WPCk 2BJZ Courier3|j@ix6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4M (PCL) (Additional)HL4MPCAD.PRSx  @\-AX@2 6 ZF v3|j@HP LaserJet 4M (PCL) (Additional)HL4MPCAD.PRSx  @\-AX@a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2=pRkk-a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2votY a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2  o  a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 22   Y 2 a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2d 4Ba1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2"o1a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2 3oea8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:a݅@  I.   X(# 27"#^`$d%"SubheadingSubheading"0\ E A.  FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance#PHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd$+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date% X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟ2!&i'X(1Y)1 DRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off&@@    HEADERHeader A - Appearance'LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5( 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5)f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   2%*1!+1#,nO$-X$LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11*L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14+ 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a Document,K\ * ăFOOTERFooter A - Appearanced-2&.G%/i%0d1&1j&BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented.N X HEADING 33rd Heading Level/| XHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large0B*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored1 V -q2,21'3EP)4-*58+LETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins2u H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoice3 ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page Format4D.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice5:A ,p, $0$002068,-7d.8X09[]0INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro6z 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice7+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle8SMALLSmall Typestyle92V2:[0;[E1<[1=[1FINEFine Typestyle:LARGELarge Typestyle;EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle<VERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle=25>2? 4@4A85ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header>+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   a11I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')?8ij@   a21I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')@Akl@` `  ` ` ` a31I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')AJmn` ` @  ` `  28B6C6Dq7E08a41I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')BSop` `  @  a51I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')C\qr` `  @hh# hhh a61I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Dest` `  hh#@( hh# a71I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Enuv` `  hh#(@- ( 2;F*9G9Hq:Ic!;a81I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Fwwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp Chapter?I@6HChapter Heading=(')8?I *')'0 ?I.EG9y z ` CHAPTER 3  Report Body@6HMain Text of Report8?I *')'0 ?I.EH{|  1, 2, 3,teNumbersotation"H('0\F H rW?I I 1.2=Jd;K<Lm<M.=A, B,3,teUppercase LettersH('0\F H rW?I J .TitleNotesTitle Page NotesH('0\F H rW?I K''#Z*f9 x$X# #Z*f9 x%X#NotesTrianglee NotesH('0\F H rW?I LWorks CitedWorks Cited PageH('0\F H rW?I M99         2@N+>O|>Pp9?Qq?Page TitlePage Title PageH('0\F H rW?I N#  `  footnote tex O$ d\  PC Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gP` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gQ  . 2BReL@Se@TAUpADocument[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gR  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gS  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gT*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gU  ` ` ` 2DVKBWBXxCY DRight Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gV8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gWA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gX0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gYJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` 2GZD[E\FF]GRight Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gZS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g[\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g\e` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g]n` ` `  hhh@  2J^G_H`IaJRight Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g^w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g_F    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g`&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O ga&#$  . 2;MbJcbKdKeLTechnical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gb*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gc''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gd&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O ge4+$,     2[fmMgMhv wNiZTechnical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gf&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gg&/0  . MACNormalh;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#referencei;#FxX  Pg9CXP#2g`j~[ki0]l ^m_itemizeX1j&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2kI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FilelW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentmiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#2Ebne`oo`plmaqlafootnote reference#n footnote texto%Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Fontp _Equation Caption_Equation Captionq 2irwbs7ctUeusgendnote referenceendnote referencer44#Xx6X@DQX@##Xv6X@CX@#toc 1toc 1s` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2t` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3u` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#2pviwkxmyvptoc 4toc 4v` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5w` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6x` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7y 2=yzp{r|u}wtoc 8toc 8z` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9{` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1|` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2}` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#2}~oyv{l|o|toatoa~` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaption _Equation Caption1_Equation Caption1 a12:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O8mn@   23}}r~a22:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OAop@` `  ` ` ` a32:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OJqr` ` @  ` `  a42:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OSst` `  @  a52:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O\uv` `  @hh# hhh 2ƀb_a62:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Oewx` `  hh#@( hh# a72:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Onyz` `  hh#(@- ( a82:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Ow{|` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp  2ɉl_(}$SMALL s†NSMALL s†NORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC ӆNORMAL¤ TNORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmpЋ` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#bly remains several bly remains several years \softline \softlheight276 awa` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (# Technical 4¸ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2$l=jTechnical 4Technical 4` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#T 2 Ҷ TechnicaT 2 Ҷ Technical 7Ҳ Right Par 7z INV` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#ОC:\mw3022.tmpC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\C :\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMP` hp x (#` hp x (## P7P# 2 lEϒރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOCރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: ~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#: , : , ,0` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#2=[yl ,  , ,0` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#:\mw3024.tmpt :\mw3024.tmpt C:\WINDOWS\MSAPPS\TEXTCONV\RTF_W` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#wwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbwwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbbbwwwwbwwwwbwwwwbwbwwwbwbb` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#,,0kjH 2X5-͟1dfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2lޤJ|rStyle 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Font4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5$ )^ `> XifQ 2 `Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Point$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advanced U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2ھ9@E[Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediate )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update Module )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 head1 #'d#2p}wC@ #2B} a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfE` ` `  2Zta5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfP  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrff  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfq 22ZpZDefault Para,6%Default Paragraph FontO7V -*g4çFM7VE;1;2#Xx6X@QX@##d6X@Q@#toa heading,6%toa heading4=(g4O7V 9*g4çFM7VEIJ!(# ` hp x (#_Equation Ca,6%_Equation Captiong4O7V ;*g4çFM7VE;M;N#Xx6X@QX@##d6X@Q@#2XwE~wKRn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@RH*G>FwE~wK\Emn` ` ` 2qeme73XwE~wKSn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@SH*G>FwE~wK\Eo p . 4XwE~wKTn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@TH*G>FwE~wK\E qr 5XwE~wKUn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@UH*G>FwE~wK\E st 6XwE~wKVn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@VH*G>FwE~wK\E*uv   2.pl7XwE~wKWn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@WH*G>FwE~wK\Ewx` ` ` 8XwE~wKXn6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\E8yz@   9XwE~wKYn6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EA{|@` `  ` ` ` 10wE~wKZn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@ZH*G>FwE~wK\E0} ~    2&`g11wE~wK[n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EJ` ` @  ` `  12wE~wK\n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\ES` `  @  13wE~wK]n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\E\` `  @hh# hhh 14wE~wK^n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 20X 15wE~wK_n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\En` `  hh#(@- ( 16wE~wK`n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 17wE~wKan6bDocument Style=(G>wK@aH*G>FwE~wK\EF D*  ׃  18wE~wKbn6bTechnical Document StylewK@bH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . 2b19wE~wKcn6bTechnical Document StylewK@cH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . 20wE~wKdn6bTechnical Document StylewK@dH*G>FwE~wK\E*    21wE~wKen6bTechnical Document StylewK@eH*G>FwE~wK\E'   22wE~wKfn6bTechnical Document StylewK@fH*G>FwE~wK\E&   2E23wE~wKgn6bTechnical Document StylewK@gH*G>FwE~wK\E4$     24wE~wKhn6bTechnical Document StylewK@hH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . 25wE~wKin6bTechnical Document StylewK@iH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . Format Downln6bFormat Downloaded DocumentK@uH*G>FwE~wK\EU XX    X\ #d6X@7@#2w Ha127\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>F8@   a227\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FA@` `  ` ` ` a327\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FJ` ` @  ` `  a427\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FS` `  @  25'da527\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>F\` `  @hh# hhh a627\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fe` `  hh#@( hh# a727\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fn` `  hh#(@- ( a827\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2Srgrkva2Agendaa1AgendaAgenda Items7D yP ) I. a3Agendaheading 4heading 4 2]vvvqvheading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 heading 8heading 8 2vwYendnote textendnote text Word222Null(Dt—Word222Null( >fWRK+P—!t >f—+b1{1|#/x PX##/x PX#NORMAL INDENDt—7!wB( >f`RK+P—!t >f—+b'4 <DL!T$#&n P&P##&n P&P#enumlev1x(Dt—7!wB( >faRK+P—!t >f—+b$p  N hp x (#aa#&n P&P#4` hp x (##&n P&P#22vfootnote refDt—footnote reference >fbRK+P—!t >f—+b>#V\  P UP#page number(Dt—page number( >feRK+P—!t >f—+b26 >fx(Dt—footnote text >ffRK+P—!t >f—+b* ??USlist>gx(Dt—list7!wB( >fgRK+P—!t >f—+b*??2Rd8endnote refeDt—endnote reference >fhRK+P—!t >f—+b>>#XO\  P!UXP##c P"7P#line number(Dt—line number( >fjRK+P—!t >f—+b;;#XO\  P#UXP##c P$7P#Highlightx(Dt—Middle Article HighlightlRK+P—!t >f—+b''#G x}'Y##\9> (P(YP#Headlinex(Dt—Headline for newsletterfoRK+P—!t >f—+b''#> p})Y##\9> (P*YP#2.*2nd line HeaDt—2nd line headline >fqRK+P—!t >f—+b''#b> p}+Y##\9> (P,YP#Graphics heaDt—Headlines for graphics>frRK+P—!t >f—+b** #o> P}-YP##\9> (P.YP# Graphics bodDt—chart data ( >ftRK+P—!t >f—+b** #Alo> P}/YXP##\9> (P0YP# Article headDt—Headline for new articlevRK+P—!t >f—+b*'#r"zp1C# #\9> (P2YP# 27`V27 >x(Dt—Default Paragraph Font>fRK+P—!t >f—+bOO#X}xP97XP##&sxP:7&P#HEADING 9x(Dt— 7!wB( >fRK+P—!t >f—+b'34 <DL!T$#c P;7P##c P<7P#a129f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P8@   a229f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PA@` `  ` ` ` 23isa329f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PJ` ` @  ` `  a429f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PS` `  @  a529f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P\` `  @hh# hhh a629f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pe` `  hh#@( hh# 2e.da729f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pn` `  hh#(@- ( a829f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp NORMAL INDENT ' 4 <DL!T$#&n P&P##&n P&P#Bld/UnderlieBold and Underline Text/  2 0f KKf 5Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FP  ",tB^ f ^6=U\\===\====\\\\\\\\\\==Qs~sm=Gsizbsw===\\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\DG3\\\\QQ\Q\0\\\\\=\\\\\\\\\3QQQQQz~QsQsQsQsQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\i\Q\Q}Q}Q~\~\nrQs\s\rQ\\\\\\\=3\\\\=\f\\\r3rBs\u7r3\j\\\\yByBz\cFcFcFb\rBr3s\\\\\\\\uQuQuQ\s\\b\s\\n=\\===WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\\\=QKK\\\\\\@\\\\@==__\00\\pp\\\mff=_\@"\_\4\==p=\\f\z\=\Q\iwUzpNm\QQ====psfpfzQsGwQ\Q=3QzffQz\Qpi\p\\sQQzpfppps=\pQpppp==\\\\\\\p=i\Q=Tgnj}}ccyyTjcc;T;TXFu"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNA.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/g8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxannotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "OaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP# X-  K X-#Xj\  P6G;9XP# w 1Federal Communications Commission `(#FCC 96426  X-______________________________________________________________________________ #X\  P6G;P#X01Í ÍX01ÍÍ #Xj\  P6G;9XP# Before the [ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  X-ZWashington, D.C. 20554 ă  Bp(#҇  yOv #X\  P6G;P#In the Matter of ,hh^)  yO>` `  ,hh^ ) #Xj\  P6G;9XP#  X- #X\  P6G;P#Amendment of Part 25 of the Commission's )#Xj\  P6G;9XP#  yO#X\  P6G;P# Rules to Establish Rules and Policies hh^)  yOPertaining to the Second Processing Round )  yO of the NonVoice, NonGeostationaryhh^)  yOG Mobile Satellite Service ,hh^) pp  X -` ` #Xj\  P6G;9XP# " 0*%%33 " IB Docket No. 96220HH0*%%33$ %%33HԯBp(#B(#  X -l ( NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING ă  X- Adopted: October 29, 1996hh^ Released: October 29, 1996 Comment Date: November 29, 1996 Reply Comment Date: December 16, 1996 By the Commission: iTABLE OF CONTENTS  X-Topic ` `  ,hh^pp&  XParagraph Numbers X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:(uplink) and 400.15401 MHz (downlink) frequency bands. There are also nonU.S.licensed Little LEO  yO- #systems authorized in portions of these bands. They are described in more detail later. See infra  45, 49, 50, and 69.(#r We now  &propose to license second round applicants to operate in portions of these bands as well. In their  Y- &.sharing plan developed in the first round, Orbcomm, Starsys, and VITA @ yO -ԍrrSee Below 1 GHz LEO Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, Report 89, September 16, 1992.(#rƓ concluded that  &additional systems could be accommodated by using time division multiple access ("TDMA")  Y- &or frequency division multiple access ("FDMA") modulation techniques and by timesharing. ! yO% - #ЍrrTDMA is a transmission technique in which the same frequency band is used by multiple earth stations transmitting in alternating time slots. FDMA provides users multiple discrete channels.(#r   &Although complex technical issues remain, we believe that with appropriate modulation  &techniques, proper system coordination, and timesharing of frequencies, there is sufficient  &spectrum available to grant a license for at least one, and possibly for up to three new systems in the second processing round.  Y - A !krr)42.44Specifically, we propose that one Little LEO system operate in the 149.81149.9 MHz  &(uplink) and the 400.5050400.5517 MHz (downlink) bands. We will refer to this first potential  &licensee as "System1." We propose that a second Little LEO system ("System2") operate in  &the 137138 MHz band (downlink) and the 148.905149.81 MHz band (uplink). Finally, we  &ipropose that a third Little LEO system ("System3") operate in the 149.95150.05 MHz band  Y -(uplink) and the 400.150400.505 MHz and 400.645401.000 MHz bands (downlink)." (  yO- #yЍrrWe propose to allow applicants to submit amended applications to operate in any or all of these three blocks  yOH-of spectrum. See infra  103106.(#r  Yy- A !rr*43.44We recognize that each of these systems will be required to operate under certain  &constraints. We discuss each potential system in more detail below and request comment on the  &viability of the proposed systems' and whether it would be technically feasible to accommodate  &more than one additional system in each of the band segments. Additionally, we ask whether  &the uplink and downlink pairings we propose are the most efficient. Parties are also asked to  &comment on alternative proposals and pairings. All comments should be supported with detailed  &technical showings on how each new system or systems can be accommodated in the proposed  &spectrum or in any alternative pairings. These showings should include information on  &appropriate modulation techniques, timesharing scenarios including visibility statistics  &appropriate to each band, and system parameters (such as constellation size) that might affect" "0*%%33"  &a new entrant's ability to share successfully with existing users. Any authorization we grant  &would be for operations in the United States; however, in order to ensure interferencefree  &operations with other U.S. government systems operating throughout the world, as discussed  &below, we propose to require the second round, Little LEO licensees to comply on a worldwide  &basis, with all the technical requirements, including timesharing, that we adopt in this  &proceeding. Furthermore, to serve regions outside of the United States, Little LEO licensees  &ywill have to coordinate the operation of their systems with other systems operating in the proposed frequency bands in other regions of the world.  Y1- A !]rr+44.44We note that FACS has proposed that we use their "Virtual Constellation" concept  &jas a means of sharing the available spectrum. The Virtual Constellation concept involves  &Llicensing all applicants to operate over the entire available spectrum, with each applicant  &Yoperating a small number of technically compatible satellites. Although the satellites would be  &hindependently owned and operated, there would be some joint operations to facilitate spectrum  &sharing. The Commission would likely sanction an agreement by all parties to participate in a  &: Virtual Constellation, but at this time we do not propose to mandate that all applicants participate in the Virtual Constellation. We request comment on FACS's proposal.  Yb-rr1.44Little LEO System1 (149.81149.9 MHz/400.5050400.5517 MHz)(#4  Y4- A !rr,45.44We propose that Little LEO System1 use the 149.81149.9 MHz (uplink) and  Y- &400.5050400.5517 MHz (downlink) bands. VITA will also be operating in these frequencies.-#@ yO- #ЍrrSatelLife, Inc. currently has an experimental authorization to operate a satellite that uses the same frequencies  #as those licensed to VITA. SatelLife, Inc. has been operating since 1994 and a new Little LEO entrant will  #likely not be launched in the these bands for at least two to four years. Therefore, SatelLife, Inc. should have  #jample time to conduct its experiments and terminate its operations prior to the beginning of operations by a  #new Little LEO licensee. Since experimental authorizations are granted on a noninterference basis to licensed  #operations, we will require Satellife, Inc. to terminate its operations prior to the launch of any satellite by a  yOF- #new licensee in these bands. See SatelLife, Inc. Experimental Radio Station Construction Permit and License, Call Sign KS2XDT, File No. 4892EXPL95 (effective September 20, 1995).(#r-  &xOrbcomm, Starsys, and France's Little LEO system, S801, also plan to operate in the 148.0 &149.9 MHz uplink band but will not be operating in the 149.81149.9 MHz portion of the band.  &<Starsys, the Department of Defense ("DoD"), and S801 plan to operate in the 400.15401.0  &MHz downlink band but will not be operating in the 400.5050400.5517 MHz portions of the  &band. Thus, Little LEO System1 will share frequencies with VITA and coordinate its system  &with all users of the 148.0149.9 MHz and 400.15401.0 MHz frequency bands. We believe  &hthis is possible because Orbcomm, Starsys, and VITA have represented that they can share their"|#0*%%33O"  Y-assigned service link frequencies with at least one other system.l$X yOy- #{ЍrrSee infra  3637. Orbcomm and Starsys, however, have indicated that they could not share gateway  yOA- #frequencies with other systems. See Below 1 GHz LEO Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, Report 57, September 16, 1992.(#rl  Y- A !!rr-46.44At least one additional Little LEO system can operate in the same frequency bands  Y- &xwith the VITA system on a timesharingT%X yOT- #ЍrrTimesharing is a new and revolutionary process that has not yet been attempted. However, given the scarcity  #of spectrum and its potential to maximize spectrum use, we believe timesharing is a realistic proposal for utilizing the spectrum.(#rT basis using TDMA/FDMA modulation techniques.  Y- &VITA is authorized to operate a onesatellite system only.d& yO] -ԍrrSee VITA Authorization.  (#rd This satellite will only be visible  &to users a small percentage of the time and visibility will be affected by the users location. A  &Juser located at the equator will be able to "see" VITA's one satellite approximately 3.7 percent  Y_- &;of the time.'_ yO- #ЍrrThis calculation is based on a VITA satellite operating at an elevation angle of 0 degrees, an altitude of 800 km and an orbital inclination of 99 degrees.(#r To users located at 40 and at 80 degrees latitude, VITA's satellite will be visible for 5 and 13.8 percent of the time, respectively.  Y - A !rr.47.44The time when VITA's satellite is not visible can be used by Little LEO System1.  &;For example, a user at the equator will have access to Little LEO System1 for over 96 percent  &of the time, or approximately 23 hours out of a 24 hour period. Consequently, allowing this  &\band to remain unused for as much as 23 hours each day would not only be spectrally  &inefficient, but would also deny the public valuable services, inhibit further development within  &the mobile satellite industry, and ignore the technical advancement that makes timesharing possible.  Yb- A !]rr/48.44Below we discuss timesharing techniques that may be used for Little LEO Systems  &.2 and 3 and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") and DoD,  Y4- &respectively._(4  yO-ԍrrSee infra  4977.(#r_ Similar arrangements may be necessary in order for Little LEO System1 to  &timeshare with VITA. However, we do not propose any specific timesharing requirements,  &hand instead, will allow VITA and Little LEO System1 the flexibility to make the arrangements  &;necessary to ensure interference free operations. If VITA or any other party believes that such  &,arrangements need to be codified in a rule or discussed in further detail in this proceeding, we  &request that the party provide detailed discussion of the issues and any proposed rules in their comments. " (0*%%33"Ԍ Y-ԙrr2.44Little LEO System2 (148.905149.81 MHz/137138 MHz)(#4  Y- A !rr049.44The spectrum we are proposing to authorize for use by Little LEO System2 is the  &148.905149.81 MHz band for uplinks and a number of subbands of the 137138 MHz band  &Yfor downlinks. Orbcomm and Starsys are authorized to use the 148.0149.9 MHz uplink band.  &Orbcomm's system, however, is the only system that is coordinated to use the 148.905149.81  &MHz frequency band. Meteorological satellites ("MetSats") operated by NOAA in addition to  &Orbcomm and Starsys are authorized to use the 137138 MHz downlink band. Also, METEOR,  &Za meteorological satellite system, is authorized by Russia and the S801 Little LEO system is authorized by France to operate in the 137138 MHz band.  Y - A !0rr150.44Furthermore, NOAA has an agreement with the European Meteorological Satellite  &yOrganization ("Eumetsat") for the operation of a polar orbiting meteorological satellite in  &Yconjunction with NOAA's system in the 137138 MHz band. The Eumetsat satellite may begin  &woperations at 137.025137.175 MHz and 137.825138 MHz as early as 1998. In addition, DoD  &is expected to merge its system which will operate in the 400.15401.0 MHz frequency band  &with NOAA's system. Beginning in 1998, NOAA will be responsible for "on orbit" operations  &of the DoD metsat satellites, and NOAA will assume all command and control functions for the  &DoD system by 2007. Our use of the terms "NOAA" and "DOD" in this Notice incorporates  &the separate systems operated by NOAA and DoD as well as the systems resulting from agreements with Eumetsat and the merger of the NOAA and DoD systems.  Y-rr44a. Uplink Band  Y- A !>rr251.44With respect to our proposed uplink band for Little LEO System2, Orbcomm, VITA,  &and Starsys are authorized to operate in the 148.0149.9 MHz band. We believe the 148.905 &<149.81 MHz portion of this band can be used for Little LEO System2 uplinks. This uplink  &<band segment does not include frequencies coordinated for use by the French S801 system,  &Starsys, and VITA and the frequencies we have proposed that Little LEO System1 use. In  &addition, NOAA indicated that they have tracking and command functions at 148.56 MHz for  &;their polar orbiting spacecraft. Therefore, a Little LEO System2 entrant would be required to  &share frequencies with Orbcomm and coordinate its system with the other users of the 148.0 &149.9 MHz band to ensure interference free operations. As noted above, Orbcomm, Starsys,  &and VITA have represented that they can share their assigned frequencies with at least one other  Y- &<system.Z) yOk!-ԍrrSee infra  3637.(#rZ We request comment on accommodating an additional entrant or entrants. To the  &Yextent that more than one new entrant can be accommodated in this band, we seek comment on methodologies for sharing this band and coordinating with existing users. "!X)0*%%33""Ԍ Y-rr44b. Downlink Band  Y-rr44 i.  NOAA's Use of the Band  Y- A !rr352.44With respect to our proposed downlink band, Footnote US318 of the Table of  &jFrequency Allocations, 47 C.F.R.  2.106, reserves the 137.333137.367 MHz, 137.485 &137.515 MHz, 137.605137.635 MHz, and 137.753137.787 MHz subbands ("NOAA  &Kchannels") for use by Government satellite operations on a primary basis. NonGovernment  &MSS use in these NOAA channels is secondary until January 2000. After that date, Government  &Zand nonGovernment use of the NOAA channels will be on a coprimary basis. The NOAA  &hchannels are currently used by NOAA for a two satellite MetSat system. The 137.025137.175  &MHz and 137.825138 MHz subbands ("NOAA bands") are allocated to MSS on a secondary  Y - &basisF*X  yOe - #ЍrrSee Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum to the Fixed Satellite  #Service and the Mobile Satellite Service for LowEarth Orbiting Satellites, Report and Order, 8 F.C.C. Rcd. 1812 (1993).(#rF and are not currently being used by Government satellite systems.+  yO- #LЍrrHETE, a one satellite, nongeostationary U.S. satellite system, plans to use the 137.955137.965 MHz band and is scheduled to launch in November 1996.(#r Our understanding  &<is that NOAA plans to implement MetSat operations in the NOAA bands between 2003 and  &2006. NOAA's system currently is composed of two satellites but, for a period of time, could  Y - &<consist of up to five satellites., @ yO- #ЍrrEach operational NOAA satellite is assigned two of the four frequencies, but we understand that NOAA does not have any plans to implement any frequency changes to its operational satellites. (#r NOAA is expected to implement three new satellites in the  &NOAA bands and continue to operate its existing two satellites in the NOAA channels until the satellites become inoperable.  YK- A !!rr453.44Furthermore, NOAA and Orbcomm have been coordinating Orbcomm's use of the  &137138 MHz band. In order to ensure that Orbcomm does not cause interference to the NOAA  Y- &Ysystem when it begins operation in the 137.025137.175 MHz bandedge subband,C- yOf- #LЍrrSpace operation, meteorological satellite, space research, and mobile satellite service systems can all operate  yO.-on a primary basis in the 137.0137.025 MHz frequency segment. See 47 C.F.R.  2.106, Footnote US244.(#rC Orbcomm  &will have to migrate some of its operations from the 137.1850137.2375 subbands to as many  &ias two of the NOAA channels, specifically the 137.485137.515 MHz and 137.605137.635  &MHz channels. Thus, any proposals by the second round applicants to use the 137138 band  &should contemplate the use of as few as two of the NOAA channels, specifically the 137.333 &137.367 MHz and 137.753137.787 MHz channels. We believe that two channels coupled with  &the use of the band edge is sufficient spectrum for a Little LEO system to operate. However," -0*%%33}" we do ask for comments on whether this spectrum is sufficient to support a system.  Y- A !Mrr554.44Consequently, a Little LEO system would have use of the NOAA bands until the year  &2003 and timeshared use of the available NOAA channels from the year 2000 and the NOAA  &bands from 2003. When NOAA's satellites in the NOAA channels become inoperable, the Little  &MLEO licensee could use the channels on a primary, fulltime basis. Further, subject to  &icoordination with the Executive Branch, specifically NTIA and NOAA, a Little LEO system  Y_-could continue to timeshare the NOAA bands with NOAA satellites on a secondary basis.. _ yO- #zЍrrOngoing studies in the International Telecommunication Union Radiocommunication Sector ("ITUR")  #Mindicate that sharing between MSS downlinks and MetSats at 137138 MHz can be accomplished by using  yOh - #cofrequency avoidance in the same geographic area. See "Modification to Attachment 21; Report of the Fifth Meeting of ITUR Working Party 8D" (Geneva 1322 March 1996) at  4.1.1.1.5.(#r  Y1- A !rr655.44The implementation of NOAA's system in the NOAA bands could work as follows:  &Little LEO System2 could begin operating in the NOAA bands and work with NOAA to  &imigrate Little LEO service to the NOAA channels after the year 2000. After the year 2000,  &Little LEO System2 could timeshare the available NOAA channels until NOAA's two satellites  &become inoperable. Since the NOAA system currently has two operational satellites in the  &hNOAA channels and will continue to operate them until they become inoperable, we anticipate  Y - &the Little LEO licensee would be able to use the NOAA channels for 89.8 percent of the time.;/  yO- #ЍrrThis calculation is based on the operation of two satellites by NOAA with an earth station having an elevation  #angle towards the satellite of 0 degrees and for a user located in the Washington, D.C. area. Currently,  #NOAA's two satellites are phased in the orbital planes and each utilizes two of the four channels to provide  #Lmeteorological satellite service. Consequently, we also anticipate that Little LEO System2 would be able to use one of the two channels for 94.9 percent of the time.(#r  #rrAs stated previously, the availability of the satellite to the user is, in part, a function of the location of the  #kuser. For example, NOAA's two satellites will be available to its users located at latitudes of 0, 30, and 60  #degrees for 92.4, 90.8, and 81.6 percent of the time, respectively. For calculations based on the operation of four satellites, see paragraph 70.(#r;  &However, during NOAA's implementation of its satellites in the NOAA bands, Little LEO  &System2 would have to timeshare both the NOAA channels and bands with NOAA's system.  &During this period, the Little LEO system would operate on a secondary basis to NOAA's  &Zsystem in the NOAA bands. We calculate that the licensee would be able to use the NOAA  Y4- &bands for 84.5 percent of the time.04H  yO-!- #ЍrrThis calculation is based on the operation of three satellites by NOAA with an elevation angle of zero degrees.  #kThe availability of NOAA's system to its users will increase if NOAA increases the number of satellites in  #its system from two to three. This in turn will diminish the availability of the Little LEO system to its users.  #As previously stated, the Little LEO licensee will need to coordinate its system with other users of the NOAA bands. (#r"M$/0*%%$"Ԍ #LԙrrOther Administrations plan to use the NOAA bands and this may affect the time available for use by a Little LEO system. (#r Once NOAA has vacated the channels and implemented"4 00*%%33"  &wits system at the bandedge, the Little LEO licensee could continue to timeshare and operate on  Y- &a secondary basis to NOAA in the NOAA bands. ,1  yO- #kЍrrThe availability of NOAA's system to its users will increase if NOAA increases the number of satellites in its system from two to three. This in turn will diminish the availability of the Little LEO system to its users. (#r, However, a Little LEO licensee would have primary use of the NOAA channels when NOAA's satellites become inoperable.  Y-rr44 ii. TimeSharing with NOAA  Yv- A !rr756.44In bands shared by Little LEO system2 and NOAA, timesharing offers complex but  &Yeffective technique for maximizing the use of orbital and spectrum resources. In order to time &ishare effectively and avoid transmitting signals that interfere with the NOAA earth stations'  &.receipt of transmissions from NOAA satellites, each Little LEO satellite must "know" its position relative to each NOAA satellite and be able to shutoff operations when necessary.  Y - A !0rr857.44To ensure that NOAA earth stations2 x yO- #zЍrrThe term "NOAA earth stations" as used herein refers to all earth stations (including DoD earth stations) receiving NOAA signals regardless of whether or not they are operated by NOAA.(#r do not experience harmful interference from  &Little LEO downlink signals, we propose to require that Little LEO satellites not transmit into  &<the region beneath the NOAA satellite, the "protection area," on the frequency used by that  Y - &NOAA satellite.h3  yO(-ЍrrSee Section 25.257, Appendix B.(#rh As a NOAA satellite progresses along its orbit, its protection area will move  &Jacross the surface of the Earth beneath it. The Little LEO satellites following their orbits must  &xtrack these moving NOAA protection areas and shutoff their transmissions if they enter any NOAA protection area worldwide.  YK-   Y4- A !rr958.44By using precision information concerning the location of the NOAA satellite, Little  &LEO satellites can avoid interference to NOAA earth stations. The precision information needed  Y- &includes ephemeris data, which consists of spacecraft orbital parameters,4`  yO- #ЍrrEphemeris data are technical parameters calculated for a particular satellite that mathematically represent the location of the satellite in its orbit at any given time.(#r the elevation angle  Y- &<of the NOAA satellite, and the frequency on which the NOAA satellite is operating. e5X  yOX"- #zЍrrThe elevation angle is the angular height of the satellite above the horizon as viewed from a point on the  #Earth. As used herein, the elevation angle is the angle, as measured from a NOAA satellite receiving location  #on the Earth, upward to a passing NOAA satellite. If the passing NOAA satellite is at the horizon the"#40*%% $"  #elevation angle is zero degrees. If the NOAA satellite is directly overhead the elevation angle is 90 degrees. (#re This" 50*%%33"  Y- &information can be used by the Little LEO satellites (which have their own ephemeris data) to determine the location of the NOAA satellite protection areas at all times.  Y- A !rr:59.44In order to ensure that the Little LEO satellite can accurately locate the protection  &areas of the NOAA satellites, updated information must be provided periodically to the Little  &LEO operator. The gravitational forces of the Sun and Moon, the nonspherical nature of the  &Earth, and atmospheric drag affect satellite locations, thereby slightly altering the relevant  &ephemeris data over time. Thus, Little LEO systems must be capable of generating timing  & sequences to coordinate properly the termination of transmissions when their satellites are within  &sight of a protection area, and the satellites must be capable of receiving the instructions  Y - &Znecessary to implement their timing sequence from their gateway Earth stations. In order to  &hensure that the necessary information is uploaded to the Little LEO satellites frequently enough  &to prevent accumulation of erroneous data that may lead to incorrectly identifying NOAA  &protection areas, we propose to require that the Little LEO licensee obtain updated ephemeris  &xdata from NOAA and upload the updated ephemeris data to its satellites on at least a weekly  Y - &hbasis or as often as necessary to avoid interference.c6  yOx-ԍrr See Section 25.257(a), Appendix B.(#rc We seek comment on the appropriateness of this requirement.  Yb- A !rr;60.44We also propose to require Little LEO operators to identify a point of contact  &accessible twentyfour hours a day, so that anomalies or reports of interference while time Y4- &sharing can be addressed expeditiously.d74 yO-ԍrr See Section 25.257(b), Appendix B. (#rd We ask interested parties to comment on the preferred  Y- &means of transferring ephemeris data to the Little LEO operators, e.g., via electronic transfer  &xor by diskette. We also ask for comment on the procedures to be undertaken in the event of unavailability of the data or observed errors, and similar matters.  Y- A !!rr<61.44To minimize the likelihood and extent of interference to NOAA earth stations, we  &propose that Little LEO systems use a zero degree elevation angle when calculating the location  &of NOAA's protection area. This assumes that the NOAA receiver is at an Earth location which  &-can see a Little LEO satellite at the horizon. In some cases, of course, a Little LEO satellite  &would not be visible until it is a few degrees higher than the horizon, due to buildings, trees,  &etc. In some environments, such as on large bodies of water, zero degrees represents a  Y9- &Yreasonable approximation. In general, we believe an elevation angle of zero degrees should be  &wsufficient to protect NOAA earth stations from Little LEO satellite transmissions. At this angle""@70*%%33"  Y- &there will be very little radio energy received by a NOAA receiver from a Little LEO satellite. We request comments on the use of a zero degree elevation angle.  Y- A !rr=62.44In some cases, NOAA and Little LEO satellites may be so far apart that the Little  & LEO satellite transmissions will not overlap with the protection area beneath the NOAA satellite.  &YUnder these circumstances, there is little possibility the Little LEO satellites will interfere with  &.the NOAA earth station's receipt of transmissions from the NOAA satellite. For smaller  &separations, however, the Little LEO satellite will impose sufficiently strong signals into the  &NOAA protection area potentially causing harmful interference. If notified that this interference is occurring, we propose to require that the Little LEO transmitter be shutoff.  Y - A !0rr>63.44As a further step to assure that interference to the NOAA system is minimized, we  Y - &are proposing Section 25.257 (c) that will require a Little LEO satellite to automatically cease  &transmissions in the 137138 MHz band if the satellite does not receive a valid reset signal from  &a Little LEO gateway station within fortyeight hours. Thus, if a Little LEO satellite were to  &,malfunction and transmit into a NOAA protection area, the potential damage would be limited  &by the automatic shutdown feature. We have selected fortyeight hours as the reset period for  &this protective protocol, based on what we believe to be the reasonable period of accessibility  &to all Little LEO satellites from a given gateway Earth station. However, it is quite possible that  &Zless than 12 hours is feasible, particularly if there are several gateway Earth stations located  & worldwide. Part of the reset protocol may require confirmation or validation that the Little LEO  &>satellite is functioning properly. Otherwise, resetting would simply perpetuate rogue  &transmissions. We ask interested parties to comment on the necessity of this reset capability,  &the need for and characteristics of a validation mechanism, and our proposal for a fortyeight  Y-hour reset period.  Y- A !rr?64.44Finally, we seek comment on the effect of this timesharing proposal on the NOAA  &community. NOAA earth stations, scattered throughout the world, will "see" the Little LEO  &hcofrequency transmissions for extended periods of time when those receivers are not receiving  Ye- &\a NOAA signal. The respective technical features of the NOAA and Little LEO radio  &transmissions should prevent NOAA earth stations from experiencing any significant adverse  Y7- &impact . However, there may be circumstances or particular equipment designs that cannot  &achieve that signal differentiation and will be adversely affected. We ask for details concerning  &any such circumstances or equipment, and recommendations on how to ameliorate any adverse impact to the timesharing technique we are proposing.  Y - A !Nrr@65.44In order to facilitate interferencefree operations, prior to the launch and operation  &hof a licensed system, we propose to require that the Little LEO licensee successfully coordinate  & its system with NOAA. In addition, we request comment on our proposed sharing and migration  &scenario between Little LEO System2 and the MetSats. Parties should specifically address how"#70*%%33$"  &the NOAA channels and the bandedge subbands can be used most effectively by a new Little  &[LEO entrant or entrants. We ask interested parties to include detailed discussion of their  &technical plans sufficient to demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable interference to the  &NOAA system operating in the 137138 MHz band. We ask parties to comment on how sharing  &xwith a NOAA system consisting of two satellites operating in the NOAA channels and three  &satellites operating in the NOAA bands can be accomplished in the 137138 MHz band.  Yv- &Specifically, parties should address whether timesharing of frequency blocks is feasible (e.g.,  &how time should be restricted, the effect on service to consumers, the impact on interference),  &and if so, how these blocks should be licensed. Further, parties should address whether more than one entrant's downlinks can be accommodated in this band.  Y -rr44 iii. Other Users of the Band  Y - A !rrA66.44In addition to NOAA's use, Orbcomm uses a range of channels in the 137138 MHz  Y - &band employing FDMA modulation techniques.X8  yO7- #jЍrrSee Orbcomm Application for Modification of License, Application, File No. 5SATML96, (dated October  #z18, 1995). By its modification which is pending before the Commission, Orbcomm proposes adjusting its  #frequencies in the 137138 MHz band, among other reasons, to be compatible with Russia's METEOR system.  #LCoordination of Orbcomm's modification to facilitate operation with France's planned S801 system has not been completed internationally. (#rX Starsys is expected to use essentially the entire  &=137138 MHz band by employing spread spectrum multiple access ("SSMA") modulation  &Ztechniques. France's S801 Little LEO system plans to operate in this spectrum and will use  &SSMA across most of the band. Russian's METEOR system will also operate in this band. At  &least three Little LEO systems, Orbcomm, Starsys, and S801, anticipate operating twentyfour hours a day and will have essentially full geographic coverage.  Y- A !rrB67.44Nevertheless, we believe that at least one additional system can be accommodated in  &Ythe 137138 MHz band through timesharing techniques. As noted, both Orbcomm and Starsys  &have represented that an additional Little LEO entrant can share their authorized spectrum. We  &Zalso believe that the scheduled MetSat migration will relieve congestion in certain channels, freeing spectrum for a new Little LEO entrant.  Y-  Y- A !rr3.44Little LEO System3 (149.95150.05 MHz/400.150400.5050 MHz/400.645401.0  Y|-MHz)(#4  YN- A !]rrC68.44The spectrum we are proposing for use by Little LEO System3, the 149.95150.05  &.MHz (uplink) and 400.150400.5050 and 400.645401.0 MHz (downlink) bands, are not  &currently licensed to Little LEO systems. The uplink band is used for radionavigationsatellite service (RNSS) systems, while the downlink bands are authorized for use by the DoD." x80*%%33"Ԍ Y- A !ԙrrD69.44In coordinating the three licensed Little LEO systems with France, the 149.95150.0  &MHz and 150.0150.05 MHz band segments have been earmarked for use by U.S. Little LEO  &systems. Nevertheless, we still need to recoordinate use with France in the future. We believe  &that, together, these two 50 kHz segments can accommodate one system. The licensee would  &need to develop sharing arrangements and coordinate with existing RNSS use by a U.S. and a  &Russian system. We believe, however, that sharing arrangements should not prove unduly  &difficult because we expect the United States RNSS system to vacate this band in the near future.  &We request comment on the sharing potential with RNSS systems in this band. We also request  &comment on whether multiple "small" networks might be accommodated in this band. Those  &who favor a multiple system approach should address spectrum sharing, intersystem coordination and interference avoidance.  Y - A !rrE70.44With respect to our proposed downlink band for Little LEO System3, DoD is  Y - &authorized to use the 400.150400.5050 MHz and 400.645401.0 MHz band.D9X  yON- #ЍrrAs stated previously, all references to a system operated by DoD in the 400.15401.0 MHz band incorporates,  #=a system operated by DoD and any system merged with NOAA. The DoD system is expected to merge with the NOAA system. (#rD Our  &;understanding is that DoD plans to operate a satellite system worldwide that will consist of up  &to five satellites in the 400.15401.00 MHz frequency band. We estimate that a DoD user in  &KWashington D.C. would have access to a DoD threesatellite system for approximately 15.5  Yy- &Jpercent of the time.j:y yO-ԍrrThis is calculated using an elevation angle of 0 degrees.j The remaining 84.5 percent of available time, or about twenty hours per  &day, could be used by Little LEO System3. A DoD user at 0, 30, and 60 degrees latitude  &would have access to a DoD foursatellite system for 15.2, 16.8, and 34.9 percent of the time,  &;respectively. For a five satellite system, the time availability will be proportionally higher for  &a DoD user. We request comment on how the Little LEO system could best use the remaining available time based on a DoD system composed of five satellites.  Y- A !!rrF71.44The Little LEO System3's ability to implement this timesharing scheme is vital to  &the global national security interests of the United States. Therefore, it is important that  &licensees who share the 400.15401 MHz band with DOD assign the highest priority to avoiding  &interference to DOD systems worldwide. We have proposed rules for the 137138 MHz band  &which we believe will prevent harmful interference to current users. Those rules and the  &attendant discussion are also largely applicable to the 400.15401 MHz band, where DOD  &operates its METSAT system. Based on concerns expressed by DOD, however, we request  &;comment by interested parties on the feasibility of establishing a protection area in the 400.15 Y - &401 MHz band that extends below the horizon, i.e., an elevation angle of less than zero degrees.  &Comments on this issue should include examination and analysis of the impact of elevation" x:0*%%33"  &<angles below the horizon on NVNG service viability, as well as the need for such angles to  &protect DOD METSAT users worldwide. As a preliminary proposal, we have included an  &elevation angle of zero degrees in Section 25.258(a). Further, in order to assure accuracy in the  &implementation of orbital propagator algorithms used to program NVNG satellites to prevent  &Jinterference to DOD systems worldwide, we request interested parties to provide a description  &of their propagator algorithms they expect to use with their NVNG systems. We also ask  &Zinterested parties to comment on the extent to which error in the propagator algorithms may  &affect protection to the DOD METSAT system. At this time we are not proposing specific  &language for a rule supporting a particular propagator algorithm, but notice is hereby given that  &[a reference propagator algorithm may be specified if, based on the record, it appears that adequate protection to the DOD METSAT system cannot otherwise be achieved.  Y - A !rrG72.44Each DoD satellite using the 400.15401 MHz band will be assigned just one of two  & possible frequencies. It is our understanding that there will be occasions when those assignments  &will be changed. There may be operational or logistical circumstances which require DoD  &hsatellites to change from one frequency to the other on very short notice. As we understand it,  &DoD can change the frequency on which its satellites are operating and inform its earth stations worldwide of the new frequency choice in less than ninety minutes.  YK- A !rrH73.44If DoD changes the frequency for a particular satellite, Little LEO systems must also  &be able to change its frequency to avoid interference to the DoD user. In order to accomplish  &xthis, a mechanism must be developed between DoD and the Little LEO operator to exchange  &ephemeris and frequency information. The Little LEO operator must be informed of the change  &in order to update system parameters expeditiously. Failure to update rapidly creates an increase  &hin the risk of harmful interference to the worldwide operations of the DoD system. Therefore,  &Little LEO satellite operators must be capable of implementing DoDimposed frequency changes  Y- within ninety minutes of the implementation of the change in frequencies of the DoD system.  Y|- A !rrI74.44We ask interested parties to provide information concerning the procedure by which  &information, frequency as well as ephemeris data, can be provided to Little LEO operators to  &.facilitate timely deployment of revised protection areas, and the meaning of "timely" for  &purposes of avoiding harmful interference to the DoD earth stations when there is a DoD &prompted frequency change. As stated above, we believe DoD can, in less than ninety minutes,  &upload information to its satellite instructing the satellite to change the frequency on which it is  &operating, inform its earth stations of the frequency change, have its satellite begin transmitting  &on the new frequency, and its earth stations begin receiving signals transmitted on the new  &frequency. Our understanding is that a Little LEO system operating with one (or two) gateway  &stations in the United States, can implement such a frequency change in 14.4 hours or less. We  &Ydo not believe a 14.4 hour implementation period is an acceptable time to avoid interference to  &the DoD system. Furthermore, a Little LEO system can reduce its implementation time by"#:0*%%33$"  &increasing the number of gateway stations in its system. Therefore, we propose that Little LEO  &systems be able to implement the change of frequency within ninety minutes of receiving the request from DoD.  Y- A !rrJ75.44 Thus, we ask for comment including discussion of relevant technical and economic  &facts concerning what we should adopt as an appropriate time period to implement frequency  &changes to preclude any interference to DoD users. We ask Little LEO applicants whether it  &is technically and economically feasible for them to implement a frequency change procedure  &that is sufficiently responsive to avoid substantially increasing the risk of interference to DoD  &earth stations. We also ask Little LEOs to comment on the fastest possible time their systems  &hwill be able to implement a frequency change. We further ask interested Little LEO applicants  &to provide statistical estimates of the extent of interference to the DoD earth station as a function  &of the time between DoD system frequency change and responsive Little LEO system frequency  &change, and the costs in terms of system capacity and viability should they choose to program  &their Little LEO satellites to refrain from operating on any DoD frequency in DoD protection  &areas. Prior to the launch and operation of a licensed system, we propose to require that the  &Little LEO licensee successfully coordinate its system with DoD. We also propose to require  &Kthat, at DoD's instruction, the Little LEO System3 operator test, up to four times a year, its  &;systems ability to implement a DoDrequested frequency change. This exercise would serve to  &ensure that the system operator can implement the frequency change and there are no equipment  &<or system based problems in doing so. We also ask parties to comment on all aspects of the proposed rule and submit any additional proposals they find necessary.  Y- A !!rrK76.44Given the significant national security interests involved, we emphasize that Little  &LEO operations in the 400.15401.0 MHz band must occur on an interferencefree basis with  &jthe DoD satellites. The Commission will not hesitate to address problems of interference  &wworldwide by requiring the licensee to terminate the interfering operations immediately and by  &imposing sanctions including monetary forfeitures and license revocations, when appropriate.  &Furthermore, we remind licensees that any transfer of a license includes the transfer of all conditions and limitations of the license.  Y7- A !rrL77.44We ask for comments on all aspects of our proposals for Little LEO System1, 2, and 3.  Y-rr4.  Use of WRC95 and WRC 97 Spectrum " :0*%%33!"Ԍ Y- A !rrM78.44 At WRC95, additional uplink spectrum was allocated for the Little LEO service.; yOy- #ЍrrAt WRC95 the 399.9400.05 MHz uplink band was allocated for Little LEO use worldwide and the 455456 MHz and 459460 MHz uplink bands were allocated for use in region two.(#r  &As the Little LEO systems become operational and acquire additional customers, it may be  &advantageous for them to have access to additional spectrum. In addition, the availability of the  &WRC95 spectrum may assist the Commission in satisfying the spectrum needs of the qualified  Y- &second round Little LEO applicants. See 47 U.S.C. 309 (j)(6)(E). Thus, we seek comment on  &whether we should allow second round licensees exclusive use of the WRC95 spectrum and  &jwhether they would be able to use the spectrum effectively, particularly since there is no  &available corresponding downlink spectrum. We also ask for comment on the overall public  & interest benefits of authorizing second round applicants to use the WRC95 spectrum, rather than  &allowing others to apply for it. We note that the second round Little LEO applicants were  &instrumental in the United States' successful effort at WRC95 to obtain additional spectrum for  &the Little LEO service. Moreover, it is settled that the Commission need not open each and  Y - &+ every frequency for competing applications before assigning it.<  yO-ԍrrRainbow Broadcasting Co v. FCC, 949 F.2d 405, 40910 (D.C. Cir. 1991).(#rƅ Finally, given the high demand  &Lfor Little LEO spectrum, we also request comment on whether any additional Little LEO  &Kspectrum secured at WRC97 should be assigned to existing licensees or first be subject to a  Y -third round of applications.   Yy-C. Licensing Framework  YK- A !{rrN79.44 As discussed, we tentatively conclude that we can issue Little LEO system licenses  &for each of the three discrete frequency segments to a qualified applicant. To maximize entry,  &we propose to limit each licensee to a system operating in only one of these segments. As  &-described in more detail below, we will afford all applicants an opportunity to amend their  &applications to apply for any or all of these segments. If more than one applicant has applied  &for a system in a particular band segment, we propose to consider those applications mutually  &exclusive. In that case, we propose to conduct an auction for the segment. If the same applicant  &,files for two or more segments, and these are the only applications filed for these segments, or  &hif any applicant wins more than one segment in an auction, we will ask the applicant to choose  &in which segment it wishes to operate. The rejected segment will then be available for  &assignment to another secondround applicant, or, if no other second round applicant has applied for the segment, it will be deemed available to an applicant in a future processing group.  Y -D. rrResolving Mutual Exclusivity    X- "<0*%%33"Ԍ Y- A ! rrO80.44To the extent possible, we have tried and will continue to try to accommodate all  &those who seek to provide global Little LEO satellite service. As the analysis below suggests,  &,auctions for transnational satellite services raise issues that are considerably more complex and  &idifficult than issues raised by terrestrial applicants for the Little LEO service and there is no  &Zmutual exclusivity, we avoid the need to deal with these problematic issues. We recognize,  &however, that we may be faced with mutually exclusive applications. The use of competitive  &Ybidding to award licenses for global systems appears to raise a significant number of extremely  &difficult issues. If we auction licenses for service in this country, providers are likely to face  &a series of sequential auctions in different countries. Sequential auctions create significant  &uncertainty for potential service providers because providers are unsure that they will win  &hauctions in all the countries in which they wish to provide service. This uncertainty may be so  &-severe that, given the high fixed cost of a global system, it may deter entry, and impede the provision of service and the development of new offerings.  Y - #rrP81. Furthermore, the United States is required by treaty to coordinate its satellite systems  &internationally with other terrestrial and satellite systems that may be affected by the new  &system's operations. Coordination negotiations generally begin once the U.S. system is licensed  &and are usually conducted on a countrybycountry basis. A coordination agreement may  &contain a variety of operational constraints that are designed to ensure that all the systems can  &Zoperate compatibly. The international coordination process becomes more extensive with a  &<U.S.licensed global satellite system, because its worldwide operations have the potential to  &affect every country operating radio systems in the frequency bands the U.S. system will use.  Y- A !rrQ82.44Nevertheless, we must recognize that it may become necessary to develop a means  &of choosing among mutually exclusive applicants. As long as spectrum is scarce, the  &Commission will be required to make difficult choices to serve the public interest. The  Y- &Commission lacks authority to conduct lotteries for applications filed after July 26, 1993.[= yO -ԍrrSee 47 U.S.C.  309(i). (#r[  &Comparative hearings have resulted in years of delay in licensing, without any assurance that  &the licenses ultimately end up in the hands of those that value them most highly. As a general  &jrule, by contrast, auctions have proven to be a fast, fair, and efficient means of assigning  &spectrum licenses. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether, if we are faced with mutually  &exclusive applicants for Little LEO licenses, we should use auctions to decide amongst them.  &\We specifically ask commenters to address the likelihood that other countries may use competitive bidding to award licenses.  Y -rr1.44Authority to Conduct Auctions "!X=0*%%33""Ԍ Y- A !NrrR83.44In the event that there is mutual exclusivity among Little LEO applicants and if we  &were to decide that an auction was the best way to choose among the applicants, we note that  &[Section 309(j) of the Communications Act allows us to employ auctions to choose among  Y- &mutually exclusive applications for initial licenses or construction permits.R> yO4-ԍrr47 U.S.C.  309(j)(1).(#rR In order to employ  &auctions for a particular service, we must determine that "the principal use of [the] spectrum will  &involve, or is reasonably likely to involve, the licensee receiving compensation from  Yv- &subscribers."W?vX yO -ԍrr47 U.S.C.  309(j)(2)(A). (#rW In addition, the Commission also must find that the use of competitive bidding  Y_-will promote certain statutory objectives.U@_ yO -ԍrr47 U.S.C.  309(j)(2)(B).(#rU These objectives are: rr(#r  Y1- l rr44(a) F the development and rapid deployment of new technologies, products, and  l 2services for the benefit of the public, including those residing in rural areas, without administrative or judicial delays;(#  Y - l Prr44(b) F promoting economic opportunity and competition and ensuring that new and  l innovative technologies are readily accessible to the American people by  l oavoiding excessive concentration of licenses and by disseminating licenses  l "among a wide variety of applicants, including small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups and women;(#  YK- l rr44(c)  recovery for the public of a portion of the value of the public spectrum resource  l "made available for commercial use and avoidance of unjust enrichment through the methods employed to award uses of that resource; and(#  Y-rr44(d)  efficient and intensive use of the electromagnetic spectrum.YAx yO-ԍrr47 U.S.C.  309(j)(3)(A)(D).(#rY(#  Y- A !rrS84.44In the case of Little LEO systems, should there be more qualified applicants than  Y- &spectrum segments, we believe that the condition precedent to auctions, mutual exclusivity,  & would exist. In the Second R&O, we stated that we will exclude from competitive bidding those  &classes of services where mutual exclusivity between applications cannot exist because channels  &,must be "shared" by multiple licensees. We request comment on this. We note, however, our  YN- &proposal that each Little LEO licensee timeshare its spectrum segment with other licensees.\BN yO$-ԍrr See infra  4177.\ "NB0*%%33\"  Y- A !#rrT85.44We turn next to the question of whether the principal use of the spectrum is  &reasonably likely to involve the licensee receiving compensation from subscribers. Auctions are  &Yauthorized if at least a majority of the use of the spectrum is likely to be for subscriptionbased  Y- &services.\C yO-ԍrrSecond R&O at  3036.(#r\ We look to classes of licenses and permits rather than to individual licenses.CDX yO-ԍrrId. (#rC Based  Yv- &on their applications , it appears that the Little LEO applicants contemplate providing  &subscriptionbased services. Although the statute requires that licensees receive compensation  &from subscribers in return for enabling those subscribers to receive and transmit communications  &isignals, we do not believe that the statute requires a direct service arrangement between end  &users and space station licensees. The House Report states that "where the Commission  &determines that the principal use of the spectrum will be to, in essence, resell the spectrum to  &subscribers, and [where the objectives of Section 309(j)(3) are met], then the class of licenses  Y - &;should be subject to competitive bidding."vE  yOn-ԍrrH.R. Rp. No. 103111, 103rd Congress, Second Session, at 253.(#rv The statutory requirements may be satisfied where  Y - &,applicants choose to provide service to resellers rather than end users. The statute's legislative  &history indicates that it is irrelevant to the applicability of Section 309(j)(2) whether a licensee's  Y- &subscribers are end users or resellers. Consequently, we tentatively conclude that the Little LEO  &service is likely to be primarily, if not entirely, a subscriptionbased service in the foreseeable future, and that the principal use requirement of Section 309(j)(2) is satisfied.  Y4- A !rrU86.44We also believe that using competitive bidding as a means of awarding licenses would  &advance the public interest objectives of Section 309(j)(3). The ability of the Little LEO service  &to provide global, twoway data communications and position location services, using lowcost,  &portable transceivers, should enhance communications capabilities, particularly in sparsely  &populated and remote locations. To the extent that an auction would allow us to license such systems more quickly than other licensing methods, we believe the public would be served.  Y- A !NrrV87.44Further, competitive bidding should encourage efficient use of the electromagnetic  &spectrum. An applicant would only bid for the minimum amount of spectrum needed, thereby  Ye-encouraging spectrum efficiency. We seek comment on these conclusions.  YN- #&m PE37&P#  Y7- #-#Xw PE37XP#rrW88. If we were to decide to auction these licenses, we propose to auction licenses for three Little LEO systems in the following frequency bands: " xE0*%%33"Ԍ Y- l 3rr44(a) System1: We propose to auction one Little LEO system license that will  l permit operations in the 149.81149.9 MHZ (uplink) and the 400.5050400.5517 MHz (downlink) bands. (#  Y- l rr44(b)  System2: We also propose to auction one Little LEO system license that will  l mpermit operations in the 137138 MHz band (downlink) and the 148.905149.81 MHz band (uplink).(#  YH- l _rr44(c)  System3: Further, we propose to auction one Little LEO system license that  l will permit operations in the 149.95150.05 MHz band (uplink) and the 400.150400.505 MHz and 400.645401.000 MHz bands (downlink).(#  Y -rr2.44Competitive Bidding Design  Y - A !>rrX89.44In the event that licenses for the Little LEO service are subject to competitive bidding  &because mutual exclusivity cannot be avoided, we seek comment on whether we should conduct  &an auction. If so, we seek comment on whether we should employ a single round sealed bid  &auction (either sequential or simultaneous), a sequential oral auction, a simultaneous multiple  &round auction or some other methodology pursuant to the procedures set forth in Part 1, subpart  YK- &xQ of our rules relating to competitive bidding.FFK yO-ԍrr47 C.F.R. 1.2103.F We also propose to retain our discretion to  &implement or modify certain procedures that will be announced by Public Notice prior to any  &Kauction in this proceeding, including rules governing the timing of application and payment  &hrequirements as well as any activity rules and stopping rules that may be appropriate. We seek comment on these proposals.  Y- A !^rrY90.44We intend to apply the general competitive bidding procedures found in Part 1,  &Subpart Q of our rules in the event that we conduct auctions. Under the rules established in the  Y- &Second R&O, applicants are required to file a shortform application prior to the auction in  & which they wish to participate, in accordance with the Public Notice specifying a filing deadline  Ye- &for such applications.GGeX yOn-ԍrr47 C.F.R.  1.2105.G The shortform application we propose to use for these auctions (FCC  &Form 175) appears in Appendix C. We request comment on this form as well as the  &wapplicability to the Little LEO service of the shortform application procedures set forth in Part  &1, subpart Q of our rules. In addition, we seek comment on whether it would be more  &happropriate to employ electronic or manual filing of shortform applications, especially in light of the limited number of applicants. " G0*%%33 "Ԍ Y- #rrZ91. Upfront Payment. We propose to require the submission of an upfront payment prior  &to any Little LEO auction. The Commission or the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, on  &delegated authority, may establish the appropriate amount of such upfront payment. We seek  &[comment on this proposal. Would it be appropriate, for example, to establish an upfront  &payment of five percent of the spectrum's estimated value? If commenters agree with this  &approach, they should discuss how the Commission or the Bureau should estimate the value of the spectrum to be auctioned.  YJ- #rr[92. Payment for Licenses Awarded by Competitive Bidding. To help ensure that auction  &hwinners are able to pay the full amount of their bids, we decided generally in the Second R&O  &that every winning bidder in an auction must tender a down payment sufficient to bring its total  Y - &Ydeposit up to 20 percent of its winning bid._H  yO -ԍrrSecond R&O, at  189190.(#r_ A down payment in the amount of 20 percent of  &the winning bid would help protect against possible default. We also concluded that full  Y - &,payment of the remainder of the winning bid should be paid in a lump sum.IX X yO- #zЍrrWe have made an exception to this rule for "designated entities," which, in the context of FCC auctions,  yO- #refers to small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by women and minorities. See  yOr-id. at  227. See also 47 U.S.C.  309(j)(4)(A).(#rƦ We will follow  Y -similar procedures here and will set forth payment procedures in a future Public Notice.dJ x yO-ԍrrSee, e.g., 47 C.F.R.  1.2107.d  Y- #rr\93. Bid Withdrawal, Default and Disqualification. We have previously explained that it  &is important not only to deter insincere or speculative bidding in auctions, but also to provide  &-an incentive for bidders in multiple round auctions wishing to withdraw their bids to do so  YQ- &wbefore bidding ceases. In the Second R&O, we observed that it is appropriate to create such an  &incentive because a withdrawal that occurs after an auction ends (default) is likely to be more  Y#- &harmful than one that occurs before closing.^K# yO-ԍrrSecond R&O at  154155.(#r^ We seek comment on using the bid withdrawal and default procedures in Part 1.  Y- #rr]94. We will examine the winning bidder's application, including all petitions to deny the  &application, after the auction, to determine the bidder's qualifications to be a licensee. Since the  &"longform" application referred to in our general auction rules will be filed before the auction,  Y- &i.e., when amended Little LEO applications are filed,XL yO"-ԍrrSee infra  103106.X the usual postauction "longform"  &application submission is not necessary unless the winning applicant has substantially changed"!( L0*%%33"  &its amended application. We propose that, if necessary, amended longform applications must be filed within 10 days of the announcement of winning bidders.  Y- #<rr^95. After the auction, we will place the winning bidders' long form applications on public  &xnotice and entertain petitions to deny. If, pursuant to Section 309(d) of the Communications  &Act, the Commission dismisses or denies any and all petitions to deny, the Commission or the  &International Bureau acting for the Commission on delegated authority would issue a separate  &announcement to this effect, and the winning bidder would then have a prescribed amount of  &time to submit the balance of its winning bid as set forth in Part 1 of our rules. If the bidder  &did so, the license would be granted subject to any conditions that may be imposed. If the  &Ybidder failed to submit the balance of the winning bid or the license was otherwise denied, we would assess a default payment as discussed in Part 1. We request comment on these proposals.  Y -rr3.44Regulatory Safeguards  Y - #rr_96. Performance Requirements. Congress has also directed that the Commission, in  &implementing auction procedures, "include performance requirements, such as appropriate  &deadlines and penalties for performance failures, to ensure prompt delivery of service to rural  &areas, to prevent stockpiling or warehousing of spectrum by licensees or permittees, and to  YM- &promote investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and services."UMM yO-ԍrr47 U.S.C.  309(j)(4)(B).(#rU We believe  &Ythat existing performance requirements such as our construction and milestone requirements, in  &Kconjunction with the requirement that licensees pay for spectrum use, should be adequate to  &prevent the warehousing of spectrum and ensure fair competition and the prompt delivery of  Y- &service.UNX yO-ԍrrLittle LEO Order at  18.(#rU We therefore tentatively conclude that it is unnecessary to adopt any further  &performance rules in connection with our proposed auction procedures. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.  Y- #rr`97. Rules Prohibiting Collusion. In the Second R&O, we adopted rules prohibiting  &collusive conduct in connection with competitive bidding, explaining that these rules, which are  &hcodified at 47 C.F.R.  1.2105, would enhance the competitiveness of both the auction process  YR- &and the structure of postauction markets.^OR yO -ԍrrSecond R&O at  221226.(#r^ Under these rules, bidders are required to identify  &on their shortform applications any parties with whom they have entered into any consortium  &arrangements, joint ventures, partnerships or other agreements or understandings which relate  &<in any way to the competitive bidding process. Bidders are also required to certify on their" "xO0*%%33"  &shortform applications that they have not entered into any explicit or implicit agreements,  &jarrangements or understandings of any kind with any parties, other than those identified,  &Yregarding the amount of their bid, bidding strategies or the particular properties on which they  &will or will not bid. We propose to apply these same rules to Little LEO auctions if such auctions are held.  Yv- A !]rra98.44In addition, consistent with other provisions of 47 C.F.R.  1.2105, we propose to  &require winning bidders to submit a detailed explanation of the terms and conditions and parties  &involved in any bidding consortia, joint venture, partnership or other agreement or arrangement  &hthey have entered into relating to the competitive bidding process prior to the close of bidding.  &All such arrangements must have been entered into prior to the filing of shortform applications.  &In the DBS context, we concluded that after shortform applications are filed, and prior to the  &time the winning bidder has submitted its 20 percent down payment, all applicants should be  &prohibited from cooperating, collaborating, discussing or disclosing in any manner the substance  &of their bids or bidding strategies with other applicants for licenses serving the same or  &-overlapping geographical area, unless such bidders are members of a bidding consortium or  Y- &other joint bidding arrangement identified on the bidder's shortform application.LP yO -ԍrrDBS Order at 208.L We seek  &comment on whether we should apply the same prohibition in any Little LEO auction we might  Yb- &hold. As we explained in the Second R&O, we believe that such requirements are not unduly  &burdensome and are appropriate to deter bidders from engaging in anticompetitive behavior. As  Y4- &we also noted in the Second R&O, allegations of collusion in a petition to deny may be  &Yinvestigated by the Commission or referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for investigation.  &Bidders who are found to have violated the antitrust laws or the Commission's Rules while  &;participating in an auction may be subject to forfeiture of their down payment or their full bid  & amount, as well as revocation of their license, and may be prohibited from participating in future  Y-auctions.KQX yO-ԍrrId. at 2388.(#rK  Y- A !^rrb99.44At the same time, we believe it would be appropriate to apply to the Little LEO  Y|- &wservice the exceptions to our collusion rules adopted subsequent to the Second R&O. Thus, we  &propose to allow applicants to (1) modify their shortform applications to reflect formation of  &consortia or changes in ownership at any time before or during an auction, provided that such  &changes do not result in a change in control of the applicant, and provided that the parties  &forming consortia or entering into ownership agreements have not applied for licenses for Little  Y - &LEO systems that may be used to cover the same  or overlapping geographical areas ; and (2)  &Ymake agreements to bid jointly for licenses after the filing of shortform applications, provided  &that the parties to the agreement have not applied for licenses that may be used to serve the same"#Q0*%%33 "  Y- &, or overlapping geographical areas  . We further propose to allow a holder of a noncontrolling  &iattributable interest in an entity submitting a shortform application to acquire an ownership  &.interest in, form a consortium with, or enter into a joint bidding arrangement with other  Y- &Kapplicants for licenses that may be used to serve the same or overlapping geographical areas  &after the filing of shortform applications, provided that (1) the attributable interest holder  &certifies to the Commission that it has not communicated and will not communicate with any  &party concerning the bids or bidding strategies of more than one of the applicants in which it  &holds an attributable interest, or with which it has a consortium or joint bidding arrangement,  YH- &and which have applied for licenses that may be used to serve the same or overlapping  Y1- &=geographical areas , and (2) the arrangements do not result in any change in control of an  Y - &applicant.R  yO -ЍrrSee Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding, 9 F.C.C. Rcd 7684 (1994); 47 C.F.R.  1.2105(c)(2)(4).(#r We request comment on whether these proposed rules prohibiting collusive bidding arrangements are appropriately tailored for any Little LEO auctions we may hold.   Y - A !rrc100.44Designated Entities. Section 309(j) of the Communications Act provides that, when  &promulgating competitive bidding regulations, the Commission must "ensure that small  &businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups  &and women are given the opportunity to participate in the provision of spectrum-based  Y{- &yservices."S{  yOL-ԍrr47 U.S.C.  309(j)(4)(D). See also 47 U.S.C.  309(j)(3)(B) & (j)(4)(A).(#rƘ The Commission has employed several mechanisms to implement the statute's  &+ provisions concerning these "designated entities," including installment payments, bidding credits  &=and spectrum set-asides, when establishing competitive bidding procedures for particular  Y6- &services.T6 yO-ԍrrSecond R&O, at  227288. See also 47 C.F.R.  1.2110.(#rƒ We seek comment on what mechanisms, if any, the Commission should employ in implementing the provisions of Section 309(j). rr44  Y-E. Unauthorized and Interfering Transmissions  #rrd101. Little LEO earth terminals will have the physical capability to roam from one region  &or country to the next. Because of their inherent mobility, users may attempt to operate their  &hearth terminals in a country in which the Little LEO licensee is not authorized to operate. This  &;would not only violate that country's sovereign rights, but operation of the unauthorized earth  &terminal may cause interference to authorized users of the spectrum in that country. In order  &to protect against this, we ask for comment on effective methods of preventing unauthorized  &transmission and the cost related to each method. One method, for example, would require each  &<Little LEO user terminal to be equipped with position determination capabilities that would""$@T0*%%33-"  &prevent transmissions in countries from which they are not authorized to transmit. We  &specifically request comment on whether, and to what extent, the associated costs for each  &proposed method would impact the second round licensees ability to compete with existing  &licensees, who are not required to meet such a requirement. We request comment on how we should treat existing licensees.  Yv-F. Exclusive Arrangements  YH- #rre102. We ask for comment on whether we should adopt limitations on licensees' ability to  &enter into exclusive arrangements with other countries concerning communications to or from  Y - &the United States.aU  yO - #NЍrrSuch limitations were adopted in the Big LEO service. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules to  #Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to a Mobile Satellite Service in the 16101626.5/2483.52500 MHz  #frequency Band, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 9654, CC Docket No. 92166,  5455 (released  #February 15, 1996); 47 C.F.R.  25.143(h) (prohibiting Big LEO satellite systems from entering into exclusive arrangements to serve particular countries).(#ra An exclusive agreement may foreclose other Little LEO licensees from  &serving a foreign market, preventing that licensee from providing global service. Any  &limitations that we adopt on these types of arrangements would apply only to the handling of  &;traffic to and from the United States. We recognize, however, that spectrum coordination and availability in a particular country may limit the number of systems that can serve that country.  Y-G.rrAmended Applications  #rrf103. Amended applications must conform to Part 25 of our rules and include the technical  &and financial information required by Part 25 of our rules. Applicants must indicate in which  &spectrum block(s) they propose to operate, the technical parameters of their systems, time &isharing techniques with NOAA and DoD, and finances sufficient to launch and operate two satellites in their system for a year.  #rrg104. We require all applicants to provide technical information sufficient to demonstrate  &ycompatibility with existing authorized users. Potential coordination conflicts can thus be  &Lidentified in the application process. Commenters should present, in technical detail, the  &operational protocols and descriptions of their proposed timesharing techniques, including  &information about the methods they would use to avoid unacceptable interference to government  &and other systems in the subbands. We ask also that commenters describe in detail the  &;strategies they propose to shift overall operation in the 137138 MHz frequency band from the  &bandedge to the subbands during the years 2000 to 2005. Descriptions should include a  &;detailed analysis of the impact such transition would have on the number of potential licensees  &and subscribers. Some licensees may choose to remain in the bandedge, based on their" %xU0*%%33"  &assessment of the impact of government operation there. If, upon review, the Commission  &Jbelieves that it is feasible for the parties to coordinate successfully and a license is granted, we will expect the parties to coordinate their systems in good faith.  #rrh105. In order to expedite the licensing process and grant licenses as quickly as possible,  &Japplicants in the second processing round must submit their amended applications no later than  Yv- &December 16, 1996 . If an applicant finds it necessary to preserve its right to operate in all three  &spectrum blocks, the applicant must file three separate applications. Applicants who submit only  YH- &one application will not be allowed to amend their applications after the adoption of the Report  Y1-and Order to include the frequencies not contained in its application.  Y - #jrri106. Applicants will be allowed to further amend their applications once the Report and  Y - &Order has been released only to the extent necessary because of new obligations that we have  Y - &imposed differing from the proposals in this Notice. Aside from the changes outlined above,  &Yif an amendment is deemed "major," the entire application will be considered newlyfiled as of  &the date of the amendment. The application will no longer be eligible for consideration in the  &processing round because of its failure to be properly filed as of the original cutoff date for  &accepting amended applications, December 16, 1996. We emphasize that only amendments  Yb- &necessary to conform the application to the final rules and policies adopted in the Report and  YK- & Order will be accepted unconditionally. All other amendments will be treated under the existing procedural regulations.  Y-H. Existing Rules  #rrj107. Second round Little LEO systems are subject to our existing rules and policies  &xgoverning Little LEO system licensing and operation. We will not require Little LEO space  Y- &[station licensees to provide service on a common carrier basis.UV yO#-ԍrrLittle LEO Order at  24.(#rU Further, we will issue a  &;blanket license for the space segment, a ten year operating license for the system that begins to  & run when the first LEO satellite is launched, authority to replace the older satellites in the system  & as they are retired, a filing window for next generation system proposals, and system implementation milestones.  Y7-  Y -ti IV. CONCLUSION ă  Y- #rrk108. In this Notice, we propose regulations that will allow the licensing and operation of  &competitive nonvoice, nongeostationary mobilesatellite service systems operating in the public  &interest. Based on the considerations discussed above, we believe the proposals set forth in this  Y!- & Notice will best serve the public interest in competitive, efficient, rapid, and intense use of Little"!&XV0*%%33""  &LEO resources. We ask parties to comment on all aspects of the proposed service and auction  &;rules and make any additional proposals necessary to serve the public interest and facilitate the efficient processing of second round applications.  Y-rD V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ă  #rrl109. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has  &prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") of the expected impact on small  &entities of the proposals suggested in this document. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A.  &Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in  Y - &Jaccordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest of the Notice, but they must  &have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the Initial Regulatory  &Flexibility Analysis. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,  &Jincluding the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the  &Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility  Y-Act, Pub. L. No. 96354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq (1981). rr  #rrm110. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the  &xCommission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on  Y5- &or before  November 29, 1996, and reply comments on or December 16, 1996. To file formally  &,in this proceeding, you must file an original and four copies of all comments, reply comments,  &and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your  &comments, you should file five additional copies. Send comments and reply comments to the  &jOffice of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.  &Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business  &hours in the Federal Communications Commission, Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554.  Yf- #[rrn111. This Notice contains either a proposed or modified information collection. As part  &+ of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office  &of Management and Budget ("OMB") to comment on information collections contained in this  Y!- &YNotice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 10413. Public and  Y - &agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this Notice; OMB comments  Y- &;are due 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in the Federal Register. Comments  &,should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper  &performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have  &practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the  &quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of  &the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection"#'V0*%%33$" techniques or other forms of information technology.  #rro112. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information  &collections are due to the Commission on or before November 29, 1996. In addition to filing  &wcomments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections contained  &herein should be submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications Commission, Room  &234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to dconway@fcc.gov  &Yand to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington,  YH- &DC 20503 or via the Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov. Written comments on the proposed and/or  &modified information collections must be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on or before 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register.  Y - #rrp113. This is a nonrestricted notice and comment rulemaking proceeding.W$  {Oe - #>ЍrrInterested persons may make ex parte presentations concerning the issues in this rulemaking proceeding,  #subject to the rules for nonrestricted proceedings described above. However, pending Little LEO applications  {O- #{are subject to the ex parte rules for restricted proceedings. See 47 C.F.R. 1.1208. Therefore, ex parte presentations concerning individual applications are prohibited.(#r Ex parte  &presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are  Y - &disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203,  &and 1.1206(a). The Sunshine Agenda period is the period of time that commences with the  &release of public notice that a matter has been placed on the Sunshine Agenda and terminates  &when the Commission (1) releases the text of a decision or order in the matter; (2) issues a  &public notice stating that the matter has been deleted from the Sunshine Agenda; or (3) issues  &a public notice stating that the matter has been returned to the staff for further consideration,  &whichever occurs first. 47 C.F.R.  1.1202(f). During the Sunshine Agenda period, no  Y- &presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are permitted unless specifically exempted. 47 C.F.R.  1.1203.  Y- #rrq114. In general, an ex parte presentation is any communication directed to the merits or  &,outcome of the proceeding made to decisionmaking personnel that (1) if written, is not served  &;on the parties to the proceeding, or (2) if oral, is made without advance notice to the parties to  &the proceeding and without opportunity for them to be present. 47 C.F.R.  1.1202(b). Any  Y- &person who makes or submits a written ex parte presentation shall provide on the same day it  &Zis submitted, two copies of the same under separate cover to the Commission's Secretary for  &inclusion in the public record. The presentation (as well as any transmittal letter) must clearly  &Yindicate on its face the docket number of the particular proceeding and the fact that two copies  Y(- &of it have been submitted to the Secretary, and must be labeled or captioned as an ex parte presentation. 47 C.F.R.  1.1206(a)(1). "(W0*%%33"Ԍ Y- #rrr115. Any person who is making an oral ex parte presentation including data or arguments  &not already reflected in the person's written comments, memoranda, or other previous filings  &win that proceeding shall provide on the day of the oral presentation an original and one copy of  &a written memorandum to the Secretary (with a copy to the Commissioner or staff member  &involved) that summarizes the data and arguments. The memorandum (as well as any transmittal  &letter) must clearly indicate on its face the docket number of the particular proceeding and the  & fact that an original and one copy of it have been submitted to the Secretary, and must be labeled  Ya-or captioned as an ex parte presentation, 47 C.F.R.  1.1206(a)(2).  #rrs116. For further information concerning this rulemaking contact Paula Ford (202) 418 &0760 or Brian Carter (202) 4182119 of the International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.  X - OVI. ORDERING CLAUSES ׃  #rrt117. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in Sections  &1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303, 308, and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47  &U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303, 308, and 309(j), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of our  &,intent to adopt the policies and rules set forth in this Notice and that COMMENT IS SOUGHT on all the proposals in this Notice.  #rru118. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ESAT, Inc.'s Petition for Rulemaking in  &Establishing Rules for Licensing SecondRound Applicants in the Nonvoice, Nongeostationary  &Mobile Satellite Service dated February 14, 1996 and requesting that the Commission initiate  &<a rulemaking proceeding to develop regulations for processing the secondround Little LEO applications IS GRANTED.  ]!n ")W0*%%33`"  ]!n   #rrv119. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice of  & Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel  &Yfor Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the  Y-Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq. (1981).   r4 (##T$$%&B''0*,.8135@8: