********************************************************    
                                         NOTICE
    ********************************************************
                                
                This document was converted from
           WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.
                                
   Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
             will not show up in this text version.
                                
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
    original document will not show up in this text version.
                                
        Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
           will not be preserved in the text version.
                                
        If you need the complete document, download the
  WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.
                                
*****************************************************************
                                                           Before the
               Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554
                                                               

In the Matter of                   )
                              )
Applications of                    )    Fee Control Nos.  9901088210298001 &
Lockheed Martin Corporation        )                    9905288210337001
and Lockheed Martin Global              )     
Telecommunications, Inc.           )       
                              


                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

               Adopted: June 13, 2001;  Released: June 21, 2001  


By the Commission:

                     I.  INTRODUCTION

1.   The Commission has before it two Applications for Review, one filed by Lockheed
Martin Corporation (Lockheed Martin) and the other filed by Lockheed Martin Global
Telecommunications, Inc. (LMGT) on behalf of LMGT Astro License, LLC (LMGT Astro)
(collectively, Lockheed), on December 27, 2000.  Lockheed seeks review of decisions of the
Office of Managing Director denying Requests for Partial Waiver and Refund of Fees filed by
Lockheed.  The Applications for Review involve similar situations and issues; therefore we will
address them together.  For the reasons discussed below we deny the Applications for Review.

                        II.  BACKGROUND

2.   Lockheed Martin applied for and received authority to assign its authorizations to launch
and operate nine Ka-Band Astrolink System geostationary satellites (Astrolink System) to LMGT
Astro, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin.  LMGT Astro then applied for
and received authority to assign its authorization to launch and operate the Astrolink System
satellites to Astrolink International, LLC (Astrolink).  Lockheed also filed requests that the
Commission partially waive and reduce the related application fees set forth in section 8 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  158.  Section 8 provides that the
application fee for assignment for geostationary space stations is to be calculated per satellite.
The fees associated with an application to assign the Astrolink System were thus $57,510.00, or
$6,390.00 per satellite.  Lockheed asked that the Commission reduce the application fees in
these matters to $8,810.00 each, which would correspond to the application fee under section 8
for an assignment of authorization for a low-earth orbit (or non-geostationary) satellite system.
Lockheed argued in the alternative that the Commission should calculate the application fees on
a per orbit basis rather than per satellite as specified in the statute.  Because the Astrolink
System is authorized to use five orbital slots for nine satellites, per orbit calculation would have
reduced the instant application fees to $31,950.00 each. 

3.   The Office of Managing Director, by the Chief Financial Officer, denied Lockheed's
requests.  The Chief Financial Officer found that Lockheed had not demonstrated that the public
interest required for waiver and reduction of the fees established by Congress. 

                        III.  DISCUSSION

4.   In the Applications for Review, Lockheed argues that the Office of Managing Director
erred in not reducing the application fees in these matters.  For the reasons below, we deny the
Applications for Review. 

5.   Lockheed first argues that statutory application fees must be compensatory in nature and
bear a relationship to the expenses the Commission expects to incur in processing the instant
application.  Lockheed states that the fee in this instance far exceeds the costs the Commission
could incur in processing its applications; Lockheed Martin argues that this is particularly true
since it application involved a pro forma transfer.  We have stated, however, that there is "no
justification in the statute or legislative history for apportioning fees according to the actual work
done on any particular application."  We also have noted that "processing costs were but one
factor in the rough calculus that resulted in the legislated fees."  Further, in implementing
section 8, we stated that "[i]t is not our intention to make individualized determinations of the
'appropriate fee.'  Rather, except in unusual cases in which the public interest requires otherwise,
we will levy the fee as determined by Congress."  In addition, unlike in some of the services in
the statutory fee schedule, Congress did not elect to assess lower fees for pro forma transfers of
geostationary satellites.  Rather, it assessed the same fee for all assignments and transfers of
these satellite licenses.  Therefore, we shall not use our waiver authority either to make
individualized determinations of costs or generally to lower fees in circumstances where
Congress has chosen not to do so.

6.        Lockheed also argues that the Office of Managing Director should have addressed in the
waiver process the disparity between the higher fees Congress set for assignment of geostationary
satellite systems and the lower fees for assignments of non-geostationary satellite systems.   For
example, Lockheed Martin argues that it should not have to pay fees of $57,510.00 to accomplish
an internal restructuring, when an applicant in the non-geostationary satellite system service
would pay only $8,810.00 for an assignment involving a third party.  Lockheed further argues
that reducing the instant geostationary satellite application fees would preserve and promote
competition among all providers of satellite communications services. 

7.   Lockheed's arguments do not justify a waiver.  Congress set the application fee for
assignment of non-geostationary satellite systems per request, rather than per satellite.  Thus,
the fee for assignment of non-geostationary satellite systems is not multiplied by the number of
satellites in the system, as is statutorily required for geostationary systems, and is
correspondingly lower.  Lockheed's concerns about any disparity in fees for geostationary and
non-geostationary satellites thus reflect its general disagreement with the statutory fee schedule.
Our waiver authority, however, is not intended to correct for perceived inequalities in the statute
itself, but for good cause shown in individual situations.

8.   Lockheed argues in the alternative that the Office of Managing Director should have
calculated the instant application fees on a per orbit basis, rather than on a per satellite basis as
provided in the statute.  In this regard, Lockheed states that the Commission should follow the
framework of the Managing Director's prior decisions permitting waiver and reduction of fees
for authority to launch and operate geostationary satellites based on the number of orbital slots
rather than the number of satellites.  Lockheed states "there is no apparent reason" not to apply
the same reduction calculation in the assignment context.  

9.   The cited decisions of the Managing Director are inapposite.  These decisions were based
on a conclusion that the change in the satellite technology at issue had not been anticipated when
Congress established the fees in section 8 for satellite launch and operation authority.  In
contrast, Congress was clearly aware that licensees of geostationary satellites might assign
multiple satellites, as would licensees of non-geostationary satellite systems.  Nevertheless,
Congress specified that licensees in Lockheed's position would pay assignment application fees
per satellite and licensees of non-geostationary satellite systems would pay assignment
application fees per request.  Therefore, as discussed above, because there are no special
circumstances here justifying a waiver, we shall not use our waiver authority to lower fees in
circumstances where Congress has chosen not to do so.

10.  Finally, Lockheed further argues that to reduce the fee by calculating it on a per orbit
basis would reduce the Congressionally mandated fees to "a more realistic amount."  In this,
Lockheed essentially is reiterating the argument, which we have rejected, that the Commission
should not collect the statutory application fees in this matter because the applicant does not
believe they represent the costs the Commission will incur in processing the individual
application.  After careful review of the issues raised in the Application for Review, we therefore
do not find any basis for modifying the decision of the Office of Managing Director denying
Lockheed's Request for Partial Waiver and Refund of Fees.

                     IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Applications for Review, filed on December 27,
2000, by Lockheed Martin Corporation and Lockheed Martin Global Telecommunications, Inc.
ARE DENIED.

                             

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              Magalie Roman Salas
                         Secretary