**Before the**

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

)

In the Matter of )

> )

Columbia Communications Corporation )

) File No. SAT-MOD-20000208-00058

Application for Amendment to Pending )

Application to Extend Milestones )

)

# MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted: April 4, 2000 Released: April 5, 2000

By the Deputy Chief, International Bureau:

# I. INTRODUCTION

1 In this Order, we deny Columbia Communications Corporation\'s
(Columbia\'s) second request for a further extension of the construction
commencement milestone applicable to its license to provide service in
the C-band from its satellite to be located at 47° W.L. Columbia has had
fifteen months to begin construction of this satellite, and it has
already received one extension of the original milestone, which was
originally scheduled to lapse in September 1999. Columbia has not met
its burden of demonstrating that it faces extraordinary circumstances
beyond its control that would warrant additional time in which to begin
construction. Granting Columbia\'s request would contravene the
Commission\'s policy prohibiting licensees from holding scarce orbit
resources, thereby precluding effective use by others, while incumbent
licensees examine whether and how to proceed with their plans.

**II. BACKGROUND**

2 In 1996, the International Bureau (the Bureau) granted Columbia
Special Temporary Authority (STA) to lease C-band capacity on NASA\'s
TDRS-6 satellite, located at 47° W.L., subject to coordination with
adjacent satellite operators.[^1] In January 1999, the Bureau granted
Columbia authority to launch and operate its own C-band satellite at 47°
W.L.[^2] Under the original terms of its license, which were based on
the representations in Columbia\'s application, Columbia was scheduled
to commence construction of this satellite in September 1999.[^3] We
have already granted Columbia one extension of its construction
commencement milestone, to April 5, 2000.[^4]

3 On May 11, 1999, Columbia requested us to extend again the
construction commencement milestone applicable to its C-band
satellite.[^5] On January 21, 2000, the Bureau denied Columbia\'s
request.[^6] On February 8, 2000, Columbia filed another request for
extension, making essentially the same arguments that the Bureau
considered in denying the previous petition on January 21.

4 In support of its May 1999 milestone extension request, Columbia
argued that it could not proceed with construction until it knew whether
its request for Ku-band authority at 47° W.L would be granted.[^7] We
explained that milestone schedules are included as a condition of space
station authorizations to ensure that licensees are moving forward with
the construction and launch of their systems in a timely manner.
Requiring licensees to make and fulfill realistic construction and
launch commitments prevents increasingly scarce orbital resources from
being warehoused by licensees. Such warehousing could hinder the
availability of services to the public by blocking entry by other
entities willing and able to proceed immediately with the construction
and launch of their satellite systems.[^8]

5 We explained further that we grant milestone extensions only in the
case of extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the
licensee.[^9] We determined that Columbia\'s decision to seek a license
modification to add Ku-band capacity to its satellite was a business
decision within the control of the licensee, and so was not a
\"circumstance beyond its control\" that would justify a milestone
extension.[^10] Finally, we observed that milestone extensions could not
be justified by delays due to negotiations with potential
investors,[^11] mergers,[^12] or construction contract
negotiations.[^13]

6 On February 8, 2000, Columbia submitted another request to extend the
construction commencement milestone, from April 5, 2000 to a date two
weeks after Commission action on its pending request to transfer control
of its licenses to GE American Communications, Inc. (GE Americom).[^14]
In the alternative, Columbia seeks a waiver of this milestone.[^15]
According to Columbia, the pending merger application creates
uncertainty regarding the financially responsible contracting party, and
this uncertainty may potentially increase the cost of the
spacecraft.[^16] GE Americom filed comments supporting Columbia\'s
request to extend its construction commencement milestone. No other
parties filed comments.[^17]

**III. DISCUSSION**

**A. Request for Milestone Extension**

7 We deny Columbia\'s request because Columbia fails again to show that
the cause of its delay in beginning to construct a satellite licensed
over a year ago is a \"circumstance beyond its control.\" Rather, the
cause of delay is a business decision within the control of the
licensee. Columbia seeks an extension because it was negotiating a
possible merger with GE Americom concurrently with its negotiation of a
construction contract for its C-band satellite at 47° W.L.[^18] Columbia
maintains that several contract terms, such as \"the specific terms of
financing and appropriate contract termination penalties,\" may differ
depending on whether Columbia is authorized to transfer its licenses to
GE Americom.[^19] Thus, Columbia asserts that its pending transfer of
control application creates \"regulatory uncertainty that presents a
substantial impediment towards completion of a construction
contract.\"[^20]

8 Columbia\'s reasoning is unpersuasive for several reasons. First,
Columbia\'s concerns over the potential for additional cost or
complexity in its construction contract are not sufficient grounds for
granting a milestone extension request. Second, Columbia fails to meet
its burden of demonstrating that it qualifies for an additional
milestone extension. Third, Columbia fails to recognize that a milestone
is a legally binding condition on the licensee\'s authorization. It is
mistaken in assuming that a milestone is merely a \"moment in time that
has been chosen for the purpose of determining whether a licensee has
taken adequate steps toward the ultimate goal of commencing
service.\"[^21] We discuss each of these reasons below.

**1. Contractual Complexity**

9 Columbia asserts that extension of its construction commencement
milestone is justified by the \"regulatory uncertainty\" created by the
pending GE Americom/Columbia merger application.[^22] According to
Columbia, the pending merger application \"presents a substantial
impediment\" to finalizing a construction contract, because the specific
terms of financing and contract termination penalties may differ
depending on whether the merger application is granted.[^23] Columbia
also maintains that contract negotiations and the final construction
contract will be \"unnecessarily complicated\" if completed before the
Commission acts on the merger application, and that this complexity
could \"potentially increas\[e\] the cost of the spacecraft.\"[^24]

10 A desire to avoid increased costs or contractual complications is a
business decision within the control of the licensee, which does not
justify a milestone extension. In the *MCI Order*, the Common Carrier
Bureau denied MCI\'s milestone extension request in part because MCI had
not shown that the complexities surrounding its planned merger were
\"anything other than the necessary and routine matters involved in such
an, albeit large, transaction.\"[^25] Similarly, Columbia has not shown
that accounting for merger-related contingencies in a construction
contract would be substantially different than the necessary and routine
matters normally involved in a merger transaction. Furthermore, the
\"regulatory uncertainty\" cited by Columbia would not exist if it had
not filed its merger application, and so it is a direct result of
Columbia\'s business decision to merge with GE Americom.[^26] Recasting
a pending merger application as \"regulatory uncertainty\" does not
convert it into a circumstance beyond the licensee\'s control, and so
does not justify a milestone extension.[^27]

11 In addition, Columbia\'s contention that a complicated contract could
\"potentially increase the cost of the spacecraft\"[^28] is an economic
consideration that cannot justify a milestone extension. In the
*AT&T/Ford Order*, the Commission determined that AT&T could not justify
a milestone extension by asserting that delay might clarify certain
launch and insurance issues and lower satellite construction costs.[^29]
The Commission concluded that AT&T\'s extension request was motivated
primarily by economic considerations, and that such considerations were
not a sufficient basis for granting a milestone extension request.[^30]
Columbia\'s concerns over construction cost increases caused by
contractual complications are also economic considerations. Furthermore,
even if we could extend a milestone for economic considerations,
Columbia does not elaborate on either the likelihood or the amount of
any cost increases that might be caused by the outstanding merger
application. Consequently, we would still conclude that Columbia\'s
request was not justified.

12 Even assuming, however, that contractual complications could justify
a milestone extension, Columbia has not shown that this is such a case.
Columbia asserts only that the pending merger application presents a
\"substantial impediment\" to finalizing a construction contract.
Columbia does not explain why it and the satellite vendor could not
agree to a contingent contract by April 5, 2000 that would transfer to
GE Americom if the merger is approved.[^31] Thus, in addition to failing
to show that it faces circumstances beyond its control, Columbia has
failed to show that it is in fact unable to meet its construction
commencement milestone.

**2. Consistency with Precedent**

13 Columbia claims that its milestone extension request is
distinguishable from several Orders in which the Commission has denied
milestone extension requests in the past, and consistent with Commission
Orders granting extensions. We disagree with Columbia.

14 Columbia first cites the *AT&T/Ford Order*, where the Commission
denied a request to transfer satellite authorizations from Ford to AT&T,
and to extend the milestones associated with three of those
authorizations. Columbia asserts that its extension request is
distinguishable from the one in the *AT&T/Ford Order* because, unlike
Columbia, AT&T was effectively seeking authority to build a new
satellite system outside of a processing round.[^32] To the contrary,
AT&T\'s position with respect to a processing round was not germane to
the Commission\'s decision to deny AT&T an extension of the milestone
dates. In particular, the Commission stated \"\... even if AT&T were
considered as \[Ford\'s\] successor, the extensions sought are not due
to circumstances beyond AT&T\'s control, and thus cannot be
granted,\"[^33] and that \"\[h\]ad \[Ford\] requested the modifications
sought be AT&T, its applications would not have been granted.\"[^34] In
so finding, the Commission emphasized that seeking additional time to
negotiate a construction contract in view of a proposed merger does not
warrant a milestone extension.[^35] Thus, contrary to Columbia\'s
argument, a \"processing round\" criterion is not relevant to our
consideration of Columbia\'s milestone extension request.

15 Columbia also observes that, in many Orders denying milestone
extension requests, the Commission emphasized that the petitioners
requested long extensions of time.[^36] Columbia argues that its
extension request is distinguishable from those requests because it
seeks a short extension.[^37] There is no support in those Orders for
Columbia\'s implicit assumption that the relevant precedent allows
milestone extensions for business decisions within the control of the
licensee provided that the licensee requests a short extension of time.
In any case, allowing a short extension does not provide us with any
additional assurance that the milestone will be met. Further, it may
place us in the position of considering repeated short extensions as the
licensee\'s business and financial plans progress, again with no
assurance that the milestone will ultimately be met. Consequently, we
will not treat requests for \"short\" extensions any differently than
requests for \"longer\" extensions.

16 Columbia maintains further that extension is warranted because it
limits its request to its construction commencement milestone, and does
not seek extension of its construction completion or launch
milestones.[^38] We disagree. If a licensee does not even begin
construction of its satellite by the date specified in its license, it
raises substantial doubts as to whether the licensee intends to or is
able to proceed with its business plan.[^39] Consequently, to ensure
that unused spectrum is reassigned as quickly as possible to another
qualified entity that seeks to implement a system, the Commission has
strictly construed the construction commencement milestone contained in
every space station license.[^40] Thus, Columbia misplaces its reliance
on the *AMSC Order* and the *1992 GE Americom Order*.[^41] In both
Orders, the licensees requested extension of only their construction
completion and launch milestones. They had begun construction of their
satellites, and were continuing with construction.[^42]

**3. Flexibility in Milestone Enforcement**

17 Finally, Columbia asserts that a milestone is not an absolute, wholly
inflexible \"cut-off date.\"[^43] Rather, Columbia claims that a
milestone is a moment to determine whether a licensee has taken adequate
steps towards commencement of service.[^44] To the contrary, milestones
are obligations placed on licensees as conditions on their authority to
launch and operate a satellite, *not* merely times set aside for a
qualitative assessment of a licensee\'s progress. Columbia\'s license
expressly provides that the license would be null and void if it failed
to meet its construction commencement milestone.[^45] Thus, Columbia has
no basis to maintain that its construction commencement milestone was
not a \"cut-off date.\" Columbia misinterprets the Orders its cites for
the proposition that the Commission is flexible in its milestone
enforcement. In cases where the Commission has extended a construction
commencement date, other overriding public interest factors or
unforeseen circumstances beyond the licensee\'s control have been
involved.[^46] Columbia bases its milestone extension request on a
desire to simplify its construction contract, not to facilitate
international coordination, or to deal with launch failures, or any
other factor outside its control. In summary, there is no policy reason,
and no basis in Commission precedent, for treating a milestone
commitment as a flexible, qualitative assessment of a licensee\'s
construction progress.

**B. Request for Waiver**

18 In the event that we conclude that it does not face circumstances
outside its control that justify a milestone extension, Columbia seeks
waiver of its construction commencement milestone.[^47] Waiving
Columbia\'s construction commencement milestone would relieve Columbia
of any requirement to commence construction of its satellite, rather
than merely rescheduling Columbia\'s construction commencement deadline.
Elimination of Columbia\'s construction commencement deadline is no more
justified than extending the deadline.

19 Rules may be waived if there is \"good cause\" to do so.[^48] Waiver
is appropriate if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the
general rule and such deviation would better serve the public interest
than would strict adherence to the general rule.[^49] Circumstances that
would justify a waiver include \"considerations of hardship, equity, or
more effective implementation of overall policy.\"[^50] Also, if the
Commission grants waivers, it must identify and articulate reasonable
standards that are predictable, workable, and not susceptible to
discriminatory application.[^51] Generally, the Commission may grant a
waiver of its rules in a particular case only if the relief requested
would not undermine the policy objective of the rule in question, and
would otherwise serve the public interest.[^52] Courts have observed
that \"\[a\]n applicant for waiver faces a high hurdle even at the
starting gate. \'When an applicant seeks a waiver of a rule, it must
plead with particularity the facts and circumstances which warrant such
action.\'\"[^53]

20 Columbia has not demonstrated that it faces special circumstances
that warrant a waiver. We explained above that Columbia is concerned
that its pending merger application may make its construction contract
\"complicated.\" We also concluded that the any construction contract
complications related to Columbia\'s proposed merger are not
substantially different than the necessary and routine matters normally
involved in merger transactions.[^54] Thus, the possibility of a
complicated construction contract is not a \"special circumstance\" that
can justify a waiver.

21 We also find that waiving Columbia\'s construction commencement
milestone would undermine the policy objective of milestone
requirements. We noted in the *Columbia Modification Order* that the
milestone schedule is necessary to ensure that licensees cannot
\"warehouse\" increasingly scarce orbital resources.[^55] We also
observed above that the construction commencement milestone is crucial
to the Commission\'s warehousing policies, to ensure that unused
spectrum is reassigned as quickly as possible to another qualified
entity when there are substantial doubts as to whether the licensee
intends to or is able to proceed with its business plan.[^56] We have
waived construction commencement milestones only in rare instances. In
the *Dominion Video Order*, for example, the Bureau waived Dominion
Video\'s construction commencement milestone in part because the
licensee was already providing service by leasing capacity on Echostar
III, a \"state-of-the-art\" satellite, and because of the unique channel
assignment policies in the Direct Broadcast Service.[^57] This is not
the case here. First, Columbia plans to serve existing C-band customers
with its leased capacity on TDRS-6 until it launches its replacement
satellite.[^58] In contrast to the Echostar II satellite, TDRS-6 does
not meet Commission technical requirements in place since 1983.[^59] We
have already found that Columbia cannot justify delaying construction
and launch of a state-of-the-art satellite on the basis of its lease on
TDRS-6.[^60] Second, in the *Dominion Video Order*, the Commission found
that since Echostar and Dominion were both assigned to operate on
various channels at the 61.5° W.L. orbit location, \"\[t\]aking
advantage of the transponder capacity that is already in orbit will
avoid the enormous expense and delay involved in constructing and
launching a separate satellite.\"[^61] Dominion was authorized to
operate on only eight of the 32 available DBS channels at that orbit
location. In contrast, Columbia is authorized to operate across the
entire 500 MHz of C-band bandwidth available at the 47° W.L. orbit
location. Consequently, Columbia\'s leased capacity on TDRS-6 cannot
justify elimination of its construction commencement deadline any more
than it can justify extension of that deadline.

**IV. CONCLUSION**

22 We conclude that Columbia has not shown that it faces any
circumstances beyond its control that would warrant an extension of its
construction commencement milestone. We further conclude that Columbia
has not shown that it faces any special circumstances that would justify
as waiver under the Commission\'s rules.

**V. ORDERING CLAUSES**

23 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Section 25.153(a) of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.153(a), IS WAIVED, to the extent
necessary to address Columbia Communications Corporation\'s milestone
extension request on its merits.

24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request to extend milestones, filed by
Columbia Communications Corporation on February 8, 2000, IS DENIED.

25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request to waive milestone
requirements, filed by Columbia Communications Corporation on February
8, 2000, IS DENIED.

26 This Order is issued pursuant to Section 0.261 of the Commission's
rules on delegated authority, 47 C.F.R. § 0.261, and is effective upon
release. Petitions for reconsideration under Section 1.106 or
applications for review under Section 1.115 of the Commission's rules,
47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106, 1.115, may be filed within 30 days of the date of
the release of this Order. (*See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.4(b)(2).)

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Anna M. Gomez

Deputy Chief,

International Bureau

[^1]: Columbia Communications Corporation, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 8639 (Int'l
    Bur. 1996) (*Columbia STA Order*). For purposes of this Order,
    \"C-band\" denotes the 3700-4200 MHz and 5925-6425 MHz frequency
    bands.

[^2]: Columbia Communications Corporation, Order and Authorization, 14
    FCC Rcd 3318 (1999) (*Columbia Authorization Order*).

[^3]: *Columbia Authorization Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3330 (para. 40).

[^4]: ^?^ We granted Columbia its first milestone extension on April 5,
    1999, because the milestone schedule established in the *Columbia
    Authorization Order* was shorter than the schedule typically
    specified for geostationary satellite providers of fixed satellite
    services. *See* Letter from Thomas S. Tycz, Chief, Satellite and
    Radiocommunication Division, International Bureau, to Raul R.
    Rodriguez, Counsel for Columbia (dated April 5, 1999) (*April 5
    Letter*).

[^5]: ^?^ In its May 1999 request, Columbia also petitioned us to revoke
    Loral Space & Communications Ltd.\'s (Loral\'s) authorization to
    launch and operate a Ku-band satellite at 47° W.L. In addition,
    Columbia requested authority to add Ku-band capacity to Columbia\'s
    C-band satellite at 47° W.L. For purposes of this Order, \"Ku-band\"
    denotes the 11.7-12.2 GHz and 14.0-14.5 GHz frequency bands.

[^6]: ^?^ Columbia Communications Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, DA 00-113 (Int\'l Bur., released Jan. 21, 2000) (*Columbia
    Modification Order*) (*petition for recon. pending*).

[^7]: ^?^ *See Columbia Modification Order* at para. 11.

[^8]: ^?^ *Columbia Modification Order* at para. 11.

[^9]: ^?^ *Columbia Modification Order* at para. 11, *citing* National
    Exchange Satellite, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd
    1990, 1991 (para. 8) (Com. Car. Bur. 1992) (*Nexsat Order*); MCI
    Communications Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2 FCC Rcd
    233 (1987) (*MCI Order*); Hughes Communications Galaxy, Order and
    Authorization, 5 FCC Rcd 3423, 3424 (Com. Car. Bur. 1990).

[^10]: ^?^ *Columbia Modification Order* at para. 12.

[^11]: ^?^ *Columbia Modification Order* at para. 12 n.35, *citing*
    Advanced Communications Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order,
    11 FCC Rcd 3399, 3417 (para. 45) (1995) (*Advanced Review Order*).

[^12]: *Columbia Modification Order* at para. 12 n.35, *citing* *MCI
    Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 234 (para. 7).

[^13]: ^?^ *Columbia Modification Order* at para. 12 n.35, *citing*
    American Telephone and Telegraph Company and Ford Aerospace
    Satellite Services Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2 FCC
    Rcd 4431, 4433-34 (paras. 21-23) (1987) (*AT&T/Ford Order*).

[^14]: ^?^ On February 3, 2000, GE Americom and Columbia filed a joint
    application to transfer Columbia\'s space station and earth station
    licenses to GE Americom. File Nos. SAT-T/C-20000203-00056;
    SES-T/C-20000203-00142.

[^15]: ^?^ Columbia Request at 6-7. Columbia notes that Section
    25.153(a) of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.153(a), bars an
    applicant from filing repetitious applications within twelve months
    of a denial of an application. Columbia argues that Section
    25.153(a) does not apply because it asks for different relief and
    provides different grounds for the extension request before us now.
    Columbia Request at 2 n.1. We will not determine at this time
    whether styling the request as one to \"toll milestones\" rather
    than to \"extend milestones,\" changing the time period of the
    extension request, or providing different arguments to support the
    request warrants treating the request as \"non-repetitious\" for
    purposes of Section 25.153(a). Rather, we waive Section 25.153(a) to
    the extent necessary to address Columbia\'s request on its merits.

[^16]: ^?^ Columbia Request at 3.

[^17]: ^?^ On March 3, 2000, Columbia filed a letter requesting
    expedited treatment of its request, and a draft letter granting its
    request. Letter from Raul R. Rodriguez and David S. Keir, Counsel to
    Columbia Communications Corporation, to Don Abelson, Chief,
    International Bureau (dated March 3, 2000) (*March 3 Letter*).

[^18]: ^?^ Columbia Request at 3-4.

[^19]: ^?^ Columbia Request at 4 n.7.

[^20]: ^?^ Columbia Request at 4 n.7.

[^21]: ^?^ Columbia Request at 6.

[^22]: ^?^ Columbia Request at 4 n.7.

[^23]: Columbia Request at 4 n.7.

[^24]: Columbia Request at 3.

[^25]: *MCI Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 234 (para. 7).

[^26]: *Columbia Modification Order* at para. 12 n.35; *MCI Order*, 2
    FCC Rcd at 234 (para. 7).

[^27]: *See also* Norris Satellite Communications, Inc., Application for
    Review of Order Denying Extension of Time to Construct and Launch
    Ka-band Satellite System, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd
    22299, 22308 (para. 21) (*Norris Review Order*) (a claim of
    \"regulatory uncertainty\" does not constitute an independent basis
    for granting a milestone extension request, and so does not warrant
    an otherwise unjustified milestone extension).

[^28]: Columbia Request at 3.

[^29]: *AT&T/Ford Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 4434 (para. 26).

[^30]: *AT&T/Ford Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 4434 (para. 26). *See also MCI
    Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 234 (para. 7), *citing* Rock City Broadcasting,
    Inc., 52 FCC 2d 1246, 1250 (1975); Community Broadcasters of
    Cleveland, Inc., 58 FCC 2d 1296, 1300 (1976).

[^31]: *See* Volunteers in Technical Assistance, Order, 12 FCC Rcd 3094,
    3108 (para. 43) (1997) (accounting for contingencies in construction
    and launch contracts is \"not extraordinary.\")

[^32]: Columbia Request at 5. *See* *AT&T/Ford Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 4433
    (para. 16).

[^33]: ^?^ *AT&T/Ford Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 4433 (para. 19).

[^34]: ^?^ *AT&T/Ford Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 4433 (para. 17).

[^35]: *AT&T/Ford Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 4433-34 (paras. 19-21).

[^36]: Columbia Request at 5 n.8, *citing* Norris Satellite
    Communications, Inc., Order, 11 FCC Rcd 5402 (Int\'l Bur. 1996)
    (*Norris Order*); Advanced Communications Corporation, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13337 (Int\'l. Bur. 1995) (*Advanced
    Order*); *Nexsat Order*, 7 FCC Rcd 1990; Geostar Positioning System,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 2276 (Com. Car. Bur. 1991);
    *AT&T/Ford Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 4433 (para. 18).

[^37]: Columbia Request at 5-6.

[^38]: Columbia Request at 7.

[^39]: *AMSC Order*, 8 FCC Rcd at 4042 (para. 13) (failing to begin
    construction raises questions regarding the licensee\'s intention to
    proceed); *Norris Review Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 22306 (para. 17) (by
    failing to commence construction or request extension within the
    milestone deadline, licensee in that Order did not demonstrate a
    commitment to proceed with its proposed system).

[^40]: *AMSC Order*, 8 FCC Rcd at 4042 (para. 13); *Norris Review
    Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 22306 (para. 17).

[^41]: ^?^ Columbia Request at 6-7, *citing* AMSC Subsidiary
    Corporation, Applications to Modify Space Station Authorizations in
    the Mobile Satellite Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC
    Rcd 4040 (1993) (*AMSC Order*); Application of GE American
    Communications, Inc., for Orbital Reassignment and for Modification
    of Authorization to Construct and Launch the Satcom H-1 Domestic
    Fixed-Satellite, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 5169 (Com.
    Car. Bur. 1992) (*1992 GE Americom Order*).

[^42]: ^?^ *AMSC Order,* 8 FCC Rcd at 4042-43 (para. 14); *1992 GE
    Americom Order*, 7 FCC Rcd at 5169 (para. 3).

[^43]: Columbia Request at 6.

[^44]: Columbia Request at 6.

[^45]: *Columbia Authorization Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 3330 (para. 40);
    *April 5 Letter*.

[^46]: ^?^ *See* Assignment of Orbital Locations to Space Stations in
    the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service, GE American Communications,
    Inc. Request for Extension of Construction and Launch Milestones for
    GE-3, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 13863, 13865-66
    (paras. 5-7) (1998) (*1998 GE Americom Order*) (granting GE Americom
    a 60-day extension of its construction commencement milestone in
    conjunction with reassigning its satellite to another orbit
    location, to help resolve complicated international coordination
    issues with other countries); *MCI Order*, 2 FCC Rcd at 234 (paras.
    7-9) (extending the milestones for one of MCI\'s two licenses
    because a series of launch failures that disrupted the industry at
    that time, including the *Challenger* disaster, may have played a
    part in MCI\'s failure to begin construction of that satellite).

[^47]: Columbia Request at 6-7.

[^48]: ^?^ *See* Section 1.3 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    1.3. *See also* WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1969)
    (*WAIT Radio*); Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d
    1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (*Northeast Cellular*).

[^49]: ^?^ *Northeast Cellular*, 897 F.2d at 1166. *See also* Comsat
    Corporation, Petition for Partial Relief from the Current Regulatory
    Treatment of Comsat World Systems\' Switched Voice, Private Line,
    and Video and Audio Services, Order, 11 FCC Rcd 9622, 9625 (para.
    10) (1996); Petition of General Communications, Inc. for a Partial
    Waiver of the Bush Earth Station Policy, Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 11 FCC Rcd 2535, 2536 (para. 4) (Int\'l Bur. 1996).

[^50]: ^?^ *WAIT Radio*, 418 F.2d at 1159.

[^51]: *Northeast Cellular*, 897 F.2d at 1166.

[^52]: ^?^ *WAIT Radio*, 418 F.2d at 1157; Dominion Video Satellite,
    Inc., Order and Authorization, 14 FCC Rcd 8182, 8185 (para. 5)
    (Int\'l Bur., 1999) (*Dominion Video*).

[^53]: ^?^ *WAIT Radio*, 418 F.2d at 1157, *quoting* Rio Grande Family
    Radio Fellowship Inc. v. FCC, 406 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir. 1968). *See
    also* Ameritech Operating Companies, Order, 6 FCC Rcd 746, 747
    (para. 16) (Com. Car. Bur. 1991).

[^54]: ^?^ *See* Section III.A.1.

[^55]: ^?^ *Columbia Modification Order* at para. 11, *citing* *Nexsat
    Order*, 7 FCC Rcd at 1991 (para. 8); *MCI Order*, 2 FCC Rcd 233.

[^56]: ^?^ *See* Section III.A.3.

[^57]: *Dominion Video Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 8186 (para. 11). Echostar
    III is licensed to Direct Broadcast Satellite Corporation, an
    affiliate of the Echostar Satellite Corporation.

[^58]: ^?^ Columbia Request at 7.

[^59]: ^?^ Systematics General Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 103 FCC 2d 879, 881-82 (paras. 6-9) (1985). *See also*
    Columbia Communications Corporation, Memorandum Opinion, Order, and
    Authorization, 7 FCC Rcd 122, 123 (para. 15) (1991), *cited in
    Columbia Modification Order* at para. 13 n.39.

[^60]: ^?^ *Columbia Modification Order* at paras. 13-15.

[^61]: ^?^ *Dominion Video Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 8186 (para. 11).