The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-Satellite Service, 14297-14299 [2011-6145]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 14297 Code for reading third column: Emerg. —Emergency; Reg. —Regular; Susp. —Suspension. Dated: March 8, 2011. Sandra K. Knight, Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation. Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202– 488–5300, facsimile 202–488–5563, or via e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com. When ordering documents from BCPI please provide the appropriate FCC document number (for example, FCC 07–174, Order on Reconsideration). The full text may also be downloaded at: https:// www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consider & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), or 202–418–0432 (tty). [FR Doc. 2011–6058 Filed 3–15–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–12–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 25 [IB Docket No. 06–123; FCC 10–188] The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the BroadcastingSatellite Service Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission denies two petitions for reconsideration filed by Telesat Canada (Telesat) challenging certain aspects of the processing and technical rules adopted for the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS). Specifically, we decline to adopt Telesat’s proposal that the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) impose additional blanket international coordination licensing conditions on U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space stations. Finally, we are not persuaded by Telesat’s argument that the Commission’s technical and procedural rules concerning assignment of orbital locations and frequencies are inapplicable to requests filed by nonU.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space stations operators seeking to access the market in the United States. DATES: Effective April 15, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Kelly, Satellite Division, International Bureau, at 202–418–7877 or via e-mail at Andrea.Kelly@fcc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Second Order on Reconsideration in IB Docket No. 06– 123, FCC 10–188, adopted October 29, 2010 and released November 1, 2010. The full text of the Second Order on Reconsideration is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission’s duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, ebenthall on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:52 Mar 15, 2011 Jkt 223001 Synopsis The Commission denied two petitions for reconsideration filed by Telesat Canada (Telesat) challenging certain aspects of the processing and technical rules adopted for the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS). Specifically, we decline to adopt Telesat’s proposal that the Commission impose additional blanket international coordination licensing conditions on U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space stations. Commission provisions for imposing additional coordination requirements already exist and can be invoked, if needed, on a case-by-case basis. While we reject Telesat’s petition for reconsideration on this point, we will continue to follow the applicable coordination procedures set out in the International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) Radio Regulations for the particular band segment being coordinated. Finally, we are not persuaded by Telesat’s argument that the Commission’s technical and procedural rules concerning assignment of orbital locations and frequencies are inapplicable to requests filed by nonU.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space stations operators seeking to access the market in the United States. These rules apply to both U.S.- and non-U.S.licensed operators. In May 2007, the Commission released a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 72 FR 46939, August 22, 2007. In the 17/24 GHz BSS R&O, the Commission decided to apply the first-come, first-served licensing process to applications for geostationary satellite orbit (GSO)-like space stations in this service. At the same time, the Commission also adopted technical rules, including a framework in which 17/24 GHz BSS space stations would operate at orbital locations spaced at four degree intervals, as set forth in 17/24 GHz BSS R&O Appendix F (known as Appendix F locations). In adopting this four- PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 degree spacing framework, the Commission recognized that rigid application of the spacing plan would not serve the public interest because at some Appendix F locations there might be undesirable operational constraints required to coordinate physical operations with co-located satellites, or because there might be a co-primary Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) or other ITU Region 2 BSS satellite receiving feeder-link signals in the 17.3–17.8 GHz band at or very near that location. As a result, the Commission also provided the flexibility to operate at locations offset from the Appendix F locations with accompanying reductions in power and interference protection. In addition, the Commission adopted limits for uplink and downlink power levels to minimize the possibility of harmful interference, stipulated criteria to facilitate sharing in the 24.75–25.25 GHz and 17.3–17.8 GHz bands, adopted a minimum antenna diameter, and adopted antenna performance standards. The Commission also adopted its proposal to apply the DISCO II framework to requests by non-U.S.licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space stations operators to serve the market in the United States. In addition, the Commission adopted geographic service rules to require space station licensees to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii. At the same time, the Commission issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on coordination parameters relating to space-path and ground-path interference between 17/24 GHz BSS systems and DBS service systems operating in the 17.3–17.8 GHz band. On September 28, 2007, the Commission, sua sponte, released an Order on Reconsideration, 72 FR 60272, October 24, 2007 to provide space station operators additional flexibility to operate full-power space stations at orbital locations offset by up to one degree from an Appendix F location, in instances where there are no licensed or prior-filed applications for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations less than four degrees away from the proposed offset space station. In response to the 17/24 GHz BSS Sua Sponte Recon, Telesat filed a second petition for reconsideration arguing that the additional flexibility did not resolve issues it raised in its original petition for reconsideration. Telesat reiterates its requests that we impose specific additional conditions on each U.S.licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space station relating to international coordination. In E:\FR\FM\16MRR1.SGM 16MRR1 ebenthall on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES 14298 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations particular, Telesat asks us to impose a condition on each U.S. license that allows us to modify the assigned orbital location by more than one degree from an Appendix F location if necessary to facilitate coordination with a non-U.S.licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space station operator. Licensing. At the time the Commission issued its 17/24 GHz BSS Report and Order, there were a number of pending applications for 17/24 GHz BSS space station authorizations. To implement its decisions, the Commission directed the International Bureau to release a public notice after the rules became effective, establishing a deadline for applicants to amend pending applications to conform to the newly adopted rules. The 17/24 GHz BSS rules, as modified by the 17/24 GHz BSS Sua Sponte Recon, became effective on November 23, 2007. In December 2007, the Bureau released a public notice with instructions for filing conforming amendments. The amended applications that were acceptable for filing were placed on public notice and comments were filed by various parties, not including Telesat. The Bureau subsequently completed processing of all of the applications pending at the time the 17/24 GHz BSS R&O was released. As of the date of this order, the Bureau has authorized nine space stations in this service. The 17/24 GHz BSS Report and Order also adopted a freeze on filing new applications and delegated authority to the Bureau to lift the freeze after, among other things, the newly adopted processing and service rules became effective and the pending applications were amended to conform to the new rules. The Bureau lifted the freeze on new 17/24 GHz BSS applications and requests for market access by non-U.S.licensed space stations in September 2008. Since that date, a number of entities have filed new applications, including requests for access to the market in the United States, with the Commission. While Telesat has not yet filed a request to access the U.S. market from a Canadian licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space station, one of Telesat’s wholly owned subsidiaries, Skynet Satellite Corporation (Skynet), has filed an application to be a U.S.-licensed 17/ 24 GHz BSS space station operator. Telesat proposes that the Commission adopt additional blanket ITU coordination conditions for the 17/24 GHz BSS service. For the reasons stated below, we deny Telesat’s request as unnecessary. Telesat’s argument concerns the international coordination obligations of U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:52 Mar 15, 2011 Jkt 223001 station operators. Telesat argues that there ‘‘may be confusion’’ among 17/24 GHz BSS applicants regarding their international coordination obligations with non-U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS operators that have ITU date priority. To mitigate any such confusion, Telesat requests that the Commission attach conditions to any 17/24 GHz BSS authorization requiring U.S. licensees to coordinate with non-U.S-licensed satellite operators that have ITU date priority. In light of our existing ITU coordination rule and our prior statements on this issue, we find Telesat’s contention that there ‘‘may be confusion’’ regarding ITU coordination obligations to be unsupported. Thus, we find that any further condition requiring ITU coordination, as proposed by Telesat, is redundant and is otherwise unnecessary as a general matter. Similarly, Telesat’s second proposed condition—that 17/24 GHz BSS space station authorizations are subject to modification to an off-grid location to facilitate coordination with a foreignlicensed satellite operators with ITU priority—is also unnecessary. Section 25.111(b) of the Commission’s rules already explicitly provides that ‘‘[a]ny radio station authorization for which coordination has not been completed may be subject to additional terms and conditions as required to effect coordination of the frequency assignments with other Administrations.’’ Thus, specifically listing only one theoretical solution to a coordination issue is unnecessary. Further, such a condition might prejudice the Commission’s position in a future international coordination. Thus, we concur with Intelsat that such a condition, in addition to being unnecessary, might inject additional uncertainty into the four-degree spacing framework. While we decline to adopt the additional blanket coordination conditions proposed, Telesat, like any other interested party, may propose conditions relevant to the unique circumstances presented by any specific application. The Commission takes such comments into consideration when reviewing any application and may adjust licensing conditions if circumstances warrant. A party proposing further international coordination conditions—in addition to the standard condition drawn from § 25.111(b) of the Commission’s rules— bears the burden of establishing that its proposed condition is required by the facts presented in the particular application at issue. Finally, although we reject Telesat’s petition for reconsideration on this point, in PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 coordinating U.S.-licensed satellite networks with satellite networks of other Administrations, we will follow the applicable coordination procedures set out in the ITU Radio Regulations for the particular band segment being coordinated. The Commission’s DISCO II Order, 12 FCC Rcd 24094, 62 FR 64167, November 26, 1997, implemented the marketopening commitments made by the United States in the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on Basic Telecommunications Service (WTO Basic Telecom Agreement). In particular, the DISCO II Order established a framework under which the Commission considers requests by operators of non-U.S.-licensed space stations to serve the United States. The Commission’s analysis considers the effect on competition in the United States; eligibility and operating requirements; spectrum availability; and national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade concerns. Consequently, we reject Telesat’s contention that our technical and licensing rules do not apply to non-U.S.licensed 17/24 GHz BSS satellite operators seeking access to the market in the United States. The Commission’s space station licensing policy for the 17/ 24 GHz BSS is predicated upon fourdegree orbital spacing between geostationary space stations. The 17/24 GHz BSS service rules allow space station operators to operate full-power space stations at orbital locations offset by up to one degree from an Appendix F location in cases where there are no licensed or previously filed applications for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations less than four degrees away from the proposed offset space station. This fourdegree orbital spacing framework and accompanying offset rules are technical rules equally applicable to non-U.S.licensed space stations seeking to access the market in the United States. Telesat apparently seeks to exempt non-U.S.licensed space stations from our technical rules if ITU filings made by the licensing Administration on behalf of these networks precede those made by the United States at nearby orbital locations. We note, however, our decision here does not preclude non-U.S.-licensed operators from seeking a waiver of any technical rules based on the facts presented in a particular market access request. Further, while our technical rules apply to an application filed before the Commission for access to the market in the United States, our technical rules do not constrain another licensing Administration in the context of ITU coordination with the United E:\FR\FM\16MRR1.SGM 16MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations States. In that context, the ITU Radio Regulations govern. Thus, our decision here is limited to the determination that when applying for market access in the United States, non-U.S.-licensed operators must meet the same legal and technical rules as U.S. licensees, and where departures from those rules are sought, the same waiver standards apply. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 303(y), and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 303(y), 308, this Order on Reconsideration is adopted. It is further ordered that Telesat Canada’s Petition for Reconsideration filed on September 28, 2007 is denied. It is further ordered that Telesat Canada’s Petition for Reconsideration filed on November 21, 2007 is denied. It is further ordered that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center shall send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration, including the final regulatory flexibility act certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (1981). It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration in a report to be sent to Congress and the General Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2011–6145 Filed 3–15–11; 8:45 am] ebenthall on DSK69SOYB1PROD with RULES BILLING CODE 6712–01–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 224 [Docket No. 110223163–1180–01] RIN 0648–XA231 Listing Endangered and Threatened Species: Correction To Codify in the Code of Federal Regulations Endangered Status for Southern Resident Killer Whales National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment. AGENCY: We, NMFS, announce a correcting amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations to identify the Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) distinct population segment (DPS) as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). DATES: Effective March 16, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding this correcting amendment contact Steve Stone, NMFS, Northwest Region, 503– 231–2317; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 301–713– 1401. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: Background and Correcting Amendment We listed the Southern Resident killer whale DPS as an endangered species under the ESA on November 18, 2005 (70 FR 69903). That final rule became effective on February 16, 2006, and the species was included in the enumeration of endangered species at 50 CFR 224.101(b). In separate and unrelated rulemaking, we published a final rule on March 6, 2008 (73 FR 12024), to list the North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena. japonica) and North Atlantic right whale (E. glacialis) as separate endangered species under the ESA. In that more recent rule the Southern Resident killer whale DPS was inadvertently dropped from the enumeration of endangered species at 50 CFR 224.101(b). This correcting amendment remedies that oversight. Classification The Assistant Administrator (AA) finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment because it is impracticable, unnecessary, VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:52 Mar 15, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 14299 and contrary to the public interest. We fully intended the Southern Resident killer whale DPS to be listed as an endangered species under the ESA and expressly stated this intent in the November 2005 final rule (70 FR 69903; November 18, 2005). We also previously provided public notice in the Federal Register and considered public comments on the 2004 proposed rule (69 FR 76673; December 22, 2004). Further, this DPS was correctly included in the October 2006 and 2007 issues of the CFR. However, due to a clerical error in unrelated rulemaking on March 6, 2008 (73 FR 12024), the DPS was omitted from the list of endangered species published at 50 CFR 224.101 in the October 2008 and subsequent issues of the CFR. In order to avoid regulatory confusion and ensure continuous protections and enforcement capability for the Southern Resident killer whale, the AA waives the requirement for prior notice and opportunity for public comment. For the same reasons above, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness and makes this rule effective immediately upon publication. Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared. It has been determined that this rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. References Copies of previous Federal Register notices and related reference materials are available on the Internet at https:// www.nwr.noaa.gov, or upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above). List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224 Endangered marine and anadromous species. Dated: March 10, 2011. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 224 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment: PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 1. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as follows: ■ E:\FR\FM\16MRR1.SGM 16MRR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14297-14299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6145]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket No. 06-123; FCC 10-188]


The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the 
Broadcasting-Satellite Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission denies 
two petitions for reconsideration filed by Telesat Canada (Telesat) 
challenging certain aspects of the processing and technical rules 
adopted for the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS). 
Specifically, we decline to adopt Telesat's proposal that the Federal 
Communications Commission (Commission) impose additional blanket 
international coordination licensing conditions on U.S.-licensed 17/24 
GHz BSS space stations. Finally, we are not persuaded by Telesat's 
argument that the Commission's technical and procedural rules 
concerning assignment of orbital locations and frequencies are 
inapplicable to requests filed by non-U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space 
stations operators seeking to access the market in the United States.

DATES: Effective April 15, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Kelly, Satellite Division, 
International Bureau, at 202-418-7877 or via e-mail at 
Andrea.Kelly@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Second Order on 
Reconsideration in IB Docket No. 06-123, FCC 10-188, adopted October 
29, 2010 and released November 1, 2010. The full text of the Second 
Order on Reconsideration is available for public inspection and copying 
during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, 
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. 
This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300, 
facsimile 202-488-5563, or via e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com. When ordering 
documents from BCPI please provide the appropriate FCC document number 
(for example, FCC 07-174, Order on Reconsideration). The full text may 
also be downloaded at: https://www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are 
available to persons with disabilities by sending an e-mail to 
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consider & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 
202-418-0530 (voice), or 202-418-0432 (tty).

Synopsis

    The Commission denied two petitions for reconsideration filed by 
Telesat Canada (Telesat) challenging certain aspects of the processing 
and technical rules adopted for the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite 
Service (BSS). Specifically, we decline to adopt Telesat's proposal 
that the Commission impose additional blanket international 
coordination licensing conditions on U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space 
stations. Commission provisions for imposing additional coordination 
requirements already exist and can be invoked, if needed, on a case-by-
case basis. While we reject Telesat's petition for reconsideration on 
this point, we will continue to follow the applicable coordination 
procedures set out in the International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) 
Radio Regulations for the particular band segment being coordinated. 
Finally, we are not persuaded by Telesat's argument that the 
Commission's technical and procedural rules concerning assignment of 
orbital locations and frequencies are inapplicable to requests filed by 
non-U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space stations operators seeking to 
access the market in the United States. These rules apply to both U.S.- 
and non-U.S.-licensed operators.
    In May 2007, the Commission released a Report and Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 72 FR 46939, August 22, 2007. In the 17/
24 GHz BSS R&O, the Commission decided to apply the first-come, first-
served licensing process to applications for geostationary satellite 
orbit (GSO)-like space stations in this service. At the same time, the 
Commission also adopted technical rules, including a framework in which 
17/24 GHz BSS space stations would operate at orbital locations spaced 
at four degree intervals, as set forth in 17/24 GHz BSS R&O Appendix F 
(known as Appendix F locations). In adopting this four-degree spacing 
framework, the Commission recognized that rigid application of the 
spacing plan would not serve the public interest because at some 
Appendix F locations there might be undesirable operational constraints 
required to coordinate physical operations with co-located satellites, 
or because there might be a co-primary Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) 
or other ITU Region 2 BSS satellite receiving feeder-link signals in 
the 17.3-17.8 GHz band at or very near that location. As a result, the 
Commission also provided the flexibility to operate at locations offset 
from the Appendix F locations with accompanying reductions in power and 
interference protection. In addition, the Commission adopted limits for 
uplink and downlink power levels to minimize the possibility of harmful 
interference, stipulated criteria to facilitate sharing in the 24.75-
25.25 GHz and 17.3-17.8 GHz bands, adopted a minimum antenna diameter, 
and adopted antenna performance standards. The Commission also adopted 
its proposal to apply the DISCO II framework to requests by non-U.S.-
licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space stations operators to serve the market in 
the United States. In addition, the Commission adopted geographic 
service rules to require space station licensees to provide service to 
Alaska and Hawaii. At the same time, the Commission issued a Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on coordination 
parameters relating to space-path and ground-path interference between 
17/24 GHz BSS systems and DBS service systems operating in the 17.3-
17.8 GHz band.
    On September 28, 2007, the Commission, sua sponte, released an 
Order on Reconsideration, 72 FR 60272, October 24, 2007 to provide 
space station operators additional flexibility to operate full-power 
space stations at orbital locations offset by up to one degree from an 
Appendix F location, in instances where there are no licensed or prior-
filed applications for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations less than four 
degrees away from the proposed offset space station. In response to the 
17/24 GHz BSS Sua Sponte Recon, Telesat filed a second petition for 
reconsideration arguing that the additional flexibility did not resolve 
issues it raised in its original petition for reconsideration. Telesat 
reiterates its requests that we impose specific additional conditions 
on each U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space station relating to 
international coordination. In

[[Page 14298]]

particular, Telesat asks us to impose a condition on each U.S. license 
that allows us to modify the assigned orbital location by more than one 
degree from an Appendix F location if necessary to facilitate 
coordination with a non-U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space station 
operator.
    Licensing. At the time the Commission issued its 17/24 GHz BSS 
Report and Order, there were a number of pending applications for 17/24 
GHz BSS space station authorizations. To implement its decisions, the 
Commission directed the International Bureau to release a public notice 
after the rules became effective, establishing a deadline for 
applicants to amend pending applications to conform to the newly 
adopted rules. The 17/24 GHz BSS rules, as modified by the 17/24 GHz 
BSS Sua Sponte Recon, became effective on November 23, 2007. In 
December 2007, the Bureau released a public notice with instructions 
for filing conforming amendments. The amended applications that were 
acceptable for filing were placed on public notice and comments were 
filed by various parties, not including Telesat. The Bureau 
subsequently completed processing of all of the applications pending at 
the time the 17/24 GHz BSS R&O was released. As of the date of this 
order, the Bureau has authorized nine space stations in this service.
    The 17/24 GHz BSS Report and Order also adopted a freeze on filing 
new applications and delegated authority to the Bureau to lift the 
freeze after, among other things, the newly adopted processing and 
service rules became effective and the pending applications were 
amended to conform to the new rules. The Bureau lifted the freeze on 
new 17/24 GHz BSS applications and requests for market access by non-
U.S.-licensed space stations in September 2008. Since that date, a 
number of entities have filed new applications, including requests for 
access to the market in the United States, with the Commission. While 
Telesat has not yet filed a request to access the U.S. market from a 
Canadian licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space station, one of Telesat's wholly 
owned subsidiaries, Skynet Satellite Corporation (Skynet), has filed an 
application to be a U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space station operator.
    Telesat proposes that the Commission adopt additional blanket ITU 
coordination conditions for the 17/24 GHz BSS service. For the reasons 
stated below, we deny Telesat's request as unnecessary.
    Telesat's argument concerns the international coordination 
obligations of U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space station operators. 
Telesat argues that there ``may be confusion'' among 17/24 GHz BSS 
applicants regarding their international coordination obligations with 
non-U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS operators that have ITU date priority. 
To mitigate any such confusion, Telesat requests that the Commission 
attach conditions to any 17/24 GHz BSS authorization requiring U.S. 
licensees to coordinate with non-U.S-licensed satellite operators that 
have ITU date priority. In light of our existing ITU coordination rule 
and our prior statements on this issue, we find Telesat's contention 
that there ``may be confusion'' regarding ITU coordination obligations 
to be unsupported. Thus, we find that any further condition requiring 
ITU coordination, as proposed by Telesat, is redundant and is otherwise 
unnecessary as a general matter.
    Similarly, Telesat's second proposed condition--that 17/24 GHz BSS 
space station authorizations are subject to modification to an off-grid 
location to facilitate coordination with a foreign-licensed satellite 
operators with ITU priority--is also unnecessary. Section 25.111(b) of 
the Commission's rules already explicitly provides that ``[a]ny radio 
station authorization for which coordination has not been completed may 
be subject to additional terms and conditions as required to effect 
coordination of the frequency assignments with other Administrations.'' 
Thus, specifically listing only one theoretical solution to a 
coordination issue is unnecessary. Further, such a condition might 
prejudice the Commission's position in a future international 
coordination. Thus, we concur with Intelsat that such a condition, in 
addition to being unnecessary, might inject additional uncertainty into 
the four-degree spacing framework.
    While we decline to adopt the additional blanket coordination 
conditions proposed, Telesat, like any other interested party, may 
propose conditions relevant to the unique circumstances presented by 
any specific application. The Commission takes such comments into 
consideration when reviewing any application and may adjust licensing 
conditions if circumstances warrant. A party proposing further 
international coordination conditions--in addition to the standard 
condition drawn from Sec.  25.111(b) of the Commission's rules--bears 
the burden of establishing that its proposed condition is required by 
the facts presented in the particular application at issue. Finally, 
although we reject Telesat's petition for reconsideration on this 
point, in coordinating U.S.-licensed satellite networks with satellite 
networks of other Administrations, we will follow the applicable 
coordination procedures set out in the ITU Radio Regulations for the 
particular band segment being coordinated.
    The Commission's DISCO II Order, 12 FCC Rcd 24094, 62 FR 64167, 
November 26, 1997, implemented the market-opening commitments made by 
the United States in the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Agreement on 
Basic Telecommunications Service (WTO Basic Telecom Agreement). In 
particular, the DISCO II Order established a framework under which the 
Commission considers requests by operators of non-U.S.-licensed space 
stations to serve the United States. The Commission's analysis 
considers the effect on competition in the United States; eligibility 
and operating requirements; spectrum availability; and national 
security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade concerns.
    Consequently, we reject Telesat's contention that our technical and 
licensing rules do not apply to non-U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS 
satellite operators seeking access to the market in the United States. 
The Commission's space station licensing policy for the 17/24 GHz BSS 
is predicated upon four-degree orbital spacing between geostationary 
space stations. The 17/24 GHz BSS service rules allow space station 
operators to operate full-power space stations at orbital locations 
offset by up to one degree from an Appendix F location in cases where 
there are no licensed or previously filed applications for 17/24 GHz 
BSS space stations less than four degrees away from the proposed offset 
space station. This four-degree orbital spacing framework and 
accompanying offset rules are technical rules equally applicable to 
non-U.S.-licensed space stations seeking to access the market in the 
United States. Telesat apparently seeks to exempt non-U.S.-licensed 
space stations from our technical rules if ITU filings made by the 
licensing Administration on behalf of these networks precede those made 
by the United States at nearby orbital locations.
    We note, however, our decision here does not preclude non-U.S.-
licensed operators from seeking a waiver of any technical rules based 
on the facts presented in a particular market access request. Further, 
while our technical rules apply to an application filed before the 
Commission for access to the market in the United States, our technical 
rules do not constrain another licensing Administration in the context 
of ITU coordination with the United

[[Page 14299]]

States. In that context, the ITU Radio Regulations govern. Thus, our 
decision here is limited to the determination that when applying for 
market access in the United States, non-U.S.-licensed operators must 
meet the same legal and technical rules as U.S. licensees, and where 
departures from those rules are sought, the same waiver standards 
apply.

Ordering Clauses

    Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 
303(r), 303(y), and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 
303(r), 303(y), 308, this Order on Reconsideration is adopted.
    It is further ordered that Telesat Canada's Petition for 
Reconsideration filed on September 28, 2007 is denied.
    It is further ordered that Telesat Canada's Petition for 
Reconsideration filed on November 21, 2007 is denied.
    It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center shall send a 
copy of this Order on Reconsideration, including the final regulatory 
flexibility act certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration, in accordance with section 603(a) of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (1981).
    It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of this 
Order on Reconsideration in a report to be sent to Congress and the 
General Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 
see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-6145 Filed 3-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.