Attachment CTA commerical reply

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

IBFS_SATLOA1994111600088_971904

Before the [iz, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS commIssION ‘*=CZ; YE Washington, D.C. 20554 j " ow fart +0 In re Application of Vflice of S-ecra-z;a.@ 5iR *mistigny File Nos. 75—SAT—Amend—96; Final Analysis Communication Services, Inc. For an Amendment to its Application for a Non—Voice OV 1 4 1996 Non—Geostationary Mobile— Satellite System Satelifts Policy Rranca Prv6 impeat Suresu irfternactional Cprf & To: The Commission REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO DENY CTA Commercial Systems, Inc. ("CTA"), by its attorneys and pursuant to Section 25.154 of the Commission‘s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.154, hereby replies to the Opposition of Final Analysis Communication Services, Inc. ("FACS") to CTA‘s Petition to Deny. CTA is seeking denial of FACS®‘ effort to amend its application to construct, launch and operate a commercial Non—Voice, Non—Geostationary ("NVNG") Mobile Satellité System ("MSS"). As a second round NVNG MSS applicant, CTA has a direct interest in the Commission‘s consideration of the FACS amendment. In its Petition to Deny, CTA argued that the FACS amendment should be denied as a violation of the processing rules applicable to the FCC‘s second round NVNG Doc#:DC1:48095.1 1343A

licensing proceeding.*‘ Specifically, CTA stated that, under the Commission‘s NVNG processing rules, FACS was required to be financially qualified as of the cut—off date for the second NVNG processing round, Le, by November 16, 1994, and could not two ye;ars later amend its application to demonstrate financial qualifications.? On October 29, 1996, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM") which, inter alia, (1) requests that each second round NVNG applicant amend its application to conform with new spectrum allocation and sharing proposals established by the Commission; and (2) imposes new financial qualifications standards for second round NVNG applicants.* The Commission‘s NPRM appears to make moot the issue of the validity of the FACS amendment, inasmuch as all Little Leo applicants are now required to file amendments to their applications to meet the new financial qualification standards. Nonetheless, because the FACS amendment remains pending, CTA here responds briefly to some of the comments made in the FACS Opposition regarding its financial qualifications for an NVNG license. 4 See CTA Petition to Deny at 2. d. ~ It? he4 3 In the Matter of Amendment of Part 25 of the Commission‘s Rules to Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to the Second Processing Round of the Non—Voice, Non— Geostationary Mobile Satellite Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 96— 426, IB Docket No. 96—220, released October 29, 1996. . Doc#:DC1:48095.1 1343A

FACS claims that arguments made by CTA and Leo One regarding FACS‘ financial qualifications are "spurious," and argues that its newly submitted financial materials establish that the company is "fully capablé of and committed to implementation of its proposed satellite system. "_ While FACS reiterates its assertions regarding the dramatic reduction in anticipated expenditures to develop its satellite system, once again it provides no documentation to substantiate its claims. For example, although FACS asserts that it has appended details regarding the expenditures made toward construction of its first two spacecraft, no such details or documentation are provided. There is no documentation or explanation of how the satellite parts were financed or the dates of their procurement, and there is no explanation of the basis for FACS‘ valuation of these assets. Similarly, no documentation is provided to support the FACS cost reductions for terminal, ground station or office/personnel costs. Moreover, CTA questions the inclusion of the iterm labeled "Spacecraft under _ Construction" as a current asset on the FACS balance sheet. Under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"), items that are to be included in a balance sheet as "current assets" are only those that are reasonably expected to be realized in cash, sold or consumed within a year, or during a normal operating business cycle, i.e., liquid assets."" Satellites 4 FACS Opposition at 6. 3 See Jan R. Williams, 1996 Miller GAAP Guide at § 9.04.. Doc#:DC1:48095.1 1343A

under construction do not meet this standard and cannot be relied upon under the Commission‘s rules to demonstrate financial qualifications for an NVNG license. CONCLUSION CTA stands by its conclusion that FACS is not financially qualified for an NVNG license, either under the Commission‘s prior standard or under the new, more rigorous financial qualifications test proposed in the NVNG NPRM. Respectfully submitted, CTA COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS, INC. By: /s/ Michael J. Ladino /s/ Phillip L. Spector Michael J. Ladino Phillip L. Spector General Counsel Jeffrey H. Olson CTA INCORPORATED Susan E. Ryan Suite 800 PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, 6116 Executive Blvd. WHARTON & GARRISON Rockville, MD 20852 1615 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 223—7300 November 12, 1996 Its Attorneys Doc#:DC1:48095.1 1343A

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Yasmin Beckford, hereby certify that I have on this 12th day of November 1996, caused to be served a copy of CTA Commercial Systems, Inc.‘s Reply to the Opposition of Final Analysis Communication Services to CTA‘s Petition to Deny the Final Analysis Communications Services Amendment, by hand or by first—class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Donald H. Gips, Chief Thomas S. Tycz, Chief . International Bureau Satellite Radiocommunication Division Federal Communications Commission International Bureau 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 830 Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 811 Washington, D.C. 20554 Cecily C. Holiday, Deputy Chief Joslyn Read, Assistant Chief: Satellite & Radiocommunication Division Satellite & Radiocommunication Division International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 520 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 818 Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554 Paula Ford Fern J. Jarmulnek, Chief Satellite & Radiocommunication Division Satellite Policy Branch International Bureau International Bureau Federal Communications Commussion Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, N.W., 5th Floor 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 518 Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554 Damon C. Ladson James M. Talens, Senior Advisor Satellite & Radiocommunication Division Satellite & Radiocommunication Division International Bureau International Bureau — Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, N.W., 803 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 513 Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554 Karen Kornbluh Leslie Taylor, Esq. International Bureau Leslie Taylor Associates Federal Communications Commussion 6800 Carlynn Court 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 800 Bethesda, MD 20817—4302 Washington, D.C. 20554 Counsel for E—Sat Inc. Doc#:DC1:48095.1 1343A

Aileen Pisciotta, Esq. Philip V. Otero, Esq. Kelly Drye & Warren Vice President and General Counsel 1200 19th Street, N.W., Suite 500 GE American Communications, Inc. Washington, D.C. 20036 Four Research Way Counsel for Final Analysis Communications Princeton, NJ 08540 Services, Inc. Robert A. Mazer, Esq. Albert Halprin, Esq. Vinson & Elkins Halprin, Temple & Goodman 1455 Pennsylvania Av., N.W. Suite 650 East Tower Washington, D.C. 20004 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Counsel for Leo One USA Corporation Washington, D.C. 20005 Counsel for Orbcomm Julie Barton, Esq. Jonathan Wiener, Esq. Hogan & Hartson Goldberg, Godles, Wiener & Wright 555 13th Street, N.W. 1229 19th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Washington, D.C. 20036 & Counsel for STARSYS Counsel for Volunteers in Technical Assistance /s Yasmin Beckford Yasmin Beckford Doc#:DC1:48095.1 1343A


Document Created: 2012-10-19 17:51:09
Document Modified: 2012-10-19 17:51:09
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC