Attachment 1996Order DA 96-363

1996Order DA 96-363

ORDER submitted by IB, FCC

DA 96-363

1996-03-14

This document pretains to SAT-LOA-19900731-00044 for Application to Launch and Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOA1990073100044_1061050

1802 DA 96—363 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20054 In the Matter of File Nos. 54—DSS—P/LA—90 NORRIS SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS, S§—DSS—P—9062—SAT—MP/ML—96 [NC- ~ 60/61—SAT—MISC—96 62—SAT—MP/ML —96 For Authority to Construct, Launch, and 63—SAT—MP—96 Operate a Ka—Band Satellite System ORDER Adopted: March 14, 1996 . Released: March 14, 1996 By the Chief, International Bureau: Introduction 1. In 1992, the Commission authorized Norris to construct a Ka—band sateilite system and assigned an orbital slot for that purpose.! In retura, Norris was obligated (after one extension) to begin satellite construction by June 1994. Almost two years after this deadline, Norris has still not begun construction. As we have now said on mumerous occasions, we will not allow licensees to violate their commitments to make timely use of scarce resources assigned to them. Accordingly, Norris‘s orbitai slot will now be made available to those who can make use of it. Background 2. As noted, in 1992, the Commission authorized Norris to construct a satellite system. In so doing, the Commission waived its financial qualification standards (since no other requests for Ka— band orbital locations were pending), but said it would closely monitor Norris‘s compliance with its construction milestones. The authorization specified that construction of the first satellite was to begin by July 1993 and to be completed by September 1996. The date for commencement of construction of the first satellite was extended to June 1994, and the deadline for completion of construction to March 1997 3. On December 11, 1995, we requested that Norris submit within thirty days information concerning its compliance with the sateilite construction milestones. At Norris‘s request, that deadline Communications,I Noris Sateli nc., 7 F.C.C. Red. 4289 (1992).

1803 for responding was subsequently extended to February 16, 1996. Norris submitted information in response to our request and sought a waiver of the milestone schedule. Discussion 4. Based on the information it has submitted, Norris has not met the construction desdlines on which its authorization depended. Norris has not entered into a non—contingent contract for satellite construction. While Norris signed a construction contract with Harris Corporation, it failed to make the $3 million down payment necessary to render that contract non—contingent. Instead, Norris modified its agreement so that it could pay Harris $200,000 for developmental work, with commencement of actual construction to occur only upon payment of an additional $2,800,000. There is no evidence this additional payment has been made. Indeed, it now appears that Norris iniends to use a different satellite manufacturer. Thus, twemymmmmercomucuonwawhavebegun. dnmordnflncaesmuonly prelirninary developmental work has commenced. This is not sufficient. ° 5. Nor is there any reason to grant Norris‘s request for a waiver of the construction deadline. First, the request is untimely: it should have been filed by June 1994, not February 1996. Second, Norris‘s alleged reasons forfaflingtomealhedcadlinevdonotwwmmy. 6. Norris notes that there is an ongoing proceeding concerning sharing between satellite and local multi—point distribution services in the Ka—band, and claims that regulatory uncertainty regarding this proceeding prevented it from beginning construction earlier. This argument is without merst. The Commission did not propose modification of Norris‘s license in the Ka—band proceeding, and grant of a license confers certain statutory rights designed to provide the necessary level of certainty to allow — systems to progress. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 316 Norris has enjoyed the benefits of such a grant, including the clear and unambiguous grant of spectrum and orbital locations for more than three and one—half years. Norris also argues that uncertainty about whether it would be allowed to operate in the 29 3—29.5 MHz band delayed construction. However, Norria‘s request to be licensed to provide service thc293-295m{zbandwudemedbymeCommnmnmJulyl993’ Thus, there is no valid basis forcmmmgmyreguhmumny ho k — Conclusion 7. By its terms, Norris‘s authorization became null and void when Norris failed to comply with the construction commencement milestone. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the orbital assignments granted in Communications, Nortis Sateli Inc., 7 F.C.C.Red. 4289 (1992), ARE AVAILABLE for rea.uxgmem 8. FrISFURmERORDEREDthaNmsrequ«mofmmkmmschedule. File Nos. 60/61—SAT—MISC—96, ARE DENIED. * Communications,I Norts Sateli nc., 9 F.C.C. Red. 7370, n.10 & € 5 (1993). 2

1004 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Norris‘s applications for extension of time to construct and launch its satellite system, File Nos. 62—SAT—MP/ML—96 and 63—SAT—MP—96, ARE DISMISSED as moot. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is effective upon adoption. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION e lrests Scou Blake Harris Chief, International Bureau


Document Created: 2014-09-12 14:14:15
Document Modified: 2014-09-12 14:14:15
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC