DA 04-1722

June 16, 2004

Mr. David M. Drucker

Manager, contactMEO Communications, LLC

2539 N. Highway 67

Sedalia, CO 80135

> Re: contactMEO Communications, LLC, Application for Authority to
> Launch and Operate a Non-Geostationary Orbit Fixed-Satellite System in
> the Ka-band, File No. SAT-AMD-20040322-00057; File No.
> SAT-LOA-19971222-00222 (Call Sign 2346).

Dear Mr. Drucker:

On May 18, 2004, the Satellite Division, International Bureau, dismissed
the above referenced applications, without prejudice, as defective.[^1]
By this letter, we reverse that decision on our own motion. We also
clarify the information that contactMEO Communications LLC (contactMEO)
must submit in support of its application. contactMEO's application, as
amended, will be placed on public notice as acceptable for filing if all
of the required information is properly submitted.

contactMEO proposed to operate a non-geostationary satellite,
fixed-satellite service (NGSO FSS) system in the Ka-band, using three
NGSO highly-elliptical orbit (HEO) satellites in combination with four
geostationary satellite orbit, fixed-satellite service (GSO FSS)
satellites using NGSO FSS Ka-band spectrum.[^2] contactMEO's application
was dismissed on two grounds. First, contactMEO failed to comply with
Section 25.145(c)(3) of the Commission's rules. This rule requires
non-geostationary satellite system applicants, such as contactMEO, to
"submit a casualty risk assessment if planned post-mission disposal
involves atmospheric re-entry of the spacecraft."[^3] Second, Section
25.140(b)(2)of the Commission's rules requires an interference analysis
demonstrating that the proposed GSO FSS satellite system will be
compatible with the Commission's two-degree orbital spacing
environment.[^4] Pursuant to a recently released Public Notice,
applicants were provided guidance on the submission of the two-degree
interference analysis and notified that failure to submit a two-degree
analysis would render the application incomplete.[^5] contactMEO failed
to include an interference analysis and casualty risk assessment, thus
we concluded that contactMEO's application was defective. Upon further
review, we have determined that the rules at issue are subject to
conflicting, but reasonable, interpretations regarding the specific
information required. Thus, we clarify the information necessary to deem
contactMEO's application as acceptable for filing.

*Casualty Risk Assessment*. The Commission has adopted requirements that
satellite services in three specific bands, including NGSO FSS Ka-band,
describe orbital debris mitigation plans when applying for a
license.[^6] Section 25.145(c)(3) requires each non-geostationary
satellite orbit Ka-band applicant to submit a casualty risk assessment
if planned post mission disposal involves atmospheric re-entry of the
spacecraft.[^7] Upon further review, we conclude that the NGSO FSS
Ka-band service rules may not provide sufficient information for some
applicants in formulating their casualty risk assessments. Given this,
we reconsider our dismissal of contactMEO's application for failure to
comply with Section 25.145(c)(3).

We are providing, by way of Public Notice, additional information to
assist applicants in preparing casualty risk assessments.[^8] In that
Notice we also advise applicants that their applications will be
considered incomplete and therefore dismissed, if the requisite
information is not submitted. contactMEO must submit a casualty risk
assessment consistent with the Public Notice in order for us to continue
to process its application.

*Two-Degree Spacing*: Section 25.140(b)(2) requires applicants for space
station authorizations in the fixed-satellite service to demonstrate the
compatibility of their proposed systems two-degrees from "any authorized
space station."[^9] In instances where there are no authorized space
stations, the Commission has interpreted this rule to require applicants
to submit an interference analysis involving other proposed systems, or
using technical data from the applicants' own systems. Indeed,
historically applicants proposing systems in spectrum where there are no
currently authorized space stations have submitted such analyses.[^10]
Nevertheless, we acknowledge that one reasonable interpretation of the
rule is that if there are no authorized space stations, then no
interference analysis is required. Thus, we reverse our dismissal of
contactMEO's application for failure to provide an interference
analysis.

To eliminate any confusion about the two-degree interference analysis
required by Section 25.140(b)(2), we are issuing a Public Notice
specifying that an applicant must demonstrate its proposed satellites
compatibility with currently authorized stations.[^11] However, if there
are no currently authorized stations within two degrees of the
applicant's proposed station, the applicant must demonstrate the
compatibility of its system with a proposed station at an assumed two
degree separation. In situations where there are no authorized or
proposed stations within two degrees of the applicant's requested orbit
location, the applicant must submit an interference analysis, with an
assumed two degree separation, using either: (1) the technical
characteristics of authorized or proposed satellites located more than
two degrees away that meet U.S. two-degree compliance rules; or (2) the
technical characteristics of the applicant's own satellite.[^12] Thus,
if any applicant for a space station authorization in the
fixed-satellite service fails to submit an interference analysis, its
application will be considered incomplete and therefore dismissed.
Consequently, contactMEO must submit an interference analysis as set
forth in the Public Notice in order for us to continue to process its
application.

Based on the foregoing, we reverse our May 18, 2004 dismissal of
contactMEO Communications, LLC's application for Authority to Launch and
Operate a Non-Geostationary Orbit Fixed-Satellite System in the Ka-band,
File No. SAT-LOA-19971222-00222, as amended, File No.
SAT-AMD-20040322-00057. Further, contactMEO must submit the information
requested in this letter to the Commission on or before July 19, 2004,
with a courtesy copy to Alyssa Roberts of my staff. Failure to respond
in a timely manner will result in dismissal of the application. The
reinstated application will be placed on Public Notice as acceptable for
filing if all of the requested information is properly submitted.

> This action is taken pursuant to the Commission's rules on delegated
> authority, 47 C.F.R.

§ 0.261.

Sincerely,

Thomas S. Tycz

Chief

Satellite Division

[^1]: Letter to David Drucker, Manager, contactMEO Communications, LLC,
    from Thomas S. Tycz, Chief, Satellite Division, International
    Bureau, dated May 18, 2004 (DA 04-1386).

[^2]: contactMEO proposed to use, on a primary or secondary basis as
    discussed below, the 28.6-29.1 GHz and 29.5-30.0 GHz bands for its
    HEO uplink operations, and the 18.8-19.3 GHz and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands
    for its HEO downlink operations. contactMEO also proposes to use the
    28.6-29.1 GHz band for its GSO FSS uplink operations, and the
    18.8-19.3 GHz band for its GSO FSS downlink operations, both on a
    secondary basis. contactMEO Amended Application, p. 3.

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.145(c)(3).

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.140(b)(2).

[^5]: *Public Notice*, International Bureau Satellite Division
    Information: Clarification of 47 C.F.R. § 25.140(b)(2), Space
    Station Application Interference Analysis, No. SPB-195, 18 FCC Rcd
    25099 (2003) (*Interference Analysis* *Public Notice*).

[^6]: Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the
    Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit, Fixed Satellite Service in the
    Ka-Band, *Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 14708 (2003).

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.145(c)(3).

[^8]: *Public Notice*, International Bureau, Satellite Division
    Information, Orbital Debris Mitigation: Clarification of 47 C.F.R.
    Sections 25.13(b),25.145(c)(3), 25.146(i)(4) and 25.217(d) Regarding
    Casualty Risk Assessment of Satellite Atmospheric Re-entry, SPB-208,
    DA 04-1724, June 16, 2004.

[^9]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.140(b)(2).

[^10]: *See e.g.,* TRW, Inc., Application to Launch and Operate
    Geostationary and Non-Geostationary Satellites in the Fixed
    Satellite Service, File No. 112-SAT-P/LA-97.

[^11]: *Public Notice*, International Bureau Satellite Division
    Information: Clarification of 47 C.F.R. 25.140(b)(2), Space Station
    Interference Analysis, SPB-207, DA 04-1708, June 16, 2004.

[^12]: *Id*.