Attachment nov 2 94 motion for

This document pretains to SAT-LOA-19941116-00088 for Application to Launch and Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOA1994111600088_971848

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1600B3 November 2. 1994 Catalano & Jarvis. P.C. 1101 30th Street. N.W. Suite 300 Washington. D.C. 20007 Attention: Albert J. Catalano Reference: Motion for Extension of Time to File Comments. filed by Final Analysis. Inc. Dear Mr. Catalano: In the above—reference Motion filed on behalf of Final Analysis. Inc. (FAI), the company requested that the Commussion extend until December 16. 1994 the date by which parties must file comments regarding the application of LEO ONE USA Corporation (LEO ONE) to provide non—voice. non—geostationary (NVNG) mobile—satellite services. On September 16, 1994. the Commussion issued a Public Notice accepting LEO ONE‘s NVNG application for filing. and calling for comments on that application on or before November 16. 1994. Replies were required by December 16. 1994. and responses were due by January 6. 1995. By that same Notice. the Commission established a November 16. 1994 cut—off deadline for submitting applications to be considered concurrently with LEO ONE‘s application. FAI states that parties intending to prepare and file their own appliications are also ‘ikely to comment on LEO ONE‘s application. FAI asserts that a one month extension to file comments will allow those parties that are now preparing applications sufficient time to »valuate properly and comment upon the contents of LEO ONE‘s application. and wiil synchronize the Commussion‘s pleading eycle for the LEO ONE and ail other secona round applicants. FAI further states that this will allowthe parties to comment on the tecnnical interplay among all applications in the processing group. Finally. FAI alleges that grant ofits request will not cause any meaningful delay in the processing of LEO ONE‘s application. =YETEL International Ltd. supports FAl‘s Motion.

LEO ONE opposes this request. noting initially that a 60 day period has historically been considered by the Commussion to be sutficient time in which to comment on satellite applications. LEO ONE further asserts that a 30—day delay in the comment cycle regarding its application will not result in a uniform pleading cycle at the Commission. since comments regarding other second round applications are unlikely to be due as early as December 16. Further. LEO ONE sees no benefit in seeking simultaneous comment on all applications in an »ffort to examine the technical interplay among the applications. LEO ONE notes that it filed its application without knowledge of any of the competing proposals. and the November 16 applicants will file their proposals with knowledge only of LEO ONE‘s application. Accordingly, LEO ONE reasons. there has been no opportunity to resolve technical conflicts among the applicants at this juncture, and comments regarding such resolution are premature. We do not believe that FAI has sufficiently justified its extension request. We believe that our customary 60 day comment period is sufficient to analyze and comment upon technically complex satellite applications. Further. we agree with LEO ONE that grant of this extension request will not result in a uniform pleading cycle at the Commission. since the comment period on the November 16 applications is likely to extend bevond the 16th of December. Finally. we see no particular benefit to be gained from analyzing, at this point. the technical interplay among applications that were not designed to be compatible with each other. Our focus in analyzing the second round applications will be whether these systems will be designed. in accordance with our rules. to co—exist with previously licensed systems. Issues of compatibility among the second round proposals can be considered after we determine which applications meet our rules. We thus see no reason to delay comment on the pending application of LEO ONE. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 0.261 of the Commission‘s Rules. the request of Final Analysis, Inc. for an extension of time in which to comment on the application of LEO ONE USA Corporation is DENIED. Sincerely, — | /‘_‘_—_—/ w_illg (“ 4 Aog s f s — 1 « Thomas S. Tyez d S Chief. Satellite and Radiocommunication Division Internationali Bureau co: Peter Tannenwald Robert A. Mazer bJ

Exhibit 3: Leo One Frequency Conflicts

LEO ONE FREQUENCY CONFLICTS Frequencies Requested In Frequencies Requested In September 1, 1994 November 16, 1994 Application Amendment Effect 137.0000—137—0250 MHz Created new interference with STARSYS 137.3375—137.3625 MHz 137.3375—137.3625 MHz Continues to interfere with the MetSats 137.4050—137.4300 MHz Created new interference with STARSYS 137.4320—137.4570 MHz Created new interference with STARSYS 137.4600—137.4850 MHz Created new interference with STARSYS 137.4875—137.5125 MHz 137.4875—137.5125 MHz Continues to intertere with the MetSats 137.6075—137—6325 MHz 137.6075—137—6325 MHz Continues to interfere with the MetSats 137.6395—137.6645 MHz (Deleted) 137.6675—137.6925 MHz (Deleted) 137.6955—137.7205 MHz (Deleted) 137.7235—137.7485 MHz (Deleted) 137.7575—137—7825 MHz 137.7575—137.7825 Continues to intertere with the MetSats

Certificate of Service I, Ronald J. Jarvis, an attorney in the law firm of Catalano & Jarvis, P.C., hereby certify that on this 19th day of April, 1995, I caused a true and complete photocopy of the foregoing "Consolidated Reply to Comments and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss " to be sent, via U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Scott Harris, Chief International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 830 Washington, D.C. 20554 Thomas S. Tycz, Chief Satellite & Radiocommunications Division Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 811 Washington, D.C. 20554 Cecily C. Holiday, Deputy Chief International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, NW., Room 520 Washington, D.C. 20554 Fern J. Jarmulnek, Chief Satellite Policy Branch Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, NW., Room 518 Washington, D.C. 20554 Kristi Kendall, Esquire International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, NW., Room 517 Washington, D.C. 20554 Mr. Harold Ng International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 512 Washington, D.C. 20554

Albert Halprin, Esquire Halprin, Temple & Goodman Suite 650 East Tower 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Counsel for ORBCOMM Raul Rodriguez, Esquire Leventhal, Senter & Lerman 2000 K Street, NW., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006—1809 Counsel for STARSYS Jonathan Wiener, Esquire Goldberg, Godles, Wiener & Wright 1229 19th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Counsel for VITA Robert A. Mazer, Esquire Rosenman & Colin 1300 —— 19th Street, N.W., Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036 Counsel for Leo One USA Peter Rohrback, Esq. Julie Barton, Esq. Hogan & Hartson 555 13th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Counsel for GE Americom Jill Abeshouse Stern, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Counsel for CTA Leslie A. Taylor Leslie Taylor Associates, Inc. 6800 Carlynn Court Bethesda, MD 20817—4301 Representing E—SAT Ronald J. Jarvis


Document Created: 2012-10-19 16:26:24
Document Modified: 2012-10-19 16:26:24
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC