WPCH: 2BVTZ 3|P)?xxxX/Xx6X@DQX@HP LaserJet 4/4MHPLAS4.WRSx  @,,(PX@2*@ P ZZv3|PHP LaserJet 4/4MHPLAS4.WRSC\  P6Q,,(PPa8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2Gp\kk7a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2vytc a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2  y % a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  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 2<   c < a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# 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 Technical2n >La1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2,y;a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 23yea8TechnicalTechnical 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)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCddddddd<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd"5@^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006!!!!()!22H,H,H,H,H,YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H2H2H2H282H2H,H,C,C,C,=,=,=,H2H2HH2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2==)H2H2H2YHC!C)8'8'N#-2!,22222KK2LL2K!!,,2d!!22bd!,d!t!77778c<> a yOi -ԍ Hughes Petition at 1.> It contends that a frequency tolerance of 2.5 ppm does not add significantly to existing means of avoiding interference between non X-multilateration systems within designated subbands.9?a {O#-ԍ Id. at 11.9 Hughes submits that since nonmultilateration systems operate over relatively short ranges, the instances of coverage overlap  XR-between facilities on adjacent channels will be rare.9@R, a {O/'-ԍ Id. at 11.9 "R @0*(("Ԍx` ` x29.ؠHughes further alleges that the present frequency tolerance level would necessitate a significant and expensive design modification for their Vehicle to Roadside Communications (VRC) system readers. In addition, they contend that equipment changes required to conform their VRC mobile transponders to the present frequency tolerance level  X-would be economically prohibitive.8Aa {O-ԍ Id. at 8.8 If the Commission decides to maintain the present frequency tolerance level for nonmultilateration systems, Hughes requests that the Commission apply the frequency tolerance level only to the reader transmitters and not to the mobile transponders, which are designed to transmit with extremely low power and only  X1-while passing in close proximity to a reader.9B1Za {O< -ԍ Id. at 13.9 x  X -x30.ؠ According to TI/MFS there are no current LMS nonmultilateration systems in operation that conform to the 2.5 ppm frequency tolerance. They note that most of the nonmultilateration technology operates at frequency tolerance levels no greater than 50 ppm. TI/MFS believes that the imposition of the present frequency tolerance level will have the  X -negative effect of decreasing both available technology and potential players in the market.@C a yOD-ԍ TI/MFS Petition at 56.@  Xy-x31.ؠDiscussion. In response to the concerns raised by the nonmultilateration system operators, we will impose the present frequency tolerance level of 2.5 ppm on high power fixed reader transmitters operating near the band edges, but not on mobile transponders or handheld portable readers. We are persuaded that the significant cost of tightening the frequency tolerance for mobile transponders and handheld readers could severely raise the cost of the devices beyond the realm of economic feasibility. Thus, Section 90.213 of our  X-Rules will be modified accordingly.>D|a {O-ԍ See Appendix C.> We are not changing the tolerance requirement for other nonmulitilateration LMS systems or for multilateration LMS systems.  X-x 3. Type Acceptance  X|-x32.ؠBackground. In the LMS Report and Order, we determined that the mobile nature of most LMS transmitters and the new advanced technology that will be employed by this equipment justified strict regulatory oversight of having equipment type accepted rather than continuing to use the notification procedure. Therefore, we decided that all LMS equipment imported or marketed after April 1, 1996, including the "transmitting tags" used in certain nonmultilateration systems, must be type accepted for use under Part 90 of our Rules. If, however, these units met the requirements under Part 15 of our Rules, they may have been"D0*((Z"  X-authorized under that part and do not need to be type accepted.bEa {Oy-ԍ LMS Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 4739,  88.b  X-x 33.ؠPleadings. The LMS Providers insist that because their initial emphasis under the new rules is on the preservation of grandfathered status through the construction of systems that meet the FCC's technical requirements, formal compliance with type acceptance should assume a lower priority. They request that for systems constructed after February 3, 1995, that the type acceptance requirement for multilateration LMS be extended from the current date of April 1, 1996, until 12 months after any rule on reconsideration concerning the  XH-emission mask (the "1996 Effective Date").FFHZa yOS -ԍ LMS Providers 8/22/95 Letter.F The LMS Providers also request that all LMS transmitters imported or manufactured domestically prior to the 1996 Effective Date be exempt from type acceptance regardless of whether they are used before or after the 1996 Effective Date. In addition, they ask the Commission to clarify that LMS providers may indefinitely continue to use equipment deployed prior to the 1996 Effective Date provided that it is not marketed after that date (whether the deadline is April 1, 1996 or a later date),  X -unless the equipment is first type accepted.2G a {OY-ԍ Id.2 x x!34.ؠThe LMS Providers further request that for systems constructed before February 3, 1995, the installation of nontype accepted multilateration LMS transmitters imported or manufactured domestically on or before the 1996 Effective Date should be permitted through April 1, 1998. They urge that such equipment need not be typeaccepted at any time unless such a step is necessary in order to resolve interference problems that cannot otherwise be accommodated, but that such equipment must comply with the emission mask requirements by April 1, 1998. In addition, for systems constructed and placed into operation before February 3, 1995, LMS Providers would mandate that transmitters imported or manufactured  X-after the 1996 Effective Date must be type accepted.2H|a {O-ԍ Id.2 Similarly, AMTECH believes that  X-because some or all of the technical requirements adopted in the LMS Report and Order will change, presumably due to pending petitions for reconsideration, its efforts to comply with those rules may turn out to be unnecessary. In light of this, AMTECH requests that the Commission delay the typeacceptance date at least until 12 months after final technical  Xg-requirements have been adopted.BIga yO&#-ԍ AMTECH Petition at 1516.B  X9-x"35.ؠDiscussion. We believe that the type acceptance requirements we have adopted are necessary to ensure efficient deployment of LMS to the public without causing significant interference. We recognize the concern of multilateration LMS operators that they may experience difficulty in meeting the construction deadline if they must comply with type"I0*((x" acceptance requirements. To alleviate this concern, the Office of Engineering and Technology has committed to process type acceptance applications within 40 days of receipt.  X-Further, we have in this item extended the construction deadline.@Ja {OK-ԍ See supra  8.@ Thus, we conclude that compliance with these type acceptance requirements should not impede a licensee's efforts to meet the buildout deadline. We note that constructed multilateration LMS systems must also meet type acceptance requirements after September 1, 1996. x#36.ؠWith respect to nonmultilateration systems, we recognize that these systems contain a substantial amount of embedded equipment with numerous users, particularly state and local governments. Thus, nonmultilateration system operators will be able to continue operation of current equipment until replacement is needed. However, if nonmultilateration system operators decide either to build new systems or replace existing equipment on or after  X -September 1, 1996, the new equipment t gW  must comply with type acceptance by April 1, 1998.lKX Za yO-ԍ To the extent that this decision is inconsistent with March 22, 1995, letter sent by Rosalind K. Allen, Chief of the Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, in response to Mark IV Industries', February 15, 1995, request to clarify some type acceptance issues, that letter is hereby overruled.l Because nonmultilateration LMS systems do not present a significant potential for interference, we believe that this decision will minimize the disruption, if any, to existing operations.  Xy-x 4. Site Relocation x  XK-x$37.ؠBackground. In the LMS Report and Order, we allowed LMS licensees to modify their applications to comply with the new band plan. In this connection, we stated that an  X-alternate site must be within two kilometers (km) of the site specified in the original license.dLza {OJ-ԍ See LMS Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 4728 at  63.d  X-x%38.ؠPleadings. The LMS Providers contend that the two kilometer restriction is unworkable due to the upcoming April 1, 1996, deadline for preserving grandfathered status. They argue that competition for wireless facilities has caused many sites to become unavailable or unsuitable for LMS use. They also note that site surveys and negotiations are timeconsuming and in many cases replacements within the 2 km radius either do not exist or are unavailable. Thus, the LMS Providers propose that the Commission instead allow  Xg-replacement sites within a tenmile radius.YMg a {O$#-ԍ LMS Providers 8/22/95 Letter, supra, n.25.Y  X9-x&39.ؠDiscussion. We are unpersuaded by the argument of the LMS Providers. In the"9M0*(("  X-Third Report and Order in GN Docket No. 93252,5N^a {Oy-ԍ See Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act Regulatory Treatment of Mobile  {OC-Services, Third Report and Order, GN Docket No. 93252, 9 FCC Rcd 7988 (1994) (CMRS Third Report and  {O -Order).5 we utilized two kilometers as the benchmark for determining whether an application for a site change of a CMRS facility is to be treated as a modification application or an "initial" application for the purpose of  X-determining eligibility for competitive bidding procedures.JOa {O\-ԍ Id. at 8415, 356.J The LMS Providers have failed to demonstrate adequately that a different benchmark should apply in the LMS context. Thus, we will continue to place a 2 km restriction on replacement sites for LMS systems. We reiterate, however, that our decision here to use a 2 km replacement site restriction does not  Xa-indicate that we have determined the regulatory status of multilateration LMS systems (i.e., whether LMS is a Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS)). We will review the  X5-regulatory status of multilateration LMS systems in our forthcoming Memorandum Opinion  X -and Order.  X - III. CONCLUSION T TPx'40.ؠWe believe that the clarifications and modifications adopted in this Order will facilitate the timely construction of LMS systems. We have strived to fairly balance the diverse interests of the parties involved, keeping in mind our objective of allowing for the continued growth of LMS services and advancing Congress' goal of developing an intelligent transportation system infrastructure. At the same time, we have attempted to ensure that amateur operators and Part 15 users will be able to share this band with LMS providers without substantial disruption to their operations.  X-$  IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND ORDERING CLAUSES ĐTP  X-  TPx(41.ؠThe Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, as required by Section 604 of the  X-Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,:Pa yO-ԍ 5 U.S.C. 604.: is set forth in Appendix B. x)42.ؠ IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of Sections 4(i), 302, 303(r), and 332(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 302, 303(r), and 332(a), the rule changes specified in Appendix C are adopted. x x*43.ؠIT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rule changes set forth in Appendix C WILL  X(-BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, except for Sections 90.203(b)(7) and 90.363(d). Sections 90.203(b)(7) and 90.363(d) ARE EFFECTIVE upon"P0*((["  X-adoption of this Order on Reconsideration.Qa yOy-ԍSections 90.203(b)(7) and 90.363(d) extend the type acceptance and construction deadlines, respectively, from April 1, 1996, to September 1, 1996. As such, these rules relieve a restriction and are not subject to the 30  {O -days' notice requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). See 5 U.S.C.  553(d)(1). Moreover, the Commission finds good cause to make these rules effective on less than 30 days' notice to prevent the former  {O-type acceptance and construction deadline of April 1, 1996, from taking effect. See 5 U.S.C.  553(d)(3). x+44.ؠIT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the petitions for reconsideration filed by the parties listed in Appendix A ARE GRANTED to the extent discussed herein, and DENIED to  X-the extent discussed herein. Those issues not resolved by this Order on Reconsideration will  X-addressed in a future Memorandum Opinion and Order. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton x` `  hhActing Secretary  "|Q0*((."  X-) APPENDIX  A ĐTP T  X-T2PLEADINGSTP  X_-Petitioners 1. Ad Hoc Gas Distribution Utilities Coalition (Ad Hoc Gas) 2. AirTouch Teletrac (Teletrac) 3. The American Radio Relay League, Inc. (ARRL) 4. AMTECH Corporation (AMTECH) 5. CellNet Data Systems, Inc. (CellNet) 6. Connectivity for Learning Coalition 7. Hughes Transportation Management Systems (Hughes) 8. Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITSA) 9. Metricom, Inc. and Southern California Edison Company (Metricom/SCE) 10. MobileVision, L.P. (MobileVision) 11. The New Jersey Highway Authority, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, the New York XxState Thruway Authority, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Bridges and Tunnels, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the South Jersey Transportation Authority and the Delaware River Port Authority ("the Interagency Group").(# 12. The Part 15 Coalition (Part 15 Coalition) 13. Pinpoint Communications (Pinpoint) 14. Rand McNally & Company (Rand McNally) 15. Safetran Systems Corporation (Safetran) 16. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. (SBMS)"#'Q0*((%"Ԍ 17. Texas Instruments, Inc. and MFS Network Technologies, Inc. (TI/MFS) 18. Uniplex Corporation (Uniplex) 19. UTC 20. Wireless Transactions Corporation (Wireless Transactions)  X1- Oppositions  1. Airtouch Teletrac (Teletrac)    2. American Telemedicine Association (ATA) 3. AMTECH Corporation (AMTECH) 4. Association of American Railroads (AAR) 5. CellNet Data Systems (CellNet) 6. Connectivity for Learning Coalition 7. Hughes Transportation Management Systems (Hughes) 8. Itron Inc. (Itron) 9. Metricom, Inc. and Southern California Edison (Metricom/SCE) 10. Mobilevision, L.P. (MobileVision) 11. Part 15 Coalition (Part 15 Coalition) 12. Pinpoint Communications, Inc. (Pinpoint) 13. Southwestern Bell Mobile Services (SBMS) 14. Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI) 15. Uniplex Corporation (Uniplex)  XQ%- Comments on Petitions for Reconsideration  1. Ad Hoc Gas Distribution Utilities Coalition (Ad Hoc Gas) "#'Q0*((%"Ԍ 2. Alarm Industry Communications Committee (Alarm Industry) 3. AT&T Corp. (AT&T) 4. Electronic Industries Association, Consumer Electronic Group (Electronic Industries) 5. Symbol Technologies, Inc. (Symbol) 6. Telecommunications Industry Association, User Premises Equipment Division, Wireless xConsumer Communications Section (TIA) 7. UTC     X - Replies   I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a), 1. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. Ad Hoc Gas Distribution Utilities Coalition (Ad Hoc Gas) 2. AirTouch Teletrac (Teletrac) 3. Amtech Corporation (Amtech) 4. AT&T Corp. (AT&T) 5. CellNet Data Systems, Inc. (CellNet) 6. The Connectivity for Learning Coalition 7. Electronic Industries Association, Consumer Electronics Group (Electronic Industries) 8. Hughes Transportation Management Systems (Hughes) 9. Itron, Inc. (Itron) 10. Mark IV Industries, Lt., I.V.H.S. Division (Mark IV) 11. Metricom, Inc., and Southern California Edison Company (Metricom/SCE) 12. MobileVision, L.P. (MobileVision) 13. Part 15 Coalition (Part 15 Coalition) 14. Pinpoint Communications (Pinpoint)"#'Q0*((%"Ԍ 15. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems (SBMS) 16. Telecommunications Industry Association, User Premises Equipment Division, Wireless xConsumer Communications Section (TIA) 17. Texas Instruments, Inc. and MFS Network Technologies, Inc. (TI/MFS) 18. UTC     X -   Other Correspondence  1. Faisal Khan    2. Dr. Jim Lansford  X-    ?y<#Xx6X@DQ/X@#"yQ0*(("  X-) #Xj\  P6G; DXP#APPENDIX B TP  X-  FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS ĐTP xPursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, the Commission's final analysis is as follows:  XH-x A. Need and Purpose of this Action xThe rules adopted herein will enhance use of the 902928 MHz band for location and monitoring systems. The new rules create a more stable environment for LMS system licensees and provides much needed flexibility for operators of such systems.  X -x B. Issues Raised in Response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis xThere were no comments submitted in response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  XK-x C. Significant Alternatives Considered and Rejected xAll significant alternatives regarding grandfathering issues are discussed in this Order on Reconsideration. Other issues raised on reconsideration will be addressed in a forthcoming Memorandum Opinion and Order. "Q0*(("  X-) APPENDIX C  X-RULE CHANGES ă Part 90 of Chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:  X_- PART 90 PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES  X1-1.ؠThe authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as follows: XxAuthority: Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, and 332, unless otherwise noted.   X -2.ؠSection 90.203 is amending by revising paragraph (b)(7) as follows:  X- 90.203 Type acceptance required. ***** x(b) *** x(7) Transmitters imported and marketed prior to September 1, 1996 for use by LMS systems. *****  X-3.ؠSection 90.209 is amended by revising paragraphs (e) and (m) as follows:  Xe- 90.209 Bandwidth limitations. ***** x(e) When radiation in excess of that specified in paragraphs (c), (d), and (m) of this section results in harmful interference, the Commission may require, among other available remedies, appropriate technical changes in equipment to alleviate the interference. *****  X#-x(m) (1) Wideband multilateration transmitters. For transmitters authorized under Subpart M to provide forward or reverse links in a multilateration system in the subbands 904-909.75MHz, 921.75-927.25MHz and 919.75-921.75MHz, and which transmit an emission occupying more than 50 kHz bandwidth: in any 100 kHz band, the center frequency of which is removed from the center of authorized subband(s) by more than 50 percent of"%'Q0*((%" the authorized bandwidth, the power of emissions shall be attenuated below the transmitter output power, as specified by the following equation, but in no case less than 31 dB: A = 16 + 0.4 (D 50) + 10 log B (attenuation greater than 66 dB is not required)  X-wherexA = attenuation (in decibels) below the maximum permitted output power level xD = displacement of the center frequency of the measurement bandwidth from the center frequency of the authorized subband, expressed as a percentage of the authorized bandwidth B xB = authorized bandwidth in megahertz.  X -x(2) Narrowband forward link transmitters. For LMS multilateration narrowband forward link transmitters operating in the 927.25-928MHz frequency band the power of any emission shall be attenuated below the transmitter output power (P) in accordance with following schedule: XxOn any frequency outside the authorized subband and removed from the edge  XMiof the authorized subband by a displacement frequency (fd in kHz):   XiXxat least 116 log ((fd + 10)/6.1) dB or 50 + 10 log (P) dB or 70 dB, whichever is the lesser attenuation.   X-x(3) Other transmitters. For all other transmitters authorized under Subpart M, the peak power of any emission shall be attenuated below the power of the highest emission contained within the authorized channel bandwidth in accordance with the following schedule: x(i) On any frequency within the authorized bandwidth: Zero dB; x(ii) On any frequency outside of the authorized bandwidth: 55 + 10log(P) dB where (P) is the highest emission (watts) of the transmitter inside the authorized bandwidth. x(4) The resolution bandwidth of the instrumentation used to measure the emission power shall be 100 kHz, except that, in regard to paragraph (2) of this section, a minimum spectrum analyzer resolution bandwidth of 300 Hz shall be used for measurement center frequencies within 1MHz of the edge of the authorized subband. If a video filter is used, its bandwidth shall not be less than the resolution bandwidth. x(5) Emission power shall be measured in peak values.  XU%-x4.ؠSection 90.213 is amended by revising the entry for the 902928 MHz band in the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows: "''Q0*((C&"Ԍ X-  90.213 Frequency tolerance. x(a) * * * Frequency Tolerance  Xv-Frequency range  Fixed and base stationspp  Mobile stations  XH-x` `  Over 200W hh@200W or lessppOver 2Wxx2W or less  X1-x` `  output powerhh@output powerppoutput powerxxoutput power x l<* * * * *  X -902928 .......19/ .00025hh@.00025pp.00025xx.00025  Xy-19/ Fixed nonmultilateration transmitters operating within 40 kHz from the band edge, intermittently operated handheld readers, and mobile transponders are not subject to frequency tolerance restrictions. l<* * * * * x5. Section 90.363 is amended by revising paragraph (d) as follows:  X- 90.363 Grandfathering provisions for existing AVM Licensees. <l* * * * *  X|-TPx(d) Multilateration AVM licensees for stations that were not constructed and placed in operation on or before February 3, 1995 must construct their LMS systems and place them in operation on the spectrum identified in their LMS system license on or before September 1, 1996, or their licenses will cancel automatically (see Section 90.155 (e)). Also, these licenses will cancel automatically on [insert date 60 days after publication in the Federal Register] unless timely modification applications are filed on or before this date (see paragraph (a)). <l* * * * *TP" Q0*(("  X-X( STATEMENT aJOF N COMMISSIONER ANDREW C. BARRETT  X- CONCURRING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART ă  X_- Re: Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Adopt Regulations for  XH-Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Systems, Order on Reconsideration [PR Docket No. 93 X1-61]  X -xIn this Order on Reconsideration, the Commission clarifies several issues that were  X -raised in the LMS Report and Order.R a yOe -ԍ#d6X@`7 @#Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Adopt Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Systems, Report and Order, PR Docket No. 9361, 10 Fcc Rcd 4695 (1995) ("LMS Report and Order"). While some of the issues addressed in this Order do not deal with technical concerns, I must dissent with respect to any Commission determinations concerning the spectrum band plan.  X-xI dissented with respect to the LMS Report and Order. At that time, I advocated that the Commission take time to perform controlled testing prior to the adoption of permanent rules for a new band plan. In that way, I argued for greater assurance regarding potential interference for services in the 902928 MHz band. Now, the Commission clarifies that multilateration service operators will not be permitted to file a complaint of interference with the Commission if Part 15 devices are operating within the "safe harbor" provisions. The Commission, among other things, modifies the emission mask specification and exempts nonmultilateration systems from having to meet the frequency tolerance requirement. I renew my belief that without the benefit of controlled testing and despite these modifications the Commission's band plan could be seriously flawed.  X-xBecause of my prior dissatisfaction with the band plan and the fact that this Order attempts to clarify certain aspects of that plan without the testing that I had argued was necessary to create a satisfactory plan in the first instance, I am compelled to dissent in part to this action. I do, however, concur in the decision to extend the deadline by which grandfathered LMS systems must be constructed and operational and the extension of time allowing LMS providers to comply with the modified rules concerning type acceptance.