[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.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 dconway@fcc.gov and
to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725-17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov. 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
