*Pages 1--45 from  Microsoft Word - 17660*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 1 
 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  )  Commissions  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  Paragraph  Number  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 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 2 
 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 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 3 
 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  By  this  Report  and  Order,  we  amend  the  Commissions  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 


 1  The  term  out-  of-  band  emission  is  defined  in  Section  2.1  of  the  Commissions  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    2.1,  as 
 an  emission  in  frequencies  immediately  outside  the  transmitters  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). 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 4 
 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 


 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. 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 5 
 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- 


 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). 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 6 
 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  Commissions  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 


 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  (Intl  Bur.  1999),  at  26;  U.  S.  Leo  Services, 
 Inc.,  11  FCC  Rcd  20474  (Intl  Bur.  1996),  at  21;  AMSC  Subsidiary  Corporation,  1995  WL  109123  (Intl  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). 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 7 
 should  thereafter  meet  those  limits  in  frequencies  from  1559  MHz  to  1605  MHz.  21  The  committees  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 


 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- 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 8 
 narrowband  limit  or  a  grace  period  for  suppression  in  higher  frequencies  but  are  otherwise  consistent  with  the  NTIAs  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. 


 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  Commissions  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. 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 9 
 14.  In  March  1999,  the  Commission  issued  the  Notice  in  this  proceeding,  proposing  to  adopt  most  of  the  NTIAs  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  Commissions  rules  to  incorporate  the  NTIAs  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  NTIAs  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  Commissions  proposals  should  be  adopted  because  they  satisfy  the  requirements  of  the  aviation  industry  without  seriously  compromising  the  MSS 
 industrys  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 


 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. 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 10 
 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  NTIAs  recommendation,  however,  in  the  analysis  by  the  aviation  members  of  SC-  159.  39  While  it  is  true,  as  Norcom  emphasizes,  that  the  Committees  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  Committees  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 


 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 
 Motorolas  comments  on  the  subject.  Further  references  to  Motorolas  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  (Intl  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  (Intl  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  contingents  calculations 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 11 
 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  Commissions  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  NTIAs  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 


 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. 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 12 
 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  ITUs  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  NTIAs  advice  that  increased  suppression  of  narrowband  emissions  is  needed  is 


 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.) 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 13 
 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  NTIAs  advice  is  consistent,  moreover,  with  a  recent  ITU  recommendation  54  and  with  the  Commissions  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 


 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. 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 14 
 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  NTIAs  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 
 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 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 15 
 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  FAAs  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  NTIAs  recommendation  to  extend  immediate 
 -  70/-  80  protection  up  to  1587.42  MHz.  66  No  one  else  filed  comments  in  opposition  to  the  NTIAs  recommendation  in  this  regard. 


 30.  As  no  one  has  objected  to  the  Exective  Branchs  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 


 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. 
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 16 
 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  Motients  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 


 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. 
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 17 
 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. 
 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. 
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 18 
 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 


 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. 
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 19 
 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  Inmarsats  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 


 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  aircrafts  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. 
19
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 20 
 exemption  and  found  it  insufficient,  85  and  Comsat  and  Inmarsat  have  not  materially  improved  upon  the  argument  in  subsequent  comments.  Inmarsats  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. 


 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.  Inmarsats  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. 
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 21 
 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  NTIAs  prior  recommendations  and  with  the  Commissions  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  systems 
 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 


 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. 
21
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 22 
 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  NTIAs  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  NTIAs  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  NTIAs  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 


 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. 
22
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 23 
 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  transmitters  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  Commissions  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  Commissions  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  NTIAs  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 
 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. 
23
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 24 
 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  NTIAs  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  NTIAs  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. 
 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),  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. 
24
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 25 
 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  NTIAs  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  FCCs  rule  for  suppressing 
 emissions  in  the  1605-  1610  MHz  segment  should  be  consistent  with  the  ITUs  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. 


 114  ITU-  R  REC.  M.  1343.  The  European  Union  has  adopted  the  ITUs  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. 
25
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 26 
 6  63  3.  .  F  Fo  or  r  t  th  he  e  r  re  ea  as  so  on  ns  s  e  ex  xp  po  ou  un  nd  de  ed  d  b  by  y  t  th  he  e  N  NT  TI  IA  A  a  an  nd  d  o  ot  th  he  er  r  c  co  om  mm  me  en  nt  te  er  rs  s  f  fo  or  r  a  ad  dh  he  er  ri  in  ng  g  t  to  o  t  th  he  e  I  IT  TU  U  s  st  ta  an  nd  da  ar  rd  d,  ,  w  we  e  a  ar  re  e  a  ad  do  op  pt  ti  in  ng  g  a  a  r  re  eq  qu  ui  ir  re  em  me  en  nt  t  t  th  ha  at  t  t  th  he  e  e  e.  .i  i.  .r  r.  .p  p.  .  d  de  en  ns  si  it  ty  y  o  of  f  o  ou  ut  t-  -o  of  f-  -b  ba  an  nd  d  e  em  mi  is  ss  si  io  on  ns  s  i  in  n  t  th  he  e  1  16  60  05  5-  -1 
 16  61  10  0  M  MH  Hz  z  b  ba  an  nd  d  s  se  eg  gm  me  en  nt  t  f  fr  ro  om  m  1  1.  .6  6  G  GH  Hz  z  M  ME  ET  Ts  s  p  pl  la  ac  ce  ed  d  i  in  n  s  se  er  rv  vi  ic  ce  e  a  af  ft  te  er  r  [  [e  ef  ff  fe  ec  ct  ti  iv  ve  e  d  da  at  te  e]  ]  s  sh  ha  al  ll  l  n  no  ot  t  e  ex  xc  ce  ee  ed  d  a  a  l  le  ev  ve  el  l  d  de  et  te  er  rm  mi  in  ne  ed  d  b  by  y  l  li  in  ne  ea  ar  r  i  in  nt  te  er  rp  po  ol  la  at  ti  io  on  n  f  fr  ro  om  m  -  -7  70  0  d  dB  BW  W/  /M  MH  Hz  z  a  at  t  1  16  60  05  5  M  MH  Hz  z  t  to  o  -  -1  10  0  d  dB  BW  W/  /M  MH  Hz  z  a  at  t  1  16  61  10  0 
 M  MH  Hz  z  a  an  nd  d  t  th  ha  at  t  g  gr  ra  an  nd  df  fa  at  th  he  er  re  ed  d  1  1.  .6  6  G  GH  Hz  z  M  ME  ET  Ts  s  w  wi  il  ll  l  b  be  ec  co  om  me  e  s  su  ub  bj  je  ec  ct  t  t  to  o  t  th  he  e  s  sa  am  me  e  r  re  eq  qu  ui  ir  re  em  me  en  nt  t  a  as  s  o  of  f  J  Ja  an  nu  ua  ar  ry  y  1  1,  ,  2  20  00  05  5.  .  I  In  n  v  vi  ie  ew  w  o  of  f  t  th  he  e  N  NT  TI  IA  A  s  s  a  ad  dv  vo  oc  ca  ac  cy  y  o  of  f  t  th  hi  is  s  l  li  im  mi  it  t,  ,  w  wi  it  th  h  t  th  he  e  F  FA  AA  A  s  s  c  co  on  nc  cu  ur  rr  re  en  nc  ce  e,  ,  w  we  e  a  ar  re  e  n  no  ot  t  p  pe  er  rs  su  ua  ad  de  ed  d 
 t  th  ha  at  t  i  it  t  w  wo  ou  ul  ld  d  s  se  er  rv  ve  e  t  th  he  e  p  pu  ub  bl  li  ic  c  i  in  nt  te  er  re  es  st  t  t  to  o  r  re  eq  qu  ui  ir  re  e  B  Bi  ig  g  L  LE  EO  O  M  ME  ET  Ts  s  t  to  o  m  me  ee  et  t  t  th  he  e  s  st  tr  ri  ic  ct  te  er  r  w  wi  id  de  eb  ba  an  nd  d  l  li  im  mi  it  t  t  th  ha  at  t  A  AR  RI  IN  NC  C  a  ad  dv  vo  oc  ca  at  te  ed  d.  .  A  As  s  d  di  is  sc  cu  us  ss  se  ed  d  b  be  el  lo  ow  w,  ,  h  ho  ow  we  ev  ve  er  r,  ,  w  we  e  a  ar  re  e  p  pr  ro  op  po  os  si  in  ng  g  a  ad  do  op  pt  ti  io  on  n  o  of  f  s  st  tr  ri  ic  ct  te  er  r  l  li  im  mi  it  ts  s  o  on  n  o  ou  ut  t-  -o  of  f-  -b 
 ba  an  nd  d  e  em  mi  is  ss  si  io  on  ns  s  i  in  n  t  th  he  e  1  16  60  05  5-  -1  16  61  10  0  M  MH  Hz  z  s  se  eg  gm  me  en  nt  t  f  fr  ro  om  m  1  1.  .6  6  G  GH  Hz  z  M  ME  ET  Ts  s  w  wi  it  th  h  u  up  pl  li  in  nk  k  a  as  ss  si  ig  gn  nm  me  en  nt  ts  s  a  ab  bo  ov  ve  e  1  16  62  26  6.  .5  5  M  MH  Hz  z.  . 


 2  2.  .  T  Tw  wo  o  G  Gi  ig  ga  ah  he  er  rt  tz  z  M  ME  ET  Ts  s 
 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 


 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. 
26
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 27 
 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.  Celsats  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  NTIAs  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  NTIAs  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 


 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  transmitters  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. 
27
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 28 
 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 


 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. 
28
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 29 
 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  NTIAs  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  LSCs  contention  that  stricter  limits  are  needed  for  protection  of  non-  aeronautical  GPS  applications.  136  They  maintain  that  LSCs  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.  LSCs  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 
 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. 
29
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 30 
 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  NTIAs  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  Councils  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 


 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). 
30
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 31 
 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  NTIAs  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  LSCs  recommendation 
 would  preclude  its  further  use  for  that  purpose.  Therefore,  we  do  not  adopt  LSCs  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 
 142  LSC  Comments  at  32. 
 143  Motient  Comments  at  15. 
 144  Notice  at  74. 
31
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 32 
 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 


 145  See  ITU-  R  REC  M.  1343  and  REC  M.  1480. 
32
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 33 
 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  NTIAs  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 


 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). 
33
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 34 
 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 


 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. 
34
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 35 
 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 
 Commissions  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 


 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. 
35
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 36 
 companies  are  not  small  entities  according  to  the  SBAs  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 


 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. 
36
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 37 
 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  Commissions  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  Commissions  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 
37
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 38 
 102.  Pursuant  to  Sections  1.415  and  1.419  of  the  Commissions  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  Commissions  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  Commissions  contractor,  Vistronix,  Inc.,  will  receive  hand-  delivered  paper  filings  for 
 the  Commissions  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  Commissions  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  Commissions  Secretary,  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Office  of  the  Secretary, 
 Federal  Communications  Commission.  Portals  II,  445  12  th  Street,  S.  W.,  Washington,  D.  C.  The  Commissions  contractor,  Vistronix,  Inc.,  will  receive  hand-  delivered  diskette  filings  for  the 
 Commissions  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  Commissions  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  commenters  name, 


 159  47  C.  F.  R.    1.415  and  1.419. 
 160  See  Electronic  Filing  of  Documents  in  Rulemaking  Proceedings,  63  FR  24,121  (1998). 
38
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 39 
 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  partys  pleading,  preferably  in  a  single  electronic  file.  In  addition,  commenters  must  send  diskette  copies  to  the  Commissions  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  Commissions  Rules  IS  AMENDED,  as  specified  in  Appendix  A,  effective  30  days  after  publication  in  the  Federal  Register. 


 107.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  Commissions  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.  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 
39
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 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)  M  Mo  ob  bi  il  le  e  e  ea  ar  rt  th  h  s  st  ta  at  ti  io  on  ns  s  p  pl  la  ac  ce  ed  d  i  in  n  s  se  er  rv  vi  ic  ce  e  a  af  ft  te  er  r  J  Ju  ul  ly  y  2  21  1,  ,  2  20  00  02  2  w  wi  it  th  h  a  as  ss  si  ig  gn  ne  ed  d  u  up  pl  li  in  nk  k  f  fr  re  eq  qu  ue  en  nc  ci  ie  es  s  i  in  n  t  th  he  e  1  16  61  10  0-  -1  16  66  60  0.  .5  5  M  MH  Hz  z  b  ba  an  nd  d  s  sh  ha  al  ll  l  s  su  up  pp  pr  re  es  ss  s  t  th  he  e  p  po  ow  we  er  r  d  de  en  ns  si  it  ty  y  o  of  f  e  em  mi  is  ss  si  io  on  ns  s  i  in  n  t  th  he  e  1  16  60  05  5-  -1  16  61  10  0  M  MH  Hz  z  b  ba  an  nd  d  t  to  o  a  an  n 
40
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 2 
 e  ex  xt  te  en  nt  t  d  de  et  te  er  rm  mi  in  ne  ed  d  b  by  y  l  li  in  ne  ea  ar  r  i  in  nt  te  er  rp  po  ol  la  at  ti  io  on  n  f  fr  ro  om  m  -  -7  70  0  d  dB  BW  W/  /M  MH  Hz  z  a  at  t  1  16  60  05  5  M  MH  Hz  z  t  to  o  -  -1  10  0  d  dB  BW  W/  /M  MH  Hz  z  a  at  t  1  16  61  10  0  M  MH  Hz  z.  . 
 N  NO  OT  TE  E:  :  O  Op  pe  er  ra  at  ti  io  on  n  o  of  f  m  mo  ob  bi  il  le  e  e  ea  ar  rt  th  h  s  st  ta  at  ti  io  on  ns  s  i  is  s  a  al  ls  so  o  s  su  ub  bj  je  ec  ct  t  t  to  o  a  al  ll  l  p  pe  er  rt  ti  in  ne  en  nt  t  e  em  mi  is  ss  si  io  on  ns  s  l  li  im  mi  it  ts  s  s  sp  pe  ec  ci  if  fi  ie  ed  d  i  in  n  o  ot  th  he  er  r  s  se  ec  ct  ti  io  on  ns  s  o  of  f  t  th  he  e  C  Co  om  mm  mi  is  ss  si  io  on  n  s  s  R  Ru  ul  le  es  s.  .  S  Se  ee  e  S  Se  ec  ct  ti  io  on  ns  s  2  25  5.  .2  20  02  2(  (f  f)  )  a  an  nd  d  2  25  5.  .1  14  43  3(  (a  a)  ).  . 
41
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 A  AP  PP  PE  EN  ND  DI  IX  X  B  B  P  Pr  ro  op  po  os  se  ed  d  R  Ru  ul  le  e  C  Ch  ha  an  ng  ge  es  s 
 T  Ti  it  tl  le  e  4  47  7  o  of  f  t  th  he  e  C  Co  od  de  e  o  of  f  F  Fe  ed  de  er  ra  al  l  R  Re  eg  gu  ul  la  at  ti  io  on  ns  s,  ,  P  Pa  ar  rt  t  2  25  5,  ,  i  is  s  a  am  me  en  nd  de  ed  d  a  as  s  f  fo  ol  ll  lo  ow  ws  s:  : 
 1  1.  .  P  Pa  ar  ra  ag  gr  ra  ap  ph  h  (  (e  e)  )  o  of  f  S  Se  ec  ct  ti  io  on  n  2  25  5.  .2  21  16  6  i  is  s  a  am  me  en  nd  de  ed  d  t  to  o  r  re  ea  ad  d  a  as  s  f  fo  ol  ll  lo  ow  ws  s:  : 
 (  (e  e)  )  T  Th  he  e  e  e.  .i  i.  .r  r.  .p  p.  .  d  de  en  ns  si  it  ty  y  o  of  f  e  em  mi  is  ss  si  io  on  ns  s  f  fr  ro  om  m  m  mo  ob  bi  il  le  e  e  ea  ar  rt  th  h  s  st  ta  at  ti  io  on  ns  s  w  wi  it  th  h  a  as  ss  si  ig  gn  ne  ed  d  u  up  pl  li  in  nk  k  f  fr  re  eq  qu  ue  en  nc  ci  ie  es  s  b  be  et  tw  we  ee  en  n  1  19  99  90  0  M  MH  Hz  z  a  an  nd  d  2  20  02  25  5  M  MH  Hz  z  s  sh  ha  al  ll  l  n  no  ot  t  e  ex  xc  ce  ee  ed  d  -  -7  70  0  d  dB  BW  W/  /M  MH  Hz  z,  , 
 a  av  ve  er  ra  ag  ge  ed  d  o  ov  ve  er  r  2  20  0  m  mi  il  ll  li  is  se  ec  co  on  nd  ds  s,  ,  i  in  n  f  fr  re  eq  qu  ue  en  nc  ci  ie  es  s  b  be  et  tw  we  ee  en  n  1  15  55  59  9  M  MH  Hz  z  a  an  nd  d  1  16  61  10  0  M  MH  Hz  z.  .  T  Th  he  e  e  e.  .i  i.  .r  r.  .p  p.  .  o  of  f  d  di  is  sc  cr  re  et  te  e  e  em  mi  is  ss  si  io  on  ns  s  o  of  f  l  le  es  ss  s  t  th  ha  an  n  7  70  00  0  H  Hz  z  b  ba  an  nd  dw  wi  id  dt  th  h  f  fr  ro  om  m  s  su  uc  ch  h  s  st  ta  at  ti  io  on  ns  s  s  sh  ha  al  ll  l  n  no  ot  t 
 e  ex  xc  ce  ee  ed  d  -  -8  80  0  d  dB  BW  W,  ,  a  av  ve  er  ra  ag  ge  ed  d  o  ov  ve  er  r  2  20  0  m  mi  il  ll  li  is  se  ec  co  on  nd  ds  s,  ,  i  in  n  t  th  ha  at  t  f  fr  re  eq  qu  ue  en  nc  cy  y  b  ba  an  nd  d.  . 
 2  2.  .  S  Se  ec  ct  ti  io  on  n  2  25  5.  .2  21  16  6  i  is  s  a  am  me  en  nd  de  ed  d  b  by  y  i  in  ns  se  er  rt  ti  in  ng  g  t  th  he  e  f  fo  ol  ll  lo  ow  wi  in  ng  g  p  pa  ar  ra  ag  gr  ra  ap  ph  hs  s  a  af  ft  te  er  r  P  Pa  ar  ra  ag  gr  ra  ap  ph  h  (  (f  f)  ):  : 
 (  (g  g)  )  M  Mo  ob  bi  il  le  e  e  ea  ar  rt  th  h  s  st  ta  at  ti  io  on  ns  s  p  pl  la  ac  ce  ed  d  i  in  n  s  se  er  rv  vi  ic  ce  e  a  af  ft  te  er  r  J  Ju  ul  ly  y  2  21  1,  ,  2  20  00  02  2  w  wi  it  th  h  a  as  ss  si  ig  gn  ne  ed  d  u  up  pl  li  in  nk  k  f  fr  re  eq  qu  ue  en  nc  ci  ie  es  s  i  in  n  t  th  he  e  1  16  62  26  6.  .5  5-  -1  16  66  60  0.  .5  5  M  MH  Hz  z  b  ba  an  nd  d  s  sh  ha  al  ll  l  s  su  up  pp  pr  re  es  ss  s  t  th  he  e  p  po  ow  we  er  r  d  de  en  ns  si  it  ty  y  o  of  f 
 e  em  mi  is  ss  si  io  on  ns  s  i  in  n  t  th  he  e  1  16  60  05  5-  -1  16  61  10  0  M  MH  Hz  z  b  ba  an  nd  d-  -s  se  eg  gm  me  en  nt  t  t  to  o  a  an  n  e  ex  xt  te  en  nt  t  d  de  et  te  er  rm  mi  in  ne  ed  d  b  by  y  l  li  in  ne  ea  ar  r  i  in  nt  te  er  rp  po  ol  la  at  ti  io  on  n  f  fr  ro  om  m  -  -7  70  0  d  dB  BW  W/  /M  MH  Hz  z  a  at  t  1  16  60  05  5  M  MH  Hz  z  t  to  o  -  -4  46  6  d  dB  BW  W/  /M  MH  Hz  z  a  at  t  1  16  61  10  0  M  MH  Hz  z.  .  T  Th  he  e 
 e  e.  .i  i.  .r  r.  .p  p.  .  o  of  f  d  di  is  sc  cr  re  et  te  e  e  em  mi  is  ss  si  io  on  ns  s  o  of  f  l  le  es  ss  s  t  th  ha  an  n  7  70  00  0  H  Hz  z  b  ba  an  nd  dw  wi  id  dt  th  h  f  fr  ro  om  m  s  su  uc  ch  h  s  st  ta  at  ti  io  on  ns  s  s  sh  ha  al  ll  l  n  no  ot  t  e  ex  xc  ce  ee  ed  d  a  a  l  le  ev  ve  el  l  d  de  et  te  er  rm  mi  in  ne  ed  d  b  by  y  l  li  in  ne  ea  ar  r  i  in  nt  te  er  rp  po  ol  la  at  ti  io  on  n  f  fr  ro  om  m  -  -8  80  0  d  dB  BW  W  a  at  t  1  16  60  05  5  M  MH  Hz  z  t  to  o  -  -5  56  6 
 d  dB  BW  W  a  at  t  1  16  61  10  0  M  MH  Hz  z.  . 
 (  (h  h)  )  T  Th  he  e  p  pe  ea  ak  k  e  e.  .i  i.  .r  r.  .p  p.  .  d  de  en  ns  si  it  ty  y  o  of  f  c  ca  ar  rr  ri  ie  er  r-  -o  of  ff  f-  -s  st  ta  at  te  e  e  em  mi  is  ss  si  io  on  ns  s  f  fr  ro  om  m  m  mo  ob  bi  il  le  e  e  ea  ar  rt  th  h  s  st  ta  at  ti  io  on  ns  s  w  wi  it  th  h  a  as  ss  si  ig  gn  ne  ed  d  u  up  pl  li  in  nk  k  f  fr  re  eq  qu  ue  en  nc  ci  ie  es  s  b  be  et  tw  we  ee  en  n  1  1  a  an  nd  d  3  3  G  GH  Hz  z  s  sh  ha  al  ll  l  n  no  ot  t  e  ex  xc  ce  ee  ed  d  -  -7  77  7  d  dB  BW  W/  /M  MH  Hz  z 
 i  in  n  t  th  he  e  1  15  55  59  9-  -1  16  61  10  0  M  MH  Hz  z  b  ba  an  nd  d.  . 
 (  (h  h)  )  N  No  o  m  mo  ob  bi  il  le  e  e  ea  ar  rt  th  h  s  st  ta  at  ti  io  on  n  s  su  ub  bj  je  ec  ct  t  t  to  o  t  th  he  e  r  re  eq  qu  ui  ir  re  em  me  en  nt  ts  s  o  of  f  t  th  hi  is  s  s  se  ec  ct  ti  io  on  n  m  ma  ay  y  b  be  e  o  op  pe  er  ra  at  te  ed  d  a  af  ft  te  er  r  J  Ja  an  nu  ua  ar  ry  y  1  1,  ,  2  20  00  05  5  u  un  nl  le  es  ss  s  i  it  ts  s  c  co  on  nf  fo  or  rm  ma  an  nc  ce  e  w  wi  it  th  h  p  pe  er  rt  ti  in  ne  en  nt  t  r  re  eq  qu  ui  ir  re  em  me  en  nt  ts  s  s  sp  pe  ec  ci  if  fi  ie  ed  d  i  in  n  t  th  hi  is  s 
 s  se  ec  ct  ti  io  on  n  w  wi  it  th  h  r  re  es  sp  pe  ec  ct  t  t  to  o  o  op  pe  er  ra  at  ti  io  on  n  a  af  ft  te  er  r  t  th  ha  at  t  d  da  at  te  e  h  ha  as  s  b  be  ee  en  n  d  de  em  mo  on  ns  st  tr  ra  at  te  ed  d  p  pu  ur  rs  su  ua  an  nt  t  t  to  o  t  th  he  e  c  ce  er  rt  ti  if  fi  ic  ca  at  ti  io  on  n  p  pr  ro  oc  ce  ed  du  ur  re  e  p  pr  re  es  sc  cr  ri  ib  be  ed  d  i  in  n  P  Pa  ar  rt  t  2  2,  ,  S  Su  ub  bp  pa  ar  rt  t  J  J,  ,  o  of  f  t  th  he  e  C  Co  om  mm  mi  is  ss  si  io  on  n  s  s  r  ru  ul  le  es  s.  . 
42
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 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 


 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  Commissions  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 
43
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 2 
 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  SBAs  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 


 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. 
44
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  134 
 3 
 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:  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 


 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). 
45