*Pages 1--2 from Microsoft Word - 52899.doc* Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 DA 05- 2924 November 04, 2005 Keith H. Fagan Telenor Satellites, Inc. 1101 Wootton Parkway, 10th Floor Rockville, MD 20852 Re: Call Sign: KA313 File No.: SES- MOD- 20050803- 01034 File No.: SES- AMD- 20050930- 01358 Dear Mr. Fagan: On August 3, 2005, Telenor Satellites, Inc. (TSI) filed the above- captioned modification application for authority to add remote terminals with new antennas to the currently licensed earth station referenced above. On September 16, 2005, we informed TSI that the proposed operation using the 169KG7W emission designator exceeded by 5.7 dB the maximum power density of the satellite operator agreement you provided as an attachment to your application. We therefore requested that TSI amend the application to resolve this discrepancy. TSI filed this amendment on September 30, 2005. For the reasons stated below, we dismiss the application and the amendment, as defective without prejudice. As an initial matter, we note that in response to Question 27 on Form 312, TSI indicated, designators and related service. Therefore, we assume that emissions associated with the in the September 30 th amendment, that the purpose of the amendment is to change emission 169KG7W emission designator in the August 3, 2005 application are no longer being proposed. We also assume that only those emissions in the amendment are now proposed to be added to the license. In your amendment, we find that the Maximum EIRP per Carrier which TSI indicates as 49.5 dBW (item E48) for emission designator 1M52G7W (item E47) is greater than, and therefore inconsistent with, the Total EIRP for All Carriers of 43 dBW (item E40) for the 0.75 meter antenna. We also find analogous inconsistencies for the 0.90 and 0.96 meter antennas, where, respectively, for the same emission designator, TSI specifies 50.6 and 51. 7 dBW as the Maximum EIRP per Carrier, and 44. 1 and 45.2 dBW as the Total EIRP for All Carriers. Given these inconsistencies, we cannot determine the proposed emission power. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 25.112( a)( 1) and 0.261, 1 we dismiss TSI’s modification application, as amended, as defective, without prejudice to refiling. 1 47 C. F. R. §§ 25. 112( a)( 1) and 0.261. See also Echostar Satellite LLC, Order on Reconsideration, DA 04- 4056 (released December 27, 2004). 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 05- 2924 2 Sincerely, Scott A. Kotler Chief, Systems Analysis Branch Satellite Division International Bureau 2