**DA 04-1707**

June 14, 2004

Ms. Karis A. Hastings

Counsel for SES Americom, Inc.

Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.

555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004-1109

> Re: SES Americom, Inc., May 2004 Amendment to Application to
> Construct, Launch and Operate a Geostationary Satellite in the Fixed
> Satellite Service using the Ku and Ka Frequency Bands at the 105º W.L.
> Orbit Location, File No. SAT-AMD-20040528-00110 (S2180)

Dear Ms. Hastings:

In February 2003, SES Americom, Inc. (SES Americom) filed an application
to construct, launch and operate Americom-15 (AMC-15), a hybrid
Ku/Ka-band satellite to be located at the 105º W.L. orbit location.[^1]
The AMC-15 satellite's Ku-band payload is intended to replace SES
Americom's GSTAR 4 satellite.[^2] In April 2003, SES Americom amended
the February 2003 application to provide information regarding the
Ku-band circularly polarized transmissions that was not provided
previously.[^3] On May 28, 2004, SES Americom again amended the February
2003 application to provide updated information on the circularly
polarized operations, more detailed interference analyses for specific
carriers than were originally submitted, and updated ownership and
management information.[^4] For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss
the May 2004 amendment as incomplete, without prejudice to refiling.

Section 25.114(c) of the Commission's rules requires that all space
station applicants submit all applicable items of information listed in
its subsections. [^5] Additionally, Section 25.112(a)(1) of the
Commission's rules provides that an application will be unacceptable for
filing if it "is defective with respect to completeness of answers to
questions, informational showing, internal inconsistencies, execution,
or other matters of a formal character. . . ." [^6] In the *First Space
Station Reform Order*,[^7] the Commission affirmed the policies embodied
in these rules by continuing to require applications to be substantially
complete when filed.[^8] As the Commission noted, the procedures and
rules it adopted will enable the Commission to establish satellite
licensees' operating rights clearly and quickly, and as a result, allow
licensees to provide service to the public much sooner than might be
possible under its previous licensing procedures.[^9] Finding defective
applications acceptable for filing is not consistent with the rules and
policies adopted by the Commission in the *First Space Station Reform
Order* and only serves to create uncertainty and inefficiency in the
licensing process.

We have reviewed the May 2004 amendment and find that it is incomplete
with regard to the information required in Section 25.114(c)(8) (in
particular, the types of services to be provided, a description of the
transmission characteristics and performance objectives for each type of
proposed service, details of the link noise budget, modulation
parameters and overall link performance analysis). In the February 2003
application, SES Americom states that "the services provided by AMC-15
will be wide ranging including digital TV and digital transmission
services ranging from 56 KPBS to high-speed."[^10] In that application,
SES Americom included downlink budget calculations for eight different,
but all digital, Ku-band modulation schemes.[^11] Further, SES Americom
provides a list of emission designators in Table 3 of the Technical
Appendix that, with the exception of the command and telemetry/ranging
signals, are all digital.[^12]

In its May 2004 amendment, SES Americom includes the analog emission
designator 36M0F3W in its supplemental interference analysis.[^13]
However, the filing does not contain details of a link noise budget,
overall link performance analysis or performance objectives for this
type of service as required by Section 25.114(c)(8).[^14] Moreover, we
find no information at all regarding this modulation type in either the
February 2003 application or the April 2003 amendment. As noted above,
we find only digital modulation schemes proposed in the February 2003
application's list of emission designators.

For the above-mentioned reasons, we find SES Americom's May 2004
amendment to be incomplete. Accordingly, pursuant to the Commission's
rules on delegated authority, 47 C.F.R. § 0.261(a)(4), we find that File
No. SAT-AMD-20040528-00110 is defective and therefore unacceptable for
filing. Consistent with Section 25.112(a)(1) of the Commission's rules,
we dismiss this amendment without prejudice to refiling.[^15]

Sincerely,

Thomas S. Tycz

Chief, Satellite Division

International Bureau

> cc: Nancy J. Eskenazi
>
> Vice President and Associate General Counsel
>
> Legal and Regulatory Operations
>
> SES Americom, Inc.
>
> Four Research Way
>
> Princeton, NJ 08540-6684

[^1]: *Application of SES Americom, Inc. to Construct, Launch and
    Operate a Geostationary Satellite in the Fixed Satellite Service
    using the Ku and Ka Frequency Bands at the 105º W.L. Orbit
    Location,* File No. SAT-LOA-20030219-00013 (filed Feb. 19, 2003)
    (February 2003 application).

[^2]: The GSTAR 4 satellite was located at the 105º W.L. orbit location
    at the time that SES Americom filed the February 2003 application.
    In July 2003, the Satellite Division granted SES Americom authority
    to drift the AMC-2 satellite from the 85 W.L. orbit location to the
    105 W.L. orbit location, and to operate in the Ku-band at the 105
    W.L. orbit location on a temporary non-harmful interference basis.
    Consequently, there has been no interruption of Ku-band service at
    the 105º W.L. orbit location. In October 2003, the Satellite
    Division granted SES Americom's request for special temporary
    authority to relocate the GSTAR 4 satellite to the 165º W.L. orbit
    location. (*See* Satellite Policy Branch Information, *Public
    Notice*, Report No. SAT-00171, rel. Oct. 10, 2003). In January 2004,
    the Satellite Division granted SES Americom authority to continue
    operating tracking, telemetry, and command systems on its GSTAR 4
    satellite for a period of 30 days in order to perform end of life
    maneuvers, boosting the satellite into a disposal orbit above the
    geostationary satellite orbital arc. (*See* SES Americom, Inc.,
    Application for Special Temporary Authority to Continue to Operate
    the TT&C Systems of GSTAR 4 During Deorbit Maneuvers, File No.
    SAT-STA-20040128-00007, filed Jan. 28, 2004, and Policy Branch
    Information, *Public Notice,* Report No. SAT-00191, rel. Feb. 9,
    2004).

[^3]: *Amendment to Application* *of SES Americom, Inc. to Construct,
    Launch and Operate a Geostationary Satellite in the Fixed Satellite
    Service using the Ku and Ka Frequency Bands at the 105º W.L. Orbit
    Location,* File No. SAT-AMD-20030422-00069 (filed April 22, 2003)
    (April 2003 amendment).

[^4]: *Amendment to Application* *of SES Americom, Inc. to Construct,
    Launch and Operate a Geostationary Satellite in the Fixed Satellite
    Service using the Ku and Ka Frequency Bands at the 105º W.L. Orbit
    Location,* File No. SAT-AMD-20040528-00110 (filed May 28, 2003) (May
    2004 amendment).

[^5]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.114(c).

[^6]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.112(a)(1).

[^7]: Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and
    Policies, *First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking,* IB Docket No. 02-34, 18 FCC Rcd 10760, 10852 (para.
    244) (2003) *(First Space Station Reform Order)*.

[^8]: *First Space Station Reform Order,* 18 FCC Rcd At 10852 (para.
    244), citing *Space Station Reform NPRM,* 17 FCC Rcd at 3875 (para.
    84).

[^9]: *First Space Station Reform Order,* 18 FCC Rcd at 10765-66, (para.
    4).

[^10]: February 2003 application at § 2.12 of the Technical Appendix, p.
    14.

[^11]: February 2003 application at § 2.12 of the Technical Appendix,
    pp. 16-19.

[^12]: February 2003 application at § 2.2 of the Technical Appendix, p.
    5.

[^13]: May 2004 amendment at Appendix 2, *Supplemental Two-Degree
    Spacing Analysis for Ku-Band*, Attachment 1.

[^14]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §25.114(c)(8).

[^15]: If SES Americom refiles an application identical to the one
    dismissed, with the exception of supplying the missing information,
    it need not pay a further application fee. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    1.1109(d).