[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51105-51110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-19889]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket 96-132; FCC 02-24]


Upper and Lower L-Band

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document establishes licensing policies governing mobile-
satellite service (``MSS'') in certain portions of the L-band. It 
assigns lower L-band frequencies to Motient Services, Inc. 
(``Motient'') in lieu of upper L-band frequencies that have been 
assigned to Motient, and that the United States has been unable to 
coordinate internationally for use by a U.S. licensee. Any coordinated 
lower L-band spectrum not required to secure Motient an aggregate of 20 
megahertz of L-band spectrum will be made available for other MSS 
applicants that may wish to apply for assignment of the frequencies. 
This document also adopts and incorporates into part 25 of the 
Commission's service rules specific operational parameters and 
technical requirements to ensure that the integrity of maritime 
distress and safety communications service will not be compromised by 
MSS operation in the lower L-band.

DATES: Effective September 6, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terrence E. Reideler, Attorney 
Advisor, Satellite Division, International Bureau at 202-418-2165.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order (R&O) in IB Docket No. 96-132, FCC 02-24, adopted January 28, 
2002 and released February 7, 2002. The complete text of this R&O is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, 
Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased 
from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, 
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, 
telephone (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898 or via email 
[email protected]. It is also available on the Commission's website at 
http://www.fcc.gov.
    1. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 96-259 
published at 61 FR 40772, August 6, 1996 preceding this R&O, the 
Commission asked for comment on the possibility of assigning up to a 
maximum of 28 megahertz of internationally coordinated upper and lower 
L-band spectrum to Motient. Additionally, the Commission asked for 
comment on whether any spectrum coordinated for U.S. use above 28 
megahertz should be made available to future MSS applicants. The 
Commission also proposed a series of technical and operational 
standards designed to prevent new MSS operations from interfering with 
maritime distress and safety communications in the lower L-band.

[[Page 51106]]

    2. To support providing Motient with spectrum in the lower L-band, 
the Commission explained that Motient was originally authorized to use 
28 megahertz of spectrum in the upper L-band for MSS service. In the 
original Licensing Order the Commission required 12 applicants to form 
a single MSS operating consortium. The Commission based this 
requirement on the twelve applicants before it and the Commission's 
finding that there was only sufficient spectrum available to support 
one system. Subsequently, however, during on-going yearly international 
coordination meetings, the Commission has been unable to secure 
sufficient spectrum to support Motient's authorized system in the upper 
L-band. In the NPRM, the Commission also noted that the on-going 
international coordination in the lower L-band was similarly difficult.
    3. Based on the inability to coordinate sufficient spectrum, the 
Commission tentatively concluded that Motient should be authorized to 
operate across the upper and lower L-band frequencies in order to 
support its authorized MSS system. Thus, it proposed that Motient be 
assigned up to 28 megahertz from the entire L-band. That amount of 
spectrum represented the optimum system that Motient hoped to operate.
    4. In 1985, the Commission had estimated that an MSS system would 
likely require a minimum of 20 megahertz of spectrum to be viable. In 
the NPRM the Commission asked whether its estimate was still valid. The 
Commission tentatively concluded that there would be sufficient L-band 
spectrum available to support only one U.S. MSS system. Accordingly, 
the Commission proposed to assign the lower L-band frequencies it was 
able to coordinate for use by U.S. licensed space stations to Motient 
by modifying its existing license, pursuant to section 316 of the 
Communications Act (``the Act''), enabling Motient to use these 
frequencies in lieu of those from the upper portion of the L-band that 
the U.S. was unable to coordinate for domestic use. The Commission also 
tentatively concluded that reassignment is within the authority 
invested in the Commission by sections 303 and 4(i) of the Act to adopt 
regulations to carry out its spectrum management obligations.
    5. To address issues pertaining to maritime distress and safety in 
the lower L-band, the Commission noted that the L-band is allocated for 
generic MSS. That is, aeronautical mobile-satellite service (``AMSS''), 
land mobile-satellite service (``LMSS''), and maritime mobile-satellite 
service (``MMSS'') are allowed to share portions of the L-band for non-
safety related communication on an equal basis. Operation within the 
Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (``GMDSS''), however, has 
priority access with real-time preemptive capability over all other 
mobile-satellite communications operating in the 1530-1544 MHz and the 
1626.5-1645.5 MHz portions of the lower L-band. Therefore, to protect 
and maintain the integrity of safety and distress maritime 
communications, both internationally and domestically, the Commission 
proposed to establish and codify priority access and preemption 
standards and policies for MSS systems operating in these portions of 
the lower L-band. The Commission also proposed to allow mobile earth 
terminal data message transmissions to be half-duplex, rather than 
requiring full-duplex, and sought comment as to the maximum amount of 
time that transmissions should be permitted. The Commission tentatively 
concluded that adopting a maximum time limit on data message 
transmissions and proposed priority access and real-time preemption 
standards for distress and safety communication would provide 
sufficient priority to comply with the requirements of U.S. Footnote 
315 of the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations.
    6. Nine parties filed initial comments in response to the NPRM. 
Five of these parties also filed reply comments. Nearly all of the 
comments address the proposals related to the assignment of lower L-
band frequencies to Motient. Only Motient and the U.S. Coast Guard 
commented on the proposals concerning maritime safety and distress 
priority and preemptive access.
    7. One of the concerns giving rise to the NPRM was that 
international coordination difficulties precluded securing sufficient 
spectrum in the upper L-band to support Motient's authorized system. 
Moreover, at the time of the NPRM, based on on-going international 
coordination meetings, the Commission believed the likelihood of 
securing more than 20 megahertz from the entire L-band (both upper and 
lower) for U.S. use was remote. Two parties, Celsat and LQL have taken 
issue with this assumption, contending that subsequent events have 
altered the L-band assignment process. They point out that shortly 
after the release of the NPRM the Commission issued a news release 
announcing that Inmarsat, Canada, Mexico, the Russian Federation, and 
the United States, the operators currently coordinating spectrum for a 
variety of MSS systems in the vicinity of North America, had signed a 
Memorandum of Understanding (``MOU'') in Mexico City. The news release 
stated, in part, that the MOU specified that ``[s]pectrum allocations 
to individual operators will be reviewed annually on the basis of 
actual usage and short-term projections of future need.'' LQL 
interprets the news release as providing the United States with what 
LQL characterizes as a ``dynamic allocation'' across the upper and 
lower L-band as determined by actual traffic.
    8. We believe that the coordination process established in Mexico 
City has worked well to ensure equitable sharing of the L-band 
spectrum. It has not, however, altered the fact that the L-band is in 
high demand. All five MSS operators have claimed to need more spectrum 
than is currently assigned to them and some seek amounts that exceed 
availability. Consequently, the international coordination difficulties 
remain in negotiating sufficient spectrum to enable Motient to 
establish and operate a viable MSS system.
    9. In the NPRM, the Commission gave three bases to support its 
proposal to modify Motient's license to allow it to operate over 
frequencies in the lower and upper L-band. First, MSS is well suited to 
serve areas that are too remote or sparsely populated to receive 
service from terrestrial land mobile systems. Second, since launching 
its first satellite in 1995, Motient was in the best position to 
provide MSS in the U.S. in the shortest amount of time. Third, and most 
importantly, a license issued by the Commission must include a 
reasonable expectation that spectrum will be available to enable the 
licensee to implement the system that it has proposed and has been 
authorized to operate. Each of these justifications has generated 
comments.
    10. No commenter disagreed with the Commission's assertion that MSS 
systems are particularly well suited for providing mobile communication 
services to areas that are not being adequately served by terrestrial 
radio facilities. Commenters left undisputed the fact that despite the 
growth of terrestrial radio services such as cellular radio and 
Personal Communications Services (``PCS''), large areas of the nation 
remain without basic telecommunications services. Commenters agree that 
MSS provides the technical capability to meet the needs of people in 
remote areas for public safety, business and personal communications 
and that MSS operations should be supported in the L-band.
    11. In the NPRM, the Commission concluded that Motient was best 
suited to provide expeditious service to the public because one of its 
three

[[Page 51107]]

authorized satellites is in operation. Our experience has been that it 
normally takes licensees three years to construct, launch and begin 
operations of a geostationary satellite. Motient concurs with this 
assessment. Motorola/Iridium disagrees. Motorola/Iridium contends that 
Motient is the only operational MSS system because the Commission has 
refused to accept other MSS applications. Motorola/Iridium submits that 
this action has been prejudicial to it and to other potential MSS 
applicants. What Motorola/Iridium fails to address in its argument, 
however, is that the Commission chose not to invite a new processing 
round because there was not sufficient spectrum to accommodate the 
existing licensed systems. Moreover, in this particular coordination 
process, where spectrum allocation is based on actual usage and short-
term projections of future need, an operating system is essential. 
Without such a system, the available spectrum would have been allocated 
to non-U.S. systems and none would be available. Thus, under these 
circumstances, Motorola/Iridium's argument is not persuasive.
    12. LQL, on the other hand, contends that the Commission has not 
adequately established a connection between expediting service and 
adding frequencies to Motient's system. It points out that Motient has 
failed to meet the deadlines for launching its other two satellites. 
LQL therefore argues that there are no rational grounds for concluding 
that Motient would use the additional spectrum that we propose to 
assign to it before another licensed system could be placed in 
operation. We disagree. Given that Motient has proposed an MSS system 
designed to use 28 megahertz of spectrum, requiring it to fully 
construct this system when the spectrum for which it was designed is 
not available would not advance the public interest. Moreover, given 
the lack of available spectrum, there is no indication that the expense 
of constructing, launching and operating these satellites would improve 
the services that Motient is currently providing. And, as pointed out 
above, waiting for another system to be placed in operation would have 
resulted in no frequencies being available. Thus, LQL's comments have 
not altered our conclusion that Motient is best suited to serve the 
U.S. MSS market using this portion of the L-band.
    13. The Commission's proposal to allow Motient to have initial 
access to the lower L-band spectrum was based on our conclusion that, 
unless modified for overriding public interest reasons, licensees 
should be entitled to a reasonable expectation that adequate spectrum 
will be made available to support their authorized systems. Motient 
supports this determination. Other commenters, however, argue that 
satellite authorizations are conditioned upon, and subject to, 
international coordination. These commenters argue that there is no 
basis for providing Motient spectrum outside of what it has been able 
to coordinate though the normal coordination process in the upper L-
band.
    14. The Commission also stated in the NPRM that the Commission can, 
and shall, take reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure that 
licensees have a fair opportunity to compete. The commenters all agreed 
that the Commission is entrusted with this responsibility. In order for 
an MSS licensee to compete, it must have sufficient spectrum to provide 
acceptable service at a reasonable price. Previously, the Commission 
estimated that a minimum of 20 megahertz of L-band spectrum is 
necessary for an economically viable domestic MSS system in this 
frequency band. The NPRM sought comment on whether this amount is still 
needed to enable an MSS licensee to establish and operate a competitive 
system.
    15. Commenters contend that based on the development of satellite 
and mobile radio technology, it is now possible to operate a profitable 
MSS system using less than 20 megahertz of spectrum. Commenters state 
that new MSS systems using state-of-the-art technology are dramatically 
more efficient than Motient's system and provide a higher level of 
satellite services, including service to hand-held mobile terminals. 
RSC, for instance, points out that there are three competing 
geostationary L-band systems under construction in Asia, and two other 
systems that are planned for service in the Middle East and nearby 
regions. In this regard, Lockheed Martin indicates that it is the prime 
contractor for the Asia Cellular Satellite (``ACeS'') system, which is 
one of the systems identified by RSC. ACeS is a satellite-based, hand-
held, digital mobile telecommunications system that is designed to 
provide service to subscribers in the Asia-Pacific region. Lockheed 
Martin maintains that use of the latest technological developments in 
its design of the ACeS satellite and associated ground equipment for 
the ACeS system enables it to achieve new levels of spectral efficiency 
and circuit capability. In fact, Lockheed Martin professes that the 
ACeS system may be up to 20 times more spectrum efficient than 
Motient's first generation MSS system because of its extensive reliance 
on frequency reuse. Accordingly, Lockheed Martin declares that as 
little as five megahertz of spectrum can now simultaneously support up 
to 16,000 MSS simplex circuits and ten megahertz of spectrum can 
support the same number of full duplex circuits. Both Motorola/Iridium 
and RSC support Lockheed Martin's assessments. Motient concedes that a 
multiple-beam satellite, such as the one Lockheed Martin has designed 
for the ACeS MSS system, would probably be three times more spectrum 
efficient than Motient's existing satellite, and that efficiency gains 
that the ACeS system achieves through the employment of newer voice 
coding and compression algorithms (``vocoders'') are likely to result 
in a 20 percent reduction in Motient's spectrum usage.
    16. We recognize that technical strides have been made since 1987, 
when MSS was first authorized in the L-band. The Commission then 
determined that there was insufficient spectrum to support the 
applications it had on file for this service. With this in mind, the 
Commission required the applicants to form a consortium. The consortium 
was the only licensee in the upper L-band. In the 1996 NPRM, the 
Commission concluded that Motient would need up to the first 28 
megahertz of available L-band spectrum to operate an optimum MSS 
system. It also concluded that an economically viable MSS system 
designed to the technical specifications on file must have a minimum of 
20 megahertz of spectrum. Based on the minimum spectrum estimation and 
ongoing international coordination meetings, the Commission concluded 
that opening the lower L-band for competing applications was unlikely. 
At the time the NPRM was adopted, the Commission did not believe that 
there would be sufficient spectrum to accommodate more than Motient's 
system in the entire L-band. Thus, it tentatively concluded that in the 
lower L-band Motient should be authorized to use the balance of the 
available 28 megahertz for which it is authorized.

Legal Authority

    17. Section 316 of the Act provides the Commission with authority 
to modify an existing license when necessary. LQL challenges the 
Commission's authority to use Section 316 of the Act to modify 
Motient's current license to enable it to use lower L-band frequencies 
due to our unsuccessful attempts to coordinate sufficient upper L-band 
spectrum to support the system the Commission authorized Motient to 
operate. According to LQL, Section 316 does not

[[Page 51108]]

apply to Motient's situation. LQL claims that the application of 
Section 316 is limited to those cases in which the Commission's action 
has the effect of modifying an ``unconditional right'' in a license. 
According to LQL, that has not been done in the case before us. LQL 
argues that Motient's authorization does not encompass an unconditional 
right to operate in the lower L-band. LQL concludes that since we are 
not modifying Motient's existing license, Section 316 is not 
applicable. We disagree. As Motient correctly points out, we are 
modifying its assignment of specific frequencies in the upper L-band.
    18. The language of section 316 is clear and unequivocal: ``[A]ny 
station license * * * may be modified by the Commission * * * if in the 
judgment of the Commission such action will promote the public 
interest, convenience, and necessity.'' The original license authorized 
Motient to use the upper L-band frequencies. Now, because many of these 
frequencies are not available because of international coordination, we 
intend to modify Motient's license. If and when the spectrum becomes 
available, we will realign frequencies that are unavailable in the 
upper L-band and include frequencies in the lower L-band, up to the 20 
megahertz that we intend to authorize to Motient. This action allows 
Motient to aggregate up to 20 megahertz of L-band spectrum in which to 
operate its current MSS system and promotes the public interest, 
convenience and necessity by providing Motient sufficient spectrum to 
provide service to many of the nation's rual and remote areas.
    19. Because we are adopting the NPRM proposal to modify Motient's 
license pursuant to section 316 of the Act, we will dismiss its 1993 
application in which Motient requests authority to use spectrum in the 
lower L-band. Accordingly, the concerns regarding the acceptance of 
Motient's 1993 application are now moot. New applications for L-band 
spectrum, however, may be filed once Motient has acquired the 20 
megahertz that we are now authorizing.
    20. We continue to believe, therefore, that the Commission has 
ample authority to modify Motient's license as discussed above and that 
this action best serves the public interest. MSS provides service to 
areas in the United States that would otherwise go unserved. Motient is 
the U.S. company in the best position in the L-band to provide this 
service and it is entitled to a reasonable expectation that enough 
spectrum will be coordinated to support its authorized system. 
Commenters have not persuasively demonstrated that a different outcome 
is warranted. Thus Motient will be granted use of the first 20 
megahertz of internationally coordinated spectrum in the L-band.

Priority Access and Preemption

    21. Footnote US315 to Sec. 2.106 of the Commission's rules states 
that lower L-band MSS systems may not interfere with maritime mobile-
satellite (MMSS) distress and safety communications that are also 
operating in these frequencies. Footnote US315 protects MMSS distress 
and safety communications, such as GMDSS, domestically by providing 
priority access and real-time preemptive capability for distress and 
safety communications. To ensure MSS compliance with the provisions of 
Footnote US315, the Commission proposed establishing priority access 
and preemption standards and policies for mobile-satellite service in 
the lower L-band and incorporating these standards into the 
Commission's rules. The proposed system and terminal requirements are 
delineated in Appendix B of the NPRM. The Commission sought comment on 
the proposed standards in Appendix B, and on the maximum number of 
seconds to which half-duplex data MET transmissions should be limited. 
The proposed requirements are derived from similar requirements that 
the Commission adopted in connection with the operation of aeronautical 
distress and safety-related communication in the upper L-band. These 
technical requirements were formulated in order to comply with the 
provisions of Footnote US308 for priority and preemptive access for 
aeronautical safety communications. The Commission also proposed in the 
NPRM to continue to allow U.S.-licensed MSS systems to operate half-
duplex Inmarsat ``Standard C'' type or technically similar mobile earth 
terminals (``METs'') in the lower L-band. Additionally, the Commission 
proposed establishing a time limit for data messages transmitted in 
half-duplex from METs in order to protect the integrity of maritime 
safety and distress communications in the lower L-band. At the end of 
this period, the MES could be commanded to pause by the LES and the 
higher priority traffic could be placed ahead of any further 
transmissions. In cases where priority traffic is intended for the MES 
that is transmitting, it could be commanded to stop transmitting and 
receive the priority traffic.
    22. The Commission stated that the proposal to allow U.S.-licensed 
MSS systems to operate in half-duplex with appropriate restraints could 
provide sufficient distress and safety communication priority to comply 
with the intent of Footnote US315. The NPRM explained that maritime 
distress and safety services in the lower L-band have been operational 
for years and are sufficiently dynamic and robust to accommodate the 
operation of half-duplex METs. In this regard, it also noted that 
Inmarsat and others operate in half-duplex ``Standard C'' or other 
technically similar data METs with no apparent harm to maritime safety 
and distress communications. Motient offers some suggestions regarding 
the proposed system and terminal requirements specified in Appendix B 
of the NPRM. Motient maintains that some of the provisions in Appendix 
B are ambiguous. Its principal concerns are with Requirements Nos. 2 
and 8 for MES and Requirement No. 9 for LES. Specifically, Motient 
argues that these requirements obligate terminals to be capable of 
being automatically interrupted during a transmission to receive a 
higher priority incoming call. Motient says that a more reasonable 
approach to a busy signal will typically be to try again momentarily. 
It explains that automatic preemption works well in the case of packet 
data or data message communications systems. In those cases, Motient 
says, messages or packets from a ship may be queued, either in the MES 
or in other shipboard communications equipment. It adds that a high 
priority message or packet could then be placed at the head of the 
queue, and, if necessary preempt an ongoing outbound transmission. 
Motient also advises that its data services queue messages for 
processing, distribution, and transmission, so that those services have 
the capabilities specified in Appendix B of the NPRM.
    23. It is apparent from the U.S. Coast Guard's comments that it 
believes that the maritime distress and safety services in the lower L-
band are not as dynamic and robust as described in the NPRM. The fact 
that the U.S. Coast Guard alleges that use of half-duplex METs has 
resulted in significant delays in the communication of maritime safety 
messages, despite the fact that the number of ship-borne earth station 
terminals has been relatively small, is of note. Consequently, we are 
concerned that as more vessels install satellite equipment and begin 
using their terminals for longer periods the situation will become more 
severe. Although we do not know exactly how many vessels will 
ultimately be affected, the U.S. Coast Guard estimates that as

[[Page 51109]]

of February 1, 1999, between 35,000 and 50,000 ships engaged in 
international voyages were required to carry GMDSS equipment. The U.S. 
Coast Guard also states that there is a fleet of approximately 30,000 
American commercial fishermen that carry this equipment. Finally, the 
U.S. Coast Guard predicts additional demand for maritime distress and 
safety communications as over one million radio-equipped recreational 
craft begin to install marine satellite devices.
    24. In addition to our concern regarding an increase in maritime 
distress and safety traffic, we believe it is reasonable to expect that 
the generic use of mobile terminals by Motient, and possibly additional 
systems, will increase as well. It is reasonable to assume that as 
mobile terminal usage increases so will channel congestion and the 
reliability of maritime distress and safety communications will 
diminish. Because of the importance of safety-related communications, 
we will take the U.S. Coast Guard's recommendation and therefore we 
decline to waive the provisions of Footnote US315 for half-duplex METs 
in the lower L-band on a permanent basis.
    25. Accordingly, until a record on this issue is more fully 
developed, we decline to adopt a definite time limit for transmissions 
by half-duplex terminals. Parties may, of course, file a petition for 
rulemaking to address the imposition of a definite time limit if, and 
when there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate what the limit should 
be. Until that time, the Commission and the National Telecommunications 
and Information Administration (NTIA) will continue to review 
applications for half-duplex MES terminal operational authority (with 
requests for waiver of Footnote US315, as appropriate) on a case-by-
case basis. NTIA indicated to the Commission, in its case-by-case 
review of recent applications to operate half-duplex MES terminals, 
that if a MES terminal is capable of, among other things, ceasing 
transmissions and inhibiting further transmissions within one second, 
that terminal would be considered to meet the real time preemption 
requirements. We anticipate that new licenses to operate half-duplex 
terminals will be similarly conditioned, or limited by waiver of 
Footnote US315 as in past practice, to ensure that GMDSS in the 
frequency band remain protected.

System Design

    26. In the NPRM, the Commission specifically sought comment only on 
the proposed standards in Appendix B and on the maximum number of 
seconds to which half-duplex data MET transmissions should be limited 
in order to ensure the integrity of maritime distress and safety 
communications. Motient, however, has advanced several system design 
proposals for providing priority and preemptive access for maritime 
distress and safety communications. We believe that Motient's 
suggestions are beyond the scope of this proceeding. Matters such as 
how a licensee designs its system to comport with our rules are 
properly left to satellite system operators. Therefore, once Motient 
finalizes its system design, it can seek to amend its construction and 
operating authority.

Interference

    27. Motorola/Iridium raises concerns about interference into its 
system from out-of-band emissions from Motient METs operating in the 
lower L-band. In the NPRM, however, the Commission explained that if 
the lower L-band spectrum coordinated for Motient's operation does not 
include spectrum at the lower band edge it expects that there will be 
no adjacent band interference. The Commission also noted that should an 
interference issue arise, it expects the parties to first attempt to 
resolve interference issues among themselves. We will address such 
interference issues only if the parties are unable to reach a solution. 
Finally, the Commission noted that Inmarsat, Australia, Mexico, Canada, 
and the Russian Federation are either now or will soon be using 
terminals having out-of-band emissions similar to the METs operated by 
Motient. Consequently, the Commission noted that Motorola/Iridium may 
need to coordinate, worldwide, with all the parties operating at band 
edge.

Inmarsat Use of Lower L-Band

    28. The Commission also recently authorized several entities to 
operate mobile earth terminals and land earth stations via Inmarsat 
satellites to provide domestic and international mobile-satellite 
service in the L-band. The authorizations were granted pursuant to the 
ORBIT Act and our DISCO II decision. In the Inmarsat Authorization 
Order, the Commission stated that the permanent authority for the 
specified earth stations to communicate on frequencies in the lower L-
band granted would not become effective until further action in this 
Lower L-Band proceeding. In the interim, the Commission granted 
applicants Special Temporary Authority to operate in the lower L-band 
subject to further action in the Lower L-band proceeding. It said that 
if the decision in the Lower L-Band Proceeding does not require 
modification of the authorizations granted for use of Inmarsat, the 
authorizations would become effective without further action by the 
applicants. Our decision in this proceeding requires modification only 
to the half-duplex terminal the authorizations granted to Comsat 
Corporation/Mobile Communications (Comsat) and Marinesat Communications 
Network d/b/s Stratos Communications (Stratos) for use of the Inmarsat 
system. Accordingly, the authorizations are now permanent. The 
authorizations recently granted to Comsat and Stratos for 1000 half-
duplex terminals, each, are modified by this Order to be limited to a 
term of two years.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    29. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (``RFA'') 
requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for 
rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.'' The RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having 
the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small 
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, 
the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as ``small business 
concern'' under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one 
that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in 
its field or operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 
established by the Small Business Administration (``SBA'').
    30. The Report and Order adopts and incorporates into the 
Commission's service rules specific operational parameters and 
technical requirements to ensure that the integrity of maritime 
distress and safety will not be compromised by mobile satellite service 
operation in certain portions of the L-band. By this action the 
Commission is essentially codifying the same conditions that are placed 
on every mobile satellite service license for operation in these 
portions of the L-band. There are currently three entities, Motient 
Services, Inc., TMI Communications and Company, L.P., and the 
International Maritime Satellite Organization (``Inmarsat''), that are 
authorized to provide L-band mobile satellite service in the United 
States. None comes within the definition of small entity. We therefore 
certify that the adoption of this Report and Order will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The Commission will send a

[[Page 51110]]

copy of the Report and Order, including a copy of this final 
certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In addition, the Report 
and Order and this final certification will be sent to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA and will be published in the Federal 
Register.

Ordering Clauses

    31. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 
303(r), of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 
152,154(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), parts 2 and 25 of the 
Commission's rules are amended as specified in rule changes effective 
September 6, 2002.

List of Subjects in CFR Part 25

    Satellites.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.

Rules Changes

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 25 as follows:

PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

    1. The authority citations for part 25 continue to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 701-744. Interprets or applies 47 U.S.C. 
sections 51, 152, 154, 302, 303, and 307, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 25.136 is amended by revising the section heading, the 
introductory text, and by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 25.136  Operating provisions for earth stations for each station 
network in the 1.6/2.4 GHz and 1.5/1.6 GHz mobile-satellite services.

    In addition to the technical requirements specified in Sec. 25.213, 
earth stations operating in the 1.6/2.4 GHz and 1.5/1.6 GHz Mobile 
Satellite Services are subject to the following operating conditions:
* * * * *
    (d) Any mobile earth station (MES) associated with the Mobile 
Satellite Service operating in the 1530-1544 MHz and 1626.5-1645.5 MHz 
bands shall have the following minimum set of capabilities to ensure 
compliance with Footnote S5.353A and the priority and real-time 
preemption requirements imposed by Footnote US315.
    (1) All MES transmissions shall have a priority assigned to them 
that preserves the priority and preemptive access given to maritime 
distress and safety communications sharing the band.
    (2) Each MES with a requirement to handle maritime distress and 
safety data communications shall be capable of either:
    (i) Recognizing message and call priority identification when 
transmitted from its associated Land Earth Station (LES) or
    (ii) Accepting message and call priority identification embedded in 
the message or call when transmitted from its associated LES and 
passing the identification to shipboard data message processing 
equipment
    (3) Each MES shall be assigned a unique terminal identification 
number that will be transmitted upon any attempt to gain access to a 
system.
    (4) After an MES has gained access to a system, the mobile terminal 
shall be under control of a LES and shall obtain all channel 
assignments from it.
    (5) All MESs that do not continuously monitor a separate signalling 
channel or signalling within the communications channel shall monitor 
the signalling channel at the end of each transmission.
    (6) Each MES shall automatically inhibit its transmissions if it is 
not correctly receiving separate signalling channel or signalling 
within the communications channel from its associated LES.
    (7) Each MES shall automatically inhibit its transmissions on any 
or all channels upon receiving a channel-shut-off command on a 
signalling or communications channel it is receiving from its 
associated LES.
    (8) Each MES with a requirement to handle maritime distress and 
safety communications shall have the capability within the station to 
automatically preempt lower precedence traffic.
    (e) Any Land Earth Station (LES) associated with the Mobile 
Satellite Service operating in the 1530-1544 MHz and 1626.5-1645.5 MHz 
bands shall have the following minimum set of capabilities to ensure 
that the MSS system complies with Footnote S5.353A and the priority and 
real-time preemption requirements imposed by Footnote US315. It should 
be noted that the LES operates in the Fixed-Satellite Service (``FSS'') 
as a feeder-link for the MSS (Radio Regulations 71) and that the 
following capabilities are to facilitate the priority and preemption 
requirements. The FSS feeder-link stations fulfilling these MSS 
requirements shall not have any additional priority with respect to FSS 
stations operating with other FSS systems.
    (1) All LES transmissions to mobile earth stations (MESs) shall 
have a priority assigned to them that preserves the priority and 
preemptive access given to maritime distress and safety communications.
    (2) The LES shall recognize the priority of calls to and from MES 
and make channel assignments taking into account the priority access 
that is given to maritime distress and safety communications.
    (3) The LES shall be capable of receiving the MES identification 
number when transmitted and verifying that it is an authorized user of 
the system to prohibit unauthorized access.
    (4) The LES shall be capable of transmitting channel assignment 
commands to the MESs.
    (5) The communications channels used between the LES and the MES 
shall have provision for signalling within the voice/data channel, for 
an MES, which does not continuously monitor the LES signalling channel 
during the time of a call.
    (6) The LES shall transmit periodic control signalling signals to 
MES, which do not continuously monitor the LES signalling channel.
    (7) The LES shall automatically inhibit all transmissions to MESs 
to which it is not transmitting a signalling channel or signalling 
within the communications channel.
    (8) The LES shall be capable of transmitting channel-shut-off 
commands to the MESs on signalling or communications channels.
    (9) Each LES shall be capable of interrupting, and if necessary, 
preempting ongoing routine traffic from an MES in order to complete a 
maritime distress, urgency or safety call to that particular MES.
    (10) Each LES shall be capable of automatically turning off one or 
more of its associated channels in order to complete a maritime 
distress, urgency or safety call.

[FR Doc. 02-19889 Filed 8-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P