//$Order, COMSAT Participation/INMARSAT, Adopted 2-13, 1995, DA 95-227//$


              
              DA 95-227
                                Before the
                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                          Washington, D.C.  20554





In re  



Participation by COMSAT Corporation in a New
Inmarsat Satellite System Designed to Provide Service
to Handheld Communications Devices

File No.     ISP-95-003






                                   ORDER




Adopted:  February 13, 1995             Released:  February 17,1995


By the Chief, International Bureau:

       1.     Pending before the Commission is a "Motion for Clarification" filed by
Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc.  In this motion, Motorola seeks clarification of our
January 10, 1995 order denying an "Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief" by TRW. 
We deny Motorola's motion on the ground that no clarification is needed.

       2.     At bottom, Motorola's current motion, like our January 10 Order, concerns a
proposed mobile satellite service known as Inmarsat-P.  Inmarsat-P would provide voice,
facsimile, and data service not only to Inmarsat's traditional maritime subscriber base, but to
international business travelers, small aircraft, and "quasi-fixed" commercial, industrial, and
governmental users in remote areas.  The service is expected to be provided not by Inmarsat
itself, but by a private corporation affiliated in various ways with Inmarsat, COMSAT, and
other Inmarsat Signatories.  Our January 10 Order rejected TRW's request that we prevent,
or impose certain conditions on, COMSAT's investment in this Inmarsat-P "Affiliate."

       3.     Despite our denial of TRW's request, however, our January 10 Order 
acknowledged some uncertainty about "whether the Commission's duty to oversee COMSAT
participation in the Affiliate is coextensive with its duty to oversee COMSAT participation in
Inmarsat."  To settle this question, we directed COMSAT, as an interim matter, "to apply
for Commission authorization prior to any decision by the Affiliate to procure facilities that
will be used to provide Inmarsat services."  We required the first such application to be
filed
"at least sixty days before the Affiliate's Board of Directors makes any final decision to
procure the facilities in question, and in any event not later than May 1, 1995."  We then
stated, 

              In addition to the information normally included in COMSAT's
              procurement applications, COMSAT shall include the organic
              documents of the Affiliate, an analysis of the extent to which the
              Affiliate's facilities decisions affect Inmarsat ratepayers, a
              demonstration of the Affiliate's structural compliance with the
              Inmarsat-P Declaratory Ruling, and an outline of the extent to
              which the Affiliate is or should be subject to Commission
              oversight beyond that for which the Communications Act
              provides.

       4.     Motorola, in its "Motion for Clarification," does not contend that the
documentation required by our January 10 Order is in any sense unclear.  It states rather
that, in addition to the documents required by the January 10 Order, "there are a number of
other documents that are critical to determining whether the Affiliate's structure meets the
Commission's standard."  Motorola then describes these "other documents" in a manner
suggesting discovery requests used in litigation, complete with such expansive phrases as
"[a]ll documents that mention any relationship between . . . ."

       5.     We do not believe such "clarification" is warranted here.  Motorola seems in
its pleadings to have a very specific idea of the documents we have ordered COMSAT to
file; it simply wants the list expanded.  We do not rule out the possibility that some of the
additional documents described by Motorola are already required by our January 10 Order. 
But our January 10 Order deliberately eschewed any enumeration of specific documents
other than "the organic documents of the Affiliate," instead referring to the issues to be
addressed and the standard set forth in the Inmarsat-P Declaratory Ruling.  It is for
COMSAT in the first instance to determine what documents are necessary to support a
favorable ruling from the Commission on its filing.  If COMSAT fails to submit sufficient
documentation, Motorola and any other interested parties will have an opportunity to make us
duly aware of the defects in COMSAT's showing.

       6.     Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motorola's "Motion for
Clarification" is DENIED.

       7.     IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order be effective upon its adoption on
February 13, 1995.


              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



              Scott Blake Harris
              Bureau Chief