**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 to Implement ) IB Docket No. 99-67

the Global Mobile Personal Communications )

by Satellite (GMPCS) Memorandum )

of Understanding and Arrangements )

)

Petition of the National Telecommunications and ) RM No. 9165

Information Administration to Amend Part 25 of the )

Commission's Rules to Establish Emission Limits for )

Mobile and Portable Earth Stations Operating in the )

1610-1660.5 MHz Band )

**SECOND REPORT AND ORDER**

**Adopted: November 6, 2003 Released: November 18, 2003**

By the Commission:

Table of Contents

Heading Paragraph \#

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II\. BACKGROUND 5

A. The GMPCS MoU and the ITU's GMPCS Registry 5

1\. [Statutory Authority]{.underline} 15

2\. [Importation and Marketing Rules]{.underline} 16

3\. [Certification]{.underline} 17

4\. [NPRM Proposals]{.underline} 22

III\. DISCUSSION OF GMPCS ISSUES 25

A. Devices Sold, Leased, Offered for Sale or Lease, or Imported,
Shipped, or Distributed for Sale or Lease in the United States 25

1\. [Mandatory Certification]{.underline} 25

2\. [Scope]{.underline} 31

3\. [Grandfathering]{.underline} 48

4\. [Recognition of Foreign Type Approval]{.underline} 53

5\. [Technical Standards for Certification]{.underline} 57

B. Personal-Effects Importation 62

1\. [Devices Not Certificated Under Part 2 or Not Licensed for U.S.
Operation]{.underline} 62

2\. [Devices Without the ITU GMPCS Registry Mark]{.underline} 65

3\. [Approved-for-Domestic-Use List]{.underline} 73

C. Blanket Licensing 75

1\. [Should Blanket Licensing of GMPCS Transceivers Be Eliminated or
Merged With the Certification Process?]{.underline} 75

2\. [Must Licensing Precede Certification?]{.underline} 79

3\. ["Streamlining" Application Requirements]{.underline} 81

D. Responsibility for Unlawful Operation of GMPCS Transceivers 88

E. Access to Traffic Data 96

IV\. DISCUSSION OF OUT-OF-BAND EMISSION ISSUES 98

A. Limits for Carrier-Off State 99

B. Further Requirements for Suppression in the 1605-1610 MHz Band
Segment 104

1\. [Wideband Limits on Emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz Band for METs
with Uplink Assignment Above 1626.5 MHz]{.underline} 104

2\. [Narrowband Limits]{.underline} 107

C. Measurement Issues 112

1\. [Two Millisecond Measurement Interval]{.underline} 113

2\. [Power-density Measurement]{.underline} 116

D. Compliance Deadlines for Inmarsat Standard A and B Maritime Terminals
119

V. CONCLUSION 124

VI\. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 125

VII\. ORDERING CLAUSES 128

APPENDIX A: Participants

APPENDIX B: Rule Changes

APPENDIX C: Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

# INTRODUCTION

1.  In this Order we adopt rules and policies pertaining to portable
    "GMPCS" transceivers -- *i.e.*, satellite telephones and other
    portable transceivers operated by end users for communication via
    direct radio links with satellites.[^1] These devices are used for
    both voice and data communication and may be used for internet
    access or other modes of broadband communication. We adopt rules
    pertaining to test-based equipment authorization, importation either
    for commercial purposes or personal use, responsibility for
    unauthorized operation, and out-of-band emissions.

2.  First, as proposed in the initial Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in
    this proceeding,[^2] we adopt a rule that will require interested
    parties[^3] to obtain equipment authorization pursuant to the
    certification procedure in Part 2 of the Commission's rules. The
    Part 2 certification procedure requires submission of an application
    and exhibits to the Commission, including test data showing that a
    representative sample unit of the devices that would be covered by
    the certification meets the Commission's applicable technical
    requirements. Devices subject to this requirement may not be sold or
    leased, offered for sale or lease, or imported, shipped, or
    distributed for sale or lease in the United States prior to grant of
    a pertinent certification application. The requirement will apply to
    devices imported, sold, leased, shipped, or distributed after
    November 19, 2004. This new certification requirement for portable
    GMPCS transceivers will help to prevent interference, will reduce
    radio-frequency ("RF") radiation exposure risk, and will make
    regulatory treatment of portable GMPCS transceivers consistent with
    treatment of similar terrestrial wireless devices, such as cellular
    phones. We also revise several rule provisions to place appropriate
    legal responsibility for unauthorized transceiver operation on the
    parties that control access to GMPCS networks and to eliminate
    redundant information-filing requirements.

3.  The rules that we adopt allow travelers to carry a limited number of
    GMPCS transceivers that have not been certificated under Part 2 into
    the United States as personal effects. Travelers may lawfully
    operate such uncertificated transceivers in this country if such
    operation is authorized under a blanket earth-station license issued
    by this Commission to a satellite service provider. These policies
    are in accordance with recommendations for regulatory policies to
    facilitate global circulation of GMPCS transceivers that delegates
    from the United States and many other countries endorsed under the
    auspices of the 1996 World Telecommunication Policy Forum.[^4]

4.  In addition to adopting rules pertaining to equipment authorization
    and importation of portable earth-station transceivers, we are
    amending the rule section that prescribes limits on emissions from
    Mobile Satellite Service transceivers in the 1559-1610 MHz band.[^5]
    In light of comments filed in response to a Further NPRM released
    last year in this proceeding,[^6] we prescribe several additional
    limits on such out-of-band emissions, specify measurement
    techniques, and set compliance deadlines for Inmarsat maritime
    transceivers. These rule changes improve interference protection for
    aeronautical radio-navigation.

# BACKGROUND

## The GMPCS MoU and the ITU's GMPCS Registry

5.  The rules we are adopting with respect to equipment authorization
    and importation are generally consistent with the objectives
    identified in a Memorandum of Understanding pertaining to regulation
    of GMPCS terminals ("GMPCS MoU") signed in 1997.[^7] The GMPCS MoU
    was an outgrowth of the 1994 Plenipotentiary Conference of the
    International Telecommunication Union ("ITU"),[^8] which adopted a
    resolution to convene a policy forum to address regulatory issues
    raised by the impending introduction of GMPCS services. Pursuant to
    this resolution, the first ITU World Telecommunication Policy Forum
    was held in Geneva in October 1996, attended by government officials
    from the United States and 127 other ITU Member States and
    representatives from a variety of non-governmental organizations.
    Delegates representing satellite operators, equipment manufacturers,
    service providers, and potential users maintained that the success
    of GMPCS services would depend on users\' ability to carry GMPCS
    handsets across international boundaries. On the other hand, many of
    the governmental delegates stressed the importance of preserving
    national sovereignty and preventing use of GMPCS systems to bypass
    their national public switched networks. Participants recognized
    that the possible need for equipment to be approved individually in
    every country where service might be provided could substantially
    hinder development of GMPCS.

6.  The Policy Forum concluded that national administrations should
    develop harmonious policies to facilitate introduction of GMPCS
    services. To encourage this, the Forum's chairman asked the ITU
    Secretary General to convene an Informal Group of governmental
    officials and other parties to draft a Memorandum of Understanding
    containing recommendations for type approval, licensing, marking,
    provision of traffic data, and customs regulations to facilitate
    free circulation of GMPCS terminals.[^9]

7.  The Informal Group drafted the GMPCS MoU in the following year and
    submitted it to the Secretary General. The MoU identifies two
    primary objectives. One of these primary objectives is
    implementation of regionally or globally coordinated rules allowing
    travelers to carry GMPCS terminals across international boundaries
    and to use them consistently with regulatory requirements in visited
    countries without having to obtain individual licenses for such
    operation from officials of those countries. The second primary
    objective is implementation of rules permitting travelers to carry
    GMPCS terminals across international boundaries for transit through
    visited countries where they *cannot* be operated in compliance with
    local requirements. In the interest of facilitating attainment of
    these overall objectives, the MoU signatories pledged to devise and
    promote implementation of specific regulatory proposals with respect
    to the following matters:

-   national "type approval" (*i.e.*, equipment authorization) of GMPCS
    terminals based on technical standards consistent with relevant ITU
    Recommendations;

-   mutual recognition of such type approval;

-   marking of type-approved GMPCS terminals to facilitate mutual
    recognition;

-   blanket licensing, rather than individual licensing, for GMPCS
    terminals;

-   exemption of GMPCS terminals from customs restrictions when brought
    into a country on a temporary basis; and

-   requirements for GMPCS operators to provide data on request to
    governmental officials to help them identify unauthorized traffic
    originating in or routed to their national territory.

To date, government officials from the United States and 78 other ITU
member states have signed the GMPCS MoU.

8.  The Informal Group also drafted a set of specific proposals entitled
    "Arrangements Pursuant to the GMPCS MoU."[^10] Among other things,
    the GMPCS Arrangements specified an optional registration and
    marking procedure to facilitate mutual recognition of equipment
    authorization. The Arrangements are merely advisory in nature; they
    are not in the form of an agreement, are not signed, and are not
    incorporated by reference in the GMPCS MoU. The ITU Council directed
    the Secretary General to administer the registration procedure
    proposed in the Arrangements, however, and approved use of an
    ITU-GMPCS logo for identifying registered terminals.[^11]

9.  The registration procedure, which has been operational since 1998,
    involves several steps. First, a GMPCS system operator sends an
    Implementation Letter to the ITU Secretary General -- describing the
    system, listing the terminal types to be used with it, identifying
    the terminal manufacturers and any associated service providers,
    specifying the geographical area(s) where the service will be
    provided, and identifying a governmental agency that has
    type-approved the terminals for entry and use in the territory
    within its jurisdiction. Next, the terminal manufacturers submit
    letters identifying the technical standards with which the type
    approval agency found the terminals in compliance. Then the
    type-approval agency (*e.g.*, in the United States, the FCC) must
    submit confirmation to the Secretary General that it has granted
    authority for entry and use of the terminals in question -- listing
    the relevant requirements, explaining how compliance was verified,
    identifying the manufacturer(s), listing the model numbers or
    similar identifying information for the terminals, specifying the
    date when type approval was granted, and stating what, if any,
    approval mark is placed on the terminals. Upon receiving all of this
    correspondence, the Secretary General notifies the manufacturers
    that they may mark the devices with an "ITU GMPCS-MoU Registry"
    logo. The logo signifies that type acceptance of the marked devices
    has been registered pursuant to this procedure. Upon request from
    the system operator, the Secretary General will announce the
    registration to regulatory authorities in national administrations
    designated as signatories to the GMPCS MoU and ask them whether the
    registered terminals may be carried into their territories and, if
    so, what restrictions would govern their use therein. Written
    responses to such inquiries are kept in the ITU's GMPCS registry
    files.

10. ITU GMPCS registration can be obtained based on type approval to any
    country's technical standards and does not necessarily ensure that
    the registered devices meet technical requirements for entry and/or
    operation in any other country. Thus ITU GMPCS registration does not
    necessarily guarantee compliance with the FCC's pertinent technical
    standards. Such registration serves to facilitate transportation of
    GMPCS terminals into countries that do not administer a testing
    process for equipment authorization, however.

**B. Mutual Recognition Agreements**

11. The Executive Branch of the U.S. government has more recently
    implemented another means of facilitating inter-governmental
    recognition of equipment authorization. The United States Trade
    Representative and the U.S. Department of Commerce, with the FCC's
    support, negotiated a series of regional mutual recognition
    agreements ("MRAs"), which were signed in 1998 and 1999.[^12] Unlike
    the GMPCS MoU and Arrangements, which are non-binding
    recommendations, the MRAs are mutually obligatory agreements between
    national administrations.

12. The first of these MRAs established a framework for mutual
    recognition of test-based equipment authorization of various kinds
    of products, including GMPCS transceivers, by agencies of the U.S.
    government and the governments of member states of the European
    Community.[^13] The U.S./EC MRA declares that the U.S. government
    and the EC governments have reciprocal obligations to accept
    equipment authorization assessments. Thus, products manufactured in
    the United States can be tested in the United States for conformance
    with EC member states' technical requirements, and if found in
    conformance with such requirements by the U.S. assessment agency the
    products can be exported to those countries without any further
    testing or authorization. In return, the MRA obligates U.S.
    government agencies to accept equipment authorization to their
    requirements performed in Europe by assessment agencies designated
    by the EC member states. These reciprocal obligations apply to all
    radio-frequency transmitters subject to U.S. or EC equipment
    authorization requirements, including earth-station
    transceivers.[^14] The Agreement includes a proviso that allows the
    U.S. or the EC to suspend compliance in the event of a material
    breach by the other party and specifies procedures for monitoring
    the performance of designated assessment agencies and resolving
    disputes as to their competence. The Executive Branch has also
    negotiated single-sector MRAs with the Asian Pacific Economic
    Cooperative (APEC) and the International Commission for
    Telecommunications (CITEL) of the Organization of American States
    that provide for mutual exchange of test data and product approvals
    of telecommunications equipment.[^15] The APEC and CITEL MRAs afford
    essentially the same benefits for participants as the US-EU MRA.

13. The Commission accordingly revised its rules in 1998 to provide for
    acceptance of determinations of compliance with its equipment
    standards performed by assessment agencies designated by foreign
    governments pursuant to MRA terms and conditions.[^16] The
    Commission said, however, that to ensure parity for U.S.
    manufacturers it would not accept compliance determinations
    performed in another country pursuant to an MRA until that country's
    government accepts compliance determinations performed in the United
    States.[^17] A number of foreign compliance-assessment agencies have
    since been designated under the terms of one of the MRAs, with this
    Commission's concurrence, for certification of foreign-made products
    pursuant to Part 2 of the rules.[^18]

**C. FCC Regulation of Importation and Marketing of Radio Frequency
Devices**

### [Statutory Authority]{.underline}

14. The authors of the GMPCS Arrangements acknowledged the sovereign
    right of national administrations to adopt technical standards for
    radio transmitters, to establish procedures for assessing
    conformance with those standards, and to bar importation of
    non-conforming devices.[^19] The FCC has performed such regulatory
    functions pursuant to authority delegated in Section 302 of the
    Communications Act.[^20] Subsection 302(a) provides that the
    Commission may adopt regulations pertaining to the interference
    potential of radio-frequency devices that apply to manufacture,
    importation, sale, offer for sale, or shipment of such devices.
    Subsection 302(b) prohibits the manufacture, importation, sale,
    offer for sale, or shipment of devices that do not comply with such
    FCC regulations. Congress enacted these provisions to enable the
    Commission to prevent radio-emitting devices that do not meet the
    standards it prescribes for prevention of interference from being
    placed on the market in the United States.[^21]

### [Importation and Marketing Rules]{.underline}

15. In exercise of its authority under Section 302, the Commission has
    adopted rules pertaining to importation and marketing of
    radio-frequency devices.[^22] The regulations governing importation
    and marketing are set forth in Sections 2.803 and 2.1204 of the
    Commission's rules, which apply by their terms to radio emitters and
    transmitters of every kind, including GMPCS transceivers.[^23]
    Subsection 2.803(a) states, in essence, that no one may "sell or
    lease, or offer for sale or lease ... or import, ship, or distribute
    for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease"
    any radio-frequency device (*i.e.*, "any device ... capable of
    emitting radio-frequency energy") unless: (1) the device has been
    authorized pursuant to the "certification" procedure for equipment
    authorization specified in Part 2, Subpart J and is labeled as
    required by Section 2.925, or (2) the device is not subject to such
    an authorization requirement and meets all applicable technical and
    administrative requirements in the Commission's rules.[^24] The
    Commission's principal rule pertaining to importation is stated in
    Subsection 2.1204(a): devices subject to mandatory equipment
    authorization under Part 2 may be imported only if they have been so
    authorized, and devices not subject to such an equipment
    authorization requirement may be imported if they meet all
    applicable technical and administrative requirements in the
    Commission's rules.[^25] Subsection 2.1204(a) also specifies a
    series of exceptions similar to those in Subsections 2.803(b)-(f),
    including an exception for devices imported only for export. Unlike
    the provision pertaining to importation in Subsection 2.803(a), the
    restriction in Subsection 2.1204(a) applies to importation for *any*
    purpose, not just importation for sale or lease.

### [Certification]{.underline}

16. Part 2, Subpart J of the Commission's rules specifies three
    different test-based procedures for ensuring that radio-frequency
    devices can be operated in compliance with applicable technical
    requirements: verification, declaration of conformity, and
    certification. The procedures for verification and declaration of
    conformity require equipment manufacturers, sellers, or importers to
    ascertain through testing of sample units that the subject devices
    conform to the applicable technical requirements in the FCC's rules
    but do not require them to submit test data to the Commission or
    obtain its approval before importing the devices or placing them on
    the market in the United States.

17. The certification procedure, on the other hand, requires test data
    and other relevant information to be submitted for evaluation in an
    application to the Commission or to a Telecommunication
    Certification Body ("TCB") designated by the Commission or by a
    foreign regulatory authority pursuant to an MRA to which the United
    States is a party.[^26] The Commission (or TCB) will grant an
    application for certification if it finds from examination of the
    application and test data that the devices can be operated in
    compliance with applicable technical requirements, including limits
    prescribed to protect operators from hazardous RF radiation
    exposure, and that a grant would serve the public interest.[^27]
    Each device subject to certification must be etched, engraved, or
    permanently labeled with an identification number, preceded by the
    term "FCC ID."[^28] The grantee warrants that the data filed with
    the certification application will be representative of
    subsequently-manufactured units bearing the assigned FCC
    identification number[^29] and may be required to submit a sample
    from subsequently-manufactured units to the Commission for
    testing.[^30]

18. *[Previously-established Certification Requirements]{.underline}.*
    The Commission has required most terrestrial wireless transceivers,
    including cellular and PCS phones, to be certificated under Part 2,
    Subpart J.[^31] The Commission has also established certification
    requirements, or similar equipment authorization requirements, for
    earth-station transmitters installed in ships and aircraft.[^32]
    Earlier this year, the Commission adopted rules that also made Part
    2 certification mandatory for one type of land-based earth-station
    transceivers. In the *ATC Report and Order*,[^33] in which the
    Commission revised its rules to make it possible for Big LEO,
    L-Band, and 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service ("MSS") licensees to
    obtain authority for ancillary terrestrial components ("ATC"), the
    Commission said that both components of dual-mode terminals
    incorporating MSS earth-station transceivers and ATC transceivers
    must be certificated under Part 2, Subpart J.[^34] The Commission
    explained that it was requiring certification for ATC transceivers
    and dual-mode MSS/ATC terminals for the sake of consistency with
    authorization requirements for cellular and PCS terminals and in
    order to ensure compliance with technical requirements for
    prevention of interference and protection of operator safety.[^35]

19. The Commission has not previously required land-based earth-station
    transmitters (other than dual-mode ATC/MSS transceivers) to be
    certificated under Part 2.[^36] *I.e.*, the Commission has not
    previously required any type of earth-station transmitter to be
    certificated aside from dual-mode MSS/ATC transceivers and ship and
    aircraft earth stations subject to regulation under Parts 80 and 87
    of the rules. Section 25.133 of the Commission's rules requires
    earth-station licensees to certify that their transmitters have been
    tested and found within 2 dB of emission limits specified in other
    sections.[^37] Unlike the certification rules in Part 2, however,
    Section 25.133 does not require submission of test data and does not
    require any equipment authorization to be obtained prior to
    importation, distribution, sale, or offer for sale.

20. *[Optional Certification of GMPCS Terminals]{.underline}.* In 1998,
    the Commission adopted Section 25.200, which states that
    certification pursuant to Part 2, Subpart J can be obtained for
    GMPCS terminals for which an FCC blanket license has been
    granted.[^38] Unlike the previously-adopted certification rules for
    terrestrial wireless, maritime, and aircraft transmitters, Section
    25.200 does not *require* certification prior to importation,
    commercial distribution,, sale, or offer for sale. Rather, Section
    25.200 merely provides for optional certification at the election of
    interested parties. The purpose of Section 25.200 is not to prevent
    importation or marketing of noncompliant transmitters but simply to
    enable manufacturers or service providers to meet the prerequisites
    for labeling licensed GMPCS terminals with the FCC Identifier and/or
    the ITU GMPCS Registry logo, pursuant to the registration process
    described above in Paragraph 9, in order to facilitate exportation
    or transportation of the devices into other countries.[^39] The
    Commission said that it was instituting the optional certification
    procedure as an interim measure pending "full implementation" of the
    recommendations in the GMPCS MoU.[^40]

### [NPRM Proposals]{.underline}

21. In the initial NPRM in this proceeding, the Commission proposed a
    mandatory equipment certification rule for GMPCS terminals. The
    proposed rule would require certification to be obtained pursuant to
    Part 2, Subpart J for GMPCS terminals prior to sale or lease of the
    devices in the United States or importation, shipment, or
    distribution for sale or lease in the United States.[^41] The
    Commission's stated rationale was that such a requirement was
    necessary to minimize interference and RF exposure risk, to
    facilitate enforcement by establishing a means of readily
    distinguishing rule-compliant devices from non-compliant devices,
    and to make regulatory treatment of GMPCS terminals consistent with
    treatment of functionally-similar end-user transceivers that were
    already subject to certification requirements.[^42]

22. The Commission proposed to allow international travelers to carry
    uncertificated GMPCS terminals into the United States for purposes
    other than sale or lease if the devices are marked with the ITU
    GMPCS Registry logo.[^43] The Commission proposed to allow travelers
    to use such uncertificated devices in the United States, moreover,
    if such operation would be permissible under the terms of an FCC
    blanket license.[^44] The Commission said that it would expect
    system operators to deny access to GMPCS terminals that could not be
    operated in compliance with the Commission's rules and under the
    terms of pertinent blanket licenses and would hold licensees
    accountable for infractions arising from unauthorized operation of
    such devices.[^45]

23. The Commission received numerous public comments in response to
    these proposals and has also solicited comments from the U.S.
    Customs Bureau, the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration, and other executive-branch agencies. A list of the
    parties that filed comments on the record is included in Appendix A.

# DISCUSSION OF GMPCS ISSUES

## Devices Sold, Leased, Offered for Sale or Lease, or Imported, Shipped, or Distributed for Sale or Lease in the United States 

### [Mandatory Certification]{.underline}

24. Most of the commenters agreed that the Commission should require
    GMPCS terminals to be authorized pursuant to the test-based
    certification procedure specified in Part 2, Subpart J before being
    imported for domestic sale or lease or otherwise being placed on the
    market in the United States.[^46] Others advocated adoption of a
    more lenient policy. Iridium LLC contended that certification of
    GMPCS terminals should remain purely optional, as it has been under
    the interim program adopted in 1998.[^47] Constellation
    Communications, Inc. and Teledesic LLC recommended adoption of a
    mandatory certification rule that would apply only to GMPCS
    terminals that have been registered with the ITU or for which ITU
    GMPCS registration is being sought.[^48] They maintained that
    limiting the scope of the certification requirement in this way
    would obviate any need for grandfathering or for further
    deliberation as to which types of earth-station terminals should be
    subject to it.

25. We adopt a mandatory certification rule for portable, land-based
    GMPCS transceivers.[^49] The rule will require such devices to be
    tested and found in compliance with pertinent technical standards in
    the Commission's rules before being sold or leased in the United
    States, offered for sale or lease in the United States, or imported,
    shipped, or distributed for sale or lease in the United States. This
    requirement will minimize risks of interference and RF exposure, in
    accordance with the Congressional policy embodied in Section 302(a)
    of the Communications Act and the National Environmental Policy Act
    of 1969.[^50]

26. Although recipients of license authority for transmitter operation
    have a legal obligation to ensure that the licensed devices operate
    in accordance with the Commission's pertinent technical rules, the
    Commission has not previously required test data to be routinely
    submitted to prove that land-based GMPCS transceivers actually meet
    such requirements. Nor has the Commission previously required any
    authorization to be obtained for importation or marketing of
    land-based GMPCS transceivers. Previously-adopted rule provisions
    have prohibited importation or domestic sale of RF devices that do
    not meet all pertinent technical requirements in the Commission's
    rules,[^51] but enforcement of these restrictions with respect to
    land-based GMPCS transceivers was infeasible because there were no
    corresponding equipment-authorization rules for such devices that
    required prior demonstration of compliance and identification
    marking. In the absence of such prior compliance assessment and
    marking of compliant devices, it would be necessary to individually
    test each transceiver in a ship's cargo, wholesaler's warehouse, or
    retailer's inventory in order to determine whether that particular
    device could be lawfully imported or sold. Our adoption of a rule
    requiring portable, land-based GMPCS transceivers to be certificated
    under Part 2, based on submission of test data, prior to commercial
    importation or domestic marketing is thus an essential regulatory
    measure that will enable the Commission to actively ensure that
    operation of such devices in the United States will not interfere
    with reception of authorized radio services or cause RF exposure
    injury.

27. This action also makes authorization requirements for portable,
    land-based GMPCS transceivers more consistent with requirements for
    functionally-similar terrestrial wireless transceivers, such as
    cellular telephones, which have been subject to mandatory
    certification under rules adopted previously. None of the parties
    that filed comments in this proceeding offered any justification for
    disparate regulatory treatment of portable, land-based GMPCS
    transceivers in this regard. In accomplishing the public interest
    objective of barring distribution to consumers in the United States
    of transmitters that do not meet FCC standards for prevention of
    interference and hazardous radiation exposure, we believe it is
    appropriate that the requirements applicable to these
    functionally-similar services be as consistent as possible.

28. We see no merit in the Constellation/Teledesic recommendation to
    limit the certification requirement to apply only to devices
    registered with the ITU or subject to a pending request for such
    registration. Our certification rules serve the important purposes
    of preventing destructive interference with radio services and
    protecting operators from excessive RF radiation exposure. A
    certification requirement exempting transceivers for which ITU GMPCS
    registration has not previously been obtained or requested could
    permit many GMPCS transceivers to be imported and domestically sold
    without certification, as such registration is merely optional. We
    cannot assume that portable GMPCS transceivers placed on the market
    in the United States, whether or not ITU-registered, would always be
    manufactured to comply with the Commission's technical standards if
    there were no pertinent requirement for test-based equipment
    authorization. We therefore decline to limit the certification
    requirement in this regard.

### [Scope]{.underline}

29. *[Non-TerminalTransmitters: Exempt]{.underline}.* The Commission
    proposed in the NPRM to adopt a certification rule that would
    expressly apply to "all GMPCS terminals." Although the NPRM did not
    define "terminals," the Commission was using it to refer to devices
    positioned at one *end* of a communication channel -- *i.e.*,
    devices operated by end users for radio communication. No commenter
    contended that the certification requirement should apply to
    transmitters not operated by end users. As proposed, we are adopting
    a certification requirement that applies only to earth-station
    equipment designed for operation by end users of satellite
    communication services. This will serve the primary objective that
    Congress expected the Commission to achieve in exercise of the
    authority delegated in Section 302 for regulation of the importation
    and marketing of RF devices: *i.e.*, to prevent mass distribution of
    RF emitters incapable of operating in compliance with relevant
    technical requirements in the FCC's rules. The new certification
    requirement will not apply to network infrastructure devices, such
    as feeder-link transmitters and transmitters used for tracking and
    command uplinks. We believe that our traditional mode of regulating
    use of such devices will suffice to protect the public interest.

30. *[Receive-Only Devices:Exempt]{.underline}*. The certification
    requirement that we are adopting here applies only to devices that
    transmit; it does not apply to receive-only devices. The Commission
    has not established any technical performance requirements for
    receive-only earth-stations and did not propose to do so in this
    proceeding. It would serve no purpose to require certification of
    equipment for which the Commission has prescribed no technical
    performance standards. One-way paging terminals, GPS receivers, and
    equipment used for reception of satellite broadcast services, such
    as DBS and Digital Audio Radio Service ("DARS"), are thus
    excluded.[^52]

31. *[FSS Transceivers: No Categorical Exemption]{.underline}.* Although
    the "M" in the acronym "GMPCS" denotes "mobile," GMPCS was
    explicitly defined in the NPRM (and, previously, in the GMPCS
    Arrangements)[^53] as including *any* satellite telecommunication
    service provided directly to end users, no matter whether the
    service is classified as "mobile" or "fixed" -- *i.e.*, no matter
    whether the service is accessed with transceivers designed to be
    used in motion or with transceivers designed for stationary
    operation. Hence, the certification rule proposed in the NPRM
    applied, by its terms, to both fixed and mobile terminals. The
    Commission asked for comment, however, as to whether certification
    should only be required for earth-station terminals likely to be
    transported across national borders and whether Fixed-Satellite
    Service ("FSS") terminals should therefore be exempted.[^54]

32. Motorola Inc., Teledesic, and Skybridge LLC contended that the
    certification rule should apply to fixed, as well as mobile,
    terminals because FCC certification would facilitate equipment
    authorization in other countries and this presumed benefit should be
    available equally for manufacturers, suppliers, and purchasers of
    mobile and fixed terminals.[^55] More specifically, Teledesic and
    Skybridge maintained that adoption of rules applicable to FSS
    terminals would enhance commercial prospects for provision of
    broadband service via non-geostationary-orbit FSS systems to users
    with portable terminals.[^56] On the other hand, Leo One USA
    Corporation argued for exempting FSS terminals from certification,
    "\[b\]ecause the GMPCS-MoU ... addresses only the need to promote
    transborder flows of equipment."[^57]

33. Leo One's argument for exempting all FSS terminals ignores the
    Commission's stated reasons for proposing a mandatory certification
    rule.[^58] Although portability is relevant, as explained below, the
    distinction between transceivers designed for operation in motion
    and transceivers designed for stationary operation has no material
    bearing on the need for mandatory certification. Therefore, we are
    not categorically exempting all FSS transceivers from the
    certification requirement. Rather, as indicated in the following
    paragraphs, the requirement extends to FSS transceivers that are
    portable.

34. *[Ship and Aircraft Transceivers and Other Non-Portable Devices:
    Exempt]{.underline}.* In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to limit
    application of the certification rule to hand-held and portable
    terminals and accordingly proposed to exempt terminals permanently
    installed on ships, boats, or planes.[^59] Comsat agreed that the
    certification rule should apply only to devices that users can
    easily carry with them,[^60] and the Japanese Ministry of Posts and
    Telecommunications similarly suggested that the rule should apply
    only to terminals that are portable and/or mobile.[^61] Other
    commenters maintained that the certification rule should apply
    without limitation to all earth-station terminals designed for
    operation by end users.[^62] Iridium contended that exempting
    sub-categories of end-user earth-station terminals would create
    unnecessary regulatory complexity.[^63] In opposition to the
    proposal to limit application of the certification rule to portable
    devices, Teledesic contended that it is unclear what "portable"
    would mean in this context.[^64]

35. Several commenters approved of the proposal to exempt permanently
    installed maritime and aircraft earth-station terminals.[^65]
    Boeing, Inmarsat, and ICO Global Communications argued that there
    was no need to adopt a certification requirement for such devices
    because they are subject to a variety of existing regulations that
    serve the same purpose. The National Telecommunications and
    Information Administration said that it had no objection to
    exempting such devices from certification provided that they are
    made subject to the proposed limits on out-of-band emissions in the
    1559-1610 MHz band.[^66] On the other hand, Cornell University and
    Globalstar maintained that such exemptions would be unwarranted.
    Cornell argued that MSS transceivers on ships, boats, and aircraft
    should be subject to certification because radio-astronomy
    observation at the Arecibo National Research Center is vulnerable to
    disruption by emissions from such devices, especially those that are
    airborne.[^67] Globalstar pointed out that the NPRM offered no
    rationale for exempting devices installed on ships, boats, or
    aircraft and argued that application of the certification rule
    should not depend on where or whether users choose to install
    equipment.[^68]

36. It is appropriate, for several reasons, to require certification for
    commercially imported or domestically-marketed earth-station
    transceivers that are portable or designed for handheld operation.
    First, it is difficult to identify those responsible for
    interference caused by operation of such devices because they can be
    widely distributed in great numbers to end users who transport them
    and operate them in many different locations without incurring any
    obligation to notify the Commission of their whereabouts. Second,
    because of the potential ubiquity of handheld MSS transceivers and
    the spectral location of their assigned transmission frequencies,
    mass distribution of such devices not meeting the Commission's
    pertinent limits on out-of-band emissions would present an
    intolerable risk of catastrophic interference with aeronautical
    radio-navigation and harmful interference with other radio services.
    Third, because the radiating elements of handheld and portable
    earth-station transceivers are situated in close proximity to the
    operators' bodies when in use, operation of such devices could be
    hazardous if the devices do not meet the standards prescribed in
    Part 2 of the Commission's rules to protect users from RF
    exposure.[^69] For these reasons, we conclude that it will serve the
    public interest to prevent portable GMPCS transceivers (including
    those designed for handheld operation) from being placed on the
    market in the United States unless it has been shown through
    certification that they meet the Commission's technical standards.

37. On the other hand, we are not requiring certification of
    non-portable earth-station transceivers. It is neither self-evident
    nor deducible from the record before us that the current means of
    regulating operation of such devices are inadequate, and it would
    disserve the public interest to burden manufacturers, importers,
    and/or suppliers of such equipment with a superfluous authorization
    requirement. Nor is it apparent from the record in this proceeding
    that there is any need to adopt a new certification requirement for
    MSS transceivers designed for installation in maritime vessels or
    aircraft. Most such devices are already subject to test-based
    equipment authorization requirements.[^70]

38. Therefore, the mandatory certification rule that we adopt here
    applies only to portable earth-station transceivers not designed for
    installation in aircraft or maritime vessels. An FSS transceiver is
    portable for purposes of this rule if it is a "portable device" as
    defined in Section 2.1093 of the Commission's rules -- *i.e.*, if
    its radiating antenna would ordinarily be within 20 centimeters of
    the operator's body when the device is in use.[^71]

39. *[Devices Used Only Within the United States: No
    Exemption]{.underline}.* In the NPRM, the Commission asked for
    comment as to whether the certification rule should be limited to
    exclude devices of a kind that are not likely to be transported
    across national borders.[^72] In response, the Japanese Ministry of
    Posts and Telecommunications proposed a certification exemption for
    devices that are not "used or planned for use" in more than one
    country.[^73] Leo One USA similarly advocated an exemption for
    devices developed for "niche uses unique to the United States."[^74]
    In opposition to the Japanese Ministry's recommendation, Teledesic
    argued that it would be difficult to administer a rule exempting
    devices not "used or planned for use" in more than one country
    because the applicability of the exemption would depend on users'
    subjective intentions.[^75]

40. Although the portability criterion in the rule that we are adopting
    excludes devices that are inherently unlikely to be transported
    across national borders, we decline to adopt an exemption for
    portable devices that are actually used only within the United
    States. Application of the certification rule cannot depend on where
    individual users ultimately carry and operate portable earth-station
    transceivers because the certification requirement pertains to
    activities that occur *before the subject devices are distributed to
    users*, such as importation and shipment to retailers. There would
    be no feasible way of ascertaining at the time when such portable
    devices are being imported or shipped to retailers which of them
    will eventually be carried across national boundaries by end users
    or operated in more than one country. Furthermore, even if it were
    feasible to ascertain in advance that a particular device, or series
    of devices, would be used only within the United States, that would
    not obviate the underlying concerns addressed by mandatory
    certification. To the contrary, the ultimate purpose of the
    certification requirement that we are adopting, as we have
    explained, is to prevent harmful interference and RF exposure from
    portable earth-station transceivers operated in the United States.

41. *[Transceivers Used with Single-Satellite Systems: No
    Exemption]{.underline}*. TMI Communications and Company, L.P.,
    contended in its comments that terminals used to obtain service from
    single-satellite systems should be exempt from certification. TMI's
    reason was that "GMPCS" was defined in the final report of the
    Chairman of the 1996 World Telecommunication Policy Forum as
    telecommunication service provided directly to end users from "a
    *constellation* of satellites" (emphasis added) rather than from a
    single satellite.[^76] "Constellation of satellites" was defined in
    the GMPCS-MoU Arrangements, however, as "\[o\]ne *or more*
    satellites ... operated as a system" (emphasis added).[^77] In any
    case, neither the World Policy Forum Chairman's report nor the
    GMPCS-MoU Arrangements, which are merely advisory in nature, limits
    this Commission's rulemaking discretion. We do not agree that
    single-satellite-system terminals should be categorically exempt
    from Part 2 certification. It is clearly in the public interest to
    prohibit commercial importation into the United States, or
    commercial distribution and sale within the United States, of
    portable earth-station transceivers that have not been proven
    capable of operating in compliance with applicable FCC technical
    standards for prevention of harmful interference or radiation injury
    -- regardless of whether the devices are for use with a
    single-satellite system or a multiple-satellite system.

42. *[Dual-mode Terminals with Uncertificated Foreign-Standard Cellular
    Components]{.underline}.* Section 2.1204 of the Commission's rules
    generally prohibits importation of radio frequency devices not
    covered by equipment authorization under Part 2, unless they meet
    all applicable FCC rule requirements.[^78] This prohibition was
    formerly limited by an exception in Subparagraph (a)(5) of that rule
    section for devices "imported solely for export" that "will not be
    ... offered for sale for use in the United States." The Commission
    noted in the initial NPRM in this proceeding that it had proposed in
    another pending proceeding to clarify the Subparagraph (a)(5)
    exception in response to concern about enforcement.[^79] The
    Commission also noted that commenters in the other proceeding had
    argued that elimination of the exception would unduly hinder
    importation of dual-mode devices combining foreign-standard cellular
    transceivers with GMPCS terminals for sale in the U.S. to purchasers
    intending to use them abroad. The Commission invited interested
    parties to file further comments on the issue in this
    proceeding.[^80]

43. In response, Iridium LLC reasserted that it should be permissible to
    import dual-mode terminals with foreign-standard cellular components
    and uncertificated "GMPCS" transceivers not meeting FCC standards
    for domestic sale to purchasers intending to use the devices only
    outside the United States. Iridium LLC therefore urged the
    Commission to retain the exception in Subparagraph (a)(5) without
    modification.[^81] Iridium North America, Globalstar, and
    Constellation contended that the rules should not bar importation of
    GMPCS transceivers merely because they are coupled with
    uncertificated foreign-standard terrestrial wireless components that
    are inoperable in the United States.[^82]

44. Several months after these comments were filed, the Commission
    issued an order amending Subparagraph (a)(5).[^83] As amended,
    Subparagraph (a)(5) permits uncertificated devices not meeting FCC
    standards to be imported "solely for export." Subparagraph (a)(5)
    also permits importation for *sale* in the United States of
    multi-mode devices incorporating uncertificated foreign-standard
    cellular components incapable of operating in the United States --
    provided that transmitter components that *are* technically capable
    of operating in the United States are certificated. We see no need
    for further revision of Subparagraph (a)(5).

### [Grandfathering]{.underline}

45. The Commission indicated in the NPRM that it was considering the
    possibility of adopting a "grandfather" exemption from mandatory
    certification, "in view of the difficulty of recalling and
    retrofitting \[uncertificated\] equipment already in use."[^84] (The
    principal difficulty is that such uncertificated devices are not
    marked with the FCC Identifier.) Yet in the Further NPRM issued last
    year in this proceeding the Commission proposed to adopt a relevant
    certification requirement with no grandfather exemption.
    Specifically, the Commission proposed to amend Section 25.216 to
    require various kinds of mobile GMPCS transceivers to be
    certificated to emission limits pertaining to operation after
    January 1, 2005, including transceivers placed in service prior to
    adoption of those limits.[^85]

46. All of the relevant comments filed in response to the initial NPRM
    agreed that GMPCS terminals already in use should be exempt from
    mandatory certification.[^86] Further, Orbcomm urged the Commission
    to grandfather terminals placed in service within one year after
    adoption of a final certification rule in this proceeding to afford
    a transitional period for manufacturers and distributors to deplete
    inventories of previously-manufactured uncertificated devices.[^87]

47. In comments filed in response to the Further NPRM, MSV and
    Globalstar argued that transceivers authorized under
    previously-issued blanket licenses that require compliance with the
    out-of-band emissions limits should be exempt from the proposed
    certification requirement for operation after January 1, 2005.[^88]
    MSV stressed that many of the transceivers currently used to obtain
    service from its MSS system were made by companies that are no
    longer in the business of manufacturing such equipment. MSV asserted
    that it might therefore be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain
    the information necessary for certification of those devices.[^89]
    In other comments filed in response to the Further NPRM, Inmarsat
    and Stratos Communications, Inc. contended that previously
    manufactured devices should be exempt from the requirement that
    certificated devices be marked with an FCC Identifier code.[^90]
    They asserted that returning previously manufactured MSS
    transceivers to the manufacturers for marking with the Identifier
    code would disrupt service and would be very costly.[^91] Inmarsat
    also maintained that sending Identifier labels to the owners of such
    previously manufactured devices would not be a satisfactory
    alternative because of the likelihood that the labels would be
    applied incorrectly or used inappropriately.

48. Because it pertains to importation and marketing, rather than
    ownership, possession, or use, the certification requirement that we
    are adopting does not bar current users of licensed, but
    uncertificated, GMPCS transceivers previously placed in service from
    continuing to operate them without further authorization.
    Furthermore, the new certification requirement will not take effect
    until November 20, 2004; in the interim, portable, land-based GMPCS
    transceivers may be sold, leased, offered for sale or lease, or
    imported, shipped, or distributed for sale or lease without
    certification under Part 2. This affords a reasonable amount of time
    for manufacturers to obtain certification before the effective date
    and prepare in advance for affixing FCC identification numbers and
    for manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers to dispose
    of current inventories of uncertificated devices.[^92]

49. In the interest of reducing compliance costs and avoiding
    unnecessary regulatory complexity, we have decided not to adopt the
    proposed amendment to Section 25.216 that would have required
    certification of MSS transceivers previously placed in service if
    they would be operated after January 1, 2005. Devices certificated
    to applicable interim emission limits prescribed in Section 25.216
    will be subject to the final emission limits for operation after
    January 1, 2005 but will not have to be re-certificated to the final
    limits unless modified in the manner described in Paragraph (c)
    or (d) of Section 2.1043.[^93]

### [Recognition of Foreign Type Approval]{.underline}

50. Two commenters offered advice pertaining to acceptance of foreign
    equipment authorization. Iridium recommended adoption of a rule that
    would allow GMPCS terminals to be commercially imported into the
    United States without FCC certification if type-approved by foreign
    authorities to standards consistent with relevant ITU
    recommendations.[^94] In support of that proposal, Iridium called
    attention to the assertion in the GMPCS MoU that "\[national\] type
    approval standards should be based on the relevant ITU
    Recommendations." Motorola, on the other hand, simply contended that
    the certification requirement for GMPCS terminals should not
    supercede relevant provisions in Mutual Recognition Agreements
    endorsed by representatives of the U.S. government.[^95]

51. We reject the recommendation to accept any ITU-registered type
    approval to a standard consistent with ITU recommendations because
    that would not ensure compliance with all pertinent technical
    requirements in the FCC's rules. We acknowledge that it is generally
    desirable for the Commission's technical requirements for portable
    transceivers to conform to pertinent ITU recommendations.[^96] We
    acknowledge, moreover, that the Commission has an obligation under
    the Technical Trade Barriers Annex to the WTO Agreement to conform
    its technical regulations to relevant international standards when
    that would effectively fulfill its legitimate objectives.[^97] The
    Commission has a statutorily-mandated responsibility to serve the
    public interest in preventing harmful interference and minimizing RF
    radiation hazards, however, and must exercise its own judgment as to
    what regulations are necessary for these purposes. For instance, in
    this Order we are amending the Commission's out-of-band emissions
    limits for mobile earth-station transceivers to prescribe a
    measurement interval shorter than the one specified in the
    corresponding ITU recommendation, based on a finding that this is
    necessary to minimize risk of catastrophic interference with
    aeronautical radio-navigation.[^98] It would defeat the purpose of
    the out-of-band emission rule to permit commercial importation of
    mobile GMPCS transceivers that have merely been type-approved to an
    ITU-recommended standard that affords a lower level of protection
    than that rule prescribes.

52. We agree with Motorola that domestic certification requirements for
    earth-station transceivers should not override MRA commitments
    pertaining to recognition of type approval. As provided in 47 C.F.R.
    § 2.960I, GMPCS transceivers manufactured abroad can be certificated
    for compliance with the Commission's rules by foreign
    compliance-assessment agencies pursuant to the MRAs to which the
    United States government is a party. The terminals may then be
    exported to the United States for commercial purposes without
    further regulatory approval. The rules that we adopt today do not
    alter these policies.

53. We do not intend to recognize foreign type approval conducted
    outside the purview of U.S.-endorsed MRAs, however. The Executive
    Branch has followed a policy of committing to recognition on a
    mutual basis, under the terms of formal agreements that condition
    U.S. obligations on other parties' compliance with reciprocal
    recognition obligations and that establish bilateral or multilateral
    procedures for supervising the performance and accreditation of
    assessment agencies. The Commission has supported that policy by
    providing technical assistance for negotiation of MRAs and by
    revising its rules to give effect to recognition commitments under
    such agreements. It would undermine that trade policy and disserve
    the public interest that we are obliged to uphold to recognize type
    approvals sanctioned by foreign governments (even if ITU-registered
    and based on standards consistent with our own technical
    requirements) without reciprocal recognition commitments from those
    governments and without mutually-agreed procedures for monitoring
    the performance of assessment agencies and resolving accreditation
    disputes.

### [Technical Standards for Certification]{.underline}

54. The Commission proposed in the NPRM to specify certification
    standards for terminals that would be used to obtain service from
    GMPCS systems for which it had previously adopted service rules. It
    said that it intended to specify additional terminal certification
    standards on a "case-by-case" basis when adopting license rules for
    new types of GMPCS systems.[^99] The Commission asked for comment as
    to whether its current technical requirements for GMPCS terminals
    were adequate to prevent interference and radiation hazards or,
    conversely, whether they were too severe.[^100] The Commission also
    asked whether it should adopt additional technical standards
    endorsed by international organizations in order to facilitate
    international roaming.[^101]

55. Skybridge and Iridium LLC agreed that the Commission should
    initially establish certification standards only for systems
    licensed under existing service rules.[^102] Orbcomm urged the
    Commission to consider revising its technical requirements for
    Non-Voice, Non-Geostationary ("NVNG") MSS transceivers to conform to
    any stricter standards adopted by the European Telecommunication
    Standards Institute ("ETSI"). According to Orbcomm, such
    harmonization of FCC and European standards would facilitate global
    acceptance of FCC certification.[^103] Boeing similarly asserted
    that establishment of internationally-uniform certification
    standards would be crucial to GMPCS development but offered no
    specific suggestion for revising the Commission's current technical
    requirements.[^104] Constellation, Iridium LLC, and Motorola
    maintained that there was no present need to adopt new technical
    requirements for GMPCS transceivers, however, aside from out-of-band
    emission limits to protect aeronautical radio-navigation.[^105] In
    particular, Motorola maintained that there was no need for the
    Commission to adopt additional or stricter requirements espoused by
    ETSI, because manufacturers of subscriber transceivers for global
    GMPCS systems will be compelled by commercial incentive to design
    them to meet both European and U.S. type approval standards in any
    event.[^106]

56. For reasons discussed in detail below, we amend certain out-of-band
    emission limits for MSS transceivers prescribed in Section 25.216.
    There is no basis in the record of this proceeding for revising any
    other technical requirements for portable GMPCS transceivers,
    however, or for imposing new technical requirements for such
    devices.

57. The certification rule proposed in the NPRM did not specifically
    identify the technical requirements to be addressed in applications
    for certification of GMPCS transceivers. Rather, the proposed rule
    simply stated that an applicant for certification of GMPCS
    transceivers must show that the devices meet all applicable
    technical requirements in Part 25 of the Commission's rules and
    "confirm" that they meet "the radiation exposure requirements
    specified in Section 24.52."[^107] Constellation contended that it
    would be better, for the sake of clarity, for the rule to identify
    explicitly the specific technical standards for certification of
    transceivers for each type of GMPCS service.[^108] Constellation
    also contended that the rule should refer directly to the sections
    of Parts 1 and 2 of the Commission's rules that prescribe radiation
    limits, rather than referring to Section 24.52, which pertains to
    certification of portable transmitters in the Personal
    Communications Services.

58. We agree with Constellation on both points. The certification rule
    that we adopt here specifically identifies the technical
    requirements that comprise the standards for certification of GMPCS
    transceivers and refers directly to the pertinent radiation-hazard
    provisions in Parts 1 and 2.[^109]

## Personal-Effects Importation

### [Devices Not Certificated Under Part 2 or Not Licensed for U.S. Operation]{.underline}

59. Commenters agreed that, as proposed in the NPRM, travelers should be
    allowed to bring GMPCS terminals purchased in other countries into
    the United States as personal effects for purposes other than sale
    or lease, whether or not the devices are certificated pursuant to
    the FCC's rules or authorized under an FCC blanket license.[^110]
    The rules that we adopt here will permit this. More precisely, the
    new rules will allow a traveler to carry up to three uncertificated
    GMPCS transceivers into the United States at one time. We are
    inserting a provision to this effect in Subsection 2.1204(a),[^111]
    which enumerates the circumstances in which radio frequency devices
    may be imported. Travelers who bring uncertificated GMPCS
    transceivers into the United States as personal effects may use them
    here if such operation is authorized under the terms of a blanket
    license issued by this Commission and will not violate any of the
    Commission's regulations. Travelers with GMPCS transceivers not
    authorized for operation in the United States under an FCC blanket
    license may bring them into the United States but may not operate
    them here. As discussed below, we prohibit service providers from
    granting access to subscribers who attempt to use unauthorized GMPCS
    transceivers within the United States.

60. Adoption of this provision permitting personal importation of
    uncertificated GMPCS transceivers implements the essential
    recommendations of the GMPCS MoU for establishment of entry policies
    that enhance the value of GMPCS services by enabling travelers to
    carry GMPCS transceivers across national boundaries and use them in
    different countries without re-licensing. This action will also
    serve the public interest by avoiding creation of additional Customs
    enforcement burdens and sparing travelers entering the United States
    from consequent inconvenience and delay.

61. As indicated previously, we are specifying a quantitative limit on
    the privilege of personally importing uncertificated devices rather
    than merely relying on a prohibition against selling or leasing such
    devices in the United States. Because it may not be readily apparent
    at the point of entry whether a traveler intends to keep or sell
    equipment in his possession, we believe that a quantitative limit is
    necessary to afford regulatory certainty and prevent abuse.
    Subsection 1204(a)(7) currently permits travelers to bring three or
    fewer Part 15 devices into the United States for personal use. As
    amended here, Subsection 2.1204(a) will similarly allow personal
    importation of three or fewer uncertificated GMPCS transceivers at a
    time.[^112] We do not believe that the quantitative limit will
    substantially affect customs processing because we assume that
    travelers will seldom have reason to carry more than three GMPCS
    transceivers among their personal effects.

### [Devices Without the ITU GMPCS Registry Mark]{.underline}

62. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to prohibit entry of GMPCS
    terminals not certificated under Part 2 unless they are marked with
    the ITU-GMPCS logo, for two reasons.[^113] First, the Commission
    assumed that GMPCS service providers would need the kind of
    information available in the ITU GMPCS Registry database to
    determine whether such uncertificated transceivers carried into the
    United States by international travelers could access their networks
    from within the United States without causing harmful
    interference.[^114] Second, the Commission said that uncertificated
    GMPCS terminals brought into the United States as personal effects
    should be ITU-GMPCS-registered because it would be necessary, in the
    event harmful interference were caused by operation of such a
    device, to "trace the terminal to the ITU \[GMPCS Registry\]
    database and evaluate its technical specifications."[^115]

63. Some commenters took issue with the proposal to prohibit entry of
    uncertificated devices not marked with the ITU-GMPCS logo.
    Constellation and AMSC contended that travelers should be allowed to
    bring any GMPCS terminal into the United States that can be operated
    under the terms of an FCC blanket license, whether or not the device
    is ITU-marked.[^116] Further, Inmarsat contended that absence of the
    ITU-GMPCS mark should not preclude international travelers from
    carrying devices not covered by an FCC blanket license into and
    through the United States without using them.[^117] Other commenters
    maintained that there should be a grandfather exemption from any
    such marking requirement. Comsat urged the Commission to exempt
    existing Inmarsat-system terminals, in particular, asserting that
    many terminals used to access the Inmarsat system were not marked
    with the ITU-GMPCS logo and that many of those had been placed in
    service before the ITU GMPCS Registry was established.[^118] Iridium
    LLC and Motorola argued that there was no need for such
    grandfathering, however, because existing terminals could be
    retroactively registered with the ITU and could then be marked with
    the ITU-GMPCS logo at little cost through use of stick-on
    labels.[^119] Motorola maintained, moreover, that a marking
    requirement for entry would be difficult to enforce if it were
    subject to grandfather exemptions.

64. We decide not to bar entry of GMPCS devices carried as personal
    effects that are not marked with the ITU-GMPCS logo. Such a
    restriction is not necessary to achieve the essential objective of
    the GMPCS MoU or the objectives that are served by equipment
    certification and would be of little public benefit. The primary
    objective of the GMPCS MoU and the ITU registry process is to
    facilitate personal transportation of GMPCS transceivers across
    international boundaries. That objective is fully served by our
    decision to allow travelers to carry GMPCS transceivers not
    certificated under our rules into the United States. Barring entry
    of devices not marked with the ITU GMPCS Registry logo would not
    make it any easier to carry GMPCS transceivers across international
    boundaries. On the contrary, as explained below, enforcement of such
    an entry restriction would result in increased delay and
    inconvenience for international travelers carrying GMPCS
    transceivers and other wireless devices.

65. The purpose of certification, as we said before, is to prevent mass
    distribution of transmitters that do not meet FCC technical
    requirements adopted to prevent destructive interference and
    hazardous RF exposure. Barring entry of devices not marked with the
    ITU GMPCS Registry logo would not serve that regulatory objective.
    The presence of the ITU GMPCS Registry logo does not signify that
    the marked device can operate in compliance with the FCC's relevant
    technical standards, nor does its absence signify that the device
    does not meet FCC standards or that there is no license authority
    for it to operate in the United States. Furthermore, the assumption
    in the NPRM that ITU-GMPCS registration of GMPCS transceivers
    brought into the United States is necessary to enable FCC-licensed
    service providers to deny access to devices that will cause harmful
    interference is incorrect. GMPCS system operators and service
    providers control access to their networks by means of proprietary
    identification codes. Whether manufactured in the United States or
    abroad, a transceiver cannot be used to obtain service from an
    FCC-licensed GMPCS system unless it transmits a code sequence
    recognized by the system that uniquely identifies that device for
    billing purposes. The code signal is automatically transmitted
    rather than user-determined. Each transceiver's unique identifying
    code sequence is programmed into the device by the manufacturer, who
    must obtain it from the system operator, either directly or through
    an intermediary. Thus, every transceiver capable of accessing a
    GMPCS network is programmed with an enabling code sequence
    originally assigned by the system operator. In order to ensure that
    the transceivers used to obtain service from a GMPCS system will
    operate in compliance with the FCC's rules and pertinent license
    terms, the system operator or a licensed service provider must
    ensure that transceivers programmed to transmit identifying code
    sequences that the system will recognize are manufactured to the
    required specifications. They can do this either by making the
    devices themselves or through contractual arrangements with
    manufacturers that they provide with the code sequences required for
    access to their networks. Licensees need not consult the ITU GMPCS
    Registry database to ascertain the performance parameters of
    equipment that they make themselves or that is manufactured to their
    specifications under license or purchase contracts.

66. Nor are we convinced that ITU-GMPCS registration is essential for
    enforcement when interference occurs. The main enforcement problem
    when harmful interference results from operation of a mobile or
    portable transmitter is to identify the source of the interfering
    radiation, which may be possible through use of spectrum analysers,
    direction-finding equipment, and/or signal analysis equipment but
    cannot be accomplished by examining records in the ITU GMPCS
    Registry.

67. To effectively enforce a restriction against personal-effects
    importation of uncertificated GMPCS transceivers not marked with the
    ITU GMPCS Registry logo, Customs inspectors would not only have to
    look for the logo on portable objects hand-carried by international
    travelers or found among their personal effects but would also have
    to determine whether objects not marked with the logo are radio
    transmitters, and, more specifically, whether they are GMPCS
    transceivers. The screening process would be further complicated if
    there were a grandfather exemption from the ITU-marking requirement
    or an exemption for unmarked devices operable under the terms of an
    FCC blanket license.[^120] Uncertificated devices without the ITU
    mark identified by Customs inspectors as GMPCS terminals would have
    to be confiscated and disposed of or stored pending reclamation.
    Effective enforcement of such a restriction would be burdensome and
    would entail additional inconvenience and delay for travelers
    entering the United States.

68. We therefore conclude that it would not serve the public interest to
    prohibit travelers from bringing uncertificated GMPCS terminals into
    the United States as personal effects unless the devices are marked
    with the ITU-GMPCS logo. We may reconsider this determination,
    however, if future circumstances or information brought to our
    attention suggest that imposing such an entry restriction might
    achieve some public-interest benefit not recognized in the foregoing
    analysis. In the meanwhile, the Commission will continue to support
    the ITU GMPCS Registry process by apprising the ITU Secretary
    General of FCC equipment authorization standards and procedures for
    GMPCS transceivers and by promptly complying with requests for
    notification to the Secretary General of any certification of GMPCS
    transceivers granted pursuant to the Commission's rules.

### [Approved-for-Domestic-Use List]{.underline}

69. The Commission proposed in the NPRM to compile an "approved for
    domestic use" list, from information in the ITU GMPCS Registry, of
    GMPCS terminals not certificated under Part 2 that have been
    type-approved by foreign authorities to standards compatible with
    FCC requirements and approved for use by operators of systems
    authorized to provide service in the United States. The Commission
    proposed to post the list to a database shared with the Customs
    Bureau to enable Customs inspectors to identify GMPCS devices
    without the FCC Identifier that can be operated in the United States
    without causing interference or radiation hazards.[^121]

70. Public comment on this proposal was mostly unfavorable.[^122]
    Opponents argued that there was no need to provide Customs
    inspectors with such a list because the information it would contain
    would be irrelevant to enforcement of entry restrictions.[^123] The
    contention that such a list would be of no use for enforcing entry
    restrictions is correct. Because we are adopting a rule provision
    that will allow travelers to bring GMPCS transceivers into the
    United States that cannot lawfully be operated here, however, it
    might be useful, for purposes of deterrence, to display or
    distribute a notice at points of entrywarning travelers carrying
    such devices that they would be breaking the law if they were to use
    them in the United States. In particular, it might be useful to
    display or distribute a warning against use of GMPCS transceivers in
    the United States for communication via satellite systems that are
    capable of providing service to users in the United States but have
    no FCC earth-station license, identifying such systems and the
    associated service providers by name. We intend to consult the
    Customs Bureau on an ongoing basis concerning the possible value of
    such arrangements, which could be implemented without further
    rulemaking on the Commission's part. Furnishing information or
    warning notices to the Customs Bureau for display or distribution at
    points of entry is not a rulemaking function.

## Blanket Licensing

### [Should Blanket Licensing of GMPCS Transceivers Be Eliminated or Merged With the Certification Process?]{.underline}

71. One of the principal recommendations of the GMPCS MoU was that
    procedures should be developed for issuance of "general" or "class"
    licenses for GMPCS terminals instead of requiring a separate license
    to be obtained for each device. The Commission has accomplished this
    objective by establishing a blanket licensing process for multiple,
    identical earth-station transceivers.[^124] The Commission proposed
    in the NPRM to continue issuing blanket licenses for operation of
    GMPCS terminals but invited comment on the possibility of combining
    the licensing and equipment certification processes.[^125]

72. Skybridge contended that there would be no need to review license
    applications for equipment subject to certification and therefore
    recommended that the Commission eliminate licensing requirements for
    GMPCS terminals when adopting a mandatory certification requirement
    for such devices.[^126] No other commenter agreed that mandatory
    certification would eliminate the need for licensing. To the
    contrary, Iridium LLC maintained that licensing and certification
    serve different purposes; licensing specifies the authority and
    conditions under which transmitters may be used, while certification
    ensures that devices that are actually placed on the market meet
    applicable technical requirements in the Commission's rules.[^127]
    Orbcomm argued that it is particularly important to continue blanket
    licensing of subscriber transceivers for "Little LEO" MSS systems
    that must adhere to duty-cycle limits and employ active avoidance
    techniques to minimize interference with government radio services
    because it is not possible to verify compliance with such
    requirements through certification testing.[^128] Iridium LLC and
    Motorola contended that the Commission should continue with blanket
    licensing of GMPCS transceivers not only because the procedure
    serves domestic regulatory purposes but also because it incidentally
    facilitates global GMPCS development by providing a positive model
    for foreign governments that might otherwise require GMPCS
    transceivers to be individually licensed.[^129]

73. No one argued that blanket licensing and certification of GMPCS
    transceivers should be combined. Rather, several commenters
    contended that the two processes should be kept separate.[^130]
    Teledesic maintained that adopting a single procedure for both
    purposes would unduly delay transceiver licensing, arguing that
    there is no good reason for withholding transceiver licenses until
    production prototypes have been tested and found in compliance.
    Teledesic also stressed that different parties typically apply for
    certification and license authority, as certification is usually
    requested by equipment manufacturers and blanket licenses are
    usually issued to service providers.

74. We agree that certification and licensing serve different purposes
    and hence that our adoption of a certification requirement for
    manufacturing, commercially importing, or marketing GMPCS
    transceivers does not eliminate the need to license their operation.
    Licensing of such devices is mandated by the Communications Act,
    which generally prohibits operation of radio transmitters except
    pursuant to licenses granted by this Commission.[^131] We also agree
    that certification and blanket licensing of GMPCS transceivers --
    which serve different regulatory purposes, require consideration of
    different kinds of information that will typically become available
    at different times, and may be requested by different parties --
    should be conducted separately.

### [Must Licensing Precede Certification?]{.underline}

75. The Commission stressed in the NPRM that certification does not
    authorize operation and that GMPCS terminals cannot be lawfully
    operated in the United States except pursuant to FCC licenses. The
    Commission therefore proposed to dismiss, as premature, applications
    for certification of GMPCS terminals filed before an FCC blanket
    license has been issued that grants authority for their
    operation.[^132] ICO and Globalstar argued against this proposal.
    ICO asserted that officials in many foreign countries that have not
    established an equipment authorization process of their own will
    accept an FCC Identifier mark or the ITU-GMPCS mark as sufficient
    evidence of proper equipment performance. Therefore, according to
    ICO, manufacturers might need to obtain FCC certification of GMPCS
    transceivers not currently licensed for U.S. operation in order to
    facilitate exportation and sale of the devices in other countries.
    ICO maintained that adoption of a policy that would preclude this
    option would hinder global development of competitive GMPCS
    services.[^133] Globalstar contended that there is no justification
    for withholding certification pending issuance of a blanket license.
    In particular, Globalstar asserted that it is unnecessary to bar
    certification prior to blanket licensing because GMPCS transceivers
    cannot be used unless a service provider authenticates them.
    Globalstar also contended that barring pre-licensing certification
    of GMPCS transceivers would be inconsistent with established
    regulatory practice pertaining to certification of other types of
    transmitters. For instance, Globalstar asserted that there is no
    such restriction on certification of cellular and PCS
    handsets.[^134]

76. While it is true that the Commission's rules do not preclude
    pre-licensing certification of subscriber transceivers for
    terrestrial public mobile services, there is a problem of peculiar
    relevance to regulation of GMPCS transceivers that compels adoption
    of a different certification policy. The problem is that GMPCS
    transceivers not licensed by the FCC could be illegally used in the
    United States for communication via foreign-licensed satellite
    systems without any FCC authorization for earth-station operation.
    The Part 2 certification requirement would not prevent domestic
    marketing or commercial importation of such "rogue" transceivers for
    sale to users in the United States if it were possible to obtain
    certification for GMPCS transceivers without showing that they are
    designed for use with a satellite system with proper authority for
    provision of service in the United States. Mass marketing of such
    rogue devices in the United States could create serious interference
    problems even if they were certificated to applicable FCC technical
    standards. We are therefore adopting a rule provision[^135] to the
    effect that certification will be granted for GMPCS transceivers
    only if the certification applicant produces an attested statement
    from a party with a relevant FCC blanket license or satellite
    authorization (including an "order reserving spectrum" pursuant to
    the *DISCO II* policy for authorizing provision of service via
    foreign-licensed satellites)[^136] confirming that the devices are
    to be used with a system that may lawfully provide service to users
    in the United States. This will not necessarily require GMPCS
    transceivers to be blanket licensed in advance of certification.

### ["Streamlining" Application Requirements]{.underline} 

77. In the NPRM, the Commission invited comment on ways to simplify the
    blanket licensing or certification process for GMPCS terminals to
    minimize delay or eliminate unnecessary burdens for applicants. For
    instance, the Commission asked whether it should refrain from
    reviewing blanket license applications for GMPCS terminals for
    compliance with technical requirements and whether the application
    forms for blanket licenses or certification should be modified to
    eliminate redundancy.[^137] Several commenters offered specific
    recommendations in response.

78. Motorola, Teledesic, and Constellation contended that it should not
    be necessary for a service provider to submit a further showing in
    order to obtain authority for operation of additional types of
    transceivers with specifications and operating parameters consistent
    with the existing terms of its blanket license for GMPCS
    transceivers.[^138] Teledesic therefore recommended that Section
    25.118 be amended, if necessary, to relieve GMPCS blanket licensees
    from any obligation to notify the Commission of the introduction of
    new transceivers that are "electrically identical" to existing
    devices authorized by their licenses.

79. We agree that service providers should not have to notify the
    Commission of the placement in service of new transceivers that are
    operable within the existing terms of their GMPCS blanket licenses
    and are electrically identical to devices previously operated under
    those licenses. We recently amended Section 25.118 to eliminate the
    notice requirement for such changes.[^139]

80. Globalstar and Constellation contended that service providers should
    not be required to submit technical information in applications for
    blanket licenses for GMPCS transceivers subject to equipment
    certification. Noting that the pertinent license application form
    requires submission of the same kind of technical information that
    must be submitted in certification applications, Globalstar asserted
    that reviewing such data in both the licensing process and the
    certification process would be administratively burdensome,
    time-consuming, and unnecessary.[^140] For the same reason,
    Constellation contended that blanket licenses for GMPCS transceivers
    should be routinely granted without technical review to any
    qualified party authorized by the system operator to resell service
    and should authorize operation of any type or quantity of
    certificated transceivers approved by the system operator.[^141]
    AMSC opposed these recommendations. AMSC argued that if the
    Commission were to issue blanket licenses for GMPCS transceivers
    without technical review it would be possible for foreign-licensed
    systems to gain access to the U.S. market without showing that their
    user transceivers meet FCC requirements.[^142]

81. We agree that service providers should not be required to routinely
    submit information in blanket license applications for GMPCS
    transceivers pertaining to compliance with operating requirements
    that can be demonstrated by transceiver testing required for
    equipment certification. Contrary to AMSC's contention, the
    elimination of such redundant information from blanket license
    applications will not eliminate regulatory safeguards against
    non-compliant transceiver operation by subscribers to GMPCS services
    provided via foreign-licensed GMPCS satellites.[^143] The principal
    safeguard is the requirement that GMPCS transceivers must be
    certificated under Part 2 to FCC requirements if they are to be
    commercially imported or placed on the market in the United States.
    Although travelers may carry GMPCS transceivers not certificated
    under Part 2 into the United States in small numbers for purposes
    other than sale or lease, GMPCS service cannot lawfully be provided
    to users with transceivers operated in violation of FCC
    requirements. Further, under the rules we are adopting in this
    proceeding service providers will be legally responsible for any
    such illicit operation.[^144]

82. We are therefore amending the rules to eliminate requirements to
    submit such redundant compliance showings in blanket license
    applications. For instance, as Motorola correctly contended in
    public comments,[^145] submission of RF exposure compliance showings
    in blanket license applications for GMPCS transceivers subject to
    mandatory certification would be duplicative, because the same
    information is required in applications for certification. Section
    2.1093 of the Commission's rules states that applications for Part 2
    equipment authorization for portable transmitting devices must
    include a statement confirming compliance with the radiation limits
    in Paragraph (d) of the same section, based on data to be submitted
    to the Commission on request. Section 1.1307(b) requires an
    identical compliance statement to be included in transmitter license
    applications. We agree with Motorola that there is no need to
    require such compliance statements for GMPCS transceivers to be
    submitted both in blanket license applications and in applications
    for certification. We also agree that it is more appropriate to
    require the compliance statement to be submitted with applications
    for certification than to require it to be included in blanket
    license applications, because compliance with the RF radiation
    limits can best be demonstrated by equipment testing. Requiring the
    showing to be made in blanket license applications would effectively
    require production prototypes to be made before license authority is
    granted, which would be unreasonable. We are therefore amending
    Section 1.1307(b) to state that RF exposure compliance statements
    are not required in blanket license applications for portable
    earth-station transceivers subject to mandatory certification
    pursuant to Part 2. We are also adopting an amendment to modify an
    information-filing requirement in Section 25.132(a) that would be
    similarly redundant if imposed on applicants for blanket licenses
    for GMPCS transceivers subject to mandatory certification .

83. We are not eliminating all requirements for submission of technical
    information in blanket license applications for GMPCS transceivers,
    however. GMPCS blanket license applicants will remain subject to
    rule provisions requiring submission of technical information of a
    kind that would not be duplicated or superceded in certification
    showings[^146] and must provide any information necessary to support
    requests for waiver of technical standards for transceiver
    operation.

## Responsibility for Unlawful Operation of GMPCS Transceivers

84. The Commission stated in the NPRM that it would hold each
    FCC-licensed provider of GMPCS service accountable for any proven
    violation of the rules pertaining to operation of GMPCS transceivers
    in the United States. Accordingly, the Commission proposed to adopt
    a rule that all providers of GMPCS service in the United States
    "must be licensed under \[Section\] 25.136" of the Commission's
    rules.[^147] Further, the Commission said that GMPCS transceivers
    used unlawfully to obtain service in the United States from
    providers and satellite systems without licenses or operating
    authority from the FCC would be subject to confiscation under
    Section 510 of the Communications Act.[^148]

85. Teledesic maintained that the proposal to hold GMPCS service
    providers responsible for unlawful transceiver operation was unclear
    because the Commission had not explained whether "service providers"
    meant earth-station licensees or space-station licensees. Teledesic
    argued that the responsibility should be borne by earth-station
    licensees because they have more direct relationships with end users
    and because the Commission does not issue space-station licenses for
    foreign-licensed satellites.[^149] Iridium LLC similarly contended
    that the intended significance of the proposed rule that "\[a\]ll
    GMPCS service providers must be licensed under \[Section\] 25.136"
    was unclear because the NPRM did not define "service provider."
    Moreover, Iridium LLC pointed out that Section 25.136 does not state
    that all service providers must be licensed and does not apply by
    its terms to all GMPCS services.

86. Although "service providers" is undefined in the NPRM, the
    Commission was using the term to refer to parties that provide GMPCS
    service directly to end users. Thus, the apparent intention of the
    proposed rule that all GMPCS service providers must be licensed
    under Section 25.136, which pertains to blanket licensing of MSS
    transceivers, was to require those providing GMPCS service directly
    to end users in the United States to have a blanket license for
    operation of their subscribers' transceivers. Although we do not
    think that it is necessary for every party providing GMPCS service
    to end users to have a separate blanket license, GMPCS transceivers
    cannot lawfully be operated in the United States without direct or
    indirect permission from someone with license authority from the
    Commission for such operation. We are therefore amending Section
    25.136 and other relevant sections of Part 25 to make it clear that
    a GMPCS transceiver can be lawfully operated in the United States
    only to receive service from the holder of an FCC blanket license
    for such operation or from another party with the permission of such
    a blanket licensee. The amended rules also state that a blanket
    licensee is legally responsible for operation of the GMPCS
    transceivers that it directly or indirectly authorizes and prohibit
    GMPCS system operators from transmitting communications generated
    by, or addressed to, transceivers in the United States that are
    neither directly nor indirectly authorized by someone with pertinent
    blanket license authority from the Commission. The amended rules
    place legal responsibility for operation of GMPCS transceivers on
    the parties that determine which transceivers have access to service
    from a particular GMPCS system at any given time and ensure that
    anyone transmitting messages to or from transceivers in the United
    States not licensed by the FCC will incur a risk of liability for
    violation of the FCC's rules.[^150]

87. Teledesic and Constellation objected to the proposal to hold
    licensed GMPCS service providers responsible for "any and all proven
    infractions" because it could result in imposition of liability for
    actions beyond the control of service providers. They contended that
    licensees should not be held responsible for rule violations
    involving transceiver operation or interference resulting from such
    operation if the faulty operation is due to unauthorized user
    tampering. They contended, moreover, that licensees should not be
    held responsible for transceiver operation that does not gain access
    to their networks.[^151] We agree on these points. The rules that we
    are adopting will not impose liability on licensees for faulty
    transceiver operation due to tampering that they have not authorized
    or condoned or for unauthorized transceiver operation that does not
    gain access to their networks. Rather, they provide that blanket
    licensees are responsible for the transceiver operation that they
    authorize.

88. Comsat, which provides GMPCS service to end users via Inmarsat
    satellites, said that it could not determine the location of its
    subscribers' transceivers and therefore had no means of blocking
    service to users in any particular portion of an Inmarsat satellite
    coverage footprint.[^152] In effect, Comsat contended that that it
    should not be held at fault for providing service to subscribers in
    the United States using transceivers that cannot be lawfully
    operated here.

89. Conversely, AMSC argued that service providers that cannot determine
    the location of transceivers used to access their networks should
    not be absolved of responsibility for unlawful transceiver operation
    merely for that reason. Rather, AMSC contended that "appropriate
    liability" should be imposed on such service providers if they are
    subject to FCC jurisdiction. AMSC also contended that GMPCS service
    providers without the ability to block calls to or from users in the
    United States should be required to employ non-technical means to
    deter their subscribers from operating non-FCC-licensed transceivers
    in this country. For instance, AMSC suggested inserting provisions
    in service contracts that prohibit transceiver operation within the
    United States.[^153] AMSC also contended that when presented with
    evidence that a GMPCS provider's subscriber transceivers are being
    illegally operated in the United States the Commission should
    prohibit travelers from bringing such transceivers into the United
    States unless and until the service provider or system operator
    demonstrates that it has taken effective measures to prevent such
    illegal operation.[^154] Inmarsat contended that such a solution
    would be too draconian because it could effectively penalize
    innocent subscribers due to one person's alleged wrongdoing.
    Inmarsat also contended that if the Commission were to adopt such a
    policy, regulators in other countries would probably adopt similar
    policies, thereby increasing the likelihood of discrimination and
    retaliation.[^155]

90. We agree with AMSC that service providers without technical means of
    selectively blocking service to users in the United States should
    not be absolved of responsibility for unlawful operation of their
    subscribers' transceivers in this country. To adopt such a policy
    would eliminate any incentive for service providers to employ
    non-technical means to deter subscribers from using transceivers not
    licensed by the FCC to obtain service in the United States. Whether
    a service provider has employed all feasible means to prevent or
    deter such illegal operation would be a relevant factor to consider
    when assessing forfeiture liability.

91. We agree with Inmarsat that barring entry of all non-FCC-licensed
    transceivers used to obtain service from a particular GMPCS provider
    on finding that a few of them have been illegally operated in the
    United States would adversely affect innocent subscribers. Moreover,
    such an entry restriction would be difficult to enforce unless the
    identity of the service provider could readily be ascertained from
    superficial inspection of the devices.[^156] Also, rigorous
    enforcement of such a restriction would entail substantial delay and
    inconvenience for innocent travelers. Hence we do not believe that
    it would serve the public interest to adopt such an enforcement
    policy at this time. We might reconsider this issue, however, in
    response to evidence that GMPCS service providers are flouting the
    Commission's licensing authority by encouraging or condoning
    unlawful transceiver operation in this country.

## Access to Traffic Data

92. The Commission noted in the NPRM that the GMPCS MoU included a
    pledge "to develop arrangements for GMPCS operators to provide, on a
    confidential basis ... to any duly authorized national authority
    which so requests, appropriate data concerning traffic originating
    in or routed to its national territory, and to assist it with ...
    measures ... to identify unauthorized traffic flows therein." The
    Commission declined to propose a rule that would require GMPCS
    system operators or service providers to submit traffic data,
    however. Rather, the Commission said that it would be better for
    such arrangements to be developed through *ad hoc* negotiation
    between regulators and GMPCS companies.[^157]

93. Several parties addressed this issue in public comments.[^158] All
    agreed with the Commission's tentative conclusion that negotiation
    of separate agreements with system operators and service providers
    would be the best way to address relevant concerns. We continue to
    believe, as stated in the NPRM, that balancing concerns such as
    national security and the need to protect sensitive and proprietary
    traffic data is best left to individual agreements, and we therefore
    do not adopt a rule requiring submission of traffic data.

# DISCUSSION OF OUT-OF-BAND EMISSION ISSUES

94. In May 2002 the Commission adopted a new rule section, Section
    25.216, which prescribes limits on emissions from mobile earth
    stations for protection of aeronautical radionavigation-satellite
    services in the 1559-1605 MHz frequency band. However, some further
    issues that had been raised in reply comments remained unresolved.
    The Commission invited public comments on those issues in a Further
    NPRM ("FNPRM") in this proceeding.[^159]

## Limits for Carrier-Off State

95. When a mobile earth-station transceiver ("MET") is powered on but
    not transmitting a signal, it is said to be in a "carrier-off"
    state. The Commission proposed in the FNPRM to adopt a requirement
    that the peak e.i.r.p density[^160] of carrier-off emissions from
    all METs with assigned uplink frequencies between 1 and 3 GHz must
    be suppressed to -77 dBW/100 kHz or less in the 1559-1610 MHz band,
    in accordance with a pertinent ITU recommendation.[^161]

96. In its comments on the FRNPM, the NTIA urged the Commission to adopt
    an e.i.r.p limit of -80 dBW/MHz for carrier-off emissions, rather
    than the -77 dBW/100 kHz limit proposed. The NTIA maintained that
    the -80 dBW/MHz value is consistent with the ITU-R recommendation
    and would greatly simplify compliance measurements.[^162] The NTIA
    pointed out that there are two technical differences between the
    NTIA proposal and the international standard proposed by the
    Commission for carrier-off emissions: the measurement bandwidth and
    the detector function of the measurement equipment. The NTIA
    suggests using measuring equipment with an average detector
    function, which is consistent with the method used for measuring
    carrier-on emissions, instead of using the peak-hold techniques
    specified in the ITU recommendation for carrier-off measurements.
    For noise-like emissions similar to those produced by METs, the
    values of the peak-to-average ratio range from -10 dB to -14 dB, and
    a representative value of -13 dB was used in the development of the
    NTIA carrier-off emission limit. Therefore, the NTIA believes that
    its proposal for carrier-off emission would simplify compliance
    measurements, since both the carrier-on and carrier-off emission
    measurements would use the same bandwidth and detector function.

97. We agree with the NTIA that using the same detector function and
    bandwidth would simplify compliance measurements, and that the -80
    dBW/MHz value is consistent with the ITU recommendation. Use of an
    average detector may allow for higher peak emissions than the ITU
    recommended levels, as peaks would be averaged out in the
    integration function. Given, however, that the purpose of this limit
    is to protect Global Navigation Satellite System ("GNSS") operations
    under the NTIA's purview, we are persuaded by the NTIA's undisputed
    advice that this proposed limit on average e.i.r.p. density is
    sufficient. Hence we cannot conclude that there is justification for
    imposing a more restrictive carrier-off rule.[^163] We are therefore
    adopting the NTIA's proposal to limit the peak e.i.r.p density of
    carrier-off emissions from METs with assigned uplink frequencies
    between 1 and 3 GHz to -80 dBW/MHz or less in the 1559-1610 MHz
    band.

98. Although it did not oppose adoption of the proposed
    carrier-off-state limit, MSV urged the Commission to apply the limit
    only to L-band METs[^164] that are manufactured, rather than "placed
    in service", one year or more after the effective date of an order
    adopting these limits.[^165] MSV contended that L-band METs
    manufactured prior to then should be grandfathered indefinitely. MSV
    maintained that it would be fundamentally unfair to apply new
    carrier-off limits retroactively to METs manufactured prior to the
    adoption of a rule specifying the limits.

99. We agree that previously manufactured L-band METs should be
    grandfathered, given the difficulty of recalling such existing METs
    and since there has been no complaint of interference from such
    devices to date. However, if we were to exempt all METs manufactured
    within a full year after the effective date of this Order, as
    requested by MSV, there might be a large unsold inventory of
    non-compliant METs at the end of the transition periodthat would
    pose a potentially significant interference risk if placed into
    service. In order to keep the number of non-compliant L-band METs
    low yet still give the manufacturers time to design and build
    compliant METs, we will apply these limits to L-band METs
    manufactured more than six months after Federal Register publication
    of the rule changes adopted by this Order.

## Further Requirements for Suppression in the 1605-1610 MHz Band Segment

### [Wideband Limits on Emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz Band for METs with Uplink Assignment Above 1626.5 MHz]{.underline}

100. The Commission tentatively concluded in the FNPRM that the ITU
     recommended out-of-band emission levels from L-band METs in the
     1605-1610 MHz band[^166] would be appropriate for domestic use and
     proposed to make January 1, 2005 the effective date for this
     requirement. The Commission sought public comments on this
     proposal.

101. In its comments on the FNPRM, MSV urged the Commission to apply the
     proposed stricter emission limit in 1605-1610 MHz only to L-band
     METs that are manufactured, rather than "placed in service," one
     year or more after the effective date of an Order adopting these
     limits.[^167] MSV contended that METs manufactured within one year
     after the effective date of an Order adopting these new limits
     should be grandfathered indefinitely. MSV asserted that it would be
     fundamentally unfair to apply these new limits retroactively to
     METs manufactured prior to the adoption of a rule specifying the
     final limits.

102. We received no comments aside from MSV's on the proposal to adopt
     these limits. Nor did we receive any comments supporting or
     objecting to MSV's request to grandfather previously-operational
     L-band METs. We agree that previously manufactured L-band METs
     should be grandfathered, given the difficulty of recalling such
     existing METs and since there has been no complaint of interference
     from such devices to date. However, if we were to exempt all METs
     manufactured within a full year after the effective date of this
     Order, as requested by MSV, there might be a large unsold inventory
     of non-compliant METs at the end of the transition period that
     would pose a potentially significant interference risk if placed
     into service. In order to keep the number of non-compliant L-band
     METs low yet still give the manufacturers time to design and build
     compliant METs, we will apply these limits to L-band METs
     manufactured six months or more after Federal Register publication
     of this Order and grandfather all L-band METs manufactured prior to
     then.

### [Narrowband Limits]{.underline}

103. In the first Report and Order in this proceeding, the Commission
     adopted limits on narrowband emissions in the 1559-1605 MHz band
     from 1.6 GHz METs but did not adopt limits on emissions in the
     1605-1610 MHz band because it had not previously proposed limits on
     emissions in that small segment of the 1559-1610 MHz Aeronautical
     Radionavigation band. In comments on the NPRM, the NTIA proposed
     that the e.i.r.p of narrowband spurs in the 1605-1610 MHz segment
     should be suppressed to a level 10 dB below the pertinent wideband
     limit, and accordingly suggested a -80 dBW e.i.r.p. limit on
     narrowband emissions in that band segment. The ITU likewise
     recommends that GNSS receivers have an additional 10 dB of
     protection against discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz in
     bandwidth.[^168] Hence, the Commission proposed in the NPRM to
     adopt a requirement that the e.i.r.p of discrete emissions of less
     than 700 Hz from Big LEO METs[^169] shall not exceed a level
     determined by linear interpolation from -80 dBW at 1605 MHz to -20
     dBW at 1610 MHz.[^170] Similarly, the Commission proposed to
     require that the e.i.r.p of such emissions from L-band METs with
     assigned uplink frequencies between 1626.5 MHz and 1660.5 MHz shall
     not exceed a level determined by linear interpolation from -80 dBW
     at 1605 MHz to -56 dBW at 1610 MHz and the e.i.r.p of such
     emissions from 2 GHz METs[^171] shall not exceed -80 dBW between
     1605 MHz and 1610 MHz.[^172]

104. In its comments on the FNPRM, Inmarsat stated that narrowband
     limits for other L-band METs should be no more restrictive than
     those imposed on Big LEO METs.[^173] Inmarsat contended that
     imposing more restrictive limits on L-band METs that transmit in an
     uplink band further away from the 1559-1610 MHz Aeronautical
     Radionavigation band than Big LEO METs would cause undue hardship
     for existing L-band MET users and manufacturers. Inmarsat asserted
     that neither of the ITU recommendations referenced by the
     Commission addresses the appropriate level of narrowband protection
     from L-Band METs and did not agree that the narrowband limits
     should be derived by subtracting 10 dB from the wideband
     limits.[^174] Further, Inmarsat asserted that the Commission is not
     seeking to tighten the limits for the Big LEO METs because tighter
     limits are not needed to protect ARNS systems. If these rules are
     immediately enacted, Inmarsat contended, L-band MET users would
     need to confirm that their METs comply with the Commission's more
     stringent standards and replace METs that are non-compliant with
     those standards yet are apparently not harmful to ARNS systems.
     Similarly, manufacturers would need to test and might have to
     modify their production facilities to meet superfluous new limits.
     Inmarsat urged the Commission not to implement a proposed
     narrowband limit that does not appear to be needed to protect ARNS
     systems and would unnecessarily impose significant costs and
     disruption on L-band MET users and manufacturers.

105. MSV urged the commission to apply the stricter emission limit in
     the 1605-1610 MHz only to L-band METs that are manufactured one
     year or more after the effective date of an Order adopting these
     limits.[^175] In addition, MSV contended that METs manufactured
     less than one year after the effective date of an Order adopting
     these new limits should be grandfathered indefinitely.

106. It should be possible for L-band METs to meet these new limits
     without significant effort since their assigned transmission
     frequencies are separated by a significant margin from the 1610 MHz
     band edge. Further, we note that the other L-band operators did not
     object to these proposed limits, and that NTIA claims that these
     levels are necessary to protect the GNSS systems. We therefore
     disagree that these limits are not appropriate. We have established
     less restrictive emission limits for Big LEO METs because those
     must operate in the frequency band immediately above 1610 MHz and
     it is infeasible for them to have more restrictive limits than
     proposed. Adopting the limits recommended by the ITU will promote
     harmonization of national technical standards and facilitate global
     roaming of METs. Therefore, we are adopting the proposed emission
     limits for all Big LEO, L-band, and 2 GHz METs.

107. We received no comments supporting or objecting to MSV's request to
     grandfather previously-operational L-band METs. For the reasons
     stated above, we will apply the same methodology to the
     grandfathering of non-compliant METs as for the carrier-off limits
     and the limits on wideband emissions from L-band transceivers in
     the 1605-1610 MHz segment. That is, we will apply these limits to
     the L-band METs manufactured six months or more after the Federal
     Register publication of the rule changes adopted by this order and
     grandfather all L-band METs manufactured prior to then. **\
     **

## Measurement Issues

108. In the first Report and Order in this proceeding, we adopted
     general procedures for conducting measurements for verification of
     compliance with both wideband and narrowband out-of-band emission
     limits for all METs. We prescribed a measurement interval of 20
     milliseconds, as specified in ITU-R Recommendation M.1343, but
     invited further comment on the advisability of prescribing a two
     millisecond measurement interval, instead, which the NTIA advocated
     in its comments on the original NPRM. We also sought comment on
     whether the Commission should specify a particular type of
     measurement detector since the measurement result depends on the
     detector function selected.

### [Two Millisecond Measurement Interval]{.underline}

109. The Commission tentatively concluded in the FNPRM that, as
     recommended by the NTIA, specifying a measurement interval of two
     milliseconds for measuring emission limits pertaining to METs using
     Time Division Multiple Access ("TDMA") would ensure that the
     emissions are measured when a TDMA MET is transmitting. It would
     also simultaneously quantify the interference potential to both
     Global Positioning System ("GPS") and Wide Area Augmentation System
     ("WAAS") receivers. The Commission sought public comments on this
     proposal.

110. In its comments, the NTIA stated that the 20 millisecond
     measurement time interval in ITU Recommendation ITU-R M.1343 was
     based on the 50 bits/second data rate of the GPS navigation
     message.[^176] However, the ITU did not include a provision for the
     WAAS signal in this recommendation because WAAS was still in the
     early development stages when the recommendation was debated
     internationally. Recommendation ITU-R M.1343 specifies that for
     non-continuous signals the measurement should be performed over the
     active part of the burst. TDMA METs transmit data by dividing the
     channel into time slots with "on-time" transmission bursts and
     "off-time" intervals. The NTIA contended that the emissions should
     be measured only during an on-time active transmission timeslot and
     should not include an off-time interval. The NTIA also asserted
     that in order to properly assess the potential for interference,
     the MET emissions should be measured over a time interval that is
     related to the bit duration of the GPS and WAAS signals. This would
     be consistent with the approach used in ITU-R Recommendation ITU-R
     M.1343 to establish the measurement time interval. However, the
     WAAS signal is modulated with data using a symbol rate of 500
     bits/second, which has corresponding bit duration of two
     milliseconds (1/500). Accordingly, the NTIA recommended that the
     Commission specify a measurement time interval of two milliseconds
     for all MET out-of-band emission measurements in the 1559-1605 MHz
     band.[^177]

111. We agree with NTIA that a measurement interval of two milliseconds
     for all METs would simplify compliance measurements, ensure that
     the emissions are measured when the MET is transmitting, and
     accurately quantify the interference potential to both GPS and WAAS
     receivers.[^178] We also believe that measuring the out-of-band
     emission limit in a portion of an active transmission timeslot
     would ensure that there exists no higher out-of-band emission.
     Therefore, we are specifying that all MET out-of-band emission
     measurements shall take place in a two milliseconds portion of an
     active transmission timeslot.

### [Power-density Measurement]{.underline} 

112. The Commission invited comments as to whether wideband
     power-density measurements could vary significantly depending on
     whether a log-average, linear average, or true Root Mean Square
     ("RMS")[^179] detector is used. It also asked whether the
     Commission should prescribe use of a particular type of detector
     for testing for compliance with the wideband emission limits.

113. In its comments the NTIA contended that the Commission should
     require both wideband and narrowband emissions to be measured with
     an RMS detector,[^180] since the measurements result will depend on
     the detector function selected and the interference impact to GPS
     receivers is quantified in terms of average power. The NTIA
     asserted that only a RMS detector will consistently measure the
     true average power of the emission level. Because the RMS detector
     function relates to the "voltage-squared" values of the time
     waveform, it tends to be more affected by the higher signal levels
     of the waveform.[^181] The NTIA claimed that if the choice of the
     detector used is left open to the user of the specification, the
     result would depend on the detector chosen and that such variation
     is clearly not acceptable for performing compliance measurements.
     Accordingly, the NTIA recommended that the Commission specify an
     RMS detector for the emission limit measurement for MSS METs. The
     specification of an RMS detector should be applicable to the
     wideband and narrowband emission limits in the 1559-1605 MHz band
     for both the carrier-on and carrier-off states of the MSS MET.

114. We received no other comment on this issue. We agree with the NTIA
     that we should avoid variation in the compliance measurements to
     increase repeatability. We also agree with NTIA that using
     different detectors can result in different values and that the RMS
     detector will consistently measure emission levels for both
     narrowband and wideband emissions. Therefore, we are specifying an
     RMS detector for all power density measurements for MSS METs.

## Compliance Deadlines for Inmarsat Standard A and B Maritime Terminals

115. In comments on the NPRM, Inmarsat argued for indefinite
     grandfathering of Inmarsat METS currently in service because of the
     difficulty of retrofitting noncompliant Inmarsat terminals to meet
     the "-70/-80" limits by January 1, 2005. The Commission concluded
     in the first Report and Order that Inmarsat's argument was
     insufficient to justify a permanent exemption. Noting, however,
     that many cargo ships carry Inmarsat Standard A terminals to comply
     with the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System ("GMDSS")
     requirements, the Commission refrained from specifying a deadline
     for Standard A ship terminals pending further consideration, in
     order to avoid potential disruption of maritime safety services.
     The Commission invited public comments as to an appropriate future
     date for that deadline.

116. In its comments on the FNPRM, Inmarsat asked the Commission to set
     December 31, 2007 as the compliance deadline for Inmarsat-A
     METs.[^182] Inmarsat pointed out that it had already announced that
     Inmarsat-A services would be terminated as of December 31, 2007. It
     asserted that if the Commission set the same date as the compliance
     deadline for Inmarsat-A terminals those terminals could be removed
     from service in an organized manner and service disruption would be
     avoided. In reply comments Stratos Communications supported
     Inmarsat's proposal to set the compliance deadline for Inmarsat A
     terminals at December 31, 2007.[^183] We received no other comments
     on point.

117. We find the comments of Inmarsat and Stratos concerning the
     deadline to be reasonable. Since Inmarsat has announced that
     Inmarsat-A services will be terminated as of December 31, 2007, we
     agree that setting an earlier deadline might cause disruption to
     maritime safety services, and the potential of interference in the
     interim is low. Therefore, in order to avoid potential disruption
     of maritime safety services and allow Inmarsat-A terminals to be
     removed in an organized manner we are setting December 31, 2007 as
     the compliance deadline for Inmarsat-A METs

118. Inmarsat filed a petition for reconsideration asking the Commission
     to grant a temporary exemption for Inmarsat-B terminals, as well.
     Inmarsat-B terminals were designed as the replacement model for
     Inmarsat-A maritime terminals and to likewise meet GMDSS
     requirements. According to Inmarsat, the cost of purchasing and
     installing each maritime Inmarsat-B in current use was many tens of
     thousands dollars and such METs have a useful economic lifetime in
     excess of 20 years. Inmarsat stated that tests indicated that
     Inmarsat-B terminals made by two of the three manufacturers of such
     devices would comply with the proposed "-70/-80" limits, but that
     Inmarsat-B terminals produced by one of the manufacturers would
     exceed the limit by 3 dB above 1604.5 MHz. Inmarsat maintained that
     there was little likelihood that interference could be caused by
     such "marginal" non-compliance.. Inmarsat further asserted that for
     ship owners to have their Standard-B METs tested for compliance and
     replace or retrofit the non-compliant terminals would be an
     enormous and time-consuming task. Inmarsat also maintained that
     subjecting Inmarsat-B terminals to the general compliance deadlines
     for METs placed in service before or after July 21, 2002 would
     cause the disruption of maritime safety services that the
     Commission sought to avoid by establishing the Inmarsat-A
     exemption.

119. We agree that requiring ship owners to have existing Standard-B
     equipment tested for compliance and replace or retrofit
     non-compliant terminals would be an enormous and time-consuming
     task given that currently there are over 11,500 Inmarsat-B maritime
     terminals in use by the U.S. Navy andCoast Guard, alone. We do not
     believe that it is necessary, in order to avoid inequity, to
     permanently exempt all non-compliant Inmarsat-B terminals, however,
     the number of which could become quite large in the absence of a
     relevant compliance deadline. We will temporarily grandfather all
     Inmarsat-B METs manufactured previously or within six months after
     Federal Register publication of the rule changes adopted herein,
     under the condition that they cause no interference to ARNS
     systems, and require Inmarsat-B terminals manufactured more than
     six months after the Federal Register publication date to meet the
     pertinent limits in Section 25.216. We are setting December 31,
     2012 as the full-compliance deadline for grandfathered Inmarsat-B
     terminals.

# CONCLUSION

120. The principal change in regulatory policy that we are effecting
     here is our adoption of a rule requiring test-based equipment
     certification of portable GMPCS transceivers prior to commercial
     importation or domestic marketing of such devices. As we have
     explained, the objective of this requirement, which will apply to
     devices manufactured more than one year after the release of this
     Order, is to prevent commercial distribution to users in the United
     States of transmitters that do not meet technical standards that
     the Commission has prescribed to prevent destructive interference
     and RF radiation injury. We have decided to allow travelers to
     bring as many as three uncertificated GMPCS transceivers into the
     United States as personal effects, however, thus implementing an
     essential recommendation of the GMPCS MoU for adoption of entry
     policies facilitating international transportation of GMPCS
     transceivers. At the same time, we are revising rule provisions
     pertaining to liability for violations in order to strengthen
     incentives for GMPCS system operators and service providers to
     actively prevent or discourage unlawful transceiver operation.
     Finally, we are revising out-of-band emission limits for MSS
     transceivers in several respects in order to improve interference
     protection for satellite radio-navigation guidance for aircraft. We
     believe that these rule changes will serve the public interest.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

121. *Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis* As required by the
     Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 604, the Commission has
     prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the rule
     changes adopted herein. The analysis is set forth in Appendix C.

122. *Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis* This Report and Order
     requires either new or modified information collections subject to
     the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ("PRA"), Public Law 104-13. It
     will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB")
     for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. Pursuant to its
     continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, the Commission
     invites OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies to
     comment on the information collection(s) required by this Report
     and Order.

123. Public and agency comments on the request for approval of the
     information collection requirements are due 60 days after date of
     publication of this Order in the Federal Register. Comments
     regarding the requests for approval of the information collection
     should be submitted to Judy Boley Herman, Federal Communications
     Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554,
     or via the Internet to Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.

124. *Further information* For general information concerning this
     rulemaking proceeding, contact William Bell at (202) 418-0741, or
     via internet at William.Bell@fcc.gov. For additional information
     concerning the information collection requirements in this
     document, contact Judith Boley Herman at 202-418-0214, or via the
     internet at Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

125. IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301, 302(a), 303(e),
     303(f), 303(g), 303(n), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of
     1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 4(i), 301, 302(a), 303(e), 303(f),
     303(g), 303(n), and 303(r), that Sections 1.1307, 2.1033, 2.1204,
     and 25.132 of the Commission's rules ARE AMENDED as specified in
     Appendix B and that a new rule section 25.129, as set forth in
     Appendix B, IS ADOPTED, effective upon approved of information
     collection requirements by the Office of Management and Budget. The
     Commission will publish a document in the [Federal
     Register]{.underline} announcing the effective date for these rule
     changes.

126. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301, 303(c),
     303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(n), and 303(r) of the Communications
     Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 4(i), 301, 303(c), 303(e),
     303(f), 303(g), 303(n), and 303(r), that Sections 25.135, 25.136,
     25.138, and 25.216 of the Commission's rules ARE AMENDED as
     specified in Appendix B, effective thirty days after publication of
     this order in the Federal Register.

127. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
     Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
     SEND a copy of this Second Report and Order, including the Final
     Regulatory Flexibility analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
     of the Small Business Administration.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Marlene H. Dortch
>
> Secretary

**APPENDIX A: Participants**

**Response to GMPCS rules and policies proposed in the 1999 NPRM**

[Comments]{.underline}

AMSC Subsidiary Corp.

The Boeing Company

COMSAT Corp.

Constellation Communications, Inc.

ICO Global Communications

Iridium LLC

Iridium North America

Leo One USA Corp.

L/Q Licensee, Inc., Globalstar, L.P., and Airtouch Satellite Services
U.S., Inc.

Ministry of Ports and Telecommunications of Japan

Motorola, Inc.

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Orbital Communications Corp.

Satellite Industry Association

Skybridge LLC

Teledesic LLC

[Reply comments]{.underline}

AMSC Subsidiary Corp.

Constellation Communications, Inc.

Cornell University

Inmarsat, Ltd.

Iridium LLC

Motorola, Inc.

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Satellite Industry Association

Teledesic LLC

TMI Communications and Co., Ltd.

**Response to Further NPRM on out-of-band emissions limits**

Inmarsat Ventures, PLC (petition for reconsideration and comments)

Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC (comments)

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (comments)

Stratos Communications, Inc. (reply comments)

**APPENDIX B: Rule Changes**

**I. Rule Changes Pertaining to Equipment Authorization, Importation,
and Licensing of Portable Earth-Station Transceivers**

> Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1, is amended as
> follows:

1\. Scction 1.1307 is amended by inserting the following text after the
third sentence in Paragraph (b):

**§1.1307 Actions that may have a significant environmental effect, for
which Environmental Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.**

\* \* \* \*

\(b\) \* \* \*

Such compliance statements may be omitted from license applications for
transceivers subject to the certification requirement in §25.129.

> Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2, is amended as
> follows:

1\. Section 2.1033 is amended by inserting a new subparagraph (18) in
Paragraph (c):

**§2.1033 Application for certification**

\* \* \* \*

\(c\) \* \* \*

\* \* \* \*

\(18\) Applications for certification required by §25.129 shall include
any additional equipment test data required by that section.

2\. Section 2.1204 is amended by inserting a new subparagraph (10) in
Paragraph (a):

**§2.1204 Import Conditions**

\(a\) \* \* \*

\* \* \* \* \*

\(10\) Three or fewer portable earth-station transceivers, as defined in
§25.129, are being imported by a traveler as personal effects and will
not be offered for sale or lease in the United States.

Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25, is amended as
follows:

PART 25 -- SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

1\. The authority citation for Part 25 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 701-744. Interprets or applies Sections 4, 301,
302, 303, 307, 309 and 332 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47
U.S.C. Sections 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332, unless otherwise
noted.

2\. A new Section 25.129 is added and reads as follows:

**§25.129 Equipment authorization for portable earth-station
transceivers**

(a) Except as expressly permitted by §2.803 or §2.1204, prior
    authorization must be obtained pursuant to the equipment
    certification procedure in Part 2, Subpart J of this chapter for
    importation, sale or lease in the United States, or offer, shipment,
    or distribution for sale or lease in the United States of portable
    earth-station transceivers subject to regulation under Part 25. This
    requirement does not apply, however, to devices imported, sold,
    leased, or offered, shipped, or distributed for sale or lease before
    November 20, 2004.

(b) For purposes of this section, an earth-station transceiver is
    portable if it is a "portable device" as defined in §2.1093(b),
    *i.e.*, if its radiating structure(s) would be within 20 centimeters
    of the operator's body when the transceiver is in operation.

(c) In addition to the information required by §1.1307(b) and
    §2.1033(c), applicants for certification required by this section
    shall submit any additional equipment test data necessary to
    demonstrate compliance with pertinent standards for transmitter
    performance prescribed in §25.138, §25.202(f), §25.204, §25.209, and
    §25.216 and shall submit the statements required by §2.1093(c).

(d) Applicants for certification required by this section must submit
    evidence that the devices in question are designed for use with a
    satellite system that may lawfully provide service to users in the
    United States pursuant to an FCC license or order reserving
    spectrum.

3\. Section 25.132 is amended by revising the first sentence of
Paragraph (a) to read as follows:

**§25.132 Verification of earth station antenna performance standards**

\(a\) All applications for transmitting earth stations in the C and
Ku-bands not subject to the certification requirement in §25.129 must be
accompanied by a certificate pursuant to §2.902 of this chapter from the
manufacturer of each antenna that the results of a series of radiation
pattern tests performed on representative equipment in representative
configurations by the manufacturer which demonstrates that the equipment
complies with the performance standards set forth in §25.209.

\* \* \* \*

4\. Section 25.135 is amended by revising Paragraphs (c) and (d) to read
as follows:

**§25.135 Licensing provisions for earth station networks in the
non-voice, non-geostationary mobile-satellite service**

\* \* \* \*

\(c\) Transceiver units in this service are authorized to communicate
with and through U.S. authorized space stations only. No person without
an FCC license for such operation may transmit to a space station in
this service from anywhere in the United States except to receive
service from the holder of a pertinent FCC blanket license or from
another party with the permission of such a blanket licensee.

\(d\) The holder of an FCC blanket license for operation of transceivers
for communication via a non-voice, non-geostationary mobile-satellite
system shall be responsible for operation of any such transceiver to
receive service provided by the blanket licensee or provided by another
party with the blanket licensee's consent. Operators of non-voice,
non-geostationary mobile-satellite systems shall not transmit
communications to or from user transceivers in the United States unless
such communications are authorized under a service contract with the
holder of a pertinent FCC blanket license or under a service contract
another party with authority for such transceiver operation delegated by
such a blanket licensee.

5\. Section 25.136 is amended by revising the caption and Paragraphs (b)
and (c) to read as follows:

**§25.136 Licensing provisions for user transceivers in the 1.6/2.4 GHz,
1.5/1.6 GHz, and 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Services**

\* \* \* \*

\(b\) No person without an FCC license for such operation may transmit
to a space station in this service from anywhere in the United States
except to receive service from the holder of a pertinent FCC blanket
license or from another party with the permission of such a blanket
licensee.

\(c\) The holder of an FCC blanket license for operation of transceivers
for communication via a 1.6/2.4 GHz, 1.5/1.6 GHz, or 2 GHz Mobile
Satellite Service system shall be responsible for operation of any such
transceiver to receive service provided by that licensee or provided by
another party with the blanket licensee's consent. Operators of such
satellite systems shall not transmit communications to or from user
transceivers in the United States unless such communications are
authorized under a service contract with the holder of a pertinent FCC
blanket license for transceiver operation or under a service contract
with another party with authority for such transmission delegated by
such a blanket licensee.

6\. Section 25.138 is amended by adding the following text to Paragraph
(f):

**§25.138 Blanket licensing provisions of GSO FSS Earth Stations in the
18.3-18.8 GHz (space-to-Earth), 19.7-20.2 GHz (space-to-Earth),
28.35-28.6 GHz (Earth-to-space), and 29.25-30.0 GHz (Earth-to-space)
bands.**

\* \* \* \*

\(f\) \* \* \*

The holder of an FCC blanket license pursuant to this section shall be
responsible for operation of any transceiver to receive GSO FSS service
provided by that licensee or provided by another party with the blanket
licensee's consent. Operators of GSO FSS systems shall not transmit
communications to or from user transceivers in the United States unless
such communications are authorized under a service contract with the
holder of a pertinent FCC blanket license or under a service contract
with another party with authority for such transceiver operation
delegated by such a blanket licensee.

**II. Rule Changes Pertaining to Emission Limits for MSS Transceivers\
**

> Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25, is amended as
> follows:

1.  Paragraph (a) of Section 25.216 is amended to read as follows:

**§25.216 Limits on emissions from mobile earth stations for protection
of aeronautical radionavigation-satellite service.**

\(a\) The e.i.r.p. density of emissions from mobile earth stations
placed in service on or before July 21, 2002 with assigned uplink
frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1660.5 MHz shall not exceed -70
dBW/MHz, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval,
in the band 1559-1587.42 MHz. The e.i.r.p. of discrete emissions of less
than 700 Hz bandwidth generated by such stations shall not exceed -80
dBW, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval, in
that band.

2\. Paragraph (b) of Section 25.216 is amended to read as follows:

\(b\) The e.i.r.p. density of emissions from mobile earth stations
placed in service on or before July 21, 2002 with assigned uplink
frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1626.5 MHz shall not exceed -64
dBW/MHz, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval,
in the band 1587.42-1605 MHz. The e.i.r.p. of discrete emissions of less
than 700 Hz bandwidth generated by such stations shall not exceed -74
dBW, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval, in
the 1587.42-1605 MHz band.

3\. Paragraph (c) of Section 25.216 is amended to read as follows:

\(c\) The e.i.r.p. density of emissions from mobile earth stations
placed in service after July 21, 2002 with assigned uplink frequencies
between 1610 MHz and 1660.5 MHz shall not exceed -70 dBW/MHz, averaged
over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval, in the band
1559-1605 MHz. The e.i.r.p. of discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz
bandwidth from such stations shall not exceed -80 dBW, averaged over any
2 millisecond active transmission interval, in the 1559-1605 MHz band.

4\. Paragraph (d) of Section 25.216 is amended to read as follows:

\(d\) As of January 1, 2005, the e.i.r.p. density of emissions from
mobile earth stations placed in service on or before July 21, 2002 with
assigned uplink frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1660.5 MHz (except
Standard A and B Inmarsat terminals used as Global Maritime Distress and
Safety System ship earth stations) shall not exceed -70dBW/MHz, averaged
over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval, in the 1559-1605
MHz band. The e.i.r.p. of discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz
bandwidth from such stations shall not exceed -80 dBW, averaged over any
2 millisecond active transmission interval, in the 1559-1605 MHz band.
Standard A Inmarsat terminals used as Global Maritime Distress and
Safety System ship earth stations that do not meet the e.i.r.p. density
limits specified in this paragraph may continue operation until December
31, 2007. Inmarsat-B terminals manufactured more than six months after
Federal Register publication of the rule changes adopted in FCC 03-283
must meet these limits. Inmarsat B terminals manufactured before then
are temporarily grandfathered under the condition that no interference
is caused by these terminals to aeronautical satellite radio-navigation
systems. The full-compliance deadline for grandfathered Inmarsat-B
terminals is December 31, 2012.

5\. Paragraph (e) of Section 25.216 is amended to read as follows:

\(e\) The e.i.r.p density of emissions from mobile earth stations with
assigned uplink frequencies between 1990 MHz and 2025 MHz shall not
exceed -70 dBW/MHz, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission
interval, in frequencies between 1559MHz and 1610 MHz. The e.i.r.p. of
discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such stations
between 1559 MHz and 1605 MHz shall not exceed -80 dBW, averaged over
any 2 millisecond active transmission interval. The e.i.r.p. of discrete
emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such stations between 1605
MHz and 1610 MHz manufactured more than six months after Federal
Register publication of the rule changes adopted in FCC 03-283 shall not
exceed -80 dBW, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission
interval.

6\. Section 25.216 is amended by inserting the following paragraphs
after Paragraph (f):

\(g\) Mobile earth stations manufactured more than six months after
Federal Register publication of the rule changes adopted in FCC 03-283
with assigned uplink frequencies in the 1610-1626.5 MHz band shall
suppress the power density of emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz
band-segment to an extent determined by linear interpolation from -70
dBW/MHz at 1605 MHz to -10 dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz averaged over any 2
millisecond active transmission interval. The e.i.r.p of discrete
emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such stations shall not
exceed a level determined by linear interpolation from -80 dBW at 1605
MHz to -20 dBW at 1610 MHz, averaged over any 2 millisecond active
transmission interval.

\(h\) Mobile earth stations manufactured more than six months after
Federal Register publication of the rule changes adopted in FCC 03-283
with assigned uplink frequencies in the 1626.5-1660.5 MHz band shall
suppress the power density of emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz
band-segment to an extent determined by linear interpolation from -70
dBW/MHz at 1605 MHz to -46 dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz, averaged over any 2
millisecond active transmission interval. The e.i.r.p of discrete
emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such stations shall not
exceed a level determined by linear interpolation from -80 dBW at 1605
MHz to -56 dBW at 1610 MHz, averaged over any 2 millisecond active
transmission interval.

\(i\) The peak e.i.r.p density of carrier-off state emissions from
mobile earth stations manufactured more than six months after Federal
Register publication of the rule changes adopted in FCC 03-283 with
assigned uplink frequencies between 1 and 3 GHz shall not exceed -80
dBW/MHz in the 1559-1610 MHz band averaged over any 2 millisecond active
transmission interval.\
\
(j) A Root-Mean-Square detector shall be used for all power density
measurements.

**APPENDIX C**

**[Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis]{.underline}**

*1999 NPRM.* The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA),[^184] requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared
for notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency
certifies that "the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities."[^185] The
RFA generally defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning
as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
governmental jurisdiction."[^186] In addition, the term "small business"
has the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the
Small Business Act.[^187] A "small business concern" is one which: (1)
is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
Small Business Administration (SBA).[^188]

As proposed in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued in 1999, this
order amends the Commission's rules to require authorization to be
obtained in advance for domestic sale or lease, importation for domestic
sale or lease, or offering, shipment, or distribution for domestic sale
or lease of portable, land-based earth-station transceivers. The
authorization procedure, which is specified in previously adopted
provisions in Part 2 of the Commission's rules, requires submission of
test data proving compliance with the Commission's pertinent technical
requirements. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking included an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pertaining to the proposed
equipment-authorization requirement and invited comment on alternative
authorization procedures that might minimize economic impact on small
entities.[^189] The comments filed did not discuss the IRFA.

To obtain authorization required under the new rules for importation,
distribution, or sale of portable, land-based earth-station
transceivers, test data must be submitted to prove that the devices meet
pertinent technical requirements in the Commission's rules. Because such
testing would be necessary in any event to ensure that the devices can
be lawfully operated in compliance with existing rule requirements, we
do not believe that the requirement to submit test data will have a
significant adverse economic impact on anyone. We are postponing the
effective date of the authorization requirement for one year, moreover,
to afford adequate time in advance for obtaining such authorization and
for disposing of uncertificated devices in current inventories. We
therefore certify that the equipment authorization requirement
established by this order will not have significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

*2002 Further NPRM.* This order also amends a rule section adopted last
year in this proceeding, Section 25.216,[^190] that specifies
out-of-band emission limits for mobile earth-station transceivers
licensed to transmit in frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1660.5 MHz or
in the 2 GHz MSS band. Specifically, we amend Section 25.216 by
prescribing a limit for carrier-off emissions, prescribing limits on
narrowband emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz band, prescribing a stricter
limit on wideband emissions in that band for transceivers with assigned
frequencies between 1626.5 MHz and 1660.5 MHz, re-specifying the time
interval for emission measurements, requiring use of RMS detectors for
compliance testing, and specifying compliance deadlines for Inmarsat
Standard-A and Standard-B terminals.

These changes were proposed in a Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking[^191] released with the order adopting Section 25.216 or in
public comments filed in response thereto. As required by the RFA, the
Further NPRM included an IRFA pertaining to these further rulemaking
proposals.[^192] The Commission sought written public comment on the
proposals and on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^193]

[Rulemaking Objectives]{.underline}

The general purposes of the amendments to Section 25.216 are to modify
its provisions to better serve the objective of preventing interference
with aircraft reception of satellite radio-navigation signals and
establish equitable compliance deadlines for Standard A and Standard B
Inmarsat earth-station transceivers.

[Summary of Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the
IRFA]{.underline}

No comments were filed specifically in response to the IRFA in the
Further NPRM.

[Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
New Rules Will Apply]{.underline}

The RFA directs agencies to describe, and, where feasible, estimate the
number of, small entities that may be affected by the rules they
adopt.[^194] The RFA generally defines the term "small entity" as having
the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization,"
and "small governmental jurisdiction."[^195] In addition, the term
"small business" has the same meaning as the term "small business
concern" under the Small Business Act.[^196] A "small business concern"
is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not
dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional
criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).[^197]
For satellite telecommunication carriers and resellers, the SBA has
established a small business size standard that excludes companies with
annual receipts above \$12.5 million.[^198]

The amended emission limits in Section 25.216 directly affect parties
with licenses for operation of mobile earth stations subject to those
limits, including owners of maritime vessels equipped with Standard A or
Standard B Inmarsat transceivers. The Commission noted in the IRFA that
ten companies held relevant blanket licenses and that four of them had
annual revenue in excess of \$12.5 million but could not determine from
available information whether any of the others were small
entities.[^199] We anticipate that blanket licenses will be issued
within the next three years for 2 GHz MSS earth stations subject to
Section 25.216, but we do not know how many of the recipients will be
small entities. The SBA classifies commercial providers of water
transportation (other than for sightseeing) as small entities if they
have 500 or fewer employees.[^200] Of 1,627 providers of non-sightseeing
water transportation counted in the 1997 U.S. Census that operated
throughout the year, only 157 had more than 100 employees.[^201] The SBA
classifies providers of sightseeing transportation by water as small
entities if their annual receipts are \$6 million or less.[^202] Of
1,692 providers of sightseeing transportation by water counted in the
1997 census, only 32 had annual receipts in excess of \$6 million.[^203]
Hence we assume that most owners of vessels equipped with Standard A or
Standard B Inmarsat transceivers are small entities.

[Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small
Entities]{.underline}

The amended provisions of Section 25.216 do not impose reporting or
recordkeeping requirements. Parties with licenses for operation of
mobile earth stations subject to Section 25.216 will be obliged to
ensure that the devices perform in compliance with the amended emission
limits adopted in this order, however. Some licensees may find it
necessary to alter, replace, or decommission equipment currently in
service in order to comply with the amended limits.[^204] We do not
know, nor do the comments filed in this proceeding indicate, how much
additional expense licensees will incur to achieve compliance with the
amended limits.

[Steps Taken to Minimize Economic Impact on Small Entities and
Significant Alternatives Considered]{.underline}

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
considered that might reduce the economic impact on small entities, such
as establishing different compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; clarifying, consolidating, or simplifying such requirements
for such small entities; using performance rather than design standards;
or completely or partially exempting small entities from new
requirements.[^205]

We have considered and adopted exemptions for the benefit of ship owners
-- most of which, we presume, for reasons stated previously, are small
entities. To minimize the impact on ship owners using Inmarsat Standard
A transceivers as Global Maritime Distress and Safety System ("GMDSS")
stations, we exempt such devices from the requirements of Section 25.216
until December 31, 2007, the planned termination date for Standard A
services. To minimize the impact on ship owners using Inmarsat Standard
B transceivers as GMDSS stations, we exempt such transceivers
manufactured previously or within six months hereafter from pertinent
Section 25.216 limits until December 31, 2012, subject to a
no-interference condition.

**[Report to Congress]{.underline}:** The Commission will send a copy of
this order, including the final analysis in this appendix, in a report
to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.[^206] In addition,
the Commission will send a copy of this order, including this appendix,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the order,
including the final regulatory flexibility analysis, will also be
published in the Federal Register.[^207]

[^1]: "GMPCS" is an acronym for "Global Mobile Personal Communications
    by Satellite." Although it includes the adjectives "global" and
    "mobile," this term does not pertain only to communication services
    provided by satellite systems with global coverage to users with
    mobile terminals. Rather, "GMPCS" has consistently been defined as
    comprehensively referring to all communication services provided
    directly to end users by *any* satellite system (global or
    otherwise), regardless of whether the users' terminals are mobile or
    fixed. *See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Amendment of Parts 2,
    25, and 68 of the Commission's Rules to Further Streamline the
    Equipment Authorization Process for Radio Frequency Equipment,
    Modify the Equipment Authorization Process for Telephone Terminal
    Equipment, Implement Mutual Recognition Agreements and Begin
    Implementation of the Global Mobile Personal Communications by
    Satellite (GMPCS) Arrangements* (Report and Order), FCC 98-338, 13
    FCC Rcd 24687 (1998) ("*Equipment Authorization Streamlining
    Order*") at n.2; 14 FCC Rcd 5871 (1999), at n.1 and Appendix A; and
    *Arrangements Pursuant to the GMPCS MoU to Facilitate the
    Introduction and Development of Global Mobile Personal
    Communications by Satellite (GMPCS), as agreed at the Third Meeting
    of Signatories and Potential Signatories of the GMPCS-MoU*, Document
    14-E (Oct. 7, 1997) ("GMPCS-MoU Arrangements"), at Section IV
    (defining "GMPCS System" as "\[a\]ny satellite system (i.e., fixed
    or mobile, broadband or narrow-band, global or regional,
    geostationary or non-geostationary, existing or planned) providing
    telecommunication services directly to end users from a
    constellation of satellites" and defining "\[c\]onstellation of
    satellites" as "\[o\]ne or more satellites ... operated as a
    system").

[^2]: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 99-37, 14 FCC Rcd 5871 (1999)
    ("*NPRM*").

[^3]: Although certification is a prerequisite for domestic sale or
    lease and importation, manufacture, shipment, or distribution for
    domestic sale or lease, the new certification rule for portable
    GMPCS transceivers does not limit eligibility to apply for
    certification to parties proposing to engage in those activities.
    Hence a service provider or system operator with no intention of
    selling, leasing, manufacturing, shipping, or distributing terminal
    equipment could apply for, and receive, certification for such
    devices.

[^4]: *See infra* ¶¶ 4-8.

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.216. The limits prescribed in this rule section on
    emissions in the 1559-1610 MHz band were developed on the basis of
    an aviation precision approach landing interference scenario and
    were not intended to be applied to devices other than
    mobile-satellite service mobile earth-station terminals operating in
    the 1-3 GHz frequency range without further study.

[^6]: Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC
    02-134, 17 FCC Rcd 12,941 (2002).

[^7]: *Memorandum of Understanding to Facilitate Arrangements for Global
    Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite, Including Regional
    Systems (GMPCS-MoU)* (Geneva, 18 Feb. 1997).

[^8]: The ITU is a United Nations agency responsible for the global
    oversight and implementation of international telecommunications
    policy. The ITU derives its authority from a multilateral treaty to
    which the United States is a party.

[^9]: *See* *Final Report of the World Telecommunications Policy Forum*,
    Geneva, 1996 (ITU 1997).

[^10]: Memorandum of Understanding-GMPCS (Geneva, 6-7 October 1997),
    Document 14-E ("GMPCS Arrangements").

[^11]: *ITU Council Resolution 1116* (May 28, 1998).

[^12]: The execution of the MRAs fulfilled obligations established by an
    agreement on technical barriers annexed to the treaty that
    established the World Trade Organization. *See* WTO Agreement on
    Technical Barriers to Trade, Article 6.

[^13]: Agreement on Mutual Recognition Between the United States of
    America and the European Community ("U.S./EC MRA").

[^14]: *Id.*, Sectoral Annex for Telecommunication Equipment, Section
    II, ¶1(c) and Section III, ¶2.

[^15]: *See Equipment Authorization Streamlining Order*, *supra*, at ¶¶
    57-58.

[^16]: *Id*.

[^17]: *Id.* at ¶56.

[^18]: *See* Public Notice, *European Conformity Assessment Bodies
    accepted to Certify or Test Radiofrequency and Telephone Terminal
    Equipment in Accordance with the Terms of the US-EU Mutual
    Recognition Agreement*, DA 01-180 (rel. Jan. 25, 2001).

[^19]: GMPCS Arrangements, Sect. III ¶1 and Sect. V ¶¶ 6, 11, and 14.

[^20]: 47 U.S.C. § 302.

[^21]: Prior to the enactment of Section 302, the Commission's only
    means of enforcing transmitter performance standards was to
    institute license-revocation or cease-and-desist proceedings, in
    which it bore the burden of proof. This was largely ineffectual, as
    it did not allow remedial action to be taken prior to the occurrence
    of interference and because sources of interference could not always
    be identified. The exclusive focus on violations by users was
    inequitable, moreover, as in many instances those using
    non-compliant devices had purchased them in good faith, assuming
    that they had been designed to operate in accordance with FCC
    regulations. Congress added Section 302 to the Communications Act in
    1968, after representatives of the FCC, other Federal agencies, and
    private-sector organizations called these problems to its attention.
    See S. Rep. 90-1276, 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2486.

[^22]: *See Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Prescribe
    Regulations Governing the Sale or Import or Shipment for Sale, of
    Devices Which Cause Harmful Interference to Radio Communication*
    (Report and Order), FCC 70-506, 19 RR2d 1554 (1970).

[^23]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.803 and 2.1204.

[^24]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(a). There are some exceptions. Section 2.807
    stipulates that devices manufactured only for export or for use by
    the U.S. government are exempt from the restrictions in Section
    2.803(a), for instance, and other narrow exceptions are set forth in
    Paragraphs (b) through (f) of Section 2.803.

[^25]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.1204(a).

[^26]: To be eligible for designation as a domestic TCB, a
    private-sector testing laboratory must be accredited by the National
    Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST") or by a NIST-approved
    accrediting agency. TCBs may be designated by foreign authorities
    pursuant to an MRA to conduct certification assessment in an MRA
    partner economy pursuant to the FCC's rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§
    2.960 and 2.962.

[^27]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.915(a). Mobile and portable earth-station
    transmitters licensed under Part 25 of the Commission's rules must
    meet RF exposure requirements specified in Part 2 of the rules.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.1091 and 2.1093.

[^28]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.926 and 2.927(a).

[^29]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.931.

[^30]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.945.

[^31]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 22.377 (requiring Public Mobile Service
    transmitters to be certificated, except those operating under a
    developmental authorization); 47 C.F.R. § 24.51 (requiring
    certification of Personal Communication Services transmitters); 47
    C.F.R. § 27.51 (requiring certification of Miscellaneous Wireless
    Communications Services transmitters); 47 C.F.R. § 80.203 (requiring
    certification of maritime-service transmitters, with narrow
    exceptions); 47 C.F.R. §§ 87.145 and 87.147 (requiring certification
    of Aviation Services transmitters); 47 C.F.R. § 90.203 (requiring
    certification of Private Land Mobile Radio Service transmitters);
    and 47 C.F.R. § 95.603 (requiring certification of Personal Radio
    Service transmitters).

[^32]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 80.203(g), 80.1103(a), 87.145, and 87.147.

[^33]: *Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite
    Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz
    Bands* (Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking), FCC
    03-15, 18 FCC Rcd 1962 (2003).

[^34]: *Id.* at ¶248.

[^35]: *Id.* Accordingly, the Commission adopted a new rule provision,
    47 C.F.R. § 25.147(c), stating that "\[e\]ach ATC MET utilized for
    operation ... \[or\] marketed ... must be of a type that has been
    authorized by the Commission under its certification procedure ...."
    The Commission said in ¶248 of the *ATC Report and Order* that it
    was also revising 47 C.F.R. § 25.115(d) to make it clear that mobile
    earth-station terminals for systems with ATC must be certificated,
    but that intention is not reflected in the appendix setting forth
    the adopted rule changes. *See id.* at Appendix B.

[^36]: Earth stations that transmit in the C- or Ku-band are subject to
    a test-based *verification* requirement established by 47 C.F.R. §
    25.132(a) but are not required to be certificated.

[^37]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.133; *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 25.132 (prescribing
    testing requirement for C-band and Ku-band earth-station
    transmitters).

[^38]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.200. *See Equipment Authorization Streamlining
    Order*, *supra*.

[^39]: *Id.* at ¶69.

[^40]: *Id.* at ¶¶ 69 and 75. The origin and content of the GMPCS
    Memorandum of Understanding are discussed in the next section of
    this report and order.

[^41]: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 99-37, 14 FCC Rcd 5871 (1999).

[^42]: *Id.* at ¶24.

[^43]: *Id.* at ¶26 and Appendix A.

[^44]: *Id.* at ¶¶ 25 and 30.

[^45]: *Id.* at ¶¶ 25 and 42.

[^46]: *See* Comments of The Boeing Company filed June 21, 1999 at 2-3;
    Comments of ICO Global Communications (Holdings), Ltd. filed June
    21, 1999 at 3; Comments of Orbital Communications Corp. ("Orbcomm")
    filed May 3, 1999 at 6; Joint Comments of L/Q Licensee, Inc.,
    Globalstar, L.P., and Airtouch Satellite Services U.S., Inc. filed
    June 21, 1999 ("Globalstar Joint Comments") at 7-8; Comments of
    Skybridge L.L.C. filed June 30, 1999; Comments of AMSC Subsidiary
    Corp. filed June 21, 1999; Reply Comments of TMI Communications and
    Co., L.P. filed July 21, 1999 at 4; Comments of Inmarsat Ltd. filed
    June 21, 1999; Comments of Comsat Corp. filed June 21, 1999; Reply
    Comments of Cornell University filed July 21, 1999 at 9; Comments of
    Motorola, Inc. filed June 21, 1999, at 5-6.

[^47]: Comments of Iridium LLC filed June 21, 1999, at 4.

[^48]: Comments of Constellation Communications, Inc. filed June 21,
    1999, at 6; Reply Comments of Teledesic LLC filed July 21, 1999, at
    3.

[^49]: We use the more-specific "transceivers," instead of "terminals,"
    when discussing the rules we are adopting here because, for reasons
    stated below, those rules apply only to terminal devices that
    transmit as well as receive. We have used the more-general word
    "terminals" when summarizing the NPRM, on the other hand, because
    that was the word that the Commission used there.

[^50]: 47 U.S.C. § 302(a) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4335. *See* ¶14 and
    n.21, *supra*.

[^51]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.803(a)(2) and 2.1204(a)(2), discussed in ¶¶
    15-16, *supra*.

[^52]: It could be argued that DBS receivers are not "terminals," in a
    strict sense, because they are not positioned at the very end of the
    relevant communication channels but instead feed signals to separate
    interface devices (*i.e.*, television receivers) that process them
    to produce the display seen by viewers. Hence it could be argued
    that DBS receivers were beyond the scope of the certification rule
    proposed in the NRPM. The same argument could be made with respect
    to DARS receivers that feed signals to separate speakers.

[^53]: *See* GMPCS Arrangements, Article IV.

[^54]: NPRM at ¶20.

[^55]: Motorola Comments at 3; Teledesic Comments at 3 and 8; Skybridge
    Comments at 3.

[^56]: Teledesic Comments at 3 and 9; Skybridge Comments at 2-4.

[^57]: Comments of Leo One USA Corp. filed June 21, 1999 at 2.

[^58]: *See* ¶21, *supra*.

[^59]: NPRM at ¶24.

[^60]: Comments of Comsat Corporation filed June 21, 1999 at 2-3.

[^61]: Comments of the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications of
    Japan, filed May 21, 1999.

[^62]: Teledesic Comments at 9; Globalstar Joint Comments at 8; Motorola
    Comments at 5; Reply Comments of Iridium LLC filed August 9, 1999 at
    5.

[^63]: Iridium Reply Comments at 5.

[^64]: Teledesic Comments at 10.

[^65]: Boeing Comments at 4-5; Comsat Comments at 3; Inmarsat Comments
    at 2, Reply Comments at 6; Comments of ICO Global Communications
    (Holdings) Limited at 3.

[^66]: Comments of the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration filed June 21, 1999 at 28.

[^67]: Reply Comments of Cornell University filed July 21, 1999 at 9-10.

[^68]: Globalstar Comments at 7.

[^69]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1093.

[^70]: *See, e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. §§ 87.145(a) and 87.147(a) (requiring
    certification for aeronautical transmitters, with narrow
    exceptions); § 80.203 (requiring certification or type-acceptance
    verification for all maritime transmitters except developmental
    stations and devices supplied by the U.S. government to fulfill
    contractual requirements, with no exemption for earth-station
    transmitters); § 80.1103(a) (specifying certification and other
    type-acceptance requirements for GMDSS transmitters, including earth
    stations), and § 80.1053(c) (prescribing a testing requirement for
    EPIRB transmitters).

[^71]: Section 2.1093 specifies limits on the permissible field strength
    of portable transmitters with assigned operating frequencies between
    100 kHz and 6 GHz to protect operators from harmful RF exposure and
    states that applications for equipment authorization of such devices
    must include statements confirming compliance with those limits.

[^72]: *Id.* at ¶20.

[^73]: Comments of the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications of
    Japan, filed May 21, 1999.

[^74]: *Id.* Leo One Comments at 2.

[^75]: Teledesic Reply Comments at 2-3.

[^76]: Reply Comments of TMI Communications and Company, L.P., filed
    July 21, 1999, at 3. *See* Revised report by the Chairman, World
    Telecommunication Policy Forum (Geneva, 21-23 October 1996), Part I
    ¶5(a).

[^77]: Likewise, the certification rule proposed in the NPRM applied by
    its terms to devices used to obtain service from systems with "one
    or more" satellites. NPRM at Appendix A.

[^78]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.1204.

[^79]: *NPRM* at ¶43.

[^80]: *Id.*

[^81]: Iridium LLC Comments at 11.

[^82]: Comments of Iridium North America filed June 21, 1999, at 3-4.

[^83]: *Amendment of Part 2, Subpart K of the Commission's Rules
    regarding the Importation of Radio Frequency Devices Capable of
    Causing Harmful Interference* (Second Report and Order), FCC 99-326,
    15 FCC Rcd 7221 (1999).

[^84]: *NPRM* at ¶24.

[^85]: *Report and Order and Further NPRM*, Appendix B.

[^86]: Constellation Comments at 5; Comsat Comments at 4; Orbcomm
    Comments at 5; Iridium LLC Comments at 4 and Reply Comments at 3;
    AMSC Comments at 6; Inmarsat Comments at 2; TMI Comments at 5.

[^87]: Orbcomm Comments at 5-6.

[^88]: Comments of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC filed Dec.
    2, 2002 ("MSV FNPRM Comments"); Reply Comments of Globalstar, L.P.
    and Globalstar USA, LLC filed Jan. 2, 2003 ("Globalstar FNPRM Reply
    Comments").

[^89]: MSV FNPRM Comments at 9-10.

[^90]: Comments of Inmarsat Ventures PLC filed Dec. 2, 2002 at 4-6;
    Reply Comments of Stratos Communications, Inc. filed Jan. 2, 2003,
    at 4-5.

[^91]: Globalstar likewise asserted that a labeling requirement for
    previously-manufactured equipment would be onerous and impractical,
    asserting that more than 80,000 transceivers were currently deployed
    to Globalstar MSS customers and that tens of thousands more
    previously-manufactured Globalstar terminals were in stock, awaiting
    deployment. Globalstar FNPRM Reply Comments at 4-5.

[^92]: *Cf. Petition to Amend Part 68 of the Commission's Rules to
    Include Terminal Equipment Connected to Basic Rate Access Service
    Provided Via ISDN Access Technology* (Order on Reconsideration), FCC
    97-126, 12 FCC Rcd 4615 ¶¶ 5-6 (1997); *Amendment of Part 95 of the
    Rules regarding the technical standards for transmitters operating
    in the 72-76 MHz band in the Radio Control (R/C) Radio Service*
    (Report and Order), FCC 91-103, 6 FCC Rcd 1975 ¶9 (1991).

[^93]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1043(c) and (d).

[^94]: Comments of Iridium LLC at 4. Iridium LLC offered this proposal
    as an alternative to its primary recommendation for optional
    certification.

[^95]: Motorola Comments at 5-6.

[^96]: *See First Report and Order* at ¶69 ("Although we have discretion
    to impose ... emission limits \[for mobile earth stations\] not
    sanctioned by the ITU, we are unwilling to do so in the absence of
    convincing grounds for concluding that such unilateral regulation is
    warranted.")

[^97]: Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, Article 2.4. *See* 19
    U.S.C. § 3511.

[^98]: *See* ¶111, *infra*.

[^99]: *NPRM* at ¶32.

[^100]: *Id.* at ¶34.

[^101]: *Id.*

[^102]: Skybridge Comments at 5-6; Iridium LLC Comments at 9.

[^103]: Orbcomm Comments at 9.

[^104]: Boeing Comments at 3.

[^105]: Constellation Comments at 10; Iridium LLC Comments at 9;
    Motorola Comments at 9-10.

[^106]: Motorola Comments at 10. *See also* Iridium LLC Comments at 9
    (contending that manufacturers will design GMPCS transceivers to
    meet FCC, ETSI, and ITU standards).

[^107]: *NPRM*, Appendix A.

[^108]: Constellation Comments at 6-7 and 10.

[^109]: *See* §25.129(c) in the rule-change appendix, *infra*.

[^110]: Globalstar Comments at 8; Boeing Comments at 2-3; Leo One USA
    Comments at 2; Orbcomm Comments at 4-5; Iridium North America
    Comments at 3; Iridium LLC Comments at 6; Motorola Comments at 6-7.

[^111]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.1204(a).

[^112]: *Cf.* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1204(a)(7) (setting a limit of three on the
    number of unintentional radiators that an individual may import for
    personal use).

[^113]: *NPRM* at ¶26. Although the Commission did not explicitly say
    so, it apparently did not mean to suggest that the proposed ban
    against entry of GMPCS terminals without the ITU GMPCS mark should
    apply to devices that are covered by certification under Part 2 of
    the rules and marked with an FCC Identifier code. The proposed rule
    changes listed in the appendix to the NPRM would have left intact
    the existing provision in 47 C.F.R. § 2.1204(a)(1) to the effect
    that any radio frequency device covered by an FCC equipment
    authorization (*e.g.*, certification) may be imported.

[^114]: *NPRM* at ¶25.

[^115]: *Id.* at ¶27.

[^116]: Constellation Comments at 8; AMSC Reply Comments at 6-7.

[^117]: Inmarsat Comments at 3.

[^118]: Comsat Comments at 6. *See also* AMSC Reply Comments at 7
    (asserting that any device grandfathered from mandatory
    certification should also be grandfathered from an ITU-GMPCS marking
    requirement); TMI Reply Comments at 5-6 and Inmarsat Reply Comments
    at 6-7 (advocating grandfather exemption for all devices currently
    in service authorized under FCC blanket licenses); and Orbcomm
    Comments at 5 (advocating exemption of devices placed in service
    within one year after adoption of an ITU-GMPCS marking requirement).

[^119]: Iridium LLC Reply Comments at 9-10; Motorola Reply Comments at
    6-8.

[^120]: Customs enforcement of an entry ban on unmarked transceivers
    would be more difficult, moreover, if, instead of exempting devices
    already in service, the Commission allowed the owners to use
    stick-on labels to comply with the marking requirement, due to the
    fact that such labels could easily be misapplied or counterfeited.
    The current certification marking rules require the FCC Identifier
    to be "permanently affixed." 47 C.F.R. § 2.925(d). *See also* 47
    C.F.R. § 15.19(b)(4) (forbidding use of stick-on paper labels for
    affixing the FCC Identifier mark).

[^121]: *NPRM* at ¶¶ 26 and 41.

[^122]: *See* Comsat Comments at 7-8; Iridium LLC Comments at 10 and
    Reply Comments at 6-7 and 8-9; Globalstar Reply Comments at n.8;
    Motorola Reply Comments at 5-6.

[^123]: Iridium LLC Reply Comments at 7; Motorola Reply Comments at 5-6.

[^124]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.115(d), 25.135, 25.136, and 25.138.

[^125]: *NPRM* at ¶¶ 30-31.

[^126]: Skybridge Comments at 4-5.

[^127]: Iridium LLC Comments at 8.

[^128]: Orbcomm Comments at 7-8.

[^129]: Iridium LLC Comments at 8; Motorola Comments at 8.

[^130]: Teledesic Comments at 10; Globalstar Comments at 11; Motorola
    Comments at 8.

[^131]: *See* 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 303(b)-(f), 307(a), 308, and 309(a). The
    Act's general licensing mandate is subject to narrow exceptions that
    allow the Commission to authorize operation of certain kinds of
    transmitters by rulemaking rather than by granting license
    applications. These exceptions are of no pertinence here, however.
    *See* 47 U.S.C. § 307(e)(1). *But also see* 47 U.S.C. §§ 4(i) and
    302(a).

[^132]: *NPRM* ¶30.

[^133]: ICO Comments at 5-6.

[^134]: Globalstar Comments at 12.

[^135]: *See* Paragraph (d) in new rule Section 25.129, set forth in
    Appendix B.

[^136]: *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* (Report and
    Order), FCC 97-399, 12 FCC Rcd 24094 (1997) ("*DISCO II*") at ¶185.

[^137]: *NPRM* at ¶31.

[^138]: Motorola Comments at 8-9; Teledesic Comments at 10-11;
    Constellation Reply Comments at 4.

[^139]: *Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and
    Policies* (Third Report and Order), FCC 03-154, 18 FCC Rcd 13486
    (2003) at ¶74 and Appendix B ¶7.

[^140]: Globalstar Comments at 11.

[^141]: Constellation Comments at 9-10. *Also see* Orbcomm Comments at 8
    and Iridium LLC Comments at 8 (recommending that the Commission
    revise the license application form to eliminate redundancy, but
    offering no specific suggestions to that end).

[^142]: AMSC Reply Comments at 5.

[^143]: For an example of a technical requirement pertaining to GMPCS
    transceiver operation that cannot be shown to be met merely by
    testing transceiver performance, *see* 47 C.F.R. § 25.

[^144]: *See* ¶90, *infra*.

[^145]: Motorola Comments at 8.

[^146]: *See, e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.135(a) and 25.142(b)(2)(ii). As
    previously acknowledged, moreover, certification testing would not
    suffice to demonstrate compliance with the technical requirements in
    47 C.F.R. § 25.213 pertaining to operation of Big LEO GMPCS
    transceivers.

[^147]: *Id.*, Appendix A.

[^148]: *Id.* at ¶42.

[^149]: Teledesic Comments at 5-6. *See DISCO II* at ¶188.

[^150]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 502 (providing, *inter alia*, that anyone
    convicted of willfully and knowingly violating an FCC rule may be
    fined \$500 per day for each day when the violation occurred, in
    addition to any other legal penalty) and 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)
    (providing, *inter alia*, that anyone found guilty of willfully or
    repeatedly violating any FCC rule shall be liable for a forfeiture
    penalty. If the violator is a common carrier, the penalty may be as
    much as \$1,000,000 for a single continuing violation. For violators
    other than common carriers and broadcast and cable television
    licensees, permittees, and applicants, a penalty of as much as
    \$75,000 can be assessed for a single continuing violation.)

[^151]: Teledesic Comments at 7 and n.14; Constellation Reply Comments
    at 4-5.

[^152]: Comsat Comments at 10.

[^153]: AMSC Reply Comments at 8.

[^154]: AMSC Comments at 14, Reply Comments at n.11.

[^155]: Inmarsat Reply Comments at 8-9.

[^156]: We note, in this regard, Comsat's assertion that an
    Inmarsat-system subscriber transceiver can be used to obtain service
    from different service providers in consecutive billing periods.
    Comsat Comments at 10.

[^157]: *NPRM* at ¶36.

[^158]: Satellite Industry Association Reply Comments at 2; Inmarsat
    Comments at 4; Skybridge Comments at 6; Constellation Comments at
    11; Comsat Comments at 11; Iridium LLC Comments at 10.

[^159]: *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*,
    FCC 02-134, 17 FCC Rcd 12941 (2002) at ¶80 *et seq.*

[^160]: E.i.r.p., i.e., effective isotropically radiated power, is a
    function of the power supplied to a transmitting antenna and the
    antenna gain in a given direction relative to that of an isotropic
    radiator. E.i.r.p density is the e.i.r.p. over a specified
    bandwidth.

[^161]: Rec. ITU-R M.1343.

[^162]: NTIA Comments at 4.

[^163]: No other comments were received on this proposal.

[^164]: 1.6 GHz METs used with geostationary-orbit MSS ("GSO MSS")
    systems are referred to as L-band METs. Three GSO MSS systems
    currently provide service to consumers in United States using
    assigned mobile-uplink frequencies between 1626.5 MHz and 1660.5
    MHz.

[^165]: Mobile Satellite Ventures subsidiary LLC ("MSV") Comments at 1.

[^166]: This level is determined by the linear interpolation from -70
    dBW/MHz at 1605 MHz to -46 dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz.

[^167]: Mobile Satellite Ventures subsidiary LLC ("MSV") Comments at 1.

[^168]: *See* Rec. ITU-R M.1477, *Technical and Performance
    Characteristics of Current and Planned Radionavigation-Satellite
    Service (Space-to-earth) and Aeronautical Radionavigation Service
    Receivers to be Considered in Interference Studies in the Band*
    *1559-1610 MHz.*

[^169]: *I.e.*, METs with assigned uplink frequencies between 1610 and
    1626.5 MHz. Big LEO systems provide two-way voice and date
    communication via non-geostationary-orbit satellites to MET users in
    most areas of the world and afford seamless interconnection with the
    public switched telephone network.

[^170]: We adopted wideband emissions limits for Big LEOs in the First
    R&O. *See* ¶94, *supra*.

[^171]: METs operating in the 1990-2025 GHz uplink band are referred to
    as 2 GHz METs.

[^172]: *See* FNPRM at paragraph 84.

[^173]: Inmarsat Ventures PLC Comments at 7.

[^174]: *See* Comments of INMARSAT at 8.

[^175]: Mobile Satellite Ventures subsidiary LLC ("MSV") Comments at 6.

[^176]: NTIA Comments at 3.

[^177]: *Id.* at 6-8.

[^178]: No other comments were received on this proposal.

[^179]: If $x_{1},x_{2},\text{.}\text{.}\text{.},x_{n}$ are real
    numbers, the Root-Mean-Square is defined as the square root of the
    sum of squared numbers divided by the number of numbers shown as:
    $R(x_{1},x_{2},\text{.}\text{.}\text{.},x_{n}) = \sqrt{\frac{x^{2_{1}} + x^{2_{2}} + \text{.}\text{.}\text{.} + x^{2_{n}}}{n}}$

[^180]: NTIA Comments at 9.

[^181]: According to NTIA, the logarithmic average detector function
    gives greatest weight to the relatively lower values in the time
    waveform and thus discounts voltage peaks or spikes. On the other
    hand, the linear average detector function tends to be more affected
    equally by the whole range of signal values. *Id.* at 9-10.

[^182]: Inmarsat Ventures PLC Comments at 2 and 3.

[^183]: Stratos Communications, INC. Comments at 2.

[^184]: The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 -- 612, has been amended by the
    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA),
    Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

[^185]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^186]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^187]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small-business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^188]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^189]: FCC 99-37, 14 FCC Rcd 5871 (1999) at ¶101.

[^190]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.216.

[^191]: FCC 02-134, 17 FCC Rcd 12941 (2002) at ¶¶ 80-87.

[^192]: *Id.* at ¶101.

[^193]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^194]: 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).

[^195]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^196]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small-business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^197]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^198]: *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 513340.

[^199]: 17 FCC Rcd 12941, Appendix C, Sect. C. The Commission determined
    that four of the ten companies were not small entities but was
    unable to ascertain the status of the others.

[^200]: *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Codes 483111-483114, 483211,
    and 43212.

[^201]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Transportation and Warehousing, Table 2, "Employment Size of
    Establishments," NAICS code 483 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^202]: *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 487210.

[^203]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Transportation and Warehousing, Table 2, "Employment Size of
    Establishments," NAICS code 487210.

[^204]: *See Second Report and Order*, ¶¶ 95-119, *supra*.

[^205]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(c)(1)-(4).

[^206]: 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^207]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).