[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24817-24820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11286]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 25
[IB Docket No. 95-41; FCC 95-146]
Fixed Satellite Systems
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is hereby proposing rules that would eliminate
the distinction between our Transborder Policy and Separate
International Satellite Systems (Separate Systems) Policy and to treat
all U.S.-licensed geostationary fixed-satellites under a single
regulatory scheme. Our action is in response to applications from
[[Page 24818]] domestic and international satellite system operators
for authority to provide both domestic and international services. In
addition, the Executive Branch has recommended that all U.S.-licensed
fixed-satellites be subject to the same regulatory scheme. Permitting
U.S. operators to provide the widest range of service offerings
technically feasible will allow them to use their satellites more
efficiently and to provide innovative and customer-tailored services.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 8, 1995 and reply
comments must be submitted on or before June 23, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments and reply comments should be submitted to Federal
Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John M. Coles, Attorney, Satellite
Policy Branch, International Bureau (202) 739-0731.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Adopted: April 5, 1995.
Released: April 25, 1995.
By the Commission:
1. The Commission is hereby proposing rules that would eliminate
the distinction between our Transborder Policy and Separate
International Satellite Systems (Separate Systems) Policy and to treat
all U.S.-licensed geostationary fixed-satellites under a single
regulatory scheme.
II. Background
2. The Transborder and Separate Systems Policies both involve the
use of non-Intelsat satellites for the provision of international
services. Both policies are based on the Communications Satellite Act
of 1962 (``Satellite Act'') which provides for U.S. participation in
the global commercial communications satellite organization that became
Intelsat, but also specifically provides that additional satellite
systems may be authorized if ``required to meet unique governmental
needs or if otherwise required in the national interest.''\1\ The
Transborder and Separate Systems Policies evolved from these general
principles at different times and in response to different
circumstances.
\1\See 47 U.S.C. 701(d). Additionally, Congress has declared it
to be U.S. policy ``to make available to consumers a variety of
communications satellite services utilizing the space segment
facilities of Intelsat and any additional such facilities which are
found to be in the national interest'' and which are technically
compatible with and avoid significant economic harm to the Intelsat
system. Pub. L. 99-93, 99 Stat. 425 (1985) (quoted in Historical and
Statutory Notes to 47 U.S.C.A. 701).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Transborder Policy
3. The Transborder Policy was established in 1981 and permits
domestic fixed-satellite operators (``domsats'') to provide
international public telecommunications services within the coverage
areas (``footprints'') of their satellites where: (1) Intelsat cannot
provide the service; or (2) it would be clearly uneconomical or
impractical to use Intelsat facilities.\2\ Most of the applications
approved for transborder services have involved instances where use of
the Intelsat system would be clearly uneconomical or impractical, i.e.
use of Intelsat facilities would require multiple satellite hops,
terrestrial facilities, and co-located domestic and international earth
stations, which would significantly increase the cost of providing the
service.\3\ Typically, services authorized under the uneconomical or
impractical standard have been characterized as ``incidental'' to
domestic services already being provided.
\2\Letter from James L. Buckley, Under Secretary of State for
Security Assistance, Science and Technology, to F.C.C. Chairman Mark
Fowler (July 23, 1981) (``Buckley Letter'') (printed in Appendix to
Transborder Satellite Video Services, 88 F.C.C.2d 258, 287 (1981)).
\3\Id. at 280.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. U.S. domsats have provided more extensive services (i.e., point-
to-point and two-way services) between the U.S. and Mexico and between
the U.S. and Canada because Intelsat has not traditionally provided
service between the U.S. and these points. Thus, a wider range of
services was permitted between the U.S. and contiguous locations (i.e.,
Canada and Mexico) than between the U.S. and non-contiguous locations.
5. Another significant feature of the Transborder Policy is that it
does not prohibit voice services through the public switched network
(``PSN''), as did our Separate Systems Policy initially. Until recent
modifications in the Separate Systems Policy permitting interconnection
with the PSN, the ability of domsats to provide public switched
services under the Transborder Policy was the main distinguishing
feature between the two policies.
B. Separate Systems Policy
6. The Separate Systems Policy was established in response to a
1984 Presidential Determination that satellite systems separate from
Intelsat, providing service between the U.S. and international points,
``are required in the national interest.''\4\ In response to the
Presidential Determination, the Secretaries of State and Commerce
jointly advised the Commission to authorize separate systems provided
that (1) each system be restricted to providing services through the
sale or long-term lease of capacity for communications not
interconnected with public switched message networks (except for
emergency restoration service);\5\ and (2) each system gain approval
from the foreign authority with which communications links are being
established and enter into consultation procedures in accordance with
Article XIV(d) of the Intelsat Agreement to ensure technical
compatibility and to avoid significant economic harm to Intelsat.\6\
\4\Presidential Determination No. 85-2 (Nov. 28, 1984), 49 F.R.
46,987. The Separate Systems Policy is written into law as part of
the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987,
Pub. L. 99-93, section 146(g), 99 Stat. at 426.
\5\At the time, the restriction against interconnection with the
PSN was deemed necessary to protect the core revenue base of
Intelsat which consisted of switched voice and other services.
\6\Letter from George P. Shultz, Secretary of State, and Malcolm
Baldridge, Secretary of Commerce, to F.C.C. Chairman Mark S. Fowler
(Nov. 28, 1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. In 1985, we authorized several applicants to build separate
satellite systems to provide international public telecommunications
services under these condition.\7\ Since many of the orbital positions
requested by separate systems applicants were deemed to be critical,
limited resources for the provision of particular international
services, we decided we would not permit separate systems operators to
divert this capacity for domestic communications. However, we decided
that separate system licensees could provide domestic service within
the U.S. on an ``ancillary'' basis, which permits licensees to use
their separate system facilities for domestic communications that are
reasonably related to their use of the facilities for international
communications. This was intended to accommodate those international
customers who have limited domestic communications needs related to
their international uses.
\7\Establishment of Satellite Systems Providing International
Communications, 50 FR 42266 (1985) (``Separate Systems Dicision''),
recon., 61 RR2d 649 (1986), further recon., 1 F.C.C. Rcd 439 (1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Recent Developments
8. Since we first began to license separate systems, Intelsat has
continued to evaluate the risk of economic harm posed by these systems
and has concluded that the provision of limited switched services over
systems consulted under Article XIV(d) would [[Page 24819]] not cause
it significant economic harm.\8\ The Executive Branch advised us to
modify our Separate Systems Policy accordingly. The cumulative effect
of these modifications is a phased relaxation of the restrictions
against interconnection with the PSN--from no circuits in 1985 to 8,000
circuits today--with a goal of complete elimination of all
interconnection restrictions by January 1997.\9\
\8\Most recently, the Nineteenth Assembly of Parties of Intelsat
determined that the interconnection of up to 8,000 64-kbps
equivalent circuits via each separate system satellite would not
cause significant economic harm to the Intelsat system. The
Executive Branch has not yet notified the Commission that the
Separate Systems Policy should be modified accordingly.
\9\See Letter from Thomas J. Murrin, Deputy Secretary of
Commerce, and Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Deputy Secretary of State, to
F.C.C. Chairman Alfred C. Sikes (December 14, 1990)(100 64-kbps
circuits consistent with U.S. obligations). Letter from James Baker,
Secretary of State, and Robert Mosbacher, Secretary of Commerce, to
F.C.C. Chairman Sikes (November 27, 1991) (interconnection of
private lines to the PSN consistent with U.S. obligations and U.S.
goal of complete elimination of PSN interconnection restrictions by
January 1997). Letter from Bradley P. Holmes, United States
Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy,
Department of State, and Gregory L. Chapados, Assistant Secretary,
Department of Commerce, to F.C.C. Chairman Sikes (January 8,
1993)(1,250 64-kbps circuits consistent with U.S. obligations). See
also Permissible Services of U.S. Licensed International
Communications Satellite Systems Separate from the International
Telecommunications Satellite Organization (Intelsat), 7 F.C.C. Rcd
2313 (1992), further modification, 9 F.C.C. Rcd 347 (1994); alpha
Lyracom d/b/a Pan American Satellite, el at., 9 F.C.C. Rcd 1282
(1994) (``PAS Modification Order''),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. The Executive Branch has also notified the Commission that the
conditions identified in the Buckley Letter should be replaced by the
Separate System Policy.\10\ In addition, we have received applications
from domestic and international satellite system licensees for
authority to provide a full range of both domestic and international
services.
\10\Letter from Bradley P. Holmes, United States Coordinator for
International Communications and Information Policy, Department of
State, and Gregory L. Chapados, Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information, Department of Commerce, to F.C.C.
Chairman Alfred C. Sikes (January 8, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
10. We propose to eliminate the transborder policy in its entirety
and to subject all U.S.-licensed geostationary satellite to a modified
version of the separate systems policy. Under the new policy, all such
satellites would be able to offer domestic services and any
international services they can successfully coordinate
internationally. These changes would allow major U.S. corporations to
meet their increasingly global communications needs without the delays
and uncertainties associated with the current policy of waiving parts
of the transborder or separate systems policies on a case-by-case
basis.
11. We tentatively conclude that permitting U.S. operators to
provide the widest range of service offerings technically feasible and
consulted by Intelsat will permit them to use their satellites more
efficiently and to provide innovative and customer-tailored services.
Domsat licensees will be able to provide these international services
without regard to whether these services are incidental to an existing
domestic network or whether Intelsat could provide the service.
consequently, subject to the approval of the affected foreign country
and successful consultation with Intelsat and ITU\11\ coordination with
other administrations with satellite systems that may be affected,
domsats would be able to provide services between the U.S. and non-
contiguous points on the same basis as separate systems.\12\ In order
to ensure that domsats and separate systems are subject to the same
regulatory scheme, we also propose removing the limitation that
separate systems may only provide domestic service on an ``ancillary''
basis.
\11\The ITU (International Telecommunications Union) is a
specialized agency of the United States Nations whose goal is to
promote international cooperation in the efficient use of
telecommunications, including the use of the radio frequency
spectrum.
\12\/Any domsat operators that need to change the technical
parameters of their proposed or authorized satellites in order to
provide co-primary international service must file a request to
amend the application or modify the license under Part 25
procedures. 47 CFR Part 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. We do not expect the proposed policy changes to result in harm
to Intelsat. Intelsat has consulted more and more international
services over U.S. separate satellites, suggesting that these services
have not harmed it economically or technically.
13. We also request comment on whether the proposed policy changes
should apply to other U.S. satellite systems, such as mobile-satellite
service and direct broadcast service systems; whether Comsat, a U.S.
licensee, should be permitted to provide domestic service using
intelsat facilities; and whether and under what conditions non-U.S.
satellites should be permitted to serve the U.S. Domestic market.
14. The proposed policy changes will require certain changes to
Part 25 of our rules. Initially, we propose to eliminate all references
to ``transborder'', ``domestic'', ``separate'' and ``international''
satellite systems. These references are found in Secs. 25.110(b),
25.113 (b) and (d), 25.114(c), 25.115(c), 25.117(a), 25.130(d),
25.131(b), (g) and (j), 25.140 (a) and (b), 25.202(c), 25.210 (e), (f)
and (j), 25.211(b) and 25.276(c). We also propose to reconcile
differences in the financial qualification requirements for domsats and
separate systems, allow all U.S.-licensed satellite system operators to
elect whether they will operate on a common carrier or non-common
carrier basis, and make modifications to our earth station licensing
procedures. Finally, because the recent changes to Part 25 require
separate system operators to meet the same technical standards as
domsat operators, we proposed to eliminate Sec. 25.210(f) which permits
exceptions to the technical requirements in accordance with the
Separate Systems Decision.
15. We also invite all interested parties to comment on any other
issues raised by the proposed changes, including considerations as to
how the proposed changes will affect orbital assignments, 2 deg.
orbital spacing between U.S. satellites in the geostationary orbit, the
need to reopen coordination with satellite systems from other
countries, and whether any special requirements should be placed on
satellite operators providing both domestic and international service.
Ex Parte Rules--Non-Restricted Proceeding
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 Commission rules.
See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
A. Reason for Action
This rulemaking proceeding is initiated to obtain comment regarding
proposed elimination of the Commission's Transborder Policy and removal
of certain restrictions on separate international satellite systems
with respect to domestic services in order to subject all U.S.-licensed
fixed-satellites to the same regulatory treatment.
B. Objectives
The Commission seeks to subject all U.S.-licensed fixed-satellites
to the same regulatory policy.
C. Legal Basis
The proposed action is authorized under Sections 4 and 303(r) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 303(r), and
Section 201 of the Communications Satellite Act of 1962, 47 U.S.C.
721(c). [[Page 24820]]
D. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements
The proposed policy changes will not create additional burdens on
the public.
E. Federal Rules That Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With These Rules
None.
F. Description, Potential Impact, and Number of Small Entities Involved
The proposed policy changes discussed in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking will enhance service options and price competition for any
small businesses involved in the provision of international
telecommunications services via U.S.-licensed satellites.
G. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small Entities
Consistent with the Stated Objectives
The Notice solicits comment on proposed policy changes necessary to
achieve Commission objectives. Any significant alternatives may be set
forth in comments to this Notice.
Comment Dates
Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Secs. 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested
parties may file comments on or before June 8, 1995 and reply comments
on or before June 23, 1995. To file formally in this proceeding, you
must file an original and four copies of all comments, reply comments,
and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a
personal copy of your comments, you must file an original plus nine
copies. You should send comments and reply comments to: Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.
Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection
during regular business hours in the F.C.C. Reference Center (Room 239)
of the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M St., NW., Washington,
DC 20554.
Ordering Clauses
16. Accordingly, it is ordered That NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the
proposed regulatory action described above and that COMMENT IS SOUGHT
on the proposals in this Notice.
17. This action is taken pursuant to Sections 4 and 303(r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 303(r), and
Section 201(c) of the Communications Satellite Act of 1962, 47 U.S.C.
721(c).
18. For further information on this Notice contact John M. Coles,
Attorney, (202) 739-0731.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25
Communications common carriers, Radio, Satellites.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11286 Filed 5-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
