******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Redesignation of the 17.7-19.7 GHz Frequency ) Band, Blanket Licensing of Satellite ) IB Docket No. 98-172 Earth Stations in the 17.7-20.2 GHz and ) RM-9005 27.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Bands, ) RM-9118 and the Allocation of Additional Spectrum ) in the 17.3-17.8 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz ) Frequency Bands for Broadcast ) Satellite-Service Use ) REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: June 8, 2000 Released: June 22, 2000 By the Commission: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth approving in part, dissenting in part and issuing a statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 III. BACKGROUND 8 IV. DISCUSSION 17 A. Band Plan 18 1. Initial Proposals 18 2. Adopted Band Plan 28 3. Secondary Use 55 4. Conclusions Regarding the Band Plan 59 B. Continued Rights of Existing Stations to Operate 61 1. Cut-off Date 65 2. Sunset provision 67 3. Modifications 73 C. Relocation 76 D. Blanket Licensing 85 1. GSO/FSS 87 2. NSGO/FSS 95 E. BSS Allocation 96 F. 4.5 Degree Spacing 100 G. 24.75-25.25 GHz Uplink 102 V. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 107 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 109 APPENDIX A: FINAL RULES APPENDIX B: FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS APPENDIX C: LIST OF COMMENTS AND REPLY COMMENTS I.INTRODUCTION 1. With this Report and Order, we adopt rules that will permit the efficient use of spectrum for existing and future users, and will facilitate the deployment of new services in the 17.7-20.2 GHz band ("18 GHz band"). In particular, we adopt a band plan that designates how terrestrial fixed services, the Geostationary Satellite Orbit Fixed Satellite Service ("GSO/FSS"), the Non- Geostationary Satellite Orbit Fixed-Satellite Service ("NGSO/FSS"), and Mobile-Satellite Service feeder links ("MSS/FL") are to share this band. As a consequence of this designation, this Report and Order modifies the Table of Frequency Allocations found in Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules. This Report and Order also modifies service rules in the 18 GHz band and authorizes the blanket licensing of satellite earth stations in the bands where the Fixed Satellite Service ("FSS") is the sole primary designation. Finally, this Report and Order allocates the band 17.3-17.7 GHz to the Broadcasting-Satellite Service ("BSS") and the band 24.75-25.25 GHz to the FSS for BSS feeder links, as described below. 2. The 18 GHz band currently serves a variety of communications needs and has the potential to provide consumers, both business and residential, with exciting new services in the years to come. Our actions in this proceeding will allow for more efficient use of this spectrum. Previously, the entire 18 GHz band was allocated for shared use among various terrestrial fixed and mobile services, the FSS, and the mobile satellite service ("MSS"). We conclude that, in general, separating terrestrial fixed service operations from ubiquitously deployed FSS earth stations in dedicated sub-bands would serve the public interest. We also conclude, however, that limited frequency sharing between satellite and terrestrial services is feasible and should continue to be permitted where it serves the requirements of these services. We have attempted to protect the existing fixed terrestrial operations in this band to the maximum extent possible, while at the same time providing for the growth of both satellite and terrestrial services. This Report and Order should assist both the satellite and terrestrial services in the analysis of future growth possibilities by providing certainty as to how these services may share the 18 GHz band and thereby enabling the affected industries to make informed business decisions. III.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4. The band plan we adopt today is a result of an examination of the record, developed in response to our 18 GHz NPRM (or "NPRM"). We have considered the concerns expressed in the parties' comments and have fashioned our decisions to resolve those concerns in as equitable a manner as possible. 5. In the band plan we adopt today, we designate the following spectrum for terrestrial fixed service use: (1) 17.7-18.3 GHz band on a primary basis; (2) 18.3-18.58 GHz band on a co- primary basis (with GSO/FSS); and (3) 19.3-19.7 GHz band on a co-primary basis (with MSS/FL). We designate the following spectrum for GSO/FSS service use: (1) 18.58-18.8 GHz band on a primary basis; and (2) 18.3-18.58 GHz band on a co-primary basis(with terrestrial fixed service), noting that the 19.7-20.2 GHz band is also allocated on a primary basis to the GSO/FSS. Furthermore, we designate the 18.8-19.3 GHz band to NGSO/FSS service use on a primary basis, and retain co-primary status for MSS/FL (with terrestrial fixed service) in the 19.3-19.7 GHz band. These designations will significantly reduce sharing in the 18 GHz band, and thereby eliminate the need for many existing coordination procedures, leading to lower transaction costs and more efficient use of the band. We note that United States Government systems are authorized to operate in the 17.8-20.2 GHz band in accordance with footnote US334 in the United States Table of Frequency Allocations and that coordination between non-Government operations, both terrestrial and satellite, and these Government operations will continue to remain in effect. Nothing in this Report and Order purports to change the relationship between Government and non-Government systems. 6. Recognizing the importance of existing terrestrial fixed service systems in the 18 GHz band, we will permit terrestrial fixed stations currently operating in spectrum being designated in this Report and Order for exclusive satellite use to continue to operate on a co- primary basis for a period of ten years, subject to the overriding right of satellite providers to require terrestrial fixed stations to relocate. During this ten-year period, existing terrestrial fixed stations can be compelled to relocate in accordance with relocation procedures adopted herein. If a terrestrial fixed station is required to relocate within ten years of the effective date of this Report and Order, the satellite provider must pay to relocate the terrestrial fixed station to comparable facilities. At the end of the ten-year period, existing terrestrial fixed stations may continue to operate on a non-interference basis. In the case of 19.26-19.30 GHz, the co-primary status of existing terrestrial fixed stations, as well as their entitlement to relocation costs, is permanent. 7. This Report and Order also authorizes a blanket licensing regime for satellite earth stations for segments of the 17.7- 20.2 GHz and 27.5-30.0 GHz frequency bands bands not subject to sharing with other services. Specifically, we will accept such applications for blanket licensing in the 18.58-18.8 GHz, 18.8-19.3 GHz, 19.7-20.2 GHz, 28.35-28.6 GHz, 28.6-29.1 GHz, and 29.5-30.0 GHz frequency bands. In all those bands designated as primary to the GSO/FSS, we adopt the specific technical conditions concerning space station and earth station performance recommended by the Blanket Licensing Industry Working Group to ensure that intra-system interference stays within acceptable levels. With respect to the blanket licensing of NGSO/FSS systems, we adopt an equation to determine the power-flux density (pfd) of space stations that, for low elevation angles, includes a consideration of the number of satellites in the NGSO system constellation, which was recommended by technical study groups of the Radiocommunications Sector of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU-R) for inclusion in the ITU's Radio Regulations. The blanket licensing regime adopted in this Report and Order describes the parameters within which earth stations may be operated under a blanket license, as well as the solutions for minimizing potential interference on both an intra- and inter- service basis. 8. This Report and Order also allocates 400 MHz of spectrum at 17.3-17.7 GHz for primary BSS uses, effective April 1, 2007, as specified in the ITU Radio Regulations. We allocate the 24.75-25.05 GHz band for primary GSO/FSS (Earth-to-space) use, limited to feeder links for the BSS in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band, and the GSO/FSS 25.05-25.25 GHz band for co-primary use between the FSS (Earth-to-space), limited to BSS feeder links, and the fixed service, comprised of the 24 GHz Service. IX.BACKGROUND 10. In response to the 18 GHz NPRM, we received numerous comments and reply comments from entities representing a broad cross-section of the communications industry. The majority of the commenters recognized that sharing between terrestrial fixed service and satellite services in the 18 GHz band is not possible where satellite earth stations are ubiquitously deployed. Thus, a majority of the commenters agreed with the Commission's tentative conclusion in the 18 GHz NPRM that the public interest is best served by separating terrestrial fixed service operations from the operations of non-government ubiquitously deployed FSS earth stations into dedicated sub- bands. Many of these same commenters, however, have requested that their respective services be designated a greater amount of spectrum than the spectrum allocated by this Report and Order today. 11. The 17.7-19.7 GHz frequency band is currently allocated for terrestrial fixed service, FSS downlinks (both Geostationary Orbit and Non-Geostationary Orbit), and for feeder links to the MSS. In 1996, the Commission adopted a band designation plan for the 28 GHz band and the 18 GHz band to accommodate the needs of competing terrestrial fixed and satellite services. In the 28 GHz First Report and Order, the Commission concluded that "co-frequency sharing between either GSO/FSS or NGSO/FSS ubiquitously deployed terminals and LMDS (Local Multipoint Distribution Service) with its ubiquitously deployed subscriber terminals, is not feasible at this time." As a result, the 28 GHz band plan eliminated co-frequency sharing except for those segments where sharing was technically feasible. In addressing the 18 GHz band, however, the designation plan of the 28 GHz First Report and Order mandated that terrestrial services and satellite services share segments of the band, though the Commission noted that the record demonstrates that such co-frequency sharing presents multiple challenges. 12. The band plan adopted in the 28 GHz First Report and Order is as follows: UPLINK BAND (28GHz) LMDS fss 850 MHz GSO/FS S ngso/fss 250 MHz NGSO/FSS gso/fss 500 MHz MSS/FL and LMDS 150 MHz MSS/FL and GSO/ FSS 250 MHz GSO/FSS ngso/fss 500 MHz 27.5 28.35 28.6 29.1 29.25 29.5 30.0 GHz DOWNLINK BAND (18GHz) GSO/FSS and FS ngso/fss 1100 MHz NGSO/FSS and FS gso/fss 500 MHz MSS/FL and FS gso/fss 400 MHz GSO/FSS ngso/fss 500 MHz 17.7 18.8 19.3 19.7 20.2 GHz As depicted above, prior to this rulemaking, the 18 GHz band was designated for use as follows: the 17.7-18.8 GHz band for co-primary use by GSO/FSS and terrestrial fixed service; the 18.8- 19.3 GHz band for co-primary use by NGSO/FSS and terrestrial fixed service; the 19.3-19.7 GHz band for co-primary use by MSS/FL and terrestrial fixed service; and the 19.7-20.2 GHz band for primary use by GSO/FSS. 13. Since the adoption of the 28 GHz First Report and Order, several factors have led us to conclude that co-frequency sharing between terrestrial fixed service and ubiquitously deployed FSS earth stations in the 18 GHz band is generally infeasible. For instance, we expect use of the 18 GHz band by both terrestrial fixed services and FSS systems to increase dramatically over the next few years. Currently there are approximately 179,000 terrestrial fixed links in the 18 GHz band. Use of the band is expected to increase as terrestrial fixed services migrate from congested lower bands and as 18 GHz band systems expand. Although there currently are no non- government FSS systems in operation in the 18 GHz band, we have granted thirteen GSO/FSS licenses and one NGSO/FSS license to launch and operate Ka-band FSS systems in the near future. The expected increase in 18 GHz band use in the years to come, as well as the desire on the part of the FSS industry to implement blanket licensing of ubiquitously deployed satellite earth stations, led us to conclude in the NPRM that, under most circumstances, sharing between terrestrial fixed service and FSS operations will become increasingly difficult and is therefore not feasible on a going-forward basis. 14. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded "that the public interest is best served by separating terrestrial fixed service operations from the operations of non-government ubiquitously deployed FSS earth stations into dedicated sub-bands." To this end, the NPRM proposed four band redesignation plans. We recognized that redesignation of the 18 GHz band may have an adverse effect on existing terrestrial fixed service systems currently operating in the band. To alleviate any adverse effects on existing systems, the NPRM proposed to "grandfather" licensed terrestrial operations in the band, along with applications that were pending as of September 18, 1998. The NPRM asked for comments on the proposed redesignation plans and the "grandfathering" provision. We also requested comments on conditions under which relocation of existing terrestrial fixed systems may be necessary notwithstanding such proposed "grandfathering," and the terms of such relocation. 15. In early November 1998, as a response to the cut-off date for the grandfathering proposed in the 18 GHz NPRM, the Fixed Point-to-Point Communications Section, Wireless Communications Division of the Telecommunications Industry Association ("TIA-Fixed Section") and the Independent Cable & Telecommunications Association ("ICTA") filed petitions for relief from implementation of the September 18, 1998 "cut-off" date. TIA-Fixed Section argued that the cut-off date proposed in the NPRM constituted a de facto freeze on further development of affected terrestrial fixed service in the 18 GHz band, while ICTA argued that private cable operators ("PCOs") would not be able to survive should the cut-off date be adopted. 16. On February 5, 1999, the Commission adopted an Order (18 GHz Relief Order) in response to the two petitions, modifying our proposal so that the PCO applications in the 18.3- 18.55 GHz band would be considered co-primary with the FSS if filed before the release of this Report and Order. We did not, however, change the proposed cut-off date for other non-PCO terrestrial fixed operations in the 18.3-18.55 GHz band and 18.8-19.3 GHz band. The 18 GHz Relief Order left the final determination regarding the cut-off date and grandfathered status for all terrestrial fixed services for resolution in this Report and Order. 17. In the 18 GHz NPRM, we proposed to implement a blanket licensing procedure that would allow Ka-band FSS earth stations to operate under a single system license in bands that are designated for their primary use. The Commission tentatively concluded that such a blanket licensing procedure would provide an efficient means for licensing the vast number of small antenna FSS earth stations expected to be deployed in the Ka-band. We also proposed that blanket license applicants be required to designate a point of contact to provide secondary users with a means to obtain information on the location and frequency use of satellite earth stations so that they could avoid causing harmful interference. Furthermore, the NPRM proposed a requirement for blanket licensees to report to the Commission on the number of satellite earth stations brought into service annually. 18. In the NPRM, in response to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by DIRECTV Enterprises, Inc. ("DIRECTV"), we proposed to allocate the 17.3-17.8 GHz band to BSS and the 24.75- 25.25 GHz band for BSS feeder link use, with implementation of these allocations effective April 1, 2007. XIX.DISCUSSION 20. The vast majority of commenters agreed with our tentative conclusion that co-frequency sharing between terrestrial fixed service and ubiquitously deployed FSS earth stations in the 18 GHz band is not feasible, and that the public interest would be best served by separating these operations into dedicated sub-bands. We continue to believe that separation of these operations into different dedicated sub-bands is an effective frequency management technique to resolve problems of coordinating terrestrial fixed service links with ubiquitously deployed satellite earth stations. As Teledesic notes, band segmentation, in conjunction with our blanket-licensing regime, "will allow for ubiquitous deployment of GSO and NGSO satellite earth terminals, and for much denser deployment of terrestrial fixed stations than would otherwise be possible." While we generally agree with this principle, we have found it impossible to satisfy the full requirements of all of the services wishing to operate in the 18 GHz band through strict adherence to the principle of band segmentation. Although sharing between ubiquitously deployed FSS earth stations and terrestrial fixed stations clearly is not feasible, we have developed a band segmentation plan that would also provide for non-ubiquitously deployed FSS earth stations on a co-primary basis with the terrestrial fixed service on a coordinated basis. To that end, we have constructed a band plan that includes some co-primary designations. We find that this approach best serves the public interest, providing the various services with a form of access to the frequency spectrum that is both feasible and functional. We now discuss our initial redesignated band plan proposals and adopt a final band plan. A. Band Plan 1. Initial Proposals 21. The band plans proposed in the NPRM resulted from extensive public comment that focused on the identification of the spectrum requirements of the different services authorized to operate in the 18 GHz band. In developing specific band redesignation proposals, we proceeded with the goal of striking a balance between meeting the spectrum requirements of the different services while best serving the public interest. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that the proposed band redesignation plans ensure continued development of terrestrial fixed service and FSS in the 18 GHz band and efficient use of this spectrum. 22. Primary Proposal. The 18 GHz NPRM proposed the following band plan: FS gso/fss & ngso/fss 600 MHz GSO/FSS fs & ngso/fss 250 MHz GSO/FSS & FS ngso/fss 250 MHz NGSO/FSS fs & gso/fss 500 MHz MSS/FL & FS gso/fss 400 MHz GSO/FSS ngso/fss 500 MHz 17.7 18.3 18.55 18.8 19.3 19.7 20.2 GHz 23. As shown above, the Commission proposed in the NPRM to designate to terrestrial fixed service 600 MHz of spectrum for primary use at 17.7-18.3 GHz. The Commission also proposed designation for the terrestrial fixed service of 650 MHz of spectrum for co-primary use at 18.55- 18.8 GHz (with GSO/FSS) and 19.3-19.7 GHz (with MSS/FL). The Commission further proposed to designate to GSO/FSS 250 MHz of spectrum at 18.3-18.55 for primary use and an additional 250 MHz of spectrum for co-primary use at 18.55-18.8. The Commission also proposed to designate 500 MHz of spectrum at 18.8-19.3 GHz for primary use by NGSO/FSS. Finally, the NPRM proposed that MSS/FL would retain the 400 MHz of spectrum at 19.3-19.7 on a co- primary basis. 24. Although most of the commenters supported our tentative conclusion that redesignation of the 18 GHz band into dedicated sub-bands is generally desirable, few commenters supported our primary proposal. The terrestrial fixed service industry generally argued that the primary proposal significantly reduced the spectrum available to their services and threatened their continued viability. The FSS commenters argued that the proposed band plan failed to provide the necessary 1000 MHz of unencumbered, primary spectrum. We fully discuss the primary proposal in our adoption of the final band plan below. We first, however, discuss the modified propo sals put forth in the 18 GHz NPRM. 25. Alternative Proposal. Along with the primary proposal, we requested that interested parties comment on the desirability of modifying our primary proposal by designating an additional 100 MHz at 18.3-18.4 GHz to be shared by terrestrial fixed service and GSO/FSS on a co-primary basis. We stated that such a designation would give terrestrial fixed service 700 MHz of contiguous spectrum (17.7-18.4), possibly making it easier to design a more flexible chann elization plan for terrestrial fixed service. 26. Most of the comments addressing this modified proposal argue against its adoption. The Spectrum & Orbit Utilization Section of the Satellite Communications Division of the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA-SOUS) argues that the Commission should reject this proposal because it goes against the basic premise of this proceeding. TIA-SOUS cites consensus among terrestrial fixed service, FSS, and the Commission to support the assertion that sharing is not feasible. Loral Space & Communications Ltd. ("Loral") also strongly opposes designating an additional 100 MHz of spectrum in the 18.3-18.4 GHz band. SBC Communications Inc. ("SBC") argues that an additional 100 MHz of spectrum may provide relief for terrestrial fixed service; SBC, however, does not sufficiently support how this would be the case. We agree with the assessment of both TIA-SOUS and Loral, that adding an additional 100 MHz of co-primary spectrum to terrestrial fixed service in the 18.3-18.4 GHz segment would frustrate the desire to separate terrestrial fixed service from ubiquitously deployed satellite earth stations. This designation under the modified proposal is moot, however, considering our decision to designate the entire 280 MHz of spectrum at 18.3-18.58 GHz to be shared among terrestrial fixed service and non-blanket-licensed GSO/FSS, on a co-primary basis. Therefore, we reject our modified proposal that would have designated an additional 100 MHz of spectrum on a co-primary basis to terrestrial fixed service and GSO/FSS in the 18.3-18.4 GHz band. 27. The 18 GHz NPRM also sought comment on designating the entire 17.7-18.8 GHz band to be shared on a co-primary basis by terrestrial fixed service and GSO/FSS. We proposed this band plan on the assumption that it may be possible for GSO/FSS to use gateway type terminals throughout the 17.7-18.8 GHz band, allowing for continued sharing. 28. Although none of the commenters directly supported this band plan or our assumptions about the use of gateways throughout the 17.7-18.8 GHz band, Comsearch articulated a similar sharing proposal. Specifically, Comsearch proposed that the Commission allocate the 17.7-18.55 GHz band on a co-primary basis to GSO/FSS and terrestrial fixed service. Comsearch argued that maintaining a co-primary designation in the 17.7-18.55 GHz band allows for the continued viability of those systems currently utilizing the existing 1560 MHz frequency separation for wideband two-way terrestrial fixed service operations and Cable Television Relay Service ("CAR S") or Private Cable 6 MHz channels. 29. Airtouch argues that the Comsearch proposal is unacceptable because it requires terrestrial operations to lose the only primary allocation to terrestrial fixed services provided by the Commission in our primary proposal. Airtouch correctly points out that if adopted, the Comsearch proposal would result in the loss of access to 750 MHz of previously co-primary spectrum for terrestrial fixed service operations, with no primary designation for FS. FWCC also rejects the proposal put forth by Comsearch. FWCC argues that the co-primary allocation at 17.7-18.55 GHz proves to be a serious defect in Comsearch's proposed band plan because the record in this proceeding generally reflects the notion that terrestrial fixed service operations cannot share spectrum with ubiquitously deployed GSO/FSS earth stations. In fact, Comsearch admits this much to be true. We agree with Airtouch and FWCC. Mandating terrestrial fixed service operations to continue to share the entire 17.7-18.55 GHz band, as proposed by Comsearch, is inequitable, as it allows FSS systems full use of the band while taking 750 MHz of co-primary spectrum from the terrestrial fixed service. We also have concerns about the feasibility of sharing between the services in parts of this band. The record clearly reflects that sharing between ubiquitously deployed satellite earth stations and terrestrial fixed service is not technically or operationally feasible because fixed stations would constrain the locations at which earth stations could be successfully operated; thus, under the Comsearch proposal, satellite users would not be able to use this band for blanket-licensed earth stations. For the aforementioned reasons, and due to insufficient support in the record for either our modified proposal or the Comsearch proposal, we reject both proposals to maintain a co-primary allocation for FSS and terrestrial fixed service in the 17.7-18.8 GHz band as inconsistent with the public interest. 30. Finally, we requested comment on the feasibility of retaining our current band plan, which would provide for continued sharing in the entire 17.7-19.7 band. As previously stated, the overwhelming majority of commenters believe that segmenting the 18 GHz band between terrestrial fixed service and FSS operations is necessary. We agree with the wealth of commenters that supported segmentation and for the reasons stated above we reject this proposal. 1. Adopted Band Plan 31. This Report and Order adopts the following band plan and amends the Table of Frequ ency Allocations accordingly: FS 600 MHz GSO/FS S&FS 280 MHz GSO/FS S 220 MHz NGSO/FSS 500 MHz MSS/FL & FS 400 MHz GSO/FSS 500 MHz 17.7 18.3 18.58 18.8 19.3 19.7 20.2 GHz Under the band plan the Commission is adopting, 600 MHz at 17.7-18.3 GHz is designated for primary use by terrestrial fixed service operations and 680 MHz of co-primary spectrum from the 18.3-18.58 GHz band (with GSO/FSS) and 19.3-19.7 GHz band (with MSS/FL), for a total of 1280 MHz of available spectrum for FS. We designate 220 MHz to GSO/FSS for primary use in the 18.58-18.8 GHz band, and 280 MHz for co-primary use in the 18.3-18.58 GHz band (with terrestrial fixed service), for a total of 500 MHz of available spectrum for GSO/FSS. We designate 500 MHz of primary spectrum to NGSO/FSS at 18.8-19.3 GHz. Finally, we retain the allocation of 400 MHz of spectrum at 19.3-19.7 GHz to MSS/FL on a co-primary basis (with terrestrial fixed service). We further note that NTIA has stated that the Government currently operates both GSO and NGSO satellite networks in the band 17.8-20.2 GHz and that they plan for these operations to continue in this band indefinitely. 32. The band plan we adopt today differs from the primary proposal articulated in the 18 GHz NPRM in several ways intended to address the concerns expressed in the record. First, to ensure the continued viability of many existing terrestrial systems, we upgrade the secondary allocation proposed for terrestrial fixed service in the 18.3-18.58 GHz band to co-primary status. Thus, the CARS, PCO and other services now using a contiguous block of spectrum in the 18.14- 18.58 GHz band will continue to be able to use this spectrum without dividing their operations into two band segments, as proposed in the NPRM. Second, to further the needs of GSO/FSS licensees in the 18 GHz band, we eliminate the co-primary allocation to terrestrial fixed service in the 18.58-18.8 GHz band, resulting in a primary, albeit smaller, designation for GSO/FSS in this band segment. Finally, we decline to allow new secondary operations on a non-interference basis, by either the terrestrial fixed service or the FSS, throughout the 17.7-19.7 GHz band, as discussed furth er below. 33. A review of the record leads us to conclude that this redesignated band plan results in an equitable and balanced approach to meeting the needs of the various existing and future operations in the 18 GHz band. We recognize that the adopted band plan does not provide a full 1000 Megahertz of unshared Ka-band downlink spectrum for GSO/FSS operations, as has been requested by many GSO/FSS licensees. Nevertheless, we believe that the 720 MHz of unshared downlink spectrum at 18.58-18.8 GHz and 19.7-20.2, plus the flexible rules that permit sharing of 280 megahertz at 18.3-18.58 GHz, should provide a reasonable basis for GSO/FSS operations to be undertaken. While we realize the some GSO/FSS systems have already been designed, we expect that the current system designs of the GSO/FSS systems can proceed with some modification or that sharing agreements can be reached to permit the use of these designs. Moreover, we note that the same total capacity for GSO/FSS services is still available in locations where coordination can be achieved. We conclude that this plan will, through the judicious choice of band segments subject to co-primary sharing, significantly lower any consequential administrative costs of coordination. Furthermore, this plan goes a long way toward facilitating the deployment of new services by designating different dedicated sub-bands for ubiquitously deployed FSS earth stations and nearly ubiquitous terrestrial fixed services in the 18 GHz band, thereby serving the public interest. A brief discussion on the designation of each band follows. 34. 17.7-18.3 GHz Frequency Band. We designate the 17.7-18.3 GHz frequency band to terrestrial fixed service for primary use. Prior to this rulemaking, this segment of the 18 GHz band was designated for shared co-primary use between GSO/FSS and terrestrial fixed service operations. Currently, the 17.7-18.3 GHz band is used for a wide variety of common carrier, mass media, and private fixed terrestrial point-to-point or point-to-multipoint services, as described in Parts 74, 78 and 101 of the Commission's Rules. In designating the 17.7-18.3 GHz band for primary use by terrestrial fixed service operators, we recognize that this is an important segment of the 18 GHz band for existing and future terrestrial fixed service operations. We achieve our stated goal of ensuring the continued viability of the terrestrial fixed service by avoiding any future interference from space stations and the need to relocate stations to protect future earth stations. The redesignation of this band to primary status will also generally facilitate the relocation of terrestrial fixed service operations from other parts of the 17.7-19.7 MHz or other frequency bands by eliminating the need for coordination with satellite earth stations. It will also facilitate the deployment of new terrestrial fixed stations by eliminating coordination requirements between the fixed and fixed satellite services, thereby lowering transaction costs for terre strial fixed operators. 35. Commenters generally agreed that this part of the spectrum should be allocated to terrestrial fixed service on a primary basis. ABC, Inc. was especially supportive of this designation in stating that the allocation "properly recognizes the importance of existing terrestrial fixed service operations." Other commenters either expressly requested a primary designation to terrestrial fixed service in the 17.7-18.3 GHz band or implicitly did so by failing to suggest that we modify this portion of the band while specifically requesting that we change other segments of the 1 8 GHz band. 36. Comsearch and Hughes request that we designate portions of the 17.7-18.3 GHz band for services other than terrestrial fixed service on a primary basis. Comsearch's proposal would make no change from the current service designations and Hughes' proposal would redesignate spectrum currently used for several types of fixed service, including PCO's operating in the 18.14- 18.58 GHz band. We reject both proposals in part, noting that a primary designation to the fixed service below 18.3 GHz is necessary to ensure that terrestrial fixed stations, including those 18 GHz stations that may be required to relocate pursuant to this Report and Order, will have access to a sufficient amount of spectrum. The Hughes proposal fails to recognize the increasing demand the terrestrial fixed service will place upon this part of the spectrum as well as the vast numbers of wideband CARS, PCO and other services already operating in the 18.14-18.58 GHz band. We believe that this portion of the 18 GHz band is vital to the success of fixed station relocation efforts and the continued viability of wireless cable providers that provide direct competition to traditional cable operators. Furthermore, we have previously recognized that there is currently no other spectrum available either in the 18 GHz band or any other band at the present time to accommodate adequately existing or future PCO operations needed to meet consumer demand. For these reasons, we designate the 17.7-18.3 GHz band for primary terrestrial fixed use and reject Comsearch and Hughes' proposals to designate portions of the 17.7-18.3 band to anything other than terrestrial fixed service on a primary basis. . 37. 18.3-18.58 GHz and 18.58-18.8 GHz Frequency Bands. We designate the 18.3-18.58 GHz frequency band for co-primary shared use by terrestrial fixed service and GSO/FSS operations. In revising our band plan as discussed above, we decline to adopt the portion of our 18 GHz NPRM proposal that would designate 250 MHz of spectrum at 18.3-18.55 GHz to GSO/FSS on a primary basis. We conclude that the proposal would place in jeopardy the viability of the extremely large number of fixed stations, CARS, wireless PCOs and other links operating in this band. We also conclude that GSO/FSS licensees would have a difficult time implementing ubiquitous earth stations in this segment due to the large number of terrestrial fixed services currently operating in this band. To help meet the spectrum needs of GSO/FSS, we designate the 220 MHz of spectrum at 18.58-18.8 GHz for primary use by GSO/FSS. In adopting this redesignation, we eliminate the co-primary terrestrial fixed service allocation present before this Report and Order and proposed in the 18 GHz NPRM. We revisit the designation as put forth in our primary proposal as a result of compelling arguments from some of the commenters from both the terrestrial fixed service industry and the FSS industry, as discussed below. 38. In addressing the portion of our 18 GHz NPRM primary proposal that designated the 18.3-18.55 GHz band to GSO/FSS on a primary basis, ICTA argued this designation would cause CARS and PCOs to lose the 440 MHz of contiguous spectrum currently being employed to serve subscribers. If we were to designate the 18.3-18.55 GHz frequency band to GSO/FSS on a primary basis, cable operators would be unable to reasonably expand operations in this band to compete effectively with existing coaxial cable systems. The detrimental effect on PCOs from such a loss of spectrum is increased by the fact that there is currently no other spectrum available for such systems. GE American Communications, Inc. (GE Americom), in arguing that GSO/FSS should be designated 500 MHz of spectrum in the 18.1-18.8 GHz range, also proposes that terrestrial services operating in these bands would be required to relocate. GE Americom, however, fails to recognize that there is currently no other available spectrum for PCOs. TIA- Fixed Section argues that requiring these point-to-multipoint one way video distribution services to relocate to the contiguous allocation for terrestrial fixed service in the 17.7-18.3 band would not work. Specifically, TIA-Fixed Section contends that relocating Multi-channel Video Programming Distribution services (MVPDs) into the 17.7-18.3 GHz band would require that these services share spectrum with fixed point-to-point links, a proposition that in reality is "virtually impossible due to the coordination difficulties between these services in the metropolitan areas where these services both reside." We agree. In fact, we have acknowledged that this difficulty in coordination is the primary reason that we have traditionally licensed point- to-multipoint operations and point-to-point terrestrial fixed service operations in separate portions of th e 18 GHz band. 39. Furthermore, as KaStar notes in its comments, designating the 18.3-18.55 GHz band to GSO/FSS on a primary basis would be unworkable for GSO/FSS as well. KaStar argues that GSO/FSS operators would have a difficult time deploying ubiquitous earth stations in this band because there are a large number of existing terrestrial fixed services that currently use this band in urban areas. These existing services would be maintained under the rules we adopt today. PanAmSat concurs and states that if we conclude that 750 MHz of spectrum is sufficient to meet the spectrum needs of GSO/FSS, we should not designate the 18.3-18.55 GHz band to fulfill 250 MHz of those needs. PanAmSat reasons that the reported wide deployment of CARS systems in that band would make it virtually impossible for the GSO/FSS industry to deploy ubiquitous small earth stations in the band, unless CARS systems were forced to relocate. Under the relocation rules we adopt today, such a mass relocation would prove costly to the GSO/FSS operators, possibly making it an unattractive band for such services and possibly slowing deployment of the advanced services such systems may bring to the public. We agree with this assessment of KaStar and PanAmSat. One of the goals of this proceeding is to limit the number of necessary, and possibly difficult, coordinations that must take place between ubiquitously deployed blanket licensed earth stations and terrestrial fixed service operations. We believe, however, that we should leave it to the satellite licensees to decide how the GSO/FSS service can best be deployed in shared bands, where only their stations are subject to interference. Furthermore, Teledesic argues that "both GSO FSS operators and FS operators would appear to benefit if the 250 MHz of GSO FSS 'gateway' spectrum ran from 18.3-18.55 GHz, rather than from 18.55-18.8 GHz." Teledesic correctly states that terrestrial fixed services would benefit from the maintenance of 250 MHz of spectrum at 18.3-18.55 GHz, resulting in a larger contiguous block of spectrum than was proposed in the NPRM. Such a redesignation eliminates the possible need to relocate the numerous CARS and PCO operations currently using the 18.3-18.58 GHz band. It also affords PCOs the ability to maintain and upgrade their existing systems to compete effectively against franchised cable systems. In exchange for giving up primary status in the 18.3-18.55 GHz band, Teledesic proposes that we designate the 18.55-18.8 GHz band to GSO/FSS for primary status. This "swap" of band allocations is supported by several of the commenters. 40. Airtouch argues that foreclosing the fixed service in the 18.55-18.8 GHz band is acceptable, due, in part, to the fact that the NGSO/FSS primary allocation at 18.8-19.3 GHz will be rendered unusable for future CARS services because the fixed service channels in the 18.58- 18.82 GHz band are paired with those in the 18.8-19.3 GHz band. Specifically, the narrowband allocation at 18.58-18.82 GHz is paired for go/return use with the 18.92-19.16 GHz band, a band that, pursuant to this Report and Order is now designated for NGSO/FSS operations on a primary basis. AT&T Wireless similarly states that "[I]f the Commission reallocates the upper half of this go/return frequency band to secondary status, it eliminates the pairing capability and effectively eliminates the ability of fixed terrestrial service providers to use the lower half as well. " 41. For this reason, inter alia, we see no need to maintain the co-primary status for terrestrial fixed services in the 18.58-18.8 GHz band. Although this eliminates many, if not all, of the narrowband channels for terrestrial fixed services, we note that permitting continued operation on a short-term basis and rechannelization and relocation on a long-term basis should provide for the continued viability of these services. We discuss the issue of secondary designation later in this Repor t and Order. 42. Lockheed observes that we based our proposal to designate the 18.55-18.8 GHz band for co-primary use by GSO/FSS and terrestrial fixed service on two factors. First, we noted that Lockheed and other GSO/FSS licensees planned to operate gateway earth stations utilizing large antennas that would allow sharing with terrestrial fixed service operations to continue; and second, we stated that the strict pfd limit applicable in the 18.6-18.8 GHz band to protect Earth Exploration-Satellite Service (EESS) and SR services would require the use of higher gain antennas, making sharing a possibility. Since the release of the 18 GHz NPRM, however, Lockheed modified its initial application and in the Astrolink-Phase II System application expresses its intention to employ ubiquitously deployed small user terminals in the 18 GHz band. Furthermore, Lockheed notes that "the strict p.f.d. limit applicable to FSS operations in the 18.6- 18.8 GHz band is under review within the United States and the ITU, and Lockheed Martin understands that it may become less stringent pursuant to an agreement reached among GSO FSS opera tors, the EESS community, and the U.S. government." 43. Both Bellsouth and TIA-Fixed Section argue that, should we designate the 18.3-18.55 GHz band for co-primary use by GSO/FSS and terrestrial fixed services, we should consider extending that designation 30 MHz to 18.58 GHz to maintain all of the available channels for CARS, PCO, and other MVPD use. Bellsouth states that "[while] MVPDs would retain co- primary status in the 18.3-18.5 GHz portion, and would face somewhat fewer interference concerns, the 18.5-18.58 GHz band would still be lost to MVPDs under this alternative. Such a result is untenable." We agree. Multichannel video operators in the 18.142-18.58 GHz band are typically licensed for the full 440 megahertz of bandwidth and have the capability to provide 72 channels of video programming to all of their customers. These systems continue to require this capacity if they are to remain competitive with traditional cable systems and DBS. Additionally, when these systems eventually begin a transition to digital technologies, they will require the flexibility provided by this full bandwidth to make that transition with minimal impact on analog subscribers. Because these systems are providing essentially a "consumer" service, the transition to digital technologies will have to be phased in over time, requiring access to the full spectrum for some significant time into the future. Prior to and during this transition, existing multichannel video operators contend they require the ability to provide the full menu of programming if they are to be able to build their customer base and remain competitive with other providers of multi- channel video services. While the expansion of the band shared by terrestrial fixed and GSO/FSS systems from 18.3-18.55 GHz to 18.3-18.58 GHz will impose additional operational or design constraints on the licensees of GSO/FSS systems operating in the 18.3-18.58 GHz band, we believe that opportunities exist for the operators of FSS and terrestrial systems to reach private commercial agreements that will allow each service to meet its needs. We encourage such private agreements as the best method to accurately balance the various commercial interests in these bands. We find that ensuring the continued viability of the competitive multi-channel video systems in this portion of the spectrum necessitates providing for shared use of the spectrum up to 18.58 GHz. Furthermore, we believe that a commercial approach to resolving sharing in the 18.55-18.58 GHz band may allow for more innovative, spectrally-efficient solutions to be employed than would be possible if we provided sole primary access to this band to either the terre strial fixed or GSO/FSS services. 44. In consideration of the above comments and industry agreement as noted infra, we conclude the following: (1) PCOs using the 18 GHz band, for both current and future operations, will not be able to compete effectively against franchised cable operators if we redesignate the 18.3-18.55 GHz band for primary use by GSO/FSS operations; (2) GSO/FSS will be unable to effectively blanket license ubiquitously deployed earth stations in the 18.3-18.55 GHz band due to the large numbers of CARS and PCO operations currently using this band, especially in metropolitan areas; (3) relocation of CARS and PCO operations from the 18.3-18.55 GHz band, pursuant to the relocation procedures adopted in this Report and Order, would prove costly to GSO/FSS operators entering the band due to the vast number of terrestrial operations in this band, possibly slowing deployment of satellite systems in the band; (4) GSO/FSS will be unable to use spectrum in the 18.6-18.8 GHz band for ubiquitously deployed satellite earth stations if the pfd limits that exist in this band are not relaxed. We note, in this regard, that the U.S. made a proposal to the WRC-2000 that would establish a world-wide primary allocation to the Earth Exploration-Satellite Service (EESS) service in the 18.6-18.8 GHz band, as well as a relaxed pfd limit in the 18.6-18.8 GHz band of -95 (dBW/m2) across the 18.6-18.8 GHz band for all angles of arrival. This proposal, which was adopted by WRC-2000, balances the need for a world-wide primary allocation for the EESS with the need for a more workable FSS pfd limit. Recognizing that the relaxed pfd limit would benefit FSS operators in the 18.6-18.8 GHz band, and after coordination with NTIA, we hereby adopt the WRC-2000 relaxed pfd limit within new section 25.208 (e) and appropriately modify FN US 255 of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules. Future use of narrowband terrestrial fixed service operations in the 18.55-18.8 GHz band, specifically the 18.58-18.82 GHz band, will be unavailable due to the inability to access its paired spectrum at 18.92-19.16 GHz. Finally, we conclude that the public interest is best served by designating the 18.3-18.58 GHz band for co-primary use by the terrestrial fixed service operations and GSO/FSS, and the 18.58-18.8 GHz band to GSO/FSS on a primary basis. 45. Further, we note that there is evidence in the record that a Joint Working Group, consisting of members of the FSS and terrestrial fixed service industries, worked "to define allocations to produce an (FS-Free) 250 MHz band for GSO/FSS use by swapping the FS services out of the 18.55-18.8 GHz band and moving the GSO/FSS primary assignment from 18.3-18.55 GHz to the free band." This effort is consistent with our decision, but does not exactly mirror it. Therefore, we modify our 18 GHz NPRM designation plan and designate 280 MHz of co-primary spectrum to terrestrial fixed service operations and GSO/FSS in the 18.3- 18.58 GHz segment, and 220 MHz of primary spectrum at 18.58-18.8 GHz to GSO/FSS. 46. Additionally, we note that co-frequency sharing requires two modes of sharing: FSS space station with terrestrial fixed service and terrestrial fixed service with FSS earth stations. Currently, FSS space stations do not coordinate with terrestrial fixed service stations. The space stations must operate below a specified pfd limit that was designed to protect the fixed service. Because the record of this proceeding has established that such interference is nevertheless possible in certain circumstances, we need to ensure that interference to existing terrestrial fixed station receivers will not occur if the FS receivers are pointed at the FSS satellite. 47. We recognize that there may be existing terrestrial fixed service links that have receiving antennas physically pointed toward the arc of the sky comprising the geostationary satellite orbit and therefore may be subject to interference from new GSO/FSS operations. These co-primary terrestrial links enjoy primary status in the frequency they occupy due to the "first-come, first- served" principle. Because terrestrial fixed services operating in the 18.3-18.8 GHz band were first to occupy this co-primary spectrum and there are currently no antenna pointing restrictions, they are recognized to have a right to point at the geostationary satellite orbit. Maintaining such a right would result in the failure of sharing in the band, once the satellite systems actually begin operation. Therefore, another approach is needed. At the same time, we note that, subsequent to the adoption of this Report and Order, if future fixed station receivers in the band 18.3-18.58 GHz point at the geostationary-satellite orbit, they do so at their own risk, because this Report and Order clearly states that interference from space stations under such circumstances would be possible. We first address space-to-Earth sharing to establish the specific conditions for these relat ionships. 48. We conclude that the conditions for ensuring successful space-to-Earth sharing between the terrestrial fixed service and the GSO/FSS may not be present if any new terrestrial fixed service link receivers are pointed within 2 degrees of the geostationary satellite orbit. If such receivers are pointed more than 2 degrees away from that Orbit, such pointing generally will provide approximately 18 dB of isolation, which should result in protection from space-borne interference. The potential for existing fixed links to be interfered with will be determined according to the following standard: we will consider any receiving existing terrestrial fixed stations pointed within 2 degrees of the orbit to be subject potentially to interference, and therefore establish this condition as a space station coordination trigger. We see this licensee- based process as taking place in two phases: first, an evaluation of the actual potential for interference would be performed and the results considered by both the fixed station and the FSS station licensees; second, a method of resolution would be agreed upon and implemented. 49. Thus, we establish a coordination process referenced to a "Legacy List" of such terrestrial fixed service stations. The appropriate GSO/FSS station licensee (the one towards which the FS station is pointed) would be responsible for paying any associated modification costs. We recognize that determining which terrestrial fixed service stations point at the orbit may be difficult, and that, because information may be unreliable, using the currently specified location and relative height of send-and-receive locations may not provide accurate results. 50. We recognize that the development of an accurate Legacy List will be critical to the success of FS/FSS coordination efforts, and that such a list can be developed with reference to a database containing the geographic location and relative height of the FS send and receive antennas. While we recognize that such information is currently available in the Commission's Database, this is the first time we expect the information to be used to establish FS receiver pointing for coordination purposes. Therefore, we provide in this Report and Order the opportunity for existing FS licensees in the 18.3-18.8 GHz band to update their location and height parameters and to inform the Commission in such cases where their receive sites in this shared band point within two degrees of the GSO and at which position. This update will not be considered a modification of fixed service facilities, although the compatibility of the "new" locat ion will need to be assessed by interested parties. 51. We are equally concerned about ensuring successful sharing between FSS receiving earth stations and transmitting FS stations. Noting that such earth stations would transmit in the 28/29 GHz band and would need to be coordinated in that band, a common location would, of course, also be used for the reception of GSO/FSS signals in this shared band. This means that the same site must also be available in the downlink band. Such downlink sharing would also have two aspects. In this co-primary band, future FSS receive earth stations would need to ensure that the coordinated location would also not receive interference from transmitting existing FS stations. We expect that the availability of an earth station site at the downlink frequency may place a greater constraint on earth station location than that of the uplink, due to the wide distribution of co-primary fixed links in this band, compared to that of the uplink bands. The chosen location should then be communicated to the Commission to ensure that future terrestrial stations will coordinate their transmitting FS operations. Clearly, the fewer earth stations required, the easier the FSS earth station site selection process will be and the more useable the 18.3-18.58 GHz band will be for the fixed service. 52. We believe these actions will provide an equitable approach to sharing because both the terrestrial fixed service and the FSS stations must assume burdens, based upon this Report and Order, not presently in the Commission's existing rules: the FSS space stations must coordinate their space stations with those FS stations pointed at their satellites and must accept limitations on the location of their receiving earth stations, a new process. Concomitantly, future terrestrial fixed service stations may point at the orbit only at their own risk, a condition not previously stated and must coordinate with any prior FSS earth stations. Both services collectively assume the responsibility for making this process work, subject to the continuing oversight of the Commi ssion. 53. 18.8-19.3 GHz and 19.3-19.7 GHz Frequency Bands. In the 18 GHz NPRM, we proposed to designate the 18.8-19.3 GHz band to NGSO/FSS on a primary basis. Teledesic urged us to adopt this proposal and, by doing so, protect the decisions made at WRC-95 and WRC-97 (World Radiocommunication Conferences) to allocate internationally the 18.8-19.3 GHz band to NGSO/FSS. TIA-Fixed Section, on the other hand, requests that we allocate the 19.26-19.3 GHz for terrestrial fixed service use in order to maintain the existing paired channels at 17.7-17.74 GHz, a proposal that was also discussed in the Teledesic Reply. Lockheed contends that we should provide a primary designation of 500 MHz at 18.8-19.3 GHz for NGSO/FSS "to allow for ubiquitous deployment of NGSO FSS user terminals." Teledesic recently entered into the record of this proceeding a detailed statement about the sensitivity of its system to interference from fixed stations operating within the 18.8-19.3 GHz band. Teledesic's statement has implications for both the primary and secondary designation of this band. We discuss secondary designations in the n ext section of this Report and Order. 54. We have fashioned a primary designation solution that resolves the concerns of both the fixed and NGSO/FSS licensees in a balanced fashion, while providing the full requested service designation to the NGSO/FSS. The terrestrial fixed commenters are concerned that they will lose channels at 19.26-19.3 GHz that are paired with 17.7-17.74 GHz. While those channel pairs will be lost in the adopted redesignation plan, it will happen in a way that should not cause difficulty to the fixed service. We have decided to permit existing fixed stations to continue using those channel pairs subject only to the overriding right of satellite providers to require them to be relocated. In practice, this means that stations in the NGSO/FSS service must accept the interference these stations would present or must pay to relocate the fixed stations to another band. While fixed service licensees are concerned that this may prove difficult, they will not be required to shut down until, under the relocation rules we adopt in this Report and Order, a facility providing comparable performance has been coordinated, built and proven to be of equivalent performance.. NGSO/FSS licensees wishing to eliminate FS interference to their earth stations will be fully responsible for relocating the fixed stations. This ensures both that the interference to the NGSO/FSS will not occur and gives the satellite licensees some control over relocation cost. While we note that Teledesic has stated in both their comments and their ex parte statement of November 30, 1999 that they are willing to pay to relocate the fixed stations that will cause interference to their earth stations in the 19.26-19.3 GHz band, they have proposed a different compensation method than the one adopted in this Report and Order. As both Teledesic and Lockheed point out, the 500 MHz of spectrum at 18.8-19.3 is the only downlink spectrum available for Ka-band NGSO/FSS systems. We take this action because of the unique international status of the 18.8-19.3 GHz band, and because it is fashioned in such a manner to avoid any adverse impact on existing fixed service licensees. We also recognize that NGSO/FSS systems are likely to use the entire 500 MHz of spectrum, as pointed out by Teledesic, currently the only Commission NGSO FSS licensee in this band. Designing equipment to make locally varying adjustments to earth station receiving equipment would be extremely difficult and a costly project, possibly delaying the deployment of NGSO/FSS service in the band and certainly reducing the available service capacity. We conclude that designating the 18.8-19.3 GHz band to NGSO/ FSS for primary use best serves the public interest. 55. Therefore, we concur with Teledesic and Lockheed that they will need a full 500 MHz primary designation, and thus, designate the 18.8-19.3 GHz band on a primary basis to NGSO/FSS. We reject the request to maintain a primary allocation to terrestrial fixed service operations in the 19.26-19.3 GHz segment, recognizing that future fixed stations wishing to use these channel pairs must find alternative spectrum. We recognize that this solution does not directly address the provision of new fixed links that would have used spectrum in the 17.7-17.74 GHz and 19.26-19.3 GHz bands. While not prejudging future Commission action, we note that the development of new channelizations could significantly improve this situation. 56. In the 18 GHz NPRM, we proposed to retain the designation of a co-primary allocation for terrestrial fixed service and MSS/FL in the 19.3-19.7 GHz band. We tentatively concluded that sharing in this band was feasible due to the limited number of MSS/FL expected to be deployed. Most commenters agreed with our proposal. Pegasus proposed a segmentation of the 19.3-19.7 band that would allocate the 19.3-19.45 GHz segment to MSS/FL and terrestrial fixed service on a co-primary basis, and the 19.45-19.7 GHz band to MSS/FL and GSO/FSS on a co- primary basis. We reject Pegasus' plan to segment the 19.3-19.7 GHz band as an effort to get more spectrum for GSO/FSS users in the 18 GHz band, at the expense of upsetting the overall equity and balance achieved in this Report and Order. Motorola argues that this proposal "would create a mixture of GSO/FSS-MSS/FL earth stations in a narrow band segment adjacent to an even narrower segment dedicated to MSS/FL-FS operations." 57. SBC argues that we should not place MSS/FL as a co-primary licensee in the 19.3-19.7 GHz segment because there are serious sharing concerns with such a designation, and proposes that we give terrestrial fixed services primary status in the 19.3-19.7 GHz segment. We reject SBC's request. Instead, we are retaining the designation which was adopted in the 28 GHz Report and Order and under which, as Motorola points out, the Iridium System was successfully coordinated under Part 25 of the Commission's Rules and operated gateway earth stations in this band in the U.S. We note that given the number of MSS feeder links anticipated in this band, there is little material difference between this shared designation and a primary FS designation. We find no valid support in the record to dismiss our previous tentative conclusion that terrestrial fixed service and MSS/FL should retain their designations in the 19.3-19.7 GHz band. Thus, we conclude the public interest is served by maintaining this designation. 1 Secondary Use 1. In the 18 GHz NPRM, we proposed to allow secondary use of the entire 18 GHz band by terrestrial fixed services, GSO/FSS, and NGSO/FSS (in bands where the particular service did not enjoy either a primary or co-primary allocation) to provide flexibility throughout the band. We conclude that secondary use of the 18 GHz band is not viable because it would unreasonably inhibit ubiquitous deployment of these services and limit the use of spectrum by primary users of the bands. However, the continued operation of existing fixed stations in primary satellite bands on a non-interference basis would not limit the use of the bands by satellite earth stations; rather it would provide for the continuation of existing services to the public until new satellite earth stations are built. We discuss two different aspects of this issue below: Should we adopt secondary fixed designations and permit continued licensing of stations in bands designated on a primary basis to satellite services? Should we adopt secondary satellite designations in bands designated on a primary basis to the fixed service? We reject a third possibility, proposed by VisionStar. VisionStar proposed the adoption of a temporary secondary allocation for the terrestrial fixed service in bands that are assigned to GSO/FSS systems. They propose that this temporary secondary allocation would be limited to small businesses that would use the spectrum to provide GSO/FSS-like services to consumers through a terrestrial fixed network before 18 GHz GSO/FSS systems are launched and operating. We reject their proposal because we expect it would interfere with the intended application of the fixed service relocation procedure adopted in this Report and Order. 2. Regarding secondary fixed operations in primary satellite designations, we conclude that terrestrial fixed services generally should not be designated for secondary use in either primary GSO/FSS or primary NGSO/FSS bands subject to blanket licensing. We find that the continued licensing of these fixed stations, with the exception of indoor low power operations, is incompatible with the ubiquitous placement of earth stations in the primary satellite service, because they may interfere with FSS reception if located close enough to such stations. We would, literally, be encouraging the extension of a condition that we have determined to be incompatible with the ubiquitous distribution of primary satellite services. Regarding the low power fixed systems mentioned in the NPRM, in the 18.82-18.87 and 19.16-19.21 GHz bands, such stations have been licensed on a primary basis and will continue to be so licensed, given the proposal in the NPRM and the lack of significant comments. They will not be subject to the same transition rules as the full power stations in their band. In addition, they will not be subject to the same relocation requirement, since they will be co-primary with the FSS. They will be permitted to continue to operate, and new stations will be licensed subject only to the limitation that they operate indoors. The restriction to indoor use will, of necessity, place some signal attenuating barrier between low power fixed stations and FSS earth stations, which are always located outdoors. While interference could still be possible, the probability of interference is significantly, and acceptably, reduced as the interfering signal is so diminished. Several commenters urged us to eliminate secondary terrestrial fixed service designations in primary FSS bands. TIA-SOUS argued that the "proposal to license FS stations on a secondary basis in satellite spectrum would undercut the Commission's segmentation proposal by reintroducing the cost and delay associated with frequency coordination." TIA-SOUS reasons that a new coordination regime would have to be set up to determine whether new terrestrial fixed service stations could operate under secondary conditions. Lockheed asserts that we should not allow secondary terrestrial operations in the primary FSS band because of interference concerns. We agree with the assessment of TIA- SOUS and Lockheed. With the anticipated deployment of millions of satellite earth stations, we believe that it would be virtually impossible to implement an effective dispute-solving regime to discover terrestrial causes of interference to primary FSS earth stations. The difficulty in identifying the source of interference could have a substantial practical impact on FSS licensees, an impact that they are only responsible to evaluate when they are sharing the band with a primary designated fixed service. For example, attempting to identify the cause of interference and then fixing that problem may take time, causing a significant interruption in service. Such delays would raise operating costs for FSS users and would degrade the reliability of the company's service. We believe such circumstances are avoidable by rejecting our proposal to allow terrestrial fixed service operations to use primary FSS spectrum for secondary use services. The statement of Teledesic referenced above underscores this decision with respect to primary NGSO/FSS service allocations that are blanket licensed, by describing the severe impact that a fixed station of at least 39 dB e.i.r.p. would have on an earth station in this band. 3. We now consider whether the GSO/FSS service can be secondary in primary NGSO/FSS bands. In principle, such designations would only be feasible if the stations of the secondary service could be designed to operate without impact on the primary service. This result could be achieved if the NGSO receiver avoided pointing at the Geostationary Orbit. However, because the 18.8-19.3 and 28.6-29.1 GHz primary NGSO designations are the only bands that do not restrict NGSO systems from pointing at the orbit, this fact greatly increases the capacity of satellites in this band, since fewer satellites will be required if a larger part of the sky is available for service. To avoid pointing at the orbit would require more satellites to achieve the same system capacity, increasing the cost of providing NGSO/FSS services at the same level. It would be a great constraint on the NGSO service to require such orbit avoidance, and would appear to be unwarranted to avoid interference from a secondary service. We, therefore, do not designate a seco ndary GSO/FSS service in the downlink NGSO band. 4. Finally, we consider whether the FSS service can be permitted to operate on a secondary basis in terrestrial fixed service primary bands, as we proposed in our NPRM. Under such primary/secondary sharing scenarios, primary operations must be able to determine which station is causing harmful interference, should such interference result from any secondary operation. Secondary FSS operations would have to protect new primary terrestrial fixed satellite users. As a result, terrestrial fixed users face raised costs through either coordination with secondary users before beginning service or delays in service while trying to find causes of interference. Furthermore, under such a scenario, the FSS user would be at the mercy of new terrestrial links that may cause significant interference, which they must accept, and disruption of service. Based on these considerations, we reject the proposal to allow secondary FSS service in bands desi gnated for primary use by terrestrial fixed service. 1. Conclusions Regarding the Band Plan 5. We believe the band plan adopted herein generally meets the spectrum needs of the respective services designated to operate in the 18 GHz band. We note that, like our NPRM proposal, the band plan we adopt herein provides GSO/FSS with 1000 MHz of spectrum, 720 MHz of which is primary and 280 MHz of which is co-primary. Several satellite commenters desire to obtain a minimum of 1000 MHz of unshared downlink spectrum in the Ka-band. These commenters seem to base their arguments, in part, on the fact that we designated 1000 MHz of uplink spectrum to GSO/FSS in the 28 GHz First Report and Order. The 28 GHz First Report and Order, however, designated 750 MHz of primary uplink spectrum for GSO/FSS systems, and 250 MHz of co-primary uplink spectrum shared with NGSO/FSS systems. We are adopting a similar approach in the downlink band. We generally designate equal amounts of spectrum to GSO/FSS, taking into account systems for uplink and downlink use, and this Report and Order provides just that, when considering both primary and co-primary spectrum. 6. We adopt this Band Plan acknowledging that many existing terrestrial fixed services operating in parts of the 18 GHz band that currently serve the public will be forced to relocate their facilities to serve these customers. As previously discussed, terrestrial fixed operators are losing use of 720 MHz of previously usable spectrum due to this designation. Furthermore, the 500 MHz we designate for NGSO/FSS services represents the only block of downlink spectrum in which these services can currently operate. Moreover, satellite commenters failed to demonstrate how existing consumer demand would justify the designation of 1000 MHz of spectrum for exclusive primary use by them. We conclude that the 500 MHz of downlink spectrum (280 MHz co-primary at 18.3-18.58 and 220 MHz primary at 18.58-18.8) in conjunction with the 500 MHz of downlink spectrum at 19.7-20.2 GHz designated to GSO/FSS satisfies the near-term spectrum requirements of GSO/FSS. We also conclude that the 500 MHz primary spectrum designated to NGSO/FSS at 18.8-19.3 GHz and the 400 MHz of co-primary spectrum at 19.3-19.7 GHz to MSS/FL meets the spectrum requirements of the respective serv ices. A. Continued Rights of Existing Stations to Operate 7. In the NPRM we proposed to grandfather terrestrial fixed service operations that have been either licensed or for which applications are pending, as of the release date of th[e] NPRM, for any band that is proposed to be designated for fixed satellite service use on a primary basis. Based on the tentative conclusion that satellite operators will be able to design systems and locate facilities to avoid unwanted interference from terrestrial fixed operations, we proposed in the NPRM to grant indefinite grandfathered status to existing terrestrial fixed operators. Under the NPRM proposal, these grandfathered systems, however, "would not be allowed to expand or change their current operations in any of the bands in which grandfathering applies in any manner that might increase interference to satellite earth stations." We requested comment on this gran dfathering proposal. 8. We also requested comment on the relocation of some or all of the grandfathered terrestrial facilities if, in fact, satellite operators are unable to design their systems to avoid harmful interference from grandfathered systems. We requested comment on whether the terrestrial relocation principles discussed in the Emerging Technologies proceeding (ET Doc. No. 92-9), and other proceedings implementing similar concepts, such as the Mobile-Satellite Service at 2 GHz allocation proceeding (ET Doc. No. 95-18) should be applied to the 18 GHz band. 9. Recognizing the importance of providing continuity of service to the public, as well as the need to reasonably protect investments in existing terrestrial fixed service operations and fixed service operations at an advanced stage of planning, we will permit terrestrial fixed stations currently operating in spectrum being designated in this Report and Order for exclusive satellite use (18.58-19.3 GHz) to continue to operate on a co-primary basis, but subject to the overriding right of satellite providers to require them to relocate. In consideration of the record, we adopt the following: (a) those terrestrial fixed services in the 18.58-19.3 GHz band that have been either licensed or for which applications are pending as of the adoption date of this Report and Order are granted permission to continue to operate on a co-primary basis, subject to the overriding right of satellite providers to require them to relocate. As of the effective date of this Report and Order, such terrestrial fixed stations in this portion of the 18 GHz band can be compelled to relocate in accordance with the relocation rules we adopt herein. However, during the applicable period of continued co-primary status, the satellite providers requiring relocation must pay for all relocation costs, as described below: (1) the co-primary status of terrestrial fixed service operations in the 18.58-19.26 GHz band will terminate ten (10) years from the date of the adoption of this Report and Order. Upon the conclusion of this ten-year period, existing terrestrial fixed stations in the 18.58-19.26 GHz band may continue to operate on a non-interference basis vis-a-vis the primary service in the band. If these operations are required to relocate after that date, they must bear all costs of relocation themse lves. (2) the co-primary status for stations in the 19.26-19.30 GHz band will be permanent; if certain links in the 19.26-19.3 GHz can not operate without interference to NGSO FSS, then those links will be relocated at the expense of the NGSO/FSS licensee; (b) co-primary fixed service operations in the 18.58-19.3 GHz band may make limited modifications to their systems, as long as those modifications do not increase the amount of spectrum used in this portion of the 18 GHz band by that system or do not inc rease interference to satellite earth stations; (c) Co-primary terrestrial fixed service operations in the 18.58-19.3 GHz band will be subject to new Rules Sections in Parts 74, 78 and 101, all containing the text of new Section 101.85, which will govern transition of the 18.58-19.3 GHz band from the terrestrial fixed services to the fixed-satellite service (FSS). These new rules are based upon the concepts used in the existing Section 101.75 for the PCS service transition. The relocation rules we adopt in this Report and Order define when the relocation is considered completed, depending, in part, on the confirmation by the fixed station, after a 12-month trial period, that the new facilities are comparable. 4. Generally, commenters focused their remarks on three aspects of our grandfathering proposal: which stations should be grandfathered (the "cut-off" date); the length of time grandfathered systems should enjoy this status; and, whether grandfathered systems should be allowed to modify their systems. We address the "cut-off" date, the sunset provision, and modi fications to these systems below. 1. Cut-off Date 5. Lockheed took exception to our proposal to grandfather pending applications. According to Lockheed, "operators who merely have filed an application or who have not yet expended any significant sums of money on constructing their systems" do not deserve grandfathered status. We disagree. We consider the filing of an application before the cut-off date to be an expression of immediate need, and thus worthy of being able to continue to operate subject to the relocation rights established herein. Accordingly, we will provide continued co-primary status for terrestrial fixed service operations that have been either licensed, or for which applications are pending, in the 18.8-19.3 GHz frequency band, as of September 18, 1998, as proposed in our 18 GHz NPRM, which proposed that terrestrial fixed services operating and pending in the 18.8-19.3 GHz band be subject to the September 18, 1998 cut-off date. Furthermore, we provide continued co-primary status for terrestrial fixed service operations that have either been licensed, or for which applications are pending, in the 18.58-18.8 GHz frequency band, as of the adoption date of this Repo rt and Order. 6. We are extending the "cut-off" date for the 18.58-18.8 GHz band because the 18 GHz NPRM stated that the cut-off date would apply in "any band that is proposed to be designated for fixed satellite use on a primary basis." We note that none of the proposed band plans put forth in the 18 GHz NPRM discussed redesignating the 18.58-18.8 GHz band for primary use by GSO/FSS. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to move the "cut-off" date forward to coincide with the adoption of the Report and Order, recognizing that applications for terrestrial fixed stations in the 18.58-18.8 GHz band may have been filed since the adoption of the NPRM without specific indication that this band would no longer be available for such use. We note that pursuant to the band plan adopted today, any extension of the "cut-off" date in the 18.3-18.58 GHz band is moot, because the 18.3-18.58 GHz band is designated to terrestrial fixed service and GSO/FSS on a co -primary basis. 1. Sunset Provision` 7. In the 18 GHz NPRM, we proposed that existing terrestrial fixed services operating in bands redesignated to reflect primary status for FSS operations would be grandfathered on a permanent basis. Several commenters oppose permanent grandfathering and urge that there be a sunset date. In making a decision to sunset the co-primary status of stations, except in 19.26- 19.30 GHz, we are deciding that at some point the financial burden of our redesignation decision should be shifted from satellite to terrestrial licensees. Initially, we believe those costs should be shouldered by the satellite licensees if they choose to require existing terrestrial fixed licensees to move to new frequencies in order to accommodate new satellite operations. As discussed in adopting the Emerging Technologies decision, our policy of permitting reimbursement to incumbent licensees for relocation costs is based on the premise that such reimbursement might help new services to be deployed more quickly than if reimbursement was not otherwise provided. However, we also believe that this reimbursement obligation generally should be limited to a reasonable transition period. Such an approach is consistent with our assessment that the public interest would be better served in the long run by these new uses. 8. Commenters favoring a sunset date for grandfathered terrestrial licensees argue that permanent grandfathering "appears inconsistent with the premise of the NPRM," where we tentatively concluded that the public interest is best served by separating terrestrial from ubiquitous FSS earth stations. TIA-SOUS argues that permanent grandfathering will "preclud[e] a significant portion of the public from receiving innovative FSS services even though the Commission finds it in the public interest for the incumbent to relocate to another band so that the publ ic can have both." 9. Commenters also differ on the appropriate sunset period, with suggestions ranging from three to fifteen years. GE Americom argues that setting a three year sunset for grandfathered status "allows terrestrial services time to move, but creates certainty as to the time satellites will be able to use their entire range of dedicated spectrum." Teledesic proposes that we set January 1, 2004 as an appropriate sunset. The Teledesic plan would make grandfathered terrestrial users secondary on this sunset date, meaning that after January 1, 2004, formerly grandfathered terrestrial fixed service operations would be responsible for any relocation costs. Pegasus contends that a sunset of ten (10) years following the release of this Report and Order "represents an appropriate compromise between GSO FSS and FS interests, and is necessary for consistently high quality reception of Ka-band FSS signals in urban areas and the achievement of a truly national ubiquitous satellite service." We agree with Pegasus and adopt a ten year sunset, noting that a balance must be struck between burdens on satellite licensees and terrestrial licensees that provides an adequate transition period while giving effect to our redesignation decision. As discussed previously, this Report and Order grants co-primary status to existing terrestrial fixed stations in the 18.58-19.3 GHz band. As a general rule, we agree that the co-primary status should be limited by a sunset period. However, we have found it necessary to permanently grant co-primary status to existing terrestrial fixed stations in the 19.26-19.3 GHz band because the channels in this band are paired with channels that are being retained for primary terrestrial fixed use at 17.7-17.74 GHz, thus magnifying the impact of this redesignation on the fixed service. If we were to impose a ten year sunset period, users of these pairings would likely be required because of equipment availability to relocate not only their transmissions in the 19.26-19.30 GHz band but also their paired transmissions in the 17.7-17.74 GHz even though the 17.7-17.74 GHz transmissions are not in a band that would be shared with FSS operations. Because of the significant impact on terrestrial fixed licensees, and since there are few existing fixed stations in this band, we do not believe it is appropriate to sunset the co-primary status, and associated relocation reimbursement rights, of existing terrestrial stations in this band. 10. In all other bands we conclude that sunsetting after ten years would best serve the public interest. Allowing terrestrial fixed services to operate in the 18.58-18.8 GHz and 18.8-19.3 GHz bands on a permanent basis is inconsistent with the basic premise of this Report and Order, which has been accepted by a majority of the commenters to this proceeding: that the public interest is best served by separating terrestrial fixed service operations from ubiquitously deployed FSS earth stations. The sunset date will allow existing terrestrial systems to continue to operate on an interim basis and to plan for transition to an alternative frequency. 11. We believe that a sunset period of ten (10) years for continued co-primary status of existing terrestrial fixed stations in the 18.58-18.8 GHz and 18.8-19.26 GHz frequency band is an appropriate compromise that will allow these systems to continue to operate in these bands, while giving FSS interests the option to pay the cost of relocating such systems if FSS interests want to deploy operations in those areas. We stress that the significance of the ten-year period is limited to who will pay for the relocation of existing terrestrial fixed stations when it is found that they would, due to the interference they would present, preclude the establishment of FSS stations. In the absence of an FSS earth station in their vicinity, they may continue to operate beyond the ten- year period. Recognizing this, the fundamental issue here is how long constitutes an adequate period during which the FSS station should pay. Some FSS commenters urged us to adopt a relatively short sunset period. As mentioned above, GE Americom requested that we set December 31, 2002 as a sunset date, while Teledesic, Hughes, KaStar, and PanAmSat ask that we adopt a five (5) year sunset date for grandfathering terrestrial fixed service operations. Although these commenters are correct in arguing that permanent grandfathering would frustrate the basic premise of this Report and Order, we believe that either a three or five-year sunset would be insufficient because, as FWCC correctly notes, a relatively short sunset period could be viewed as an attempt to avoid relocation costs, even though there might be significant impacts from relocating fixed services after such a proposed sunset. We believe that it is contrary to the public interest and not conducive to a stable investment environment to make terrestrial fixed operators, who currently serve the public, pay for relocation costs after such a short period of time. Thus, we reject the proposal of Teledesic and other satellite operators urging a five-year or less sunset period for grandfathered terrestrial fixed services. 12. API urges that we adopt a sunset of fifteen years, arguing that this period is appropriate "given the normal depreciation of microwave equipment, the long period of time before satellite systems will be fully deployed, and the uncertainty that market demand for 18 GHz satellite services will ever develop." Although it may be true that the market for satellite systems in the 18 GHz band is in its nascency, a fifteen year sunset may frustrate our desire to segment the band in an efficient manner in order to bring exciting new services to the American people. Furthermore, because our relocation policies are not premised on depreciation scheduled equipment, we decline to consider this further. We believe that ten years is an appropriate compromise that will protect investment in existing terrestrial fixed service operations in the 18 GHz band, and allow for an orderly transition. Furthermore, nothing in this Report and Order precludes a satellite operator from reaching a voluntary agreement with a fixed service licensee prior to the sunset date, in order to speed the transition to operating in the segmented bands. Therefore, we adopt a ten-year sunset on co-primary status for terrestrial fixed service operations in th e 18.58-18.8 GHz and 18.8-19.26 GHz bands. 1. Modifications 13. In the 18 GHz NPRM, we proposed to give grandfathered terrestrial fixed service interference protection from satellite operations, and proposed that satellite earth stations must accept interference received from grandfathered terrestrial systems. However, "grandfathered terrestrial fixed service licensees would not be allowed to expand or change their current operations in any of the bands in which grandfathering applies in any manner that might increase inter ference to satellite earth stations." 14. Terrestrial fixed service operators disagreed with our system modification proposal. These commenters present two arguments to support allowing more modifications. First, commenters claim that modifications are necessary to maintain the viability of grandfathered terrestrial fixed service operations; and second, they point to past Commission actions providing diffe rent treatment of this issue. 15. In response to these comments, we clarify our 18 GHz NPRM proposal. We adopt rules in this Report and Order that specify that terrestrial fixed services may perform the modifications approved in past Commission actions (acceptable modifications include: minor modifications, changes in antenna azimuth, antenna beamwidth, antenna height, authorized power, channel loading, emission, station location, and ownership or control; reduction in authorized frequencies; or addition of frequencies not in the 18 GHz band); however, such modifications may not increase interference to satellite earth stations, or result in a facility that would be more costly to relocate. We fear that allowing for continuous upgrades would continue to cause interference to ubiquitously deployed satellite earth stations and would frustrate our desired band plan and the related public interest benefits. Allowing for modifications that would increase interference to satellite operators that designed their systems to avoid a certain level of interference from existing terrestrial fixed service operations would be unfair and costly to satellite operators operating on a primary designation. Furthermore, we believe that by prohibiting modifications that increase interference to deployed satellite systems we will promote full consideration of relocation to a different frequency band, in the event a modification should become necessary. A. Relocation 16. In the 18 GHz NPRM, we acknowledged that satellite operators may be unable to design their systems to avoid interference from grandfathered terrestrial fixed service operations, and that relocation of some terrestrial fixed stations may be desirable. It is a central aspect of our decisions in this proceeding that stations of the new primary service must be able to establish their operations without significant interference from existing stations of any other service. At the same time, such a right must be accompanied by the obligation on the part of the new satellite entrant to provide for the relocation of any existing fixed stations operating in spectrum being designated for exclusive satellite use (18.58-19.3 GHz) which they determine is necessary. The prompt commencement of satellite services may depend upon the speedy relocation of existing fixed stations in some areas. We recognize that the successful completion of the relocation process will take significant effort and commitment on the part of both the space and terrestrial communities. To facilitate this effort and commitment, the relocation process adopted herein affords reasonable flexibility to FSS licensees to roll out their operations in a timely and economic manner. We asked for comments on relocation rules and procedures. Many of the commenters urged us to base relocation rules on the rules adopted in ET Docket 92-9 (Emerging Technologies proceeding) for the 2 GHz band. In general, we have adopted that approach. 17. Teledesic argues that we "should require relocation payments to incumbents based on the un-amortized cost of the replaced equipment, plus 2% of these 'hard costs' to help cover engineering expenses and installation costs." Teledesic also asserts that basing relocation cost payments on anything other than the un-amortized cost of the replaced equipment would be inefficient. Teledesic reasons that basing relocation on un-amortized costs prevents incumbent terrestrial services from receiving a windfall for new equipment. Teledesic correctly points out that "[e]very FS operator carries the cost of equipment on tax deductions over time to recover for the depreciation of the equipment." Teledesic argues that if new equipment is needed to relocate terrestrial fixed services to new bands, this will result in satellite operators paying for the cost that has a lready been deducted, and thus recovered. 18. We reject Teledesic's proposal. The Commission's policy has been to place the cost of an involuntary relocation to comparable facilities on the shoulders of the new entrant. We reaffirm this as our policy. As we have stated, "[B]ecause replacement equipment must be provided at no cost to existing licensees, concerns for amortizing or recouping investment in existing equipment are misplaced. Such replacement equipment will operate during the original amortization periods that would have applied to the old equipment." In fact, we have recently reaffirmed the application of the Emerging Technologies proceeding relocation policies to Mobil e-Satellite Services. 19. While the new rules we are adopting are based upon the concepts adopted in the Emerging Technologies proceeding and contained in Section 101.75 for the PCS service transition, there are some differences between the situations at 2 GHz and 18 GHz that warrant some changes in the relocation rules for 18 GHz. We note that the rules adopted in Emerging Technologies proceeding were developed at the time solely based on the specifics of the sharing issues at 2 GHz. While we strive for consistency in our rules whenever appropriate, we need not adhere to the specifics of the existing 2 GHz relocation policy at 18 GHz if it is inappropriate. 20. In developing the Part 101 relocation rules for the PCS service at 2 GHz, we were displacing incumbent licensees through the introduction of an entirely new terrestrial service that would be gradually rolled out in various locations over time. In the case of the instant proceeding, we are modifying the way in which two existing services are to share spectrum in which both services are currently licensed on a co-primary basis. Additionally, in the spectrum that we are designating as exclusively for use by the Fixed-Satellite Service, FSS licensees are expected to roll out their service rapidly on a nation-wide basis, often to ubiquitously deployed end-user terminals. Such service will require expedited access to the spectrum. The current Part 101 relocation rules that provide for a lengthy voluntary negotiating period, followed by another mandatory negotiating period, are not well-suited to this required expedited access. We believe the relocation rules for the 18 GHz services should rather focus on ensuring that the relocated terrestrial fixed stations are guaranteed comparable replacement facilities in a reasonably expedited fashion. In addition, we note that many of the existing 18 GHz terrestrial fixed stations are likely to be able to be relocated elsewhere in the 18 GHz band, and that such relocation is likely to be accomplished quickly and relatively inexpensively through the re-tuning of existing equip ment. 21. Accordingly, we are not requiring a voluntary negotiating period as we previously established for the PCS transition in Section 101.69(c). Under our 18 GHz transition rules, FSS licensees may enter into negotiations with co-primary terrestrial fixed services in the 18.58-19.3 GHz band for the purpose of agreeing to terms under which the terrestrial licensees would either relocate or accept a sharing arrangement. If no agreement is reached within two years for non- public safety incumbents and three years for public safety incumbents, an FSS licensee may initiate involuntary relocation pursuant to Section 101.91 of the rules we are adopting today. We believe these time periods provide a reasonable balance between the needs of new FSS operators to gain access to spectrum and the needs of existing FS operators to ensure that relocated facilities are provided that meet their needs. We are providing additional mandatory negotiations time for public safety operations, noting comments by the Association of Public-Safety Officials- International, Inc. about the special need of public safety systems to be able to continue to operate relia bly during any transition period. 22. In the event that agreement is not reached in any negotiation period, the FSS licensee will have the option of invoking involuntary relocation. In such a case, FSS licensees would be obligated to relocate only the specific links that cause the interference problem. Under involuntary relocation, a terrestrial fixed station must relocate provided that the FSS licensee guarantees payment of relocation costs, completes all activities necessary for implementing the replacement facilities, and builds and tests the replacement system for comparability. Terrestrial fixed service operators are not required to relocate until the alternative facilities are available for a reasonable time to make adjustments, determine comparability, and ensure a seamless handoff. It would not be in the public interest to allow a right of return to relocated incumbents, as was provided in the Emerging Technologies proceeding. The disruption to national, or potentially region-wide or world-wide, satellite systems for the benefit of relatively few terrestrial fixed incumbents is infeasible. We will therefore allow involuntarily relocated terrestrial fixed incumbents to petition the Commission for additional modification to or replacement of their equipment in any case where the incumbent believes it has not received comparable performance from its retuned or replaced equipment. Upon proof shown, we will order the FSS licensee in question to further modify or replace the incumbent terrestrial fixed licensee's equipment. We believe that these safeguards to ensuring comparable terrestrial facilities obviate the need for more lengthy negotiating periods. We note that pursuant to the sunset provisions adopted above, FSS operators will generally no longer be responsible for relocation costs incurred by terrestrial incumbents after ten (10) years from the adoption date of this Report and Order. By adopting these relocation rules, we put into place a proven system that should lead to efficient relocation and ultimately to the band segmentation that we conclude serves the public interest. We also believe that the relocation rules provide reasonable flexibility to FSS licensees to establish their opera tions in a timely and economic manner. 23. We are also adopting, within our negotiation rules, criteria for comparable facilities. Both the existing 2 GHz rules and the rules we proposed in this proceeding include general criteria that must be met for facilities that are provided under involuntary relocation procedures to be considered comparable. In a separate proceeding on the allocation of spectrum at 2 GHz for use by the Mobile-Satellite Service, ET Docket No. 95-18, ICO Services Limited (ICO) suggested that these criteria be included in the section of the rules that governs mandatory negotiations. We believe that this change is appropriate for the negotiation rules we are adopting at 18 GHz, as it would be useful to define the target of negotiations. For this reason, we are including these criteria in Section 101.89 of the rules we are adopting. 24. As a final note on relocation, we recognize that this Report and Order puts into place a process that will affect a significant number of fixed microwave links. We urge the affected parties to find ways to minimize the cost and facilitate the introduction of new satellite services. We believe it should be possible to realize very significant economies of scale if many of the necessary relocations of fixed microwave services could be contracted and the necessary equipment purchased in blocks larger than single facilities. While the Commission should play no direct role in such an effort, we stand ready to offer whatever guidance or encouragement is sough t by the central parties involved. A. Blanket Licensing 25. In the 18 GHz NPRM, we tentatively concluded that blanket licensing of satellite earth stations in bands designated for primary use by either GSO/FSS or NGSO/FSS operations in the Ka-band is in the public interest. We declined, however, to propose to implement blanket licensing in shared bands. We also proposed requirements to ensure that Ka-band GSO/FSS systems did not cause harmful interference to GSO/FSS systems in adjacent orbital slots. However, due to a lack of information, we did not propose specific blanket licensing criteria. We now note that an industry technical group has reached a consensus on appropriate technical criteria for GSO blanket licensing and has submitted a report detailing that consensus. We have reviewed this report and generally adopt the group's recommendations, as specified in the attached rules. Pursuant to the rules we are adopting in this Report and Order, all applications for the blanket licensing of GSO/FSS earth stations that meet the requirements of Section 25.138 will be processed on a routine basis. 26. With respect to NGSO/FSS systems, we note that the technical study of ITU Working Part 4-9S on NGSO/FSS interference to fixed stations has been completed and an equation has been adopted that can be used to specify the space station pfd that provides interference protection to fixed stations. Therefore we adopt this equation for determining the maximum allowed pfd of NGSO/FSS space stations as a function of the number of satellites in the NGSO system constellation, as recommended by technical study groups of the ITU-R for inclusion in the International Radio Regulations. However, while a decision on the space station pfd is required for the proper design of earth stations, we have not been able to develop a consensus on the criteria to be used for the blanket licensing of NGSO/FSS earth stations and defer decisions on the conditions for the blanket licensing of earth stations pending further evaluation. 1. GSO/FSS 27. Blanket Licensing in Unshared Bands. We adopt a blanket licensing procedure for GSO/FSS earth stations in the unshared 18.58-18.8 GHz, 19.7-20.2 GHz, 28.35-28.6 GHz, and 29.5-30.0 GHz bands. Applicants in these bands may apply for a blanket authorization under which each licensee can construct and operate specified numbers and types of qualified earth stations. The license term for a blanket authorization will coincide with the underlying space stati on operating license. 28. In the 18 GHz NPRM, we proposed that blanket license applicants would be required to designate a point of contact where records on location and frequency use of satellite earth stations will be maintained, in order to ensure that secondary users in these bands have the information necessary to avoid causing harmful interference to GSO/FSS earth stations. As a result of our decision to prohibit secondary use throughout the 18 GHz band, we decline to require satellite operators to designate a point of contact. Moreover, in an environment where there will be no secondary use in the band, requiring satellite operators to monitor the specific location and frequency usage of ubiquitously deployed earth stations could prove expensive and difficult. We also proposed that satellite operators obtaining a blanket license would be subject to an annual reporting requirement. Under this proposal, licensees would be required to include the number of earth stations actually brought into service in a yearly report to the Commission, so that we can monitor the development of this service. This policy is consistent with the requirements initially placed on Very Small Aperture Terminal ("VSAT") blanket licensed earth station licensees in the 12/14 GHz frequency bands (Ku-band). 29. Both Loral and TIA-SOUS asserted that they did not object to the proposed annual reporting requirement. Pegasus, on the other hand, opposed our proposed annual reporting requirement, indicating that "[w]hile the NPRM suggests that this information would permit secondary users to avoid causing interference to GSO FSS earth stations, Pegasus believes that such avoidance is not possible in a situation where the primary service is truly ubiquitous." We believe Pegasus' concerns are moot since we are not adopting any secondary designations. As stated above, the adoption of the annual reporting requirement would allow the Commission to monitor the development of GSO/FSS services in primary bands and is in the public interest. Therefore, we adopt our proposal to require an annual reporting requirement on blanket licensees. Licensees are required to include the number of earth stations actually brought into service in a yearly report to the Commission. This annual report will be due to the Commission no later than the first day of April of each year, for the deployment figures of the preceding calendar year. 30. In the 18 GHz NPRM, we also proposed several technical requirements for intra-service sharing. In the NPRM, we noted that our existing GSO/FSS licensing policy in other bands is based upon uniform 2-degree spacing between adjacent satellites operating in the same frequency bands. For example, to implement 2-degree spacing for GSO/FSS systems in the 4/6 GHz and 12/14 GHz frequency bands, we established rules that define uplink and downlink power densities and antenna performance standards. Specifically in the 18 GHz NPRM, we proposed uplink transmit Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power ("EIRP") density limits and downlink pfd limits that provided, in the case of the pfd values, for values that were bandwidth dependent, i.e. one over a 1 MHz and one over a 40 MHz bandwidth. These proposals initially proved controversial within the GSO/FSS industry, resulting in an initial failure to achieve consensus within the GSO/FSS Ka-Band Blanket Licensing Industry Working Group. We also proposed that applicants for earth station blanket licensing authorization submit to the Commission a technical description of how they will comply with the requirement that all Ka-band FSS earth stations employ adaptive uplink power control or other methods of fade compensation. Furthermore, we sought comment on whether some type of antenna pointing requirement for Ka- band GSO/FSS earth stations is necessary, and on procedures for the licensing of non-compliant earth stations, and the effect such licensing would have on present and future licensees in the band. Additionally, noting that the 18 GHz NPRM proposed pfd values are more restrictive than the current pfd limits that apply equally to United States Government, United States non- Government, and foreign satellite systems, we requested comment on whether any future disparity in the operating pfd values between government and commercial systems could adversely affect the ability of the latter to provide service or could adversely affect the ability of the domestic licensee to effect a workable coordination agreement. The comments received do not indicate that such a disparity between commercial and government pfd limits will have a significant adverse impact on non-Government satellite systems. However, to resolve any significant problems, the record has supported a solution based upon the use of non-conforming earth stations. In cases where a non-Government GSO satellite is located in an orbit nearby a Government GSO satellite, the non-Government satellite may be authorized to exceed the pfd limits adopted in this Report and Order provided it meets the conditions of Section 25.138(b). This rule section requires that applicants provide specified information and certify that they have coordinated their operations with all satellite systems located within +/- 6 degrees of its orbit. In the bands 18.3-18.6 GHz and 19.7-20.2 GHz, NTIA has stated that the Government GSO and NGSO networks are presently operating and plan to continue to operate in accordance with the pfd limits contained in the current ITU Radio Regulations. These pfd limits are -115/-105 dB (W/m2) in any 1 MHz depending upon the angle of arrival in the band 18.3-18.6 GHz. There are currently no PFD limit s in the band 19.7-20.2 GHz. 31. The record in this proceeding has been supplemented by the filing of the Second Report of the GSO/FSS Ka Band Licensing Industry Working Group (BLWG Second Report). A consensus was ultimately reached by the participants of the BLWG, detailing consensus technical param eters that would allow GSO/FSS blanket licensing. 32. The BLWG Second Report made recommendations on the adoption of a downlink pfd at the Earth's surface to protect downlinks in the United States, and EIRP spectral density from transmitting earth stations as a function of off-axis angle to protect uplinks. The BLWG Second Report also indicated that it does not intend that the Commission apply these blanket licensing rules to U.S. licensed satellite systems operating outside the United States. In any event, it is beyond the scope of this proceeding to consider such international application. The BLWG has addressed earth station pointing accuracy and uplink power control, but was not prepared to make detailed recommendations on those issues. We are adopting the final recommendations of the B LWG Second Report as detailed in the revised Rules. 33. In the 18 GHz NPRM, we proposed that earth stations that did not comply with our adopted technical criteria would be subject to coordination with adjacent orbital slots. In this Report and Order, however, in recognition of a consensus that developed in the BLWG Second Report we adopt specific technical conditions for uplink and downlink operations, which obviate the need for coordination between non-government GSO/FSS systems in the Ka Band. However, coordination will continue to be required between non-government and government or foreign syste ms. 34. Shared Bands. In the 18 GHz NPRM, we proposed not to implement blanket licensing in bands designated for shared co-primary use between GSO/FSS and MSS/FL (29.25-29.5 GHz), as well as shared for GSO/FSS and terrestrial fixed service use (18.3-18.58 GHz), in accordance with this Report and Order. In an ex parte presentation, Hughes suggests, however, that blanket licensing would be appropriate for the 29.25-29.5 MHz uplink frequency bands, since they are not shared with terrestrial services. Hughes also suggests a streamlined method for licensing downlinks in the 18.3-18.58 GHz bands, by which the Commission would first approve the basic technical characteristics of a large number of identical terminals. Subsequently, a licensee could register the specific locations of terminals through a streamlined method. Terminals registered with the FCC would receive protection from interference from new terrestrial fixed operations. Hughes argues that this method would facilitate offering of GSO/FSS to consumers. Further exploration of this proposal is warranted. We decline, however, to do so in this proceeding based on the lack of a sufficient record that: 1) describes in adequate detail how such an expedited licensing process would work; and 2) addresses the potential consequences of implementing an expedited licensing process in bands that are shared between services. Instead, we will address these issues in connection with an appropriate future proceeding in which the full range of public interest issues, including benefits to consumers and impact on other services, such as fixed terre strial and MSS feeder links, can be fully assessed. 1. NGSO/FSS 35. In the 18 GHz NPRM, we proposed to implement a blanket licensing regime for NGSO/FSS systems in the 18.8-19.3 and the 28.6-29.1 GHz band. However, we stated that we lacked sufficient information to propose specific blanket licensing criteria for NGSO systems, and requested comment on what type of technical criteria should be used. Commenters generally supported this proposal. Therefore, we will adopt our proposal made in the 18 GHz NPRM and will authorize earth station blanket licensing for NGSO/FSS systems in the bands in which NGSO/FSS is designated primary status, specifically the 18.8-19.3 GHz and 28.6-29.1 GHz frequency bands. The pfd limits for this band are specified in Section 25.208 (f) in Appendix A of this Report and Order. We recognize that we are not adopting specific blanket licensing rules at this time, and instead will address specific blanket licensing requirements in these bands in a future proce eding. A. BSS Allocation 36. In the 18 GHz NPRM, we requested comment on the allocation of spectrum for the BSS at the 17.3-17.8 GHz frequency band and at the 24.75-25.25 GHz frequency band for FSS services providing feeder links to the BSS. We made this proposal to conform the Commission's Rules to the ITU Region 2 allocation that will take effect on April 1, 2007. We also sought comment as to the timing of the allocation. In response to our request, interested parties requested primary BSS use and some requested no BSS use. Many terrestrial fixed commenters argued that a BSS allocation is premature, and that such an allocation would mean further erosion of FS spectrum. At the same time, FSS operators argued that current BSS spectrum was insufficient to meet a growing demand. We also expressed uncertainty in the NPRM as to whether sharing would be feasible among the BSS, FSS, and terrestrial fixed service operations in these bands and specified that appropriate sharing criteria would have to be developed before such an allocation could be used. Most of the commenters voiced skepticism that sharing would be possible, but none offered specific evidence that sharing was infeasible under any conditions. Finally, some commenters requested an orbital spacing policy of 4.5§ in the BSS allocation, though some suggested that such a policy be reserved for a later proceeding. In recognition of the fact that the international allocation is not effective for approximately seven years, we adopt the following allocation and designation decisions, to take effect April 1, 2007: in the downlink band, we allocate 400 MHz of spectrum at 17.3-17.7 GHz for primary BSS use. In the uplink band, we allocate 300 MHz of spectrum at 24.75-25.05 GHz for primary FSS Earth-to-space use, limited to feeder links for the BSS allocation in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band. We allocate 200 MHz of spectrum at 25.05-25.25 GHz for co-primary sharing between FSS and the 24 GHz Service, requiring coordination between these services. Given our experience in the other bands shared between satellite and terrestrial services, we believe that the requirement for coordination in the uplink band will accomplish, with minimal regulation, our objective of providing maximum flexibility of use while ensuring a workable sharing environment, as discussed below. While we note that there is a difference of 100 megahertz of spectrum between the BSS downlinks and the feeder links, we are reluctant to reduce the amount of spectrum available for the feeder links at this time. The flexibility that this additional spectrum provides might prove quite useful to BSS system operators as they tackle the issues of local-into-local and regional programming, as well as any occasional difficulties that might be encountered during coordination. 37. In making these allocation and designation decisions, we strive to attain a balance that best serves the public interest. Our objective is to provide for new satellite services without compromising on our intentions to provide adequate, albeit reduced, continuing spectrum for the FS. We note that BSS is a rapidly growing service, and that additional spectrum will be needed for BSS within the next decade. We also recognize: (1) the importance of preserving terrestrial fixed service spectrum to continue supporting important existing terrestrial fixed service operations in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band; (2) the need to provide spectrum for the migration of terrestrial fixed services into that band; and (3) the need to provide for the growth of the 24 GHz Servi ce. 38. In order to provide for maximum availability of all these services to the public, we conclude that a band segmentation approach will ensure that the BSS will be able to provide downlink service to the general public in an exclusive allocation and the fixed service will similarly be able to maintain existing services in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. We recognize that the ubiquitous nature of BSS services (such services are defined as links from the satellite to the general public) preclude successful coordination with a terrestrial service that is similarly widespread. In this Report and Order, we also adopt a co-primary allocation to the GSO/FSS at 25.05-25.25 GHz, limited to BSS feeder links, in order to give full accommodation of spectrum needs to all services. We note that the successful implementation of this allocation will require the development of sharing criteria that will be considered in a future rulemaking proceeding. 39. In the 18 GHz NPRM, we recognized that allocating spectrum at 17.3-17.8 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz will conform this band plan to the ITU Region 2 allocation of BSS spectrum at 17.3-17.8 GHz. ITU footnote S5.517 provides that the international Region 2 allocation for BSS will not take effect until April 1, 2007. DIRECTV requests that we not wait until 2007 to make this allocation domestically, but rather that we implement it as soon as possible, arguing that there is no reason to further constrain the use of the band prior to that date. While we do not believe that implementing the allocation immediately would be prudent, we agree to make the decision now to make an allocation that will be effective April 2007, so as to provide all parties with sufficient notice and time to design their systems to use this spectrum in the most efficient manner. Therefore, within this context, we decide now to make the downlink BSS and GSO/FSS allocations effective April 1, 2007. We are, however, stopping the allocation for the BSS at 17.7 GHz. This will provide 400 MHz of spectrum to the BSS at 17.3-17.7 GHz. Considering the amount of spectrum being lost by the fixed service as a result of this proceeding, we believe it is important to keep as much spectrum available to the terrestrial fixed service as possible, for as long as possible, to help in the relocation of displaced facilities. If, as we proceed with the terrestrial fixed service relocation efforts at 18 GHz and begin the process of developing service rules for the 17 GHz BSS, we determine that terrestrial fixed relocation spectrum requirements are not as demanding as predicted, we may re-examine the availability of all or a part of the 17.7- 17.8 GHz band for BSS applications. Given the record of this proceeding, however, we must at this time ensure that this spectrum is available for terrestrial fixed service operations. A. 4.5 Degree Spacing 40. In its comments, Directv proposes a 4.5§ spacing environment in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band. We find that it is premature to adopt 4.5§ spacing because these allocations will not become effective for some time and because such spacing might unduly restrict the ability to share the band. Additionally, there could be significant changes in technology during this period. Thus, we will address orbital spacing in a future proceeding that relates to service rules for this new a llocation. 41. Further, we defer any decision on a pfd for this primary downlink band pending a future BSS r ulemaking. A. 24.75-25.25 GHz Uplink 42. In the 18 GHz NPRM, we proposed a primary sub-band at 24.75-25.05 GHz and a co- primary sub-band at 25.05-25.25 GHz. In this Report and Order, we adopt these allocations to provide the spectrum necessary for this service. We limit the FSS allocation at 24.75-25.25 GHz to feeder links to the BSS. As in the case of the 18.3-18.58 GHz bands, in order to ensure successful sharing and an interference-free environment, we have decided to adopt an allocation structure that ensures such success. The success of sharing depends upon the prudent design and placement of earth stations and future 24 GHz Service stations, and the pointing of fixed station receivers with respect to transmitting earth stations. Because interference can only be experienced at the receiver, and the only terrestrial receivers in the shared band are at the 24 GHz Service station hubs, and not at the locations of the 24 GHz Service users, we will resolve this situation with a requirement for coordination rather than limiting the number of earth stations. 43. Because the location of earth stations is not known at this time 24 GHz Service receivers can not be set up now to avoid them. While we will require coordination for both services, we cannot specify the coordination trigger at this time. While we believe we should make a decision on the allocation to the FSS feeder link now, we do not make it effective until April 1, 2007, to correspond to the downlink allocations that the service will feed. It is our further goal to minimize the impacts on both services in a sharing environment. 44. We believe that the operational characteristics of the 24 GHz Service may provide solutions to potential interference received from earth station transmitters and that avoiding the pointing of fixed station transmitters at the orbit should eliminate space station interference. The nature of these characteristics is deferred to a future service rules proceeding for the FSS feeder links . 45. The Commission also recognizes the parallel events affecting the 24 GHz Service operations at 24 GHz and notes that an NPRM concerning service rules for the 24 GHz Service has just been released. We also note that the rules relevant to 24 GHz Service stations in this proceeding are subject to the outcome of the 24 GHz Service rules proceeding. 46. We stress that while the full extent of interference between the 24 GHz Service and FSS stations providing feeder links for BSS is not known at this time, we believe sharing is feasible because of the limited number of expected BSS feeder link stations and the fact that potential interference to the 24 GHz Service would be experienced only at the hub receivers and not by the 24 GHz Service subscribers. Therefore, by adopting a shared allocation we establish the basis for both services to provide service to the public in this band, a balance that can be struck between the competing interests of BSS/FSS and fixed services. We find it in the public interest to give each industry a large part of the whole rather than barring either service completely from a given allocation. Because sharing is possible, we implement a sharing environment so as to provide the most efficient use of the spectrum, thereby ensuring the greatest possibility of public choice and resul tant competition between services. XLVII.PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 48. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this Report and Order, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  604, is contained in Appendix B. 49. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Steve Selwyn at (202) 418- 2160, internet: sselwyn@fcc.gov, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. L.ORDERING CLAUSES 51. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 302, 303(c), 303(e), 303(f), 303(r) and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 302, 303(c), 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), and 403, this Report and Order IS ADOPTED and that Parts 2, 25, 74, 76, and 101 of the Commission's Rules ARE AMENDED, as specified in Appendix A, effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. 52. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, as required by Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and as set forth in Appendix B, IS ADOPTED. 53. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information Bureau SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to the Chi