Attachment Exhibit A

This document pretains to SES-STA-INTR2019-00088 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESSTAINTR201900088_1612509

                                        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
communicate with a non-U.S. licensed space station” to serve the United States must
demonstrate that U.S.-licensed satellite systems have effective competitive opportunities
to provide analogues services in certain countries and must provide the same legal and
technical information for the non-U.S.-licensed space station as 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 from the United
States—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 of
the FCC’s rules. With respect to Section 25.114, Intelsat seeks authority only to provide

1
       47 C.F.R. § 25.137.
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,
Order and Authorization, 28 FCC Rcd. 4229 (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, 419 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969); Northeast Cellular,
897 F.2d at 1166.


PSN-6 LEOP
Exhibit A
Page 2

LEOP services for the PSN-6 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 PSN-6
satellite. Intelsat has a contract with SSL, the manufacturer of the PSN-6 satellite, to
conduct LEOP services.

The information required under Section 25.114 of the FCC’s rules is not necessary to
determine potential harmful interference. The Schedule S information for this satellite
would pertain to the operation of the PSN-6 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 of the Commission’s rules. 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 of the agency’s rules. Section 25.137 is
designed to ensure that “U.S.-licensed satellite systems have effective competitive
opportunities to provide analogous services” in other countries.7 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 Section 25.137 would not be
served by applying these rules to LEOP services. For example, Section 25.137(d)(4)
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.8 The underlying purpose of
Section 25.137(d)(4)—to provide parity between U.S.-licensed and non-U.S.-licensed
commercial satellite systems in discouraging orbital location warehousing—would not be
served by requiring Intelsat to post a bond to provide approximately 30 days of LEOP
services to the PSN-6 satellite.

It is Intelsat’s understanding that PSN-6 is licensed by Indonesia, which is a WTO-
member country. Thus, the purpose of Section 25.137—to ensure that U.S. satellite
operators enjoy “effective competitive opportunities” to serve certain foreign markets—
will not be undermined by grant of this waiver request.


7
       47 C.F.R. § 25.137(a).
8
       See 47 C.F.R. §25.137(d)(4).


PSN-6 LEOP
Exhibit A
Page 3

Finally, Intelsat notes that it expects to operate with the PSN-6 satellite using its U.S.
earth station for a period of approximately 30 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 30 days, would pose undue
hardship without serving underlying policy objectives. Given these particular facts, the
waiver sought herein is plainly appropriate.



Document Created: 2019-01-28 15:33:24
Document Modified: 2019-01-28 15:33:24

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