WPCr6 2 BW *urier 12pt (10cpi)3|d A Roman (TT)CG Times (Bold)RomanWP MultinationalA Roman (TT)HPLAIISI.WRSx  @,,,G# X@2CS ZU3|oHP LaserJet IIISiPostScriptHPLAIISI.WRSbX  Pg9C,,,G# P2evFpk,footnote reference# a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2k4vtOa5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2   2 a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers :`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2 l +  a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2%   a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2W3a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2  S3a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2>eB 'PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:d<d<$YYdCCddooCYd<d<+oodCCddddCo4<5<6D=7=Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g4''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g5&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g64+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g7&-.  . 2L8>9v 0?:oK;LTechnical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g8&/0  . MACNormal9;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#Footnote:Íčfootnote tex#;'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#2Q<iL=/N>~N?i@Pheader<Ax 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# reference=;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1>&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2?I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2VV@^QAO9SB TCUheading 3@F` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!A!!#d\  PCP#CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileBW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentCiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#2XDrVEVFrWGWa2AgendaDa1AgendaAgenda ItemsE7D yP ) I. a3AgendaFHeadingChapter HeadingGJ d  ) I. ׃  2[HXIYJdZK|ZRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheadingI0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and BoldldeddJ+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateK X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟ2_L[M1[\N1]O1^DRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offL@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5M 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5Nf 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11OL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   2bP1 `QnQaRaSd@bLEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14P 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a DocumentQK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedRN X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeSB*d. 2gTjbU@cVE_eW-fHIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and UnderscoredT V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsUu H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math InvoiceV ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatWD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   2llX8hY8;iZsj[XlINVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math InvoiceX:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math MacroYz 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math InvoiceZ+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle[2 n\[l][l^[Tm_[mSMALLSmall Typestyle\FINEFine Typestyle]LARGELarge Typestyle^EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle_2q`[ PfQ  )a [ PfQO 2xdDqeqflvg/xStyle 12Dutch Italics 11.5d$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIeJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabsf )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsgDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  2E{hxi|yjzkzStyle 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Fonth4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5i$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Pointj$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5k$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO 2*lw{m|no%Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Pointl$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advancedm U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggni )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediateo )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2p\qprrqseSUpdateInitial Codes for Update Modulep )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2*- 'GV@6FDocument Style=(%8'GBV*%- 'G.Eq56` ` ` 3*- 'GW@6FDocument Style=(%8'GBW*%- 'G.Er7 8 . 4*- 'GX@6FDocument Style=(%8'GBX*%- 'G.Es 9: 2teuOvpwR5*- 'GY@6FDocument Style=(%8'GBY*%- 'G.Et ;< 6*- 'GZ@6FDocument Style=(%8'GBZ*%- 'G.Eu*=>   7*- 'G[@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB[*%- 'G.Ev?@` ` ` 8*- 'G\@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.Ew8AB@   2xyzF{9*- 'G]@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.ExACD@` `  ` ` ` 10- 'G^@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB^*%- 'G.Ey0E F    11- 'G_@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.EzJGH` ` @  ` `  12- 'G`@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.E{SIJ` `  @  2י|ɖ}~>13- 'Ga@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.E|\KL` `  @hh# hhh 14- 'Gb@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.E}eMN` `  hh#@( hh# 15- 'Gc@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.E~nOP` `  hh#(@- ( 16- 'Gd@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.EwQR` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2i ÚH͛17- 'Ge@6FDocument Style=(%8'GBe*%- 'G.EFST *  ׃  18- 'Gf@6FTechnical Document Style'GBf*%- 'G.E&UV  . 19- 'Gg@6FTechnical Document Style'GBg*%- 'G.E&WX  . 20- 'Gh@6FTechnical Document Style'GBh*%- 'G.E*YZ    20ĝt21- 'Gi@6FTechnical Document Style'GBi*%- 'G.E'[\   22- 'Gj@6FTechnical Document Style'GBj*%- 'G.E&]^   23- 'Gk@6FTechnical Document Style'GBk*%- 'G.E4_$`     24- 'Gl@6FTechnical Document Style'GBl*%- 'G.E&ab  . 2+]25- 'Gm@6FTechnical Document Style'GBm*%- 'G.E&cd  . Format Downl@6FFormat Downloaded DocumentGBr*%- 'G.EUgh XX    X\ #d6X@7@#Word222Null@6FWord222Null% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E1{1|#/x PX##/x PX#HEADING 7@6F* 9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E0p Zwp x (#DDDDDD#&a\  PG;&P# 4 hp x (##&a\  PG;&P# 2أgHEADING 6@6FF 9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E0p Zwp x (#DDDDDD#&a\  PG;&P# 4 hp x (##&a\  PG;&P# HEADING 5@6FT 9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E0p Zwp x (#DDDDDD#&a\  PG;&P# 4 hp x (##&a\  PG;&P# HEADING 4@6Fb 9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E0 Zwp x (#rr#&a\  PG;&P# 4 hp x (##&a\  PG;&P# NORMAL INDEN@6Fp 9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E'4 <DL!T$#&a\  PG;&P##&a\  PG;&P#2DwQȯenumlev1G@6F~ 9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E$p  N hp x (#aa#&a\  P G;&P#4` hp x (##&a\  P!G;&P#footnote ref@6Ffootnote reference%8'GB*%- 'G.Ez#V\  P"UP#Default Para@6FDefault Paragraph Font8'GB*%- 'G.EPPpage number@6Fpage number% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.EZ2vLNF26- 'G@6Ffootnote text =(%8'GB*%- 'G.Ef\??USlist- 'G@6Flist 9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.Ef??endnote refe@6Fendnote reference%8'GB*%- 'G.Ezz#Xj\  P#G;XP##c P$7P#line number@6Fline number% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.Eww#Xj\  P%G;XP##c P&7P#2^Highlight@6FMiddle Article Highlight'GB*%- 'G.E''#G }'Y##\9> (P(YP#HeadlineG@6FHeadline for newsletter8'GB*%- 'G.E''#> })Y##\9> (P*YP#2nd line Hea@6F2nd line headline%8'GB*%- 'G.E''#b> }+Y##\9> (P,YP#Graphics hea@6FHeadlines for graphics8'GB*%- 'G.E** #o> P}-YP##\9> (P.YP# 24P:Graphics bod@6Fchart data % =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E** #Alo> P}/YXP##\9> (P0YP# Article head@6FHeadline for new article'GB*%- 'G.E*'#r"z1C# #\9> (P2YP# endnote text@6Fendnote text% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.Ew#X}xP37XP##I2P4QP#toc 1 'G@6Ftoc 19% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E.$(#`` hp x (#2fdtoc 2 'G@6Ftoc 29% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E.$` (#`` hp x (#toc 3 'G@6Ftoc 39% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E.$` (#` hp x (#toc 4 'G@6Ftoc 49% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E.$ (#` hp x (#toc 5 'G@6Ftoc 59% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E.$h(#` hp x (#2@@toc 6 'G@6Ftoc 69% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E.$(# ` hp x (#toc 7 'G@6Ftoc 79% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.EZPtoc 8 'G@6Ftoc 89% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E.$(# ` hp x (#toc 9 'G@6Ftoc 99% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E.$(#`` hp x (#2rPpindex 1'G@6Findex 19% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E.$` (#` hp x (#index 2'G@6Findex 29% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E.$` (#`` hp x (#toa heading@6Ftoa heading% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E.$(#` hp x (#caption'G@6Fcaption9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.Ew#X}xP57XP##I2P6QP#2F8_Equation Ca@6F_Equation Caption%8'GB*%- 'G.Eww#X}xP77XP##I2P8QP#27- 'G@6FDefault Paragraph Font8'GB*%- 'G.E#X}xP97XP##&sxP:7&P#HEADING 9@6F 9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E'34 <DL!T$#c P;7P##c P<7P#HEADING 8@6F 9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E'34 <DL!T$#c P=7P##c P>7P#2_pq$ee28- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.E` ` ` 29- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.E  . 30- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.E  31- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.E  2p$&32- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.E*   33- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.E` ` ` 34- 'G@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.E8@   35- 'G@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.EA@` `  ` ` ` 2,36- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.E0    37- 'G@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.EJ` ` @  ` `  38- 'G@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.ES` `  @  39- 'G@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.E\` `  @hh# hhh 2H40- 'G@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 41- 'G@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.En` `  hh#(@- ( 42- 'G@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 43- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.EF *  ׃  2@44- 'G@6FTechnical Document Style'GB*%- 'G.E&  . 45- 'G@6FTechnical Document Style'GB*%- 'G.E&  . 46- 'G@6FTechnical Document Style'GB*%- 'G.E*    47- 'G@6FTechnical Document Style'GB*%- 'G.E'   2r;48- 'G@6FTechnical Document Style'GB*%- 'G.E&   49- 'G@6FTechnical Document Style'GB*%- 'G.E4$     50- 'G@6FTechnical Document Style'GB*%- 'G.E&  . 51- 'G@6FTechnical Document Style'GB*%- 'G.E&  . 2652- 'G@6F 9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E'4 <DL!T$#&a\  P?G;&P##&a\  P@G;&P#53- 'G@6Ffootnote reference%8'GB*%- 'G.ER#V\  PAUP#54- 'G@6FDefault Paragraph Font8'GB*%- 'G.E((55- 'G@6Ffootnote text =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E>4??US2dy56- 'G@6Fendnote reference%8'GB*%- 'G.ERR#Xj\  PBG;XP##B\  PCUP#57- 'G@6F_Equation Caption%8'GB*%- 'G.EOO#XX2PDQXP##I2PEQP#58- 'G@6FFormat Downloaded DocumentGB*%- 'G.EUOP XX    #\ #d6X@7@#Bld/Und'G@6FBold and Underline Text8'GB*%- 'G.EQR  2ppqe`59- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.EST` ` ` 60- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.EUV` ` ` 61- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.EW X . 62- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.E YZ 2e\p_63- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.E [\ 64- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.E*]^   65- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.E_`` ` ` 66- 'G@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.E8ab@   2#S67- 'G @6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.EAcd@` `  ` ` ` 68- 'G!@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB!*%- 'G.E0e f    69- 'G"@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.EJgh` ` @  ` `  70- 'G#@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.ESij` `  @  2K71- 'G$@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.E\kl` `  @hh# hhh 72- 'G%@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.Eemn` `  hh#@( hh# 73- 'G&@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.Enop` `  hh#(@- ( 74- 'G'@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.Ewqr` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2vU75- 'G(@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB(*%- 'G.EFst D*  ׃  76- 'G)@6FTechnical Document Style'GB)*%- 'G.E&uv  . 77- 'G*@6FTechnical Document Style'GB**%- 'G.E&wx  . 78- 'G+@6FTechnical Document Style'GB+*%- 'G.E*yz    2 =79- 'G,@6FTechnical Document Style'GB,*%- 'G.E'{|   80- 'G-@6FTechnical Document Style'GB-*%- 'G.E&}~   81- 'G.@6FTechnical Document Style'GB.*%- 'G.E4$     82- 'G/@6FTechnical Document Style'GB/*%- 'G.E&  . 2m 8  W  83- 'G0@6FTechnical Document Style'GB0*%- 'G.E&  . 84- 'G1@6F9% =(%8'GB1*%- 'G.E'4 <DL!T$#&a\  PG;&P##&a\  PG;&P#85- 'G2@6Ffootnote reference%8'GB2*%- 'G.E>#V\  PUP#86- 'G3@6FDefault Paragraph Font8'GB3*%- 'G.E2 A 87- 'G4@6Ffootnote text =(%8'GB4*%- 'G.E* ??US88- 'G5@6Fendnote reference%8'GB5*%- 'G.E>>#Xj\  PG;XP##B\  PUP#89- 'G6@6F_Equation Caption%8'GB6*%- 'G.E;;#XX2PQXP##I2PQP#90- 'G7@6FFormat Downloaded DocumentGB7*%- 'G.EU XX    \\ #d6X@7@#2g)V- 'G8@6FTriangle9% =(%8'GB8*%- 'G.Ea192.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers !*% 'G*%8@   a292.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers !*% 'G*%A@` `  ` ` ` a392.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers !*% 'G*%J` ` @  ` `  2,Na492.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers !*% 'G*%S` `  @  a592.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers !*% 'G*%\` `  @hh# hhh a692.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers !*% 'G*%e` `  hh#@( hh# a792.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers !*% 'G*%n` `  hh#(@- ( 2HFa892.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers !*% 'G*%w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp a193.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%8@   a293.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%A@` `  ` ` ` a393.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%J` ` @  ` `  2@>a493.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%S` `  @  a593.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%\` `  @hh# hhh a693.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%e` `  hh#@( hh# "5@^S8*88S:888888828888888S8Sb.yJyJyJyJyJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.ySySySySySySySySySySyJySySySySyR]SyJyJ.yof8yEf.SSSyyyyyySSyySSySo8yy8Sof8JoyAJAJ]y]y]ffy.Sfo?.SASSooffAS.8]fy]yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyoyoyoyyyyyyooyyfSfyfSyfyJSJSJJJJfyfy.SES8yyyNS.f.SS..S.J8fSyyfA.8y.fJyJySgSoJSJooJ]?t]S[[Ssee*y?A-wS..n[Cfx?xWkRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwheSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS8*88S:888888828888888S8Sb.yJyJyJyJyJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.ySySySySySySySySySySyJySySySySyR]SyJyJSyJoJoJoJoJygfJfJfJfJySySySySySySySyS8.8.8.8.s]A.ySf.f?f.f?f.ySySySySySySyo8o8o8]A]A]A]Af?f.f.ySySySySySySyySfJfJfJySySf.ySo8]?xxxO{x `KX6pC2\xup9 xICX/xC8t:x2p}wCX2@#L!!<"S^2NoddCCCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdNdzzozzzC8CrdCddYdYCdo88d8odddNN8oYdYNF,FrC2CC!CCCCCCCCCCd8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddoooozYddddzYdzdddYYYYdYYYYdddddooNdNdNCNddCdz8zCzCzCz8oooddNNNoNoNoNoNzCzCzCoooozYzNzNNF2ddNdddddd5d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd X2 3'3'Standard3'3'Current Windows FormRSbX  * j=q X2 #o\  PC^XP#  X2y b#t4  p(ACX#Federal Communications Commission`(#FCC 97370  yxdddyj  Њ#]\  PCP#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G;CXP#    Before the V FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  X2Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  Bp(#҇  X2In the Matter of ,hhh)  Xv2` `  ,hhh) X_2Amendment of Part 25 of thehh)  XH2Commission's Rules to Establishhh)  X12Rules and Policies Pertaininghh) ppX X 2to the Second Processing Round hh)  X 2of the NonVoice, NonGeostationary)ppX X 2Mobile Satellite Servicehhh)ppX " 0*0*0*J " IB Docket No. 96220HH0*0*0*$ p0*0*Hԯ X 2 REPORT AND ORDER ă  X2Adopted: October 8, 1997hhppXReleased: October 15, 1997 By the Commission:  X42 TABLE OF CONTENTS ă  X2Topic ` `  ,hhhppX  Paragraph Numbers X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:NonGeostationary MobileSatellite System, Order and Authorization, 11 FCC Rcd 1358 (1995) ("VITA  yO -Authorization").#x6X@`7pX@#(#r  X-rrn7.44LEO One USA Corporation ("LEO One") filed an application for a new Little  X-LEO system and in September, 1994, we placed LEO One's application on public notice./ am yO - rԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#We placed LEO One's application on public notice on September 16, 1994 prior to granting the first Little  yO- rLEO license on October 20, 1994, the second on July 21, 1995, and the third on November 13, 1995. See  yO}- rSatellite Application Acceptable for Filing Cutoff Established for Additional Applications, Public Notice, Report No. DS1459 (September 16, 1994) ("Public Notice").(#r/  X-In the Public Notice, we established a cutoff date for filing applications to be considered concurrently with LEO One's application. In response, four entities filed applications for new Little LEO systems: CTA Commercial Systems, Inc. ("CTA"), ESat, Inc. ("ESat"), Final Analysis Communication Services, Inc. ("Final Analysis"), and GE American  X1-Communications, Inc. ("GE Americom"). Two first round licensees, VITA and Orbcomm, filed modifications to their licensed systems to use additional frequency bands within the  X -WARC92 allocation.A  am yO4- rzԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#NonVoice NonGeostationary Low Earth Orbit Satellite Applications Accepted for Filing, Public Notice,  yO-Report No. DS1484 (November 25, 1994).#x6X@`7pX@#(#rA These modifications were treated as part of the second processing  X -round. In addition, Starsys (hereinafter referred to as "GEStarsys")  am yOu- r>ԍrrnGE American Communications, Inc. subsequently acquired an 80 percent equity interest in #X\  P6G;P#Starsys Global  yO=-Positioning, Inc.#x6X@`7pX@#(#r filed an amendment on April 25, 1994, after the cutoff date for filing applications in the first processing round,  X -proposing use of additional frequency bands in the WARC92 allocations. We found this filing to be a "major amendment" and deferred its consideration to the second processing  X-round.0am yOq!-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#See GEStarsys Authorization  19, 21.#x6X@`7pX@#(#rƺ Consequently, all three first round Little LEO licensees became applicants in the second processing round. Thus, initially there were a total of eight applicants in the second processing round.  XK-  X4-rrn8.44At the 1995 World Radio Conference ("WRC95"), additional uplink spectrum was allocated for the Little LEO service. The WRC95 spectrum consists of the 399.9400.05 MHz, 455456 MHz, and 459460 MHz frequency bands. The 399.9400.05 MHz frequency",''ZZ "  X-band is allocated worldwide and domestically for land MSS use.am yOy- r[ԍrrnInternational Telecommunication Union, Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference, Art. S5 at 119 (1995); 47 C.F.R.  2.106; Footnotes US319, US326.(#r The 455456 MHz and the 459460 MHz frequency bands are allocated for MSS use in International Telecommunication Union ("ITU") Region 2 only and are proposed to be allocated domestically for MSS use in a  X-pending Commission proceeding.X am yO- rԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#See Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate the 455456 MHz, and 459460 MHz bands  yOT- rto the MobileSatellite Service, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 97214, FCC 97363 (rel.  yO -October 14, 1997). ITU Region 2 encompasses the countries in the northern hemisphere and Greenland.#x6X@`7pX@#(#r  X-rrn9.44In October, 1996, we issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the "Notice")X@am yO~ - rԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#Amendment of Part 25 of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to the Second  yOF - rNProcessing Round of the NonVoice NonGeostationary Mobile Satellite Service, Notice Of Proposed  yO-Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 96220, FCC 96426 (released October 29, 1996).#x6X@`7pX@#(#r proposing service rules to select licensees from among the applicants in the second processing  X_-round. In the Notice we proposed to: (1) limit eligibility in the second processing round to applicants who are not already Little LEO licensees or their affiliates; (2) restrict a second round licensee from transferring its license to an existing Little LEO licensee or its affiliate for a fiveyear period; (3) adopt a strict financial qualification standard for second round applicants; (4) license up to three new Little LEO systems; (5) conduct an auction to select licensees if there were more qualified applicants than available spectrum; (6) require that systems be equipped with position determination equipment; and (7) prohibit exclusive agreements between Little LEO licensees and foreign countries. In addition, we solicited comments regarding establishing a priority for second round licensees to use WRC95 and  X-WRC97 spectrum for their licensed systems. In response to the Notice, each of the existing Little LEO licensees objected to our proposal to exclude their participation in the second processing round. Generally, commenters expressed both support and opposition for each of our proposals, with two exceptions. Commenters were unanimous in their opposition to auctions and a requirement that Little LEO mobile user terminals be equipped with position determination devices.  X-  X-rrn10.44Since our release of the Notice, GEStarsys returned its first round authorization to  X-the Commission ` am yO - rLԍrrnSee Letter dated August 4, 1997, from John DiMarco, President, Starsys Global Positioning, Inc., to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal Communications Commission ("GEStarsys Letter").(#r  and withdrew its second round application.DX am yOA#- rԍrrnSee Letter dated August 25, 1997, from Peter A. Rohrbach, Counsel for Starsys Global Positioning, Inc., to  r|Thomas S. Tycz, Chief, Satellite and Radiocommunication Division, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission.(#rD Similarly, GE Americom",''ZZr"  X-withdrew its second round application.-Xam yOy- rԍrrnSee Letter dated August 25, 1997, from Philip V. Otero, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, GE  r|American Communications, Inc., to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.(#r- Orbcomm's parent  X-corporation, Orbital Sciences Corporation, acquired certain of the assets of CTA Incorporated, parent of CTA, including the stock of CTA under a separate agreement between Orbital  X-Sciences Corporation and CTA Incorporated.Tam yOT- r.ԍrrnSee Letter dated August 14, 1997, from Phillip L. Spector, Attorney for CTA Commercial Systems, Inc., to  ryWilliam Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal Communications Commission ("CTA Letter"); Letter dated August  r.19, 1997, from Stephen L. Goodman, Counsel for Orbcomm, to Peter Cowhey, Chief, International Bureau,  rFederal Communications Commission ("Orbcomm Letter"). According to the Orbcomm Letter, Orbital  r\Sciences possesses certain contractual rights that enable it to cause the withdrawal of CTA's second round  rapplication. These rights arise from that certain Agreement Regarding FCC Application, dated August 14,  yO - r1997, between Orbital Sciences Corporation and CTA Incorporated. SeeĠCTA Letter at Appendix B. CTA  rLhas filed an amendment to its second round application indicating that it is assigning the application to CTA  yO-Incorporated. Id. (#rT The Joint Proposal specifies that under that agreement Orbital Sciences Corporation has agreed to cause the withdrawal of CTA's second round application. Subsequent to these events, the applicants, over the course of a series of discussions, developed a spectrum sharing plan that culminated in the filing of the Joint  X_-Proposal that proposes to accommodate all of the second round applicants. J_ am yO- rԍrrnSee Joint Proposal; see also Orbcomm Letter; Letter dated August 15, 1997, from Robert A. Mazer, Albert  rShuldiner, Counsel for LEO One USA Corporation, to Peter Cowhey, Chief, International Bureau, Federal  r Communications Commission ("LEO One Letter"); Memorandum dated August 22, 1997, from Fred W.  rKThompson, President, ESat, to Cassandra Thomas, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission  r("ESat Letter"); Letter dated August 28, 1997, from Aileen A. Pisciotta and Peter A. Batacan, Counsel to  r?Final Analysis Communications Services, Inc., to Peter Cowhey, Chief, International Bureau, Federal  rCommunications Commission ("Final Analysis Letter"); and Letter dated August 28, 1997, from Joseph A.  r/Godles, Attorney for Volunteers in Technical Assistance, to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal Communications Commission ("VITA Letter"). (#rJ  XH-T Ã  X1-III. DISCUSSION ă  X -rrn11.44A primary Commission objective is to create a regulatory environment that fosters the provision of efficient, innovative, and costeffective NVNG MSS communications services  X -in the United States. am O!<ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#See 47 U.S.C.  151.#x6X@`7pX@# (#rƥ To accomplish this objective, our satellite service rules (1) encourage entry by qualified applicants, (2) discourage "warehousing" of orbitspectrum resources by those who will not use it or who are underfinanced and (3) provide operators with maximum" (,''ZZ "  X-flexibility to tailor their offerings to meet their customers' requirements.z am yOy- rԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#See, e.g., Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to a Mobile  yOA- rjSatellite Service in the 16101626.5/2483.52500 MHz Frequency Band, 9 FCC Rcd 5936 (1994) ("Big LEO  yO - rOrder"); Policies and Procedures for Licensing of Space and Earth Stations in the Radiodetermination Satellite  yO-Service, 104 FCC 2d 650 (1986) ("RDSS Order").#x6X@`7pX@#(#rz This "Open Skies" policy has enabled the United States to lead the world in developing and implementing satellite technology. In this second Little LEO processing round, our objective is to foster an environment that promotes competition through new entry and produces new and innovative service offerings in the Little LEO service markets for the benefit of the United States public. Accordingly, after review of the comments and other information filed in response to our  Xv-Notice, we adopt a spectrum sharing plan that permits licensing three new Little LEO systems and two existing Little LEO licensees in WARC92 spectrum, a relaxed financial qualification standard for applicants, a rule establishing eligibility requirements for a second processing round licensee to use a limited amount of future downlink spectrum allocated to the Little LEO service, and service rules to govern the licensing and operation of second round systems. We do not adopt auction rules because our spectrum sharing plan avoids mutual exclusivity among applicants. We also do not impose a position determination requirement for Little LEO user terminals. Finally, we prohibit Little LEO licensees from entering exclusive service agreements with foreign countries.  X- A. Second Round Licensing Procedures. rrn  Xb-rrn1.44New Entrant Requirement  X4-rrn12.44In the Notice, we proposed a new entrant policy that would exclude existing Little  X-LEO licensees and their affiliates from participation in the second processing round.Xam yO~-ԍrrnSee Notice  11.(#rX The  X-purpose of the new entrant requirement is to promote competition and multiple entry of new  X-entrants in the emerging Little LEO service markets.B@am yO-ԍrrnId.(#rB The existing Little LEO licensees and  X-Iridium, a Big LEO system,Xam yOY- rԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#A "Big LEO system" is a commercial LEO satellite network capable of providing both voice and data MSS  ron a global basis that operates in the frequency bands above 1 GHz. Big LEO systems are capable of  yO -providing many of the same services that Little LEO satellite systems will be able to offer to users. #x6X@`7pX@#(#r oppose the adoption of such a rule on various grounds.D am yOy"- rLԍrrnSee Comments of Orbcomm at 9, 1516 and Comments of GEStarsys at 3 (contending that the new entrant  rproposal constituted unlawful retroactive rulemaking and did not provide sufficient notice to existing Little  rLEO licensees); Comments of VITA; and Comments of Iridium at 24 (new entrant policy might limit  r[investment in U.S. satellite systems, is not necessary to promote competition and may prevent U.S. systems from being truly competitive).(#rD New",''ZZr" applicants CTA, ESat, Final Analysis, and LEO One generally support our adoption of the  X-new entrant proposal.am yOb-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#See Comments of CTA at 2; Comments of ESat at 1617; Comments of Final Analysis at 4; LEO One at 56. #x6X@`7pX@#(#r  X-rrn13.44After we released our Notice, several events have occurred which, taken as a  X-whole, have caused us to reassess the proposal in our Notice. Specifically, GEStarsys returned its first round license and withdrew its second round application. Similarly, GE Americom withdrew its second round application. In addition, Orbital Sciences Corporation has acquired CTA's satellite division and agreed to cause the withdrawal of CTA's pending second round application. These events have resulted in additional spectrum becoming available for use by the remaining second round applicants. Moreover, sufficient spectrum is available to permit first round licensees, Orbcomm and VITA, to increase the size of their existing systems without reducing the entry opportunities for the new entrants applying in the second round. Under these circumstances, allowing Orbcomm and VITA to participate in the second processing round is unlikely to impede new entrants into the Little LEO service markets. To the contrary, it is more likely to enhance competition in all Little LEO service  X -markets. Consequently, we do not adopt our new entrant proposal in this Report and Order because it is not necessary to promote competition and entry opportunities for new Little LEO systems in the emerging Little LEO service markets.  Xb-  XK-rrn14.44Since the release of our Notice, the second processing round applicants have  X4-mutually agreed upon a spectrum sharing plan that accommodates all remaining second round applicants in the available spectrum. The spectrum sharing plan agreed to by the second  X-round applicants forms the basis for the spectrum sharing plan that we adopt in this Report  X-and Order. In proceedings, such as this one, in which more applicants apply for spectrum than the available spectrum can accommodate, the Commission encourages applicants to work together to develop a spectrum sharing plan that accommodates all of the applicants, including new entrants. This approach is likely to promote competition and result in a more efficient use of the available spectrum for a particular service than if the Commission is required to choose which applicants will operate in the spectrum being licensed. Our  Xe-concern about existing Little LEO licensees obtaining additional spectrum in the second processing round to the exclusion of potential new entrants has been alleviated by the  X7-spectrum sharing plan that we adopt in this Report and Order that accommodates all second round applicants.  X-2. Holding Period  X -rrn15.44In the Notice, we proposed prohibiting a second round Little LEO licensee from transferring or assigning its license to an existing Little LEO licensee or its affiliate for a  X"-period of five years."Xam X&-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#Notice  18#Xj\  P6G;XP#.(#rƜ This rule would apply whether or not the license is awarded through"" ,''ZZ!" Commission decision, settlement, auctions, or some other licensing selection mechanism. This proposal reflected our concern that allowing existing Little LEO licensees or their affiliates to obtain a second round license soon after its grant would undercut our new entrant  X-proposal designed to promote competition in the Little LEO service markets through the entry of new competitors. LEO One agrees that competition would be adversely affected if a  X-second round license could be transferred or assigned to a first round licensee.am yO-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#Comments of LEO One at 23.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rơ  X_-  rrn16.44We decline to adopt the holding period proposal in our Notice. Because we are not adopting our new entrant proposal, the holding period proposal, which was designed to prevent applicants from circumventing the proposed new entrant rule is no longer necessary. Accordingly, we will not impose a rule that, as a general matter, will restrict the transfer or assignment of a second round Little LEO license to an existing Little LEO licensee.  X -rrn17.44We will, however, review requests to transfer or assign second round Little LEO  X -licenses on a casebycase basis to determine whether such disposition is in the public  X -interest.O Xam yO-ԍrrn47 C.F.R.  25.118.(#rO Under this public interest analysis, we will review these requests to ensure that their grant would be consistent with our goals of promoting competition and opportunities for new entry in the Little LEO service markets. In doing so, we will have the flexibility to consider different competitive configurations in the future if warranted by thenprevailing  XK-market conditions. !Kam yO- r\ԍrrnSee DBS Order, In the Matter of Revision of Rules and Policies for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, FCC 95507, IB Docket No. 95168, PP Docket No. 93253,  55 (1995).(#r   X4-  X-rrn3. Financial Qualifications  X-rrn18.44Under our existing rules, a Little LEO applicant must demonstrate that it has the  X-finances necessary to construct, launch and operate two satellites in its system for at least one  X-year ("relaxed financial standard")."@am yO-ԍrrnId. #X\  P6G;P# 25.142 (a)(4).#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rƤ However, in the Notice, we proposed that an applicant in the second processing round demonstrate that it has the finances necessary to construct,  X-launch and operate its entire system for one year ("strict financial standard").#am yO"-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#See Notice  40.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rƦ Because our spectrum sharing plan can accommodate all of the second processing round applicants in the  Xe-available spectrum, we find it unnecessary to require a second round applicant to meet the strict financial standard. Therefore, we will retain our relaxed financial standard to determine a second round applicant's financial qualification for a license. "  ` #,''ZZ"Ԍ X-rrn19.44GEStarsys, LEO One, and Orbcomm support the adoption of the strict financial  X-standard, while Final Analysis and CTA oppose it.4$am yOb- r[ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#Comments of CTA at 16; Comments of Final Analysis at 42 ; Comments of GEStarsys at 26; Comments of  yO*-LEO One at 38; Comments of Orbcomm at 34.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#r4 CTA argues that a strict financial standard would impede competition and it would be unfair to impose a standard stricter than  X-that applied to the applicants in the first processing round.% am yO-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#Comments of CTA at 16.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rƝ In addition, CTA asserts that adopting a strict financial standard is unnecessary because application of our new entrant proposal will enable us to accommodate all remaining second round applicants in the  Xv-available spectrum.&vam yO -ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#Id.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rƐ Final Analysis contends that the system would be commercially viable  X_-before it is fully implemented, and therefore, a strict standard is not necessary.'_@am yOP-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#Comments of Final Analysis at 42.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rƨ  X1-rrn20.44Adoption of a relaxed financial standard is consistent with the approach used in the first Little LEO processing round where we could accommodate all of the applicants in the  X -available spectrum.( am yO-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#47 C.F.R.  25.142(a)(4).#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rƣ Similarly, the spectrum sharing plan we adopt in this Report and Order will accommodate all second round applicants within the spectrum available in the second processing round. This is also consistent with our financial requirements for other satellite services where we have tailored the financial requirements on the basis of entry opportunities  X -in a particular service.`) ` am yO-ԍrrnSee e.g., RDSS Order.(#r` Thus, we will apply the relaxed financial standard to second round  X-applicants and will not adopt our proposal to apply a strict financial standard.  Xb-rrn4.  Use of WRC95 and WRC97 Spectrum  X4-rrn21.44 In the Notice, we requested comment on how we should use the WRC95  X-spectrum and any spectrum allocated for Little LEO service at WRC97.* am yO-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#Notice  78.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rƜ Some commenters suggest that we allow first and second round Little LEO licensees to use WRC95 spectrum  X-to meet their second round application requirements.+ am yO #-ԍrrnComments of Final Analysis at 2930; Comments of Orbcomm at 45; and Comments of ESat at 14. (#rƖ Others urge us to provide first and second round Little LEO licensees with priority to use WRC95 and WRC97 spectrum" +,''ZZ"  X-before any other applicant.,am yOy- r[ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#Comments of CTA at 7, 27; Comments of ESat at 14; Comments of Final Analysis at 2932; Comments of  XA-GEStarsys at 13; Comments of LEO One at 38.#Xj\  P6G;XP# #]\  PCP#See also Final Analysis Letter#o\  PCXP#.(#rƱ As explained below, we decline to assign the WRC95 uplink  X-spectrum for use by second round Little LEO licensees in this Report and Order. However, we find it to be in the public interest to establish requirements pursuant to which a second processing round licensee will be eligible to use a limited amount of WRC97 and/or future downlink spectrum allocations for the Little LEO service to the extent necessary to implement  X-its Little LEO system as applied for in the second processing round.`-Aam yO -ԍrrnSee, infra,  3537.(#r`  X_-rrn22.44 At WRC95, uplink spectrum was allocated for the Little LEO service, specifically, the 399.9400.05 MHz (worldwide use), 455456 MHz, and 459460 MHz frequency bands (Region 2 use only). We have allocated the 399.9400.05 MHz band for domestic use and have proposed domestically allocating the 455456 MHz and 459460 MHz bands for this service. The Joint Proposal does not contemplate use of the 399.90400.05  X -MHz band by any of the applicants to implement their systems.R. am yOn-ԍrrnSee Joint Proposal.(#rR #Xj\  P6G;XP#Therefore, we will not  X -include use of this spectrum in the spectrum sharing plan we adopt in this Report and Order. Most of the pending applicants do, however, request that we assign the WRC95 455456  X -MHz and 459460 MHz frequency bands to second round licensees for uplink operations./ aam yO-ԍrrnId. at 9. These uplink bands are allocated on a worldwide, coprimary basis to the Little LEO service.(#rƦ However, as previously noted, these bands have been proposed to be domestically allocated for the Little LEO service. If the bands are domestically allocated for the Little LEO service, the second round applicants may request that the Commission make this spectrum available for use by first and second round Little LEO licensees.  X-rrn23.44Commenters from the petroleum and oil spill industry expressed concern that domestic allocation of the 459460 MHz frequency band for Little LEO service will adversely  X-impact their ability to support oil spill containment and cleanup activities.b0am yO- r]ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#See Comments of American Petroleum Institute; Comments of Clean Casco Bay, Inc.; Comments of  yOY-Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc.; Comments of Texas General Land Office.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rb A 25 kHz channel in the 459460 MHz frequency band is currently allocated to the petroleum radio service and is dedicated on a primary basis for communications related to oil spill containment and clean up activities. This concern is beyond the scope of this proceeding. More appropriately, it should be addressed separately in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding commenced to domestically allocate the 455456 MHz and the 459460 MHz frequency bands for NVNG MSS service. "N I 0,''ZZ"Ԍ X-rrn24.44The Association of American Railroads and Affiliated American Railroads urge us  X-to use caution in assigning the WRC95 and WRC97 spectrum.1am yOb-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#Comments of Affiliated American Railroads; Comments of the Association of American Railroads.(#rƽ They ask that the Commission not consider use of such spectrum until there has been a demonstration through proper studies that such transmissions will not cause interference to land mobile  X-communications.2Xam yO-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#Reply Comments of Affiliated American Railroads; Comments of the Association of American Railroads.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#r As discussed below, the spectrum sharing plan that we adopt in this  X-Report and Order does not assign WRC95 spectrum for use by the second round applicants, however, it does establish a first priority for one second round licensee to utilize a limited amount of WRC97 or future downlink spectrum allocated by the ITU to the NVNG MSS service. Any spectrum allocated to the NVNG MSS service in the future by the ITU still will be required to be domestically allocated by the Commission. As with all domestic allocations of spectrum for satellite service, we will commence the necessary proceedings to ensure that spectrum will be used consistent with the public interest and in a manner that avoids harmful interference to other authorized users. The domestic allocation process and service rules governing the use of any spectrum are sufficient to ensure interferencefree operations between satellite and land mobile services. We encourage both satellite and land mobile service providers to work together to resolve any sharing issues that may arise.  Xy-#Xj\  P6G;XP#B. rrnSpectrum Sharing Plan  XK-rrn1.44Overview  X-rrn25.44Upon review of the comments, the Joint Proposal, and our own technical analysis, we conclude that with appropriate transmission techniques, proper system coordination, and timesharing of frequencies, there is sufficient spectrum available in the second processing round to issue five Little LEO service licenses: three licenses to second round applicants not previously authorized by the Commission to provide Little LEO service and two licenses to existing Little LEO licensees for modifications to their systems. We will use the WARC92, WRC97 and future downlink spectrum allocated worldwide and domestically to the Little  X|-LEO service to license second round applicants.3|am yO- rԍrrnThe WARC92 spectrum includes the 148150.05 MHz, 400.15401 MHz and 137138 MHz frequency bands. (#rƨ Our Notice proposed licensing up to three  Xe-Little LEO systems.X4e@am yOV"-ԍrrnSee Notice  42.(#rX However, in light of recent events, including, but not limited to, GEStarsys's return of its first round authorization to the Commission, Orbital Sciences Corporation's agreement to acquire second round applicant CTA and withdraw CTA's application from the second processing round, and the filing of the Joint Proposal evidencing the applicants' mutual agreement upon a spectrum sharing plan, we conclude that sufficient"  4,''ZZy" spectrum now exists to accommodate the remaining applicants in the Little LEO second  X-processing round.Z5am yOb-ԍrrnSee, infra,  10. (#rZ  X-rrn26.44We remind the applicants that this Report and Order adopts a licensing scheme and  X-service rules that will be applicable to second processing round Little LEO licensees. The spectrum sharing plan adopted herein does not assure that a second round applicant will be licensed to operate its system in the spectrum it is designated to operate in pursuant to this  X_-Report and Order. We will make licensing determinations after evaluating the technical and financial qualifications of the applicants that file an amendment to their second processing  X1-round applications to conform to the rules and policies adopted in this Report and Order.61Xam yO: - rԍrrnThis Report and Order requires that second round applicants must file an amended application to apply for  yO -a second round license. See  129132. (#r  X -rrn27.44We will use the WARC92 spectrum available for Little LEO service in the 148150.05 MHz uplink band and the 137138 MHz and 400.15401 MHz downlink bands. When we established the second processing round, we invited applications for service in these  X -frequency bands and in the Notice we proposed licensing systems in the WARC92 frequency  X -bands.&7 am X-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#See Public Notice; #Xj\  P6G;XP# #]\  PCP#see also Notice  4142#o\  PCXP#.(#r& In their first round sharing plan, Orbcomm, GE-Starsys, and VITA agreed that additional systems could be accommodated in these bands by using frequency division multiple access ("FDMA") and code division multiple access ("CDMA") transmission  Xb-techniques.8baam yOt-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#See Negotiated Rulemaking Report at 89.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rƵ In the Notice, we sought comment on the use of WRC95 spectrum by  XK-applicants in the second processing round.X9Kam yO-ԍrrnSee Notice  78.(#rX However, none of the applicants expresses an interest in operating its system in the WRC95 399.9400.05 MHz band. As previously discussed, the 455456 MHz and 459460 MHz bands have been proposed to be domestically allocated for the Little LEO service in a pending Commission rulemaking proceeding. Consequently, we will not include any WRC95 spectrum in the spectrum sharing plan we adopt for the second processing round.  X-rrn44a. System 1  X|-rrn28.44One new Little LEO applicant can operate a system ("System 1") in the 148150.05 MHz (uplink) band and the 137137.025 MHz, 400.15400.505 MHz and 400.645401 MHz (downlink) bands. The spectrum will be used most efficiently if System 1 utilizes"N 9,''ZZ" FDMA/TDMA transmission techniques. The second round applicants and LEO One agreed in  X-the Joint Proposal that LEO One will operate as System 1.W:am yOb-ԍrrnSee Joint Proposal at 2.(#rW  X-rrn29.44In the uplink bands, System 1 will share approximately 355 kHz of spectrum in the 148148.855 MHz band with System 2, System 3 and Orbcomm, subject to coordination with the French S801 system. System 1 will preserve approximately 500 kHz of contiguous spectrum in the 148148.855 MHz band that will not be shared by System 1, System 2 or Orbcomm for use by System 3 and the S801 system. System 1 may also share the 148.855148.905 MHz band with System 2 and Orbcomm if System 3 does not use this band for feeder links. Subject to S801's use of the 148.905148.955 MHz band for feeder links, System 1 will share the 148.905149.81 MHz band with System 2 and first round licensee Orbcomm, provided, that Orbcomm shall have exclusive use of the 149.585149.635 MHz portion of the band for feeder link use until it relocates its feeder uplink to the 150150.05 MHz band. System 1 shall operate its feeder uplinks in the 149.95150 MHz band subject to coordination with the Russian Radio Navigation Satellite Service ("RNSS") system.  X-rrn30.44In the downlink bands, a System 1 licensee shall have the right to operate in the 400.15400.505 MHz and 400.645401 MHz bands on a timeshared basis with the Department of Defense ("DoD") Defense Meteorological Satellite Program ("DMSP") system. Upon request to the Commission, System 1 shall be permitted to operate in the 400.505400.5517 MHz, 400.5517400.5983 MHz, and/or the 400.5983400.645 MHz bands outside of a processing round upon System 2's surrender of its authorization, notification to the Commission that it is discontinuing its use of these bands or the Commission's revocation of System 2's authorization, subject to the same conditions imposed upon System 2's operations in these bands (including, but not limited to, permission from the Government of France to operate in the 400.5517400.5983 MHz band and timesharing with VITA in the adjacent bands ). System 1's use of the 137137.025 MHz band must be coordinated with France's S801 system and on a noninterference basis to adjacent bands. System 1 shall notify the Commission within 30 days of discontinuing its use of the 137137.025 MHz band.  XN-rrn44b. System 2  X -rrn31.44A second new Little LEO applicant can operate a system ("System 2") in the 148 X -150.05 MHz (uplink) and the 400.15401 MHz and 137138 MHz (downlink) bands.;X Xam yO"- rԍrrnThe spectrum available to System 2 in the 137138 MHz band includes: 137.025137.175 MHz, 137.333 r137.4125 MHz, 137.475137.525 MHz, 137.595137.6450 MHz, 137.753137.787 MHz, 137.825138 MHz  yO#-and 137137.025 MHz band, subject to the conditions set forth in this Report and Order.(#rƋ The spectrum available to System 2 will be used most efficiently if System 2 utilizes"x;,''ZZ" FDMA/TDMA transmission techniques. The second round applicants and Final Analysis  X-agreed in the Joint Proposal that Final Analysis will operate as System 2.W<am yOb-ԍrrnSee Joint Proposal at 2.(#rW  X-rrn32.44In the uplink bands, System 2 will share approximately 355 kHz of spectrum in the 148148.855 MHz band with System 1, System 3 and Orbcomm, subject to coordination with the S801 system. System 2 will preserve approximately 500 kHz of contiguous spectrum in the 148148.855 MHz band that will not be shared by System 1, System 2 or Orbcomm for use by System 3 and the S801 system. If System 3 does not use the 148.855148.905 MHz band for feeder links, System 2 may share this band with System 1 and Orbcomm. Subject to S801's use of the 148.905148.955 MHz band for feeder links, System 2 will share the 148.905149.81 MHz band with System 1 and first round licensee Orbcomm, provided, that Orbcomm shall have exclusive use of the 149.585149.635 MHz portion of the band for feeder link use until it relocates its feeder uplink to the 150150.05 MHz band. System 2 shall operate its feeder links in the 150150.05 MHz band, subject to coordination with the Russian RNSS system. However, if System 2 is authorized to relocate its feeder uplinks to spectrum allocated to the Little LEO service at WRC97 or a future World Radiocommunication Conference and domestically by the Commission, System 2 shall vacate the 150150.05 MHz band and Orbcomm shall relocate its feeder uplinks from the 149.585149.635 MHz band to the 150150.05 MHz band.  X4-rrn33.44In the 400.15401 MHz downlink band, upon a written request from System 2, the Commission will initiate a communication to the Government of France requesting permission for System 2 to operate in the 400.5517400.5983 MHz band, previously coordinated for use by the S801 system, until the S801 system commences operations in this spectrum. System 2 shall operate in the 400.505400.5517 MHz band subject to timesharing this spectrum with VITA's satellite authorized in the first processing round. Likewise, System 2 shall operate in the 400.5983400.645 MHz band subject to timesharing this spectrum with the VITA satellite applied for in the second processing round if VITA receives authorization from the Commission to construct, launch and operate this satellite. System 2 shall notify the Commission in writing within 30 days of discontinuing its use of any portion of the 400.505400.645 MHz band.  X -rrn34.44In the 137138 MHz downlink band, System 2 will timeshare with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") use of the 137.333137.367 MHz, 137.475137.525 MHz, 137.595137.645 MHz and 137.753137.787 MHz (the "NOAA channels") consistent with NOAA's implementation of the NOAA channels and 137.025137.175 MHz and 137.825138 MHz (the "NOAA bands"). System 2 will timeshare use of the 137.375137.4125 MHz band subject to coordination with the Russian METEOR system. System 2's use of the 137138 MHz band must be coordinated with System 3, consistent with the agreements GEStarsys entered into with NOAA and the S801 system and with Orbcomm with respect to sharing adjacent channels. Finally, upon request to the"h$X<,''ZZF#" Commission, System 2 will be permitted to operate in the 137137.025 MHz band outside of a processing round upon System 1's surrender of its authorization, notification to the Commission that it is discontinuing its use of these bands or the Commission's revocation of System 1's authorization, subject to the same conditions imposed upon System 1's operations in these bands by the Commission or through coordinations with other authorized users.  Xv-rrn35.44In addition, System 2 shall have a first priority to apply for a limited amount of downlink spectrum allocated to the Little LEO service. Some of the commenters suggest that we grant first and second round Little LEO licensees priority to use future spectrum  X1-allocations for the Little LEO service.=1am yO - rԍrrn#]\  PCP#Comments of LEO One at 38; Comments of Final Analysis at 29 and Final Analysis Letter; and Comments of ESat at 16.(#r Final Analysis contends that, without the use of additional spectrum, System 2 under the proposed spectrum sharing plan lacks sufficient service downlink spectrum to implement a large Little LEO system capable of providing  X -intermittent to near realtime Little LEO services.> am yO-ԍrrn#]\  PCP#See Final Analysis Letter.(#rƀ All the second round applicants have  X -agreed that System 2 should have access to future spectrum to implement its system.R? am yO6-ԍrrnSee Joint Proposal.(#rR A significant portion of the spectrum assigned to System 2 in the 137138 MHz band is allocated on a secondary basis to the Little LEO service and must be shared on a noninterference basis with United States government and foreign satellite systems operating  Xy-primary services in such spectrum.o@y@am yOj- rԍrrnThe NOAA bands assigned to System 2 under our spectrum sharing plan consist of approximately 325 kHz  rof spectrum allocated to the Little LEO service on a secondary, noninterference basis to space operation  rservice, meteorological satellite service and space research service systems. 47 C.F.R.  2.106; Table of  rFrequency Allocations. In addition to United States government users, a number of foreign countries have expressed an interest in operating satellite systems in the NOAA bands.(#ro Thus, this spectrum may be unavailable or of limited use to System 2 for service downlinks thereby threatening System 2's commercial viability  XK-and competition among service providers in the Little LEO service markets.AK am yO-ԍrrn#]\  PCP#See Little LEO Order  20.(#rƏ Making available a limited amount of future downlink spectrum allocated for the Little LEO service solely to System 2 for the purpose of completing the implementation of its second round system is likely to result in three large systems capable of providing a wide range of Little LEO services. More large systems providing a wide array of Little LEO services promotes" A,''ZZ"  X-consumer choice, rapid service deployment and lower prices for consumers.2Bxam yOy- rԍrrnFinal Analysis indicates that a third competitor could significantly lower price/cost margins. Comments of  rFinal Analysis at Exhibit 1, p. 15. A simple Cournot model indicates that moving from two to four  r{competitors in a market would lower the ratio of price to marginal cost from 2 to 4/3. Hal R. Varian,  yO- r>Intermediate Microeconomics at 453 (NY: W.W. Norton & Co., 1987). We believe that the distinctive  rcharacteristics of Little LEO systems and the entry barriers for new Little LEO systems imply a significant  rrisk that having only two Little LEO commercial systems would allow Little LEO operators to exercise market power.(#r2 This is in the public interest.  X-rrn36.44Accordingly, we adopt a rule granting System 2 a first priority to apply for and use a limited amount of downlink spectrum duly allocated worldwide and domestically to the NVNG MSS service by the ITU, at WRC97 or a subsequent World Radiocommunication  Xv-Conference, and by the Commission, respectively (the "Future Spectrum").TCvam yO/- rLԍrrnThe Commission may adopt rules that are necessary to carry out the provisions of the Communications Act  yO- rof 1934, as amended, or execute its functions. See 47 U.S.C.  303(r) and 4(i); Notice of Proposed  yO- rRulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 11675,  23 (1996) (the Commission may adopt rules under Sections 303(r) and  yO- r.4(i) to carry out its spectrum management obligations); see also Loyola Univ. v. FCC, 670 F.2d 1222, 1226  r.(D.C. Cir. 1982) (the Commission's discretion is particularly great when the issues involve technical matters and questions about priorities in usage of the radio spectrum). (#rT System 2 will be eligible to apply for and use the first 210 kHz of Future Spectrum plus spectrum sufficient  XH-to account for Doppler frequency shiftD H am yOy- rԍrrn"Doppler frequency shift" is the apparent change of the transmitted frequency due to the movement of the  r.transmitter and/or receiver of the transmitted frequency. For example, when a transmitting LEO satellite is  rmoving away from the receiver, the frequency of the transmission received is lower than the frequency transmitted by the satellite and higher when a transmitting LEO satellite is approaching the receiver.(#r in the Future Spectrum (the "Supplemental  X1-Spectrum") in order to fully implement its Little LEO system.E( 1ham yOJ- r#]\  PCP#эrrnFinal Analysis, the System 2 designee in the Joint Proposal, proposes operating nine service downlinks as part  yO- rof its system. See Amendment to Application of Final Analysis, dated February 26, 1996. Final Analysis  restimates that it can operate only two of nine proposed service downlinks in the spectrum assigned to System  r2 if it is unable to operate in the 400.5517400.5983 MHz band coordinated with the French system S801.  yOj- rSee Final Analysis Letter. We estimate that a Little LEO system designed to operate service links at 19.2 kbps  r>will require approximately 30 kHz of emission bandwidth for a service downlink channel. Assuming that  rFinal Analysis would require up to seven additional service downlinks to implement a large Little LEO  rsystem this would require use of approximately 210 kHz of Future Spectrum. If Final Analysis is able to  rLutilize the 400.5517400.5983 MHz band for service downlinks, it estimates that it can operate four of nine  rservice downlinks in the spectrum assigned to System 2. Thus, it would require only an additional 150 kHz  rof Future Spectrum to implement its proposed system. The amount of Supplemental Spectrum roughly  rapproximates the 325 kHz of spectrum in the NOAA bands that is allocated on a secondary, noninterference basis to the Little LEO service and that is assigned to System 2. (#rƨ System 2's application for and use of the Supplemental Spectrum is subject to the Commission's Rules and policies, such reasonable operating conditions as may be imposed by the Commission, and international spectrum coordination requirements. For so long as System 2 is permitted by" XE,''ZZ " the Government of France to operate in the 400.5517400.5983 MHz band coordinated with the French system S801, the Supplemental Spectrum shall be reduced to an amount equivalent to 150 kHz of Future Spectrum plus spectrum sufficient to account for Doppler frequency shift in the Future Spectrum.  X-rrn37.44System 2's priority to apply for and use the Supplemental Spectrum is conditioned on System 2's compliance with the terms and conditions of its second processing round license, including, but not limited to, its system construction, launch and operation milestones, and any modifications thereto, and the Commission's Rules. System 2's priority to apply for  X1-and use the Supplemental Spectrum as provided for in this Report and Order shall automatically terminate upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) System 2 being permitted to operate in the Supplemental Spectrum; (b) the expiration or revocation of its second processing round license; (c) the discontinuance of use of the spectrum assigned to it under its second processing round license; or (d) the surrender of its second round license to the Commission. The Commission delegates authority to the International Bureau to take the actions necessary to implement System 2's priority to apply for and use the Supplemental Spectrum. rrn44  X4-rrn44c. System 3  X-rrn38.44A third new Little LEO applicant can operate a system ("System 3") in the 148148.905 MHz (uplink) and the 137.0725137.9275 MHz (downlink) spectrum formerly licensed to GEStarsys. System 3 will be required to be a spread spectrum system because NOAA, an existing authorized user of this band, has taken the position that it will not time X-share with more than one Little LEO systemYFam yO#-ԍrrnSee, infra,  52.(#rY (it will be timesharing the NOAA bands and the NOAA channels with System 2) and a CDMA system is more likely to avoid causing harmful interference to the other authorized users of this frequency band. ESat proposes a  Xe-CDMA system}GeXam yOn-ԍrrnSee Comments of ESat at 1. See also ESat Letter.(#r} and its six satellite constellation is particularly wellsuited to operate in the spectrum assigned to System 3. Moreover, the second round applicants and ESat agreed in  X7-the Joint Proposal that ESat will operate as System 3.WH7am yO!-ԍrrnSee Joint Proposal at 2.(#rW  X -rrn39.44System 3's operations in the 148148.905 MHz uplink band shall be consistent with the agreement GEStarsys entered into with Orbcomm and the S801 system. System 3 will share approximately 355 kHz of spectrum in the 148148.855 MHz band with System 1, System 2 and Orbcomm. System 3 shall have the use of approximately 500 kHz of" xH,''ZZ" contiguous spectrum in the 148148.855 MHz band that will not be shared with System 1, System 2 and Orbcomm for use with the S801 system. The 148.855148.905 MHz band shall be used for feeder links, however, System 1, System 2 and Orbcomm may share this band if System 3 does not use this band for feeder links.  X-rrn40.44System 3 shall operate in the 137.0725137.9275 MHz downlink band consistent with the coordination agreements GEStarsys entered into with NOAA, Orbcomm and the S801 system. System 3's operation in this band also will be subject to coordination with the Russian METEOR system. Finally, System 3 will share the 137138 MHz band with System 2.  X -rrn44d. Orbcomm  X -rrn41.44Sufficient spectrum also exists to accommodate modifications to the Orbcomm system applied for in the second processing round. Orbcomm shall operate as a FDMA/TDMA system. The second round applicants and Orbcomm agreed in the Joint  X-Proposal that Orbcomm will operate in the uplink and downlink spectrum set forth below.NIam yO -ԍrrnId. at 7.(#rN  Xb-rrn42.44In the uplink bands, Orbcomm shall share approximately 355 kHz of spectrum in the 148148.855 MHz band with System 1, System 2 and System 3, subject to coordination with the French S801 system. Orbcomm shall preserve approximately 500 kHz of contiguous spectrum in the 148148.855 MHz band that will not be shared by System 1, System 2 or Orbcomm for use by System 3 and the S801 system. Orbcomm may also share the 148.855148.905 MHz band with System 1 and Orbcomm if System 3 does not use this band for feeder links. Subject to S801's use of the 148.905148.955 MHz band for feeder links, first round licensee Orbcomm shall share the 148.905149.81 MHz band with System 1 and System 2, provided, that Orbcomm shall have exclusive use of the 149.585149.635 MHz portion of the band for feeder link use until it relocates its feeder uplink to the 150150.05 MHz band. Orbcomm and VITA shall share the 149.81149.90 MHz band as authorized in the first processing round. Orbcomm shall relocate its feeder links to the 150150.05 MHz band, when System 2 vacates this band. Upon such relocation, Orbcomm shall cease its use of the 149.585149.635 MHz band for feeder links and System 1, System 2 and Orbcomm shall share this portion of the band for service links. Orbcomm's relocation of its feeder links to the 150150.05 MHz band shall be subject to the conditions imposed on System 2 in connection with its coordination of this spectrum with the Russian RNSS system.  X -rrn43.44Orbcomm shall share the 137138 MHz downlink frequency band with System 3. Specifically, Orbcomm shall operate in the 137.175137.3275 MHz, 137.4225137.4725 MHz, 137.535137.585 MHz, 137.650137.750 MHz and 137.7875137.8125 MHz portions of the frequency band, subject to the Commission's approval of Orbcomm's pending modification request of its first round license. Orbcomm shall timeshare the 137.275137.325 MHz band,"h$XI,''ZZF#" subject to coordination with the Russian METEOR system. Orbcomm's use of the spectrum in the 137138 MHz band shall also be coordinated with NOAA and System 2 with respect to sharing adjacent channels.  X-rrn44e. VITA  Xv-rrn44.44We also find that sufficient spectrum exists to accommodate VITA's second round modification request. VITA shall also operate as a FDMA/TDMA system. The second round applicants and VITA agreed in the Joint Proposal that VITA will operate in the uplink and  X1-downlink spectrum discussed below.NJ1am yO -ԍrrnId. at 8.(#rN  X -rrn45.44VITA shall continue to share the 149.81149.90 MHz uplink frequency band with Orbcomm as authorized in the first processing round.  X -rrn46.44In the downlink spectrum, VITA is currently authorized to operate one satellite in the 400.505400.5517 MHz band and will timeshare this band with System 2. VITA shall operate the satellite applied for in the second processing round in the 400.5983400.645 MHz band, if authorized by the Commission, on a timeshared basis with System 2. Upon System 2's surrender of its authorization, notification to the Commission that it is discontinuing its use of these bands or the Commission's termination of System 2's authorization, System 1 may operate in the 400.505400.5517 MHz and 400.5983400.645 MHz bands, subject to the same conditions imposed upon System 2's operations in these bands by the Commission or in connection with timesharing with VITA. VITA shall notify the Commission within 30 days of discontinuing its use of this band.  X-rrn2. Satellite System Requirements  X-rrn47.44 In order for multiple Little LEO systems to share the WARC92 spectrum available for use by second processing round applicants, we must consider service link and  Xe-feeder link spectrum requirementsIKeXam yOn- rԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#A user terminal communicates with a LEO satellite via a low power service link. A gateway station  yO6-communicates with a LEO satellite via a high power feeder link.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rI and the transmission techniques to be employed by a Little LEO system for transmissions between user terminals, gateways and LEO satellites in the proposed systems.  X -rrn48.44In assigning spectrum to second processing round applicants, we must be cognizant of the limitations on use of the spectrum for service link and feeder link transmissions. Service links transmit data messages between a user terminal and a satellite. It is possible for the proposed Little LEO systems to share their service link spectrum with other Little LEO systems because such transmissions are not continuous and are less likely to be affected by"!K,''ZZ " sharing. Feeder links aggregate service link data messages and transmit them between a gateway and a satellite. Satellite systems generally require continuous access to their feeder link spectrum. This is true for most of the proposed Little LEO systems. Continuous feeder link transmissions are required between a system's gateways and satellites in order to provide for the prompt relay of all service link messages to system users. Consequently, sharing of  X-feeder link spectrum among multiple Little LEO systems can be problematic.^Lam yO- rԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#See Comments of Final Analysis at 17 (citing the Commission's Little LEO Notice, 8 FCC Rcd 6330,  12);  yO-See also Negotiated Rulemaking Report  12.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#r^ We believe that each Little LEO system deploying multiple satellites will require at least 50 kHz of  X_-feeder link spectrum for uplink and downlink communicationsM_ am yO0 -ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#See Negotiated Rulemaking Report  12. #Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rƸ in order to accommodate the highspeed data transmissions necessary for gatewaysatellite feeder link communications and to compensate for the effects of Doppler frequency shift and other spectrum propagation characteristics.  X -rrn49.44In finding ways to share the WARC92 spectrum among multiple Little LEO systems on an interferencefree basis, we must also consider the transmission technique used by a satellite system to communicate with its user terminals. Three transmission techniques can be used by a satellite system to communicate with multiple users within a single system and to avoid causing harmful interference to the user terminals of multiple systems: frequency division multiple access ("FDMA"), time division multiple access ("TDMA") and code division multiple access ("CDMA"). FDMA and TDMA systems operate in channels within a frequency band. FDMA systems communicate with multiple user terminals by transmitting simultaneously in different channels in the same frequency band. TDMA systems communicate with multiple user terminals by transmitting in alternating time slots within a single channel in a frequency band. CDMA systems communicate simultaneously with multiple user terminals by transmitting coded signals spread across an entire frequency band or subband, not in channels like an FDMA or TDMA system. The coded signals ensure that each signal is received by its proper destination.  X-rrn50.44Because the WARC92 spectrum allocated to the Little LEO service is limited, a Little LEO system must find ways to share spectrum for service and feeder links and avoid causing harmful interference to other authorized users. Frequency sharing techniques, such as dynamic channel activity assignment ("DCAAS"), timesharing and frequency hopping, allow multiple satellite systems to share the same frequency bands. DCAAS allows an FDMA or TDMA system to scan the channels in a frequency band and assign transmissions to channels that are not currently in use by other users of the band. Timesharing allows multiple satellite systems to use the same frequency band at different times and thereby avoid interfering with other satellite systems or authorized users operating in the band. Frequency hopping enables a Little LEO satellite to switch or "hop" to an alternative subband within a frequency band when the subband it is using becomes unavailable. A Little LEO system employing a"!M,''ZZ " combination of these sharing techniques can avoid interference to other systems and greatly increase the system's availability to its users. rrn  X-rrn3. Analysis of the Plan  X-rrn51.44The spectrum sharing plan we adopt accommodates the entry of three new Little LEO system applicants: LEO One, Final Analysis and ESat. In addition, it accommodates the system expansion requests of existing Little LEO licensees, Orbcomm and VITA.  X1-rrn52.44Our Notice proposed up to three systems operating in the available spectrum.XN1am yO -ԍrrnSee Notice  42.(#rX However, in light of GEStarsys's return of its first round license, the withdrawal of other second round applicants, and the agreement of the remaining applicants upon a spectrum sharing plan, the fivesystem spectrum sharing plan proposed by the second round applicants  X -that we adopt in this Report and Order is technically feasible and constitutes a more efficient use of the available WARC92 spectrum than does our original threesystem proposal. Moreover, it respects the positions taken by existing United States government satellite systems against timesharing their respective downlink spectrum with more than one Little  Xy-LEO system.O yXam yO- rԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#See Letter dated May 22, 1997, from Richard D. Parlow, Associate Administrator, Spectrum Management,  rUnited States Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration, to  rPeter Cowhey, Chief, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (the "Second NTIA Letter")  rLenclosing correspondence received from the Department of the Air Force and the United States Department  rof Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration Interdepartment Radio Advisory  yOj- rCommittee; Letter dated May 7, 1997, from Richard D. Parlow, Associate Administrator, Spectrum  rManagement, United States Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information  rAdministration, to Peter Cowhey, Chief, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Ref. IB  rDocket No. 96220 (the "First NTIA Letter" and the Second NTIA Letter collectively, the "NTIA Letters"),  renclosing correspondence received from the Department of the Air Force and the National Oceanic and  yOR- ryAtmospheric Administration; Letter dated April 21, 1997, from Frank M. Holderness, Army Representative,  rBruce Swearingen, Navy Representative, Nelson Pollack, Air Force Representative, and Richard Barth,  rZCommerce Representative, Office of Frequency Management, United States Department of Commerce National  rOceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to Norbert Schroeder, Acting Chairman, IRAC, United States  yOr- rDepartment of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration. See also, infra,   yO:-100, 106.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#r Finally, the fivesystem spectrum sharing plan, rather than our proposed threesystem plan, is more likely to serve our goals of promoting competition in the provision of Little LEO services and fostering the delivery of Little LEO services to market as quickly as possible at reasonable prices to consumers.  X-rrn53.44In developing a spectrum sharing plan, we evaluated a number of factors. First, we considered the spectrum sharing plan mutually agreed to by the second round applicants"O,''ZZs"  X-that was filed with the Commission.RPam yOy-ԍrrnSee Joint Proposal.(#rR Second, we considered whether operating additional  X-systems in the bands would cause unacceptable interferenceGQXam yO- r\ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#Interference generally occurs when transmissions from one system disrupt the ability of another system's  yO-satellite and earth terminals to receive transmissions.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rG to or negatively impact the  X-capacity!R am yO3- rjԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#The capacity of a system can generally be defined as the total number of subscribers a system can serve when  rzat maximum operation. Capacity can be diminished by reducing the amount of spectrum available for use  rby a system. The amount of spectrum available for use by a system may decrease if other systems are using  yO -the same spectrum. #Xj\  P6G;XP#(#r! of existing systems, including United States government systems. Third, we sought to ensure that New Little LEO Applicants were given access to an adequate amount of spectrum in order to implement viable systems. We also sought to accommodate the additional spectrum requests of existing Little LEO licensees, if possible. Based on these assessments, we determined which portions of the uplink and downlink bands could best accommodate service links and feeder links for new systems and existing Little LEO licensees.  X -rrn44a. Uplink Band (148150.05 MHz)  X -rrn54.44The second round applicants will uplink in a number of subbands in the 148150.05 MHz band. System 1, System 2 and Orbcomm will operate their service links in the 148148.25 MHz and 148.75148.855 MHz subbands to be used by System 3 and the S801 system. System 1 and System 2 will also uplink in the 148.905149.81 MHz subband used by first round licensee, Orbcomm. In addition, Orbcomm and VITA will share the 149.81149.90 MHz uplink. Initially, System 1 and System 2 will operate their feeder links in the 149.95150 MHz and 150150.05 MHz bands, respectively, and Orbcomm will operate its feeder links in the 149.585149.635 MHz band.  X-rrn55.44Second processing round licensees must coordinate their systems and avoid causing harmful interference into numerous satellite and terrestrial systems in the 148150.05 MHz band using the rules established in the Negotiated Rulemaking Report. Orbcomm, VITA, S801, and the Russian system, TSYKADA, are using or will use the 148150.05 MHz uplink band. In the Negotiated Rulemaking Report, first round licensees agreed to restrict VITA's operations to the 149.81149.9 MHz band, Orbcomm's operations to the 148.905149.9 MHz  X-band, and GEStarsys operations to the 148148.905 MHz band.Sam yO"-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#See Negotiated Rulemaking Report.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rƮ The agreement also reserved the 148.855148.905 MHz band for the GEStarsys feeder uplinks and the 149.585149.635 MHz band for Orbcomm's feeder uplinks. Orbcomm will continue to have exclusive use of the 50 kHz of spectrum at 149.585149.635 MHz until it relocates its feeder uplinks to the 150150.05 MHz band. In addition, as a result of recent international coordination"7( S,''ZZ" discussions with other administrations, S801 is expected to operate its service links in the  X-148148.905 MHz band and feeder links in the 149.9149.95 MHz band.jTam yOb- rԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#In the event that France is unable to successfully coordinate its S801 feeder link operations in the 149.9 r149.95 MHz band with the Russian RNSS system, the United States and France, at an April 1996 bilateral  rmeeting, agreed that the 148.905148.955 MHz band would be used by France for their feeder link operations.  rSince feeder link operations for a Little LEO system ordinarily require exclusive spectrum, System land  rMSystem 2 would not be able to operate in the 148.905148.955 MHz band. France will notify the United  yOJ-States if and when this occurs. The Commission will notify the affected licensee(s) accordingly. #Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rj Consequently, System 3 may be required to share its 50 kHz of feeder link spectrum at 148.855148.905 MHz with S801. The Russian system, TSYKADA is currently using the 149.9150.05 MHz band to provide RNSS service and the operations of System 1 and System 2 in these frequency bands will be required to be coordinated with TSYKADA.  X_-rrn56.44System 1, System 2 and Orbcomm will operate in the 148148.905 MHz subband, where System 3 will also operate, and in the 148.905149.81 MHz subband where Orbcomm is currently authorized to operate, subject to S801's use of the 148.905148.955 MHz band for feeder uplinks. This arrangement will result in the most efficient use of spectrum and avoid causing harmful interference into System 3, if System 1, System 2 and Orbcomm's system use DCAAS/FDMA transmission techniques. It is our view that the foregoing spectrum and system assignments represent the most technically feasible use of spectrum in the 148150.05 MHz uplink band.  X-rrn44 i. Sharing with System 3 (148148.25 MHz and 148.75148.855 MHz bands) Xr4 (##T$$%&B''0*,.8135@8:8D, Methodology for Evaluating Interference From NarrowBand MobileSatellite Networks to Spread rSpectrum DirectSequence MobileSatellite Networks Operating with Space Stations in LowEarth Orbit at  yO-- r/Frequencies Below 1 GHz.#footnote reference# GEStarsys has requested that we use this paper to analyze the effect on GE yO- rStarsys of new entrants into the band. See Comments of GEStarsys at 20. We assumed that the GEStarsys and the S801 CDMA systems are operating with twelve simultaneous users.(#r rrn(#ry Our calculations demonstrate that if System 3 is the only system in the 148148.855 MHz band, its link margin will be approximately 5 dB. When both System 3 and S801 are operating in the 148148.855 MHz band, System 3's link margin will decline from approximately 5 dB to  XH-2.5 dB . When S801 and System 1 and System 2 are operating in the band, System 3's link  X1-margin will be approximately 1.5 dB.)tfootnote reference)#footnote reference#Y 1 yO- r0ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#Although both System 1 and System 2 will operate in the same spectrum as System 3, our analysis of  rinterference is based on assigning FDMA to the 148.0148.25 MHz and 148.75148.855 MHz portions of  yO- rSystem 3's frequency band. #footnote reference#TDMA and FDMA systems operate in channels. Thus, a channel can only be  yOJ-occupied by one system, either System 1, System 2, or Orbcomm, at a time. #Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rƐ Thus, System 3's link margin is unlikely to be reduced further with Orbcomm operating in this band.  X -)~footnote reference)#footnote reference#rrn60.44The expected reduction of System 3's link margin is tolerable as evidenced by E X -Sat's agreement to operate as System 3 in this spectrum.RZ  yO~-ԍrrnSee Joint Proposal.(#rR In the Little LEO Order, we stated  X -that system capacity may have to be decreased over time.[  yO!-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#Little LEO Order  20.(#rƋ Consequently, System 3 will be required to accept such a link margin reduction caused by the operations of System 1, System 2 and Orbcomm. Furthermore, the results of our analysis are supported by an analysis performed by GEStarsys before it withdrew from the second processing round. That analysis demonstrated that by avoiding System 3's center frequencies and placing multiple narrowband FDMA or TDMA carriers at the edges of System 3's spectrum band the impact to"K[,''ZZI"  X-System 3 is minimized.\iR yO)-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#See Comments of GEStarsys at 20 #footnote reference#(#r)_footnote reference) Thus, we conclude that it is desirable to operate three second round FDMA or TDMA systems at the band edges of System 3's uplink band. In order to obtain international recognition for this use, System 1, System 2 and Orbcomm will be required to be coordinated with the S801 system. As is general policy, the Commission will undertake the coordination of System 1's, System 2's and Orbcomm's operations in this band.  Xv-rrn44 ii. Sharing with Orbcomm (148.905149.81 MHz band)  X_-  XH-rrn61.44The operation of System 1 and System 2 in the 148.905149.81 MHz band will not significantly affect the system capacity of or cause harmful interference to Orbcomm's authorized system. System 1 and System 2 will share the 148.905149.81 MHz portion of the  X -band with Orbcomm. We anticipate that Orbcomm will #footnote reference#operate in accordance with DCAAS/FDMA transmission techniques to minimize interference among its system, System 1 and System 2.  X -rrn62.44System 1 and System 2 can operate in this band without causing harmful interference into the Orbcomm system. In contrast, LEO One proposes operating two new  Xy-systems in the spectrum in which Orbcomm is authorized.]yX yO-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#Comments of LEO One at 33.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rơ However, we are concerned about the impact that operating such additional systems in the spectrum will have on Orbcomm's capacity. Orbcomm's capacity will be affected if Orbcomm does not have a sufficient number of open channels on which to operate. In their comments, Orbcomm expresses concern that with the addition of NVNG systems to the 148.905149.90 MHz band,  X-there may not be a sufficient number of unoccupied channels, particularly at peak times.^ yO-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#See Comments of Orbcomm at 42.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rƫ Orbcomm suggests use of both the lower and upper portions of the 148149.90 MHz band  X-and use of the spectrum allocated at WRC95._x yO-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#Id.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rƖ Second round applicants have agreed that Orbcomm can operate in both the lower and upper parts of this band so this should provide  X-Orbcomm with a sufficient number of open channels on which to operate.R` yOc -ԍrrnSee Joint Proposal.(#rR  X|-rrn63.44In addition, because Orbcomm's system is designed to operate in accordance with DCAAS and FDMA transmission techniques, it can search for open channels using the  XN-available spectrum most efficiently.aN yO%-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#See Orbcomm Authorization  5.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rƮ As Orbcomm recognizes, by employing DCAAS and FDMA transmission techniques, System 1 and System 2 can also use the spectrum efficiently"7( a,''ZZ" and avoid causing harmful interference into Orbcomms uplink transmissions by detecting  X-open channels on which to transmit.b yOb-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#Comments of Orbcomm at 41.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rơ In order to accommodate System 1 and System 2, Orbcomm, a first round licensee, has agreed that it will no longer have exclusive spectrum in  X-the 148.955149.81 MHz portion of the frequency band.RcX yO-ԍrrnSee Joint Proposal.(#rR Use of DCAAS techniques by Orbcomm, System 1 and System 2 also increases the likelihood that the systems will be able to access a sufficient number of unoccupied channels without significantly diminishing Orbcomm's capacity.  XH-rrn64.44Orbcomm will have access to sufficient open channels and will not exclusively bear the burden of accommodating the new systems in the band since System 1, System 2 and Orbcomm will also operate in spectrum assigned to System 3. The increased amount of uplink spectrum assigned to System 1, System 2 and Orbcomm and each system's ability to use DCAAS ensures access to a sufficient number of unoccupied channels for these systems. Orbcomm will continue to operate in the 149.81149.9 MHz band with only VITA, as authorized in the first processing round.  X-rrn44 iii. Sharing the 149.95150.05 MHz band  Xy-)tfootnote reference)#footnote reference#  Xb-rrn65.44We will authorize System 1 to use the 149.95150 MHz portion and System 2 to  XK-use the 150150.05 MHz portion of the band, respectively for feeder links.Jd K yO- rԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#The United States and France agreed, at an April 1996 bilateral meeting, that the 149.9149.95 MHz band  rLwould be reserved for use by the French S801 system. Nonetheless, there is a need for System 1 and System  r2 to coordinate the use of this 50 kHz of spectrum with France since the French S801 system has priority  yO<-over System 1 and System 2 in the ITU coordination process. #Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rJ As discussed, Orbcomm will continue to operate its feeder links in the 149.585149.635 MHz band, however, if System 2 relocates its feeder uplinks to another frequency band in the future, Orbcomm shall relocate its feeder uplinks into the 150150.05 MHz band. Applicants generally sought 50 kHz or less of spectrum for their feeder links, and we have no reason to  X-believe that more spectrum is necessary for feeder link use.e yOY- rMԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#See Comments of GEStarsys at 12; Comments of Final Analysis at 16. After filing their comments, the  rsecond round applicants (excluding LEO One) indicated to the Commission that some applicants could operate  yO - rLtheir systems with less than 50 kHz of spectrum for feeder uplinks in the 148150.05 MHz uplink band. See  rMemorandum to Ruth Milkman from CTA, ESAT, Final Analysis, GEStarsys, Orbcomm and VITA, dated  yOy"-April 11, 1997.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rƲ Based on the requests of existing licensees and applicants, we believe that 50 kHz of spectrum will be sufficient for feeder uplink operations. Given that landbased gateways will be the primary users of feeder link spectrum, the 149.90150.05 MHz band is best used for feeder links because it is" e,''ZZ3"  X-allocated worldwide and useable only for land MSS, not aeronautical or maritime MSS.fX yOy- rԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#See 47 C.F.R.  2.106. In the Table of Frequency Allocations the 149150.05 MHz frequency band is  rinternationally and domestically allocated to land MSS on a coprimary basis. Land mobilesatellite service  yO -is a MSS in which mobile earth stations are located on land.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#r We agree with the commenters that sharing feeder uplinks among multiple Little LEO systems in the band would result in harmful interference to existing users and disrupt their  X-ability to use feeder link spectrum continuously.Cg yOT- rԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#See Comments of Final Analysis at 17. Orbcomm believes that sharing feeder uplinks is not possible. See  yO -Comments of Orbcomm at 41.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rC  X-rrn66.44The 149.90150.05 MHz band is restricted to land MSS use, not maritime or aeronautical MSS, and we believe the Russian satellite system, TSYKADA, is currently providing RNSS in the band. The 149.90150.05 MHz band is also subject to ITU Radio Regulation S5.220 which provides that land MSS shall not constrain the development and use  X1-of the RNSS service in the same band.)footnote reference)h1@ yO"-ԍrrnITU Radio Regulation S5.220 MOD (WRC95).#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rƉ Therefore, System 1 and System 2 are required to coordinate the use of this band with RNSS systems worldwide. We do not have substantial information concerning the RNSS systems that are currently or will be operating in the 149.90150.05 MHz band. As is general policy, the Commission will undertake coordination of commercial satellite systems operating in this band.  X -#footnote reference#  X -rrn44b. Downlink Band for Systems 1, 2 and VITA (400.15401 MHz) rrn  Xy-rrn67.44In the 400.15401 MHz downlink band, System 1 shall operate in the 400.15400.505 MHz and 400.645401 MHz portions of the band. In the future, the DoD expects to operate its DMSP system in the 400.15400.505 MHz and 400.645401 MHz portion of the band and System 1 shall timeshare this spectrum with the DoD DMSP system. DoD opposes timesharing with more than one Little LEO system operating in the 400.15401 MHz downlink band because of the increased risk of unacceptable interference into its DMSP  X-system and due to the absence of international acceptance of the timesharing methodology.ui yOp-ԍrrnSee NTIA Letters and DoD correspondence cited therein.(#ru In order to avoid interference and any capacity loss to the DoD system, System 1 must timeshare the band with DoD by employing frequency hopping or other timesharing techniques.  X-rrn68.44DoD is expected to merge its DMSP system with NOAA's meteorological satellite ("MetSat") system . Beginning in 1998, NOAA will be responsible for "on orbit" operations of the DMSP system, and NOAA will assume all command and control functions for the  XN-DMSP system by 2007. Our use of the terms "NOAA" and "DoD" in this Report and Order incorporates the separate systems operated by NOAA and DoD as well as the system resulting from NOAA's responsibility for DoD's "on orbit" operations." ` i,''ZZ"Ԍ X-ԙrrn69.44Timesharing will require System 1's satellites to avoid transmitting into the region on the Earth's surface into which the DoD satellites are then transmitting (the "protection area"). DoD plans to operate a satellite system worldwide that could consist of up to five satellites in the 400.15400.505 MHz and the 400.645401 MHz bands. VITA, System 2, and  X-S801 will operate in the center portions of the 400.15401 MHz band.j yO- r.ԍrrnSee Negotiated Rulemaking Report. The United States and France also agreed that the French S801 system would operate in the 400.5517400.5983 MHz band. (#r System 1 will operate in the 400.15400.505 and 400.645401 MHz parts of the band and must coordinate with and avoid causing harmful interference to DoD's use of these frequency bands.  XH-rrn70.44As stated in the Notice, we estimate that when DoD's five satellite system is operational a user in Washington, D.C. will have access to the system no more than 15.5  X -percent of the time, or approximately 4 hours per day.)=footnote reference)#footnote reference#~k iR yO -ԍrrnThe 15.5 percent is calculated using an elevation angle of 0 degrees.(#r~ Under a timesharing scheme, a large portion of the remaining 84.5 percent of the time, or approximately 20 hours per day, System 1 could operate in the DoD frequencies.  X -rrn71.44If System 1 were to employ frequency hopping, for example, the time that System 1 would be available to its customers would increase. Under a frequency hopping scheme, when a DoD satellite is using the 400.15400.505 MHz band to transmit to a particular region, System 1 would cease transmitting to that region and would switch to the 400.645401 MHz subband, not being used by DoD, before continuing its transmissions to that region. We recognize that not all second round applicants may be capable of employing the frequency hopping technique. Therefore, we will not mandate that System 1 use frequency hopping. However, we do believe that frequency hopping uses the limited amount of spectrum most efficiently, and we encourage second round applicants to incorporate this technique into their system design.  X-rrn72.44We do not assign specific feeder links in the 400.15401 MHz downlink band to System 1. We will allow System 1 and DoD to retain the flexibility to coordinate feeder link spectrum. Because of the requirement for System 1 to timeshare with DoD the use of channels in this band, System 1 will not be able to have a single dedicated feeder link channel in the 400.15401 MHz band. However, if System 1 employs both timesharing and frequency hopping techniques, we expect that it will be able to access enough spectrum to transmit feeder link information on a relatively continuous basis.  X -rrn73.44Given the significant national security interests involved, we emphasize that System 1's operations in the 400.15401 MHz band must avoid causing harmful interference into the DoD system worldwide. To protect the DoD system, if System 1 is causing unacceptable interference to the DoD system, the Commission will require that System 1 immediately terminate its interfering operations, wherever located, and the Commission will"!k,''ZZ " not hesitate to impose sanctions on System 1, including monetary forfeitures and license revocations, if appropriate. If NTIA notifies the Commission that DoD is receiving unacceptable interference from System 1, we will require that System 1 terminate its interfering operations immediately unless it demonstrates to our satisfaction, and that of NTIA, that it is not responsible for causing harmful interference into the DoD system. If System 1 operates in the 400.15401 MHz band, System 1 assumes the risk of any liability or damage that it and its directors, officers, employees, affiliates, agents and subcontractors may incur or suffer in connection with an interruption of its NVNG MSS service, in whole or in  XH-part, arising from or relating to its compliance or noncompliance with this condition.   X -rrn74.44 Also in the 400.15401 MHz downlink band, we will assign the 400.505400.5517 MHz and 400.5983400.645 MHz portions of the band to System 2. DoD is not authorized to operate in these portions of the band. System 2 will be required to timeshare the 400.505400.5517 MHz band with VITA, an existing authorized user. System 2 will also operate in the 400.5983400.645 MHz band on a timeshared basis with VITA's satellite applied for in the second processing round if VITA's satellite is authorized by the Commission. As discussed, GEStarsys has returned its first round authorization to the Commission, including use of this spectrum, and the Commission will use the 400.5983400.645 MHz portion of that  Xb-spectrum to accommodate System 2 and VITA.Ylb yO-ԍrrnSee, supra,  10.(#rY In the event that System 2's authorization to operate in the 400.505400.5517 MHz and/or 400.5983400.645 MHz bands is returned to the Commission, terminated by the Commission, or System 2 notifies the Commission that it is discontinuing use of this spectrum, upon written request to the Commission, System 1 will be permitted to operate in either or both of these bands outside of a processing round to the same extent and under the same conditions that System 2 was permitted to operate in the bands. The S801 system is coordinated to operate in the adjacent spectrum, the 400.5517400.5983 MHz band. Because of this coordination, this spectrum is not available for assignment to System 2 in this second processing round. However, upon System 2's written request, we shall initiate a communication to the Government of France requesting permission for System 2 to operate in the 400.5517400.5983 MHz band until the time the S801 system commences operations in this spectrum. If System 2's authorization to operate in the 400.5517400.5983 MHz band is returned to the Commission, terminated by the Commission, or System 2 notifies the Commission that it is discontinuing use of this spectrum, upon written request to the Commission, System 1 will be permitted to operate in this band outside of a processing round, subject to the same conditions imposed upon System 2, to the extent and under the same conditions that System 2 was permitted to operate in this spectrum. As is general policy, the Commission will undertake coordination of commercial satellite system operations in this band.  X!- )footnote reference)#footnote reference#  X"-rrn75.44VITA may operate one satellite applied for in the second processing round in the 400.5983400.645 MHz band on a timeshared basis with System 2 if the Commission"#Xl,''ZZe""  X-authorizes the VITA satellite in the second processing round.mmX yOy- rjԍrrnVITA states that it would consider timesharing this spectrum with a newlyauthorized second round licensee.  yOA- rSee VITA Letter. Because VITA has applied to operate one satellite in the 400.15401 MHz band, VITA appears wellsuited to operate in this spectrum.(#rm Prior to launch of VITA's second round satellite, System 2 will have primary use of the 400.5983400.645 MHz band. The spectrum assigned to VITA in our spectrum sharing plan approximates the amount of downlink spectrum relinquished by VITA to the S801 system in prior coordination negotiations and when this spectrum is added to VITA's existing authorization in the 400.505400.5517 MHz band will approximate the amount of uplink spectrum VITA is currently  Xv-authorized to operate in.?nXv yO - rԍrrnSee VITA Letter. VITA's use of the 400.5983400.645 MHz band would provide it with approximately 90  r kHz of downlink spectrum which would match its 90 kHz of uplink spectrum currently authorized in the 149.81149.9 MHz band.(#r?  XH-rrn44c. Downlink Band (137138 MHz) rrn  X -rrn76.44In the 137138 MHz downlink band, System 1 will operate in the 137137.025 MHz band. Due to the concerns about Little LEO user terminal emissions causing interference to civil and military aeronautical safety and navigational communications expressed in the Negotiated Rulemaking Report, this 25 kHz of spectrum is most useful for  X -gateway feeder links, not service downlinks.ho  yOw-ԍrrnSee Negotiated Rulemaking Report  10.(#rh System 1 will be required to coordinate its use of this 25 kHz of spectrum with the S801 system. In the event that System 1's authorization to operate in the 137137.025 MHz band is returned to the Commission, terminated by the Commission, or System 1 notifies the Commission that it is discontinuing use of this spectrum, upon written request to the Commission, System 2 will be permitted to operate in this band outside of a processing round to the same extent and under the same conditions that System 1 was permitted to operate in the band.  X-rrn77.44In order to avoid interference to and any capacity loss by the NOAA MetSat system, System 2 will be required to timeshare the 137.025137.175 MHz and 137.825138  X-MHz bands (the "NOAA bands")p yO! - rԍrrnSystem 2's operations in the NOAA bands must be on a secondary basis to existing authorized users. See  rITU Radio Regulations Article S5, Frequency Allocations. The Code of Federal Regulations indicates that  yO!- rthe NOAA bands are allocated to mobilesatellite service on a primary basis. See 47 C.F.R.  2.106, Table  r.of Allocations. This is a misprint in the Code of Federal Regulations. Mobilesatellite service in the NOAA bands is also allocated domestically on a secondary basis.(#rƆ and the 137.333137.367 MHz, 137.475137.525 MHz," H p,''ZZr"  X-137.595137.645 MHz, 137.753137.787 MHz bands (the "NOAA channels")qX yOy- rԍrrnThe NOAA channels are based on emission bandwidth and do not include the spectrum required to account  rfor the effects of Doppler shift. As a result, the spectrum assigned to System 2 in the 137138 MHz band has a wider bandwidth than the NOAA channels reflected in the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocation.(#rƊ with NOAA in a manner consistent with NOAA's implementation of the NOAA bands and the NOAA  X-channels.r  yOk- rԍrrnOngoing studies in the ITU Radiocommunication Sector ("ITUR") indicate that sharing between mobile rsatellite service downlinks and MetSats at 137138 MHz can be accomplished by using cofrequency  ravoidance (frequency hopping) in the same geographic area. See "Modification to Attachment 21; Report of the Fifth Meeting of ITUR Working Party 8D" (Geneva 1322 March 1996)  4.1.1.1.5.(#r NOAA opposes timesharing with more than one Little LEO system because insufficient technical studies have been conducted to provide assurance that such timesharing  X-will not cause harmful interference into the NOAA system.s yO% - r>ԍrrnSee NTIA Letters and correspondence cited therein from NOAA. See also NOAA Letter dated April 21, 1997, to NTIA. (#r System 2 shall also operate in the 137.367137.4125 MHz band adjacent to one of the NOAA channels and will timeshare the 137.375137.4125 MHz portion of this band, subject to coordination with the Russian  X_-METEOR system.xtX_(  yO8- ryԍrrnWe understand that the Russian METEOR system will be transitioning its MetSat system to the NOAA bands  rin the medium term. When the Russian METEOR system vacates these bands, the System 2 and Orbcomm will no longer be required to timeshare this spectrum with the Russian METEOR system.(#rx Because System 2 will be sharing the 137138 MHz band with several other systems, System 2's use of this band must be coordinated with System 3 consistent with the arrangement between GEStarsys and NOAA, with the S801 system and with Orbcomm with respect to sharing adjacent channels.  X -rrn78.44Two CDMA systems, System 3 and the S801 system, in addition to Orbcomm and the Russian METEOR system, are also expected to operate in the 137138 MHz band. System 3 will also operate in the 137.0725137.9275 MHz portion of this band. System 3 will be required to coordinate its system and avoid causing harmful interference to all existing users of the 137138 MHz band.  Xb-rrn79.44Orbcomm is currently operating in the 137138 MHz band in the spectrum adjacent to the NOAA channels. Subject to the Commission's approval of Orbcomm's pending modification request, Orbcomm shall operate in the 137.175137.3275 MHz, 137.4225137.4725 MHz, 137.535137.585 MHz, 137.65137.75 MHz and 137.7875137.8125 MHz bands not being used by NOAA or System 2. Orbcomm shall timeshare the 137.275137.325 MHz band, subject to coordination with the Russian METEOR system. Orbcomm shall coordinate its use of this spectrum with adjacent channels belonging to System 3 and other existing users in these bands. As is general policy, the Commission will undertake any coordination of this band with foreign administrations for all United States licensed commercial operators in this band. "|!H t,''ZZ"Ԍ X-rrn80.44NOAA has an agreement with the European Meteorological Satellite Organization ("Eumetsat") for the operation of a polar orbiting meteorological satellite in conjunction with NOAA's system in the NOAA bands. The Eumetsat system may begin operations as early as  X-2003. Our use of the term NOAA in this Report and Order incorporates any operations resulting from the agreement with Eumetsat.  Xv-rrn44 i. Channels for Orbcomm  XH-rrn81.44In the Notice, we stated that NOAA and Orbcomm had been coordinating Orbcomm's use of the 137138 MHz band to prevent causing harmful interference into the NOAA system and that Orbcomm might have to migrate its operations from the 137.1850137.2375 MHz subbands to two of the NOAA channels, specifically the 137.333137.367  X -MHz and the 137.753137.787 MHz channels.Nu  yOe -ԍrrnNotice  53.(#rN We understand that Orbcomm and NOAA will be able to coordinate any interference to the NOAA system caused by Orbcomm and that Orbcomm will not be required to move its operations in the 137.1850137.2375 MHz subband to the NOAA channels. This should also address the commenters' opposition to  X-Orbcomm's migration to the NOAA channels.vX yO-ԍrrnSee Comments of GEStarsys at 19; Reply Comments of CTA at 12; Comments of LEO One at 48.(#rƘ  XK-rrn44 ii. TimeSharing with NOAA  X-rrn82.44System 2 will be required to timeshare both the NOAA channels and the NOAA bands consistent with NOAA's implementation of the NOAA channels and the NOAA bands.  X-As discussed in the Notice, NOAA will continue operating its existing polar satellite MetSat  X-system in the NOAA channels until the satellites become inoperable.w yOq- rԍrrnSee Notice  52. The bandwidth identified for each NOAA channel is the emission bandwidth and does not  rtake into account the Doppler frequency shift or the frequency tolerance. Use of the NOAA channels by Little  rLEO systems is secondary to Government satellite operations until January 1, 2000. Commencing January  yO- r1, 2000, Government and nonGovernment users of the NOAA channels will be on a coprimary basis. See Footnote US318 of the Table of Frequency Allocations, 47 C.F.R. Section 2.106.(#rƘ Between 2006 and  X-2009, NOAA plans to commence MetSat operations in the NOAA bands.Cx yO !-ԍrrnId. (#rC During this period, we expect NOAA to vacate two of the NOAA channels, the 137.485137.515 MHz  X-and 137.605137.635 MHz bands (the "NOAA APT channels"). )footnote reference)#footnote reference#NOAA, however, has expressed a continuing need for transmission of data using the 137.333137.367 MHz and 137.753137.787 MHz frequencies in the NOAA channels (the "NOAA TIP channels") until approximately the year 2012, when service in the NOAA TIP channels will no longer be"N"( x,''ZZ"  X-supported by MetSat satellites.y yOy- rzԍrrnSee Letter dated May 7, 1997, from Richard D. Parlow, Associate Administrator, Spectrum Management,  rUnited States Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration, to  rPeter Cowhey, Chief, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Ref. IB Docket 96220,  renclosing correspondence from NOAA. The specific dates when NOAA intends to vacate the NOAA APT  r\channels and the NOAA TIP channels are not known with certainty. Thus, the launch dates provided by NOAA to the Commission are for planning purposes only and are subject to change. (#r Thus, )Nfootnote reference)System 2 will have timeshared use of the four NOAA channels until between 2006 and 2009 when NOAA vacates the NOAA APT channels. After such time, System 2 will no longer be required to timeshare the NOAA APT channels with NOAA but will continue timesharing the NOAA TIP channels with NOAA  X-until approximately 2012 when NOAA ceases service in the NOAA TIP channels. After approximately 2012, System 2 will have no longer be required to timeshare the NOAA channels and will operate in this spectrum along with other primary allocated services.  XH-rrn83.44The NOAA bands are allocated on a secondary basis to MSS.ZzH@ yO9-ԍrrnSee, supra, note 112.(#rZ Thus, MSS operations in the NOAA bands shall not cause harmful interference to NOAA MetSat systems nor can they claim protection from unacceptable interference received from NOAA MetSat systems operating in the NOAA bands. Our understanding is that NOAA intends to implement a three satellite MetSat system in the NOAA bands between 2003 and 2006. However, Eumetsat may implement its system as early as 2003. Therefore, System 2's use of the NOAA bands must be on a secondary timeshared basis with the Eumetsat system, future NOAA or other MetSat satellites.  X- #footnote reference#  Xy-rrn84.44Timesharing offers an efficient means of using the NOAA channels and the NOAA bands. Because the NOAA system is currently operating two satellites in the NOAA channels, we anticipate that the MetSat users could access the NOAA system between 7.6 and  X4-18.4 percent of the time.%{4 yO- rԍrrnThis calculation is based on the operation of two satellites by NOAA with an earth station having an elevation  rzangle towards the satellite of zero degrees and for a user located in the Washington, D.C. area. Currently,  r=NOAA's two satellites are phased in their orbital planes and each utilizes two of the four channels to provide  rmeteorological satellite service. As previously stated, the availability of the satellite to the user is, in part,  ra function of the location of the user. For example, NOAA's two satellites will be available to its users located at latitudes of 0, 30, and 60 degrees for 7.6, 9.2 and 18.4 percent of the time, respectively.(#r% We also anticipate that System 2 can use a large portion of the remaining time for the provision of Little LEO services. If NOAA implements a three satellite system in the NOAA bands, we calculate that System 2 initially will be able to use  X-the NOAA bands for a large portion of the 84.5 percent of the time that it is available.| H  yO#- rԍrrnThis calculation is based on the operation of three satellites by NOAA with an elevation angle of 0 degrees.  rkThe availability of the NOAA system to its users will increase if NOAA increases the number of satellites  rjin its system. This in turn will diminish the availability of the Little LEO system to its users. As previously stated, the Little LEO licensee will need to coordinate its system with other users of the NOAA bands.(#r As"#0|,''ZZ" additional MetSat systems become operational in the NOAA bands, the time available for System 2 to use the NOAA bands will decrease. If System 2 were to employ frequency hopping in combination with timesharing, its ability to access vacant frequencies in the NOAA channels and the NOAA bands would increase significantly. Frequency hopping would detect those frequencies in the NOAA channels and the NOAA bands in use and would switch System 2's transmissions to a frequency not being used by NOAA. Again, because not all second round applicants may be capable of employing this technique, we will not mandate the use of frequency hopping. However, frequency hopping uses the limited amount of spectrum most efficiently and we encourage second round systems to incorporate it into their system design.  X -rrn85.44Our spectrum sharing plan enables System 3 to operate a spreadspectrum CDMA system across the entire 137138 MHz band. As GEStarsys commented, operation of System 2 in the NOAA channels could severely increase the unacceptable interference to a  X -CDMA system operating in the band in the same geographic areas)nfootnote reference).}  yO7-ԍrrn#X\  P6G;P#See Comments of GEStarsys at 19.(#rƇ Thus, when operating in NOAA channels close to System 3's 137.5 MHz centerline frequency, System 2 will likely have to reduce its power to avoid causing harmful interference into System 3's CDMA  Xy-system operating in the band.V~yX yO-ԍrrnSee id. at 1920.(#rV In light of the potential for harmful interference to System 3, prior to commencing operation, System 2 will be required to complete frequency coordination of its downlink operations with System 3 in the 137138 MHz downlink band. rrn  X-rrn86.44We will not assign specific feeder link spectrum in the 137138 MHz downlink band. We will allow System 2 the flexibility to coordinate such spectrum with NOAA, Orbcomm, System 3 and the other users of the band. For the reasons previously discussed, Little LEO systems typically require continuous use of 50 kHz of feeder link spectrum. Due to the scarcity of spectrum in the band, System 2 may initially have to timeshare its feeder links with NOAA. Once NOAA vacates the NOAA channels, System 2 will have continuous use of the NOAA channels, which should reduce the interference into System 3's system.  Xe-rrn87.44We recognize that there are numerous satellite systems operating or scheduled to operate in the 137138 MHz band. NOAA's migration of its MetSat operations from the NOAA APT channels to the NOAA bands between 2006 and 2009 and from the NOAA TIP channels to the NOAA bands by approximately 2012 when service in the NOAA TIP  X -channels is no longer supported by the MetSat satellites will relieve congestion in this band freeing spectrum for use by System 2. Thus, we conclude that one additional Little LEO system can timeshare with NOAA in the NOAA channels and the NOAA bands in the 137138 MHz downlink band through the use of timesharing and frequency hopping techniques. ""$~,''ZZ!"Ԍ X-rrn88.44Given the significant national interests involved, we emphasize that System 2's operations in the 137138 MHz band must avoid causing harmful interference into the NOAA system worldwide. To protect the NOAA system, if System 2 is causing unacceptable interference to the NOAA system, the Commission will require that System 2 immediately terminate its interfering operations, wherever located, and we will not hesitate to impose sanctions on a licensee, including monetary forfeitures and license revocations, if appropriate. If NTIA notifies the Commission that NOAA is receiving unacceptable interference from System 2, we will require System 2 to terminate its interfering operations immediately unless it demonstrates to our satisfaction, and that of NTIA, that it is not responsible for causing harmful interference into the NOAA system. System 2 assumes the risk of any liability or damage that it and its directors, officers, employees, affiliates, agents and subcontractors may incur or suffer in connection with an interruption of its NVNG MSS service, in whole or in  X -part, arising from or relating to its compliance or noncompliance with this condition.   X -rrn89.44GEStarsys's return of its first round authorization makes the 137.0725137.9275 MHz spectrum available to a system with similar transmission characteristics. We conclude that use of this returned spectrum in the Little LEO second application processing round is in  Xy-the public interest. We assign this spectrum to System 3.y yO- rMԍrrnOur spectrum sharing plan also assigns the 400.5983400.645 MHz band, a small portion of GEStarsys's returned spectrum, to System 2.(#r System 3 will be required to be a CDMA system in order to avoid causing harmful interference into NOAA's system, Orbcomm's system and the other authorized users in the band and to comply with NOAA's requirement that it will timeshare with only one narrowband Little LEO system in the  X-NOAA channels and NOAA bands.V  yO-ԍrrnSee Second NTIA Letter.(#rV  X-rrn90.44As discussed, Section 309(j)(6)(E) of the Communications Act of 1934, as  X-amended,U yO9-ԍrrn47 U.S.C.  309(j)(6)(E).(#rU provides that the Commission has an obligation in the public interest to use engineering solutions, negotiation, threshold qualifications, service regulations, and other  X-means in order to avoid mutual exclusivity in application and licensing proceedings.{@ yO-ԍrrnId.; see also Big LEO Order  71.(#r{ Without use of the spectrum returned to the Commission by GEStarsys, the available spectrum is insufficient to accommodate the remaining Little LEO second processing round applicants. The second round applicants have relied upon the use of this spectrum in  XN-developing their mutually agreed upon spectrum sharing plan submitted to the Commission.RN yO$-ԍrrnSee Joint Proposal.(#rR Accordingly, we find that use of this spectrum in the second processing round is in the public interest because it permits the licensing of all qualified second round applicants on an" %` ,''ZZ" expedited basis and avoids mutual exclusivity among applicants. More Little LEO licensees will promote competition in the Little LEO service markets, create incentives for rapid service delivery and innovation among Little LEO licensees and is likely to result in reasonably priced Little LEO services for consumers. These are the primary goals of this second application processing round proceeding.  Xv-rrn91.44Other parties with an interest in operating in the spectrum returned by GEStarsys have been on notice that all spectrum in these frequency bands was being considered for assignment of Little LEO licenses since the time we issued our Public Notice announcing the commencement of the second application processing round and no later than our subsequent  X -Notice.m  yO -ԍrrnSee, supra, notes 12 and 17.(#rm At those times it was foreseeable that an existing Little LEO licensee, such a GEStarsys, could return its spectrum to the Commission for reassignment in the second application processing round. Thus, public notice was given of our proposed use of this  X -spectrum for Little LEO service in the second application processing round.  X - rrn44d. TimeSharing with VITA, DoD and NOAA  Xy-rrn92.44In the Notice, we proposed that Little LEO systems timeshare spectrum with DoD, NOAA and VITA. Timesharing effectively allows System 1 to share the 400.15401 MHz band with DoD and System 2 to share the 137138 MHz band with NOAA while ensuring that neither the DoD nor NOAA systems experience unacceptable interference from the transmissions of System 1 and System 2, respectively. VITA is currently authorized to operate in the 400.505400.5517 portion of the 400.15401 MHz band and will operate in the 400.5983400.645 MHz band under our spectrum sharing plan. In order to avoid causing harmful interference and any capacity loss to the VITA system, a System 2 licensee must timeshare this spectrum with VITA by employing frequency hopping or other timesharing techniques. We anticipate that with one satellite in operation, a user at the equator will be  X-able to "see" the VITA satellite for approximately 3.7 percent of the time.X yO- rԍrrnThis calculation is based on a VITA satellite operating at an elevation angle of 0 degrees, an altitude of 800 km, and an orbital inclination of 99 degrees.(#r Therefore, when a VITA satellite is not visible, a System 2 licensee will have access to the VITA frequencies for a large portion of the 96 percent of the time that it is available, or approximately 23 hours per day  @@.  X -rrn93.44Timesharing requires that the satellites of System 1 and System 2 not transmit into the regions beneath the DoD or NOAA satellites, the protection areas, on the same frequency being used by the DoD or NOAA satellites. Likewise, System 2 timesharing the 400.505400.5517 MHz and 400.5983400.645 MHz bands with VITA will not transmit into the VITA protection areas on the same frequency being used by the VITA satellite. As the DoD, NOAA and VITA satellites progress along their orbits, their protection areas will move"!&,''ZZ " across the surface of the Earth beneath them. The satellites of System 1 and System 2 must track these moving protection areas worldwide and, if they enter a protection area, System 1 and System 2 must cease their satellite transmissions or transmit on a frequency different from the frequencies being used by the DoD, NOAA or VITA satellites in the protection area.  X-rrn94.44In order to avoid transmitting into the protection areas of the DoD, NOAA and VITA satellites, the satellites of System 1 and System 2 must know the precise location of each DoD, NOAA and VITA satellite in its orbit at any given time. System 1 and System 2 must obtain ephemeris data and use an elevation angle of five degrees in the 400.15401 MHz band and the NOAA channels and zero degrees in the NOAA bands to calculate the  X -protection area of the DoD, NOAA and VITA satellites.x  yO - rԍrrnEphemeris data are technical parameters calculated for a particular satellite that mathematically represent the  rlocation of the satellite in its orbit at any given time. The elevation angle is the angular height of the satellite  rabove the horizon as viewed from a point on the Earth. As used herein, for example, the elevation angle is  rthe upward angle, as measured from a DoD earth station on the Earth, to a passing DoD satellite. If the  rpassing NOAA satellite is at the horizon, the elevation angle is 0 degrees. If the NOAA satellite is directly  roverhead the elevation angle is 90 degrees. The elevation angle is used in calculating the size of the protection area on the earth into which the DoD, VITA, or NOAA satellite is transmitting.(#rƓ To facilitate frequencyhopping, System 1 and System 2 must know the frequency on which DoD, NOAA and VITA satellites  X -are transmitting at any given time.  yO- rjԍrrnThe DoD system will frequency hop (that is change frequencies) among its operational satellites. Therefore,  rif a Little LEO licensee knows the frequency on which a DoD satellite is operating, the Little LEO licensee  rwould be able to transmit into the DOD satellite protection area on a different frequency and avoid causing  rinterference to DoD ground terminals in the protection area. Interference will occur to DoD ground terminals  rif both DoD and the Little LEO licensee satellites are transmitting into the protection area on the same frequency at the same time.(#r  X -rrn95.44In general, none of the commenters oppose the concept of timesharing with another satellite system. Both DoD and NOAA, however, oppose timesharing in their  X-respective downlink bands with multiple Little LEO systems.Y  yO-ԍrrnSee, supra,  52.(#rY Although CTA supports the protection area concept, it suggests that sharing may be able to occur with DoD and NOAA  Xb-on a coordination basis without strictly implementing a timesharing scheme.Rb yO# -ԍrrnComments of CTA at 2425.(#rR Given the important national security and government operational interests involved, we believe it is necessary to establish a specific sharing scheme to protect the DoD and NOAA systems from harmful interference caused by Little LEO systems authorized to operate in the same frequency bands.  X-rrn96.44As stated in the Notice, the operators of System 1 and System 2 must designate and identify a point of contact accessible 24 hours per day, seven days per week, authorized"',''ZZq" to resolve or address in an expeditious manner anomalies or reports of interference while timesharing with DoD, NOAA or VITA.  X-rrn97.44The following discussion addresses specific timesharing and operational requirements as they pertain to DoD and NOAA. However, we remind System 2 that timesharing techniques are required to avoid causing harmful interference to the VITA system in the 400.15401 MHz downlink band. Although we will not mandate specific timesharing requirements with regard to VITA, we expect that System 2 will obtain ephemeris data from VITA regularly and use an elevation angle of five degrees in computing the protection area for VITA's satellites. By not mandating these requirements, we afford VITA and System 2 the flexibility necessary to establish procedures appropriate for the operators of commercial systems.  X -rrn44 i. Transfer of Precision Data(#  X -  X -rrn98.44In the Notice, we proposed that the Little LEO systems obtain information from DoD and NOAA on a weekly basis or as often as necessary to avoid causing harmful  Xy-interference to the DoD and NOAA systems.uy yO-ԍrrnNotice  59.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#ru The gravitational forces of the Sun and Moon, the nonspherical nature of the Earth, and the atmospheric drag affect the location of a satellite in its orbit, thereby slightly altering the relevant ephemeris data over time. Consequently, ephemeris data pertaining to DoD, NOAA and VITA satellites must be uploaded to Little LEO satellites frequently to prevent them from accumulating erroneous ephemeris data that could result in the identification of incorrect protection areas. Therefore, System 1 must periodically obtain ephemeris data from DoD and System 2 must obtain such data from NOAA and VITA.  X-rrn99.44 Commenters generally support the electronic transferral of ephemeris data on a  X-weekly basis.X yO-ԍrrnSee Comments of LEO One at 49; Comments of Final Analysis at Exhibit 2, p. 8.(#rƌ LEO One points out that a weekly transfer of this data should ensure sufficient accuracy for the operators of System 1 and System 2 to avoid DoD and NOAA protection areas and that orbit propagators can adequately project ephemeris data seven to 10  XN-days forward.`N yO -ԍrrnSee Comments of LEO One at 4950.(#r` Accordingly, we will require System 1 and System 2 to obtain ephemeris data from DoD and NOAA on at least a weekly basis in order to update their satellite constellations unless the parties agree upon some other time interval.  X-rrn100.44Because an electronic transfer can occur quickly and accurately, an electronic transfer of data may be the most efficient means of transferring ephemeris data. LEO One notes that the information can be transferred by Internet as well as a direct modem to modem" (x,''ZZ" telephone link. Voice transfer is also feasible. In order to prevent spoofing, a digital  X-signature and algorithm can be used to verify the message authenticity.I yOb-ԍrrnId. at 50.(#rI We do not know what mode of transfer of ephemeris data is most appropriate for DoD and NOAA. Therefore, we will allow DoD, NOAA, System 1 and System 2, the flexibility to determine the most appropriate means for transferring ephemeris data.  Xv-rrn44 ii. Elevation Angle(#  XH-rrn101.44In the Notice, we proposed using a zero degree elevation angle to calculate the protection areas for NOAA and DoD satellites in part based on a DoD requirement to operate at low elevation angles in the future when new systems are deployed. However, the applicants comment that establishing a protection area with less than a five degree elevation  X -angle is beyond the functional requirements and performance limitations of MetSat systems.f X yO-ԍrrnSee, e.g., Comments of CTA at 26.(#rf We generally agree with the commenters and, therefore, we will require System 1 to use an elevation angle of five degrees when calculating the protection areas of the DoD system in the 400.15401 MHz band and System 2 to use an elevation angle of five degrees when calculating the protection areas of the NOAA system in the NOAA channels, provided, that System 1 and System 2 will cease their transmissions prior to their respective service area, based on an elevation angle of zero degrees, overlapping a DoD or NOAA protection area. Because NVNG MSS providers are required to operate on a noninterference basis to the MetSat service in the NOAA bands, we will require that System 2 use an elevation angle of zero degrees, or less if reasonably necessary, for calculating the NOAA protection area in the NOAA bands, provided, that System 2 shall cease its transmissions prior to its service area, based on an elevation angle of zero degrees, overlapping a NOAA protection area.  X-rrn102.44LEO One points out that as a result of signal degradation due to atmospheric refraction and multipath fading at low elevation angles, any data received by a MetSat user  X-located below an elevation angle of five degrees would be too flawed to be of value. yO,-ԍrrnComments of LEO One at 55. See also ITUR Recommendations SA.1025 and SA.1026.(#rƔ Further support for a five degree elevation angle can be found in a NOAAOPQ study on the MetSat spacecraft planned for operations in the NOAA bands. The report states that user terminals operating below a five degree minimum elevation angle will not be able to receive  X7-the minimum required effective isotropic radiation power from the NOAA satellite. 7x yO`#- rԍrrnSee NOAAOPQ study report on spacecraft transmission systems operating in the NOAA Low Resolution  rLPicture Television bands (NOAA bands). The effective isotropic radiation power level in the baseline design  ris just sufficient to enable a lowgain antenna user to achieve a bit error rate of 10E6 at five degrees if forwarderror correction is employed, albeit with no residual margin. (#r In addition, the performance and interference criteria adopted internationally for MetSat services" )` ,''ZZ"  X-specify elevation angles of five degrees or higher.s yOy-ԍrrnSee ITUR Recommendations SA.1025 and SA.1026.(#rs Because the information received by a user at a zero degree elevation angle is likely to be less accurate, there generally are no functional requirements for a user to receive data from a MetSat at elevation angles below  X-five degrees.kX yO-ԍrrnComments of LEO One at 53 and Appendices D and E. (#rk Moreover, a requirement to protect a MetSat footprint below a five degree elevation angle will unnecessarily decrease the availability of System 1 and System 2 to users by as much as 10 percent. rrn  X_-rrn103.44System 1 and System 2 will use an elevation angle of five degrees when computing the protection areas of DoD satellites in the 400.15401 MHz band and NOAA satellites in the NOAA channels, respectively. We have found no support domestically or internationally for the premise that information transmitted from a satellite to an earth terminal at an elevation angle below five degrees is sufficiently accurate for commercial or  X -governmental use. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, System 2 will use an elevation angle of zero degrees, or less if reasonably necessary, in the NOAA bands to protect MetSat receiving stations from receiving unnecessary interference from System 2.  X-rrn44iii. Orbital Propagator Algorithms rrn  Xb-rrn104.44In the Notice, we proposed requiring Little LEO systems to provide a description of the orbital propagator algorithm they expect to use with their system and stated that we  X4-might specify use of a particular orbital propagator algorithm.N4 yO-ԍrrnNotice  71.(#rN Little LEO systems will use an orbital propagator algorithm to calculate the location, and hence, the protection area of a satellite at any given time. Based on the comments and our analysis, we will not specify a particular orbital propagator algorithm to be used by System 1 and System 2, but we will require that System 1 and System 2 use an orbital propagator algorithm with an accuracy equal to or greater than the NORAD propagator used by NOAA.  X-rrn105.44LEO One commented that an orbital propagator algorithm with a higher accuracy  X|-than NORAD should be specified.^|x yO -ԍrrnSee Comments of LEO One at 56. (#r^ LEO One notes that the advantage of using an orbital propagator algorithm more accurate than NORAD is that the satellite orbit can be projected more accurately, and thus, for a longer period of time. We agree that Little LEO systems can achieve an appropriately high level of accuracy with different orbital propagator algorithms. Therefore, we will require that each second round licensee use an orbital propagator algorithm with an accuracy equal to or greater than the NORAD propagator used by NOAA. We also" *,''ZZy" expect System 1 and System 2 operators to work with DoD and NOAA in selecting an appropriate orbital propagator algorithm.  X-rrn44 iv. System 1: Frequency Reset in Response to DoD Frequency Changes  X-rrn106.44In the Notice, we stated that operational or logistical circumstances may require DoD to alternate the frequency on which its satellites operate from the 400.15400.505 MHz band to the 400.645401 MHz band, and vice versa, and to inform its user terminals  XH-worldwide of the frequency change in less than 90 minutes.UH yO -ԍrrnNotice  7273.(#rU In order to avoid causing  X1-harmful interference to a DoD user terminal, we proposed in the Notice that a Little LEO system planning to frequency hop in the 400.15401 MHz band must be capable of  X -implementing DoD imposed frequency changes within 90 minutes.H X yO -ԍrrnId.(#rH LEO One and Final Analysis comment that they cannot meet a 90 minute frequency change requirement for all of  X -their satellites without adding more ground command stations outside the United States.  yOn-ԍrrnSee Comments of LEO One at 56; Comments of Final Analysis at 24.(#r Based on the comments and our technical analysis, initially we will require System 1 to be able to change the frequency on which the satellites in its constellation are operating within 125 minutes of receiving notification from DoD of a frequency change in the 400.15401 MHz downlink band. Thereafter, as System 1 builds additional gateway earth stations around the world, these additional gateway earth stations should enable System 1 to decrease the time needed to implement a DoD frequency change. System 1 shall notify the Commission promptly of such licensee's capability to implement a frequency change in less than 125 minutes and shall use its best efforts to decrease to 90 minutes the time needed to change the frequency on which the satellites in its constellation are operating after receiving notification from DoD of a frequency change in the 400.15401 MHz uplink band.  X-rrn107.44From time to time DoD changes the frequencies used by its satellite systems for national security and other reasons. Unacceptable interference to a DoD user terminal will occur if a Little LEO satellite transmits into a DoD protection area on the same frequency a DoD satellite is using to transmit into the DoD protection area. A Little LEO satellite can avoid causing harmful interference into a DoD user terminal by not transmitting into a DoD protection area or by transmitting into the DoD protection area on a different frequency than that being used by a DoD satellite. If the Little LEO system satellite chooses to transmit into a protection area, it must know the frequency on which the DoD satellites are operating and be able to change the frequency on which it is operating whenever the DoD satellite changes its frequency. "+x,''ZZ"Ԍ X-rrn108.44Due to the design of the Little LEO systems, we estimate that all of the second round applicants would be capable of resetting their satellite and user terminal frequencies  X-within 125 minutes. The orbital period yOK- rԍrrnThe orbital period of a satellite system is the time required for the satellite to complete one Earthrevolution in its orbit.(#r for each of the proposed second processing round systems is approximately 104 minutes for LEO One; 111 minutes for ESat; and 105 minutes for Final Analysis. LEO One commented that an additional 1015 minutes is needed to generate and transmit command streams to the appropriate command stations for uplinking to  Xv-its satellites.lv  yOG -ԍrrnSee Comments of LEO One at Appendix E, p. 29.(#rl Thus, adding the maximum orbital period of the Little LEO systems (111 minutes) to the time required to generate and distribute command streams to the satellites (1015 minutes) indicates that a frequency change could be implemented by System 1 in approximately 125 minutes.  X -rrn109.44We fully support protection of the DoD system and we recognize that System 1 may be able to reduce its frequency change implementation time by designing its system to locate additional gateway earth stations outside of the United States. LEO One's system does not envision locating any gateway earth stations outside of the United States and Final Analysis indicates that meeting a 90 minute reset requirement would require additional operations team support and construction of up to six additional gateway earth stations  Xy-thereby increasing the cost of its system.hy yO-ԍrrnId.; Comments of Final Analysis at 2425.(#rh Keeping such stations properly staffed and trained may be difficult in light of a gateway earth station's infrequent operations. More importantly, this would require System 1 to provide the access codes to its satellites to more parties in foreign countries. Because access to these codes allows control of the command functions of the satellite, including the ephemeris data relating to DoD satellites, it is prudent that they be guarded carefully. However, if System 1 adds gateway earth stations outside of North and South America, it shall use its best efforts to decrease to 90 minutes the time required to change the frequency on which the satellites in its constellation are operating in the 400.15401 MHz uplink band after receiving notification from DoD of a frequency change. System 1 shall notify NTIA and the Commission promptly of any decrease in the time required for such licensee to change the frequency on which the satellites in its constellation are operating in the 400.15401 MHz uplink band.  XN-rrn110.44In order for System 1 to achieve frequency reset within 125 minutes, gateway earth stations will be required to be established outside of the United States. We believe that minimizing the number of gateway earth stations worldwide by establishing a "northsouth fence" offers the best means of effectively implementing a DoD imposed frequency change. The "northsouth fence" would require System 1 to locate command stations in North and South America. This would minimize the number of gateway earth stations outside of the",@,''ZZ" United States and the additional costs of system design and enable System 1 to achieve frequency reset within 125 minutes. In support of the "northsouth fence" proposal, LEO One contends that after approximately 55 minutes, more than half of the satellites in a  X-constellation will have received a command to switch frequencies.b yO4-ԍrrnComments of LEO One at Appendix E, p. 34.(#rb And, after 104 minutes  X-all satellites have been commanded to new frequencies.BX yO-ԍrrnId.(#rB  Xv-rrn111.44In order to ensure Little LEO systems can implement a frequency change, we  X_-proposed in the Notice that at DoD's instruction, the Little LEO system operator be required to test, up to four times a year, the ability of its system to implement a DoD frequency  X1-change.N1 yO -ԍrrnNotice  75.(#rN In response, commenters stated that this requirement is excessive and  X -unnecessary.B x yOC-ԍrrnId.(#rB We agree with the commenters that requiring a test or demonstration four times a year is excessive. System 1 operating on a frequency hopping basis will implement DoD frequency changes in the course of its operations and any problems would be readily apparent to both DoD and System 1. Once System 1 successfully demonstrates to DoD that its system is able to implement DoD frequency changes, however, we will require System 1 to demonstrate its capability to implement the DoD frequency change only once per year thereafter at the instruction of DoD. LEO One also requests that the demonstrations occur  Xy-during offpeak hours.y yO2-ԍrrnComments of LEO One at 55.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rƀ We find that this is a reasonable request and will achieve the same objectives of ensuring that System 1 can frequency hop without interfering with DoD's system. It will also ensure that System 1 will be able to serve its customers without interruptions in its service. Therefore, such demonstrations shall be conducted during offpeak hours as determined by the operator of System 1. System 1 must coordinate with DoD in establishing a plan for such a demonstration. In the event that System 1 fails to demonstrate to DoD that it is capable of implementing a DoD frequency change in accordance with a demonstration plan established by DoD and the operator of System 1, upon our receipt of a written notification from NTIA describing such failure, we shall impose additional conditions or requirements on System 1's authorization as may be necessary to protect DoD operations in the 400.15401 MHz downlink band until we are notified by NTIA that System 1 has successfully demonstrated its ability to implement a DoD frequency change. We delegate authority to the International Bureau to impose such conditions or requirements in System 1's authorization and to take all steps necessary to enforce these conditions and requirements.  X -rrn44 v. 72 Hour Reset Signal " -,''ZZ"Ԍ X-ԙrrn112.44Also in the Notice, we proposed requiring a Little LEO satellite to automatically cease transmissions in the 137138 MHz and 400.15 401 MHz bands if the satellite does not  X-receive a valid reset signal from a Little LEO gateway station within 48 hours.N yOK-ԍrrnNotice  63.(#rN The rationale for this requirement is to ensure that each Little LEO satellite is functioning properly and to avoid causing harmful interference into the DoD or NOAA satellite systems in the event of a satellite malfunction. Commenters found this requirement to be unnecessary and  Xv-disruptive.vX yO - rԍrrnSee, e.g., Comments of Final Analysis at Exhibit 2, p. 8; Comments of LEO One at 51; Comments of CTA at 26.(#rƼ For example, Final Analysis indicated that it already had several layers of protection against a failedon condition, including, but not limited to, onboard computers that cease all transmitter (and other) operations when a satellite experiences a lowvoltage condition. LEO One comments that there is no need for a 48 hour reset signal because the probability of any satellite in its constellation becoming a rogue interferer is less than  X -5 x 10 8 in five years.  X -rrn113.44In order for timesharing to work properly, the DoD and NOAA systems must be protected from harmful interference caused by transmissions from a malfunctioning satellite in the System 1 or System 2 constellations. However, we agree with the commenters that the 48 hour reset signal requirement may be unduly burdensome and that the proposed requirement should be relaxed. Accordingly, we will require that System 1 and System 2 be designed so that their satellites have a turnoff switch that automatically turns off the satellite and ceases satellite transmissions if after 72 consecutive hours no reset signal is received and verified by the satellite. Each licensed satellite in their constellations shall be capable of instantaneous shutdown on any subband upon command from System 1's or System 2's , as the case may  X-be, gateway earth station. We encourage satellite system designers to incorporate other appropriate failsafe measures into the satellite system design, for example, onboard computers that cease all transmitter (and other) operations when a satellite experiences a lowvoltage condition.  X-rrn3.44Operation of a CDMA System  X|-rrn#footnote reference#  Xe- rrn114.44In the Notice, we concluded that sufficient spectrum exists to license additional Little LEO systems in the second processing round if such systems use, among other things,  X7-appropriate transmission techniques.N7 yO"-ԍrrnNotice  41.(#rN The sharing plan agreed to by Orbcomm, GEStarsys and VITA in the first processing round also concluded that additional systems could be  X -accommodated by using CDMA and FDMA transmission techniques.g @ yO%-ԍrrnSee Negotiated Rulemaking Report at 89.(#rg In the second processing round, ESat proposes a CDMA system asserting that it would operate".,''ZZx" transparently and not cause harmful interference to other systems in the uplink and downlink  X-bands.P yOb-ԍrrnComments of ESat at 1.(#rP Both CTA and GEStarsys agree that a CDMA system could be accommodated in  X-the bands, subject to successful coordination with existing users.X yO-ԍrrnSee Reply Comments of CTA at 9; Reply Comments of GEStarsys at 6.(#rƁ In addition, the second round applicants have included ESat's CDMA system as System 3 in their spectrum sharing  X-plan filed with the Commission.Z yO= -ԍrrnSee Joint Proposal at 2, 6.(#rZ Particularly in light of GEStarsys's return of its authorized spectrum in the 148150.05 MHz, 400.15401 MHz and 137138 MHz frequency bands to the Commission, we agree with the commenters that a CDMA system similar to the GEStarsys system can be accommodated in the vacated GEStarsys spectrum. Accordingly,  XH-System 3 in our spectrum sharing plan adopted in this Report and Order can be a CDMA system.  X -)footnote reference)#footnote reference#rrn4.44Industry Spectrum Sharing Plans  X - rrn115.44Initially LEO One proposed the A/B plan in which LEO One, CTA, ESat and  X -Final Analysis share the limited uplink and downlink spectrum (the "LEO One Proposal")  x yO- rԍrrnSee Comments of LEO One at 32. The LEO One Proposal provides that all four new second round  ryapplicants share the 148150.05 MHz uplink band; that LEO One timeshare the 400.15401 MHz downlink  rband with existing users; and that CTA, ESat and Final Analysis timeshare the 137138 MHz downlink band with existing users. (#rƵ and six of the eight original second processing round applicants jointly proposed a different plan, the X/Y plan, in which they would share the uplink and downlink spectrum among their  Xy-proposed systems (the "SixParty Proposal").xy`  yO- rԍrrnSee Memorandum To Ruth Milkman, Deputy Chief, International Bureau, From CTA Commercial Systems,  rInc., ESat, Inc., Final Analysis Communications Services, Inc., GEStarsys Global Positioning, Inc., Orbital  rCommunications Corp. and Volunteers in Technical Assistance, dated April 11, 1997. The SixParty Proposal  rincludes all of the second round applicants except LEO One. All parties to the proposal would share the 148 r150.05 MHz uplink band; the 400.15401 MHz downlink band would be shared between the two second round  rsystems' service links; and the 137138 MHz downlink band would be shared between the two second round  yO:-systems' feeder links and all of the other parties.#Xj\  P6G;XP#(#rƑ After review of these two proposals, we find that it is not technically feasible to accommodate more than two new Little LEO systems in the available uplink and downlink spectrum without causing degradation to the DoD, NOAA and existing Little LEO licensees' systems operations. Moreover, these proposals were unacceptable because they would require DoD and/or NOAA to timeshare with multiple Little LEO licensees, which DoD and NOAA have rejected. The spectrum sharing plan  X-proposed by the second round applicants in the Joint ProposalR yO@&-ԍrrnSee Joint Proposal.(#rR effectively supersedes the"/0,''ZZ" LEO One Proposal and the SixParty Proposal previously submitted by the second round applicants. We agree with the second round applicants that the spectrum sharing plan they propose in the Joint Proposal is a technically workable band plan. Consequently, that plan  X-forms the basis for the spectrum sharing plan that we adopt in this Report and Order.  X-rrn)footnote reference)#footnote reference#  X-rrn5.44Virtual Constellation  X_-rrn116.44Consistent with comments and our statements in the Notice,N_ yO-ԍrrnNotice  44.(#rN we would likely sanction an agreement by all parties to share the spectrum but will not mandate that  X1-applicants participate in such a sharing arrangement.L1X yO: -ԍrrnSee id.(#rL Therefore, we will not mandate that the parties participate in a "Virtual Constellation" system as proposed by Final Analysis.  X -rrn117.44A Virtual Constellation system involves licensing all applicants to operate over the entire available spectrum, with each applicant operating a small number of technically compatible satellites. Although the satellites would be independently owned and operated, there would be some joint operations to facilitate spectrum sharing.  Xy-rrn118.44Commenters do not support our requiring a Virtual Constellation system. CTA argues that compelling companies with different goals and interests to join together in using the same facilities to provide Little LEO service would result in either outright system failure  X4-or a system compromised to the point of marginality.O4 yO-ԍrrnComments of CTA at 23.(#rO LEO One argues that a Virtual Constellation system would have limited channel capacity and no assurance of obtaining  X-additional spectrum.Vx yO/-ԍrrnComments of LEO One at 4243.(#rV As Final Analysis notes, mandating a Virtual Constellation system  X-should be an act of last resort.Z yO-ԍrrnComments of Final Analysis at 28.(#rZ We agree and find that to mandate a Virtual Constellation system given the technical constraints of the spectrum available to second processing round applicants would be imprudent.  X-rrn6.44SetAside for Humanitarian Uses  Xe-rrn119.44SatelLife, Inc. ("SatelLife"), in its comments, requests that we adopt a rule  XN-requiring Little LEO licensees to set aside a portion of their capacity for humanitarian uses.PN yO%-ԍrrnComments of SatelLife. (#rP "N0( ,''ZZ" Although the Commission applauds the humanitarian work done by SatelLife, we decline to adopt such a rule.  X-rrn120.44SatelLife has an experimental authorization and is operating a satellite in the same frequencies authorized for use by Orbcomm, VITA and System 2: 149.81149.9 MHz and 400.505400.5517 MHz bands. SatelLife is an international notforprofit organization which uses a LEO satellite and computer network to provide lowcost, healthrelated communication  X_-and information services in the developing world. In the Notice, we proposed to license a new system to use the VITA bands, and consistent with the terms of its authorization, stated that SatelLife would have to terminate its experimental operations in the VITA bands prior to  X -the launch of any satellite by a second round licensee authorized to use the band.{X  yO - r=ԍrrnSee Notice at 16, n.35; See also SatelLife Experimental Radio Station Construction Permit and License, Call  r>sign KS2XDT, File No. 4892EXPL95 (effective September 20, 1995). VITA has informed us that its satellite successfully was launched on September 23, 1997. (#r{ Under  X -the Rules we adopt in this Report and Order, VITA will share its downlink spectrum with System 2 and continue to share its uplink spectrum with Orbcomm under its first round authorization. Therefore, it will be necessary for SatelLife to vacate the spectrum when  X -VITA or System 2 launches an authorized Little LEO satellite.   yOW- r[ԍrrnWe expect that SatelLife will begin transitioning its existing customers off of these experimental frequencies  rin a timely fashion in recognition of the assignment of this spectrum to Orbcomm, VITA and System 2 under  yO- rthe spectrum sharing plan adopted in this Report and Order and in anticipation of the grant of licenses to these systems to operate in this spectrum.(#r  X-rrn121.44SatelLife argues that the Commission has established a setaside for the Direct  Xy-Broadcast Service, and therefore, should do so for the Little LEO service.ay yO-ԍrrnSee Comments of SatelLife at 812.(#ra We disagree.y`  yO- rԍrrnSee also Reply Comments of LEO One at 50 52; Reply Comments of Orbcomm at 26 27 (arguing that the Commission lacks the legal authority to impose a setaside in the Little LEO service). (#r  XK-C. rrnNo Mutual Exclusivity  X-rrn122.44In the Notice we proposed to conduct auctions to select a System licensee if there  X-are mutually exclusive applications for these licenses.X  yOo!-ԍrrnSee Notice  82.(#rX The spectrum sharing plan that we  X-adopt in this Report and Order avoids mutual exclusivity among the applicants. Therefore, it will not be necessary to conduct auctions to select a licensee from among mutually exclusive applications. rrn  X-D. rrnUnauthorized and Interfering Transmissions "|1H ,''ZZ"Ԍ X-rrn123.44In the Notice, we requested comments regarding ways to prevent Little LEO user  X-terminals from making unauthorized transmissions and the costs of such methods.R yOb-ԍrrnId.  101.(#rR One way to prevent unauthorized transmissions is to require that Little LEO systems be able to determine the location of a user terminal to ensure that the transmission is not originating from an unauthorized location. Commenters generally oppose this requirement because it would result in significant additional cost. In light of this assessment, we do not require the first or second round Little LEO licensees to outfit their systems with position determination equipment. However, we continue to be concerned that users may operate mobile earth terminals in countries in which they are unauthorized violating the country's sovereign rights and possibly causing interference to authorized users of the spectrum. Unauthorized transmissions are a particularly difficult problem because Little LEO user terminals are expected to be small, inexpensive and easily transportable. Because Little LEO satellites in orbit will be capable of seeing numerous countries around the globe, users may knowingly or unknowingly operate their user terminals in a country where proper authorization has not been obtained.  X-rrn124.44The vast majority of commenters argue that in the Little LEO service, Doppler and global positioning system ("GPS") are not viable position determination solutions for the problem of unauthorized transmissions. They argue that equipping Little LEO systems with position determination equipment would diminish their competitive advantage of providing low cost service. In particular, commenters argue that adding position determination devices  X-to the user terminals would double their costOX yO&-ԍrrnComments of CTA at 34.(#rO and require larger terminals and additional  X-battery power. yO-ԍrrnComments of GEStarsys at 27; Comments of Orbcomm at 55. Comments of LEO One at 6669.(#rƑ Commenters also argue that the use of Doppler will require the addition of extensive software capability to the systems and multiple messages to determine the position of the transmission. Conducting position determination for every transmission would consume a significant portion of each message and reduce a system's capacity for actually  X-carrying messages.qx yO-ԍrrnComments of GEStarsys at 28; Comments of Orbcomm at 56.(#rq Orbcomm notes that both GPS and Doppler determinations have  X-notable time delays and limited accuracy.S yOL!-ԍrrnComments of Orbcomm at 55.(#rS Specifically, Orbcomm states that Doppler shift calculations are accurate generally to about 600 to 1,000 meters and will take seven to 10 minutes to calculate the first fix while GPS takes two to seven minutes from a cold start and  XN-accuracy is limited to 100 meters.IN yO%-ԍrrnId. at 56.(#rI "72( ,''ZZ"Ԍ X-rrn125.44Given the significant costs that would be imposed on Little LEO systems, we decline, at this time, to require Little LEO systems to use GPS or Doppler. We also note that neither the ITU nor the European Union mandates a position determination requirement for global satellite systems. However, we will work closely with other countries when necessary to ensure that United States Little LEO licensees operate appropriately, and we retain jurisdiction over Little LEO licensees to ensure that they meet both their international obligations and any national requirements imposed by other licensing administrations. We delegate authority to the International Bureau to take all necessary steps to enforce these requirements and, if an effective response to unauthorized transmissions is found for the Little LEO service, to establish relevant requirements and apply them retroactively to Little LEO systems.  X -rrn126.44The Affiliated American Railroads comment that the comments of the second round applicants opposing equipping their systems with position determination capability are at odds with their position taken at IWG2A meetings where they supported such a  X -requirement to avoid interference with terrestrial fixed service stations.t  yO -ԍrrnReply Comments of the Affiliated American Railroads at 45.(#rt The Affiliated American Railroads are concerned that, without position determination capability, Little LEO systems' uplink transmissions will interfere with railroad mobile relay stations, which have  Xb-similar characteristics to terrestrial fixed service stations.BbX yOk-ԍrrnId.(#rB No technical analysis supporting this concern was submitted by the Affiliated American Railroads. Without evidence that such harmful interference is likely to result, we will not require Little LEO licensees to equip their systems with position determination capability.  X-E.rrnExclusive Arrangements with Foreign Countries  X-rrn127.44We adopt our proposal prohibiting Little LEO licensees from entering into exclusive arrangements with other countries concerning communications to and from the  X-United States.U yO,-ЍrrnSee Notice  102. Such limitations were adopted in the Big LEO service. See Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to a Mobile Satellite Service in the 1610 yO-1626.5/2483.52500 MHz Frequency Band, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 9654, CC Docket No. 92166,  5455 (released February 15, 1996); 47 C.F.R.  25.143(h) (prohibiting Big LEO satellite systems from entering into exclusive arrangements to serve particular countries).(#rU The majority of commenters who addressed this issue support our  X|-proposal.| yO#-ԍrrnComments of Final Analysis at 50; Comments of GEStarsys at 29; Comments of Orbcomm at 58.(#rƓ An exclusive agreement may foreclose other Little LEO licensees from serving a foreign market, providing global service, and competing effectively with other systems that serve the United States. This would undermine our objective of promoting competition in the United States satellite service market. "73( ,''ZZ"Ԍ X-ԙrrn128.44In opposition, CTA argues that Little LEO licensees should not be penalized for the limited availability of spectrum by foregoing commercial opportunities in countries where  X-spectrum may be extremely limited.O yOK-ԍrrnComments of CTA at 34.(#rO Our intent is not to penalize licensees and we do not believe that our policy will have such a result. We recognize that spectrum coordination and availability as well as market size and commercial opportunities in a particular country may limit the number of systems that can serve that country. We will not penalize the sole service provider in a particular market if spectrum and market limitations prohibit another system from entering and serving the particular market. We do not expect a United States licensed system to forego opportunities to serve markets based on the possibility that it may be the only service provider in the market.  X -F.rrnAmended Applications  X -rrn129.44In the Notice, we proposed to allow applicants to file amended applications on  X -December 16, 1996. X yO-ԍrrnSee No#X\  P6G;P#tice  106.(#rƀ Several of the applicants requested that we defer the filing of amended applications, and we deferred such filings until a date up to 30 days after the release  Xy-of this Report and Order.Xy yO- rԍrrnSee In the Matter of Amendment of Part 25 of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules and Policies  yO- rPertaining to the Second Processing Round of the NonVoice, NonGeostationary Mobile Satellite Service, Order, IB Docket 96220, DA 97120,  4 (released January 17, 1997).(#rƄ In order to expedite the processing of amended applications and second round licenses, we will require that amended applications be filed within 15 days after  XK-the release of this Report and Order. We find good cause to make this rule effective within  X4-15 days after the release of this Report and Order. We encourage second round applicants to file their amended applications as soon as possible but no later than 15 days after release of  X-this Report and Order to expedite the processing of second round licenses. Second round applicants must apply for the system or spectrum they have agreed to operate in pursuant to  X-the Joint Proposal and the spectrum sharing plan that we adopt in this Report and Order. After receipt of an applicant's amended application, the Commission will determine if such applicant is technically and financially qualified for a license. If an applicant is so qualified, a license will be granted. If an applicant fails to apply for the system or spectrum it has agreed to operate in pursuant to the Joint Proposal or is not qualified for a second round  Xe-license, then the spectrum assigned to such applicant under our spectrum sharing plan will be deemed available for reassignment by the Commission at a future date.  X -rrn130.44As stated in the Notice, all amended applications must conform to Part 25 of our Rules and will be accepted unconditionally if made to conform the application to the rules" 4,''ZZ["  X-and policies adopted in the Report and Order.O yOy-ԍrrnNotice  103.(#rO Final Analysis contends that amendments  X-that do not have any material impact on other systems should not be considered "major."ZX yO-ԍrrnComments of Final Analysis at 46.(#rZ Section 25.116 of our Rules provides that if an amendment is deemed to be "major" and is filed after the applicable "cutoff" date, the entire application will be considered a newly filed as of the date of the amendment and subject to the public notice requirements of Section  X-25.151 of our Rules.X yO& -ԍrrn47 C.F.R.  25.116(c).(#rX Since the cutoff date for filing applications in the second processing round has passed, amended applications that constitute "major" amendments will not be considered in this processing round. Section 25.116 contains several exceptions, including instances where the amendment resolves frequency conflicts with other pending applications,  X1-but does not create new or increased frequency conflicts.B1x yOZ-ԍrrnId.(#rB  X -rrn131.44Accordingly, only amendments that are necessary to bring an application into  X -conformance with any rules and policies that are adopted in this Report and Order will be  X -accepted unconditionally._  yO-ԍrrnSee Big LEO Order  59.(#r_ All other amendments will be treated under our existing Rules. Thus, a change in the feeder or service link spectrum that a system will operate in to meet the requirements imposed by our fivesystem spectrum sharing plan or a change in system configuration necessary to comply with the 125 minute or less frequency change requirement for timesharing the 400.15401 MHz band with DoD would be permitted without affecting a particular application's status in this processing group. However, an amendment that  XK-substantially alters an applicant's beneficial ownership or controlK yO- rԍrrnThere is a public interest exemption from this requirement. See 47 C.F.R.  25.116(c); See also Air Signal  yO\- rInternational, Inc., 81 FCC 2d 472 (1980) (waiving Section 25.116 to allow acquisition of interests in  rjapplications as part of a larger corporate transaction involving acquisition of substantial and ongoing lines of  yO- rbusiness apart from the applications); Constellation Communications, FCC 96279 (released June 27, 1996)  r(where an antitrafficking rules provided safeguard, waiving Section 25.116 for ownership changes resulting  yO|- rin part from larger corporate transactions and in part to bolster finances); Starsys Global Positioning, Inc. ,  r11 FCC Rcd 1237 (Int'l Bureau 1995) (waiving Section 25.116 where ownership changes removed potential  yO !- runcertainty as to compliance with foreign ownership limits and financial qualifications requirements), petition  yO!-for recon. pending.(#r or a change that is not  X4-necessary to bring the application into conformance with our the rules adopted in this Report  X-and Order and which would increase frequency conflicts, such as a change from a CDMA to a FDMA/TDMA transmission technique, would render the application a newly filed application to be considered in a future processing group. "5h,''ZZ"Ԍ X-rrn132.44An applicant's amended application must indicate which system or spectrum the applicant is applying for and the technical parameters of its system including, but not limited to, the number of satellites in its system, the specific spectrum in which it will operate feeder and service links as well as the channel size and number of the same, and the operational protocols and descriptions of its proposed timesharing techniques, including information about the methods they would use to avoid unacceptable interference to United States government systems, existing Little LEO licensees and other authorized systems operating in the same spectrum. We ask also that applicants describe in detail the strategies they propose to shift their operations in the 137138 MHz frequency band from the NOAA bands to the NOAA channels during the years 2000 to 2012. If, upon review, the Commission believes that it is feasible for the parties to coordinate successfully and a license is granted, we will expect the parties to coordinate their systems in good faith. The foregoing information provided by the applicants in their amended applications will assist us in identifying potential coordination conflicts with other applicants and authorized systems.  X -G.rrnExpectations of Future Spectrum  Xy-rrn133.44Final Analysis requests that the Commission permit applicants to maintain their applications on file for their full constellations even if certain aspects of their system  XK-proposals cannot be fully implemented under a partial or interim license grant.BK yO-ԍrrnId.(#rB Available spectrum for Little LEO service is scarce. We had significant difficulty obtaining spectrum for Little LEO service at WRC95 and only uplink spectrum was allocated for the service. We have no assurances that we will obtain additional spectrum for Little LEO service at  X-WRC97. Except with respect to a System 2 licensee, we emphasize that a second round Little LEO licensee must be prepared to operate its entire system solely using the spectrum  X-being authorized in this Report and Order, without regard to additional WRC95 and WRC97 spectrum, if any, that it may be assigned in the future.  X|-rrn134.44We are concerned that if a second round Little LEO licensee builds and operates its system with the expectation of obtaining additional spectrum in the future, and it is unable to obtain such spectrum, then it may not continue to be financially viable and offer Little LEO services to the public. This would undermine our objectives of promoting competition in the Little LEO service markets and fostering the rapid delivery of new and innovative service to the public. Therefore, except as noted with respect to System 2, we expect second round Little LEO licensees to develop business plans that will accommodate the operation of their system in the spectrum they are authorized to use in the first and second processing rounds without any expectation of obtaining additional spectrum. As a result, we will not keep second round Little LEO system applications on file after we grant licenses in this proceeding.  Xh$-H.rrnExisting Rules"h$6X,''ZZF#"Ԍ X-ԙrrn135.44Second round Little LEO systems are subject to our existing rules and policies governing Little LEO system licensing and operation. We will not require Little LEO  X-licensees to provide service on a common carrier basis.X yOK-ԍrrnLittle LEO Order  24.(#rX Further, we will issue a tenyear blanket operating license that authorizes (1) the Little LEO system space segment and commences when the first LEO satellite in a new licensee's Little LEO system, or the first of the additional LEO satellites covered by an existing Little LEO licensee's modification request, is launched, (2) the replacement of such satellites as they are retired, (3) a filing window for next generation system proposals, and (4) system implementation milestones. A second round Little LEO licensee will be required to obtain separate Commission authorizations for the user terminals and gateways to be utilized in its Little LEO system.  X -  X -| IV. CONCLUSION ă  X -rrn136.44In this Report and Order, we adopt rules and policies that will allow the licensing and operation of competitive NVNG MSS systems operating in the public interest. Based on  X-the considerations discussed above, we believe the rules and policies set forth in this Report  Xy-and Order will best serve the public interest by making efficient use of finite spectrum and orbital resources and promoting our goals of competition and rapid service development in Little LEO service markets.  X-W V. ORDERING CLAUSES ĐTP  X-rrn137.44Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 303(r), and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154, 303(r), and 309(j), that Part 25 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 25, and the Commission's policies are  X-amended as specified in this Report and Order.  Xe-rrn138.44IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that second round applicants shall file amended  XN-applications within 15 days after the release of this Report and Order. We find good cause to  X7-make this rule effective within 15 days after the release of this Report and Order.7X yO@ -ԍrrnSee 5 U.S.C.  553(d)(3). See also Omnipoint Corporation v. FCC, 78 F.3d 620 (D.C. Cir. 1996).(#rƹ This rule will enable the five second round applicants to expedite the amendment of their second round applications which have been pending for approximately three years. This will enable the Commission to expedite the processing of second round applications in order to issue licenses to qualified applicants. Continued delay in the processing of second round applications will increase the headstarts already given to existing first round licensees and other providers of competitive services. Further delay in issuing second processing round licenses will undermine the public interest by delaying the entry of new competitors in the markets for""7,''ZZ!" Little LEO services. Moreover, we find that good cause exists to waive additional notice and  X-comment upon this rule because it is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.X yOb-ԍrrnSee 5 U.S.C.  808(2).(#rX This rule has already been subject to notice and comment in this rulemaking proceeding and the second round applicants that are directly affected by this rule are urging the Commission to  X-take prompt action in this Report and Order that will expedite the issuance of second round  X-licenses.aX yO-ԍrrnSee Joint Proposal at 1, 9 and 11.(#ra It would be contrary to the public interest for the Commission to delay further the processing of second round applications now that the second round applicants have mutually agreed upon a spectrum sharing plan and are urging the Commission to expedite the issuance of second round licenses.  X -rrn139.44The report required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the Contract with  X -America Advancement Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C.  801 et seq., is set forth in Appendix C attached hereto.  X -rrn140.44The analysis required pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  604, is set forth in Appendix D attached hereto.  Xy-rrn141.44The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to the rules adopted herein because  Xb-such rules apply to less than 10 persons.`b yO-ԍrrnSee 44 U.S.C.  3502(3)(a)(i).(#r`  X4-rrn142.44Except for the rule requiring the filing of amended applications by second round  X-applicants within 15 days after the release of this Report and Order, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that amendments to Part 25 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 25, and  X-the Commission's policies, as specified in this Report and Order, WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE no earlier than permitted under the Contract with America Advancement Act of  X-1996, 5 U.S.C.  801 et seq. r4 z (##T$$%&B''0*,.8135@8:,''ZZ $"Ԍ(c) Each satellite in a NVNG licensee's system timesharing spectrum with DoD in the 400.15401 MHz band shall automatically turn off and cease satellite transmissions if, after 72 consecutive hours, no reset signal is received from the NVNG licensee's gateway earth station and verified by the satellite. All satellites in such NVNG licensee's system shall be capable of instantaneous shutdown on any subband upon command from such NVNG licensee's gateway earth station. (d) Initially, a NVNG licensee timesharing spectrum with DoD in the 400.15401 MHz band shall be able to change the frequency on which its system satellites are operating within 125 minutes of receiving notification from a DoD required frequency change in the 400.15401 MHz band. Thereafter, when a NVNG licensee constructs additional gateway earth stations located outside of North and South America, it shall use its best efforts to decrease to 90 minutes the time required to implement a DoD required frequency change. A NVNG licensee promptly shall notify the Commission and NTIA of any decrease in the time it requires to implement a DoD required frequency change. (e) Once a NVNG licensee timesharing spectrum with DoD in the 400.15401 MHz band demonstrates to DoD that it is capable of implementing a DoD required frequency change within the time required under subsection (d) above, thereafter, such NVNG licensee shall demonstrate its capability to implement a DoD required frequency change only once per year at the instruction of DoD. Such demonstrations shall occur during offpeak hours, as determined by the NVNG licensee, unless otherwise agreed by the NVNG licensee and DoD. Such NVNG licensee will coordinate with DoD in establishing a plan for such a demonstration. In the event that a NVNG licensee fails to demonstrate to DoD that it is capable of implementing a DoD required frequency change in accordance with a demonstration plan established by DoD and the NVNG licensee, upon the Commission's receipt of a written notification from NTIA describing such failure, the Commission shall impose additional conditions or requirements on the NVNG licensee's authorization as may be necessary to protect DoD operations in the 400.15401 MHz downlink band until the Commission is notified by NTIA that the NVNG licensee has successfully demonstrated its ability to implement a DoD required frequency change. Such additional conditions or requirements may include, but are not limited to, requiring such NVNG licensee immediately to terminate its operations interfering with the DoD system." ?,''ZZ "  X- ) APPENDIX C Ã 7 CONTRACT WITH AMERICA ADVANCEMENT ACT OIRA MAJOR/NONMAJOR DETERMINATION  Xv-Title of Item:  Amendment of Part 25 of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to the Second Processing Round of the NonVoice, NonGeostationary  XH-Mobile Satellite Service  X -Planned Action: Report and Order (#  X -Release Date: October 15, 1997  Xy-Rulemaking Category:z z [X] Major [ ] NonMajor [ ] Telecommunications Act of 1996 (#z  X4-Contact:44 Daniel Connors/International Bureau Phone: (202) 4180755  X-Abstract: The Report and Order adopts a spectrum sharing plan and service rules and policies for licensing second round applicants to offer low earth orbiting nonvoice, non X-geosynchronous ("NVNG") mobilesatellite services ("MSS"). The Report and Order adopts a spectrum sharing plan that accommodates all second processing round applicants in the available spectrum. Three new entrants can be licensed to launch and operate new NVNG MSS systems and two existing NVNG MSS licensees can be licensed to expand the service  Xe-capability of their systems. In the uplink and downlink spectrum, the licensees will be required to timeshare the spectrum with existing commercial and U.S. government users.  X7-The Report and Order adopts specific rules for timesharing the available spectrum with  X -authorized United States government and commercial users. The Report and Order also adopts rules for qualification for a second processing round authorization and for eligibility to use future MSS spectrum allocations. Because the spectrum sharing plan and technical rules and policies adopted by the Report and Order are likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more, the Commission believes that this is a major rule under the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 101221. The Commission is not required to prepare a cost benefit analysis and is not subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 1044.":&@,''ZZ$"Ԍ X-ԙ Paperwork Reduction Act implications? [ ] Yes [X] No  X-Proposed Effective Date: The effective date of the spectrum sharing plan and rules adopted in the Report and Order is the later of 60 days after the submission of a report to Congress  Xv-and the General Accounting Office about the Report and Order or the date of publication in  X_-the Federal Register.  ?H< #x6X@KpX@#"HA,''ZZ"  X< ) #Xj\  P6G;XP# APPENDIX D Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  X- rrnAs required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, ("RFA"),Xw yO- rԍrrnSee 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, seeĠ5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., has been amended by the Contract with America  rAdvancement Act of 1996, Public L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.(#rƞ an Initial Regulatory  Xv-Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") was incorporated in the Notice.Xvw yO - rԍrrnAmendment of Part 25 of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to the Second  yO - r]Processing Round of the NonVoice, NonGeostationary Mobile Satellite Service, Notice of Proposed  yO -Rulemaking, IB Docket No. 96220, FCC 96426 (released October 29, 1996).(#rƤ The Commission sought  X_-written public comment on the proposals in the Notice, including comment on the IRFA.  XH-This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA"), concerning the Report and Order,   X1-conforms to the RFA.1w yO-#X\  P6G;P#эrrnSee 5 U.S.C. 604. (#rƄ rrn  X - I.rrnNeed for and Objectives of the Report and Order:  X - rrn rrnIn this decision, the Commission, adopts a spectrum licensing plan and service rules and policies for second processing round applicants for nonvoice, nongeostationary ("NVNG") mobilesatellite service ("MSS") systems that will operate in frequency bands below 1 GHz. The purpose of this action is to develop rules and policies for licensing new NVNG MSS systems and existing NVNG licensees seeking to expand the service capability of their systems in order to (a) promote competition in the emerging NVNG MSS service markets and (b) spur the rapid delivery of new services to the public at reasonable prices. NVNG MSS systems provide near realtime data services worldwide and are global systems. In order to ensure the rapid and successful implementation of new NVNG MSS systems, the Commission has worked closely with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA") to develop innovative technical service rules that permit new NVNG MSS systems to timeshare the licensed spectrum with existing United States government systems that will  X-be operating in the same downlink spectrum. The Report and Order adopts rules and policies that promote efficiency in licensing and use of the electromagnetic spectrum. In addition, we expect that the licensing framework we have set out for NVNG MSS systems will aid in the development of competitive and innovative satellite systems. " B,''ZZj"Ԍ X- II.rrnSummary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:(#r  X- rrnNo comments were received specifically in response to the IRFA. However, in order to minimize the entry barriers for new Little LEO systems seeking to provide NVNG MSS systems, the Commission staff spent months working with NTIA and the applicants to fashion  Xv-a spectrum licensing plan that was proposed in the Notice. Before release of the Report and  X_-Order, we, again, worked closely with second round applicants and encouraged them to develop a mutually acceptable spectrum licensing plan. All of the second processing round applicants were able to reach agreement regarding a spectrum sharing plan and that plan has  X -been adopted in the Report and Order. The spectrum sharing plan accommodates the system designs of all second round applicants, including existing NVNG MSS licensees. Therefore, we will not adopt our new entrant eligibility requirements and will apply our relaxed financial  X -standard, rather than the strict financial standard proposed in the Notice. In addition, because all second round applicants can be accommodated in the available spectrum, the spectrum sharing plan we adopt avoids mutual exclusivity. Consequently, it will be unnecessary for the Commission to employ an auction to choose among mutually exclusive applicants. Finally,  Xy-the Report and Order adopts eligibility rules for the use of future MSS spectrum and for receiving a second processing round authorization. By licensing all second round NVNG MSS applicants, we enable small entities and startup companies the opportunity to compete in the capital intensive satellite industry.  X- rrn  X-III.rrnDescription and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules Will  X-Apply:  X-rrn The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to satellite service licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the definition under  X-the Small Business Administration rules #X~ps7 X## Xj\  P6G;XP#applicable to Communications Services "Not Elsewhere Classified." This definition provides that a small entity is one with $11 million or  Xe-less in annual receipts.ew yO-#X\  P6G;P#эrrn13 CFR  121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 4899. (#rƪ rrnOf the five applicants in the second processing round, two are small entities: Volunteers in Technical Assistance, Inc. and LEO One USA Corporation. The remaining three second round applicants, Orbital Communications Corporation, Final Analysis Communications, Inc. and ESat, are not small entities because they each have revenues in excess of $11 million annually or have parent companies or investors that have revenues in excess of $11 million annually.  X"-rrnThe service rules adopted in the Report and Order will not apply to other small entities currently providing NVNG MSS types of services. The services rules apply only to second"#CX,''ZZe"" round NVNG MSS licensees that timeshare spectrum in the 400.15401 MHz and 137138 MHz frequency bands with existing United States government satellite systems.  X-       X-IV.rrnDescription of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance  X-Requirements: (#r  Xv-rrnThe rules adopted in the Report and Order require that all second processing round applicants file amendments to their pending applications to conform to the rules and policies  XH-adopted in the Report and Order. Such amendments are required in order to provide the Commission with updated technical and financial information about each applicant so that the Commission can determine whether or not an applicant is technically and financially qualified to receive a license to operate in the applied for spectrum.  X -In this Report and Order, we also adopt certain compliance requirements for second round NVNG MSS licensees that timeshare spectrum in the 400.15401 MHz and 137138 MHz frequency bands with United States government satellite systems. The Commission may terminate the operations of NVNG MSS licensees determined to be interfering with the operations of United States government satellite systems. NVNG MSS licensees will also be required to comply with technical operational parameters relating to elevation angle, system demonstration requirements and satellite failsafe procedures. rrn  X- V.rrnSteps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Burden on Small Entities, and  X-Significant Alternatives Considered: (#r rrn  X-rrnThe Commission proposed in the Notice applying a strict financial standard to second round NVNG MSS applicants. In order to minimize any barriers for entry into this new satellite market for small entities, Commission staff spent months encouraging and working with all of the NVNG MSS second round applicants to develop a spectrum sharing plan that  X|-could accommodate all second round applicants. As discussed in the Report and Order, all second round applicants can be accommodated under the spectrum licensing plan that we adopt. Therefore, we will apply the same relaxed financial standard to second processing round applicants that we applied to first processing round licenses. By developing a spectrum sharing plan that accommodates all second round applicants, we enable small entities and startup companies the opportunity to compete in the capital intensive satellite industry.  X - VI.rrnReport to Congress  X"-rrnThe Commission shall send a copy of this FRFA, along with the Report and Order, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this FRFA will also be published in the Federal Register.  X<&-T ă