Attachment DISMISSIAL

DISMISSIAL

DECISION submitted by FCC,IB

DISMISSIAL

2005-02-03

This document pretains to SAT-AMD-20041202-00215 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATAMD2004120200215_416778

Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 Inomatonat Buroou paos27a Febmary3, 2008 Mr. Robert Lewis SkyTerra Communications, Ic. 19 West 44° Street, Suite 507 New York, NY 10036 Re: Application of Sky/Terra Communications,Inc. File Nos. SAT—LOA—20041029— 00205, SAT—AMD—20041202—00215, Call Sign: S2648 Dear Mr. Lewis: This is in reference to, SkyTerra Communications,In.‘s ("SkyTerra‘s") above—referenced application for authority t constrct,launch and operate two co—located geostationary satellits in the Fixed—Satellite Service, using the 18.3—18.8 GHz, 19.7—20.2 GHz, 28.35—28.6 GHtz and 29.25—30 GHlz frequeney band, at the 95° W.L. orbital location, For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the application as defectve, without prejudice to refiling. Section 25.114(c)ofthe Commission‘srules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.1 14(c)requires allspace sttion applicants to submitallapplicable items ofinformation lsted in it subsections. Sections 25.112(a)(2) and (bX1) ofthe Commission‘ rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.1 12(a)(2)and (b)(1), statethat an application that does not substantially comply with the Commission‘s ules will be returned tothapplicant as uunacceptable for filing unless the application is accompanied by a waiver request with reasons supporting the waiver. In the Space Starion Reform Order, the Commission affirmed the polciesembodied in this rule by continuing to require applicationsto be substantially complete when filed." As the Commission noted, the procedures and rules it adapted will enable the Commission to establishstelite icensees" operatig rights clearly and quickly, and as a result,allow licensces t provide serviceto the public much sooner than might be possible under our previous censing procedures.* Finding defective applications acceptable forfilig is not consistent with the rules and policiesadopted by the Commission in the Space Station Reform Order and only serves to create uncertainty and inefMciencies in the icensing process. Amendiment ofthe Commission‘s Space Station LicensingRulesand Policies,_Arst Report and Order and Further Natice ofProposed Rulemaking, Space Staton Refarm Order, 18 BCC Red 10760, 10852 (pars 244)@2003)ciing Amendment of the Commission‘s Space Station LicensingRulesand Policies, Noiceof Propased Ruemaking, 17 ECC Red 3847, 3875—76 (ars $4)(2002) 5_ Space Staion Reform Onder, 18 ECC Red at 10765—66 (para. 4. See also Echostar Satelite LLC, Order on Reconsideration, D. 04—4056 (In1 Bur. 2004

In its application, SkyTerra does not submit any ink budgets for tdownlink direction of transmission. Thus it did not supply an overall link performance analysis as required by Section 25. 14(@)(8)of the Commission‘s ules, 47 C.F.R. §25.1 M(c)(3). SkyTerra has also filed antenna contour diagrams for one o ts proposed sateltes, Miraxis, that do not show contours at 2 dB intervals down to 10 dB below peak value and at 5 dB intervals to 20 dB, asrequired by Section 25.1 14(c)(7). Further itis not clear how these antenna beams are associated with those isted in table S of the schedule s. In addition, we note that SkyTerza filed one Schedule S application and one appliation fee to cover both of ts proposed satelites. Applicants secking authority for more than one satelite t operate in gcostationary—satelite orbt (GSO), as SkyTerra proposes, mustfile one Schedule S application for each proposed satelie." It must also filea fee to cover each application for authoritytolaunch and operate a GSO space station.‘ Accordingly,pursuant t the Commission‘s rules on delegated authority, 47 C.FR. $ 0.261(@(4), we find that this appliation, File No. SAT—LOA—20041029—00205, SAT—AMD—2004202—00215, is defective under Section 25.114(b) ofthe Commission‘s rules, 47 C.FR. § 25.1 14(b),and must be returned pursuantto Section 25.112(a)of the rles, 47 C.F.R. §25.1 12(a). We therefore dismiss the application without prejudiceto refiling. If SkyTerma refiles an application identcalto the one dismissed, withthe exception of supplying the missing information,it need not pay an application fee for one of the space stations. See 47 CER. § 1.1109(0) Sincerely, Fiuw 9+ Cpomubuch FemJ.Jarmulnck Deputy Chicf Satelite Division ces Mr.Robert A. Mazer Vinson & Elkins LLP 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Sure 600 Washington, D.C. 20004—1008 * Amendmentofthe Commission‘s Space Sution Licensing Rules and Polies, Zhind Reportand Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 ECC Red T486 (2003), rranam, 18 FCC 15306 (2003) tar m 110


Document Created: 2005-02-04 16:59:00
Document Modified: 2005-02-04 16:59:00
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC