Provision of Aeronautical Services via the Inmarsat System

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.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.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.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 [email protected] and

to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725-17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to [email protected]. 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