Attachment E060348

This document pretains to SES-LIC-20060830-01651 for License on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESLIC2006083001651_530651

                          Federal Communications Commission
                                   Washington, D.C. 20554


                                                                                          DA 06—1994

                                           October 5, 2006

Robert J. Berg, Jr.
Pivotal Satellite Technologies, Inc.
119 Herbert Street, Suite 101
Framingham, MA 01702—8774

                                               Re:     Call Sign: EO60348
                                                      File No. SES—LIC—20060830—0 1651

Dear Mr. Berg:

On August 30, 2006, Pivotal Satellite Technologies, Inc. (Pivotal) filed the above—captioned
application for authority to operate a mobile earth station that would communicate with ALSAT—
designated satellites in portions of the extended and conventional Ku—Band.‘ Pursuant to Section
25.112(a)(1) of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R. §25.112(a)(1), we dismiss this application as
defective.

Specifically, Form 312 Schedule B of the license application indicates that the only Points of
Communication for the proposed earth station are ALSAT—designated satellites. Only those
fixed—satellite service earth stations that are both two—degree compliant and operate in the 3700—
4200 MHz, 5925—6425 MHz, 11.7—12.2 GHz, or 14.0—14.5 GHz bands can request ALSAT as a
point of communication. Because Pivotal proposes operations in the 13.7—14.0 GHz band, the
application must identify the specific satellite or satellites with which the proposed earth station
seeks to communicate in this band."

Additionally, we note that in response to Question 20 (Nature of Service) on the FCC 312 Main
Form, Pivotal indicates that the proposed earth station is to operate in the secondary—allocated
Mobile Satellite Service rather than the primary—allocated Fixed Satellite Service of the 14.0—14.5
GHz band. The use of the secondary allocation is inconsistent with the application which
proposes ALSAT—designated satellites as a point of communication. The ALSAT designation
may be used only for earth stations operating pursuant to the primary FSS allocation. Moreover,
in response to Question 25 (Class of Station), Pivotal indicated that the proposed earth station is a
Mobile Earth Terminal. This station class designation is appropriate only for terminals that
transmit while in motion. If this terminal does not transmit while in motion, but is portable and
transmits at various fixed locations for a period less than 6 months, its station class designation is
a Temporary—Fixed Earth Station and operates in the primary—allocated Fixed Satellite Service.




‘   13.7—14.2 GHz band.

   Amendment of the Commission‘s Regulatory Policies to Allow Non—U.S.—Licensed Space Stations to
Provide Domestic and International Services in the United States, First Order on Reconsideration, IB
Docket No. 96—111, 15 FCC Red 7207, 7214—16 (paras. 16—20).


                                     Federal Communications Commission                           DA 06—1994



Alternatively, if Pivotal plans to operate mobile earth terminals, we emphasize that the 13.7—14.0
GHz band is not allocated for this use.

Further, in the application, Pivotal lists the value of the Maximum EIRP Density per Carrier for
emission designator MCPOO1 as 24.91 dBW/4 kHz. This is less than and therefore inconsistent
with the average value of 30.93 dBW/4 kHz we derive from the 9 megahertz bandwidth and the
Maximum EARP per Carrier value of 64.45 dBW. Given this inconsistency, we cannot determine
the proposed emission power. Furthermore, we note that in response to Question E47, Pivotal
lists an emission designator MCPOO1. Section 2.201(a) of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R. §
2.201(a), requires that emissions must be designated according to their classification and their
necessary bandwidth. The emission designator Pivotal lists in the application does not conform
to this rule.

Accordingly, pursuant to Section 25.112(a)(1) of the Commission‘s rules, 47 C.F.R.
§25.112(a)(1), and Section 0.261 of the Commission‘s rules on delegations of authority, 47
C.F.R. §0.261, we dismiss this application without prejudice to refiling."


                                                            Sincerely,




                                                            Scott A. Kotler
                                                            Chief, Systems Analysis Branch
                                                            Satellite Division
                                                            International Bureau




*   See 47 CFR. § 2.106.

* If Pivotal refiles an application identical to the one dismissed, with the exception of supplying the
corrected information, it need not pay an application fee. See 47 C.F.R. Section 1.1109(d).



Document Created: 2006-10-05 17:04:11
Document Modified: 2006-10-05 17:04:11

© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC