Ocean Exploration Trust Inc
Washington, D.C. 20554
April 12, 2013
DA 13-707Ms. Laurie Bradt
Ocean Exploration Trust Inc.
86 Elys Ferry Road
P.O. Box 42
Old Lyme, CT 06371
Call Sign: E130063
File No.: SES-LIC-20130319-00279
Dear Ms. Bradt:
On March 19, 2013, Ocean Exploration Trust Inc. (Ocean Exploration Trust) filed the above-
captioned application for a new license to operate an Earth Station on Vessel (ESV) in the 3700-
4200 MHz (space-to-Earth) and 5925-6425 MHz (Earth-to Space) frequency bands. Pursuant to
Section 25.112(a)(1) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.112(a) (1), we dismiss the
application without prejudice to re-filing.1
Section 25.112 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.112, requires the Commission to
return, as unacceptable for filing, any earth station application that is not substantially complete,
contains internal inconsistencies, or does not substantially comply with the Commission’s rules.
For the following reason, Ocean Exploration Trust’s application is technically inconsistent, which
renders it unacceptable and subject to dismissal.
In response to item E49 of Schedule B to FCC Form 312 (Maximum EIRP Density per Carrier),
Ocean Exploration Trust states, for emission designator 2MG1W, a value of 11.80 dBW/4kHz.
That value is inconsistent with Ocean Exploration Trust’s response to Item E48 of Schedule B,
which states the maximum EIRP per carrier value as 58.98 dBW. Our calculations indicate that a
maximum EIRP per carrier value of 58.98 dBW over a 2 megahertz carrier bandwidth would
result in a maximum EIRP density per carrier value of 31.98 dBW/4kHz. Given this
inconsistency, we cannot validate the proposed emission EIRP density power of the proposed
While not a grounds for dismissal, we note that Ocean Exploration Trust incorrectly supplies a
carrier emission designator of “2MG1W” in response to E47 of Schedule B. Pursuant to Section
2.202(b)(3) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 2.202 (b)(3), the proposed carrier necessary
bandwidth must be expressed by three numerals and one letter. Therefore, the correct expression
of the emission designator should be stated as “2M00G1W.”
If Ocean Exploration Trust re-files an application identical to the one dismissed, with the exception of
supplying the corrected information, it need not pay an application fee. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1111(d).
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-707Furthermore, based on our review of the technical data submitted in Exhibits A, B, and C to
application, we request that Ocean Exploration Trust provide, as part of any re-filing of its
application, a technical description of how this antenna establishes and maintains alignment with
the target satellite, how it automatically compensates for a ship’s movement to maintain the 0.2
degree pointing accuracy and how it is able to disable transmission within 100 milliseconds. We
also request that Ocean Exploration Trust submit as part of any re-filed application a
manufacturer’s certification and demonstration that the Channel Master, model 622433901L/R,
antenna complies with the off-axis EIRP densities, pointing error, and shut-off- time criteria
established in Section 25.221(a)(1) of the Commission’s rules.2
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 25.112(a)(1) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §
25.112(a)(2), and Section 0.261 of the Commission’s rules on delegations of authority, 47 C.F.R.
§ 0.261, we dismiss the above-captioned application of Ocean Exploration Trust, without
prejudice to re-filing.
Paul E. Blais
Chief, Systems Analysis Branch
2 47 C.F.R. § 25.221(a)(1).
Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.