[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30579-30581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15268]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I

[CC Docket No. 87-75; FCC 96-161]


Provision of Aeronautical Services via the Inmarsat System

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission adopted restrictions on use of the Inmarsat 
system for aeronautical services in the U.S. in Aeronautical Services 
Order II. In a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FNPRM), the 
Commission is examining the prior restrictions and seeking comment on 
alternative arrangements. In the FNPRM the Commission proposed to 
establish the scope of permissible uses of Inmarsat aeronautical 
services in the United States. The Commission has generally promoted 
competition in satellite communications in both the international and 
U.S. domestic markets. Due to spectrum availability constraints in the 
L-band it was necessary to propose limits on the use of Inmarsat 
aeronautical services in the United States. The spectrum in which 
mobile satellite services (MSS) will operate is limited and appears 
insufficient to meet the stated spectrum requirements for the North 
American coverage area for American Mobile Satellite Corporation, 
Inmarsat and three other countries developing MSS systems--Canada, 
Mexico and Russia. In the future, the Commission may permit entry by 
Inmarsat into the U.S. domestic aeronautical market--but not until the 
U.S. has ensured sufficient spectrum for domestic needs without 
interference to communications links. The intended effect of this 
proceeding is to establish the manner in which Inmarsat aeronautical 
services will be available in the U.S. consistent with competition 
policies and spectrum availability.

DATES: Comments are due July 17, 1996; reply comments are due August 
16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olga Madruga-Forti, International 
Bureau, Satellite and Radiocommunication Division, Satellite Policy 
Branch, (202) 418-0766.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in CC Docket 87-75, Provision of 
Aeronautical Services via the Inmarsat System, Commission 96-161, 
adopted April 9, 1996, released May 9, 1996. The Commission is 
considering adopting geographical restriction to Inmarsat aeronautical 
services similar to those established in Aeronautical Services Order 
II, 54 FR 33224 (August 14, 1989). The complete text of this FNPRM is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the Commission Reference Center, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 
and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, 
N.W., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

I. Introduction

    In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission 
initiated a further notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the 
geographic restrictions on the domestic use of Inmarsat-based 
aeronautical satellite services adopted in Aeronautical Services Order 
II, 54 FR 33224 (August 14, 1989). The Commission identified three 
possible models for geographic limitations: (1) Decline to authorize 
Inmarsat aeronautical services in U.S. airspace; (2) Authorize Inmarsat 
aeronautical services in the U.S. for aircraft in international flight 
up to the first port of entry and from the last port of departure from 
the U.S.; and (3) Authorize Inmarsat aeronautical services in the U.S. 
for all international flights including the domestic legs of 
international flights. Analysis and comment should consider the 
reliability and quality of communications and the Commission's desire 
to promote competition. Furthermore, in order to ensure continuity of 
service the Commission granted those parties already authorized to 
provide Inmarsat aeronautical mobile satellite service to aircraft in 
international flight special temporary authority to provide service to 
aircraft in domestic flight.

II. Background

    In 1987, the Commission initiated a rulemaking to determine how 
aeronautical mobile satellite service (``AMSS'') via Inmarsat would be 
provided in the United States. In Aeronautical Services Order II, the 
Commission authorized COMSAT to provide Inmarsat aeronautical services 
to United States aeronautical earth stations for aircraft in flight: 
(1) from the United States to a foreign point; (2) from a foreign point 
into the United States; and (3) between any two foreign points. The 
Commission also specified that aircraft in flight between two U.S. 
domestic points may use only the domestic mobile satellite system for 
satellite communications to the extent the coverage area of that system 
permits.
    3. We have generally promoted competition in satellite 
communications in both the international and U.S. domestic markets. The 
circumstances presented here pose certain limitations on the extent to 
which we can achieve a fully competitive U.S. market for MSS systems in 
the L-band. The spectrum in

[[Page 30580]]

which the MSS systems will operate is limited and appears insufficient 
to meet the stated spectrum requirements for the North American 
coverage area for AMSC, Inmarsat and three other countries developing 
MSS systems--Canada, Mexico, and Russia. In seven years of 
negotiations, the five systems have been unable to successfully 
complete coordination to operate the same frequencies on a co-coverage 
basis in North America and the surrounding geographical area. The five 
systems are vying for access to 33 MHz of spectrum in each direction 
but have claimed requirements for significantly more than that amount. 
Moreover, this problem is complicated because the current designs of 
the MSS systems do not permit sharing frequencies in the same 
geographic area or adjacent areas. Inmarsat claims a need for exclusive 
use of considerable spectrum over the continental United States (CONUS) 
for its maritime and other services. However, AMSC likely will have to 
use noncontiguous spectrum segments and share some of these segments 
with other MSS systems. We have two specific concerns about permitting 
Inmarsat to provide aeronautical services in the United States under 
these circumstances: (1) Inmarsat may claim additional spectrum needs 
over CONUS in order to provide this service; and (2) AMSC may receive 
technical interference from proximate Inmarsat channels and not be able 
to operate on those channels assigned to it.
    4. We want competition in the U.S. market, but the first step is to 
ensure sufficient spectrum for the U.S. domestic MSS system to become 
an effective competitor. This will require successful completion of the 
current coordination process. Any policy that we propose here for 
aeronautical services must not exacerbate this situation or complicate 
ongoing negotiations. Therefore, we propose an approach similar to that 
in our l989 Aeronautical Services Order II. That is, we propose that 
Inmarsat continue to provide primarily international AMSS to the United 
States. We may, at a future date, permit entry by Inmarsat into the 
U.S. domestic aeronautical market--but, we will not propose to do so 
until we have successfully coordinated sufficient spectrum for the U.S. 
licensed domestic MSS system.<SUP>1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The circumstances under which Inmarsat may offer domestic 
services within the U.S. are also a subject under consideration in a 
notice of proposed rulemaking on the provision of domestic service 
by non-U.S. satellites. See Amendment of the Commission's Regulatory 
Policies to Allow Non-U.S. Licensed Space Stations to Provide 
Domestic and International Satellite Service in the United States, 
Commission 96-210, adopted May 9, l996, released May 14, l996. 
Inmarsat could only enter the domestic aeronautical MSS market in 
accordance with the rules and policies adopted in this rulemaking as 
well as any rules or policies that may be adopted in the broader 
proceeding. We also defer consideration of NTIA's request in its 
comments for initiation of a Further NPRM on the issue of direct 
access to Inmarsat by multiple providers. This direct access issue 
is a part of a broader review of U.S. satellite policy by relevant 
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. We do not propose to adopt a policy that takes into account the 
economic impact on the AMSC system of Inmarsat entry into the U.S. 
aeronautical service market. AMSC already faces competition from other 
U.S. satellite systems such as Qualcomm's OmniTracs service and 
Orbcomm's land mobile and maritime services. It will eventually face 
competition from low earth orbit (LEO) systems recently authorized by 
the Commission.<SUP>2 There does not appear to be any reason to single 
out Inmarsat's economic impact on the AMSC system. Moreover, Inmarsat 
does not consider economic impact in evaluating the provision of 
aeronautical and land mobile services by non-Inmarsat satellite 
systems, and no longer considers it for competing maritime 
services.<SUP>3 The United States has been in the forefront of the 
effort to ensure that Inmarsat does not use economic impact analysis to 
prevent or discourage competition in the provision of international 
satellite services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See e.g., Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc. Order and 
Authorization, 10 F.C.C. Rcd. 2268 (International Bureau, released 
January 31, l995); Loral/Qualcomm Partnership, L.P., 10 F.C.C. Rcd. 
2333 (International Bureau, released January 31, l995); TRW, Inc. 
Order and Authorization, 10 F.C.C. Rcd. 2263 (International Bureau, 
released January 31, l995).
    \3\ Article 8 of the Inmarsat Convention provides, in general, 
that in order to ensure technical compatibility and avoid economic 
harm to the Inmarsat system, a Party shall notify Inmarsat before 
the Party uses separate space segment facilities for maritime 
purposes. The Ninth Assembly of the Inmarsat Assembly of Parties 
decided that no system which falls within the scope of Article 8 of 
the Convention shall be deemed to cause significant economic harm to 
the organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Accordingly, in this FNPRM, we seek comment on the circumstances 
in which we should permit the use of Inmarsat aeronautical satellite 
services in the United States. We tentatively conclude that due to 
spectrum availability constraints, we must limit the scope of Inmarsat 
aeronautical services in the United States pending completion of 
current negotiations. We believe that this approach will ensure that 
the available spectrum is adequate to serve the United States public 
interest in the provision of aeronautical satellite services. We 
specifically request parties disputing our spectrum analysis to submit 
detailed comments addressing this issue. We seek comment on our 
tentative conclusion and on defining the scope of Inmarsat aeronautical 
service.
    7. Initially, we identify three possible models for establishing 
geographic limitations:
    1. Decline to authorize the use of Inmarsat aeronautical services 
in U.S. airspace.
    2. Authorize the use of Inmarsat aeronautical services, both safety 
and APC, via U.S. earth stations for aircraft in international flight: 
(a) from the United States to a foreign point; and (b) from a foreign 
point into the United States.
    3. Authorize the use of Inmarsat aeronautical services, both safety 
and APC, via U.S. earth stations for aircraft in international flight: 
(a) from the United States to a foreign point; (b) from a foreign point 
into the United States; and (c) on domestic legs of international 
flights.
    8. We seek comment on the definitions of the scope of service 
proposed in this FNPRM and we invite additional or alternative 
proposals. We believe that this approach is necessary to ensure the 
development of a United States domestic MSS-AMSS(R) system that has 
sufficient reliable spectrum to meet the needs of the public, including 
safety needs. We propose to adopt one of the definitions of the scope 
of Inmarsat aeronautical services discussed above as reasonable to 
fulfill this objective.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    9. Pursuant to Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the 
Commission has prepared the following initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (``IRFA'') of the expected impact of these proposed policies 
and rules on small entities. Written public comments are requested on 
the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same 
filing deadlines as comments on the rest of the Further NPRM, but they 
must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses 
to the regulatory flexibility analysis. The Secretary shall cause a 
copy of the FNPRM, including the initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis, to be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 
U.S.C. Sec. 601 et. seq. (1981).
    10. Reason for Action. This FNPRM proposes to establish regulations 
establishing geographical boundaries for

[[Page 30581]]

the use of Inmarsat aeronautical services in the United States.
    11. Objectives. To propose rules to govern the use of Inmarsat-
based aeronautical services in the United States.
    12. Legal Basis. Authority as proposed for this rulemaking is 
contained in the provisions of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 
Secs. 151, 154, 303(r), 403, and 405.
    13. Description, Potential Impact and Number of Small Entities 
Affected. None.
    14. Reporting, Record Keeping and Other Compliance Requirements. 
None.
    15. Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict with this 
Rule. None.
    16. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing Impact on Small 
Entities and Consistent with Stated Objectives. None.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    17. This NPRM contains a proposed information collection. The 
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collections contained in 
this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public 
Law No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as 
other comments on this NPRM; OMB notification of action is due August 
16, 1996. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection 
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions 
of the Commission, including whether the information shall have 
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden 
estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the 
collection of information on the respondents, including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology.

Procedural Provisions

    18. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking 
proceeding. Ex Parte presentations are permitted, except during the 
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in 47 
CFR Sec. 1.1206(a).
    19. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 
and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Secs. 1.415 and 1.419, 
interested parties may file comments on or before July 17, 1996 and 
reply comments on or before August 16, 1996. To file formally in this 
proceeding, you must file an original plus four copies of all comments, 
reply comments and supporting comments. If you want a Commissioner to 
receive a personal copy of your comments and reply comments you must 
file an original plus nine copies. You should send comments and reply 
comments to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and 
reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular 
business hours in the Commission Public Reference Center, Room 239, 
Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 
20554.
    20. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified 
information collections are due July 17, 1996 and reply comments on or 
before August 16, 1996. Written comments must be submitted by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified 
information collections on or before August 16, 1996. In addition to 
filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the 
information collections contained herein should be submitted to Dorothy 
Conway, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, 
N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b8dcdbd7d6cfd9c1f8dedbdb96dfd7ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6a0e0905041d0b132a0c0909440d051c">[email protected]</span></a> and 
to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725-17th Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#83e5e2eaeddcf7c3e2efade6ecf3ade4ecf5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8debece4e3d2f9cdece1a3e8e2fda3eae2fb">[email protected]</span></a>. For 
additional information concerning the information collections contained 
in this NPRM contact Dorothy Conway at 202-418-0217.

Ordering Clauses

    21. Accordingly, it is further ordered that the Secretary shall 
send a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance 
with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law No. 
96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. Secs. 601 et. seq. (1981).

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15268 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>