WPC* 2?BJZECourier3|o #Xj\  P6G;XP#HP LaserJet 4 PostScriptHPLA4POS.PRSx  @hhhh-@ZX@ X4#Xj\  P6G;XP#2)qLXCourierTimes Roman"S^2CRddCCCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`lC2CC!CCCCCCCCCCd8YYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddodYYYYYYdzYzYzYzYdddddddCdCdCCCdNCdz8zCzCzCz8dddddCCCoNoNoNoNzCzCzCdddddzYzYNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<$8YYdCCddooCYȾiDheader;Ax 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# reference<;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1=&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2>I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2J?^VF@OGA IBJheading 3?F` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!@!!#d\  PCP#CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileAW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentBiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#2-MCrKDuKErLFyLa2AgendaCa1AgendaAgenda ItemsD7D yP ) I. a3AgendaEHeadingChapter HeadingFJ d  ) I. ׃  2 PG_MHMIdNJNRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersG>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheadingH0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and BoldldeddI+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateJ X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟ2iTK>PL1PM1RN18SDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offK@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5L 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5Mf 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11NL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   2WO1TPnUQ:VRdVLEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14O 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a DocumentPK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedQN X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeRB*d. 2L\SjQWTWUEYV-[HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and UnderscoredS V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsTu 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 InvoiceU ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatVD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   2`W8~\X8]Y^ZX`INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math InvoiceW:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math MacroXz 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math InvoiceY+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal TypestyleZ2b[[a\[ta][a^[*bSMALLSmall Typestyle[FINEFine Typestyle\LARGELarge Typestyle]EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle^2e_[b`caXdbdVERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle_ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header`+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   1adfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Marginsb$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO 2Fmced_fel>kflStyle 12Dutch Italics 11.5c$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIdJ )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/Tabse )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsfDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  2ogxmh|ninj oStyle 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Fontg4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5h$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Pointi$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5j$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO 2kolpmunzStyle 6Dutch Roman 14 Pointk$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advancedl 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 Beginninggmi )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 Intermediaten )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 2opqvre0UpdateInitial Codes for Update Moduleo )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 page numberpage numberp1#XP\  P6QXP#Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Fontq11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#footnote referencefootnote referencer 2svdžtv=uvvv)heading 4heading 4s heading 5heading 5t heading 6heading 6u heading 7heading 7v 2wvшxlGyxzl+heading 8heading 8w Document 8Document 8x Document 4Document 4y  Document 6Document 6z 2+{lɊ|l5}l~ Document 5Document 5{ Document 2Document 2| Document 7Document 7} Right Par 1Right Par 1~` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2#]l{Right Par 2Right Par 2` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 3Document 3 Right Par 3Right Par 3` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 4Right Par 4` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2͝UsRight Par 5Right Par 5` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 6` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 7Right Par 7` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 8` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2ۤ($'$KloDocument 1Document 1` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 5` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 6` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 2 2-l $yl$ Technical 3Technical 3 Technical 4Technical 4` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1 Technical 7Technical 7` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2!$_CTechnical 8Technical 8` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#WP Heading 2WP Heading 244#6X@C@##Xv6X@CX@#WP Heading 1WP Heading 144#6X@C@# #Xv6X@CX@#toc 1toc 1` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#2˸Sqtoc 2toc 2` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#2Ϳvtoc 6toc 6` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7 toc 8toc 8` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#2;vYindex 1index 1` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaption 2lrml^_Equation Caption_Equation Caption endnote referenceendnote reference head1 #'d#2p}wC@ #footnote textfootnote text` hp x (#4 <DL!#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#4 <DL!` hp x (#2,LLHLL"S^2CRddCCCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`lC2CC!CCCCCCCCCCd8YYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddodYYYYYYdzYzYzYzYdddddddCdCdCCCdNCdz8zCzCzCz8dddddCCCoNoNoNoNzCzCzCdddddzYzYNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<$8YYdCCddooCYȾd<d<+8oodCCddddCoȾ(((x((((((((((C!WtbttYtkYbttttb5,5KP5GPGPG5PP,,P,|PPPP5>,PPtPPGM MW5(555555555555P,tGtGtGtGtGkkGbGbGbGbG5,5,5,5,tPtPtPtPtPtPtPtPtPtPtGtPtPtPtPtPYPtGtGkGkGkGkGtPbGbGbGbGtPtPtPtPtPtPtP5P5P555P>5tPb,b5b5b5b,tPtPtPtPtPtk5k5k5Y>Y>Y>Y>b5b5b5tPtPtPtPttPbGbGN8(HP5GPPPPP,2xxP0zzPx0,GGP55PPYY5G0tZZXXZZ``(@Z,rO(B{r{{{iX1btXnXPttXn"S^2NoddCCCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdNdzzozzzC8CrdCddYdYCdo88d8odddNN8oYdYNF,FrC2CC!CCCCCCCCCCd8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddoooozYddddzYdzdddYYYYdYYYYdddddooNdNdNCNddCdz8zCzCzCz8oooddNNNoNoNoNoNzCzCzCoooozYzNzNNF2ddNdddddd5footnote referenceGw) "7>NGI "+WXDefault ParaK&7>Default Paragraph Fontw+ "7>NGI "([(\2+Cendnote refeK&7>endnote referenceGw- "7>NGI "+_+`annotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "OaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI "2c(d2G2*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "8ij@  2]I3G3*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Akl@` ` `  ` ` ` 4G4*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Jmn` ` ` @  ` ` ` 5G5*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Sop` ` `  @  6G6*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "\qr` ` `  @hhh hhh 21p7G7*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "est` ` `  hhh@ hhh 8G8*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "nuv` ` `  hhh@  9G9*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "wwx` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 10G0*(Q&7tDocument Style Gl0 "7t GI "ױGH` ` ` 2+w 11G1*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "ײ4I$J     12G2*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׳*KL    13G3*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "״'MN   14G4*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׵&OP   2Wa15G5*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׶&QR  . 16G6*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׷&ST  . 17G7*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׸&UV  . 18G8*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "׹&WX  . 2E19G9*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׺8YZ@  20G:*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׻A[\@` ` `  ` ` ` 21G;*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׼J]^` ` ` @  ` ` ` 22G<*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׽S_`` ` `  @  2~=23G=*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׾\ab` ` `  @hhh hhh 24G>*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "׿ecd` ` `  hhh@ hhh 25G?*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "nef` ` `  hhh@  26G@*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "wgh` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 2Y27wSg K6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJmn` ` @  ` `  28wSg L6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ESop` `  @  29wSg M6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\qr` `  @hh# hhh 30wSg N6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Eest` `  hh#@( hh# 2p 31wSg O6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Enuv` `  hh#(@- ( 32wSg P6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ewwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 33wSg R6w Document Style=(H8g Rܺ*HںwSg E{|` ` ` 34wSg S6w Technical Document Styleg Sܺ*HںwSg E4}$~     25   35wSg T6w Technical Document Styleg Tܺ*HںwSg E*    36wSg U6w Technical Document Styleg Uܺ*HںwSg E'   37wSg V6w Technical Document Styleg Vܺ*HںwSg E&   38wSg W6w Technical Document Styleg Wܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2 g  q  39wSg X6w Technical Document Styleg Xܺ*HںwSg E&  . 40wSg Y6w Technical Document Styleg Yܺ*HںwSg E&  . 41wSg Z6w Technical Document Styleg Zܺ*HںwSg E&  . 42wSg [6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   2\ U  43wSg \6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 44wSg ]6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  45wSg ^6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  46wSg _6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 2M47wSg `6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 48wSg a6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 49wSg b6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 50wSg c6w Document Style=(H8g cܺ*HںwSg EF *  ׃  2v#51wSg d6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  52wSg e6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  53wSg f6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 54wSg g6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2pc55wSg h6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 56wSg i6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 57wSg j6w Document Style=(H8g jܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 58wSg k6w Technical Document Styleg kܺ*HںwSg E4$     2Qz59wSg l6w Technical Document Styleg lܺ*HںwSg E*    60wSg m6w Technical Document Styleg mܺ*HںwSg E'   61wSg n6w Technical Document Styleg nܺ*HںwSg E&   62wSg o6w Technical Document Styleg oܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2R1;63wSg p6w Technical Document Styleg pܺ*HںwSg E&  . 64wSg q6w Technical Document Styleg qܺ*HںwSg E&  . 65wSg r6w Technical Document Styleg rܺ*HںwSg E&  . 66wSg s6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   2& p67wSg t6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 68wSg u6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  69wSg v6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  70wSg w6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 2j#X !!"71wSg x6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 72wSg y6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 73wSg z6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 74wSg {6w Document Style=(H8g {ܺ*HںwSg EF *  ׃  2%#/$q$e5%75wSg |6w Document Style=(H8g |ܺ*HںwSg E*   76wSg }6w Document Style=(H8g }ܺ*HںwSg E0    77wSg ~6w Document Style=(H8g ~ܺ*HںwSg E  . 78wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  2'e%p1&p&'79wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E  80wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 81wSg 6w Document Style=(H8g ܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 82wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E4$     2=*'($))83wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E*    84wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E'   85wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&   86wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2o*5Z*87wSg 6w Technical Document Styleg ܺ*HںwSg E&  .  X4 X   7`( X4  #&J\  P6Qx&P#Federal Communications Commission`j(#bFCC 98235 ă   yxdddy 7*` Before the x Federal Communications Commission  X'-Washington, D.C. 20554 ă In the Matter of) ) Redesignation of the 17.719.7 GHz Frequency)  X 4Band, Blanket Licensing of Satellite)IB Docket No. 98172  X4Earth Stations in the 17.720.2 GHz and)RM9005  X427.530.0 GHz Frequency Bands,)RM9118 and the Allocation of Additional Spectrum) in the 17.317.8 GHz and 24.7525.25 GHz ) Frequency Bands for Broadcast) SatelliteService Use)  X'  NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING \  X!4X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:"X>">"`> a  " ngso/fss"|Bgso/fss"gso/fss"Hngso/fss >  " "X""`   " 1100 MHz"o500 MHz"400 MHz"N500 MHz n   17.7 18.8 19.3 19.7 20.2 GHz n XC 4 X  As shown above, the current downlink band plan is as follows: the 17.718.8 GHz band is designated for coprimary use by terrestrial fixed service and GSO/FSS; the 18.819.3 GHz band is designated for coprimary use by terrestrial fixed service and NGSO/FSS; the 19.3-19.7GHz band is designated for coprimary use by terrestrial fixed service and MSS/FL; and the 19.720.2 GHz band is designated for primary use by GSO/FSS.  XN48.` ` Terrestrial fixed services currently operating in the 17.719.7 GHz band include Cable Television Relay Service ("CARS"), auxiliary broadcasting, local television  X4transmission, fixed point-to-point, and low power pointtomultipoint.,&X/r {O' "  ԍThe spectrum used for Digital Electronic Message Service ("DEMS") was recently changed. See  xx Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Relocate the Digital Electronic Message Service From the 18 GHz Band  {O' x  to the 24 GHz Band and to Allocate the 24 GHz Band For Fixed Service, Order, 12 FCC Rcd 4990 (1997), aff'd,  {Om'Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 98155, ___FCC Rcd ___ (rel. July 17, 1998)., These services meet a variety of important communications needs, including remote monitoring of gas and petroleum pipelines, public safety links, video distribution links, and pointtopoint data links.  X4There are tens of thousands of terrestrial fixed links currently licensed in the 17.719.7 GHz band. Terrestrial fixed service use of this band is expected to increase as a result of migration of users from the congested lower terrestrial fixed service bands to this band, and from the need for new systems to support the introduction of new services such as digital television broadcasting, Personal Communications Services, and other digital communications systems.  X49.` ` Satellite services licensed to operate in the Kaband include GSO/FSS,  X4NGSO/FSS, and MSS/FL.DF/r {O~"'ԍSupra note 3.D The Commission has granted thirteen GSO/FSS licenses and one NGSO/FSS license. The currentlylicensed GSO/FSS and NGSO/FSS systems in this band have the potential to provide global Internet access, twoway digital communications, videoconferencing, interactive multimedia, telemedicine and residential voice and data communications services. Within the next five to ten years, we anticipate that these services will be provided to millions of United States businesses and consumers using small antenna",K(K(<<b" Kaband satellite earth stations.  X4 10.` ` In addition to the existing licensees, on December 22, 1997, the Commission closed the filing window for second round Ka-band FSS systems. The Commission received applications for 17 additional FSS systems during the second round Kaband filing window. These applications included proposals for GSO/FSS, NGSO/FSS, and hybrid GSO and NGSO  X.4satellite systems../r yO'ԍThese second round applications will be addressed in a future licensing proceeding. We note that some applicants requested use of spectrum that is inconsistent in several aspects with the current band plan. Any licenses granted to second round Kaband applicants will be conditioned upon conformance with the final band plan adopted in this proceeding and any service rules that are adopted in the licensing proceeding.  X 4 11.` ` On December 23, 1996, Lockheed Martin Corporation, AT&T Corp., Hughes Communications, Inc., Loral Space & Communications Ltd., and GE American Communications, Inc. ("Petitioners") filed a joint Petition for Rulemaking proposing blanket licensing for GSO/FSS earth stations operating in certain portions of the Kaband. On January 16, 1997, the Commission placed the petition on Public Notice and assigned it  X 4rulemaking number RM9005.u X/r {O'ԍSee Public Notice, Report No. 2173 (rel. Jan. 16, 1997).u Teledesic Corporation, licensee of a NGSO/FSS system in the Kaband, filed comments supporting the petition and proposed that the rulemaking proceeding be expanded to include blanket licensing for all types of satellite earth stations in the Kaband, including NGSO/FSS earth stations. On September 5, 1997, the Commission issued a Public Notice requesting comments on issues raised by the petition and to refresh the  X!4record.$!/r {O' " ԍSee "Commission Requests Comment to Refresh Record on Proposals for Blanket Licensing of Satellite Earth  xY Stations Operating in the 17.720.2 GHz and 27.530.0 GHz Frequency Bands and Sharing Between Fixed Terrestrial  {ON' x* and Satellite Services in the 17.719.7 GHz Frequency Bands", Public Notice, IN Report No. 9727 (rel. Sept. 5, 1997). In response to this Public Notice, twentytwo formal comments were filed.Y!/r yO'ԍThe commenters are listed in Appendix A.Y "f ,K(K(<<s"Ԍ X4 2%S |  2%S  12.` ` In 1997, the Commission issued licenses to 13 GSO/FSS applicantsg/r {Oy' " ԍOn May 9, 1997, the Commission assigned orbital locations to the thirteen GSO/FSS applicants. See  {OC' x Assignment of Orbital Locations to Space Stations in the Kaband, Order, FCC Rcd 13737 (1997). On the same  {O ' x day, the Commission also granted licenses for the thirteen GSO/FSS applicants. See Authorizations of: Comm, Inc.  x (DA 97968); GE American Communications, Inc. (DA 97970); EchoStar Satellite Corporation (DA 97969);  x Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc. (DA 97971); KaStar Satellite Communications Corp. (DA 97972); Lockheed  xV Martin Corporation (DA 97973); Loral Space & Communications Ltd. (DA 97974); Morning Star Satellite  x Company, L.L.C. (DA 97975); NetSat 28 Company, L.L.C. (DA 97976); Orion Atlantic, L.P. (DA 97979);  x PanAmSat Licensee Corp. (DA 97978); and VisionStar, Inc. (DA 97980); Orion Network Systems, Inc. (DA97-977) (International Bureau May 9, 1997).g and one  X4NGSO/FSSapplicant|\/r {O, ' " ԍThe Teledesic license was granted on March 14, 1997. See Application of Teledesic Corporation for  x Authority to Construct, Launch, and Operate a Low Earth Orbit Satellite System in the Domestic and International  {O 'Fixed Satellite Service, Order, 12 FCC Rcd 3154 (1997).| to launch and operate Kaband FSS systems. 2%S |  2%S  On October 9, 1997, the Commission adopted licensing qualification requirements and service rules for Kaband FSS  X4systems.$ /r {O ' "0 ԍSee Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the  x 27.5-29.5GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 19.530.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies  {O' x for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services, Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22310 (1997). These service rules impose a strict timetable for the implementation of Kaband  Xt4GSO and NGSO FSS systems.\Bt/r yO' " ԍEach GSO/FSS licensee is required to begin construction of its first satellite within one year of grant, to  x begin construction of the remainder within two years of grant, to launch at least one satellite into each of its assigned  xb orbit locations within five years of grant, and to launch the remainder of its satellites by the date required by the ITU  x to assure international recognition and protection of these satellites. Each NGSO/FSS licensee is required to begin  x construction of its first two satellites within one year of the unconditional grant of its authorization, and complete  xQ the construction of those first two satellites within four years of grant. Construction of the remaining authorized  x operating satellites in the constellation must begin within three years of the initial authorization, and the entire  {OK'authorized system must be operational within six years. See 47 C.F.R.  25.145(f).\ Although these systems are not yet in operation, we expect the deployment of commercial Ka-band FSS systems in the near future.  X.4  X 4 13.` ` On June 5, 1997, DIRECTV Enterprises, Inc., ("DIRECTV") filed a Petition for Rulemaking proposing to reallocate the 24.7525.25 GHz band to FSS for BSS feeder link use and the 17.317.8 GHz band to BSS for its downlinks. In addition, DIRECTV requested that the Commission adopt a 4.5$ orbital spacing policy in licensing BSS space stations to operate in the 17.317.8 GHz and 24.7525.25 GHz bands. On July 1, 1997, the Commission placed  X\ 4this petition on public notice and assigned it rulemaking number RM-9118.z\ /r {O"'ԍSee Public Notice, Report No. 2208 (rel. July 1, 1997).z In response to  X9 4DIRECTV's petition, seven comments and three reply comments were filed.Y9 J/r yO4%'ԍThe commenters are listed in Appendix A.Y We address the DIRECTV petition in this rulemaking due to the potential impact of the proposed band plan on a BSS downlink allocation at 17.717.8 GHz. " ,K(K(<< "Ԍ X' ę.;T III. DISCUSSION Đ\  X' A.The Joint FSS Petition  Xt4 14.` ` Petitioners propose blanket licensing for GSO/FSS earth stations operating in those .portions of the Kaband that are not currently shared with the terrestrial fixed service  X.4(i.e., the 19.7-20.2GHz, 28.3528.6 GHz, and 29.2530.0 GHz bands). ./r yO' " ԍPetitioners also request that a second proceeding be initiated to address sharing between GSO/FSS and  x terrestrial fixed service in the currently shared 17.718.8 GHz band. Because we are proposing a band plan that  xg separates ubiquitous satellite service operations from terrestrial fixed service operations, we believe a second proceeding dealing with interservice sharing issues, as recommended by Petitioners, is not necessary. In support of the blanket licensing proposal, Petitioners state that there will be millions of GSO/FSS earth stations and that individual licensing of these earth stations would result in delay, increased  X4consumer costs, and administrative burdens on the Commission.?!/r yO('ԍPetition at 3.?  X 415.` ` Teledesic argues that similar considerations apply to NGSO/FSS earth stations and that blanket licensing has previously been used in shared bands by issuing blanket  X; 4licenses but requiring the licensees to conduct coordination.S"; @/r yO,'ԍTeledesic initial comments at 35.S Accordingly, Teledesic requests that the proceeding be expanded to include blanket licensing procedures for all FSS earth stations operating in the Kaband, including NGSO/FSS earth stations. Comments submitted  X 4by other Kaband satellite interests also generally stress the need for blanket licensing.w# /r yOS'ԍMotorola comments at 4; PanAmSat comments at 1; TIASat comments at 3.w  X416.` ` Terrestrial fixed service commenters argue that blanket licensing should not be allowed in frequency bands that are shared with the terrestrial fixed service. The Fixed Point-toPoint Communication Section of the Telecommunications Industry Association ("TIAFPTP") contends that sharing of frequencies requires licensees in each service to  X4coordinate their frequency usage.H$` /r yO'ԍTIAFPTP comments at 3.H TIAFPTP states that such coordination is impossible if one of the services is blanket licensed and specific station locations are not identified. TIA-FPTP contends that if a satellite earth station must be protected and its location is unknown, then the entire blanket license area and an additional buffer zone outside of that area must be avoided. This protected area could be over 100 miles wide depending upon the characteristics of the satellite earth stations and the terrestrial system involved. TIAFPTP argues that the inability to coordinate with blanket licensed earth stations at unspecified locations would have a substantial negative impact on terrestrial fixed users, and blanket licensing would in effect close off entire portions of the 18 GHz band to many existing and  X4potential terrestrial fixed services.A% /r {Of''ԍId. at 15.A" %,K(K(<<"Ԍ X4ԙ17.` ` Some terrestrial fixed service commenters argue that frequency sharing with FSS is not feasible even if blanket licensing is not adopted. TIAFPTP states that the integrity of terrestrial fixed service operating areas will be severely and adversely affected by  X4the large "holes" or "exclusion zones" required to protect FSS earth station receivers.@&/r {O'ԍId. at 3.@ GTE asserts that terrestrial fixed service and FSS are not compatible services and should not be  XQ4required to share the same frequency block.C'QZ/r yO\'ԍGTE comments at 6.C Harris states that sharing would only be viable if the number of FSS earth stations is limited or if FSS earth stations are deployed away from  X 4urban areas.F( /r yO 'ԍHarris comments at 3.F   X' B.General Considerations  X 4 18.` ` In the 28 GHz First Report and Order, the Commission recognized that there might be difficulties involved with sharing the 17.719.7 GHz band; however, there was no record to support redesignating the band to separate terrestrial fixed service and FSS at that time. In the present proceeding, we received petitions and comments describing: (1) the ubiquitous nature of the proposed satellite systems; (2) the need for blanket licensing of such systems; (3) the difficulty of blanket licensing in shared bands; and (4) the difficulty of sharing between ubiquitous satellite systems and terrestrial fixed services even without blanket licensing. Given the record in this proceeding, we now realize that there is a clear need to revisit sharing of the 17.719.7 GHz band.  X#419.` ` We agree with satellite interests that given the large numbers of small FSS earth stations expected to be deployed, blanket licensing will probably be necessary to ensure  X4the fast and efficient implementation of these new Kaband services.P)z/r {O'ԍSee infra. Section III.D.P However, it appears that blanket licensing would make it impractical for terrestrial fixed service providers to coordinate new operations to avoid interference in shared frequency bands where blanket licensing is allowed. Furthermore, even without blanket licensing, the presence of large numbers of ubiquitously deployed small antenna earth stations could have a serious adverse effect on the ability of the terrestrial fixed service to start a new operation or expand existing operations in a shared band. After considering these factors, we tentatively conclude that the public interest is best served by redesignating the 17.719.7 GHz band to separate terrestrial fixed services from most satellite earth station operations.  X420.` ` Separating terrestrial fixed service operations from most GSO/FSS and NGSO/FSS operations will benefit the terrestrial fixed service in several ways. First, such separation would eliminate the need for new terrestrial fixed service operations to coordinate with satellite earth station operations. In addition, terrestrial fixed service operators looking to expand their operations would no longer run the risk of being precluded from large" ),K(K(<< " geographic areas by the introduction of a new satellite earth station or from a portion of the band by the presence of millions of satellite earth stations. Furthermore, without satellite earth stations in an area, a denser population of terrestrial fixed service operations would be possible.  XQ421.` ` Separating terrestrial fixed service operations from most GSO/FSS and NGSO/FSS operations will also benefit satellite operators. First, satellite operators would not be required to individually coordinate large numbers of satellite earth stations with terrestrial fixed service operations. We agree with Petitioners that individual coordination of satellite earth stations would be costly, time consuming, and would delay service to the end user. In addition, satellite operators would not need special siting and shielding installations to avoid receiving interference from the operation of a terrestrial fixed service station. Finally, our band proposal would allow the adoption of efficient blanket licensing procedures for GSO/FSS and NGSO/FSS satellite earth stations in the bands earmarked for primary satellite use.  X 422.` ` Although we propose to separate terrestrial fixed service from ubiquitous satellite operations, we do not think that such separation is necessary for all Kaband satellite operations. In this regard, we note that Lockeed has indicated it is planning to use 500 MHz  Xg4in the 17.718.8 GHz band for the operation of "AstrolinkTM" gateway earth stations.G*g/r yO'ԍLockeed comments at 6.G These earth stations are expected to use relatively large diameter antennas and are not expected to be ubiquitously deployed. Sharing between the terrestrial fixed service and such nonubiquitous satellite operations is feasible because the number of satellite earth stations is not large, because we are not proposing blanket licensing in these bands, and because their locations will be known. Therefore, current coordination criteria and sharing principles between satellite earth station and terrestrial fixed service operations can be used. Thus, we propose continued sharing in certain band segments. We anticipate that satellite operators will deploy large antenna diameter earth stations for specialized uses such as gateway terminals in these shared band segments.  X423.` ` Further, while we tentatively conclude that redesignating the 17.719.7 GHz band to separate terrestrial fixed service from ubiquitous satellite operations is the most practical solution, we also request comment on the feasibility of alternative proposals that would involve continued sharing in part or all of the 17.719.7 GHz band. We note that Petitioners and several commenters urge the creation of a joint working group to address  X74interservice sharing and coordination issues,+7X/r yO@"' "l ԍPetition at 8; Motorola comments at 5; PanAmSat comments at 2; ABC comments at 3; GTE comments at 8; UTC comments at 4; NSMA comments at 3. and that such a working group has been  X4formed.,/r {Ou%' " ԍSee Letter from Robert J. Miller, Gardere & Wynne, L.L.P., to Ruth Milkman, Deputy Chief, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Nov. 19, 1997). We support this industry effort and encourage the working group to file comments in this proceeding and to recommend alternative band sharing or separation approaches. We" ,,K(K(<<f " are aware from previous experience that developing a consensus in such a working group can  X4be a lengthy process. Given the need to resolve satellite licensing issues on a timely basis and to protect the operations of existing terrestrial fixed service licensees, we believe the public interest will be served by offering proposals and requesting comments on the issues  Xt4addressed in this NPRM.  X.'C.Band Redesignation Proposals  X424.` ` In developing specific band redesignation proposals for this NPRM, we sought to identify the spectrum requirements of all services authorized to operate in the band and to strike a balance between the requirements of these different services and the public interest. While we recognize the difficulties involved in this process, we tentatively conclude that the band plans proposed below strike the appropriate balance, and will ensure both continued development of terrestrial fixed service and FSS in this band and efficient use of the spectrum. We request comment on whether we have fully identified the requirements of the various services, and whether we have identified band plans that best meet the public interest.  X' 1. ` ` Spectrum Requirements   Xg425.` ` GSO/FSS. Satellite systems have typically been allocated equal blocks of uplink and downlink spectrum. In the United States, GSO/FSS systems are currently designated 1000MHz of spectrum for use in the uplink portion of the Kaband (28.35-28.6GHz, 29.25-29.5 GHz, and 29.5-30.0 GHz) and 1.6 GHz of spectrum for use in the downlink portion of the Kaband (17.7-18.8GHz and 19.720.2 GHz). Of this 1.6 GHz of downlink spectrum, 500 MHz (19.7-20.2GHz) is designated for GSO/FSS use on a primary basis and 1100 MHz (17.7-18.8 GHz) is designated for GSO/FSS and terrestrial fixed service use on a coprimary basis. The Commission made this disparate allocation to uplinks and downlinks in recognition that added flexibility was needed resulting from the requirement  X,4to share and coordinate with terrestrial fixed services in the 17.718.8 GHz band.j-,/r {O'ԍ28 GHz First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19036.j We tentatively conclude that if terrestrial fixed service and GSO/FSS sharing and coordination issues were resolved, only 500 MHz of the 1100 MHz in the 17.718.8 GHz band (when coupled with the 500 MHz in 19.720.2 GHz) would be required to match the 1000 MHz of uplink bandwidth allocated to GSO/FSS.  XZ426.` ` NGSO/FSS. In the United States, NGSO/FSS systems are currently designated 500MHz of spectrum for use in the uplink portion of the Kaband (28.629.1 GHz) and 500MHz of spectrum for use in the downlink portion of the Kaband (18.819.3 GHz). Thus, NGSO/FSS has equal amounts of uplink and downlink spectrum. The Ka-band downlink segment, however, is designated for coprimary use with terrestrial fixed services. With the likelihood that more than one NGSO/FSS system will operate in this band, and based on our belief that band redesignation will provide a fast, efficient, and cost effective way to make these services available to the public, we tentatively conclude that designating the existing 500 MHz of downlink spectrum on a primary use basis would be necessary to"B$ Z-,K(K(<<i$" fulfill NGSO/FSS spectrum requirements.  X427.` ` Terrestrial Fixed Service. Terrestrial fixed services operating in the 17.7-19.7GHz band include CARS, auxiliary broadcasting, local television transmission, fixed pointtopoint, and low power pointtomultipoint. These terrestrial fixed service systems  XQ4operate according to a channeling plan defined in the Commission's Rules.e.Q/r {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  74.402, 78.18, 101.147.e This channeling plan includes frequency separations within the band primarily to accommodate twoway services. Thus, a redesignated band plan should accommodate frequency separations to enable these twoway systems to continue to operate. In addition, some CARS facilities use  X4Amplitude Modulated Link (AML) technology.-/"Z/r yO ' "l ԍAML technology uses wideband transmitters to frequency shift multiple cable television channels for  x transmission at microwave frequencies. Since AML hub facilities are an integral part of a cable system, an average  x^ system of 78 channels using 550 MHz of RF bandwidth would require a minimum of 550 MHz of AML microwave  {O('spectrum. Cable systems with higher channel capacities (e.g., 750 MHz) would require more microwave spectrum.- Cable operators use this technology to distribute their programming and typically use contiguous spectrum in the 17.719.7 GHz  X 4band. Terrestrial fixed service video operators (e.g., satellite master antenna television  X^ 4operators) also typically use a contiguous block of spectrum.@0X^ D/r yOS' " ԍWireless cable and satellite master antenna systems typically use the same type AML equipment as CARS.  x However, they traditionally offer less programming than franchised cable operators and, thus, need only 440 MHz of contiguous spectrum.@ Due to the difficulties of coordinating these pointtomultipoint operations with typical pointtopoint terrestrial fixed service operations, these services have generally been licensed in separate portions of the 17.719.7 GHz band, although the Commission's Rules do not specify separate frequencies. Broadcast auxiliary operations typically employ contiguous blocks of spectrum, one use of which is for video and audio "back hauls" to support news gathering and other operations. The use of contiguous blocks of spectrum simplifies the design of mobile transmitters and receivers. These transmitters and receivers are designed to be operated over a wide frequency band to enable selection of a frequency that does not conflict with existing operations in a particular area. We tentatively conclude that 600 MHz of contiguous spectrum for CARS and broadcast auxiliary services along with a similar amount of spectrum separated in frequency from the contiguous block to accommodate pointtopoint and twoway services should be sufficient to accommodate terrestrial fixed service needs.  Xt428.` ` Other Services. Other services in the 17.719.7 GHz frequency band include the Earth ExplorationSatellite ("EES") (passive) and Space Research ("SR") (passive)  X.4services1.d /r yOC#' "+ ԍThe band 18.618.8 GHz is allocated for both Government and nonGovernment EES (passive) and SR (passive). allocated at 18.6-18.8 GHz and Government satellite systemsD2. /r {O%'ԍSupra note 3.D operating throughout the 17.820.2 GHz band. It should be noted that nonGovernment terrestrial fixed service operations and nonGovernment satellite operations are required to coordinate with"N 2,K(K(<<"  X4Government operations in the 17.820.2 GHz band.M3&/r {Oy' "/ ԍFor terrestrial fixed service operations, see Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Relocate the Digital  x Electronic Message Service From the 18 GHz Band to the 24 GHz Band and to Allocate the 24 GHz Band For Fixed  {O ' x@ Service, Order, ET Docket 9799, 12 FCC Rcd 4990 (1997); see also, Order, ET Docket 9799, 13 FCC Rcd 3581  {O'(1997) (low power operations). For satellite services, see 47 C.F.R.  2.106, Footnote US334. M In addition, the band segment 17.7-17.8GHz is allocated by the ITU in the Americas ("Region 2") for terrestrial fixed  X4service, FSS,24 /r yO!' "+ ԍThe 17.717.8 GHz band is allocated for use by the FSS in both the Earthĩtospace and spacetoEarth  x directions. ITU Radio Regulations Footnote S5.516 limits the uplink use to feeder links for the BSS operating in  xk the 12.212.7 GHz band. This footnote allocation is consistent with Footnote US271 in the United States Table of  yOy 'Frequency Allocations and we propose no change to it in this NPRM.#&a\  P6G;x&P#2 and BSS operations. As discussed below, we propose to implement this BSS  X4allocation domestically to conform to the ITU Region 2 allocation.U5/r {O 'ԍSee infra Section III.E.U Accordingly, any band redesignation plan should take into account the consequences of possible future sharing with BSS operations.   X '\ 2.` ` Primary Proposal   X429.` ` To accommodate these spectrum requirements, we propose the following band plan: r Ad X a\ h r n  && "<I "7 I ">%I "I "I "aI " \ " && " XI 4FS6I 0 f yO*' "4 ԍWe also propose that, effective April 1, 2007, the frequency segment 17.717.8 GHz be designated  {O'co-primary for both terrestrial fixed service and BSS downlink use. See infra Section III.E.& " GSO/FS S "%GSO/FS:S "rNGSO/FSS "pMSS/FL "D^GSO/FSS  "I " && "< "7  "3and 6FS >%""8and YFS"a "n " && "rgso/fss and ngso/fssQ"p fs and 2 ngso/fss"* ngso/fss"sfs and gso/fss"gso/fss"Mngso/fss "n" && "<"7 ">%"""a "" && "<"7 ">%"""a " " && "S600 MHzc"N 250 MHzc",<250 MHzc"500 MHzc"400 MHzc"O500 MHzc  n &&  17.7V 18.3V 18.55V 18.8V 19.3V 19.7V 20.2 GHz\n X 430.` ` Under the current band plan, the entire 2000 MHz of spectrum in the  X417.7-19.7GHz band is shared between terrestrial fixed service and satellite services.T7 /r {O%$'ԍXSee infra Section II.(#T Under the proposed band plan we would redesignate this spectrum as follows. First, we propose to designate to terrestrial fixed service 600 MHz of spectrum for primary use at 17.718.3 GHz and 650MHz of spectrum for co-primary use at 18.5518.8 GHz and 19.319.7 GHz. The"7,K(K(<<J)" total amount of spectrum available for terrestrial fixed service use would be 1250 MHz. Second, we propose to designate to GSO/FSS 250MHz of spectrum at 18.318.55 GHz for primary use and 250 MHz of spectrum at 18.5518.8 GHz for coprimary shared use. The total amount of spectrum available for GSO/FSS use would be 500 MHz, in addition to the current designation of 500 MHz of spectrum for primary GSO/FSS use at 19.720.2 GHz. Third, we propose to designate to NGSO/FSS 500 MHz of spectrum at 18.819.3 GHz for primary use. Fourth, we propose that MSS/FL would retain the 400 MHz of spectrum at 19.319.7 GHz for coprimary shared use. We note that this proposal does not change the  X4current designation for the 19.319.7 GHz band segment.8 /r yOa ' " ԍWe intend to amend the Table of Frequency Allocations in Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to  xo conform any changes resulting from a band plan we may adopt in this proceeding. Because we are seeking comment  xk on several alternative variations to our proposal and for the sake of simplicity, we are not displaying in Appendix C to this NPRM proposed changes to the Table of Frequency Allocations. Finally, we propose to grandfather existing terrestrial fixed users in the bands being redesignated for primary satellite use. We tentatively conclude that FSS operators will generally be able to design their systems around these limited number of existing operations.  X9 431.` ` This proposed plan attempts to balance the needs of satellite services and terrestrial fixed services. We tentatively conclude that the proposed plan can accommodate the needs of terrestrial fixed services. First, as indicated above, 600 MHz of contiguous spectrum (17.7-18.3GHz) would be designated for primary use by terrestrial fixed service. Portions of this spectrum could be used to accommodate CARS AML technology, terrestrial fixed service video operators, and broadcast auxiliary services. Second, terrestrial fixed service would have 650 MHz of spectrum designated for coprimary use at 18.5518.8 GHz and 19.319.7 GHz. The 600 MHz of primary designated spectrum, in conjunction with the 650 MHz of coprimary designated spectrum, should permit the implementation of a terrestrial fixed service channeling plan that can accommodate two-way services. For example, 450 MHz of the 17.718.3 GHz band could be channelized similar to the current 18.14218.58 GHz band for paired or unpaired video use. The remaining 150 MHz of the 17.718.3 GHz band, along with the 18.5518.8 GHz band, could be paired with the 19.3-19.7GHz band for other terrestrial fixed pointtopoint services. Various channel bandwidths could be accommodated in this spectrum. Third, as discussed below, we propose to grandfather on a permanent coprimary basis existing terrestrial fixed service systems operating in the 18.318.55 GHz and 18.819.3 GHz bands that we propose to designate as  X4primary for satellite services.W9/r {OG 'ԍSee infra Section III.C.4.W  X432.` ` We tentatively conclude that the proposed plan can also accommodate the needs of Kaband satellite services. We propose to provide GSO/FSS with 1000 MHz of downlink spectrum, of which 750 MHz of spectrum would be designated on a primary basis. This primary spectrum (18.3-18.55GHz and 19.720.2 GHz) could be used for ubiquitously deployed, blanket licensed satellite earth stations. We propose that the remaining 250 MHz of GSO/FSS downlink spectrum (18.5518.8 GHz) be shared on a co-primary basis with the terrestrial fixed service. Although sharing with terrestrial fixed services in this 250 MHz of" B9,K(K(<<!)" spectrum would place some constraints on GSO/FSS satellite licensees, we tentatively conclude that it would be possible for GSO/FSS satellite operators to use this spectrum to meet specialized demands, in particular, the demand for a limited number of large antenna diameter, high-datarate terminals. As mentioned previously, Lockheed is planning to use  Xt4500MHz in the 17.7-18.8GHz band for the operation of "AstrolinkTM" gateway earth  XQ4stations.H:Q/r yO'ԍLockheed comments at 6.H These earth stations are expected to use relatively large antenna diameters and are not expected to be ubiquitously deployed. We also note that the 18.618.8 GHz band is also allocated to the EES (passive) and SR (passive) services and a strict Power Flux Density  X4("PFD") limit is placed on fixed satellite service operations in this band.+;X/r yO ' " ԍIn the band 18.618.8 GHz, the fixed satellite service shall be limited to a PFD at the Earth's surface of  {O '-101dBW/m2 in a 200 MHz band for all angles of arrival. See 47 C.F.R.  2.106, footnote US255.+ Adherence to this PFD limit may require the use in this band of satellite earth stations with higher gain antennas and might serve as an incentive for licensees to concentrate smaller satellite earth stations in the 750 MHz of unshared GSO/FSS spectrum. For these reasons, and recognizing the need to provide adequate spectrum for both terrestrial fixed service and GSO/FSS, we tentatively conclude that sharing the 18.5518.8 GHz band between GSO/FSS and terrestrial fixed service is an efficient use of this spectrum. The proposed band plan also provides NGSO/FSS with 500 MHz of primary downlink spectrum; this should satisfy NGSO/FSS spectrum requirements. We also tentatively conclude that, because of the limited number of MSS/FL earth stations in the 19.319.7 GHz band, sharing of this band by MSS/FL and terrestrial fixed  X4services should continue under the current sharing requirements.X</r yO'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  25.203, 101.103.X Accordingly, the 19.3-19.7GHz spectrum band would continue to be designated for use by MSS/FL and terrestrial fixed services on a coprimary basis.  X4 33.` ` To provide flexibility throughout the 17.720.2 GHz band, we also propose to allow secondary operations on a noninterference basis by both terrestrial fixed service and FSS. These secondary operations are depicted in the proposed band plan by using lower case letters. We propose that, prior to initiating use of a frequency on a secondary basis, an applicant will be required to demonstrate that such use will not cause interference to users operating on a primary basis, and that it can accept interference from primary service operations. We request comment on the most efficient and effective way to demonstrate such use on a secondary noninterference basis.  X' 3. ` ` Comment Requested and Modified Proposals  X}4!34.` ` First, we request comment on whether the above proposal adequately meets the spectrum requirements of both terrestrial fixed service and GSO/FSS and NGSO/FSS satellite licensees. In particular, we seek comment on the feasibility of GSO/FSS operations in the 18.5518.8 GHz band given the strict PFD limit that is imposed by the Commission's Rules on fixed satellite service operations in the 18.618.8 GHz band in order to protect EES (passive) and SR (passive) services in that portion of the band. We also seek comment on" B<,K(K(<<j!)" whether allowing secondary operations in the 17.720.2 GHz band is desirable and feasible. Currently, there exists a secondary designation for NGSO/FSS throughout the 17.718.8 GHz band; however, NASA has suggested that it may be difficult for NGSO/FSS to operate on a secondary basis in the 18.618.8 GHz band without causing interference to EES (passive) and  Xt4SR (passive) operations. We seek comment on this issue.C=Xt/r yO' "_ ԍWe acknowledge NASA's concerns; however, we believe that further study of the potential impact of  x secondary operation of NGSO/FSS systems in the 18.618.8 GHz band is necessary before the Commission changes the NGSO/FSS secondary designation.C We also seek comment on the impact of a potential future BSS allocation in the 17.717.8 GHz band segment on existing  X.4and future terrestrial fixed service operationsO>./r {O 'ԍSee infra Section III.E.O and on the efficiency of continued sharing of the 19.319.7 GHz band by terrestrial fixed service and MSS/FL operations. We also request proposals for a modified terrestrial fixed service channelization plan that would conform to our proposed band plan. Finally, we request comment on how continued terrestrial fixed service access to the band can be ensured.  X\ 4"35.` ` Second, we request comment on the merits of modifying our proposal by designating an additional 100 MHz at 18.318.4 GHz to be shared on a coprimary basis by terrestrial fixed service and GSO/FSS. Under our primary proposal, 600 MHz (17.7-18.3GHz) is designated for terrestrial fixed service use while the adjacent 250 MHz (18.318.55 GHz) is designated for GSO/FSS use. However, if the 100MHz at 18.3-18.4GHz could be shared, terrestrial fixed service would have 700 MHz of contiguous spectrum (17.718.4 GHz) and this larger block of contiguous spectrum might make it  Xg4possible for a more flexible terrestrial fixed service channeling plan to be devised.s?gz/r {O'ԍInfra Section III.C.1 Terrestrial Fixed Service.s We seek comment on whether this adjustment to our proposed band plan would more fully meet terrestrial fixed service needs while not being overly restrictive of proposed GSO/FSS operations. We also request proposals for terrestrial fixed service channeling plans that would conform to this proposal.  X4#36.` ` Third, we request comment on modifying our primary proposal by designating the entire 17.718.8 GHz band to be shared on a coprimary basis by terrestrial fixed service and GSO/FSS. In developing our proposed band plan we assumed that GSO/FSS might use gateways or other large antenna earth stations at 18.5518.8 GHz, thus, making sharing feasible in that portion of the band, but that elsewhere in the 17.718.8 GHz band GSO/FSS would use ubiquitously deployed small antenna earth stations that would make sharing impractical. It may be possible, however, for GSO/FSS to use gateway type terminals throughout the 17.718.8 GHz band, in which case continued sharing might be possible. We seek comment on this issue and on whether continued sharing in the 17.718.8 GHz band would better meet the needs of GSO/FSS and terrestrial fixed service licensees.  X4$37.` ` If the 17.718.8 GHz band continues to be shared by terrestrial fixed service and GSO/FSS, two different approaches could be taken with regard to licensing in this band. " ?,K(K(<<f )" The first approach would maintain the status quo; that is, we would not allow blanket licensing. Licenses would continue to be required for each individual satellite earth station facility and each facility would be individually coordinated. The second approach would involve issuing a blanket license, but requiring terrestrial fixed and GSO/FSS licensees to coordinate prior to installation of a facility. Under the second approach, we propose that GSO/FSS licensees be required to maintain a database of earth station locations and operating parameters. Although each facility would still undergo coordination, we believe that this second approach could make licensing considerably faster. We request comments on whether either of these is an effective approach, and which approach best meets the needs of both GSO/FSS and terrestrial service licensees. We also request comment on whether there are other ways to streamline the existing coordination process. In addition, we request comment on whether current interservice sharing criteria need to be amended. Also, we request proposals for a modified terrestrial fixed channelization plan that would conform to this proposal.  X 4%38.` ` Fourth, we request comment on the feasibility of retaining our current band plan and thus continuing to share the entire 17.719.7 GHz band. Although we believe that band redesignation offers the best solution, we recognize that other solutions are possible. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether there are any streamlined licensing and coordination procedures that would allow satellite earth stations to be deployed in an efficient cost effective manner in a shared 17.719.7 GHz band. In addition, we request comment on any other band plans that might best accommodate the needs of both terrestrial fixed service and FSS licensees.  X4&39.` ` Fifth, we note that some of the Kaband satellite licensees are planning to offer their services both domestically and internationally. Although the band plan we adopt will apply only domestically, we request comment on what effect this band plan would have internationally. We seek comment on whether our proposed band plans would allow equipment manufacturers to make satellite earth stations that can be used both domestically and internationally. In addition, we seek comment on how these plans would affect the manufacturing of terrestrial fixed service transmitters and receivers. We also seek comment on whether a detailed terrestrial fixed service channelization plan would be necessary to facilitate the costeffective manufacturing of microwave transmitters and receivers for domestic and international markets.  X7' 4. ` ` Grandfathering  X4'40.` ` In evaluating options for the 18 GHz band, we also need to consider the investments made by existing primary users in the band. There are no commercial satellite  X!4systems currently operating in the Kaband,@!/r yO$$' " ԍWe note that Government military operations exist in this band and their operations must be protected.  {O$'Supra note 3. but there are existing terrestrial fixed service systems operating in the band. To protect the existing investment in terrestrial fixed service operations and, at the same time, anticipating that such existing operations would not overly"e#"@,K(K(<<#)" restrict new satellite operations, we propose to grandfather terrestrial fixed service operations that have been either licensed or for which applications are pending, as of the release date of this NPRM, for any band that is proposed to be designated for fixed satellite service use on a primary basis. Under this proposal, new terrestrial fixed service applications could continue to be filed and granted after the NPRM release date, but the licensees would have only secondary status in those bands designated for fixed satellite service use on a primary basis. Under the proposed band plan, for example, this would apply to the 18.318.55 GHz and 18.819.3 GHz bands. Due to the sensitivity of satellite earth station receivers, the most likely case of interference involves satellite earth stations receiving unwanted signals from terrestrial fixed service operations. Since detailed technical operating parameters (including specific location information) for these terrestrial fixed stations exist, we tentatively conclude that satellite operators will be able to design their systems and locate their facilities to avoid  X\ 4reception of such interference . Under this proposal, grandfathered terrestrial fixed service operations would receive interference protection from satellite operations and satellite earth stations must accept whatever interference they receive from those grandfathered terrestrial fixed service operations. We propose that new satellite earth stations will have to coordinate with grandfathered terrestrial fixed service operations, but that, grandfathered terrestrial fixed service licensees would not be allowed to expand or change their current operations in any of the bands in which grandfathering applies in any manner that might increase interference to satellite earth stations. For those terrestrial facilities applied for after the release of the NPRM, we reiterate that such terrestrial facilities will be required to accept interference from satellite operations and if a terrestrial facility interferes with a satellite earth station, and the terrestrial licensee can not cure it, the terrestrial licensee would be required to discontinue the operation of the interfering facility. We request comment on this grandfathering proposal.  X4(41.` ` In addition, if satellite operators are unable to design their systems to avoid interference from existing terrestrial fixed service operations, relocation of some or all terrestrial facilities (elsewhere within the 17.719.7 GHz band or another frequency band allocated for terrestrial fixed service) may be desirable. In order to balance the needs of both existing terrestrial fixed and future satellite systems, we request comment on the conditions under which relocation might become necessary. Commenters should specifically address the advantages and disadvantages to wholesale relocation of all incumbent users in any band in which grandfathering applies, as opposed to relocating only those links that are likely to cause interference. We note that in bands where terrestrial fixed service is primary or coprimary, no relocation will be required. We also request comment on whether we should allow satellite operators to force the relocation of individual terrestrial fixed service stations as long as the satellite operator pays all relocation costs. Commenters should also discuss how a casebycase relocation process could be constructed, and whether it would impose undue burdens on licensees, the public, or the Commission. Relocation of terrestrial facilities was  X!4addressed in our Emerging Technology proceeding, ET Docket No. 929,A!/r {O$$' "[ ԍSee Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the Use of New Telecommunications  {O$' x! Technologies, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 7 FCC Rcd 6886 (1992); Second  {O%' x Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 6495 (1993); Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC  {O&' x Rcd 6589 (1993); Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1943 (1994); Second Memorandum Opinion and  {OL''Order, 9 FCC Rcd 7797 (1994). and Mobile"!A,K(K(<<!)"  X4Satellite Service at 2 GHz allocation proceeding, ET Docket No. 9518.RBZ/r yOy' "R ԍSee Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use by  {OA' x7 the MobileSatellite Service, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 12 FCC Rcd 7388, 73967407; 741421 (1997).R In the event general relocation of terrestrial fixed service operations becomes necessary, we request comment on whether the relocation principles discussed in those proceedings should be applied here. Commenters should also discuss alternative relocation mechanisms and improvements to Commission procedures that would facilitate general or specific relocation of existing terrestrial fixed service facilities.  X 4)42.` ` An exception to the preceding discussion on grandfathering involves low power point-tomultipoint terrestrial fixed systems. Since these systems are limited to an equivalent isotopically radiated power of 1 watt, we do not anticipate that the operation of these systems will cause harmful interference to FSS earth station operations. We propose to continue licensing these low power pointtomultipoint systems in the 18.8218.87 GHz and 19.16-19.21GHz bands on a primary basis. We request comment on whether and under what conditions continued licensing and operation of these systems could cause harmful interference to FSS satellite earth stations operating in the specified bands, and we seek proposals on methods to resolve such interference.  X ' Q  X'D. Blanket Licensing  Xg4*43.` ` As discussed above, we recognize that blanket licensing of FSS earth stations in band segments that are shared with Qterrestrial fixed services could present certain  X!4difficulties.CZ!/r yO' " ԍThis discussion of blanket licensing applies only to FSS earth stations. The frequency band 19.319.7 GHz  x is shared between terrestrial fixed service and MSS/FL. MSS/FL earth stations are not ubiquitously deployed, do  {OL'not require blanket licensing, and a coordination procedure is already in place (See 47 C.F.R.  25.203, 101.103).  If blanket licensing were adopted without requiring coordination of individual earth stations, then, as TIAFPTP notes, large areas could be closed to terrestrial fixed service use. It could be possible to adopt blanket licensing but require terrestrial fixed service and FSS licensees to coordinate prior to installing a facility. The Commission's Rules currently define a coordination procedure for frequency bands shared between satellite and terrestrial  Xr4fixed services.^Dr /r {O/'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  25.203, 101.103.^ While this coordination method can be effective in bands where there are limited numbers of individually licensed satellite earth stations, it may prove burdensome once large numbers of satellite earth stations are present. In this case, the growth of terrestrial fixed service and the future deployment of satellite earth stations may be hindered. We tentatively conclude that coordination between terrestrial fixed service facilities and a large number of satellite earth stations will significantly add to the cost and time to implement satellite services and will adversely affect the ability of the public to receive the benefits of these new satellite services and also delay terrestrial deployment. We further tentatively conclude that, given our band redesignation proposal, satellite earth station blanket licensing would be possible in some subbands, while still allowing terrestrial fixed service"7D,K(K(<<)" operators primary or coprimary access to other portions of the band. Under these circumstances, we tentatively conclude that blanket licensing is in the public interest and propose the following requirements for satellite earth station blanket licensing in the Ka-band.  Xt' 1.` ` GSO/FSS  X.'  ` ` a. Blanket Licensing in Unshared Bands ` `   X'` `  (1) General Requirements  X4+44.` ` We propose a blanket licensing procedure for GSO/FSS earth stations operating in the unshared 18.318.55 GHz, 19.720.2 GHz, 28.3528.6 GHz, and 29.530.0 GHz bands. Under our proposed band plan and prior orders, these bands are designated for use by GSO/FSS on a primary basis. We propose to allow satellite licensees in these bands to apply for a blanket authorization under which each applicant could construct and operate a specified number and type of qualified earth stations. We further propose that the license term for a blanket authorization coincide with the underlying operating license. Existing Commission satellite earth station licensing rules specify a license term of ten years from the date the  X4license is granted.QE/r {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  25.121.Q We request comment on this blanket licensing proposal and on our proposed ten year license period that will be coterminus with the underlying operating license.  X4,45.` ` In addition, to ensure that secondary users in these bands have the information necessary to avoid causing harmful interference to GSO/FSS earth stations, we propose that applicants be required to designate a point of contact where records on location and frequency use of satellite earth stations will be maintained. We recognize, however, that some operators plan to market earth stations to large segments of the public and that monitoring the location of these earth stations may prove difficult. We seek comment on the feasibility of our proposal and request comment on alternative approaches.  X 4  X4-46.` ` We also propose an annual reporting requirement to allow the Commission to monitor the development of these new satellite services. We propose that licensees be required to include the number of earth stations actually brought into service in a yearly report to the Commission. This annual reporting requirement is consistent with requirements initially placed on Very Small Aperture Terminal ("VSAT") blanket earth station licensees in  X74the 12/14 GHz frequency range (Ku-band)F7Z/r {OB"' "R ԍSee Routine Licensing of Large Networks of Small Antenna Earth Stations Operating in the 12/14 GHz  {O #'Frequency Bands, Declaratory Order, 11 FCC Rcd 1162 (1986) ("VSAT Order"). to allow the Commission to monitor the  X4development of that service.lG\X/r yO{%' " ԍWe note that the Commission recently eliminated the annual reporting requirements for Kuband VSAT  {OC&' x licensees in favor of a single report to be submitted upon application for license renewal. See, Streamlining the  {O '' x! Commission's Regulations for Satellite Application and Licensing Procedures, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 21581" 'F,K(K('"  x (released December 16, 1996). This decision was made in light of the recognition that the Kuband VSAT industry  xk had matured sufficiently to the point where it was no longer necessary to monitor growth on an annual basis. At a future date a similar modification to the Kaband earth station reporting requirement might also be made.l We seek comment on this proposal for annual reporting,"G,K(K(<<b)" including comments on whether the above information is sufficient and appropriate.  X'` `  (2) Technical Requirements for Intra Service Sharing  X4  Xt4.47.` ` The Commission's GSO/FSS licensing policy is based upon uniform 2-degree spacing between adjacent satellites operating in the same frequency bands. To implement 2-degree spacing for GSO/FSS systems in the 4/6 GHz and 12/14 GHz frequency bands, the  X 4Commission established rules that define uplink and downlink power densities]H /r {O 'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  25.134, 25.208.] and antenna  X4performance standards.QIz/r {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  25.209.Q In combination, these power density limits and antenna performance standards ensure that conforming satellite systems will not emit power at offaxis angles at levels high enough to cause unacceptable interference to adjacent satellites spaced at 2-degree  X 4intervals. Petitioners note that blanket licensing has been successfully used for VSAT earth  X\ 4stations operating in the Kuband, pursuant to the Commission's Rules.1JZ\ /r {O' " ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  25.134. Section 25.134 establishes uplink and downlink power density limits and  xZ simultaneously provides a mechanism for licensing of those systems that do not conform to the power levels specified. 1 Successful implementation of blanket licensing for Kaband GSO/FSS earth stations requires that analogous technical criteria be developed.  X 4  X 4` `  (a) Uplink OffAxis EIRP Density  X4/48.` ` To enable blanket licensing for Kaband GSO/FSS earth stations, Motorola proposes uplink transmit Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power ("EIRP") density limits and downlink Power Flux Density ("PFD") threshold values to prevent harmful interference  X!4among Kaband GSO/FSS systems.NK!. /r yO'ԍMotorola comments at 8.N In particular, Motorola proposes a downlink threshold  X4PFD limit of 122 dBW/m2/MHz, and uplink EIRP limits of 15 dBW/MHz and 10 dBW/MHz  X4at 2.2o and 4.4o from antenna boresight, respectively.L /r yOJ!' " ԍ2ĩdegree orbital spacing assumes a coordinate system referenced to the Earth's center. Offaxis angle is  xI measured relative to the antenna boresight and the coordinate system is referenced to the Earth's surface  x. (topocentric). This difference yields an increase in the size of the offaxis antenna angle measured between antenna  x boresight and a point on the geostationary arc, relative to the orbital spacing angle. This difference is on the order  yOj$'of 0.2o for an earth station along the equator, and decreases for earth stations at higher latitudes.   X4049.` ` Adherence to the earth station antenna offaxis EIRP density limits proposed by Motorola (15 dBW/MHz and 10 dBW/MHz) requires antenna performance significantly more"rnL,K(K(<<i)"  X4stringent than currently specified in Section 25.209(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules.MX/r yOy' "I ԍ47 C.F.R.  25.209(a)(1). The Motorola proposed values are based upon an antenna uplink discrimination  yOA' x of 30 dB at 2.2o and 35dB at 4.4o. This is in contrast to the current Section 25.209(a)(1) envelope that imposes  yO 'a discrimination of 24 dB at 2.2o and 31.5 dB at 4.4o, respectively, on an antenna with the same peakbeam gain. We recognize that such antenna performance, if achievable, would greatly enhance sharing  X4possibilities in the 2-degree orbital spacing environment.N /r yOS[ " ԍEarth station antenna patterns assume the general form G() = A B log10(). Solving for the constants  x A and B would establish an envelope bounding the two points specified in the Motorola comments, this yields the  yO[ x equation G() = 20.2 16.7 log10(). Such an envelope would afford improved protection to the first thirteen adjacent orbital slots, relative to the present requirement. However, we question whether present antenna technology is sufficiently advanced to provide a mass-producible, small diameter antenna that would meet these stringent requirements. At present, the tradeoffs in antenna size and cost to the operator in achieving such performance are unknown.  X 4150.` ` Antenna manufacturers have indicated that small diameter Kaband antennas  Xuthat achieve 29 25 log10() sidelobe performance are likely attainable, albeit, at some cost  X4increase.O/r yOF' " ԍSeminar on Kaband Earth Station Antenna Technology presented to the Industry Working Group on Blanket Licensing on October 14, 1997. While manufacturers could not be definitive regarding the cost of higher performance antennas, it appears that a significant increase in performance, such as that proposed by Motorola, may be extremely difficult to achieve and could significantly increase the cost of the antennas. A large increase in equipment cost would greatly limit the ability of licensees to deploy a ubiquitous consumeroriented service. Consequently, we propose antenna performance requirements that are no more stringent than those now specified in Section 25.209.  X4251.` ` Although we are not proposing to adopt Motorola's proposed earth station antenna off-axis EIRP density thresholds, we tentatively agree that the approach of establishing a single offaxis EIRP density value, rather than separate standards for antenna sidelobe performance and maximum antenna input power densities, is reasonable as it may afford the operator more flexibility in system design while achieving the desired level of interference protection in the 2degree environment. We note, however, that Motorola's proposed uplink criteria restrict radiation only toward the first two adjacent orbital positions  X4(2.2o and 4.4o) and do not address orbital locations further along the geostationary arc or  X4between orbital slots.BP@( /r yOn!' "g ԍTo ensure protection along the geostationary arc, the current Commission's Rules specify an envelope below  x which the gain from an earth station antenna should lie. Section 25.209(a)(1) specifies a composite curve in the plane of the geostationary arc as a function of offaxis angle ():  yO$[` ` G() = 29 25 log10() dBiq 1o    7o  yOV%'` ` G() = +8 dBihhCq 7o <   9.2o  yO&[` ` G() = 32 25 log10() dBiq 9.2o <   48o  yO&'` ` G() = 10 dBihhCq48o <   180o."&O,K(K('"Ԍ x ԙThese criteria are defined in 47 C.F.R.  25.209(a)(2) for all other directions, or in the plane of the horizon including any outofplane potential terrestrial interference paths by:  yO[` ` 32 25 log10 () dBihhC1o    48o  yO'` `  10 dBihhC48o <   180o. B In this regard, we consider the proposal incomplete. Rather, we"xP,K(K(<<r)" believe that a composite curve defining an earth station antenna offaxis EIRP density value over the entire geostationary arc provides a more complete criterion.  X4352.` ` Informal discussions among licensees suggest that GSO/FSS systems are likely to operate with uplink EIRP densities which vary from approximately 24 dBW/MHz to  XQ4approximately 30dBW/MHz at 2o offaxis. These suggested uplink offaxis EIRP density values are not evenly distributed throughout this range. Rather, the majority are clustered between approximately 25 and 27 dBW/MHz, with one or two licensees proposing values at the high and low ends. We seek a threshold value that will accommodate the requirements of the majority of systems and choose to define an uplink offaxis EIRP density requirement that permits transmission at the middle levels. Accordingly, we propose that under clear sky conditions, all earth stations operating in the 28.3528.6 GHz and 29.530 GHz bands be required to transmit in the plane of the geostationary orbit with offaxis EIRP densities no  X9 4greater than the composite curve described below:Q 9 x/r yOb' " ԍThis composite threshold is the product of offaxis earth station antenna gain mask and a maximum antenna  x^ input power density. The antenna gain values are those currently given in  25.209 and the antenna input power  yO' x density is approximately 6 dBW/MHz. Resulting EIRP densities at 2.2o and 4.4o offaxis are 26.4 dBW/MHz and  yO'18.4 dBW/MHz, respectively.  X uX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:63.` ` The frequency segment 29.2529.5 GHz of the satellite uplink band is designated for MSS/FL and GSO/FSS coprimary use. Petitioners assert that blanket licensing can be implemented in this band by including GSO/FSStoMSS/FL sharing principles from  X!4the 28 GHz First Report and Order in the blanket licensing criteria._!u yO' " ԍThese sharing principles are summarized as follows: (1) NGSO/MSS licensees will provide the locations  x7 for their feeder links; (2) all GSO/FSS proponents will implement frequency and polarization selection techniques  x in the area of NGSO/MSS feeder link complexes to minimize instances of unacceptable interference; and (3) use of  x the 29.2529.5 GHz band by another NGSO/MSS system for feeder link earth stations will be subject to coordination  {O'agreements with existing GSO/FSS parties. 28 GHz First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19005. Iridium, however, opposes blanket licensing in this band on the grounds that it would adversely affect the  X4development of nongeostationary orbit MSS systems.G`zu yO'ԍIridium comments at 3.G Iridium asserts that coordination  X4between MSS/FL and blanket licensed GSO/FSS earth stations appears to be impossible.@a u {Ou'ԍId. at 2.@ It also asserts that although GSO/FSS petitioners acknowledge their obligation to coordinate with current MSS/FL licensees, they make no mention of how to coordinate with future MSS/FL operations in the band. We note that coordination of ubiquitous earth stations with future MSS/FL operations raises questions beyond the GSO/FSS-to-GSO/FSS sharing issues raised in other band segments. Moreover, we recognize the need to maintain access to feeder link spectrum for future mobile satellite systems. For these reasons, we propose not to implement blanket licensing in the 29.2529.5 GHz band at this time. We seek comment on this proposal. In particular, we seek comment on our current coordination procedures between MSS/FL and GSO/FSS earth station licensees. We also seek comment on any possible sharing criteria such as revised antenna performance standards, power limits, or geographic restrictions that might permit blanket licensing of GSO/FSS earth stations in this"9a,K(K(<<)" band.  X'` `  (2) Downlink Band Shared with Terrestrial Fixed Service  Xt4?64.` ` In our proposed band plan, the frequency segment 18.5518.8 GHz is designated for coprimary use by terrestrial fixed service and GSO/FSS downlinks. Coordination between satellite and terrestrial services is necessary in a shared band. Therefore, we propose not to implement blanket licensing in the 18.5518.8 GHz band. Instead, we propose that applicants seeking satellite earth station licenses to operate in this band follow the coordination procedures in Section 25.203 of the Commission's Rules, and  X4that these earth stations be individually licensed.Gbu yO 'ԍ47 C.F.R.  25.203.G Due to the stricter PFD limits and the difficulty of operating in an environment where satellite operations are shared with terrestrial fixed services, we anticipate that satellite systems may use this segment mainly for large diameter earth stations such as gateways.  X 4@65.` ` We seek comment on this proposal. In particular, we seek comment on our current coordination procedures between terrestrial fixed service and GSO/FSS earth station licensees. We also seek comment on any possible changes to sharing criteria, such as revised  X4antenna performance standards, power limits, or geographic restrictions that might permit blanket licensing of GSO/FSS earth stations in this band. We also seek comment on whether blanket licensing can be implemented with the condition that coordination between terrestrial and satellite users take place prior to deployment of an individual facility. In such a case, the coordination would be conducted between licensees without the involvement of the Commission. Such condition would require that a database of detailed technical information on all satellite earth station operations be maintained by the satellite licensee and be made publicly available.  XO' 2.` ` NGSO/FSS  X 4A66.` ` Currently, the 18.819.3 GHz band is designated for NGSO/FSS downlink use  X4and the 28.629.1 GHz band for uplink use.c Xu yO' " ԍWe note that use of these bands was affected by a modification to footnote S5.523A at the 1997 World  x Radiocommunication Conference. This footnote, applicable to all Regions, states that Administrations having GSO  x networks under coordination in these bands prior to November 18, 1995 shall coordinate with NGSO networks and that NGSO networks shall not cause unacceptable interference to such GSO networks. Teledesic proposes that blanket licensing procedures be developed for FSS operations throughout the 17.720.2 GHz and 27.530.0 GHz bands, including those bands that are designated for NGSO/FSS use. Teledesic asserts that NGSO/FSS and GSO/FSS systems propose to offer similar types of services to the public, and that both predict highdensity deployment of earth stations, which is the primary reason for  X74adopting blanket licensing.jd7@u yO(&'ԍXTeledesic comments filed February 18, 1997, at 3.(#j Teledesic also points out that there is precedent for blanket"7d,K(K(<<)"  X4licensing of NGSO systems.eu {Oy' "< ԍSee 8 FCC Rcd at 845354; In Re Application of U.S. LEO Services Inc., Order and Authorization, 11 FCC  yOC'Rcd 20474 (1996). Finally, Teledesic states that because GSO/FSS and NGSO/FSS systems will be competing for the same customers, licensing procedures for both types of systems should be considered simultaneously and at the earliest possible date. Petitioners do not oppose inclusion of additional bands in the blanket licensing proceeding, but point out that the sharing issues raised in NGSO bands are different, and may take longer to resolve, than those in the GSO/FSS bands. The Petitioners and several commenters request that Kaband blanket licensing be addressed on a subband by subband basis and in separate industry  X 4working groups.f "u yO 'ԍLockheed comments at 5; Loral comments at 3; Motorola comments at 9; NSMA comments at 4.  X4B67.` ` We tentatively agree that the reasons for instituting blanket licensing  X4procedures (i.e., the large number of earth stations) are the same for both GSO/FSS and NGSO/FSS. We also tentatively agree that it is in the public interest to develop blanket licensing procedures for NGSO/FSS systems in order to eliminate delay and undue administrative burden. Finally, we agree tentatively that both issues should be addressed at the earliest possible date to permit licensees to move forward with their plans. However, we also recognize the validity of Petitioners' assertion that the issues raised with regard to NGSO intraservice sharing are different than in the GSO/FSS case.  X4C68.` ` Many of the NGSOtoNGSO sharing issues are typically resolved at the space segment licensing stage. To effect blanket licensing of NGSO earth stations in the 18.8-19.3GHz and 28.629.1 GHz bands, it is necessary that criteria analogous to those  X#4developed for GSO systems (e.g., downlink PFD and uplink offaxis EIRP density) be established to facilitate sharing among multiple NGSO systems in the band. At this time, the record contains little information on values that might be sufficient and appropriate to achieve this goal. While the threshold values proposed for GSO systems might be extended to NGSO systems, we recognize that these values were developed based on the presumption of sharing in a 2degree spacing environment; this same orbital geometry does not apply in the NGSO-toNGSO case. Accordingly, we do not have sufficient information to propose specific blanket licensing criteria for NGSO systems and request comment on what criteria should be used.  X4D69.` ` We seek comment on what downlink PFD and uplink offaxis EIRP density values are appropriate to effect blanket licensing of multiple NGSO systems in the 18.8-19.3GHz and 28.6-29.1GHz bands. In particular, we request comment on whether the proposed GSO uplink transmit power parameters are sufficient and achievable without placing undue burden upon the licensee, or whether different values should be adopted. In addition, we seek comment on what downlink PFD level would be appropriate. Section 25.208(c) of" f,K(K(<<b)"  X4the Commission's Rules currently specifies PFD limits for the 18.819.3 GHz band.gu yOy' "l ԍ47 C.F.R.  25.208(c). PFD requirements across the entire 17.719.7 GHz band are defined as a function of angle of arrival - above the horizon as follows:  yO'X`  x (#%'0*,.8135@8:. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet email. To get filing instructions for email comments, commenters should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, "get form ." A sample form and directions will be sent in reply. "&&u,K(K(<<&)"Ԍ X4ԙV87.` ` Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M St. N.W., Room 222, Washington, D.C. 20554.  X 4W88.` ` Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information collections are due on or before November 5, 1998. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information  X4collections on or before 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov.  X ' vD.Ex Parte Presentations  X4X89.` ` This is a permitbutdisclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex  Xi4parte vpresentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they  XH4are disclosed as provided in the Commission's Rules. See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206.  X' E.Contacts  X4Y90.` ` For further information concerning this rulemaking proceeding, contact Charles Magnuson (202) 4182150, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.  X' V. ORDERING CLAUSES Đ\  X4Z91.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303 and 403, this NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING is ADOPTED.  X4[92.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation, et al., is GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and OTHERWISE DENIED.  X!4\93.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition filed by DIRECTV Enterprises, Inc. is GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and OTHERWISE DENIED.  XH$4]94.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration."&'u,K(K(<<&)"ԌX`  x (#%'0*,.8135@8: