**Before the**

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C.** **20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Amendment of the Commission\'s )

Regulatory Policies to Allow Non-U.S. ) IB Docket No. 96-111

Licensed Space Stations to Provide )

Domestic and International Satellite )

Service in the United States )

)

**[FIRST ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION]{.underline}**

Adopted: October 28, 1999 Released: October 29, 1999

By the Commission:

**I. INTRODUCTION**

In this *Order*, and on our own motion, we streamline the process by
which non-U.S. licensed fixed satellites may obtain authority to serve
the U.S. market. This process was established in the Commission\'s 1997
*DISCO II Order*,[^1] which adopted a regulatory framework governing
entry by non-U.S. satellite systems into the United States. Based on our
experience in implementing *DISCO II*, and concerns raised by non-U.S.
satellite service providers when seeking access to the United States, we
adopt two procedural changes to the *DISCO II* framework for
fixed-satellites offering fixed-satellite service in conventional C-band
and Ku-band frequencies.[^2] First, we adopt a procedure that permits
the *operators* of in-orbit non-U.S. satellites to request authority to
provide space segment capacity service to licensed earth stations in the
United States. Under *DISCO II*, this request can only be made by an
earth station operator. As a result, a foreign space station operator
will be in a position to market its services to prospective earth
station customers in a manner that is consistent with the opportunities
afforded to U.S. satellite providers. Second, we adopt a procedure that
will permit earth station licensees to access a particular non-U.S.
satellite to provide particular services without further regulatory
approval once that non-U.S. satellite is authorized to provide those
services in the United States. Under *DISCO II*, an earth station
licensee must file a modification application if it seeks to add a
non-U.S. satellite as a point of communication.

The procedures adopted in *DISCO II* governing foreign satellite entry
into the U.S. market are adequate to implement fully our obligations
under the World Trade Organization (\"WTO\") Basic Telecommunications
Agreement (\"WTO Telecom Agreement\").[^3] We conclude, however, that we
can streamline the process for entry into the U.S. fixed-satellite
services market even further, without affecting our ability to ensure
that such entry will not cause harmful interference to existing
satellite operators. The actions here are also consistent with our view
that further simplifying procedures for foreign entry into the U.S.
market for fixed-satellite services in the conventional C- and Ku-bands
will further the public interest by stimulating competition in the U.S.
marketplace.[^4] Enhanced competition will provide consumers more
alternatives in choosing communications providers and services, as well
as reduce prices and facilitate technological innovation.[^5] In
addition, streamlining our procedures furthers the public interest by
accelerating the deployment of satellite services provided to U.S.
customers. Accordingly, on our own motion, we reconsider *DISCO II* to
the extent necessary to implement the procedures described below.[^6] We
also revise Section 25.137 of our rules as set forth in Appendix A to
this Order.

**II. BACKGROUND**

*[WTO Telecom Agreement]{.underline}*. The WTO Telecom Agreement, which
took effect on February 5, 1998, was the culmination of the efforts of
the United States and 68 other countries to bring competition to global
markets for telecommunications services, including certain satellite
services. The markets of the participants accounted for more than 91
percent of global telecommunications revenues.[^7] Under the terms of
the WTO Telecom Agreement, the United States and 49 other WTO members
made binding commitments to open their markets to foreign competition in
satellite services.[^8] The United States made market access commitments
for fixed and mobile satellite services, but did not make market access
commitments for Direct-to-Home (\"DTH\") Service, Direct Broadcast
Satellite Service (\"DBS\"), and Digital Audio Radio Service (\"DARS\"),
and took an MFN exemption for these services as well.[^9]

*[DISCO II Order]{.underline}*. In the \"*DISCO II Order*,\" the
Commission adopted rules implementing the U.S. commitments under the WTO
Telecom Agreement. The Commission also adopted a framework under which
it would consider requests for access to the U.S. market for satellite
services for which the United States did not make commitments in the WTO
Telecom Agreement. Furthermore, the Commission adopted a presumption in
favor of entry by WTO Members to replace the \"ECO-Sat test,\" which
requires parties to demonstrate that U.S.-licensed satellite systems
have effective competitive opportunities in foreign markets.[^10] The
Commission concluded that providing opportunities for non-U.S.-licensed
satellites to deliver services in the United States would bring U.S.
consumers the benefits of enhanced competition.[^11] This policy also
promotes greater opportunities for U.S. companies to enter previously
closed foreign markets, thereby stimulating a more competitive global
satellite services market.[^12]

In *DISCO II*, the Commission established two procedures by which a
satellite provider could bring before it requests to allow a non-U.S.
satellite to provide service in the United States.[^13] The first
procedure is applicable in cases where the non-U.S. satellite operator
wishes to participate in a space station processing round. This Order
does not change this procedure.[^14] The second procedure is applicable
in cases where the non-U.S. satellite operator seeks immediate access to
the U.S. market through an in-orbit satellite, and has initiated
international coordination negotiations for that satellite network
pursuant to the International Telecommunication Union\'s (\"ITU\'s\")
international Radio Regulations.[^15] Under this procedure, a
prospective U.S. earth station operator seeking to communicate with the
non-U.S. space station must file an application for an initial earth
station license, listing the non-U.S. space station as a \"point of
communication,\" and demonstrating that the space station meets all
applicable Commission requirements.[^16] Further, if an existing earth
station licensee seeks to communicate with a non-U.S. satellite, it must
file a modification application to add the satellite as a permitted
point of communication on its license. This application must be
accompanied by a demonstration that the non-U.S. satellite complies with
the Commission\'s rules. This demonstration is identical to that
required of U.S.-licensed space station operators. Subsequent earth
station licensees seeking to access that space station as a permitted
\"point of communication\" do not need to provide supporting
documentation, provided they communicate using the same technical
parameters and under the same conditions as the first earth station
applicant.[^17]

On April 27, 1998, Telesat Canada (\"Telesat\") requested that the
Commission issue a Declaratory Ruling or grant a waiver of the
Commission\'s earth station licensing procedures to permit U.S. earth
stations to access the Canadian ANIK E1 and ANIK E2 satellites without
requiring earth station licensees to file modification applications to
add these satellites as authorized points of communication.[^18] Telesat
notes that many U.S. earth station licenses permit those licensees to
communicate with \"ALSAT,\" meaning \"all U.S.-licensed satellites.\"
Under ALSAT, earth station operators providing fixed-satellite service
in the conventional C- and Ku-bands[^19] may access any U.S. satellite
without additional Commission action, under the technical parameters
authorized in the earth station licenses. Telesat requests us to broaden
the scope of \"ALSAT\" to include the ANIK E1 and ANIK E2 satellites.

**III. DISCUSSION**

It has been one and one-half years since we adopted the *DISCO II*
framework for considering access by non-U.S. satellites to the U.S.
market. During that time, we have received numerous requests by both
earth station and space station operators for authority to use non-U.S.
satellites in the United States. As in the domestic area, we regularly
examine our procedures with a view towards eliminating or streamlining
regulatory requirements when possible. Telesat\'s petition raises two
general issues regarding the *DISCO II* procedural framework. The first
involves whether we should permit operators of in-orbit non-U.S.
satellites to seek access to the United States directly through a
request for a Declaratory Ruling, as an alternative to an earth station
application requesting authority to operate with that satellite. The
second issue involves whether, and to what extent, we should allow
U.S.-licensed earth stations to access authorized non-U.S. satellites,
by including those satellites under an \"ALSAT\" or other general
designation.[^20] We discuss each of these in turn.

**A. Declaratory Ruling**

Under *DISCO II*, a non-U.S. space station operator seeking immediate
access to the U.S. market must identify a U.S. earth station operator to
file an earth station application or a modification to an existing earth
station license to communicate with that space station.[^21] To
determine whether the non-U.S. satellite complies with all applicable
Commission requirements, the earth station application must be
accompanied by substantially the same detailed information about the
non-U.S. space station and its operations that the Commission requires
U.S. space station applicants to provide. Specifically, each earth
station application must contain the information required in Section
25.114 of the Commission rules, which governs applications for space
station authorizations.[^22] Applications to provide DTH, DBS, and DARS
or for satellites from non-WTO member countries must include an exhibit
demonstrating that U.S.-licensed satellite systems have effective
competitive opportunities in the relevant foreign markets (the ECO-SAT
showing).[^23]

Telesat asserts that it is often difficult for a non-U.S. satellite
operator to attract an earth station customer before the Commission
authorizes the satellite operator to offer service in the United
States.[^24] Loral responds that some non-U.S. satellite operators have
obtained authority to provide service in the United States through earth
station applications.[^25] We agree with Loral that non-U.S. satellite
operators have obtained access to the United States under the current
procedure by filing earth station applications. Nevertheless, we also
agree with Telesat that another procedural vehicle, in addition to the
current earth station application procedure, could facilitate foreign
entry without affecting our ability to ensure that such entry is
consistent with all Commission requirements. Telesat\'s proposed
\"Declaratory Ruling,\" if accompanied by all required Section 25.114
and 25.137 information with respect to the foreign satellite, will allow
us to make a finding as to whether, and under what conditions, to permit
the non-U.S. satellite to serve the U.S. market. This finding would be
identical to the finding we make when we consider an earth station
application to access a non-U.S. satellite, and would permit non-U.S.
space segment providers to market capacity to prospective customers with
the assurance that service already has been authorized in the United
States. Further, this procedure in no way affects our *DISCO II*
decision that we will not re-license non-U.S. satellites.[^26] We will
continue to look to the earth station licensees communicating with these
satellites as our regulatory control point, as described below.

Therefore, in addition to obtaining U.S. access through an application
filed by an earth station operator, non-U.S. satellite operators may now
file Petitions for Declaratory Ruling, on their own behalf, seeking a
ruling as to whether the Commission will permit the non-U.S. satellite
to provide service in the United States. These petitions must be
accompanied by the same documentation that must accompany an earth
station application to access a foreign satellite, specifically, all
information required by Sections 25.114 and 25.137 of the Commission\'s
rules[^27] for the non-U.S. satellite.

In evaluating a Petition for Declaratory Ruling, as we do when
considering earth station applications, we will conduct a *DISCO II*
analysis of the information submitted to determine whether the non-U.S.
satellite will operate consistently with all applicable Commission
requirements, including technical requirements. The Commission also will
apply the presumption in favor of entry where the satellite is licensed
by a WTO Member, and will determine whether the satellite meets the
effective competitive opportunities test (ECO-SAT test) where the
proposed service is for DBS, DTH, and DARS, or where the non-U.S.
satellite is from a non-WTO member country. In addition, the Commission
will consider whether communications with that satellite system raise
any other public interest concerns, including but not limited to
national security concerns.[^28]

The Commission will issue its decision in a Declaratory Ruling, which
will contain any additional operating conditions or constraints on earth
stations accessing this satellite to ensure that operations will not
cause harmful interference to other satellite systems and are otherwise
in the public interest. For example, if a non-U.S. satellite does not
meet the Commission\'s two-degree spacing requirements,[^29] we may
indicate in the Declaratory Ruling that we will require earth stations
accessing that satellite to limit both transmitting and receiving powers
to mitigate any interference potential, or where the non-U.S. satellite
could offer DBS, DTH, or DARS, that the earth station license would be
conditioned to exclude those services. We will also impose any
appropriate administrative sanctions, such as forfeitures or license
revocations, on earth station licensees failing to meet these
requirements.

**B. Permitted Space Station List**

Routine U.S. earth stations providing fixed-satellite service (FSS) in
the conventional C- and Ku-band are typically licensed to communicate
with all U.S. licensed satellites operating in these bands. This is
reflected by specifying \"ALSAT\" as the authorized point of
communication on the license.[^30] Thus, once a new C- or Ku-band FSS
U.S. satellite is authorized, U.S.-licensed earth stations containing
\"ALSAT\" as a point of communication may immediately communicate with
the new satellite, under the technical parameters authorized in their
licenses, without any additional regulatory or licensing
requirements.[^31] Non-U.S. satellites are not currently included in
\"ALSAT,\" but are individually listed in earth station licenses as
authorized points of communication. Consequently, an earth station
licensee seeking to access a non-U.S. space station in the provision of
fixed-satellite service in the conventional C- and Ku-bands must file an
application to modify its license to add the non-U.S. satellite as an
authorized point of communication.

Telesat argues that the WTO Telecom Agreement requires us to treat
foreign space segment service providers no less favorably than U.S.
space segment service providers. According to Telesat, requiring earth
station operators to apply separately for authority to communicate with
each foreign space station may be inconsistent with the WTO Telecom
Agreement.[^32] To remedy this inconsistency, Telesat requests us to
include the ANIK E1 and ANIK E2 satellites under the \"ALSAT\"
designation. JFL notes that Telesat\'s proposal would improve
competition by giving earth station operators a wider choice of
satellites with which to communicate.[^33] Loral contends, however, that
granting a foreign space station \"ALSAT-like\" status would preclude
the Commission and interested parties from determining whether
communications with that satellite will cause harmful interference to
existing U.S. operations.[^34]

Telesat is correct that, at this time, a U.S. earth station operator
with an ALSAT designation in its license must take an additional
procedural step to communicate with a non-U.S. in-orbit satellite in the
fixed-satellite service that is not required when that earth station
communicates with a U.S.-licensed fixed satellite. We agree that the
procedures applicable to non-U.S. space station operators seeking access
to the U.S. fixed-satellite services market could be streamlined,
without increasing substantially the prospect of harmful interference or
otherwise compromising the Commission\'s satellite rules and policies.

We conclude that U.S. earth stations with ALSAT licenses should be
permitted to communicate with any non-U.S. satellite just as easily as
they communicate with any U.S.-licensed satellite, provided that those
communications do not cause harmful interference to or require
protection from adjacent satellite operations, and otherwise comply with
*DISCO II*. For reasons discussed below, however, we will not
automatically extend \"ALSAT\" status to each non-U.S. space station
once it has been approved entry. Rather, we will establish a new
\"Permitted Space Station\" list, listing non-U.S. satellites
individually. All existing ALSAT-designated earth stations will then be
authorized to communicate with any satellite on the Permitted Space
Station list, subject to any conditions included on that list. In
addition, on a going-forward basis, we will authorize all future
\"routinely-licensed\" earth stations to communicate with any satellite
on the Permitted Space Station list, subject to any conditions included
on that list. This will provide authorized earth station operators the
flexibility to access any satellite authorized to serve the United
States, while ensuring that technical requirements and other public
interest considerations are met.

In the case of U.S.-licensed satellites, ALSAT-designated earth stations
will not cause harmful interference into adjacent satellite operations.
Most ALSAT-designated earth stations and all U.S.-licensed space
stations comply with the Commission\'s technical requirements to
accommodate satellites at two-degree orbital spacings. Thus, regardless
of which U.S.-licensed space station a two-degree spacing compliant
earth station is accessing, it should not interfere with an adjacent
satellite system two-degrees away. Those ALSAT-designated earth stations
that are not compliant with two-degree spacing requirements must provide
a showing that operation of that earth station will not cause any more
interference than would be caused by a compliant earth station.[^35]
Often, these earth station licenses are granted with conditions to
ensure that there is no harmful interference to other systems.

By contrast, in the case of non-U.S. satellites, we cannot assume that a
particular foreign satellite complies with the Commission\'s technical
requirements. For example, many foreign satellite networks do not meet
the Commission\'s two-degree spacing requirement. These systems cannot
serve the same geographic area as other satellite systems less than two
degrees away without causing unacceptable interference into adjacent
satellite operations. Thus, we envision that we will need to impose
operating conditions on operations being conducted over any
non-compliant foreign satellite. In the first instance, these conditions
will be described in a Declaratory Ruling with respect to U.S. access by
that foreign satellite or in the first earth station license that
permits access to that satellite. To ensure that parties are aware of,
and are observing these conditions, we will also list them as a
condition of access for that particular satellite on the Permitted Space
Station list. We expect the satellite operator responsible to inform its
customers, whether service suppliers or end-users, that use of its space
segment capacity is subject to the conditions and technical requirements
specified on the Permitted Space Station list, as well as the technical
requirements in the Commission\'s rules designed to prevent harmful
interference. Further, we will require earth station licensees to
terminate any interfering operations immediately upon notification of
interference, and will impose forfeitures or other administrative
sanctions, including license revocation, when appropriate.[^36]

Although, for these reasons, we will not include non-U.S. satellites
under the general \"ALSAT\" designation, we see no reason to treat any
non-U.S. satellite differently than U.S. satellites once we have
determined to grant it access to the United States market for
fixed-satellite services in the conventional C- and Ku-bands. In
particular, earth stations in the United States should be able to access
that satellite immediately under the same service restrictions and
operating conditions as placed on the original authorization of access.
To this end, we will compile a list of satellites authorized to provide
service in the United States, noting any service restrictions or
operating conditions for that particular satellite. \"ALSAT\" \-- all
U.S.-licensed satellites \-- will be the first entry on this list.
Non-U.S. satellites will be individually listed. All U.S.-licensed earth
stations with \"ALSAT\" designations will be permitted to communicate
immediately with any satellite on the Permitted Space Station list,
under the same technical parameters authorized in their licenses, and in
accordance with any operating conditions noted on the Permitted Space
Station list for the particular non-U.S. satellite.[^37] We will update
the Permitted Space Station list as warranted. We will include a
reference to this list in new earth station authorizations, in
modifications to existing earth station licenses in which an earth
station operator first requests access to a non-U.S. satellite to
provide a particular service, and in the Declaratory Rulings, whichever
appropriate. We will post the current list on the FCC web site,[^38] and
upon request provide a copy of the list by fax or by e-mail.

Initially, we will place \"ALSAT\" on the Permitted Space Station list,
to signify that all U.S.-licensed space stations are permitted points of
communication. On a going-forward basis, we will place non-U.S.-licensed
space stations on the Permitted Space Station list, with any requisite
conditions, after we have authorized them to access the United States
through either an earth station application or a petition for a
Declaratory Ruling.

**C. Revisions in Procedural Rules**

Loral contends that we cannot grant Telesat the relief it seeks outside
of a rulemaking proceeding.[^39] We disagree, however. Section 1.108 of
the Commission\'s rules enables the Commission to reconsider its Orders
on its own motion within thirty days from the date of public notice of
the action.[^40] Several petitions for reconsideration of the *DISCO II
Order* have been filed and are pending. Consequently, we may reconsider
the rules adopted in the *DISCO II Order* at this time without
initiating a rulemaking.

Furthermore, pursuant to Section 1.2 of the Commission\'s rules, the
Commission may issue a Declaratory Ruling at any time to terminate a
controversy or remove uncertainty.[^41] The Commission has wide
discretion within this framework to determine whether a Declaratory
Ruling is necessary.[^42] We see no reason to refrain from issuing a
Declaratory Ruling to clarify whether a foreign space station operator
has demonstrated its qualifications to provide satellite service in the
United States consistent with our rules and policies.[^43]

**IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS**

**A. Paperwork Reduction Act** **Analysis**

The decision contained herein has been analyzed with respect to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104‑13, and has been found to
contain new or modified information collection requirements that are
subject to Office of Management and Budget (\"OMB\") review. As part of
the Commission\'s continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we
invite the general public and OMB to take this opportunity to comment on
the information collections contained in this decision, as required by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 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.

Public comments on the information collection requirements are due 30
days from the date of publication of this decision in the Federal
Register; OMB comments are due 60 days from the date of publication of
this decision in the Federal Register. A copy of any comments on the
information collection requirements should be submitted to Judy Boley,
Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
Washington, DC, 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov; and to
Virginia Huth, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236, NEOB, 725 - 17th Street,
N.W., Washington, DC, 20503, or via the Internet to VHuth@omb.eop.gov.

**B. Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (\"RFA\"),[^44] the
Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(\"IRFA\") in the *DISCO II Notice* in this docket.[^45] In the *DISCO
II Order*,[^46] the Commission prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (\"FRFA\") of the possible significant economic impact this
order might have on small entities, in conformance with the RFA.[^47] We
hereby incorporate the FRFA herein, and nothing in this Order on
Reconsideration requires us to revisit any of our conclusions in the
FRFA.

**V. CONCLUSION**

With these procedural changes to the *DISCO II* framework, we streamline
the regulatory process by which non-U.S. satellites may access the
United States, while ensuring that foreign entry is consistent with U.S.
satellite policy and is otherwise in the public interest. The procedural
changes adopted here should reduce the number of earth station license
modification requests, result in substantial savings, and allow more
rapid service to the public. This, in turn, should result in increased
competition in the U.S. market for fixed-satellite service in the
conventional C- and Ku-bands, providing consumers with more choices at
better prices.

**VI. ORDERING CLAUSES**

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303(r),
308, 309, and 310 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152,
154(i), 303(r), 308, 309, 310, and Section 1.108 of the Commission\'s
rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.108, the policies, rules, and requirements
discussed herein ARE ADOPTED and Part 25 of the Commission\'s rules, 47
C.F.R. Part 25, IS AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.2 of the Commission\'s
rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.2, that non-U.S. satellite operators may request
access to the United States to provide fixed-satellite services in the
conventional C- and Ku-bands by submitting a Request for a Declaratory
Ruling, accompanied by the information required in Sections 25.114 and
25.137 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.114 and 25.137, for
the non-U.S. satellite.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission will make public a list of
non-U.S. satellites providing fixed-satellite services in the
conventional C- and Ku-bands that have been approved to provide space
segment capacity service in the United States, together with any
applicable conditions or limitations on that access.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that earth stations licensed before the effective
date of this Order that are authorized to access \"ALSAT\" as points of
communications may access any satellite on the Permitted Space Station
list, including any subsequent revisions to the list, when this Order
becomes effective, provided that operations comply with its license and
any applicable conditions or limitations placed on communications with
the non-U.S. satellite providing fixed-satellite services in the
conventional C- and Ku-bands.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amendments to Part 25 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 25, and the policies, rules, and
requirements discussed herein shall take effect thirty days after a
summary of this Order is published in the Federal Register, or in
accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(3) and 44 U.S.C. §
3507, whichever occurs later. The Commission will publish a notice,
following publication of this Order on Reconsideration in the Federal
Register, announcing the effective date of this Order on
Reconsideration.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

**PART 25 \-- SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS**

1\. The authority citation continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 701-744. Interprets or applies 47 U.S.C. sections
154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, and 332, unless otherwise noted.

2.In § 25.137, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:

**§25.137 Application requirements for earth stations operating with
non-U.S. licensed space stations**

\(a\) Earth station applicants or entities filing a \"letter of intent\"
or \"Petition for Declaratory Ruling\" requesting authority to operate
with a non‑U.S. licensed space station to serve the United States must
attach an exhibit with their FCC Form 312 application with information
demonstrating that U.S.‑licensed satellite systems have effective
competitive opportunities to provide analogous services in: **\* \* \***

**\* \* \***

\(b\) Earth station applicants, or entities filing a \"letter of
intent,\" or \"Petition for Declaratory Ruling,\" requesting authority
to operate with a non‑U.S. licensed space station must attach to their
FCC Form 312 an exhibit providing legal, financial, and technical
information for the non‑U.S. licensed space station in accordance with
part 25 and part 100 of this Chapter. **\* \* \***

[^1]: ^?^ Amendment of the Commission\'s Regulatory Policies to Allow
    Non-U.S. Licensed Satellites Providing Domestic and International
    Service in the United States, Report and Order, IB Docket No.
    96-111, 12 FCC Rcd 24094 (1997) (\"*DISCO II Order*\" or *\"DISCO
    II*\"). The DISCO acronym stands for Domestic-International
    Satellite Consolidation.

[^2]: ^?^ The conventional C- and Ku-bands are 3700-4200 MHz and
    5925-6425 MHz, and 11.7-12.2 GHz and 14.0-14.5 GHz, respectively.

[^3]: ^?^ The WTO is an international organization that provides global
    rules of trade among nations. Its main function is to ensure that
    trade flows as smoothly, predictably, and freely as possible. WTO
    Web Page, *About the WTO*
    \<Http://www.wto.org/wto/inbrief/infr00.htm\> (\"*WTO Web page*\").
    WTO members are bound to the obligations defined in the General
    Agreement on Trade in Services (\"GATS\"). GATS operates on three
    levels: the main text containing general principles; annexes
    establishing rules for specific sectors; and individual countries\'
    specific market access commitments. WTO Web Page, *General Agreement
    on Trade in Services*
    \<http://www.wto.org/wto/services/services.htm\> (\"*WTO GATS Web
    Page*\").

[^4]: ^?^ *DISCO II Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24099 (para. 10).

[^5]: ^?^ *DISCO II Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24097 (para. 4).

[^6]: ^?^ Five petitions for reconsideration of the *DISCO II Order* are
    pending, and we will address the issues raised in those petitions in
    a future Order.

[^7]: ^?^ WTO Web Page, *Telecommunications Agreement*
    \<http://www.wto.org/wto/services/tel01.htm\> (\"WTO Telecom Web
    Page\").

[^8]: ^?^ *See* *DISCO II Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24102 (para. 19).

[^9]: ^?^ Generally, GATS requires WTO member countries to afford
    most-favored nation (\"MFN\") treatment to all other WTO member
    nations. \"With respect to any measure covered by this Agreement,
    each Member shall accord immediately and unconditionally to services
    and service suppliers of any other Member treatment no less
    favourable than that it accords to like services and service
    suppliers of any other country.\" GATS Article II, paragraph 1.
    Member nations are permitted to take \"MFN exemptions,\" however,
    under certain circumstances specified in an annex to GATS. *See*
    GATS Annex on Article II Exemptions.

[^10]: ^?^ *See* *DISCO II*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24112-13 (para. 40); 47
    C.F.R. § 25.137(a). The Commission decided to continue applying the
    ECO-Sat to non-U.S. satellites licensed by non-WTO countries. *DISCO
    II*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24127 (para. 72).

[^11]: ^?^ *DISCO II Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24097 (para. 4).

[^12]: ^?^ *DISCO II Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24099 (para. 10).

[^13]: ^?^ *DISCO II Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24174 (para. 188).

[^14]: ^?^ A foreign satellite operator can participate in a processing
    round in one of two ways: (1) by filing an earth station application
    seeking to communicate with that non-U.S. satellite, demonstrating
    that the space station will meet all applicable Commission
    requirements, or (2) the foreign space station operator could file a
    \"letter of intent\" to use its non-U.S. satellite to provide
    service in the United States through future earth stations that may
    or may not be ultimately licensed to it. *DISCO II Order*, 12 FCC
    Rcd at 24173-74 (paras. 184-85, 188).

[^15]: ^?^ *DISCO II Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24174 (para. 186).

[^16]: ^?^ *See generally* 25 C.F.R. § 25.137. The Commission does not
    require the foreign space station operator to submit technical
    information if it has completed the coordination process with the
    United States, or to submit financial information if the satellite
    has been launched. *See* 25 C.F.R. § 25.137(b); *DISCO II Order*, 12
    FCC Rcd at 24175-76 (para. 191).

[^17]: ^?^ *DISCO II Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24176 (para. 192). Throughout
    this Order, the \"technical parameters\" we refer to include all the
    technical requirements of Part 25 of the Commission\'s rules,
    including but not limited to frequency bands, e.i.r.p., density,
    polarization, power, and emission characteristics.

[^18]: ^?^ Loral Space and Communications LTD (\"Loral\") and GE
    American Communications, Inc. (\"GE Americom\") filed oppositions to
    Telesat\'s petition, while JFL Communications, Inc. (\"JFL\") filed
    comments supporting Telesat\'s petition. Telesat filed a reply to
    the oppositions, and Loral filed a further opposition to Telesat\'s
    reply.

[^19]: ^?^ We have in the past issued earth station licenses with
    \"ALSAT\" as the point of communication only for the fixed‑satellite
    service in the conventional C‑band and Ku‑band frequencies and for
    earth stations in other FSS frequency bands that meet our two degree
    spacing policies. There exists an established operating environment
    for these systems and it is possible to maintain acceptable levels
    of interference to other systems operating in the same environment
    when a licensee offering these services switches from one satellite
    to another. However, for services such as MSS and BSS, and FSS
    services which are not consistent with our two degree policies,
    service rules are either non‑existent or recently adopted by the
    Commission. The operating environment for these services is
    continuing to evolve and could substantially change if an earth
    station licensee providing these services were to switch from one
    satellite to another without prior Commission authorization.

[^20]: ^?^ In a separate Order to be released shortly, the International
    Bureau (\"Bureau\") will address the specific issues of whether to
    permit ANIK E1 and ANIK E2 to provide fixed-satellite services in
    the United States.

[^21]: ^?^ *DISCO II*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24174 (para. 188).

[^22]: ^?^ We do not, however, require earth station applicants to
    provide financial information regarding the non-U.S. licensed
    satellite if that satellite is in-orbit and operating or to provide
    technical information when the international coordination process
    has been completed between the United States and the foreign
    satellite. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.137; *DISCO II*, 12 FCC Rcd at
    24175-76 (para. 191).

[^23]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.137(a).

[^24]: ^?^ Telesat Reply at 5-6.

[^25]: ^?^ Loral Reply at 3.

[^26]: ^?^ *DISCO II*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24174 (para. 188).

[^27]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.114, 25.137.

[^28]: ^?^ Specifically, the *DISCO II Order* concluded that the
    Commission\'s public interest analysis should consider issues
    relating to competition; spectrum availability; eligibility and
    operating requirements; and national security, law enforcement,
    foreign policy, and trade concerns. *DISCO II*, 12 FCC Rcd at
    24107-24172 (paras. 30-182).

[^29]: ^?^ For more information regarding the Commission\'s two-degree
    spacing policy, see Licensing Space Stations in the Domestic
    Fixed-Satellite Service, 48 F.R. 40233 (Sept. 6, 1983).

[^30]: ^?^ In this case, a \"routine\" earth station is one that
    operates consistently with the technical requirements of Part 25.

[^31]: ^?^ Generally, a U.S. earth station with an ALSAT license can
    access any U.S.-licensed space station without causing potential
    interference, provided that it complies with the Commission\'s
    technical requirements, and operates under the conditions on its
    license. Nothing in the ALSAT framework, however, eliminates the
    need for an earth station or space station to request authority to
    make technical changes to its facility where those changes require
    prior Commission approval under Sections 25.117 and 25.118 of the
    Commission\'s rules. For example, if an ALSAT earth station needed
    to change the feed system of the earth station antenna to convert a
    linear polarization to a circular polarization in order to access
    another space station permitted to provide service to the United
    States, we would require that earth station operator to apply for a
    major modification to its authorization. Furthermore, if an ALSAT
    earth station operator has only \"transmit-only\" authority, it
    would not have authority to receive transmissions from any ALSAT
    space station unless it obtained a modification to its
    authorization. Similarly, an ALSAT earth station operator with
    \"receive-only\" authority may not transmit to any ALSAT space
    station unless it obtained a modification to its authorization.
    Nothing in this Order affects these requirements in any way.

[^32]: ^?^ Telesat Request at 9-10.

[^33]: ^?^ JFL Comments at 1-3.

[^34]: ^?^ Loral Opposition at 3-4.

[^35]: ^?^ Earth station operators can make this showing with a computer
    program known as the Adjacent Satellite Interference Analysis
    (\"ASIA\"). *See*, *e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. § 25.134(b). In addition, we
    would consider granting a non-compliant earth station license if the
    operator has coordinated the non-compliant operation with all
    potentially affected parties.

[^36]: ^?^ *See* Section 25.273(a)(3) of the Commission\'s rules, 47
    C.F.R. § 25.273(a)(3).

[^37]: ^?^ The Commission adopted a similar expansion of \"ALSAT\" earth
    station authority in the *DISCO I Order*, when it modified all
    ALSAT-designated earth station licenses to access international
    separate satellite systems as well as domestic satellite systems.
    *See* Amendment to the Commission\'s Regulatory Policies Governing
    Domestic Fixed Satellites and Separate International Satellite
    Systems, Report and Order, IB Docket No. 95-41, 11 FCC Rcd 2429,
    2437 (para. 55) (1996) (*DISCO I Order*).

[^38]: ^?^ The address for the Permitted Space Station List is as
    follows: \"http://www.fcc.gov/ib/srd/se/permitted.html\".

[^39]: ^?^ Loral Reply at 1-3.

[^40]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.108. *See also* Central Florida
    Enterprises., Inc. v. FCC, 598 F.2d 37, 48 n.51 (D.C. Cir. 1978),
    *cert. dismissed*, 441 U.S. 957 (1979), *cert. denied*, 460 U.S.
    1084 (1983); Radio Americana, Inc., 44 FCC 2506, 2510 (1961).

[^41]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 1.2.

[^42]: ^?^ *See* Yale Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 478 F.2d 594, 602 (D.C.
    Cir. 1973).

[^43]: ^?^ In contrast, the Commission has declined to issue a
    declaratory ruling when facts were disputed or not clearly
    developed. American Network, Inc., Petition for Declaratory Ruling
    Concerning Backbilling of Access Charges, 4 FCC Rcd 550
    (Com.Car.Bur. 1989). The Commission has also stated that it \"will
    not issue declaratory rulings to resolve abstract issues of law,
    without the requisite showing of a \'controversy\' or
    \'uncertainty\'.\" Request for Declaratory Ruling by Harry Furgatch,
    2 FCC Rcd 1656, 1656 (para. 3) (1987).

[^44]: ^?^ *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The Contract With America Advancement
    Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104‑121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (\"CWAAA\"),
    amended the RFA. Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business
    Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (\"SBREFA\").

[^45]: ^?^ Amendment of the Commission\'s Regulatory Policies to Allow
    Non-U.S. Licensed Satellites Providing Domestic and International
    Service in the United States, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, IB
    Docket No. 96-111, 11 FCC Rcd 18178 (1996) (*DISCO II Notice*).

[^46]: ^?^ *DISCO II Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 24195-98 (App. D).

[^47]: ^?^ *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.