******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before theFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) FINAL ANALYSIS ) File Nos. 25-SAT-P/LA-95 COMMUNICATION SERVICES, INC. ) 76-SAT-AMEND-95 ) 79-SAT-AMEND-96 For Authorization ) 151-SAT-AMEND-96 to Construct, Launch ) 7-SAT-AMEND-97 and Operate a Non-Voice, ) Non-Geostationary Mobile Satellite ) System in the 148-150.05 MHz, ) 400.15-401 MHz, and ) 137-138 MHz bands ) ORDER AND AUTHORIZATION Adopted: March 31, 1998 Released: April 1, 1998 By the Chief, International Bureau: I. Introduction 1. By this Order, we authorize Final Analysis Communication Services, Inc. ("Final Analysis") to launch and operate a non-voice, non-geostationary mobile satellite ("NVNG MSS") service in low Earth orbit ("Little LEO") system. Final Analysis's Little LEO system will offer data communications services, including two-way data messaging, vehicle tracking and remote meter reading to users in the United States and around the world. Grant of Final Analysis's application will serve the public interest, convenience and necessity because it will promote competition in the Little LEO service. II. Background 2. Orbital Communications Corporation ("Orbcomm") filed an application to construct, launch and operate a Little LEO system in 1990. Subsequently, Starsys Global Positioning, Inc. ("Starsys") and Volunteers In Technical Assistance, Inc. ("VITA") filed applications for Little LEO systems. The Commission considered these three applications together in what is referred to as the first Little LEO processing round. In the first processing round, the Commission formed a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee to establish sharing criteria and technical rules to govern Little LEO service. During these negotiations, Orbcomm, Starsys, and VITA reached agreement on a spectrum sharing plan that would enable all three applicants to implement their systems. The Negotiated Rulemaking Committee used the spectrum sharing plan to issue a report that became the basis for the rules and policies adopted by the Commission to govern the licensing of Little LEO systems in the first processing round. Orbcomm was issued the first Little LEO license in October 1994. The first processing round concluded when Starsys and VITA were issued Little LEO licenses in July and November 1995, respectively. 3. In October of 1993, Leo One USA Corporation ("Leo One") filed an application for a new Little LEO system. In September 1994, we placed Leo One's application on public notice. The Public Notice established a "cut-off" date for filing applications to be considered concurrently with Leo One's. This action commenced the second Little LEO processing round. On the cut-off date, Final Analysis filed an application requesting authority to construct and operate a 26 satellite Little LEO system in the 148-150 MHz uplink and the 137-138 MHz downlink frequency bands to provide services to customers anywhere in the world. In addition, CTA Commercial Systems, Inc. ("CTA"), E-Sat, Inc. ("E-Sat"), and GE American Communications, Inc. ("GE Americom") filed second processing round applications. Orbcomm and VITA filed modifications to their first processing round Little LEO systems. We accepted the new applications, and modification applications filed by Orbcomm and VITA, in the second processing round. We also deferred consideration of Starsys's amendment to its original application, filed on April 25, 1994, after the cut-off date for filing applications in the first processing round, to the second processing round. As a result, a total of eight applications were included in the second processing round. 4. Unlike the first processing round, where sufficient spectrum existed to accommodate all the applicants, insufficient spectrum existed to accommodate the eight Little LEO systems proposed by second processing round applicants. Portions of the available spectrum, the 148-150.05 MHz uplink and 137-138 MHz and 400.15-401 MHz downlink frequency bands, were licensed to Orbcomm, Starsys and VITA in the first processing round. In addition, the downlink frequency bands were shared with U.S. Government users. Specifically, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") is operating a meteorological satellite system in the 137-138 MHz downlink frequency band. Also, the Department of Defense's ("DoD") Department of Air Force plans to implement a meteorological satellite system in the 400.15-401 MHz downlink frequency band for national security purposes. Because the government meteorological satellite services were allocated on a primary or co-primary basis in these bands, second processing round Little LEO licensees were required to share these bands with the NOAA and DoD meteorological satellite systems. In light of the limited spectrum available to second processing round applicants after the conclusion of the first processing round, and the required sharing between the NOAA and DoD meteorological satellite systems and the second processing round Little LEO systems, the Commission initiated a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the "Notice") to develop rules and policies to govern the licensing and operation of second processing round Little LEO systems in this sharing environment. 5. Generally, the Notice proposed to: (a) exclude first processing round licensees from participation in the second processing round in order to open Little LEO service markets to new entrants; (b) license up to three new Little LEO systems in the second processing round; (c) establish procedures that would require second processing round licensees to protect the operations of the DoD and NOAA meteorological satellite systems; and (d) use auctions to resolve mutual exclusivity among second processing round applicants. All eight applicants and other parties commented on the proposals in the Notice. Subsequently, two applicants withdrew from the second processing round and another applicant acquired the satellite operations of a third applicant. 6. On September 22, 1997, the remaining applicants filed with the Commission a mutually agreed-upon spectrum sharing plan (the "Joint Proposal") that accommodated all remaining second processing round applicants in the available spectrum. Generally, the spectrum sharing plan requires that the applicants share the 148-150.05 MHz uplink frequency band with the proposed French satellite system S80-1 ("S80-1"), the Russian radionavigation satellite service system ("TSYKADA"), and terrestrial users of the band. The applicants agreed to share the 137-138 MHz downlink frequency band with NOAA, S80-1, the proposed Russian Meteor satellite system, and terrestrial users of the band. Finally, the applicants agreed to share the 400.15-401 MHz frequency band with DoD. The Joint Proposal expressly recognized that the second processing round applicants will be required to coordinate their operations with the other users of these frequency bands. As part of the Joint Proposal, the applicants agreed to withdraw all petitions and objections against each other's pending applications. 7. On October 15, 1997, the Commission released a Report and Order (the "Report and Order") in which it concluded that with use of appropriate transmission techniques, proper system coordination, time-sharing of frequencies and the adoption of the Joint Proposal Sharing Plan, there was sufficient spectrum to license the five remaining second processing round applicants. Specifically, the Report and Order identified particular frequencies and other operating parameters for each of these systems, which we designated as System 1 (Leo One), System 2 (Final Analysis), System 3 (E-SAT), ORBCOMM, and VITA. The Report and Order directed second processing round applicants to amend their applications to conform to the rules and policies adopted in the Report and Order. 8. In response, Final Analysis filed an amendment to its Application ("Conforming Amendment"). In its Conforming Amendment, Final Analysis stated its intention to operate its Little LEO system in the 148-150.05 MHz uplink, and the 137-138 MHz and 400.15-401 MHz downlink frequency bands, consistent with the spectrum plan adopted in the Report and Order for System 2. Final Analysis proposed to reduce the inclination of the orbital planes of the primary portion of its constellation from 66 degrees to 51 degrees; decrease the number of operational satellites in each orbital plane from six to five satellites; increase the number of orbital planes in the constellation from four to six; and increase the size of the primary portion of the constellation from 24 operational satellites to 30 operational satellites. Furthermore, there will be two additional satellites in the supplemental portion of the constellation. Final Analysis also maintained that it is capable of funding the remaining cost for the construction, launch and first year operating costs of its first two satellites as required by Section 25.142(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules and it estimates this cost will amount to $855,000. III. Discussion 9. In order to grant Final Analysis's application to launch and operate the space segment of its Little LEO system, the Commission must find that the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served by such a grant. Before we can make this finding, Final Analysis must demonstrate that it is legally, technically and financially qualified to hold a Commission license to construct, launch and operate an Little LEO system in the 148-150.05 MHz, 400.15- 401 MHz and 137-138 MHz frequency bands, in accordance with the spectrum sharing plan and other requirements adopted in the Report and Order. 10. Before addressing Final Analysis's qualifications to hold a Little LEO license, we address Leo One's contention that Final Analysis's Conforming Amendment constitutes a major amendment to its existing Little LEO Application. Under Section 25.116 of the Commission's Rules, an amendment is considered a "major amendment" if it increases the potential for interference. Leo One argues that under our rules, applications modified by a major amendment should be considered a newly-filed application if the amendment is filed after a "cut-off" date. According to Leo One, Final Analysis's application should not be considered in this processing round because its Conforming Amendment constitutes a major amendment and was filed after the cut-off date. Rather, the Commission should defer consideration of Final Analysis's application until the next processing round or deny the application outright. Leo One maintains that the Bureau considered a similar situation with respect to an amendment filed by Starsys after its first round application was filed and decided to defer consideration of the amendment until the next processing round. 11. In response, Final Analysis contends that the changes in its Conforming Amendment will reduce intersystem frequency conflicts, and that the changes conform to the Report and Order. Final Analysis also argues that, in a case involving Orbcomm, the Commission found Orbcomm's proposal to increase the size of its constellation from 20 to 36 satellites and lower the orbital altitude a "minor" amendment as part of Orbcomm's first round application. 12. In the Report and Order, the Commission stated that "only amendments that are necessary to bring an application into conformance with any rules and policies that are adopted in this Report and Order will be accepted unconditionally." This is consistent with Commission action in other satellite services, where service and technical rules are often adopted after applications have been filed. Consequently, an amendment designed only to bring a pending application into compliance with rules adopted for a particular service, even if it would otherwise be considered a major amendment, will not affect the underlying application's status in a particular processing group. In contrast, any changes that are not necessary to bring an application into conformance with new rules will be scrutinized independently. If these amendments are "major amendments," it could affect the original application's status in the processing round, as provided in Section 25.116(c) of the Commission's rules. 13. As discussed below, we find that several of Final Analysis's proposed changes constitute major amendments. Nevertheless, we will waive Section 25.116(c) and will not bar Final Analysis's application from consideration in this processing round. We do so in light of the public interest benefits of completing the second processing round and allocating spectrum in the manner agreed by all parties in the Joint Proposal. To defer the Final Analysis application to a subsequent processing round would be contrary to the spirit of the Joint Proposal, which contemplated accommodating all of the second round applicants. It would also deprive the market of an additional competitor and leave valuable spectrum underutilized. As discussed below, we will require Final Analysis to certify that it is prepared to go forward with its system as authorized in this Order. Failure to do so will render this license null and void. 14. We disagree with Leo One that the Starsys case compels a different result. Leo One argues that we must defer consideration of Final Analysis's application until the next processing round or must deny the application outright. Rather than supporting Leo One's argument, however, the Starsys case supports the action we take here. Starsys had filed a first round Little LEO application, which it amended after the first round cut-off date. In the amendment, Starsys proposed to add frequencies that it did not request in its initial application. Rather than treating Starsys's entire application as newly-filed, we treated the initial application in the first processing round and the amendment in the second processing round. This is precisely the action we take here. 15. We also disagree with Final Analysis that the Orbcomm case requires us to consider both its initial application and its amendment in the second processing round. Final Analysis points out that the Commission treated Orbcomm's amendment to increase the number of satellites in its system and to lower the orbital altitude of the constellation as a minor amendment that was considered, together with Orbcomm's initial application, in the first processing round. What Final Analysis does not point out, however, is that the Commission explicitly held that while Orbcomm's amendment could, in itself, increase interference potential, it would not in this case. Orbcomm's amended system proposal had reduced the number of downlink channels from nine to three and terminated co-polarized operations when in view of the Starsys gateway earth station main beam. Thus, the Commission concluded that Orbcomm's proposed amendment resulted in a net decrease in interference potential from the levels in Orbcomm's original application. 16. Consequently, we will not defer the Final Analysis application to a subsequent processing round. We will not, however, in the context of this processing round, consider any aspect of the Conforming Amendment that constitutes a major amendment under our rules. Below, we analyze each proposal submitted by Final Analysis in its Conforming Amendment to determine, first, whether the proposed change is required to bring the application into compliance with the Report and Order and, if not, to determine whether it constitutes a major amendment, not otherwise excepted from being treated as newly-filed. Frequency Bands 17. In its Conforming Amendment, Final Analysis proposes to operate on the frequency bands assigned to System 2 in the Report and Order: 148-150.05 MHz uplink, and 137.0-138.0 MHz and 400.15-401.0 MHz downlink. We find that these amendments are necessary to bring the application into conformance with the Report and Order and will grant Final Analysis authority to operate in these bands. a. Uplink Operations in the 148.0-149.90 MHz Band 18. Pursuant to our Report and Order, Final Analysis will be permitted to operate service uplinks in the 148.0-149.90 MHz band with the following restrictions: 148-148.250 MHz Band Final Analysis must share this band with Leo One, ORBCOMM, and E-SAT; 148.750-148.855 MHz Band Final Analysis must share this band with two narrow band systems Leo One, ORBCOMM, and E-Sat; 148.855-148.905 MHz Band Final Analysis may operate in this band if E-Sat does not use this band for feeder link uplinks and, in such event, Final Analysis must share this band with Leo One and ORBCOMM; 148.905-148.955 MHz Band Final Analysis may operate in this band if S80-1 does not use this band for feeder link uplink and, in such event, Final Analysis must share this band with Leo One and ORBCOMM; 148.955-149.810 MHz Band Final Analysis must share this band with Leo One and ORBCOMM. The 149.585-149.635 MHz portion of this band is reserved exclusively for ORBCOMM for feeder link uplink use until such time that ORBCOMM relocates its feeder uplink to the 150-150.05 MHz band. 19. Consistent with the Negotiated Rulemaking Report, the Report and Order requires second processing round licensees to avoid causing harmful interference with numerous satellite and terrestrial systems in the 148-149.90 MHz band. Final Analysis proposes to implement a scanning activity receiver system (STARS), an enhanced version of dynamic channel activity assignment system (DCAAS), to avoid causing harmful interference to other authorized systems in this band. 20. Coordination Issues: ORBCOMM contends that Final Analysis has not demonstrated that its co-frequency operations in the 148-149.9 MHz band will not cause unacceptable interference to ORBCOMM's operations. ORBCOMM also argues that coordination to resolve co-frequency operations should occur prior to the grant of Final Analysis's license and that the burden is on Final Analysis to protect ORBCOMM, a Little LEO first processing round licensee, from unacceptable interference pursuant to Section 25.142(a) of the Commission's Rules. In reply, Final Analysis notes that its conforming amendment adequately explains how it plans to avoid causing harmful interference to other Little LEO systems. 21. We disagree with ORBCOMM that Section 25.142(a) of the Commission's Rules requires Final Analysis to demonstrate that it will not cause unacceptable interference to ORBCOMM before the Commission can license Final Analysis. It is important to remember that, initially, the Notice proposed excluding ORBCOMM and the other Little LEO first processing round licensees from participation in the second processing round. ORBCOMM and VITA joined the second processing round by participating in the negotiation and conclusion of a spectrum sharing plan with the new entrant second processing round applicants. The terms and conditions of the spectrum sharing plan were embodied in a Joint Proposal submitted to the Commission which included Orbcomm and VITA. 22. As part of the Joint Proposal, ORBCOMM expressly agreed to permit other second processing round applicants to operate in the channels comprising the 148-149.9 MHz uplink band, including those frequencies licensed to ORBCOMM in the first processing round, in exchange for gaining the right to add twelve satellites to its constellation and to operate in the lower part of the 148-149.9 MHz band (148-148.855 MHz band) and in new downlink frequencies. The Joint Proposal, as adopted in the Report and Order, reflected all of the material terms and conditions of the spectrum sharing plan mutually agreed to by the second processing round applicants. 23. To the extent that ORBCOMM may be arguing that its second processing round application is entitled to protection from other second processing round applications, we disagree. All second processing round applicants receive equal consideration. To the extent that ORBCOMM may be arguing that the Commission should apply Section 25.142(a) to those aspects of its first processing round authorization that are discrete and separable from the modifications made as part of the second processing round, we believe that this action is not technically feasible. In light of the extensive modifications made to ORBCOMM's license through ORBCOMM's affirmative participation in the second processing round, ORBCOMM may not now claim that it was authorized to use frequencies in the first processing round that are discrete and separable from those frequencies for which it is requesting authorization in the second processing round. Because ORBCOMM does not possess discrete and separable first round spectrum in this frequency band, ORBCOMM may not seek the protection available to previously authorized systems under Section 25.142(a) for the frequencies it was originally authorized to use in the first round. In short, ORBCOMM, as a co-equal second processing round applicant, cannot now accept the benefits flowing from its participation in the second processing round, yet reject the burdens that it assumed in order to receive those benefits. 24. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by ORBCOMM that a pre-licensing coordination among second processing round applicants would be more helpful than our usual approach of conditioning the grant of licenses on the completion of coordination. Until licenses are granted, second processing round applicants will not know with certainty with whom to coordinate, nor will they know the parameters of the satellite systems to be coordinated. Accordingly, and in recognition of ORBCOMM's potential interference concerns, we condition Final Analysis's authorization on the completion of coordination in good faith with ORBCOMM, other second processing round licensees, and U.S. Government and terrestrial users authorized to operate in the 148-149.9 MHz frequency band. 25. We are confident that post-licensing coordination among second processing round licensees operating in this band will resolve the potential interference concerns raised by ORBCOMM. As ORBCOMM points out, possible solutions exist to avoid the potential for interference between satellite networks in this band, for example, by using pre-defined algorithms. We also encourage Final Analysis and ORBCOMM to continue their coordination efforts. 26. We note, moreover, that even were ORBCOMM to demonstrate that it was entitled to protection under Section 25.142(a) for the frequencies it obtained in the first processing round, we would waive the Section 25.142(a) requirement that Final Analysis and the other second round Little LEO licensees complete coordination with ORBCOMM prior to licensing. In light of the benefits that ORBCOMM obtained through its participation in the second round and the licensing condition that all second round Little LEO licensees coordinate in good faith, we believe that requiring Final Analysis and other second round licensees to complete coordination with ORBCOMM prior to licensing would delay competition and new services for consumers and afford little, if any, interference protection to ORBCOMM beyond that which it will obtain through the post-license coordination process. b. Uplink Operations in the 149.90-150.05 MHz Band 27. In the Report and Order, we designated 50 KHz (150.00-150.05 MHz) for the Final Analysis (System 2) feeder link uplink. This spectrum is shared on a primary basis with the Radio Navigation Satellite Service (RNSS). ITU Radio Regulation S5.220 dictates that land MSS shall not constrain the development and use of the RNSS service in the shared bands. This regulation applies not only to existing but also to future RNSS systems. Therefore, we require Final Analysis to coordinate the use of this band with RNSS systems worldwide for the period of this license. 28. Currently, the Russian maritime RNSS TSYKADA system uses the 150.00-150.05 MHz band for its downlinks. In order to protect TSYKADA operations from harmful interference, Final Analysis must locate its gateways at a sufficient distance away from the coastal areas to provide for geographic separation between the gateway and TSYKADA subscriber units (which presumably are along coastal areas). Final Analysis must also limit its gateways antenna elevation angle to minimize emissions towards the horizon. Because we do not have adequate information regarding the TSYKADA system to quantify these restrictions precisely, we condition Final Analysis's authorization to operate feeder uplinks in the 150.00-150.05 MHz band subject to coordination between Final Analysis and the Russian TSYKADA system. c. Downlink Operations in 137.0-138.0 MHz Band 29. Pursuant to the Report and Order, Final Analysis will be permitted to operate downlinks in the 137.0-138.0 MHz band with the following restrictions: NOAA Bands: 137.025- 137.175 MHz and 137.825-138.00 MHz Final Analysis's use of these bands must be on a secondary basis with current and future Met Sat systems. Final Analysis must time-share these bands consistent with NOAA's implementation of the NOAA Bands and share this band with E-Sat; NOAA Channels: 137.333-1.4125 MHz, 137.475-137.525 MHz, 137.595-137.645 MHz, and 137.753-137.787 MHz Final Analysis must time-share these bands consistent with NOAA's implementation of the NOAA Channels and share this band with E-Sat. Also, when operating in NOAA channels close to E-Sat's centerline frequency, Final Analysis will likely have to reduce its power to avoid causing harmful interference into E- Sat's system. 30. Final Analysis certifies that the maximum power flux density ("PFD") produced at the Earth's surface by each of its satellites in the 137-138 MHz band will not exceed -125 dB(W/m2/4 KHz). Because Final Analysis's system does not exceed the PFD threshold requirement for coordination with terrestrial services under the Commission's Rules, such coordination will not be required. 31. ORBCOMM raises concerns regarding the possibility of out-of-band interference to ORBCOMM's operations in the 137-138 MHz band from Final Analysis's adjacent channel downlink transmissions. ORBCOMM also notes that a relatively high out-of-band response of the Final Analysis wide-band receive filters with respect to the adjacent narrowband ORBCOMM signals may result in interference to the Final Analysis system. Final Analysis replies that its adjacent downlink operations comply with Commission's requirements and do not pose a threat of potential out-of-band harmful interference to ORBCOMM. Final Analysis maintains that these issues can be resolved through post-licensing coordination. 32. In the Report and Order, we specify certain coordination requirements for Final Analysis in the downlink frequency band. Final Analysis recognizes the need to coordinate its downlink frequency use with other satellite systems operating in the 137-138 MHz band. We therefore condition Final Analysis's authorization to operate in the 137-138 MHz band on coordination with other Little LEO and U.S. Government systems operating in this band. Final Analysis must operate on a non-interference basis with respect to those systems with which coordination has not been completed. We also expect Final Analysis to coordinate its operations in this band with foreign systems. 33. In its Conforming Amendment, Final Analysis proposes to retain the flexibility to use a portion of the 137 MHz spectrum for service links. Final Analysis argues that the Commission was silent on whether Final Analysis should use the 137 MHz frequency for service or feeder links. Final Analysis has stated in its Conforming Amendment that it intends to use the 137 MHz band primarily for feeder links. Final Analysis argues that it intends and prefers to operate its service links in the 400 MHz band. However, Final Analysis contends that there is insufficient spectrum now for service links in the 400 MHz band for System 2. Final Analysis also argues that it would not serve the public interest to constrain the ability of the System 2 operator to put service links in the 137 MHz band in order to enable it to most efficiently use the System 2 spectrum. 34. Leo One raises an issue with regard to the Final Analysis's proposal to use the 137- 138 MHz band for service downlinks. Leo One argues that if Final Analysis is able to operate service links in the 137-138 MHz band, its priority for future spectrum should be correspondingly reduced. In the Report and Order, the Commission granted Final Analysis first priority to apply for and use a limited amount of additional spectrum that may be allocated in the future to the Little LEO service. According to Leo One, Final Analysis's priority for future spectrum was granted based upon Final Analysis's claim that it could not use the 137 MHz frequency band for service links because of time sharing constraints. Final Analysis responds by arguing that the prospects for future Little LEO spectrum are uncertain. Moreover, given the large number of meteorological satellites in the 137-138 MHz band, it would be premature to conclude, as Leo One does, that additional service link spectrum is unnecessary. 35. In the Report and Order, we stated that we will not assign specific feeder link spectrum in the 137-138 MHz downlink band. Furthermore, we recognized that Little LEO systems typically require continuous use of only 50 kHz of feeder link spectrum. 36. The Report and Order did not limit the use of the 137-138 MHz band for service downlinks and Leo One does not argue that such use will increase the potential for interference to its system. In the Report and Order, we recognized that Final Analysis is required to share the 137-138 MHz frequency band with NOAA on a secondary, non-interference basis. We expect this spectrum to be unavailable or of limited use for Final Analysis's service links. In order to mitigate these operational constraints, we granted Final Analysis first priority to apply for future spectrum that could accommodate up to 210 kHz (representing seven service downlinks of 30 kHz emission bandwidth each). Since Final Analysis's use of the 137-138 MHz band for service downlinks will not resolve these operational constraints we see no reason at this time to reduce Final Analysis's priority to apply for future spectrum. Therefore, we find that Final Analysis's proposal to use the 137-138 MHz band for service downlinks conforms with the Report and Order. 37. In addition, NOAA raised specific concerns regarding time-sharing with Final Analysis in this downlink band. Time-sharing spectrum with NOAA on a non-interference basis requires precise ephemeris data in order to predict the contours of a NOAA satellite's protection area in advance of its encounter with a Final Analysis satellite footprint operating on the same frequency channel. We will require Final Analysis to obtain from and provide ephemeris data to NOAA so it can accurately predict the future location and frequency emissions of each NOAA satellite. As we explained in the Report and Order, we will allow Final Analysis and NOAA the flexibility to determine the most appropriate means for exchanging ephemeris data. 38. The Report and Order did not specify a particular orbital propagator algorithm to be used for computing the time and location of a NOAA satellite's protection area. The Report and Order, however, did adopt a rule requiring a Little LEO licensee operating in the 137-138 MHz band to use an orbital propagator algorithm with an accuracy equal to or greater than the NORAD propagator used by NOAA. In its Conforming Amendment, Final Analysis confirms its intention to comply with this requirement. 39. The Report and Order also adopted a rule defining the protection area of a NOAA satellite as the geographic region on the surface of the Earth where a NOAA satellite system is receiving signals from low Earth orbiting satellites. The protection area in the NOAA channels 137.333-137.367 MHz, 137.485-137.515 MHz, 137.605-137.635 MHz, and 137.753-137.787 MHz is computed on the basis of a five degree earth station antenna elevation angle above the horizon towards the NOAA satellite. In NOAA bands 137.025-137.175 MHz and 137.825-138 MHz, the protection area is computed on the basis of a zero degree earth station antenna elevation angle above the horizon towards the NOAA satellite. Final Analysis will be required to comply with the rules adopted in the Report and Order, including, but not limited to, ceasing transmissions into a protection area before a Final Analysis satellite's footprint (computed using a zero degree elevation angle) overlaps the NOAA satellite's protection area. Final Analysis certifies that it will comply with these requirements. In the event that a time-sharing failure is detected, Final Analysis must be able to cease or modify transmissions from the satellite not operating in accordance with the time-sharing agreement immediately, or if this is not possible, the next time that satellite comes into view of a controlling earth station. 40. Section 25.259(c) of the rules, 47 C.F.R.  25.259(c), requires each satellite in a Little LEO licensee's system that is time-sharing spectrum with NOAA in the 137-138 MHz band to be capable of instantaneous and automatic shutdown if, after 72 consecutive hours, no reset signal is received and verified by the satellite. Thus, Final Analysis must comply with this requirement. Final Analysis confirms that its satellites will, indeed, comply with this requirement. 41. Final Analysis must also establish a 24-hour-per-day, 7-days-a-week point of contact that has the authority to resolve or address in an expeditious manner claims of harmful interference to NOAA system's earth station users. We require Final Analysis to provide this contact information to NTIA, NOAA, and the Commission at least three months prior to the launch of the first satellite in its Little LEO system. d. Downlink Operations in 400.15-401 MHz Band 42. Pursuant to the Report and Order, Final Analysis is authorized to share the 400.505-400.5517 MHz and 400.5983-400.645 MHz bands with VITA's Little LEO system by utilizing the time-sharing technique. Time-sharing spectrum with VITA's system requires precise ephemeris data in order to predict the contours of a VITA satellite's protection area in advance of its encounter with a Final Analysis satellite footprint operating on the same frequency channel. We will require Final Analysis to obtain from and provide ephemeris data to VITA so it can accurately predict the future location and frequency emissions of each VITA satellite. We expect Final Analysis and VITA to negotiate the most appropriate means for exchanging the ephemeris data and establishing the appropriate accuracy for the orbital propagator algorithm. 43. The Report and Order requires Final Analysis to compute the protection area of a VITA satellite on the basis of a five degree elevation angle above the horizon. Final Analysis will be required to comply with the rules adopted in the Report and Order, including, but not limited to, ceasing transmissions into a protection area prior to a Final Analysis satellite footprint, computed using a zero degree elevation angle, overlapping the VITA satellite's protection area. The Report and Order requires Final Analysis to identify to VITA and to the Commission a point of contact available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week that has authority to resolve or address in an expeditious manner claims of harmful interference to the VITA system caused by the Final Analysis system. We will require Final Analysis to provide this contact information to VITA and to the Commission at least three months prior to the launch of the first Final Analysis satellite. 44. Pursuant to the Report and Order, Final Analysis is required to share the 400.15- 401 MHz band with other satellite systems, including U.S. Government systems. NTIA is concerned that Final Analysis's operations will cause interference to U.S. Government satellite operations if the power flux density (PFD) of Final Analysis's system is greater than -125 dB(W/m2/4 KHz). Pursuant to the Commission's rules, unless this PFD level is below -125 dB(W/m2/4 KHz), Final Analysis's authorization to operate in this band is subject to coordination with terrestrial services. Final Analysis's authorization to operate in this band is also subject to adjacent-channel coordination with other Little LEO licensees, U.S. Government systems, and foreign systems operating in the 400.15-401 MHz band. 45. We have evaluated those portions of Final Analysis's amendment that conform with the Report and Order. Final Analysis has proposed numerous other amendments that are not required by the Report and Order. We address these below. Changes in Constellation Design 46. Final Analysis proposes to increase its primary constellation's size from 24 to 30 operational satellites (and from four to six inactive on-orbit spare satellites) and with two additional satellites in the supplemental portion of the constellation. Final Analysis also proposes to decrease the number of operational satellites in each orbital plane from six to five satellites, increase the number of orbital planes from four to six evenly spaced orbital planes, and decrease orbital inclination from 66 to 51 degrees. 47. Leo One and NOAA take issue with this proposal. Leo One submits that an increased number of operational satellites in lower orbital inclination would increase the number of satellites in view contending for uplink DCAAS channels in the 148-149.9 MHz band. As a result, Leo One argues, its ability to find clear uplink channels in this band will be reduced due to the increased visibility of Final Analysis's constellation. NOAA is also concerned that the proposed change in the number and inclination of Final Analysis's satellites will result in an increased number of footprint overlaps, thereby increasing the interference potential to its meteorological satellite system. 48. Final Analysis disagrees. It alleges that these proposed changes are needed to compensate it for constraints on its operations resulting from time-sharing requirements with NOAA. Final Analysis also argues that the changes will help to avoid harmful interference to NOAA by reducing the number of downlink beams overlapping with NOAA satellites. It argues that without these modifications, the outage conditions due to time-sharing would preclude it from implementing a fully competitive system offering near real-time service. 49. We find that Final Analysis's proposed constellation design changes are not necessary to conform to the Report and Order. Nowhere in the Report and Order did the Commission suggest that it would permit Final Analysis to modify its consellation design in a manner that affected the operations of other Little LEO systems. Indeed, as discussed previously, we granted Final Analysis priority to apply for future spectrum allocations to the Little LEO service in order to mitigate any current constraints on Final Analysis's operations. Thus, we find Final Analysis's assertion that the proposed changes are necessary to fulfill the Commission's objectives enunciated in the Report and Order is mistaken. 50. Having found the proposed changes are not required to conform to the Report and Order, we must now determine whether the changes constitute a major amendment. Given the limited amount of uplink spectrum and the nature of STARS/DCAAS operations, we agree with Leo One that any increase in the number of the Final Analysis satellites may result in a corresponding increase in the demand for the limited number of available STARS/DCAAS channels in the 148-149.9 MHz band. That, in turn, may have a negative impact on the operations of Leo One and other Little LEO systems sharing the band. We also find, on the basis of the record before us, that Final Analysis's proposed constellation modifications will increase the interference potential to NOAA operations in the 137-138 MHz band. A NOAA analysis indicates that the proposed changes will significantly increase the number of footprint overlaps at the latitudes below 50ø where NOAA operations are most susceptible to interference. Indeed, a study provided by Final Analysis indicates that although the proposed modified constellation design will not increase the standard deviation, it will result in an increase in the mean number of Final Analysis-NOAA satellite footprint overlaps. 51. Consequently, we find that Final Analysis's proposed changes to the constellation design system constitutes a major amendment to its application. Moreover, it does not fall within any of the exceptions that would permit us to consider it now. We therefore deny the proposed amendments. High Data Rate Channels 52. Final Analysis proposes various data rates for its system with high data rate capabilities. Leo One argues that the proposed high data rate channels are unnecessary and have the potential to greatly increase interference to Leo One's system. Final Analysis responds that it is not seeking authorization for capacity beyond that of System 2, but it "should be permitted to transmit at whatever data rate the frequency can accommodate as long as these transmissions meet all coordination requirements and do not cause harmful interference to other users." 53. We find that Final Analysis's proposed use of high data rate channels are not necessary to conform to the Report and Order. We did not specify what the maximum data rates each system could use in the Report and Order because we intended each licensee to operate within the parameters of its respective system. Having found the proposed changes are not required to conform to the Report and Order, we must now determine whether the changes constitute a major amendment. Leo One contends that the operation of the Final Analysis system at high data rates will cause harmful interference to its system. Final Analysis acknowledges that high data rates cannot be obtained when operating within the existing technical parameters established for System 2. 54. It argues that it should be permitted to transmit at whatever data rate the frequency can accommodate as long as these transmissions meet all coordination requirements and do not cause harmful interference to other users. However, we find this argument spurious. If Final Analysis is permitted to operate at higher data rates than can be accommodated by existing technical parameters for System 2, this will surely increase the potential for interference with Leo One's system. Therefore, we find no reason to authorize Final Analysis to operate at higher data rates than can be accommodated by System 2. Thus, this amendment constitutes a major amendment and we deny it accordingly. Moreover, it does not fall within any of the exceptions that would permit us to consider it now. We therefore deny this proposed amendment. Increase Downlink Subscriber Links; Downlink Feeder Links; Uplink Feeder Links 55. Final Analysis proposes to modify the design of its communications payload by increasing the number of downlink subscriber links (from 9 to 12), downlink feeder links (from 3 to 4), and uplink feeder links (from 1 to 4). Leo One claims that Final Analysis failed to justify the proposed expansion in its system's capabilities. Final Analysis replies that it is not asking for additional authorization to utilize more links than the System 2 spectrum will support. Final Analysis contends that it anticipates obtaining future spectrum and will need the ability to utilize this spectrum in the future. 56. We find that Final Analysis's proposed increase in the number of downlink subscriber links, downlink feeder links, and uplink feeder links are not necessary to conform to the Report and Order. The Report and Order contemplated that each system would operate within the parameters established at the time of the Joint Proposal. These changes are not necessary to bring an application into conformance with any rules and policies adopted in the Report and Order. 57. Having found the proposed increase in the number of downlink subscriber links; downlink feeder links, and uplink feeder links are not necessary to conform with the Report and Order, we must now determine whether the changes constitute a major amendment. Final Analysis claims that increasing the downlink subscriber links, downlink feeder links, and uplink feeder links is necessary because it modified its constellation design by the addition of two orbital planes. However, as discussed above, we deny the changes in the constellation design because we find it to be a major amendment. Therefore, Final Analysis's rationale for needing an increase in the number of downlink subscriber links, downlink feeder links, and uplink feeder links is not valid. Moreover, it does not fall within any of the exceptions that would permit us to consider it now. We therefore deny this proposed amendment. Increase in the Number of Uplink Channels 58. Final Analysis proposes to increase its use of limited shared uplink channels from 12 per satellite to 40. Leo One claims that the "resulting burden on the use of the limited number of uplink service channels will severely harm the feasibility of sharing the 148-149.9 MHz band," thereby obstructing the operations of Leo One and ORBCOMM systems. Final Analysis contends that it does not propose to increase its use of uplink channels. Rather, it proposes merely to increase the number of radio receivers on each satellite from 12 to 40. Final Analysis submits that the actual service uplink usage "will be dependent on marketplace success" of the system. Therefore, Final Analysis maintains that the extensive use of service uplink channels is dependent on how many customers the system has. 59. We find that Final Analysis's proposal to increase the number of uplink channels is not necessary to conform to the Report and Order. We disagree with Final Analysis' assertion that the actual uplink frequency usage is entirely dependent on the market success of the system. For instance, in the case of a "successful" system where the number of active users greatly exceeds the number of satellite receivers, the number of available receivers would be one of the uplink usage limiting factors. Thus, for a given system during peak demand periods, the usage of uplink channels is dependent on the number of uplink receivers on visible satellites. 60. Having determined that increasing the number of uplink channels is not required to conform with the Report and Order, we must now determine whether the changes constitute a major amendment. By increasing the number of uplink channels, Final Analysis is increasing the number of active receivers it has available. If Final Analysis has more active receivers, it reduces the availability of DCAAS channels in 148-149.9 MHz band to other Little LEO systems, harming the feasibility of sharing this band. Consequently, we find that Final Analysis's proposed increase in the number of uplink channels constitutes a major amendment to its application. Moreover, it does not fall within any of the exceptions that would permit us to consider it now. We therefore deny this proposed amendment. Message Terminal (MT) Polling Method 61. Final Analysis proposes to operate its uplink Message Terminal (MT) transmissions on a fixed frequency to request satellite access. In its Conforming Amendment, Final Analysis describes that to initiate MT operations, the user would press an "enable button" to inquire whether a satellite channel is available. As Final Analysis explains, the uplink frequency for this polling channel will be fixed for all satellites in the 148-150 MHz range. Leo One is concerned about Final Analysis's intention to operate its uplink MT transmissions on a fixed frequency to request satellite access without regard to avoiding interference into terrestrial land mobile or MSS users. This amendment does not conform to the Report and Order, nor does it comply with Commission Rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 2.106, fn. US323. 62. Having determined that Final Analysis's proposal to operate its uplink MT transmissions on a fixed frequency is not required to conform with the Report and Order, we must now determine whether this change constitutes a major amendment. We are concerned that the use of MT polling transmissions on fixed frequencies may interfere with the terrestrial services in the 148-149.9 MHz band and is inconsistent with Commission Rules. Therefore, we find the proposed MT polling method not in conformance with Commission Rules, and we deny this modification accordingly. Increase in Uplink Subscriber Power 63. Final Analysis proposes to double its uplink subscriber power from 10W to 20W. Leo One argues that this will have a detrimental impact on Leo One's ability to use the DCAAS system. Final Analysis responds that even at 20W the power level of its signal remains well below what would cause harmful interference to Leo One's uplink. The Report and Order did not specifically address uplink power issues. Rather, the Report and Order contemplated that all licensees would operate within the parameters of their respective systems. Although, Final Analysis's proposal to increase uplink subscriber power is not required to conform with the Report and Order, we must now determine whether this change constitutes a major amendment. 64. Any increase in Final Analysis's user terminal transmit power will result in a corresponding increase in the inter-system noise level for all Little LEO systems sharing on- channel or adjacent channel uplink spectrum. Hence, this proposed modification in subscriber uplink transmit power will result in an increase in the potential for interference to other Little LEO systems. 65. Consequently, we find that Final Analysis's proposed increase in the uplink power constitutes a major amendment to its application. Moreover, it does not fall within any of the exceptions that would permit us to consider it now. We therefore deny this proposed amendment. Increase in Downlink EIRP 66. Final Analysis also proposes to increase its downlink EIRP from 12.8dBW to 17.8dBW. NTIA, ORBCOMM and Leo One express concerns about increased potential for out- of-band emission interference due to the increase in Final Analysis's downlink EIRP. Leo One also notes that the proposed increased power will increase the downlink degradation to CDMA systems such as E-SAT and S80-1. In response, Final Analysis claims that its system downlink transmissions, using GMSK modulation, are such that out-of-band emissions are in the acceptable range and well within the coordination capabilities of all parties. Final Analysis also notes that E-SAT has not submitted any comments on Final Analysis's Conforming Amendment and has not raised any concerns regarding coordination. 67. Final Analysis's proposal to increase downlink EIRP is not required to conform to the Report and Order. Now, we must determine whether this change constitutes a major amendment. We find that any increase in Final Analysis's satellite transmit power level will degrade link margins of all other satellite systems, in particular the CDMA systems, sharing the downlink spectrum with Final Analysis. In the Report and Order we recognized that when operating in NOAA channels close to System 3's centerline frequency, System 2 will likely have to reduce its power to avoid causing harmful interference into System 3's CDMA system. Although Final Analysis argues that this impact should be "comfortably in the acceptable range," it will nonetheless result in increased potential for interference. Consequently, we find that Final Analysis's proposed increase in the downlink EIRP constitutes a major amendment to its application. Moreover, it does not fall within any of the exceptions that would permit us to consider it now. We therefore deny this proposed amendment. IV. Future Spectrum Priority 68. In the Report and Order, the Commission stated that the System 2 licensee would have a first priority to apply for a limited amount of downlink spectrum allocated to the Little LEO service worldwide at WRC-99 or a subsequent WRC as needed to implement service downlinks. Thus, Final Analysis may apply for up to 210 KHz, representing seven service downlinks of 30 KHz emission bandwidth each, and additional spectrum to compensate for Doppler requirements (Supplemental Spectrum). To the extent that, and for as long as, Final Analysis is able to operate in the 400.5517-400.5983 MHz band assigned to the S80-1 system, the Supplemental Spectrum will be reduced to a maximum of five service downlinks of 30 KHz each, totaling 150 KHz and additional spectrum to compensate for Doppler requirements. 69. In conformance with the Report and Order, Final Analysis will be permitted to operate in the 148.855-148.905 MHz uplink band outside of a processing round, provided System 3's authorization to operate in this spectrum is returned to the Commission, terminated by the Commission, or System 3 notifies the Commission that it is discontinuing use of this spectrum. Upon written request to the Commission, Final Analysis will be permitted to share the 148.855- 148.905 MHz spectrum with ORBCOMM and System 1 to the same extent and under the same conditions that apply in the 148.0-148.25 MHz band. We reject Final Analysis's unsubstantiated assertion that it can operate in the 148.855-148.905 MHz band within CONUS without causing harmful interference to System 3. Use of this band by Final Analysis and other narrow band systems is subject to coordination with the System 3 licensee. 70. Pursuant to the Report and Order, in the event that System 1's authorization to operate in the 137-137.025 MHz bands 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, Final Analysis will be permitted to operate in these bands outside of a processing round to the same extent and under the same conditions that System 1 was permitted to operate in these bands. 71. As described in the Report and Order, upon Final Analysis' written request, the Commission will initiate a communication to the Government of France requesting permission for the Final Analysis system to operate in the 400.5517-400.5983 MHz downlink band until the time the S80-1 system commences operations in this spectrum. Accordingly, Final Analysis's authorization to operate in the 400.5517-400.5983 MHz band is subject to confirmation from the Government of France. V. Financial Qualifications 72. Consistent with Section 25.142(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  25.142(a)(4), applicants for Little LEO systems must demonstrate that they have the finances necessary to construct and launch the first two satelllites of the proposed system and to operate these satellites for one year. Final Analysis asserts that it meets this requirement. 73. In its original application, Final Analysis certified that the cost of construction, launch and first-year operating costs for two satellites was approximately $6.22 million. In an amendment filed in October 1997, Final Analysis indicated that its remaining costs for these two satellites was $855,000. In this amendment, Final Analysis also reported that it raised over $3 million from individual investors. Final Analysis therefore claims it is financially qualified to become a Little LEO licensee. 74. Leo One has questioned Final Analysis's financial qualifications in light of recent press reports suggesting that Final Analysis's agreement with Polyot, its launch service provider, is no longer valid. Final Analysis represented that Polyot had agreed to finance the $1.93 million in launch costs for consideration other than cash payments, but that the Russian Space Agency (RSA) revoked Polyot's right to market its launch vehicles. 75. In light of the press reports, the Commission requested additional information from Final Analysis. In response, Final Analysis submitted a letter clarifying its relationship with Polyot and stating that Polyot remains "ready, willing and able to provide the agreed-upon launch vehicles under the existing barter agreement." Final Analysis characterized the press reports as "misleading and erroneous" and submitted a letter from Polyot confirming that the recent actions by the RSA do not affect Polyot's ability to provide the launch vehicles already in inventory and committed to the Final Analysis partnership. 76. We find Final Analysis to be financial qualified to under Section 25.142(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  25.142(a)(4). Final Analysis represents that it has raised over $3 million from investors. No commenter disputes this assertion. Further, Final Analysis claims that the remaining costs required for construction, launch, and first-year operating costs for its first two satellites is $855,000. Together these representations document that Final Analysis has sufficient funds to satisfy our financial requirements. Moreover, we see no reason to investigate further the status of the Final Analysis-Polyot arrangement. Even assuming the barter arrangement is no longer valid and Final Analysis will be responsible for financing the $1.93 million in launch costs, this will bring Final Analysis's total costs to $2.785 million, which is less than the $3 million it represents it has raised from investors. VI. Exclusive Arrangements 77. As an Little LEO licensee, Final Analysis is required to comply with the requirements of Section 25.142(d) of the Commission's Rules adopted in the Report and Order. Section 25.142(d) prohibits a Little LEO licensees from entering into exclusive arrangements with other countries concerning communications to and from the United States. The purpose of this rule is to promote competition in the Little LEO service markets in the United States. The prohibition against exclusive arrangements reduces the likelihood that a Little LEO licensee can foreclose other Little LEO licensees from serving a foreign market, providing a global service, and competing effectively with other systems that serve the United States. 78. While 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 a foreign country, our rules are clear that Little LEO licensees may not acquire or enjoy any exclusive rights created by contracts or working arrangement. VII. Construction and Launch Milestones 79. In the First Processing Round Report and Order, the Commission generally required a licensee to commence construction of the first two satellites in its Little LEO system within one year of grant of its license. Construction of the remaining satellites in its system was to be commenced within three years of grant. Construction of the first two satellites was to be completed within four years of grant, with the entire system launched and operational within six years of grant. 80. We will require Final Analysis to adhere to this milestone schedule. We recognize that in this Order we have denied the major amendments filed by Final Analysis. We emphasize that we expect Final Analysis to proceed with its system as authorizaed here consistent with these milestones. To ensure that Final Analysis is committed to proceeding with its system as authorized, we will require it to certify by letter, within 30 days after release of this order, that it committed to doing so. Failure to file this certification in a timely manner will render this authorization null and void. Further, we emphasize that any pending petitions or additional system modifications that may be filed by Final Analysis will not justify a failure to proceed with implementation of its system as required in this Order. VIII. International Coordination 81. In general, we will follow the applicable advance publication, coordination and notification procedures set forth in the International Telecommunication Union ("ITU") Radio Regulations, and the applicable procedures for consultation pursuant to Article 14 of the INTELSAT Agreement and Article 8 of the Inmarsat Convention, in coordinating Final Analysis's satellites and the use of its assigned frequency bands with other affected administrations. Final Analysis shall provide the Commission with all information necessary to comply with these processes. In view of Final Analysis's intention to locate earth stations and operate mobile user terminals in connection with its Little LEO MSS system outside of the United States, the Commission will retain jurisdiction to require Final Analysis to meet both its international obligations and the obligations imposed by other licensing administrations. All authorizations and approvals required in connection with the operation of Final Analysis's Little LEO MSS system in another country, including, but not limited to its earth stations, mobile user terminals, and satellites, will remain solely within the host country's jurisdiction. IX. Conclusion 82. Although we have denied many of the modifications in Final Analysis's application, we grant Final Analysis's authorization based on its original application and any of its amendments that are consistent with the terms of the Joint Proposal and the Report and Order. We find that Final Analysis is qualified under the Commission's Rules to launch and operate the space segment of its Little LEO system in those parts of the 148-150.05 MHZ, 400.15-401 MHz and 137-138 MHz frequency bands that are designated for System 2 in the spectrum sharing plan adopted in the Report and Order, subject to the conditions set forth in this Order. Accordingly, Final Analysis is authorized to be a Commission space segment licensee and, pursuant to Section 309 of the Communications Act, as amended, we find that grant of Final Analysis's application will serve the public interest, convenience and necessity. X. Ordering Clauses 83. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, subject to the conditions set forth in this Order, that Application File Nos. 25-SAT-P/LA-95, 76-SAT-AMEND-95, 79-SAT-AMEND-96, 151- SAT-AMEND-96, 7-SAT-AMEND-97, ARE GRANTED IN PART, and Final Analysis Communication Services Corporation IS AUTHORIZED to construct, launch and operate twenty six (26) active and four (4) inactive spare Little LEO satellites to provide MSS in the United States in accordance with the frequency bands designated for System 2 in the spectrum sharing plan adopted in the Report and Order, FCC 97-370 (released October 15, 1997). 84. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if NTIA notifies the Commission that NOAA is receiving unacceptable interference from Final Analysis' Little LEO MSS system, we will require that Final Analysis Communication Services Corporation terminate its interfering operations immediately unless it demonstrates to our satisfaction, and that of NTIA, that it is not responsible for causing the harmful interference to the NOAA system. If Final Analysis's system operates in the 137-138 MHz band, Final Analysis Communication Services Corporation 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 Little LEO MSS service, in whole or in part, arising from or relating to its compliance or noncompliance with this condition. 85. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Final Analysis Communication Services Corporation IS AUTHORIZED to operate Little LEO MSS system with service uplinks in the 148.0-149.90 MHz band, in accordance with the technical specifications set forth in this Order, its original application, the Joint Proposal, and the Report and Order, and consistent with the provisions of the Commission's Part 25 Rules governing satellite operations, unless expressly waived by the Commission. 86. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Final Analysis Communication Services Corporation IS AUTHORIZED to operate Little LEO MSS system with feeder uplinks in the 149.9-150.05 MHz band, in accordance with the technical specifications set forth in this Order, its original application, the Joint Proposal, and the Report and Order, and consistent with the provisions of the Commission's Part 25 Rules governing satellite operations, unless expressly waived by the Commission. 87. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Final Analysis Communication Services Corporation IS AUTHORIZED to operate Little LEO MSS system with service and feeder downlinks in the 137.0-138.0 MHz and 400.15-401.0 MHz band, in accordance with the technical specifications set forth in this Order, its original application, the Joint Proposal, and the Report and Order, and consistent with the provisions of the Commission's Part 25 Rules governing satellite operations, unless expressly waived by the Commission. 88. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Final Analysis Communication Services Corporation's authorization to operate its Little LEO-MSS system is subject to the completion of co-channel frequency sharing coordination with the other Little LEO MSS licensees operating in the 148-149.9 MHz frequency bands as required by Section 25.142(b)(3) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  25.142(b)(3). 89. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Final Analysis Communication Services Corporation's authorization to operate its Little LEO-MSS system is subject to the adjacent channel frequency sharing coordination with the other Little LEO MSS licensees operating in the 148-150.0 MHz, 137.0-138.0 MHz and 400.15-401.0 MHz frequency bands as required by Section 25.142(b)(3) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  25.142(b)(3). 90. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Final Analysis Communication Services Corporation's authorization to operate its Little LEO-MSS system is subject to the adjacent channel frequency sharing coordination with the U.S. Government space systems operating 137.0- 138.0 MHz and 400.15-401.0 MHz frequency bands. 91. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Final Analysis Communication Services Corporation IS AUTHORIZED to construct, launch and operate technically identical Little LEO MSS replacement satellites during the license term for the purpose of replacing the 26 low Earth orbiting Little LEO satellites authorized by this Order, in accordance with technical specifications set forth in its original application and consistent with the Commission's Rules, unless specifically waived herein. At no time shall Final Analysis Communication Services Corporation operate more than 26 active and 4 inactive spare satellites during the term of this license. 92. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Final Analysis Communication Services Corporation will prepare, within 90 days of the release of this Order, the necessary information for submission to the ITU to initiate the advance publication, international coordination, and notification process of the Final Analysis system in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations, and for consultation in accordance with Article XIV of the INTELSAT agreement and Article 8 of the Inmarsat Convention. Specifically, this authorization is subject to coordination between Final Analysis's Little LEO system and any non-U.S. licensed system in the authorized frequency bands. We also remind Final Analysis that no protection from interference caused by radio stations authorized by other Administrations is guaranteed unless coordination procedures are timely completed or, with respect to individual Administrations, by completing coordination agreements. Any Final Analysis radio station authorization for which coordination has not been completed may be subject to additional terms and conditions as required to effect coordination of the frequency assignment with other Administrations, 47 C.F.R.  25.111(b). 93. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless extended by the Commission for good cause shown, Final Analysis's authorization will become NULL AND VOID in the event that the 26 low earth orbiting Little LEO MSS space stations are not constructed, launched and successfully placed into operation in accordance with the technical parameters and terms and conditions of this authorization by the following dates: Construction Commenced Construction Completed Launch First Two March 1999 March 2002 September 2002 Satellites Remaining March 2001 March 2004 March 2004 Satellites 94. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the term of operation for each of the 26 space stations (and four spares) authorized by this Order, including any replacement space stations authorized by this Order, is a total of 10 years and will begin to run on the earlier of: (a) the date that Final Analysis certifies to the Commission that the first satellite has been successfully placed into orbit and the operations fully conform to the terms and conditions of this authorization; or (b) such date as determined by the Commission. 95. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that neither this authorization, nor any right granted by this authorization, shall be transferred, assigned or disposed of in any manner, voluntarily or involuntarily, or by transfer of control of any corporation holding this authorization, to any person except upon application to the Commission and upon a finding by the Commission that the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served thereby, and that such transfer, assignment or disposal otherwise complies with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the Commission's Rules. 96. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: (a) this license shall not vest in Final Analysis any right to operate its Little LEO MSS system or any right in the use of the frequencies designated in this license beyond the term thereof nor in any manner other than authorized herein; and (b) this license shall be subject to the provisions of Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  606. 97. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Final Analysis is afforded 30 days from the date of release of this Order to decline this authorization as conditioned. Failure to respond within that period will constitute formal acceptance of the authorization as conditioned. 98. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is issued pursuant to Section 0.261 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.261. Petitions for reconsideration under Section 1.106, or applications for review under Section 1.115 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106 & 1.115, may be filed within 30 days of the date of public notice of this Order (see 47 C.F.R.  1.4(b)(2)). 99. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is effective upon the date of its release. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Regina M. Keeney Chief, International Bureau