WPCQ 2 BJZ`Courier3|a2U?bx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\l%X@Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicCourierTimes New Roman Bold ItalicTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicCourierTimes New Roman Bold ItalicCG TimesCG Times Bold#XP7  PT6QXP#ъ2= KNi K( CourierCG Times"i~'^5Fg\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyyyyF\yrrygryyrr>3>g\>\\Q\Q>\g33\3g\\\FF3gQy\QF>(>g>0gg>>>0>>>>>>\>\3y\y\y\y\y\yQyQyQyQyQF3F3F3F3g\\\\ggggrQy\\\\rQ\r\y\y\y\yQyQygyQyQyQyQyQ\\\g\ggF3F\F>F\gggy\r3r_r>rFr3ggg\\yFyFyFgFgFgFggrcr3rgggggggyrgrFrFrF\r>ggFr>r\0\\=3=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB\\F\\\\\\07\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBigg>\\7"yyyy\nyc\gnn\唔0S88xfxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffffz88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ8x_lpKf&ZK__bbxx\p::K/2ZNZNKKKKKK0C99NN--KFFF]7DXHH5C<<:9AHIII_WNZMMMSKZW?UiLXX2 ZKFD3|a2HP LaserJet 4HPLAS4.PRS 4X\  P6G;\l%P"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\ y_0 I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&a\  P6G;r&P#"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\25footnote referencefootnote reference4#XP\  P6QXP#heading 1heading 1P  #XP\  P6QXP#heading 2heading 2S9  #XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2 v.{vp footnote textfootnote text Body TextBody Text  X` hp x (#4 <DL!T$4 <DL!T$X` hp x (#a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . 2" k k,! ! v<"a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style <o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style Style yXX` ` (#` 2<% t"X##$BibliogrphyBibliography :X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersC @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style StyleB b  ?  1.  2V(n%&&'a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersL! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersUj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# 2,(X)1*1+a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  2.3,,A--a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2<1.n/00 0a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style (D a) . 27!3n1"2#6$.7Doc InitInitialize Document Style!z   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper"E!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:heading 3heading 3%'   X` hp x (#4DL!#XP\  P6QXP# #C\  P6QP#4DL!X` hp x (#heading 4heading 4&X` hp x (#4 <DL!#XP\  P6QXP#heading 5heading 5' X` hp x (#4 <DL!#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#4 <DL!X` hp x (#heading 6heading 6(C9#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2F)f?*vA+^D,BEheading 7heading 7)X` hp x (#4 <DL!#XP\  P6QXP#  #C\  P6QP#4 <DL!X` hp x (#heading 8heading 8* X` hp x (#4 <DL!#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#4 <DL!X` hp x (#heading 9heading 9+S9  #XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Body Text Indent 2Body Text Indent 2,;1#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2K-8F.VH/@I0gZJfooterfooter-X` hp x (#! ! X` hp x (#endnote textendnote text.;1#Xv6X@CX@##C\  P6QP#headerheader/X` hp x (#! Body Text 2Body Text 20X` hp x (#,4 <DL!#XP\  P6QXP#2O1K2L3hM4NDocument MapDocument Map1;1#I2PQP##C\  P6QP#footnote texV6footnote text ]=&=(=0*=.?SoDE2Y#Xv6X@CX@#footnote refV6footnote reference=8o0*=.?SoDE3R#Xv6X@CX@#Default ParaV6Default Paragraph Font8o0*=.?SoDE4OO#Xv6X@CX@##b6X@C@#2DW5:O6Z6P7ZR8ZTendnote refeV6endnote reference=8o 0*=.?SoDE5R R #Xv6X@CX@##b6X@C@#toc 1o V6toc 1 ]= =(=8o 0*=.?SoDE6 (#`X` hp x (#toc 2o V6toc 2 ]= =(=8o 0*=.?SoDE7 ` (#X` hp x (#toc 3o V6toc 3 ]= =(=8o 0*=.?SoDE8` (#`X` hp x (#26_9ZvW:ZY;Z*\<^toc 4o V6toc 4 ]= =(=8o 0*=.?SoDE9 (#`X` hp x (#toc 5oV6toc 5 ]= =(=8o0*=.?SoDE:h(#`X` hp x (#toc 6oV6toc 6 ]= =(=8o0*=.?SoDE;(# X` hp x (#toc 7oV6toc 7 ]= =(=8o0*=.?SoDE<2(2h=Zh_>Za?Zd@Zvftoc 8oV6toc 8 ]= =(=8o0*=.?SoDE=(# X` hp x (#toc 9oV6toc 9 ]= =(=8o0*=.?SoDE>(#`X` hp x (#index 1oV6index 1 ]= =(=8o0*=.?SoDE?` (#X` hp x (#index 2oV6index 2 ]= =(=8o0*=.?SoDE@ ` (#X` hp x (#2oAZiB\kC\lDlRmtoa headingV6toa heading= =(=8o0*=.?SoDEA!"(#X` hp x (#captionoV6caption ]= =(=8o0*=.?SoDEBY#O$#Xv6X@ CX@##b6X@ C@#_Equation CaV6_Equation Caption=8o0*=.?SoDECO%O&#Xv6X@ CX@##b6X@ C@#Annex 2Annex 2DX` hp x (#4 <DL!#XX2PQXP##C\  P6QP#4 <DL!X` hp x (#2nrEoFpGqHqa190Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersE8@   a290Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersFA@` `  ` ` ` a390Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersGJ@  ` `  a490Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersHS@  2uIrJVsKtLta590Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI\  @hh# hhh a690Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJe  @( hh# a790Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersKn @- ( a890Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersLw@pp2 -ppp 2wMuNq`vOqvPqBwa1AgendaAgenda ItemsM%*  a2AgendaAgenda ItemsNa3AgendaAgenda ItemsOa4AgendaAgenda ItemsP2yQqwRqVxSqxTq8ya5AgendaAgenda ItemsQa6AgendaAgenda ItemsRa7AgendaAgenda ItemsSa8AgendaAgenda ItemsT 2|U}yVXzWzXs{a1Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)U$!" a2Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)V/#$ a3Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)W:%& a4Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)XE'( 2)YC|Z|[}\_~a5Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)YP)* a6Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Z[+, a7Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)[f-. a8Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)\q/0 2][^_`a189Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers]812@   a289Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers^A34@` `  ` ` ` a389Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_:56 a489Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers`E78 2фabcHda589Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersaP9: a689Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersb[;< a789Right-Aligned Paragraph Numberscf=> a889Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersdq?@ 2TedfggbhXBld/UndBold and Underline Texteab  87Format Downloaded Documentfcd XX #P#  #X\  PG;P# \ #d6X@7@#86_Equation CaptiongOeOf#XX2PQXP##I2PQP#85endnote referencehRgRh#Xj\  PG;XP##X\  PG;P#2bijZklx84footnote texti>i4j ??US83Default Paragraph Fontj(k(l82footnote referencekRmn>#V\  PUP##V\  PUP#81lo'p4 <DL!T$#&a\  PG;&P##&a\  PG;&P#4 <DL!T$2mnopN80Technical Document Stylem&qr  . 79Technical Document Stylen&st  . 78Technical Document Styleo4u$v     77Technical Document Stylep&wx   2OqrsEtʑ76Technical Document Styleq'yz   75Technical Document Styler*{|    74Technical Document Styles&}~  . 73Technical Document Stylet&  . 2uv;w xԔ72Document StyleuF *  ׃  71Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersvw@pp2 -ppp 70Right-Aligned Paragraph Numberswn@- ( 69Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersxe@( hh# 2ayŕz{{(|̗68Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersy\@hh# hhh 67Right-Aligned Paragraph NumberszS@  66Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers{J@  ` `  65Document Style|0    2Ú}~.p064Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers}A@` `  ` ` ` 63Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers~8@   62Document Style` ` ` 61Document Style*   2eeZqp060Document Style  59Document Style  58Document Style  . 57Document Style` ` ` 2VҜF56Default Paragraph Font#X}xP7XP##&sxP7&P#55_Equation Captionww#X}xP7XP##I2P QP#Article headHeadline for new article*'#r"z!C# #\9> (P"YP# Graphics bodchart data ** #Alo> P}#YXP##\9> (P$YP# 2&4ڢGraphics heaHeadlines for graphics** #o> P}%YP##\9> (P&YP# 2nd line Hea2nd line headline''#b> }'Y##\9> (P(YP#HeadlineHeadline for newsletter''#> })Y##\9> (P*YP#HighlightMiddle Article Highlight''#G }+Y##\9> (P,YP#2FXL$ҧline numberline numberww#Xj\  P-G;XP##X\  P.G;P#54endnote referencezz#Xj\  P/G;XP##X\  P0G;P#listlistf*????53footnote textf\ ??US2)( 0x52Default Paragraph FontPP51footnote referencez>#V\  P1UP##V\  P2UP#enumlev1$ p  N hp x (#aa#&a\  P3G;&P#4` hp x (##&a\  P4G;&P#NORMAL INDEN'4 <DL!T$#&a\  P5G;&P##&a\  P6G;&P#4 <DL!T$2[Word222NullWord222Null11#/x ?PX##/x @PX#50Format Downloaded Document XX #PA#  #X\  PBG;P# \\ #d6X@C7@#49Technical Document Style&  . 48Technical Document Style&  . 2L%47Technical Document Style4$     46Technical Document Style&   45Technical Document Style'   44Technical Document Style*    2x43Technical Document Style&  . 42Technical Document Style&  . 41Document StyleF *  ׃  40Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw@pp2 -ppp 2A39Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn@- ( 38Right-Aligned Paragraph Numberse@( hh# 37Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers\@hh# hhh 36Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersS@  2<ֻz35Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJ@  ` `  34Document Style0    33Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersA@` `  ` ` ` 32Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8@   2;pn޾eqeֿ31Document Style` ` ` 30Document Style*   29Document Style  28Document Style  2rqmpNB027Document Style  . 26Document Style` ` ` 25footnote textE; #Xv6X@FCX@##X\  PGG;P#Technical 8Technical 8'( X` hp x (# ` hp x (#2(BBfTechnical 7Technical 7)* X` hp x (# ` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1+,Technical 4Technical 4-. X` hp x (# ` hp x (#Technical 3Technical 3/02ZBBF^Technical 2Technical 212Technical 6Technical 634 X` hp x (# ` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 556 X` hp x (# ` hp x (#Document 1Document 178 X` hp x (#` hp x (#2<<<N<Right Par 8Right Par 89: X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 7Right Par 7;< X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 6=> X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 5Right Par 5?@ X` hp x (#` hp x (#2,<<4p<Right Par 4Right Par 4AB X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 3Right Par 3CD X` P hp x (#` hp x (#Document 3Document 3EFRight Par 2Right Par 2GH X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2<^Right Par 1Right Par 1IJ X` hp x (#` hp x (#Document 7Document 7KLDocument 2Document 2MNDocument 5Document 5OP2-LXU Document 6Document 6QRDocument 4Document 4ST  Document 8Document 8UVUpdateInitial Codes for Update ModuleYZ#)a [ PHQXP# dn  \#  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ PIQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiJQXX#` "Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   #)a [ PKQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiLQXX#Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   v#)a [ PMQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiNQXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988` APage  v#)a [ POQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiPQXX#   Page `1 &Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2 D _F F / Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediate[\#)a [ PQQXP# dn  ## b, oT9 Њ [ #)a [ PRQXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XiSQXX#`e %Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ PTQXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XiUQXX#Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ PVQXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XiWQXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.` APage  #)a [ PXQXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XiYQXX#   Page `1 &Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8Initial Codes for Beginning]^#)a [ PZQXP# dn  ## b, oT9  [ #)a [ P[QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi\QXX#`) &Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P]QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi^QXX#Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P_QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi`QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988` APage  #)a [ PaQXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XibQXX#   Page `1 &Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 10Initial Codes for Advanced_`#)a [ PcQXP# dn  ##  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ PdQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XieQXX#`M 'Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ PfQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XigQXX#Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   v#)a [ PhQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiiQXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988` APage  v#)a [ PjQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XikQXX#   Page `1 &Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point'a'b#w [ PlQP##)a [ PmQXP#2aSStyle 7Swiss 11.5'c'd#)ao> PnQXP##)a [ PoQXP#Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Point'e'f#T~> ppQp##)a [ PqQXP#Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5'gh#)^ `> XirQXX#Style 1Dutch Roman 11.5 Font7ij#)a [ PsQXP# dn 2s2 ]Style 4Swiss 8 Point with MarginsGkl#Co> PtQP# dd  #  Style 3Dutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabsmn#)a [ PuQXP# n   # b, oT9 !Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced II` op#)a [ PvQXP# dn  ##  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ PwQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XixQXX#` %Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   #)a [ PyQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XizQXX#Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   v#)a [ P{QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi|QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988` APage  wv I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ P}QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi~QXX#   Page `1 &Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 wStyle 12Dutch Italics 11.5'q'r#)^ `> XiQXX##)a [ PQXP#2V 5[[Style 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins's't#Co> PQP##)a [ PQXP#ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Headermuv V,  #  , 8'   ' `   VERY LARGEVery Large TypestylewxEXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyleyz2o$[ [ [>!!LARGELarge Typestyle{|FINEFine Typestyle}~SMALLSmall TypestyleINVOICE HEADHeading Portion of Math Invoice=3   X 9 XX  *$  ӧ   XX  XX  *$2s)<$<%'I*(INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro Xp, $0INVOICE EXPExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice p,p, $0MEMORANDUMMemo Page Format߹  D* M E M O R A N D U M ă y<dddy INVOICE FEEFee Amount for Math Invoice p,, $0  2-)j8,d,-LETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins!  X  3'   * 3' II Ѓ    X HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored  HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented 2P2n-c'.c/c0TITLETitle of a Document* ăLEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14  A' II   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11  3' II   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5  'A II   226c23gg4d5LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5  '3 II   DRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off*  DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date X 8 I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)`$ .DDRAFTă `<.@ 3 1, 4   HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Bold 2=d667+8SubheadingSubheading.   Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers<@    HeadingChapter Heading3  *  ׃  GHZGHz TABLE OF FREQ ALLOS  ` `   INTERNATIONAL!FF". ||0,,79?kk@ UNITED STATES   Region 1` ` | Region 2!|FF"Region 3.||0Band,,7|9National?|kk@Government$$M|%%ONonGovernment**[|t+t+\Remarks GHz` ` | GHz!|FF"GHz.||0GHz,,7|9Provisions?|kk@Allocation$$M|%%OAllocation**[| ` ` | !|FF".||01,,7|92?|kk@3$$M|%%O4**[|t+t+\5   2LD=!EJKtablesTables of Frequency Allocations ,    '3 II #H|@E@#` F,k$%*D+  ` `   INTERNATIONAL !FF".||0,,79?kk@ UNITED STATES   Region 1` ` | Region 2!|FF"Region 3.||0 Band,,7|9National?|kk@Government$$M|%%ONonGovernment**[|D+D+\Remarks kHz` ` | kHz!|FF"kHz.||0 kHz,,7|9Provisions?|kk@Allocation$$M|%%OAllocation**[| ` ` | !|FF".||0 1,,7|92?|kk@3$$M|%%O4**[|D+D+\5   ` F,k$%*t+mhztable of allo (mhz)  ` `   INTERNATIONAL!FF". ||0,,79?kk@ UNITED STATES   Region 1` ` | Region 2!|FF"Region 3.||0Band,,7|9National?|kk@Government$$M|%%ONonGovernment**[|t+t+\Remarks MHz` ` | MHz!|FF"MHz.||0MHz,,7|9Provisions?|kk@Allocation$$M|%%OAllocation**[| ` ` | !|FF".||01,,7|92?|kk@3$$M|%%O4**[|t+t+\5   Format DownlFormat Downloaded Document XX #P#  #X\  PG;P# \ #d6X@7@#CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileQ#d6X@7@# XX  \X  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#d6X@7@# XX *  2RhLDOQoRheader2 `    #FxX  PCXP# `   #FxX  PCXP#itemize*  XF r#FxX  PCXP# FF r#FxX  PCXP#reference;'#FxX  PCXP##FxX  PCXP#Footnote..2zU,SS6TT24Technical Document Style&  . 23Technical Document Style&  . 22Technical Document Style4$     21Technical Document Style&   2s[UAVKVK(Y20Technical Document Style'   19Technical Document Style*    "i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN3\\\\=\f\\\r3rIs\s3s3\m\\\\y>y>z\gFbGgFb\rMr3s\\\\\\\\rQwQrQ\s\\b\s\\t=\\===WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\\\=QKK\\\\\\@\\\\@==__\00\\pp\\\mff=_\@"\_\壣4\==p=\\f\z\=\Q\iwUzpNmń\QQ====ńpsfpfzQsGwQ\Q=3QzffQz\Qpi\p\\sQQzpfppps=\pQpppp==\\\\\\\p=i\Q=xiw{Sp*cSiille{@@S37cVcVSSSSSS5I>>VV22SMMMg=KaOO;IBB@>HOQQQi_VcTTT\Sc_F^tBVBQQQQ(BXQ3__QQQ00QQQQQV(QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ^^^^ZZZZZZZZZZrrHHQQQQQQXXQQFFFF__QQOOOOQQII_IFFFF*!9FQQ2 m`]sx?~"i~'K2^6=U\\===\====\\\\\\\\\\==\zzpGXzpfzz===\\=\fQfQ@\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\Q\\\\=\\\\\=\\\\\\\\f3\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\g\\\\pf\\\QQ\\yQz\z\yQ\\\\\ffF3\f\\Gfi\\fy3ySz\zGz3ggf\\ψQQ\gFfGgFf\y^y>z\fgffgf\yQzQyQfz\ff\z\\=\\===WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\\\=\NN\\\\\\@\\\\@==ii\00\\pp\\\sff=i\@"\i\壣4\==p=\\f\z\=\Q\i~XzpNmń\\\====ńpzfpfzQzGzQQQG3QzffQz\Qpp\p\\zQQzpfpppzG\pQpppp==\\\\\\\p=p\Q=xiw{Sp*cSiille{@@S37cVcVSSSSSS5I>>VV22SMMMg=KaOO;IBB@>HOQQQi_VcTTT\Sc_F^tBVBQQQQ(BXQ3__QQQ00QQQQQV(QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ^^^^ZZZZZZZZZZrrHHQQQQQQXXQQFFFF__QQOOOOQQII_IFFFF*!9FQQ y.X80,QwX\  P6G;P 2a=5,r&a\  P6G;&P 2e=5,d[&e4  pG;& 0_=5,%]&_*f9 xr G;&X P:% ,J:\  P6G;JP H5!,x,5\  P6G;,P {,W80,%~UW*f9 xr G;X y.\80,G\4  pG;l?xxx,<2x6X@`7X@Z 1a=5,D\&a9 xOG;& 7jC:,Xj\  P6G;XP  7nC:,4Xn4  pG;X63n=6,`b&n PE37&P t2p=6,iL&p_ pi7&68xC;,`Xx PE37XPt7zC;,ic!Xz_ pi7X"i~'K2^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYdCdddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXdd~|X~d~d|XdddddddD8ddddCdoddd|8|P~d~8~8dvddddDDdpLkNpLkd|T|8~dddddddd|XY|Xd~ddkd~dd~CddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"Ȑdhd岲9dCCȐzȲCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCŐz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYCxrZz.lZrrvvnFFZ8LXX"i~'K2^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲdzN`zoȐCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYddddCdddddCddddddddo8dddddϐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddzodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8ZdN8ppodd┐XXdpLoNpLodfDdopoopoȐdXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"Ȑdsd岲9dCCȐzȲCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUvŐdȐddCCCCŐzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYCxrZz.lZrrvvnFFZ8LXX2ۚu׏Y"i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx8A777<6A>.=L+8+5555+:5">>5555555585555555555555555555555555555555====;;;;;;;;;;JJ//555555::55....>>5544445500>0....%.55"i~'K2^6=X\\===\====\\\\\\\\\\==\ppzpi=Qzfzpp\fppff===\\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGQ\Q\=\\\\\=\\\\\\\\\3p\p\p\p\p\zzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fQp\\\\fQ\p\r\p\r\yQyQz\z\nrQp\p\rQ\\\\\\\>3\\\\=\\\\z\g3gBf\f3f3y\py\z\\\zrFrFp\\F\G\F\\gBg3f\\\\\\\zf\gFfGgF\f\z\\\f\f\n=\\===WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\\\=\UU\\\\\\@\\\\@==\\\33\\pp\\\b\\=\\@"\[\壣4\==p=\p\f\z\=\Q\iwUzpNmń\QQ====pppfpfzQpGfQ\Q=3zQzffzQz\Qpp\p\\fQfQzppfppppp=\ffpQpppp==\\\\p\\\fffp=i\Q=xiw{Sp*cSiille{@@S37cVcVSSSSSS5I>>VV22SMMMg=KaOO;IBB@>HOQQQi_VcTTT\Sc_F^tBVBQQQQ(BXQ3__QQQ00QQQQQV(QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ^^^^ZZZZZZZZZZrrHHQQQQQQXXQQFFFF__QQOOOOQQII_IFFFF*!9FQQ PE37hPtW!I($,i`DhI_ pi7h6OB%!,`JB PE37JP"i~'K2^$(8<8A777<6A>.=L+8+5555+:5">>5555555585555555555555555555555555555555====;;;;;;;;;;JJ//555555::55....>>5544445500>0....%.55"i~'K2^!%377bV%%%7b%%%%7777777777%%nbn1bOEKQEAOQ%+MEdQO?OI;EQOhOOG%%%77%17171%777V7777)+77O771171n7%77777%777777777O1O1O1O1O1bIK1E1E1E1E1%%%%Q7O7O7O7O7Q7Q7Q7Q7O7O1Q7O7O7O7Q7?7O0O7O0I0I0K7K7OED0E7E7D0O7O7O7O7O7Q7Q7%7777%7P=77M7DD,E7EEO7AO7Q7O7O7bOI%I%I7>*;+>*;7D.DE7Q7O7Q7Q7O7Q7hOO7D0G1D0Q7E7Q7;7E7O7E%77%%%WnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNOOO777%1--77a777bb7'7777b'%%997bnn77CCTn7n7O7A\\==b%97h'"nnnnOOnnn7Onn9OObbnnn7bbnnnb7%%nnnnnOCnbOOOOOOOOOO%n7O7=7bnOnI7%7O17?OVGnnOOOOOOOOOOnnnnn3nOOOOnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnOOnnnnnn\ICVnOnnn/AOOOOnnnnnnOOO7OOnOOnnnOOO1OOOO1OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO%OOO%OOO%OOO%OOOOOOOOOOOOOOCE=C=I1E+G1Q7O1%M1I=d=Q1I7O1OC?7C77E1O1ICO=VCCCOEQ%7OOOC1CCCCQ%%7777OQ777OOOC%?71%x?HJ2C;2??AAOO=J''2!;4;4222222 ,%%442...>$-://#,(('%+/000?94;33372;9*8E(4(0000(5099000000004000000000000000000000000000000088886666666666DD++0000005500****9900////00,,9,****"*002 d  ղ"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJS8SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxInInIrSrSxigIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S9.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/gCiSi.i.xScxS{SxSxSxn9n9oS]?YA]?YSgFg/iS{SxS{S{SxS{SxxSgIlJgI{SiS{SYSiSxSi8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxWxxS唔0S88xfxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffffz88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ8x_lpKf&ZK__bbxx\p::K/2ZNZNKKKKKK0C99NN--KFFF]7DXHH5C<<:9AHIII_WNZMMMSKZW?Uigz {O ԍqSee Boeing 2 GHz MSS Application at 2.] AMS(R)S is a radio communication service linking  0aircraft earth stations via satellite to ground stations or other aircraft stations, reserved for communications  S0 pertaining to safety and regularity of flight along civil air routes.N?Zz {O ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  2.1.N In response to the 2 GHz MSS PN,  @several parties filed comments concerning Boeing's proposal, arguing that there are no specific  S0 international or national frequency allocations for AMS(R)S in the 2 GHz MSS bands.@Zz {O(   ԍqSee, e.g., Consolidated Comments and Petition to Deny of Iridium at 9 (filed May 5, 1998); Comments of  @Aeronautical Radio, Inc. at 45 (filed May 4, 1998); Comments of Celsat at 7 (filed May 4, 1998); Comments of Constellation at 20 (filed May 4, 1998); Consolidated Comments of ICO at 1718 (filed May 4, 1998). Conversely,  pBoeing contends that the Commission's rules and ITU regulations permit the provision of AMS(R)S in  S60 PMSS spectrum.wA6z {O ԍqSee Consolidated Opposition of Boeing at 9 (filed June 3, 1998).w Boeing asserts that domestic and international rules define AMS(R)S as a type of Aeronautical MobileSatellite Service (AMSS) and that AMSS is a subcategory of MSS.  S 0  q21. 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,  pthe domestic and international 2GHz MSS allocations do not include any regulatory provisions for  @AMS(R)S, especially for intranetwork 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 intranetwork 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 worldwide 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  Psystems 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 aircrafttosatellite AMS(R)S transmissions and do not  S0include the 19902025/21652200 MHz bands.Bz {O ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  87.187(q) and  2.106 U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations.  Sm0  `q22. 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 19902200/21652200 MHz  Pbands. 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"; 2 B,l(l(<<"  and should provide for Boeing's operations in the proposed band arrangement for use of the 2GHz MSS  S0frequencies in the United States.YCz {O5 ԍqSee Section III.A.4., infra.Y  Sg q` ` b. Financial Qualifications  S0   q23. Historically, the Commission has adopted financial qualification requirements for satellite  S0 services.tDZz {O ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  25.140(c), 25.142(a)(4), 25.143(b)(3).t This policy is designed to make efficient use of spectrum by preventing underfinanced  papplicants from depriving another fully capitalized applicant of the opportunity to provide service to the  Sh0 @public.Ehz yO   ԍqThis consideration stems from repeated experiences that underfinanced applicants have significant difficulty  `in the capital markets in raising the funds needed to construct and launch a satellite system even with a license in  {O  hand. See, e.g., National Exchange Satellite, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 1990 (Com. Car. Bur. 1992); Rainbow Satellite Inc.,  {ON   Mimeo No. 2584 (Com. Car. Bur., rel. February 14, 1985); United States Satellite Systems, Inc., Mimeo No. 2583  (Com. Car. Bur., rel. February 14, 1985) (domestic satellite licenses declared null and void for failure to begin implementation as required by license). Where more applicants have applied for spectrum than is available to accommodate reasonably  S50 0each proposed system, we have invoked strict financial qualifications.F5h z {O= ԍqSee, e.g., Big LEO Report & Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 594850  2630 & n.38. Alternatively, in cases where we  0can 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  S 0by requiring implementation milestones.RG z {O6 ԍqId. at 5948  26 & n.37.R  S6 0  `q24. We believe that the 2 GHz MSS allocation can accommodate reasonably all nine of the  0proposed 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.  S80  Pq25. If, in the process of this rulemaking, we determine that all proposed systems cannot be  0accommodated, 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 Sl0 satellite service.Hl z {O$   `ԍqId. at 594950  2830 (citing Licensing Space Stations in the DomesticFixed Satellite Service, CC Docket No. 85135, Report and Order, 50 Fed. Reg. 36071 (September 5, 1985)). 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  Pcover construction, launch, and first year operating costs of its entire system. We seek comment on this"H,l(l(<<"  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  0of service to the public. For example, should we require only a demonstration of partial financing  0adequate 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  S0 expenses? Iz {Oi   ԍqBut see id. at 5951  54 (a system that relies too heavily on operating income from its first satellites for its completion could easily become stalled before it is able to provide service that meets our requirements).  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.  S5  q4. Processing Alternatives  S0  q26. The issues before us are unique and highly complex. We recognize that there is not enough  spectrum in the 19902025/21652200 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  pexperience in the Big LEO proceeding, we tentatively conclude that there is sufficient spectrum in the  S 0  2GHz MSS allocation to accommodate reasonably all nine 2GHz MSS system proposals.TJX "z yO   ԍqFor example, given the 70 MHz of total spectrum available, we could assign to each of the nine system  proponents approximately 7.7 MHz (3.88 MHz in each direction), an amount that exceeds the amount of spectrum licensed on average to existing Big LEO systems.T To that end,  we seek comment on four distinct spectrum assignment options: (1) the Flexible Band Arrangement;  p(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.  S0  q27. First, we believe that it is most efficient to assign the MSS service link spectrum in multiples  Pof 1.25 MHz. Our experience, based on filings in the Big LEO processing round, is that 1.25 MHz  S0 spectrum segmentation, or bandwidth in multiples of 1.25MHz segments, is a common industry practice.mKBz {O ԍqSee Big LEO Report & Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 5959  53.m  In addition, 1.25 MHz channel bandwidth is a common denominator for several 2GHz MSS system  S80proposals.+LZ8z {O   @ԍqSee ICO 2 GHz MSS LOI at 15; MCHI 2 GHz MSS Application at 22; Globalstar 2 GHz MSS Application   at 12; Iridium 2 GHz MSS Application at A5; TMI 2 GHz MSS LOI at Sect 5; Celsat 2 GHz MSS Application at AP43SA1.+ We therefore seek comment on this proposed channelization.  S0  q28. Second, given that portions of the 2 GHz MSS spectrum allocation are not uniformly  S0 `available throughout the world,bM z {O5" ԍqSee supra footnote 9 and accompanying text.b certain options propose to group GSO systems primarily in that portion  Sl0 of the 2 GHz band allocated for MSS only in Region 2 (i.e., the 20102025 MHz uplink band and the  21652170 MHz downlink band). We do so under the assumption that the service area of a single GSO  0satellite is inherently restricted to serving a particular geographic area, and thus, GSO systems may be  pbetter 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" M,l(l(<<@"  spectrum assignment. We seek comment on these proposed groupings of GSO and NGSO systems based  S0on regional spectrum allocations.N\z {O5   0ԍqSuggestions to this effect arose in the pleadings filed on the ICO Petition. See ICO Petition at 79; ICO  {O  Reply at 67; see also ICO USA Comments at 56; GSM Alliance Reply at 23; Celsat Reply at 57. But see TMI Comments at 23 (arguing that GSO MSS systems should have access to the entire 2 GHz MSS allocation).  Sg0  q29. 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  S0 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'  pdesigns 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?  S7 0  q30. 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  Pprepared to move forward expeditiously with any of these spectrum assignment proposals, we reserve the  0option 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  S0 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.  Sm q` ` a. The Flexible Band Arrangement  S0  q31. 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 spectrumsharing arrangement, this proposal assumes that TDMA systems must  operate on discrete frequencies, while CDMA systems can, under certain technical constraints, share the  spectrum cofrequency. 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  pon spectrum allocation constraints, we would place the GSO TDMA core at the top of the uplink band  S0 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  S>0 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.  Ss"0  q32. Core spectrum bands. Under this option, we propose that each of the core spectrum bands  pwould be comprised of primary spectrum segments. We would assign a primary spectrum segment to each"A#N,l(l(<<&"  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 2GHz MSS systems  have different implementation schedules and some may not proceed with implementation, this primary  S40 pspectrum segment could remain unused for several years, resulting in inefficient spectrum utilization.O4z yO   0ԍqSection 303 of the Communications Act requires the Commission to "generally encourage the larger and more effective use of radio [frequencies] in the public interest." 47 U.S.C.  303(g).  `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.  S0  q 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  S7 0 with other systems permitted to expand in that band (i.e., systems with commercial operations in the same  por 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 phasedin  S0 papproach 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  Sn0 operators to coordinate the use of the core and expansion spectrum in good faith.P$n z {O.   ԍqFor guidance on Commission consideration of whether parties are negotiating in good faith, see Amendment  {O  to the Commission's Rules Regarding a Plan for Sharing the Costs of Microwave Relocation, WT Docket No. 95 p157, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 8825, 883738  2022 (1996). 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?  S  q` `  i. TDMA Systems  S0  0q!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 2GHz MSS TDMA system in the core TDMA spectrum (or a total of 5MHz  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 5MHz of spectrum assigned to one system is sufficient for  Sq0 commencement of service.mQq z {O' ԍqSee Big LEO Report & Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 5955  44.m We note that Iridium, Globalstar, TMI and Celsat propose to use both"qQ,l(l(<<P!"  S0 0TDMA and CDMA techniques.Rz {Oh   ԍqSee Iridium 2 GHz MSS Application, Appendix at A2; Globalstar 2 GHz MSS Application at 6; TMI 2GHz MSS LOI at Attachment 2, Section 8; CelSat 2 GHz MSS Application, Amendment at 4. Under this option, if adopted, we propose not to assign more spectrum  S0 to dual technology proposals (i.e., CDMA and TDMA). Since none of these parties propose cofrequency  CDMATDMA operations within one system, we would apportion equally Iridium's, Globalstar's, TMI's  Sh0 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.  Sj0  pq"35. Boeing proposes an Aviation Traffic Information Service requiring 600 kHz of TDMA  S70 downlink spectrum only.kS7"z {O ԍqSee Boeing 2 GHz MSS Application, Attachment 1 at 5.k 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  pmeeting 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  S 0Boeing's system._T z {OY ԍqSee Section III.A.3.a.iii., supra._  S q` `  ii. CDMA Systems  S90  0q#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  Pproceeding, we found that four CDMA systems could share an 11.35 MHz uplink band assignment,  S0 @including guard bands.LU\Fz {O   `ԍqSee Big LEO Report & Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 5955  44. To ensure the integrity of TDMA and CDMA  {OP  transmissions, it may be desirable to separate the transmissions by setting aside a defined amount of spectrum (i.e., guard band).L 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  0channels 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 CDMATDMA systems, we propose to provide for half of these  S0 @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.  S q` `  iii. Spectrum Assignments  Sp0  q$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"j U,l(l(<< "  0core 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:  S40q2 GHz MSS Uplink Spectrum (19902025 MHz)  S0q1990.001995.00 MHz hhTDMA NGSO Core Spectrum  S0q1995.002001.25 MHzhhExpansion Spectrum for TDMA NGSO and CDMA  S0q2001.252013.75 MHzhhCDMA Core Spectrum  Sh0q2013.752020.00 MHzhhExpansion Spectrum for CDMA and TDMA GSO  S50q2020.002025.00 MHzhhTDMA GSO Core Spectrum  S0q2 GHz MSS Downlink Spectrum (21652200 MHz)  S 0q2165.002170.00 MHzhhTDMA GSO Core Spectrum  Si 0q2170.002176.25 MHzhhExpansion Spectrum for TDMA GSO and CDMA  S6 0q2176.252188.75 MHzhhCDMA Core Spectrum  S 0q2188.752195.00 MHzhhExpansion Spectrum for CDMA and TDMA NGSO  S 0q2195.002200.00 MHzhhTDMA NGSO Core Spectrum  Sj0  q%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?  S0  q&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 2GHz 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  0premised 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  0time, 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  pFlexible Band Arrangement may also limit our ability to consider the possibility of adopting a transitional  S0 prelocation policy for incumbent licensees in the 2 GHz MSS bands.Vz {O ԍqSee, e.g., 2 GHz MSS Relocation Third NPRM, FCC 98309, at  40. We seek comment on all aspects of the Flexible Band Arrangement option.  S  q` ` b. Negotiated Entry Approach  S!0  q'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"$ZV,l(l(<<@("  `cause harmful interference to any other authorized 2 GHz MSS system. The system proponents could  0complete 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  S40  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  0requirement 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.  S 0   q(41. We seek comment on our Negotiated Entry Approach, and whether relying on good faith  Pnegotiation and coordination among the systems is preferable to establishing a structured band sharing  Parrangement. 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  0address 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  S80 frequencies.}W8z {O ԍqSee id. at  3053; see also Section III.F., infra.} On the other hand, we are concerned that problems could arise when up to nine separate  0entities 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.  S90  q)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.  PWe 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.  Sn0  q*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  S0 coordination.cXZz {O ԍqSee supra footnote 80 and accompanying text.c 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  Pto 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  S 0 0commenters 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,  0or whether the potential for a protracted coordination process among the licensees might significantly deter investment.">#X,l(l(<<&"Ԍ S ԙq` ` c. Traditional Band Arrangement  S0  q+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 7.5MHz: 3.75 MHz for the uplink and 3.75 MHz  S0 for the downlink.Yz yOi   0ԍqThus, assuming channel bandwidth of 1.25 MHz, each system would be able to implement three uplink and three downlink channels. 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  Sh0 MSS proposals, we are unable to establish the exact CDMATDMA boundary locations.Zh z yO(   ԍqAs mentioned in the Flexible Band Arrangement discussion, Iridium, Globalstar, TMI and Celsat propose to use both TDMA and CDMA technologies in this proceeding. 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:  S 0q` `  hh, Uplinkppw  Downlink  Si 0qSystem 1(TDMA/NGSO)hh,1990.0001993.750  2196.2502200.000  S6 0qSystem 2(TDMACDMA/NGSO),1993.7501997.500  2192.5002196.250  S 0qSystem 3(TDMACDMA/NGSO),1997.5002001.250  2188.7502192.500  S 0qGuardband hh,2001.2502001.875  2188.1252188.750  S 0qSystem 4 (CDMA/NGSO)hh,2001.8752005.625  2184.3752188.125  Sj0qSystem 5 (CDMA/NGSO)hh,2005.6252009.375  2180.6252184.375  S70qSystem 6 (CDMA/NGSO)hh,2009.3752013.125  2176.8752180.625  S0qGuardband hh,2013.1252013.750  2176.2502176.875  S0qSystem 7 (TDMACDMA/GSO),2013.7502017.500  2172.5002176.250  S0qSystem 8 (TDMACDMA/GSO),2017.5002021.250  2168.7502172.500  Sk0qSystem 9 (TDMA/GSO)hh,2021.2502025.000  2165.0002168.750  S0  q,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, longterm 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?  S  q` ` d. Competitive Bidding  S:0  q-46. In the event that, based on the record, we determine it is in the public interest to assign the  P2 GHz MSS spectrum at issue here by competitive bidding rather than any of the other approaches  S0 0described 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  S<0 Pbecause this design appears to be most consistent with current proposals.[<xz {OT& ԍqThis proposal is similar to our proposal in the Big LEO Report & Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 5972  8889. In addition, this pairing would  ensure that MSS spectrum allocated only in Region2 is paired with like spectrum to the greatest extent"  [,l(l(<<#"  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.  Sg0  q.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  Psuppliers. 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  @2GHz MSS spectrum assigned to a single entity is that some of the system proponents in this proceeding  S0 may have an advantage in bidding on new licenses because of their better access to capital.[\&z yOj   ԍqThere are several reasons why some applicants in this proceeding may have better access to capital than  {O2  others. See Charles Zheng, High Bids and Broke Winners (University of Minnesota Working Paper, December 28,  {O  1998). The implications of financial constraints in auctions are discussed in a number of papers. See, e.g., Yeon {O Koo Che & Ian Gale, Standard auctions with financially constrained bidders, 65 Rev. Econ. Stud. 1, 121 (1998).[ 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.  S 0  q/48. Finally we propose that, should we decide to adopt a competitive bidding licensing approach,  Pthe auction would be conducted in conformity with the general competitive bidding rules in Part 1,  S70 Subpart Q of the Commission's rules, as revised.b]7z {O ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  1.2101 et seq.b We also propose that Commission staff, acting on  0delegated authority, would address specific auction procedures not established by Commission rules  S0 pursuant to public notice and comment in advance of the auction.^"Hz {O   ԍqSee Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules " Competitive Bidding Procedures, WT Docket No.  9782, Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 13 FCC Rcd 374, 44749   123125 (1997) (delegating such authority consistent with BBA of 1997, 3002(a)(1)(B)(iv), 111 Stat. at 259 (codified as 47 U.S.C.  309(j)(3)(E)). 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  Ppossibility for spectrum aggregation and cofrequency sharing allowed by technologies such as CDMA.  pAllowing separate licensees of individual spectrum blocks to aggregate their licenses into a larger block  would facilitate cofrequency sharing. Should we recognize this possibility by allowing such licensees,  S0as a group, to bid on combinations of licenses?_2 z {Oq!   PԍqSee BBA of 1997, 3002(a)(1)(B)(i), 111 Stat. at 259 (amending 47 U.S.C.  309(j)(3)) (requirement to test combinatorial bidding approaches to auction design)." _,l(l(<<"  S  B. NonService Link Issues  S0  Pq049. In addition to service links, the parties to the 2 GHz MSS proceeding seek feeder links in a  Sg0 variety of bands, intersatellite service frequencies, and in one case, radionavigation frequencies.a`gz yO    ԍqEach system requires feeder link frequencies separate from the service link frequencies in order to operate.  Feeder links are the connections between central earth stations at which the system typically interconnects with the  0public switched network, and the satellites used for mobile satellite services. In addition, some system designs also  use intersatellite links to provide communication between the various satellites in a MSS system without connecting through an earth station.a 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 nonservice 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 nonservice link requests, associated issues, and specific proposals.  Si  q1.` ` Feeder Links  S 0  `q150. The following table outlines our understanding of the feeder link frequency bands requested by 2 GHz MSS participants: T ddx !ddxjl l T  B  P  System ProponentP Feeder Uplink Spectrum RequestP Feeder Downlink Spectrum RequestB " j PP  Boeingp 109 MHz in 14.39114.5 GHz (Ku band)P 109 MHz in 11.59111.7 GHz (Ku band)" "  PP  Celsat#p 850 MHz in 27.528.35 GHz (Ka band)P 850 MHz in 17.718.35 GHz (Ka band)"   P0  Constellation IIEp 159 MHz in 50915250 MHz & 200 MHz in 15.4515.65 GHz (5 and 15 GHz bands)0 375 MHz in 67007075 MHz (7 GHz band)   0  Globalstar4p GSO: 250 MHz in 14.014.4 GHz (Ku band) NGSO: 200 MHz in 15.4515.64 GHz or 19.319.6 GHz (15 GHz band or Ka band)h GSO: 250 MHz in 11.712.2 GHz (Ku band) NGSO: 100 MHz in 67006875 MHz (7 GHz band) "  P  ICOp 100 MHz in 51505250 MHz (5 GHz band)P 100 MHz in 69757075 MHz (7 GHz band)" " h PP  Iridium Macrocell P 400 MHz in 29.129.5 GHz (Ka band) P 400 MHz in 19.319.7 GHz (Ka band)" "  PP  Inmarsat Horizons"P 75 MHz in 64256575 MHz (Extended C band)"P 75 MHz in 35503700 MHz (Extended C band)""x`,l(l(<<$`#"" "   PP  MCHI Ellipso 2G"P 300 MHz in 15.415.7 GHz (15 GHz band)"P 300 MHz in 67757075 MHz (7 GHz band)" R   P  TMI CansatM3t 500 MHz in 12.7513.25 GHz (Ku band)t 500 MHz in 10.710.95 GHz and 11.211.45 GHz (Ku band)R   "  SA0  q251. With respect to feeder links for NGSO systems, the United States already has undertaken  substantial work to obtain adequate spectrum at WRC95 for NGSO MSS feeder links in the C, Ku and  S0 0Kabands.a| yOC   ԍqSpecifically, WRC95 allocated the 50915250 MHz, 67007075 MHz, 15.415.7 GHz, 19.319.6 GHz and  {O  p29.129.4 GHz bands to FSS limited to NGSO MSS feeder links. See Final Acts of the 1995 World  `Radiocommunication Conference, Geneva (1995). The 1997 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC97)  0further refined several of the allocations by reducing 15.415.7 GHz to 15.4315.63 GHz, and expanding the Kaband  {Oe  allocations to 19.319.7 GHz and 29.129.5 GHz. See Final Acts of the 1997 World Radiocommunication Conference, Geneva (1997). 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,  Su0 allocated domestically.ab^uD| {OY   ԍqSee Amendment of Parts 2, 25 and 97 of the Commission's Rules with Regard to the MobileSatellite Service  {O#  Above 1 GHz, ET Docket No. 98142, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 13 FCC Rcd 17107 (1998) (5, 7, 15 GHz  {O Allocation NPRM).a 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.  S 0  q352. Regarding GSO MSS feeder links, the Commission has in the past precluded use of the  Sv 0  conventional FSS C and Kubands for MSS feeder links.cv j | {O   0ԍqSee Amendment of Parts 2, 22 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum for and to Establish  0Other Rules and Policies Pertaining to the Use of Radio Frequencies in a Land Mobile Satellite Service for the  {O  Provision of Various Common Carrier Services, GEN Docket No. 84-1234, Memorandum Opinion, Order and  {O  Authorization, 4 FCC Rcd 6041, 6050 (1989) (AMSC Order), tentative decision on remand, 6 FCC Rcd 4900 (1991),  {O  final decision on remand, 7 FCC Rcd 266 (1992), aff'd sub nom., Aeronautical Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 983 F.2d 275  `(D.C. Cir. 1993). The FSS frequency bands of 37004200 MHz/59256425 MHz (Cband) and 11.712.2 GHz/14.0 14.5 GHz (Kuband) are heavily used for domestic and international FSS operations. Consequently, the Commission  determined that MSS feeder links should operate at frequency bands other than those already used by fixed satellites to provide domestic service from the U.S. domestic arc. As the Commission has indicated, feeder links  poperating on frequencies and at orbital locations that are intensively used would not be an efficient use  S0  of the geostationary satellite orbit and FSS spectrum.ZdB| {O ԍqDARS NPRM, 11 FCC Rcd at 7  21.Z Use of these frequency bands for MSS feeder  links would preclude conventional FSS services and inhibit the fungibility of these orbit locations for  Pfuture 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 intensivelyused domestic arc. We seek   comment on whether this policy of precluding use of conventional C and Kubands 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. "xd,l(l(<<P"Ԍ S0  Pq453. We have identified the following alternative spectrum outside of the conventional C and Ku S0 Pbands for possible use by GSO MSS feeder uplinks: 58505925 MHz,e| yO5   pԍqFuture use of the 58505925 MHz band for Intelligent Transportation Systems is under consideration in a  {O  @separate proceeding. See Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate the 5.8505.925 GHz  {O  Band to the Mobile Service for Dedicated Short Range Communications of Intelligent Transportation Services, ET  Docket No. 9895, Notice of Proposed RuleMaking, 13 FCC Rcd 14321 (1998). Use of this band for MSS feeder links may be affected by the outcome of that proceeding. 64256725 MHz, 12.7513.25  GHz and 13.7514.0 GHz; and the following for GSO feeder downlinks: 36003650 MHz and 10.711.7  Sg0 GHz bands. Many of these bands are shared with terrestrial services.zfg|| yO ԍqSpecifically, the 64256725 MHz, 12.7513.25 GHz and 10.711.7 GHz bands.z In bands shared with terrestrial  @services, we would require coordination under Part 25 of our rules. In the 36003650 MHz and 5850 S0  5925 MHz bands, footnote US245 restricts FSS use to international, intercontinental systems.Ng | yO ԍq47 C.F.R.  2.106 n.US245.N  PSimilarly, in the 10.711.7 GHz and 12.7513.25 GHz bands, footnote NG104 restricts use to systems  S0 other than domestic systems.Nh| yO ԍq47 C.F.R.  2.106 n.NG104.N One purpose of these footnotes is to avoid ubiquitous deployment of FSS  Sh0 earth stations in these bands. We have authorized feeder links in some of these bands previously,ih, | yO4   ԍqFor instance, we waived NG104 for feeder links for AMSC in the 10.710.95 GHz and 13.013.15/13.2 {O 13.25 GHz frequency bands. See AMSC Order, 4 FCC Rcd at 6051  68.  and  S50 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,  S0 including exclusion zones for a limited number of years, surrounding the top 50 populated U.S. cities.j | {O   ԍqSee Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO FSS systems  {O   CoFrequency with GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the KuBand Frequency Range, ET Docket No. 98-206, Notice  {O  pof Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 98310 (rel. November 24, 1998) (SkyBridge NPRM). See also Optel Petition for  Rulemaking, RM9257, filed April 1, 1998. On April 16, 1998, the Commission issued a Public Notice inviting  comment on the Optel petition and is currently reviewing the comments filed in response to the Public Notice. Public Notice, Report No. 2267 (rel. April 16, 1998).   S 0  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  S 0 the SkyBridge proposal.k" | {O   PԍqSee SkyBridge Application, File No. 48SATP/LA97, February 28, 1997; Amendment, File No. 89SAT AMEND97, July 2, 1997. SkyBridge anticipates operating between 30 and 40 earth stations in the United States  in these frequency bands. In contrast, a GSO MSS system would likely require between one and six earth stations based on applications filed with the Commission. For these reasons, we seek comment on whether we should continue our  current casebycase approach with respect to MSS feeder links in the 36003650 MHz, 58505925 MHz,  and 10.711.7 GHz bands. In addition, portions of these bands are subject to Appendix 30B of the ITU  Sl0 Radio Regulations.`lZl| {O%   ԍqSpecifically, the 10.710.95 GHz, 11.211.45 GHz and 12.7513.25 GHz bands. See Appendix 30B to the  ITU Radio Regulations. Appendix 30B contains a GSO FSS allotment plan, which allots the given frequency bands to each Administration at specific orbital locations.` The Appendix 30B FSS Plan allots these bands at 101 W.L. to the United States.m"l| yO    ԍqIn regard to TMI's feeder link request, we note that Canada has completed the Appendix 30B procedures  for an orbital location at 106.5 W.L. where TMI proposes to locate its 2 GHz MSS system. However, if TMI  intends to locate feeder link earth stations in the United States, it may have to further modify its Appendix 30B  {O allotment at 106.5 W.L. See Appendix 30B to the ITU Radio Regulations. "lm,l(l(<<0P"  pTo 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.  S0  q554. 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  S0 on their use by government operations.#n| {O   ԍqSee, e.g., 47 C.F.R.  2.106 n.US245 (36003650 and 58505925 MHz bands), n.S5.444A (50915150 MHz),  nn.S.5.502, S5.503 (13.7514.0 MHz). There may also be electromagnetic compatibility issues between MSS feeder  link operations in these bands and government operations in these and adjacent bands. Potentially affected  pgovernment operations include radiolocation and radionavigation services, some involving multifunction high power  radars for land based search, shipborne air traffic control, airborne air and surface surveillance, air interception, target tracking, ground mapping, target illumination, intelligence gathering and ship self defense.# 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.  S0  q655. 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  Pfrequency uses in feeder link bands. For Big LEO systems this requirement to coordinate is codified in  S6 0 `Section 25.203(k) of the Commission's rules.Jo6 , | yO ԍq47 C.F.R.  25.203(k).J 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 reuse.  S0  q756. 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  pwhat extent should system proponents be permitted to amend their feeder link requests if other issues, for  0example, intersatellite links, need to be resolved in other proceedings? At what point, if any, should applicants lose the opportunity for amendments?  S90  q857. In the following paragraphs, we address other feeder link issues specific to the frequency bands requested by MSS system proponents." o,l(l(<<`P"  S q` ` a. Extended Cband  S0  q958. Inmarsat has applied to operate GSO MSS feeder links in the extended Cband frequencies.kp| {O ԍqSee feeder link table Section III.B.1., supra.k  Sg0 Portions of Inmarsat's request are subject to an ongoing rulemaking in the 36503700 MHz band. qgZ| {Oa   0ԍqSee Amendment of the Commission's Rules with Regard to the 36503700 MHz Government Transfer Band, ET Docket No. 98237, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, FCC 98337 (rel. December 18, 1998).  In  Pthat proceeding, the Commission proposes to add a fixed service allocation to the 36503700 MHz band,  pand no longer to accept applications for new FSS earth stations or major modifications to existing FSS  S0 earth stations.Kr| {O" ԍqId. at  12.K In addition, frequencies from 35503600 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  Sh0 potentially available spectrum from 3600 to 3650 MHz.sZhF| yON   PԍqThe FSS allocation in this band is shared on a coprimary basis with the Government Radiolocation and  Aeronautical Radionavigation Services. The FSS allocation is restricted to international intercontinenetal systems  {O and subject to a casebycase electromagnetic compatibility analysis. See 47 C.F.R.  2.106 n.US245. We seek comment on how we should take this proposal for a reduced amount of available FSS spectrum into account in this rulemaking.  S  q` ` b. 5, 7 and 15 GHz bands  Si 0  @q:59. Constellation, Globalstar, ICO, and MCHI have applied to operate NGSO MSS feeder links  within the 50915250 MHz ("5 GHz"), 67007075 MHz ("7 GHz") and 15.415.65 GHz ("15 GHz")  S 0 frequency bands.kt h | {O  ԍqSee feeder link table Section III.B.1., supra.k There is an ongoing proceeding to address allocation of the 5, 7 and 15 GHz  S 0 frequency bands to NGSO MSS feeder links.u$ | {Oj   pԍq5, 7, 15 GHz Allocation NPRM, 13 FCC Rcd 17107. The pleading cycle has closed for this proceeding.  `Use of these bands will be subject to limitations designed to protect existing and potential future government  {O  poperations. See, e.g., ITU Radio Regulations S5.444A (FSS secondary in the 50915150 MHz band after 2010), S5.511A. The Commission authorized Globalstar's Big LEO system  S 0 0to operate both space and earth stations in the 5 and 7 GHz bands,v | {O# ԍqL/Q Licensee, Inc., Order and Authorization, 11 FCC Rcd 16410 (Int'l Bur./OET 1996). 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,  S70 respectively.w^7x| {OO!   pԍqConstellation Communications, Inc., Order and Authorization, 12 FCC Rcd 9651 (Int'l Bur./OET 1997)  {O"  (Constellation Big LEO Order); Mobile Communications Holdings, Inc., Order and Authorization, 12 FCC Rcd 9663  {O" (Int'l Bur./OET 1997) (MCHI Big LEO Order). 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 WRC95 indicate that at least  @two NGSO MSS systems could feasibly share spectrum for codirectional feeder link transmissions, but"w,l(l(<<P"  S0 insufficient data are available to support sharing among three or more systems.x| {Oh   @ԍq5, 7, 15 GHz Allocation NPRM, 13 FCC Rcd at 17114  12. We also indicated that the 7 GHz band likely could be used by up to four NGSO MSS systems, with two of the systems crosspolarized from the other two. Sharing among NGSO  S0  systems is also being addressed in the SkyBridge NPRM, where we have requested information on how  S0 @many NGSO FSS systems can share cofrequency.iy"| {O] ԍqSee SkyBridge NPRM, FCC 98310, at  6774.i 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  Pfacilitating 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 codirectional 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 codirectional feeder link transmissions.  S 0  q;60. In the 7 GHz band, the Commission already has licensed three NGSO MSS systems in the  Sj 0 @upper portion of the band,zj | yO   ԍqConstellation (68757025 MHz), Globalstar (68757075 MHz), and MCHI (68757075 MHz) currently are  {O  all licensed in the upper portion of the 7 GHz band. 5, 7, 15 GHz Allocation NPRM, 13 FCC Rcd at 17118 n.53.  The Commission has also licensed two DARS systems in the upper portion of the 7 GHz band (70257075 MHz).  {O  PSee Satellite CD Radio, Inc., Order and Authorization, 13 FCC Rcd 7971 (Int'l Bur. 1997); American Mobile Radio  {O Corporation, Order and Authorization, 13 FCC Rcd 8829 (Int'l Bur. 1997). and has received four more applications.c{Xj j | yOt   ԍqApplications have been received from ICO, Globalstar, MCHI and Constellation. An application has also   been received from WCS Radio, Inc. for a DARS license to use these bands. Application of WCS Radio, Inc., File Nos. SATLOA1998111300085, 86 (filed November 13, 1998).c In their comments on the 5,7,  S8 0 @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  S 0 bands.| | yO ԍqComments of Globalstar at 34 (filed September 21, 1998); Reply of ICO at 11 (filed October 13, 1998). We agree that it is best, in general, to permit maximum flexibility during intersystem  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  S:0 commencing operations._}:| yO   ԍqSpecifically, we conditioned Constellation's and MCHI's feeder link licenses as follows: "before  `commencing operation[, licensee] must demonstrate that it can feasibly share that spectrum with all other persons  Por organizations with full or conditional authority to use any part of it for feeder-link transmission to gateway  {OL!  stations in the United States." Constellation Big LEO Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9658  20; MCHI Big LEO Order, 12FCC Rcd at 9678 33._ Several applicants request the same feeder link spectrum for their proposed  2GHz MSS systems in which they already hold a license for feeder links for their Big LEO systems. In  S0 these cases, are there selfcoordination methods (e.g., within one licensee's system(s)) that may allow us  pto 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."o},l(l(<<pP"  S q ` ` c. Kuband  S0  q<61. In their system proposals, Boeing seeks to operate NGSO MSS feeder links using the Ku Sg0 band frequencies, while Globalstar and TMI request GSO MSS feeder links on the Kuband frequencies.k~g| {O ԍqSee feeder link table Section III.B.1., supra.k  S40 On the issue of feeder links for NGSO systems, in November 1998 the Commission issued the SkyBridge  S0 NPRM proposing use of Kuband frequencies by NGSO FSS systems.RZ| {O ԍqSkyBridge NPRM, FCC 98310.R In addition, the Commission  `released a Public Notice establishing January 8, 1999 as the cutoff date for additional applications for  S0 NGSO FSS systems in the Kuband.| yO)   ԍqPublic Notice, Report. No. SPB141 (rel. November 2, 1998) (cutoff established for additional applications and letters of intent in the 12.7513.25 GHz, 13.7514.4 GHz, 17.317.8 GHz and 10.712.7 GHz frequency bands). We propose to address Boeing's feeder link request for NGSO  Sj0 PMSS 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 Kuband NGSO FSS spectrum and, if not,  Pwhat, if any, frequency bands should be made available for the Boeing system's feeder links. With respect  0to GSO systems, our current policy prohibits feeder link use of conventional C and Kuband GSO FSS  Sl 0 allocations.Ul D| {OP ԍqSee paragraph 52, supra.U Globalstar's request appears to be inconsistent with this policy. TMI's proposal appears  S9 0consistent with existing Commission policy. We seek comment on these issues.  S q ` ` d. Kaband  Sm0  @q=62. In their 2 GHz MSS applications, Globalstar and Iridium seek to operate NGSO MSS feeder  links using Kaband frequencies, and Celsat requests to operate GSO MSS feeder links on Kaband  S0 frequencies.k| {O} ԍqSee feeder link table Section III.B.1., supra.k In 1996, the Commission adopted service rules for use of Kaband frequencies.fh | {O ԍqKaband First Report & Order, 11 FCC Rcd 19005.f In  particular, the Commission adopted a band sharing arrangement that designates specific spectrum for  S0 `feeder links for NGSO MSS systems." | yO;   ԍqThe 29.129.25 GHz and 29.2529.5 GHz bands are designated for NGSO MSS feeder uplinks on a co primary basis with the Local Multipoint Distribution Service ("LMDS") and GSO FSS, respectively. In addition,  Pthe 19.319.7 GHz band is designated for NGSO MSS feeder downlinks on a coprimary basis with the fixed service.  {O Id. at  77. It also adopted rules for sharing between NGSO MSS feeder  Sn0 @links and other coprimary services, and rules for sharing between NGSO MSS feeder links.dn| {O" ԍqSee, e.g., 47 C.F.R.  25.257, 25.258.d The  pCommission licensed Iridium to operate feeder links for its Big LEO system in a portion of the designated";v,l(l(<<PP"  S0 `feeder link spectrum as part of the first Kaband processing group.CZ| {Oh   ԍqMotorola Satellite Communications, Inc., Order and Authorization, 11 FCC Rcd 13952 (Int'l Bur. 1996)  (licensing Iridium's Big LEO system to use the 19.419.6 GHz band for feeder downlinks, and the 29.129.3 GHz band for feeder uplinks).C In addition, the Commission  Precently released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding further refinement of the downlink band  S0sharing arrangement.l| {O$   ԍqRedesignation of the 17.719.7 GHz Frequency Band, Blanket Licensing of Satellite Earth Stations in the  17.720.2 GHz and 27.530.0 GHz Frequency Bands, and the Allocation of Additional Spectrum in the 17.317.8 GHz  {O  and 24.7525.25 GHz Frequency Bands for Broadcast SatelliteService Use, IB Docket No. 98172, Notice of  Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 19923 (1998) (proposing to designate the 17.718.3 GHz band, requested by Celsat, as primary exclusively for the fixed service).l  S40   q>63. In 1997, the Commission established cutoff dates for comments or petitions to deny and  S0 padditional applications for use of the Kaband, and thereafter received fifteen further applications.k| yO? ԍqPublic Notice, Report No. SPB106 (rel. October 15, 1997).k 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 Kaband processing round, and we seek comment on this proposal.  S0  q?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  pif our policy prohibiting feeder link use of the conventional C and Kuband FSS allocations within the  domestic arc should also apply to Kaband 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 Kuband FSS  allocations, the Kaband is currently not heavily used by domestic fixed satellites. We propose to allow  Celsat to pursue its Kaband feeder link request. However, we highlight that Kaband 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 Kaband orbital location.  S0  q@65. Globalstar proposes to operate NGSO feeder uplinks in the 19.319.6 GHz band. Currently,  the 19.319.6 GHz band is not allocated domestically for FSS in the Earthtospace direction. Globalstar's  S80 proposal is referred to as "reverseband working" ("RBW"). We indicated in the Kaband First Report  S0& Order that we would consider requests for RBW on a casebycase basis.t. | {O ԍqKaband First Report & Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 1903132  63.t  S0  PqA66. Iridium requests a waiver of Section 25.258(c) of the Commission's rules,J | yO# ԍq47 C.F.R.  25.258(c).J the section which  requires that NGSO MSS feeder link systems in the 29.2529.5 GHz band maintain constant, successive  Pground tracks in order to facilitate sharing with GSO FSS. Motorola has filed a Petition for Partial";P ,l(l(<<P"  S0 Reconsideration of this provision,| {Oh   0ԍqMotorola Petition for Partial Reconsideration (filed September 27, 1996) of the Kaband First Report &  {O2 Order, 11 FCC Rcd 19005. and we will address this waiver request and Petition for Partial Reconsideration in a separate proceeding.  Sg q 2. Tracking, Telemetry, and Command  S0  qB67. 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  0of the 14 GHz FSS allocation (either within the 14.014.05 or 14.4514.5 GHz band) and 300 kHz of  `downlink spectrum in the upper or lower edge of the 12 GHz FSS allocation (either within the 11.711.75  GHz or 12.1512.2 GHz band) instead of within its requested feeder link bands. In accordance with our  S0 prules,J$| yO ԍq47 C.F.R.  25.208(g).J 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 heavilyused 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.  S q 3. Radionavigation Frequencies  Sj0  qC68. Boeing proposes to operate its planned Navigation Augmentation Service payload in the  S70 1565.421585.42 MHz GPS L1 band.X7| yO ԍqThe GPS L1 band is 1565.421585.42 MHz.X This band is allocated for the Radionavigation Satellite Service  S0 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.  S q 4. Intersatellite Links  Sm0  qD69. Globalstar applied for 100 MHz of intersatellite service (ISS) link spectrum in the  `59-64GHz bands to interconnect satellites within its constellation. There appear to be significant  interference situations associated with potential GSO and NGSO operations and Government operations  S0 at 5964 GHz.D| {O   ԍqSee Letter from Richard Parlow, Associate Administrator, NTIA to Richard Smith, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, FCC (May 4, 1995). These bands, therefore, will not be available for nonGovernment ISS use.Z| yO#   ԍqNTIA has requested that the FCC delete the nonGovernment ISS allocation in the 5964 GHz bands from  {O#  pthe National Table of Frequency Allocation. See Letter from William T. Hatch, Acting Associate Administrator, NTIA to Richard Smith, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, FCC (May 18, 1998). Due to  the limited intersatellite link spectrum available to meet the nonGovernment requirements in the  p59-64GHz range, the United States made proposals at WRC97 to, among other things, allocate the band  @6471 GHz to the ISS. WRC97 modified the International Table of Frequency Allocations in the"; ,l(l(<<P"  `frequency range 50.271 GHz consistent with the U.S. proposals. The Commission intends to commence  S0 a rulemaking to modify the National Table of Frequency Assignments to reflect these changes. Among  other things, the Commission will propose to adopt a nonGovernment ISS allocation at 6571 GHz. This allocation can be used to meet ISS requirements for 2 GHz MSS systems and systems in other services.  S0  qE70. We propose that Section 25.279 of the Commission's rules also apply to 2 GHz MSS system  S0 proponents.G| yO6 ԍq47 C.F.R.  25.279.G 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 coequal basis with Government operations, we propose that any 2 GHz  MSS system authorized to operate intersatellite service links in these bands would be required to  Si 0 `coordinate with Government systems and nonGovernment operators.Ji X| {Oa ԍqId.  25.279(b).J We seek comment on these proposals.  S  C. Service Rules  Sj0  pqF71. 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  S0 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  punserved areas and practices operators could incorporate into their system designs to reduce orbital debris.  0The 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.  S0  PqG72. The 2 GHz MSS is the first processing round in which we have received letters of intent to   serve the U.S. market with nonU.S.licensed MSS systems. We adopted the "letter of intent" process in  S0 our DISCO II Order, to implement the U.S. commitments in the World Trade Organization (WTO)  So0 PAgreement on Basic Telecommunications (WTO Basic Telecom Agreement).So| {O   PԍqAmendment of the Commission's Regulatory Policies to Allow NonU.S. Licensed Space Stations to Provide  {O  pDomestic and International Satellite Service in the United States, IB Docket No. 96111, Report and Order, 12 FCC  {O!  PRcd 24094 (1997) (DISCO II Order). ABC, Inc., GE American Communications, PanAmSat Corporation, ICO  yOW"  Global Communications, and IDB Mobile Communications, Inc., filed Petitions for Reconsideration on January 5,  1998. Comsat Corporation filed a Petition for Review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of  yO# Columbia Circuit on January 12, 1998 (Case No. 981011). #x6X@`72X@#S In the DISCO II Order,  we established a public interest analysis and access procedure for nonU.S.licensed satellite systems  seeking access to the United States, including intergovernmental organizations and their affiliates. Under  S0 the DISCO II Order, nonU.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" h ,l(l(<< P"  service rules in anticipation of earth station applications to be filed in the future to access the nonU.S. S0 licensed satellite system.P| {O5 ԍqId. at 2417374  185.P The Commission also stated that nonU.S.licensed systems filing letters of  S0 0intent generally would be held to the same service and technical requirements as U.S.licensed systems.sZ| {O ԍqId. at 24158  149, 2416263  159, 2416869  173.s  Sg0 This proceeding represents the Commission's first opportunity to implement the DISCO II Order's  0provisions regarding letters of intent and thus, to further the promise of the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement through concrete and comprehensive MSS authorization initiatives.  S  q1. Regulatory Classification  S60  qH73. Section 332(c) of the Communications Act requires that providers of commercial mobile radio  S0 service (CMRS)X| yO   ԍqCMRS is defined to include all mobile radio services that are provided for profit and that make  interconnection service with the public switched network available to the public or to such classes of eligible users as to be effectively available to a substantial portion of the public. 47 U.S.C.  332(d)(1). be regulated as common carriers.  | yO   Pԍq47 U.S.C.  332(c)(1)(A) states: "A person engaged in the provision of a service that is a commercial mobile service shall, insofar as such person is so engaged, be treated as a common carrier . . . ."  Section 332(c)(5) provides that the Commission  may continue "to determine whether the provision of space segment capacity to providers of commercial  S 0 mobile services shall be treated as common carriage."J d | yO ԍq47 U.S.C.  332(c)(5).J Section3(44) of the Communications Act, which  was added by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, further states that "the Commission shall determine  S7 0 whether the provision of fixed and mobile satellite service shall be treated as common carriage."H7 | yO ԍq47 U.S.C.  153(44).H As  S 0 described below, we interpret these provisions as a grant of discretion to impose, or refrain from imposing,  `commoncarrier regulation in the provision of satellite services, including the provision of space segment  S 0capacity in the 2GHz MSS. | {O   ԍqSee, e.g., U.S. Leo Services, Inc., Order and Authorization, 11 FCC Rcd 13962, 13968  21 (Int'l Bur. 1996).  S80  `qI74. All of the 2 GHz MSS participants seek noncommon carrier treatment for the space segment  component of their proposed systems. We tentatively conclude that we should treat the space segment  S0 component of 2 GHz MSS as noncommon carriage.q| {OP! ԍqAccord Big LEO Report & Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 6002  174.q The Communications Act grants the Commission  discretion to determine whether a space station licensee offering capacity to an entity that then offers  Sl0 CMRS to end users should be regulated on a common carriage basis or a private carriage basis.{^lp| {O|$   ԍq47 U.S.C.  332(c)(5). Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act: Regulatory  {OF%  PTreatment of Mobile Services, GN Docket No. 93252, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1411, 1457  108  {O& (1994) (CMRS Second Report & Order).{ The  S90 Commission has stated that in making this determination it will use the analysis enunciated in National"9!,l(l(<<pP"  S0 pAssociation of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. FCC, 525 F.2d 630, 642 (D.C. Cir. 1976), cert.  S0 pdenied, 425 U.S. 999 (NARUC I).| {O6 ԍqSee, e.g., First Round NVNG MSS Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 845657  24. The court in NARUC I identified two criteria as determinative of  whether an entity may provide a service on a noncommon 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.  S0  PqJ75. 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  Sk0 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  S0 requirements should be imposed on satellite operators.\Z| {O   ԍqDomestic Fixed Satellite Transponder Sales, 90 FCC 2d 1238, 125455 (1982), aff'd, Wold Communications,  {O  Inc. v. FCC, 735 F.2d 1465 (D.C. Cir. 1984), modified, Martin Marietta Communications Systems, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 Rad. Reg. (P&F) 2d 779 (1986). 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  S 0 pservice at low prices.: ~| {O ԍqId.: Three Commission licensees are currently providing service and three companies  S 0 0are licensed to provide mobile satellite services.R | {OQ   ԍqSee Orbital Communications Corporation, Order and Authorization, 9 FCC Rcd 6476 (1994) (Orbcomm  {O  Pprovides an NVNG MSS service); AMSC Order, 4 FCC Rcd 6041 (American Mobile Satellite Corporation provides  {O  a GSO MSS service); Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc., Order and Authorization, 10 FCC Rcd 2268, erratum,  {O  10 FCC Rcd 3925 (Int'l Bur. 1995) (Iridium provides a Big LEO MSS service); Loral/Qualcomm Partnership, L.P.,  {Oy  Order and Authorization, 10 FCC Rcd 2333, erratum, 10 FCC Rcd 3926 (Int'l Bur. 1995) (Globalstar anticipates  yOC commencing service in Fall 1999).#x6X@`72X@#R In addition, we expect others to begin offering  competitive services as a result of this proceeding. We expect that additional MSS capacity will compel  0existing 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  S0 customers. | {O ԍqSee, e.g., Boeing 2 GHz MSS Application at 2 (proposes to provide AMS(R)S service). 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.  S0  qK76. 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 noncommon carrier basis and continues to do"q"$,l(l(<<P"  S0 Pso today. | {Oh    ԍqSee, e.g., First Round NVNG MSS Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 8457  24 (NVNG operators permitted to offer  {O2  space segment service on a noncommon carrier basis because of competitive service alternatives); Big LEO Report  {O  0& Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 6004  179 (Big LEO operators permitted to offer space segment service on a noncommon  {O  carrier basis because sufficient competitive capacity available to assure ample access to these services). See also  Rulemaking to Amend Part 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.529.5 GHz Frequency  Band, to Reallocate the 29.530.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint  {O   PDistribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services, CC Docket No. 92297, Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd  {O  22310, 22334  60 (1997) (Kaband Third Report & Order) (Kaband operators permitted to offer service on non common carrier basis because there is sufficient capacity available in other FSS bands and there is enough capacity  to assure access to ample FSS services and expect operators to tailor their service offerings to address individualized  {OD  `needs of potential customers). But see, 47 U.S.C.  741 (statutory requirement that COMSAT be regulated on a  {O  common carrier basis); Upper Lband MSS Second Report & Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 490  34 (because only a single  `MSS license granted in the upper Lband frequencies and because MSS new and unprecedented service, American  Mobile Satellite Corporation, the space segment operator, placed under an obligation to provide service on a common carrier basis). 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  S0 pcurrently provide (i.e., wholesale voice and data communications). The space segment portion of the Big  Sh0 LEO service is regulated on a noncommon carrier basis.mhX | {O` ԍqBig LEO Report & Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 600305  179.m Therefore, we do not anticipate that the  2GHz MSS operators would offer their services indifferently to all users. In fact, each of the 2 GHz  MSS space segment system proponents requests noncommon 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 noncommon 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.  S 0  qL77. 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  S 0  defined by the Communications Act.J | yO[ ԍq47 U.S.C.  332(d)(1).J 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  pavailable (A) to the public or (B) to such class of eligible users as to be effectively available to a  S80 0substantial portion of the public, as specified by regulation by the Commission.":8z| {OR! ԍqId.: The Commission has  @determined that each mobile satellite service must be evaluated to determine whether the service offering  S0 is CMRS or private mobile radio service (PMRS).! | {O~$   ԍqCMRS Second Report & Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 1457  108. PMRS is defined as any service that does not  {OH% meet the definition of CMRS or is not the functional equivalent of CMRS.  Id. at 1447  79.! In discussing Section 332(c)(5) of the  PCommunications Act, Congress indicated that the provision of earth segment capacity, either by MSS  poperators through their own terminals or earth stations sold by vendors, to users of CMRS shall be treated"l#h,l(l(<<pP"  S0 0as common carriage.| {Oh ԍqId. at 1457  108 (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 103213, at 494 (1993)). 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  S0 @its functional equivalent, it will be regulated as common carriage.OZ| {O ԍqId. at 145758  109.O 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  pexpect the 2 GHz MSS to be offered to the public. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that, to the extent  0that 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 casebycase basis to determine  if this classification is appropriate. The Commission has forborne from applying certain provisions of  S 0TitleII to CMRS providers.} | {O( ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  20.15. See also 47 U.S.C.  332(c)(1)(A).}  S6 0  `qM78. We also tentatively conclude that gateway earth stations and stations that may be used for  0TT&C should be licensed to permit service to be offered on a noncommon carriage basis because the  pservice 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.  S q 2. System License and License Term  Sk0  PqN79. As discussed above, the proposed 2 GHz MSS systems include nongeostationary  constellations of technically identical satellites, geostationary satellites, and a hybrid system with satellites  S0 in geostationary and nongeostationary orbits.W~| {O# ԍqSee Section III.A., supra.W We propose to continue our policy of granting "blanket"  S0 Plaunch and operation licenses_Z| yO   ԍqThis follows the singlestep processing and licensing policy that has been used for satellites since 1980.  {OJ  See Assignment of Orbital Locations to Space Stations in the Domestic FixedSatellite Service, Memorandum Opinion & Order, 84 FCC 2d 584 (1981)._ for systems of technically identical satellites, which will probably include  Pmost 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  S90 Pvariations in system design, including feeder link and intersatellite link issues.92 | {O #   ԍqSee Assignment of Orbital Locations to Space Stations in the Domestic FixedSatellite Service, Order and Authorizations, 11 FCC Rcd 13788 (1996). 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"m$ ,l(l(<<0P"   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  Pcomponent 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.  S0  @qO80. We also propose tenyear 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 tenyear  S0 licenses for space stations.| yO ԍq47 U.S.C.  307(c) (prior to elimination of tenyear license term by the Telecommunications Act of 1996). The Telecommunication Act of 1996, however, amended the  `Communications Act to modify the statutory license term limit by granting the Commission authority to  S50 "prescribe the period or periods for which licenses shall be granted and renewed...." 5X| yO-   @ԍqTelecommunication Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104104, Title II,  203, 110 Stat. 56, 112 (1996) (amending  Section 307 of the Communications Act to eliminate tenyear term and creating new Section 307(c)(1) granting the  0Commission authority to determine license terms for particular classes of stations, including satellite space and earth stations). As with the Big  0LEO license term, we propose that the license term would end ten years following commencement of  S0 satellite operations.j@| {O ԍqBig LEO Report & Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 6007  185.j The tenyear 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  polder satellites retired before the end of the tenyear 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 preoperational testing, authority for these operations would be included in their license grant.  S0  qP81. 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  S0 PCommission required for Big LEO licensees.J| yO ԍq47 C.F.R.  25.143(c).J We propose that this requirement would equally apply  Sl0 to all 2 GHz MSS system designs. We would treat any nonconforming satellites (e.g., different antenna  Pfootprints or transmission patterns) as requests for license modification, as the Commission does with  S0 prespect to Big LEO satellites.b | yO #   ԍqTechnically identical satellites must have identical satellite antenna footprints and transmission parameters. They need not, however, have the identical physical structure or microelectronics. 47 C.F.R.  25.143(c). 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 inorbit  S0 spare satellites in the case of NGSO constellations.j | {O& ԍqBig LEO Report & Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 6006  182.j System operators could activate these spare satellites"%L ,l(l(<<PP"  as necessary, but would be required to notify the Commission, within ten days after activation, that  pactivation of the satellite did not cause the licensee to exceed the total number of authorized space  S0  stations.:| {O ԍqId.: We propose that the license term for any activated spare satellites would expire with the  poverall 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  S0 `and would permit GSO system operators to operate collocated inorbit spares.\Z| {O   0ԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  25.140(g) (permitting collocation of inorbit GSO satellites for systems that are not  {O  essentially filled). See also 47 C.F.R.  25.113(g) (application for authority to launch and operate onground spare considered newly filed application unless it is for emergency replacement of previously authorized space station). 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 inorbit spare policies for GSO and NGSO systems is appropriate.  Si 0  qQ82. 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  S 0 `the seventh year of the existing license.j ~| {O ԍqBig LEO Report & Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 6007  186.j 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 followon 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  Ppreviously indicated, we generally prefer to proceed on a casebycase basis concerning renewal  S0 expectancy in the satellite context.p| {O ԍqSee Big LEO Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 12878  51.p 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  S80 by U.S. systems.J\8| {Oz   ԍqSee, e.g., First Round NVNG MSS Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 8452  7; Assignment of Orbital Locations to Space  {OD  `Stations in the Domestic FixedSatellite Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 6972, 6976 n.31 (1988).J 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."& ,l(l(<<PP"  S q 3. Implementation Milestones  S0  qR83. As detailed below, we propose to adopt a schedule of implementation milestones for 2 GHz  PMSS systems to ensure that systems are constructed within a reasonable time and thus, ensure delivery  pof 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  S0 Pmilestones regardless of the method we select to grant authorizations.qX| yO6   pԍqCongress has also mandated that when competitive bidding is used, we impose performance requirements  to prevent spectrum warehousing and to promote investment in and rapid deployment of new services. 47 U.S.C.  yO  309(j)(4)(B).#x6X@`72X@#q 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.  S0  qS84. 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  S6 0 served by such a waiver."66 | yO   ԍq47 U.S.C.  319(d). Under this statutory authority, the Commission has eliminated the requirement that  Papplicants be granted construction permits for space stations and earth stations under Part 25, Sections 25.113(f), (b).  {ON  Streamlining the Commission's Rules and Regulations for Satellite Application and Licensing Procedures, IB Docket  `No. 95117, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 21581, 2158485, 2159091  8, 23 (1996) (elimination of the  0construction permit requirement for space stations and MSS earth stations, respectively, will accelerate the provision of satellitedelivered services, and eliminate administrative burdens and potential delays).6 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  Sj0to begin construction of satellites and earth stations at their own risk.Jjb | yOl ԍq47 C.F.R.  25.113(f).J  S0  @qT85. We propose to adopt a milestone schedule similar to the one established for Big LEOs and  S0  NVNG MSS for nongeostationary satellite systems| | {Oc   ԍqBig LEO Report & Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 6008  189 (system authorization requires licensee to begin  construction of first two satellites within one year of authorization, complete construction of the first two satellites  0within four years, commence construction of remaining satellites within three years and commence operations within  {O  six years); First Round NVNG MSS Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 8455  18 (each authorization requires that licensee  `commence construction of first two satellites within one year of authorization, begin construction of all remaining  satellites within three years, complete construction of first two satellites within four years, and be operational within six years of authorization). 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 nongeostationary satellite systems for the purpose of establishing  S80 @milestones because we recognize, as we did in the Kaband,X86| yO&   ԍqWe require GSO licensees in the Kaband to begin construction of their first satellite within one year of  pgrant, begin construction of the remainder within two years of grant, to launch at least one satellite into each assigned  orbital location within five years of grant, and to launch the remainder of their satellites by the date required by the"',l(l('"  {O  International Telecommunications Union to assure international recognition and protection. Kaband Third Report  {OZ & Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 2233435  61. that geostationary satellites may take more"8'$,l(l(<<0P"  S0 time to construct than technically identical nongeostationary satellites.:$| {O ԍqId.: We seek comment on this  proposed distinction. Recognizing the differences in satellite system designs, we propose to require that  S0 nongeostationary 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  0propose 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.  Si0  pqU86. We propose to require that operators complete construction and launch of the first two  S70 satellites of their nongeostationary 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 Kaband system operators. The entire system for either an NGSO or GSO system would have  Sk 0 `to be launched and operational within six years of grant. Hybrid nongeostationary and geostationary   satellite systems would be required to follow the nongeostationary milestones for the nongeostationary  pportion 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.  S0  qV87. 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  Sn0 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.  S 0  qW88. We propose that milestones begin to run upon award of a service link license, or, in the case  Pof LOI filers, upon issuance of a Public Notice or Declaratory Ruling establishing a milestone schedule  S0 contemporaneous with licensing of U.S. space stations.| yO   ԍqWe have traditionally permitted applicants to amend their applications after the adoption of the service rules  pReport and Order in order to modify any inconsistencies with our service rules. Therefore, there is usually a time  delay between the Report and Order and the issuance of licenses. By issuing a Declaratory Ruling or Public Notice  commencing the service rule requirements for nonU.S.licensed systems at the same time as U.S. licenses are granted, we would ensure that all 2 GHz MSS system operators have the same deadlines. 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"(f ,l(l(<< P"  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.  S0  PqX89. We tentatively conclude that we will impose milestones whether or not a system has obtained  adequate feeder link or intersatellite link assignments. In the past we have refrained from establishing  milestones until licensees have secured access to feeder link and intersatellite link spectrum because of  S6 0 the inability to complete their overall system design.e6 | {O   `ԍqSee Big LEO Report & Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 5998  166. We permitted Big LEO applicants to request  Pissuance of licenses with conditional feeder link frequencies or no feeder link grant due to the feeder link spectrum  {O0  0shortage and ongoing international efforts to obtain additional feeder link spectrum. See also, e.g., KaStar Satellite  {O  @Communications Corp., Order and Authorization, 13 FCC Rcd 1366, 137475  24 (Int'l Bur. 1997) (because inter satellite link spectrum not allocated internationally or domestically at time of grant, and inability of licensee to construct system until such grant, system milestones held in abeyance until intersatellite link spectrum available).e 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 intersatellite 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 intersatellite link  spectrum. Milestones will provide an incentive for system operators to seek necessary feeder links in a  preasonable 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 intersatellite links requirements. We seek comment on this analysis and our tentative conclusions.  S90  @qY90. We do not propose separate milestones for construction of inorbit spares or for earth  S0 segment. The Commission's determination in the Big LEO Report & Order that prudent system operators  will determine the appropriate timetable for building and launching inorbit spares has proven correct with  S0 the implementation of at least two NGSO satellite systems.F| {O!   `ԍqSee Big LEO Report & Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 6009  190. Globalstar and Iridium are successfully following this policy. Similarly, systems have constructed ground  Sn0 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  0comment on whether satellite construction and launch milestones will adequately address warehousing concerns, making separate milestones for inorbit spares and ground segment facilities unnecessary."),l(l(<<P"  S q 4. Reporting Requirements  S0  qZ91. In this proceeding, we propose to apply to 2 GHz MSS the Commission's Part 25 reporting  Sg0 requirements, which are currently applicable to satellite systems in other services.Bg| {O   `ԍqSee, e.g., 47 C.F.R.  25.210(j) (fixedsatellite service reporting requirements), 25.142(c) (NVNG MSS  yO satellite service reporting requirements), 25.143(e) (Big LEO reporting requirements).#x6X@`72X@#B 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  S0 June30th each year:"| {O ԍqId.: 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  S 0 and licensees with timely information for determining annual regulatory fees.  | yO   ԍqThese fees are now assessed based on system status as of September 30. The Commission does not currently have statutory authority to assess annual regulatory fees in connection with nonlicensed systems.  We seek comment on these proposals.  S 0  0q[92. We propose to apply to 2 GHz MSS operators the requirement that systems file affidavits  S 0 `certifying whether milestone requirements are met following the appropriate milestone deadlines. | yO| ԍq47 C.F.R.  25.143(e)(2). This requirement currently applies to Big LEO operators. The  S 0 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  Pto allow parties to request confidential treatment for any portion of an annual report pursuant to Section  S00.459 of the Commission's rules.F| yOA ԍq47 C.F.R.  0.459.F We seek comment on these proposals.  S q 5. Distress and Safety Communications and Enhanced 911  S90  q\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  Sm0  certain cargo ships by international agreement and statute,sZm, | yO9"   ԍqCompulsory equipment carriage requirements are established in portions of the Commission's rules as well  {O#  `as by statute. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R.  80.801, et seq.; Ch. IV, International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea, 32 U.S.T. 47, T.I.A.S. 9700 (1974).s 2 GHz MSS operators, like Big LEO  operators, will have certain statutory obligations, as described below, related to maritime distress  S0 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,"*N ,l(l(<<@P"  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  S0 frequencies that will interfere with distress signals.| {O ԍq47 U.S.C.  321(b); Big LEO Report & Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 601011  196. The Communications Act also requires that stations  on board ships must transmit to other ships in the vicinity and to authorities on land information  S40 concerning severe weather conditions or dangerous ice.D4Z| yO. ԍq47 U.S.C.  359.D The Communications Act prohibits licensees  S0 from charging a fee for the transmission of maritime distress calls and related traffic.G| yO ԍq47 U.S.C.  359(d).G The Commission  S0 stated in the Big LEO Report & Order that it expected any satellite licensee that chose to offer emergency  S0 Por safety communications to coordinate with the appropriate safety and rescue organizations.Zz| yO   ԍqThe Commission explained that Big LEO operators providing safety and rescue services should coordinate  0with the Interagency Committee on Search and Rescue (ICSAR) and all other similar domestic and international  {OF search and rescue organizations. Big LEO Report & Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 6013  200. The  Si0 Commission codified these requirements for Big LEO licensees at Section 25.143(f).Ji| yO ԍq47 C.F.R.  25.143(f).J 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.  Sj 0  q]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  Prouting for distress and safety communications or disaster response communications, stating that it would  S 0 address the issue in a separate rulemaking on enhanced 911.m , | {O ԍqBig LEO Report & Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 601213  199.m In the E911 Report & Ordere^ | {O0   ԍqRevision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling  {O  Systems, CC Docket No. 94102, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 18676  {O (1996) (E911 Report & Order).e on  S 0 enhanced 911 capability, | yO$   0ԍqEnhanced 9-1-1 services are designed to speed delivery and processing of 911 calls to the appropriate emergency response personnel by accurately determining the caller's location. the Commission determined that because MSS was still in the early  pdevelopment stages and facing more technological and international hurdles than terrestrial carriers, it  S:0  would not impose any obligation to provide enhanced 911 at that time.t:<| {O" ԍqE911 Report & Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18718  83.t The Commission, however,  S0 @stated that it expected mobile satellite operators to incorporate enhanced 911 features| {Ou$   ԍqIn the E911 Report & Order, the Commission required the implementation of enhanced features in two  phases. Phase I required covered carriers, beginning April 1, 1998, to be able to provide automatic number  Pidentification (ANI) and cell site information for 911 calls to public safety answering points (PSAPs). Phase II,  to be effective October 1, 2001, requires covered carriers to identify the location of mobile units making 911 calls  Pwithin an accuracy of 125 meters using a root mean square (RMS) calculation. The enhanced 911 requirements"',l(l(u'"  apply only if the carrier receives a request for such services from a PSAP capable of receiving and using the service and if a mechanism for the recovery of the costs relating to provision of such services is in place. in future systems"+ ,l(l(<<P"  S0 pas they are deployed.R\ | {O   ԍqId., aff'd on recon., Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911  {O  pEmergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94102, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22665, 2270608  8789 (1997).R 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 911  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 911 capabilities  pshould 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 911 capabilities. We seek comment, therefore, as to whether we should require  2GHz 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  prequirement presents for global systems. Specifically, how would the accuracy location requirement of  Phase I be applied, or would only a Phase IItype requirement be more appropriate or practicable, for MSS  @systems? If coordinates are to be provided, can the 125meter RMS standard applicable to terrestrial  Psystems 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.  S  q6. Service to Unserved Communities  S70  0q^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  S0 Pcommunities within the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa.D| {O   ԍqSee FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 9645, Second Recommended Decision, FCC 98J7, at  55 (rel. November 25, 1998). 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  S0 buildout required to obtain satellite service is for earth stations to transmit and receive satellite signals.X| yOC   ԍqWe note that American Mobile Satellite Corporation, a GSO MSS licensee, is providing service to a police  force in the Navajo Nation and to the remote community of Tortilla Flat, Arizona, and that General Communications, Inc., an earth station operator, provides voice and private line services to fifty rural Alaskan Bush communities.  pThe Commission is committed to encouraging delivery of telecommunications services, including satellite  pservices, to unserved and highcost communities and seeking to develop costeffective 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  Pwe 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  S0 be whether a licensee is providing service to unserved areas,[ | {O& ԍqSee Section III.A.4.a., supra.[ or whether licensees should be granted",P ,l(l(<< P"  S0 extension of system implementation milestones if they will provide service to unserved communities.Y| {Oh ԍqSee Section III.C.3., supra.Y  We note that we have not adopted such policies or rules for Big LEO licensees or other MSS providers.  S0 0We seek comment on how this fact, and our commitment to competitive neutrality in our rules,uZ| {O ԍqSee, e.g., DISCO II Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 24168  173.u could  0affect 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.  S q 7. Trafficking  Sh0  q_96. The Commission adopted an antitrafficking rule to govern the transfer of Big LEO licenses  S50 that were not obtained through competitive bidding.J5| yO ԍq47 C.F.R.  25.143(g).J 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  S0 progress toward system implementation.W|| {O ԍqCf. 47 U.S.C.  309(j)(3)(c).W We seek comment on whether to adopt an antitrafficking rule  Pfor 2 GHz MSS licensees. If adopted, an antitrafficking 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 antitrafficking  @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  0reservations for foreignlicensed satellites, should such concerns arise. We propose not to apply an antitrafficking rule if competitive bidding is adopted here. We request comment on this proposal.  S q 8. Orbital Debris Mitigation  Sk0  @q`97. In 1995, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued an Interagency  S90 Report on Orbital Debris.9| {O ԍqOffice of Science and Technology Policy, Interagency Report on Orbital Debris (November 1995). 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  Pidentifying 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.  S0  `qa98. Following these recommendations, NASA and DoD have developed a set of draft debris  S0mitigation practices.H| yO# ԍqAttached as Appendix C.H These practices focus on four objectives:   Xqa. 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.(# "-0 ,l(l(<<P"Ԍ  Xqb. 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. (#   @Xqc. 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 manmade objects or meteoroids.(#   0Xqd. 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.(#  Si 0  qb99. 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  S 0for commercial operations implementing some elements of these practices. | {O8   ԍqSee, e.g., Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, Title II, Section 202(b)(3), P.L.102555 (licensees  should, upon termination of operations, make disposition of satellites in a manner satisfactory to the President);  P62Fed. Reg. 59317 (1997) (proposing requirement for disposal at end of life of remote sensing satellites licensed  by NOAA); NPRM concerning Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulations, 62 Fed. Reg. 13216, 13230  (March 19, 1997) (regulations for launch vehicles concerning safe flight profiles and minimizing debris from accidental explosions).  Sj0  qc100. 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  Pshould 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 endoflife 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?  S0  qd101. 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.  S:0  qe102. 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 2GHz 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 Commissionlicensed satellite systems." .B,l(l(<<#P"Ԍ  S q 9. Exclusionary Arrangements  Sg0  qf103. 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  S0 countries.| yOi   ԍq47 C.F.R.  25.143(h) (prohibition against licensing Big LEO applicants with exclusive rights to carry traffic  to or from the United States); 47 C.F.R.  25.145(e) (prohibition against licensing Kaband applicants with exclusive  rights to carry traffic to or from the United States); 47 C.F.R.  25.142(d) (prohibition against licensing NVNG MSS  {O  0applicants with exclusive rights to carry traffic to or from the United States); the DISCO II Order extends this policy  {O to nonU.S. operators. DISCO II Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 24166  166. 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  Si 0 DISCO II decision, the Commission applied this prohibition to U.S. licensees and in the DISCO II Order  S7 0 adopted the prohibition on exclusionary arrangements for nonU.S. systems as well.d7 || {OS ԍqDISCO II Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 24166  166.d Thus, if a provider  (U.S. or nonU.S.) has an exclusive arrangement, we will not authorize service by the provider between  S 0 the U.S. and the country with which the provider has such an exclusive arrangement.$ | {O   ԍqAs stated in the DISCO II Order, we recognize that certain countries may not yet have mechanisms in place  {OI  0by which to authorize competitive systems. In these cases, consistent with the DISCO II Order, we will allow non @U.S.licensed systems to access the U.S. market but will prohibit service between the U.S. and the country with which it has the exclusive arrangement. We have  @concluded that this type of rule will help ensure that markets worldwide will be open to all 2 GHz MSS  Sk0 operators,Zk | yO   ԍqA policy that prohibits exclusive agreements promotes the goal of fair and effective competition and is  consistent with the WTO commitments made by the United States because it is applied equally to U.S. and nonU.S. {O licensed systems. DISCO II Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 2416566  166167. 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.  S  D. Mobile Earth Station Licensing  Sl0  qg104. 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 handheld, terminals. The Commission has adopted licensing rules for earth stations in other  S0 related services."| {O$   PԍqSee 47 C.F.R.  25.135 (licensing provisions for earth stations networks in the nonvoice, nongeostationary  mobile satellite service),  25.136 (operating provisions for earth station networks in the 1.6/2.4 GHz mobile satellite  service),  80.51 (ship earth station licensing),  80.1185 .1189 (maritime mobile satellite service),  87.51 (aircraft earth station commissioning). For example, in the Big LEO Report & Order, the Commission adopted a licensing"/,l(l(<<P"  S0 procedure and rules for the mobile earth station segment of the Big LEO systems.j| {Oh ԍqBig LEO Report & Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 6016  208.j We propose to  amend the Commission's rules to license 2GHz MSS gateways and TT&C frequencies in a similar manner. We seek comment on this proposal.  S40  qh105. The rules require satellite service providers to obtain blanket licenses to cover multiple user  S0 ptransceiver units.Z| yO   ԍq47 C.F.R.  25.115(d). This authorization would include authority for operation of transceivers owned by both Government and nonGovernment customers. 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  S50  communicating with a satellite system.V5| yO ԍq47 C.F.R.  25.115(d), 25.136.V These rules are designed to reduce the regulatory burden of  pfiling 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.  S 0  qi106. 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.  Sk0  qj107. 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,  S0 Subsection J of our rules.p^B| {O   pԍqAmendment of Parts 2 and 25 to Implement Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite (GMPCS)  {O  Memorandum of Understanding and Arrangements, IB Docket No. 9967, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, FCC  {O{ 9937 (rel. March 5, 1999) (GMPCS NPRM).p 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 2GHz MSS   terminals based on the procedures adopted in the GMPCS proceeding. We seek comment on whether  Pthere are any new technical requirements, such as position determination or outofband 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 2GHz MSS  Sm0terminals.mh | {Ou%   ԍqWe seek comment in Section III.F., infra, regarding any standards necessary for sharing between MSS terminals and stations in other services. ":0 ,l(l(<<P"Ԍ S  E. International Coordination  S0  `qk108. 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.  S0  ql109. 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,  0we observed that global satellite systems will be more likely to succeed if individual administrations adopt  S0 complementary licensing systems.| {O7 ԍXqSee Big LEO Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 1287879  5253.(#Ƃ In our KaBand Service Rules Proceeding, we adopted a policy of  ppursuing 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 countrybycountry  S 0 basis.x Z| {O ԍqKaband Third Report & Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22337  6768.x Although we indicated that there would be exceptions to this general approach, we found that  S 0 this general policy would ensure timely coordination and prompt provision of service.V | {O\ ԍqId. at 2233738  6771.V We ask   commenters to address specifically whether a similar approach is appropriate with respect to 2 GHz MSS systems.  S0  qm110. Because our earlier international coordination policies were adopted prior to the DISCO II  S0 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 nonU.S. licensed satellite systems. Therefore,  0unlike prior proceedings, this proceeding involves participants for which the United States is not directly  S0 responsible for international coordination. In the DISCO II Order, the Commission stated that the  Poutcome of a processing round may include the designation of spectrum for use by a nonU.S. licensed  S0  system or systems.h~| {O ԍqDISCO II Order, 12 FCC Rcd 24094, 24173  185.h 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 nonU.S. licensed systems be conditioned in some manner on successful coordination internationally? If so, what form should those conditions take?  S0  qn111. In addition, we seek comment on how any U.S. band approach or, if mutual exclusivity  0cannot 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  S0 personal communications services in both the 1.6/2.4 GHz and 2 GHz ranges.=Z| {O%   pԍqSee ERC Decision of 30 June 1997 on the Harmonized Use of Spectrum for Satellite Personal  Communication Services (SPCS) operating within the bands 16101626.5 MHz, 2483.52500 MHz, 19802010 MHz and 21702200 MHz, ERC/DEC/(97)03.= In several respects, our"12 ,l(l(<<P"  \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  pin the MSS field, and contemplates further decisions to take into account system requirements beyond the  Pyear 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.  S  F. Interservice Sharing  Si 0  qo112. In the 2 GHz MSS Allocation Order,gi | {O ԍqSee 2 GHz MSS Allocation Order, 12 FCC Rcd 7388.g the Commission found that incumbents affected by  S7 0 new 2 GHz MSS systems would be treated in accordance with our Emerging Technologies policies.7 Z| {O1   `ԍqSee Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the Use of New Telecommunications  {O  `Technologies, ET Docket No. 929, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 7 FCC Rcd  6886 (1992); Second Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 6495 (1993); Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion  and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 6589 (1993); Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1943 (1994); Second  {OU  `Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 7797 (1994), aff'd, Association of Public Safety Communications  {O OfficialsInt'l Inc. v. FCC, 76 F.3d 395 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Emerging Technologies).  @In particular, the Commission concluded that MSS and Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) could not share  pspectrum without unacceptable mutual interference. The Commission, therefore, determined that it is  Pnecessary to relocate BAS in order to accommodate MSS in the 19902025 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 21652200 MHz band  0until 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  S0successfully share spectrum.|| {O ԍqSee 2 GHz MSS Allocation Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 740607  4243.|  S:0  pqp113. 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 inband  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?  S0  @qq114. Satellite licensees are required to suppress outofband and spurious emissionsqXl | yO#   0ԍqOutofband emissions are transmissions on a frequency or frequencies immediately outside the necessary  bandwidth that result from the modulation process. Spurious emissions exclude outofband emissions and may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.q from the  space and earth stations to the level specified in Section 25.202(f) of the Commissions Rules. We expect  MSS operators to meet this requirement by employing a variety of spectral shaping, coding, modulation"p2 ,l(l(<<P"  and filtering techniques in mitigating outofband emissions. We propose to apply the domestic outof 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.  S40  @qr115. 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  PSpace Operations services operating in the 20252110 MHz and 22002290 MHz bands. Concerning the  S0 20252110 MHz band, we note that in the 2 GHz MSS Allocation Order, the Commission proposed to  Pgrant coprimary status to the Government space operations (Earthtospace and spaceto space), Earth exploration satellite (Earthtospace and spaceto space), and space research (Earthtospace and spaceto  S0 space) services in the 20252110 MHz band.Z| {Ok   PԍqSee 2 GHz MSS Allocation Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 740607  34. See also 47 C.F.R.  2.106 & nn. US90,  `US111, US219, US222. In the 20252035 MHz band, the Government currently transmits or plans to transmit from a limited number of earth stations to satellites, including TDRSS, QUICKSAT, GOES and NOAA/TIROS. Given the nature of U.S. Government operations in the  `20252110 MHz band (transmit power measured in kilowatts, highgain 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 22002290 MHz band, the band is primarily used for U.S. Government Space Research, Earth  pExploration Satellite and Space Operations space systems' downlinks. These systems use highgain  receive Earth stations that may be susceptible to interference from outofband emissions from MSS  systems' downlinks in the 21652200 MHz band. Hence, we also seek comment on whether any  padditional requirements are necessary to facilitate compatible adjacent band operations between 2 GHz MSS systems and U.S. Government space systems operating in the 22002290 MHz band.  S0  pqs116. 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  S90 Information Administration, we proposed in the recentlyreleased GMPCS NPRM to impose certain limits  on outofband emissions from MSS terminals transmitting in the LBand in order to protect aircraft  S0 reception of aeronautical radionavigation signals.d| {O^ ԍqSee GMPCS NPRM, FCC 9937, at  6162.d The principal requirements we proposed were that  psuch 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,  S;0 2005.F;|| {OW ԍqId. at  62.F We also invited comments on a proposal to require suppression of outofband emissions from  Big LEO MSS terminals to 10 dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz and to a level between 1605 and 1610 MHz  S0 @determined by linear interpolation.F| {O! ԍqId. at  83.F We said in the GMPCS NPRM that we would decide in the context  S0 of this proceeding whether to adopt analogous requirements for 2 GHz MSS systems.M| {O# ԍqId. at  9496.M We see no reason  pto adopt a different standard for 2 GHz MSS terminals with respect to suppression of emissions to protect  aeronautical navigation than we have proposed for LBand terminals. We also note that ITU  Radiocommunications Sector ("ITUR") Assembly adopted a recommendation for licensing administrations  concerning regulatory limits on outofband emissions from MSS terminals licensed for transmission to"32 ,l(l(<<P"  S0 nongeostationary satellites in frequency bands between 1 and 3 GHz.| {Oh   ԍqRecommendation ITUR M.1343, Essential technical requirements of mobile Earth Stations for Global Non {O2 geostationary Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the Bands 13 GHz. Similar limits were adopted by   the European Testing and Standards Institute ("ETSI") and apply to GSO and NGSO Mobile Earth  S0 `Stations.=$| yO^ ԍqETSI TBR42.= We therefore seek comment on whether any additional provisions may be appropriate or needed concerning unwanted emissions.  S0  qt117. We specifically seek comment on the relationship between multipoint distribution service  (MDS) operations at 2150-2165 MHz band and MSS downlink operations at 21652200 MHz. In response  S0 to the 2 GHz MSS PN, Wireless Cable Association International, Inc. (WCA) expressed concern that there  may be potential for outofband emission interference into MSS downlinks at 2165-2200MHz from MDS  S60 operations.d6| {O ԍqSee Comments of WCA at 3 (filed May 4, 1998).d WCA asserts that MSS receivers could be interference prone if not properly designed, lacking sufficient selectivity to avoid interference from MDS facilities.  S 0  0qu118. We addressed a similar adjacent band interference issue in the Big LEO proceeding.n F| {O ԍqSee Big LEO Report & Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 5996  158.n In  0that case, we found no significant threat of harmful interference to MSS receivers operating at  S7 0  2483.5-2500 MHz from ITFS/MDS operations above 2500 MHz.:7 | {O ԍqId.: The current record, however, is  Pinsufficient for us to reach a conclusion in the case of MDS operations in the 21502165 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  Ptechnical tradeoffs involved, taking into account technological advancements in MSS receiver design, the  possibility of assigning the 21652170 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.  Sl0  `qv119. We also seek comment on whether current outofband limits and technical requirements for  systems, other than ITFS/MDS, in adjacent bands are sufficient to protect 2 GHz MSS operations from harmful interference.  Sm  IV. CONCLUSION ă  S0  qw120. 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 worldwide 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 nonU.S.licensed systems with strict milestones for implementing"4j ,l(l(<< P"  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 2GHz MSS  psystem 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.  S   S5 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ă  S0 A. Ex Parte Presentations  Si 0  qx121. This is a permitbutdisclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding under Section  S6 0 1.1200 of the Commission's rules. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine  S 0 Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. See generally 47C.F.R. 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206.  Sl  B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  S0  pqy122. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),Z| {On   ԍqSee 5 U.S.C.  603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C.  601 et. seq., has been amended by the Contract With America  Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). 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  0Mobile 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  S0  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,  Sn0 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  S0 Band and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register. See id. Pursuant to the  0Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1990, 5 U.S.C. 601!612 (RFA), as amended by the Contract with  pAmerica Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847, the Commission's Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with respect to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is as follows:  S 0   q1. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rule: This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking  S0 `(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.  Sr0 This Notice also seeks comment on proposals for service rules to apply to 2 GHz MSS systems. These  0actions are necessary for the Commission to evaluate these proposals and seek comment from the public  S 0 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."A#5,l(l(<<P&P"Ԍ S0  `ԙ q2. 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.  S50  S0  ! q3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Subject to the Rules: The Commission has not  0developed a definition of small entities applicable to geostationary or nongeostationary orbit fixedsatellite  `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  S0 annual receipts.|| yOk ԍq13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 4899.| 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  Sj 0 entities.@Xj X| yOb   ԍqU.S. Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications,  Utilities, UC92S1, Subject Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 2D, Employment Size of Firms: 1992, SIC Code 4899 (issued May 1995).@ 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  Prequirements 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.  S:0    q4. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements: The proposed action  S0 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  pprocedures 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  0be used to determine the licensee and/or spectrum designee. If auctions are required, applicants and letter  Pof intent filers will have to comply with the requirement to file a shortform (FCC Form 175).  @Completion of shortform 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.  S>   P"  q5. Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict with These Proposed Requirements:  S 0 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.  S!  "!6x,l(l(<<$P"Ԍ  # q6. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant  S0 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  S0 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  0on 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.  Sj  C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis  S 0  qz123. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains either a proposed or a modified information  pcollection. 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. 10413. 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.  S  D. Comment Filing Procedures  Sm0   q{124. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419,  S:0 interested parties may file comments on or before June 24, 1999 , and reply comments on or before  S0  July26, 1999 . Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System  S0 p(ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998).  S<0  Pq|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.  pIf 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  0the 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  0electronic comment by Internet email. To get filing instructions for email comments, commenters should  send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, "get form ." A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.  S>#0  pq}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  psubmit 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..; TWA325; Washington, D.C. 20554. "?'7,l(l(<<*P"Ԍ S0  Pq~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  PCommission, 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. 9981), 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  pfollowing phrase "Disk Copy Not an Original." Each diskette should contain only one party's pleadings,  0preferably 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.  S6  wVI. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S 0  q128. 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.  S0  q129. 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  S80Notice.  S0  q130. 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  S:0603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq. (1981). q` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION q` `  hh,Magalie Roman Salas q` `  hh,Secretary"8,l(l(<<pP"  X0#Xj\  P6G; XP#  X0 Appendix A  X06 Service Link Spectrum Allocations for 2 GHz MSS ă # &I7  PT6Q b&P# T !ddxjl l AddxQ9pP @ T R  u " p  Uplink Frequenciesp Global: 19802010 MHzp United States: 19902025 MHzu   Q p  Downlink FrequenciesK Global: 21702200 MHzK United States: 21652200 MHz    X 0 # XP7  PT6QXP#Applicants' Proposals  yO+   ЍqWe intend to consider proposals only to the extent they are within the U.S. 2 GHz MSS frequency allocation. ă  T 0#&I7  PT6Q b&P# Y AddxQ9pP @ addx\ 98( Y    u  p  Applicant p Service Link Spectrum Request p System p Technologyu " \  p0  Boeing&P uplink: 8.25 MHz at 19901998.25 MHz  T&0downlink: 8.85 MHz in 21702185 MHz&X yO   `ԍqThe differential between Boeing's uplink and downlink requests reflects Boeing's proposed Traffic Information Service that would utilize 600 kHz of TDMA downlink spectrum.0 16 NGSO0 CDMA" "   00  CelsatHP uplink: 25 MHz in 19902025 MHz downlink: 25 MHz in 21652200 MHz 1 GSO TDMA/  TH0CDMA3" "  0  Constellation IIjP uplink: 45 MHz at 19802025 MHz downlink: 35 MHz at 21652200 MHz7 46 NGSO7 CDMA" "  0  GlobalstarP uplink: 35 MHz at 19902025 MHz downlink: 35 MHz at 21652200 MHzY 4 GSO; 64 NGSOY TDMA/  T0CDMA yO ԍqIridium, Globalstar, TMI and Celsat propose to use both TDMA and CDMA technologies in this proceeding." " 7 0  ICOP uplink: 30 MHz at 19852015 MHz downlink: 30 MHz at 21702200 MHz{ 1012 NGSO{ TDMA" " Y   Inmarsat HorizonsP  T0uplink: 45 MHz at 19802025 MHz downlink: 40 MHz at 21602200 MHz 4 GSO TDMA" " { 0  Iridium MacrocellP uplink: 35 MHz at 19902025 MHz downlink: 35 MHz at 21652200 MHz 96 NGSO TDMA/  T0CDMA3" "  0  MCHI Ellipso 2GP uplink: 35 MHz at 19902025 MHz downlink: 35 MHz at 21652200 MHz 26 NGSO CDMA" R   `  TMI CansatM3f uplink: 35 MHz at 19902025 MHz downlink: 35 MHz at 21652200 MHz3 @ 1 GSO3 @ TDMA/  T60CDMA3R   `"3 9@,l(l(<<p "  Y0# XP7  PT6QXP#  Appendix B FLEXIBLE BAND ARRANGEMENT ă c addx\ 98( ddx:L @ c  R       `   S0^ #&I7  PT6Q b&P#TDMA `NGSO e_Core XSpectrum  q Expansion  Spectrum for  TDMA NGSO ? and CDMA  Systems  I  CDMA Core Spectrum  oExpansion Spectrum for  CDMA and TDMA GSO Systems   `   TDMA K GSO Core o Spectrum  ` xP 0  X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: @L(w #]7  PT6QҼP#GUIDELINES #&a\  P6G;r&P#у  S 041.XDisposal for final mission orbits: A spacecraft or upper stage may be disposed of by one of three methods:Ơ#  So 0a.` ` 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 areatime 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  S0not exceed 8 m2, or it will be confined to a broad ocean or essentially unpopulated area.Ơ#`  Sq0Xb.X` ` Maneuvering to a storage orbit: At end of life the structure may be relocated to one of the following storage regimes:Ơ#`  S 0XX` ` I.X Between LEO and MEO: Maneuver to an orbit with perigee altitude above 2000 km and apogee altitude below 19,700 km (500 km below semisynchronous altitude).Ơ#  Sr0XX` ` II.X 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 semisynchronous altitude and 500 km below synchronous altitude).Ơ#  S0XX` ` III.X Above GEO: Maneuver to an orbit with perigee altitude above 36,100 km (approximately 300 km above synchronous altitude).Ơ#  Ss0XX` ` IV.X Heliocentric, Earthescape: Maneuver to remove the structure from Earth orbit, into a heliocentric orbit.Ơ# +y&NXqXqq+XBecause 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.Ơ#  SA"0Xc.X` ` Direct retrieval: Retrieve the structure and remove it from orbit as soon as practical after completion of mission.Ơ#`  S$042.XTether systems will be uniquely analyzed for both intact and severed conditions when performing tradeoffs between alternative disposal strategies.Ơ#"v%=,&&<<(@"  S rI (APPENDIX D  S (Proposed Rule Changes to 47 C.F.R. Part 25 of the Commission's Rules ă 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) * * *  Si 0 @@) (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); * * *  Sj0 @@) (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. * * * * *  S0 @@) (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  @@)0312, Main Form and Schedule B, and specifying the number of units to be covered by the blanket license.  @@)pEach application for a blanket license under this section shall include the information described in Sec.  S025.13 5 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  S<#0 @@)P(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.  @@)p25.115(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. "='>,l(l(<<*@"Ԍ* * * * *  S0 @@)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  S0 or 2 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service are subject to the following operating conditions:  S0 @@) (a) User transceiver units associated with the 1.6/2.4 or 2 Mobil e -Satellite service may not be operated  @@)on civil aircraft unless the earth station has a direct physical connection to the aircraft Cabin Communication system.  S0 @@) (b) User transceiver units in this service are authorized to communicate with and through U.S. authorized  S0 @@) space stations only. No person shall transmit to a space station unless the user transceiver is first authorized  S 0 @@) 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  S 0 @@)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 nonU.S. licensed space stations.  S  @@)&  (d) Earth station applicants requesting authority to operate with a nonU.S. licensed space station  @@)p' 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  S9 nonU.S. licensed systems to operate in the United States. * * * * *  Sm0Sec. 25.143 Licensing provisions for the 1.6/2.4 and 2 GHz mobile-satellite service.  S0 @@)0 (a) System License: Applicants authorized to construct and launch a system of technically identical  S0 @@) non-geostationary satellite orbit satellites will be awarded a single "blanket" license . In the case of non S0 @@)0#geostationary satellites, the blanket license will cover ing a specified number of space stations to operate  So0 @@)in a specified number of orbital planes. In the case of geostationary satellites, as part of a  @@)& geostationaryonly satellite system or a geostationary/nongeostationary hybrid satellite system, an  S individual license will be issued for each satellite to be located at a geostationary orbital location.  S 0 (b) Qualification Requirements.  S!0 @@)0 (1) General Requirements: Each application for a space station system authorization in the 1.6/2.4 or  Sq"0 @@)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  S $0 @@)0applicant. In particular, each application shall include the information specified in Sec. 25.114. NonU.S.  S$ licensed systems shall comply with the provisions of Sec. 25.137.  S%0 @@)  (2) Technical Qualifications: In addition to providing the information specified in paragraph (b)(1) of  Ss&0this section, each applicant and letter of intent filer shall demonstrate the following:"s&?,l(l(<<)@"Ԍ S0 @@)" (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;  S0 @@)`" (ii) That the a system proposed to operate using nongeostationary 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;  S0 @@)P! (iii) That the a system proposed to operate using nongeostationary satellites be is capable of  @@)providing mobile satellite services on a continuous basis throughout the fifty states, Puerto Rico and the  S50 @@)U.S. Virgin Islands, U.S. , i.e., that at least one satellite will be visible above the horizon at an elevation  S0angle of at least 5 deg. at all times within the described geographic areas; and  S0 @@)@# (iv) That a system only using geostationary orbit satellites, at a minimum, be capable of  @@)p& providing mobile satellite services on a continuous basis throughout the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and  Si the U.S. Virgin Islands, if technically feasible.  S6 0 @@) ( i v) That operations will not cause unacceptable interference to other authorized users of the spectrum.  S 0 @@)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. * * *  S0 @@)@ (e) Reporting requirements. (1) All operators of 1.6/2.4 and 2 GHz mobile-satellite systems shall, on  S0 @@) June 30 October 15 of each year, file with the International Bureau and the Commission's Columbia  S0 @@)pOperations Center, Columbia, Maryland, a report containing the following information current as of May  Sl031st September 30 of that year: * * *  S0 @@)0& (2) The Commission will issue a Public Notice establishing the milestone commencement date for  Sm0 @@)p 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.  Sn0 (f) Safety and distress communications.  S<0 @@)P (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.  @@)0Licensees 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. * * *  S!0 @@)0 (h) Prohibition of certain agreements. No license shall be granted to any applicant for a space station  Sr"0 @@)! or earth station in the mobile satellite service operating at 1610-1626.5/2483.5-2500 or 19902025/2165 S?#0 @@)2200 MHz if that applicant, or any persons or companies controlling or controlled by the applicant, shall  @@)0acquire or enjoy any right, for the purpose of handling traffic to or from the United States, its territories  S$0 @@)or possession s , to construct or operate space segment or earth stations, or to interchange traffic, which is  @@)pdenied 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."@'@,l(l(<<*@"Ԍ* * * * * Sec. 25.201 Definitions.  S40 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)  S0 @@)p 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.  Sk 0 @@)%  2 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service. A mobile-satellite service that operates in the 19902025, MHz and  S8 21652200 MHz frequency bands, or in any portion thereof. * * * * * Sec. 25.202 Frequencies, frequency tolerance and emission limitations. (a)(1) * * *  S0 @@) 2 Use of this band by the fixedsatellite 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  S0 (5) The following frequencies are available for use by the 2 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service: 19902025 MHz: User-to-Satellite Link  S< 21652200 MHz: Satellite-to-User Link  S0 ( 6 5 ) 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. * * * * * "r&A,l(l(<<)@"Ԍ S0 @@) (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: * * * * * y&N  y&N   S0 y&N  y&N  y&N  y&N   y&N  5. A new section 25.216 is added and reads as follows:  Sh0 ` &!  Section 25.216 Limits on Out-of-band Emissions from Terminals Operating in the 1610-1660.5  R50MHz and 19902025 MHz Bands for Protection of Aeronautical Satellite Radionavigation   S0 (a)  Limits on Emissions Below 1605 MHz.   Si  ` &"  (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  @@)P& 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.  S7  ` &#  (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.  S  ` &!  (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.  S  ` &P"  (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.  S!0 ` &!  (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  S$ case-by-case basis.