FCC 96-259

**Before the**

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| In the Matter of ) )                   | IB Docket No. 96-132        |
|                                        |                             |
| Establishing Rules and Policies for    |                             |
| the ) Use of Spectrum for Mobile       |                             |
| Satellite )                            |                             |
|                                        |                             |
| Service in the Upper and Lower L-band  |                             |
| )                                      |                             |
+----------------------------------------+-----------------------------+

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING**

Adopted: June 6, 1996 Released: June 18, 1996

Comment Date: September 3, 1996

Reply Comment Date: September 23, 1996

By the Commission:

Table of Contents

Topic Paragraph Number

Introduction 1

Background 2-6

Discussion 7-27

A. Assignment of Spectrum in the L-band 7-24

1\. AMSC\'s Application, Amendment, the Public Notice, and Comments
18-22

2\. Legal Authority 23-24

B. Priority Access and Preemption 25-27

Conclusion 28-34

Ordering Clauses 35-36

APPENDIX A: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

APPENDIX B: Proposed Mobile-Satellite Service System and Service
Capabilities/Functions

**Introduction**

1\. By this action, we propose licensing policies to govern
mobile-satellite service (\"MSS\")[^1] in certain portions of the
L-band: the 1545-1559 MHz and 1646.5-1660.5 MHz frequency bands (\"upper
L-band\") and the 1525-1530 MHz, 1530-1544 MHz, and 1626.5-1645.5 MHz
frequency bands (\"lower L-band\").[^2] Specifically, we propose to
assign all coordinated L-band spectrum as follows: the first 28 MHz of
spectrum (14 MHz for Earth-to-space transmissions and 14 MHz for
space-to-Earth transmissions) internationally coordinated in the L-band
would be assigned to the only U.S. MSS system authorized to operate in
the upper L-band, AMSC.[^3] AMSC is currently authorized to use 28 MHz
of spectrum in the upper L-band for MSS service.[^4] If the United
States is able to coordinate more than 28 MHz of spectrum in the L-band,
we propose to allow other MSS applicants to apply for assignment of
those frequencies.[^5]

**Background**

2\. In 1983, the National Aeronautical and Space Administration
(\"NASA\") initiated the L-band MSS proceeding by requesting that the
Commission allocate spectrum for MSS. We issued an NPRM to allocate
spectrum, establish licensing procedures and technical policies, and
begin the licensing process.[^6] In July 1986, we determined that it was
\"in the public interest to . . . provide for MSS at L-band.\"[^7] We
allocated the upper L-band for MSS,[^8] to be shared on a co-primary
basis with the aeronautical mobile-satellite (R) service
(\"AMS(R)S\").[^9] At that time, we had not allocated the lower L-band
for MSS.

3\. A few months later, based on the twelve MSS applications, related
pleadings, and comments in response to the Notice, the Commission
adopted licensing policies to govern this service.[^10] The Commission
concluded that multiple MSS systems were not feasible in the spectrum
available in the upper L-band; that only one MSS system could be
licensed for first generation use of the upper L-band; and that
eligibility for the MSS license should be limited to a consortium
comprising all qualified applicants.[^11]

4\. Eight applicants eventually formed American Mobile Satellite
Corporation (now AMSC), and submitted a joint technical proposal and
operating agreement to the Commission in 1988. In 1989, the Commission
issued a license to AMSC to construct, launch, and operate a
three-satellite MSS system in the upper L-band.[^12] This authorization
included specific milestones for the construction and launch of all
three satellites in AMSC\'s system.[^13] AMSC launched its first
satellite on April 7, 1995.[^14]

5\. Meanwhile, in July 1988, Geostar Messaging Corporation[^15] filed a
Petition for Rule Making requesting that portions of the lower L-band
(1530-1544 MHz and 1626.5-1645.5 MHz) be allocated for a new digital
mobile-satellite service. In June 1993, we proposed to allocate another
33 MHz of spectrum for mobile-satellite service. Subsequently, we
allocated the 1530-1544 MHz and 1626.5-1645.5 MHz frequency bands for
mobile-satellite service and proposed to allocate the 1525-1530 MHz
frequency band for mobile-satellite service as well.[^16] More recently,
we allocated the 1525-1530 MHz frequency band for mobile-satellite
service.[^17]

6\. In January 1990, just prior to initiation of the lower L-band
allocation proceedings, AMSC filed an application requesting
authorization to operate in the lower L-band.[^18] When we released the
[Lower L-band Notice]{.underline}, we stated that we would not accept
applications for a permanent MSS system until the allocation proposals
were finalized and we would not solicit applications to operate the
service until rules and policies were finalized.[^19] In July 1993, a
month after we released the [Lower L-band Order]{.underline}, AMSC filed
an amendment to its lower L-band application seeking construction,
launch, and operating authority and asking that we not accept competing
applications.[^20] In support of its request that we not accept
competing applications, AMSC argued that there was a \"severe shortage
of spectrum in the upper L-band\" and that the U.S. faced a \"serious
problem\" in coordinating spectrum in the upper L-band.[^21] We placed
AMSC\'s amendment on Public Notice on November 3, 1993, and requested
comments concerning the acceptance of competing applications.[^22]

**Discussion**

*A. Assignment of Spectrum in the L-band*

7\. We normally allocate spectrum, establish service rules, and license
applicants prior to coordinating spectrum internationally.[^23] This is
because of the lead time required for satellite construction and
international coordination. Furthermore, effective international
coordination is not possible without the active assistance of a U.S.
licensee. We are in a better position to explain the U.S. claim of need
to other countries if we base that claim on a real system backed by
actual business plans. Of necessity, therefore, our satellite
authorizations are conditioned on the outcome of the coordination
process.

8\. Currently, in the entire L-band, there is 66 MHz of spectrum
available for Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth transmissions for U.S.
and non-U.S. licensed MSS systems. At the present time, Inmarsat and
four administrations (Canada, Mexico, the Russian Federation, and the
United States) are coordinating spectrum for a variety of MSS systems in
the vicinity of North America. The U.S. has been at a disadvantage
during this coordination because it began coordinating the upper L-band
and only later began focusing on the lower L-band while Inmarsat and the
other administrations have been coordinating spectrum throughout the
entire L-band. The U.S. is the only country that distinguishes between
the \"upper L-band\" and \"lower L-band\" for MSS.

9\. In the course of international coordination, it has become clear
that the U.S. will not be able to secure sufficient spectrum in the
upper L-band for its existing licensee, AMSC. Inmarsat, AMSC, and the
three other systems have claimed requirements for significantly more
than the 66 MHz available. Moreover, the current designs of mobile
terminals for MSS systems do not permit them to share frequencies in
adjacent or similar geographic areas. Given this demand and the
technical restrictions, we do not think it will be possible to secure
for AMSC the 28 MHz of spectrum we have authorized it to use in the
upper L-band. In fact, it is unlikely that we will be able to coordinate
more than 10 to 12 MHz in the upper L-band. Such an amount appears
insufficient to operate the satellite system we authorized AMSC to
build. In 1985, we estimated that an MSS system would require 20
MHz.[^24] That prediction is supported by the spectrum demands being
made by the other administrations in L-band coordinations. In sum, it
appears that the available 10-12 MHz will be insufficient even for the
one satellite AMSC has already launched.

10\. Never before have we been unable to secure sufficient spectrum to
support a satellite system that already has been licensed, partly
constructed, and launched. The question now is whether we should permit
AMSC to use the adjacent spectrum in the lower L-band to implement its
system, or whether instead we should open up the lower L-band for
competing applications. Opening the lower L‑band for competing
applications would present at least a theoretical possibility for a
second U.S. licensee to begin providing MSS in the L‑band in competition
with AMSC. However, our experience in L‑band coordinations since 1989
leads us to question whether this theoretical possibility is a realistic
one. In particular, we note that it is unlikely that we could coordinate
more than 10 MHz in the lower L‑band for another U.S. system, and we
have previously estimated that 20 MHz is the minimum amount of spectrum
necessary for a viable MSS system. We seek comment on whether this
estimate is still valid, or whether an economically viable MSS system
can be operated in either the upper or lower L‑band using a smaller
amount of spectrum. In addressing this question, commenters are asked to
consider the presence of Inmarsat and three other geostationary MSS
systems in the lower L‑band and the likelihood that geostationary
satellites will continue to occupy this portion of the spectrum for the
foreseeable future.

11\. Our doubts about whether there is enough spectrum to sustain yet
another system in the L‑band lead us to propose rules for the lower
L-band and modify AMSC\'s license to assign lower L-band spectrum to
AMSC, up to the full 28 MHz for which AMSC is already authorized in the
upper L-band. We propose to limit eligibility for the first 14 MHz of
spectrum coordinated for Earth-to-space transmissions and the first 14
MHz coordinated for space-to-Earth transmissions in the upper and/or
lower L-bands to AMSC. AMSC would have first priority for use of the
lower L-band spectrum only as necessary to compensate for the loss of
upper L-band spectrum currently assigned to it.

12\. There are three reasons for pursuing this policy. First, the public
interest reasons to support MSS in the L-band are as valid today as they
were in 1986. MSS can serve areas of the country that are too remote or
sparsely populated to be served by terrestrial land mobile systems. It
can generate a host of new services by providing communication between
virtually any point in the country, irrespective of distance.[^25] MSS
is uniquely suited for meeting the needs of the transportation,
petroleum, and other vital industries. It can meet rural public safety
needs and provide emergency communications to any area in times of
emergencies and natural disasters.[^26] Moreover, the L-band is
currently the only primary MSS band in which we have licensed
geostationary MSS systems. Geostationary and nongeostationary MSS
systems each have distinctive service characteristics, and we believe
that each type of service should be allowed to demonstrate its
advantages. If geostationary MSS is to have that opportunity in the near
term, it must be in the L-band.

13\. Second, AMSC \-- having already constructed and launched one of its
three authorized satellites \-- is in the best position to provide MSS
to the public expeditiously. If AMSC, through no fault of its own,
obtains insufficient spectrum for its system, its service will be
jeopardized, and no other potential licensee in the lower L-band will be
able to provide service for years. AMSC\'s substantial progress toward
full implementation thus figures heavily in our public interest
analysis, quite apart from the hardship AMSC would suffer if it were
unable to recoup its investment of money, time, and other resources.
This is especially true because AMSC\'s expenditures were actually
[required]{.underline} by the construction and launch milestones in
AMSC\'s license.

14\. Third, while all satellite licenses are granted subject to the
uncertainties of international coordinations, the public interest
requires that a Commission license carry with it some reasonable
expectation that it will permit the holder to implement its system.
Otherwise applicants and licensees \-- as well as their investors and
potential customers \-- may be unwilling to commit the significant
resources necessary to implement proposed systems, and this will have a
chilling effect on the introduction of new services to the public. The
Commission naturally does not guarantee that any U.S.-licensed system
will be profitable, and it certainly cannot guarantee that other
administrations will always accommodate U.S.-licensed systems. We can
and should, however, take reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure
that our licensees have a fair opportunity to compete.

15\. The proposal we make today is a reasonable and appropriate step.
Based on our assumptions about the economic viability of MSS systems, it
appears that successful coordination of spectrum for one MSS system is
possible only if we coordinate spectrum simultaneously in the upper and
lower L-bands. Coordinating spectrum for AMSC in the lower L-band is
particularly attractive because, with the exception of the United
States, the same administrations and systems coordinating spectrum in
the upper L-band are currently coordinating spectrum in the lower
L-band. Furthermore, the generic MSS allocation[^27] in the lower L-band
allows aeronautical, land, and maritime mobile-satellite services to
share spectrum throughout the band for non-safety related communication
on an equal basis. Global maritime distress and safety systems
(\"GMDSS\") do have priority access with real-time preemptive capability
over all other mobile-satellite communications operating in the
1530-1544 MHz and the 1626.5-1645.5 MHz portions of the lower
L-band.[^28] However, the generic MSS allocation allows sufficient
technical flexibility for the currently authorized system to operate
using spectrum in the lower L-band, while maintaining access to the
spectrum by maritime safety-related services. AMSC\'s system operates in
geostationary orbit and can be timely coordinated with the other
entities who have published in advance with the International
Telecommunication Union their plans to implement GSO systems in the
lower L-band.[^29] Finally, the lower L-band can also accommodate both
voice and data services which the currently licensed system expects to
provide.

16\. Even under the proposal we make today, we are pessimistic about
coordinating all 28 MHz of spectrum. We do expect, however, to
coordinate enough spectrum to permit AMSC to operate at least one of its
three satellites in a cost-effective manner. If contrary to our
expectation, we are able to coordinate more than 28 MHz of spectrum in
the upper and/or lower L-bands, we propose to allow other parties to
apply for the additional spectrum.

17\. In addition to adopting rules that permit us to assign AMSC
spectrum in the upper and lower L-bands different from that which AMSC
is currently authorized to use, we also propose to modify AMSC\'s
authorization to include spectrum in the entire L-band, lower and upper.
Therefore, this NPRM shall also serve as notice to AMSC of a proposal to
modify its current license, and (in accordance with Section 316 of the
Communications Act, and Section 1.87 of the Commission\'s rules)
protests may be filed in response to this notice. We now turn to two
procedural issues relevant to our proposal.

1\. [AMSC\'s Application, Amendment, the Public Notice, and
Comments]{.underline}

18\. As indicated above, on November 3, l993, we requested comment on
AMSC\'s application to operate in the lower L-band. In response to our
Public Notice,[^30] a number of parties argued that our acceptance of
AMSC\'s amended application was contrary to language in the Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis statement of the [Lower L-band
Notice]{.underline}.[^31] There we stated that \"we w\[ould\] [not
solicit]{.underline} applications to operate the service until rules and
policies are finalized.\"[^32] Elsewhere, in the [Lower L-band
Notice]{.underline}, we stated that \"we [do not intend to accept
applications]{.underline} for a permanent MSS satellite system to use
this band . . . [until the allocation proposals contained herein are
finalized]{.underline}.\"[^33] Similarly, in a subsequent decision, we
recommended that AMSC [amend]{.underline} its pending application to use
the MMSS bands after the finalization of the spectrum allocation
proposal.[^34] In so doing, we again referred to the
[Notice]{.underline}\'s statement \"that we did [not intend to accept
applications]{.underline} for an MSS system to use the MMSS bands [until
the allocations proposals for the band are
finalized]{.underline}.\"[^35] We also indicated that such an
application would \"[be considered]{.underline} when the Commission
determines licensing policies for the MMSS bands.\"[^36] Thus, our
intention was to \"accept\" applications after we finalized the
allocation proposals in the [Lower L-band Notice]{.underline}.

19\. On June 11, l993, we adopted the [Lower L-band Order]{.underline}
finalizing the allocation proposals in the [Lower L-band
Notice]{.underline}, and, thereafter, AMSC filed its amended
application. Given that AMSC filed its application after we finalized
the lower L-band spectrum allocation, our acceptance of its application
was proper. In any event, to the extent there may have been any
ambiguity in our statements concerning when we would accept
applications, no harm has resulted. Moreover, our proposed actions here,
if adopted, would largely moot such issues. Under our proposed rules, we
will not now accept applications for spectrum coordinated in the lower
L-band. Instead, we propose on our own motion, to limit use of the
L-band in an amount up to the first 28 MHz of spectrum coordinated, to
the existing upper L-band MSS licensee, whose license would be modified
pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act. The Commission may
modify a license if it finds that such action promotes \"the public
interest, convenience, and necessity.\"[^37] As explained above, we
believe the public interest requires such modification here to help
ensure the continued operation of the already authorized MSS system.
Thus, at this juncture we are not proposing the adoption of rules that
would permit the filing of applications for open spectrum.[^38] In the
event sufficient spectrum is available to permit the filing of
applications in the future, however, we shall ensure that all eligible
competing applicants have an opportunity for consideration.

20\. Although the rules and policies we proposed here largely moot
further consideration of AMSC\'s pending application, parties have
raised concerns in their petitions and comments in response to our
Public Notice that may be pertinent to our 28 MHz proposal. Loral
Qualcomm Satellite Services, Inc. (\"LQSS\") claims that a grant to AMSC
would give AMSC monopoly use of the L-band and prevent the licensing of
multiple systems in the band, would contradict the Commission\'s long
standing \"open skies\" policy, and would allow AMSC to operate an
inefficient system unable to provide international service.[^39] As
noted above, however, it is international spectrum demands that limit
L-band spectrum. We tentatively conclude the 28 MHz proposal does not
contravene our \"open skies\" policy. It would not serve the public
interest to license multiple U.S. systems in a frequency band in which
there is insufficient available spectrum. Finally, as to LQSS\'s
technical concerns, AMSC\'s system is not designed to provide worldwide
coverage. At the time we granted AMSC authority to operate in the upper
L-band we knew it would primarily serve the domestic MSS market.[^40] We
believed then, and continue to believe, that AMSC will provide useful
services to the U.S. population and will provide competition to other
MSS systems serving the domestic market.

21\. Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc. argues that the out-of-band
emissions from just one AMSC subscriber unit operating at band edge
would seriously degrade the service link quality of all IRIDIUM system
channels and cause interference to Motorola mobile terminals operating
in the 1616-1626.5 MHz band.[^41] However, until we complete
coordination we do not know if AMSC will be authorized to operate at the
lower band edge. If the 28 MHz of spectrum coordinated for AMSC\'s
operation does not include spectrum at the lower band edge, we expect
there will be no issue of adjacent band interference. Further, to the
extent such issues arise, we believe Motorola and AMSC must first
attempt to resolve any problems of adjacent band interference between
themselves. We will address these problems only if the parties are
unable to reach a resolution. Finally, we note that, Inmarsat,
Australia, Mexico, Canada, and the Russian Federation each have or may
have in the near future in-orbit L-band MSS systems that may use
terminals having out-of-band emissions similar to AMSC mobile earth
stations.[^42] If interference at the band edge becomes a problem, then
Motorola may need to coordinate, worldwide, with all parties operating
at band edge.

22\. COMSAT Corporation expressed concern that AMSC\'s amendment could
be read as implicitly requesting exclusive authority to provide maritime
services in the lower L-band to vessels in U.S. territorial waters.[^43]
We recognize Comsat\'s authority to provide maritime services and its
authority to have Inmarsat provide maritime MSS services in the lower
L-band to vessels in U.S. waters. We do not anticipate granting AMSC
exclusive authority to provide such service.

2\. [Legal Authority]{.underline}

23\. This proceeding involves the adoption of policies to govern the use
of the radio spectrum and the modification of an existing license. Under
sections 303(r) and 4(i) of the Act, the Commission has broad authority
to adopt regulations to carry out its spectrum management
obligations.[^44] It is empowered under section 316 of the Act to modify
any license \". . . if in the judgment of the Commission such action
will promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity . . . .\"
In accordance with our broad rulemaking and license modification
authority, we have tentatively concluded that the public interest would
best be served by allowing an existing satellite licensee to use these
frequencies in place of the frequencies that the Commission previously
assigned to it, which are unlikely to be available because of the
difficulties of international coordination.

24\. As we have described above, strong public interest considerations
support our proposed actions. U.S. efforts to coordinate MSS spectrum in
the L-band have continued for roughly six years. For reasons beyond the
control of either AMSC or the Commission, this coordination has not been
successful. Even after years of negotiation, spectrum demands of all
countries greatly exceed the amount of spectrum available in the L-band.
As a result, we face for the first time a real possibility that a U.S.
satellite licensee, which has already spent hundreds of millions of
dollars for the construction of its system, will be unable to implement
its operations due to irreconcilable international spectrum demands. If
that happens, users could be deprived of valuable new services and the
uncertainty caused by these events may have a lasting and serious impact
on investor confidence in the United States satellite industry. In light
of these unprecedented circumstances, we tentatively conclude that the
policies and license modification proposed herein will better serve the
public interest than other possible alternatives, such as opening these
frequencies to new applicants. In so concluding, we note that this
proceeding does not involve initial applicants and the hearing rights of
eligible new applicants under section 309 of the Act.[^45] It is also
settled that the Commission need not open each and every frequency for
competing applications before assigning it.[^46] Accordingly, we believe
that the rules and license modification action proposed in this
proceeding are fully consistent with both our broad rulemaking authority
and our authority under section 316 of the Act.

*B. Priority Access and Preemption*

25\. In order to protect and maintain the integrity of safety and
distress maritime communications internationally and domestically, we
propose to establish priority access and preemption standards and
policies for mobile-satellite service in the 1530-1544 MHz and
1626.5-1645.5 MHz frequency bands and to incorporate these standards
into the Commission\'s service rules.[^47] We also propose placing a
maximum limit on the length of time of each data message transmission of
a half-duplex mobile earth terminal (\"MET\"). Thus, we propose to allow
U.S.-licensed MSS systems to operate half-duplex Inmarsat \"Standard C\"
type or other technically similar mobile earth terminals (\"METs\") in
the lower L-band if they adhere to the proposed service rules and the
maximum time limit to be established for half-duplex data transmissions.

26\. On August 1, 1995, we adopted an [Order and
Authorization]{.underline}[^48] in which we temporarily waived U.S.
Footnote 315 of Section 2.106 of our Rules[^49] and allowed AMSC to
operate and transfer all of its half-duplex METs in use on Inmarsat
space segment on August 1, 1995 in the lower L-band to the AMSC space
segment. On September 6, 1995 we again waived U.S. Footnote 312 and
authorized Rockwell International Corporation to operate its METs using
AMSC-1 space segment.[^50] In accordance with U.S. Footnote 315,
maritime mobile-satellite distress and safety communications such as
GMDSS operating in the 1530-1544 MHz and 1626.5-1645.5 MHz frequency
bands, have priority access with real-time preemptive capabilities.
Communications of mobile-satellite system stations not participating in
GMDSS must operate on a secondary basis to distress and safety
communications.[^51]

27\. We believe our proposal to allow U.S.-licensed MSS systems to
operate half-duplex data METs in the lower L-band is consistent with the
intent of U.S. Footnote 315. Although full-duplex METs can respond
faster to maritime safety and distress communications, we believe that
the operation of half-duplex METs in the lower L-band, with appropriate
restraints, can provide sufficient distress and safety communication
priority to comply with the intent of U.S. Footnote 315.[^52] Maritime
distress and safety services in the lower L-band have been operational
for years and are sufficiently dynamic and robust to accommodate the
operation of half-duplex METs. Furthermore, consistent with the intent
of U.S. Footnote 315 and Radio Regulation 726c, Inmarsat and others
currently operate half-duplex \"Standard C\" or other technically
similar data METs in the lower L-band without any adverse effects on
maritime safety and distress communications. Adopting both a maximum
time limit on data message transmissions and the proposed standards in
Appendix B will ensure that any additional half-duplex data METs
authorized to operate in the lower L-band will not interfere with
maritime safety and distress communications. We seek comments generally
on our proposal and on whether the operation of half-duplex METs in the
lower L-band will affect the operation of maritime safety and distress
communications. More specifically, we seek comment on the proposed
standards in Appendix B and on the maximum number of seconds to which we
should limit half-duplex data MET transmissions in order to ensure the
integrity of maritime safety and distress communications in the lower
L-band. Although we do not know what the appropriate maximum time limit
should be for a transmission, we believe the limit should be a matter of
seconds not minutes.

**Conclusion**

28\. In this Notice we have outlined our proposed policies for the
provision of mobile-satellite service in the L-band and our proposal to
modify AMSC\'s existing authorization to permit it to operate in the
entire L-band. We request comment on the issues and proposals addressed
in this Notice and encourage all interested parties to participate in
the resolution of this matter.

29\. Our initial analysis pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
Pub. L. 96-354, is presented in Appendix A. Our initial conclusion is
that the actions proposed in this proceeding will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses if
ultimately adopted.

30\. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415 and 1.419,
interested parties may file comments on or before September 3, 1996, and
reply comments on or before September 23, 1996. To file formally in this
proceeding, you must file an original and five copies of all comments,
reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner
to receive a personal copy of your comments, send additional copies to
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington,
D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public
inspection during regular business hours in the Federal Communications
Commission, Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W. Washington,
D.C. 20554.

31\. This is a rulemaking proceeding to develop policies for the
assignment of spectrum but because the Commission also proposes to
modify a license, this proceeding is also an adjudication. Pursuant to
Section 1.1200(a) of the Commission\'s Rules, Section 1.1208 detailing
the *ex parte* procedures for adjudicatory proceedings is waived. The
entire proceeding both, rulemaking and adjudication, shall be treated as
\"non-restricted\" for *ex parte* purposes in order to assist the
Commission in developing a more complete record on which a well-reasoned
decision can be made. 47 C.F. R. §§ 1.1200(a) and 1.1206. *Ex parte*
presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period,
provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission\'s rules.
[See]{.underline} [generally]{.underline} 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203,
and 1.1206(a). The Sunshine Agenda period is the period of time that
commences with the release of public notice that a matter has been
placed on the Sunshine Agenda and terminates when the Commission (1)
releases the text of a decision or order in the matter; (2) issues a
public notice stating that the matter has been deleted from the Sunshine
Agenda; or (3) issues a public notice stating that the matter has been
returned to the staff for further consideration, whichever occurs first.
47 C.F.R. § 1.1202(f). During the Sunshine Agenda period, no
presentations, *ex parte* or otherwise, are permitted unless
specifically exempted. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1203.

32\. In general, an *ex parte* presentation is any communication
directed to the merits or outcome of the proceeding made to
decision-making personnel that (1) if written, is not served on the
parties to the proceeding, or (2) if oral, is made without advance
notice to the parties to the proceeding and without opportunity for them
to be present. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1202(b). Any person who makes or submits a
written *ex parte* presentation shall provide on the same day it is
submitted, two copies of the same under separate cover to the
Commission\'s Secretary for inclusion in the public record. The
presentation (as well as any transmittal letter) must clearly indicate
on its face the docket number of the particular proceeding and the fact
that two copies of it have been submitted to the Secretary, and must be
labeled or captioned as an *ex parte* presentation. 47 C.F.R. §
1.1206(a)(1).

33\. Any person who is making an oral *ex parte* presentation including
data or arguments not already reflected in the person\'s written
comments, memoranda, or other previous filings in that proceeding shall
provide on the day of the oral presentation an original and one copy of
a written memorandum to the Secretary (with a copy to the Commissioner
or staff member involved) that summarizes the data and arguments. The
memorandum (as well as any transmittal letter) must clearly indicate on
its face the docket number of the particular proceeding and the fact
that an original and one copy of it have been submitted to the
Secretary, and must be labeled or captioned as an *ex parte*
presentation, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(a)(2).

34\. For further information concerning this rulemaking contact Paula
Ford (202) 739-0733 of the International Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

**Ordering Clause**

35\. Accordingly, pursuant to authority contained in Sections 4(i),
4(j), 303, 316 and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 303, 316 and 403, we hereby give notice of our
intent to adopt the licensing policies set forth herein and to modify,
as specified herein, the license currently held by AMSC for the
provision of MSS service.

36\. IT IS ORDERED that the Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice
of Proposed Rule Making to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 601
[et]{.underline}. [seq]{.underline}. (1981) and pursuant to Section 1.87
of the rules, shall serve a copy of this Notice on AMSC.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William F. Caton

Acting Secretary

APPENDIX A

[INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS]{.underline}

[Reason for Action]{.underline}

This rule making and license modification proceeding is initiated to
solicit comments and develop a record regarding the types of rules and
policies that should govern the provision of mobile-satellite service in
the 1525-1530, 1530-1544, 1544-1545, 1545-1559, 1626.5-1645.5,
1645.5-1646.5, and 1646.5-1660.5 MHz frequency bands. The proposed rules
are in response to a petition for rule making and the expected results
of the international coordination of the above noted spectrum.

[Objectives]{.underline}

The objective of this proposal is to continue the United States goal of
establishing generic mobile-satellite service in the L-band and ensuring
that a licensee authorized to provide mobile-satellite service has
sufficient spectrum to do so. Achieving these goals will help to satisfy
the growing national demand for communications services.

[Legal Basis]{.underline}

The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 303(c), 303(f),
303(g), 303(r), and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 316. These
sections authorize the Commission to make such rules and regulations as
may be necessary to encourage more effective use of radio in the public
interest and to modify licenses in the public interest.

[Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements]{.underline}

None.

[Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With These
Rules]{.underline}

None.

[Description, Potential Impact, and Number of Small Entities
Involved]{.underline}

This proposed rulemaking establishes polices for use of the L-band by
mobile-satellite service systems. Aeronautical, land, and maritime
mobile-satellite services currently operate in the L-band and can still
be accommodated in the framework proposed here, so no small facilities
will be affected. We invite interested parties to submit comments if
they perceive an economic impact resulting from the proposed policies.
After evaluating the comments in this proceeding, the Commission will
further examine the impact of any policy changes on small entities and
set forth our findings in a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

[Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small Entities
Consistent with the Stated Objectives]{.underline}

The Notice solicits comments on alternatives.

APPENDIX B

PROPOSED MOBILE SATELLITE SERVICE

SYSTEM AND SERVICE CAPABILITIES/FUNCTIONS[^53]

Mobile Earth Stations (\"MESs\") associated with the Mobile Satellite
Service (\"MSS\") operating in the 1530-1544 MHz and 1626.5-1645.5 MHz
bands shall have the following minimum set of capabilities To ensure
compliance with Footnote 726C and the priority and real-time preemption
requirements imposed by Footnote US315.

1\. All MES transmissions shall have a priority assigned to them that
preserves the priority and preemptive access given to maritime distress
and safety communications sharing the band.

2\. Each MES with a requirement to handle maritime distress and safety
communications shall be capable of recognizing message and call priority
identification when transmitted from its associated Land Earth Station
(\"LES\").[^54]

3\. Each MES shall be assigned a unique terminal identification number
that will be transmitted upon any attempt to gain access to a system.

4\. After an MES has gained access to a system , the mobile terminal
shall be under control of an LES and shall obtain all channel
assignments from it.

5\. All MESs that do not continuously monitor a separate signalling
channel or signalling within the communications channel shall monitor
the signalling channel at the end of each transmission.

6\. Each MES shall automatically inhibit its transmissions if it is not
correctly receiving separate signalling channel or signalling within the
communications channel from its associated LES.

7\. Each MES shall automatically inhibit its transmissions on any or all
channels upon receiving a channel-shut-off command on a signalling or
communications channel it is receiving from its associated LES.

8\. Each MES with a requirement to handle maritime distress and safety
communications shall have the capability within the station to
automatically preempt lower precedence traffic.

Land Earth Stations associated with the Mobile Satellite Service
(\"MSS\") operating in the 1530-1544 MHz and 1626.5-1645.5 MHz bands
shall have the following minimum set of capabilities to ensure that the
MSS system complies with Footnote 726C and the priority and real-time
preemption requirements imposed by Footnote US315. It should be noted
that the LES operates in the Fixed-Satellite Service (\"FSS\") as a
feeder-link for the MSS (Radio Regulations 71) and that the following
capabilities are to facilitate the priority and preemption requirements
of the above footnotes. The FSS feeder-link stations fulfilling these
MSS requirements shall not have any additional priority with respect to
FSS stations operating with other FSS systems.

1\. All LES transmissions to Mobile Earth Stations (\"MESs\") shall have
a priority assigned to them that preserves the priority and preemptive
access given to maritime distress and safety communications.

2\. The LES shall recognize the priority of calls to and from MES and
make channel assignments taking into account the priority access that is
given to maritime distress and safety communications.

3\. The LES shall be capable of receiving the MES identification number
when transmitted and verifying that it is an authorized user of the
system to prohibit unauthorized access.

4\. The LES shall be capable of transmitting channel assignment commands
to the MESs.

5\. The communications channels used between the LES and the MES shall
have provision for signalling within the voice/data channel, for an MES
which does not continuously monitor the LES signalling channel during
the time of a call.

6\. The LES shall transmit periodic control signalling signals to MES
which do not continuously monitor the LES signalling channel.

7\. The LES shall automatically inhibit all transmissions to MESs to
which it is not transmitting a signalling channel or signalling within
the communications channel.

8\. The LES shall be capable of transmitting channel-shut-off commands
to the MESs on signalling or communications channels.

9\. An LES with a requirement to handle maritime distress and safety
communications shall have the capability within the station to
automatically preempt lower precedence traffic.

10\. Each LES shall be capable of automatically turning off one or more
of its associated channels.

[^1]: MSS is a radio communications service between mobile earth
    stations and one or more space stations providing voice, data, and
    other radiocommunication services.

[^2]: The L-band is generally understood to include frequencies from 1
    to 2 GHz. However, as used in this [Notice]{.underline}, the term is
    limited to those frequency bands for which we propose rules.

[^3]: We will continue to coordinate 2 MHz of spectrum for distress and
    safety operations that were previously assigned to AMSC in the
    1544-1545 MHz and 1645.5-1646.5 MHz frequency bands.
    [See]{.underline} Applications to Modify Space Station Authorization
    in the Mobile-satellite Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8
    F.C.C. Rcd. 4040 ¶ 37 (1993). This spectrum is currently used by
    COSPAS/SARSAT to provide links from the polar orbiting satellites
    operating in the 406 MHz band and for accessing the satellite from
    satellite Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons EPIRBs,
    Inmarsat-E. Both of these systems are components of the Global
    Maritime Distress and Safety System (\"GMDSS\"). Mobile-satellite
    service in the 1544-1545 MHz and 1645.5-1646.5 MHz frequency bands
    is also limited internationally to distress and safety related
    communications. [See]{.underline} ITU Radio Regulations Nos. 727A
    and 734B.

[^4]: Amendment of Parts 2, 22, and 25 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Allocate Spectrum for and Establish Rules Pertaining to the Use of
    Radio Frequencies in Land Mobile Satellite Service, Memorandum
    Opinion Order and Authorization, 4 F.C.C. Rcd. 6041 (1989)
    (authorizing AMSC to construct, launch, and operate an MSS system in
    the upper L-band); Amendment of Parts 2, 22, and 25 of the
    Commission\'s Rules to Allocate Spectrum for and Establish Rules
    Pertaining to the Use of Radio Frequencies in Land Mobile Satellite
    Service, Final Decision on Remand, 7 F.C.C. Rcd. 266, ¶ 1 (1992)
    (affirming AMSC as licensee for the upper L-band).

[^5]: We reserve judgment as to how to assign any such licenses should
    it become necessary to decide among competing applicants for these
    frequencies.

[^6]: Amendment of Parts 2, 22, and 25 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Allocate Spectrum for and Establish Rules Pertaining to the Use of
    Radio Frequencies in Land Mobile Satellite Service, Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making, Docket No. 84-1234, FCC No. 84-558 (released
    January 28, 1985).

[^7]: Amendment of Parts 2, 22, and 25 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Allocate Spectrum for and Establish Rules Pertaining to the Use of
    Radio Frequencies in Land Mobile Satellite Service, Report and
    Order, 2 F.C.C. Rcd. 1825, ¶ 153 (1986) (\"[LMSS Report and
    Order]{.underline}\").

[^8]: LMSS Report and Order at ¶¶ 2, 154 (1986). Amendment of Parts 2,
    22, and 25 of the Commission\'s Rules to Allocate Spectrum for and
    Establish Rules Pertaining to the Use of Radio Frequencies in Land
    Mobile Satellite Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 F.C.C.
    Rcd. 6016, ¶¶ 1, 2 (1989).

[^9]: AMS(R)S has primary use of the 1545-1555 MHz and 1646.5-1656.5 MHz
    frequency bands. The 1555-1559 MHz, 1656.5-1660 MHz, and 1660-1660.5
    MHz frequency bands are allocated for mobile-satellite service, and
    AMS(R)S has priority access and immediate availability over all
    other mobile-satellite communications. The 1660-1660.5 MHz frequency
    band is also allocated on a co-primary basis to radio astronomy
    service. [See]{.underline} ITU Radio Regulations No. 730C. (The
    \"R\" in AMS(R)S indicates that the aeronautical communications
    concerns the safety and regularity of flights.)

[^10]: Amendment of Parts 2, 22, and 25 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Allocate Spectrum for and Establish Rules Pertaining to the Use of
    Radio Frequencies in Land Mobile Satellite Service, Second Report
    and Order, 2 F.C.C. Rcd. 485 (1987) [rev\'d]{.underline}
    [in]{.underline} [part]{.underline} [and]{.underline}
    [remanded]{.underline} Aeronautical Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 928 F.2d 428
    (D.C. Cir. 1991). [See]{.underline} [also]{.underline} Amendment of
    Parts 2, 22, and 25 of the Commission\'s Rules to Allocate Spectrum
    for and Establish Rules Pertaining to the Use of Radio Frequencies
    in Land Mobile Satellite Service, Final Decision, 7 F.C.C. Rcd. 266
    (1992) [aff\'d]{.underline} Aeronautical Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 983
    F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

[^11]: [Id]{.underline}. at ¶¶ 4-10.

[^12]: Amendment of Part 2, 22, and 25 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Allocate Spectrum for and Establish Rules Pertaining to the Use of
    Radio Frequencies in Land Mobile Satellite Service, Memorandum
    Opinion, Order and Authorization, 4 F.C.C. Rcd. 6041 (1989).

[^13]: [Id.]{.underline}, 4 F.C.C. Rcd. at 6058, ¶ 116.

[^14]: We have authorized AMSC to operate three satellites: AMSC-1
    assigned to orbital location 101^o^ W.L.; AMSC-2 assigned to orbital
    location 62^o^ W.L.; and AMSC-3 assigned to orbital location 139^o^
    W.L.

[^15]: In 1991, Geostar went bankrupt and sold its rights to all FCC
    licenses, permits, authorizations, and applications to AMSC.
    [See]{.underline} [In re: Geostar Corporation]{.underline}, Case No.
    91-00212 (June 25, 1992) (Bkrtcy D.C.).

[^16]: Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission\'s Rules to Allocate
    Spectrum for Mobile-Satellite Services in the 1530-1544 MHz and
    1626.5-1645.5 MHz Bands, First Report and Order and Further Notice
    of Proposed Rule Making, 8 F.C.C. Rcd. 4246, (1993) (\"[Lower L-band
    Order]{.underline}\").

[^17]: Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission\'s Rules to Allocate
    Spectrum for Mobile-Satellite Services in the 1530-1544 MHz and
    1626.5-1645.5 MHz Bands, Second Report and Order, 10 F.C.C. Rcd.
    7305 (1995) (\"[Second Lower L-band Order]{.underline}\").

[^18]: AMSC Application to Modify Space Station Authorizations to
    Operate at 1530-1545 MHz and 1626.5-1646.5 MHz Frequency Bands
    (filed January 25, 1990).

[^19]: Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission\'s Rules to Allocate
    Spectrum for Mobile-Satellite Services in the 1530-1544 MHz and
    1626.5-1645.5 MHz Bands, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 5 F.C.C.
    Rcd. 1255, 1262 n.23 and ¶ (1990) (\"[Lower L-band
    Notice]{.underline}\").

[^20]: AMSC Amendment to its Application to Modify its Authority to
    Construct, Launch, and Operate a Mobile Satellite Service System
    (filed July 12, 1993).

[^21]: AMSC Amendment to its Application to Modify its Authority to
    Construct, Launch, and Operate a Mobile Satellite Service System at
    4 (filed July 12, 1993); AMSC Consolidated Opposition and Reply at
    12 (filed December 27, 1993).

[^22]: Satellite Communications Services, Public Notice, Report No.
    DS-1365 (November 3, 1993). Commenters included Loral Qualcomm
    Satellite Services, Inc., Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc.,
    and COMSAT Corporation.

[^23]: Spectrum coordination is a three-step process consisting of: (a)
    advance publication, where a country makes known its plans to
    implement a satellite system in particular frequencies; (b)
    coordination, where technical agreements are negotiated and reached
    among countries to ensure the interference-free operations of the
    planned satellites; and (c) notification and recording of the
    frequency assignment in the Master International Frequency Register
    by the ITU Radiocommunication Bureau. Completion of the coordination
    process can take five or more years.

[^24]: Amendments of Parts 2, 22, and 25 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Allocate Spectrum for and Establish Rules Pertaining to the Use of
    Radio Frequencies in Land Mobile Satellite Service, Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making, Docket No. 84-1234, FCC No. 84-558 (released
    January 28, 1985).

[^25]: [LMSS Report and Order]{.underline} at ¶ 120 (1986).

[^26]: [Id]{.underline}. at ¶ 125 (1986).

[^27]: [See]{.underline} [Lower L-band Order]{.underline} and [Second
    Lower L-band Order]{.underline} (allocating the lower L-band for
    generic mobile-satellite service).

[^28]: ITU Radio Regulations No. 726C.

[^29]: Currently, only GSO systems are operating or are authorized to
    operate in the L-band. Therefore, in order to avoid interference
    with existing systems, we believe applicants for any additional
    spectrum in the L-band would need to be GSO systems.

[^30]: Satellite Communications Services, Public Notice, Report No.
    DS-1365 (November 3, 1993).

[^31]: [See]{.underline} Loral Qualcomm Satellite Services, Inc.
    Objection to Procedure and Request for Clarification and Proper
    Establishment of Cut-off Date at 1 (filed December 1, 1993); TRW
    Inc., Petition to Defer Action to Deny at 2 (filed December 3,
    1993); Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc., Petition to Dismiss
    and/or Deny at 2 (filed December 3, 1993).

[^32]: [Lower L-band Notic]{.underline}e at ¶ 30 (emphasis added).

[^33]: [Id]{.underline}. at n. 23 (emphasis added).

[^34]: Applications to Modify Space Station Authorization in the
    Mobile-satellite Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 F.C.C.
    Rcd. 4040 ¶ 41 (1993) (emphasis added).

[^35]: [Id]{.underline}. (emphasis added).

[^36]: [Id]{.underline}. (emphasis added).

[^37]: 47 U.S.C. § 316.

[^38]: [Rainbow Broadcasting Company v. FCC,]{.underline} 949 F.2d 405,
    409-411 (D.C. Cir. l991) (Section 316 modification of a broadcast
    license under the Commission\'s \"intra-band\" exchange policy does
    not constitute a new application for an \"open channel\" and thus
    does not subject licensee to competing applications).

[^39]: LQSS Reply at 12-18 (filed January 12, 1994).

[^40]: AMSC is authorized to serve all of the U.S. domestic market,
    including all fifty states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and
    U.S. costal areas up to 200 miles. [See]{.underline} Amendment of
    Parts 2, 22, and 25 of the Commission\'s Rules to Allocate Spectrum
    for and to Establish Other Rules and Policies Pertaining to the Use
    of Radio Frequencies in a Land Mobile Satellite Service, Memorandum
    Opinion, Order and Authorization, 4 F.C.C. Rcd. 6041 ¶¶ 95-98
    (1989).

[^41]: Motorola Reply at 8 (filed January 12, 1994).

[^42]: We note that roaming agreements are being developed with Canada
    and Mexico to permit roaming of mobile earth terminals between the
    three countries on a reciprocal basis.

[^43]: Comsat Comments at 2 (filed December 3, 1993); Comsat Reply at 1
    (filed January 12, 1994).

[^44]: [See]{.underline} [generally]{.underline} 47 U.S.C. § 303.

[^45]: [See]{.underline} [Ashbacker Radio Co. v. FCC]{.underline}, 326
    U.S. 327 (l946); [see also United States v. Storer Broadcasting
    Co]{.underline}., 351 U.S. 192, 202 (l956) (holding that the
    [Ashbacker]{.underline} hearing requirement does not withdraw \"from
    the Commission its rulemaking authority necessary for the orderly
    conduct of its business\" and \"does not require the Commission to
    hold a hearing . . . in ways contrary to . . . the public
    interest\"); [compare Aeronautical Radio, Inc. v. FCC]{.underline},
    928 f.2d 428, 452-53 (D.C.Cir. l991)(remanded for further
    proceedings where Commission failed to provide adequate
    justification in rulemaking for requiring consortium of eligible
    applicants instead of holding comparative hearings).

[^46]: [See, e.g., Rainbow Broadcasting Co. v. FCC]{.underline}, 949
    F.2d 405, 409-10 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

[^47]: [See]{.underline} Appendix B for the proposed standards.

[^48]: AMSC Application for Modification of its Blanket License to
    Construct and Operate 30,000 L-band Mobile Earth Stations, Order and
    Authorization, File No. 681-DSE-MP/L-95, DA 95-1701 (released August
    1, 1995).

[^49]: U.S. Footnote 315 states that \"\[I\]n the frequency bands
    1530-1544 MHz and 1626.5-1645.5 MHz maritime mobile-satellite
    distress and safety communications, e.g., GMDSS, shall have priority
    access with real-time preemptive capability in the mobile-satellite
    service. Communications of mobile-satellite system stations not
    participating in the GMDSS shall operate on a secondary basis to
    distress and safety communications of stations operating in the
    GMDSS. Account shall be taken of the priority of safety-related
    communications in the mobile-satellite service.\"

[^50]: Rockwell International Corporation Application for Modification
    of Its Blanket License to Construct and Operate 15,000 L-band Mobile
    Earth Stations, Order and Authorization, File No. 1051-DSE-MP\\L-95,
    DA95-1919 (released September 7, 1995).

[^51]: U.S. Footnote 315.

[^52]: A full-duplex MET can receive a data message while transmitting
    one. A half-duplex MET cannot receive and transmit data messages
    simultaneously. It must finish transmitting its message before it
    can receive an incoming maritime safety message.

[^53]: In order to assure timely (Priority and preemptive) access to the
    system for maritime distress and safety-related communications, it
    is necessary that certain system requirements be satisfied. it is
    required that certain functions be under direct control of the
    system management process. These direct control functions (e.g.,
    cessation of transmission under certain conditions) are to be
    carried our by hardware/software capabilities without operator
    intervention and are to be performed in a timely fashion with only
    minimum delay. Additionally, it is required that the priority
    associated with each transmission and the terminal identification
    number be provided to the system manager to support the direct
    control functions.

[^54]: An LES is considered to include the functions of radio
    transmission and reception of signalling information and of
    communications, and to include the associated system management and
    control functions necessary for meeting these requirements.
    Implementations consisting of more than one facility that
    collectively provide the required capabilities are considered to
    constitute an LES for purposes of this definition.