******************************************************** 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 the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) The Establishment of Policies ) IB Docket No. 99-81 and Service Rules for the Mobile) RM-9328 Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band) NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: March 18, 1999 Released: March 25, 1999 Comment Date: June 24, 1999 Reply Comment Date: July 26, 1999 By the Commission: TABLE OF CONTENTS Topic Paragraph Number I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. BACKGROUND 4 III. DISCUSSION 6 A. Service Link Licensing Procedures 6 1. Avoiding Mutual Exclusivity 6 2. ICO's Petition for Expedited Rulemaking 11 3. Qualification Requirements 16 a. Technical Qualifications 16 i. Orbit Considerations 17 ii. Coverage Requirements 18 iii. Provision of AMS(R)S 20 b. Financial Qualifications 23 4. Processing Alternatives 26 a. The Flexible Band Arrangement 31 i. TDMA Systems 34 ii. CDMA Systems 36 iii. Spectrum Assignments 37 b. Negotiated Entry Approach 40 c. Traditional Band Arrangement 44 d. Competitive Bidding 46 B. Non-Service Link Issues 49 1. Feeder Links 50 a. Extended C-band 58 b. 5, 7 and 15 GHz bands 59 c. Ku-band 61 d. Ka-band 62 2. Tracking, Telemetry, and Command 67 3. Radionavigation Frequencies 68 4. Inter-satellite Links 69 C. Service Rules 71 1. Regulatory Classification 73 2. System License and License Term 79 3. Implementation Milestones 83 4. Reporting Requirements 91 5. Distress and Safety Communications and Enhanced 9-1-193 6. Service to Unserved Communities 95 7. Trafficking 96 8. Orbital Debris Mitigation 97 9. Exclusionary Arrangements 103 D. Mobile Earth Station Licensing 104 E. International Coordination 108 F. Interservice Sharing 112 IV. CONCLUSION 120 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 121 A. Ex Parte Presentations 121 B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 122 C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 123 D. Comment Filing Procedures 124 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 127 Appendix A Service Link Spectrum Allocations for 2 GHz MSS and Applicants' Proposals Appendix B Flexible Band Arrangement Appendix C Draft U.S. Government/Industry Orbital Debris Mitigation Practices Appendix D Proposed Rule Changes to 47 C.F.R. Part 25 of the Commission's Rules I. INTRODUCTION 1. By this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), we initiate the process for licensing a new generation of innovative mobile satellite services (MSS). The policies and rules we propose or seek comment on in this Notice are designed to serve several goals: promoting competition by creating opportunities for new entrants, expediting the authorization process, and providing incentives for system operators to commence service to the public promptly using state-of-the-art technology. Pursuant to a 2 GHz MSS processing round that we initiated in 1997, there are currently nine proposals to construct, launch and operate MSS systems under consideration by the Commission. These proposed systems would provide regional and global voice, data, and messaging services to mobile terminals in the 1990-2025/2165-2200 MHz frequency bands (2 GHz MSS). We propose to accommodate all qualified satellite systems in the band. In doing so, we expect to license spectrum to U.S. applicants and authorize the use of spectrum for non-U.S.-licensed systems to operate in the United States. Operations outside the United States will be subject to the regulatory requirements of those countries in which these systems may seek to operate. 2. The 2 GHz MSS allocation provides for further development of the mobile satellite services by providing spectrum to meet the projected demands of new entrants and existing MSS providers. Other mobile satellite systems are authorized in the geostationary L-band MSS, the Non-Voice Non-Geostationary MSS below 1 GHz (NVNG MSS), and MSS Above 1 GHz (Big LEO). The proposals for 2 GHz MSS systems, like the other systems, promise to provide new and expanded regional and global voice, data, and messaging services. 2 GHz MSS also will enhance competition in mobile satellite and terrestrial communications services, and complement wireless service offerings through expanded geographic coverage. 2 GHz MSS will thereby promote development of regional and global communications to rural and unserved communities in the United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, Native American areas, Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories and possessions, as well as to the rest of the world. 3. In proposing service rules for the 2 GHz MSS, we intend to use the Big LEO service rules as a starting point. We believe that by amending the existing rules to incorporate the 2 GHz MSS we can avoid the addition of duplicative and unnecessary rules. In this Notice, we first address a Petition for Expedited Rulemaking filed by ICO Services Limited (ICO). We grant ICO's request to the extent we propose to amend the Big LEO service rules to include the 2 GHz MSS rather than developing a completely new set of policies and rules. We deny, however, ICO's request that we propose to license only "new entrants" initially. To accomplish our goal of expediting licensing of the proposed 2 GHz MSS systems, we seek comment on several application and LOI spectrum assignment alternatives that would avoid mutual exclusivity among the qualified proposals. In addition, we seek comment on a competitive bidding approach in the event we find that the approaches that avoid mutual exclusivity are not in the public interest. We also seek comment on several substantial feeder link and inter-satellite link issues. We seek comment on earth station licensing proposals and international coordination requirements. In addition, we seek comment on specific incentives to encourage 2 GHz system operators to provide service to rural and unserved communities. II. BACKGROUND 4. The 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC-92) allocated several frequency bands for MSS. Among other actions, WARC-92 adopted primary international allocations of the 1980-2010 MHz (uplink) band and the 2170-2200 MHz (downlink) band to MSS worldwide, and the 2165-2170 MHz band to MSS in Region 2 to be effective January 1, 2000. These MSS allocations were added on a primary basis to bands already allocated to terrestrial mobile and fixed services. In 1994, the Commission allocated portions of the international 2 GHz MSS allocation specifically for domestic terrestrial mobile service use by Personal Communications Services (PCS). In doing so, the Commission acknowledged the potential for MSS to serve rural areas that may not be economically served by PCS and stated that it would consider allocating additional spectrum to 2 GHz MSS in the future. Consequently, in 1995, the United States sought additional international spectrum for 2 GHz MSS at the 1995 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-95), and WRC-95 adopted additional spectrum for 2 GHz MSS. Effective January 1, 2000, the 2010-2025 MHz (uplink) band and the 2165-2170 MHz (downlink) band will be available for MSS in the United States and Canada. Effective January 1, 2005, the 2010-2025 MHz (uplink) band will be available for MSS in all of Region 2. In 1997, the Commission allocated the 1990-2025 MHz (uplink) and 2165-2200 MHz (downlink) bands to MSS in the United States. 5. The first applications seeking authorization to use the 2 GHz spectrum to provide MSS were filed by Celsat America, Inc. (Celsat) and Personal Communications Satellite Corporation (PCSAT) in 1994, prior to adoption of the 2 GHz MSS allocation in the United States. Following the allocation in 1997, the International Bureau issued a Public Notice establishing a deadline ("cut-off") of September 26, 1997 for additional applications from U.S. companies and letters of intent from non-U.S.-licensed systems. The Commission received six applications (including an amended application from Celsat) and three letters of intent from non-U.S. companies to provide service in the United States. The 2 GHz MSS applicants are the Boeing Company (Boeing), Celsat, Constellation Communications, Inc. (Constellation), Globalstar, L.P. (Globalstar), Iridium LLC (Iridium) and Mobile Communications Holding, Inc. (MCHI); the LOI filers seeking reservation of spectrum to serve the U.S. market from non-U.S.-licensed systems are ICO (a United Kingdom company), Inmarsat Horizons (Inmarsat) (an inter-governmental satellite organization), and TMI Communications and Company, Limited Partnership (TMI) (a Canadian entity). In addition, on July 17, 1998, ICO filed a Petition for Expedited Rulemaking requesting that the Commission expeditiously adopt licensing and service rules for 2 GHz MSS. In response to the ICO Petition in part, this Notice proposes policies and rules for expedited licensing and operation of these systems in the United States. As stated in the cut-off Public Notice, applicants and LOI filers will be afforded an opportunity to amend their applications and letters of intent, if necessary, to conform with any requirements and policies that may be adopted for the 2 GHz MSS. As we propose in this Notice, the Commission will then issue licenses and a Public Notice or Declaratory Ruling regarding the letters of intent to resolve all outstanding issues with respect to the 2 GHz MSS service link bands. III. DISCUSSION A. Service Link Licensing Procedures 1. Avoiding Mutual Exclusivity 6. In our satellite service processing rounds, we have traditionally sought to afford all qualified system proponents an opportunity to compete in the marketplace and allow consumer choice to determine the success of individual service offerings, technologies, and competitors. In doing so, we have avoided mutual exclusivity among applicants by encouraging applicants to develop a sharing arrangement by which all proposed systems can be accommodated. However, in the 2 GHz MSS Allocation NPRM, which the Commission adopted in 1995, we sought comment on our intent to award the 2 GHz MSS licenses by competitive bidding. Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act), requires the Commission to award licenses for use of the electromagnetic spectrum through competitive bidding, or auctions, where mutually exclusive applications are accepted for filing (unless the applications fall under one of three statutory exemptions not relevant here). Our use of auctions as an assignment method is subject to Section 309(j)(6)(E), which states that the Commission has an "obligation in the public interest to continue to use engineering solutions, negotiation, threshold qualifications, service regulations, and other means in order to avoid mutual exclusivity in application and licensing proceedings." 7. In response to the 2 GHz MSS Allocation NPRM, all commenters opposed the idea of awarding 2 GHz MSS licenses by auction, citing numerous reasons. These commenters said that we should wait until we accepted applications for licenses so as to determine whether there would be conflicting requests for spectrum, and several suggested that engineering solutions, negotiations, licensing qualifications, and service rules can be used to avoid mutual exclusivity. Moreover, commenters suggested that auctioning MSS spectrum in the United States could open the door for other countries to require MSS providers to pay for using the same spectrum in each country, thereby delaying service by subjecting each system to subsequent auctions in each country. In the 2 GHz MSS Allocation Order, we decided to defer a decision on whether to license 2 GHz MSS by competitive bidding until after we received the 2 GHz MSS applications and LOIs, and analyzed their proposals to determine whether mutual exclusivity existed. 8. The nine 2 GHz MSS system proponents propose a mixture of system designs geostationary orbit (GSO) and non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) systems, as well as different modulation technologies time division multiple access (TDMA), code division multiple access (CDMA), and, in some cases, both TDMA and CDMA. Moreover, many of the 2 GHz MSS system proponents request use of the entire available 2 GHz MSS spectrum allocation. Consequently, the threshold issue in this Notice is how to license these systems given that, based on the system proponents' spectrum requests, there is insufficient spectrum to accommodate all systems as proposed without causing mutual interference. Based on our policy in previous satellite licensing proceedings to encourage applicants to develop engineering solutions or sharing arrangements by which all proposed systems can be accommodated, and in accordance with our statutory obligation to continue to use engineering solutions or negotiation to avoid mutual exclusivity in application and licensing proceedings, and for the reasons discussed below, we generally adopt this approach in this proceeding. 9. The authorization of satellite services, due to international concerns (some of which were voiced by the commenters to the 2 GHz MSS Allocation NPRM), may justify assiduous efforts to avoid mutual exclusivity. Many of the frequencies involved in this proceeding are allocated for MSS on a world-wide basis. As a consequence, how much money entities might bid for a 2 GHz license or reservation, and even their willingness to bid at all, will be affected by the degree of their interest in providing global service and by their expectations concerning licensing requirements and costs in other countries. For example, a satellite system operator proposing to serve only the United States may be willing to bid higher than a satellite system operator proposing to serve multiple regions, because the U.S.-only system would face considerably fewer contingencies. Thus, auctions might prevent entry by transnational systems even though these systems may provide services valued more highly by consumers. 10. Coordinated multinational auctions might properly address the interdependency between national licensing decisions and international provision of service. However, international arrangements for transnational use of such frequency bands currently are premised on coordination using engineering solutions and other methods to avoid harmful interference among systems. A coordinated multilateral auction is likely to demand substantial time and resources by multiple administrations, and raise national sovereignty and other access issues. Consequently, electing to authorize 2 GHz MSS systems to serve U.S. consumers through a coordinated multinational auction could substantially delay service to the public and thereby contravene our stated objective of facilitating prompt delivery of 2 GHz mobile satellite services to consumers. Therefore, it appears that it would be in the public interest to undertake considerable efforts to develop solutions that would avoid mutual exclusivity among satellite systems. Toward these efforts, we address ICO's proposal that the Commission expeditiously adopt licensing and service rules for 2 GHz MSS, and outline three band sharing proposals below. However, we note that if these (or other) band sharing proposals do not result in lack of mutual exclusivity consistent with the public interest, we will be required to use auctions as a selection mechanism. 2. ICO's Petition for Expedited Rulemaking 11. As a threshold matter, the ICO Petition requests that the Commission expeditiously adopt licensing and service rules for 2 GHz MSS. To that end, ICO suggests that the Commission bifurcate the licensing process for the nine entities seeking to provide 2 GHz MSS service. Specifically, ICO proposes that the Commission conditionally license "new entrants" immediately, subject to intersystem coordination and various rules patterned on the Big LEO service rules, and later authorize additional 2 GHz MSS system proponents after finalizing the 2 GHz MSS technical and band sharing rules. ICO USA, GSM Alliance, and Celsat fully support the ICO Petition, while Iridium, Globalstar, and TMI support ICO's request for an expedited licensing and service rules proceeding, but oppose ICO's substantive requests regarding a new entrant preference. MCHI and Constellation generally oppose the ICO Petition, although neither party specifically objects to the Commission moving forward on 2 GHz MSS licensing per se. 12. To the extent that ICO requests that we expedite this processing round of the 2 GHz MSS licensing proceeding so as to facilitate prompt delivery of these new services, we agree that it is in the public interest to do so. Ideally, 2 GHz mobile satellite service could begin in the United States on or about the time that the 2 GHz MSS allocation goes into effect January 1, 2000. Nonetheless, given the potential for mutual exclusivity among the system proposals, and the complexity of the issues that the parties' proposals raise, it is our obligation to take the time necessary to achieve the best results. We therefore address ICO's primary concern of expedition in authorizing systems by proposing spectrum assignment options designed to facilitate rapid initiation of 2 GHz MSS service. 13. The ICO Petition and its responsive pleadings also present excellent suggestions regarding how best to expedite this processing round. Many of the issues raised by the 2 GHz MSS system proposals are similar to those the Commission addressed in the Big LEO service rules proceeding. The issues are similar because the mobile satellite services proposed are essentially the same as those provided by the Big LEOs (i.e., voice, data and fax via MSS), and because the proposed 2 GHz MSS system designs are similar to those used by the Big LEOs (i.e., CMDA and TDMA system architectures). We believe that the Big LEO policies and rules can serve as a logical starting point for the development of the policies and rules for the 2 GHz mobile satellite service. Therefore, as ICO suggests, we propose to use the Big LEO rules as a template for the 2 GHz MSS rules by applying appropriate provisions of the Big LEO rules to both Big LEO licensees and 2 GHz MSS system operators. Streamlining the regulations for these mobile satellite services in the 1-3 GHz range would reduce confusion and uncertainty for users, lessen regulatory burdens on system operators, and appropriately conserve Commission resources. 14. We now turn to ICO's "new entrant" proposal. ICO bases its proposal on a Commission proposal to adopt a preference in the NVNG MSS second processing round for applicants that were not already NVNG MSS licensees or their affiliates, and on the policies underlying the Commission's pioneer's preference rules. We find that neither basis justifies establishing the preference for new entrants sought by ICO. In the NVNG MSS second processing round, we did not adopt the proposed preference because our ability to accommodate all applicants via spectrum sharing alleviated any concern that existing operators would obtain additional spectrum to the exclusion of potential new entrants. Similarly, our approach to licensing in this proceeding is to encourage the applicants to develop engineering solutions or sharing arrangements by which all nine proposed systems can be accommodated, and therefore, the unadopted proposal in the NVNG MSS second processing round provides no support for ICO's new entrant proposal. With regard to the Commission's pioneer's preference rules, the Commission originally established this policy in 1991 to provide a means of extending preferential treatment in licensing processes to parties that demonstrated their responsibility for developing new communications services and technologies. We no longer have authority, however, to award pioneer's preferences because Congress terminated this authority in August 1997. 15. We also find ICO's request for a bifurcated rulemaking with a "new entrant" component problematic. It would be difficult to develop a workable definition of "new entrant," including such matters as what the market definition should be (domestic versus international; voice versus non-voice; mobile or only mobile satellite), what affiliation standards should apply and other related criteria necessary to adopt such an approach. Developing and applying proper definitions and criteria would slow licensing and spectrum reservation considerably. Furthermore, as we indicated in our Big LEO proceeding, there are inherent competitive safeguards in a policy of accommodating multiple MSS systems, and potential benefits can flow from authorizing companies that have experience in related areas of communications. Therefore, pursuant to Section 1.407 of the Commission's rules, we grant ICO's request for expedited rulemaking in part, to the extent it comports with the proposals made herein, and deny ICO's request in all other respects. 3. Qualification Requirements a. Technical Qualifications 16. It has been our policy to afford service providers the ability to use a diverse array of technologies. We are confident that allowing satellite operators maximum flexibility to design their satellite systems would promote innovative system design and create additional public interest benefits by allowing operators to tailor their systems to best meet the needs of consumers. We recognize that there are several technologically distinct approaches for providing MSS at 2 GHz that can fulfill public interest objectives. We therefore seek to establish technical rules that can maximize the number of service providers, and offer each one of them sufficient flexibility to implement a state-of-the-art satellite communications system that will meet the demands of the marketplace. We also propose requirements to insure efficient use of assigned spectrum. i. Orbit Considerations 17. The 2 GHz MSS system proponents propose both NGSO and GSO systems. There are inherent differences between NGSO and GSO satellite systems. A single NGSO satellite can pass over all of the Earth. As a result, NGSO satellite systems can be designed to provide complete, and, with a sufficient number of satellites, continuous global coverage. A single GSO satellite, in contrast, operates from a fixed point relative to the Earth and consequently the coverage from a single GSO satellite, while continuous, allows for regional service at most. Each type of system has certain technical advantages in comparison to the other, and we anticipate that neither system will be superior for all uses. Our goal is to provide an opportunity for technology trade-offs to be tested in the marketplace. Therefore, we propose to authorize both NGSO and GSO MSS systems for operations in relevant portions of the 1990-2025/2165-2200 MHz bands, and seek comment on this proposal. ii. Coverage Requirements 18. NGSO systems. In the Big LEO Report & Order, we acknowledged the need to balance NGSO MSS system cost against geographical service area coverage, and established that it is sufficient, given projected need and alternative service options, to require service only to populated areas. We believe that it is appropriate to apply the same rationale here, and propose to adopt the same coverage requirements for 2 GHz MSS systems operating NGSO constellations. Specifically, we propose to require that systems operating NGSO satellites be capable of serving locations as far north as 70§ North latitude and as far south as 55§ South latitude for at least 75 percent of every 24-hour period. This would provide coverage to virtually all of the world's permanently populated areas. We also are certain that the public interest would be served if the 2 GHz MSS NGSO systems provide efficient and ubiquitous communication services to users throughout the United States. We, therefore, propose to require continuous coverage, i.e., that at least one NGSO satellite must be visible above the horizon at an elevation angle of at least 5 degrees at all times throughout all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories and possessions. We request comment on these proposals. 19. GSO systems. A single GSO satellite, unlike a single NGSO satellite, has a fixed coverage area, and is thus inherently regional in its coverage. Consistent with the regional technical feature of GSOs, we do not propose global coverage requirements for systems that use only GSO satellites. We do propose, however, to require such systems to provide coverage to all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, unless the system demonstrates that such coverage is technically infeasible. We seek comment on this proposal. iii. Provision of AMS(R)S 20. In its application, Boeing seeks authority to provide Aeronautical Mobile-Satellite Route Service (AMS(R)S) in the 2 GHz MSS bands. AMS(R)S is a radio communication service linking aircraft earth stations via satellite to ground stations or other aircraft stations, reserved for communications pertaining to safety and regularity of flight along civil air routes. In response to the 2 GHz MSS PN, several parties filed comments concerning Boeing's proposal, arguing that there are no specific international or national frequency allocations for AMS(R)S in the 2 GHz MSS bands. Conversely, Boeing contends that the Commission's rules and ITU regulations permit the provision of AMS(R)S in MSS spectrum. Boeing asserts that domestic and international rules define AMS(R)S as a type of Aeronautical Mobile-Satellite Service (AMSS) and that AMSS is a sub-category of MSS. 21. Although we agree with Boeing's assertion that the absence of a specific AMS(R)S allocation does not bar the provision of AMS(R)S in MSS bands, there are additional relevant domestic and international regulatory issues that must be addressed in connection with its provision of service. First, the domestic and international 2 GHz MSS allocations do not include any regulatory provisions for AMS(R)S, especially for intra-network priority and preemptive access. As a domestic matter, Boeing could contract with members of the aviation community to provide AMS(R)S in the generic MSS Allocation, with appropriate intra-network priority and preemption, but without the need for any priority and preemption provision in the U.S. Table of Allocations. Nevertheless, we are concerned that because Boeing intends to provide a world-wide service, it will be required to implement priority and preemptive access throughout the world. It may not be practical to coordinate its operations with other satellite systems and aviation authorities in other countries without the necessary supporting international regulatory provisions in the 2 GHz MSS bands. Second, the Commission's rules have specific requirements concerning licensing of terminals for aviation distress and safety communications. These rules explicitly state which frequency bands may be used for aircraft-to-satellite AMS(R)S transmissions and do not include the 1990-2025/2165-2200 MHz bands. 22. We solicit comment on the feasibility of providing AMS(R)S service in the 2 GHz MSS bands. We invite the aviation community in particular to detail the international and domestic regulatory framework required for the implementation of the AMS(R)S service in the 1990-2200/2165-2200 MHz bands. We are not, however, proposing any rule changes at this time to accommodate specifically Boeing's AMS(R)S proposal. Instead, we are considering Boeing's proposal as an MSS proposal in the context of this proceeding. We are not aware of any specific international or domestic aviation community requirements in these bands. Consequently, we seek comment on the extent to which we can and should provide for Boeing's operations in the proposed band arrangement for use of the 2 GHz MSS frequencies in the United States. b. Financial Qualifications 23. Historically, the Commission has adopted financial qualification requirements for satellite services. This policy is designed to make efficient use of spectrum by preventing underfinanced applicants from depriving another fully capitalized applicant of the opportunity to provide service to the public. Where more applicants have applied for spectrum than is available to accommodate reasonably each proposed system, we have invoked strict financial qualifications. Alternatively, in cases where we can accommodate all pending applications and future entry is possible, we have not imposed financial requirements, but instead, have sought to ensure timely construction of systems and deployment of service by requiring implementation milestones. 24. We believe that the 2 GHz MSS allocation can accommodate reasonably all nine of the proposed systems, if modified, without mutual interference. As explained in detail below, we have fashioned three band sharing options that would authorize all of the system proponents to initiate service, while leaving open the possibility of future entry in the 2 GHz MSS bands. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that analysis of financial qualifications prior to licensing and spectrum reservation will not be necessary in this 2 GHz MSS processing round. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion, and on whether our policy goal of spectrum use efficiency is better served by enforcing strict milestones after licensing and spectrum reservation, as compared to applying financial qualifications prior to licensing and spectrum reservation. 25. If, in the process of this rulemaking, we determine that all proposed systems cannot be accommodated, we propose to revisit the issue of a financial showing prior to licensing, as we have in the past. Should that need arise, we propose that the Commission would apply the same financial standard to 2 GHz MSS system proponents as the one applied to the Big LEO systems and the domestic fixed-satellite service. Thus, should we find financial qualifications necessary, we propose that each 2 GHz MSS proponent would be required to demonstrate internal assets or committed financing sufficient to cover construction, launch, and first year operating costs of its entire system. We seek comment on this proposal, and whether there are any alternative mechanisms we can use to ensure that those system proponents granted licenses will be able to proceed with construction, launch and timely commencement of service to the public. For example, should we require only a demonstration of partial financing adequate to construct part of the system and commence service within two years of license grant, the revenues of which would be used to fund the remainder of the system's construction and operating expenses? We also invite commenters to compare the appropriateness and potential impact of imposing or not imposing financial qualifications prior to licensing under the various processing options described below. 4. Processing Alternatives 26. The issues before us are unique and highly complex. We recognize that there is not enough spectrum in the 1990-2025/2165-2200 MHz bands to accommodate all proposed 2 GHz MSS systems if each system were to use the full amount of spectrum it has requested. Nevertheless, based on our experience in the Big LEO proceeding, we tentatively conclude that there is sufficient spectrum in the 2 GHz MSS allocation to accommodate reasonably all nine 2 GHz MSS system proposals. To that end, we seek comment on four distinct spectrum assignment options: (1) the Flexible Band Arrangement; (2) the Negotiated Entry Approach; (3) the Traditional Band Arrangement; and (4) Competitive Bidding. Most of our proposed options are premised on the following threshold assumptions and issues. 27. First, we believe that it is most efficient to assign the MSS service link spectrum in multiples of 1.25 MHz. Our experience, based on filings in the Big LEO processing round, is that 1.25 MHz spectrum segmentation, or bandwidth in multiples of 1.25 MHz segments, is a common industry practice. In addition, 1.25 MHz channel bandwidth is a common denominator for several 2 GHz MSS system proposals. We therefore seek comment on this proposed channelization. 28. Second, given that portions of the 2 GHz MSS spectrum allocation are not uniformly available throughout the world, certain options propose to group GSO systems primarily in that portion of the 2 GHz band allocated for MSS only in Region 2 (i.e., the 2010-2025 MHz uplink band and the 2165-2170 MHz downlink band). We do so under the assumption that the service area of a single GSO satellite is inherently restricted to serving a particular geographic area, and thus, GSO systems may be better suited than NGSO systems to operate in spectrum allocated on a regional basis. Conversely, due to their global service coverage and discrete channel plans, NGSO systems may benefit most from a global spectrum assignment. We seek comment on these proposed groupings of GSO and NGSO systems based on regional spectrum allocations. 29. Third, even though we are hopeful that all authorized systems will be built, we recognize that this may not occur. We therefore seek comment on whether unused spectrum, as determined by failure to meet milestones, should be subject to a second processing round, and if so, when such a processing round would take place (e.g., five years from initial authorization; immediately after each loss of authorization). We also seek comment on whether the pool of eligible entities for that round should be limited to those entities that have implemented or are still in the process of implementing their systems, or broadened to include future applicants. In this regard, we seek comment on whether the systems' designs are sufficiently flexible to make use of additional spectrum and the effect this may have on operations of all other systems in the band. For example, can spectrum originally assigned to a CDMA system be used by a TDMA system? 30. Finally, commenters asserting that any of our proposed options do not provide sufficient spectrum capacity for a particular system must specify the minimum spectrum required to support such a system, and to substantiate this assertion with concrete technical and economic analyses. While we are prepared to move forward expeditiously with any of these spectrum assignment proposals, we reserve the option of adopting an alternative engineering solution or band sharing arrangement, including any hybrid solution arising from the options described below, negotiated by the system proponents and presented to us in comments filed in response to this Notice. Interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on any such alternative proposal in reply comments. a. The Flexible Band Arrangement 31. One option for sharing the 2 GHz MSS band, which we call the Flexible Band Arrangement, would segment the band to accommodate the various proposals and provide flexibility for system implementation and expansion. Under this option, we would segment the available spectrum into three "core" and two "expansion" spectrum bands, with each core band to be used by systems using similar technologies to commence operations, and each expansion band held in reserve for systems' expansion. Similar to the Big LEO spectrum-sharing arrangement, this proposal assumes that TDMA systems must operate on discrete frequencies, while CDMA systems can, under certain technical constraints, share the spectrum co-frequency. Therefore, we would divide the core TDMA spectrum into two distinct segments, GSO TDMA and NGSO TDMA, with the CDMA core spectrum placed between the two TDMA core bands, which would allow CDMA operators to aggregate their assigned spectrum into a contiguous spectrum segment, if advantageous to do so. Utilizing our assumptions regarding grouping systems based on spectrum allocation constraints, we would place the GSO TDMA core at the top of the uplink band and the bottom of the downlink band (i.e., generally in the spectrum allocated to 2 GHz MSS in Region 2 only). We would therefore place the NGSO TDMA core at the bottom of the uplink band and the top of the downlink band (i.e., generally in the spectrum allocated to 2 GHz MSS globally). The concept of the core and expansion bands is depicted in graph form in Appendix B, and described in more detail below. 32. Core spectrum bands. Under this option, we propose that each of the core spectrum bands would be comprised of primary spectrum segments. We would assign a primary spectrum segment to each of the eligible system operators. Each operator would be guaranteed the exclusive use of its primary spectrum segment upon commencement of operations, to ensure the immediate availability of spectrum for each system to begin operations. We are concerned, however, that because the 2 GHz MSS systems have different implementation schedules and some may not proceed with implementation, this primary spectrum segment could remain unused for several years, resulting in inefficient spectrum utilization. Consequently, we propose that, in addition to the primary spectrum segment, we would authorize systems to operate across their respective core spectrum band, subject to coordination with other systems that have commenced operations in that core band. In such coordination, each operational system would have priority in coordination of its primary spectrum and equal rights in coordination of the remaining core spectrum. 33. Expansion bands. The purpose of the expansion bands is to meet the needs of systems with commercial operations exceeding the capacity of their given core band. Therefore, we propose to authorize systems to operate in the adjacent expansion band (or bands) conditioned upon coordination with other systems permitted to expand in that band (i.e., systems with commercial operations in the same or adjacent core bands) and only after a system's customer traffic requirements grow beyond the capacity of the primary spectrum segment and the core spectrum band. Systems would be authorized for expansion only within the expansion bands that are adjacent to their respective core spectrum bands. Thus, the maximum amount of spectrum available for any particular system would be limited by the boundaries of the adjacent core spectrum for other system types. We further propose to use a phased-in approach to spectrum expansion, i.e., systems would expand in blocks of 1.25 MHz at a time, with customer traffic requirements being the criterion for determining the amount of spectrum that operators eventually would use beyond their respective core spectrum assignments. We fully expect system operators to coordinate the use of the core and expansion spectrum in good faith. The Commission, however, would be available to facilitate coordination if a dispute were to arise. We seek comment and recommendations on whether, in addition to customer traffic requirements, there are technical criteria, operational requirements or any other factors we should consider in resolving disputes, particularly with regard to use of the expansion bands. If so, how should these factors be considered? i. TDMA Systems 34. Based on the initial 2 GHz applications and LOIs, it appears that there may be as many as six systems proposing some form of TDMA operations. We propose to assign a 2.5 MHz primary spectrum segment to each 2 GHz MSS TDMA system in the core TDMA spectrum (or a total of 5 MHz when adding uplink and downlink together). This proposal is based on our experience with the Big LEO TDMA system that is currently operating under an authorization for a total of 5.15 MHz of service link spectrum. Our experience suggests that 5 MHz of spectrum assigned to one system is sufficient for commencement of service. We note that Iridium, Globalstar, TMI and Celsat propose to use both TDMA and CDMA techniques. Under this option, if adopted, we propose not to assign more spectrum to dual technology proposals (i.e., CDMA and TDMA). Since none of these parties propose co-frequency CDMA-TDMA operations within one system, we would apportion equally Iridium's, Globalstar's, TMI's and Celsat's total primary spectrum assignments between the two techniques, i.e., the nominal 2.5 MHz TDMA primary assignment in each direction will be split into 1.25 MHz of TDMA core spectrum and 1.25 MHz of CDMA core spectrum. As a result, we would assign no more than 10.0 MHz uplink and 10.0 MHz downlink of core spectrum to TDMA operators as a starting point. 35. Boeing proposes an Aviation Traffic Information Service requiring 600 kHz of TDMA downlink spectrum only. Because Boeing's request for spectrum is unbalanced, it would result in inefficient use of service link spectrum (unpaired 600 kHz in the service uplink spectrum). Therefore, we are not proposing any TDMA spectrum for Boeing's Aviation Traffic Information Service, but we seek comment on whether Boeing's requirements can be met in CDMA spectrum, or on any other method for meeting this requirement within the standard framework for MSS systems. We also seek comment on the domestic and international regulatory framework required for the implementation of this component of Boeing's system. ii. CDMA Systems 36. Based on the initial 2 GHz applications and LOIs, it appears that there may be as many as seven proposals for CDMA systems, including Iridium, Globalstar, TMI and Celsat. In the Big LEO proceeding, we found that four CDMA systems could share an 11.35 MHz uplink band assignment, including guard bands. This assignment represented approximately two 1.25 MHz channels per system. We propose a similar primary spectrum designation for each 2 GHz MSS CDMA system: two 1.25 MHz channels for the uplink and two 1.25 MHz channels for the downlink. Taking into account Iridium's, Globalstar's, TMI's and Celsat's dual CDMA-TDMA systems, we propose to provide for half of these system requirements in CDMA core spectrum (i.e., one 1.25 MHz channel up and down for each of these four systems). Thus, we envision CDMA core spectrum to accommodate no more than ten 1.25 MHz channels for uplinks and ten 1.25 MHz channels for downlinks as a start. We propose CDMA systems' core spectrum band of 12.5 MHz for the uplink and 12.5 MHz for the downlink. iii. Spectrum Assignments 37. There are three proposed GSO TDMA systems and three proposed NGSO TDMA systems. We propose to designate 5 MHz in each direction to GSO TDMA systems and 5 MHz in each direction to NGSO TDMA systems. Furthermore, in order to ensure adequate access to the expansion spectrum for all qualified applicants and filers, we would designate an equal amount of spectrum for the expansion bands between the TDMA GSO and CDMA core spectrum segments, and the TDMA NGSO and CDMA core spectrum segments. Although the eventual boundaries of the spectrum segments may shift based on applicants' and LOI filers' amendments, we delineate the proposed spectrum assignments, based on our understanding of the applications before us, immediately below: 2 GHz MSS Uplink Spectrum (1990-2025 MHz) 1990.00-1995.00 MHz TDMA NGSO Core Spectrum 1995.00-2001.25 MHz Expansion Spectrum for TDMA NGSO and CDMA 2001.25-2013.75 MHz CDMA Core Spectrum 2013.75-2020.00 MHz Expansion Spectrum for CDMA and TDMA GSO 2020.00-2025.00 MHz TDMA GSO Core Spectrum 2 GHz MSS Downlink Spectrum (2165-2200 MHz) 2165.00-2170.00 MHz TDMA GSO Core Spectrum 2170.00-2176.25 MHz Expansion Spectrum for TDMA GSO and CDMA 2176.25-2188.75 MHz CDMA Core Spectrum 2188.75-2195.00 MHz Expansion Spectrum for CDMA and TDMA NGSO 2195.00-2200.00 MHz TDMA NGSO Core Spectrum 38. The Flexible Band Arrangement would not provide guard bands to mitigate the effects of interference from systems operating in adjacent bands, particularly between CDMA and TDMA technologies. We seek comment on whether and the extent to which guard bands are necessary with the Flexible Band Arrangement. Should we rely on the system operators to negotiate guard band agreements once the technical parameters of their system proposals are finalized, or should we provide for guard bands as a part of the Flexible Band Arrangement? 39. We expect the 2 GHz MSS operators to have spectrum requirements that will be modest initially, but that will increase following the commencement of operations. We also recognize that further modifications to the 2 GHz MSS band arrangement may be appropriate if one or more operators do not proceed successfully to provide commercially viable service. The Flexible Band Arrangement option is premised on these assumptions. It would provide a flexible structure for system operators to adapt to system growth, while creating sufficient certainty to proceed with system implementation. At the same time, the Flexible Band Arrangement permits a dynamic spectrum assignment commensurate with operators' actual requirements and ability to implement service to meet market demands. On the other hand, the Flexible Band Arrangement may have disadvantages. For example, designating spectrum assignments by technology and modulation schemes, using the current 2 GHz MSS proposals, may limit the ability of system operators to embrace new technologies when implementing their systems. The Flexible Band Arrangement may also limit our ability to consider the possibility of adopting a transitional relocation policy for incumbent licensees in the 2 GHz MSS bands. We seek comment on all aspects of the Flexible Band Arrangement option. b. Negotiated Entry Approach 40. Our second proposed band sharing alternative is the Negotiated Entry Approach. In this proposal, we would issue all qualified entities conditional authorizations to provide service anywhere in the 2 GHz MSS band. This authorization would be conditioned on negotiation among the system proponents as to which frequencies each system would utilize ("spectrum location"), and technical coordination among the system proponents as to the operational parameters of each system so as not to cause harmful interference to any other authorized 2 GHz MSS system. The system proponents could complete negotiation of spectrum location and technical coordination prior to any of them beginning to operate, or the first system to commence service could operate anywhere in the band, subject to negotiation and coordination with later arrivals. Under the latter scenario, the Negotiated Entry Approach would recognize that some of the proposed systems may not succeed for any variety of reasons (e.g., financing, strategic development, cost, market demand, licensing difficulties), and would defer spectrum location and technical coordination issues until the need actually arises, that is, when the next system is ready to launch service. In that regard, we seek comment on whether there should be a threshold requirement that would trigger a system's right to negotiate spectrum location and coordinate technically with operational systems, such as complete construction of the first satellite, or execution of an unconditional launch contract. 41. We seek comment on our Negotiated Entry Approach, and whether relying on good faith negotiation and coordination among the systems is preferable to establishing a structured band sharing arrangement. In particular, we seek comment on whether the Negotiated Entry Approach might give system proponents the flexibility to initiate service to the public based on business needs and market forces, and to implement or update their systems to include new technologies. Commenters should also address whether the Negotiated Entry Approach provides system proponents with appropriate flexibility to abide by the Commission's ultimate rules for relocation of incumbent users of the 2 GHz MSS frequencies. On the other hand, we are concerned that problems could arise when up to nine separate entities attempt to negotiate and coordinate with each other. For example, the Negotiated Entry Approach might give earlier entrants a strategic advantage in using the spectrum, mitigating their desire to negotiate in good faith with subsequent entrants, and consequently, slowing entry by other system operators. 42. We also seek comment on whether each system should be provided a guaranteed amount of spectrum to which it would be entitled upon commencement of service. If so, we propose that all systems would have priority use of 2.5 MHz of spectrum in both directions, for the reasons discussed in the Flexible Band Arrangement, and that as systems forfeit authorizations through missed milestones, that system's guaranteed spectrum would be available for reauthorization through a second processing round. We also seek comment on whether to divide the band between TDMA/CDMA modulation schemes or GSO/NGSO orbital designs, which may increase the probability of successful long term coordination by reducing the number of system proponents with which operators would have to negotiate. 43. As with the Flexible Band Arrangement, we fully expect that the operators would negotiate spectrum location of the 2 GHz MSS band in good faith, and successfully complete technical coordination. If good faith negotiations and coordination were unsuccessful, the Commission could be available to facilitate resolution of disputes, and we seek comment on what factors should be considered to resolve coordination disputes between operators. Commenters also should address the effect of the Negotiated Entry Approach on international coordination. Specifically, we seek comment on whether it would be feasible for the United States to coordinate U.S. satellite systems internationally before determining exactly on which frequencies each system will be operating domestically. We further ask commenters to address the financial implications of the Negotiated Entry Approach, i.e., whether such a licensing arrangement provides adequate certainty in the viability of the license to encourage investment, or whether the potential for a protracted coordination process among the licensees might significantly deter investment. c. Traditional Band Arrangement 44. The third band sharing proposal is the Traditional Band Arrangement. Under this approach, the Commission would provide a specific spectrum band for each qualified system. We propose that we would provide for each of the nine systems a total of 7.5 MHz: 3.75 MHz for the uplink and 3.75 MHz for the downlink. Spectrum not assigned to systems would be used to provide 0.625 MHz guard bands between TDMA and CDMA operations to mitigate the potential adjacent band interference between systems with different technological configurations. At this time, due to the ambiguity of some 2 GHz MSS proposals, we are unable to establish the exact CDMA-TDMA boundary locations. We do, however, propose the following 2 GHz MSS spectrum arrangement, again based on our assumptions regarding placement of system designs as a function of spectrum allocation constraints: Uplink Downlink System 1(TDMA/NGSO) 1990.000-1993.750 2196.250-2200.000 System 2(TDMA-CDMA/NGSO) 1993.750-1997.500 2192.500-2196.250 System 3(TDMA-CDMA/NGSO) 1997.500-2001.250 2188.750-2192.500 Guardband 2001.250-2001.875 2188.125-2188.750 System 4 (CDMA/NGSO) 2001.875-2005.625 2184.375-2188.125 System 5 (CDMA/NGSO) 2005.625-2009.375 2180.625-2184.375 System 6 (CDMA/NGSO) 2009.375-2013.125 2176.875-2180.625 Guardband 2013.125-2013.750 2176.250-2176.875 System 7 (TDMA-CDMA/GSO) 2013.750-2017.500 2172.500-2176.250 System 8 (TDMA-CDMA/GSO) 2017.500-2021.250 2168.750-2172.500 System 9 (TDMA/GSO) 2021.250-2025.000 2165.000-2168.750 45. We request comment on all aspects of this band sharing proposal. We are especially concerned that a rigidly structured approach such as this one might fail to optimize spectrum use and might not adequately accommodate the anticipated, long-term requirements of all the system operators. For example, some 2 GHz MSS operators, CDMA or TDMA, may find it desirable to adjust their spectrum use by agreement. Should we allow such adjustments, subject to coordination with all other affected parties, to mitigate the rigidity of the Traditional Band Arrangement? d. Competitive Bidding 46. In the event that, based on the record, we determine it is in the public interest to assign the 2 GHz MSS spectrum at issue here by competitive bidding rather than any of the other approaches described in the Notice, we seek comment on a general auction design to be used. First, we propose to provide assignments in paired units of 1.25 MHz, with uplinks paired in ascending order beginning at 1990 MHz with downlinks in descending order beginning at 2200 MHz. We propose 1.25 MHz units because this design appears to be most consistent with current proposals. In addition, this pairing would ensure that MSS spectrum allocated only in Region 2 is paired with like spectrum to the greatest extent possible. We solicit comment on this proposal, as well as any alternatives. For any alternative recommended, commenters should also provide the basis for that recommendation. 47. Second, we seek comment on whether we should impose a limit on the number of licenses awarded to a single entity. One reason for such a limit is that an entity might acquire so much of the "capacity" or spectrum available to provide a service that it may reduce competition or deter entry by other suppliers. We seek comment on the applicability of this rationale to the MSS proposed by system proponents in this proceeding, and the extent to which such services already face competition from services operating in other frequency bands. Another rationale for imposing limits on the amount of 2 GHz MSS spectrum assigned to a single entity is that some of the system proponents in this proceeding may have an advantage in bidding on new licenses because of their better access to capital. On the other hand, if a single entity is willing to bid more because that entity can use the frequencies in question for higher valued uses, then it may be inefficient to prevent it from acquiring all frequencies up for auction. Consequently, we seek comment on whether or not we should impose a limit on the amount of spectrum acquired by a single entity for the above licensees. Further, if a limit is recommended, we seek comment on what limit is deemed appropriate and why. 48. Finally we propose that, should we decide to adopt a competitive bidding licensing approach, the auction would be conducted in conformity with the general competitive bidding rules in Part 1, Subpart Q of the Commission's rules, as revised. We also propose that Commission staff, acting on delegated authority, would address specific auction procedures not established by Commission rules pursuant to public notice and comment in advance of the auction. Nevertheless, we want to solicit comment on one issue that may impact the auction design should it be necessary. There may be a value, separate from the value of individual licenses, to being licensed for contiguous frequencies because of the possibility for spectrum aggregation and co- frequency sharing allowed by technologies such as CDMA. Allowing separate licensees of individual spectrum blocks to aggregate their licenses into a larger block would facilitate co-frequency sharing. Should we recognize this possibility by allowing such licensees, as a group, to bid on combinations of licenses? B. Non-Service Link Issues 49. In addition to service links, the parties to the 2 GHz MSS proceeding seek feeder links in a variety of bands, inter-satellite service frequencies, and in one case, radionavigation frequencies. Even if 2 GHz MSS service link issues are resolved, important authorization issues remain concerning many of these other frequency bands. Resolution of these issues may affect implementation of some of the proposed systems. We seek comment on the approach we should follow concerning such contingencies. For example, there are some contingencies that may be so significant and insurmountable that they might effectively preclude implementation of a system or delay compliance with implementation milestones. We seek comment as to what weight, if any, we should give to non-service link potential delaying factors in developing authorization methods and service rules for the 2 GHz MSS service links. In the following sections, we discuss the various non- service link requests, associated issues, and specific proposals. 1. Feeder Links 50. The following table outlines our understanding of the feeder link frequency bands requested by 2 GHz MSS participants: System Proponent Feeder Uplink Spectrum Request Feeder Downlink Spectrum Request Boeing 109 MHz in 14.391-14.5 GHz (Ku band) 109 MHz in 11.591-11.7 GHz (Ku band) Celsat 850 MHz in 27.5-28.35 GHz (Ka band) 850 MHz in 17.7-18.35 GHz (Ka band) Constellation II 159 MHz in 5091-5250 MHz & 200 MHz in 15.45-15.65 GHz (5 and 15 GHz bands) 375 MHz in 6700-7075 MHz (7 GHz band) Globalstar GSO: 250 MHz in 14.0-14.4 GHz (Ku band) NGSO: 200 MHz in 15.45-15.64 GHz or 19.3-19.6 GHz (15 GHz band or Ka band) GSO: 250 MHz in 11.7-12.2 GHz (Ku band) NGSO: 100 MHz in 6700-6875 MHz (7 GHz band) ICO 100 MHz in 5150-5250 MHz (5 GHz band) 100 MHz in 6975-7075 MHz (7 GHz band) Iridium Macrocell 400 MHz in 29.1-29.5 GHz (Ka band) 400 MHz in 19.3-19.7 GHz (Ka band) Inmarsat Horizons 75 MHz in 6425-6575 MHz (Extended C band) 75 MHz in 3550-3700 MHz (Extended C band) MCHI Ellipso 2G 300 MHz in 15.4-15.7 GHz (15 GHz band) 300 MHz in 6775-7075 MHz (7 GHz band) TMI Cansat-M3 500 MHz in 12.75-13.25 GHz (Ku band) 500 MHz in 10.7-10.95 GHz and 11.2- 11.45 GHz (Ku band) 51. With respect to feeder links for NGSO systems, the United States already has undertaken substantial work to obtain adequate spectrum at WRC-95 for NGSO MSS feeder links in the C-, Ku- and Ka- bands. We sought this spectrum in order to accommodate feeder links for Big LEO systems, as well as for future 2 GHz MSS systems. These international allocations are currently, or are proposed to be, allocated domestically. We tentatively conclude that this spectrum should be sufficient to accommodate virtually all of the NGSO MSS feeder link spectrum needs of 2 GHz MSS applicants. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. 52. Regarding GSO MSS feeder links, the Commission has in the past precluded use of the conventional FSS C- and Ku-bands for MSS feeder links. As the Commission has indicated, feeder links operating on frequencies and at orbital locations that are intensively used would not be an efficient use of the geostationary satellite orbit and FSS spectrum. Use of these frequency bands for MSS feeder links would preclude conventional FSS services and inhibit the fungibility of these orbit locations for future FSS assignments. We seek comment on application of this policy to 2 GHz MSS systems. The Commission's previous policies have been formed based on the intensively-used domestic arc. We seek comment on whether this policy of precluding use of conventional C- and Ku-bands for MSS feeder links deserves wider applicability. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should entertain exceptions to this policy if a 2 GHz MSS applicant reaches an agreement with an existing FSS licensee to use its licensed spectrum, or if the requested location is in an uncongested portion of the arc. 53. We have identified the following alternative spectrum outside of the conventional C- and Ku-bands for possible use by GSO MSS feeder uplinks: 5850-5925 MHz, 6425-6725 MHz, 12.75-13.25 GHz and 13.75-14.0 GHz; and the following for GSO feeder downlinks: 3600-3650 MHz and 10.7-11.7 GHz bands. Many of these bands are shared with terrestrial services. In bands shared with terrestrial services, we would require coordination under Part 25 of our rules. In the 3600-3650 MHz and 5850-5925 MHz bands, footnote US245 restricts FSS use to international, inter-continental systems. Similarly, in the 10.7-11.7 GHz and 12.75-13.25 GHz bands, footnote NG104 restricts use to systems other than domestic systems. One purpose of these footnotes is to avoid ubiquitous deployment of FSS earth stations in these bands. We have authorized feeder links in some of these bands previously, and in the recent SkyBridge NPRM, we sought comment on whether to modify NG104 to allow an increase in the number of earth stations operating with FSS systems in these bands, subject to certain conditions, including exclusion zones for a limited number of years, surrounding the top 50 populated U.S. cities. However, the SkyBridge NPRM did not specifically address feeder links for GSO MSS systems. Typically, the number of GSO MSS feeder link earth stations is small, and may present fewer constraints for terrestrial systems than NGSO FSS systems, or systems proposing a large number of gateways, such as the SkyBridge proposal. For these reasons, we seek comment on whether we should continue our current case-by-case approach with respect to MSS feeder links in the 3600-3650 MHz, 5850- 5925 MHz, and 10.7-11.7 GHz bands. In addition, portions of these bands are subject to Appendix 30B of the ITU Radio Regulations. The Appendix 30B FSS Plan allots these bands at 101§ W.L. to the United States. To the extent we will need to use these Appendix 30B frequency bands, we will need to use the current U.S. allotments or seek additional assignments in accordance with the ITU Appendix 30B Plan procedure. We seek comment on this proposal and what actions we should take, if any, to obtain additional feeder link spectrum in these bands. 54. We also request comment on the feasibility of using each of the alternative frequency bands identified in the previous paragraph for GSO MSS feeder links, particularly in light of constraints imposed on their use by government operations. We tentatively conclude that, considering the alternative bands we have identified, there is a sufficient amount of GSO MSS feeder link spectrum to accommodate all proposed 2 GHz GSO MSS systems. We seek comment on this conclusion. 55. Given the relatively small number of earth stations typically involved for MSS system feeder links, we have in the past relied on coordination among satellite operators to resolve potentially conflicting frequency uses in feeder link bands. For Big LEO systems this requirement to coordinate is codified in Section 25.203(k) of the Commission's rules. We seek comment on whether Section 25.203(k) continues to be sufficient with the anticipated entry by 2 GHz MSS systems. We also seek comment on the relationship between current requests for feeder link spectrum and requests for service link spectrum. Assuming that authorizations are granted for less service link spectrum than requested, what effect will there be on requirements for feeder link spectrum? We seek comment on a formula or algorithm we could use, if necessary to resolve conflicting spectrum requirements, to convert from the assigned service link spectrum to the required amount of feeder link spectrum, taking into account frequency re-use. 56. We seek comment on the procedures for treatment of feeder link requests. Under what circumstances should system proponents be allowed to amend their feeder link requests if it were not possible for the Commission to grant the current requests because of a lack of spectrum? In addition, to what extent should system proponents be permitted to amend their feeder link requests if other issues, for example, inter- satellite links, need to be resolved in other proceedings? At what point, if any, should applicants lose the opportunity for amendments? 57. In the following paragraphs, we address other feeder link issues specific to the frequency bands requested by MSS system proponents. a. Extended C-band 58. Inmarsat has applied to operate GSO MSS feeder links in the extended C-band frequencies. Portions of Inmarsat's request are subject to an on-going rulemaking in the 3650-3700 MHz band. In that proceeding, the Commission proposes to add a fixed service allocation to the 3650-3700 MHz band, and no longer to accept applications for new FSS earth stations or major modifications to existing FSS earth stations. In addition, frequencies from 3550-3600 MHz are not allocated in the United States for FSS. Accordingly, feeder link earth stations located in the United States would be limited to 50 MHz of potentially available spectrum from 3600 to 3650 MHz. We seek comment on how we should take this proposal for a reduced amount of available FSS spectrum into account in this rulemaking. b. 5, 7 and 15 GHz bands 59. Constellation, Globalstar, ICO, and MCHI have applied to operate NGSO MSS feeder links within the 5091-5250 MHz ("5 GHz"), 6700-7075 MHz ("7 GHz") and 15.4-15.65 GHz ("15 GHz") frequency bands. There is an ongoing proceeding to address allocation of the 5, 7 and 15 GHz frequency bands to NGSO MSS feeder links. The Commission authorized Globalstar's Big LEO system to operate both space and earth stations in the 5 and 7 GHz bands, and Constellation's and MCHI's Big LEO systems to operate space and earth stations in the 5 and 7 GHz bands, and 7 and 15 GHz bands, respectively. As we indicate in the 5, 7, 15 GHz Allocation NPRM addressing the allocation of these bands to MSS feeder links, computer simulation studies conducted prior to WRC-95 indicate that at least two NGSO MSS systems could feasibly share spectrum for co-directional feeder link transmissions, but insufficient data are available to support sharing among three or more systems. Sharing among NGSO systems is also being addressed in the SkyBridge NPRM, where we have requested information on how many NGSO FSS systems can share co- frequency. We note, however, that there are differences between feeder links used in NGSO FSS systems and NGSO MSS systems. We expect that there will be a limited number of NGSO MSS feeder link earth stations with large earth station antennas, thus facilitating accommodation of multiple systems. As the number of earth stations is limited, earth station geographic diversity could also be employed to further facilitate sharing. Based on known technology, it appears that a minimum of two, and possibly three or more, NGSO MSS systems could use the same frequencies for co-directional feeder link transmissions without causing mutual interference. We ask for additional comment on the ability of more than two NGSO MSS systems to share the same frequencies for co-directional feeder link transmissions. 60. In the 7 GHz band, the Commission already has licensed three NGSO MSS systems in the upper portion of the band, and has received four more applications. In their comments on the 5, 7, 15 GHz Allocation NPRM, Globalstar and ICO state that the Commission should facilitate the flexible application of coordination procedures to accommodate multiple NGSO MSS systems in the 5/7 GHz bands. We agree that it is best, in general, to permit maximum flexibility during inter-system coordination. We seek comment on the adequacy of our current approach of conditioning feeder link licenses on the requirement that licensees coordinate with other licensees in the same bands prior to commencing operations. Several applicants request the same feeder link spectrum for their proposed 2 GHz MSS systems in which they already hold a license for feeder links for their Big LEO systems. In these cases, are there self-coordination methods (e.g., within one licensee's system(s)) that may allow us to accommodate more systems in the same spectrum? If so, how should we take these factors into account? We seek comment and specific recommendations from commenters on these issues. c. Ku-band 61. In their system proposals, Boeing seeks to operate NGSO MSS feeder links using the Ku-band frequencies, while Globalstar and TMI request GSO MSS feeder links on the Ku-band frequencies. On the issue of feeder links for NGSO systems, in November 1998 the Commission issued the SkyBridge NPRM proposing use of Ku-band frequencies by NGSO FSS systems. In addition, the Commission released a Public Notice establishing January 8, 1999 as the cut-off date for additional applications for NGSO FSS systems in the Ku-band. We propose to address Boeing's feeder link request for NGSO MSS operations in the SkyBridge NPRM and NGSO FSS application proceedings. We note, however, that there are various bands designated specifically for NGSO MSS feeder links. We seek comment as to whether NGSO MSS feeder links would be an efficient use of Ku-band NGSO FSS spectrum and, if not, what, if any, frequency bands should be made available for the Boeing system's feeder links. With respect to GSO systems, our current policy prohibits feeder link use of conventional C- and Ku-band GSO FSS allocations. Globalstar's request appears to be inconsistent with this policy. TMI's proposal appears consistent with existing Commission policy. We seek comment on these issues. d. Ka-band 62. In their 2 GHz MSS applications, Globalstar and Iridium seek to operate NGSO MSS feeder links using Ka-band frequencies, and Celsat requests to operate GSO MSS feeder links on Ka-band frequencies. In 1996, the Commission adopted service rules for use of Ka-band frequencies. In particular, the Commission adopted a band sharing arrangement that designates specific spectrum for feeder links for NGSO MSS systems. It also adopted rules for sharing between NGSO MSS feeder links and other co-primary services, and rules for sharing between NGSO MSS feeder links. The Commission licensed Iridium to operate feeder links for its Big LEO system in a portion of the designated feeder link spectrum as part of the first Ka-band processing group. In addition, the Commission recently released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding further refinement of the downlink band sharing arrangement. 63. In 1997, the Commission established cut-off dates for comments or petitions to deny and additional applications for use of the Ka-band, and thereafter received fifteen further applications. We propose to consider these applications, including the current requests of Iridium and Globalstar for NGSO feeder links for their proposed 2 GHz MSS systems, in a second Ka-band processing round, and we seek comment on this proposal. 64. In regard to Celsat's GSO feeder link request, some commenters assert that the 28 GHz band sharing arrangement does not provide for GSO MSS feeder link spectrum. However, we tentatively conclude that the GSO FSS designations are appropriate bands to accommodate Celsat's request. We ask if our policy prohibiting feeder link use of the conventional C- and Ku-band FSS allocations within the domestic arc should also apply to Ka-band GSO feeder link requests. We note that much of Celsat's requested spectrum falls within secondary GSO FSS designations, and that unlike the C- and Ku-band FSS allocations, the Ka-band is currently not heavily used by domestic fixed satellites. We propose to allow Celsat to pursue its Ka-band feeder link request. However, we highlight that Ka-band GSO FSS frequencies at many orbital locations in the domestic arc already are assigned and it may be very difficult for Celsat to obtain its requested 850 MHz of spectrum. There also may be extensive international coordination requirements for any new Ka-band orbital location. 65. Globalstar proposes to operate NGSO feeder uplinks in the 19.3-19.6 GHz band. Currently, the 19.3-19.6 GHz band is not allocated domestically for FSS in the Earth-to-space direction. Globalstar's proposal is referred to as "reverse-band working" ("RBW"). We indicated in the Ka-band First Report & Order that we would consider requests for RBW on a case-by-case basis. 66. Iridium requests a waiver of Section 25.258(c) of the Commission's rules, the section which requires that NGSO MSS feeder link systems in the 29.25-29.5 GHz band maintain constant, successive ground tracks in order to facilitate sharing with GSO FSS. Motorola has filed a Petition for Partial Reconsideration of this provision, and we will address this waiver request and Petition for Partial Reconsideration in a separate proceeding. 2. Tracking, Telemetry, and Command 67. In general, applicants request tracking, telemetry, and command (TT&C) frequencies within their requested feeder link bands. TMI, however, requests 1 MHz for uplinks at the upper or lower edge of the 14 GHz FSS allocation (either within the 14.0-14.05 or 14.45-14.5 GHz band) and 300 kHz of downlink spectrum in the upper or lower edge of the 12 GHz FSS allocation (either within the 11.7-11.75 GHz or 12.15-12.2 GHz band) instead of within its requested feeder link bands. In accordance with our rules, we propose to require that 2 GHz MSS operators perform TT&C operations within their assigned feeder link frequencies, or within bands allocated to space operations. Performing TT&C operations within the band in which service is provided prevents other heavily-used frequency bands from becoming encumbered with auxiliary operations not associated with the services that are actually provided within those bands. We seek comment on this proposal. 3. Radionavigation Frequencies 68. Boeing proposes to operate its planned Navigation Augmentation Service payload in the 1565.42- 1585.42 MHz GPS L1 band. This band is allocated for the Radionavigation Satellite Service in which Government satellites operate (i.e., the GPS system uses this allocation). The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has primary jurisdiction over U.S. Government use of spectrum in this band. Thus, authorizing additional use of this band will require resolution of various technical and national policy issues. We seek comment on Boeing's proposed use of this band. 4. Inter-satellite Links 69. Globalstar applied for 100 MHz of inter-satellite service (ISS) link spectrum in the 59-64 GHz bands to interconnect satellites within its constellation. There appear to be significant interference situations associated with potential GSO and NGSO operations and Government operations at 59-64 GHz. These bands, therefore, will not be available for non-Government ISS use. Due to the limited inter-satellite link spectrum available to meet the non-Government requirements in the 59-64 GHz range, the United States made proposals at WRC-97 to, among other things, allocate the band 64-71 GHz to the ISS. WRC-97 modified the International Table of Frequency Allocations in the frequency range 50.2-71 GHz consistent with the U.S. proposals. The Commission intends to commence a rulemaking to modify the National Table of Frequency Assignments to reflect these changes. Among other things, the Commission will propose to adopt a non- Government ISS allocation at 65-71 GHz. This allocation can be used to meet ISS requirements for 2 GHz MSS systems and systems in other services. 70. We propose that Section 25.279 of the Commission's rules also apply to 2 GHz MSS system proponents. This rule requires that system proponents coordinate with existing permittees and licensees whose facilities could be affected by a new proposal in terms of frequency interference or restrictions on system capacity. In accordance with the terms of Section 25.279, and our application of the rule in other bands, we propose to require that all parties cooperate fully and make every reasonable effort to resolve technical problems and conflicts that may inhibit effective and efficient use of the radio spectrum. In addition, in bands shared on a co-equal basis with Government operations, we propose that any 2 GHz MSS system authorized to operate inter-satellite service links in these bands would be required to coordinate with Government systems and non-Government operators. We seek comment on these proposals. C. Service Rules 71. We next propose service rules for the use of the 2 GHz MSS frequency bands. We propose to use the Big LEO service rules as the starting point. Because, however, several of the 2 GHz MSS system proponents are proposing geostationary systems, or GSO components, we also propose applying our GSO policies and service rules where applicable. This section of the Notice proposes rules for classifying the services that will be provided by 2 GHz MSS operators for regulatory purposes. The section also proposes licensing rules, implementation milestones, annual reporting requirements and distress and safety rules. We also seek comment on policies we could implement to promote service to unserved areas and practices operators could incorporate into their system designs to reduce orbital debris. The section also proposes extending the Big LEO rule to prevent trafficking of licenses in certain situations and extension of our policy designed to open markets by discouraging exclusionary market arrangements. 72. The 2 GHz MSS is the first processing round in which we have received letters of intent to serve the U.S. market with non-U.S.-licensed MSS systems. We adopted the "letter of intent" process in our DISCO II Order, to implement the U.S. commitments in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Basic Telecommunications (WTO Basic Telecom Agreement). In the DISCO II Order, we established a public interest analysis and access procedure for non-U.S.-licensed satellite systems seeking access to the United States, including inter-governmental organizations and their affiliates. Under the DISCO II Order, non-U.S.- licensed satellite systems seeking future access to U.S. spectrum may request, through a letter of intent, that the Commission "reserve" spectrum for the system when adopting service rules in anticipation of earth station applications to be filed in the future to access the non-U.S.-licensed satellite system. The Commission also stated that non-U.S.-licensed systems filing letters of intent generally would be held to the same service and technical requirements as U.S.-licensed systems. This proceeding represents the Commission's first opportunity to implement the DISCO II Order's provisions regarding letters of intent and thus, to further the promise of the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement through concrete and comprehensive MSS authorization initiatives. 1. Regulatory Classification 73. Section 332(c) of the Communications Act requires that providers of commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) be regulated as common carriers. Section 332(c)(5) provides that the Commission may continue "to determine whether the provision of space segment capacity to providers of commercial mobile services shall be treated as common carriage." Section 3(44) of the Communications Act, which was added by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, further states that "the Commission shall determine whether the provision of fixed and mobile satellite service shall be treated as common carriage." As described below, we interpret these provisions as a grant of discretion to impose, or refrain from imposing, common-carrier regulation in the provision of satellite services, including the provision of space segment capacity in the 2 GHz MSS. 74. All of the 2 GHz MSS participants seek non-common carrier treatment for the space segment component of their proposed systems. We tentatively conclude that we should treat the space segment component of 2 GHz MSS as non-common carriage. The Communications Act grants the Commission discretion to determine whether a space station licensee offering capacity to an entity that then offers CMRS to end users should be regulated on a common carriage basis or a private carriage basis. The Commission has stated that in making this determination it will use the analysis enunciated in National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. FCC, 525 F.2d 630, 642 (D.C. Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 999 (NARUC I). The court in NARUC I identified two criteria as determinative of whether an entity may provide a service on a non-common carrier basis: (1) whether there is or should be any legal compulsion to serve the public indifferently; or (2) whether there are reasons implicit in the nature of the service to expect that the entity will in fact hold itself out indifferently to all eligible users. 75. For the following reasons, we tentatively conclude, based on the NARUC I analysis, that there does not appear to be a need to impose common carrier requirements on 2 GHz MSS space station operators. Under the first prong of the NARUC I analysis, the Commission previously has determined that the presence of significant competition is an important factor in determining whether common carrier requirements should be imposed on satellite operators. Specifically, the Commission has found that if the barriers to entry for new satellite operators are low and alternative competitive sources of satellite services are available to consumers, satellite operators will have an incentive to offer service efficiently at low rates. In such an environment, the Commission has held that it is not necessary to compel space station operators to offer their service indifferently to the public as a common carrier because competition will achieve the same result for purchasers of space segment capacity as regulation, that is, efficient service at low prices. Three Commission licensees are currently providing service and three companies are licensed to provide mobile satellite services. In addition, we expect others to begin offering competitive services as a result of this proceeding. We expect that additional MSS capacity will compel existing service providers to offer their services efficiently and create downward pressure on prices to consumers. In addition, based on the systems proposed for the 2 GHz MSS, we anticipate that some of the space segment providers will tailor their offerings to meet individualized needs of particular customers. We expect, therefore, that there is sufficient space segment capacity to assure service availability at competitive prices and that there is no need to compel licensees to offer it to the public indifferently. 76. Under the second prong of the NARUC I analysis, the Commission looks at whether the service provider is likely to hold itself out indifferently to all users. Historically, the Commission has authorized most satellite licensees to provide service on a non-common carrier basis and continues to do so today. Based on the terms of the proposals before us, once authorized, the 2 GHz MSS space segment operators will provide service similar to those services that the Big LEO space segment licensees currently provide (i.e., wholesale voice and data communications). The space segment portion of the Big LEO service is regulated on a non- common carrier basis. Therefore, we do not anticipate that the 2 GHz MSS operators would offer their services indifferently to all users. In fact, each of the 2 GHz MSS space segment system proponents requests non-common carrier classification for their service offering. We do not see any reason to treat 2 GHz MSS space segment operators any differently than Big LEOs for purposes of regulatory classification of space segment services. Allowing 2 GHz MSS space segment operators to offer service on a non-common carrier basis would also provide operators the freedom to customize their offerings to meet individualized customer needs. We seek comment on our proposal for the regulatory treatment of the space segment of the 2 GHz MSS. 77. Next, we address the regulatory classification of service offered from various 2 GHz MSS earth stations, including user transceivers, gateways, and tracking, telemetry and control earth stations. We expect that many of the 2 GHz MSS earth station licensees will provide service to the public for profit and may fall within the definition or be the functional equivalent of commercial mobile radio service, as defined by the Communications Act. Section 332(d)(1) of the Communications Act defines "commercial mobile service" as "any mobile service . . . that is provided for profit and makes interconnected service available (A) to the public or (B) to such class of eligible users as to be effectively available to a substantial portion of the public, as specified by regulation by the Commission." The Commission has determined that each mobile satellite service must be evaluated to determine whether the service offering is CMRS or private mobile radio service (PMRS). In discussing Section 332(c)(5) of the Communications Act, Congress indicated that the provision of earth segment capacity, either by MSS operators through their own terminals or earth stations sold by vendors, to users of CMRS shall be treated as common carriage. In applying this requirement, the Commission has stated that to the extent a system or other entity provides a service to end users that meets the elements of the CMRS definition or its functional equivalent, it will be regulated as common carriage. We expect that a significant number of 2 GHz MSS terminals will be used to interconnect to the public switched telephone network, rather than simply providing service between the 2 GHz MSS terminal and other 2 GHz MSS terminals. We also expect the 2 GHz MSS to be offered to the public. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that, to the extent that 2 GHz MSS earth stations are used to make service available to end users -- (A) the public, or (B) such classes of users as to be effectively available to a substantial portion of the public -- for profit and for interconnection with the public switched network, the offering of user transceivers to end users must be regulated as common carriage because the service falls within the statutory definition of CMRS. We would, however, reserve the right to review individual applications on a case-by-case basis to determine if this classification is appropriate. The Commission has forborne from applying certain provisions of Title II to CMRS providers. 78. We also tentatively conclude that gateway earth stations and stations that may be used for TT&C should be licensed to permit service to be offered on a non-common carriage basis because the service is not generally made available to end users or the public directly for interconnection to the public switched network. Rather, these gateway earth stations and earth stations used for TT&C are generally used to provide backhaul of large amounts of communications traffic and control the space segment of satellite systems. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. 2. System License and License Term 79. As discussed above, the proposed 2 GHz MSS systems include non-geostationary constellations of technically identical satellites, geostationary satellites, and a hybrid system with satellites in geostationary and non-geostationary orbits. We propose to continue our policy of granting "blanket" launch and operation licenses for systems of technically identical satellites, which will probably include most NGSO constellations, where possible. We propose to license 2 GHz MSS geostationary satellites by issuing a license that specifies parameters for each particular orbital location to take into account variations in system design, including feeder link and inter-satellite link issues. We propose this distinction in licensing between NGSO and GSO systems because of the satellite design differences between the systems, the beam coverage variations, and our experiences licensing both type of systems. For instance, GSO satellites are usually not technically identical, whereas NGSO satellites which are part of a constellation are usually identical. Because of the design differences among GSO satellites in a system, we propose to continue our practice of licensing each GSO satellite individually. For systems proposing geostationary satellites as part of a GSO/NGSO hybrid system, we propose to license the GSO component on this individual satellite basis and the NGSO constellation portion of the system under a "blanket" license for technically identical satellites. We seek comment on these proposals. 80. We also propose ten-year license term rules for 2 GHz MSS operators. At the time we licensed the Big LEO systems, the Communication Act authorized the Commission to grant ten-year licenses for space stations. The Telecommunication Act of 1996, however, amended the Communications Act to modify the statutory license term limit by granting the Commission authority to "prescribe the period or periods for which licenses shall be granted and renewed . . . ." As with the Big LEO license term, we propose that the license term would end ten years following commencement of satellite operations. The ten-year license term adopted for the Big LEO systems appears to provide sufficient certainty for licensees to obtain financing while providing an opportunity for Commission review of the license after a system's first decade of operation. Systems with both NGSO and GSO satellite components would have separate license terms for the NGSO portion of the system and for each GSO satellite. In addition, we propose to permit the licensee to replace any satellites lost during launch and older satellites retired before the end of the ten-year period. We seek comment on whether there are any reasons that this replacement policy should not apply equally to NGSO and GSO systems. Because of the investment required to construct and launch these systems combined with the development of satellite technology, specifically developments that have given satellites longer life spans -- up to 15 or more years in some cases -- we seek comment on whether 2 GHz MSS licenses should be granted for periods longer than ten years. We also propose that to the extent applicants include information in their applications concerning transmissions from their satellites for pre-operational testing, authority for these operations would be included in their license grant. 81. We propose to require that replacement satellites launched during the initial license term would have to be technically identical to those satellites authorized in the original grant, as the Commission required for Big LEO licensees. We propose that this requirement would equally apply to all 2 GHz MSS system designs. We would treat any non-conforming satellites (e.g., different antenna footprints or transmission patterns) as requests for license modification, as the Commission does with respect to Big LEO satellites. Consistent with our previous policy, we also propose to allow system operators to request authority to launch and operate a specified number of technically identical in-orbit spare satellites in the case of NGSO constellations. System operators could activate these spare satellites as necessary, but would be required to notify the Commission, within ten days after activation, that activation of the satellite did not cause the licensee to exceed the total number of authorized space stations. We propose that the license term for any activated spare satellites would expire with the overall system's authorization term. We propose that GSO satellites be subject to the same rules as NGSO constellations requiring replacement satellites to be technically identical for a particular orbital position and would permit GSO system operators to operate collocated in-orbit spares. The license term for technically identical GSO replacement satellites would expire when the replaced satellite's authorization expires. We would also require that individual GSO replacement satellites be technically identical to the satellite replaced, to assure continued compatibility of the systems with other users of the spectrum. Operators would be permitted to file modification applications to upgrade satellite design. We seek comment on these proposals and whether having similar replacement and in-orbit spare policies for GSO and NGSO systems is appropriate. 82. We propose, as we did in the Big LEO service rulemaking, to require applications for replacement systems, or individual satellites in the case of GSO operators, after the end of the initial license term to be filed no earlier than three months before and no later than one month after the end of the seventh year of the existing license. The purpose of this proposed rule is to allow the Commission sufficient time to act upon replacement system/satellite applications and the licensee enough time to implement its follow-on system/satellite. The filing window also would provide public notice of the licensee's plans. We propose not to adopt a renewal expectancy for 2 GHz MSS licensees. As we have previously indicated, we generally prefer to proceed on a case-by-case basis concerning renewal expectancy in the satellite context. As in other satellite services, we will generally grant system operators, whether GSO, NGSO, or hybrid system design operators, the authority to implement replacement systems/satellites, however, if the orbit location and/or frequencies remain available for use by U.S. systems. This recognizes that changed circumstances, including intervening international agreements, may affect our ability to assign or renew orbit and spectrum resources to U.S. systems. We recognize, however, the enormous investment necessary to launch and operate 2 GHz MSS satellite systems and therefore will propose to grant extensions for satellites that continue to operate beyond their license term, replacement authorizations, and renewals, if appropriate, unless extraordinary circumstances require a denial. We also propose that these policies should apply equally to earth station renewals. We invite comment on all of these proposals and whether there are circumstances we should take into account that require any additional distinctions between the method we use to license operators of GSO, NGSO, or hybrid systems. 3. Implementation Milestones 83. As detailed below, we propose to adopt a schedule of implementation milestones for 2 GHz MSS systems to ensure that systems are constructed within a reasonable time and thus, ensure delivery of service to the public, and to prevent warehousing of the valuable and limited resources of orbital locations and spectrum. We propose to establish separate milestones for each system and to adopt milestones regardless of the method we select to grant authorizations. The enforcement of milestones would be especially important if, as proposed, we decline adoption of financial qualifications as an entry criterion. Failure to meet the required milestones would render the system authorization or spectrum reservation null and void. 84. The Communications Act states that "[w]ith respect to any other station or class of station [including space and earth stations], the Commission shall not waive the requirement for a construction permit unless the Commission determines that the public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served by such a waiver." Consistent with our statutory authority, and in order to eliminate potential administrative burdens and regulatory delay, we propose to waive the requirement that 2 GHz MSS operators obtain construction permits for space and earth stations prior to commencing construction. We propose, however, that system operators be required to notify the Commission in writing that they intend to begin construction of satellites and earth stations at their own risk. 85. We propose to adopt a milestone schedule similar to the one established for Big LEOs and NVNG MSS for non-geostationary satellite systems and separate milestones for geostationary satellite systems similar to the approach we have taken with other geostationary satellite systems. We propose to distinguish between geostationary and non-geostationary satellite systems for the purpose of establishing milestones because we recognize, as we did in the Ka-band, that geostationary satellites may take more time to construct than technically identical non-geostationary satellites. We seek comment on this proposed distinction. Recognizing the differences in satellite system designs, we propose to require that non-geostationary satellite systems begin construction of the first two system satellites within one year of authorization and begin construction of all remaining satellites within three years of authorization. We propose to require that geostationary satellite systems begin construction of the first satellite in their system within one year and begin construction of all remaining satellites in their system within three years of authorization. 86. We propose to require that operators complete construction and launch of the first two satellites of their non-geostationary systems within four years of grant as the Commission does for Big LEO licensees. We propose to require geostationary satellite systems to complete construction and launch at least one satellite into each of its assigned orbital locations within five years of grant as the Commission does for Ka-band system operators. The entire system for either an NGSO or GSO system would have to be launched and operational within six years of grant. Hybrid non-geostationary and geostationary satellite systems would be required to follow the non-geostationary milestones for the non-geostationary portion of the system and comply with the geostationary milestones for the geostationary portion of the proposed system. We seek comment on these proposals and, specifically, whether we need to take into account any technical variations or other factors such as the delivery of service to rural and unserved communities between 2 GHz MSS systems and other satellite systems that may impact construction deadlines. 87. We also seek comment on whether any interim milestones should be established. For instance, we seek comment on whether it would be useful to require systems to certify that they have completed Critical Design Review (i.e., completed the design phase of implementation and commenced physical construction) within two years, or some other appropriate date, after milestones begin to run. This would require 2 GHz MSS operators to begin construction approximately two years after the initial grant or reservation in the case of LOI filers. We seek comment on whether this type of milestone is useful for monitoring system implementation, simple to comply with, and appropriate given the other milestones we propose to apply to 2 GHz MSS system operators. 88. We propose that milestones begin to run upon award of a service link license, or, in the case of LOI filers, upon issuance of a Public Notice or Declaratory Ruling establishing a milestone schedule contemporaneous with licensing of U.S. space stations. We seek comment on whether we should continue our current practice of including milestones in instruments of authorization. Under this approach, milestone deadlines for LOI filers would begin to run once spectrum is reserved in the Report and Order before milestones commence for U.S. licensees. The difference in milestone commencement dates is because the licenses for U.S. systems, which include milestones, would be granted after U.S. space station applicants were given an opportunity to amend their applications to conform to the final service rules adopted in the Report and Order. Therefore, in order to establish contemporaneous milestones for U.S. licensees and LOI filers we also ask alternatively, whether a specific milestone schedule should be incorporated into the rules which could be triggered by release of licenses and a separate Public Notice or Declaratory Ruling for LOI filers. For example, we would propose to issue 2 GHz MSS space station licenses and a Public Notice or Declaratory Ruling for LOI filers which have been reserved spectrum at the same time. The purpose of this procedure would be to ensure that system implementation milestones for U.S. licensed systems and LOI filers are the same. By aligning all 2 GHz MSS system milestones, we would be able to review all operators' implementation progress simultaneously and hold all operators to the same implementation deadlines. We generally seek comment on the manner in which milestones should be applied to 2 GHz MSS systems. 89. We tentatively conclude that we will impose milestones whether or not a system has obtained adequate feeder link or inter-satellite link assignments. In the past we have refrained from establishing milestones until licensees have secured access to feeder link and inter-satellite link spectrum because of the inability to complete their overall system design. We believe, however, in the interest of promoting efficient use of limited spectrum resources that systems as a general matter should be required to assume the risk of constructing without such spectrum assignments, if necessary. We have found that applications for feeder link and inter-satellite link spectrum assignments can involve significant delay if the requested spectrum is already in use or not allotted for such use at the time of the service link authorization. It is the responsibility of the system operators to seek unencumbered feeder link and inter-satellite link spectrum. Milestones will provide an incentive for system operators to seek necessary feeder links in a reasonable time or they will risk losing service link spectrum if they are unable or unwilling to proceed with implementation of their systems. On balance, we find that the benefits of not delaying implementation of 2 GHz MSS service outweigh the burden this requirement may place on system operators to design systems in accordance with the proposed milestone rules. This proposal will also deter applicants from warehousing spectrum until such time as additional spectrum is allocated and assigned to address feeder links and inter-satellite links requirements. We seek comment on this analysis and our tentative conclusions. 90. We do not propose separate milestones for construction of in-orbit spares or for earth segment. The Commission's determination in the Big LEO Report & Order that prudent system operators will determine the appropriate timetable for building and launching in-orbit spares has proven correct with the implementation of at least two NGSO satellite systems. Similarly, systems have constructed ground segments, e.g., gateways, as satellites are launched without the need for separate milestones. Although ground segment construction would appear to be a relevant indication of system progress, we seek comment on whether satellite construction and launch milestones will adequately address warehousing concerns, making separate milestones for in-orbit spares and ground segment facilities unnecessary. 4. Reporting Requirements 91. In this proceeding, we propose to apply to 2 GHz MSS the Commission's Part 25 reporting requirements, which are currently applicable to satellite systems in other services. Pursuant to our reporting requirements, system operators must file annual reports describing satellite system implementation, anticipated launch dates, system utilization, and system outages or malfunctions. The annual reports are also used to determine appropriate annual regulatory fees for each system. We propose to apply this requirement for 2 GHz MSS operators because they have proven effective for monitoring implementation compliance and operations with a minimum of regulatory burden on the licensees. We propose to amend the current Big LEO rule that requires licensees to submit the annual report by June 30th each year to require submission of the annual reports through the Commission's fiscal year-end by October 10th. Annual reports with information up to September 30th will provide the Commission and licensees with timely information for determining annual regulatory fees. We seek comment on these proposals. 92. We propose to apply to 2 GHz MSS operators the requirement that systems file affidavits certifying whether milestone requirements are met following the appropriate milestone deadlines. The Commission would retain the right to request additional information (e.g., copies of construction contracts), as required, to ensure compliance with milestones. Finally, as in other services, we propose to allow parties to request confidential treatment for any portion of an annual report pursuant to Section 0.459 of the Commission's rules. We seek comment on these proposals. 5. Distress and Safety Communications and Enhanced 9-1-1 93. Many of the 2 GHz MSS systems proposed would be capable of providing distress and safety communications services. Specifically, in addition to voice and data services, several of the applicants propose position determination features. While 2 GHz MSS systems cannot be used in place of distress beacons, such as temporary locator transmitters which are required to be carried by passenger ships and certain cargo ships by international agreement and statute, 2 GHz MSS operators, like Big LEO operators, will have certain statutory obligations, as described below, related to maritime distress communications. In the Big LEO Report & Order, the Commission stated that, although the Big LEO applicants did not have plans for extensive distress and safety service, because their systems were capable of carrying such services, the licensees would have to meet certain statutory obligations. For instance, the Communications Act requires licensees operating within the territorial waters of the U.S. to give priority to radio communications or signals relating to ships in distress and to cease transmitting on frequencies that will interfere with distress signals. The Communications Act also requires that stations on board ships must transmit to other ships in the vicinity and to authorities on land information concerning severe weather conditions or dangerous ice. The Communications Act prohibits licensees from charging a fee for the transmission of maritime distress calls and related traffic. The Commission stated in the Big LEO Report & Order that it expected any satellite licensee that chose to offer emergency or safety communications to coordinate with the appropriate safety and rescue organizations. The Commission codified these requirements for Big LEO licensees at Section 25.143(f). We tentatively conclude, that because the services being proposed by 2 GHz MSS systems are similar to those proposed by Big LEO licensees, the distress and safety rules adopted for Big LEO licensees should also be adopted for 2 GHz MSS systems. We request comment on this tentative conclusion. 94. In the Big LEO Report & Order, the Commission also considered and denied requests that Big LEO operators be required to provide caller ID, standardized position information and automatic routing for distress and safety communications or disaster response communications, stating that it would address the issue in a separate rulemaking on enhanced 9-1-1. In the E911 Report & Order on enhanced 9-1-1 capability, the Commission determined that because MSS was still in the early development stages and facing more technological and international hurdles than terrestrial carriers, it would not impose any obligation to provide enhanced 9-1-1 at that time. The Commission, however, stated that it expected mobile satellite operators to incorporate enhanced 9-1-1 features in future systems as they are deployed. We now seek comment on whether 2 GHz MSS systems, particularly those at an early stage of development, should be required to implement their systems with enhanced 9-1-1 capabilities. Since four of the 2 GHz MSS applicants are Big LEO licensees proposing essentially second generation or expansion systems, it appears appropriate to consider whether enhanced 9-1-1 capabilities should be incorporated into these expansion systems. Moreover, several of the 2 GHz MSS applicants are proposing systems that complement terrestrial wireless communications networks, which are required to provide enhanced 9-1-1 capabilities. We seek comment, therefore, as to whether we should require 2 GHz MSS operators to provide a seamless network with similar emergency services as terrestrial systems for users. We also seek comment on what technological and practical challenges implementation of this requirement presents for global systems. Specifically, how would the accuracy location requirement of Phase I be applied, or would only a Phase II-type requirement be more appropriate or practicable, for MSS systems? If coordinates are to be provided, can the 125-meter RMS standard applicable to terrestrial systems be used or should a different criterion be established for MSS systems? Can automatic number identification (ANI) be provided by MSS systems? What methods are available for routing enhanced 9-1-1 calls on MSS systems to the appropriate PSAP? We also seek comment on the appropriate timetable for Phase I and Phase II implementation by MSS systems. 6. Service to Unserved Communities 95. Satellites are an excellent technology for delivering both basic and advanced telecommunication services to unserved, rural, insular or economically isolated areas, including Native American communities, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories and possessions such as communities within the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa. Satellites may offer a cost advantage over wireline access alternatives in remote areas where a limited population may not provide the economies of scale to support the deployment of wireline or terrestrial wireless networks. The basic build-out required to obtain satellite service is for earth stations to transmit and receive satellite signals. The Commission is committed to encouraging delivery of telecommunications services, including satellite services, to unserved and high-cost communities and seeking to develop cost-effective incentives for such services. Once authorized, many of the 2 GHz MSS systems will be capable of providing voice and data communications to these communities. We seek guidance from commenters as to any policies or rules we could implement (or forebear from) to encourage 2 GHz MSS service to those areas. For example, we seek comment on whether one criterion for resolution of expansion band coordination disputes should be whether a licensee is providing service to unserved areas, or whether licensees should be granted extension of system implementation milestones if they will provide service to unserved communities. We note that we have not adopted such policies or rules for Big LEO licensees or other MSS providers. We seek comment on how this fact, and our commitment to competitive neutrality in our rules, could affect whether or not we should pursue, in a separate proceeding, adopting similar policies or rules for unserved areas for Big LEO and other satellite licensees. 7. Trafficking 96. The Commission adopted an anti-trafficking rule to govern the transfer of Big LEO licenses that were not obtained through competitive bidding. The purpose of this rule is to prevent unjust enrichment of those who would obtain a license for speculation only and that have not made concrete progress toward system implementation. We seek comment on whether to adopt an anti-trafficking rule for 2 GHz MSS licensees. If adopted, an anti-trafficking rule would not be intended to prevent debt or equity transactions, but rather to ensure that licensees were not selling bare licenses for profit. An anti-trafficking rule could permit firms to combine operations or sell operating facilities, including their licenses, subject to Commission approval. We seek comment on whether, if adopted, an anti-trafficking rule should be limited to licensees, and not apply to foreign systems for which a spectrum reservation has been made and how we would retain the discretion to address any concerns in connection with spectrum reservations for foreign-licensed satellites, should such concerns arise. We propose not to apply an anti-trafficking rule if competitive bidding is adopted here. We request comment on this proposal. 8. Orbital Debris Mitigation 97. In 1995, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued an Interagency Report on Orbital Debris. That report recommended, among other things, that NASA and other U.S. Federal government agencies conduct a focused study of debris and emerging LEO systems, including identifying possible measures for debris mitigation. It also recommended that NASA and the Department of Defense (DoD) jointly develop draft design guidelines for debris mitigation, with a goal of developing government/industry guidelines that both sectors could use in the design and development of future systems. 98. Following these recommendations, NASA and DoD have developed a set of draft debris mitigation practices. These practices focus on four objectives: a. Control of Debris Released During Normal Operations -- Programs and projects will assess and limit the amount of debris released in a planned manner during normal operations. b. Minimizing Debris Generated by Accidental Explosion -- Programs and projects will assess and limit the probability of accidental explosion during and after completion of mission operations. c. Selection of Safe Flight Profile and Operational Configuration -- Programs and projects will assess and limit the probability of operating space systems becoming a source of debris by collisions with man-made objects or meteoroids. d. Post-mission Disposal of Space Structures -- Programs and projects will plan for, consistent with mission requirements, cost effective disposal procedures for launch vehicle components, upper stages, spacecraft, and other payloads at the end of mission life to minimize impact on future space operations. 99. NASA and other U.S. Federal government agencies require that, for space missions under their control, new missions and projects be designed with these practices in mind. In addition, the Departments of Transportation and Commerce have adopted or proposed to adopt regulatory provisions for commercial operations implementing some elements of these practices. 100. As a general matter, many of these practices already have been adopted by satellite system operators, since they facilitate satellite system reliability and are thus in the economic interests of operators and their customers. However, we seek comment on whether some or all elements of these practices should be incorporated in the Commission's rules or authorization process for 2 GHz MSS systems. In particular, should we consider a rule requiring that 2 GHz mobile satellite systems serving the United States adequately provide for end-of-life disposal of the space craft, including depletion or neutralization of sources of stored energy on the spacecraft? Alternatively, should we require submission of narrative information concerning debris mitigation in connection with satellite system licensing? 101. We also seek comment on any transitional issues that may arise if new orbital debris mitigation requirements are adopted. In particular, we do not wish to require expensive redesigns for systems already at an advanced stage of development. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that any new requirements should be applied only to systems that have not passed a stage at which such requirements reasonably can be incorporated into the design, construction, or operation of the system. We seek comment on what that stage may be. 102. We also recognize that debris mitigation practices are relevant to communications satellite systems operating at frequencies other than 2 GHz. We are seeking comment on debris mitigation practices in this proceeding in order to provide 2 GHz system proponents early notice concerning factors that may be relevant to any system modifications they may undertake, either resulting from technical rules adopted in this proceeding or technological developments in the marketplace. However, it is possible that any requirements concerning debris mitigation for 2 GHz MSS systems will not become final until the Commission has completed a separate proceeding that seeks comment from all interested parties on adopting debris mitigation practices applicable to all Commission-licensed satellite systems. 9. Exclusionary Arrangements 103. We propose to adopt for 2 GHz MSS providers our rule now applicable to other satellite services that prohibits exclusionary arrangements for traffic between the United States and foreign countries. Exclusive arrangements generally take the form of an agreement between a space station operator or service provider that offers a particular satellite system as the only permissible facility through which to obtain a particular satellite service between the United States and another country. Prohibiting these type of arrangements is intended to facilitate competition by encouraging the use of multiple satellite systems in other countries and to ensure that all parties have an opportunity to provide truly global service, which also would facilitate competition in the U.S. market. For example, if a provider were not able to provide service in a particular foreign country because another entity had an exclusive arrangement there, then the provider could not offer satellite service between the United States and that country. Prior to the DISCO II decision, the Commission applied this prohibition to U.S. licensees and in the DISCO II Order adopted the prohibition on exclusionary arrangements for non-U.S. systems as well. Thus, if a provider (U.S. or non-U.S.) has an exclusive arrangement, we will not authorize service by the provider between the U.S. and the country with which the provider has such an exclusive arrangement. We have concluded that this type of rule will help ensure that markets worldwide will be open to all 2 GHz MSS operators, subject to their system requirements and concerns related to spectrum coordination and availability. We seek comment on our intention to extend this proposal to all 2 GHz MSS systems. D. Mobile Earth Station Licensing 104. Next, we address licensing issues involving the earth station component of 2 GHz MSS systems. Based on the system proposals, the earth stations to be used by systems will be lightweight, typically hand-held, terminals. The Commission has adopted licensing rules for earth stations in other related services. For example, in the Big LEO Report & Order, the Commission adopted a licensing procedure and rules for the mobile earth station segment of the Big LEO systems. We propose to amend the Commission's rules to license 2 GHz MSS gateways and TT&C frequencies in a similar manner. We seek comment on this proposal. 105. The rules require satellite service providers to obtain blanket licenses to cover multiple user transceiver units. The rules prohibit operation of mobile earth stations on civil aircraft, unless directly connected to the aircraft cabin communications system, require that user transceiver units obtain authorization from the space segment operator before commencing communications through space stations, and require the holder of a blanket license to assume responsibility for individual units when they are communicating with a satellite system. These rules are designed to reduce the regulatory burden of filing for individual earth station licenses while ensuring safe and secure communications for the public and other licensees. Under the rule, the blanket license can be applied for and granted to service providers, which may or may not be the space segment licensee. The blanket license permits a service provider to manufacture and sell a specified number of user transceivers that are compatible for use with a particular Big LEO licensee's satellite system. 106. We propose to license 2 GHz MSS user transceiver units in the same manner because of the similarity of services that are proposed to be offered. The license term would be for ten years or could be longer if we adopt a longer space segment system authorization term. Requests for additional units would be treated as minor license modifications, as in the case of Big LEOs. We seek comment on these proposals and ask commenters to identify whether any different rules may be required for transceivers not currently contemplated by the Big LEO or 2 GHz system proponents. 107. We are currently considering rules to certify terminals associated with Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite (GMPCS) service under the procedures included in Part 2, Subsection J of our rules. We expect that some of the 2 GHz MSS systems may be considered GMPCS systems, based on the participants' proposals. As a general matter, we anticipate certifying 2 GHz MSS terminals based on the procedures adopted in the GMPCS proceeding. We seek comment on whether there are any new technical requirements, such as position determination or out-of-band emissions limitations, that should be adopted for 2 GHz MSS terminals beyond those currently proposed or applicable. For example, should we require that 2 GHz MSS terminals be capable of operating across all portions of the 2 GHz MSS band in order to ensure flexibility in system coordination and operations? We also seek comment on whether current radiation hazard standards should apply to 2 GHz MSS terminals. E. International Coordination 108. All of the systems currently proposed will require some degree of international coordination, either on a regional or global basis. We seek comment on the approach we should undertake in international coordinations. 109. In particular, we seek comment on whether the U.S. band arrangement or, if mutual exclusivity cannot be avoided, the auction outcome, should form the basis for coordinating systems internationally. We have long recognized the desirability of internationally compatible band plans and frequency assignments, particularly for international systems. In our Big LEO proceeding, for example, we observed that global satellite systems will be more likely to succeed if individual administrations adopt complementary licensing systems. In our Ka-Band Service Rules Proceeding, we adopted a policy of pursuing international coordination for U.S.-licensed satellite systems consistent with our domestic frequency band plans, recognizing that substantial delay can result if licensees do not conform their international plans, and instead pursue differing and irreconcilable assignments on a country-by-country basis. Although we indicated that there would be exceptions to this general approach, we found that this general policy would ensure timely coordination and prompt provision of service. We ask commenters to address specifically whether a similar approach is appropriate with respect to 2 GHz MSS systems. 110. Because our earlier international coordination policies were adopted prior to the DISCO II Order, we specifically seek comment on the effect of that decision. This 2 GHz MSS proceeding is the first one in which the Commission has developed service rules and coordination policies that will apply to a processing round involving "letters of intent" filed by non-U.S. licensed satellite systems. Therefore, unlike prior proceedings, this proceeding involves participants for which the United States is not directly responsible for international coordination. In the DISCO II Order, the Commission stated that the outcome of a processing round may include the designation of spectrum for use by a non-U.S. licensed system or systems. We have not yet, however, been in a position to address the subsequent treatment of such designations in the international coordination process. We seek comment on this issue. Should designations of spectrum for non-U.S. licensed systems be conditioned in some manner on successful coordination internationally? If so, what form should those conditions take? 111. In addition, we seek comment on how any U.S. band approach or, if mutual exclusivity cannot be avoided, any auction outcome, could achieve compatibility with the spectrum planning and satellite system licensing process that already has occurred in other countries. Specifically, the European Radiocommunications Committee ("ERC") has adopted a decision concerning provision of satellite personal communications services in both the 1.6/2.4 GHz and 2 GHz ranges. In several respects, our \proposals and the ERC band approach are complementary. However, the approaches differ in some respects. The ERC band approach was developed with a goal of accommodating systems to be brought into service by January 1, 2001. Our proposals address systems with scheduled implementation as late as 2005. We note, however, that the ERC decision includes a process for periodic review of developments in the MSS field, and contemplates further decisions to take into account system requirements beyond the year 2001. The ERC approach does not address the different regional allocations in the European region and the Americas, nor does it provide for CDMA systems in the 2 GHz range. The proposals in the instant proceeding do. Further compatibility of U.S. and European plans could benefit the public by speeding rapid implementation of these services. We seek comment on any implications of our proposals with respect to the ERC approach. F. Interservice Sharing 112. In the 2 GHz MSS Allocation Order, the Commission found that incumbents affected by new 2 GHz MSS systems would be treated in accordance with our Emerging Technologies policies. In particular, the Commission concluded that MSS and Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) could not share spectrum without unacceptable mutual interference. The Commission, therefore, determined that it is necessary to relocate BAS in order to accommodate MSS in the 1990-2025 MHz band. The Commission also concluded that it would provide for MSS sharing with, and any necessary relocation of, Fixed Services (FS). The Commission decided that MSS cannot begin operations in the 2165-2200 MHz band until that spectrum is cleared of all FS licensees who would receive harmful interference from MSS licensees, but that MSS licensees will not be required to relocate any FS incumbent with whom they can successfully share spectrum. 113. We find that the scope of the 2 GHz MSS Allocation Order is sufficiently comprehensive to address adequately MSS/BAS and MSS/FS sharing issues. We, therefore, see no need for additional proposals in this area. Commenters are free, however, to address MSS/BAS and/or MSS/FS in-band sharing issues, particularly insofar as they may affect our choice of assignment methods in this proceeding. For example, does any particular licensing method provide greater flexibility for systems to address interservice sharing issues? 114. Satellite licensees are required to suppress out-of-band and spurious emissions from the space and earth stations to the level specified in Section 25.202(f) of the Commission's Rules. We expect MSS operators to meet this requirement by employing a variety of spectral shaping, coding, modulation and filtering techniques in mitigating out-of-band emissions. We propose to apply the domestic out-of-band emission limits in Section 25.202(f) to all 2 GHz MSS systems operating in the United States to protect existing services in the adjacent bands and seek comment on this proposal. 115. We also seek comment concerning potential adjacent band interference between 2 GHz MSS space systems and U.S. Government space systems in the Space Research, Earth Exploration Satellite and Space Operations services operating in the 2025-2110 MHz and 2200-2290 MHz bands. Concerning the 2025-2110 MHz band, we note that in the 2 GHz MSS Allocation Order, the Commission proposed to grant co-primary status to the Government space operations (Earth-to-space and space-to space), Earth-exploration satellite (Earth-to-space and space-to space), and space research (Earth-to-space and space-to space) services in the 2025-2110 MHz band. Given the nature of U.S. Government operations in the 2025-2110 MHz band (transmit power measured in kilowatts, high-gain antennas, etc.) we seek comment on whether any additional requirements are necessary to facilitate compatible adjacent band operations between 2 GHz MSS systems' service links and U.S. Government space systems' operations. Concerning the 2200-2290 MHz band, the band is primarily used for U.S. Government Space Research, Earth Exploration Satellite and Space Operations space systems' downlinks. These systems use high-gain receive Earth stations that may be susceptible to interference from out-of-band emissions from MSS systems' downlinks in the 2165-2200 MHz band. Hence, we also seek comment on whether any additional requirements are necessary to facilitate compatible adjacent band operations between 2 GHz MSS systems and U.S. Government space systems operating in the 2200-2290 MHz band. 116. We also propose to adopt additional requirements in order to protect certain aeronautical radionavigation operations and to facilitate GMPCS certification of 2 GHz MSS mobile earth terminal equipment. By way of background, in response to a petition from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, we proposed in the recently-released GMPCS NPRM to impose certain limits on out-of-band emissions from MSS terminals transmitting in the L Band in order to protect aircraft reception of aeronautical radionavigation signals. The principal requirements we proposed were that such terminals must meet a -70 dBW/MHz limit on wideband e.i.r.p. density of emissions in the 1559-1605 MHz band and a -80 dBW e.i.r.p. limit on narrowband spurs in that band as of January 1, 2005. We also invited comments on a proposal to require suppression of out-of-band emissions from Big LEO MSS terminals to -10 dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz and to a level between 1605 and 1610 MHz determined by linear interpolation. We said in the GMPCS NPRM that we would decide in the context of this proceeding whether to adopt analogous requirements for 2 GHz MSS systems. We see no reason to adopt a different standard for 2 GHz MSS terminals with respect to suppression of emissions to protect aeronautical navigation than we have proposed for L Band terminals. We also note that ITU Radiocommunications Sector ("ITU-R") Assembly adopted a recommendation for licensing administrations concerning regulatory limits on out-of-band emissions from MSS terminals licensed for transmission to non-geostationary satellites in frequency bands between 1 and 3 GHz. Similar limits were adopted by the European Testing and Standards Institute ("ETSI") and apply to GSO and NGSO Mobile Earth Stations. We therefore seek comment on whether any additional provisions may be appropriate or needed concerning unwanted emissions. 117. We specifically seek comment on the relationship between multipoint distribution service (MDS) operations at 2150-2165 MHz band and MSS downlink operations at 2165-2200 MHz. In response to the 2 GHz MSS PN, Wireless Cable Association International, Inc. (WCA) expressed concern that there may be potential for out-of-band emission interference into MSS downlinks at 2165-2200 MHz from MDS operations. WCA asserts that MSS receivers could be interference prone if not properly designed, lacking sufficient selectivity to avoid interference from MDS facilities. 118. We addressed a similar adjacent band interference issue in the Big LEO proceeding. In that case, we found no significant threat of harmful interference to MSS receivers operating at 2483.5-2500 MHz from ITFS/MDS operations above 2500 MHz. The current record, however, is insufficient for us to reach a conclusion in the case of MDS operations in the 2150-2165 MHz band. We therefore request commenters to reassess, with respect to the 2150-2165/2165-2200 MHz bands the interference potential from MDS operations. We specifically seek comment on any economic and technical tradeoffs involved, taking into account technological advancements in MSS receiver design, the possibility of assigning the 2165-2170 MHz band to GSO MSS systems' downlink, ITFS/MDS conversion from analog to digital technology and any improvements in ITFS/MDS transmitter design, and any other relevant developments. 119. We also seek comment on whether current out-of-band limits and technical requirements for systems, other than ITFS/MDS, in adjacent bands are sufficient to protect 2 GHz MSS operations from harmful interference. IV. CONCLUSION 120. This Notice is intended to open the way for rapid deployment of 2 GHz mobile satellite services in the United States by quickly establishing service and technical rules based on the public interest. We anticipate that these MSS systems, once authorized, will provide additional competition and, in some cases additional seamless world-wide capacity, for MSS providers and terrestrial systems. We have put forward several innovative options for assigning spectrum, including methods that would provide incentives for system operators to initiate service as quickly as possible while providing enough certainty to encourage investment in the proposed systems. We have also proposed applying the system service rules equally to U.S.-licensed and non-U.S.-licensed systems with strict milestones for implementing service to ensure that spectrum is not warehoused. We have made our proposals flexible enough to accommodate the divergent satellite and radio communications technologies envisioned by the 2 GHz MSS system proponents without preferring one technology or service over another. We seek to encourage development of communications on a national and global basis and request comment on methods for creating incentives for 2 GHz MSS system operators to provide service to underdeveloped areas in the United States and globally. We seek comment on all our proposals and any other suggestions commenters may have in this proceeding. V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Ex Parte Presentations 121. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding under Section 1.1200 of the Commission's rules. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206. B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 122. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band provided below in paragraph D of this Section. The Commission will send a copy of the Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C.  603(a). In addition, the Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register. See id. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1990, 5 U.S.C.  601 612 (RFA), as amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847, the Commission's Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with respect to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is as follows: 1. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rule: This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) seeks comment on various proposals for creating a spectrum assignment approach that would accommodate all proposed 2 GHz MSS systems and provide service to consumers as quickly as possible. This Notice also seeks comment on proposals for service rules to apply to 2 GHz MSS systems. These actions are necessary for the Commission to evaluate these proposals and seek comment from the public on any other alternatives. The objective of this proceeding is to assign the 2 GHz MSS spectrum in an efficient manner and create rules to ensure systems implement their proposals in a manner that serves the public interest. We believe that adoption of the proposed rules will reduce regulatory burdens and, with minimal disruption to existing permittees and licensees, result in the continued development of 2 GHz MSS and other satellite services to the public. 2. Legal Basis: This Notice is adopted pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 310, 319(d), 321(b), 332, 359 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309(a), 309(j), 310, 319(d), 321(b), 332, 359 and 5 U.S.C. Section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act. 3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Subject to the Rules: The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to geostationary or non-geostationary orbit fixed-satellite or mobile satellite service operators. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the Small Business Administration (SBA) rules applicable to Communications Services, Not Elsewhere Classified. This definition provides that a small entity is one with $11.0 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data, there are 848 firms that fall under the category of Communications Services, Not Elsewhere Classified which could potentially fall into the 2 GHz MSS category. Of those, approximately 775 reported annual receipts of $11 million or less and qualify as small entities. The rules proposed in this Notice apply only to entities providing 2 GHz mobile satellite service. Small businesses may not have the financial ability to become 2 GHz MSS system operators because of the high implementation costs associated with satellite systems and services. At least one of the 2 GHz MSS applicants may be considered a small business at this time. We expect, however, that by the time of implementation it will no longer be considered a small business due to the capital requirements for launching and operating its proposed system. Since there is limited spectrum and orbital resources available for assignment, we estimate that no more than 9 entities will be approved by the Commission as operators providing these services. Therefore, because of the high implementation costs and the limited spectrum resources, we do not believe that small entities will be impacted by this rulemaking to a great extent. 4. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements: The proposed action in this Notice would affect those entities applying for 2 GHz MSS space station and earth station authorizations and those applying to participate in assignment of 2 GHz MSS spectrum. In the case where there is not any mutual exclusivity, applicants will be required to follow the streamlined application procedures of Part 25 for space and earth station licenses by submitting the information required by Form 312, where applicable. In the case where there is mutual exclusivity between applicants for authorizations and spectrum reservations in the case of letter of intent filers, the competitive bidding rules of Part 1 will be used to determine the licensee and/or spectrum designee. If auctions are required, applicants and letter of intent filers will have to comply with the requirement to file a short-form (FCC Form 175). Completion of short-form FCC Form 175 to participate in an auction is not estimated to be a significant economic burden for these entities. The action proposed will also affect auction winners in that it will require them to submit a long Form 312 application for authorization. Submission of Form 312 will be required by all 2 GHz MSS applicants and letter of intent filers whether selected through the competitive bidding process or not. 5. Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict with These Proposed Requirements: None. One of the main objectives of the Notice is to eliminate any existing overlap or duplication of rules between the 2 GHz MSS and other satellite services. 6. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered: In developing the proposals contained in this Notice, we have attempted to minimize the burdens on all entities in order to allow maximum participation in the 2 GHz MSS market while achieving our other objectives. We seek comment on the impact of our proposals on small entities and on any possible alternatives that could minimize the impact of our rules on small entities. In particular, we seek comment on alternatives to the reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements discussed above. Written comments are requested on this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines set for comments on the other issues in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, but they must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 123. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains either a proposed or a modified information collection. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collections contained in this Notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due on or before June 24, 1999. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. D. Comment Filing Procedures 124. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before June 24, 1999, and reply comments on or before July 26, 1999. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998). 125. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to . 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 e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail 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. 126. 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, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W..; TW-A325; Washington, D.C. 20554. 127. Parties who chose to file by paper should also submit their comments on diskette. These diskettes should be submitted to: Christopher J. Murphy, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in "read only" mode. The diskette should be clearly labelled with the commenter's name, proceeding (including the lead docket number in this case (IB Docket No. 99-81), type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase "Disk Copy - Not an Original." Each diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file. In addition, commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037. VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 128. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Expedited Rulemaking filed by ICO Services Limited IS GRANTED in part to the extent described above and IS DENIED in all other respects. 129. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309(a), and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309(a), 310, 319(d), 332 this NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of our intent to adopt the policies set forth in this Notice and that COMMENT IS SOUGHT on all proposals in this Notice. 130. IT IS ORDERED that the 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, in accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  601 et. seq. (1981). FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary Appendix A Service Link Spectrum Allocations for 2 GHz MSS Uplink Frequencies Global: 1980-2010 MHz United States: 1990-2025 MHz Downlink Frequencies Global: 2170-2200 MHz United States: 2165-2200 MHz Applicants' Proposals Applicant Service Link Spectrum Request System Technology Boeing uplink: 8.25 MHz at 1990-1998.25 MHz downlink: 8.85 MHz in 2170-2185 MHz 16 NGSO CDMA Celsat uplink: 25 MHz in 1990-2025 MHz downlink: 25 MHz in 2165-2200 MHz 1 GSO TDMA/ CDMA3 Constellation II uplink: 45 MHz at 1980-2025 MHz downlink: 35 MHz at 2165-2200 MHz 46 NGSO CDMA Globalstar uplink: 35 MHz at 1990-2025 MHz downlink: 35 MHz at 2165-2200 MHz 4 GSO; 64 NGSO TDMA/ CDMA ICO uplink: 30 MHz at 1985-2015 MHz downlink: 30 MHz at 2170-2200 MHz 10-12 NGSO TDMA Inmarsat Horizons uplink: 45 MHz at 1980-2025 MHz downlink: 40 MHz at 2160-2200 MHz 4 GSO TDMA Iridium Macrocell uplink: 35 MHz at 1990-2025 MHz downlink: 35 MHz at 2165-2200 MHz 96 NGSO TDMA/ CDMA3 MCHI Ellipso 2G uplink: 35 MHz at 1990-2025 MHz downlink: 35 MHz at 2165-2200 MHz 26 NGSO CDMA TMI Cansat-M3 uplink: 35 MHz at 1990-2025 MHz downlink: 35 MHz at 2165-2200 MHz 1 GSO TDMA/ CDMA3 Appendix B - FLEXIBLE BAND ARRANGEMENT TDMA NGSO Core Spectrum Expansion Spectrum for TDMA NGSO and CDMA Systems CDMA Core Spectrum Expansion Spectrum for CDMA and TDMA GSO Systems TDMA GSO Core Spectrum 1990.00 1995.00 2001.25 2013.75 2020.00 2025.00 UPLINK FLEXIBLE BAND ARRANGEMENT TDMA GSO Core Spectrum Expansion Spectrum for TDMA GSO and CDMA Systems CDMA Core Spectrum Expansion Spectrum for CDMA and TDMA NGSO Systems TDMA NGSO Core Spectrum 2165.00 2170.00 2176.25 2188.75 2195.00 2200.00 DOWNLINK FLEXIBLE BAND ARRANGEMENT APPENDIX C DRAFT U.S. Government/Industry Orbital Debris Mitigation Practices OBJECTIVE 1. CONTROL OF DEBRIS RELEASED DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS Programs and projects will assess and limit the amount of debris released in a planned manner during normal operations. GUIDELINES 1-1. In all operational orbit regimes: Spacecraft and upper stages should be designed to eliminate or minimize debris released during normal operations. Each instance of planned release of debris larger than 5 mm in any dimension that remains on orbit for more than 25 years should be evaluated and justified on the basis of cost effectiveness and mission requirements. OBJECTIVE 2. MINIMIZING DEBRIS GENERATED BY ACCIDENTAL EXPLOSIONS Programs and projects will assess and limit the probability of accidental explosion during and after completion of mission operations. GUIDELINES 2-1. Limiting the risk to other space systems from accidental explosions during mission operations: In developing the design of a spacecraft or upper stage, each program, via failure mode and effects analyses or equivalent analyses, should demonstrate either that there is no credible failure mode for accidental explosion, or, if such credible failure modes exist, design or operational procedures will limit the probability of the occurrence of such failure modes. 2-2. Limiting the risk to other space systems from accidental explosions after completion of mission operations: All on-board sources of stored energy of a spacecraft or upper stage should be depleted or safed when they are no longer required for mission operations or postmission disposal. Depletion should occur as soon as such an operation does not pose an unacceptable risk to the payload. Propellant depletion burns and compressed gas releases should be designed to minimize the probability of subsequent accidental collision and to minimize the impact of a subsequent accidental explosion. DRAFT U.S. Government/Industry Orbital Debris Mitigation Practices OBJECTIVE 3. SELECTION OF SAFE FLIGHT PROFILE AND OPERATIONAL CONFIGURATION Programs and projects will assess and limit the probability of operating space systems becoming a source of debris by collisions with man-made objects or meteoroids. GUIDELINES 3-1. Collision with large objects during orbital lifetime: In developing the design and mission profile for a spacecraft or upper stage, a program will estimate and limit the probability of collision with known objects during orbital lifetime. 3-2. Collision with small debris during mission operations: Spacecraft design will consider and, consistent with cost effectiveness, limit the probability that collisions with debris smaller than 1cm diameter will cause loss of control to prevent post-mission disposal. 3-3. Tether systems will be uniquely analyzed for both intact and severed conditions. DRAFT U.S. Government/Industry Orbital Debris Mitigation Practices OBJECTIVE 4. POSTMISSION DISPOSAL OF SPACE STRUCTURES Programs and projects will plan for, consistent with mission requirements, cost effective disposal procedures for launch vehicle components, upper stages, spacecraft, and other payloads at the end of mission life to minimize impact on future space operations. GUIDELINES 4-1. Disposal for final mission orbits: A spacecraft or upper stage may be disposed of by one of three methods: a. Atmospheric reentry option: Leave the structure in an orbit in which, using conservative projections for solar activity, atmospheric drag will limit the lifetime to no longer than 25 years after completion of mission. If drag enhancement devices are to be used to reduce the orbit lifetime, it should be demonstrated that such devices will significantly reduce the area- time product of the system or will not cause spacecraft or large debris to fragment if a collision occurs while the system is decaying from orbit. If a space structure is to be disposed of by reentry into the Earth's atmosphere, either the total debris casualty area for components and structural fragments surviving reentry will not exceed 8 m2, or it will be confined to a broad ocean or essentially unpopulated area. b. Maneuvering to a storage orbit: At end of life the structure may be relocated to one of the following storage regimes: I. Between LEO and MEO: Maneuver to an orbit with perigee altitude above 2000 km and apogee altitude below 19,700 km (500 km below semi-synchronous altitude). II. Between MEO and GEO: Maneuver to an orbit with perigee altitude above 20,700 km and apogee altitude below 35,300 km (approximately 500 km above semi- synchronous altitude and 500 km below synchronous altitude). III. Above GEO: Maneuver to an orbit with perigee altitude above 36,100 km (approximately 300 km above synchronous altitude). IV. Heliocentric, Earth-escape: Maneuver to remove the structure from Earth orbit, into a heliocentric orbit. Because of fuel gauging uncertainties near the end of mission, a program should use a maneuver strategy that reduces the risk of leaving the structure near an operational orbit regime. c. Direct retrieval: Retrieve the structure and remove it from orbit as soon as practical after completion of mission. 4-2. Tether systems will be uniquely analyzed for both intact and severed conditions when performing trade-offs between alternative disposal strategies. APPENDIX D Proposed Rule Changes to 47 C.F.R. Part 25 of the Commission's Rules Subpart B-- Applications and Licenses Sec. 25.114 Applications for space station authorizations. * * * * * (c) The following information in narrative form shall be contained in each application: * * * (6) * * * (iii) For 1.6/2.4 and 2 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service space stations, the feeder link frequencies requested for the satellite, together with the demonstration required by Sec. 25.203 (j) and (k); * * * (21) Applications for authorizations in the 1.6/2.4 or 2 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service shall also provide all information specified in Sec. 25.143. * * * * * Sec. 25.115 Application for earth station authorizations. * * * * * (d) User transceivers in the NVNG, and 1.6/2.4 and 2 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service need not be individually licensed. Service vendors may file blanket applications for transceivers units using FCC Form 312, Main Form and Schedule B, and specifying the number of units to be covered by the blanket license. Each application for a blanket license under this section shall include the information described in Sec. 25.135 6. * * * * * Sec. 25.133 Period of construction; certification of commencement of operation. * * * * * (b) Each license for a transmitting earth station included in this part shall also specify as a condition therein that upon the completion of construction, each licensee must file with the Commission a certification containing the following information: The name of the licensee; file number of the application; call sign of the antenna; date of the license; a certification that the facility as authorized has been completed and that each antenna facility has been tested and is within 2 dB of the pattern specified in Sec. 25.209, Sec. 25.135 (NVNG MSS earth stations), or Sec. 25.213 (1.6/2.4 and 2 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service earth stations); the date on which the station became operational; and a statement that the station will remain operational during the license period unless the license is submitted for cancellation. For stations authorized under Sec. 25.115(c) of this part (Large Networks of Small Antennas operating in the 12/14 GHz bands) and Sec. 25.115(d) of this part (User Transceivers in the Mobile-Satellite Service), a certificate must be filed when the network is put into operation. * * * * * Sec. 25.136 Operating provisions for earth station networks in the 1.6/2.4 and 2 GHz mobile-satellite service. In addition to the technical requirements specified in Sec. 25.213, earth stations operating in the 1.6/2.4 or 2 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service are subject to the following operating conditions: (a) User transceiver units associated with the 1.6/2.4 or 2 Mobile-Satellite service may not be operated on civil aircraft unless the earth station has a direct physical connection to the aircraft Cabin Communication system. (b) User transceiver units in this service are authorized to communicate with and through U.S. authorized space stations only. No person shall transmit to a space station unless the user transceiver is first authorized by the space station licensee operator or by a service vendor authorized by that licensee operator, and the specific transmission is conducted in accordance with the operating protocol specified by the system operator. (c) Any user transceiver unit associated with this service will be deemed, when communicating with a particular 1.6/2.4 or 2 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service system pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, to be temporarily associated with and licensed to the system operator or service vendor holding the blanket earth station license awarded pursuant to Section 25.115(d). The domestic earth station licensee shall, for this temporary period, assume the same licensee responsibility for the user transceiver as if the user transceiver were regularly licensed to it. * * * * * Sec. 25.137 Application requirements for earth stations operating with non-U.S. licensed space stations. (d) Earth station applicants requesting authority to operate with a non-U.S. licensed space station must demonstrate that the space station the applicant seeks to access has complied with all applicable Commission milestones, reporting requirements, and any other applicable service rules required for non- U.S. licensed systems to operate in the United States. * * * * * Sec. 25.143 Licensing provisions for the 1.6/2.4 and 2 GHz mobile-satellite service. (a) System License: Applicants authorized to construct and launch a system of technically identical non-geostationary satellite orbit satellites will be awarded a single "blanket" license. In the case of non- geostationary satellites, the blanket license will covering a specified number of space stations to operate in a specified number of orbital planes. In the case of geostationary satellites, as part of a geostationary-only satellite system or a geostationary/non-geostationary hybrid satellite system, an individual license will be issued for each satellite to be located at a geostationary orbital location. (b) Qualification Requirements. (1) General Requirements: Each application for a space station system authorization in the 1.6/2.4 or 2 GHz mobile-satellite service shall describe in detail the proposed satellite system, setting forth all pertinent technical and operational aspects of the system, and the technical, legal, and financial qualifications of the applicant. In particular, each application shall include the information specified in Sec. 25.114. Non-U.S. licensed systems shall comply with the provisions of Sec. 25.137. (2) Technical Qualifications: In addition to providing the information specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, each applicant and letter of intent filer shall demonstrate the following: (i) That the a proposed system in the 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS frequency bands employs a non-geostationary constellation or constellations of satellites; (ii) That the a system proposed to operate using non-geostationary satellites system be capable of providing mobile satellite services to all locations as far north as 70 deg. North latitude and as far south as 55 deg. South latitude for at least 75% of every 24-hour period, i.e., that at least one satellite will be visible above the horizon at an elevation angle of at least 5 deg. for at least 18 hours each day within the described geographic area; (iii) That the a system proposed to operate using non-geostationary satellites be is capable of providing mobile satellite services on a continuous basis throughout the fifty states, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, U.S., i.e., that at least one satellite will be visible above the horizon at an elevation angle of at least 5 deg. at all times within the described geographic areas; and (iv) That a system only using geostationary orbit satellites, at a minimum, be capable of providing mobile satellite services on a continuous basis throughout the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, if technically feasible. (iv) That operations will not cause unacceptable interference to other authorized users of the spectrum. In particular, each application in the 1.6/2.4 GHz frequency bands shall demonstrate that the space station(s) comply with the requirements specified in Sec. 25.213. * * * (e) Reporting requirements. (1) All operators of 1.6/2.4 and 2 GHz mobile-satellite systems shall, on June 30 October 15 of each year, file with the International Bureau and the Commission's Columbia Operations Center, Columbia, Maryland, a report containing the following information current as of May 31st September 30 of that year: * * * (2) The Commission will issue a Public Notice establishing the milestone commencement date for all 2 GHz MSS operators. All operators of 1.6/2.4 and 2 GHz mobile-satellite systems shall, within 10 days after a required implementation milestone as specified in the system authorization, certify to the Commission by affidavit that the milestone has been met or notify the Commission by letter that it has not been met. At its discretion, the Commission may require the submission of additional information (supported by affidavit of a person or persons with knowledge thereof) to demonstrate that the milestone has been met. (f) Safety and distress communications. (1) Stations operating in the 1.6/2.4 and 2 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service that are voluntarily installed on a U.S. ship or are used to comply with any statute or regulatory equipment carriage requirements may also be subject to the requirements of sections 321(b) and 359 of the Communications Act of 1934. Licensees are advised that these provisions give priority to radio communications or signals relating to ships in distress and prohibits a charge for the transmission of maritime distress calls and related traffic. * * * (h) Prohibition of certain agreements. No license shall be granted to any applicant for a space station or earth station in the mobile satellite service operating at 1610-1626.5/2483.5-2500 or 1990-2025/2165-2200 MHz if that applicant, or any persons or companies controlling or controlled by the applicant, shall acquire or enjoy any right, for the purpose of handling traffic to or from the United States, its territories or possessions, to construct or operate space segment or earth stations, or to interchange traffic, which is denied to any other United States company by reason of any concession, contract, understanding, or working arrangement to which the Licensee or any persons or companies controlling or controlled by the Licensee are parties. * * * * * Sec. 25.201 Definitions. Mobile-Satellite Service. A radiocommunication service: (1) Between mobile earth stations and one or more space stations, or between space stations used by this service; or (2) Between mobile earth stations, by means of one or more space stations. This service may also include feeder links necessary for its operation. (RR) 1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service. A mobile-satellite service that operates in the 1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz frequency bands, or in any portion thereof. 2 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service. A mobile-satellite service that operates in the 1990-2025, MHz and 2165- 2200 MHz frequency bands, or in any portion thereof. * * * * * Sec. 25.202 Frequencies, frequency tolerance and emission limitations. (a)(1) * * * 2 Use of this band by the fixed-satellite service, except geostationary MSS feeder links, is limited to international systems, i.e., other than domestic systems. * * * (4) The following frequencies are available for use by the 1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service: 1610-1626.5 MHz: User-to-Satellite Link 1613.8-1626.5 MHz: Satellite-to-User Link (secondary) 2483.5-2500 MHz: Satellite-to-User Link (5) The following frequencies are available for use by the 2 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service: 1990-2025 MHz: User-to-Satellite Link 2165-2200 MHz: Satellite-to-User Link (65) The following frequencies are available for use by the inter-satellite service: 22.55-23.00 GHz 23.00-23.55 GHz 24.45-24.65 GHz 24.65-24.75 GHz * * * * * Sec. 25.203 Choice of sites and frequencies. * * * * * (c) Prior to the filing of his an application, an earth station applicant shall coordinate the proposed frequency usage with existing terrestrial users and with applicants for terrestrial station authorizations with previously filed applications in accordance with the following procedure: * * * * * 5. A new section 25.216 is added and reads as follows: Section 25.216 Limits on Out-of-band Emissions from Terminals Operating in the 1610-1660.5 MHz and 1990-2025 MHz Bands for Protection of Aeronautical Satellite Radionavigation (a) Limits on Emissions Below 1605 MHz. (1) The e.i.r.p. density of emissions from mobile earth terminals placed in service prior to January 1, 2002 with assigned frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1660.5 MHz shall not exceed -70 dBW/MHz, averaged over any 20 ms interval, in the band 1559-1580.42 MHz. The e.i.r.p. of discrete spurious emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth generated by such terminals shall not exceed -80 dBW, averaged over 20 ms, in the band 1559-1585.42 MHz. (2) The e.i.r.p. density of emissions from mobile earth terminals placed in service prior to January 1, 2002 with assigned frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1626.5 MHz shall not exceed -64 dBW/MHz, averaged over 20 ms, in the band 1580.42-1605 MHz. The e.i.r.p. of discrete spurious emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth generated by such terminals shall not exceed -74 dBW, averaged over 20 ms, in the band 1585.42-1605 MHz. (3) The e.i.r.p. density of emissions from mobile earth terminals placed in service after January 1, 2002 with assigned frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1660.5 MHz shall not exceed -70 dBW/MHz, averaged over 20 ms, in the 1559-1605 MHz band. The e.i.r.p. of spurious emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such terminals shall not exceed -80 dBW, averaged over 20 ms, in the 1559-1605 MHz band. (4) As of January 1, 2005 and from then on, the e.i.r.p. density of emissions from mobile Earth terminals placed in service prior to January 1, 2002 with assigned frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1660.5 MHz shall not exceed -70 dBW/MHz, averaged over 20 ms, in the 1559-1605 MHz band, and the e.i.r.p. of spurious emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such terminals shall not exceed -80 dBW, averaged over 20 ms, in that band. (5) The e.i.r.p. density of emissions from mobile earth terminals with assigned frequencies between 1990 MHz and 2025 MHz shall not exceed -70 dBW/MHz, averaged over 20 ms, in the 1559-1605 MHz band, and the e.i.r.p. of spurious emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such terminals shall not exceed -80 dBW, averaged over 20 ms, in that band. (b) Emissions Above 1605 MHz. Until the GLONASS operating band shifts to frequencies below 1605 MHz, harmful interference with reception of aeronautical radionavigation transmission on frequencies above 1605 MHz from mobile Earth terminals with assigned transmission frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1660.5 MHz or between 1990 MHz and 2025 MHz will be resolved on a case-by-case basis.