Use of Microwave for Wireless Backhaul; Provision for Additional Flexibility To Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Operational Fixed Microwave Licensees, 52186-52209 [2010-20785]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 24, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52186-52209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20785]



[[Page 52185]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part V





Federal Communications Commission





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



47 CFR Parts 1, 74, and 101



Use of Microwave for Wireless Backhaul; Provision for Additional 
Flexibility To Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Operational Fixed 
Microwave Licensees; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 163 / Tuesday, August 24, 2010 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 52186]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 74, and 101

[WT Docket Nos. 10-153; 09-106; 07-121; FCC 10-146]


Use of Microwave for Wireless Backhaul; Provision for Additional 
Flexibility To Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Operational Fixed 
Microwave Licensees

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission commences a proceeding to 
remove regulatory barriers to the use of spectrum for wireless backhaul 
and other point-to-point and point-to-multipoint communications. This 
proceeding will surface ways to increase efficient use of spectrum for 
backhaul, especially by updating regulatory classifications that may 
not have kept pace with the evolution of converged digital 
technologies. Providing for the more flexible use of microwave 
frequencies for backhaul may help promote access to backhaul solutions 
that are critical to the deployment of wireless broadband and other 
services. Our proposed rule changes may be particularly beneficial to 
rural areas, where wireline alternatives may not exist. Our proposed 
rules should increase opportunities for all users of point-to-point and 
point-to-multipoint services, while protecting established license 
holders who are already using these bands. As an initial matter, we 
believe 750 megahertz in the 13 gigahertz range and below can be made 
flexibly usable for broadband backhaul.

DATES: Submit comments on or before October 25, 2010. Submit reply 
comments on or before November 22, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket 
No. 10-153, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 
418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact Lynn 
Ratnavale at (202) 418-1514 or Charles Oliver at (202) 418-1325, 
Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, 
or via the Internet to Lynn.Ratnavale@fcc.gov or 
Charles.Oliver@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, FCC 10-146, adopted on 
August 5, 2010, and released on August 5, 2010. The full text of this 
document is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased 
from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, 
Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via 
e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com. The complete text is also available on the 
Commission's Web site at https://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0805/FCC-10-146A1.doc. This full text may also be 
downloaded at: https://wireless.fcc.gov/releases.html. Alternative 
formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette, and Braille) 
are available by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 
418-7365, or via e-mail to bmillin@fcc.gov.

Summary

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Permitting Greater Sharing Between FS Operations in Certain BAS and 
CARS Frequencies
    1. One way to potentially increase the availability of microwave 
spectrum would be to allow FS operations to share spectrum in several 
bands at 13 GHz and below that are currently assigned to BAS and CARS, 
but not FS. First, we propose to permit FS operations in the 6875-7125 
MHz band, which is adjacent to existing FS operations in the 6525-6875 
MHz band and well suited for backhaul and other microwave applications. 
In particular, we seek comment on sharing between mobile (temporary 
fixed) operations and fixed operations in the 6875-7125 MHz band where 
frequency coordination is not as formalized. In light of the additional 
sharing proposed by this rulemaking, we also seek comment on whether we 
should make the identification of receive-only sites associated with TV 
pickup stations mandatory in the 6875-7125 MHz band.
    2. Second, we propose to introduce FS systems into the 12700-13200 
MHz band. This band is well suited for short to medium length backhaul 
microwave applications and in fact prior to 1988 was available to 
certain relocated FS systems. We seek comment on whether introduction 
of FS operations in this band, with the additional latitude proposed in 
this proceeding, will have an adverse impact on cable system operations 
and whether it will have an effect on future use of the spectrum by 
cable system operators.
    3. Both the 6875-7125 MHz and 12700-13200 MHz bands are currently 
assigned to television pickup, television studio-transmitter links, 
television relay stations, television translator relay stations, and 
CARS. We emphasize that we are not proposing to modify existing 
licenses and that any new licenses in this band will need to be 
frequency coordinated with existing licensees. We believe these uses 
would be compatible with FS operations with use of frequency 
coordination. The frequency coordination process has been highly 
successful in allowing maximum utilization of shared bands and 
eliminating potential interference problems. We therefore propose to 
require frequency coordination for new FS, BAS, and CARS stations in 
the 6875-7125 MHz and 12700-13200 MHz bands in accordance with our 
existing frequency coordination procedures. Commenters that believe 
that relying on our existing frequency coordination processes would not 
adequately address all necessary requirements should propose 
modifications to that process or alternative processes.
    4. We seek comment on the best approach to channelization for the 
various bands under consideration. We note that existing operations in 
the 6875-7125 MHz and 12700-13200 MHz bands both use 25 megahertz 
bandwidth channels. We note that this channelization scheme has been in 
existence for over 40 years. Existing BAS operations in the 12700-13200 
MHz band also use 25 MHz bandwidth channels, while CARS operations in 
the band use 25 MHz, 12.5 MHz and 6 MHz channels. We seek comment on a 
channelization scheme that would likewise provide applicants with a 
variety of channel widths to maximize flexibility and utilization of 
the 6875-

[[Page 52187]]

7125 MHz and 12700-13200 MHz bands. Consistent with our recent action 
allowing 30 megahertz channels in the Upper 6 GHz Band, we seek comment 
on alternative channelization schemes. In addition, we propose to 
facilitate use of the 6875-7125 MHz and 12700-13200 MHz bands by BAS 
operators by making additional channel bandwidths available for their 
use. Such action would provide BAS licensees with additional 
flexibility and provide additional opportunities for using modern 
digital equipment.
    5. With respect to the remaining proposed technical rules for FS 
operation, we propose to apply the same technical parameters that 
currently apply to the Upper 6 GHz band to the adjacent 6875-7125 MHz 
band, because those bands are contiguous and should be able to use 
similar equipment. We believe that applying the rules currently 
applicable to the Upper 6 GHz Band to the 6875-7125 MHz band will 
facilitate equipment development and provide consistency to FS 
licensees. The specific rules that we propose are: (1) Applying a 
maximum frequency tolerance of 0.005 percent; (2) applying a maximum 
transmitter power of +55 dBw; (3) applying the antenna standards 
currently applicable to Upper 6 GHz Band stations authorized after June 
1, 1997 to the 6875-7125 MHz band; (4) applying the capacity and 
loading requirements contained in Sec.  101.141(a)(3) of the 
Commission's rules to this band; and, (5) confirming that the 17 
kilometer minimum path length requirement of Sec.  101.143 of the 
Commission's rules would apply in the 6875-7125 MHz band. We propose to 
retain the rules that are already applicable to the 12700-13000 MHz 
band, with one exception. There is no minimum payload capacity 
applicable to the 12700-13200 MHz band. We propose to apply the minimum 
payload capacity and loading requirements that are currently applicable 
to the 11 GHz band to the 12700-13200 MHz band. We seek comment on 
these proposals and any possible alternatives to them. We also seek 
comment on any special technical rules that might be necessary in that 
band.
Eliminating Final Link Rule
    6. While broadcasters are allowed to obtain private fixed service 
licenses under part 101 of the Commission's Rules, Sec.  101.603(a)(7) 
prohibits broadcasters from using part 101 stations as the final 
radiofrequency (RF) link in the chain of distribution of the program 
material to broadcast stations. In light of recent technological and 
regulatory developments, we believe that the ``final link'' rule may no 
longer serve a useful purpose and, in fact, may inhibit the full use of 
part 101 spectrum. As broadcasters and other microwave users move to 
digital-based systems, we question whether it makes sense to maintain 
regulatory restrictions based on the type of content that the digital 
data transmitted by the system represents. As BAS and CARS move to 
digital and the technical rules have converged with those in part 101, 
it has become difficult to distinguish video content from any other 
digital content or to distinguish a microwave link used for BAS and 
CARS from those licensed under part 101.
    7. Retaining the ``final link'' rule appears to be spectrally 
inefficient and places an unnecessary burden on broadcasters. Retaining 
the ``final link'' rule could force broadcasters to build unnecessarily 
redundant systems in the same locations: One system using reserved BAS 
frequencies for the sole purpose of delivering programming to a 
transmitter site and a second system using FS frequencies for other 
purposes. Especially in view of the increased sharing of BAS bands with 
FS stations we propose above, we believe it is appropriate to provide 
broadcasters with additional flexibility to use the FS bands.
    8. We do not believe that eliminating the final link rule will 
crowd other FS licensees out of the band. Other rules require all FS 
licensees, including broadcasters, to build out their spectrum promptly 
and to comply with minimum payload capacities. These requirements serve 
to ensure productive use of the spectrum and to prevent noneconomic 
overuse.
    9. Accordingly, we seek comment on eliminating the ``final link'' 
rule. In considering this proposal, we encourage broadcasters to 
provide specific data on the efficiencies and cost savings that could 
result from eliminating this rule. FS licensees who oppose this change 
should identify the harms they believe would be caused by eliminating 
this rule and explain why they believe other rules are insufficient to 
prevent those harms. We also seek comment on whether there are 
alternatives that could facilitate broadcaster access to FS spectrum 
while retaining that prohibition under certain circumstances.
Permitting Adaptive Modulation
    10. The part 101 rules contain a minimum payload capacity rule 
intended to ensure that FS links are operated efficiently. We propose 
to allow temporary operations below the minimum capacity under certain 
circumstances, which will enable FS links--particularly long links in 
rural areas--to maintain critical communications during periods of 
fading.
    11. We propose changes to our rules to allow FS licensees to 
maintain communications when adverse propagation characteristics would 
otherwise force communications to be terminated. Specifically, we 
propose to amend our rules to allow licensees to temporarily drop below 
minimum payload capacity requirements specified by the rules in certain 
limited circumstances. These proposed rule changes have the potential 
to reduce operational costs and increase reliability, which could be 
particularly important in facilitating the use of wireless backhaul in 
rural areas.
    12. Section 101.141(a)(3) of the Commission's rules establishes 
minimum payload capacities (in terms of megabits per second) for 
various channel sizes in certain part 101 bands. The underlying purpose 
of the rule is to promote efficient frequency use. Although the 
Commission has never quantified the time period over which licensees 
must comply with those standards, the industry has generally construed 
the payload requirements as applying whenever the link is in service.
    13. On May 8, 2009, Alcatel-Lucent, Dragonwave, Inc. Ericsson, 
Inc., Exalt Communications, Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition 
(FWCC), Harris Stratex Networks and Motorola, Inc. (``Petitioners'') 
filed a request for interpretation of Sec.  101.141(a)(3) of the 
Commission's rules to permit data rates to drop for brief periods below 
the minimum payload capacity specified in the rules, instead of 
temporarily having a link go completely out of service, so long as the 
values mandated by the rules were maintained both in normal operation 
and on average.
    14. On May 14, 2010, FWCC followed up its original request for 
interpretation with a request for waiver of Sec.  101.141(a)(3) so that 
it can utilize adaptive modulation to average bit rates over time to 
combat fading. FWCC acknowledges the Commission's indication in the 
National Broadband Plan that it intends to open a rulemaking with 
regards to adaptive modulation; however, FWCC argues that it urgently 
needs relief with respect to adaptive modulation and does not want to 
wait for a rulemaking cycle to be completed.
    15. We agree with Verizon that a rulemaking is necessary to 
implement the policy interpretation sought in the FWCC request and we 
therefore deny

[[Page 52188]]

the FWCC request for declaratory ruling in this instance because the 
requested interpretation is inconsistent with the plain language of the 
current rule. The current rule specifies a ``minimum'' payload 
capacity, which commenters admit has been interpreted to mean that it 
must be complied with at all times when the system is in operation. 
Such an interpretation is consistent with the use of the word 
``minimum.'' FWCC's proposed interpretation deviates from the commonly 
understood meaning of the rule. Furthermore, the fact that licensees 
had interpreted the rule as establishing a benchmark that must be 
complied with at all times is further evidence that it would not be 
appropriate to change the meaning of an established rule under the 
guise of a declaratory ruling. We also note that the comments raise 
various policy issues that are best addressed through the rulemaking 
process.
    16. Nonetheless, we believe that it is in the public interest to 
commence a rulemaking proceeding to amend our rules to facilitate the 
use of adaptive modulation by allowing licensees to maintain 
communications in the face of adverse propagation characteristics. 
Adaptive modulation has the potential to reduce operational costs and 
facilitate the use of wireless backhaul in rural areas. While our 
current rules allow the use of adaptive modulation, they would require 
all modulation modes to comply with the minimum payload capacities 
contained in the rules at all times. Allowing carriers to operate below 
the current efficiency standards for short periods when it is necessary 
to maintain an operational link, without a need for waiver, could 
enable carriers to save on costs and enhance reliability of microwave 
links. Accordingly, we seek comment in the context of this NPRM on 
revising Sec.  101.141 of the Commission's rules to allow greater use 
of adaptive modulation by FS licensees.
    17. Adaptive modulation can allow communications to be maintained 
during adverse propagation conditions. Given the critical backhaul and 
public safety applications of FS stations, we find this benefit to be 
significant. By allowing this level of flexibility in our efficiency 
standards we hope to provide carriers with a way to lower their costs 
yet still use the spectrum efficiently.
    18. We are concerned, however, that the proposal to allow 
compliance with the efficiency standards ``on average'' and ``during 
normal operation'' is too vague and open-ended. Commenters have noted 
that it is standard engineering practice to design microwave links to 
have 99.995 percent or higher link availability. Under those 
circumstances, we believe the standard proposed in the FWCC request 
would give licensees too much latitude to deploy inefficient systems 
that would be inconsistent with good engineering practices. To the 
extent the underlying concern behind this proposal is that the 
requirements of the rule are too strict and inhibit full use of the 
spectrum, we believe the better approach would be to review those 
standards and amend them, if appropriate. Moreover, using an ``on 
average'' standard would make enforcement of the minimum payload 
capacity rule more difficult. We also tentatively conclude that the 
equipment restrictions proposed by Verizon would not be in the public 
interest because, as noted by HSX, such restrictions could increase 
equipment prices for carriers and consumers.
    19. We tentatively conclude to adopt a more carefully tailored 
approach by amending Sec.  101.141 of the Commission's rules to state 
that the minimum payload capacity requirements must be met at all 
times, except during anomalous propagation conditions, when lower 
capacities may be utilized in order to maintain communications. This 
approach will allow licensees to take advantage of the benefits of 
adaptive modulation without unduly undercutting the efficiency purpose 
that led to initial adoption of the minimum efficiency requirement. We 
seek comment on this proposal, as well as alternatives. We also seek 
comment on what might constitute anomalous signal fading. In that 
regard, we also propose to adopt AT&T's suggestion to require licensees 
that wish to be able to temporarily use modulations below the minimum 
payload capacity in Sec.  101.141 of the Commission's rules to state 
that fact in their prior coordination notices. We seek comment on 
whether, how, and to what extent this information should be logged and 
made part of the station records under Sec.  101.217 to facilitate 
enforcement. We also seek comment on related issues, including whether 
the rules should specify a minimum amount of time a link is operational 
or a minimum efficiency standard below which an FS station may not fall 
even when using adaptive modulation.
    20. We deny FWCC's waiver request. Given the concerns we have 
regarding FWCC's proposal to use an ``on average'' standard, FWCC has 
not shown that it would be in the public interest to allow operation 
under such circumstances. Furthermore, FWCC's claims that there is an 
urgent need for relief are conclusory and lack any specificity. We 
therefore conclude that the better course is to proceed through our 
normal rulemaking process and determine the best means of allowing 
licensees to take advantage of adaptive modulation.
Permitting Auxiliary Fixed Stations
    21. We seek comment on a proposal to permit substantially spatial 
reuse of scarce microwave spectrum, which may permit more efficient use 
of the spectrum thereby potentially reducing the cost of using FS 
spectrum for backhaul and other important purposes. Specifically, we 
propose to allow FS licensees to operate ``auxiliary stations'' in 
conjunction with existing microwave links, subject to conditions 
designed to enable the use of such stations to augment capacity while 
safeguarding existing users in the band. We seek comment on permitting 
FS licensees to coordinate and deploy multiple links--a primary link 
and ``auxiliary'' links.
    22. The Commission's current rules define a fixed station as ``[a] 
station operating at a fixed location,'' and require a license for each 
station. In the part 101 Operational Fixed Services, the rules require 
evaluation of proposed point-to-point fixed microwave stations on a 
site-by-site, path-by-path basis, and do not provide exceptions based 
on the aggregation of multiple sites and paths. Each license 
application must include ``all technical information required by the 
application form and any additional information necessary to fully 
describe the proposed facilities and to demonstrate compliance with all 
technical requirements of the rules governing the radio service 
involved * * *.'' This construct is different from services based on 
geographic area licensing, where a licensee, subject to certain 
exceptions, is allowed to place transmitters throughout its service 
area without individual Commission approval once it has obtained its 
geographic area license, subject to compliance with applicable service 
rules.
    23. On February 23, 2007, Wireless Strategies, Inc. (WSI) filed a 
petition asking the Commission to issue a declaratory ruling 
``confirming that a Fixed Service licensee is permitted to 
simultaneously coordinate multiple links whose transmitter elements 
collectively comply with the Commission's antenna standards and 
frequency coordination procedures.'' Comment on WSI's petition was 
sought by public notice, and 27 parties filed comments, reply comments 
and ex parte statements.
    24. In its original proposal, WSI proposed that it would be 
unnecessary to separately coordinate auxiliary elements within the side 
lobes of the main station because ``the antenna

[[Page 52189]]

characteristics provided by the applicant to the coordinator, in 
addition to describing the main lobe, also incorporate the properties 
of the multiple distributed elements to be used for communication with 
other locations.'' WSI referred to that concept as ``concurrent 
coordination.'' In response to arguments that coordination of the 
auxiliary elements is necessary, WSI modified its proposal. 
Specifically, WSI suggests that, once a ``main link'' is successfully 
coordinated and licensed, an auxiliary element would only be added (1) 
following regular frequency coordination and filing of an application 
for major modification of the license of the associated location whose 
frequency it would reuse, and (2) on a secondary basis to any future 
coordinated paths.
    25. Initially, we determine that the WSI proposal is not consistent 
with our rules as currently drafted, and we therefore deny the request 
for declaratory ruling. WSI's proposal to consider the performance of a 
system on an aggregate basis is not consistent with the plain wording 
of our rules for two reasons. First, the rules require evaluation of 
proposed point-to-point fixed microwave stations on a site-by-site, 
path-by-path basis, and do not provide exceptions based on the 
aggregation of multiple sites and paths. Second, WSI's proposal is 
inconsistent with the antenna standards rule, Sec.  101.115 of the 
Commission's rules, because it proposes the use of antennas that do not 
meet those standards.
    26. While we find that the concept proffered by WSI is not 
consistent with the current rules, we do find it worthy of further 
consideration. Because we cannot authorize this operation as a 
declaratory ruling, we seek comment in this NPRM on whether we should 
make necessary changes to our part 101 rules to afford licensees the 
opportunity to operate in this manner. We find that it is in the public 
interest to initiate a rulemaking proceeding on our own motion to 
consider changes to our part 101 rules to allow operation in the manner 
contemplated by WSI. A rulemaking proceeding will allow us to gather 
information on the proposed types of operations, discuss specific rule 
changes, and consider further the arguments for and against the 
operations that WSI contemplates.
    27. We seek comment on the potential benefits of permitting 
auxiliary stations under our part 101 rules--the uses they may support, 
the efficiencies that may be achieved--as well as on the potential 
harms. Reserving judgment on the ultimate balancing of those benefits 
and harms, we observe that a series of changes to our part 101 rules 
would be necessary in order to effectuate a part 101 regime including 
auxiliary stations. Specifically, we seek comment on the following 
elements of such a regime:
     Each auxiliary station must operate on the same 
frequencies as the main licensed link.
     Auxiliary stations must not cause any incremental 
interference to other primary links, i.e., they must not cause any more 
interference to them than the main link would cause. This result can, 
possibly, be achieved by alternating transmissions between the primary 
station and the auxiliary stations on a time-division multiplexed basis 
or by any other method that achieves the required result.
     Auxiliary stations will be secondary in status and have no 
right to claim protection from interference from any primary stations, 
including stations in other services, such as BAS, CARS, and satellite 
stations, other than interference that violates the protection rights 
of the main link. Otherwise, auxiliary stations will have a right to 
claim protection only from later-deployed auxiliary stations.
     Auxiliary stations would have to be coordinated in advance 
with other licensees and applicants pursuant to the frequency 
coordination process specified in Sec.  101.103 of the Commission's 
rules.
     After coordination, the licensee of the main link would 
file applications to make major modifications to the main link license 
to add auxiliary stations. In those bands where conditional authority 
is available, applicants could operate their auxiliary stations as soon 
as they complete the frequency coordination process and file their 
application with the Commission, subject to the usual conditions and 
exceptions to conditional authority. Alternatively, we seek comment on 
whether, consistent with the procedures set out in Sec.  101.31 of our 
rules for temporary fixed links, we could allow main link licensees to 
file blanket applications to operate temporary auxiliary stations at 
multiple locations within specified geographic areas surrounding the 
associated main links.
     Until we gain further experience with system operation 
under these new rules, we further propose to require that auxiliary 
stations be restricted from communicating directly with each other, 
i.e., that they be allowed to communicate directly only with the 
primary link's transmitter or receiver. We propose this restriction 
because it would reduce the chance of interference.
     Auxiliary stations would not be subject to the antenna 
standards or minimum path length requirements that apply to main links. 
Eliminating the beamwidth requirement will enable licensees to use 
smaller, less expensive antennas that put less of a load on support 
structures and thereby reduce the cost of those structures. The main 
link, however, would still have to comply with those requirements.
     Main links would remain subject to existing loading and 
path length requirements, but auxiliary stations would be exempt from 
the loading and path length requirements. Alternatively, in determining 
compliance with the loading requirements, licensees would be allowed to 
aggregate loading on the main link and auxiliary stations. We seek 
comment on both alternatives. Parties supporting the second alternative 
should explain how to avoid double counting traffic between a main link 
and an auxiliary link that also traverses the main link.
     Like primary stations, auxiliary stations would be 
required to obtain the necessary approvals for FAA tower clearance and 
to comply with environmental requirements covering non-ionizing 
radiation hazards, zoning, the National Environmental Act of 1969 and 
the National Historical Act of 1966, as applicable.
    28. We believe these proposed rule changes could facilitate the 
provision of advanced backhaul services in the FS bands while providing 
protection to existing users in the band. We seek comment on these 
proposals, as well as alternatives.
    29. We note that FS and satellite users raised concerns about the 
proposal in the record on the WSI Petition, arguing that it is 
inconsistent with the frequency coordination and antenna standards 
rules. Our main concerns are avoiding interference to existing 
operations in the bands, maintaining the reliability and integrity of 
existing systems, and avoiding a situation where spectrum becomes 
unavailable to FS applicants and other users that share spectrum with 
FS. In order to compare the relative benefits of and risks of allowing 
auxiliary stations, we request additional information from commenters.
    30. Initially, we seek more specific information on the types of 
operations auxiliary stations could be used for. Information that would 
be useful would include: (1) An estimate of how many systems parties 
contemplate operating with auxiliary stations, (2) information on 
whether such systems would typically be deployed in urban or rural 
areas, (3) the types of uses to which such systems would be put, (4) 
the contemplated distances between the auxiliary stations and the main 
link, and

[[Page 52190]]

(5) the relative amount of traffic anticipated to be carried on the 
main link versus the auxiliary links.
    31. We also seek comment on why the contemplated operations could 
not be accommodated in existing part 101 services and bands that allow 
point-to-multipoint operation, such as the Local Multipoint 
Distribution Service, the 24 GHz Service, and the operations in the 
38.6-40.0 GHz band. Those bands feature geographic area licensing that 
would appear to be well suited for the type of operations involving 
multiple stations, whether ``auxiliary'' or primary.
    32. We note that the examples WSI provides propose use of the Lower 
6 GHz Band (5925 MHz-6425 MHz). While the Commission authorized 30 
megahertz bandwidth links in the Upper 6GHz Band in the 6/23 GHz Report 
and Order, we anticipate that there will be considerable demand for 
those frequencies. We seek comment on whether there is sufficient 
capacity in those bands to accommodate many operations of the type 
contemplated by WSI, in addition to the existing uses in the band. We 
are particularly interested in the experiences of parties who have 
coordinated links in that band.
    33. We seek comment on whether our proposal would strike the 
appropriate balance between auxiliary stations and other operations, 
particularly primary microwave links. We propose requiring frequency 
coordination and adding auxiliary sites to the license through our 
normal application process and seek comment on whether those 
requirements would be sufficient protection. Furthermore, given that 
auxiliary stations would be secondary to main links and could not be 
used to prevent coordination of main links, it appears unlikely that 
they could be used to establish pseudo-geographic service areas. We 
seek comment on concerns raised by some commenters that auxiliary links 
could give applicants an incentive to propose main links that would 
allegedly specify excessive power, and would allegedly be designed to 
maximize interference and the preclusive effect on other nearby 
operations. We seek comment on the applicability of Sec.  101.103(d)(1) 
of the Commission's rules, which requires applicants to avoid 
interference in excess of permissible levels to other users and 
requires applicants to make ``every reasonable effort'' to avoid 
blocking the growth of prior coordinated systems, to main links 
associated with auxiliary stations.
    34. Finally, we seek comment on whether we should establish 
restrictions on the locations of auxiliary stations. One option would 
be to confine auxiliary stations to an area within a defined field 
strength level of the main link. Another option would be to provide 
that an auxiliary station could not generate field strength that 
exceeds the primary station's field strength beyond the perimeter where 
the primary station generates the field strength discussed above. We 
emphasize that compliance with such restrictions would not absolve 
auxiliary stations from the further requirement that they not cause 
incremental interference to other primary links. We invite comment on 
the appropriate metrics to use for defining the relevant field strength 
perimeters, as well as alternative means of establishing limitations on 
the locations of auxiliary stations.

Notice of Inquiry

    35. This Notice of Inquiry is intended to generate a record about 
other potential changes to part 101 rules that could potentially reduce 
wireless backhaul costs and increase investment in broadband 
deployment. In the first part, we ask about the possibility of relaxing 
efficiency standards in rural areas, where links may be longer and the 
density of deployment lower than in urban areas. In the second part, we 
inquire as to whether changes in the part 101 rules to permit smaller 
antennas could similarly reduce costs and stimulate investment. We 
invite commenters to offer specific proposals for rule changes on these 
issues, and encourage a full discussion of the advantages and 
disadvantages of rule changes.
Modification of Efficiency Standards in Rural Areas
    36. We seek comment on whether lowering the current efficiency 
standards in rural areas would lower costs associated with providing 
backhaul service. Under our current rules, rural providers must 
maintain the same capacity requirements also maintained by carriers in 
more densely populated metropolitan areas. Lower traffic volume on the 
rural networks and greater distances between microwave links may make 
maintenance of these minimum capacity requirements financially 
prohibitive in some instances. To the extent wireless carriers cannot 
obtain rural backhaul facilities at reasonable rates, lowering the 
current efficiency standards in rural areas could reduce the costs 
associated with wireless backhaul. We therefore seek additional comment 
on whether relaxing the current efficiency standards in rural areas 
would benefit rural licensees without diminishing the availability of 
already increasingly scarce backhaul spectrum.
    37. Section 101.141(a)(3) of the Commission's rules establishes 
minimum payload capacities (in terms of megabits per second) and 
minimum traffic loading payload (as a percentage of payload capacity) 
for various channel sizes in certain part 101 bands. The underlying 
purpose of the rule is to promote efficient frequency use. The 
requirements set forth in the rule apply equally to stations in urban 
areas and to stations in rural areas. The Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau has historically granted waivers to licensees in rural and 
remote areas where operation of microwave facilities at the required 
efficiency standards would cause financial hardship to the extent that 
the underlying purpose of the rule would be frustrated. We ask whether 
this waiver policy should be reflected in our rules so that applicants 
could obtain facilities for backhaul in rural areas without the cost 
and delay inherent in seeking a waiver of our rules.
    38. To the extent commenters support lowering the efficiency 
standards in rural areas, we seek specific proposals to modify the 
efficiency standards in Sec.  101.141(a)(3) of the Commission's rules. 
Proponents of changes to the standards should explain how changes would 
provide more flexibility and facilitate deployment of backhaul and 
other facilities in rural areas. Commenters should also address the 
impact such changes would have on existing licensees, including 
licensees in other services that share spectrum with FS. We ask whether 
any changes would be consistent with the underlying purpose of Sec.  
101.141(a)(3), which is to promote efficient utilization of the 
spectrum.
    39. In connection with this inquiry, we seek comment on the 
definition of ``rural'' that might be used to determine which 
geographic areas would be defined as rural under a revised rule 
relaxing efficiency standards in rural areas. In the Commission's 2004 
Report and Order addressing the ways to facilitate and enhance the 
provision of spectrum-based service in rural areas the Commission 
provided a baseline definition of ``rural areas'' as, ``those counties 
(or equivalent) with a population density of 100 persons per square 
mile or less, based upon the most recently available Census data.'' The 
Commission first used this definition as a proxy definition in its 
annual CMRS Competition Report for purposes of analyzing the average 
number of mobile telephony competitors in rural versus non-rural 
counties. At the time that the Commission adopted this definition, it

[[Page 52191]]

was determined that such a specific definition was necessary to 
establish continuity so that the Commission would have a basis for 
comparison of the effects of its ``rural area'' policies over time. It 
was determined in that same proceeding that the definition would be 
treated as a presumption to be applied for current and future 
Commission wireless radio service rules, policies and analyses for 
which the term ``rural area'' has not been expressly defined. In light 
of this established presumption, we seek comment on whether this 
definition is suitable to determine areas which should be considered 
rural for purposes of microwave efficiency standards in this band. We 
also seek comment on potential alternative definitions and any 
supporting reasons for why a specific definition should be utilized.
Review of Part 101 Antenna Standards
    40. We seek comment on whether to review the antenna standards in 
any particular band to allow smaller antennas, to identify 
opportunities to facilitate increased deployment of FS facilities 
without subjecting other licensees to increased interference. The 
National Broadband Plan noted that it was important to ensure that the 
Commission's antenna standards are up to date ``in order to maximize 
the cost-effectiveness of microwave services.'' Smaller antennas may be 
cheaper, easier to install, and generate fewer objections than antennas 
specified by the current requirements. We ask whether smaller antennas 
can be accommodated in any FS band without causing interference to 
other users in the band.
    41. Section 101.115(b) of the Commission's rules establishes 
directional antenna standards designed to maximize the use of microwave 
spectrum while avoiding interference between operators. More 
specifically, the Commission's rules set forth certain requirements, 
specifications, and conditions pursuant to which FS stations may use 
antennas that comply with either the more stringent performance 
standard in Category A (also known as Standard A) or the less stringent 
performance standard in Category B (also known as Standard B). In 
general, the Commission's rules require a Category B user to upgrade if 
the antenna causes interference problems that would be resolved by the 
use of a Category A antenna. The rule on its face does not mandate a 
specific size of antenna. Rather, it specifies certain technical 
parameters--maximum beamwidth, minimum antenna gain, and minimum 
radiation suppression--that, depending on the state of technology at 
any point in time, directly affect the size of a compliant antenna. The 
Commission adopts antenna specifications based on the technical 
sophistication of the communications equipment and the needs of the 
various users of the band at the time. Indeed, the Commission adopted 
similar technical specifications that effectively limited the size of 
antennas used in other bands, including those used by certain types of 
satellites. Periodically, the Commission has since reconsidered some of 
those antenna specifications in light of the technological evolution of 
communications equipment.
    42. Smaller antennas can have several advantages for carriers and 
consumers. In the 11 GHz Report and Order, the Commission noted that 
smaller antennas:

    Cost less to manufacture and distribute, are less expensive to 
install because they weigh less and need less structural support, 
and cost less to maintain because they are less subject to wind load 
and other destructive forces. In addition, proponents of the rule 
change contend that the modest weight of small antennas makes them 
practical for installation at sites incapable of supporting large 
dishes, including many rooftops, electrical transmission towers, 
water towers, monopoles and other radio towers. Proponents also 
state that 0.61 meter antennas raise fewer aesthetic objections, 
thereby permitting easier compliance with local zoning and homeowner 
association rules and generating fewer objections.

    43. On the other hand, smaller antennas have increased potential to 
cause interference because smaller antennas ``result in more 
radiofrequency energy being transmitted in directions away from the 
actual point-to-point link.''
    44. In light of the sharp increase in demand for FS facilities for 
backhaul and other purposes, we believe it is appropriate to inquire 
whether we should review our antenna standards in any particular band. 
Our goal in this inquiry would be to identify opportunities to 
facilitate increased deployment of FS facilities without subjecting 
other licensees to increased interference. Parties that believe that a 
review of antenna standards is appropriate should: (1) Identify 
specific FS bands where they believe the antenna standards should be 
reviewed, (2) offer specific proposals for new standards, (3) describe 
the technological or other changes that they believe support new 
antenna standards, (4) describe how the new antenna standards would 
facilitate deployment in that band, (5) discuss the impact such new 
antenna standards would have on other licensees in the band, including 
both FS licensees and other services that share the band, (6) discuss 
whether the proposed standards should apply to only rural areas or all 
geographical areas. Other parties are encouraged to provide their 
evaluation of proposed changes.
Increasing Flexibility Generally
    45. We also seek comment on whether we should examine any 
additional modifications to the part 101 rules, or other policies or 
regulations, to promote flexible, efficient and cost-effective 
provisions of wireless backhaul service. For example, are there any 
additional measures that could be taken to promote additional sharing 
with satellite, broadcast and other services? We also seek comment on 
any additional safeguards that may be needed to adequately protect the 
interests of existing licensees. Additionally, we seek comment on 
whether there are any changes we could make to our frequency 
coordination or application processes that could make it easier for 
applicants to access backhaul spectrum. We also ask commenters to 
identify any of our current rules or processes that could act as an 
unintended barrier to obtaining backhaul spectrum.

Procedural Matters

Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding
    46. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking 
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the 
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed pursuant to the 
Commission's rules.

Comment Period and Procedures

    47. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the FCC's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The FCC's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, 
or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Filers 
should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting 
comments.
     For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers 
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must

[[Page 52192]]

transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or 
rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the 
transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal 
Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking 
number. Comments shall be sent as an electronic file via the Internet 
to https://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. In completing the transmittal 
screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service 
mailing address, and the applicable docket number. Parties may also 
submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing 
instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to 
ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the 
message, ``get form.'' A sample form and directions will be sent in 
response.
     Paper filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one 
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, 
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in 
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to 
the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission. The Commission's contractor will receive 
hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the 
Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 
Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 
p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or 
fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the 
building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, 
Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.
     People with Disabilities: To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or 
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 
(voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
     Availability of Documents: The public may view the 
documents filed in this proceeding during regular business hours in the 
FCC Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, 
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, and on the 
Commission's Internet Home Page: https://www.fcc.gov. Copies of comments 
and reply comments are also available through the Commission's 
duplicating contractor: Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, 
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, 1-800-378-3160.

Paperwork Reduction Analysis

    48. This document does not contain proposed information 
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new 
or modified ``information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4) requirements.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    49. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the 
policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments 
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the 
deadlines specified in the NPRM for comments. The Commission will send 
a copy of this NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the 
NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal 
Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
    50. In this NPRM, we propose four changes to our rules involving 
microwave stations. First, we propose allowing fixed service stations 
to operate in the 6875-7125 MHz and 12700-13200 MHz bands. Second, we 
propose to eliminate the prohibition on broadcasters using part 101 
stations as the final radiofrequency (RF) link in the chain of 
distribution of the program material to broadcast stations. Third, we 
propose to amend our minimum payload capacity rule to facilitate the 
use of adaptive modulation to allow licensees to maintain 
communications by briefly reducing the rate at which they send data. 
Fourth, we propose to allow part 101 licensees to add auxiliary 
stations in order to allow substantially greater reuse of microwave 
spectrum and substantially reduce the cost of using FS spectrum for 
backhaul and other important purposes.
    51. With respect to the first proposal, we anticipate that demand 
for fixed service spectrum will increase substantially as it is 
increasingly used for wireless backhaul and other important purposes. 
The 6875-7125 MHz and 12700-13200 MHz bands are currently assigned to 
television pickup, television studio-transmitter links, television 
relay stations, television translator relay stations, and mobile only 
CARS. Based upon our experience in other bands, we believe assigning 
this band to the fixed service would be compatible with these other 
services using the frequency coordination procedures in Sec.  101.103 
of the Commission's rules. Assigning this spectrum to the fixed service 
would help provide additional spectrum that could be used for wireless 
backhaul and other critical applications.
    52. Second, Sec.  101.603(a)(7) of the Commission's rules, commonly 
known as the ``final link'' rule, prohibits broadcasters from using 
part 101 stations as the final radiofrequency (RF) link in the chain of 
distribution of the program material to broadcast stations. The rule 
ensures that private operational fixed stations are used for private, 
internal purposes and prevents broadcasters from causing congestion 
when part 74 Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) frequencies are 
available. In light of recent technological and regulatory 
developments, we believe the ``final link'' rule may no longer serve 
its intended purpose and may in fact inhibit the full use of part 101 
spectrum. As broadcasters and other microwave users move to digital-
based systems, we question whether it makes sense to maintain 
regulatory restrictions based on the type of content that the digital 
data represents. Based on the record developed in waiver requests 
granted by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, it appears that 
there are an increasing number of markets where Broadcast Auxiliary 
Service (BAS) spectrum is scarce. Furthermore, the rule may impose 
additional costs by requiring broadcasters to build two different 
systems: One system to carry program material to the transmitter site, 
and a separate system to handle other data. In light of the extensive 
sharing between BAS and FS of the same bands, we believe it is 
appropriate to provide broadcasters with additional flexibility to use 
the FS bands. We therefore propose to eliminate this rule.

[[Page 52193]]

    53. Our third proposal is to amend out part 101 technical rules to 
facilitate the use of adaptive modulation. Section 101.141(a)(3) of the 
Commission's rules establishes minimum payload capacities (in terms of 
megabits per second) for various channel sizes in certain part 101 
bands. The underlying purpose of the rule is to promote efficient 
frequency use. Although the Commission has never quantified the time 
period over which licensees must comply with those standards, the 
industry has generally construed the payload requirements as applying 
whenever the link is in service. Fixed service links, especially long 
links, are subject to atmospheric fading: A temporary drop in received 
power caused by changes in propagation conditions. Fading leads to an 
increase in bit errors, and sometimes to a complete loss of 
communications. One way to combat fading is by briefly reducing the 
data rate, which requires a temporary change in the type of modulation, 
a process called ``adaptive modulation.'' The use of adaptive 
modulation may reduce the minimum payload capacity below the value 
specified in the rule for a short time, although this still represents 
an increase over the otherwise zero level during the fade. Adaptive 
modulation has public interest benefits of allowing communications to 
be maintained during adverse propagation conditions. Given the critical 
backhaul and public safety applications of fixed service stations, we 
find this benefit to be significant. By allowing this level of 
flexibility in our efficiency standards we hope to provide carriers 
with a way to lower their costs yet still use the spectrum efficiently. 
We therefore propose to amend our rules to state that the minimum 
payload capacity requirements must be complied with at all times, 
except during anomalous propagation conditions, when lower capacities 
may be utilized in order to maintain communications. That approach 
would allow licensees to take advantage of the benefits of adaptive 
modulation while ensuring efficient use of the spectrum.
    54. Finally, we seek comment on allowing substantially greater 
reuse of microwave spectrum and substantially reduce the cost of using 
fixed spectrum for backhaul and other important purposes by allowing 
licensees to place auxiliary antennas that the licensee of each primary 
FS link be allowed to deploy as many auxiliary stations as it wishes 
under the following conditions:
     Each auxiliary station must operate on the same 
frequencies as the main licensed link.
     Auxiliary stations must not cause any incremental 
interference to other primary links, i.e., they must not cause any more 
interference to them than the main link would cause. This result can, 
possibly, be achieved by alternating transmissions between the primary 
station and the auxiliary stations on a time-division multiplexed basis 
or by any other method that achieves the required result.
     Auxiliary stations will be secondary in status and have no 
right to claim protection from interference from any primary stations, 
including stations in other services, such as BAS, CARS, and satellite 
stations, other than interference that violates the protection rights 
of the main link. Otherwise, auxiliary stations will have a right to 
claim protection only from later-deployed auxiliary stations.
     Auxiliary stations would have to be coordinated in advance 
with other licensees and applicants pursuant to the frequency 
coordination process specified in Sec.  101.103 of the Commission's 
rules.
     After coordination, the licensee of the main link would 
file applications to make major modifications to the main link license 
to add auxiliary stations. In those bands where conditional authority 
is available, applicants could operate their auxiliary stations as soon 
as they complete the frequency coordination process and file their 
application with the Commission, subject to the usual conditions and 
exceptions to conditional authority. Alternatively, we seek comment on 
whether, consistent with the procedures set out in Sec.  101.31 of our 
rules for temporary fixed links, we could allow main link licensees to 
file blanket applications to operate temporary auxiliary stations at 
multiple locations within specified geographic areas surrounding the 
associated main links.
     Until we gain further experience with system operation 
under these new rules, we further propose to require that auxiliary 
stations be restricted from communicating directly with each other, 
i.e., that they be allowed to communicate directly only with the 
primary link's transmitter or receiver. We propose this restriction 
because it would reduce the chance of interference.
     Auxiliary stations would not be subject to the antenna 
standards or minimum path length requirements that apply to main links. 
Eliminating the beamwidth requirement will enable licensees to use 
smaller, less expensive antennas that put less of a load on support 
structures and thereby reduce the cost of those structures. The main 
link, however, would still have to comply with those requirements.
     Main links would remain subject to existing loading and 
path length requirements, but auxiliary stations would be exempt from 
the loading and path length requirements. Alternatively, in determining 
compliance with the loading requirements, licensees would be allowed to 
aggregate loading on the main link and auxiliary stations. We seek 
comment on both alternatives. Parties supporting the second alternative 
should explain how to avoid double counting traffic between a main link 
and an auxiliary link that also traverses the main link.
     Like primary stations, auxiliary stations would be 
required to obtain the necessary approvals for FAA tower clearance and 
to comply with environmental requirements covering non-ionizing 
radiation hazards, zoning, the National Environmental Act of 1969 and 
the National Historical Act of 1966, as applicable.
B. Legal Basis
    55. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 
4(i), 7, 10, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332 
and 333 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 
152, 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 
319, 324, 332, and 333.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
    56. 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 and policies, 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 
SBA.
    57. Our proposed action, if implemented, may, over time, affect 
small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore 
describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small 
entity size standards. First, nationwide, there are a total of 
approximately 27.2 million small businesses, according to the SBA. In 
addition, a ``small organization'' is

[[Page 52194]]

generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned 
and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 
2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. 
Finally, the term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is defined 
generally as ``governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, 
school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 
fifty thousand.'' Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 
87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We 
estimate that, of this total, 84,377 entities were ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions 
are small.
    58. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). 
Microwave services include common carrier, private-operational fixed, 
and broadcast auxiliary radio services. At present, there are 
approximately 31,428 common carrier fixed licensees and 79,732 private 
and public safety operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary 
radio licensees in the microwave services. The Commission has not yet 
defined a small business with respect to microwave services. For 
purposes of the IRFA, we will use the SBA definition that applies to 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite)--i.e., an 
entity with no more than 1,500 persons. Since 2007, the Census Bureau 
has placed wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census 
category. Prior to that time, such firms were within the now-superseded 
categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications.'' Under the present and prior category definitions, 
the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. For the category of Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers (except Satellite), preliminary data for 2007, i.e., data 
based on the superseded SBA classification, show that there were 11,927 
firms operating that year. While the Census Bureau has not released 
data on such establishments broken down by number of employees, we note 
that the Census Bureau lists total employment for all firms in that 
sector at 281,262. Since all firms with fewer than 1,500 employees are 
considered small, given the total employment in the sector, we estimate 
that the vast majority of wireless firms are small. We estimate that 
virtually all of the Fixed Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast 
auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small entities under the SBA 
definition.
    59. Radio Broadcasting. A radio broadcasting station is an 
establishment primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio 
to the public. Included in this industry are commercial, religious, 
educational, and other radio stations. Radio broadcasting stations 
which primarily are engaged in radio broadcasting and which produce 
radio program materials are similarly included. However, radio stations 
that are separate establishments and are primarily engaged in producing 
radio program material are classified under another NAICS number. The 
SBA has established a small business size standard for this category, 
which is: Firms having $7 million or less in annual receipts. According 
to BIA Advisory Services, LLC, MEDIA Access Pro Database on March 17, 
2009, 10,884 (95%) of 11,404 commercial radio stations have revenue of 
$6 million or less. Therefore, the majority of such entities are small 
entit