Attachment STARSYS motion to st

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

IBFS_SATLOA1994111600088_971877

BEFORE THE RECEIVED Federal Communications Commission APf { 0 195 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONGCOMMESICH OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY In re: Application of ) STARSYS Global Positioning, Inc. )) File Nos. 31—DSS—AMEND—94, For Authority to Construct a ) 32—DSS—LA—94 Low—Earth Orbit Mobile ) Communications Satellite System ) APR 1 2 $;s} In the Matter of ) ) The Non—Voice, Non—Geostationary ) Mobile Satellite Service ) Applications of ) ) CTA Commercial Systems, Inc. ) File No. 23—SAT—P/LA—95 ) E—Sat, Inc. ) File No. 24—SAT—P/LA—95 ) Final Analysis Communication ) File No. 25—SAT—P/LA—95 Services, Inc. ) ) GE American Communications, Inc. ) File No. 26—SAT—P/LA—95 s Leo One USA Corporation ) File No. 27—SAT—AMEND—95 ) Orbital Communications Corporation ) File No. 28—SAT—MP/ML—95 ) Volunteers In Technical Assistance ) File No. 29—SAT—AMEND—95 To: Chief, International Bureau MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CONSOLIDATED PETITION TO DENY FILED BY CTA COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS, INC. STARSYS Global Positioning, Inc. ("STARSYS"), by counsel, hereby moves to strike portions of the "Consolidated Petition to Deny" filed on February 24, 1995 by CTA Commercial Systems, Inc. ("CTA") in response to the FCC Public 38881.1/041095/15:39

Notice, DA 94—1323, released November 25, 1994.«‘ The Public Notice solicited comments and petitions concerning the seven above—captioned applications for Commission authority to construct, launch and operate non—voice, non—geostationary mobile satellite service ("NVNG MSS") systems that were filed or amended on November 16, 1994. Instead of properly confining itself to discussion of the seven applications listed in the Public Notice, CTA‘s pleading is styled as a petition to deny five of the seven applicants,*"‘ plus STARSYS‘s amended application for an NVNG MSS system, which was not listed in the recent Public Notice. STARSYS‘s amended application was accepted for filing last May. See Public Notice, Report No. DS—1423, released May 18, 1994. The pleading cycle for petitions, comments and reply comments ended on July 12, 1994 in accordance with the Commussion‘s Rules, which provide that petitions to deny satellite applications must, inter alia, "[ble filed within thirty (30) days after the date of public notice announcing the acceptance for filing of the application or major amendment thereto . . . ." 47 C.F.R. § 25.154(a)(2) (1993). V On December 21, 1994, the Chief of the Satellite and Radiocommunication Division granted a request for a thirty day extension of the initial petition/comment deadline for the seven second—round NVNG MSS applications from January 25, 1994 until February 24, 1995. See Order, DA 94—1563 (Satellite and Radiocommunication Div., released December 22, 1994) ("Second—Round Extension Order"). CTA does not oppose grant of the amended application of Volunteers in Technical Assistance ("VITA"), apparently because of its substantial financial interest in the VITA system. See VITA Amended Application, File Nos. 30—DSS—AMEND—94 and CSS—91—007(3) (filed April 25, 1995); STARSYS‘s Opposition to Amendment at 2—9 (filed June 20, 1994). 38881.1/041095/15:39

The record concerning STARSYS‘s application thus closed more than seven months before CTA‘s filing, and there is no justification for filing a petition against the STARSYS application at this time. Indeed, CTA has not even attempted to offer an explanation for its unreasonably late filing. Even if. the Commission were to entertain CTA‘s arguments, the fact remains that CTA‘s assertions concerning STARSYS‘s technical and financial qualifications are both misplaced and unfounded. To a significant extent, these contentions are stale recapitulations of prior statements made by others, all of which have been refuted in STARSYS‘s timely filings concerning its application. See, e.g., Consolidated Reply Comments of STARSYS Global Positioning, Inc., File Nos. 31— DSS—AMEND—94 and 32—DSS—LA—94 (filed July 12, 1994). CTA also assails the Commission for granting STARSYS an extension of time to make its financial showing within sixty days following a Commission determination that STARSYS is legally qualified to be a Commission licensee. CTA Petition at 18. Final comments concerning STARSYS‘s Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling (FCC File No. 16—DSS—MISC—94), which requested both the Commission determination concerning its qualifications and the brief sixty day extension from grant of the declaratory ruling, were due more than one year ago, April 8, 1994. See Public Notice, DA 94—239 (released March 16, 1994). CTA did not participate in that proceeding, nor.did it seek reconsideration of the June 1994 action granting STARSYS 60 days to make its financial qualifications showing 38881.1/041095/15:39

following a decision on STARSYS‘s Petition for Declaratory Ruling. It cannot now be heard to complain.*‘ In short, none of CTA‘s assertions is appropriately raised here, in proceedings where STARSYS‘s application is not at issue. The Commussion ought not tolerate such disregard of its procedural rules. Accordingly, to the extent that CTA‘s petition touches on issues concerning STARSYS‘s application, and purports to be a petition to deny that application, it should be stricken from the above—captioned proceedings and given no consideration. Respectfully submitted, STARSYS GLOBAL POSITIONING, INC. s ABLILF, Raul R. Rodriguez Stephen D. Baruch David S. Keir Leventhal, Senter & Lerman 2000 K Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 429—8970 April 10, 1995 Its Attorneys 3 To the extent that any party is "prejudiced," it is STARSYS, not the second—round applicants. STARSYS urged the Commission not to accept, or even begin processing, second—round applications until after the first—round applications have been acted upon. CTA‘s assertion of prejudice is nothing more than an attempt on its part to bootstrap itself into an undeserved position vis—a—vis an earlier—filed applicant. 38881 .1/041095/15:39

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kaigh K. Johnson, hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing "Motion to Strike Portions of Consolidated Petition to Deny Filed By CTA Commercial Systems, Inc." were sent by first—class, postage prepaid mail, this 10th day of April, 1995, to the following: *Mr. Scott Blake Harris Chief, International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Room 658 1919 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20554 *Mr. Thomas S. Tycz International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Room 6010 2025 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20554 *Ms. Cecily Holiday International Buresau Federal Communications Commission Room 6324 2025 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20554 *Kristi Kendall, Esquire International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Room 6334—A 2025 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20554 *Mr. Harold Ng International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Room 6104 2025 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20554 *By Hand Delivery

Joseph Godles, Esquire Goldberg, Godles, Wiener & Wright 1229 19th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Counsel for Volunteers in Technical Assistance Albert Halprin, Esquire Stephen L. Goodman, Esquire Halprin, Temple & Goodman Suite 650 East 1100 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 Counsgel for Orbital Communications Corp. Robert A. Mazer, Esquire Roseman & Colin 1300 19th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Counsel for Leo One USA, Inc. Michael Landine, Esquire General Counsel CTA Incorporated 6116 Executive Boulevard Suite 800 Rockville, MD 20853 Jill Abeshouse Stern, Esquire Shaw Pittman Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Counsel for CTA Commercial Systems, Inc. Leslie A. Taylor, Esquire Leslie Taylor Associates 6800 Carlynn Court Bethesda, MD 20817 Counsel for E—Sat, Inc. Albert J. Catalano, Esquire Ronald J. Jarvis, Esq. Catalano & Jarvis, P.C. 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20007 Counsel for Final Analysis Communication Services, Inc. 39529.1/041095/14:17

Philip V. Otero, Esquire Vice President and General Counsel GE American Communications, Inc. Four Research Way Princeton, NJ 08540 Peter A. Rohrbach, Esquire Julie T. Barton, Esquire Hogan & Hartson Columbia Square 555 13th Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Counsel for GE American Communications, Inc. E. )w K?}gh K. Johnson 39529.1/041095/14:35


Document Created: 2012-10-19 17:07:30
Document Modified: 2012-10-19 17:07:30
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC