WPC]H 2BJZ Courier#|n  >^x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4 lpt 2HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\$}X@26KF Z #|n  "i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN(#x a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  2   g&a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# 2P a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2 ^a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   276~3a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2iemRPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:=~>>iw@header;Ax 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# reference<;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1=&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2>I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2F?^B@OpCA DBEheading 3?F` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!@!!#d\  PCP#CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileAW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentBiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#2JCrFD1GErGK5Ha2AgendaCa1AgendaAgenda ItemsD7D yP ) I. a3AgendaE"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDddddddI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^#)0<a݅@  I.   X(# 2gKdLdeMeNgSubheadingSubheadingK0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and BoldldeddL+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateM X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offN@@    2lO1gP1hQ1-jR1^kLETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5O 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5Pf 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11QL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14R 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   2~nSnlT/mUdmVjnTITLETitle of a DocumentSK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedTN X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeUB*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and UnderscoredV V -q2ytWnXEpY-rZ8AsLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsWu H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math InvoiceX ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatYD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math InvoiceZ:A ,p, $0$0027x[8t\u]Xw^[wINVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro[z 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice\+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle]SMALLSmall Typestyle^2y_[ix`[xa[yb[zyFINEFine Typestyle_LARGELarge Typestyle`EXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestyleaVERY LARGEVery Large Typestyleb2"}czdX{e{f|ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Headerc+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   1ddfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Marginse$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5f$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO 2DŽgT}hl3ij;Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIgJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabsh )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsiDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Fontj4h )a [ PfQO  dddn 2Uk|lumnStyle 2Dutch Italic 11.5k$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Pointl$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5m$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Pointn$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO 2opqrStyle 10oInitial Codes for Advancedo U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggpi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediateq )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update Moduler )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2s}t_uvya1Paragraph+-Jȯ`:1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)-*=(-X]f:*-8s$ a2Paragraph+-Jȯ`:1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)-*=(-X]f:*-8t/ a3Paragraph+-Jȯ`:1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)-*=(-X]f:*-8u:` ` `  a4Paragraph+-Jȯ`:1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)-*=(-X]f:*-8vE 2/wIxyzea5Paragraph+-Jȯ`:1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)-*=(-X]f:*-8wP   a6Paragraph+-Jȯ`:1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)-*=(-X]f:*-8x[   a7Paragraph+-Jȯ`:1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)-*=(-X]f:*-8yf  a8Paragraph+-Jȯ`:1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)-*=(-X]f:*-8zq 2{la|l͡}x9~lDefault Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font{ Document 8Document 8| Document 4Document 4}  Document 6Document 6~ 2lOll'Document 5Document 5 Document 2Document 2 Document 7Document 7 Right Par 1Right Par 1` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2lmRight Par 2Right Par 2` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 3Document 3 Right Par 3Right Par 3` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 4Right Par 4` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2Sۭ5Right Par 5Right Par 5` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 6` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 7Right Par 7` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 8` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2a($$ѺlDocument 1Document 1` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 5` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 6` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 2 2l$l#$Technical 3Technical 3 Technical 4Technical 4` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1 Technical 7Technical 7` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2c$ 'ETechnical 8Technical 8` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 1toc 1` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#2evtoc 4toc 4` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7 2toc 8toc 8` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#2Av_lAtoatoa` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaption _Equation Caption_Equation Caption a11I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')8ij@   2Da21I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Akl@` `  ` ` ` a31I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Jmn` ` @  ` `  a41I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Sop` `  @  a51I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')\qr` `  @hh# hhh 2`1a61I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')est` `  hh#@( hh# a71I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')nuv` `  hh#(@- ( a81I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')wwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp Chapter?I@6HChapter Heading=(')8?I *')'0 ?I.E9y z ` CHAPTER 3  2qcdPReport Body@6HMain Text of Report8?I *')'0 ?I.E{|  1, 2, 3,teNumbersotation"H('0\F H rW?I 1.A, B,3,teUppercase LettersH('0\F H rW?I .TitleNotesTitle Page NotesH('0\F H rW?I ''#Z*f9 x$X# #Z*f9 x%X#2Xm)aeNotesTrianglee NotesH('0\F H rW?I Works CitedWorks Cited PageH('0\F H rW?I 99         Page TitlePage Title PageH('0\F H rW?I #  `  footnote reference# 2ol%footnote text%endnote referenceendnote reference44#Xx6X@DQX@##Xv6X@CX@#_Equation Caption1_Equation Caption1 a12:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O8mn@   2(a22:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OAop@` `  ` ` ` a32:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OJqr` ` @  ` `  a42:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OSst` `  @  a52:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O\uv` `  @hh# hhh 2w|Dba62:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Oewx` `  hh#@( hh# a72:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Onyz` `  hh#(@- ( a82:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Ow{|` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp  2l(3$[SMALL s†NSMALL s†NORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC ӆNORMAL¤ TNORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#bly remains several bly remains several years \softline \softlheight276 awa` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (# Technical 4¸ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2lj;lT 2 Ҷ TechnicaT 2 Ҷ Technical 7Ҳ Right Par 7z INV` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#ОC:\mw3022.tmpC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\C :\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMP` hp x (#` hp x (## P7P# ރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOCރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: 2Ca~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#: , : , ,0` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#е ,  , ,0` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#2c  l)  :\mw3024.tmpt :\mw3024.tmpt C:\WINDOWS\MSAPPS\TEXTCONV\RTF_W` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#wwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbwwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbbbwwwwbwwwwbwwwwbwbwwwbwbb` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#,,0kjH Default Para,6%Default Paragraph FontO7V -*g4çFM7VE;1;2#Xx6X@QX@##d6X@Q@#2v2  pqtoa heading,6%toa heading4=(g4O7V 9*g4çFM7VEIJ!(# ` hp x (#_Equation Ca,6%_Equation Captiong4O7V ;*g4çFM7VE;M;N#Xx6X@QX@##d6X@Q@#2XwE~wKRn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@RH*G>FwE~wK\Emn` ` ` 3XwE~wKSn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@SH*G>FwE~wK\Eo p . 2uee rp4XwE~wKTn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@TH*G>FwE~wK\E qr 5XwE~wKUn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@UH*G>FwE~wK\E st 6XwE~wKVn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@VH*G>FwE~wK\E*uv   7XwE~wKWn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@WH*G>FwE~wK\Ewx` ` ` 2 9i8XwE~wKXn6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\E8yz@   9XwE~wKYn6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EA{|@` `  ` ` ` 10wE~wKZn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@ZH*G>FwE~wK\E0} ~    11wE~wK[n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EJ` ` @  ` `  2)?a12wE~wK\n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\ES` `  @  13wE~wK]n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\E\` `  @hh# hhh 14wE~wK^n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 15wE~wK_n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\En` `  hh#(@- ( 2[,k16wE~wK`n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 17wE~wKan6bDocument Style=(G>wK@aH*G>FwE~wK\EF D*  ׃  18wE~wKbn6bTechnical Document StylewK@bH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . 19wE~wKcn6bTechnical Document StylewK@cH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . 2"S20wE~wKdn6bTechnical Document StylewK@dH*G>FwE~wK\E*    21wE~wKen6bTechnical Document StylewK@eH*G>FwE~wK\E'   22wE~wKfn6bTechnical Document StylewK@fH*G>FwE~wK\E&   23wE~wKgn6bTechnical Document StylewK@gH*G>FwE~wK\E4$     2N24wE~wKhn6bTechnical Document StylewK@hH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . 25wE~wKin6bTechnical Document StylewK@iH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . Format Downln6bFormat Downloaded DocumentK@uH*G>FwE~wK\EU XX    X\ #d6X@7@#a127\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>F8@   2!D 0!a227\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FA@` `  ` ` ` a327\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FJa427\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FS` `  @  a527\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>F\` `  @hh# hhh 2$""#vp$a627\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fe` `  hh#@( hh# a727\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fn` `  hh#(@- ( a827\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp heading 4heading 4 2&v%v%v&vz&heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 heading 8heading 8 2k*v"''((endnote textendnote text head1 #'d#2p}wC@ #Word222Null(Dt—Word222Null( >fWRK+P—!t >f—+b1{1|#/x PX##/x PX#NORMAL INDENDt—7!wB( >f`RK+P—!t >f—+b'4 <DL!T$#&n P&P##&n P&P#2.w*-v- .enumlev1x(Dt—7!wB( >faRK+P—!t >f—+b$p  N hp x (#aa#&n P&P#4` hp x (#footnote refDt—footnote reference >fbRK+P—!t >f—+b>#V\  P UP#page number(Dt—page number( >feRK+P—!t >f—+b26 >fx(Dt—footnote text >ffRK+P—!t >f—+b* ??US2J6K.K?1K3u5"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""XAdaaaTNXNn:nnnnn:nnnnnnXnk*^^^^^{^d^d^d^d^1*1*1*1*~ddddd~d~d~d~dxa^~bddxa~dhdubnub~X~X{n{n~mubnnnnubbnnnn~n~n2*nnnn:kTnnunb(b3nn^@^*~bx~b~nbn~<~XAdaaaTXXXn:nnnnn:nnnnnnXnk*^^^^^{^d^d^d^d^1*1*1*1*~ddddd~d~d~d~dxa^~mddxa~dhd~bn~b~b~b{n{n~~tbnnnntbmnnnn~n~n1*nnnn:kTnnunm1mCnn^E^1~m~~m~nmn~C~CqntbqXtbqnmTm(>(IIF%"Ԍ X'<oԙI. INTRODUCTION  \1. By this action, we propose to amend the Commission's Rules to facilitate the global transport of portable telecommunications terminals used in connection with satellite systems providing global data, voice, Internet and other broadband services. These proposals are designed to implement the international Global Mobile Personal Communications by  Xv4Satellite vC yO' { ԍ"Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite" (GMPCS) service is defined in the 1996 Final  xQ Report of the World Telecommunications Policy Forum as: "any satellite system, (i.e., fixed or mobile, broadband  x or narrowband, global or regional, geostationary or nongeostationary, existing or planned) providing telecommunication services directly to end users from a constellation of satellites."  ("GMPCS") Memorandum of Understanding which was signed by the United States  X_4and over 120 additional parties in February 1997.Z_C yO ' { ԍ The MoU was developed as a result of the 1996 World Telecommunications Policy Forum ("WTPF {O '96") in Geneva. See Final Report of the World Telecommunications Policy Forum, Geneva, 1996 (ITU 1997).  This voluntary Memorandum of Understanding ("MoU") was the basis for specific "Arrangements" or guidelines for regulators, system operators, manufacturers and service providers that are designed to promote global roaming of GMPCS terminals and ubiquitous service. 2. GMPCS systems offer an exciting array of new services to consumers, especially those living in or traveling to underpopulated and rural areas. The GMPCS Memorandum of Understanding was the culmination of an international cooperative process to speed deployment of global voice, data, and broadband services worldwide. The GMPCS industry has supported this initiative through its dedicated participation in drafting the MoU and related Arrangements (the "GMPCS MoU") and in encouraging administrations to sign it and to incorporate these principles in their domestic laws and regulations.  X443. This Notice proposes to implement the five articles in the GMPCS MoU in a manner that facilitates the free circulation of fixed and mobile satellite service terminals and equipment ("GMPCS terminals") sold for use in, or transported into, the United States for use with global satellite systems. Specifically, our proposals address: a) type approval (that is, equipment certification); b) licensing; c) marking; d) access to traffic data; and e) a  X4recommendation on customs treatment. Most importantly, we propose to amend our rules to enable manufacturers to obtain certification for GMPCS mobile earth terminal equipment through the Commission's equipment certification process. Certified equipment would receive an FCC identifier or "mark." Moreover, under the MoU, once a terminal is certified by an  Xg4administration, it may be registered at the International Telecommunications Union (ITU)gC yO#' { ԍThe International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is an arm of the United Nations responsible for the global oversight and implementation of international telecommunications policy. in Geneva and marked with the new, international "GMPCSMoU ITU REGISTRY" mark (the "ITU mark"). We expect that many foreign countries will view this ITU mark as sufficient to allow equipment to cross national borders, and in many cases, the ITU mark may also""* ,>(>(II" facilitate the sale of GMPCS terminals in other countries. Consistent with our rules governing certification of other radiofrequency devices, we propose to require an FCC certification for all GMPCS terminals sold or leased for use in the United States. We also propose to require terminals sold outside the United States that are to be used in the United States or transported through the United States as an inoperable personal effect to bear the ITU mark. 4. Our proposal also contemplates that any GMPCS terminals used in the United States or transported from abroad for use in the United States must be authorized to communicate with a U.S.licensed GMPCS service provider before being operated. To this end, we expect that the service provider will permit access to its system only to authorized customers using properly certified terminals. That is, if a user attempts to communicate with a satellite network with a terminal bearing neither an FCC or ITU mark or which he/she has not properly subscribed, he/she should not be able to gain access to that network. We propose to hold the licensed service provider responsible for any interference resulting from unauthorized use of its system. We are also proposing to require user terminals to meet all applicable Commission technical rules in order to receive equipment certification. Finally, we propose a set of procedures designed to enable the U.S. Customs Service to enforce our rules with minimum additional burden at pointsofentry throughout the country. 5. Further, we propose to adopt the National Telecommunication and Information Administration's timephased outofband emissions limits for GMPCS terminals transmitting in the band 16101660.5 MHz, in order to protect reception of aeronautical radionavigation signals in the 15591605 MHz band. We are also seeking comment on whether GMPCS terminals should be required to provide enhanced E911 capability for distress, disaster and safety communications. 6. We recognize that the GMPCS MoU is nonbinding and that we have not received a petition for rulemaking requesting implementation of the GMPCS Arrangements. Given the international accord on the GMPCS MoU, and our experience amending  XN4Commission rules to implement such nonbinding agreements,@ZNC {O' {_ ԍ See e.g., Interim Sharing Arrangement Between Industry Canada and the Federal Communications  x Commission Concerning the Use of the 18501990 MHz band for Personal Communications Services (PCS),  yOY'November 14, 1994.@ we are initiating this rulemaking on our own motion. We expect to coordinate this proceeding closely with other U.S. government agencies and international bodies. "",>(>(II "Ԍ X'? II. BACKGROUND Đ\  X47.  At the 1992 World Administrative Radiocommunication Conference ("WARC92"), the international telecommunications community allocated significant additional  X4spectrum for mobile satellite services ("MSS")C yO' {  ԍ"MobileSatellite Service" is satellite radiocommunication service for users equipped with mobile terminals. systems on a global basis to meet the needs of the rapidly growing satellite telecommunications sector. The Commission subsequently began to implement these international allocations domestically and to develop service rules to authorize individual global MSS systems. In 1994, the Commission authorized the first non XJ4geostationaryXJ C yO ' { ԍA "nongeostationary satellite" is a satellite that does not remain fixed relative to points on the Earth's  xU surface. Unlike geostationary satellites, which orbit in the plane of the equator at an altitude of approximately 37,800 kilometers, nongeostationary satellites can orbit in any plane and at any exatmospheric altitude. mobile satellite system to provide nonvoice services ("Little LEO" systems)  X34such as environmental data collection, vehicle tracking, and emergency rescue and relief.s3@C {O$'ԍOrbital Communications Corporation, 10 FCC Rcd 6572 (1995). s In early 1995, the Commission licensed the first global satellite systems intended to deliver global voice service through a constellation of nongeostationary satellites ("Big LEO"  X 4systems).p C {Oq'ԍMotorola Satellite Communications, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 2268.p Both the Big and Little LEO systems allow customers to use small, inexpensive portable terminals, or transceivers, to communicate with satellite space stations. Subsequently, conferees at the 1995 World Radiocommunication Conference ("WRC95") allocated  X 4additional spectrum for the fixed satellite service ("FSS"), d C yO'ԍFinal Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference, Resolution 118 (Geneva 1995). as well as spectrum to accommodate "feeder links" for MSS and nongeostationary ("NGSO") FSS constellations. In the past three years, the Commission has received a number of applications from satellite system operators seeking to provide a wide variety of FSS broadband, interactive digital services, including computer access and video services, to users worldwide using  X64geostationary and nongeostationary satellite constellations. 6 C {O' { ԍSee, e.g., Teledesic Corporation, 12 FCC Rcd 3154 (1997), and Skybridge Corporation, 48SATP/LA97(64)S2241, (1998). In 1997, we granted licenses to  X414 applicants to launch and operate FSS systems in the 28 GHz band., N C {O"' {l ԍSee e.g. Teledesic Corporation, Order and Authorization, 12 FCC Rcd. 3154 (International Bur. 1997),  {O"'and Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc., Order and Authorization, 13 FCC Rcd. 1351 (Int'l Bur. 1997).,  X48.  Demand for these new satellitebased services is estimated to be significant. One study projects that the worldwide MSS telephony market will surpass 17 million" ,>(>(II"  X4subscribers by 2007. C yOy'ԍ"World Mobile Satellite Telephony Markets: 19992007", The Strategis Group, December, 1998. The AsiaPacific region is projected to have the largest subscriber baseover 30% of the world's total. Estimates are that Latin America will serve as the world's largest fixed market, capturing approximately 35% of the total rural fixed user service subscriber base. Several factors that will significantly impact the potential for mobile satellite services include the rapid buildout of terrestrial mobile telephone networks, the availability of multiband/multimode cellular/Personal Communication Services handsets, and technological advances that continue to reduce manufacturing and launch costs. 9. In response to the anticipated demand for GMPCS services, the international community began to consider a new international regulatory paradigm for these global services and systems. The 1994 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, held in Kyoto, Japan, adopted a resolution to hold a world telecommunications policy forum to address the policy and regulatory issues raised by the introduction of global mobile personal communications systems and services provided by satellite.  X 410. As a result of this resolution, the ITU's first World Telecommunication Policy Forum was held in Geneva in October 1996. At the Forum, satellite operators and service providers stressed the need for open, equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to national markets on a global basis. Operators, manufacturers, service providers, and potential users maintained that the success of this new service would rest on the users' ability to transport a mobile handset around the world and receive service on a realtime, ubiquitous basis. Finally, representatives from many countries stressed the importance of preserving national sovereignty and preventing revenue bypass of their national public switched networks via GMPCS satellite operators.  X4  X4 11. Participants recognized that these and other ancillary issues, including the possible need for equipment to be approved individually in every country where service might be provided, might pose a substantial impediment to the development of GMPCS systems. As  X|4a result, the Policy Forum adopted five draft opinions. |XC yO' {~ ԍThese included "The Role of GMPCS in the Globalization of Telecommunications" (Opinion 1),  x; "Shared Visions and Principles" (Opinion 2), "Essential Studies by the ITU on GMPCS" (Opinion 3), "Establishment  xU of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)" (Opinion 4), and "Implementation of GMPCS in Developing Countries" (Opinion 5).  One of these opinions included a draft Memorandum of Understanding designed to facilitate global transport and roaming of GMPCS user terminals. Many countries, however, wanted any cooperative action proposed by the Policy Forum to remain nonbinding. Therefore, interested parties were requested to assemble the following February to finalize and sign the nonbinding MoU document and to draft specific arrangements concerning the licensing, type approval, marking, provision of traffic data, and customs treatment of GMPCS user terminals.  X 4 " @ ,>(>(IIb"Ԍ12. The United States signed the GMPCS MoU in February 1997. To date, a  X4total of over 120 entities composed of over 50 Administrations,C yOb' {_ ԍThe Arrangements were drafted using standard International Telecommunications Union terminology  x where appropriate. In this case, rather than the terms "country" or "nation" (which may not include entities such as  x; The Republic of Taiwan), the term "Administration" is used to encompass a broader range of affected governments.  xQ In the Arrangements, the term "administration" is specifically defined as "any government department or service responsible for implementing these Arrangements or parts thereof." Arrangements, Section IV, p.2. several associations and over 50 private sector companies have signed the MoU. The signatories represent the majority of future GMPCS markets and over one third of all ITU member Administrations. The Arrangements and the accompanying Implementation Plan were finalized in March  X41998.LXxC yO ' { ԍCopies of the MoU, the current list of Signatories, the final Arrangements and the Notification and  x Marking Implementation Plan (Annex) are available to the public at the FCC International Bureau Reference Center, 2000 M Street, N.W., lobby entrance. L The role and function of the ITU in administering these Arrangements was formally  Xv4approved by the ITU Council in May 1998.AvC yO'ԍResolution 1116.A At that time, the ITU Council also approved the use of the ITU acronym as part of the new ITU mark for identifying terminals registered in the ITU database. This globallyrecognized mark will be placed on GMPCS terminals to signify that a) they have been typeapproved by at least one Administration; and b) that the Administration has provided a description of its licensing/type approval/marking requirements to the ITU as outlined in the Arrangements; and c) that a licensed satellite system operator  X 4intends to use the particular terminal with its system. ( C {O' {m ԍSee The Annex to the GMPCSMoU Arrangements"Implementation of the GMPCSMoU  {O'Arrangements"ĩadopted on March 13, 1998. 13. Last spring, following final action of the ITU Council, the Commission recognized that several U.S.licensed GMPCS systems were either currently operating or on the verge of commercial operation. We also recognized that user terminals associated with these systems would need to receive equipment certification as soon as possible in order to receive the FCC mark and, ultimately, the ITU mark. Consequently, in a Notice of Proposed  XK4Rulemaking adopted in May 1998 ("the 1998 Notice"), we proposed a voluntary interim equipment certification procedure to be used prior to adopting final rules to implement the  X4GMPCS MoU.F C {OT!' { ԍSee 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review --Amendment of Parts 2, 25 and 68 of the Commission's Rules  x to Further Streamline the Equipment Authorization Process for Radio Frequency Equipment, Modify the Equipment  x! Authorization Process for Telephone Terminal Equipment, Implement Mutual Recognition Agreements and Begin  {O#' xU Implementation of the Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite (GMPCS) Arrangements, 13 FCC Rcd 10683 at  4046.F  X414. In the 1998 Notice, we proposed to issue equipment certifications to all GMPCS terminals meeting certain requirements. Specifically, we proposed to certify all"8,>(>(II{" GMPCSrelated terminal equipment that complies with the Commission's technical and other  X4requirements for that service, including requirements governing emissions limits.KC {Ob'ԍId. at 45 .K In addition, we proposed that Big LEO terminals operating in the 16101626.5 MHz band would also have to meet the outofband emission limits recommended for implementation by the year 2005 by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in its  X4September 1997 petition for rulemaking.9ZC yO'ԍRM9165.9 15. The Commission also noted that, were the Commission to adopt more  XH4stringent standards in the final GMPCS proceeding than the ones proposed and adopted for interim certification, the Commission would require the terminals to meet the stricter  X 4standards, in accordance with any other associated requirements or provisions adopted as a result of final GMPCS implementation. In December 1998, in light of the comments received  X 4in response to the 1998 Notice, we adopted the proposed voluntary interim procedure for all  X 4GMPCS terminal equipment. C {Or'ԍSee Report and Order, FCC 98338 (rel. Dec. 23, 1998) ("GMPCS Equipment Certification Order").  X 'E III. DISCUSSION \  X{4A. GMPCS MoU Implementation  1. GMPCS MoU Implementation  X64  X4  a. The Arrangements 16. The GMPCSMoU is predicated on two general principles: first, that the global nature of GMPCS can be ensured only when the user can transport a GMPCS terminal across national territories without delay or fees; and second, that it is in the public interest to speed deployment of this new service by streamlining the licensing of GMPCS terminals. Specifically, the Arrangements state that class or blanket licensing of GMPCS terminals, instead of individual terminal licensing (that is, issuing a separate authorization for each terminal), will facilitate regional and global circulation and transborder roaming. The Arrangements also urge nations to sign the MoU and implement the provisions of the Arrangements as soon as possible and to adopt eventually a single unified and harmonized set  X$4of requirements for GMPCS terminal type approval/certification.^$|C yOQ$'ԍArrangements, Section V, General Provisions. ^ 17. Nevertheless, the MoU also recognizes that compliance with the Arrangements does not curtail the sovereign authority of Administrations or competent" ,>(>(II"  X4authorities.\ZC {Oy' { ԍId.,Section III, p.2. The GMPCSMoU Arrangements define the term "competent authority" as "Any  x! organization competent for regulatory issues addressed in these Arrangements." This term refers to a body such as the European Community's CEPT. See Section IV, p.2.\ Thus, GMPCS operators, manufacturers, and service providers remain subject to the laws and regulations in each country where service is being provided. Moreover, the Arrangements instruct operators that they may not operate their systems in any country that has not authorized the service. Various countries and regional bodies have recently begun promulgating specific regulations governing GMPCS service. In fact, in December 1998, the European Regulatory Commission (ERC) adopted a proposal concerning the free circulation,  Xv4use, and licensing of individual terminals across the European continent.WvC yO 'ԍEuropean Commission, ERC/DEC (98) SS. W South Africa has also released a series of proposed regulations governing the licensing of GMPCS services.  V14b. Commission Authority 18. The first provision in the Arrangements concerns type approval of equipment  X 4(currently referenced in our Rules as "equipment certification")U zC {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R. 2.907.U and marking of GMPCS terminals. The Arrangements define "type approval" as the "process through which the conformity of GMPCS terminals with regulatory technical requirements is assessed mainly to ensure that GMPCS terminals do not harm networks, GMPCS users, other users or other  X4equipment."` C {OM'ԍSee Arrangements, Section IV, p. 3.` This definition is consistent with the intent of the Commission's rules  Xy4governing equipment certification.ayC {O'ԍSee 47 C.F. R. Part 2., subpart J. a 19. The Commission's current rules do not require users or manufacturers to obtain equipment certifications for GMPCS terminals. Rather, we have issued mobile earth terminal authorizations through our earth station licensing process. Under that policy, embodied in Sections 25.115 and 25.136 of the Commission's rules, GMPCS service  X4providers are issued "blanket authorizations" that cover a specified number of user terminals.s0 C {O 'ԍSee, e.g., U.S. LEO Services, 11 FCC Rcd 20474 (1996).s End users then operate the terminal under authority derived from the blanket licensees, in accordance with Section 25.136 of the Commission's rules, which forbids end users from transmitting to a satellite without prior permission from the satellite licensee or from the service vendor authorized by it. The "blanket" authorizations specify general operating parameters for a specific number of terminals and specific requirements for the protection of"| ,>(>(II"  X4radiocommunication services, consistent with our rules.C {Oy' {q ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  1.1307, 25.135(b) and (c), 25.136(a) and (b), 25.202(a)(3), 25.202(a)(4), 25.202(d), 25.202(f), and 25.213(a)(1) and (b).  V4c. Scope of Proposal 20. While the GMPCSMoU encompasses all satellite systems, we seek comment on whether our certification proposal should encompass all varieties of earth terminals or be limited to only those that are likely to be transported across national borders. Therefore, we request comment on whether to apply the proposals in this Notice to GMPCS terminals associated with fixed services, such as Very Small Aperture Terminals ("VSATs"), or used in conjunction with geostationary satellite systems in the Fixed Satellite Service, that do not typically transit national borders to provide mobile service.  X 42. Certification of GMPCS Terminals  X 4a. GMPCS Terminal Certification and International Roaming 21. To promote the development of GMPCS service, we propose to develop a set of requirements by service and terminal type, which would enable manufacturers to obtain an authorization for GMPCS terminal equipment through the Commission's equipment certification process. Certification of terminals should be a major benefit to the global satellite industry, since equipment certification which requires labeling the equipment with a 4 to 14 character FCC identifier, is useful in assuring foreign authorities that other equipment, such as cellular handsets and computer modems, is safe and should be allowed to transit across borders without delay and be used in their respective territories. In contrast, a Commission "blanket" license by itself, because it does not result in the marking of the terminal equipment, may not necessarily facilitate transborder transport. Many GMPCS operators and terminal manufacturers have expressed interest in obtaining the FCC identifier. In fact, shortly after we adopted the interim certification process last spring, Motorola, Inc. applied to the Commission for certification of a voice terminal and a paging receiver to be  Xg4used in conjunction with the Iridium satellite system.g"C {O:'ԍSee Petition for Equipment Certification filed May, 12 1998. [File No. 31010/EQU 431] 22. Under the Arrangements, equipment certified by an Administration is eligible to receive the right to use the "GMPCSMoU ITU REGISTRY" mark if the certifying Administration, in conjunction with a letter from the system operator stating that the terminal is intended to be used with the particular system, notifies the ITU that the equipment has been certified in accordance with specific national requirements. Thus, once the FCC certification is completed and the terminal information is registered at the ITU, GMPCS operators and manufacturers have the right to place the global "GMPCSMoU ITU REGISTRY" mark on their terminals. The ITU mark assures Administrations, especially those that do not intend to"" ,>(>(II!" establish national certification procedures, that the equipment was certified by at least one country and duly registered by the ITU. The ITU mark will be of particular benefit to countries that do not intend to establish national certification procedures of their own. 23. Companies have already begun to take steps to obtain the ITU mark for placement on their terminals. After receiving certification for the Iridium terminals, Motorola, in accordance with the GMPCSMoU notification procedure, asked the Commission to notify the ITU that the terminals had been certified and to provide a list of the required specifications. After this information was registered at the ITU, the ITU authorized Iridium to place the ITU mark on Iridium terminals. Subsequently, additional terminals for the Iridium system have been typeapproved by the FCC and are undergoing the notification process at the ITU.  V 4b. Terminals Sold in the United States for Domestic Use  24. The current interim FCC certification process for GMPCS equipment is voluntary, and makes no specific distinctions between the requirements necessary for selling terminals in the United States and those required for use or transit. As the GMPCS industry develops, we anticipate a growing number of systems, both regional and global, will be serving the public using a wide variety of portable units designed and manufactured by both domestic and foreign entities. We also envision that terminal types will change over time as technology evolves. To ensure that these terminals do not cause interference to existing services and can be readily identified as such, we propose to treat GMPCS terminals similarly to other wireless devices. To this end, we propose to require GMPCS terminals to receive an equipment certification before they can be sold or leased, shipped or distributed for the  X4purpose of sale or lease in the United States.UC {O:'ԍSee 47 C.F.R. 2.803.U Specifically, GMPCS terminals function similarly to cellular telephone terminals, except that they communicate with a satellite, rather than a terrestrial cell site. Also, like other wireless devices, GMPCS terminals have the capability of causing harmful interference to other users of the radio spectrum, as well as the potential of exposing users to harmful levels of radiofrequency radiation. We therefore propose that all GMPCS terminals sold or leased, or imported for sale or lease in the United States and intended to be used with an authorized GMPCS service be required to obtain an FCC certification in conformance with the requirements proposed below and the procedures described in Part 2 of our rules. However, we propose to distinguish handheld or portable GMPCS terminals from other mobile terminals. We do not propose extending this requirement to mobile terminals permanently installed on ships, boats or planes, for example, and we request comment on this exemption. Because of the difficulty of recalling and retrofitting equipment already in commercial use, we also request comment on the possibility of "grandfathering" terminals already operating in conjunction with licensed GMPCS systems who have not yet obtained the current voluntary interim equipment certification by exempting them from this certification requirement. "h$ Z,>(>(II""Ԍ V4Ùc. Terminals Brought into the United States for Domestic Use  V4   X425. We anticipate that terminals to be used in conjunction with GMPCS systems authorized to provide service in the United States will be manufactured and sold worldwide. Consequently, we anticipate that terminals that have not been FCCcertified may be brought into the United States by individuals for domestic use even if not sold or leased here. We propose to permit these terminals to operate in the United States without further Commission approval, provided they bear an ITU mark and are operated in a manner that is consistent with the authorization granted to the licensed GMPCS service provider with which they are communicating. We propose this for several reasons. First, we intend to hold a U.S.licensed GMPCS service provider liable for all transmissions in the United States that emanate from its network. Therefore, we expect that any terminal brought into the United States for use will be operated only if there is a U.S.licensed service provider responsible for its operation. Thus, if a terminal does not meet our technical specifications, the satellite operator would not allow the terminal to access its system. In addition, the appearance of the ITU mark on a terminal,  X 4either in conjunction with an individual Administration's identifier or alone,  C yO ' { ԍ For example, we understand that GMPCS equipment certified in Europe would bear the "Communit) Europ)en" or "CE" mark on the terminal. would signify that the terminal was certified by at least one Administration or competent authority, and that the corresponding specifications were registered in the international ITU database. The ITU database is designed so that the standards or technical characteristics that were the basis for the certification will be readily available (in either a written or electronic format) for review and evaluation. This information will be essential for U.S.licensed GMPCS service providers to determine that the terminals will not cause harmful interference.  X426. To protect existing networks against interference, we propose to prohibit terminals not bearing the ITU mark from entering the United States. In addition, we encourage terminal manufacturers who do not apply for an FCC certification to secure an accompanying Administration or regional body mark, in order to allow us to access more easily the information the certifying country had submitted to the ITU concerning its equipment certification process. Once we review the information posted in the ITU database, we also propose to develop a list of GMPCS terminals originating from abroad that have been certified to standards consistent with those in our rules and have been approved by the operator for use with an authorized system in the United States. These terminals, though not FCCcertified, are thus listed as "approved for domestic use" in the United States. This list will enable Customs officials to recognize more easily terminals without an FCC identifier at various pointsofentry. Further, we propose to amend Part 2 of our rules to allow devices bearing the ITU mark to be exempted from the current import conditions governing personal  X 4telecommunications devices as specified in our rules.T! C {O%'ԍSee 47 C.F.R. 2.1204(a). T "" !,>(>(II!"Ԍ V4d. Terminals Brought into the United States for Transit Only  27. The global nature of GMPCS requires us to balance the potential harm which the use of GMPCS terminals could cause to existing services against the desire to allow foreign users entering the United States to transport and use authorized GMPCS terminals in the United States. There may also be regional or global systems licensed by foreign administrations that are not authorized by the Commission to provide GMPCS service in U.S. territory. We note that it is the responsibility of the GMPCS system operators and service providers not to provide service to any user in a territory where it has not been properly authorized. However, we do not wish to prohibit visitors from carrying these terminals into the United States without operating them, en route to a location where the service is authorized. To protect existing networks against any possible interference, we propose that all terminals carried into the United States as a personal effect for transit also be required to bear the ITU mark. Unmarked terminals would, therefore, be prohibited from entering the United States. Notwithstanding the fact that they may be inoperable, we believe that all GMPCS terminals entering the United States must be able to be traced to a specific set of certified technical standards provided by an administration in the event that a user does attempt to operate them. Should harmful interference occur, it will be necessary to trace the terminal to the ITU database and evaluate its technical specifications. Terminals bearing the ITU mark would be included in the ITU database and could therefore also be placed on the list provided to the U.S. Customs Service of GMPCS terminals "approved for transit" through the United States. We request comment on the practicality and enforceability of tracking, accessing, and disseminating this information from the international registry. We also request comment on the other practical considerations of this proposal related to the Customs process below.  X4  X43. The Relationship of Equipment Certification to Blanket Licensing of Terminal  X4Equipment  X4  X|428. The Communications Act of 1934 ("the Act"), as amended, requires the Commission to license transmitting facilities and to make reasonable technical regulations, consistent with the public interest, governing the interference potential of equipment that emits  X74radio frequency energy.M"7C yO'ԍ47 U.S.C.  302(a).M In order to issue a license, the Commission must ensure that prospective licensees satisfy our legal and financial requirements, as well as servicespecific technical requirements designed to prevent interference. Under our "blanket" license process for earth stations, we have eliminated the need to issue individual licenses for multiple, identical transmitters used in conjunction with an authorized mobile or fixed satellite service  X 4within the United States.z# XC {O$'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  25.115(d), 25.135, 25.136, and 25.213.z To date, we have issued blanket licenses to system operators and" #,>(>(II;"  X4service vendors for terminals operating with three GMPCS systems.$C {Oy' {u ԍU.S. Leo Services, Inc., supra; Orbital Communications Corp., 10 FCC Rcd 6572 (1995); American  {OC'Mobile Satellite Corp., 1995 WL 109123 (F.C.C.). We propose to continue to license GMPCS terminals in this manner for domestic service. 29. Apart from this licensing process, the Commission conducts an authorization program to certify that radio transmitters and other electronic devices, before they are sold for use in the United States, meet the standards necessary to avoid interference to radio services and demonstrate compliance with environmental radiation hazard limits. Recently, as part of  X_4its 1998 biennial review, the Commission undertook two streamlining measures that  simplified our equipment certification processes. The first deregulated the equipment certification requirements for certain types of equipment and provided for electronic filing of  X 4applications for equipment certification.?%\ $C {O ' {R ԍAmendment of Parts 2, 15, 18 and Other Parts of the Commission's Rules to Simplify and Streamline  {O' x the Equipment Authorization Process for Radio Frequency Equipment (Report and Order), 13 FCC Rcd 11415 (1998).? Second, the Commission adopted rules permitting private entities in the United States and designated entities in other countries to certify that equipment intended for use within the United States complies with Commission  X 4requirements.y& HC {O'ԍGMPCS Equipment Certification Order, n.21 supra.y These rules allow designated private entities to issue equipment approvals in essentially the same manner as the Commission.  X430. We noted in our 1998 GMPCS Equipment Certification Order that an interim equipment certification for GMPCS terminals does not, in itself, authorize the terminal to be used in the United States. Rather, we emphasized that GMPCS terminals may be operated only under a blanket license awarded to a service provider to provide mobile satellite  X64service in the United States.Q'6C {O'ԍId. at 76.Q This is similar to other earth station applications, where we require a space station to be authorized to provide service in the United States before we grant  X4the license for an earth station affiliated with that service.d(^l C {O%' { ԍSee Amendment of the Commission's Regulatory Policies to Allow NonU.S. Licensed Space Stations  {O' xH to Provide Domestic and International Satellite Service in the United States (Report and Order), 12 FCC Rcd 24094  {O '(1997) ("DISCO II"). d Therefore, only terminals authorized under a licensed space station and authorized service provider holding a blanket license for service in the United States under Part 25 of our rules would be considered for  X4equipment certification.k) C {O%'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  25.102(a), 25.11, and 25.136.k We propose to dismiss as premature all applications for certification of equipment affiliated with an unauthorized service. In the case of GMPCS service provided by nonU.S.licensed satellites, terminals could be submitted for Commission certification only"$),>(>(II9" after demonstrating that they will be operating under a blanket license issued by the  X4Commission in accordance with our rules governing foreign providers of satellite service.K*C {Ob'ԍDISCO II at 188.K "" 31. In proposing this new GMPCS terminals certification procedure, we do not intend, at this time, to merge our licensing and certification collection procedures. Nevertheless, we request comment on this issue and on ways in which these processes can be streamlined. For example, should we discontinue our review of earth station technical requirements in the context of the licensing process, deferring it to the equipment certification process? Or, should we instead continue to evaluate the terminals' conformance with the Commission's technical requirements in the licensing process, and simply award equipment certifications to all terminals falling under a particular blanket license? We note that the information currently filed in Form 731 by applicants requesting an equipment certification under Part 2 of our rules includes only the technical information currently required in the Commission's Form 312 (Schedule B) application for earth stations authorizations under a blanket license, including frequency range, power output, frequency tolerance, and emissions  X 4data.R+ ZC {O'ԍSee FCC Forms 731 and 312. R The legal and financial data required under our licensing procedure are not necessary for equipment certification. We request comment on the best way to streamline even further the licensing and certification process, including modifying our forms, in order to ensure that the data collected are sufficient for evaluating technical compliance with our specifications while avoiding any delay in issuing either a license or a subsequent equipment certification or imposing unnecessary burdens on applicants.  X4   X44. Additional Terminal Equipment Standards  X4 32. We propose to adopt certification requirements for terminals used in conjunction with GMPCS systems for which we have adopted service rules. As new GMPCS systems are licensed, we intend to add additional certification standards on a casebycase basis for terminals operating in conjunction with such licensed systems.  33. The Commission's interim GMPCS equipment certification procedure noted that the existing technical requirements found in Parts 1, 2 and 25 of our rules would form the basis for certification of GMPCS terminals. The Commission also adopted, as the sole additional interim certification requirement, outofband emission limits recently proposed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA") for terminals associated with Big LEO systems operating in the 16101626.5 MHz band. Proposals concerning permanent adoption of that particular standard for MSS terminals operating in the Lband, are discussed in detail below. 34. As part of our final implementation of a GMPCS terminals certification""+,>(>(II!" process, we request comment on whether our current requirements are adequate to prevent harmful interference and radiation hazards or are too severe. We note that there are other technical standards that do not now apply to GMPCS terminals but may potentially be applied to GMPCS systems by international bodies such as the ITU and European Telecommunication Standards Institute ("ETSI"). We request comment on whether there are other standards that all types of terminals should be required to meet in the future in order to facilitate  Xv4international roaming.   X_4  XH4   5. Access to Traffic Data 35. The GMPCS MoU includes a provision concerning whether and to what extent caller traffic data associated with GMPCS terminals can be released to national authorities upon request. The final Arrangements include a set of guidelines with general requirements for the release of traffic data to administrations and competent authorities, consistent with national regulations and specific bilateral agreements between regulators and  X 4system operators.U, C yO 'ԍArrangements, Section VI (C), p. 6. U The Commission's rules provide for submission of traffic data and other reporting requirements based on the type of service provided. 36. We recognize the potentially conflicting concerns regarding national security and the need to protect the sensitive and proprietary nature of traffic data. Balancing these concerns, however, is best left to specific regulation in this area through individual service agreements developed between regulators and GMPCS companies. We do not propose to require any specific traffic data filings to the Commission from GMPCS operators or service providers.  X46. Recommendations on Customs  V4  X437. The rapid globalization of the information services and telecommunication market has encouraged countries to eliminate or reduce customs duties and national tariffs on information technology and telecommunications products and to begin recognizing national equipment type approval processes on a bilateral or regional basis. To date, the Commission has participated in two initiatives in these areas. First, the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) was negotiated in 1996 as part of the World Trade Organization Ministerial meeting. It was designed to eliminate tariffs on information and communication technology products by the year 2000. It was signed by 14 countries, including the United States, representing 85  X4percent of the world information technology trade.b-XC yO#'ԍSee USTR press release 9696; December 13, 1996. b 38. Second, the Commission participated in the development of several bilateral and regional Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRA) for product approvals. The United""-,>(>(II!" States/European Community MRA was signed on May 18, 1998, and the Commission adopted  X4rules to implement the agreement in December 1998..C {Ob'ԍSee 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review (Report and Order), FCC 98338 (December 23, 1997). Under the US/EC MRA and our rules, products can be tested and certified in the United States for conformance with EC member states' technical requirements. Certified products may be shipped directly to Europe without any further testing or certification. In return, the MRA obligates the United States to permit parties in Europe to test and authorize equipment based on the United States technical requirements. 39. Commission staff and representatives of the United States telecommunications industry have also reached an MRA with the AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), a trade cooperative of twentyone economies along the Pacific Rim. The text of the model APEC Telecom MRA was endorsed at the APEC Ministerial Meeting on June 5, 1998. Unlike the US/EC MRA, the APEC MRA is a voluntary model agreement. To enact the agreement, each APEC member economy must adopt the agreement with each of its APEC trade partners through a bilateral exchange of letters. The MRA is expected to take effect on July 1, 1999, although individual parties may agree to apply it bilaterally before that date. We anticipate that the United States may develop or participate in additional mutual recognition agreements that involve other regions of the world. For example, the Interamerican Telecommunications Committee (CITEL) of the Organization of American States is considering developing an MRA for the Americas region. 40. The GMPCS MoU is a tool with which the Commission can eliminate obstacles to the availability and provision of GMPCS services. The Arrangements explicitly recognize that telecommunications regulators do not have authority over any aspect of  X4national customs requirements. However, through this Notice, we are proposing three mechanisms to facilitate the circulation of GMPCs terminals and to promote the proper use of the ITU registry and recognition of the global GMPCSMoU. 41. First, we propose to inform the United States Customs Service about the new "GMPCSMoU ITU REGISTRY" mark and the registration process at the ITU and seek agency comment on how best to disseminate this information to agents and enforce the proposed rules at points of entry. Second, we propose requiring GMPCS terminals certified for sale and use in the United States to comply with the current procedures in Part 2 governing importation of devices capable of causing harmful interference, including following the procedures mandated by the U.S. Customs Service for electronic filing of Form 740 which is required for importation of equipment. Third, we propose developing a list of "approved" GMPCS terminals (i.e., those certified by the Commission and/or other Administrations and, subsequently, registered with the ITU and used in conjunction with an authorized service) that will be posted to a shared CustomsCommission database on a realtime basis. This will help agents readily identify and screen terminals carried into the United States as a personal effect, either for temporary use or transit, that are certified or typeapproved by other administrations"j$Z.,>(>(II"" and do not pose a threat of harmful interference to existing networks or emit hazardous environmental radiation. We request comment on what specific procedures should be adopted to fulfill these Commission objectives most efficiently.  X47. Enforcement Matters 42. First, Title V of the Act, as amended, delegates broad powers to the  X_4Commission for enforcement of its rules.Q/_C {O'ԍ47 U.S.C.  501 et seq.Q This statutory authority covers violations of rules related to Section 301 and 302 of the Act concerning devices which interfere with radio  X14reception.H01ZC yO< 'ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  510.H This would include instances when terminals imported into the United States for transport only are then used and cause interference. Therefore, all our proposed GMPCS certification requirements will be enforced in the same manner as other telecommunication equipment certified under Part 2. Further, we intend to hold the licensed GMPCS service provider accountable for any reported and proven infractions of all our proposed technical and operational terminal requirements. In instances where terminals are not operating in compliance with our rules and no domestic entity is authorized to provide service, the equipment will be confiscated as specified under Section 510 of the Act.  Xy4 43. We note that there is a pending proceeding that proposes to amend Part 2 of the Commission's rules which requires all telecommunications equipment brought into the United States to be certified. The rules currently exempt from certification any equipment imported solely for export and not offered for the purpose of sale and use in the United  X4States.1C {O' { ԍSee Amendment of Part 2, Subpart K of the Commission's Rules regarding the Importation of radio  {Ok'frequency devices Capable of Causing Harmful Interference, 1998 WL 289068 (F.C.C.) at C.6. In its Notice, the Commission proposed to amend Section 2.1204 to clarify the language regarding importation for export of a radio frequency device to make the rule more easily enforceable and to address concerns raised by the U.S. Customs Service. Several commenters filing in that proceeding are current or future GMPCS systems or service providers. They have expressed concern that deleting this "solely for export" exemption may be too broad an enforcement remedy and could adversely affect certain equipment manufacturers. Specifically, they contend that deleting the exemption will pose substantial problems for importers of dualmode terminals (e.g., foreignstandard [GSM] terrestrial wireless combined with GMPCS handsets) from foreign manufacturers who wish to resell them to affiliates or distributors for sale or rent to subscribers intending to use terminals abroad. We request comment on how our proposed GMPCS rules should also address the unique case of dualmode cellular/GMPCS terminals where the terrestrial component cannot be certified to a standard common to the United States.  X 4" F1,>(>(II"Ԍ X4B. Technical Requirements for GMPCS Terminals:   X41. Limits on OutofBand Emissions to Protect Aeronautical Satellite  V4Radionavigation   X444. We further propose a change in our technical rules to adopt additional limits  Xx4on outofband emissions from MSS terminals. Before the GMPCSMoU was finalized, the Commission began had before it a proposal from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA") of the U.S. Department of Commerce to establish limits  X34on outofband emissions2 3C yO ' { ԍRadio transmitters are typically designed to concentrate emissions within a certain range of frequencies.  x A transmitter cannot confine all of its emissions precisely within the band in which it generates useable signals,  x; however. Signals generated in frequencies outside of a licensed transmitter's authorized operating band are referred  yO 'to as "outofband emissions."#x6X@`7 2X@# from certain types of mobile terminals used for telecommunication via satellite. The NTIA proposal, developed in consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration, is designed to prevent interference with aircraft reception of satellite radionavigation signals in the 15591605 MHz band. We propose to adopt timephased outofband emissions limits for MSS terminals transmitting on assigned frequencies in the band 16101660.5 MHz, in accordance with the NTIA proposal. 45. The aviation industry is increasingly relying on satellitebased radionavigation, which offers important potential advantages over radionavigation by means of terrestrial facilities. It is feasible for aircraft guided by satellite radionavigation to fly direct routes not dictated by the location of ground radionavigation beacons, reducing flight time and fuel consumption. Satellite radionavigation has generally been found to be more accurate than groundbased radionavigation, moreover, allowing more aircraft to be routed through a given amount of airspace without increased risk of collision. Consequently, more flights can be assigned to the mostfavorable routes. Since satellite navigation systems afford global coverage, prospects are bright for evolution of a single, integrated Global Navigation Satellite System ("GNSS") with consequent simplification of aircraft navigational equipment. 46. The International Civil Aviation Organization ("ICAO") has designated two systems as components of the GNSS: the NAVSTAR Global Positioning System ("GPS") and  Xg4GLONASS.3gC yO 'ԍGLONASS is an acronym extracted from the phrase "global navigation satellite system". The GPS is a satellite radionavigation system employing 24 nongeostationary satellites controlled from fixed earth stations operated by the U.S. government. GPS satellites transmit signals of two kinds centered on a 1575.42 MHz carrier: a Coarse Acquisition (C/A) signal 2 MHz wide for general civilian use and a Precisioncode signal 20 MHz wide for military and authorized civilian use. The Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") has approved GPS for use as a primary means of navigation over some areas of the ocean and as a supplemental aid to navigation in overland en route flight and for nonprecision approach to landing. GLONASS is a global satellite navigation system maintained by the Russian" @3,>(>(IIb" Ministry of Defense that is similar to GPS. It currently transmits Standard Accuracy signals  X4on frequencies between 1602 and 1616 MHz.4C yOb' { ԍGLONASS also transmits precisioncode signals in a wider band. The U.S. government has not agreed to protect reception of precisioncode GLONASS in U.S. territory. In 1996, the ICAO Council accepted an offer from the Russian Federation to provide GLONASS positioning to civilian aircraft as a component of the proposed GNSS, and an ICAO panel is developing standards for hybrid GNSS receivers that would process signals from both GPS and GLONASS satellites. Although it has not yet approved GLONASS for aeronautical radionavigation in the United States, the FAA is planning a nextgeneration U.S. system based on the ICAO concept of an integrated GPS/GLONASS GNSS.  X14a. Early Developments  X 447. When it amended the International Table of Allocations to add allocations for MSS in the 16101626.5 MHz band, WRC92 adopted a requirement that MSS terminals operating in that band were not to cause harmful interference to, or claim protection from, satellite radionavigation systems operating in the band pursuant to international coordination  X 4under ITU Article 14.5 C yOx'ԍThe restrictions were incorporated in RR 731E (now RR S5.364).#x6X@`7 2X@#і Later in 1992, the Commission proposed a corresponding domestic MSS allocation and chartered a negotiated rulemaking committee to recommend pertinent  Xy4technical rules.6|yC {O' { ԍAmendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate the 16101626.5 MHz and the  {O' xk 2483.52500 MHz Bands for Use by the MobileSatellite Service (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Tentative  xk Decision), 7 FCC Rcd 6414 (1992). The Commission adopted the proposed allocation in January 1994. 9 FCC Rcd  xk 536. The Committee was comprised of representatives from the FAA, the National Academy of Sciences, NASA,  x the U.S. Army, Comsat, the Wireless Cable Association International, Inc., Aeronautical Radio, Inc., Rockwell  x| International Corporation, and seven MSS license applicants: AMSC, CELSAT, Motorola, Constellation, TRW, Loral  yO'Qualcom, and Ellipsat.#x6X@`7 2X@#т A salient problem to be addressed was the need to accommodate the GLONASS system, which was already operating in the 16101616 MHz band pursuant to Article 14 coordination. The Committee recommended that the Commission initiate discussions with the Russian administration as to the possibility of reconfiguring GLONASS  X4for operation in a lower frequency range.7 C {O'ԍReport of the MSS Above 1 GHz Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (April 6, 1993) at 43.#x6X@`7 2X@#Ѳ  X448. In October 1994, the Commission issued a Report and Order establishing  X4rules for the "Big LEO" service, i.e., voiceanddata MSS provided via nongeostationary satellites accessed by mobile terminals transmitting in segments of the 16101626.5 MHz  X4band.*8 C {O%' {/ ԍAmendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to a Mobile Satellite  {O&'Service in the 16101626.5/2483.52500 MHz Frequency Bands, 9 FCC Rcd 5936 ("Big LEO Report and Order").* The rules included outofband emissions limits to protect reception of GPS C/A"8,>(>(II"  X4signals.I9C yOy'ԍ47 C.F.R. 25.213(b).I Although U.S. consultations with Russian officials indicated a likelihood that GLONASS would shift to frequencies below 1606 MHz by the year 2005, the Commission  X4acknowledged that emissions from Big LEO terminals could potentially interfere with GLONASS reception below 1610 MHz in the interim. It refrained from adopting specific  X4outofband limits to protect GLONASS, however, leaving the issue to be resolved after further study. 49. In November 1994, representatives of the FCC, the FAA, and the NTIA signed a Memorandum of Understanding ("1994 MoU") concerning domestic implementation of a GPS/GLONASS GNSS. The 1994 MOU declared that the Commission would consider adopting any pertinent outofband emissions limits for MSS terminals recommended by the  X 4RTCA,;:X XC yO ' {+ ԍRTCA, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation that functions as a Federal Advisory Committee and develops  x consensusbased recommendations on aviation issues. Its recommendations are often used as the basis for FAA Technical Standard Orders.; and that licenses for MSS terminals operating in bands near the GPS and GLONASS bands issued prior to a U.S. decision to implement GLONASS domestically would indicate that the licensees would be bound by any such limits subsequently incorporated in the Commission's rules. The MOU pertained to all MSS terminals transmitting on assigned frequencies between 1610 and 1660.5 MHz. It therefore identified American Mobile Satellite Corporation ("AMSC") and Comsat/Inmarsat, as well as the Big LEO applicants, as "parties of interest." AMSC, the licensee of an MSS system then under construction, had filed a "blanket" license application for 200,000 mobile terminals that would transmit in the band 1646.51660 MHz. Comsat, as the U.S. Signatory to the International Maritime Satellite  X44Organization ("Inmarsat"),;4xC yO]' { ԍInmarsat is an international treatybased organization created to establish an international maritime  x satellite system to provide distress, safety, public correspondence, radiodetermination, and shipmanagement  xQ communications. The International Maritime Satellite Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C.  751757, designates  x* Comsat as the sole U.S. operating entity in Inmarsat and as the owner and operator of the U.S. share of Inmarsat  yO}'space segment and associated facilities.#x6X@`7 2X@#ѕ provides maritime communications service in U.S. waters via Inmarsat satellites for customers equipped with shipboard terminals transmitting on frequencies in the 1626.51645.5 MHz maritime MSS band. Comsat has generally not been permitted to provide domestic landmobile MSS in the United States but could obtain  X4authority to do so pursuant to policies recently adopted in the "DISCO II" order .<( C {O!' { ԍSee Amendment of the Commission's Regulatory Policies to Allow NonU.S. Licensed Space Stations  {O{"' x to Provide Domestic and International Service in the United States, 12 FCC Rcd 24094 (1997), and Comsat  {OE#' xk Corporation,13 FCC Rcd 319 (1998), application for review pending. The Commission has occasionally granted  xD temporary authority for domestic use of Comsat MSS terminals on land in emergencies, for manufacturer testing, and in remote areas where no other adequate means of communication is available.   X450. In January 1997, Special Committee 159, the RTCA committee that had been"<,>(>(II" commissioned pursuant to the 1994 MOU to study the potential for harmful interference with  X4GNSS operation, issued its final report.=C yOb' {+ ԍ"Assessment of Radio Frequency Interference Relevant to the GNSS," Document No. RTCA/DO235 (January 27, 1997). The aviation and MSS participants agreed that a wideband limit of 70 dBW/MHz and a narrowband limit of 80 dBW would suffice to protect aircraft reception of GPS, and the MSS participants conceded that it was feasible for them to meet those limits in the precisioncode GPS band. No consensus was reached regarding limits for GLONASS protection, however. The aviation contingent maintained that a 70 dBW/MHz wideband limit and a 80 dBW narrowband limit were necessary. The MSS contingent asserted that it was economically infeasible for them to suppress emissions in the GLONASS band to that extent and argued that limits of 54 dBW/MHz for wideband  X14emissions and 64 dBW for narrowband emissions would be adequate.O> 1 C yO ' {_ ԍThe reason for the stiffer opposition to application of the 70/80 standard in the GLONASS operating  x band is obvious. It would be more difficult for MSS terminals transmitting on assigned frequencies between 1610  x and 1660.5 MHz to suppress emissions to that extent in the 15971605 MHz GLONASS band than to suppress them  yOZ'to the same level in the GPS band, which is separated by a wider margin from the terminals' operating bands.#x6X@`7 2X@#O Due to the lack of consensus, SC159 did not issue a recommendation for outofband emissions limits to protect GLONASS.  X 4b. Recent Developments 51. In the past year, several domestic and international agencies namely, the NTIA, the ITUR, and ETSI recommended or adopted specific limits on outofband emissions from MSS terminals for protection of GNSS, and we adopted an interim standard for GMPCS terminal certification that was consistent with those recommendations. We will briefly recapitulate those developments.  V4 i. NTIA Petition for Rulemaking  X452. Following the release of the RTCA's inconclusive report, interested private parties and officials at the FCC, the NTIA, and the FAA conducted informal discussions concerning emissions limits for protection of GNSS in the United States. The discussions culminated in the filing of the September 1997 rulemaking proposal at issue here, which was  X4placed on public notice with an invitation for comments.T?C yOL!'ԍReport No. 2227 (Sept. 23, 1997). T As indicated in an accompanying introductory statement, the proposal reflects a compromise worked out by the FAA and the owners of the Globalstar Big LEO system: the outofband emission standard that the aviation members of RTCA SC159 had demanded would ultimately be imposed for protection of aircraft reception of GLONASS between 1597 and 1605 MHz, but there would be an initial grace period during which more lenient limits would apply for emissions in that band, and no specific limits were proposed for protection of GLONASS reception on frequencies above" ?,>(>(II" 1605 MHz. 53. For protection of GPS reception, the NTIA recommends requiring all MSS terminals transmitting on frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1660.5 MHz to conform to two restrictions: a wideband limit of 70 dBW/MHz, averaged over 20 milliseconds, on the e.i.r.p.  X4densityk@ZC {O' {z ԍE.i.r.p., i.e., equivalent isotropically radiated power, is a function of the power supplied to a  x transmitting antenna and the antenna gain in a given direction relative to that of an isotropic antenna. E.i.r.p. density is the e.i.r.p. developed across a specified bandwidth.k of outofband emissions in the 15591580.42 MHz frequency range and a narrowband limit of 80 dBW/700 Hz, also averaged over 20 ms, on emissions in the 15591585.42 MHz range. Those proposed requirements are identical to the requirements advocated by the aviation members of SC159 for GPS protection. 54. The NTIA's recommended scheme for protection of aircraft reception of GLONASS is more complex, as it is timephased to lighten the initial burden of compliance.  X 4There are three main requirements. First, Big LEO mobile terminals (i.e., MSS terminals  X 4transmitting on assigned frequencies in the 16101626.5 MHz band) placed in service prior to January 1, 2002 must, in addition to meeting the requirements described in the preceding paragraph, immediately meet an interim 64 dBW/MHz wideband limit on the e.i.r.p. density of outofband emissions in the 1580.421605 MHz range and a 74 dBW/700 Hz narrowband limit on e.i.r.p. density in the 1585.421605 MHz range. 55. Second, all MSS terminals licensed for operation on frequencies between  X641610 and 1660.5 MHz commissioned after January 1, 2002 must be built to meet limits of 70 dBW/MHz and 80 dBW/700 Hz throughout the 15591605 MHz band without relying on software restriction of operating frequencies. Third, MSS terminals commissioned before January 1, 2002 must be deactivated as of January 1, 2005 unless they are altered by then, as necessary, to conform to the 70/80 limits throughout the 15591605 MHz band. These requirements are graphically represented in the following tables. "@,>(>(IIv"    Proposed Limits on Emissions in the 1580.421605 MHz Range Y ddx !ddx Y    y  TERMINALSLy prior to 1/1/02Ly 1/1/0212/31/04Ly 1/1/05 Z  y<  Big LEO: in service before 1/1/02< ܩ64 dBW/MHz 74 dBW/700Hz*< ܩ64 dBW/MHz 74 dbW/700Hz*< ܩ70 dBW/MHz 80 dBW/700HzZ Z L Big LEO: put in service after 1/1/02 < y%1N/A < ܩ70 dBW/MHz 80 dBW/700Hz < ܩ70 dBW/MHz 80 dBW/700HzZ C  <  AMSC&Comsat: in service before 1/1/02C  c%0noneC  noneC  ܩ70 dBW/MHz 80 dBW/700HzC s    @  AMSC&Comsat: put in service after 1/1/02@ y%1N/A@ ܩ70 dBW/MHz 80 dBW/700Hz@ ܩ70 dBW/MHz 80 dBW/700Hzs  C @ *Applies above 1585.42 MHz. Proposed Limits on Emissions in the 15591580.42 MHz Range T !ddx AddxC<< T s z C  V  Big LEO (regardless when placed in service)V ܩ70 dBW/MHz 80 dBW/700Hz*z Z C V<  AMSC (regardless when placed in service)< ܩ70 dBW/MHz 80 dBW/700Hz*Z   <c  Comsat (regardless when placed in service)c ܩ70 dBW/MHz 80 dBW/700Hz* c *Applies up to 1585.42 MHz. "&@,>(>(II$"Ԍ56. The NTIA also recommends that we address any issues concerning potential interference with reception of GLONASS signals in U.S territory on frequencies above 1605 MHz on a casebycase basis.  X4 ii. ITUR Recommendations  Xx457. Uniformity among national technical standards for terminals used with global  Xa4satellite systems is clearly desirable. The World Telecommunication Policy Forum on GMPCS issues therefore called upon the ITU to study technical requirements for GMPCS terminals, with a view to facilitating type approval and mutual recognition arrangements. In November 1997, the ITU Radiocommunication Assembly ("ITUR") adopted a series of recommendations for licensing administrations concerning regulatory limits on outofband emissions from MSS terminals licensed for transmission to nongeostationary satellites in  X 4frequency bands between 1 and 3 GHz.A A {OP' {' ԍRecommendation ITUR M.1343, Essential Technical Requirements of Mobile Earth Stations for  {O'Global NonGeostationary MobileSatellite Service Systems in the Bands 13 GHz. The ITUR recommendations are essentially consistent with the NTIA's, but do not include a narrowband specification or an interim standard for suppression in the GLONASS band and do not address CDMA emissions in the GLONASS band. 58. More specifically, for nongeostationarysystem MSS terminals transmitting  XM4in the TDMA modeBM$A {O"' { ԍTDMA, i.e., timedivision multiple access,is a transmission technique involving use of the same frequency band for uplinks and downlinks in alternating time slots. on assigned frequencies between 1 GHz and 3 GHz, the ITUR recommends adoption of a 70 dBW/MHz limit on emissions anywhere in the 15591605 MHz range and a scaled limit linearly interpolated to 10dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz for emissions in the 16051610 MHz segment. For nongeostationarysystem MSS terminals  X4transmitting in the CDMA mode}CZ~A {O ' { ԍCDMA, i.e., codedivision multiple access,is a digital transmission technique in which the signal  x occupies a band width much larger than needed to contain the information carried. Because the signal is spread over a wide bandwidth, the power is dispersed and interference potential is reduced.} on assigned frequencies between 1 GHz and 3 GHz, the ITUR recommends adoption of a 70 dBW/MHz limit, again, on outofband emissions between 1559 and 1580.42 MHz but has not yet issued a firm recommendation for a limit on emissions between 1580.42 and 1610 MHz. It guarantees, however, that the final recommended limit on emissions in the 15801605 MHz band from CDMA terminals would  X4be no more strict than 70 dBW/MHz.  XR4  iii. ETSI Standard 59. ETSI and the European Commission on Post and Telecommunications ("CEPT") recently adopted a set of standards, including outofband emissions limits, for MSS"C,>(>(II"  X4terminals transmitting on frequencies in the 16101626.5 MHz band.DA yOy'ԍEuropean Testing and Standards Institute TBR041 and TBR042.#x6X@`7 2X@#ѕ The ETSI limits on emissions in the 15591610 MHz radionavigation band are the same as those recommended by the ITUR for TDMA terminals, but the ETSI limits apply to both TDMA and CDMA terminals without distinction.  X4 iv. Interim Standard  Xa4 60. The most recent pertinent development is our adoption, in December 1998, of  XJ4an interim equipment certification standard for MSS terminals.E@JXA yOS ' { ԍThere are several pertinent existing regulations concerning outofband emissions. We have already  x* mentioned the limits in Subsection 25.213(b) on emissions in the GPS C/A band. The wideband limit specified in  xQ 25.213(b) for protection of the GPS C/A band is the same one the NTIA is currently advocating for application to  x terminals placed in service after January 1, 2002 for protection of the entire GNSS band. There is a more x. comprehensive set of restrictions on outofband emissions by satelliteservice transmitters in Section 25.202(f), but  x! they are more lenient than the NTIArecommended limits. There is also a general requirement in Subsection 2.102(f)  x that transmission frequencies shall be separated from the limits of an allocated spectrum band insofar as necessary to avoid causing harmful interference to primary services in immediately adjoining bands. Although we did not wish to prejudge the final outofband emissions standard, we assumed that the final standard would  X 4not be stricter than the 70/80 standardF ` A {O-' { ԍI.e., e.i.r.p. density limits of 70 dBW/MHz and 80 dBW/700 Hz on outofband emissions in the  {O'15591605 MHz band. See detailed description in  41, supra. recommended by the NTIA. This assumption was based on the fact that the 70/80 standard had been deemed acceptable by the FAA, was consistent with the ITUR recommendations, and had been endorsed by the aviation members  X 4of the RTCA study group.jG A {OF'ԍDocument No. RTCA/DO235, supra, Appendix F at F2.j We, therefore, decided that to qualify for optional interim certification, an MSS terminal must meet the 70/80 limits, in addition to other pertinent  X 4technical requirements in our rules.{H N A {O'ԍFCC 98338, supra, at 41.#x6X@`7 2X@#{ We indicated, however, that terminals voluntarily certified pursuant to the interim standard would be subject to whatever permanent limits are eventually adopted, and we did not guarantee that equipment meeting the interim standard will also meet the final standard.  X84c. Commission Proposal  X!4  X 4 61. We propose to adopt rules essentially in accordance with the NTIA's recommendations. The NTIA's proposal is consistent with the pertinent RTCA and ITUR recommendations and embodies a compromise that offers protection for planned GNSS operations to an extent deemed necessary by the Federal agencies responsible for domestic implementation of the GNSS while affording affected MSS licensees several years' lead time"H,>(>(II5" in which to achieve full compliance. On the whole, we think it strikes a reasonable balance between conflicting public interests in fostering improvement in aeronautical radionavigation and promoting GMPCS development. 62. Thus, we propose to adopt and seek comment on the following requirements. MSS terminals licensed to transmit on frequencies between 1610 and 1660.5 MHz that are placed in service on or after January 1, 2002 must suppress the e.i.r.p. density of wideband emissions to 70 dBW/MHz or less in the band 15591605 MHz and suppress the e.i.r.p. of  XH4discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth to 80 dBW in the same band.IHA yO 'ԍWe propose to require that all measurements are to be averaged over a 20 millisecond interval. As of  X14January 1, 2005, those limits on emissions in the 15591605 MHz band, i.e., 70 dBW/MHz and 80 dBW, will also apply to MSS terminals transmitting on frequencies between 1610 and  X 41660.5 MHz placed in service before 2002. In the interim prior to January 1, 2005, the terminals placed in service before January 1, 2002 must meet the 70 dBW/MHz limit on emissions in the band 15591580.42 MHz and must meet the 80 dBW narrowband limit on  X 4emissions in the band 15591585.42 MHz. Big LEO terminals (i.e., MSS terminals transmitting on assigned frequencies in the band 16101626.5 MHz) placed in service before 2002 must, in addition, meet an interim limit of 64 dBW/MHz on wideband emissions in the band 1580.421605 MHz and an interim limit of 74 dBW on narrowband emissions in the  Xh4band 1585.421605 MHz. Aside from a minor difference in the narrowband specifications,JhXA {Oq'ԍThe variance in the narrowband specification is discussed in 78, infra. these proposed requirements are identical to those recommended by the NTIA, as described in Paragraphs 39 and 40, above. 63. In the following paragraphs we discuss issues raised in the comments on the NTIA's rulemaking petition on which we request further comment.  X4  i. Protection for GNSS Reception in Frequencies Below 1597 MHz 64. Adoption of an immediatelyeffective wideband limit of 70 dBW/MHz on the spectral power density of outofband emissions between 1559 and 1580.42 MHz, as the NTIA recommends and as we are proposing, would be consistent with the ITUR and ETSI standards. As we have noted, moreover, Section 25.213(b) of the Commission's rules already  X?4prescribes a 70 dBW/MHz limit for suppression of emissions in the core GPS band, i.e., 1574.3971576.443 MHz. Constellation Communications, Inc., a Big LEO licensee, raises an objection, however, based on its understanding of the history of Section 25.213(b). It maintains that rule was adopted on the basis of a negotiated compromise: the MSS participants in the Big LEO negotiated rulemaking agreed to support a recommendation for a 70 dBW/MHz limit if the protected spectrum were limited to a twomegahertz band centered on 1575 MHz, well away from the Big LEO mobileuplink band at 16101626.5 MHz. Constellation argues that the "negotiated" GPS protection band should not be expanded""J,>(>(II!" upwards from 1576.443 to 1580.42 MHz without a clear and compelling justification and points out that the NTIA has given no reason for doing so. 65. Constellation has cited no evidence that there was any general understanding that 70 dBW/MHz protection would never extend above 1576 MHz. The premise is belied by the fact that the 1994 MOU, which issued only a month after the adoption of 25.213(b), stipulated that the rule's wideband limit "should be thoroughly reviewed ... and a replacement value recommended" by the RTCA and that MSS terminal licenses should include conditions making them subject to future outofband emissions standards to protect GPS. Furthermore, the MSS contingent of RTCA Special Committee 159 unanimously proposed in 1997 that the  X 425.213(b) limits be extended to precisely the same extent that we are proposing now, i.e., that  X 4the wideband limit should extend up to 1580.42 MHz and the narrowband limit should extend  X 4up to 1585.42 MHz.|K A yOg 'ԍRTCA/DO235, Appendix E, Table E43.#x6X@`7 2X@#| 66. We predicate our proposal to expand the protected GPS band on the NTIA's recommendation and on rationale in the report of the aviation contingent of Special Committee 159, which included representatives from the FAA. The report states that plans  X{4for the GNSS contemplate GPS operation in a twentyĩmegahertz band centered on 1575 MHz, GLONASS operation in the 15971605 MHz segment, and eventual use of the remaining  XO4portions of the spectrum between 1559 and 1605 MHz for augmentations that would supplement GPS and GLONASS. "It is therefore essential," the report asserts, "to provide protection from Radio Frequency Interference throughout this band to preserve it for GNSS  X 4augmentation and for [other] future developments in aeronautical radionavigation."xL XA yO'ԍRTCA DO235, Appendix F at p.15.#x6X@`7 2X@#x We assume that this largely coincides with the petitioner's view of the matter. 67. It seems unlikely, moreover, that any expansion of 70 dBW/MHz protection  X4in the portion of the aeronautical radionavigation band below 1597 MHz would prejudicially affect MSS operation on assigned frequencies between 1610 and 1660.5 MHz, if, as we propose, MSS terminals with assigned frequencies in that range are required to suppress emissions to that level in the 15971605 MHz segment for protection of GLONASS. Hence we see no reason to withhold protection from any portion of the aeronautical radionavigation band below 1597 MHz that will be used for satellite aeronautical radionavigation in U.S. airspace in the foreseeable future.  X4  ii. Interim Limits on Emissions Above 1597 MHz 68. MCHI, another Big LEO licensee, contends that the NTIA's recommendation for imposing interim limits on emissions in the 1580.421605 MHz band from Big LEO terminals commissioned before January 1, 2002 is inconsistent with a determination that the""L,>(>(II!"  X4Commission made in 1996 when ruling on petitions for reconsideration of the Big LEO  X4Report and Order.MA {Od'ԍ11 FCC Rcd 12861, supra, at  1214.#x6X@`7 2X@#щ In the petitions for reconsideration, some Big LEO licensees had objected to the Commission's plan to adjust the boundary between the Big LEO CDMA and TDMA subbands in the event that domestic use of GLONASS for precision approach were to commence before the anticipated downward shift of the GLONASS operating band to frequencies below 1605 MHz, scheduled to occur by January 1, 2005. The Commission  Xz4surmised in the reconsideration order that GLONASS would not be implemented in the United States before the shift occurred and consequently there would be no need to protect GLONASS on an interim basis and no occasion to implement an interim bandsegmentation plan. 69. MCHI maintains that those advocating interim emission limits must identify persuasive reasons for reversing the Commission's conclusion that there will be no need to protect GLONASS in the U.S. prior to January 1, 2005. In contrast, two other Big LEO licensees, L/Q and Motorola, and AirTouch Satellite Services, which has applied for a blanket license for mobile terminals for L/Q's Big LEO system, concur in the recommendation for interim restrictions. 70. We are proposing to adopt the recommended interim limits on emissions in frequencies above 1580.42 MHz, because the NTIA and the FAA, which has primary responsibility for fostering domestic development of the GNSS, have urged us to do so and the recommendation is supported by the principals of two of the four licensed Big LEO systems. Moreover, no one has argued that the proposed 64/74 requirement, which is more lenient than the interim standard proposed by the aviation members of Special Committee  X4159,'NZA yO' { ԍThe aviation members recommended requiring suppression of outofband emissions to the 70/80  yO'level from 1597 to 1610 MHz in the interim period 19982005. RTCA/DO235 at F3.#x6X@`7 2X@#' would impede MSS development. We urge the proponents to elucidate the perceived need for interim restrictions (including a pre2005 cutoff for commissioning terminals that do not meet the 70/80 limits in GNSS frequencies above 1580.42 MHz) in comments filed in response to this Notice. We also invite comment as to whether the interim limits should apply to MSS terminals transmitting on frequencies in the 1626.51660.5 MHz range, as well as to Big LEO terminals.  X;4  iii. The Final Compliance Deadline 71. AMSC fears that it would incur heavy costs if, as the NTIA recommends and we are proposing, terminals put in service before 2002 that do not meet 70/80 limits on emissions between 1580.42 MHz and 1605 MHz must be retired from service as of January 1, 2005. AMSC says that some of its existing firstgeneration terminals might not meet those  X!4limits in the 15971605 MHz GLONASS band and maintains that it is not feasible to retrofit existing units with filters in order to achieve compliance with those limits in that band. ""N,>(>(II!" AMSC estimates that it might have to spend as much as $80 million to replace nonconforming units unless the compliance deadline is moved back. 72. AMSC contends that the deadline for meeting 70/80 limits in the GLONASS band should be no earlier than 2010. It argues that there is little likelihood that GLONASS will be used in the United States before 2010 for aeronautical navigation during precision approaches, because the steps that must be taken in order to integrate GLONASS into a domestic GNSS Congressional appropriation, development of operational performance standards by the FAA, design, manufacture, equipment certification, and installation of avionic equipment, crew training, and endtoend FAA certification for use in precision approach will take more than a decade. 73. We invite comment as to when use of GLONASS for navigation during precision approach is likely to commence in this country, considering, among other things, the likelihood that foreignbased aircraft dependant on GLONASS for radionavigation will be routed to U.S. destinations. Also, we invite comment on the possibility of waiving or postponing the compliance deadline with respect to emissions in the 15971605 MHz band in the event that progress toward domestic implementation of GLONASS proves slower than expected. 74. In the alternative, AMSC argues that if we require compliance with 70/80 limits by 2005 we should require aircraft owners to compensate owners of terminals that must consequently be altered or replaced. While it is true, as AMSC notes, that the Commission  X4has imposed compensation requirements in exercise of its licensing jurisdiction, OA {Oh' { ԍSee Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the Use of New Telecommunications  {O2'Technologies, 7 FCC Rcd 6886, 6890 (1992).#x6X@`7 2X@#  it is not  X4clear that any compelling equitable basis exists for granting such relief, as AMSC was on notice when it received its license for mobile terminals that it would be subject to any outofband emission limits deemed necessary for protection of GPS and GLONASS.  X|4  iv. The Ultimate Limit on Wideband Emission in the GLONASS Band 75. Because the final GLONASS operating band, 15971605 MHz, is closer to their assigned mobileuplink bands, it will be more difficult for the Big LEOs, AMSC, and Comsat to suppress emissions in that band to 70 dBW/MHz than to suppress emissions to the same extent in GNSS spectrum below 1597 MHz. Nevertheless, the Big LEO operators whose interest is most immediate namely, Motorola, whose Iridium System became operational in 1998, and Loral/Qualcomm and Air Touch, who plan to put the Globalstar system into commercial operation in 1999 have indicated that they are willing to meet a 70" $O,>(>(II;"  X4dBW/MHz limit in the 15971605 MHz band, at least by 2005.PXA yOy' {+ ԍ"Comments on Petition for Rulemaking" filed by L/Q Licensee, Inc. on December 8, 1997; "Comments  x on Petition for Rulemaking" filed by Motorola Satellite Communications on December 8, 1997 at 2; and "Reply Comments on Petition for Rulemaking" filed by AirTouch Satellite Service Systems on December 23, 1997.  Some commenters have raised objections, however, to the NTIA's recommendation for an ultimate 70 dBW/MHz limit to protect GLONASS reception in the 15971605 MHz band. Constellation contends that there is no technical justification on the record to support adoption of this requirement. Aviation proponents should demonstrate that the GLONASSband limit is no more strict than necessary, Constellation argues, in light of receiver characteristics and test data. MCHI asserts that imposing a 70 dBW/MHz limit to protect GLONASS would exact a heavy price in terms of increased size and cost of Big LEO mobile terminals, shorter battery "talk" time, and diminished system capacity. AMSC notes that the interference analysis in the MSS appendix to the Special Committee 159 report suggests that a wideband limit of 54 dBW/MHz would suffice. AMSC contends, moreover, that before imposing additional restrictions on MSS terminals to protect GPS or GLONASS, we should require manufacturers and/or users of GNSS receivers to minimize their susceptibility to interference. 76. We recognize these concerns. Nevertheless, the NTIA and the FAA have maintained that a 70 dBW/MHz limit is needed to protect aircraft reception of GLONASS signals in the 15971605 MHz segment from outofband emissions from MSS terminals with assigned frequencies between 1610 and 1660.5 MHz. Similarly, the ITUR has recommended universal adoption of that requirement for TDMA terminals used with nongeostationary MSS systems. Further, the licensees of the Globalstar and Iridium Big LEO systems have indicated  X44that they are willing to comply. We therefore propose to adopt the requirement. We request comment, however, on the assumptions underlying the NTIA's recommendation in this regard and concerning measures that manufacturers of GNSS receivers might employ to minimize susceptibility to outofband interference. In particular, evidence that the susceptibility of GNSS receivers could be significantly reduced from the level assumed in the susceptibility analysis in Appendix F of the RTCA/DO235 report at little additional cost or impairment of performance would be of interest. 77. LSC, Inc. and the U.S. GPS Industry Council have suggested in comments on the interim certification standard that we should consider adopting a limit more restrictive than 70 dBW/MHz in order to afford additional protection for marine and landmobile radionavigation. LSC maintains that suppression to a level of 83 dBW/MHz in the 15591605 MHz band is necessary to that end. Our purpose in this proceeding, however, is to  X 4adopt outofband emissions limits for protection of aeronautical uses of the radionavigation satellite service. Adoption of even stricter limits for protection of lesscritical applications is beyond our present contemplation. In any event, we would be reluctant to impose outofband limits so strict that Big LEO licensees could not meet them without sacrificing the commercial utility of their systems, which would effectively nullify the Big LEO MSS allocation. ""P,>(>(II "Ԍ X4ԙ  v. Measurement Parameters 78. The narrowband limits advocated by the NTIA are of a different kind than the narrowband limits currently specified in the Commission's rules for suppression of outofband emissions in the core GPS band. The narrowband limits that the NTIA recommends are expressed in terms of spectral power density, whereas the current narrowband provision in Section 25.213(b) sets an absolute limit on the permissible power of discrete spurious emissions. (The narrowband limits discussed in the report of Special Committee 159 also pertain to power, rather than to spectral power density.) Because we do not see, at this point, that it would serve any useful purpose to switch to spectral power density limits, and as the NTIA has not, as yet, offered any reason for doing so, we are proposing to adopt straightforward limits on the power of narrowband spurs. 79. Motorola contends that if we adopt a narrowband spectral power density limit we should specify a different measurement bandwidth than the 700 Hz bandwidth specified by  X 4the NTIA. It is currently impossible to measure compliance with the recommended 80 dBW/700 Hz limit with existing equipment, Motorola asserts, because existing spectrum analyzers have resolution bandwidths of either 300 Hz or 1 kHz. Motorola therefore recommends that we specify either 300 Hz or 1 kHz as the measurement bandwidth for the narrowband limit. Adoption of absolute power limits for discrete narrowband emissions rather than spectral power density limits, as we just proposed in the preceding paragraph, would alleviate the difficulty, however, because it would be possible to demonstrate compliance with the proposed limits on the power of discrete spurs of less than 700 Hz bandwidth with analyzers that do not resolve precisely at 700 Hz. Clearly, if the total power in a 1000 Hz band is 80 dBW, the signal power in any segment of that band will not exceed that level. 80. Motorola asserts that if a peakdetecting spectrum analyzer is used to measure the power density of wideband TDMA emissions, the peaks will exaggerate the power level by the peaktorms factor of the measurement technique and will further exaggerate measured power by failing to account for the duty cycle of the TDMA transmitter. Motorola therefore recommends that we make it clear in the rules we adopt that nonpeak detectors may be used to test TDMA METs for compliance. Motorola further recommends that we allow licensees to use resolution bandwidths smaller than 1 MHz and integrate the measurements when testing for compliance with the wideband powerdensity limits. We invite further comment on these suggestions, and, more generally, we invite comment on the advisability of specifying emission measurement techniques for demonstrating compliance with the rule.  X!4  X"4 vi. Need for a Limit on Narrowband Emission in the GLONASS Band 81. As indicated previously, the NTIA recommends interim and permanent limits on narrowband (as well as wideband) emissions for protection of GNSS reception in frequencies between 1585.42 and 1605 MHz. Although Motorola and the other MSS members of Special Committee 159 conceded that it was feasible to limit the power of"'' P,>(>(II%" narrowband spurs to 80 dBW between 1559 and 1585.42 MHz, Motorola recommends against adopting a narrowband limit for outofband emissions in the GLONASS band, stressing that there is no such requirement in either the ITUR standard or the ETSI standard. Motorola asserts that eliminating the narrowband limit with respect to the GLONASS band would spare terminal manufacturers from incurring considerable costs. 82. The Commission determined in the Big LEO rulemaking that the narrowband limit now embodied in Section 25.213(b) was necessary for protection of GPS reception in the GPS C/A band. Motorola has given no reason for concluding that GLONASS is less susceptible than GPS C/A service to interference from narrowband spurs. On the contrary, the aviation members of Special Committee 159 maintained that GLONASS is technically  X 4equivalent to GPS and approximately as susceptible to interference.yQ A yO| 'ԍRTCA/DO235, Appendix F at 2425.#x6X@`7 2X@#y We are proposing to adopt narrowband limits pertaining to the GLONASS operating frequencies, but we invite Motorola to explain more fully in response to this order its technical justification for omitting  X 4this requirement.  V4 vii. Protection in the 16051610 MHz Segment 83. Although as of this date GLONASS satellites are still transmitting Standard Accuracy signals on frequencies above 1605 MHz, the NTIA has not recommended specific limits on outofband emissions in the 16051610 MHz segment of the satellite radionavigation band. The ITUR recommends, however, that national administrations require suppression of outofband emissions from Big LEO MSS terminals to 10 dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz and to a level between 1605 and 1610 MHz determined by linear interpolation. We invite comment on the advisability of including a similar requirement in our rules in lieu of the NTIA's suggested provision for ad hoc resolution of problems regarding interference with reception in frequencies above 1605 MHz.  X|4  viii. Inmarsat Terminals  84. Comsat which, as we have noted, provides MSS via Inmarsat space segment, using 1626.51646.5 MHz for mobile uplinks contends that achieving compliance with 70/80 limits in the GLONASS band would entail especially complex logistical and operational problems for itself and Inmarsat, due to the fact that thousands of Inmarsat terminals of various types and makes are already in use. Comsat contends that if we adopt these limits on emissions in the GLONASS band we should carve out exemptions for  X 4Inmarsat ship terminals and landbased Inmarsat terminals that transmit analog signals.  X"485. LandBased InmarsatA Terminals. The oldest type of Inmarsat MSS terminal still in use, StandardA, uses analog modulation. All the others transmit digitallymodulated signals. On the basis of test results, Comsat is confident that the digital terminals"l$!XQ,>(>(II"" can meet 70/80 limits throughout the 15591605 MHz GNSS band. It is less optimistic regarding compliance with 70/80 limits on StandardA emissions in the GLONASS subband. It submits that there should be a "grandfather" exemption of indefinite duration for landbased Inmarsat StandardA terminals from any requirements for suppression in the GLONASS band. 86. Comsat has not shown, however, that the StandardA terminals could operate at their current emission levels without posing a significant risk of harmful interference with GLONASS reception. In the absence of such a showing we cannot conclude that an exemption is warranted.  X 4  X 487. Maritime Terminals. Comsat contends that there is no need to apply the recommended limits for GLONASS protection to Inmarsat ship terminals. In order to cause interference with GLONASS reception, according to Comsat, a shipboard Inmarsat transmitting antenna would have to be directly under an airplane's approach path and at an elevation of 80 feet or more above the water, with the main antenna beam pointing to the zenith and Comsat points out that the transmitter would have a zenith pointing angle to a geostationary Inmarsat satellite only if located at the equator at the satellite's longitude. Comsat contends that Inmarsat maritime terminals should therefore be exempt from any limits on emissions in the GLONASS band. It suggests that instead of imposing such restrictions we could obviate concern about potential interference from Inmarsat maritime terminals by  X4adopting a rule prohibiting LbandRA yO'ԍThe term "L Band" refers to the frequency range between 1000 MHz and 2000 MHz. transmissions from vessels within a specified distance from runways. 88. Alternatively, Comsat argues that we should at least exempt existing Inmarsat ship terminals of the StandardA type. It asserts that the StandardA maritime terminals have highlydirectional antennae which must be aimed at the geostationary Inmarsat satellite and that automatic tracking of the satellite beacon is required to afford sufficient aiming accuracy under ship operating conditions. Consequently, Comsat maintains, it is highly unlikely that an airplane approaching a runway in the United States will fly through the main lobe of transmission from a shipboard InmarsatA terminal. Comsat further asserts that the population of maritime StandardA terminals in use has been steadily declining, as ship owners now generally prefer to buy digital terminals, and that it would be difficult to retrofit the various vintages of maritime StandardAs with better filters. 89. Comsat's arguments for exempting Inmarsat maritime terminals are unsupported. It has provided no proof that an Inmarsat shipterminal antenna would have to be 80 feet or higher above water level and aimed at zenith to cause interference with GLONASS reception by an airplane in Category I precision approach to a runway abutting a navigable waterway, nor has it shown that the cost of retrofitting StandardA maritime MSS terminals with filters to conform them to the proposed standard for GLONASS protection"j$"XR,>(>(II"" would be prohibitive. Therefore, we are not proposing any special treatment for these terminals. Of course, we will consider any supporting information Comsat may provide in comments to this Notice.  X4 ix. Other Possible Sources of Interference 90. AMSC asserts that millions of terrestrial twoway radios installed in taxicabs, buses, delivery trucks, publicsafety vehicles, and recreational watercraft are currently allowed to radiate up to several thousand times more spurious energy on GNSS frequencies than would be permissible under the proposed limits for MSS terminals. AMSC further asserts that it has ascertained from test data submitted to the Commission in typeacceptance applications that some terrestrial twoway VHF transmitters produce spurious emissions in the GNSS bands at e.i.r.p. levels from 65.4 to 59.2 dBW. AMSC contends that we should not consider imposing emissions limits on MSS terminals to protect GNSS reception except pursuant to a comprehensive rulemaking that examines all potential sources of interference. It argues that to impose "piecemeal" restrictions on MSSterminal emissions alone would be arbitrary and capricious and hence unlawful. 91. We are issuing this Notice in fulfillment of commitments in the November 1994 FCCNTIAFAA MOU and to respond to a petition from the NTIA for restrictions to protect GNSS reception from outofband MSSterminal emissions. The MOU pertains only to MSS terminals with frequency assignments between 1610 and 1660.5 MHz, and the NTIA's petition does not ask for limits on transmitters of any other kind. 92. Contrary to AMSC's assertion, however, the Commission has not focused only on potential interference with the GNSS from MSS terminals. In response to a request from the FAA, we have likewise proposed, in Docket No. 9686, to establish emissions limits for base and mobile terminals of terrestrial publicsafety stations transmitting in the 794806  X~4MHz band in order to prevent interference with GNSS reception.iS\~A {O' {p ԍSee Development of the Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State  {O' xH and Local Public Safety Agency Communications Through the Year 2010 (First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking), 1998 W.L. 667599 (F.C.C.). i It does not necessarily follow, though, that equivalent restrictions should be retroactively imposed on licensees of  XP4older terrestrial systems. Prompt determination is necessary, on the other hand, with respect to type approval standards for GMPCS terminals with assigned frequencies in the 16101660.5 MHz band, in order to facilitate global circulation and transborder roaming. While we invite comments on the need to consider possible restrictions on nonGMPCS devices, we are reluctant to do so in any way that would complicate the urgent task at hand and retard its resolution.  X 4  X"4 ""#S,>(>(II "Ԍ X4 d. "Little LEO" Terminals  X4   X4 93. The NTIA's recommendations for emissions limits on MSS terminals transmitting on assigned frequencies between 1610 and 1660.5 MHz do not cover Little LEO  X4MSS terminals, which transmit in a band outside of that frequency range.TA yO' {' ԍLittle LEO mobile terminals transmit in the 148150.05 MHz band. They provide storeandforward  {O' x; data communications via nongeostationary satellites to customers equipped with mobile terminals. See Amendment  x of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules and Policies Pertaining to a NonVoice, NonGeostationary Mobile  {Ow' x Satellite Service, 8 FCC Rcd 8450 (1993), and Amendment of Part 25 of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules  x and Policies Pertaining to the Second Processing Round of the NonVoice, NonGeostationary Mobile Satellite  {O 'Service, 13 FCC Rcd 9111 (1997). We believe that Little LEO band is sufficiently separated from the 15591605 MHz band earmarked for GNSS operation to ensure that emissions from Little LEO terminals will not interfere with GNSS reception. More specifically, we believe that Little LEO terminals operating in compliance with Section 25.202(f) will not produce wideband emissions in the GNSS band with e.i.r.p. density in excess of 70 dBW/MHz or narrowband spurs in that band with e.i.r.p. greater than 80 dBW. Consequently, we propose to exempt Little LEO systems from the outofband emissions standards rather than require the licensees to incur the expense of establishing compliance with unnecessary technical restrictions. We note, however, that an ITU Study Group is currently considering emissions standards for Little LEO systems. We would consider domestic implementation in a future Commission proceeding of any ITUR recommendation for regulations that would restrict outofband emissions from Little LEO terminals to a greater extent than our rules currently require under 25.202(f).  Xb4e. 2 GHz Terminals 94. The Commission is considering nine proposals to construct, launch, and operate mobile satellite systems that would provide voice, data, and messaging for users with mobile terminals operating in the 19902025/21652200 MHz frequency bands (2 GHz MSS).  X4A forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will propose rules and policies to govern the service, which we expect will include both regional and global systems. 95. As with the geostationary Lband satellite services and Big and Little LEO satellite services, 2 GHz MSS promises to provide regional and global services, search and rescue communications, disaster management communications, geolocation, facsimile transmission, voice, data, messaging services, internet, and multimedia services. These services will be available to varying degrees in the aeronautical, maritime and land mobile environments and will be furnished using mobile terminals of varying designs. 96. The NTIA's recommendation for emissions limits on MSS terminals transmitting on assigned frequencies between 1610 and 1660.5 MHz does not extend to terminals operating in the 2 GHz MSS bands. While 2 GHz MSS systems meet the ITU's definition of "GMPCS," we are not proposing here to adopt any systemspecific technical" $FT,>(>(II;" standards for 2 GHz terminals. Rather, we intend to examine issues related to outofband emissions for 2 GHz terminals in the context of proposing and adopting service rules for the 2 GHz MSS service.  X4f. Compliance with Proposed Standards 97. For purposes of enforcing the ultimate emissions standard as it applies to terminals placed in service before 2002, the NTIA recommends that the Commission, in accordance with advice to be solicited from the FAA and NTIA, specify acceptable hardware/software configurations for achieving compliance by modifying nonconforming units so as to restrict their transmitting frequency range. Constellation contends that there is no rationale in the NTIA's petition for requiring users or providers to secure prior approval of hardware/software configurations and that such a requirement would be unduly intrusive. The Commission should focus on the terminals' actual emissions performance, Constellation maintains, rather than regulating hardware or software design. We generally prefer to leave design decisions to applicants and licensees insofar as possible, and the NTIA has offered no reason for departing from that general policy here. We therefore propose to rely on certification based on performance measurement to monitor compliance with the interim and final emissions requirements, pursuant to procedures specified in Part 2, Subpart J of our rules and our authority under Section 510 of the Act.  X46. Distress and Safety Communications and E911 Requirements 98. We also request comment on whether to require that GMPCS terminals authorized for use in the United States have position location capabilities. In an earlier rulemaking on enhanced 911 capability, the Commission determined that, because mobile satellite service was still in the early development stages and facing more technological and international hurdles than terrestrial carriers, it would not impose any obligation to provide enhanced 911 at that time. The Commission, however, stated that it expected mobile satellite operators to incorporate enhanced 911 features in their systems as technology  XN4advances and new systems are designed and deployed.UNA {O' { ԍRevision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility With Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling  {O'System (Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking), 11 FCC Rcd 18676 at 83 (1996). We seek comment on whether we should prospectively require GMPCS systems to implement their systems with enhanced 911 capabilities in light of technological developments in the mobile satellite industry, and on appropriate transition measures to ensure that any new requirement does not adversely affect systems at an advanced stage of design or deployment. Specifically, we also seek comment on how the accuracy location requirement of Phase I be would be applied. Or, would only a Phase IItype requirement be more appropriate or practicable, for MSS systems? We also seek comment on whether FSS systems should be required to incorporate enhanced 911 capabilities. If so, how should this requirement be implemented? If coordinates are to be provided, can the 125meter RMS standard applicable to terrestrial systems be used or should"#%$U,>(>(II!" a different criterion be established for MSS systems? Can automatic number identification (ANI) be provided by MSS systems?  X'   X'AIV. CONCLUSION \  X_499. This Notice implementing the international GMPCSMoU will speed deployment of GMPCS service in the United States and around the world by establishing procedural and technical rules to ensure the safe and authorized use of mobile satellite service equipment. We anticipate that these GMPCS systems will provide additional choices for delivering seamless voice, data and broadband services for consumers in all parts of the world. We have attempted to put forward an implementation plan that extends our current Part 2 certification rules to GMPCS system equipment while proposing options for proper implementation of the ITUadministered provisions related to the GMPCS registry and use of the new "ITU mark." By requesting comment on methods for implementing the GMPCS MoU, we seek to encourage development of communications on a national and global basis. We have also proposed establishing specific technical requirements on GMPCS terminals in order to protect existing services to the extent necessary without imposing an undue burden on our licensees. In addition, we seek comment on whether we should impose E911 requirements on GMPCS terminals. We request comment on all our proposals and welcome any other suggestions commenters may have in this proceeding. "&U,>(>(II"  X' V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS Đ\  X4` 4 <DL!T$&)\+- 0d24  X4 A. Ex Parte Presentations  X4 100. This is a "permitbutdisclose" proceeding subject to the "permitbutdisclose"  Xw4requirements under Section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided  XI4in Commission rules. See generally 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206.  X44  X ' B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  X 4101. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,CV  yOh 'ԍ5 U.S.C.  603.C the Commission has prepared an this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the possible significant economic impact  X 4on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making  X 4("Notice"). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the  X4Notice provided above. The Commission will send a copy of this Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the  XT4Notice and IRFA will be published in the Federal Register.  X(4 1. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules: This Notice proposes to extend the FCC's current equipment certification procedure to GMPCS terminals that are to be sold for use in the United States, while allowing terminals manufactured and sold elsewhere to enter the United States for transit or temporary use if they have complied with the GMPCSMoU notification process and bear the "GMPCSMoU ITU Registry" mark.  X4  X4 2. Legal Basis: This action is taken 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 151, 154(i), 157(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r), 307, 309, and 310.  XB' 3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the  X+4Proposed Rules Will Apply: The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term "small entity " as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction." In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act. 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). "s$'XV,>(>(II""ԌThe Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to geostationary or nongeostationary orbit fixedsatellite, mobile satellite operators or terminal manufacturers. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity in the satellite services  X4industry is the definition under the Small Business Administration (SBA) rules applicable to  X4Communications Services "Not Elsewhere Classified."W yO'ԍSee 13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 4899. This definition provides that a small entity is expressed as one with $11.0 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data, there are 848 firms that fall under the category of Communications Services, Not Elsewhere Classified. Of those, approximately 775 reported annual receipts of $11 million or  XH4less and qualify as small entities.HXXHX yOQ ' "F ԍU.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation,  xx Communications, and Utilities, UC92S1, Subject Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 2D, Employment Size of Firms: 1992, SIC Code 4899 (issued May 1995).H The Census Bureau category is very broad and commercial satellite services constitute only a subset of its total. Although it is difficult to estimate the number of entities that will be required to or choose to comply with the  X 4procedures proposed in this Notice, we note that the Commission has licensed 12 entities to provide GMPCS in the United States. Of these licensees, only VITA and LEO One qualify as  X 4small businesses.Y x {O'ԍSee Notice of Proposed Rule Making at 44, IB Docket No. 96426, FCC 96426, (1996). The other entities are not small businesses because they each have revenues in excess of $11 million annually or have parent companies or investors that have revenues in excess of $11 million annually. We request comment on the description and number of small entities that are significantly impacted by this proposal.  Xd' D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance  XM4Requirements: In this proceeding, we are proposing to use current forms and procedures to implement new proposed requirements. Therefore, this proposed action may create minimal additional mandatory reporting requirements for license applications and/or new equipment certification equirements for certain sectors of the satellite operator, service provider and equipment manufacturing industry.  X' E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and  X4Significant Alternatives Considered: It should be noted that the Commission received a petition from the National Telecommunications and Information Agency regarding establishment of an outofband emission limit for certain GMPCS terminals in 1998 and  Xg4comments were later filed by several entities. However, no Petitions for Rulemaking were filed to initiate the MoU portion of this proceeding, and there have been no comments in this proceeding that suggest alternatives to the proposed procedure. Therefore, we request comment on alternative licensing and equipment certification procedures that might minimize the amount of economic impact on small entities.  X' "( Y,>(>(II"ԌF. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed  X4Rules: None.  X4   X' C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis  X4  102. This NPRM contains either a proposed or modified information collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collections contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 10413. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this NPRM; OMB comments are due 60 days from date of publication of this  X 4NPRM in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. 103. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information  X44collections are due on or before May 3, 1999. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information  X4collections on or before May 3, 1999. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room C1804, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 10554 or via Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 72517th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503 or via the Internet to  X4fain_t@al.eop.gov.   X|'  Xe'D. Comment Filing Procedures Đ 104. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or  X 4before May 3, 1999 and reply comments on or before May 18, 1999 . Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System ("ECFS") or by paper  X4copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998). Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to . Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen,  XS%4commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet email. To get filing instructions for email comments, commenters should send an email to"%')Y,>(>(IIS%" ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, "get form (>(II%" Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with Section 603(a) of the  X4Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 601 et. seq. (1981).  X4110. Additional Information. For further information concerning this rule making proceeding contact Tracey Weisler at (202) 4180744 [internet: tweisler@fcc.gov] or Bill Bell at (202) 4180741 [internet: BBell@fcc.gov], International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. 4 <DL!T$&)\+- 0d24` ` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  qMagalie Roman Salas  X 4 ` `  qSecretary  X  "%'+Y,>(>(II%"Ԍ X4ԙU APPENDIX A PROPOSED RULE CHANGES\  X4 Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2, is amended as follows: 1. The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:  XH' Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 307, and 336, unless otherwise noted. 2. A new paragraph 2.1204(a)(9) is added to read as follows:  X 4Section 2.1204 Import conditions. *****  (9) The radio frequency device bears the "GMPCSMoU ITU REGISTRY" mark and is in compliance with the requirements set forth under Section 25.215. 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:  X' 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 101104, 76 Stat. 419427; 47 U.S.C. 701744; 47 U.S.C. 554.  X4 2. Section 25.213 is amended by deleting Paragraph (b). 3. Section 25.200 is deleted. 4. A new section 25.215 is added and reads as follows:  X 4Section 25.215 Terminals Associated with Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite Systems.  X 4(a) Definitions.  X"4(1) Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite ("GMPCS").The term "GMPCS" refers to any satellite system, (i.e., fixed or mobile, broadband or narrowband, global or regional, geostationary or nongeostationary, existing or planned) providing telecommunication services directly to end users from a constellation of one or more satellites. "@&,Y0*''IIO$"Ԍ X4(2) "GMPCSMoU ITU REGISTRY" mark. The term " 'GMPCSMoU ITU Registry' mark" refers to the circular identifier distributed by the ITU for placement on GMPCS terminals that are certified by at least one administration or competent authority and registered in the ITU database after meeting the requirements for notification specified in the international GMPCSMoU Arrangements.  Xx4(3) GMPCSMoU and Arrangements. The term " 'GMPCSMoU and Arrangements" refers to the GMPCS Memorandum of Understanding, a nonbinding international framework for the circulation of GMPCS terminals, finalized in February 1997, and the subsequent Arrangements concerning the licensing, type approval, marking, data provision, and customs treatment of GMPCS terminals, finalized in October 1997.  X 4(4) ITU. The term refers to the International Telecommunication Union located in Geneva, Switzerland.  X 4(b) Equipment certification for Terminals Sold or Leased in the United States for Domestic Use (1) All GMPCS terminals offered for sale or lease and use in the United States must be authorized by the Commission under its certification procedure for use under this part. The certification procedure is found in Subpart J of Part 2 of the Rules. (2) In order to be granted certification, a transmitter must comply with all applicable technical specifications in this Part.  X4(3) All applicants for certification of GMPCS transmitters that operate in these services must confirm that the equipment complies with the RF radiation exposure requirements specified in Section 24.52 of our rules. (c) Equipment certification for Terminals Brought into the United States for Domestic Use or Transit (1) All GMPCS terminals brought into the United States for temporary use must be on the Commission's list of terminals approved for use in the United States; registered in the GMPCS ITU database; and bear the official "GMPCSMoU ITU Registry" identifier authorized for use by the ITU. (2) All GMPCS terminals brought into the United States for transit must be registered in the GMPCS ITU database and bear the official "GMPCSMoU ITU Registry" identifier authorized for use by the ITU. "n$-Y0*%%II""Ԍ(d) Enforcement (1) All GMPCS service providers must be licensed under 25.136 of this part. Holders of a license to provide GMPCS service in the United States shall remain liable for any and all reported and proven infractions of our proposed technical and operational requirements. In instances where terminals are not operating in compliance with our rules and no domestic entity is authorized to provide service, we will take action consistent with our authority under 47 U.S.C.Section 510. 5. A new section 25.216 is added and reads as follows:  X 4Section 26.216 Limits on Outofband Emissions from Terminals Operating in the  V 416101660.5 MHz Band for Protection of Aeronautical Satellite Radionavigation   X 4(a) Limits on Emissions Below 1605 MHz. (1) The e.i.r.p. density of emissions from mobile earth terminals placed in service prior to January 1, 2002 with assigned frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1660.5 MHz shall not exceed 70 dBW/MHz, averaged over any 20 ms interval, in the band 15591580.42 MHz. The e.i.r.p. of discrete spurious emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth generated by such terminals shall not exceed 80 dBW, averaged over 20 ms, in the band 15591585.42 MHz. (2) The e.i.r.p. density of emissions from mobile earth terminals placed in service prior to January 1, 2002 with assigned frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1626.5 MHz shall not exceed 64 dBW/MHz, averaged over 20 ms, in the band 1580.421605 MHz. The e.i.r.p. of discrete spurious emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth generated by such terminals shall not exceed 74 dBW, averaged over 20 ms, in the band 1585.421605 MHz (3) The e.i.r.p. density of emissions from mobile earth terminals placed in service after January 1, 2002 with assigned frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1660.5 MHz shall not exceed 70 dBW/MHz, averaged over 20 ms, in the 15591605 MHz band. The e.i.r.p. of spurious emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such terminals shall not exceed 80 dBW, averaged over 20 ms, in the 15591605 MHz band. (4) As of January 1, 2005 and from then on, the e.i.r.p. density of emissions from mobile Earth terminals placed in service prior to January 1, 2002 with assigned frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1660.5 MHz shall not exceed 70 dBW/MHz, averaged over 20 ms, in the 15591605 MHz band, and the e.i.r.p. of spurious emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such terminals shall not exceed 80 dBW, averaged over 20 ms, in that band.  Xl$4(b) Emissions Above 1605 MHz. Until the GLONASS operating band shifts to"l$.Y0*%%II"" frequencies below 1605 MHz, harmful interference with reception of aeronautical radionavigation transmission on frequencies above 1605 MHz from mobile Earth terminals with assigned transmission frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1660.5 MHz will be resolved on a casebycase basis. ` `  X_4