Attachment da 05 418

This document pretains to SAT-LOA-20050203-00020 for Application to Launch and Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOA2005020300020_417703

Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 inomatonal Euons pa 0sns Febrwary 14,2008 Mr. Robert Lewis SkyTerra Communications,Inc 19 West 44" Street, Suite 507 New York, NY 10036 Re: Applications of SkyTerra Communications,Inc. File Nos. SAT—LOA—20050203— 00020 (Callign: $2654) and SAT—LOA—20050203—00021 (Callsign: S2685) Dear Mr. Lewis: "Thisis in reference to, SkyTerra Communications,Ic.‘s ("SkyTerra‘s‘) above—referenced applications filed on February 3, 2005. In the applications, SkyTera seeks authority to construct, launch, and operate two geostationary satelites in the Fixed—SateliteService using the 18.3—18.8 GHtz, 19.7—20.2 GiHte, 28.35—28.6 GHz and 29.25—30 GHz frequency band. SkyTerma plans to co—Locate these satlltes—— which itcalls SkyTerra 1 and SkyTerra 2 —— at t95° W.L. orbital location. For thereasons discussed below, we dismiss both applictions as defective, without prejudice to refling. Section 25.114(c)of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.1 4(c), requiresall space station applicants to submit all applicable items of information listd in its subsections. Sections 25.1 12@C) and (bX1) ofthe Commission‘s rules, 47 C.FR. §§ 25.112(@)(2)and (b)(1)state thatan application that does not substantially comply with the Commission‘s rules wll bereturmed to the applicant as unacceptable for fling unless the applicationis accompanied by a waiver request with reasons supporting the waiver.In the Space Starion Reform Order, the Commission affrmed the policies embodied in this rule by continuing to require applicationsto be substantially complete when filed" As the Commission noted, the procedures and rules it adopted will enable the Commission to establishsatellte Tcensees" operating rights clearly and quickly,and as a result,allow licenseest provide service to the public much sooner than might be possible under our previous icensing procedures.* Finding defective applications acceptable for fling is not consistent with the rules and policies adopted by the Commission in the Space Station Reform Order and only serves to create uncertainty and ineffiencies in the icensing process. ‘ Amendment ofthe Commission‘s Space Sation Licensing Rulesand Poliis,_FirsReport and Order und Further Notice ofPropased Rulemaking, Space StaionRefarm Order,18 ECC Red 10760, 10852 (paa. 244)2003), iing Amendment ofthe Commission‘ Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, Notceof Proposed Rulemaking, 17 ECC Red 3847, 3875—76 (pan $4)(2002) * Space Surion Reform Order, 18 ECC Red at10763—66 (pra. 4) See also Echostar Satlite LLC, Order on Reconsideration, DA 04—4056(In‘I Bur. 2004)

As noted in a recent leter dismissinga previously—Siled SkyTerra appliation as incomplete, Section 25.1 14(c)(8)of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R. §25.1 1d4(c)(8)requires space station applicants to submit an overallink performance analysis othe space station." This includes an analysis for both the uplink and downlink transmission directions. In its February 3, 2005 applications, SkyTerra again fails to submit ink budgetsforthe downlink direction of ransmission. Further, as noted in a second dismissal leter, Section 25.1 14(@7) ofthe Commissions ules, 47 C.F.R, § 25.1 1d4(c)(), requires applicantsto submit the predicted space station antenna gain contour(s)for each transmit and each receive antenna beam.* Neither applieation filed on February 3rd contains a complete set ofantenna beam contour diagrams, SkyTerma lists 11 Beam ID‘s in Table S7 and S8 of Schedule S but does not provide any corresponding antenna beam contour diagrams. While SkyTerra provides two identical antenna beam contour diagrams for a satelte called Skytera, it does not reference these diagrams t a Beam ID. SkyTerm also provides numerous redundant antenna beam contour dingrams for stelite called Miraxis, but does not rovide any contour diagrams thatare referenced to SkyTerea 1 or SkyTerra 2. Further,asnoted in our February 3rd dismissalettr, the contour diagrams for Miraxis do not show contours at 2 dB intervals down to 10 dB below peak valueand atS dB intervalsto 20 dB, as required by Section 25.14(c)(7). Thus, the refiled applications are defective and unacceptable for fling. Accordingly, prsuantt the Commission‘s rules on delegated authority, 47 C.F.R. $0.261(@)4), wefind that these appliations, File Nos, SAT—LOA—20050203—00020 and SAT—L.OA—20080203—00021, are defective under Section 25.1 14(b) ofthe Commission‘s rules, 47 C.FR. § 25.1 14(b), and must be returned pursuant to Section 25.1 12(@) ofthe rules, 47 C.F.R. §25.1 12(). We therefore dismiss these applications without prejudice to refling. If SkyTerra refiles two separate applications identcalto the ones dismissed, with the exception of supplying the missing information, it need not pay an application fee for either othese space stations, See 47 CFR. § 1.1109(d). Sincerely, Fria 9 0 wlach Fem J. Jrmulnckc Deputy Chicf Satellite Division ces MrcRobert A. Mazer Vinson & Elkins L L P 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Sute 600 Washington, D.C. 200041008 * Selter ffom Fem J Jarmulnck, Deputy Chie,Satelite Division, to Robert Lewis, SkyTerra Communicatons, Inc. (Feb 3,2009) " Seeleter from Fem J JarmulnckDeputy Chicf, Satlfte Division,to Robert Lewis,SkyTerra Communications, Inc. (Oct 28,2004)


Document Created: 2005-02-15 10:54:46
Document Modified: 2005-02-15 10:54:46
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC