[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 56 (Friday, March 22, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13300-13303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-6917]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket No. 02-10; FCC 02-18]


Procedures To Govern the Use of Satellite Earth Stations on Board 
Vessels in Bands Shared With Terrestrial Fixed Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

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

SUMMARY: This document solicits comments on the authorization of 
satellite earth stations on board vessels (ESVs). The item contemplates 
that authorizing ESVs on a more clearly-defined basis, through the 
adoption of specific rules governing their use, may benefit potential 
users and service providers by creating regulatory certainty. Some ESVs 
are already in operation: the International Bureau (Bureau) and the 
Office of Engineering Technology (OET) (jointly, the Bureaus) have 
granted two companies waivers to operate ESVs and have granted one 
company Special Temporary Authorities (STAs) with conditions. However, 
there are existing terrestrial fixed users in some of the bands 
identified for ESV operations. Consequently, the Commission solicits 
comment on potential methods for licensing of ESVs that would help 
ensure that ESV operations would not cause harmful interference to, nor 
limit the growth of, terrestrial fixed services operating in the same 
band.

DATES: Submit comments on or before April 19, 2002; reply comments due 
on or before May 3, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Send comments and reply comments to the Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Breck Blalock, International Bureau, 
(202) 418-8191 or Trey Hanbury, International Bureau (202) 418-0766.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Inquiry, IB Docket No. 02-10, adopted January 23, 2002 and 
released February 4, 2002. The full text of this Notice of Inquiry is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Room, Room CY-A257, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc. (``ITS''), 
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554.
    Interested parties may file comments by using the Commission's 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See 
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, 
May 1, 1998. The Commission will consider all relevant and timely 
comments prior to taking final action in this proceeding. To file 
formally, interested parties must file an original and four copies of 
all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If interested 
parties want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their 
comments, they must file an original plus nine copies. Parties not 
filing via ECFS are also encouraged to file a copy of all pleadings on 
a 3.5-inch diskette in Word 97 format.
    Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file 
via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally, 
only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing 
the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, 
Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking 
number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-
mail. To receive filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters 
should send an e-mail to [email protected], and should include the following 
words in the body of the message: ``get form your e-mail address.'' A 
sample form and directions will be sent in reply.

Synopsis

    1. In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI) the Commission seeks comment on 
the appropriateness of and potential methods for authorizing ESVs 
within its existing regulatory scheme. Such an authorization would take 
the place of the current system of extending or creating ad hoc special 
temporary authorities (STAs)--and allow ESV operation while protecting 
existing fixed service (FS) operations. The Commission seeks comment on 
all aspects of potential licensing, including whether and how such 
licensing should go forward, and how interference to

[[Page 13301]]

terrestrial fixed licensees can be mitigated to the greatest extent 
possible.
    2. The Bureaus have authorized two companies to operate ESVs on a 
waiver and STA basis since 1996: Crescomm (now known as MTN) and 
Qualcomm, Inc. Waivers and STAs are usually reserved for special 
circumstances and are not meant to circumvent normal licensing 
procedures. In examining the broad associated issues, the Commission 
seeks comment on the necessity of ESV licensing: do services exist that 
render ESV licensing superfluous? Do ESVs provide services that are 
unavailable through other means? Could MTN and other companies find 
other ways to offer similar service? Are there alternatives to ESV 
licensing, including continuing to grant waivers? The Commission seeks 
comment on any alternatives and whether/why the alternative is 
preferable to ESV licensing. As ESV service has now been operational in 
some form for five years, and as MTN seeks to expand the service, the 
Commission seeks general comment on whether the time is ripe for 
developing rules for licensing ESV service. Lastly, the Commission 
seeks comment on any other issues that commenters deem relevant as the 
Commission considers the wisdom of advancing ESV licensing.

(a) Regulatory Issues

    3. The Commission seeks comment on all issues pertaining to the 
regulatory status of ESVs. An initial question to address is: in which 
bands could ESVs best be accommodated?
    4. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the use of 
compatible and available bands for operation of ESV systems. The 
Commission seeks comment on the ability of bands that are currently 
allocated for MSS to provide for ESV systems. If MSS bands will not 
adequately provide for this service, the Commission seeks comment on 
which FSS bands should be considered for ESV operation. If the 
Commission were to determine that ESVs may operate in FSS networks, 
would the Commission need to modify the Table of Frequency Allocations 
to accommodate such use (e.g., through a footnote addition)? Although 
the 1996 Crescomm Order described ESVs as providing mobile-satellite 
service earth stations, the ITU has recognized that ESVs may operate in 
FSS networks.
    5. ESV operators have used the C-band to date, and are now 
beginning to use the Ku-band. Due to the multiple modes of ESV 
operation, should the Commission allow Ku-band operation of ESVs either 
as an adjunct to C-band operation or in some cases as a replacement for 
the C-band? The Commission seeks comment on the continued use of C-band 
and any additional use of Ku-band.
    6. ESV operations began in C-band because: (1) These satellite 
networks can provide broad coverage, which permits ships to communicate 
from anywhere at sea; and (2) the equipment was readily available. The 
problem with use of the C-band for ESV operations is that in many 
countries the band is heavily used by terrestrial microwave systems 
operating in the FS. As ESVs approach the coast, the potential for 
interference to FS operations increases, necessitating coordination of 
ESV use with FS operations so as not to cause interference. Use of the 
Ku-band in coastal areas is being considered in lieu of coordinating 
with C-band fixed-service operations. Most countries do not have 
terrestrial services operating in the satellite uplink portion of the 
Ku-band and thus coordination may be easier in those areas. The 
difficulty with using Ku-band is that space station antennas usually 
provide only spot beam coverage in coastal areas rather than the 
broader coverage provided in C-band. In this case, for ESVs operating 
well beyond the coast, communication would be impossible using only Ku-
band. The Commission seeks comment on use of the Ku-band generally.
    7. ESVs could use the Ku-band in a variety of ways. ESVs could 
operate in a dual-band mode, using both C-band and Ku-band. If dual-
band operation were to be adopted and ESVs operate in C-band while 
operating at sea, then within some previously-defined minimum distance 
from shore ESVs could switch to the Ku-band. The Commission seeks 
comment on dual-band operation.
    8. Additionally, where ESVs serve ships that travel only in an area 
near the coast, the Ku-band could be used exclusively. For example, if 
a cruise ship only travels around the Hawaiian islands, it is possible 
that the more limited footprint of the Ku-band would still cover that 
ship in all three modes: at port, at sea, and while entering or exiting 
port. In that case, by operating exclusively in the Ku-band, the ESV 
operation would not have to be coordinated with terrestrial services 
since such services do not operate in the Ku-band. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether an ESV on such a limited-range ship could be 
licensed in the Ku-band instead of the C-band.

(b) Appropriate Licensing Approach and Restrictions

    9. The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate licensing 
approach and restrictions for potential ESV operations. One method for 
such licensing could be a special restricted class of earth stations. 
While the Commission is considering the use of other bands (as 
discussed above), we seek comment on whether ESV licensing under part 
25 of the Commission's rules within FSS networks, and with certain 
restrictions, would be the most appropriate. The bands currently being 
used, C-band and Ku-band, are allocated to the FSS both domestically 
and internationally. If the Commission does license ESVs as a special 
restricted class of earth station, it seeks comment on what those 
restrictions should be. Alternatively, if the Commission were to 
license ESVs as MSS earth stations, it seeks comment on what other 
regulatory changes would be required? Would it be necessary to change 
our domestic frequency allocations table to provide a maritime mobile-
satellite service allocation at C-band and Ku-band, and would any other 
changes be required to allow these stations to communicate through 
existing FSS networks? The Commission further notes that the Bureau 
considered ESV dockside operations in January 2000 and June 2001 and 
concluded that because ESVs would be operating only intermittently, the 
service would be better classified as a temporary-fixed service. The 
Commission requests further comment on the appropriate licensing of 
dockside operations of ESVs.
    10. Other regulatory issues include potential conditions on ESV 
licenses. One possible restriction might be continuing the condition 
contained in the current STA and waiver authorizations prohibiting ESV 
operations from causing harmful interference to any entity operating in 
conformance with the Table of Frequency Allocations. In other words, if 
licensed, all ESV operations would be required to cease immediately 
upon notification of unacceptable interference being caused to a fixed 
service station. The Commission seeks comment on this potential 
condition, and on whether all ESV operators should be required to 
forward any complaints of radio interference to the Commission 
immediately, in writing. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether it would be appropriate for the Commission to impose additional 
obligations on the FSS earth stations that provide the gateway 
facilities for ESVs to ensure that ESV transmissions that cause 
unacceptable interference are immediately terminated, whether those ESV 
stations are U.S.-licensed or foreign-licensed. The Commission asks

[[Page 13302]]

if it should adopt any additional rules that would allow us to take 
punitive action against FSS gateway facilities that provide service to 
ESV stations (whether foreign or domestic) that repeatedly cause 
unacceptable interference to fixed service stations. If so, what 
standard of proof should the Commission meet if and when it seeks to 
impose such sanctions on FSS gateway facility operators? What standard 
of proof should be required of interested parties requesting that we 
impose such standards? How could the Commission coordinate with 
foreign-licensed vessels?
    11. In February 1997, MTN was granted an STA to operate its ESVs on 
a non-harmful interference basis when the ships it served were in or 
near one of four U.S. seaports. More recently, MTN was authorized to 
provide ESV service in motion to or from one of 17 U.S. seaports. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should continue to 
allow in-motion operations in the future. Alternatively, would the 
potential for interference be significantly reduced by limiting ESV 
operations only to ``in or near'' U.S. seaports as initially 
authorized. If so, how would this affect the services currently 
provided by ESVs.
    12. Other possible restrictions that could be placed on ESV 
licensees include: specifying a minimum antenna elevation angle (e.g. 
coordination to a specific satellite), specifying a minimum antenna 
diameter and maximum half-power antenna beamwidth, and also specifying 
the antenna tracking accuracy required for the ESV operation. The 
Commission could also require that ESV applicants specify the minimum 
amount of spectrum needed to perform the necessary service and that 
they limit the maximum ESV transmitter power. This would result in 
greater spectrum efficiency and a decreased potential for interference 
in bands where coordination with terrestrial services would be 
necessary. Additionally, the ESV licenses could be limited to a term of 
1 to 3 years so that ESV operation could be closely monitored and, in 
bands where coordination was necessary, fixed service operational 
changes could be implemented efficiently. Finally, the Commission seeks 
comment on a requirement that ESV services be limited to receive-only. 
While the Commission recognizes that such a restriction may limit 
somewhat the commercial appeal of the ESV service, a receive-only 
restriction would virtually eliminate the interference issues that are 
of such concern, particularly in the C-band. The Commission would like 
to develop a record on the pros and cons of a receive-only restriction. 
The Commission seeks comment on these or other potential special 
restrictions.
    13. The Commission also seek comment on coordination issues. 
Ultimately, the Commission's preference is to prevent interference 
before it occurs. Under usual coordination procedures for FSS, the 
entire C-band is coordinated. Similarly, the entire visible 
geostationary satellite orbital arc is generally coordinated. ESVs, 
however, use considerably less than a full band. Therefore, ESVs could 
be coordinated to specific satellites, which would limit their azimuth 
and commensurately limit the portion of the visible arc they would use. 
The Commission seeks comment on use of this special method of 
coordination and on any other regulatory issues that the Commission 
should consider going forward.

(c) Interference Issues

(1) Determining the Distance From Shore Beyond Which Unacceptable 
Interference Should Not Be Possible
    14. If ESV licensing goes forward, determining the distance from 
shore outside of which interference from ESVs to FS operations will not 
occur (Distance From Shore) would be critical to successful ESV/FS 
coordination. The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate Distance 
From Shore. A Distance From Shore of 200 km may be suggested for two 
reasons. The current practice of the frequency coordinators requires a 
search of up to 125 statute miles radius (approx. 200 km) around the 
proposed location of a new FSS earth station to ascertain if there is 
potential for interference. This method has been effective for more 
than twenty years, preventing interference to FS from FSS. The U.S. has 
presented to ITU-R Working Party 4-9S a series of calculations that 
suggest that a distance as low as 165 km might be adequate as a 
coordination distance. Increasing the Distance From Shore from 165 km 
to 200 km would provide an added degree of protection to FS stations 
operating in the same band with ESVs, and would be consistent with 
current domestic procedures for FS-FSS coordination. The Commission 
seeks comment on this rationale, and on other factors, if any, that 
should be considered in calculating the appropriate Distance From 
Shore.
(2) Coordination of Operation Within a Distance Where Unacceptable 
Interference Might Occur
    15. Once the Distance From Shore is determined, the question 
remains: how would operations be coordinated inside the Distance From 
Shore to eliminate unacceptable ESV interference to FS operations but 
still allow ESV operation inside the Distance From Shore? This 
determination, in the international context, is being addressed within 
the ITU-R through the calculation of a Composite Area within which 
interference to fixed stations from ESVs operating in motion near a 
coastline need to be evaluated. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
the use of the Composite Area calculations could also serve as the 
basis to determine this area in a domestic context. Commenters should 
address whether this method examines all of the factors relevant to 
determining the potential for interference to fixed stations by ESVs. 
The Commission seeks comment on whether the use of the Composite Area 
to address concerns about interference within the Distance From Shore 
is sufficient, or whether other factors must be considered.
    16. The Commission seeks comment on the process for calculating the 
Composite Area. The Commission also seeks comment on, in general, the 
Composite Area method for evaluating the potential for interference to 
fixed stations from ESVs, as well as any other factors that should be 
considered. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on any alternatives 
to the Composite Area method for evaluating the potential for 
interference.
(3) Prevention and Resolution of Interference
    17. The Commission also seeks general comment on how to handle 
anticipated interference issues. It is particularly interested in 
comments on whether the operation of existing MTN systems has in fact 
caused interference to other operations. The Crescomm Order states that 
``[t]he mobile nature of the MSS stations makes it extremely difficult 
to prevent interference and to identify the interference source.'' 
Further, the fixed community has stated in an ex parte statement that 
interference from a moving ship is all but impossible to trace and that 
in-motion operations have not been adequately coordinated as required. 
The Commission believes that if it licenses ESVs, flexible, efficient 
and continuous coordination would be the key component to ensuring that 
ESVs do not cause unacceptable interference to FS stations. In order to 
ensure this coordination truly is successful, it would be necessary for 
all parties to be able to identify the ESVs that may be coming into a 
given port in order to effectuate such coordination, including

[[Page 13303]]

the precise routes and schedules used by these vessels. One approach to 
facilitating information exchange could be a requirement for both the 
ESV operators and coastal administrations to keep a publicly available 
list of all ESVs that have been licensed or otherwise granted authority 
to operate in their area. It also may facilitate communication if the 
harbormaster is provided this information. The Commission seeks comment 
on requiring real-time location tracking and that more timely 
information be made available (e.g., on the Internet). For example, the 
Commission notes that there are many tracking devices commercially 
available that provide very precise location based on GPS tracking. The 
Commission seeks comment on the feasibility and adequacy of these 
possible measures to ensure proper coordination.
    18. Other approaches to providing the information necessary to 
ensure that ESVs do not cause unacceptable interference to the FS 
include: First, that ESV licenses indicate the name of the ESV operator 
and a point of contact, as well as the name of the vessel and a method 
by which to contact the ship directly (for instance, the ship's 
Inmarsat number); second, the license could list the frequencies that 
have been cleared for use by that ESV; and third, a website with all 
information on licensed ESVs could be created for the purpose of such 
coordination. Thus, if there were any interference reported, all 
parties would have information to quickly identify its source by 
contacting the coastal administration, the harbormaster, a website, or 
the ESV operator. If the ESV were a non-primary licensee, the ESV 
station would be required to cease operation immediately if it causes 
interference. The Commission seeks comment on these ideas for 
information exchange. In this regard, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether we should require an ESV system to include a means of 
identification and automatic mechanisms to terminate transmissions 
whenever the ESV operates outside its operational limits or is 
identified as the source of interference. How can the Commission 
enforce the requirements for preventing and resolving unacceptable 
interference? The Commission seeks comment on these and other ideas to 
exchange information, to prevent unacceptable interference, and to 
resolve interference issues should they arise.
    19. Shorter license terms might also be an incentive for ESV 
operators to assist with the resolution of interference complaints, in 
that if an ESV station was reported to be interfering on a regular 
basis and was being in any way uncooperative with the FS station 
licensee, the ESV license may not be renewed. The Commission seeks 
comment on the appropriateness of a 1-3 year license term. The shorter 
terms might provide incentive for ESV operators to carefully coordinate 
their arrival and at-port use with FS stations. The Commission seeks 
comment on the concept of shorter licensing terms and other issues 
related to coordination.

Deadlines and Instructions for Filing Comments

    Under Secs. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Notice of 
Inquiry on or before April 19, 2002. Reply comments are due May 3, 
2002. Interested parties may file comments by using the Commission's 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. The 
Commission will consider all relevant and timely comments prior to 
taking final action in this proceeding. To file formally, interested 
parties must file an original and four copies of all comments, reply 
comments, and supporting comments. If interested parties want each 
Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments, they must 
file an original plus nine copies. Interested parties should send 
comments and reply comments to the Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. 20554. 
Parties not filing via ECFS are also encouraged to file a copy of all 
pleadings on a 3.5-inch diskette in Word 97 format.

Ordering Clause

    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 Notice of Inquiry is adopted.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 02-6917 Filed 3-21-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-02-P