Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-08-01046/USCOURTS-caDC-08-01046-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Communications Commission
Respondent
Globalstar, Inc.
Petitioner
Iridium Satellite LLC
Intervenor for Respondent
United States of America
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued February 17, 2009 Decided May 1, 2009

No. 08-1046

GLOBALSTAR, INC.,

PETITIONER

v.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA,

RESPONDENTS

IRIDIUM SATELLITE LLC,

INTERVENOR

On Petition for Review of an Order 

of the Federal Communications Commission

William T. Lake argued the cause for petitioner. With him

on the briefs were William F. Adler, Meredith B. Halama, and

Samir C. Jain.

Joel Marcus, Counsel, Federal Communications

Commission, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the

brief were Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General, U.S.

Department of Justice, Robert B. Nicholson and Robert J.

Wiggers, Attorneys, Matthew B. Berry, General Counsel,

Federal Communications Commission, Joseph R. Palmore,

Deputy General Counsel, and Richard K. Welch, Acting Deputy

USCA Case #08-1046 Document #1178596 Filed: 05/01/2009 Page 1 of 19
2

Associate General Counsel. Daniel M. Armstrong, Associate

General Counsel, entered an appearance.

Joshua S. Turner argued the cause for intervenor Iridium

Satellite LLC. With him on the brief were R. Michael

Senkowski, Andrew G. McBride, and Elbert Lin.

Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, GARLAND, Circuit Judge,

and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge

EDWARDS.

EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge: In 2003, the Federal

Communications Commission (“FCC” or “the Commission”)

issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that sought proposals

to reassign a portion of the 33 MHz of spectrum used by mobile

satellite services (“MSS”). See Review of the Spectrum Sharing

Plan Among Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit Mobile Satellite

Service Systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 18 F.C.C.R. 1962, 2087-92 (2003) (“2003

NPRM”). In 2004, in the context of this same rulemaking

proceeding, the Commission initially ordered petitioner

Globalstar, Inc. (“Globalstar”) and intervenor Iridium Satellite

LLC (“Iridium”), companies that use different technologies to

provide satellite-based voice and data communications, to share

a block of spectrum that was previously reserved for

Globalstar’s use. See Review of the Spectrum Sharing Plan

Among Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit Mobile Satellite

Service Systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, Report and Order

and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 F.C.C.R.

13,356, 13,357 (2004) (“2004 Order”). Globalstar sought

reconsideration of the 2004 Order, claiming that sharing the

spectrum would generate harmful interference between the two

communications systems. The Commission then revisited the

rulemaking and, following reconsideration, agreed with

Globalstar that spectrum sharing was technologically infeasible.

USCA Case #08-1046 Document #1178596 Filed: 05/01/2009 Page 2 of 19
3

In 2007, the Commission issued an order that reassigned a block

of electromagnetic spectrum to Iridium. See Review of the

Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non-Geostationary Satellite

Orbit Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands,

Second Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and

Order, 22 F.C.C.R. 19,733, 19,734 (2007) (“2007

Reconsideration Order”). Globalstar now seeks review of the

2007 Reconsideration Order, claiming that it was promulgated

in violation of the notice-and-comment requirements of the

Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), see 5 U.S.C. § 553, and

is also arbitrary and capricious, see id. § 706(2)(A). 

We deny the petition for review. First, we hold that

Globalstar waived its inadequate notice claim by failing to raise

it with the Commission. Globalstar’s late-filed ex parte letter

did not give the Commission an “opportunity to pass” on this

issue as required by 47 U.S.C. § 405(a). Therefore, Globalstar’s

inadequate notice claim is not properly before us. Second, we

reject Globalstar’s argument that the Commission’s

reassignment of the disputed spectrum to Iridium was arbitrary

and capricious. The Commission properly revisited the

rulemaking pursuant to Globalstar’s petition for reconsideration

of the 2004 Order. The 2007 Reconsideration Order was an

outgrowth of the ongoing rulemaking that began with a notice

of proposed rulemaking in 2003. We find that the

Commission’s final order is based on the extensive record

compiled during this lengthy rulemaking and that the record

supports the Commission’s decision. We also find that the 2007

Reconsideration Order is a product of reasoned decisionmaking

that survives the narrow scope of review under the arbitrary and

capricious standard.

I. BACKGROUND

Among its many duties, the Commission licenses

commercial entities to use the electromagnetic spectrum. See 47

U.S.C. §§ 301, 303. The Commission has designated 33 MHz

USCA Case #08-1046 Document #1178596 Filed: 05/01/2009 Page 3 of 19
4

of spectrum for use by mobile satellite services, a satellitepowered technology that provides email and cellular-like phone

services to remote locations across the globe and is often used

by military and public safety officials during wars and national

disasters. See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to

Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to a Mobile Satellite

Service in the 1610-1626.5/2483.5-2500 MHz Frequency Bands,

Report and Order, 9 F.C.C.R. 5936, 5939-41 (1994) (“1994

Order”). This spectrum, the Big Low Earth Orbit band (“Big

LEO” band), consists of two segments that are commonly

referred to as the “L band” (1610 MHz through 1626.5 MHz)

and the “S band” (2483.5 MHz through 2500 MHz). See 2004

Order, 19 F.C.C.R. at 13,357. MSS providers employ one of

two technologies: code division multiple access (“CDMA”) or

time division multiple access (“TDMA”). See id. at 13,359 &

nn.7-9. CDMA and TDMA systems differ in at least one critical

respect. In CDMA systems, the L band is used for “uplink”

operations from an earth terminal (i.e., a user’s phone handset)

to a satellite, while space-to-earth “downlink” operations are

carried on the S band. In TDMA systems, both uplink and

downlink operations are carried on the L band. See id. This

case concerns the Commission’s assignment and reassignment

of blocks of the Big LEO band to competing providers of

CDMA and TDMA satellite services. 

In the early 1990s, as MSS technology was first emerging,

several companies seeking to deploy MSS systems applied to

the FCC for licenses to use the Big LEO band. All but one

proposed a CDMA system. See 1994 Order, 9 F.C.C.R. at 5942,

5955. In 1994, the FCC adopted an initial licensing scheme for

MSS providers in the Big LEO band. Id. at 5955-59. Because

the CDMA applicants outnumbered the lone TDMA applicant,

the Commission divided the 33 MHz of Big LEO spectrum into

two unequal but roughly proportionate parts. The Commission

assigned the TDMA provider exclusive access to 5.15 MHz of

spectrum in the L band and assigned the CDMA providers

USCA Case #08-1046 Document #1178596 Filed: 05/01/2009 Page 4 of 19
5

shared access to 27.85 MHz of spectrum (11.35 MHz in the

L band and the entire S band). Id. The Commission also

considered the possibility that only one of the CDMA systems

would be launched, but it rejected a proposal that would have

automatically reassigned 3.1 MHz of spectrum in the L band to

the TDMA provider “upon a showing of need or, if this

demonstration could not be made, to a new entrant.” Id. at 5960.

Instead, the Commission stated that it would “make the decision

with respect to the 3.1 MHz, if necessary, in the context of a

rulemaking, based upon the circumstances that have developed

at that time.” Id.

By 2002, only two MSS providers had begun commercial

operations: the CDMA system now run by Globalstar and the

TDMA system now run by Iridium. In light of this

development, Iridium petitioned the FCC to undertake the

reassignment rulemaking contemplated in the 1994 Order.

Petition for Rulemaking at i (July 26, 2002), reprinted in Joint

Appendix (“J.A.”) 329. Iridium advised the agency that it was

experiencing “significant spectrum constraints” from operating

in the 5.15 MHz block of L band spectrum and that it required

additional spectrum to meet the current and future needs of its

customers. Id. at 4, J.A. 333. Iridium urged the FCC to reassign

it 5.85 MHz of spectrum currently allocated to CDMA systems.

Id. at 5, J.A. 334. 

The Commission responded with a notice of proposed

rulemaking in 2003 that sought proposals to reassign a portion

of the Big LEO spectrum. 2003 NPRM, 18 F.C.C.R. at 2087-92.

The Commission recognized that because “only one CDMA Big

LEO system has deployed, it is now appropriate to consider

making at least 3.1 megahertz of additional spectrum available

to Iridium.” Id. at 2089. Though the Commission “tentatively

conclude[d]” that the new developments in the MSS market

necessitated a reallocation of the Big LEO spectrum, it noted

that it would “base [its] final judgment on the record established

USCA Case #08-1046 Document #1178596 Filed: 05/01/2009 Page 5 of 19
6

in this proceeding.” Id. To this end, the Commission directed

both Globalstar and Iridium to submit detailed data on their

current and projected spectrum needs. Id. at 2089-90. 

The FCC received extensive comments from both

Globalstar and Iridium, among other industry players. Iridium

explained that it was experiencing a “spectrum shortage” and

recounted how recent strains on its network due to the use of its

services by the U.S. military in the Middle East had caused the

Commission to grant it temporary access to a portion of

Globalstar’s spectrum. Comments of Iridium Satellite, LLC at

i, 12-15 (July 11, 2003), J.A. 344, 360-63. To relieve these

strains and to meet the growing demand for its services, Iridium

proposed a “spectrum parity” plan that would divide the 33 MHz

of Big LEO spectrum into three roughly equal blocks, with just

over 11 MHz for Iridium in the L band, just over 11 MHz for

Globalstar in the L and S bands, and 10 MHz in the S band

reclaimed for other uses. Id. at 30-34, J.A. 378-82. Globalstar

strongly opposed any change to the existing spectrum plan

because it was “using its entire spectrum assignment.” Joint

Comments of L/Q Licensee, Inc., Globalstar, L.P. and

Globalstar USA, L.L.C. at i (July 11, 2003), J.A. 464.

Globalstar also urged that if the FCC was inclined to reallocate

spectrum in the Big LEO band, it should give the two companies

an opportunity to devise a joint band plan. Joint Reply

Comments of L/Q Licensee, Inc., Globalstar, L.P. and

Globalstar USA, L.L.C. at 35-37 (July 25, 2003), J.A. 681-83.

In 2004, the FCC issued a report and order directing

Globalstar and Iridium to share 3.1 MHz of spectrum in the

L band between 1618.25 MHz and 1621.35 MHz. 2004 Order,

19 F.C.C.R. at 13,357. The Commission began by explaining

that the deployment of only one CDMA system “justif[ied] a

reassessment of the existing band plan.” Id. at 13,370. Though

the Commission found that both Globalstar and Iridium had “set

forth compelling arguments for utilizing the spectrum,” it

USCA Case #08-1046 Document #1178596 Filed: 05/01/2009 Page 6 of 19
7

determined that sharing the spectrum would be “the most

equitable solution at this time” because Iridium’s need for

spectrum “appears to be more sporadic and geographicspecific.” Id. at 13,377. The Commission further rejected

Iridium’s “spectrum parity” proposal because dividing the

spectrum on a “pure megahertz-per-party basis . . . would ignore

the significant encumbrances that exist in the lower portion of

the L-band” from other non-MSS satellite systems in that band

and in adjacent bandwidths. Id. at 13,378. Finally, the

Commission explained that it had limited the amount of shared

L band spectrum to 3.1 MHz because of these same

encumbrances and in order to remain consistent with the

spectrum reallotment originally proposed in the 1994 Order. Id.

In the same order, however, the Commission issued a further

notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment on whether

Globalstar and Iridium could share an additional 2.25 MHz of

spectrum in the lower portion of the L band between 1616 and

1618.25 MHz. Id. at 13,397-99. 

Globalstar sought reconsideration of the 2004 Order.

Petition for Reconsideration of Globalstar LLC (Sept. 8, 2004),

J.A. 821-56. Globalstar requested that the FCC “reverse its illadvised decision” because CDMA and TDMA systems could

not both utilize spectrum at the same time without generating

interference, and it submitted technical data on the harmful

effects of spectrum sharing. Id. at 6, J.A. 832; see also

Globalstar LLC Technical Appendix ¶ 2, J.A. 852; ELEC.

COMMC’NS COMM. WITHIN THE EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF

POSTAL AND TELECOMMS. ADMINS., DRAFT ECC REPORT ON

SHARING BETWEEN MSS SYSTEMS USING TDMA AND MSS

SYSTEMS USING CDMA IN THE BAND 1610-1626.5 MHZ 36

(2006) (concluding that both Iridium and Globalstar would

suffer interference when operating in shared spectrum), J.A.

1098. In the alternative, Globalstar asked the Commission to

establish rules to permit the two companies to coordinate their

usage of the spectrum to prevent such interference. See Petition

USCA Case #08-1046 Document #1178596 Filed: 05/01/2009 Page 7 of 19
8

for Reconsideration of Globalstar LLC at 6-8, J.A. 832-34.

Iridium maintained that sharing was in fact possible and urged

the Commission to permit further sharing in the L band because

demand for its services had continued to grow. Comments of

Iridium Satellite, LLC at ii, 7-8 (Sept. 8, 2004), J.A. 797, 805-

06. In addition, Iridium noted that the Commission had again

granted it temporary access to Globalstar’s spectrum following

Hurricane Katrina and that it had seen a spike in customer

demand following the hurricane. Ex Parte Letter from Donna

Bethea-Murphy, Vice President, Regulatory Engineering,

Iridium Satellite, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission at 1-4 (Mar. 24, 2006), J.A. 971-

74. 

In October 2007, while the FCC was weighing Globalstar’s

reconsideration petition and the comments received in response

to the further notice of proposed rulemaking, the trade press

reported that the Commission was poised to reassign a block of

Big LEO spectrum to Iridium. See Satellite, COMM.DAILY, Oct.

25, 2007, J.A. 1287. On November 7, 2007, Globalstar

submitted an ex parte letter to the Commission claiming that

such a spectrum reassignment was beyond the scope of the

rulemaking and would violate the APA’s notice-and-comment

requirements. A copy of the letter was emailed to the

Commissioners and their legal advisors. See Ex Parte Letter

from William T. Lake, Counsel to Globalstar, Inc., to Marlene

H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission

(Nov. 7, 2007), J.A. 1147-49; see also Petitioner’s Reply Br. at

14-15. 

On the day Globalstar submitted its ex parte letter, the

Commission adopted an order assigning equal amounts of

L band spectrum to Iridium and Globalstar. See 2007

Reconsideration Order, 22 F.C.C.R. at 19,733, 19,734. Upon

reconsideration of the 2004 Order, the Commission agreed with

Globalstar that spectrum sharing would cause “harmful

USCA Case #08-1046 Document #1178596 Filed: 05/01/2009 Page 8 of 19
9

interference” between fully loaded CDMA and TDMA systems

and would place “generally undesirable operational limitations”

on both systems. Id. at 19,741. Moreover, although neither

Globalstar nor Iridium was fully loaded at present, the

Commission found that both companies “state that their business

has grown, and confidently predict that their business will

continue to grow.” Id. The Commission found that Iridium had

“made a case demonstrating its need for more spectrum,” noting

that its communications traffic has “increased substantially” and

that it desired “more spectrum to provide full-rate voice

channels and higher speed data transmissions, as well as to

accommodate peak demand.” Id. Concluding that the

reassignment of spectrum to Iridium was necessary “to provide

long-term certainty and stability in the Big LEO market and to

avoid harmful interference,” the Commission thus divided the

L band into two equal parts, assigning each company exclusive

access to 7.775 MHz of spectrum in that band. Id. at 19,734,

19,741-42. In addition, the Commission retained a .95 MHz

portion of shared spectrum in the center of the L band to

safeguard one of Globalstar’s channels, finding that this “small

segment” of Big LEO spectrum could be effectively shared

“while both systems are relatively lightly loaded.” Id. at 19,742.

The net effect of the new spectrum plan was thus to reassign 3.1

MHz of L band spectrum to Iridium, subject to the minimal .95

MHz sharing requirement. 

II. ANALYSIS

Globalstar challenges the 2007 Reconsideration Order on

two grounds. First, it argues that the Commission’s decision to

reassign spectrum to Iridium was not a “logical outgrowth” of

the 2004 decision ordering spectrum sharing and thus violated

the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements. See 5 U.S.C.

§ 553. Second, it argues that the Commission’s decision is

arbitrary and capricious because it lacks record support and

because the Commission’s rationale for ordering spectrum

USCA Case #08-1046 Document #1178596 Filed: 05/01/2009 Page 9 of 19
10

reassignment is inconsistent with certain policies adopted in the

earlier 2004 Order. See id. § 706(2)(A). 

A. Standard of Review

We will uphold an agency action unless we find it to be

“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). “The scope of

review under the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard is narrow

and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the

agency.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). When the Commission is

“‘fostering innovative methods of exploiting the spectrum,’ it

‘functions as a policymaker’ and is ‘accorded the greatest

deference by a reviewing court.’” Mobile Relay Assocs. v. FCC,

457 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Teledesic LLC v. FCC,

275 F.3d 75, 84 (D.C. Cir. 2001)). In all cases, however, the

agency “must examine the relevant data and articulate a

satisfactory explanation for its action including a ‘rational

connection between the facts found and the choice made.’”

State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43 (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc.

v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). 

B. Globalstar’s Inadequate Notice Claim Is Barred by

§ 405(a)

As an initial matter, the Commission contends that our

consideration of Globalstar’s inadequate notice claim is barred

by § 405(a) of the Communications Act. Section 405(a)

provides that filing a petition for reconsideration before the

Commission is “a condition precedent to judicial review . . .

where the party seeking such review . . . relies on questions of

fact or law upon which the Commission . . . has been afforded

no opportunity to pass.” 47 U.S.C. § 405(a). We have “‘strictly

construed’ § 405(a), ‘holding that we generally lack jurisdiction

to review arguments that have not first been presented to the

Commission.’” Qwest Corp. v. FCC, 482 F.3d 471, 474 (D.C.

USCA Case #08-1046 Document #1178596 Filed: 05/01/2009 Page 10 of 19
11

Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Core Commc’ns, Inc., 455 F.3d 267,

276 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). Thus, “even when a petitioner has no

reason to raise an argument until the FCC issues an order that

makes the issue relevant, the petitioner must file ‘a petition for

reconsideration’ with the Commission before it may seek

judicial review.” In re Core Commc’ns, Inc., 455 F.3d at 276-77

(quoting 47 U.S.C. § 405(a)).

When, as here, a party “complains of only a technical or

procedural mistake, such as an obvious violation of a specific

APA requirement, we have insisted that a party raise the precise

claim before the Commission.” Time Warner Entm’t Co. v.

FCC, 144 F.3d 75, 81 (D.C. Cir. 1998). As we have explained,

such rigid adherence to § 405(a) is necessary with respect to

claims of procedural error in order to give the agency the

opportunity to consider the claim in the first instance and to

correct any error in the rulemaking process prior to judicial

review. Id. at 80; see also M2Z Networks, Inc. v. FCC, 558 F.3d

554, 558 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“Ordinarily petitioners must give

agencies an opportunity to cure technical defect[s] before

seeking review by this court.”) (alteration in original) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, we have

repeatedly applied § 405(a) to bar inadequate notice claims

identical to the one now raised by Globalstar. See, e.g.,

Petroleum Commc’ns, Inc. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 1164, 1171, 1169-70

(D.C. Cir. 1994) (holding that inadequate notice claim under 5

U.S.C. § 553 was a “classic example” of the type of claim

subject to § 405(a)’s exhaustion requirement and collecting

similar cases). 

Because Globalstar did not raise its inadequate notice claim

in a petition for reconsideration, we must determine whether the

Commission was “afforded a ‘fair opportunity’ to pass on the

argument[] in question.” BDPCS, Inc. v. FCC, 351 F.3d 1177,

1182 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Globalstar contends that it preserved the

claim for appeal by discussing the lack of notice in an ex parte

USCA Case #08-1046 Document #1178596 Filed: 05/01/2009 Page 11 of 19
12

letter submitted on November 7, 2007 (and emailed to the

Commissioners and their legal advisers) after press reports

indicated that the Commission was considering a reassignment

of spectrum to Iridium. Petitioner’s Reply Br. at 14-18. We

reject this argument. An ex parte submission may at times be

sufficient to preserve an issue for appeal, but we have cautioned

litigants that relying on such ex parte submissions “to satisfy

§ 405 is a risky strategy.” Sprint Nextel Corp. v. FCC, 524 F.3d

253, 257 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The risks are readily apparent when

the ex parte submission is ill-timed. For example, in AT&T

Wireless Services, Inc. v. FCC, 270 F.3d 959 (D.C. Cir. 2001),

we rejected the petitioners’ attempt to comply with § 405(a) by

relying in part on an “untimely” ex parte letter filed more than

one month before the Commission’s decision was adopted. Id.

at 966. Here, Globalstar filed the letter in question the very day

that the Commission adopted the 2007 Reconsideration Order,

so it “cannot fairly be said to have alerted the Commission” to

an issue that might have been addressed in the 2007

Reconsideration Order before the order was ready to be

released. Id. And Globalstar never raised the issue in a petition

for reconsideration, so the FCC never had a “fair opportunity”

to explain the ongoing nature of the rulemaking and pass on

Globalstar’s claim. 

Globalstar further urges us to lift § 405(a)’s bar in the

present case because “the previous petition for reconsideration

in this proceeding sat before the agency for over three years.”

Petitioner’s Reply Br. at 17. We have held that § 405(a)

“‘contains the traditionally recognized exceptions to the

exhaustion doctrine,’ like futility.” M2Z Networks, Inc., 558

F.3d at 558 (quoting Freeman Eng’g Assocs., Inc. v. FCC, 103

F.3d 169, 183 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). But Globalstar makes no claim

that presenting its inadequate notice claim to the Commission in

a reconsideration petition would have been futile and points to

no case in which the Commission’s tardiness in rendering a

decision prompted this court to excuse § 405(a)’s exhaustion

USCA Case #08-1046 Document #1178596 Filed: 05/01/2009 Page 12 of 19
13

requirement. Indeed, in AT&T Corp. v. FCC, 317 F.3d 227

(D.C. Cir. 2003), where the Commission failed for four and onehalf years to issue an initial decision on petitioners’ claim, the

court rejected the petitioners’ nearly identical plea that

“unreasonable delay [by the Commission] preclude[s] strict

application of the exhaustion doctrine.” Id. at 236 (alterations

in original). Although we certainly do not condone the

Commission’s delay in this case, it did not excuse Globalstar

from presenting its inadequate notice claim to the agency before

seeking review in this court. 

In sum, because Globalstar failed to give the Commission

an opportunity to pass on its inadequate notice claim and

because it has not demonstrated that any exception to § 405(a)

applies, the claim is waived. 

C. The FCC’s Decision to Reassign Spectrum to Iridium

Globalstar also contends that the Commission acted

arbitrarily and capriciously in multiple respects in reassigning

the disputed spectrum to Iridium. These arguments were raised

with the FCC and are properly before the court. 

Globalstar asserts that the Commission’s reassignment of

spectrum to Iridium is unreasonable for an array of interrelated

reasons. However, the central premise of its claim is that the

Commission issued a final decision in the 2004 Order instituting

a spectrum sharing plan in the L band and then impermissibly

departed from this “precedent” in ordering reassignment in

2007. This claim does not withstand scrutiny. Globalstar

petitioned for reconsideration of the 2004 Order and this

prompted the Commission to revisit the ongoing rulemaking

record.

As this court has explained, “a petition for reconsideration

may be filed within 30 days of a final agency order and insofar

as such petitions are timely filed, the rulemaking is not final

pending their resolution.” AT&T Corp. v. FCC, 113 F.3d 225,

USCA Case #08-1046 Document #1178596 Filed: 05/01/2009 Page 13 of 19
14

229 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (internal citation omitted). The

Commission’s 2007 Reconsideration Order thus was not the

product of a new and distinct rulemaking but was an outgrowth

of the ongoing proceeding that commenced with the 2003

NPRM that sought and generated ample comment on the

reassignment of L band spectrum to Iridium. See 2003 NPRM,

18 F.C.C.R. at 2089 (noting that “it is now appropriate to

consider making at least 3.1 megahertz of additional spectrum

available to Iridium” and that “[w]e will base our final judgment

on the record established in this proceeding”). Consequently,

once Globalstar petitioned for reconsideration of the 2004

Order, the Commission was free to reconsider the entire record

dating back to the 2003 NPRM and to modify the spectrum plan

“provided [it] gave a reasoned explanation for its decision that

is supported by the record.” AT&T Corp., 113 F.3d at 229. 

Globalstar’s argument to the contrary is unavailing. It

claims that the reconsideration petition did not seek to overturn

the spectrum sharing plan announced in the 2004 Order, but

“merely asked the FCC to modify the mechanics of the sharing

regime.” Petitioner’s Reply Br. at 4. In other words, Globalstar

argues that its request for reconsideration was so narrow in

scope that it did not open the door to the Commission’s adoption

of a wholly different spectrum reassignment plan. The plain

language of Globalstar’s reconsideration petition belies this

characterization. Globalstar claimed in its reconsideration

petition that “the record in this docket cannot support any

change to the existing Big LEO spectrum plan.” Petition for

Reconsideration of Globalstar LLC at 5, J.A. 831 (emphasis

added). Globalstar further requested that “[i]f the Commission

does not reverse its ill-advised decision, then at a minimum it

must modify the plan to ensure that the goals of the order are

accomplished.” Id. at 6, J.A. 832 (emphasis added). As this

language in the reconsideration petition makes clear, Globalstar

urged the Commission to modify the sharing regime as an

alternative to outright reversal of the 2004 Order. And once

USCA Case #08-1046 Document #1178596 Filed: 05/01/2009 Page 14 of 19
15

Globalstar sought to overturn the 2004 Order, the Commission

surely was free to modify its decision based on the evidence

amassed throughout the entire rulemaking. 

Globalstar’s other challenges to the 2007 Reconsideration

Order are straightforward and easily addressed. These

challenges involve four principal claims that the order is

arbitrary and capricious. All four claims lack merit.

First, Globalstar contends that the Commission’s decision

to reassign the disputed spectrum to Iridium “finds no support

in the record, which is silent on reassignment because that issue

had been excluded from the proceeding.” Petitioner’s Br. at 27.

As explained above, this argument misses the mark by focusing

narrowly on the record compiled since the 2004 Order to the

exclusion of the rest of the record in the lengthy rulemaking

proceeding. When properly viewed as an outgrowth of the

ongoing rulemaking proceeding, the Commission’s decision to

reassign spectrum to Iridium is both well reasoned and

supported by the record. 

In the 2007 Reconsideration Order, the Commission relied

on Globalstar’s own reconsideration petition and technical data

to conclude that sharing by fully loaded CDMA and TDMA

systems would cause “harmful interference” and place

“generally undesirable operational limitations” on both systems.

2007 Reconsideration Order, 22 F.C.C.R. at 19,741; see also id.

at 19,739-40 n.52. Once it declared that sharing was

technologically infeasible, the Commission then properly

revisited the entire record dating back to the beginning of the

proceeding. Having already found in 2004 that the deployment

of only one CDMA system in the MSS market “justif[ied] a

reassessment of the existing band plan,” 2004 Order, 19

F.C.C.R. at 13,370, the Commission pointed in 2007 to evidence

that both Globalstar and Iridium had grown and that both

companies predicted future growth for their businesses, 2007

Reconsideration Order, 22 F.C.C.R. at 19,741. The

USCA Case #08-1046 Document #1178596 Filed: 05/01/2009 Page 15 of 19
16

Commission then singled out Iridium’s submission describing

its “need [for] more spectrum to provide full-rate voice channels

and higher speed data transmissions, as well as to accommodate

peak demand.” Id. Given this record, there was nothing

unreasonable about the Commission’s decision to divide the

L band equally between Globalstar and Iridium and to give

Iridium access to an additional 3.1 MHz of spectrum in that

band. 

Moreover, this court is bound to defer to the Commission’s

predictive judgments that reassigning the spectrum to Iridium

was necessary “in order to account for the growth of current

CDMA and TDMA MSS systems” and “to provide long-term

certainty and stability in the Big LEO market.” Id. at 19,740,

19,741; see also Earthlink, Inc. v. FCC, 462 F.3d 1, 12 (D.C.

Cir. 2006) (“‘[A]n agency’s predictive judgments about areas

that are within the agency’s field of discretion and expertise are

entitled to particularly deferential review, as long as they are

reasonable.’”) (alteration in original) (quoting In re Core

Commc’ns, Inc., 455 F.3d at 282). The FCC explained that

“[b]y providing equal amounts of L-band spectrum for the

exclusive use of CDMA and TDMA MSS systems, we provide

a more equitable distribution of spectrum resources.” 2007

Reconsideration Order, 22 F.C.C.R. at 19,752. At the same

time, the Commission concluded that this new spectrum

allotment would “provide the opportunity for Big LEO MSS

systems to plan their future designs and operations with less

uncertainty.” Id. On this record, the Commission reasonably

exercised its predictive judgment that the spectrum reassignment

plan was well suited to the still developing MSS market and to

the changing needs of the participants in that market. 

Second, Globalstar points to the Commission’s finding in

the 2004 Order that Iridium’s “need for spectrum appears to be

more sporadic and geographic-specific,” 19 F.C.C.R. at 13,377,

and insists that the Commission failed to explain why Iridium’s

USCA Case #08-1046 Document #1178596 Filed: 05/01/2009 Page 16 of 19
17

spectrum needs justified spectrum reassignment. See

Petitioner’s Br. at 28-31, 35-37. But contrary to Globalstar’s

assertions, the Commission did directly address Iridium’s

spectrum needs in the 2007 Reconsideration Order and listed

several reasons why Iridium required additional spectrum to

conduct its operations in an effective manner. The Commission

noted that it had granted Iridium temporary access to additional

spectrum to support the use of its services by both the U.S.

military in the Middle East and following the 2005 hurricane

season. 22 F.C.C.R. at 19,736. The Commission then explained

that Iridium “has shown that the communications traffic it is

handling has increased substantially” and that it “will need more

spectrum to provide full-rate voice channels and higher speed

data transmissions, as well as to accommodate peak demand.”

Id. at 19,741. The Commission therefore concluded that

“Iridium has made a case demonstrating its need for more

spectrum.” Id. This conclusion was entirely reasonable. 

Third, Globalstar claims that the Commission’s 2007

Reconsideration Order “mandates precisely” the same

“spectrum parity” plan that the Commission rejected in 2004

without offering an adequate explanation for this reversal in

policy. Petitioner’s Br. at 30. Globalstar further contends that

the Commission failed to take proper account of the

encumbrances in the lower portion of the L band that had caused

it to reject the “spectrum parity” plan in the 2004 Order. Id.

Globalstar is incorrect on both counts. In response to the 2003

NPRM, Iridium proposed a “spectrum parity” plan that would

have divided the 33 MHz of Big LEO spectrum into three

roughly equal parts, with just over 11 MHz in the L band

assigned to Iridium, just over 11 MHz in the L and S bands

assigned to Globalstar, and 10 MHz reclaimed for other uses.

Comments of Iridium Satellite, LLC at 30-33, J.A. 378-81. In

the spectrum allotment announced in the 2007 Reconsideration

Order, Globalstar has access to more than 24 MHz of spectrum

in both the L and S bands, while Iridium has access to just over

USCA Case #08-1046 Document #1178596 Filed: 05/01/2009 Page 17 of 19
18

8 MHz. Thus, in stark contrast to the “spectrum parity”

proposal, the Commission did not reassign any of Globalstar’s

spectrum in the S band and left Globalstar with a greater net

share of Big LEO spectrum than Iridium. Because the 2007

Reconsideration Order exhibited no change in policy with

respect to “spectrum parity,” there was thus no need for the

Commission to juxtapose the spectrum reassignment with a

significantly different proposal it had already rejected at an

earlier stage of the rulemaking. 

Nor was the Commission required to take explicit account

of the encumbrances in the lower portion of the L band in the

2007 Reconsideration Order. Globalstar points to the

Commission’s statement in the 2004 Order that, “If the

Commission implemented ‘spectrum parity’ on a pure

megahertz-per-party basis, it would ignore the significant

encumbrances that exist in the lower portion of the L-band.” 19

F.C.C.R. at 13,378. But, as explained above, the Commission

made this comment about encumbrances while assessing the

“spectrum parity” plan, which would have left Globalstar with

5.35 MHz of spectrum confined to the lowest portion of the

L band. Elsewhere in the 2004 Order, however, the

Commission explained that it was limiting the amount of sharing

to 3.1 MHz because these same encumbrances restricted

Globalstar’s ability to operate in that spectrum. Id. When the

Commission here likewise reassigned Iridium 3.1 MHz of

spectrum in the L band (subject to the minimal .95 MHz sharing

requirement), it was not required to state this same rationale a

second time. See AT&T Corp., 113 F.3d at 229 (rejecting

petitioner’s argument that “in an ongoing rulemaking the agency

must restate its previously expressed rationale in each

subsequent order”). 

Fourth, Globalstar contends that the Commission failed to

consider its alternative proposal that the agency adopt a

“reciprocal sharing” regime, whereby “each carrier [w]ould be

USCA Case #08-1046 Document #1178596 Filed: 05/01/2009 Page 18 of 19
19

allowed to use the other’s spectrum, subject to a coordination

agreement.” Petitioner’s Br. at 37. An agency is “required ‘to

consider responsible alternatives to its chosen policy and to give

a reasoned explanation for its rejection of such alternatives.’”

Am. Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC, 524 F.3d 227, 242 (D.C.

Cir. 2008) (quoting City of Brookings Mun. Tel. Co. v. FCC, 822

F.2d 1153, 1169 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). It is simply not true that the

Commission “did not deign to mention the [reciprocal sharing]

alternative.” Petitioner’s Br. at 39. The Commission twice

noted Globalstar’s request for “access to Big LEO TDMA

spectrum, currently used by Iridium, in an amount equal to the

amount of CDMA spectrum shared with TDMA MSS systems.”

2007 Reconsideration Order, 22 F.C.C.R. at 19,739; see also id.

at 19,742 (discussing Globalstar’s proposal to “allow it to share

TDMA-exclusive spectrum in an amount equal to the amount of

CDMA spectrum shared with TDMA systems”). However, the

Commission went on to conclude – based on Globalstar’s own

reconsideration request and technical arguments – that TDMA

and CDMA systems could not share spectrum without

generating “harmful interference.” Id. at 19,740-41. After

rejecting spectrum sharing at Globalstar’s own urging and

altering the L band spectrum assignments accordingly, the

Commission acted reasonably in declining to give more detailed

consideration to Globalstar’s proposal that would have

implemented sharing on an even broader scale. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the petition for review is

denied. 

USCA Case #08-1046 Document #1178596 Filed: 05/01/2009 Page 19 of 19