**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+--------------------------------+
| In the matter of                 | * | File Nos. 123/124-SAT-MP-96;   |
|                                  | * |                                |
| **Loral SpaceCom Corporation     | ) | IBFS Nos.                      |
| and**                            | * | SAT-MOD-19960610-00082/83      |
|                                  | * |                                |
| **Loral Space & Communications   |   | SAT-MOD-19991102-00106;        |
| Corporation**                    | * |                                |
|                                  | * | SAT-MOD-19991101-00108/109     |
| Applications for Modification of | ) |                                |
| Fixed-Satellite Service Space    | * | Call Signs: S2159, S2160,      |
| Station Authorizations           | * | S2205, T-402                   |
|                                  |   |                                |
| Applications for Extension of    | * | File Nos.                      |
| Milestone Dates                  | * | SAT-MOD-19991101-00107         |
|                                  | ) |                                |
| Request for Extension of Time to | * | SAT-MOD-20020408-00060         |
| Construct, Launch, and Operate a | * |                                |
| Ka-band Satellite System in the  |   | Call Sign: S2160               |
| Fixed-Satellite Service          | * |                                |
|                                  | * | File Nos.                      |
|                                  | ) | S                              |
|                                  | * | AT-MOD-20000104-00042/43/44/45 |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  |   |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | ) |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  |   |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | ) |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  |   |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | ) |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  |   |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | ) |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  |   |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | ) |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  |   |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | ) |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  |   |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | ) |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  |   |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | ) |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  |   |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | ) |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  |   |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | ) |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  |   |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | ) |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
|                                  | * |                                |
+----------------------------------+---+--------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER AND AUTHORIZATION**

**Adopted: March 31, 2003 Released: April 1, 2003**

By the Chief, International Bureau:

**[TABLE OF CONTENTS]{.underline}**

**[Paragraph Number]{.underline}**

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II\. BACKGROUND 2

III\. DISCUSSION 7

A. Reassignment of Telstar 4 to 77° W.L. and Telstar 8 to 89° W.L. 7

B. Launch and Operation of Telstar 8 as a C/Ku/Ka-band Hybrid Satellite
8

C. C- and Ku-band Technical Modifications to Telstar 8 10

D. Ka-band Technical Modifications to Telstar 8 12

E. Reconsideration of the *Loral Milestone Order* 14

1\. Loral's Arguments 15

2\. Limited Waiver of Milestones for Telstar 8 Ka-band payload 23

3\. Loral's Ku-band License at 47° W.L. 24

IV\. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES 27

# INTRODUCTION

1.  With this *Order*, we modify Loral SpaceCom Corporation's (Loral
    SpaceCom's) and Loral Space & Communications Corporation's (Loral
    Corp.'s) (collectively, "Loral's")[^1] licenses to launch and
    operate a satellite system in the geostationary-satellite orbit
    (GSO) to provide fixed-satellite service (FSS) in portions of the
    C-, Ku-, and Ka-bands.[^2] Specifically, we grant Loral's requests
    to relocate its C/Ku-band spacecraft, Telstar 4, from the 89° W.L.
    orbit location to 77° W.L.; launch Telstar 8 with C/Ku/Ka-band
    capacity into the 89° W.L. orbit location; and extend the milestone
    dates for Telstar 8 to accommodate Loral's three-band hybrid
    satellite technology. We also partially grant Loral's requests to
    redefine Telstar 8's coverage area and modify Telstar 8's C- and
    Ku-band transponder configurations and channelizations. Finally,
    with the exception of Loral's proposal for a Ka-band payload on
    Telstar 8 at 89° W.L., we affirm our decision not to extend Loral's
    milestones applicable to its licenses to launch and operate GSO FSS
    Ka-band payloads at the 89° W.L., 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78° E.L.
    orbit locations.[^3] Consequently, Loral's Ka-band authorizations at
    the 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit locations, as well as its
    authorization to use the 18.3-18.8 GHz (downlink) and 28.35-28.6 and
    29.25-29.5 GHz (uplink) bands at the 89° W.L. orbit location, are
    null and void. These actions will allow Loral to provide new
    domestic and international satellite services to more customers
    using state-of-the-art technology, while preventing warehousing of
    scarce spectrum and orbital resources.

# BACKGROUND

2.  Loral SpaceCom is authorized to launch and operate a hybrid
    C/Ku-band satellite, Telstar 8 (formerly designated LoralSat/Loral
    2), at the 77° W.L. orbit location.[^4] The *Telstar 8 License*
    included system implementation milestones as a condition of
    licensing as follows: satellite construction to begin by March 1997,
    construction to be completed by September 1999, and the satellites
    to be launched by March 2000.[^5] Loral SpaceCom also holds the
    authorization for a hybrid C/Ku-band satellite Telstar 4 (formerly
    designated Telstar 402/402R), currently in orbit at 89° W.L.[^6]

3.  In May 1997, as part of the first Ka-band processing round, Loral
    Corp.'s predecessors in interest, Orion Network Systems, Inc. and
    Orion Atlantic, L.P. (collectively, "Orion"), received
    authorizations to construct, launch, and operate a GSO satellite
    system to provide FSS in the Ka-band at the 89° W.L., 81° W.L., 47°
    W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit locations.[^7] The *Orion Licenses*
    included system implementation milestones as conditions of
    licensing, as follows: satellite construction to begin by May 1998,
    construction to be completed by April 2002, and the satellites to be
    launched by May 2002.[^8] In January 2001, we modified the *Orion
    Licenses* by authorizing inter-satellite links (ISLs) in the
    65.0-70.88 GHz band,[^9] and specifying the 18.3-18.8 GHz (downlink)
    band, along with the originally-authorized 19.7-20.2 GHz (downlink),
    28.35-28.6 and 29.25-30.0 GHz (uplink) bands, for Ka-band service
    links.[^10]

4.  In a series of applications, Loral seeks to modify the
    above-referenced licenses. In the Telstar 8 Modification
    Application,[^11] Loral requests authority to incorporate a Ka-band
    payload on Telstar 8, making it a hybrid C/Ku/Ka-band satellite, and
    to operate Telstar 8 at 89° W.L. instead of its assigned 77° W.L.,
    in order to implement part of Loral's Ka-band authorization at 89°
    W.L. in the *Orion Network License*. The Telstar 8 Modification
    Application also seeks authority to redefine Telstar 8's coverage
    area to provide service throughout North and South America,[^12]
    modify Telstar 8's C-band transponder configuration and
    channelization and provide for the use of Traveling Wave Tube
    Amplifiers (TWTAs), and modify Telstar 8's Ku-band transponder
    configuration and channelization and increase the power of the
    TWTAs. To accomplish all of the proposed technical modifications,
    including the need to redesign, retest and requalify certain
    elements of the spacecraft due to unanticipated technical problems
    that arose during construction, Loral seeks to extend the
    construction completion and launch milestones for Telstar 8 until
    March 2003 and May 2003, respectively.[^13] In the Telstar 4
    Modification Application,[^14] Loral requests authority to move
    Telstar 4 from 89° W.L. (where it currently operates) to 77° W.L.
    (Telstar 8's authorized orbit location) after Telstar 8 has been
    tested and is ready to be placed into service at the 89° W.L. orbit
    location. Finally, in the Orion F7 Modification Application,[^15]
    Loral seeks to modify the Orion F7 Ka-band authorization at 89° W.L.
    in the *Orion Network License*, proposing to implement service in
    the 19.7-20.2 GHz (downlink) and 29.5-30.0 GHz (uplink) bands by
    adding the above-reference Ka-band payload to Telstar 8, while
    preserving its ability for future deployment at 89° W.L. in the
    18.3-18.8 GHz (downlink) and 28.35-28.6 and 29.25-29.5 GHz (uplink)
    bands.

5.  In response to public notice of the Telstar 8 Modification
    Application, the Telstar 8 First Milestone Extension Request, the
    Telstar 4 Modification Application, and the Orion F7 Modification
    Application,[^16] Pacific Century Group, Inc. (PCG) filed a Petition
    to Deny the applications as they relate to Loral's authorization to
    deploy Ka-band satellite communications capacity at 89° W.L.,[^17]
    which Loral opposed.[^18] The South Carolina Educational Television
    Commission and the Public Broadcasting Service also filed Petitions
    to Deny, and Pegasus Development Corporation (Pegasus) filed
    comments,[^19] which they each later withdrew.[^20] No additional
    comments were filed in response to the public notice of the Telstar
    8 Second Milestone Extension Request.[^21]

6.  Loral subsequently filed a request to extend the Ka-band
    construction and launch milestones at the 89° W.L., 81° W.L., 47°
    W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit locations in conjunction with its
    then-newly-filed request for ISLs.[^22] In the *Loral Milestone
    Order*, we denied Loral's milestone extension request, concluding
    that Loral's request to delay construction and launch of its
    satellites so that it could add ISLs was not due to circumstances
    beyond its control, nor any other factor that would justify
    deferring its milestones as set forth in the *Orion Licenses*.[^23]
    Loral filed a petition for reconsideration of the *Loral Milestone
    Order*, stating that our decision to deny its milestone extension
    request was inconsistent with our treatment of what Loral claims to
    be similarly-situated Ka-band first round licensees.[^24] PCG and
    Orbital Resources, LLC (Orbital Resources) opposed Loral's
    petition,[^25] and Loral replied.[^26] PCG requests that we affirm
    our decision with regard to all four orbit locations. Orbital
    Resources' argument focuses on Loral's ultimate use of the 47° W.L.
    orbital location, maintaining that we should reject Loral's
    reconsideration request to extend the milestones associated with the
    Loral's Ka-band license at 47° W.L., *i.e.*, the *Orion Atlantic
    License*, and thereby also nullify Loral's underlying Ku-band
    license at 47° W.L., *i.e.*, the *Orion 47° W.L. Ku-band
    License*.[^27] Orbital Resources and Loral continued to argue their
    positions on this issue in *ex parte* letters.[^28]

# DISCUSSION

## Reassignment of Telstar 4 to 77° W.L. and Telstar 8 to 89° W.L.

7.  As a threshold matter, we address Loral's requests to relocate the
    Telstar 4 satellite from the 89° W.L. orbit location to 77° W.L.,
    with a corresponding change to the Telstar 8 satellite authorization
    from 77° W.L. to 89° W.L.[^29] Loral is seeking to change its
    deployment of satellites between authorized orbital locations. No
    new orbit locations are requested. The Commission has recognized
    that licensees are in a better position to determine how to tailor
    their systems to meet the particular needs of customers.[^30] Thus,
    we have previously allowed satellite operators to rearrange
    satellites in their fleet to reflect business and customer
    considerations where no other public interest factors are adversely
    affected.[^31] In light of the fact that Loral is licensed to
    provide C-and Ku-band FSS at both of these orbital locations, we
    conclude that a grant of Loral's requests to modify orbit locations
    would serve the public interest. The reassignment will permit Loral
    to use Telstar 4, a C/Ku-band satellite, at an orbit location that
    Loral is licensed for only C- and Ku-band service, and to deploy
    Telstar 8, a C/Ku/Ka-band satellite, at an orbit location that Loral
    is licensed for C-, Ku-, and Ka-band service. We therefore grant
    these proposed modifications, subject to appropriate International
    Telecommunication Union (ITU) coordination requirements.

## Launch and Operation of Telstar 8 as a C/Ku/Ka-band Hybrid Satellite

8.  We next address Loral's interrelated requests to add a Ka-band
    payload to Telstar 8 (making it a C/Ku/Ka-band hybrid satellite),
    and to extend the milestone dates associated with Telstar 8 so that
    it can be launched into the 89° W.L. orbit location by May 2003.
    Once launched and operational, Telstar 8 will be one of the first
    C/Ku/Ka-band hybrid satellites, as well as one of the first to
    provide Ka-band service.[^32] In past decisions, the Commission has
    recognized the cost efficiencies inherent in hybrid satellites and
    has attempted to accommodate hybrid satellites where possible.[^33]
    We believe that granting Loral's request to add a Ka-band payload to
    Telstar 8 will permit the most effective use of the limited orbit
    spectrum resource, and is therefore, in the public interest.

9.  Milestone extensions are granted only when the delay in
    implementation is due to circumstances beyond the licensee's
    control.[^34] For example, we have found in the past that
    unanticipated technical problems can justify a milestone
    extension.[^35] In this case, Loral has discovered and solved
    numerous unanticipated design problems during Telstar 8's
    construction.[^36] For example, Loral engineers redesigned the
    antenna deployment mechanisms to generate lower shock levels than
    those generated by the traditional high shock pyrotechnical
    devices.[^37] In addition, Loral engineers performed several design
    iterations to minimize transmission losses in the signal paths and
    surmount challenges presented by a "radically new propulsion
    system."[^38] Consequently, Loral's milestone extension request is
    based on tangible, physical, construction-related concerns, and
    thus, grantable under our precedent. We also find that grant of
    Loral's milestone extension request for Telstar 8 is not excessive
    in this case, given the complex nature of the new satellite and the
    fact that Loral has continued work on the satellite during the
    pendency of this proceeding. Therefore, Loral has until May 2003, as
    requested, to launch Telstar 8 into the 89° W.L. orbit location.

## C- and Ku-band Technical Modifications to Telstar 8

10. In the Telstar 8 Modification Application, Loral proposes to provide
    its C- and Ku-band service to a larger geographic service area than
    originally proposed. Specifically, Loral requests that we modify the
    Telstar 8 authorization to employ twenty 36-megahertz, two
    72-megahertz (covering the 50 states, Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico,
    and the Virgin Islands) and six 72-megahertz C-band transponders
    (for extended coverage to South America) in lieu of the twenty-four
    36-megahertz C-band transponders (covering the contiguous 48 states)
    originally authorized.[^39] Additionally, for C-band, Loral proposes
    to substitute 37- and 100-watt TWTAs for the previously-authorized
    20-watt solid-state power amplifiers originally authorized, and
    increase the C-band equivalent isotropically radiated power
    (e.i.r.p.) by .2 dB with respect to the original application.[^40]
    With regard to its Ku-band capacity, Loral requests that we modify
    the Telstar 8 authorization to employ thirty-six 36-megahertz
    Ku-band transponders (24 transponders covering the 50 states,
    Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; 12 transponders
    to provide extended coverage to South America) in lieu of the
    thirty-two 27-megahertz Ku-band transponders (covering the
    contiguous 48 states) originally authorized.[^41] For the Ku-band,
    Loral further proposes to use 130‑watt TWTAs for the 110-watt TWTAs
    originally authorized, and increase the Ku-band e.i.r.p. by 2
    dBW.[^42] Loral states that these C- and Ka-band modifications will
    not cause any unacceptable interference into adjacent satellites
    that cannot be successfully addressed through normal inter-system
    coordination, or compliance with Section 25.211 of the Commission's
    rules in the case of analog transmissions.[^43]

11. Loral indicates that these changes will provide increased
    configuration flexibility to meet customer requirements and permit
    more efficient use of satellite power.[^44] After analyzing the data
    submitted in the Telstar 8 Modification Application, we grant
    Loral's requested modifications to the extent that they comport with
    our Part 25 rules. In that regard, we note that Section 25.210(e) of
    the Commission's rules requires that U.S.-licensed satellites be
    configured for full frequency re-use,[^45] and Section 25.210(g)
    defines full frequency re-use for those satellites' beams providing
    international service, such as Loral's proposed extended coverage to
    South America.[^46] Based on our review of the Telstar 8
    Modification Application, Loral's proposed C- and Ku-band South
    American coverage does not meet this requirement. Loral has not
    asked for a waiver of the full frequency re-use requirements set
    forth in Section 25.210.[^47] Therefore, we defer action on those
    parts of the Telstar 8 Modification Application related to the
    proposed South American coverage.

## Ka-band Technical Modifications to Telstar 8

12. In the Telstar 8 Modification Application and the Orion F7
    Modification Application, Loral proposes to add a Ka-band payload to
    Telstar 8 comprised of 24 uplink spot beams providing complete
    coverage of the contiguous 48 states operating with 120-watt TWTAs.
    The satellite would have four downlink Ka-band spot beams, which
    will cover the Los Angeles-San Francisco, Denver, Chicago, and New
    York-Washington, D.C. areas. Four times frequency re-use will be
    achieved by a combination of spatial and polarization isolation of
    like-channel beams.[^48] These modifications differ from the
    specifications of Loral's authorized satellite at 89° W.L., Orion
    F7. Most significantly, Orion F7 is authorized to operate in the
    18.3-18.8 and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands (downlink) and 28.35-28.6 and
    29.25-30.0 GHz bands (uplink),[^49] while the Telstar 8 Ka-band
    payload would utilize only the 19.7-20.2 GHz (downlink) and
    29.5-30.0 GHz (uplink) portions of the bands.[^50]

13. In arguing that we should deny Loral's request to add Ka-band
    capacity to Telstar 8, PCG claims that Loral's proposed modification
    does not meet the full frequency re-use standards for Ka-band FSS
    GSO satellites and the Commission's hybrid satellite policies.[^51]
    Loral replies that its proposed hybrid satellite is a
    state-of-the-art satellite that comports with Commission rules and
    is similar to other designs that are planned for launch by other
    administrations.[^52] Our review of the technical specifications for
    Telstar 8 does not support PCG's contention, and we therefore deny
    its petition. The *Ka-band Third Report and Order* modified Section
    25.210 of the Commission's rules[^53] to require Ka-band space
    stations to employ state-of-the-art frequency re-use either through
    the use of orthogonal polarizations within the same beam and/or
    through the use of spatially independent beams.[^54] The Commission
    did not, however, specify the number of times the frequencies should
    be re-used for space stations that employ spot beam coverage.[^55]
    The Commission did this to provide operators maximum flexibility in
    their system designs.[^56] Although it appears that Loral has taken
    full advantage of the flexible nature of the Commission's frequency
    re-use rules that pertain to the use of spot beams in its hybrid
    satellite, we find that Loral's hybrid satellite as described in its
    modification applications meets our requirements for frequency
    re-use and comports with Section 25.210 of the Commission's rules.
    We also agree with Loral that its proposal to implement part of
    Orion F7's authorization on Telstar 8 accommodates distinctive
    hybrid satellite technology, and we therefore grant its proposal to
    the extent that we authorize Loral to use only the 500 megahertz of
    spectrum specified in the Telstar 8 Modification Application,
    *viz.*, the 19.7-20.2 GHz (downlink) and 29.5-30.0 GHz (uplink)
    bands. Loral discusses plans to launch Orion F7 into the 89° W.L.
    orbit location to provide for future use of the remaining 500
    megahertz, *viz.*, the 18.3-18.8 GHz (downlink) and 28.35-28.6 and
    29.25-29.5 GHz (uplink) bands, that will not be implemented on
    Telstar 8.[^57] However, as discussed in Section III.E. below,
    Loral's authorization for future use of the remaining 500 megahertz
    of Ka-band spectrum at 89° W.L., along with its use of the Ka-band
    frequencies at the 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit locations,
    is null and void.

## Reconsideration of the *Loral Milestone Order*

14. We affirm our decision not to extend Loral's construction completion
    and launch milestones with regard to its Ka-band payloads at the 89°
    W.L., 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit locations,[^58] except
    for 500 megahertz of Ka-band spectrum at the 89° W.L. orbit
    location, the milestones of which we waive for the limited purpose
    of being used in connection with Loral's C/Ku/Ka-band satellite,
    Telstar 8. When we released the *Loral Milestone Order* in May 2001,
    Loral still had time to progress toward milestone compliance in
    April and May 2002. Loral has provided no evidence that it has done
    so. Consequently, as the date for completion of satellite
    construction for these payloads has now passed, Loral's Ka-band
    authorizations at the 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit
    locations, as well as its authorization to use the 18.3-18.8 GHz
    (downlink) and 28.35-28.6 and 29.25-29.5 GHz (uplink) bands at the
    89° W.L. orbit location, are null and void. Finally, in response to
    Orbital Resources' Opposition and subsequent *ex parte* filings, we
    clarify that Loral's underlying Ku-band-only authority at 47° W.L.
    remains valid until such time as the Commission addresses in a
    future rulemaking the broader issue of how we will recapture as-yet
    unbuilt Ku-band licenses issued without milestones.

### Loral's Arguments

15. In its Petition for Reconsideration, Loral argues that (1) the
    timing of the filing of its request to modify its licenses to
    incorporate ISLs cannot rationally justify the Bureau's conclusion
    to deny Loral's milestone extension request;[^59] and (2) the
    Bureau's decision is inconsistent with the Bureau's granting GE
    American Communications, Inc. (GE Americom) a waiver of the Ka-band
    milestones.[^60] Loral's arguments fail for the reasons discussed
    below.

16. As described in the *Loral Milestone Order*,[^61] Orion received its
    Ka-band authorization for the 89° W.L., 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78°
    E.L. orbit locations in May of 1997, as part of the first Ka-band
    processing round. Some of the Ka-band first round applicants
    initially proposed to operate ISLs among multiple satellites in a
    constellation. At that time, there was no suitable spectrum
    allocated for ISL operations, and we therefore deferred assigning
    ISL frequencies. Consequently, we issued licenses to those Ka-band
    first round applicants requesting ISLs without implementation
    milestones, stating that we would impose a strict milestone schedule
    once ISL frequencies were allocated. Since Orion had not requested,
    and thus, did not receive ISLs for its authorizations at the time of
    grant, we issued the *Orion Licenses* with the requisite
    implementation milestones as a condition of licensing. Loral merged
    with Orion in March 1998 and took possession of the *Orion
    Licenses*,[^62] aware that the milestones associated with the *Orion
    Licenses* had begun to run in 1997. Nevertheless, Loral waited until
    January 2000 to formally request ISLs for the 89° W.L., 81° W.L.,
    47° W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit locations. The timing of this formal
    request came soon after the Bureau asked Loral to confirm that it
    had met its first milestone, and contemporaneously asked those
    Ka-band first round licensees that formally requested ISLs to
    identify the exact frequencies they planned to use in what became
    the allocated ISL bands. In conjunction with its ISL request, Loral
    requested that the Commission extend the construction completion and
    launch milestones (April and May 2002, respectively) associated with
    the 89° W.L., 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit locations to
    match those eventually given to Ka-band first round licensees that
    had formally requested ISLs earlier in the proceeding.

17. Loral correctly states that the Bureau must articulate a rational
    basis for its denial of Loral's milestone request.[^63] In the
    *Loral Milestone Order*, the Bureau clearly articulated that
    milestone extensions are granted when delay in implementation is due
    to circumstances beyond the licensee's control, and that a license
    modification, such as Loral's ISL request, is a business decision
    that is wholly within the discretion and control of the licensee,
    and is thus not beyond the licensee's control.[^64] As we said in
    the *Loral Milestone Order*, Loral's decision to merge with Orion,
    and its failure to apply for ISLs until January 2000 (with less than
    two years remaining to satisfy the construction completion
    milestone), are both business decisions within Loral's complete
    control and do not constitute good cause for extending milestone
    schedules.[^65]

18. Loral argues that the timing of its requests for ISLs and the
    corresponding milestone extension should be irrelevant to the
    Bureau's decision on whether to extend its milestones, since it is
    asking for an extension to the same dates as those eventually given
    to the licensees who formally requested ISLs in their
    applications.[^66] Loral contends that we should consider Loral as
    similarly-situated to the licensees who formally requested ISLs
    because of its "longstanding expressions of interest in ISLs that
    date from the filing of Ka-band applications."[^67] Specifically,
    Loral points to statements in Orion's applications that Orion
    "anticipated the possible benefits of ISLs" and stated "that the
    proposed satellites 'may utilize \[ISLs\]' and that its applications
    'shall be amended, accordingly, if necessary.'"[^68] Loral also
    notes that it participated in a report submitted by the Ka-band
    first round licensees that had requested ISLs, concluding that ISLs
    of the licensed GSO FSS systems could share the same frequencies
    with few constraints.[^69] Loral argues, therefore, that our
    decision to defer milestone imposition on Ka-band first round
    licensees that requested ISLs in their original application is the
    same as extending milestones for a licensee requesting ISLs almost
    two years after it acquired the licenses subject to those
    milestones.[^70] In the first instance, we deferred imposing
    milestones pending proceedings to allocate ISL frequencies, a
    circumstance that is clearly not within the control of the licensee.
    In the second instance we declined to extend milestones for a
    licensee that chose not to pursue adding ISLs to its satellites
    until two years from the date it acquired the licenses for those
    satellites -- a decision clearly within the licensee's control.

19. Loral further argues that if the Bureau ascribed significance to the
    timing of Loral's filing, it was obligated to notify Loral of this
    significance and request supplementation of the record to rebut this
    significance.[^71] The case Loral cites to support this argument,
    *Radio Athens, Inc. v. FCC* ,[^72] is inapposite. In *Radio Athens*,
    the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Commission
    improperly dismissed an application by applying an expansive
    definition of disqualifying cross-interest without full and explicit
    notice of this interpretation of its rule.[^73] In Loral's case, we
    did not expand our milestone policy, but applied it in the same
    reasoned way we have to all other licensees. In sum, Loral and the
    licensees who originally proposed ISLs are not similarly situated.
    Loral offers no evidence that it had contemplated the use of ISLs
    for the *Orion Licenses* in its original business plan for those
    licenses; nor did Loral apply for the ISL frequencies at the earlier
    possible opportunity that they were allocated internationally, or
    even as soon after closing the Orion transaction as practicable.
    Passing references in applications to future plans, participation at
    meetings, and signatures on working group reports are not tantamount
    to having a formal application properly placed before us for those
    frequencies.[^74] Absent such evidence, we correctly denied Loral's
    request for extension of the milestones for its Ka-band payloads at
    89° W.L., 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78° E.L.

20. Loral then argues that the factual differences between its situation
    and GE Americom's are insufficient to justify our denial of Loral's
    milestone extension request while granting GE Americom a waiver of
    construction milestones.[^75] Though we found that GE Americom's
    application to modify its satellite system to include ISLs in and of
    itself did not justify an extension of its milestones,[^76] we did
    grant GE Americom a waiver of Section 25.117(e)(1),[^77] because GE
    Americom demonstrated, from a time shortly after licensing, its
    intent to proceed with its Ka-band system as modified by ISLs.[^78]
    GE Americom requested the use of ISLs immediately upon knowledge of
    the technical information that resulted from WRC 97[^79] that would
    allow it to plan for and implement ISLs -- filing for its
    modification within six months of receiving its Ka-band license, and
    six months before it was required to sign a contract for production
    of its satellites. In contrast, Loral applied for its ISLs at least
    two years after the ISL frequencies had been allocated
    internationally. Loral's request for milestone extension is not
    unlike that of PanAmSat Licensee Corp. (PanAmSat).[^80] Both parties
    filed requests to add ISLs to integrate two merged satellite systems
    at a time when the filing of such a request could forestall upcoming
    milestone compliance. Loral attempts to distinguish *PanAmSat* by
    arguing that PanAmSat sought an extension of its first milestone,
    while Loral had met its initial construction milestone, but sought
    to extend later milestones.[^81] However, in *PanAmSat*, the
    Commission affirmed our canceling PanAmSat's authorization,
    unequivocally stating, "\[f\]iling a modification application is a
    circumstance within the licensee's control that cannot justify a
    milestone extension, even if the licensee seeks authority to
    incorporate a new technology into its satellite design."[^82] In
    doing so, the Commission cited precedent for this proposition as
    applied to the later milestones,[^83] and therefore, we do not view
    the Commission's decision in *PanAmSat* as limited to the first
    construction milestone.

21. Finally, Loral argues that the Bureau should grant a waiver of
    Loral's milestone requirements to avoid discriminatory application
    of its waiver policy.[^84] This argument again is based on the
    premise that there is no factual distinction underlying Loral's and
    GE Americom's requests. We have shown that GE Americom's request for
    ISLs was predicated on circumstances unique to GE Americom, and that
    GE Americom's explicit and timely manifestation of its intentions
    warranted waiver of Section 25.117(e)(1), unlike Loral. Except for
    Loral and PanAmSat, each of the Ka-band first round applicants that
    chose to incorporate ISLs into their systems applied for them
    promptly, either in their initial applications, or as in the case of
    GE Americom, when the ISL frequencies were actually allocated
    internationally. Loral fails to recognize that the Bureau's focus on
    the timing of its request for ISLs is not arbitrary. Rather, the
    timing of Loral's ISL request demonstrates that Loral failed to
    affirmatively pursue the use of ISLs for the *Orion Licenses* at the
    earliest available opportunity, but requested ISLs and a milestone
    extension when it appeared that the milestones associated with these
    licenses would expire sooner than those imposed on the majority of
    Ka-band first round licensees, *i.e.*, those that had originally
    requested ISLs. Our denial of Loral's waiver request was warranted,
    and Loral has not demonstrated any reason to deviate from that
    decision.

22. For the foregoing reasons, we deny Loral's request for
    reconsideration of the denial of its milestone extension request for
    the Ka-band payloads associated with the 89° W.L., 81° W.L., 47°
    W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit locations. The *Orion Licenses* expressly
    provided that, unless extended upon a showing of good cause, the
    licenses would become null and void in the event the licensee failed
    to satisfy any one of the milestones. Loral did not complete
    construction of its *Orion Licenses* satellites by the requisite
    milestone, April 2002. Except for a limited waiver of milestones for
    Telstar 8's Ka-band payload, discussed below, we find no reason to
    extend Loral's milestone schedule. Consequently, Loral's Ka-band
    authorizations at the 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78° E.L. orbit
    locations, as well as its authorization to use the 18.3-18.8 GHz
    (downlink) and 28.35-28.6 and 29.25-29.5 GHz (uplink) bands at the
    89° W.L. orbit location, are null and void.

### Limited Waiver of Milestones for Telstar 8 Ka-band payload

23. As discussed above in Section III.D., we grant Loral permission to
    add a Ka-band payload to the Telstar 8 satellite to form a hybrid
    C/Ku/Ka-band satellite to be launched in the near future. The delay
    in implementation of the Orion F7 Ka-band license to allow its
    implementation on the Telstar 8 satellite is a business decision and
    is not beyond the control of its licensee. Therefore, it would not
    be appropriate to grant an extension of the Orion F7 milestones
    under these circumstances. We do, however, on our own motion, grant
    a limited waiver of the construction and launch milestones to allow
    implementation of Ka-band service on the Telstar 8 satellite.[^85]
    Granting a limited waiver will not contravene the purpose of the
    rule, namely to prevent warehousing of spectrum, as the approaching
    launch of Telstar 8 promises service to the public in the near term.
    Furthermore, we determine that implementation of this hybrid system
    will benefit the public interest by allowing consumers to gain
    timely access to a wide range of services that can be deployed using
    the Ka-band. We note, however, that this waiver of milestones
    applies [only]{.underline} to the 500 megahertz that Loral describes
    in its modification application for its Ka-band authorization at 89°
    W.L., *viz.*, the 19.7-20.2 GHz (downlink) and 29.5-30.0 GHz
    (uplink) bands.

### Loral's Ku-band License at 47° W.L.

24. Orbital Resources argues that by nullifying the *Orion Atlantic
    License*, we also nullify the *Orion 47° W.L. Ku-band License*.[^86]
    Orbital Resources' interest in this matter stems from its
    principals' pecuniary interest in a then-pending application of
    Columbia Communications Corp. (CCC) for Ku-band use of the 49° W.L.
    orbit location and CCC's related request to modify that application
    for the 47° W.L. orbit location.[^87] We have twice rejected CCC's
    requests to modify its application from 49° W.L. to 47° W.L., based
    on the continued validity of the *Orion 47° W.L. Ku-band
    License*,[^88] and dismissed CCC's underlying application for the
    49° W.L. orbit location.[^89] Thus, irrespective of whether the
    *Orion 47° W.L. Ku-band License* is null and void along with the
    *Orion Atlantic License*, CCC, and thus, Orbital Resources'
    principals, do not have an application before us, and thus, have no
    claim to the 47° W.L. orbital location, as Orbital Resources implies
    in its pleadings.[^90]

25. Loral planned that Orion F2 would be a Ku/Ka-band hybrid satellite
    serving the 47° W.L. orbit location. Unlike Telstar 8, for which
    Loral has demonstrated substantial progress in construction, the
    record shows that there has been no progress on construction of
    Orion F2 as a hybrid satellite. By Loral's own admission, "\[w\]ork
    on the hybrid satellite for 47° W.L. remains suspended pending
    Commission consideration and resolution of the petition for
    reconsideration \[of the *Loral Milestone Order*\]. . . . Should the
    Commission grant Loral's reconsideration petition . . . Loral
    anticipates completing construction and launching and operating a
    hybrid Ku-/Ka-band satellite at 47° W.L. within 36 months of the
    Commission's decision."[^91] A milestone extension will be
    considered where it "is based on tangible, physical,
    construction-related concerns, rather than nebulous assertions such
    as regulatory uncertainty or technological advancements."[^92] In
    comparison, the Commission often will deny an extension request
    where construction of the satellite either has not begun or is not
    continuing, raising questions regarding the licensee's intention to
    proceed.[^93] It is clear that, as compared to the substantial
    progress Loral has made in constructing Telstar 8, there has been
    little progress, if any, on the Orion F2. Consequently, in this
    *Order*, we nullify Loral's license to construct the Ka-band payload
    at 47° W.L.

26. We disagree with Orbital Resources that milestone enforcement of the
    Ka-band payload at 47° W.L. automatically nullifies the underlying
    Ku-band payload at that location. When the Commission granted the
    *Orion 47° W.L. Ku-band License* in 1991, it did not impose any
    specific system implementation milestones in that license. At that
    time, there were no milestone requirements in effect for the
    so-called "separate systems." Rather, the Bureau imposed milestone
    requirements on Loral for the first time in 1997, in granting Loral
    authority to add Ka-band capacity to the Orion F2 satellite. In
    other words, the Bureau required Loral to commence construction of a
    hybrid satellite, and imposed milestones on the Ka-band portion of
    that satellite. Contrary to Orbital Resources' assertion, those
    milestone deadlines were not intended to apply to the Ku-band
    portion of that satellite, and we do not read the *Orion Atlantic
    License*, nor our discussions of Loral's 47° W.L. authority in the
    *CCC Order* or *CCC Recon Order*, to hold that Loral cannot pursue
    its original Ku-band-only payload at 47° W.L., *i.e.*, the payload
    that had no milestone.[^94] We will address milestone enforcement of
    the Ku-band payload on the Orion F2 satellite once the Commission
    has developed a mechanism to enforce build-out requirements for the
    "separate system" satellites that do not have milestones
    requirements. Although we agree with Orbital Resources that an
    exceptionally long time has passed since the Commission issued the
    *Orion 47° W.L. Ku-band License*, there remains no basis, at this
    time, to revoke Loral's Ku-band authority.

# CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES

27. In light of the foregoing, we grant Loral's requested modifications
    to its Telstar 4 and Telstar 8 satellite authorizations to the
    extent indicated herein. We also grant Loral an extension of its
    completion of construction milestone for its Telstar 8 satellite to
    March 2003 and its launch milestone to May 2003. Finally, while we
    deny Loral's petition for reconsideration of the *Loral Milestone
    Order*, we grant a limited waiver on our own motion of the launch
    milestone for its Ka-band payload at 89° W.L. to allow Loral to
    implement its three-band hybrid satellite technology on Telstar 8.

28. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Telstar 8 Modification
    Application filed by Loral SpaceCom Corporation (formerly, Loral
    Space & Communications Ltd.), File No. SAT-MOD-19991102-00106 IS
    GRANTED IN PART to the extent indicated herein, and *Loral Space &
    Communications Ltd.*, 11 FCC Rcd 20441 (Int'l Bur. 1996) IS MODIFIED
    to permit Loral SpaceCom Corporation to launch and operate Telstar
    8, a C/Ku/Ka-band satellite, at the 89° W.L. orbit location in
    accordance with the terms, conditions and technical specifications
    set forth in its application and this *Order*, with the exception of
    that part of the Telstar 8 Modification Application related to the
    proposed C/Ku-band South American coverage that IS DEFERRED.

29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Telstar 4 Modification Application
    filed by Loral SpaceCom Corporation, File No. SAT-MOD-19991101-00109
    IS GRANTED and that Loral SpaceCom Corporation's Telstar 4 satellite
    is reassigned to the 77° W.L. orbit location following the
    successful launch and testing of Telstar 8.

30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Orion F7 Modification Application
    filed by Loral Space & Communications Corporation (formerly, Loral
    Orion, Inc.), File No. SAT-MOD-19991101-00108 IS GRANTED to the
    extent indicated herein to allow Loral Space & Communications
    Corporation to add the 19.7-20.2 GHz (downlink) and 29.5-30.0 GHz
    (uplink) portions of its authorization at 89° W.L. on Loral SpaceCom
    Corporation's Telstar 8 satellite in accordance with the terms,
    conditions and technical specifications set forth in the Telstar 8
    Modification Application and this *Order*, and IS DENIED in all
    other respects.

31. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition to Deny of Pacific Century
    Group, Inc., File Nos. SAT-MOD-19991102-00106 &
    SAT-MOD-19991101-00107/108/109, filed January 24, 2000, is DENIED.

32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the requests to extend the milestones
    associated with Telstar 8, a C/Ku/Ka-band hybrid satellite to be
    located at 89° W.L., File Nos. SAT-MOD-19991101-00107 &
    SAT-MOD-20020408-00060 ARE GRANTED, and the milestones are extended
    as follows:

> [Completion]{.underline} [Launch]{.underline}

March 2003 May 2003

33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration of the
    International Bureau's decision in *Loral Space & Communications
    Corporation*, 16 FCC Rcd 11044 (Int'l Bur. 2001) filed by Loral
    Space & Communications Corporation on June 25, 2001, IS DENIED.

34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, except as waived in paragraph 35 below,
    the Ka-band authorizations at the 81° W.L., 47° W.L., and 78° E.L.
    orbit locations, as well as the authorization to use the 18.3-18.8
    GHz (downlink) and 28.35-28.6 and 29.25-29.5 GHz (uplink) bands at
    the 89° W.L. orbit location, held by Loral Space & Communications
    Corporation, 12 FCC Rcd 23027 (Int'l Bur. 1997) and 13 FCC Rcd 1416
    (Int'l Bur. 1997), *each modified by* Order and Authorization, 16
    FCC Rcd 2481 (Int'l Bur. 2001), ARE DECLARED NULL AND VOID.

35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.3 of the
    Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.3, the launch milestone associated
    with Loral Space & Communications Corporation's Orion F7 satellite,
    as authorized at 12 FCC Rcd 23027 (Int'l Bur. 1997) is extended, for
    the portion of the Orion F7 authorization that is to become part of
    the Telstar 8 hybrid satellite, as follows:

    [Launch]{.underline}

    19.7-20.2 GHz (downlink) and 29.5-30.0 GHz (uplink) at 89° W.L. May
    2003

36. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Technical Modification to Application
    filed by Loral Space & Communications Ltd., File No.
    123/124-SAT-MP-96 & IBFS No. SAT-MOD-19960610-00082/83, IS DISMISSED
    AS MOOT.

37. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Loral SpaceCom Corporation's operations
    over Telstar 4 at the 77º W.L. orbit location and Telstar 8 at the
    89° W.L. orbit location SHALL BE coordinated with adjacent
    satellites concerning any operational parameters that are different
    from those previously coordinated for the respective orbit
    locations.

38. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Loral SpaceCom Corporation's operations
    over Telstar 4 at the 77º W.L. orbit location and Telstar 8 at the
    89° W.L. orbit location SHALL BE in compliance with all
    international coordination agreements reached regarding the
    respective orbit locations.

39. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Loral SpaceCom Corporation is obliged to
    comply with the applicable laws, regulations, rules, and licensing
    procedures in those countries it proposes to serve.

40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Loral SpaceCom Corporation shall prepare
    the necessary information, as may be required, for submission to the
    International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to initiate and complete
    the advance publication, international coordination, and
    notification process for Telstar 8 in accordance with the ITU Radio
    Regulations. We also note that no protection from interference
    caused by radio stations authorized by other administrations is
    guaranteed unless coordination procedures are timely completed or,
    with respect to individual administrations, by successfully
    completing coordination agreements. Any radio station authorization
    for which coordination has not been completed may be subject to
    additional terms and conditions as required to effect coordination
    of the frequency assignments of other administrations. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 25.111(b).

41. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Loral Space & Communications Corporation
    must coordinate its Ka-band downlink operations with U.S. Government
    systems in accordance with footnote US334 to the Table of Frequency
    Allocations, 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.

42. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the temporary assignment of any orbital
    location to Loral SpaceCom Corporation and Loral Space &
    Communications Corporation is subject to change by summary order of
    the Commission on 30 days notice and does not confer any permanent
    right to use the orbit and spectrum. Neither this authorization nor
    any right granted by the authorization shall be transferred,
    assigned, or disposed of in any manner, voluntarily or
    involuntarily, or by transfer of control of any corporation holding
    this authorization to any person except upon application to the
    Commission and upon a finding by the Commission that the public
    interest, convenience and necessity will be served thereby.

43. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Loral SpaceCom Corporation and Loral
    Space & Communications Corporation have 30 days from the date of the
    release of this *Order and Authorization* to decline this
    authorization as conditioned. Failure to respond within that period
    will constitute formal acceptance of the authorization as
    conditioned.

44. This *Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization* is issued
    pursuant to Section 0.261 of the Commission's rules on delegations
    of authority, 47 C.F.R. § 0.261, and is effective upon release.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Donald Abelson

Chief, International Bureau

[^1]: Both Loral SpaceCom and Loral Corp. are subsidiaries of Loral
    Space & Communications Ltd.

[^2]: The C-band refers to Earth-to-space (uplink) frequencies at
    5.925-6.425 GHz and the corresponding space-to-Earth (downlink)
    frequencies at 3.7-4.2 GHz. The Ku-band refers to Earth-to-space
    (uplink) frequencies at 11.7-12.2 GHz and the corresponding
    space-to-Earth (downlink) frequencies at 14.0-14.5 GHz. The Ka-band
    refers to the Earth-to-space (uplink) frequencies at 27.5-30.0 GHz
    and the corresponding space-to-Earth (downlink) frequencies at
    17.7-20.2 GHz.

[^3]: *Loral Space & Communications Corporation*, Order, DA 01-1287, 16
    FCC Rcd 11044 (Int'l Bur. 2001) (*Loral Milestone Order*).

[^4]: *See Loral Space & Communications Ltd.*, Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, DA 96-1941, 11 FCC Rcd 20441 (Int'l Bur. 1996) (*Telstar 8
    License*); Letter from Jennifer D. McCarthy, Counsel for Loral
    SpaceCom Corporation to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC (January
    12, 2001) (Loral *Pro Forma* Consummation Letter) (confirming *pro
    forma* assignment of the Telstar 8 authorization to Loral SpaceCom).

[^5]: *Telstar 8 License*, 11 FCC Rcd at 20444 ¶ 12.

[^6]: *See American Telephone and Telegraph Company*, Order and
    Authorization, FCC 88-375, 3 FCC Rcd 6980 (1988) (underlying
    authorization for Telstar 402) (*Telstar 4 License*); *American
    Telephone and Telegraph Company*, Order and Authorization, DA
    95-1972, 10 FCC Rcd 12132 (Int'l Bur. 1995) (authorizing launch and
    operation of Telstar 402R, an emergency replacement satellite for
    Telstar 402, which was lost shortly after its launch); *AT&T Corp.
    (Assignor) and Loral SpaceCom Corporation (Assignee)*, Order and
    Authorization, DA 97-125, 12 FCC Rcd 925 (Int'l Bur. 1997) (granting
    the assignment of AT&T Corp.'s satellite licenses, including the
    Telstar 402R authorization, to Loral SpaceCom).

[^7]: *Orion Network Systems, Inc.*, Order and Authorization, DA 97-977,
    12 FCC Rcd 23027 (Int'l Bur. 1997) (*Orion Network License*)
    (authorizing Orion to operate one satellite at each of the following
    orbit locations: 89° W.L., 81° W.L., and 78° E.L.); *Orion Atlantic,
    L.P.*, Order and Authorization, DA 97-979, 13 FCC Rcd 1416 (Int'l
    Bur. 1997) (*Orion Atlantic License*) (authorizing Orion to add
    Ka-band capacity onto its authorized GSO Ku-band Orion F2 satellite
    assigned to the 47° W.L. orbit location) (collectively, "*Orion
    Licenses*"). Orion merged with Loral Corp.'s corporate parent, Loral
    Space & Communications Ltd., in 1998. *See* *Loral Space &
    Communication Ltd. and Orion Network Systems, Inc., et al.*, Order
    and Authorization, DA 98-409, 13 FCC Rcd 4592 (Int'l Bur. 1998);
    Letter from Laurence D. Atlas, Vice President, Government Relations
    -- Telecommunications, Loral Space & Communications Ltd. to Magalie
    R. Salas, Secretary, FCC (April 1, 1998) (notifying the Commission
    that the Loral-Orion merger consummated on March 20, 1998)
    (Loral-Orion Merger Consummation Letter). Through a series of
    subsequent *pro forma* transactions, the *Orion Network License* and
    *Orion Atlantic License* are currently held by Loral Corp. *See*
    Loral *Pro Forma* Consummation Letter, *supra* note 4 (confirming
    *pro forma* assignment of the *Orion Licenses* to Loral Space &
    Communications Corporation).

[^8]: *Orion Network License*, 12 FCC Rcd at 23037 ¶ 31; *Orion Atlantic
    License*, 13 FCC Rcd at 1426 ¶ 32. Specifically, satellite
    construction for Orion F7 (assigned to 89° W.L.) and Orion F2
    (assigned to 47° W.L.) was to begin by May 1998, and satellite
    construction for Orion F8 (assigned to 78° E.L.) and Orion F9
    (assigned to 81° W.L.) was to begin by May 1999. All four satellites
    were given the same construction completion and launch milestones
    (April and May 2002, respectively).

[^9]: ISLs, communication links between in-orbit satellites, operate in
    spectrum allocated to the inter-satellite service.

[^10]: *See Loral Space & Communications Corporation*, Order and
    Authorization, DA 01-227, 16 FCC Rcd 2481 (Int'l Bur. 2001) (*Loral
    ISL & Downlink Order*).

[^11]: *See* Application for Modification of Authorization of Loral
    Space & Communications Ltd., File No. SAT-MOD-19991102-00106
    (Telstar 8 Modification Application).

[^12]: Loral notes that the Telstar 8 Modification Application
    supercedes an earlier-filed application to modify its authorization
    to provide coverage to South America. Telstar 8 Modification
    Application at 1 n.3. *See* Technical Modification to Application of
    Loral Space & Communications Ltd., File No. 123/124-SAT-MP-96 & IBFS
    File No. SAT-MOD-19960610-00082/83; *see also Public Notice*, Report
    No. SPB-53 (rel. July 17, 1996).\
    We therefore dismiss the earlier-filed modification application as
    moot.

[^13]: *See* Application for Extension of Milestones of Loral Space &
    Communications Ltd., File No. SAT-MOD-19991101-00107 (Telstar 8
    First Milestone Extension Request) *and* Application for Extension
    of Milestones of Loral SpaceCom Corporation, File No.
    SAT-MOD-20020408-00060 (Telstar 8 Second Milestone Extension
    Request).

[^14]: *See* Application for Modification of Authorization of Loral
    SpaceCom Corporation, File No. SAT-MOD-19991101-00109 (Telstar 4
    Modification Application).

[^15]: *See* Application for Modification of Authorization of Loral
    Orion, Inc., File No. SAT-MOD-19991101-00108 (Orion F7 Modification
    Application).

[^16]: *Public Notice*, Report No. SAT-00030 (rel. December 23, 1999).

[^17]: Petition to Deny of Pacific Century Group, Inc., File Nos.
    SAT-MOD-19991102-00106 & SAT-MOD-19991101-00107/108/109 (January 24,
    2000) (PCG Petition).

[^18]: Consolidated Opposition and Reply of Loral Space & Communications
    Ltd., File Nos. SAT-MOD-19991102-00106 &
    SAT-MOD-19991101-00107/108/109 (February 8, 2000) (Loral
    Opposition).

[^19]: Petition to Deny of South Carolina Educational Television
    Commission, File No. SAT-MOD-19991101-00109 (January 24, 2000);
    Petition to Deny of The Public Broadcasting Service, File Nos.
    SAT-MOD-19991102-00106 & SAT-MOD-19991101-00109 (January 24, 2000);
    Comments of Pegasus Development Corporation, File No.
    SAT-MOD-19991101-00108 (January 24, 2000).

[^20]: Withdrawal of Petition to Deny of South Carolina Educational
    Television Commission, File No. SAT-MOD-19991101-00109 (June 20,
    2000); Motion to Withdraw Petition to Deny of the Public
    Broadcasting Service, File Nos. SAT-MOD-19991102-00106 &
    SAT-MOD-19991101-00109 (March 23, 2001); Notice of Withdrawal of
    Comments of Pegasus Development Corporation, File No.
    SAT-MOD-19991101-00108 (March 10, 2003).

[^21]: *Public Notice*, Report No. SAT-00109 (rel. April 24, 2002).

[^22]: *See Loral Milestone Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 11045-46 ¶¶ 4-5.

[^23]: *See id.*, 16 FCC Rcd at 11047 ¶ 7.

[^24]: Petition for Reconsideration of Loral Space & Communications
    Corporation, File Nos. SAT-MOD-20000104-00042/43/44/45 (June 25,
    2001) (Loral Petition). Pegasus filed a petition for partial
    reconsideration of the *Loral Milestone Order*, which it later
    withdrew. *See* Petition for Partial Reconsideration of Pegasus
    Development Corporation, File Nos. SAT-MOD-20000104-00042/43/44/45
    (June 25, 2001); Notice of Withdrawal of Petition for Partial
    Reconsideration of Pegasus Development Corporation, File Nos.
    SAT-MOD-20000104-00042/43/44/45 (December 21, 2001).

[^25]: Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration of Pacific Century
    Group, Inc., File Nos. SAT-MOD-20000104-00042/43/44/45 (July 5,
    2001) (PCG Opposition); Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration
    of Orbital Resources, LLC, File Nos. SAT-MOD-20000104-00042/43/44/45
    (July 10, 2001) (Orbital Resources Opposition). Pegasus also filed
    an opposition to Loral's Petition for Reconsideration, which it
    later withdrew. *See* Opposition of Pegasus Development Corporation,
    File Nos. SAT-MOD-20000104-00042/43/44/45 (July 5, 2001); Notice of
    Withdrawal of Opposition of Pegasus Development Corporation, File
    Nos. SAT-MOD-20000104-00042/43/44/45 (December 21, 2001).

[^26]: Consolidated Reply to Oppositions of Loral Space & Communications
    Corporation (July 17, 2001) (Loral Reply).

[^27]: *See Orion Satellite Corporation*, Memorandum Opinion, Order and
    Authorization, FCC 90-241, 5 FCC Rcd 4937 (1990) *and* Order, FCC
    91-196, 6 FCC Rcd 4201 (1991) (*Orion 47° W.L. Ku-band License*),
    *modified*, *Loral Cyberstar, Inc.*, Order and Authorization, DA
    02-872, 17 FCC Rcd 7019 (Sat. Div., Int'l Bur. 2002) (*Cyberstar 47°
    W.L. Ku-band Modification Order*). As a result of corporate
    restructuring, the *Orion 47° W.L. Ku-band License* is currently
    held by Loral CyberStar, Inc. *See* Letters from Jennifer D.
    McCarthy, Counsel for Loral CyberStar, Inc. to Magalie Roman Salas,
    Secretary FCC (January 4, 2000) (confirming consolidation of
    companies into Loral Orion Services, Inc. and notifying the
    Commission that Loral Orion Services, Inc. has assumed the name
    Loral CyberStar, Inc.). As noted *supra*, note 7, the *Orion
    Atlantic License* authorized Orion to add Ka-band capacity onto the
    satellite authorized by the *Orion 47° W.L. Ku-band License*.

[^28]: *See* Letter from Raul R. Rodriguez and David S. Keir, Counsel to
    Orbital Resources, LLC to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, FCC, File
    Nos. SAT-MOD-20000104-00042/43/44/45 (July 25, 2001) (Orbital
    Resources July 2001 *ex parte* letter); Letter from Raul R.
    Rodriguez and David S. Keir, Counsel to Orbital Resources, LLC to
    Don Abelson, Chief, International Bureau, FCC, File Nos.
    CSS-83-002-P-(M); SAT‑MOD-20000104-00045; SAT-LOA-19870331-00061;
    SAT-AMD-19990511-00052; SAT-MOD-19990511-00051 (July 8, 2002)
    (Orbital Resources July 2002 *ex parte* letter); Letter from John
    Stern, Deputy General Counsel, Loral Space & Communications Ltd. to
    Don Abelson, Chief, International Bureau, FCC, File Nos.
    CSS-83-002-P-(M); SAT‑MOD-20000104-00045; SAT-LOA-19870331-00061;
    SAT-AMD-19990511-00052; SAT-MOD-19990511-00051 (July 22, 2002);
    Letter from Raul R. Rodriguez and David S. Keir, Counsel to Orbital
    Resources, LLC to Don Abelson, Chief, International Bureau, FCC,
    File Nos. CSS-83-002-P-(M); SAT‑MOD-20000104-00045;
    SAT-LOA-19870331-00061; SAT-AMD-19990511-00052;
    SAT-MOD-19990511-00051 (August 5, 2002); Letter from Raul R.
    Rodriguez and David S. Keir, Counsel to Orbital Resources, LLC to
    Don Abelson, Chief, International Bureau, FCC, File Nos.
    CSS-83-002-P-(M); SAT‑MOD-20000104-00045 (January 23, 2003).

[^29]: PCG does not object to the relocation of Telstar 4 and Telstar 8
    as related to deployment of C- and Ku-band capacity at 77° W.L. and
    89° W.L. *See* PCG Petition at 2.

[^30]: *See, e.g.*, *Intelsat LLC*, Order and Authorization, DA 01-2069,
    16 FCC Rcd 16208, 16210 ¶ 6 (Sat. & Radiocomm. Div., Int'l Bur.
    2001) (citing, *e.g.*, *AMSC Subsidiary Corporation*, Order and
    Authorization, DA 98-493, 13 FCC Rcd 12316, 12318 ¶ 8 (Int'l Bur.
    1998)).

[^31]: *See, e.g.*, *GE American Communications, Inc.*, Memorandum
    Opinion, Order and Authorization, DA 00-2096, 15 FCC Rcd 23583,
    23588 ¶ 11 (Sat. & Radiocomm. Div., Int'l Bur. 2000) (citing,
    *e.g.*, *Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc.*, Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, DA 90-915, 5 FCC Rcd 4497 (Com. Car. Bur. 1990)).

[^32]: Telstar 8 Second Milestone Extension Request at 4.

[^33]: *See, e.g.*, *Amendment of the Commission's Space Station
    Licensing Rules and Policies*, IB Docket No. 02-34, Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking and First Report and Order, FCC 02-45, 17 FCC
    Rcd 3847, 3868 ¶ 59 (2002); *Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and
    25 of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz
    Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, and
    to Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution
    Service and for Fixed Satellite Services*, CC Docket No. 92-297,
    Third Report and Order, FCC 97-378, 12 FCC Rcd 22310, 22322 ¶ 31
    (1997) (*Ka-band Third Report and Order*); *Hughes Communications
    Galaxy, Inc.*, Order and Authorization, FCC 90-429, 6 FCC Rcd 72, 73
    ¶ 8 (1991). *See also Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc.*,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 96-1940, 11 FCC Rcd 16425, 16429 ¶
    14 (Int'l Bur. 1996); *AT&T Corp.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA
    96-1942, 11 FCC Rcd 15038, 15042 ¶ 10 (Int'l Bur. 1996); *GE
    American Communications, Inc.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA
    96-1939, 11 FCC Rcd 15030, 15034-35 ¶ 13 (Int'l Bur. 1996); *GTE
    Spacenet Corporation*, Order and Authorization, DA 94-187, 9 FCC Rcd
    1271, 1273 ¶ 14 (Com. Car. Bur. 1994); *Hughes Communications
    Galaxy, Inc.*, Order and Authorization, DA 92-1481, 7 FCC Rcd 7119,
    7120 ¶¶ 8-9 (Com. Car. Bur. 1992).

[^34]: *Loral Milestone Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 11047 ¶ 6.

[^35]: *See, e.g.*, *EarthWatch Incorporated*, Order and Authorization,
    DA 00-1305, 15 FCC Rcd 18725, 18728 ¶ 9 (Sat. & Radiocomm. Div.,
    Int'l Bur. 2000) (*EarthWatch Milestone Order*) (milestone extension
    granted due to technical problems that, if left unaddressed, could
    drastically impair service to customers); *AMSC Subsidiary
    Corporation*, Order and Authorization, DA 95-652, 10 FCC Rcd 3791
    (Sat. & Radiocomm. Div., Int'l Bur. 1995) (milestone extension
    granted to permit licensee to resolve unanticipated technical
    problems); *American Telephone and Telegraph Company*, Order and
    Authorization, DA 94-589, 9 FCC Rcd 2607 (Domestic Facilities Div.,
    Com. Car. Bur. 1994) (same).

[^36]: Telstar 8 Second Milestone Extension Request at 1-3.

[^37]: *Id.* at 2-3.

[^38]: *Id.* at 3.

[^39]: Telstar 8 Modification Application at 3 & A-8.

[^40]: *Id.* at 3.

[^41]: *Id.* at 4 & A-8.

[^42]: *Id.* at 4.

[^43]: *Id.* at 3-4 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 25.211).

[^44]: *Id*. at 3-4.

[^45]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.210(e) ("All space stations in the Fixed-Satellite
    Service shall be designed to derive the maximum capacity feasible
    from the assigned orbital location. In particular, space stations in
    the Fixed-Satellite Service are required to employ state-of-the-art
    full frequency re-use using both horizontal and vertical
    polarization.").

[^46]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.210(g) ("For fixed-satellite space stations
    providing international service, full frequency re-use is defined as
    follows: (1) Satellites must employ polarization discrimination so
    that, through the use of dual polarization, they shall be able to
    reuse both the uplink and downlink frequency band assignments. (2)
    Satellites must be configured so that all assigned frequencies (in
    both polarizations) could be reused in beams serving widely separate
    areas.").

[^47]: *See, e.g.*, *PanAmSat Licensee Corp.*, Order and Authorization,
    DA 02-1287, 17 FCC Rcd 10483, 10491-92 ¶¶ 19-22 (Sat. Div., Int'l
    Bur. 2002) (granting requested waiver of Section 25.210(g)).

[^48]: Telstar 8 Modification Application at 4-5; Orion F7 Modification
    Application at 2-3.

[^49]: *Orion Network License*, 12 FCC Rcd at 23037 ¶ 29; *Loral ISL &
    Downlink Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 2489 ¶¶ 18-19.

[^50]: Telstar 8 Modification Application at 2.

[^51]: PCG Petition at 4-7.

[^52]: Loral Opposition at 3-4.

[^53]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.210.

[^54]: *Ka-band Third Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 22321-22 ¶¶
    28-29.

[^55]: *Id*. at 22322 ¶ 29.

[^56]: *Id*.

[^57]: Orion F7 Modification Application at 3; Loral Opposition at 3, 6.

[^58]: *Loral Milestone Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 11044.

[^59]: Loral Petition at 6-13.

[^60]: *Id.* at 13-18 (citing *GE American Communications, Inc.*, Order
    and Authorization, DA 01-1286, 16 FCC Rcd 11038 (Int'l Bur. 2001)
    (*GE Americom Milestone Order*)).

[^61]: *See generally Loral Milestone Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 11044-46 ¶¶
    2-5.

[^62]: *See* Loral-Orion Merger Consummation Letter, *supra* note 7.

[^63]: Loral Petition at 6.

[^64]: *Loral Milestone Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 11046-47 ¶¶ 6-7.

[^65]: *Id.* at 11047 ¶ 7.

[^66]: Loral Petition at 7-8; Loral Reply at 3-4.

[^67]: Loral Petition at 12.

[^68]: *Id.* at 2-3 (citing, *e.g.*, Application of Orion Network
    Systems, Inc. for Authority to Construct, Launch and Operate a
    Domestic Communications Satellite System at 4 (filed September 29,
    1995)).

[^69]: *Id.* at 3 (citing "Sharing of Various Frequency Bands Allocated
    to the Inter-Satellite Service," First Round GSO Ka-Band Licensees'
    Report to the FCC (October 9, 1998)).

[^70]: *Id.* at 7.

[^71]: *Id.* at 8.

[^72]: 401 F.2d 398 (D.C. Cir. 1968).

[^73]: *Id.* at 404.

[^74]: *Accord* PCG Opposition at 2 ("the Bureau should consider only
    formal license modification requests which are properly placed
    before it"); Orbital Resources Opposition at 7 ("\[Loral's
    two-year\] silence is all the more significant in that Loral \[ \]
    was aware that other satellite system licensees had obtained
    authority for ISLs with deferred milestone obligations or had sought
    milestone extensions much earlier.").

[^75]: Loral Petition at 14.

[^76]: *GE Americom Milestone Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 11041 ¶ 8.

[^77]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.117(e)(1) ("Any application for modification of
    authorization to extend a required date of completion . . . must
    include a verified statement from the applicant \[t\]hat states the
    additional time is required due to unforeseeable circumstances
    beyond the applicant's control . . . .").

[^78]: *GE Americom Milestone Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 11041-42 ¶¶ 9-10.

[^79]: *See* Final Acts of the 1997 World Radiocommunication Conference,
    Geneva (1997); ITU Radio Regulations Article S5 (frequency
    allocations).

[^80]: *PanAmSat Licensee Corp.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC
    01-178, 16 FCC Rcd 11534 (2001) (*PanAmSat*), *aff'g* Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, DA 00-1266, 15 FCC Rcd 18720 (Int'l Bur. 2000).
    *Accord* PCG Opposition at 5.

[^81]: Loral Reply at 4-5.

[^82]: *PanAmSat*, 16 FCC Rcd at 11543 ¶ 25; *see also id.* at 11541 ¶
    21.

[^83]: *Id.* at nn.52-53 (citing, *e.g.*, *American Telephone and
    Telegraph Company/Ford Aerospace Satellite Services Corporation*,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 87-239, 2 FCC Rcd 4431 (1987)
    (*AT&T/Ford*) (AT&T's decision to reprocure satellites that had
    already met construction milestones does not support requested
    extension of later milestones); *Advanced Communications
    Corporation*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 95-944, 10 FCC Rcd
    13337 (Int'l Bur. 1995) (denying milestone extension request despite
    licensee's compliance with first milestone), *app. for review
    denied*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 95-428, 11 FCC Rcd 3399
    (1995) (*Advanced Review Order*), *aff'd*, 84 F.3d 1452 (D.C. Cir.
    1996) (unpublished judgment *available in* Westlaw at 1996 WL
    250460)).

[^84]: Loral Petition at 18-20.

[^85]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. *See WAIT Radio v. FCC*, 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C.
    Cir. 1969); *Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC*, 897 F.2d 1166
    (D.C. Cir. 1990).

[^86]: *See* Orbital Resources Opposition at 3-4, 8-9; Orbital Resources
    July 2001 *ex parte* letter at 2; Orbital Resources July 2002 *ex
    parte* letter at 6-7.

[^87]: Orbital Resources Opposition at 1-2; Orbital Resources July 2002
    *ex parte* letter at 2.

[^88]: *Columbia Communications Corporation*, Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, DA 00-113, 15 FCC Rcd 15566, 15571 ¶ 10 (Int'l Bur. 2000)
    (*CCC Order*), *aff'd*, Order and Order on Reconsideration, DA
    01-1241, 16 FCC Rcd 10867, 10875-76 ¶ 26 (Int'l Bur. 2001) (*CCC
    Recon Order*).

[^89]: *CCC Recon Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 10877 ¶¶ 30-32, *further recon
    pending*.

[^90]: *See, e.g.*, Orbital Resources July 2002 *ex parte* letter at
    7-8.

[^91]: *See* Letter of John Stern, Deputy General Counsel, Loral Space &
    Communications Ltd. to Jennifer Gilsenan, Chief, Satellite Policy
    Branch, Satellite Division, International Bureau, FCC (March 12,
    2002).

[^92]: *EarthWatch Milestone Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18728 ¶ 9 (quotations
    omitted); *see also Columbia Communications Corporation*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, DA 00-702, 15 FCC Rcd 16496, 16500 ¶ 10 (Int'l
    Bur. 2000) (citing *Norris Satellite Communications, Inc.*,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 97-377, 12 FCC Rcd 22299, 22308 ¶
    21 (1997) (a claim of regulatory uncertainty does not constitute an
    independent basis for granting a milestone extension request and
    does not warrant an otherwise unjustified milestone extension));
    *Advanced Review Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 3412 ¶¶ 30-32 (promoting
    technological development cannot substitute for concrete progress
    towards construction and operation of system).

[^93]: *Compare AT&T/Ford*, 2 FCC Rcd at 4433-35 ¶¶ 18-28 (postponing
    implementation for several years raises questions regarding the
    licensee's intention to proceed in a timely fashion, if at all, and
    thus does not justify milestone extension) *with NetSat 28 Company,
    L.L.C.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 01-1284, 16 FCC Rcd 11025,
    11031 ¶ 21 (Int'l Bur. 2001) (granted extension of construction
    milestone because, *inter alia*, licensee had commenced construction
    on satellite and already arranged for satellite launch). *Cf.
    Astrolink International LLC*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA
    02-1431, 17 FCC Rcd 11267 (Sat. Div., Int'l Bur. 2002) (granted
    waiver of construction milestone because licensee demonstrated that
    it had completed construction of over 90 percent of its spacecraft).

[^94]: For example, there is no discussion of milestones in the
    *Cyberstar 47° W.L. Ku-band Modification Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 7019,
    issued the same month that the construction completion milestone
    would have expired.