Attachment Exhibit A

This document pretains to SES-STA-INTR2013-02872 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESSTAINTR201302872_1030888

                                         Exhibit A

           PETITION FOR WAIVER OF SECTIONS 25.137 AND 25.114

        Pursuant to Section 25.137 of the Federal Communications Commission’s
(“Commission” or “FCC”) rules, earth station applicants “requesting authority to operate
with a non-U.S. licensed space station to serve the United States” must demonstrate that
effective competitive opportunities exist and must provide the same technical information
required by Section 25.114 for U.S.-licensed space stations.1 Intelsat License LLC
(“Intelsat”) herein seeks authority to provide launch and early orbit phase (“LEOP”)
services -- not commercial services -- to the United States, and thus believes that Section
25.137 does not apply.2

        To the extent the Commission determines, however, that Intelsat’s request for
authority to provide LEOP services on a special temporary basis is a request to serve the
United States with a non U.S.-licensed satellite, Intelsat respectfully requests a waiver of
Sections 25.137 and 25.114 of the Commission’s rules.3 The Commission may grant a
waiver for good cause shown.4 The Commission typically grants a waiver where the
particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest.5 In granting
a waiver, the Commission may take into account considerations of hardship, equity, or
more effective implementation of overall policy on an individual basis.6 Waiver is
therefore appropriate if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule,
and such a deviation will serve the public interest.

         In this case, good cause exists for a waiver of both Section 25.137 and Section
25.114. With respect to Section 25.114, Intelsat seeks authority only to provide LEOP
services for the ABS-2 satellite. The information sought by Section 25.114 is not
relevant to LEOP services. Moreover, Intelsat does not have – and would not easily be
able to obtain – such information because Intelsat is not the operator of the ABS-2
satellite, nor is Intelsat in contractual privity with that operator. Rather, an affiliate of
Intelsat has a contract with Space Systems/Loral, the manufacturer of the ABS-2 satellite,
to conduct LEOP services for the satellite.


1
  47 C.F.R. § 25.137 (emphasis added).
2
  See EchoStar Satellite Operating Company Application for Special Temporary
Authority Related to Moving the EchoStar 6 Satellite from the 77° W.L. Orbital Location
to the 96.2º W.L. Orbital Location, and to Operate at the 96.2° W.L. Orbital Location,
DA 13-593, File No. SAT-STA-20130220-00023 (released Apr. 1, 2013) (noting that
operating TT&C earth stations in the United States with a foreign-licensed satellite does
not constitute “DBS service”).
3
  47 C.F.R. §§ 25.137 and 25.114.
4
  47 C.F.R. §1.3.
5
  N.E. Cellular Tel. Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (“Northeast
Cellular”).
6
  WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969); Northeast Cellular, 897
F.2d at 1166.


        The information that Intelsat is not including is not required to determine potential
harmful interference. The Schedule S information for this satellite would pertain to the
operation of the ABS-2 satellite at its final orbital location. However, the present
application for LEOP services involves communications prior to the satellite attaining its
final location in the geostationary orbit. In other words, during the LEOP mission, the
earth station will not be communicating with a satellite located in the geostationary orbit.
Rather, it will be transmitting to a satellite traveling on its “transfer orbit” or “LEOP
path,” which starts immediately following its separation from a launch vehicle, and ends
when the satellite reaches its geostationary orbital location. Moreover, as with any STA,
Intelsat will perform the LEOP services on a non-interference basis.

       Because it is not relevant to the service for which Intelsat seeks authorization, and
because obtaining the information would be a hardship, Intelsat seeks a waiver of all the
information required by Section 25.114. Intelsat has provided in this STA request the
required technical information that is relevant to the LEOP services for which Intelsat
seeks authorization.

        Good cause also exists to waive Section 25.137. Section 25.137 is designed to
ensure that “U.S.-licensed satellite systems have effective competitive opportunities to
provide analogous services” in other countries. Here, there is no service being provided
by the satellite; it is simply being placed in its orbital location after separating from the
launch vehicle. Thus, the purpose of the information required by Section 25.137 is not
implicated here. For example, Section 25.137(d) requires earth station applicants
requesting authority to operate with a non-U.S.-licensed space station that is not in orbit
and operating to post a bond.7 The underlying purpose in having to post a bond—i.e., to
prevent warehousing of orbital locations by operators seeking to serve the United
States—would not be served by requiring Intelsat to post a bond in order to provide
approximately ten days of LEOP services to the ABS-2 satellite.

       It is Intelsat’s understanding that ABS-2 is licensed by Russia, which is a WTO-
member country. Thus, the purposes of Section 25.137—to ensure that U.S. satellite
operators enjoy “effective competitive opportunities” to serve foreign markets and to
prevent warehousing of orbital locations serving the United States—will not be
undermined by grant of this waiver request.

         Finally, Intelsat notes that it expects to operate with the ABS-2 satellite using its
U.S. earth station for a period of approximately ten days. Requiring Intelsat to obtain
copious technical and legal information from an unrelated party, where there is no risk of
harmful interference and the operations will cease after approximately ten days, would
pose undue hardship without serving underlying policy objectives. Given these particular
facts, the waiver sought herein is plainly appropriate.




7
    See 47 C.F.R. §25.137(d)(4).



Document Created: 2013-12-18 17:05:54
Document Modified: 2013-12-18 17:05:54

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