for co-existence between BSS receive earth stations and NGSO FSS gateway uplinks were found to be 93.9 km without shielding and 9.4 km with shielding. The document notes that further studies are needed to more accurately assess the interference situations between NGSO FSS earth stations and BSS receive earth stations, including taking into account the statistical nature of the interference. 50. We believe that such coordination distances would prohibitively limit a ubiquitous service, particularly, as Skybridge points out, one where the receive stations are not under the control of the service operator. We therefore tentatively conclude that NGSO FSS user terminals or gateway uplink operations would not be compatible with ubiquitously deployed BSS receive earth stations. We invite comment on this tentative conclusion. Therefore, we are not proposing to amend our rules to permit NGSO FSS operations in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band at this time. 51. Radiolocation. Regarding the Government radiolocation operations in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band, NTIA requests that the Commission not authorize any NGSO FSS operations in this band and states that they cannot agree with any changes or waiver to the existing Table of Frequency Allocations or to the Commission's rules that would enable NGSO FSS operations in this band. We also note that in response to DIRECTV's 17 GHz Petition, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA") sent a letter to the FCC stating that this band would not be available for BSS operations until the year 2007 in order to protect the U.S. Government's considerable investment in existing operations in the band. We note that these Government operations are currently able to share with GSO BSS feeder links because footnote US259 to the domestic Table of Allocations limits radiolocation stations to operating powers of less than 51 dBW. However, because this footnote was created when the only satellite use of this band in the U.S. was geostationary, radiolocation stations have limited their power in accordance with this footnote only in the direction of the GSO arc. Satellites in other orbits could receive higher levels of interference, as radiolocation systems will be radiating indiscriminately in directions outside of the plane of the GSO arc in a manner that is not able to be predetermined or constrained in order to fulfill the functions of the radiolocation operation. In fact, away from the GSO arc, these secondary radars operate at powers of up to 116 dBW, 65 dBW higher than the power radiated at the GSO arc. Additionally, the DoD argues that sharing between Government radiolocation operations and NGSO FSS operations in this band does not appear to be feasible. DoD states that it anticipates continued operation of radiolocation stations in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band even after April 1, 2007, when the BSS is authorized to operate in Region 2. Therefore, NTIA and DoD do not agree with permitting NGSO FSS operations in this band. Since NGSO satellites would operate at much lower altitudes and would be subject to extremely high eirp radar transmissions, we believe that interference from these radiolocation operations could be severe. Therefore, we are not proposing to amend our rules to permit NGSO FSS operations in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. B. NGSO FSS Service Link Bands (11.7-12.7 GHz and 14.0-14.4 GHz Bands) 52. NGSO FSS service links are used for transmissions between user terminals and satellites for both downlink and uplink communications. Spectrum sharing with NGSO FSS service links raises issues different than those considered with gateway stations, since user terminals are more numerous and they are unlikely to be deployed at planned locations. As we discuss in detail below, we propose to allow NGSO FSS service downlink operations in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band, which is primarily used in the U.S. by the GSO FSS, and in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band, which is primarily used for DBS downlinks. Further, we propose to allow NGSO FSS service uplink operations in the 14.0-14.4 GHz band, which is used primarily by the GSO FSS. It appears that spectrum sharing in these bands is possible. We seek to determine whether the provisional sharing criteria adopted at WRC-97 are adequate to protect incumbent operations that use this spectrum in the U.S. and allow for their growth. Analysis of sharing issues continues in international fora, which, in conjunction with the record developed in response to this Notice, should provide the basis for use of these bands by the NGSO FSS. Additional technical issues affecting these proposals (e.g., multiple NGSO systems, antenna reference pattern requirements and others) are discussed in Section D below and should be taken into account when addressing issues in this section. Finally, we propose a domestic NGSO FSS allocation in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band. We ask for comment on these proposals. 1. NGSO Service Downlink Bands a. 11.7-12.2 GHz band. 53. Current allocations. The 11.7-12.2 GHz portion is allocated in the U.S. on a primary basis for FSS downlinks and is heavily used by VSAT operations. Mobile (except aeronautical mobile) operations are also permitted in this band on a secondary basis, but there are only a few mobile operations in this band. We propose to permit NGSO FSS service downlink operations to share the 11.7-12.2 GHz band with incumbent GSO FSS downlinks subject to the spectrum sharing criteria discussed below. 54. Sharing with GSO FSS downlink operations. NGSO/GSO downlink sharing in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band raises issues similar to those discussed in Section A1 above for NGSO gateway downlink operations in the 10.7-11.7 GHz band where GSO FSS downlink operations also occur. The proposed NGSO service downlink operations in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band, however, would transmit to an unlimited number of user terminal receivers which could be located anywhere within the satellite footprint without knowledge of the precise location. Additionally, the NGSO user terminals would typically employ much smaller aperture antennas, than their NGSO gateway counterparts. We request the same information for NGSO FSS service downlink operations in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band as those in the 10.7-11.7 GHz band. Specifically, we seek comment on the adequacy of the WRC-97 epfd limits contained in Table 1 above for NGSO operations to protect incumbent GSO FSS operations in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band. Commenters should evaluate the WRC- 97 sharing criteria for NGSO downlinks in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band vis-a-vis the specific incumbent uses here. We also request information and proposals regarding sharing with GSO FSS large aperture earth stations, inclined orbit satellites, and TT&C links. We refer commenters to Section A above for the explanation of these issues and specific questions raised. We also invite comment with regard to any secondary mobile operations in this spectrum and the impact on such operations. b. 12.2-12.7 GHz Band 55. Current allocations. The 12.2-12.7 GHz band is allocated to the BSS for the provision of DBS services and internationally to NGSO FSS in Region 2. DBS provides television programming transmitted from GSO satellites and received by small subscriber earth station antennas (with diameters as small as 45 cm). With over 6 million subscribers in the U.S., DBS is the closest competitor to the cable television industry for the provision of multichannel video program distribution services. This band is also allocated to the fixed service domestically and is used by the point-to-point microwave service. However, point-to-point fixed systems licensed in this band after September 9, 1983 must operate on a non-interference basis with respect to the DBS service. Further, as discussed in Section F of this Notice, Northpoint petitions the Commission to authorize its proposed service in this band which would provide retransmission of local television signals and provide one-way data services to DBS subscribers. 56. Protection of BSS downlinks (epfd limits). SkyBridge's proposed epfd limits to protect DBS operations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band are based on the technical parameters for BSS systems specified in the original 1983 Region 2 BSS Plan. The DBS operators in the U.S. currently use different system parameters than those specified in the original 1983 Region 2 BSS Plan, such as lower downlink eirp levels, satellite beams shaped to the service area, digital emissions and 45 cm diameter receive earth station antennas. Recognizing these modified DBS systems with varying receiver characteristics, WRC-97 adopted provisional epfd values for various receive earth station antennas in use in all three Regions, including a 45 cm diameter receive earth station antenna. Nevertheless, the DBS industry opposes the epfd limits proposed by SkyBridge and the WRC-97 limits arguing that these epfd limits are wholly inadequate to protect BSS. For instance, DIRECTV argues that WRC-97 epfd limits are not adequate to protect smaller DBS receiver antennas, which are not as selective as larger antennas. Table S22-1 from the Final Acts of WRC-97 contains the epfd limits provisionally adopted by WRC-97 in the BSS bands and is depicted below: TABLE S22-1 Frequency band allocated to the BSS Antenna diameter (cm) Equivalent pfd level (dB(W/m2/4kHz)) which may not be exceeded during the percentage of time shown Reference antenna radiation pattern 99.7% 100% 11.7 - 12.5 GHz in Region 1, 11.7 - 12.2 GHz and 12.5 - 12.75 GHz in Region 3 30 60 90 -172.3 -183.3 -186.8 -169.3 -170.3 -170.3 Recommendation ITU-R BO.1213 12.2 - 12.7 GHz in Region 2 45 100 120 180 -174.3 -186.3 -187.9 -191.4 -165.3 -170.3 -170.3 -170.3 Section 3.7.2 of Annex 5 of Appendix 30 17.3 - 17.8 GHz in Region 2 For further study1) 1)The interference from non-GSO FSS systems into GSO BSS systems operating in the frequency bands 17.3 - 17.8 GHz relates to the two following sharing situations: non-GSO FSS transmit earth station into GSO receive earth station; GSO BSS transmit space station into non-GSO FSS receive space stations. Both situations need to be studied, in particular since coexistence of receive BSS earth stations and large numbers of transmit non-GSO FSS terminals would not be feasible within the same country. 57. In the comments, and in the on-going international work, various methodologies have been identified as possible ways to determine the appropriate epfd limit to protect DBS. We seek comment on what criteria should be used in determining the appropriate epfd limits. We request justification for any proposed criteria. 58. Additionally, we agree with commenters in this proceeding that NGSO FSS operations should not hinder the evolution of the DBS. DBS licensees are considering variations in their service, such as provision of high definition television signals, provision of one-way data services through the DBS satellite, the use of smaller DBS receive antennas and other system modifications that could reduce DBS protection margins. While our rules and the ITU Radio Regulations permit DBS licensees the flexibility to modify their systems (e.g., no restriction on receive antenna size or modulation technique), the epfd spectrum sharing concept ties a particular epfd value to a specific receive earth station antenna diameter and reference pattern. Given that the WRC-97 provisional epfd limits apply to certain antenna sizes and reference patterns, JTG 4-9- 11 is investigating appropriate means to translate the adopted epfd limits among various antenna sizes and/or antenna reference patterns. Similarly, various DBS antennas with non-symmetrical receive patterns are being studied to determine their ability to reject interfering signals from directions other than the geostationary satellite orbital plane. Specifically, off-set feed receive earth station antennas may have different discrimination characteristics in directions other than the plane of the geostationary satellite orbit. We request comment on the impact that the WRC-97 provisional epfd limits would have on the evolution of DBS operations and other ways to ensure flexibility and reliability for existing and future DBS operations. 59. We are not convinced, based on the record to date, that the provisional epfd limits adopted by WRC-97 are adequate to protect the 45 cm dishes that are used in the U.S., especially if multiple NGSO FSS systems are deployed in this band. However, we believe that, if no acceptable alternative is developed, these provisional limits will be adopted as the international sharing criteria at WRC-2000. Considering this, and that there is no alternative before us at this time, we seek comment on the provisional epfd limits contained in Table S22-1. Any proposed modifications to these epfd limits must be supported with sufficient technical justification. If the record developed in this proceeding demonstrates that these limits are not appropriate to protect DBS services, we will explore alternative limits. 60. In addition, ITU-R JTG 4-9-11 is addressing the need for an additional epfd specification point at another percentage of time, for example, an epfd value not to be exceeded for around 90% of the time. We seek comment on this concept, and particularly, what additional percentage of time would be appropriate, as well as the corresponding epfd value and technical justification. 61. Other DBS applications. DIRECTV is providing DBS to antennas mounted on aircraft. SkyBridge states that mobile reception of DBS should not be protected from other operations, as this band is not allocated to the mobile-satellite service or to the aeronautical mobile- satellite service. We believe that this type of mobile operation is consistent with the allocation because the DBS definition in the Commission's rules does not limit transmissions to fixed receive earth stations. Nevertheless, we request comment on whether this type of BSS operation is consistent with the Commission's rules and whether it is appropriate to protect this type of reception. If so, we also request comment on whether these operations could be protected and what epfd limits would be appropriate to protect aircraft mobile antennas. 62. DIRECTV contends that the SkyBridge proposal is devoid of evidence demonstrating that NGSO FSS operations would protect TT&C operations. The questions highlighted in Section A regarding GSO TT&C operations are relevant for protection of GSO BSS TT&C operations, and we request comment on these matters. We propose that NGSO and GSO operators coordinate their transfer orbit operations, and that emergency TT&C operations be protected. 2. NGSO Service Uplink Bands a. 14.0-14.4 GHz band 63. Current allocations. The 14.0-14.4 GHz band is allocated on a primary basis to FSS uplinks. While there are several secondary allocations in this band, the primary usage is by ubiquitously deployed GSO FSS uplink operations, including very small aperture terminal ("VSAT") operations. Additionally, the 14.0-14.2 GHz segment is allocated on a secondary basis to Government radionavigation, non-Government radionavigation, and space research operations. There are no significant radionavigation operations in the 14.0-14.2 GHz segment other than for small handheld radionavigation devices used along certain waterways under our Part 80 maritime rules. Additionally, this 14.2-14.4 GHz segment is allocated on a secondary basis to the mobile service, for such operations as television pickup links for Part 101 licensees. Further, the entire 14.0-14.4 GHz band is available for secondary land mobile satellite uplink operations. 64. Because this band is primarily used for GSO satellite uplink operations, SkyBridge proposes to place NGSO FSS user terminals in this band. Similar to the incumbent GSO earth stations, the NGSO user terminals could be deployed anywhere. As discussed below, we believe sharing with GSO FSS operations in this band is feasible. Additionally, the secondary operations in the band should not suffer any greater impact than they would from existing GSO FSS uplinks. Therefore, we propose to permit NGSO service uplinks in the 14.0-14.4 GHz band, subject to the development of an appropriate sharing criteria, as discussed below. 65. Sharing with GSO FSS uplinks. The NGSO/GSO sharing scenario in the 14.0-14.4 GHz band raises issues similar to those discussed in Section A regarding NGSO gateway uplinks in the 12.75-13.25 GHz and 13.75-14.0 GHz bands. The proposed NGSO service uplink operations in the 14.0-14.4 GHz band, however, could entail an unlimited number of NGSO user terminal transmitters throughout the U.S. Nevertheless, the issues regarding apfd limits, TT&C protection, GSO inclined orbit concerns and others discussed above still apply. We request the same information for NGSO FSS service uplink operations in the 14.0-14.4 GHz band as those in the 12.75-13.25 GHz band. We refer commenters to Section A above for the explanation of these issues and specific questions raised. Further, given that this band could contain a large number of NGSO user terminal uplink transmitters with much smaller aperture antennas, than their NGSO gateway counterparts, commenters should address whether the WRC-97 apfd level adequately protect GSO satellites from the aggregate power of an unlimited number of NGSO earth station transmitters. 66. Additionally, we note that SkyBridge requested that both NGSO service uplinks and gateway uplinks be permitted to operate in the 14.2-14.4 GHz segment. Because this band is able to accommodate a variety of GSO FSS operations, we propose to allow NGSO FSS operators the flexibility to implement NGSO FSS gateway uplink or users terminal uplink operations in the 14.2- 14.4 GHz segment. The NGSO FSS gateway stations would have to meet the technical requirements for the band proposed in the previous paragraph. We do not see incompatibilities between the NGSO operations and incumbent services, but request comment on this proposal. C. Accommodation of Multiple NGSO FSS Systems. 1. Spectrum Sharing Among Multiple NGSO FSS Systems 67. It is important to accommodate, if technically feasible, multiple NGSO FSS systems to promote greater competition in the satellite industry. Indeed, competing NGSO FSS applications have already been filed, but they propose systems that are significantly different from Skybridge's. Denali Telecom L.L.C. ("Denali") has applied for a license for a highly elliptical orbit ("HEO") FSS system, Pentriad, to operate in several bands, including the 11.7-12.2 GHz band. Additionally, Boeing has filed for access to 109 megahertz of Ku-band spectrum for feeder links to serve its 2 GHz NGSO MSS ("MEO") system. SkyBridge identifies two basic sharing scenarios for multiple NGSO FSS systems: (1) sharing between or among "homogeneous" NGSO FSS systems, and (2) sharing between or among "non-homogeneous" NGSO FSS systems. SkyBridge defines "homogeneous" NGSO FSS systems as those that have similar orbital characteristics and that share by interleaving their orbital planes. SkyBridge defines "non-homogeneous" NGSO FSS systems as those having completely independent orbital characteristics. Skybridge asserts that, depending on a system's design, more than one "homogeneous" type NGSO FSS system should be able to share the same spectrum with a SkyBridge type system without causing harmful interference. Specifically, SkyBridge states that up to six SkyBridge-like systems can co-exist without harmful interference to each other. SkyBridge also states that "non-homogeneous" NGSO FSS systems may not be able to use the same spectrum. 68. Systems with satellites in LEOs (such as SkyBridge), MEOs (such as Boeing) and HEOs (such as Pentriad) are considered "non-homogeneous" NGSO systems. Boeing and Denali assert that a SkyBridge-type, i.e., LEO, system should not be permitted to hinder other proposed NGSO FSS operations in these frequency bands. Similarly, Hughes, in its comments on SkyBridge's Petition, urges the Commission not to proceed with a proposal for NGSO use of the spectrum that effectively provides an entry opportunity for only one company." In regards to sharing between NGSO FSS systems, Denali states that a SkyBridge-type system should have to implement mitigation techniques to protect HEO systems similar to those to protect the GSO arc. Boeing states that significant design changes (such as greatly increasing/decreasing satellite beam size or the number of satellites) to its or SkyBridge's system are necessary before they can share the same frequencies. Boeing and Denali both suggest that it may be necessary to divide the frequencies between the various "non-homogeneous" NGSO systems. In the case of sharing between "non- homogeneous" systems, mitigation techniques can often facilitate sharing (e.g., satellite diversity or high gain antennas). 69. At this time, we do not have sufficient information to determine exactly how many NGSO FSS systems, and in particular whether "non-homogeneous" type systems, would be able to operate in the Ku-band. Although we do not now propose any specific sharing principles or mitigation techniques to be used in coordination among multiple NGSO FSS systems, we ask for comment on what technical rules would facilitate sharing between NGSO FSS systems. For instance, we propose NGSO earth station antenna performance requirements in Section D and ask if other requirements should be required to facilitate NGSO/NGSO spectrum sharing. The Commission also recognizes that division of the spectrum, which would result in a reduction of each system's capacity, is also a feasible alternative if spectrum sharing proves to be unacceptable to any particular NGSO FSS system. We ask for comment on this alternative. 70. We also propose that all NGSO FSS systems be responsible for some portion of burden-sharing. Specifically, we expect all NGSO FSS applicants to bear some portion of the technical and operational constraints necessary to accommodate multiple NGSO FSS systems. In apportioning burden, we request comment on what factors are appropriate to consider. For example, how much importance should be placed on whether a particular NGSO FSS satellite is already in- orbit and operational in making such a determination? Further, we request comment on whether the potential NGSO FSS licensees that could be licensed as a result of an initial processing round should have any responsibility for accommodating subsequent NGSO FSS applicants. 71. SkyBridge proposes that any future NGSO FSS system proposing to operate in the Ku-band should be required to operate on a non-interference basis with respect to any existing NGSO FSS systems operating in the subject bands. The Commission typically opens filing windows for competing satellite applications to allow other interested parties an opportunity to participate in the licensing process. At the time we placed SkyBridge's application on Public Notice, we indicated that we would not establish a cut-off date for applications to be considered concurrently with SkyBridge's due to the outstanding issues raised by SkyBridge's proposal. Further, we stated that we would announce any cut-off date in a separate Public Notice and that we did not intend to grant SkyBridge's application without establishing a filing cut-off. Therefore, by separate Public Notice, we have established a filing window for other NGSO FSS applications to be considered concurrently with the SkyBridge system. All NGSO FSS applications for the Ku-band filed before the cut-off date will be considered on an equal basis. Additionally, we note that of the 3.2 gigahertz of spectrum (combined uplink and downlink) being considered for NGSO FSS operations in the Ku- band, SkyBridge requests access to 2.1 gigahertz for its system. Therefore, once all applications to be considered in this processing round are filed, we will have to determine which systems are compatible with one another and determine how to resolve situations of incompatibility. 2. Impact of Multiple NGSO FSS Systems On Sharing With Other Services. 72. The sharing criteria developed at WRC-97 are based upon a single NGSO FSS satellite or NGSO FSS satellite system. For example, the WRC-97 NGSO FSS pfd limits are identical to GSO FSS pfd limits for a single satellite. We note that an ITU-R study group is attempting to develop a recommendation that would scale the NGSO FSS pfd limits relative to the number of satellites in an NGSO FSS system. We note also that DIRECTV states that the impact of multiple NGSO FSS systems on sharing with DBS operations has not been sufficiently addressed. We are concerned about the cumulative effect of multiple NGSO FSS systems on the viability of sharing with other services. At the same time, we recognize that developing a method to predict the aggregate effect of all possible NGSO FSS systems in a given band may not be possible without knowing the technical characteristics of the specific NGSO FSS systems. 73. One way to protect incumbent systems from the effect of multiple NGSO systems is to make assumptions about the number of NGSO FSS systems that would operate in a frequency band and to make the appropriate adjustments to the WRC-97 levels based on these assumptions. If the number of "relevant" NGSO FSS systems is too large, there would be an added burden on each NGSO FSS system since the allowable short term time duration per NGSO FSS system would be too short. If the "relevant" number of NGSO FSS systems is found to be too low, then GSO FSS systems may not be protected from the additional impact of subsequent NGSO systems that were not included in the "relevant" number of NGSO FSS systems. Basically, the "relevant" number of NGSO FSS systems would determine how the total allowable unavailability time is divided into single entry short term time durations. We seek comments on the maximum number of NGSO FSS systems that are "relevant" for determining sharing criteria with other services. 74. We invite comment as to how the proposed sharing criteria should be applied or adjusted to account for multiple NGSO systems. For example, we could apply the requirement that an NGSO FSS systems should not cause more than 10% of the unavailability time in a GSO (FSS or BSS) network, to the aggregate effect of all NGSO systems. Also, we could adjust the pfd limits used to protect fixed operations to provide some margin to allow for cumulative effects of multiple NGSO FSS systems. Any suggested adjustments to the sharing criteria to account for multiple systems should be supported by a technical justification. We also invite comment as to other means to facilitate spectrum sharing by multiple NGSO FSS systems with existing services. For example, we may need to establish a limit on the number of NGSO FSS systems that should be permitted to operate in this spectrum. Parties suggesting limits on the number of satellite systems should consider that such systems may be licensed internationally, as well as by the U.S. We solicit any other information or recommendations that may be appropriate to enable multiple NGSO systems to share spectrum with existing services without causing interference. D. Other Technical Rules. 75. GSO Arc Avoidance. SkyBridge's system proposal states that its earth stations would not transmit to an NGSO satellite that is within + or - 10 degrees of the GSO arc as viewed from the GSO earth station. Additionally, SkyBridge plans to cease transmissions from its satellites when they are within + or - 10 degrees from the GSO arc, as viewed from the GSO earth station. By avoiding in-line interference with GSO FSS transmissions, SkyBridge claims that it would be able to reduce the signal levels that are received by GSO space and earth stations. Although this is one technique to facilitate sharing with GSO operations, the epfd and apfd sharing criteria we propose do not explicitly require the NGSO system to employ GSO arc avoidance. While the arc avoidance technique may be used by different NGSO FSS systems to share with GSO systems and could be a condition upon such Ku-band NGSO licensees, we do not propose to place such a requirement in our rules. We note that, through the use of a wider GSO arc avoidance angle, an NGSO system can also reduce the level of interference into the NGSO system from GSO satellites and earth stations. Additionally, any arc avoidance technique would be beneficial in the protection of GSO satellites in slightly inclined orbits. 76. GSO earth station off-axis eirp density limits. WRC-97 adopted, then subsequently suspended, GSO FSS earth station off-axis eirp density limits in the 12.75-13.25 GHz, 13.75-14.0 GHz and 14.0-14.5 GHz (uplink) bands. Limiting the signal energy radiated by GSO FSS earth stations places an upper bound on the level of uplink interference that NGSO FSS systems must tolerate. The WRC-97 limits, contained in proposed rule Section 25.204(g), Appendix A, were taken from an ITU-R Recommendation on earth station off-axis eirp levels. Working Party 4A ("WP4A") proposed modifications to this recommendation at its October 1998 meeting. The proposed changes limit the scope of the recommendation to GSO FSS earth stations and allow the levels to be exceeded for telecommand and ranging carriers transmitted to GSO FSS satellites. 77. Since Part 25 of the Commission's rules already contains similar earth station reference antenna patterns and transmitter power limits, we believe GSO FSS earth stations should have no problem meeting these limits. Thus, we propose to apply the off-axis eirp density levels contained in the modified ITU recommendation to GSO FSS earth stations in the 12.75-13.25 GHz, 13.8-14.0 GHz and 14.0-14.5 GHz bands. Consistent with the recommendation, these limits would apply in any direction within 3 degrees of the GSO arc. We ask for comment on the impact to the NGSO system of not requiring these limits to be met beyond ñ3 degrees of the GSO arc. Also, we seek general comments on this proposal that take into account the antenna performance standards of Part 25.209(a)(1) and (2). 78. NGSO earth station antenna reference pattern. SkyBridge has proposed to operate its user terminals with a more relaxed antenna reference pattern than that required for FSS earth stations in Section 25.209 of our rules. Generally, the FCC recommends the use of higher performance earth station antennas to maximize sharing between systems and use of the frequency spectrum. We prefer to continue this policy for the new NGSO technology. As Ku-band NGSO FSS is a new technology, it should be possible to design earth station antennas to meet the antenna performance requirements in our rules. Accordingly, we propose to require NGSO FSS user terminal antennas to meet the antenna performance requirements of Section 25.209 of the our rules. As NGSO FSS earth stations will not be transmitting in the direction of the geostationary orbit, effectively only Section 25.209(a)(2) of the Commission's rules, or 32-25 log , would apply to NGSO FSS user terminal antennas. This would facilitate sharing with GSO and other NGSO services, by providing greater protection to those services. We seek comment on this proposal. If there are objections to this proposal, we request justification as to why NGSO FSS systems cannot meet this requirement. 79. SkyBridge states that the antenna reference pattern of its gateway earth stations would comply with the antenna reference pattern of 29 - 25 log( ). This antenna reference pattern is better than that required by Section 25.209(a)(2) of the Commission's rules for earth stations operating in directions other than that of the GSO plane. Since we generally encourage the use of higher performance earth station antennas to maximize sharing between systems, we propose to apply this antenna requirement to NGSO FSS gateway antennas for all directions. This would facilitate sharing with other services by providing greater protection to those services and systems. We seek comment on this proposal. If there are objections to this proposal, we request justification as to why NGSO FSS systems cannot meet this requirement and the specific requirements that can be met. 80. Validation of pfd/epfd/apfd limits. In this Notice, we seek comment on pfd/epfd/apfd limits proposed at WRC-97 to enable spectrum sharing between new NGSO FSS operations and incumbent operations in the Ku-band. We also must ensure that any NGSO FSS licensee meets such limits by creating processes for validating that a licensee can operate accordingly. Internationally, the JTG 4-9-11 is developing a specification for software for use by the ITU in determining if a NGSO FSS system meets the pfd, epfd and apfd limits to protect other services. Within the U.S., the Commission needs to verify that a proposed system meets the appropriate limits for domestic licensing purposes, as well as to confirm information that will be sent to the ITU. In addition, the U.S. communications industry should have sufficient information to validate that a proposed system meets the limits. We ask for comment on whether the U.S. should use a commonly accepted software tool, such as that being developed by JTG 4-9-11, to perform these analyses. 81. We propose that NGSO FSS applicants provide the Commission with sufficient information on the NGSO FSS system characteristics and software capability to properly model the system in computer sharing simulations. This information would include, at a minimum, NGSO hand-over and satellite switching strategies, NGSO satellite beam patterns, and NGSO earth station antenna patterns. In particular, each NGSO FSS applicant would explain the switching protocols it uses to avoid transmitting while passing through the geostationary satellite orbit arc. In addition, each applicant would provide the orbital parameters required to comply with the U.S. international obligations in accordance with ITU-R Resolution 46. We ask for comment on whether it is necessary and feasible for the NGSO FSS operator to provide the suggested parameters and software. Alternatively, which NGSO FSS system parameters should be provided to verify compliance of the NGSO FSS system? If commenters suggest that any of these parameters should not be provided for any reason (e.g., switching protocols), they should explain how they propose that compliance be verified domestically and internationally and indicate which system characteristics would be needed for such an approach. 82. Emission limits. Radio astronomy operations have a primary allocation in the 10.6- 10.7 GHz band. Footnote US211 urges space stations in the 10.7-11.7 GHz band to take all practical steps to protect radio astronomy operations. We note that radio astronomy operations utilize some of the most sensitive instruments made and even unwanted emissions through zero dB sidelobes may completely destroy observations. The detrimental interference limit in the 10.68-10.7 GHz band from a terrestrial transmitter to radio astronomy receiver is -240 dBW/m2/Hz. The terrestrial transmitters are assumed to be seen through zero dB sidelobes, which are located about 19 degrees off axis of the main beam of the radio astronomy antenna. For GSO satellite transmissions within 5 degrees of the main beam axis of the radio astronomy antenna, an extra 15 dB attenuation would be required. Therefore, NGSO satellite transmitters would have to be below -255 dBW/m2/Hz in the 10.68-10.7 GHz band. In order to protect radio astronomy receivers, the aggregate power flux density from all NGSO satellites in a constellation would have to be below -255 dBW/m2/Hz. We request comment on how NGSO FSS satellite downlink transmissions would avoid causing harmful interference to sensitive radio astronomy operations. Specifically, since NGSO satellites can be anywhere in the sky and have the potential to transmit directly into radio astronomy receivers as they orbit over a certain area, commenters should address what additional emission standards, including filtering requirements, and operational measures need to be developed to protect radio astronomy operations. Commenters should address whether the existing emission and frequency tolerance requirements for FSS at section 25.202 of our rules are sufficient to protect other incumbent Ku-band operations. Particularly, we request comment in regards to ubiquitously deployed user terminals for subscriber use with uplink capabilities, because such operations could be deployed in close proximity to other services without any coordination. 83. RF Bio-Hazard. We note that Section 1.1307(b) of our rules requires that all systems authorized under Part 25 comply with our environmental evaluation requirements. Of particular concern in this proceeding are the ubiquitously deployed NGSO FSS subscriber terminals that could be installed by individual customers in areas where people could come in close contact with RF transmissions to the LEO satellites. We request comment on ways to ensure that these new NGSO FSS systems would comply with the RF safety guidelines in our rules. Since some of these terminals may be customer installed, commenters should address whether the satellite operator, service provider, or manufacturer should ensure that the radiation hazards provisions are being followed. We also ask for comment on whether we should require appropriate labelling on the terminals to satisfy the RF safety rules. E. Licensing and Service Rules 84. Coverage requirement. In the interest of furthering the creation of a seamless global communications network, we often establish coverage area requirements for NGSO FSS systems to serve the domestic public interest. Consequently, we propose to adopt the same coverage requirements that we currently apply to the "Big LEO" systems operating in the 1610- 1626.5/2483.5-2500 MHz frequency bands and the NGSO systems in the 17.7-20.2 GHz and 27.5- 30.0 GHz frequency bands. Specifically, we propose to require that Ku-band NGSO systems be capable of serving locations as far north as 70 degrees latitude and as far south as 55 degrees latitude for at least 75% of every 24-hour period. We will also require that Ku-band NGSO systems be capable of providing FSS on a continuous basis throughout the fifty states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. We request comment on these proposals. 85. Financial qualifications. Historically, the Commission has fashioned financial requirements for satellite services on the basis of entry opportunities in the particular service being licensed. The policy underlying these actions is the importance of an efficient use of spectrum such that grant of an underfinanced applicant should not prevent another fully capitalized applicant from implementing its plans to provide service to the public. In cases where we can accommodate all pending applications and future entry is possible, we have not looked to current financial ability as a prerequisite to a license grant. In situations where the spectrum in question was crowded by potential applicants, we have invoked a strict financial qualifications standard. In the present situation, we do not yet know how many applicants there will be for use of the Ku-bands. We do, however, know that the Ku-bands are already congested by existing operators. Even if there were only to be one new applicant for this proceeding, grant of a license to an underfinanced applicant might preclude or limit expansion by existing operators of the services they provide to the public. Consequently, in keeping with existing Commission policy we propose to adopt the strict financial standard adopted for the "Big LEO" proceeding. Specifically, we propose to require applicants to provide evidence of uncommitted current assets or irrevocably committed debt or equity financing sufficient to meet the estimated costs of constructing all planned satellites, launching them, and operating the system for the first year. We request comment on applying this proposal to NGSO FSS operations in the Ku-band. 86. System license and license terms. NGSO systems historically consist of constellations of technically identical satellites that may be launched and retired at different times. Consequently, existing NGSO licensee satellites in other bands have been licensed under blanket licenses. Under this approach, licensees are issued a single blanket authorization for the construction, launch, and operation of a specified number of technically identical space stations. The authorization covers all construction and launches necessary to put the complete constellation into place and to maintain it until the end of the license term, including any replacement satellites necessitated by launch or operational failure, or by retirement of satellites prior to the end of the license period. All replacement satellites, however, must be technically identical to those in service and may not cause a net increase in the number of operating satellites. The license term runs from the date on which the first space station in the system begins transmissions and is valid for ten years from that time. There is a filing window for system replacement applications prior to the expiration of the license that allows sufficient time for the Commission to act upon replacement system applications. We believe it is appropriate to continue using this model of licensing and propose that replacement applications be filed no earlier than three months prior to and no later than one month after the end of the eighth year of the existing system license. We request comment on this proposal. 87. Implementation milestones. As with all other services, we propose that all NGSO FSS Ku-band licensees be required to adhere to a strict timetable for system implementation. This ensures that licensees are building their systems in a timely manner and that the orbit-spectrum resource is not being held by licensees unable or unwilling to proceed with their plans to the detriment of other operators who might benefit the public interest by implementing plans. We propose implementation schedules that track the schedules imposed on other NGSO FSS systems. Specifically, we propose that NGSO FSS Ku-band licensees must begin construction of its first two satellites within one year of the grant of its authorization, and complete construction of those first two satellites within four years of grant. Construction of the remaining authorized operating satellites in the constellation would be required to begin within three years of the initial authorization, and the entire authorized system would have to be operational within six years. We request comment on this proposal. 88. Reporting requirements. We also propose to apply the Part 25 rules governing reporting requirements for FSS systems. Specifically, licensees are required to file an annual report with the Commission describing: the status of satellite construction and anticipated launch dates, including any major delays or problems encountered; a listing of any unscheduled satellite outages for more than 30 minutes including the cause(s) of any such outages; and a detailed description of the utilization made of each satellite in orbit. We request comment on this proposal. 89. Exclusive arrangements in foreign countries. The Commission can authorize operations of satellite systems in the U.S. only. Operation and use of these systems in geographic areas outside the U.S. requires appropriate authorizations from other countries in which the U.S. licensee wishes to operate earth stations. In other proceedings, in order to ensure that such service is truly global, we have adopted limitations on licensees' ability to enter into exclusive arrangements with other countries concerning communications to or from the U.S. An exclusive arrangement generally would take the form of an agreement between a space station operator or service provider that establishes a particular satellite as the only permissible facility by which to offer a particular satellite service between the United States and the foreign country. An exclusive agreement may foreclose other FSS licensees from serving a foreign market, preventing that licensee from providing global service. We have construed the restrictions on exclusionary arrangements bearing in mind that spectrum coordination and availability in particular countries may limit the number of systems that can provide service to that country. Nevertheless, our intent has been to further the implementation and use of multiple satellite systems in other administrations. We propose to continue this policy in this proceeding and request comment on this proposal. 90. Sale of license. To discourage speculators and to prevent unjust enrichment of those who do not implement their proposed systems, we also propose a rule that prohibits any Ku-band NGSO licensee from selling a bare license for a profit. This provision is not intended to prevent the infusion of capital by either debt or equity financing. Nevertheless, any such transaction would be monitored to ensure that it does not constitute an evasion of the anti-trafficking provision. We request comment on this proposal. F. Northpoint Petition for Rulemaking 91. Northpoint has filed a Petition for Rulemaking to permit secondary terrestrial use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz band by DBS licensees and their affiliates to allow retransmission of local television programming and provision of one-way broadband data to DBS receivers. Northpoint would use northward pointing dishes at a DBS subscriber's location to receive signals transmitted from terrestrial towers with directional antennas pointing southward. Northpoint argues that because DBS earth stations are pointed southward to receive signals from GSO BSS satellites located over the equator, and Northpoint receive antennas would be pointed northward to receive signals transmitted from southward pointing Northpoint transmitting antennas, spectrum sharing with DBS would be possible. Northpoint acknowledges that there are areas close to the Northpoint transmitter where the Northpoint signal would be strong enough to interfere with DBS receivers, but it contends that the impact can be minimized. Specifically, Northpoint contends that careful siting of its transmitters, increased tower height, attenuation in the vertical plane, and other techniques could be used to minimize the size of exclusion zones and lessen their effect on DBS subscribers. While the DBS comments agree that the provision of local programming to DBS subscribers is beneficial, their comments oppose the Northpoint request arguing that the proposal would unacceptably interfere with DBS services. 92. Northpoint sharing with DBS. Northpoint argues that providing local programming to supplement DBS will make DBS a true competitor to cable. However, the DBS commenters argue that they are already employing various solutions to bring local programming to their subscribers that would accomplish the same objective without causing any disruption to their service. For example, they are engaged in improving over-the-air broadcast reception through the use of better terrestrial antennas and they are deploying additional satellite capacity to provide local programming. We seek comment on whether a Northpoint type service is desirable to satisfy DBS subscribers' local programming needs. 93. Echostar Communications Corporation ("Echostar") questions why Northpoint's technology requires the use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz band instead of bands the Commission has already set aside for ubiquitous or high density terrestrial services, including the Local Multipoint Distribution Service ("LMDS") in the Ka-band and spectrum in the 38 GHz band. Northpoint argues that operating in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band would allow its service to be provided by making minimal changes to existing DBS equipment, thus making its provision less expensive. Specifically, Northpoint argues that a subscriber would use its existing DBS receiver with the addition of minimal equipment (e.g., northward antenna, cabling, switch). We request comment on whether existing equipment could be used, and if this would make Northpoint's service significantly less expensive than using other bands. 94. The DBS licensees have expressed doubt as to whether the Northpoint technology and DBS could share spectrum without creating harmful interference to DBS operations. DBS commenters state that Northpoint's experimental tests and filings are inadequate to demonstrate that Northpoint can successfully share spectrum with DBS operations. Specifically, commenters indicate that Northpoint has not submitted sufficient analyses on reliable service areas, interference and the viability of mitigation zones. They question the reasonableness of Northpoint's service area if it is transmitting at a power low enough to protect GSO DBS reception. While Northpoint states it can provide a reliable service area of 10 miles, Tempo disagrees. Commenters also indicate that the feasibility of the use of power control to protect DBS during rain fade conditions is not adequately addressed, nor does Northpoint provide a description of how they will perform this task. Moreover, further analysis is needed on the necessary carrier-to-interference ("C/I") ratio to protect DBS from Northpoint transmissions and whether Northpoint's proposed system could meet these limits. DIRECTV states that any increase in the operational noise floor, such as that caused by Northpoint operations, would decrease DBS link availability and thus reduce the quality of DBS service and hinder future DBS innovation. 95. While we recognize the potential benefits of the Northpoint proposal, the comments of the DBS licensees raise issues which require us to approach cautiously this type of operation in the DBS bands and seek further technical analyses on its ability to share the spectrum with DBS operations. For example, would Northpoint operations in the DBS bands cause harmful degradation of DBS to customers? Is the exclusion zone around each Northpoint transmitter small enough not to inhibit ubiquitous DBS service? Are the possible mitigation techniques and technical parameters suggested by Northpoint viable technical solutions to minimize the size of the exclusion zone, as well as facilitate DBS reception within this "zone"? Is Northpoint's technology designed with sufficient availability to be offered simultaneously with DBS to consumers? In addition, future analyses need to consider all DBS orbital positions that provide service to any geographic area throughout the U.S. We believe it is important to address these and other technical issues prior to approving Northpoint operations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band. We request comment and further analysis on spectrum sharing between DBS and Northpoint that address these concerns. 96. Northpoint sharing with NGSO FSS. In this Notice, we are proposing NGSO FSS operations in the Ku-band on a co-primary basis with incumbent services. We note, however, that in the 12.2-12.7 GHz bands, NGSO FSS and the proposed Northpoint technology may not be able to operate compatibly. Northpoint questions whether the provisional power limits adopted at WRC- 97 would protect its system. SkyBridge believes that these pfd limits would protect Northpoint, but asserts that Northpoint would cause interference to NGSO FSS. There is no technical analysis in the record to support either party's assertion. Accordingly, we ask for comment regarding the feasibility of the two services sharing the same spectrum, such as, whether the WRC-97 pfd limits adopted to protect terrestrial services would be adequate to protect Northpoint's technology. We note that regardless of any action to allocate NGSO FSS to the 12.2-12.7 GHz band domestically, the ITU regulations could permit NGSO FSS satellites to transmit over the U.S. as long as they meet ITU limits. In addition, we request comment on what criteria would be necessary to protect NGSO FSS downlinks from interference from Northpoint. 97. If NGSO FSS and Northpoint type systems cannot share spectrum with each other in this band, but each service can share spectrum with DBS, we ask for comments on whether both NGSO FSS and Northpoint uses could be accommodated by other means. For example, would it be feasible to segment the DBS band to accommodate both new services sharing with DBS. We request comment and further analysis on this issue, including the amount of spectrum that each type of system would need and the ability to authorize multiple NGSO FSS or Northpoint systems, if we were to segment the band. 98. In conclusion, we believe that Northpoint has not provided sufficient information or analysis to demonstrate conclusively that its technology would not cause harmful interference to DBS. Accordingly, we find it premature to make any proposals based on Northpoint's petition at this time. We request further information, as outlined in the preceding paragraphs, to allow us to develop a more comprehensive record regarding protection of DBS systems. In addition, we believe that our questions will allow us to compile technical analyses of the sharing potential of Northpoint and NGSO FSS. IV. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 99. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The analysis pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. Section 603, is contained in Appendix B. 100. Ex Parte Presentation. This is a permit-but-disclose rule making proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, provided they are disclosed as provided in Commission Rules. See generally 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a). 101. Authority. This action is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 157(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r). 102. Comment. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before February 16, 1999, and reply comments on or before March 15, 1999. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System ("ECFS") or by paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998). 103. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to . Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, 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