FCC 'Reasonably Granted' Waiver of ITU Approval Requirement, Says SpaceX
The FCC’s analysis of RF interference “was not arbitrary or capricious,” said SpaceX as intervenor in a response brief (docket 23-1001) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Tuesday. The appeals court should affirm the FCC’s order…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
partially approving SpaceX's second-generation satellite constellation, said the brief, in response to the International Dark-Sky Association and Dish Network appellant briefs (see 2304170005) challenging the FCC’s decision. The commission failed to sufficiently deal with arguments about the environmental threat it poses and to evaluate SpaceX's compliance with the power limits meant to protect direct broadcast satellite services, said Dark-Sky and Dish Network in their briefs. The FCC was not required to consider Dish’s studies that used a different method for assessing RF interference than required by federal regulations, which incorporate power limits that the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) sets in its capacity as the U.N. agency responsible for addressing signal interference internationally, said SpaceX. The FCC “reasonably granted” SpaceX a waiver of the requirement to obtain ITU approval before beginning operations, citing the international agency’s “processing delays, while relying on SpaceX’s certification of compliance with ITU standards as confirmed by ITU-approved software,” said the brief. Dish’s “reliance on new studies -- all of which take liberties with the ITU-approved software or the relevant inputs -- suffers from the same basic problems, while its subdelegation argument runs headlong into circuit precedent upholding agency decisions to incorporate into federal law standards developed by other expert bodies,” the brief said. Dark-Sky’s appeal, meanwhile, should be dismissed because it makes the “novel claim” that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) required FAA preparation of an environmental assessment, said the brief. The D.C. circuit court didn't resolve that issue in Viasat v. FCC “because the NEPA challengers lacked standing,” it said. Dark-Sky’s appeal should be dismissed for the same reason, “or at least substantially narrowed to issues germane to its organizational purpose,” it said, citing light pollution vs. atmospheric effects. “Both appeals are little more than collateral attacks on the Commission’s regulatory framework for authorizing satellite operations.”