# 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 )

# REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF

**PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**Adopted: May 2, 2002 Released: May 14, 2002**

**Comment Date: 60 days from publication in the Federal Register.**

**Comment Reply Date: 90 days after publication in the Federal
Register.**

By the Commission:

### **TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**[Topic]{.underline} [Paragraph Number]{.underline}**

**I. INTRODUCTION**
...........................................................................................
1

**II. BACKGROUND**
.............................................................................................
3

**III. DISCUSSION**

**A.** New 1.6 GHz METs: Limits on Emissions Between 1559 MHz and 1605
MHz.................. 15

1\. Wideband Limit
.......................................................................................
16

2\. Narrowband Limit
....................................................................................
21

**B.** Interim Requirements for 1.6 GHz METs

1\. Proposed Interim Requirements
..................................................................\...
25

2\. Objections to Temporary Grandfathering
......................................................... 26

3\. Cut-off Frequency for Immediate "-70/-80"
Protection........................................... 28

4\. Deadline for Conformance to the Final Standard
.................................................. 31

5\. Applicability of Interim Limits on Emissions in Upper ARNS
Frequencies.................... 36

6\. Preapproval of Modifications for Grandfathered
METs.......................................\... 40

7\. Limiting Date for Grandfathering
Eligibility....................................................... 41

**C.** Inmarsat METs
............................................................................................
42

**D.** Measurement Issues

1\. Measurement Interval
................................................................................
48

2\. Meaurement Bandwidth
...........................................................................\...
51

3\. Peak-hold Versus Non-Peak-hold Measurement
................................................. 54

**E.** 2 GHz METs: Limits on Emissions Between 1559 MHz and 1605 MHz
......................... 56

**F.** Limits on Emissions Between 1605 MHz and 1610 MHz

1\. 1.6 GHz METs
........................................................................................
60

2\. 2 GHz METs
..........................................................................................
64

**G.** Little LEO METs
.........................................................................................
67

**H.** Other Matters

1\. Protection for Non-Aeronautical GPS Applications
............................................. 70

2\. Protection for Radio Astronomy
.................................................................... 75

3\.
Polarization..........................................................................................\...
77

4\. Compensation for Cost of Compliance
............................................................. 79

**IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**
........................................... 80

**A.** Limits for Carrier-off State
..............................................................................
81

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

1\. Wideband Limits for METs with Uplink Assignments Above 1626.5 MHz
.................. 83

2\. Narrowband Limits
.................................................................................\...
84

**C.** Measurement Issues
......................................................................................
85

**D.** Equipment Authorization
................................................................................
86

**E.** Compliance Deadline for Standard A Maritime Terminals
.......................................\... 87

**V. CONCLUSION**
..............................................................................................
88

**VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS**

**A.** Ex Parte Presentations
.................................................................................\...
89

**B.** Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
................................................................. 90

**C.** Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis
...............................................................\... 98

**D.** Final Paperwork Reduction Analysis
.................................................................. 100

**E.** Procedures for Filing Comments on the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking .............. 102

**VI.** **ORDERING CLAUSES**
..................................................................................
106

**Appendix A: Rule Changes**

**Appendix B: Proposed Rule Changes**

**Appendix C: Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

##### I. INTRODUCTION

1.  By this Report and Order, we amend the Commission's Rules to
    establish new out-of-band emission limits[^1] for certain mobile
    earth-station terminals ("METs") used for Mobile Satellite Service
    ("MSS") communications. The emission restrictions apply to METs
    operating in the 1610-1660.5 MHz band (*i.e.*, "1.6 GHz METs") and
    METs operating in the 1990-2025 MHz band (*i.e.*, "2 GHz METs").[^2]
    We are imposing these emission limits to prevent such METs from
    interfering with aeronautical reception of satellite radionavigation
    signals in the 1559-1610 MHz band. More specifically, the limits are
    designed to enhance flight safety by ensuring that emissions from
    such METs will not impair aircraft radionavigation during instrument
    approach and landing. We are also issuing a Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, included herein, in which we propose further
    requirements for the same purpose and invite public comment.

2.  In addition to proposing to adopt emission limits for protection of
    aeronautical radionavigation, in the order instituting this
    proceeding,[^3] the Commission also proposed to adopt rules to
    facilitate global operation of METs. The proposed rules pertaining
    to worldwide circulation of METs were designed to implement an
    international Memorandum of Understanding regarding Global Mobile
    Personal Communication by Satellite ("GMPCS-MoU") that was signed by
    representatives of the United States and more than 120 other
    governments and private-sector organizations.[^4] We are not yet
    prepared to take final action with respect to GMPCS-MoU
    implementation but will do so in a future order in this
    proceeding.[^5]

######### II. BACKGROUND

3.  The International Civil Aviation Organization ("ICAO") has
    designated two satellite radionavigation systems for use as
    components of an integrated Global Navigation Satellite System
    ("GNSS") for aeronautical applications: the NAVSTAR Global
    Positioning System ("GPS") and GLONASS.[^6] The space segment of the
    GPS system consists of 24 satellites in non-geostationary orbit
    maintained by the U.S. government. GPS satellites transmit ranging
    signals on a 1575.42 MHz carrier: a Standard Positioning Service
    ("SPS") signal and a Precise Positioning Service ("PPS") signal. The
    PPS signal is modulated by a code that can only be processed by
    users equipped with cryptographic keys, distribution of which has
    been limited mainly to military personnel. The SPS signal, which is
    available for general civilian use, extends through the band 1563.42
    to 1587.42 MHz and is modulated with a pseudo-random-noise "C/A"
    code sequence, the null-to-null bandwidth of which occupies
    approximately two megahertz centered on the 1575.42 MHz carrier
    frequency.[^7]

4.  The Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") is planning to shift
    from reliance on ground-based systems for aircraft radionavigation
    during instrument approach and landing in the United States to
    reliance on satellite guidance, to be obtained chiefly from GPS-SPS.
    Because GPS-SPS is not accurate enough, in itself, to serve as the
    primary means of guidance for instrument approach and landing, the
    FAA is promoting development of two auxiliary systems: a Wide Area
    Augmentation System ("WAAS") and a Local Area Augmentation System
    ("LAAS"). WAAS signals providing correction data will be downlinked
    to aircraft receivers via satellites in geostationary orbit
    transmitting in the GPS-SPS frequency band. The FAA expects to
    certify GPS/WAAS, which will afford horizontal and vertical
    positioning accuracy to a tolerance of approximately 8 meters, as a
    primary means of instrument navigation for Category I precision
    approach flight and all less-critical phases of flight.[^8]
    According to the most recent Federal Radionavigation Plan, GPS/WAAS
    was to commence limited operations in 2000 and is to be fully
    implemented over the next six years.[^9] LAAS, which is in an
    earlier stage of development than WAAS, would involve transmission
    of additional corrective signals from ground stations sited near
    runways. GPS/LAAS is expected to achieve guidance accuracy and
    reliability sufficient for all phases of instrument approach flight.

5.  GLONASS is a non-geostationary radionavigation satellite system
    maintained by the Russian Ministry of Defense. According to a
    schedule published by the International Telecommunication Union
    ("ITU"),[^10] GLONASS satellites will transmit navigation signals
    for civilian use approximately one megahertz wide on carrier
    frequencies between 1598 MHz and 1609.3125 MHz until January
    1, 2005. After that date, the satellites will transmit on carrier
    frequencies between 1598 and 1605.375 MHz.[^11] ICAO has accepted an
    offer from the Russian Federation to provide GLONASS positioning to
    civilian aircraft as a component of the proposed GNSS and is
    developing standards for hybrid receivers that would process both
    GPS and GLONASS signals. According to the Federal Radionavigation
    Plan, hybrid GPS/GLONASS receivers would have significant advantages
    over single-system receivers, including improved resistance to
    interference.[^12] The FAA has not yet approved GLONASS for
    aeronautical radionavigation in the United States but is studying
    implementation of a next-generation U.S. system based on the ICAO
    concept of an integrated GPS/GLONASS GNSS. In any event, because
    ICAO has accepted GLONASS, the United States must, under the
    Convention on International Civil Aviation, comply with ICAO
    requirements for interference protection for GLONASS or file an
    exception. The United States has not filed such an exception to
    date.[^13]

6.  The Commission adopted limits to protect GPS from emissions from one
    type of MET in 1994, when it established rules for the "Big LEO" MSS
    service.[^14] It required the e.i.r.p. density of out-of-band
    emissions from Big LEO METs in the 1574.397-1576.443 MHz GPS-SPS C/A
    band to be suppressed to levels no greater than -70 dBW/MHz,
    averaged over any 20 millisecond interval.[^15] Further, the
    Commission ruled that the e.i.r.p. of any discrete emission of less
    than 600 hertz bandwidth from a Big LEO MET must not exceed -80 dBW
    in that band.[^16] The Commission did not establish limits at that
    time to protect GLONASS, however. While acknowledging in the *Big
    LEO Report and Order* that out-of-band emissions from Big LEO METs
    could interfere with GLONASS reception, it left the issue to be
    resolved after further study.[^17]

7.  Later in 1994, representatives of the Commission, the FAA, and the
    National Telecommunication and Information Administration ("NTIA")
    signed a Memorandum of Understanding concerning domestic
    implementation of the GNSS.[^18] The signatory agencies agreed to
    consult with industry representatives concerning development of
    regulatory standards to prevent METs from interfering with GNSS
    aeronautical radionavigation. The study was to be conducted under
    the auspices of the RTCA, a non-profit corporation that routinely
    functions as a Federal Advisory Committee and develops
    consensus-based recommendations for the FAA. The Commission said
    that it would initiate a rulemaking to consider any ensuing RTCA
    recommendation and would include a condition in each MET license
    authorizing operation in frequencies near the GPS and GLONASS
    operating bands stipulating that operation is subject to any limits
    subsequently incorporated in the Commission's rules for protection
    of those GNSS services. All current FCC licenses for 1.6 GHz METs
    include an explicit condition to that effect.[^19]

8.  RTCA Special Committee 159 ("SC-159") convened to develop
    recommendations for additional out-of-band emission limits for METs
    to protect aircraft reception of satellite radiovavigation signals.
    The committee was comprised of representatives from the Commission,
    the FAA, the aviation industry, and the MSS industry. In January
    1997, SC-159 published separate reports from the aviation and MSS
    contingents.[^20] The members representing aviation interests,
    including the FAA representatives, maintained that METs should meet
    a wideband limit of -70 dBW/MHz or less and a narrowband limit of
    -80 dBW or less on emissions in the 1559-1610 MHz Aeronautical
    Radionavigation/Radionavigation Satellite ("ARNS") band in the
    interim prior to the downshifting of the GLONASS operating band and
    should thereafter meet those limits in frequencies from 1559 MHz to
    1605 MHz.[^21] The committee's MSS members maintained that
    less-restrictive limits would suffice but conceded that it was at
    least feasible for 1.6 GHz METs to meet the ‑70 dBW/MHz limit urged
    by the aviation members in spectrum below 1580.42 MHz and to meet a
    -80 dBW narrowband limit in spectrum below 1585.42 MHz.[^22] The MSS
    members contended, however, that it was economically infeasible to
    suppress emissions from handheld 1.6 GHz METs to those levels in the
    higher frequencies of the ARNS band.[^23] Due to the lack of
    consensus, SC-159 did not issue a recommendation for out-of-band
    emission limits to protect GLONASS.

9.  In September 1997, the NTIA filed a petition for rulemaking with the
    Commission in which it proposed a solution to the out-of-band
    emission problem.[^24] The NTIA explained that its proposal
    reflected a compromise worked out by NTIA and FAA officials in
    consultation with MSS licensees. The essential elements of the
    proposed compromise were that the limits previously advocated by the
    aviation members of RTCA SC-159 would ultimately be imposed, but
    there would be an initial grace period before currently-operated 1.6
    GHz METs would be subject to those limits on emissions in higher
    segments of the 1559-1610 MHz ARNS band.

10. More specifically, the NTIA asked the Commission to adopt the
    following requirements: (1) all 1.6 GHz METs would immediately be
    subject to a wideband limit of -70 dBW/MHz, averaged over 20
    milliseconds, on the e.i.r.p. density of out-of-band emissions in
    the 1559-1580.42 MHz frequency range and a narrowband limit of -80
    dBW/700 Hz, also averaged over 20 milliseconds, on emissions in the
    1559-1585.42 MHz range; (2) Big LEO METs commissioned prior to
    January 1, 2002 would, in addition, be immediately subject to
    interim e.i.r.p. density limits of -64 dBW/MHz in frequencies from
    1580.42 MHz to 1605 MHz and -74 dBW/700 Hz in frequencies from
    1585.42 to 1605 MHz; (3) all 1.6 GHz METs, including Big LEO METs,
    commissioned after January 1, 2002 would have to meet limits of -70
    dBW/MHz and -80 dBW/700 Hz in frequencies from 1559 MHz to 1605 MHz
    without relying on channel-blocking by network software; (4) all 1.6
    GHz METs commissioned before January 1, 2002 must be deactivated as
    of January 1, 2005 unless altered by then, as necessary, to conform
    to the stricter limits applicable to terminals commissioned after
    January 1, 2002. Finally, the NTIA recommended that the Commission
    address any issue of potential interference with reception of
    GLONASS signals in U.S. territory on frequencies above 1605 MHz,
    before 2005, on a case-by-case basis.

11. Similar requirements have since been endorsed by international
    standards-setting bodies. In November 1997, the ITU adopted
    recommendations for regulatory limits on out-of-band emissions from
    METs licensed for transmission in frequencies between one and three
    GHz and used with non-geostationary-orbit ("NGSO") MSS systems.[^25]
    Those ITU recommendations do not include a narrowband limit or a
    grace period for suppression in higher frequencies but are otherwise
    consistent with the NTIA's proposal. For NGSO METs transmitting in
    the TDMA mode,[^26] the ITU recommended a -70 dBW/MHz limit on
    emissions in the 1559-1605 MHz range and a scaled limit linearly
    interpolated to ‑10dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz for emissions in the
    1605-1610 MHz band segment. It also recommended a ‑70 dBW/MHz limit
    on out-of-band emissions from NGSO CDMA METs[^27] in frequencies
    between 1559 and 1580.42 MHz. Although it refrained, pending further
    study, from recommending a limit on NGSO CDMA MET emissions above
    1580.42 MHz, the ITU said that the recommended limit would be no
    more strict than -70 dBW/MHz. The ITU subsequently issued similar
    recommendations for METs used with GSO MSS systems.[^28] Although
    the ITU recommendations do not have the force of law, the U.S.
    signatories of the GMPCS MoU pledged support for them.[^29]

12. The European Telecommunications Standards Institute and the European
    Commission on Post and Telecommunications have also adopted limits
    on emissions in the 1559-1610 MHz band from METs transmitting on
    frequencies between 1610 and 1626.5 MHz.[^30] The European limits
    are the same as those recommended by the ITU for TDMA METs and apply
    to CDMA METs, as well.

13. In 1998, the Commission adopted a provisional standard for
    suppression of MET emissions in the 1559-1610 MHz band for licensees
    requesting equipment certification prior to adoption of mandatory
    emission limits in this proceeding.[^31] The Commission ruled that
    METs meeting the ultimate ‑70 dBW/MHz and -80 dBW/700 Hz limits
    recommended by the NTIA would qualify for optional interim
    certification. The Commission cautioned, however, that METs
    voluntarily certified pursuant to the interim standard would be
    subject to whatever mandatory permanent limits are eventually
    adopted, and it gave no guarantee that the permanent limits would
    not be more restrictive.

14. In March 1999, the Commission issued the *Notice* in this
    proceeding, proposing to adopt most of the NTIA's recommendations
    for limits on emissions from 1.6 GHz METs and inviting further
    public comment. Shortly afterward, in the context of the rulemaking
    pertaining to establishment of licensing and service rules for 2 GHz
    MSS, the Commission proposed to adopt similar restrictions on
    out-of-band emissions from 2 GHz METs.[^32]

**III. DISCUSSION**

**A. New 1.6 GHz METs: Limits on Emissions Between 1559 MHz and 1605
MHz**

15. As proposed, we are amending the Commission's rules to incorporate
    the NTIA's principal recommendations for limits on out-of-band
    emissions from METs licensed to transmit in frequencies between 1610
    and 1660.5 MHz. As the Commission stressed in the *Notice*,[^33] the
    NTIA's recommendations are consistent with ITU recommendations and
    represent a compromise that offers protection deemed necessary by
    the Federal agencies responsible for domestic implementation of the
    GNSS while affording MSS licensees lead time in which to achieve
    full compliance. We continue to believe that the compromise strikes
    a reasonable balance between fostering improvement in aeronautical
    radionavigation and promoting MSS development. In the following
    paragraphs, we discuss particular aspects of the new emissions
    regulations in light of issues raised in public comments.

1\. Wideband Limit

16. The NTIA recommended, and the Commission proposed to adopt, a
    requirement that 1.6 GHz METs placed in service on or after January
    1, 2002 suppress the e.i.r.p. density of wideband emissions in the
    1559-1605 MHz frequency range to -70 dBW/MHz or less.[^34] Most of
    the comments on this issue support this proposal. In joint comments,
    L/Q Licensee, Inc., Globalstar L.P., and AirTouch Satellite Services
    U.S., Inc. ("Globalstar companies") contend that the Commission's
    proposals should be adopted because they satisfy the requirements of
    the aviation industry without seriously compromising the MSS
    industry's economic potential and are consistent with international
    standards.[^35] The Globalstar companies stress that "Big LEO" MSS
    licensees have been grappling for years with the problem of
    designing handsets without knowing what emission limits would be
    adopted for protection of the GNSS. Continued uncertainty in this
    regard, they assert, threatens to delay system development and
    discourage investment. Aeronautical Radio, Inc. ("ARINC"), RTCA,
    Inc., the U.S. GPS Industry Council, Orbital Communications
    Corporation, Motorola, Inc., Constellation Communications, Inc., and
    Iridium LLC also support the proposed -70 dBW/MHz limit.[^36]

17. On the other hand, Norcom Networks Corporation (a GSO-MSS reseller)
    contends that there is no evidence in the record to support adoption
    of the proposed -70 dBW/MHz limit.[^37] Norcom asserts that, to the
    contrary, the MSS members of RTCA Special Committee 159 determined
    through probability analysis that a wideband limit of -54 dBW/MHz
    would protect GNSS receivers in all phases of flight.[^38]

18. There is ample support for NTIA's recommendation, however, in the
    analysis by the aviation members of SC-159.[^39] While it is true,
    as Norcom emphasizes, that the Committee's MSS representatives
    advocated a more lenient wideband limit, they based the
    recommendation on an assumption that 1.6 GHz METs could not feasibly
    be manufactured to meet a wideband limit stricter than -54 dBW/MHz
    in the GLONASS operating band. Yet Big LEO METs have since been
    deployed that meet the recommended ‑70 dBW/MHz limit at that
    band.[^40] Furthermore, all of the commenting Big LEO licensees
    advocate adoption of the proposed -70 dBW/MHz limit on emissions in
    the 1559-1605 MHz band from METs placed in service after January
    1, 2002. Although some GSO MSS licensees advocate grandfather
    exemptions for METs previously placed in service (a subject
    addressed later in this order), no one maintains that it is
    infeasible for newly-manufactured METs to meet a -70 dBW/MHz limit
    in the 1559-1605 MHz band.

19. In any event, the MSS members of SC-159 did not demonstrate that the
    findings of the Committee's aviation members were erroneous. The
    divergence between the two groups' conclusions about the level of
    protection needed was due primarily to disagreement over probability
    estimates and judgments about acceptable risk, which are not
    susceptible to resolution with mathematical certainty.[^41] As a
    member of the aviation contingent of SC-159, the FAA, which
    supervises U.S. implementation of the GNSS and is responsible for
    ensuring and promoting aviation safety in the United States, agreed
    that a -70 dBW/MHz limit is needed for protection of GNSS operations
    in frequencies up to 1605 MHz. Norcom has not demonstrated that this
    FAA/NTIA recommendation -- which is consistent with ITU
    recommendations, European requirements, and the Commission's current
    requirement for suppression of Big LEO MET emissions in the GPS
    band[^42] -- is founded on erroneous premises.

20. *Potential Improvement of GNSS Receivers*. The extent to which MET
    emissions must be suppressed to protect GNSS approach guidance
    depends on the extent to which GNSS systems are vulnerable to
    interference. We invited comment as to whether the interference
    susceptibility of GNSS aircraft receivers could be improved
    significantly over the parameters assumed by the aviation members of
    SC-159 without substantially increasing the receivers' cost or
    impairing their performance.[^43] In response, the Globalstar
    companies assert that a recent study by the Applied Physics
    Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University[^44] indicates that GPS
    receiver susceptibility could be substantially improved at low cost
    through various novel techniques. The study does not include an
    analysis regarding potential interference from METs, however, and
    does not consider costs of retrofitting existing equipment or
    expenses attributable to nonrecurring engineering services and
    component integration. The authors of the study note, moreover, that
    most of the low-cost suppression techniques they discuss are in
    early stages of development and that those proven in actual use are
    either ineffective against broadband interference or ineffective
    against interference from multiple sources.[^45] The authors
    accordingly concluded that no single suppression technique would
    achieve fully-satisfactory results with current technology.[^46] In
    sum, we cannot conclude from the Johns Hopkins study or any
    information in the record before us that GNSS interference tolerance
    can be improved at a supportable cost to an extent that would
    warrant relaxation of the wideband limit to a level higher than --70
    dBW/MHz.

2\. Narrowband Limit

21. In accordance with the NTIA's recommendations, we also proposed
    limits on narrowband emissions. For 1.6 GHz METs placed in service
    after January 1, 2002, we proposed to adopt a requirement to
    suppress the e.i.r.p. of discrete emissions of less than 700 hertz
    bandwidth to ‑80 dBW in frequencies between 1559 MHz and 1605 MHz.
    Two commenters argue against this proposal. Motorola stresses that
    neither the ITU's recommended limits on MET emissions in that
    frequency band nor the pertinent European requirements include a
    narrowband restriction. Motorola maintains that adopting U.S.-only
    narrowband limits could create barriers to international roaming and
    complicate equipment approval overseas.[^47] Hughes Network Systems
    likewise asserts that we should avoid adopting national criteria at
    variance from predominant international standards and therefore
    recommends that we refrain from adopting narrowband limits pending
    further study.[^48] The Globalstar licensees do not object to the
    proposed narrowband limit for METs type-accepted for sale or lease
    in the United States but advise against prohibiting domestic use of
    "roaming" foreign-licensed METs that have not been certified to meet
    the narrowband requirement. They point out that applying such a
    requirement to foreign-licensed METs could affect use of
    foreign-certified METs bearing the GMPCS-MoU ITU Registry mark,
    since METs certified elsewhere might receive the mark without
    demonstrating compliance with a narrowband limit. To preclude
    domestic use of ITU-marked METs for noncompliance with an
    "idiosyncratic" U.S. narrowband restriction, according to the
    Globalstar licensees, would defeat the purposes of the GMPCS MoU by
    making it necessary for international travelers to buy duplicative
    equipment.[^49]

22. The NTIA replies that the proposed narrowband limit is necessary to
    protect aeronautical radionavigation. GPS-SPS, WAAS, and GLONASS are
    known to be particularly susceptible to disruption from
    continuous-wave or very narrowband interfering signals, according to
    the NTIA, primarily because of the relatively short period of theC/A
    code signals. The NTIA maintains that METs produce narrowband
    out-of-band emissions with continuous-wave characteristics that can
    mix with "strong lines" in a GPS, WAAS, or GLONASS code sequence and
    leak through receiver correlators directly into the tracking loops
    and consequently that the power of interfering narrowband emissions
    from a MET must be kept 10 dB lower than wideband emissions to
    protect GPS/WAAS and GLONASS reception.[^50] The NTIA points out
    that the ITU was currently (*i.e.*, at the time when the NTIA filed
    its comments) considering a draft recommendation acknowledging that
    aeronautical GNSS radionavigation requires 10 dB greater protection
    from narrowband emissions by the ITU. The ITU has since adopted the
    recommendation.[^51]

23. The NTIA's advice that increased suppression of narrowband emissions
    is needed is consistent with analysis endorsed by *all* members of
    RTCA SC-159, including the MSS representatives.[^52] No commenter
    has attempted to demonstrate with technical analysis that a
    narrowband limit is unnecessary.[^53] The NTIA's advice is
    consistent, moreover, with a recent ITU recommendation[^54] and with
    the Commission's current rule for protection of GPS from MET
    emissions, which specifies a -80 dBW narrowband limit.[^55] We are
    therefore adopting a -80 dBW narrowband limit for new 1.6 GHz METs.
    Whether there should be an exception for foreign-certified METs
    bearing the GMPCS-MoU Registry mark will be addressed in a further
    order in this proceeding concerning implementation of the GMPCS
    MoU.[^56]

24. *Specification issue*. The NTIA originally recommended that we adopt
    narrowband limits on spectral power density. We observed in the
    *Notice* that the RTCA SC-159 report discussed limits on narrowband
    power, rather than narrowband power density, and that the current
    rule restricting narrowband emissions in the core GPS band likewise
    sets an absolute limit on power. We therefore proposed to continue
    to specify narrowband limits in terms of power.[^57] In their
    comments, the NTIA, Motorola, and Rockwell Collins agree that the
    narrowband limits should pertain simply to power level,[^58] and no
    other commenter advocates use of a narrowband power-density
    specification instead. Accordingly, as proposed, we are adopting
    limits on the power, rather than the power density, of narrowband
    emissions.

**B. Interim Requirements for 1.6 GHz METs**

1\. Proposed Interim Requirements

25. In accordance with NTIA recommendations, the Commission proposed in
    the *Notice* to temporarily excuse 1.6 GHz METs placed in service
    before January 1, 2002 from meeting the ‑70 dBW/MHz and ‑80 dBW
    wideband/narrowband ("‑70/‑80") limits in upper segments of the ARNS
    band. While METs placed in service on or after that date would be
    immediately subject to those limits throughout the 1559-1605 MHz
    band, 1.6 GHz METs placed in service before then would be initially
    subject to the ‑70 dbW/MHz limit from 1559 MHz only up to 1580.42
    MHz and to the -80 dBW narrowband limit from 1559 MHz only up to
    1585.42 MHz. The Commission further proposed that during an interim
    period extending until January 1, 2005 such "grandfathered" Big LEO
    METs would be subject to less restrictive limits of ‑64 dBW/MHz on
    wideband emissions and -74 dBW on narrowband emissions in the
    adjacent frequencies up to 1605 MHz. Pre-2002 METs with assigned
    frequencies between 1626.5 and 1660.5 MHz, on the other hand, would
    be free of new limits on wideband emissions above 1580.42 MHz and
    narrowband emissions above 1585.42 MHz during the interim period.
    The partial grandfathering would cease on January 1, 2005, after
    which date any grandfathered 1.6 GHz METs still in use would be
    required to meet the "‑70/-80" suppression requirements in all
    frequencies from 1559 MHz to 1605 MHz.

2\. Objections to Temporary Grandfathering

26. The NTIA, ARINC, and the Globalstar licensees maintain that the
    proposed time-phasing of restrictions on emissions in the upper
    portion of the ARNS band for METs placed in service before 2002
    strikes a satisfactory balance between the interests of MSS
    operators and users and the need for protection for aeronautical
    radionavigation.[^59] Several commenters advise against any such
    temporary grandfathering, however. Motorola asserts that allowing
    pre-2002 METs to produce temporarily higher emission levels in upper
    segments of the 1559-1605 MHz band will make it more likely that
    substandard METs will remain in use after January 1, 2005.[^60]
    Rockwell Collins, Inc. maintains that U.S. protection for GLONASS or
    another European satellite navigation system operating in the upper
    portion of the ARNS band is crucial to the viability of an
    international GNSS and that delayed application of the "‑70/‑80"
    limits to emissions in that segment could therefore thwart global
    implementation of GNSS precision-approach guidance.[^61]

27. We remain convinced that it will serve the public interest to
    forbear temporarily from requiring 1.6 GHz METs already in service
    to meet the "-70/-80" suppression standard in the upper portion of
    the ARNS band, which will prolong the service life of
    previously-manufactured equipment, conserving the value of prior
    investment by users, manufacturers, and equipment sellers.[^62]
    Rockwell Collins' contention that "-70/-80" limits covering
    emissions in the upper ARNS band should be immediately imposed on
    all 1.6 GHz and 2 GHz METs, regardless when placed in service, is
    directly contrary to the NTIA's recommendation. The NTIA has
    consistently advocated adopting a rule that would allow METs
    previously brought into service to continue in operation until
    January 1, 2005 before becoming subject to the "‑70/‑80" limits with
    respect to emissions in the upper part of the ARNS band.[^63] The
    NTIA has participated in this proceeding on behalf of the Executive
    Branch of the Federal government, particularly the FAA, which plans
    and supervises development and operation of aeronautical
    radionavigation systems in the United States. The NTIA asked us to
    institute this proceeding and devised its proposal in close
    consultation with the FAA. Indeed, the NTIA reported that the FAA
    had approved its proposal for temporary grandfathering.[^64] Because
    no one has presented convincing evidence that grandfathering of
    previously-operational METs until January 1, 2005 would compromise
    public safety, we defer to the FAA's expert judgment in this regard
    (as conveyed by the NTIA). Therefore, as proposed, we are adopting
    time-phased requirements for suppression in the upper ARNS
    frequencies.

3\. Cut-off Frequency for Immediate "-70/-80" Protection

28. The NTIA points out that the Executive Branch has amended the
    Performance Standard for GPS-SPS, which previously equated SPS
    bandwidth with the null-to-null bandwidth of the C/A-code ranging
    signal, *i.e.*, 1574.397-1576.443 MHz, to redefine SPS as extending
    from 1563.42 MHz to 1587.42 MHz.[^65] According to the NTIA, the
    change was made to acknowledge that receivers can process the wider
    bandwidth (which the NTIA describes as "the full transmitted
    bandwidth of the C/A code signal") to minimize tracking errors due
    to noise, interference, and multipath distortion. The NTIA asserts
    that many civilian GPS applications, including safety-of-life
    applications, will make use of the wider bandwidth. Therefore, the
    NTIA urges the Commission to require 1.6 GHz METs in current use to
    meet initial "-70/-80" limits in ARNS frequencies up to 1587.42 MHz,
    instead of merely requiring them to meet an initial -70 dBW/MHz
    limit in frequencies up to 1580.42 MHz and an initial -80 dBW
    narrowband limit in frequencies up to 1585.42 MHz, as proposed in
    the *Notice*.

29. In reply comments, the Globalstar licensees express skepticism about
    the utility of wide-bandwidth GPS receivers but raise no objection
    to the NTIA's recommendation to extend immediate "‑70/-80"
    protection up to 1587.42 MHz.[^66] No one else filed comments in
    opposition to the NTIA's recommendation in this regard.

30. As no one has objected to the Exective Branch's recommendation for
    upward adjustment of the cut-off, we incorporate the adjustment in
    the rules we adopt today. That is, we are requiring
    currently-operational METs to initially suppress wideband and
    narrowband emissions to "-70/-80" in frequencies from 1559 MHz up to
    1587.42 MHz.

4\. Deadline for Conformance to the Final Standard

31. In light of preliminary criticism of the proposal to establish a
    January 1, 2005 deadline for grandfathered METs to meet "-70/-80"
    limits in frequencies up to 1605 MHz, the Commission invited comment
    on the advisability of waiving or postponing the deadline with
    respect to suppression of emissions in the 1597-1605 MHz segment
    reserved for GLONASS operation in the event of unanticipated delay
    in domestic implementation of GLONASS.[^67] A number of interested
    parties address this issue.

32. The Globalstar licensees and ARINC advise against adopting any such
    contingent policy for waiving or postponing the deadline. Stressing
    that other administrations have already prescribed the ‑70 dBW/MHz
    limit for immediate application to MET emissions in frequencies up
    to 1605 MHz, the Globalstar licensees argue that certainty,
    finality, and consistency are more important to MSS equipment
    manufacturers and service providers than an open-ended prospect of
    future relief.[^68] ARINC argues that licensees should meet the
    proposed deadline regardless of the progress of domestic regulatory
    authorization for GLONASS because our government has a treaty
    obligation to permit foreign aircraft relying on GLONASS to operate
    in U.S. airspace.[^69] ARINC contends that we should protect GLONASS
    for such foreign aircraft so that foreign governments will
    reciprocate by providing protection for GPS reception by U.S.
    aircraft.

33. On the other hand, Motient Corporation argues for setting the
    deadline at January 1, 2010, at the earliest. Motient asserts that
    Congress has yet to appropriate money for domestic implementation of
    GLONASS and that it would take more than a decade after it does so
    to integrate GLONASS into domestic aeronautical radionavigation
    systems.[^70] In the alternative, Motient contends that if the
    Commission were to insist on specifying a January 2005 deadline, it
    should postpone the deadline or grant waivers should it later become
    clear that GLONASS will not be used for approach guidance in the
    United States by then. Motient estimates that it would incur an
    equipment-replacement expense of \$60-80 million if forced to meet a
    January 1, 2005 full-compliance deadline for METs placed in service
    prior to 2002. Norcom Networks Corp., a reseller providing
    value-added MSS via Motient's satellite facilities, similarly
    alleges that it would cost several million dollars to retrofit its
    existing METs to meet the proposed "-70/-80" limits in the GLONASS
    operating band.[^71] Norcom recommends that the Commission refrain
    from setting a deadline for pre-2002 METs to meet new limits on
    emissions in the GLONASS operating band until the FAA grants final
    approval for domestic use of GLONASS by commercial aircraft.

34. Other commenters, including the NTIA, support the proposal to
    establish a January 2005 full-compliance deadline for grandfathered
    METs but advocate retaining flexibility for subsequent waiver or
    postponement. The NTIA maintains that it would be unwise to waive or
    postpone requirements for new METs but recommends that the
    Commission assess the prospects for domestic GLONASS implementation
    later in the pre-2005 interim and consider adjustment of the
    full-compliance deadline for grandfathered METs in light of its
    findings.[^72] Constellation Communications, Inc., Inmarsat Ltd.,
    and TMI Communications likewise contend that the Commission should
    be willing to postpone the deadline if such relief seems warranted
    in light of intervening developments.[^73]

35. We are specifying a January 1, 2005 full-compliance deadline for
    grandfathered METs, as previously proposed. The commenters who argue
    for a later deadline or against specifying any such deadline at
    present have not demonstrated that requiring full compliance by 2005
    will be unduly onerous. They assert that it would be expensive for
    them to meet such a requirement but have provided no corroboration
    for their cost estimates. Nor have they rebutted the reasonable
    contention that further delay in domestic implementation of ITU
    recommendations for suppression in the GLONASS band would strain
    international comity. Anyone who might be adversely affected may, of
    course, request waiver or postponement of the deadline in light of
    subsequent developments, and any such request will be duly
    considered.

5\. Applicability of Interim Limits on Emissions in Upper ARNS
Frequencies

36. The Commission proposed to require grandfathered Big LEO METs to
    meet a -64 dBW/MHz limit and a -74 dBW narrowband limit ("‑64/‑74"
    limits) in the upper part of the 1559-1610 MHz band in the interim
    prior to the January 2005 deadline for full compliance with the
    "-70/-80" standard. We are adopting these interim requirements
    because the NTIA maintains that they are necessary for protection of
    aeronautical radionavigation and because no Big LEO licensee has
    objected that they are too strict. Big LEO METs eligible for
    temporary grandfathering must meet these interim limits if operated
    after the effective date of the rules we are adopt here.

37. There is some difference of opinion as to whether we should also
    impose these upper-band interim restrictions on
    currently-operational METs with assigned uplink frequencies between
    1626.5 MHz and 1660.5 MHz. The NTIA recommends more lenient interim
    treatment for such METs.[^74] It stresses that although no Big LEO
    METs were yet in operation when it filed its rulemaking petition
    proposing "-70/-80" limits, the Inmarsat and Motient GSO MSS
    systems, with assigned MET uplink frequencies between 1626.5 MHz and
    1660.5 MHz, were already fully operational at that time. Further,
    the NTIA acknowledges that many METs used to obtain service via the
    Inmarsat and Motient satellite systems were not designed to suppress
    emissions in the upper ARNS band to the extent since proposed for
    the interim standard for Big LEO METs. In recognition of this
    difference of circumstance, the NTIA recommends that 1626.5-1660.5
    MHz METs brought into service before 2002 be permitted to continue
    operation with current emission levels in ARNS frequencies above
    1587.42 MHz until January 1, 2005. The NTIA maintains that this
    differentiated approach would protect equipment investments and
    afford adequate time for redesigning Motient and Inmarsat METs to
    meet the final limits.

38. ARINC, Motorola, and Iridium LLC contend, on the other hand, that
    the interim limits should apply to currently-operational
    1626.5-1660.5 MHz METs, as well as to Big LEO METs. ARINC argues
    that requiring the former to meet interim "-64/-74" limits in the
    upper part of the 1559-1610 MHz ARNS band would not be unduly
    onerous, since their assigned uplink frequencies are not immediately
    adjacent to the 1559-1610 MHz ARNS band.[^75] Motorola and Iridium
    LLC argue that any interim standard for pre-2002 teminals should
    cover Motient and Inmarsat METs because they comprise a subtantial
    portion of the METs now in service in the United States.[^76]

39. Because the NTIA advises against imposing interim limits on
    emissions in the upper ARNS band from temporarily-grandfathered
    1626.5-1660.5 MHz METs, we conclude that it is unnecessary to do so
    in order to protect aeronautical radionavigation. Therefore, in the
    interest of minimizing the cost of compliance we are imposing no new
    restrictions on such METs with respect to emissions in ARNS
    frequencies above 1587.42 MHz duirng the interim prior to January 1,
    2005.

6\. Preapproval of Modifications for Grandfathered METs

40. In its petition for rulemaking, the NTIA recommended that the
    Commission require licensees to apply for advance approval of any
    plan to rely on network software to bring termporarily-grandfathered
    1.6 GHz METs into conformance with the final limits by blocking
    transmission on channels in the lower part of their uplink bands.
    The Commission observed in the *Notice*, however, that the NTIA had
    offered no reason for exercising such preliminary regulatory
    supervision over technical design. The Commission proposed, instead,
    to rely on certification based on performance measurement to ensure
    that any temporarily-grandfathered METs kept in service after
    January 1, 2005 would operate in conformance with the final emission
    limits.[^77] In subsequent comments, the NTIA concedes that
    requiring prior approval of software configurations for
    channel-blocking could be unduly intrusive.[^78] The other
    commenters addressing this issue also agree that there is no need
    for such a procedure.[^79] We remain unconvinced that there is any
    need for pre-approval of software configurations for
    channel-blocking. Rather, as proposed in the *Notice*, we intend to
    rely on the equipment type-certification process to ensure
    compliance with the final standards.

7\. Limiting Date for Grandfathering Eligibility

41. As we have noted, the Commission proposed in the *Notice* to
    temporarily establish lesser interim requirements for METs placed in
    service before January 1, 2002 while immediately imposing the full,
    final "‑70/-80" limits on METs placed in service on or after that
    date. The January 1, 2002 date is now past, however. In order to
    avoid causing any hardship that might result from immediately
    applying the final emission requirements to METs already in service,
    we are extending eligibility for interim grandfathering to cover all
    METs placed in service prior to the effective date of the rule
    changes we are adopting here. Thus, all METs brought into service
    before July 21, 2002 will be subject to the pertinent interim
    requirements until January 1, 2005.

**C. Inmarsat METs**

42. Inmarsat, Comsat, Sea-Land Service, Inc., and the Chamber of
    Shipping of America argue for extended grandfathering or permanent
    exemption of Inmarsat METs currently in service.[^80] Although it
    asserts that the "vast majority" of the METs currently used with its
    system operate within the proposed final limits,[^81] Inmarsat
    contends that the difficulty of retrofitting noncompliant Inmarsat
    METs to meet those limits by January 1, 2005 would be
    "insurmountable." Further, it argues that the proposed "-70/-80"
    limits are overly strict for application to Inmarsat METs because
    they were devised on the basis of calculations assuming use of
    omnidirectional transmitters, whereas Inmarsat METs are directional
    and therefore have significantly reduced emission at high elevation
    angles. In an attached analysis Inmarsat purports to show, among
    other things, that no current Inmarsat terminal would produce
    interference above the permissible level with aircraft reception of
    GNSS signals unless operated in the immediate vicinity of a
    runway.[^82] For similar reasons, Comsat, which provides MSS via
    Inmarsat satellites, argues for permanent exemption of Inmarsat
    "Standard A" METs.[^83]

43. The NTIA, Motorola, and Rockwell Collins, Inc. advise against
    adopting a permanent grandfather exemption for Inmarsat METs.[^84]
    The NTIA contends that Inmarsat's interference analysis fails to
    consider the possibility of a GNSS-equipped aircraft passing through
    the mainbeam or close-in sidelobe of an Inmarsat Standard A
    terminal. Rockwell Collins contends that noncompliant Inmarsat ship
    METs could pose a serious risk for aircraft using GNSS approach
    guidance because many major U.S. airports are adjacent to navigable
    waterways.

44. We are not persuaded that existing Inmarsat METs can be permanently
    exempted without consequent risk to aviation. The Commission has
    previously considered an argument for such an exemption and found it
    insufficient,[^85] and Comsat and Inmarsat have not materially
    improved upon the argument in subsequent comments. Inmarsat's own
    analysis shows that some Inmarsat METs in current use could cause
    unacceptable levels of interference in GNSS receivers of aircraft in
    critical approach flight.[^86] That they could cause such
    interference only if situated close to a runway -- which is also
    true of the other types of METs covered by the regulations we are
    adopting here -- does not obviate concern, since Inmarsat has not
    denied that either land-based or ship-based Inmarsat METs could
    operate close enough to landing aircraft to disturb GNSS approach
    guidance.

45. Comsat, Inmarsat, and the Chamber of Shipping suggest that instead
    of imposing new emissions limits on Inmarsat METs previously placed
    in service, we could decree "exclusion zones" around airports to
    prohibit operation of such METs in areas where that might present a
    threat to aviation safety. The NTIA and Motorola object that the
    advocates of the exclusion-zone approach failed to explain how
    compliance with such a requirement could be ensured. The objection
    is well-taken. Although the Commission has adopted exclusion zones
    for protection of radioastronomy sites in its rules for Big LEO MSS
    systems, those systems are inherently capable of determining the
    location of users' METs by technical means.[^87] It has not been
    shown in this proceeding, however, that there is any feasible way
    for service providers to prevent Inmarsat METs of current design
    from transmitting in the immediate vicinity of airports.

46. We therefore conclude that the commenters have not shown
    justification for permanently exempting existing Inmarsat METs of
    any type from the requirement to suppress emissions in the upper
    ARNS band to "-70/-80" levels. Inmarsat and its U.S. reseller,
    Comsat, have been on notice at all relevant times, moreover, that
    ITU and FCC regulations require licensees to avoid harmfully
    interfering with reception of services in adjacent bands[^88] and
    require special measures to be taken for protection of
    safety-related radionavigation.[^89] In distributing or authorizing
    manufacture of METs producing potentially harmful out-of-band
    emissions in the 1559-1610 MHz ARNS band prior to final adoption of
    emission standards for protection of GNSS aeronautical
    radionavigation, they have accepted a risk of regulatory
    consequences.

47. We understand, however, that many cargo and passenger ships docking
    in U.S. seaports, including foreign-flagged vessels,[^90] carry
    Inmarsat Standard A terminals to comply with the Global Maritime
    Distress and Safety System (\"GMDSS\") requirements of the Safety of
    Life at Sea ("SOLAS") Convention. To avoid potential disruption of
    maritime safety services, we will not specify a final compliance
    deadline for these terminals until shipowners have been apprised of
    the new emission limits and have had an opportunity to replace or
    modify the terminals, as necessary. We invite comment on the
    appropriate compliance deadline for such Inmarsat A maritime
    terminals in the Further Notice in this proceeding.[^91] In the
    meanwhile, the Commission will work with the NTIA, the Coast Guard,
    the ITU, the International Maritime Organization, and other
    international organizations to expedite replacement of GMDSS METs
    not meeting the final "‑70/‑80" limits.

**D. Measurement Issues**

1\. Measurement Interval

48. The Commission proposed in the *Notice* to define the new emissions
    limits as averaged over an interval of 20 milliseconds.[^92] The
    proposal to specify a 20 millisecond measurement interval was
    consistent with the NTIA's prior recommendations and with the
    Commission's existing restriction on wideband emissions from Big LEO
    METs in the GPS C/A-code band. In comments on the *Notice*, however,
    the NTIA recommends that the Commission specify a shorter
    measurement interval for METs using TDMA modulation.[^93] The NTIA
    explains that it had previously recommended uniform use of a 20
    millisecond interval because the symbol duration of GPS and GLONASS
    data is 20 milliseconds, but that, because the symbol duration of
    WAAS data is much shorter, WAAS is vulnerable to disruption by
    pulsed signals that endure for as little as 2 milliseconds. The NTIA
    asserts, moreover, that out-of-band emissions levels from METs using
    TDMA are a function of the duration of transmission time slots.
    Therefore, the NTIA recommends that, in order to protect WAAS
    reception, out-of-band emissions from TDMA METs should be measured
    over a time interval equal to the duration of the TDMA system's
    transmission time slots. The recommendation applies only to future
    TDMA systems, though. For existing MSS systems employing TDMA (and
    for CDMA and FDMA systems) the NTIA suggests, as before, that a 20
    millisecond interval be used.[^94]

49. Rockwell Collins recommends that the Commission specify a 2
    millisecond measurement interval for *all* METs subject to the new
    limits in order to protect WAAS.[^95] Rockwell Collins has not shown
    that there is any need to require non-TDMA METs to meet limits
    predicated on a 2 millisecond measurement interval, however, and
    does not dispute the NTIA's advice to the contrary. We therefore
    reject the recommendation for an across-the-board 2 millisecond
    measurement specification applying to TDMA and non-TDMA METs alike.

50. The NTIA's proposal of a shorter measurement interval for TDMA METs
    is problematic because, as Motorola acknowledges, the proposal is at
    odds with a current ITU recommendation.[^96] The proposal involves a
    novel regulatory distinction not discussed in *RTCA/DO-235*,
    moreover, and is somewhat vague, as the NTIA has not explained
    precisely what it means by "future TDMA systems." Nor has it
    explained why the proposed specification should not apply to METs
    used with any existing system. We therefore decline to adopt the
    recommendation at this time. Rather, we specify 20 millisecond
    measurement intervals for all covered METs in the rules we adopt
    today, inviting further comment, in the Further Notice, *infra*, on
    the recommendation for shorter measurement intervals for TDMA METs.

2\. Measurement Bandwidth

51. Motorola asked us to rule that measurement bandwidths of less than 1
    MHz may be used when testing compliance with limits on wideband
    emissions, pointing out that the ITU had expressly approved use of
    such a technique, provided that the measured power in the narrower
    bandwidth is integrated over 1 MHz.[^97] The Commission invited
    comment on the recommendation in the *Notice*.[^98] Motorola, the
    NTIA, and the Globalstar licensees support the recommendation in
    subsequent comments,[^99] and no commenter has argued against it.

52. Motorola also requests a clarifying statement concerning measurement
    bandwidth for testing compliance with narrowband limits. In an
    earlier stage of this proceeding, Motorola objected that it would be
    difficult to test for compliance with the NTIA's proposed -80
    dBW/700 Hz narrowband limit because measurement spectrum analyzers
    resolve at bandwidths of 300 hertz or 1 kHz rather than at 700
    hertz. We replied in the *Notice* that because we were proposing to
    adopt a limit on the power, rather than the power density, of
    discrete narrowband emissions, compliance could be demonstrated with
    measurements across 1 kHz.[^100] Motorola asserts in response that
    in the presence of noise, 1 kHz measurements would exaggerate the
    power of such emissions.[^101] Motorola therefore asks us to rule
    that compliance with the narrowband limits can be established by
    with measurements of less than 700 hertz as well as by using
    measurements of more than 700 hertz. (Motorola stresses, however,
    that it does not mean to suggest that the narrowband limit should be
    specified differently than the Notice proposed. *I.e*., Motorola
    does not contend that the narrowband limit should be anything other
    than a limit of -80 dBW on the e.i.r.p. of discrete emissions of
    less than 700 Hz bandwidth.) Rockwell Collins likewise contends that
    300 hertz measurements should be permitted for this purpose.[^102]
    In reply comments, the NTIA agrees that 300 hertz measurements could
    be used to test for compliance with the narrowband limit and
    recommends that we sanction use of that technique.[^103]

53. The comment in the *Notice* concerning use of 1 kHz measurements was
    not meant to imply that other measurement bandwidths could not be
    used. There is no basis in the record of this proceeding for
    precluding use of 300 Hz measurements for testing compliance with
    the narrowband limits. Applicants can use any measurement technique
    that suffices to demonstrate compliance.

3\. Peak-Hold Versus Non-Peak-Hold Measurement

54. Motorola maintains that peak-detecting spectrum analyzers exaggerate
    the indicated power of wideband emissions from TDMA METs by the
    peak-to-root-mean-square factor of the measurement technique and
    exaggerate it further by failing to account for the transmitter's
    duty cycle.[^104] Motorola therefore recommends that we allow use of
    non-peak detectors to test TDMA METs for compliance with the
    wideband limits. The Globalstar licensees support the recommendation
    and contend that use of non-peak detectors should also be allowed
    for measuring wideband emissions from CDMA and FDMA METs.[^105] No
    one opposed these suggestions.

55. These recommendations are consistent with the Commission's
    rulemaking proposal. The *Notice* specified the proposed wideband
    emissions limits as restrictions on *average*, not peak, e.i.r.p.
    density within a 20 millisecond measurement interval.[^106] The
    proposed limits were consistent in this respect with the
    Commission's existing rule concerning MET emissions in the GPS-SPS
    null-to-null band, Section 25.213(b), which has likewise specified a
    restriction on the average power density of wideband emissions. The
    proposed specification of averaged wideband limits was also
    consistent with the NTIA's prior recommendations. As no one has
    argued for adoption of limits on peak wideband emissions, we are
    adhering to our proposal to impose limits on average e.i.r.p.
    density. Compliance with those limits can, of course, be
    demonstrated (either for TDMA, CDMA, or FDMA METs) with instruments
    that measure average, rather than peak, power density.

**E. 2 GHz METs: Limits on Emissions Between 1559 MHz and 1605 MHz**

56. When it established rules for "2 GHz" MSS systems with MET uplink
    assignments between 1990 MHz and 2025 MHz, the Commission said that
    it would address comments concerning limits on 2 GHz MET emissions
    for protection of ARNS in the context of this proceeding.[^107] The
    Commission had stated previously that it saw no reason to adopt
    different requirements for 2 GHz METs than for 1.6 GHz METs in this
    regard.[^108] It therefore proposed to require 2 GHz METs to
    suppress the e.i.r.p. density of emissions in the 1559-1605 MHz band
    to -70 dBW/MHz or less and suppress the e.i.r.p. of discrete
    emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth to -80 dBW or less in that
    band. As promised in the *2 GHz Report and Order*, we address the
    public comments on those proposals here.

57. Most of those who filed relevant comments in the *2 GHz* proceeding,
    including the NTIA, agreed that 2 GHz METs should be subject to the
    proposed "-70/-80" limits on emissions in the 1559-1605 MHz
    band.[^109] Only one commenter, Celsat America, Inc., opposed
    adoption of the -70 dBW/MHz limit for 2 GHz METs. Celsat asserted,
    without supporting rationale, that imposing such a limit on 2 GHz
    METs would add unnecessarily to the cost of providing service.[^110]
    That unsupported assertion is contradicted by the NTIA's advice that
    imposing the limit on 1.6 GHz and 2 GHz METs is necessary for
    protection of aeronautical radionavigation, which is consistent with
    ITU recommendations and backed by extensive analysis in
    *RTCA/DO-235*.

58. Globalstar and ICO approve of the proposal to impose a wideband
    limit of -70 dBW/MHz on 2 GHz MET emissions in the 1559-1605 MHz
    band but advise against adoption of a narrowband limit.[^111]
    Neither of them offered any evidence or analysis, however, to refute
    the NTIA's empirically-based contention that ‑80 dBW narrowband
    suppression is needed for protection of GNSS aircraft approach
    guidance.[^112] We therefore find these objections no more
    persuasive than the analogous objections against imposing a
    narrowband limit on 1.6 GHz METs, which we have already
    discussed.[^113]

59. As proposed, we are adopting "‑70/-80" limits on permissible
    wideband and narrowband emissions from 2 GHz METs in the 1559-1605
    MHz band. As no operating authority for 2 GHz METs has yet been
    issued, there is no need to phase-in these requirements.

**F. Limits on Emissions Between 1605 MHz and 1610 MHz**

1\. 1.6 GHz METs

60. The NTIA did not recommend specific suppression requirements for MET
    emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz segment of the ARNS band in its
    petition for rulemaking. Instead, it simply recommended that the
    Commission deal on an *ad hoc* basis with any problem of
    interference with GNSS reception in frequencies above 1605 MHz
    arising prior to the down-migration of GLONASS in 2005. The
    Commission noted in the *Notice*, however, that the ITU advocates
    suppression of out-of-band emissions from
    non-geostationary-satellite-system TDMA METs with uplink frequencies
    between 1 and 3 GHz to levels between 1605 MHz and 1610 MHz
    determined by linear interpolation from -70 dBW/MHz at 1605 MHz to
    -10 dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz.[^114] The Commission invited comment on the
    advisability of including a similar requirement in its rules in lieu
    of the NTIA's suggested provision for *ad hoc* resolution.[^115]

61. In its comments on the *Notice*, the NTIA still advocates *ad hoc*
    resolution of problems of interference with GLONASS reception in
    frequencies between 1605 MHz and 1610 MHz arising before 2005.[^116]
    The NTIA maintains, however, that it would be beneficial both for
    MSS operators and manufacturers of GNSS receivers to establish a
    definite emission limit for the 1605-1610 MHz segment for protection
    of GLONASS after its final down-migration. To that end, the NTIA
    advocates adoption of the pertinent limit recommended by the ITU in
    REC M.1343.[^117] As the NTIA does not say otherwise, we construe
    its comments to mean that the limit should apply to CDMA, as well as
    TDMA, METs and to 1.6 GHz METs used with GSO MSS systems as well as
    to Big LEO METs.

62. Motorola, Iridium LLC, and the Globalstar licensees likewise
    advocate adoption of the limit for 1605-1610 MHz proposed in REC
    M.1343.[^118] Motorola contends that the FCC's rule for suppressing
    emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz segment should be consistent with the
    ITU's standard and that promulgating a definite limit would avoid
    potentially intractable disputes over allegations of harmful
    interference to GLONASS. ARINC argues for a somewhat stricter
    wideband limit: linear interpolation from -70 dBW/MHz at 1605 MHz to
    -14 dBW/MHz (rather than -10 dBW/MHz) at 1610 MHz.[^119] ARINC
    maintains that its recommendation is supported by the findings of
    the aviation contingent of RTCA SC-159.

63. For the reasons expounded by the NTIA and other commenters for
    adhering to the ITU standard, we are adopting a requirement that the
    e.i.r.p. density of out-of-band emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz band
    segment from 1.6 GHz METs placed in service after \[effective date\]
    shall not exceed a level determined by linear interpolation from -70
    dBW/MHz at 1605 MHz to -10 dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz and that
    grandfathered 1.6 GHz METs will become subject to the same
    requirement as of January 1, 2005. In view of the NTIA's advocacy of
    this limit, with the FAA's concurrence, we are not persuaded that it
    would serve the public interest to require Big LEO METs to meet the
    stricter wideband limit that ARINC advocated. As discussed below,
    however, we are proposing adoption of stricter limits on out-of-band
    emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz segment from 1.6 GHz METs with uplink
    assignments above 1626.5 MHz.

2\. Two Gigahertz METs

64. The Commission proposed in the *2 GHz NPRM* to require 2 GHz METs to
    meet the same wideband limit on emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz
    segment that it had suggested in this proceeding as a limit for 1.6
    GHz METs: *i.e.*, -70 dBW/MHz interpolated up to -10 dBW/MHz at 1610
    MHz.[^120] In comments on the *2GHz NPRM*, the NTIA recommended
    adoption of a stricter limit for 2 GHz METs in this respect.[^121]
    Specifically, it recommended that 2 GHz METs be required to meet a
    -70 dBW/MHz limit on emissions throughout the ARNS band, with no
    slope-off in the 1605-1610 MHz segment. The NTIA explained that the
    sloped limit proposed in the *2 GHz NPRM* in accordance with its
    initial recommendation was dictated by a compromise between the Big
    LEO licensees and aviation-industry representatives in light of the
    degree of suppression achievable by Big LEO METs. The NTIA
    maintained that although it may be infeasible for Big LEO METs,
    operating in a frequency band immediately above 1610 MHz, to meet a
    -70 dBW/MHz limit at the upper edge of the 1559-1610 MHz ARNS band,
    there is no comparable difficulty for 2 GHz METs, due to the
    spectral separation between their allocated uplink band and the ARNS
    band. The NTIA stressed, moreover, that its recommendation comported
    with ITU-R REC M.1343, which recommends requiring 2 GHz METs used
    with non-geostationary-satellite systems to suppress emissions to
    -70 dBW/MHz in frequencies from 1559 MHz to 1626.5 MHz. The NTIA
    also pointed out that the European Testing and Standards Institute
    had likewise adopted a requirement that emissions from 2 GHz METs
    shall not exceed -70 dBW/MHz between 1559 MHz and 1626.5 MHz.[^122]
    Thus, the NTIA argued, adoption of its recommendation regarding
    suppression of 2 GHz MET emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz ARNS segment
    would promote harmonization of national technical standards,
    facilitating global roaming of METs.

65. Inmarsat, Globalstar, and ICO agree with the NTIA that 2 GHz METs
    should be required to meet a straight-across limit of -70 dBW/MHz on
    emissions between 1605 MHz and 1610 MHz.[^123] Celsat America, Inc.,
    asserts, however, that adopting such a requirement instead of the
    sloped limit proposed in the *2 GHz NPRM* would unduly complicate
    the 2 GHz licensing process.[^124]

66. The NTIA has stated persuasive reasons for adopting a
    straight-across -70 dBW/MHz limit on wideband emissions from 2 GHz
    METs in the 1605-1610 MHz band-segment. Celsat's counter-assertion
    that such a requirement would be unduly burdensome is unsupported by
    explanation or evidence. Although the *2 GHz NPRM* proposed a more
    lenient rule, interested parties have had opportunity to respond to
    the NTIA's recommendation in reply comments. We therefore adopt the
    limit that the NTIA advocated: the e.i.r.p. density of out-of-band
    emissions from 2 GHz METs shall not exceed -70 dBW/MHz in
    frequencies between 1605 MHz and 1610 MHz.

**G. Little LEO METs**

67. The recommendations in the NTIA's petition for rulemaking did not
    cover Little LEO METs, which transmit in the 148-150.05 MHz
    band.[^125] In view of the wide separation between the Little LEO
    mobile-uplink band and the 1559-1610 MHz ARNS band, the Commission
    surmised in the *Notice* that Little LEO METs operating in
    compliance with the existing out-of-band emission limits in Section
    25.202(f)[^126] would not produce wideband emissions stronger than
    -70 dBW/MHz or narrowband emissions stronger than -80 dBW in
    frequencies as high as 1559 MHz. The Commission therefore proposed
    to exempt Little LEO systems from the new limits on emissions in the
    ARNS band in order to spare the licensees from the cost of
    establishing compliance, on the premise that a demonstration of
    compliance from them would be superfluous.[^127]

68. Orbital Communications Corporation ("ORBCOMM"), a Little LEO
    licensee, agrees that there is no need for new restrictions on
    Little LEO METs for protection of ARNS,[^128] but other commenters
    addressing the issue argue to the contrary. The NTIA maintains that
    frequency separation alone will not ensure that emissions from
    Little LEO METs will not disrupt ARNS reception.[^129] The NTIA
    points out that FAA-sponsored researchers found that VHF
    transceivers operating on assigned frequencies just below the Little
    LEO mobile-uplink band produced out-of-band emissions in the ARNS
    band at levels that could disrupt GPS reception.[^130] Iridium LLC
    and Rockwell Collins likewise contend that additional restrictions
    should be imposed on Little LEO METs for protection of aeronautical
    satellite radionavigation.[^131]

69. The NTIA has not shown that the Volpe study is materially relevant.
    The authors of the study found that some VHF transceivers sold for
    use in General Aviation aircraft could interfere with the operation
    of a GPS receiver mounted in the same aircraft at a distance of one
    meter from the transceiver. It cannot readily be inferred from that
    finding that a ground-based Little LEO MET could disrupt operation
    of a GNSS receiver in an aircraft in approach flight, and no
    commenter has attempted to show that any of the data compiled in the
    Volpe study supports such an inference. We note, moreover, that
    there is, at present, no relevant ITU recommendation for Little LEO
    METs, as the current ITU recommendations for restricting emissions
    in the ARNS band pertain only to METs with assigned frequencies
    between 1 GHz and 3 GHz. Although we have discretion to impose MET
    emission limits 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. Hence we decline to prescribe
    additional emission restrictions for Little LEO METs on the basis of
    the record before us.

**H. Other Matters**

1\. Protection for Non-Aeronautical GPS Applications

70. As noted previously, the emissions limits that the NTIA recommended
    in its petition for rulemaking and that the *Notice* proposed were
    devised for protection of aeronautical radionavigation. Two
    commenters -- the U.S. GPS Industry Council ("USGPS") and LSC, Inc.
    -- urge us to adopt stricter requirements in order to protect
    non-aeronautical applications of satellite radiolocation.[^132]
    USGPS asserts that GPS has never been defined as an exclusively
    aeronautical service and that Congress has mandated Executive-Branch
    support for GPS for general civilian use.[^133] USGPS and LSC
    further assert that a large number of ground-based GPS receivers are
    in civilian use today and that many of them are employed for such
    safety-related purposes as search and rescue, disaster relief, ocean
    and harbor-approach navigation, positioning buoys and other maritime
    navigational aids, train control and collision avoidance,
    transportation of hazardous materials, and guidance for ambulances,
    police cars, and fire-department vehicles. LSC adds that GPS "is one
    of the leading candidates" for providing Enhanced 911
    position-determination capability, which the Commission has mandated
    for terrestrial wireless telecommunication carriers.[^134]

71. USGPS objects to the proposal to allow pre-2002 METs to produce
    temporarily higher wideband emissions in ARNS frequencies above
    1580.42 MHz and higher narrowband emissions in frequencies above
    1585.42 MHz. Because many civilian GPS receivers process signals
    across the entire Y-code bandwidth to obtain better accuracy, USGPS
    maintains that "-70/-80" suppression should be immediately required
    throughout the GPS Y-code band, which extends up to 1585.65 MHz.
    This objection is mooted by our adoption of the NTIA's suggestion to
    extend immediate "-70/-80" protection up to 1587.42 MHz.

72. Based on an assumed value for receiver antenna gain, LSC estimates
    that METs would have to suppress wideband emissions to -83 dBW/MHz
    and narrowband emissions to -93 dBW to afford protection for
    ground-based GPS equivalent to the protection that the proposed
    "-70/-80" standard would afford for aeronautical radionavigation.
    LSC therefore recommends that we impose ‑83 dBW/MHz and ‑93 dBW
    limits on emissions in frequencies used for GPS.[^135]

73. The Globalstar licensees dispute LSC's contention that stricter
    limits are needed for protection of non-aeronautical GPS
    applications.[^136] They maintain that LSC's calculations are based
    on unsupported and unrealistic assumptions and that its analysis
    fails to take into account specific operational requirements. For
    instance, the Globalstar licensees assert that land-mobile GPS
    reception will inevitably be susceptible to frequent disruption from
    shadowing and that compensating for that problem with dead reckoning
    computation[^137] or alternative navigation sensors will also
    suffice to compensate for any temporary disruption from interfering
    METs. In sum, they contend that LSC has not shown that adoption of
    the proposed limits would leave any ground-based GPS application
    vulnerable to life-threatening disruption from MSS out-of-band
    emissions.

74. LSC's concerns are beyond the scope of the issues framed in the
    *Notice*, in which we proposed adoption of limits for protection of
    aeronautical radionavigation via satellite. Whether further limits
    are needed for protection of ground-based applications of satellite
    radionavigation is a different matter that we decline to address
    here.[^138] USGPS argues that to thus limit the scope of inquiry is
    arbitrary, but we disagree. We proposed to adopt new limits for
    protection of aeronautical satellite radionavigation in response to
    recommendations from the Executive Branch based on concern for
    aviation safety. The issue was not novel. The problem of protecting
    aircraft reception of GNSS signals had been long and vigorously
    debated in the Big LEO rulemaking, in RTCA Special Committee 159,
    and in ITU proceedings in which U.S. interests were represented. The
    Commission had declared several years previously, moreover, that it
    would consider adopting further out-of-band restrictions for
    protection of GNSS aeronautical radionvavigation in light of RTCA
    recommendations, and discussion ensuing from publication of
    *RTCA/DO-235* regarding protection requirements for aeronautical
    applications engendered the compromise proposal submitted in the
    NTIA's rulemaking petition. Thus, MSS licensees have long been aware
    of the likelihood that new emissions limits would be adopted for
    protection of aircraft reception of satellite radionavigation
    signals and of the contentions of those in the Executive Branch and
    the aviation industry who have been advocating such action. In
    contrast, USGPS and LSC did not raise the suggestion that stricter
    suppression limits should be imposed on METs for protection of
    ground-based GPS applications until well after the NTIA had
    requested this rulemaking, and the Executive Branch, which operates
    the GPS system and plans its further development, has not asked us
    to expand the scope of this proceeding to consider protection
    requirements for such non-aeronautical uses.

2\. Protection for Radio Astronomy

75. The National Research Council's Committee on Radio Frequencies
    ("CORF") and Cornell University express concern about the potential
    impact of MET uplink transmission on radio astronomy observation in
    the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz and 1660-1660.5 MHz bands, which are
    domestically allocated for Radio Astronomy Service on a co-primary
    basis.[^139] CORF and Cornell maintain that radio astronomy
    observation is especially vulnerable to emissions from mobile
    transceivers, both because of their ubiquity and because it is more
    difficult for astronomers to recognize interference from mobile
    sources when analyzing data than to account for emissions from
    stationary sources. Acknowledging that compliance with the existing
    emissions limits in Section 25.202(f)[^140] and the protection-zone
    requirements in Section 25.213(a)(1)[^141] can substantially reduce
    the potential impact of MET operation on radio astronomy, CORF and
    Cornell recommend that we cross-reference those provisions in the
    rules we adopt in this proceeding for METs. Including such a
    cross-reference would be helpful, they contend, for instruction of
    equipment manufacturers and service providers, particularly those
    headquartered outside the United States. The NTIA supports this
    recommendation. We agree that inserting a cross-reference to those
    other rule provisions might be helpful and therefore adopt the
    recommendation. We did not propose this in the *Notice*, but because
    the mere inclusion of a cross-reference to existing requirements is
    a non-substantive change, the absence of prior notice is no
    obstacle.

76. CORF and Cornell also recommend that we promulgate regulations
    prescribing protection zones and band-specific emissions limits to
    protect radio astronomy observation in the 1660-1660.5 MHz band from
    MET-generated interference. Further, they urge us to prohibit MET
    transmission in that band pending adoption of such regulations. We
    decline to address these substantive recommendations here, as they
    are not germane to the inquiry we have conducted in this proceeding
    in response to the NTIA's petition for adoption of limits to protect
    aircraft reception of satellite radionavigation signals.

3\. Polarization

77. LSC asserts that because GPS and GLONASS antennas use Right Hand
    Circular Polarization ("RHCP"), GPS and GLONASS receivers are less
    vulnerable to interference from emissions transmitted with Left Hand
    Circular Polarization than to interference from emissions
    transmitted with RHCP or linear polarization. LSC therefore urges us
    to consider adopting a rule requiring METs to operate with
    LHCP.[^142] No one responded to this recommendation in reply
    comments.

78. LSC has not shown that requiring METs to use LHCP would
    significantly reduce interference into GPS and GLONASS receivers,
    which have relatively little polarization discrimination with
    respect to MET out-of-band emissions. Polarization discrimination
    has been an effective tool for facilitating spectrum sharing among
    MSS METs, on the other hand, and implementing LSC's recommendation
    would preclude its further use for that purpose. Therefore, we do
    not adopt LSC's suggestion.

4\. Compensation for Cost of Compliance

79. Motient argues that if we require its METs to meet "-70/-80" limits
    on emissions in ARNS frequencies up to 1605 MHz by 2005 we should,
    in turn, require aircraft owners to compensate it for any expense
    consequently incurred to modify or replace non-conforming
    METs.[^143] As we observed in the *Notice*, however, Motient was on
    notice when it received its blanket MET license that it would be
    subject to any out-of-band emission limits deemed necessary for
    protection of GPS and GLONASS.[^144] We are not convinced that there
    is any justification for requiring aircraft owners to reimburse
    Motient or other MET licensees for expenses of complying with
    regulations adopted to ensure aviation safety by preventing
    interference with aircraft approach guidance with satellite
    radionavigation systems and facilities sanctioned by the FAA.

**IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

80. Several related technical issues that were not raised in time to be
    addressed in previous public comments merit further consideration in
    this proceeding.

**A. Limits for Carrier-Off State**

81. When a MET is powered on but is not transmitting a signal it is said
    to be in a "carrier-off" state. The NTIA did not propose separate
    emissions limits for METs in the carrier-off state in its petition
    for rulemaking, and the Commission did not discuss the subject in
    the *Notice*. In its comments on the *Notice*, however, the NTIA
    notes that ITU-R REC M.1343 separately specifies recommended limits
    for carrier-on and carrier-off state. On the assumption that METs
    are in carrier-off state most of the time, the NTIA contends that
    MET emissions in the ARNS band should be suppressed to a greater
    extent when they are in that state in order to reduce the risk of
    interference from cumulative emissions from several METs. In the
    absence of such a requirement, the NTIA maintains, the risk to
    aircraft approach guidance could become unacceptably large. The NTIA
    therefore recommends that the Commission adopt a carrier-off limit
    that would be 10 dB more strict than "the carrier-on limit." We
    construe this as a recommendation for adoption of a carrier-off
    limit of --80 dBW/MHz. We received no other comments on this
    subject.

82. Because the NTIA presented the recommendation in the last round of
    comments and there is consequently no discussion on point in the
    *NRPM*, we decline to adopt a carrier-off limit in this order. We
    propose to adopt such a limit in a future order in this proceeding,
    however, in view of the fact that the NTIA and ITU concur in
    recommending such action. We note, however, that there is some
    discrepancy between the NTIA and ITU recommendations in this regard:
    the ITU advocates a carrier-off limit of --77 dBW/100 kHz, rather
    than --80 dBW/MHz.[^145] The NTIA has not explained why it advocates
    a different limit for carrier-off emissions than the ITU recommends.
    Because we believe that it generally serves the public interest to
    foster international uniformity in technical requirements for METs,
    and because we are currently unaware of any compelling reason for
    adopting a divergent national standard, we propose to adopt a
    requirement that the peak e.i.r.p. density of carrier-off emissions
    from 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 ARNS
    band, in keeping with the pertinent ITU recommendations. We invite
    public comment on this proposal.

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

> 1\. Wideband Limits for 2 GHz METs and 1.6 GHz METs with Uplink
> Assignments Above 1626.5 MHz

83. After the time expired for filing comments on the *Notice* in this
    proceeding, the ITU issued a recommendation for suppression of
    out-of-band emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz segment of the ARNS band
    from METs used with global or regional GSO MSS systems with assigned
    uplink bands between 1626.5 MHz and 1660.5 MHz.[^146] Specifically,
    the ITU recommended adoption of a requirement that out-of-band
    emissions from such METs be suppressed in the 1605-1610 MHz segment
    to a level determined by linear interpolation from -70 dBW/MHz at
    1605 MHz to -46 dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz. We propose to adopt that
    recommended limit on emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz segment from
    METs with assigned uplink frequencies between 1626.5 MHz and 1660.5
    MHz. We propose to specify January 1, 2005 as the effective date for
    this requirement. We invite public comment on these proposals.

2\. Narrowband Limits

84. The Commission did not propose to adopt narrowband limits on
    emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz segment, either in the *Notice* in
    this proceeding or in the *2 GHz* *NPRM*. The NTIA's general
    argument for narrowband limits on emissions in the ARNS band
    implies, however, 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 its comments in the 2 GHz
    proceeding accordingly include a recommendation for a -80 dBW limit
    on narrowband emissions in that band segment. As noted, moreover,
    the ITU likewise maintains, in REC M.1477, that GNSS receivers need
    an additional 10 dB of protection against discrete emissions of less
    than 700 Hz in bandwidth. We therefore propose to require
    suppression of discrete narrowband emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz
    segment to a level 10 dB below the corresponding limit for wideband
    emissions. Thus, we propose to adopt a requirement that the e.i.r.p.
    of discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz from Big LEO METs shall
    not exceed a level determined by linear interpolation from -80 dBW
    at 1605 MHz to -20 dBW at 1610 MHz. Similarly, we propose to require
    that the e.i.r.p. of such emissions from 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 that the e.i.r.p. of such emissions from 2
    GHz METs shall not exceed -80 dBW between 1605 and 1610 MHz. We
    invite public comment on these proposals.

**C. Measurement Issues**

85. As previously noted, the NTIA has recommended that the Commission
    prescribe a 2 millisecond measurement interval for ARNS emission
    limits pertaining to METs used with TDMA systems. We invite further
    comment on that recommendation in light of the relevant discussion
    in this decision.[^147] We also invite comment as to whether
    wideband power-density measurements could vary significantly
    depending on whether a log-average, linear-average, or true rms
    detector is used and, if so, whether the Commission should prescribe
    use of a particular type of detector for testing for compliance with
    the wideband emission limits that we are adopting here.[^148]

**D. Equipment Authorization**

86. Although the Commission proposed in the *Notice* to require METs to
    be type-certified pursuant to Part 2, Subpart J, of its rules before
    being sold, leased, or shipped or distributed for the purpose of
    sale or lease in the United States, it proposed to exempt METs
    permanently installed on ships, boats or planes from the
    certification requirement.[^149] Globalstar objects that there is no
    apparent basis for such an exemption.[^150] Inmarsat argues, on the
    other hand, that requiring permanently-installed ship METs to be
    certified under Subpart J would be "needlessly duplicative," because
    such terminals are subject to other regulatory approval procedures
    that require submission of information of the sort that would be
    required for equipment certification.[^151] Inmarsat does not
    specifically identify the alternative procedures to which it refers,
    but we note that the Commission has relied on verification, rather
    than certification, to ensure that Inmarsat ship terminals meet the
    pertinent technical requirements for maritime stations in Part 80 of
    its rules.[^152] We invite further comment as to whether
    verification or some other procedure could better be used instead of
    certification to ensure that ship METs meet emission limits for
    protection of aeronautical satellite radionavigation.

**E. Compliance Deadline for Standard A Maritime Terminals**

87. As previously explained, we are postponing specification of a
    deadline for Inmarsat Standard A ship terminals carried for GMDSS
    compliance to meet the final "‑70/‑80" limits. We invite public
    comment as to an appropriate future date for that deadline.

**V. CONCLUSION**

88. We conclude that adoption of a new rule section prescribing limits
    on out-of-band emissions from 1.6 GHz and 2 GHz METs, as set forth
    in Appendix A, will serve the public interest by enhancing aviation
    safety, because it will facilitate reliance on satellite
    radionavigation for aircraft approach guidance. We further conclude
    that adoption of these limits will serve the public interest by
    substantially conforming domestic regulations with pertinent ITU
    recommendations, thereby promoting international uniformity in
    technical standards for mobile terminals used with satellite
    communications systems that provide service both in this country and
    abroad. We tentatively conclude, moreover, that it would serve the
    public interest to adopt the additional limits on carrier-off
    emissions and emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz band-segment that we
    propose in the Further Notice included herein.

# VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

## A. Ex Parte Presentations

89. The inquiry initiated by the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    herein is a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding subject to the
    "permit-but-disclose" requirements under Section 1.1206(b) of the
    Commission's rules. *Ex parte* presentations are permitted, except
    during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as
    provided in Commission rules.[^153]

## B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

90. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 ("RFA"),[^154] requires
    preparation of an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA")
    of possible significant economic impact on "small entities" from the
    rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking we are
    adopting here. Members of the public may file written comments on
    this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and
    must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Further NPRM
    specified below. The Commission will send a copy of this order,
    including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration, and the order and IRFA will be published in
    the *Federal Register*.

91. *Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules:* The Further NPRM
    proposes adoption of certain additional restrictions on out-of-band
    emissions from METs with assigned uplink frequencies between 1610
    and 1660.5 MHz or between 1990 and 2025 MHz in order to afford
    interference protection for aircraft reception of satellite
    radionavigation signals in the 1559-1610 MHz band.

92. *Legal Basis:* Statutory authority for adoption of the proposed
    rules is established by Sections 4(i), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections
    154(i), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r).

93. *Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
    the Proposed Rules Will Apply:* The RFA directs agencies to provide
    a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of
    small businesses that may be affected by the proposed rules, if
    adopted. The RFA defines "small entity" as referring to a "small
    business," "small organization," or "small governmental
    jurisdiction." In addition, the term "small business" has the same
    meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small
    Business Act.[^155] 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).

94. For satellite telecommunications carriers and resellers the SBA has
    established a small business size standard that excludes companies
    with annual receipts in excess of \$12.5 million.[^156] Ten
    companies are currently licensed for operation of 1.6 GHz mobile
    earth stations subject to the rule requirements we are adopting in
    this order. We have ascertained from published data that four of
    those companies are not small entities according to the SBA's
    definition,[^157] but we do not have sufficient information to
    determine which, if any, of the other six are small entities. We
    anticipate issuing several licenses for 2 GHz mobile earth stations
    subject to the requirements we are adopting here. We do not know how
    many of those licenses will be held by small entities, however, as
    we do not yet know exactly how many 2 GHz mobile-earth-station
    licenses will be issued or who will receive them.[^158] We request
    comment on the number and identity of small entities that would be
    significantly impacted by the proposed rule changes.

95. *Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
    Compliance Requirements:* The rules proposed in the Further NPRM
    would not necessitate use of new forms and or procedures but would
    require additional specifications to be met in equipment
    certification of METs subject to the additional emission
    restrictions.

96. *Steps to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and
    Significant Alternatives:* The RFA requires an agency to describe
    any significant alternatives considered before issuing the
    rulemaking proposal, such as: 1) establishment of different
    compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
    account the resources available to small businesses; 2)
    clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
    reporting requirements for small businesses; 3) use of performance,
    rather than design, standards; and 4) partial or complete exemption
    for small businesses. We are not aware of any alternative means of
    achieving our pertinent regulatory objective that would
    significantly reduce burdens on small businesses, but we invite
    suggestions in this regard.

97. *Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
    Proposed Rules:* None.

## C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

98. In proposing adoption of additional emission limits subject to a
    type-certification requirement, the Further NPRM herein proposes an
    additional information-collection requirement. The Commission
    invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget
    (OMB) to comment on this proposed additional information
    requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
    Pub. L. No. 104-13. Such public comments are due within 30 days
    after publication of the Further NPRM in the Federal Register; OMB
    comments are due within 60 days from the date of publication in the
    Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed
    collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
    the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
    shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
    burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
    clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
    burden of the collection of information on the respondents,
    including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms
    of information technology.

99. Written comments on the proposed information collection requirement
    should be filed with the Commission's Secretary, and a copy should
    should be submitted to Judy Boley Herman, Federal Communications
    Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12^th^ Street S.W., Washington, D.C.
    20554, or via the Internet to jbHerman@fcc.gov, and Jeanette
    Thornton, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17^th^ Street N.W.,
    Washington D.C. 20503, or via the Internet to jthornto@mp.eop.gov.

**D. Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis**

100. 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 the emergency processing
     provisions of the PRA. The Commission invites the public and other
     Federal agencies to comment on information collection(s) required
     by this Report and Order. Comments should address: (a) whether the
     new or modified collection of information is necessary for the
     proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including
     whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the
     accuracy of the Commission\'s burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance
     the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
     and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
     information on the respondents, including the use of automated
     collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

101. 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. All comments
     regarding the requests for approval of the information collection
     should be submitted to Judy Boley Herman, Federal Communications
     Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12^th^ Street, SW, Washington, DC
     20554, or via the Internet to jbHerman@fcc.gov In addition,
     comments on the emergency request for approval of the information
     collections should be submitted to Jeanette Thornton, OMB Desk
     Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17^th^ Street, NW, Washington, DC
     20503, or via the Internet tojthornto@mb.eop.gov.

## E. Procedures for Filing Comments on the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

102. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
     rules,[^159] interested parties may file comments on the Further
     Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before 60 days from publication
     in the Federal Register and reply comments 90 days after
     publication in the Federal Register. Comments may be filed using
     the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System ("ECFS") or by
     submitting paper copies.[^160] See *Electronic Filing of Documents
     in Rulemaking Proceedings*, 63 Fed. Reg. 24121 (1998). Comments
     filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the
     Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Commenters must
     transmit one electronic copy of their comments for each docket or
     rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the
     transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, U.S.
     Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or
     rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by
     Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments,
     commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should
     include the following words in the body of the message, "get form
     \<your e-mail address\>." A sample form and directions will be sent
     in reply.

103. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and six
     copies of each filing. Paper filings can be sent by hand or
     messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by
     first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we
     continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service
     mail). The Commission's contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will receive
     hand-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236
     Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite 110, Washington, D.C. 20002. The
     filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
     deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners.
     Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express
     Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Compton Drive,
     Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail,
     Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12^th^
     Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20554. All filings must be addressed to
     the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
     Communications Commission. Comments and reply comments should be
     captioned using the docket number for this proceeding.

104. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
     comments on diskette. The diskettes should be submitted to the
     Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary,
     Federal Communications Commission. Portals II, 445 12^th^ Street,
     S.W., Washington, D.C. The Commission's contractor, Vistronix,
     Inc., will receive hand-delivered diskette filings for the
     Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite
     110, Washington, D.C. 20002. The filing hours at this location are
     8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
     with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of
     before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than
     U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to
     9300 East Compton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal
     Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be
     addressed to 445 12^th^ Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20554. All
     filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of
     the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Such a submission
     should be on a 3.5-inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible
     format using Word for Windows or compatible software. The diskette
     should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in
     "read only" mode. The diskettes should be clearly labeled with the
     commenter's name, the docket number of this proceeding, type of
     pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and the
     name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should also
     include the following phrase "Disk Copy - Not an Original." Each
     diskette should contain only one party's pleading, preferably in a
     single electronic file. In addition, commenters must send diskette
     copies to the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International,
     Portals II, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Room CY-B402 Washington, D.C.
     20554.

105. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection
     during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445
     12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

**VI. ORDERING CLAUSES**

106. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 303(c),
     303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
     amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 157(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g),
     303(r), 307, 309(a), 310, Part 25 of the Commission's Rules IS
     AMENDED, as specified in Appendix A, effective 30 days after
     publication in the Federal Register.

107. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
     Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
     Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
     including the Initial and the Final Regulatory Flexibility
     Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
     Administration.

108. [Additional Information]{.underline}. For further information
     concerning this rulemaking proceeding contact William Bell at (202)
     418-0741 (internet: bbell@fcc.gov) or Marcus Wolf at (202) 418-0736
     (internet: mwolf@fcc.gov) International Bureau, Federal
     Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

#### FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

##### APPENDIX A

# Rule Changes

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

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

**Authority: Sections 25.101 to 25.601 issued under** Section 4, 48
Stat. 1066**, as amended;** 47 U.S.C. 154**. Interpret or apply**
Sections 101-104, 76 Stat. 419-427**;** 47 U.S.C. 701-744**;** 47 U.S.C.
554**.**

2\. Section 25.213 is amended by deleting Paragraph (b).

3\. Section 25.200 is deleted.

4\. A new section 25.216 is added and reads as follows:

**Section 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 20 millisecond 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 20 milliseconds, in that band.

\(b\) 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 20 milliseconds, in the 1587.42-1605 MHz band.
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 20
milliseconds, in the 1587.42-1605 MHz band.

\(c\) 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 20 milliseconds, 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 20 milliseconds, in the
1559-1605 MHz band.

\(d\) As of January 1, 2005 and from then on, 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 Inmarsat terminals used as Global Maritime
Distress and Safety System ship earth stations) shall not exceed -70
dBW/MHz, averaged over 20 milliseconds, in the 1559-1605 MHz band or a
level in the 1605-1610 MHz band determined by linear interpolation from
--70 dBW/MHz at 1605 MHz to --10 dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz, and the e.i.r.p.
of discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such stations
shall not exceed -80 dBW, averaged over 20 milliseconds, in the
1559-1605 MHz band.

\(e\) 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 20 milliseconds, in frequencies
between 1559 MHz and 1610 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 20 milliseconds, in frequencies between 1559 MHz and 1605
MHz.

\(f\) Mobile earth stations placed in service after July 21, 2002 with
assigned uplink frequencies in the 1610-1660.5 MHz band shall suppress
the power density of emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz band to an extent
determined by linear interpolation from -70 dBW/MHz at 1605 MHz to -10
dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz.

NOTE: Operation of mobile earth stations is also subject to all
pertinent emissions limits specified in other sections of the
Commission's Rules. See Sections 25.202(f) and 25.143(a).

**APPENDIX B**

**Proposed Rule Changes**

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

1\. 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 20 milliseconds, in frequencies
between 1559 MHz and 1610 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 20 milliseconds, in that frequency band.

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

\(g\) Mobile earth stations placed in service after July 21, 2002 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. 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.

\(h\) The peak e.i.r.p. density of carrier-off-state emissions from
mobile earth stations with assigned uplink frequencies between 1 and 3
GHz shall not exceed -77 dBW/MHz in the 1559-1610 MHz band.

\(h\) No mobile earth station subject to the requirements of this
section may be operated after January 1, 2005 unless its conformance
with pertinent requirements specified in this section with respect to
operation after that date has been demonstrated pursuant to the
certification procedure prescribed in Part 2, Subpart J, of the
Commission's rules.

**APPENDIX C**

**Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended ("RFA"),[^161]
requires a regulatory flexibility analysis to be prepared for
notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies
that "the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities."[^162] As required by
the RFA, the original Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding
included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA").[^163] The
Commission invited written public comment on the rulemaking proposal and
on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is also included
in compliance with the RFA.[^164]

**A. Need for and Objectives of this Report and Order**

The purpose of this Report and Order is to adopt a rule specifying
limits on the permissible strength of emissions produced by mobile earth
stations outside their assigned frequency bands, in order to prevent
interference with aircraft reception of satellite radionavigation
signals in the 1559-1610 MHz band.

**B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA**

None of the comments filed in this proceeding discussed the IRFA.

**C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the New Rule Will Apply**

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and when feasible,
an estimate of the number of, small "entities" that may be affected by
the rules they adopt.[^165] The RFA generally defines the term "small
entity" as referring to a "small business," "small organization," or
"small governmental jurisdiction."[^166] The term "small business" has
the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small
Business Act.[^167] 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).[^168]

For satellite telecommunications carriers and resellers, the SBA has
established a small business size standard that excludes companies with
annual receipts in excess of \$12.5 million.[^169] Ten companies are
currently licensed for operation of 1.6 GHz mobile earth stations
subject to the rule requirements we are adopting in this order. We have
ascertained from published data that four of those companies are not
small entities according to the SBA's definition,[^170] but we do not
have sufficient information to determine which, if any, of the other six
are small entities. We anticipate issuing several licenses for 2 GHz
mobile earth stations subject to the requirements we are adopting here.
We do not know how many of those licenses will be held by small
entities, however, as we do not yet know exactly how many 2 GHz
mobile-earth-station licenses will be issued or who will receive
them.[^171]

**D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities**

In this Report and Order, the Commission prescribes limits on the
permissible strength of emissions in the 1559-1610 MHz frequency band
that may be generated by mobile earth stations with assigned
transmission frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1660.5 MHz or between 1990
MHz and 2025 MHz. Those licensed by the Commission to operate, or
supervise operation of, such mobile earth stations will be obliged to
ensure that the equipment covered by their licenses performs in
compliance with the new emission restrictions. Some licensees may find
it necessary to alter, replace, or decommission equipment currently in
service in order to comply. We do not know, nor do the comments filed in
this proceeding indicate, how much expense the pertinent companies may
incur to achieve compliance with the new emission limits. The rule we
are adopting here does not impose reporting or recordkeeping
requirements.

**E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered**

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered that might reduce 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 small entities; using performance rather than design standards; or
completely or partially exempting small entities from new
requirements.[^172]

We have not considered exempting small entities from the emission limits
we are adopting here or prescribing more lenient requirements or
compliance timetables for small entities, as we do not believe that such
measures could be effected without thwarting fulfillment of our
regulatory objective of preventing interference. We have taken steps,
however, to minimize adverse impact on affected licensees. Most notably,
in the interest of minimizing consequent equipment obsolescence, we have
decided to exempt equipment currently in service from full compliance
until January 1, 2005.

**[Report to Congress]{.underline}:** The Commission will send a copy of
this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA"),
in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.[^173]
The Commission will also send a copy of this Report and Order and FRFA
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, and a copy of the Report
and Order and FRFA (or a summary thereof) will be published in the
Federal Register.[^174]

[^1]: The term "out-of-band emission" is defined in Section 2.1 of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 2.1, as an emission in frequencies
    immediately outside the transmitter's necessary (*i.e.*, authorized)
    bandwidth that results from modulation. We use the term in a broader
    sense here, as referring to any emission produced by a transmitter
    in frequencies outside its authorized bandwidth, whether or not the
    emission occurs in frequencies immediately outside that bandwidth or
    results from modulation.

[^2]: There are two basic types of 1.6 GHz METs: those used with "Big
    LEO" MSS systems and those used with geostationary-orbit MSS ("GSO
    MSS") systems. Big LEO systems provide two-way voice and data
    communication via non-geostationary-orbit satellites to mobile users
    in most areas of the world and afford seamless interconnection with
    the public switched telephone network. *See Amendment of the
    Commission\'s Rules to Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to a
    Mobile Satellite Service in the 1610-1626.5/2483.5-2500 MHz
    Frequency Bands* (Report and Order), 9 FCC Rcd 5936 (1994). Big LEO
    METs have assigned uplink frequencies between 1610 and 1626.5 MHz.
    Two Big LEO systems, the Globalstar System and the Iridium System,
    currently provide service in the United States. Three GSO MSS
    systems currently provide service to customers in the United States
    using assigned mobile-uplink frequencies between 1626.5 MHz and
    1660.5 MHz. The Commission has issued licenses for eight additional
    MSS systems that are to provide two-way voice and data
    communications to users equipped with 2 GHz METs.

[^3]: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 5871 (1999)
    ("*Notice*").

[^4]: *See* n.29, *infra*.

[^5]: We also intend to address, in a future order, the comments filed
    in this proceeding concerning implementation of 911 emergency-call
    service via satellite. *See Public Notice: International Bureau
    Invites Further Comnment Regarding Adoption of 911 Requirements for
    Satellite Services*, DA 00-2826, 66 FR 393960 (Jan. 17, 2001).

[^6]: GLONASS is an acronym extracted from the phrase \"global
    navigation satellite system.\"

[^7]: Next-generation GPS satellites, to be launched over a six-year
    period beginning in 2003, will transmit a second civilian ranging
    signal, designated "L2C," on the 1227.6 MHz carrier., The 1227.6 MHz
    carrier is not in a band allocated for Aeronautical Radionavigation,
    however, and the FAA has no current plan to use the L2C signal for
    that purpose. Plans have been announced for third-generation GPS
    satellites to transmit an additional "L5" ranging signal in the
    1164-1215 MHz band for civilian aviation use, and the FAA has
    commissioned an advisory group to investigate protection
    requirements for potential aeronautical use of the L5 signal. The
    third-generation GPS constellation will not be numerous enough to
    provide continuous radiolocation with the L5 signal until a
    considerable number of years after the planned launch of the first
    L5-capable satellite in 2005, however.

[^8]: *Federal Radionavigation Plan 1999*, § 3.2.4.3. The Federal
    Radionavigation Plan is published biennially by the U.S. Departments
    of Defense and Transportation to provide information on the
    management of Federally-provided radionavigation systems. An
    approach is Category I if the runway is visible at a distance of not
    less than half a mile and from an altitude of not less than 200
    feet.

[^9]: *Id*.

[^10]: *See* *ITU-R REC M.1317* (1997) §1.1.

[^11]: *Id.* ICAO does not sanction aircraft use of GLONASS carrier
    frequencies above 1604.25 MHz, however. GLONASS transmits coded
    signals in a wider band for military use, but the U.S. government
    has not agreed to protect reception of military-code GLONASS in U.S.
    territory.

[^12]: *Federal Radionavigation Plan, supra,* at § 3.4.2. *See also*
    Chin, Kraemer, Nim, and Van Dyke, John A. Volpe National
    Transportation Systems Center, U.S. Dept. of Transportation,
    "GPS/GLONASS RAIM Augmentation to WAAS for CAT I Precision
    Approach," published in *The Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting
    of the Institute of Navigation* (1997).

[^13]: According to aviation-industry participants in a study group
    commissioned by the FAA, the filing of a U.S. exception with regard
    to GLONASS protection might provoke other countries to drop support
    for aeronautical use of GPS, with consequent impairment of the
    navigational capability of aircraft flying international routes.
    *RTCA/DO-235*, *infra*, at F3.

[^14]: *See* n.2, *supra*.

[^15]: E.i.r.p., *i.e.*, effective isotropic 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.

[^16]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.213(b).

[^17]: Aside from Section 25.213(b), there are currently two other
    relevant rule provisions pertaining to out-of-band emissions. There
    is a comprehensive set of restrictions on out-of-band emissions by
    satellite-service transmitters in Section 25.202(f), which are more
    lenient regarding suppression of emissions in the 1559-1610 MHz
    aeronautical radionavigation band from 1.6 GHz MSS terminals than
    the additional limits we are adopting here. There is also a general
    requirement in Subsection 2.102(f) that transmission frequencies
    shall be separated from the limits of the spectrum band allocated
    for service of the type in question insofar as necessary to avoid
    causing harmful interference with reception of "allocated" services
    in adjoining frequency bands.

[^18]: *Memorandum of Understanding Between the Federal Communications
    Commission (FCC) National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration (NTIA) and The Federal Aviation Administration
    (FAA)*, Announcement 50736 (Nov. 18, 1994).

[^19]: *See Botcorp America*, 17 FCC Rcd 1605 (Sat. Div. 2002) at ¶12;
    *Infosat Communications, Inc.*, 17 FCC Rcd 1610 (Sat. Div. 2002) at
    ¶18; *Comsat Corporation d/b/a Comsat Mobile Communications et al.*,
    16 FCC Rcd 21661 (2001), at ¶¶ 92 and 115 and n.206; *TMI
    Communications and Company, L.P.*, 15 FCC Rcd 18117 (Sat. Div.
    2000), at ¶13 and 15 FCC Rcd 24467 (Sat. Div. 2000) at ¶19; *SatCom
    Systems, Inc.*, 14 FCC Rcd 20798 (1999), at ¶¶ 53 and 69; *AirTouch
    Satellite Services US, Inc.*, 14 FCC Rcd 17328 (Int'l Bur. 1999), at
    ¶26; *U.S. Leo Services, Inc.*, 11 FCC Rcd 20474 (Int'l Bur. 1996),
    at ¶21; *AMSC Subsidiary Corporation*, 1995 WL 109123 (Int'l Bur.
    1995), at ¶19. No license has been issued to date for 2 GHz METs.

[^20]: *Assessment of Radio Frequency Interference Relevant to the
    GNSS*, Document No. RTCA/DO-235 (January 27, 1997).

[^21]: *Id.* at F-15 and F-25.

[^22]: The MSS contingent also conceded that it might be technically
    feasible to suppress broadband emissions from vehicle-mounted and
    transportable, non-handheld MSS terminals with assigned frequencies
    above 1621.35 MHz to -70 dBW/MHz in ARNS frequencies up to 1605 MHz.

[^23]: *Id.* at E-24.

[^24]: The petition was placed on public notice in Report No. 2227
    (Sept. 23, 1997).

[^25]: ITU-R REC M.1343, *Essential Technical Requirements of Mobile
    Earth Stations for Global Non-Geostationary Mobile-Satellite Service
    Systems in the Bands 1-3 GHz*.

[^26]: TDMA, *i.e.*, time-division multiple access, is a transmission
    technique involving use of the same frequency band for uplinks and
    downlinks in alternating time slots.

[^27]: CDMA, *i.e.*, code-division multiple access, is a digital
    transmission technique in which the signal occupies a bandwidth much
    larger than needed to contain the information carried. Interference
    potential is reduced because, among other things, the signal is
    spread over a wide bandwidth and the power is dispersed.

[^28]: ITU-R REC M.1480, *Essential Technical Requirements of Mobile
    Earth Stations of Geostationary Mobile-Satellite Systems that are
    Implementing the Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite
    (GMPCS) Memorandum of Understanding Arrangements in Parts of the
    Frequency Band 1-3 GHz*.

[^29]: *Memorandum of Understanding to Facilitate Arrangements for
    Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite, Including
    Regional Systems (GMPCS-MoU)* (Geneva, 14 February 1997), Article 1.

[^30]: European Testing and Standards Institute TBR-041 and TBR-042.

[^31]: *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), 13 FCC Rcd 24687 (1998). The
    Commission instituted the voluntary certification program as an
    accommodation for MSS licensees that wanted to have the GMPCS-MoU
    ITU Registry mark placed on their METs. To qualify for the mark,
    METs must be type-approved by an administration that signed the
    GMPCS MoU.

[^32]: *Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile
    Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band* (Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking), 15 FCC Rcd 16127 (2000).

[^33]: *Notice*, *supra*, at ¶¶ 52 and 61.

[^34]: *Id.* at Appendix A.

[^35]: "Joint Comments of L/Q Licensee, Inc., Globalstar, L.P. and
    Airtouch Satellite Services U.S., Inc." filed June 21, 1999
    ("Globalstar Comments"), at 14.

[^36]: "Comments of Aeronautical Radio, Inc." filed June 21, 1999
    ("ARINC Comments"), at 1-2 and 7; "Comments of RTCA" filed June 18,
    1999, at 2; "Comments of the U.S. GPS Industry Council" ("USGPS
    Comments") filed June 21, 1999, at 2-3, 7, and 23; "Comments of
    Orbital Communications Corporation" filed May 3, 1999, at 10;
    "Comments of Motorola, Inc." filed June 21, 1999 ("Motorola
    Comments"), at 11; "Comments" filed by Constellation Communications,
    Inc. on June 21, 1999 ("Constellation Comments"), at 16 and Appendix
    A at 4; "Comments of Iridium LLC" filed June 21, 1999, at 12;
    "Comments of Iridium North America" filed June 21, 1999, at 2.
    Concerning emission limits, Iridium LLC and Iridium North America
    say that they agree with all of Motorola's comments on the subject.
    Further references to Motorola's comments herein should be
    understood to refer to these concurring comments as well.

[^37]: "Comments of Norcom Networks Corporation" filed June 21, 1999, at
    5-7.

[^38]: *Id.* at 6.

[^39]: *RTCA/DO-235*, Appendix F.

[^40]: The Iridium MET licensee represented when applying for a blanket
    MET authorization that the Iridium METs would meet a wideband limit
    of --70 dBW/MHz and a narrowband limit of --80 dBW across the
    1559-1610 MHz band-segment. *See U.S. Leo Services, Inc.* (Order and
    Authorization), 11 FCC Rcd 20474 (Int'l Bur. 1996). The Globalstar
    MET licensee likewise represented that Globalstar METs would meet
    the pertinent interim and final limits proposed in the *Notice* in
    this proceeding. *See AirTouch Satellite Services US, Inc.*(Order
    and Authorization), 14 FCC Rcd 17328 (Int'l Bur. 1999). We presume
    that the Iridium and Globalstar METs since placed into service have
    performed consistently with those representations.

[^41]: Although it disputed assumptions, the MSS contingent conceded
    that the aviation contingent's *calculations* were correct.
    *RTCA/DO-235* at E-10. On the other hand, the aviation contingent
    identified several relevant factors that the MSS analysis did not
    take into account: wind shear and aircraft control deviation, *id.*
    at F.3.2; the possibility of aircraft position below the glidepath,
    *id.*at F-27; reduced separation from radio-frequency interference
    (RFI) sources in Category II and III precision approach situations,
    *id.* at F.4.3; uncertainty as to receiver antenna gain in the
    downward direction, *id.*; noise-floor increase due to presence of
    multiple RFI sources, *id.* at F.4.4; and lack of opportunity for
    corrective action during Category III approach, *id.* at F.3.1.

[^42]: *See* ¶6, *supra*.

[^43]: *Notice* at ¶76.

[^44]: *GPS Risk Assessment Study, Final Report*, VS-99-007 (January
    1999). The Applied Physics Laboratory conducted the study at the
    joint request of the FAA and the Air Transport and Aircraft Owners
    and Pilots Associations. The study is published on the internet at
    http://airlinepilots.com/Safety/Safety009.htm.

[^45]: *Id.* at Table 5-2.

[^46]: *Id.* at Tables 5-11 and 5-12.

[^47]: Motorola Comments, *supra*, at 17.

[^48]: Comments of Hughes Network Systems filed June 21, 1999, at 2.

[^49]: Globalstar Comments, *supra*, at 25-26.

[^50]: "Reply Comments of the National Telecommunications and
    Information Administration" filed July 21, 1999 ("NTIA Reply
    Comments"), at 3-4. A correlator is a component of a spread spectum
    system that compares received signals for agreement with a local
    reference.

[^51]: *See* ITU-R REC M.1477, *Technical and Performance
    Characteristics of Current and Planned Radionavigation-Satellite
    Services (space-to-earth) and Aeronautical Radionavigation Service
    Receivers to Be Considered in Interference Studies in the Band
    1559-1610 MHz*, Annex 5 Section 4 (2000) ("It is noted that GNSS
    receivers require an additional protection of 10 dB when the
    interfering signal is 700 Hz or less in bandwidth.")

[^52]: *RTCA/DO-235*, Appendix C.

[^53]: The commenters' silence in this regard is especially telling in
    light of the fact that the *Notice* expressly rejected essentially
    the same argument for lack of technical support and invited the
    party that had raised it to cure the omission in subsequent
    comments. *Notice* at ¶82.

[^54]: *See* n.51, *supra*.

[^55]: 47 C.F.R. § 25.213(f).

[^56]: *See* ¶2, *supra*.

[^57]: *Notice* at ¶78.

[^58]: "Comments of the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration" filed June 21, 1999 ("NTIA Comments"), at 14;
    Motorola Comments at 14; "Comments of Rockwell Collins, Inc." filed
    June 21, 1999 ("Rockwell Comments"), at 6.

[^59]: NTIA Comments at iv and 25; ARINC Comments at 2-3; Globalstar
    Comments at 14-17.

[^60]: Motorola Comments at 11-12;

[^61]: Rockwell Comments at 3. Rockwell Collins asserted in this regard
    that foreign efforts to maintain the GLONASS system and develop new
    satellite radiodetermination systems have been motivated by
    reluctance to rely solely on the U.S.-controlled GPS system for GNSS
    satellite infrastructure. *Id*.

[^62]: According to uncontradicted statements in comments from Motient,
    Norcom, and Comsat, many terminals with authorized uplink
    frequencies between 1626.5 MHz and 1660.5 MHz that were not designed
    to meet "-70/-80" limits in the upper ARNS band are currently in use
    in the United States for MSS provided via geostationary satellites
    licensed to Inmarsat and Motient. *See* ¶¶ 33 and 42, *infra*.

[^63]: *See*, *e.g.*, NTIA Comments at iv ("Geostationary MSS terminals
    that are currently in service ... should be permitted to operate at
    their current out-of-band emission levels until January 1, 2005").

[^64]: *See* Letter from Richard D. Parlow, Associate Administrator,
    Spectrum Management, to Regina M. Keeney, Chief, International
    Bureau, published in Public Notice Report No. 2227 (Sept. 23, 1997).

[^65]: NTIA Comments at 7. *See Global Positioning System Standard
    Positioning Service Performance Standard* (October 2001), published
    on the internet at http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/.

[^66]: "Joint Reply Comments of L/Q Licensee, Inc., Globalstar, L.P. and
    Airtouch Satellite Services U.S., Inc." filed July 21, 1999
    ("Globalstar Reply"), at 16.

[^67]: *Notice* at ¶73.

[^68]: Globalstar Comments at 24.

[^69]: ARINCComments at 5. ARINC cited Chapter 2 of the Convention on
    International Civil Aviation (Chicago, 1944).

[^70]: "Comments of AMSC Subsidiary Corporation" filed June 21, 1999
    ("Motient Comments"), at 14-15. (Motient, a GSO MSS licensee, is
    identified by its former name, AMSC, in comments filed previously in
    this proceeding.)

[^71]: Norcom Comments at 5.

[^72]: NTIA Comments at 24.

[^73]: "Comments" of Constellation Communications, Inc. filed June 21,
    1999, at 12; "Comments of Inmarsat Ltd." filed June 21, 1999, at 10
    ("Inmarsat Comments"); "Reply Comments of TMI Communications and
    Company, L.P." filed July 21, 1999, at 6.

[^74]: NTIA Comments at 25.

[^75]: ARINC Comments at 4.

[^76]: "Reply of Motorola, Inc." filed July 21, 1999, at 9-10; "Reply
    Comments" of Iridium LLC filed August 9, 1999 ("Iridium Reply"), at
    10.

[^77]: *Notice* at ¶97.

[^78]: NTIA Comments at 16.

[^79]: Globalstar Comments at p.26.

[^80]: Inmarsat Comments at 7-10 and Annex 1; "Comments of Comsat
    Corporation" filed June 21, 1999 ("Comsat Comments"), at 16-18;
    "Comments of Sea-Land Service, Inc." filed July 21, 1999; "Reply
    Comments of the Chamber of Shipping of America" filed Aug. 2, 1999.

[^81]: Inmarsat Comments at i.

[^82]: Inmarsat Comments at Annex 1. Inmarsat refers to the analysis in
    *RTCA/DO-235*, Appendix F, on which the NTIA has predicated its
    recommendation for "-70/-80" limits on radiated power. The Appendix
    F analysis posits that the received strength of an interfering
    signal, *i.e.*, its strength at the input of an aircraft's GNSS
    receiver, should not exceed -146.1 dBW.

[^83]: Standard A terminals are first-generation Inmarsat METs that use
    analog modulation. There are several other types of Inmarsat METs in
    current use, all of which are of more recent design and use digital
    modulation.

[^84]: NTIA Reply Comments at 6-7 and Annex A; Motorola Reply Comments
    at 9; Rockwell Comments at 3-4.

[^85]: *Notice* at ¶¶ 86 and 89.

[^86]: Inmarsat has not provided test-based performance data for
    Standard A terminals but acknowledges that some Standard B Inmarsat
    METs tested in 1999 produced emissions in frequencies just below
    1605 MHz with an e.i.r.p. density level 3 dB higher than --70
    dBW/MHz. Inmarsat Comments at 7. Inmarsat's calculated data indicate
    that an Inmarsat MET producing emissions at that higher level,
    *i.e.*, ‑67 dBW/MHz, could interfere with aircraft GNSS reception.
    *Id.*, Annex 1.

[^87]: The determination capability is required by rule. In the interest
    of ensuring protection for radioastronomy, 47 C.F.R. § 25.213
    decrees, in Paragraph (a), that "\[a\]ll \[Big LEO\] systems shall
    be capable of determining the position of the user transceiver ...
    through either internal radiodetermination calculations or external
    sources such as LORAN-C or the Global Positioning System."

[^88]: *See* ITU Radio Regulation S4.5 and 47 C.F.R. §2.102(f).

[^89]: *See* ITU RR § 4.10. More specifically, Inmarsat and Comsat were
    notified in 1994 that MET authorizations would be subject to
    emissions limits to be adopted for protection of GLONASS and a
    condition to that effect is included in the blanket licenses for
    Inmarsat METs. *See Notice* at ¶49 and ¶7, *supra.*

[^90]: According to the U.S. Coast Guard, 7,657 foreign-flagged vessels
    entered U.S. ports in the year 2000 and only one percent of ships
    subject to the SOLAS Convention are U.S.-flagged.

[^91]: *See* ¶87, *infra*.

[^92]: *Notice* at Appendix A ¶5.

[^93]: NTIA Comments at 16-18.

[^94]: FDMA, *i.e.*, frequency division multiple access, is a technique
    for avoiding mutual interference by dividing available bandwidth
    among a set of transmitters so that each has an assigned
    transmission subchannel not shared with any other. See nn. 26 and
    27, *supra*, for definitions of CDMA and TDMA.

[^95]: Rockwell Comments at 6.

[^96]: The ITU specifies a 20 millisecond measurement interval in its
    recommendations for suppression of emissions from
    non-geostationary-system METs in the GPS-SPS band. ITU-R M.1343,
    Annex 1, Footnote 3 in Tables 1, 4, 7, and 12.

[^97]: *See* ITU-R REC M.1343.

[^98]: *Notice* at ¶80.

[^99]: Motorola Comments at 14; NTIA Comments at 19; Globalstar Comments
    at 25.

[^100]: *Id.* at ¶79.

[^101]: Motorola Comments at 15.

[^102]: Rockwell Comments at 6.

[^103]: NTIA Reply Comments at 5.

[^104]: Motorola Comments at 15.

[^105]: Globalstar Comments at 25.

[^106]: *Notice* at Appendix A.

[^107]: *Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile
    Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band* (Report and Order), 15 FCC Rcd
    16,127 (2000) (*"2 GHz Report and Order"*), at ¶163.

[^108]: [*Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile
    Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band (NRPM), 14 FCC Rcd 4843
    (1999)*](http://www.westlaw.com/find/default.asp?rs=CLWD2.1&vr=1.0&cite=14+FCC+Rcd.+4843),
    at ¶116.

[^109]: "Comments of the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration" in Docket No. 99-81 ("NTIA 2GHz Comments") at iii;
    "Reply Comments of Inmarsat Ltd." in Docket 99-81 at 15; "Comments
    of the Boeing Company" in Docket 99-81 at 38; "Comments of
    Aeronautical Radio, Inc." in Docket 99-81 at 7; "Comments of Iridium
    LLC" in Docket 99-81 at 53.

[^110]: "Reply Comments of Celsat America, Inc." in Docket No. 99-81 at
    27.

[^111]: "Comments of Globalstar, L.P." in Docket 99-81 at 49-50;
    "Comments of ICO Services Limited" in Docket 99-81 at 23.

[^112]: *See* ¶23, *supra*, and *RTCA/DO-235*, Appendix C.

[^113]: *See* ¶¶ 21-23, *supra*.

[^114]: ITU-R REC. M.1343. The European Union has adopted the ITU's
    recommendation in this regard. ETSI TBR-41, *supra*.

[^115]: *Notice* at ¶83.

[^116]: NTIA Comments at 15; *see also* Constellation Comments, Appendix
    A at 4.

[^117]: *Id*.

[^118]: Motorola Comments at 17; Iridium Reply at 10; Globalstar
    Comments at 26.

[^119]: ARINC Comments at 6.

[^120]: *2 GHz NPRM*, *supra*, at ¶73.

[^121]: NTIA 2 GHz Comments at 9-12.

[^122]: ETSI TBR-042, *supra*.

[^123]: "Reply Comments of Inmarsat Ltd." in Docket 99-81 at 15; "Reply
    Comments of Globalstar, L.P." in Docket 99-81 at 25; "Reply Comments
    of ICO Services Limited" in Docket 99-81 at 26.

[^124]: "Reply Comments of Celsat America, Inc." in Docket 99-81 at 27.

[^125]: "Little LEO" systems offer non-voice mobile satellite services
    using non-geostationary-orbit satellites. The Little LEO service is
    also referred to as "NVNG MSS."

[^126]: Section 25.202(f) specifies general requirements for suppression
    of out-of-band emissions, applicable to all satellite-service
    transmitters. 47 C.F.R. § 25.202(f). Unlike the rule we are adopting
    for protection of ARNS operation, 25.202(f) specifies relative
    limits that vary as a function of spectral separation from the
    transmitter's assigned frequencies, rather than specifying fixed
    limits on the allowable strength of emissions in a particular
    protected band. As they pertain to emissions in the 1559-1610 MHz
    ARNS band from METs with assigned frequencies in the L or S bands,
    the relative limits in 25.202(f) are less strict than those we are
    adopting here.

[^127]: *Notice* at ¶93.

[^128]: "Comments of Orbital Communications Corporation" at 11.

[^129]: NTIA Comments at 19-22.

[^130]: *Id.* at 20, citing *VHF Transceiver Emmissions in the GPS L1
    Band*, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (1995). The NTIA
    also demonstrates with calculations that Section 25.202(f) does not
    require Little LEO METs to suppress emissions in the ARNS band to
    the extent required by the rules we are adopting here. Specifically,
    the NTIA calculates that the amount of attenuation in the ARNS band
    required of Little LEO METs for compliance with 25.202(f) is
    approximately 32 dB less than is needed for protection of GNSS
    aeronautical radionavigation from interfering wideband emissions.
    NTIA Comments, Annex B, at 3-5.

[^131]: Iridium Reply at 10; Rockwell Comments at 5.

[^132]: USGPS Comments at 11-13; "LSC Comments on Protection for
    GPS/GLONASS Radionavigation Systems" filed May 2, 1999 ("LSC
    Comments"). The U.S. GPS Industry Council is a trade association
    whose membership includes the principal U.S. manufacturers of GPS
    equipment.

[^133]: USGPS cited PL 105-303, amending 42 U.S.C. § 14701 *et seq.*,
    which, for the stated purpose of "support\[ing\] ... \[GPS\] in a
    manner that will most effectively contribute to the national
    security, public safety, scientific, and economic interests of the
    United States," directs the President to "ensure the operation of
    \[GPS\] on a continuous worldwide basis" and to commission an
    Assistant Secretary of Commerce to "protect \[the GPS\] spectrum
    from disruption and interference."

[^134]: *See Revision of the Commission\'s Rules To Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems* (Report and Order), 11
    FCC Rcd 18,676 (1996), *on recon*, 12 FCC Rcd 22,665 (1997), Second
    Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 10,954 (1999), Third Report and Order,
    14 FCC Rcd 17,388 (1999), Fourth Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 25,216
    (2000), *on recon*, FCC 01-386 (rel. Dec. 28, 2001).

[^135]: LSC Comments at 3-4 and 31.

[^136]: Globalstar Reply at 9-12.

[^137]: *I.e.*, estimation of current position as a function of elapsed
    time and the direction and estimated average speed of travel since
    the last reliable position fix.

[^138]: It is unclear whether the NTIA devised its recommendation for
    extension of the interim limits to cover frequencies up to 1587.42
    MHz in the interest of protecting aeronautical radionavigation
    rather than ground-based GPS applications. We are nevertheless
    adopting the recommendation because none of the affected licensees
    participating in this proceeding has raised any objection to it.

[^139]: "Comments of the National Academies' Committee on Radio
    Frequencies" filed June 21, 1999; "Reply Comments of Cornell
    University" filed July 21, 1999.

[^140]: *See* n.126, *supra*.

[^141]: Section 25.213(a)(1), which pertains only to Big LEO METs,
    prohibits transmission in the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz band and the
    1613.8-1615.8 MHz band within specified distances of listed radio
    astronomy sites during periods when astronomical observation in
    those bands is being conducted. 47 C.F.R. § 25.213(a)(1).

[^142]: LSC Comments at 32.

[^143]: Motient Comments at 15.

[^144]: *Notice* at ¶74.

[^145]: *See* ITU-R REC M.1343 and REC M.1480.

[^146]: ITU-R REC M.1480 (2000), Annex 1.

[^147]: *See* ¶¶ 48-50, *supra*.

[^148]: *See* NTIA Report 01-383, *The Temporal and Spectral
    Characteristics of Ultrawideband Signals*, January 2001. *See*,
    *also*, Public Notice DA 01-171 (Jan. 24, 2001).

[^149]: *Notice* at ¶24.

[^150]: Globalstar Comments at 7.

[^151]: Inmarsat Reply Comments at 6.

[^152]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 80.203(g). Verification is defined in 47
    C.F.R. § 2.902. Certification is defined in 47 C.F.R. § 2.907.

[^153]: *See generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206.

[^154]: 5 U.S.C. § 603.

[^155]: 15 U.S.C. § 632

[^156]: *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 513340.

[^157]: Comsat Corporation, Globalstar USA, Honeywell International,
    Inc., and Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC ("MSVS") each
    holds one of the current licenses for 1.6 GHz mobile satellite
    stations. Comsat Corporation reported annual revenue of \$618
    million in its most recent annual report to the U.S. Securities and
    Exchange Commission ("SEC"). Globalstar USA (formerly AirTouch
    Satellite Services) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vodaphone Group
    Plc. In an annual report filed with the SEC, Vodaphone reported
    revenue of 15 billion pounds sterling for the year ending March 31,
    2001. In another annual report filed with the SEC, Honeywell
    International Inc. reported receiving sales revenue of \$23.7
    billion in 2001. MSVS is wholly owned by a limited partnership that
    is 48.1% owned by Motient Corporation and 39.9% owned by a limited
    partnership controlled by a wholly-owned subsidiary of BCE, Inc. In
    an annual report filed with the SEC, Motient reported revenue of
    \$93.3 billion for calendar year 2001. BCE, Inc. reports in its
    corporate website, www.bce.ca/en/investors/corporate/fast/, that it
    received \$21.1 billion of revenue in 2001.

[^158]: The Commission has issued space-station licenses for eight
    Mobile Satellite Service systems that would operate with 2 GHz
    mobile earth stations. Although we know the number and identity of
    the space-station licensees, neither the number nor the identity of
    future 2 GHz mobile-earth-station licensees can be determined from
    that data.

[^159]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415 and 1.419.

[^160]: *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings*,
    63 FR 24,121 (1998).

[^161]: 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).

[^162]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^163]: *See Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 to Implement the Global Mobile
    Personal Communication by Satellite (GMPCS) Memorandum of
    Understanding and Arrangements/ Petition of the National
    Telecomunications and 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*,
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 5871 (1999).

[^164]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^165]: 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).

[^166]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^167]: 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."

[^168]: 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."

[^169]: *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 513340.

[^170]: Comsat Corporation, Globalstar USA, Honeywell International,
    Inc., and Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC ("MSVS") each
    holds one of the current licenses for 1.6 GHz mobile satellite
    stations. Comsat Corporation reported annual revenue of \$618
    million in its most recent annual report to the U.S. Securities and
    Exchange Commission ("SEC"). Globalstar USA (formerly AirTouch
    Satellite Services) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vodaphone Group
    Plc. In an annual report filed with the SEC, Vodaphone reported
    revenue of 15 billion pounds sterling for the year ending March 31,
    2001. In another annual report filed with the SEC, Honeywell
    International Inc. reported receiving sales revenue of \$23.7
    billion in 2001. MSVS is wholly owned by a limited partnership that
    is 48.1% owned by Motient Corporation and 39.9% owned by a limited
    partnership controlled by a wholly-owned subsidiary of BCE, Inc. In
    an annual report filed with the SEC, Motient reported revenue of
    \$93.3 billion for calendar year 2001. BCE, Inc. reports in its
    corporate website, www.bce.ca/en/investors/corporate/fast/, that it
    received \$21.1 billion of revenue in 2001.

[^171]: The Commission has issued space-station licenses for eight
    Mobile Satellite Service systems that would operate with 2 GHz
    mobile earth stations. Although we know the number and identity of
    the space-station licensees, neither the number nor the identity of
    future 2 GHz mobile-earth-station licensees can be determined from
    that data.

[^172]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(c)(1)-(c)(4).

[^173]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^174]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).