Attachment petition

petition

PETITION submitted by New ICO

petition

2007-01-18

This document pretains to SAT-AMD-20060505-00054 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATAMD2006050500054_546449

                                                                                                       CU_>py
                                                                                              FILED/ACCEPTED
                                                   Before the
                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION                                          JAN 18 2007
                                           Washington, D.C. 20554                            Federal Communications Commission
                                                                                                   Office of the Secretary


In the Matter of

New ICO Satellite Services G.P.                                    File Nos.     —SAT—MOD—20050926—00182
                                                                                 SAT—AMD—20050927—00186
Application for Modification of Authority for                                    SAT—AMD—20060505—00054
Use of the 2 GHz Bands to Provide Mobile
Satellite Service                                                  Call Sign $2651


To the International Bureau:

                         PETITION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION

         Pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, New ICO

Satellite Services G.P. ("ICO®") submits this petition for partial reconsideration ("Petition") ofthe

memorandum opinion and order by the Satellite Division of the International Bureau ("Bureau")

in the above—captioned proceeding.l Specifically, ICO seeks reconsideration of the Bureau‘s

denial of ICO‘s request for waiver of Section 25.202(g) of the Commission‘s rules* to permit use

of C—band frequencies on a non—harmful interference basis for the limited purpose of conducting

telemetry, tracking, and command ("TT&C") operations during the brief period required for

transfer orbit operations and in—orbit testing." ICO is not seeking reconsideration of the Bureau



\ See New ICO Satellite Services G.P., DA 06—2545 (Int‘l Bur. Dec. 19, 2006) ("ICO Modification Order").
* Section 25.202(g) provides that "[tJelemetry, tracking and telecommand functions for U.S. domestic satellites shall
be conducted at either or both edges of the allocated band(s}." 47 C.F.R. §25.202(g). This provision requires
satellite operators to conduct TT&C operations in the same frequency bands in which they operate fixed satellite
service ("FSS") links. See Echostar Satellite LLC, 20 FCC Red 4281, { 6 (Int‘l Bur. 2005) ("Echostar Order").
* In its above—captioned modification application ("Application"), ICO requested a waiver to permit use of certain C—
band frequencies (ie., 1 MHz of spectrum within each of the 5925—5930 MHz and 6420—6425 MHz band and 300
kHz of spectrum within each of the 3700—3705 MHz and 4195—4200 MHz bands) for TT&C operations "under
limited or emergency circumstances," such as during transfer orbit or spacecraft emergencies involving a temporary
or permanentfailure of the Ka—band TT&C subsystem. See Application, Attachment A at 4. ICO clarifies that its
Footnote continues...




de—475071


decision with respect to ICO‘s request for C—band TT&C use during spacecraft emergencies, but

may renew that request in the future, as necessary.

         ICO‘s waiver request is limited in scope and duration. Grant of the requested waiver will

serve the purposes of Section 25.202(g) and the public interest, and is consistent with

Commission precedent. Accordingly, the Bureau should grant ICO‘s request for a limited

waiver of Section 25.202(g) to permit C—band TT&C operations on a non—harmful interference

basis during transfer orbit and in—orbit testing.

L        THE COMMISSION SHOULD GRANT A LIMITED WAIVER OF SECTION
         25.202(g)
         The Commission may waive its rules upon a showing of "good cause."* Waiver is

appropriate if (1) special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and (2) the

deviation better serves the public interest than strict adherence to the rule." Special

circumstances warranting a waiver may include "considerations of hardship, equity, or more

effective implementation of overall policy."" Moreover, the Commission may waive a rule in a

particular case if the relief requested would not undermine the policy objective of the rule and

would serve the public interest."

         A.       Special Circumstances Warrant A Limited Waiver In This Case

         In this case, good cause and, specifically, special circumstances warrant the grant of a

limited waiver of Section 25.202(g) of the Commission‘s rules to permit C—band TT&C

request for C—band TT&C operations was intended to extend to the brief period required for in—orbit testing in
addition to transfer orbit.
*47 C.FR. §1.3.
* Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (citing WAIT Radiov. FCC, 418
F.2d 1153, 1158 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972)).
© WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1159.
"Id. at 1157.




de—475071


operations during transfer orbit and in—orbit testing. For the ICO G1, access to an extensive

network of ground station facilities is required during transfer orbit in order to maintain

continuous contact, which in turn will ensure that critical operations are completed while the

ICO G1 satellite maintains sufficient power, and also to reduce risk to the spacecraft should any

anomalies arise.*     This access cannot be accomplished by using Ka—band frequencies because

extremely limited Ka—band ground facilities exist worldwide to support TT&C operations during

the transfer orbit period. Thus continuous contact with the satellite cannot be maintained by

relying upon Ka—band facilities.

        Continuous contact with ground facilities is essential during this period to perform a

number of critical functions using battery power, before that battery power is depleted.

Spacecraft functions for the ICO G1 are sustained by battery power prior to full deployment of

the solar arrays, which occurs within two to three hours after launch. Accordingly, during

transfer orbit, the ICO G1 satellite must use battery power to perform the various transfer orbit

spacecraft functions, to address any anomalies in the power subsystem or attitude control

subsystem that might arise, and to stabilize the ICO G1 satellite upon separation from the launch

vehicle while it is being properly positioned in its orbital location prior to deployment of the

solar arrays.

        Continuous contact between the ICO G1 satellite and ground facilities can be achieved

effectively only through use of the C—band. In contrast to the limited Ka—band ground facilities,

many C—band ground facilities are available to ICO throughout the world, including at least two

stations within the U.S. Access to these facilities would ensure continuous contact during the

* Additionally, the use of C—band frequencies for TT&C functions during transfer orbit operations is prudent because
those frequencies are generally more reliable than Ka—band frequencies under a wider variety of weather conditions
— an important consideration during the critical transfer orbit operations of the satellite.




de—475071


critical hours after launch. This global network of ground stations is therefore essential for the

mission, especially in the event of any serious anomalies prior to the solar array deployment in

the first orbit.

         Unlike the ICO G1 satellite, many other satellites can operate with a more limited

network of ground station facilities because they do not lose battery power during the initial

launch phase or do not require active attitude electronics or thrusters to keep the satellite

properly oriented. These satellites do not require quick deployment of the solar arrays because

they receive more power relative to battery drain from their non—deployed solar arrays. Thus,

spacecraft communications with ground facilities can be spaced hours, or even days, apart

because there is no net battery drainage and the satellites‘ safe status can be maintained with

little or no contact with ground facilities. For these satellites, the lack of continuous

communications due to the limited worldwide availability of ground station facilities has little

impact on transfer orbit operations. In contrast, access to the more extensive network of C—band

ground station facilities is important for the ICO G1 satellite to maintain continuous

communications with ground control operations while conserving battery power throughout the

transfer orbit period, and to complete the launch sequence in the shortest possible time period

and the lowest possible risk prior to deployment of the solar arrays.

         The ICO G1 satellite also requires access to C—band ground station facilities to support

the in—orbit testing of the satellite system, including verification of S—band and Ka—band antenna

performance. The Ka—band antenna to be used for normal on—station TT&C operations does not

have sufficient functionality to verify full antenna performance. The use of the C—band TT&C

frequencies during in—orbit testing is therefore necessary to verify the proper function of the ICO

space and ground segments, and to serve as back—up for Ka—band TT&C operations during the




de—475071


testing phase. ICO‘s inability to access C—band frequencies in the United States during in—orbit

testing could preclude successful completion of in—orbit testing of the satellite. Importantly, this

testing would be for a limited period after launch.

        B.       Grant Of The Requested Waiver Will Serve The Purposes Of The Rule And
                 The Public Interest

        Grant of a limited waiver of Section 25.202(g) will not undermine, but rather will more

effectively implement the purposes of the rule and better advance the public interest than strict

adherence to the rule. As the Bureau noted, the purposes of Section 25.202(g) are (1) to

"simplify the coordination process among satellites at adjacent orbit location by limiting the

number of potentially affected operators," and (2) to "allow|[] operators to maximize the

efficiency of a system‘s TT&C operations.”g

        Here, a waiver would serve both purposes. First, grant of the requested waiver will not

frustrate the purpose of simplifying the coordination process because, as the Bureau noted, ICO

completed coordination with Intelsat, which operates in the C—band at 93° W.L.‘* In addition,

the ICO G1 C—band TT&C frequencies are independently selectable in 250 kHz increments over

5 MHz bandwidth at the band edges, and can be changed in orbit if required, allowing additional

flexibility to coordinate any temporary use of the C—band frequencies."‘ ICO also entered into

coordination discussions with SES Americom, which operates at 89° W.L. and 101° W.L., and

with other adjacent non—U.S. operators. Therefore, ICO‘s proposed C—band TT&C operations


° ICO Modification Order, § 13.
* 1d. 4 15 n.43. The coordination agreementwith Intelsat covers Intelsat C—band operations at the 93° W.L., 89°
W.L., and 97° W.L. locations, as well as the C—band operations of its wholly owned subsidiary, PanAmSat, at the
91° W.L., 95° W.L., and 99° W.L. locations.
  1CO implemented this unprecedented level of TT&C flexibility into ICO G1 so that it could easily coordinate with
adjacent satellites, whatever their TT&C frequencies may be, and insure that the use of the C—band would always be
on a non—harmful interference basis.




de—473071


will not raise any interference concerns because ICO will conduct those operations on a non—

harmful interference basis and has coordinated, and will continue to coordinate, with potentially

affected adjacent C—band satellite operators.

         Second, grant of the requested waiver will maximize system efficiency because, as

discussed above, ICO‘s proposed C—band TT&C operations will facilitate the proper functioning

of the space and ground segments during transfer orbit and in—orbit testing. The proposed C—

band TT&C operations also will be limited in scope and duration. Specifically, ICO seeks

access to a total of only 1.3 MHz of spectrum (in each direction) in the C—band, and only during

limited periods involving transfer orbit operations or in—orbit testing. The C—band TT&C tink

will be deactivated immediately once the ICO G1 satellite achieves its authorized orbital location

and completes in—orbit testing.

         C.     Grant Of The Requested Waiver Is Consistent With Commission Precedent

         Under similar circumstances as those presented here, the Commission has granted a

waiver of Section 25.202(g) to a number of other satellite operators. For example, in Astrolink

International LLC, the Commission granted a Ka—band licensee‘s request to use extended C—band

frequencies for its TT&C operations."" In doing so, the Commission concluded that the

licensee‘s request did not present substantial coordination concerns because the licensee "has

conducted preliminary discussions with satellite operators at adjacent orbital locations, and has

adjusted its TT&C frequency plan to address potential coordination difficulties."" Ina

subsequent decision, the Commission noted that the licensee‘s request in Astro/ink did not raise




" See Astrolink International LLC, 15 PCC Red 23738,   5 (Int‘l Bur. 2000).
° 1d. 4 9.




de—475071


any significant efficiency concerns because the licensee "requested only 2.7 megahertz of C—

band spectrum for TT&C at each [orbital] location.""*

             Additionally, in Echostar Satellite LLC, the Commission waived Section 25.202(g) to

allow the licensee to use Ku—band frequencies for TT&C operations during launch and transfer

orbit." The Commission concluded that a waiver would not undermine the purpose of the rule

"because of the short term nature of the proposed Ku—band TT&C operations and its non—harmful

interference status.""" Similarly, in DIRECTY Enterprises, LLC, the Commission granted a

waiver to permit the licensee to conduct transfer orbit TT&C operations in the 14 GHz band,

which was outside of licensee‘s assigned FSS frequencies in the 17 GHz band."" The

Commission found that "the lack of 17 GHz DBS—band TT&C facilities around the world, and

the presence of 14 GHz FSS—band TT&C facilities" constituted special circumstances warranting

a waiver."

           Because the Commission has allowed other licensees to conduct TT&C operations

outside of their assigned FSS frequencies under similar cireumstances, a waiver also should be

granted in this case to ensure fair and nondiscriminatory regulatory treatment. The

Commission‘s waiver decisions must comport with its treatment of similarly situated parties.""



" WB Holdings 1 LLC, 17 FCC Red 8217, 4 13 (Int‘l Bur. 2002) (discussing and distinguishing Astrolink from case
at hand, in which the Commission found that a waiver of Section 25.202(g) would not advance spectrum efficiency
purpose of the rule because licensee requested 14 MHz of spectrum for C—band TT&C operations).
5 See Echostar Order, [ 9.

* Id. 4 8.
7 See DIRECTY Enterprises, LLC, 19 FCC Red 7754, § 14 (Int‘l Bur. 2004).
18
     Id.
® See Airmark Corp. v. FAA, 758 F.2d 685, 691 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ("Deference to agency authority or expertise,
however, is not a license to ... treat like cases differently.") (internal quotations omitted); Freeman Engineering
Associates, Inc. v. FCC, 103 F.3d 169, 180 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (finding that FCC‘s interpretation ofits rules was
reasonable, but nonetheless vacating its decision denying applicant‘s request for "pioneer‘s preference" because of
Footnote continues ..



de—475071


Moreover, any differential treatment must be supported by reasoned analysis."" The

Commission‘s obligation to extend fair and nondiscriminatory treatment to all satellite licensees

thus requires grant of ICO‘s waiver request.

H.      CONCLUSION

        Based upon the foregoing, ICO urges the Bureau to reconsider its decision and grant ICO‘s

request for a limited waiver of Section 25.202(g) to permit C—band TT&C operations on a non—

harmfulinterference basis during transfer orbit and in—orbit testing.



                                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                                        NEW ICO SATELLITE SERVICES G.P.




Cheryl A. Tritt                                         S      e Hutchings Malloy
Phuong N. Pham                                          Senior Regulatory Counsel
Morrison & Foerster LLP                                 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.                          Suite 610
Suite 5500                                              Washington, D.C. 20006
Washington, D.C. 20006

Its Attorneys

January 18, 2007




inconsistent application of the rule interpretation); Mefody Music, Inc. v. FCC, 345 F.2d 730, 732—33 (D.C. Cir.
1965) (ruling that FCC‘s refusal to explain disparate treatment of appeliant and another licensee "was error").
* See Northpoint Technology, Ltd. v. FCC, 412 F.3d 145, 155 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (FCC‘s disparate regulatory
treatment of two types of satellite services "is premised on an insignificant distinction"); Petro/eum
Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 1164, 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ("We have long held that an agency must
provide an adequate explanation before it treats similarly situated parties differently."); Melody Music, 345 F.2d at
733 (FCC must "do more than enumerate factual differences, if any, between appellant and the other cases; it must
explain the relevance of those differences").




de—475071


                                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that on January 18, 2007 a copy of the foregoing Petition for Partial
Reconsideration was served by electronic mail upon the following:

 John Giusti                                             Roderick Porter
 Acting Bureau Chief                                     Deputy Bureau Chicf, Satellite Division
 International Bureau                                    International Bureau
 Federal Communications Commission                       Federal Communications Commission
 445 12" Street, SW                                      445 12"" Street, SW
 Washington, DC 20554                                    Washington, DC 20554

 Email: John.Giusti@fee.gov                              Email: Roderick.Porter@fee.gov

 Robert Nelson                                           Cassandra Thomas
 Chief, Satellite Division                               Deputy Chief, Satellite Division
 International Bureau                                    International Bureau
 Federal Communications Commission                       Federal Communications Commission
 445 12"" Street, SW                                     445 12"" Street, SW
 Washington, DC 20554                                    Washington, DC 20554

 Email: Robert.Nelson@fec.gov                            Email: Cassandra.Thomas@fee.gov

 Karl Kensinger                                          Gardner Foster
 Associate Division Chief, Satellite Division            Legal Advisor, Satellite Division
 International Bureau                                    International Bureau
 Federal Communications Commission                       Federal Communications Commission
 445 12"" Street, SW                                     445 12"" Street, SW
 Washington, DC 20554                                    Washington, DC 20554

 Email: KarlKensinger@fee.gov                            Email: Gardner.Foster@fec.gov




                                                 Lhoaun!Pole
                                                Theéresa L. Rollins




de—475071



Document Created: 2007-01-22 17:31:37
Document Modified: 2007-01-22 17:31:37

© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC