Information to provide in situations of force majeure

​​​​​​WRC-23 confirms that, while each case is considered on its merits, providing the following information facilitates the consideration of a request for extension of the regulatory time-limit due to force majeure by the Board:

• a summary description of the satellite to be launched, including the frequency bands;
• the name of the manufacturer selected to build the satellite and the contract signature date;
• the status of the satellite construction before the force majeure event, including the date it began and whether it was expected to be completed prior to the initial launch window;
• the name of the launch service provider and the contract signature date;
• the efforts and measures taken or envisaged to avoid missing the deadline, to overcome the difficulties faced and to reduce the project timelines, if possible, with supporting evidence by the satellite manufacturer and/or launch service provider as appropriate;
• detailed rationale and assessment against all four conditions of force majeure:
• the event must be beyond the control of the obligor;
• the event constituting force majeure must be unforeseen or, if it was foreseeable, must be inevitable or irresistible;
• the event must make it impossible for the obligor to perform its obligation;
• a causal effective connection must exist between the event constituting force majeure and the failure by the obligator to fulfil the obligation.
• the initial and revised project milestones for the construction, launch window, launch and orbit raising of the satellite, as well as relocation and in-orbit testing timelines when the satellite is not directly launched in its nominal orbital position or its non-geostationary satellite orbit;
• a detailed rationale for the length of the extension requested, including a breakdown of the nature and extent of the delay experienced so far, the additional delay projected by the manufacturer and launch service provider, and any planned contingency;
• any other relevant information and documentation.

WRC-23 also confirms the Board's approach with respect to contingency periods in the determination of the length of an extension in cases of force majeure.
In its report under Resolution 80 (REV.WRC-07), the Board described its approach to WRC-23 as follows:

“When providing a rationale for the length of the extension requested, some administrations identified a period for in-orbit testing. The Board decided not to take that period into account when the satellite was launched directly in its nominal orbital position noting that frequency assignments do not need to complete the in-orbit testing period to satisfy the requirements for bringing into use. Similarly, the Board did not take into account any contingency period for potential delays in launch schedule. While the Board recognized that such delays may occur, the Board was of the view that such delays are nearly impossible to predict especially when the satellite construction was still underway, and the satellite had yet to be delivered to the launch site. The Board also noted that launch delays generally qualified as force majeure and as such, administrations could seek another extension if needed."

WRC-23 also noted that the Board is now examining how all four conditions of force majeure are met on a case-by-case basis when the COVID-19 pandemic is invoked as the force majeure event.

WRC-23 instructs the Board to reflect the above-confirmations in the RoP concerning the extension of the regulatory time-limit for bringing into use satellite assignments.​