Attachment DA 05-3225

DA 05-3225

DECISION submitted by FCC,IB

DA 05-3225

2005-12-20

This document pretains to SAT-MOD-20051125-00254 for Modification on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATMOD2005112500254_472997

Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 pa os—3225 December 20, 2005 Pantelis Michalopoutos Counsel for EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington DC 20036—1795 Re: Application to Make Minor Modification to Direct Broadcast Satellte Authorizations and For Launch and Operating Authority for the EchoStar 10 Satelliteat 110° W.L., IBFS File No. SAT—MOD—20051 125—00254 Dear Mr. Michalopoulos EchoStar Satellte Operating Corporation (EchoStar)has filed an application for authority to Iaunch and operate a Direct Broadcast Satelite, EchoStar 10, which is to be located atthe nominal 110° W.Lorbital location." For the reasons cited below, we dismiss the application, filed on November 25, 2005, and a December 13, 2005 letter reating to the application, as defective, without prejudice torefiling. Section 25.1 14(c)ofthe Commission‘s rules® requires all space station applicants to submit all applicable items oinformation lited in its subsections. In addition, Section 25.112(a)(1) of the Commission‘s ules provides that an application will be unacceptable forfiling if the application is defective with respect to completeness of answers to questions, informational showings, intemal inconsistencies, execution, or other matters ofa formal character."" On December 13, 2005, you submitted a ltter that informs the Commission that EchoStar‘s launch date is sefor on or about Pebruary 6, 2006, and includes a new Schedule S, which contains corrections of typographical erzors contained in the originally—submitted Schedule 8. Upon examination of the new Schedule S, we find it contains an inconsistencythat was also ! Application to Make Minor Modifeation to Direct Broadcast Satlite Authorizations and For Launch and Operting Authory for the Echotar10 Satelte at110 WL., IBFS File No. SAT—M0D—20051 125—00054 (Rled November 25,2005). Sarongsas i1 >aron® sas 120. " See Leter rom Pantlis Michalopoutos, Counse!forEchoStar Satefte Operating Corporation, to Marlene H

Eederal Communications Commision na osares contained in the original Schedule S. Specifically, we find that EchoStar‘s application contains inconsistent information regarding the telemetry, tracking, and control (TT&C) receiving antenna wain contour diagram." The TT&C receiving antenna gain contour diagram is contained in the file named "GBLR.gxt" ttached to EchoStar‘s Form 312, Schedule S fling, and referred to in items 57 and S8 of Schedule S. The antenna gain contour diagram for the command receiving beamn in the GBLRgxt file appears to match the antenna gain contour diagramfor the southeastem Florida spot beam,identified as ‘beam id TO1‘ in Schedule S. The antenna gain contour of this beam is a narrowly—focused spot beam, and is clearly inconsistent with the description othe TT&C receiving antenna beam in Table AS—1 ofAttachment A ofthe application as an "Earth coverage hom anterna." For this reason, we find EchoStar‘s application to be intemallyinconsistent,and thus unacceptable for filing. We therefore dismiss the application, IBFS File No. SAT—MOD—20051 125— 00254, pursuant to Section 25.1 12(a)of the Commission‘s rules ® Finally, while not a ground for dismissa, we take this opportunity to inform EchoStar of another clarification it should make iit refilesthe application. We note that, while most ofthe names of the .ext files match the beam name contained in the file, the T47.xt, T48.gxt,and T49.gxt filesattached to the Schedule S contain beam names which are listed in these files as T3, TS, and T4, respectively. To avoid confusion, we request that, in the event EchoStar refilesthis application, it cither change the beam names in these three gxt filesto match the file names, or provide an explanation ofthis inconsistency in the narzative portion ofthe application. This action is taken pursuant to the Commission‘s rles on delegated authority, 47 C.F.R. § o261. Sincerely, Fim % ‘W/ Fem J. Tarmulnck Deputy Chief, Satelite Division Intemational Bureau Dorich, Seczetay, Federal Communications Commission dted December 13, 2005 Sarorns2520. *47 CR § 25.112(0) If RchoGrarrefilesan application idenical to thone disissd, wihtheexeeption of supplying thcomectd infomation, it need not pay anapplcation ee. See 47 CR $ 1.1109(0) 2


Document Created: 2005-12-20 16:03:19
Document Modified: 2005-12-20 16:03:19
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC