Facilitating the Use of Microwave for Wireless Backhaul and Other Uses and Providing Additional Flexibility To Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Operational Fixed Microwave Licensees, 59614-59623 [2011-23000]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59614-59623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23000]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 101

[WT Docket No. 10-153; RM-11602; FCC 11-120]


Facilitating the Use of Microwave for Wireless Backhaul and Other 
Uses and Providing Additional Flexibility To Broadcast Auxiliary 
Service and Operational Fixed Microwave Licensees

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks more targeted comments 
on proposals originally discussed in its Notice of Inquiry (NOI), for 
increasing the flexibility of our part 101 rules to promote wireless 
backhaul. We seek comment on certain proposals offered by parties in 
response to the NOI that we believe warrant further consideration. We 
also seek comment on additional ways to increase the flexibility, 
capacity and cost-effectiveness of the microwave bands, while 
protecting incumbent licensees in these bands. By enabling more 
flexible and cost-effective microwave services, the Commission can help 
accelerate deployment of fourth-generation (4G) mobile broadband 
infrastructure across America. In addition, we address a petition for 
rulemaking filed by Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC).

DATES: Submit comments on or before October 4, 2011. Submit reply 
comments on or before October 25, 2011.

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: John Schauble, Deputy Chief, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-0797 or by e-
mail to John.Schauble@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Backhaul Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), FCC 11-120, 
adopted and released on August 9, 2011. 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://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-120A1.doc. 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

Review of Part 101 Antenna Standards

    1. Section 101.115(b) of the Commission's rules establishes 
directional antenna standards designed

[[Page 59615]]

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. Periodically, the 
Commission has since reconsidered some of those antenna specifications 
in light of the technological evolution of communications equipment.
    2. In the NOI, the Commission solicited proposals for allowing FS 
licensees to use smaller antennas. In the NOI, the Commission asked 
whether it should review our antenna standards in any particular band 
due to the sharp increase in demand for FS facilities for backhaul and 
other purposes. Accordingly, in the NOI, we asked commenting parties 
to: (1) Identify specific FS bands where they believe the Commission 
should review its antenna standards; (2) offer specific proposals for 
new standards; (3) describe the technological or other changes that 
they believe support new antenna standards; (4) describe how 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; and (6) discuss whether the proposed standards should apply only 
to rural areas or to all geographical areas.
    3. Based on the record received in response to the NOI, we seek 
additional comment on modifying the antenna standards set forth in the 
Commission's rules to permit the use of smaller antennas in the 5925-
6875 MHz band (6 GHz band), 17700-18820 and 18920-19700 MHz bands (18 
GHz band), and 21200-23600 MHz band (23 GHz band). Several parties 
expressed general support for modifying the antenna standards on the 
basis that smaller antennas are cheaper to manufacture, install, and 
maintain. They also contend that smaller antennas allow existing towers 
to accommodate more antennas and allow installations at sites that 
would not otherwise be able to accommodate larger antennas. A number of 
parties argue that fixed service licensees can also reduce their 
deployment costs by using smaller antennas because tower space costs 
are often based significantly on the size and weight of the antenna 
being placed on the tower. AT&T and Engineers for Integrity of 
Broadcast Auxiliary Service Spectrum (EIBASS) expressed general 
opposition to allowing smaller antennas because permitting the use of 
smaller antennas, without technical restrictions, could produce harmful 
interference and decrease spectral efficiency.
    4. The most extensive discussion offered by parties focused on 
allowing smaller antennas in the 6, 18, and 23 GHz bands. With respect 
to the 6 GHz band, Cielo and Sprint recommend that the minimum antenna 
size be reduced from six feet to four feet. While Comsearch originally 
also supported allowing four-foot antennas in the 6 GHz band, it later 
recommended that the Commission revise the antenna standards in Sec.  
101.115 for this band to allow for use of 3-foot antennas. For the 18 
GHz band, Ceragon, Cielo, and Comsearch recommend that the minimum 
antenna size be reduced from two feet to one foot, while Sprint 
recommends a minimum diameter of 18 inches. In the 23 GHz band, 
commenters offered varying minimum antenna sizes. For example, 
Comsearch, Sprint, and Cielo proposed, respectively, that the 
Commission permit the use of antennas eight inches, six inches, and 
less than 1 foot in diameter. FWCC supports Comsearch's proposals.
    5. With respect to the 6 GHz band, we seek comment on Comsearch's 
submitted antenna standards that would permit the use of 3-foot 
antennas. If such a change can be made without causing harmful 
interference to existing users, that change would maximize the benefits 
of allowing smaller antennas. For the 18 GHz band, we propose to adopt 
the standards Comsearch has offered to allow one-foot antennas. For the 
23 GHz band, we propose to allow eight-inch antennas consistent with 
the standards proposed by Comsearch. We note that for each of those 
bands, we propose changes only to the standards for Category B 
antennas.
    6. We ask that parties specifically discuss each standard in 
offering further comments on the proposed modifications. To the extent 
that commenters propose the use of alternative antenna sizes in the 6, 
18, or 23 GHz bands, we ask that they specify the technical parameters 
(i.e., maximum beamwidth, minimum antenna gain, and minimum radiation 
suppression) to allow for the use of those antennas. In particular, we 
seek comment on whether the proposed amendments would facilitate the 
efficient use of those bands by affording FS licensees the flexibility 
to install smaller antennas in those bands while appropriately 
protecting other users in the bands from interference.
    7. We recognize that the proposed use of smaller, lower-gain 
antennas will result in more radiofrequency energy being transmitted in 
directions away from the actual point-to-point link and that the 
potential for interference is a concern for several parties. We 
therefore wish to ensure that any proposed changes to the Commission's 
rules appropriately protect other users in the bands from interference 
due to the operation of these smaller antennas. We seek comment on 
whether the use of smaller antennas pursuant to the proposed 
modifications will adversely affect other users in the specific bands 
by increasing the risk of interference. If so, do the potential 
benefits of using smaller antennas outweigh the potential risks of 
interference? We ask proponents of allowing smaller antennas to provide 
specific information quantifying how much money licensees could save in 
antenna, tower-siting, and deployment costs if the Commission 
authorized the use of smaller antennas as proposed in this FNPRM. 
Comments should be specific to a proposed antenna standard for a 
particular band.
    8. We also seek comment on other ideas for changes to our antenna 
standards. Are additional options to mitigate interference needed if we 
modify the antenna standards in a specific band? For example, Comsearch 
suggested that the Commission could consider a power or EIRP tradeoff. 
Clearwire asks the Commission to examine its rules and consider changes 
to Category A (also known as Standard A) and Category B (also known as 
Standard B) to account for technology advancements and more 
sophisticated band sharing techniques and permit the deployment of 
different antenna geometries and smaller diameter antennas. Clearwire 
further urges the Commission to foster the development

[[Page 59616]]

of different antenna geometries in addition to developing radio pattern 
envelope (RPE) standards for smaller diameter antennas using current 
parabolic geometries. We seek comment on Clearwire's suggestion and on 
the advantages and disadvantages of other ideas for changes in our 
antenna standards.

Revising Efficiency Standards in Rural Areas

    9. In the NOI, the Commission sought 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. Section 101.141(a)(3) of the Commission's 
rules, Fixed Service operators must establish minimum payload 
capacities (in terms of megabits per second) and minimum traffic 
loading payload (as a percentage of payload capacity) to promote 
efficient frequency use for various channel sizes in certain part 101 
bands. Under the current rules, the requirements apply equally to 
stations in urban areas and to stations in rural areas. However, 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 and to the extent that the underlying purpose of the rule 
would not be frustrated.
    10. The Commission requested comment on whether lowering the 
current efficiency standards in rural areas would reduce the costs 
associated with wireless backhaul and thereby increase investment in 
broadband deployment. The Commission asked proponents of changing the 
standards to explain how changes would provide more flexibility and 
facilitate deployment of backhaul and other facilities in rural areas 
while still being consistent with the underlying purpose of Sec.  
101.141(a)(3), which is to promote efficient utilization of the 
spectrum. In addition, the Commission asked commenters to discuss the 
impact such changes would have on existing licensees, including 
licensees in other services that share spectrum with Fixed Services.
    11. The Commission also sought comment on how to define ``rural'' 
under a revised rule that relaxes the efficiency standards in rural 
areas. The Commission noted that it had established a presumption to 
define ``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.''
    12. We find that in some instances, the lower traffic volume on 
rural networks and greater distances between microwave links may make 
it financially prohibitive to meet these minimum capacity requirements 
when conducting backhaul operations with wireless fixed links. We 
therefore propose to revise our application of the efficiency standards 
to reduce the cost of deploying microwave backhaul facilities and 
thereby spur deployment of broadband in rural areas. Sprint states that 
``relaxed minimum payload capacities and minimum traffic loading 
payloads * * * [could] reduce the costs of deployment and [] allow for 
more microwave backhaul deployment in rural areas.'' Cielo Networks 
concurs, arguing that lowering the efficiency standards can ``lower 
deployment costs, which improves the businesses case for deploying 
microwave networks in typically underserved rural markets.'' Similarly, 
Aviat Networks supports the proposal to allow lower spectrum efficiency 
in rural areas because it ``will drive the roll out of broadband in 
rural areas.'' Relaxing efficiency standards could also substantially 
increase the possible path length, which could dramatically improve the 
business case for deploying microwave backhaul facilities in certain 
rural areas.
    13. We are sensitive to the concerns of commenters that argue that 
lowering efficiency standards would result in less efficient use of 
spectrum and discourage innovation. In heavily congested areas, those 
concerns are valid, and we do not propose a general elimination of 
efficiency standards. In rural areas, however, relaxing efficiency 
standards could make microwave backhaul affordable by allowing 
operators to use longer links or reduce costs in other ways. Our goal 
is to facilitate the use of microwave in remote areas where microwave 
may be the only feasible means of providing backhaul.
    14. Our proposal for modifying the efficiency standards rule is 
based on our antenna standards rule, which is well known to microwave 
licensees. Under that rule, a licensee is permitted to use antennas 
meeting performance Standard B if the environment is not congested with 
other licensees. Under our proposal, licensees would not be required to 
comply with the efficiency standards of Sec.  101.141(a)(3) if the 
environment allows for the use of antennas meeting performance Standard 
B. By definition, there should be fewer concerns about congestion and 
availability of spectrum in those areas. In contrast, in the more 
congested areas where an antenna meeting performance Standard A is 
required, the licensee would be required to comply with the efficiency 
standards unless it made a detailed showing in its application that: 
(1) The efficiency standards prevent the deployment of the requested 
link for economic or technical reasons; (2) the applicant does not have 
any reasonable alternatives (e.g., use of different frequency bands, 
use of fiber); and (3) relaxing the efficiency standards would result 
in tangible and specific public interest benefits. If a formerly non-
congested area becomes congested such that use of a Standard A antenna 
is required, future applicants in that area would need to comply with 
the efficiency standards, absent a showing along the lines described 
above.
    15. We seek comment on this proposed rule, as well as alternative 
ideas for providing relief from the efficiency standards in rural 
areas. We ask commenters to provide specific examples of instances in 
which relief from the efficiency standards could promote broadband 
deployment. We also seek comment on how much our proposal to modify the 
efficiency standards rule or any alternative ideas would reduce 
deployment costs. Are there benefits to our proposal or any alternative 
ideas beyond encouraging broadband deployment in rural areas and 
improving the business case for deploying microwave backhaul facilities 
in rural areas? Parties that oppose the idea should cite specific harms 
that they believe would result from changing the rule. We also seek 
comment on various means of implementing relief. Is it appropriate to 
base relief on the ability to use Category B antennas, or should the 
rule be based on another factor, such as the number of existing 
microwave links in a geographic area? If the rule is based on the 
number of links, how many links should be permitted and what is the 
appropriate geographic area for measuring the number of links? If 
relief is appropriate, should the Commission establish a new, lower 
efficiency requirement (e.g., a percentage of Sec.  101.141(a)(3)'s 
existing requirements) in addition to the Sec.  101.141(a)(1) minimum 
bit rate requirement? In instances where an operator must use a 
Category A antenna, are the proposed standards for seeking relief from 
the efficiency standards appropriate, or should we adopt different or 
additional standards? Should relief from the efficiency standards be 
granted as a waiver requiring specific Commission action prior to 
operation, or should the Commission structure the relief in such

[[Page 59617]]

a manner as to allow conditional authority?

Allowing Wider Channels in 6 GHz and 11 GHz Bands

    16. On May 14, 2010, FWCC filed a petition for rulemaking 
requesting that the Commission allow Fixed Service operators to combine 
adjacent 30 and 40 megahertz channels in the 5925-6425 MHz (Lower 6 GHz 
band) and 10700-11700 MHz band (11 GHz band) to increase the link 
capacity and simplify emerging backhaul operations. Currently, the 
maximum authorized channel bandwidths in the Lower 6 GHz band and 11 
GHz band are 30 and 40 megahertz, respectively. FWCC contends that the 
current 30 and 40 megahertz channels have a ``practical maximum on a 
single polarization of about 180-200 Mb/s'' per channel, which is 
adequate for voice and low-speed data services (text and e-mails) but 
not for high-speed data (video and web browsing). FWCC anticipates that 
``strong growth in mobile broadband * * * will soon push backhaul 
requirements * * * toward[s] 360/Mb/s per channel.'' Although FWCC 
acknowledges that it is possible to achieve the higher speeds by 
running separate signals on separate 30 or 40 MHz channels, it requires 
``complex electronics to coordinate the transmissions, with the 
additional disadvantage of intermodulation products due to multiple RF 
signals sharing the same antenna.'' FWCC argues that by allowing Fixed 
Service operators to utilize 60 and 80 megahertz channels, it will 
simplify the electronics, lowers costs, improve reliability, eliminate 
intermodulation issues, and increase spectrum utilization.
    17. NSMA states that the FWCC petition ``has merit and would 
benefit users'' but that the Commission should implement appropriate 
regulatory constraints to assure efficient use of the spectrum. 
Specifically, NSMA suggests that the Commission should consider: (1) 
``requiring a showing of necessity and availability for applications 
planning use of more than one or two 60/80 MHz wide channels on any one 
path''; (2) designating certain slots as ``preferred'' slots for wider 
bandwidth channels (e.g., starting at one of the band edges, so all 
licensees would first attempt use of these channels on the same 
frequencies); (3) adjusting the minimum payload requirements to account 
for the higher capacity capabilities of the wider bandwidth channels; 
and (4) adopting methods to better assure high utilization with more 
tightly drawn regulations. FWCC concurs with NSMA's suggestions.
    18. Conterra Ultra Broadband, LLC (Conterra) opposes the petition 
because of concern that increasing the channel bandwidth will further 
limit the overall availability of channels for use in the Lower 6 and 
11 GHz bands as Fixed Service operators begin to license adjacent 
channels to create 60 and 80 megahertz ``super channels.'' Conterra 
argues that the ``initiative set forth in the FWCC's petition should 
not move forward unless there is a concurrent increase in available 
spectrum in these bands or a requirement to release unused 
allocations.'' FWCC replies that the availability of 60 and 80 
megahertz channels will improve efficiency by putting into productive 
use the frequency space near adjacent channel edges, where signals must 
otherwise be attenuated.
    19. We seek comment on FWCC's proposal to allow 60 megahertz 
channels in the Lower 6 GHz band and 80 megahertz channels in the 11 
GHz band. The proposal has the potential to allow backhaul operators to 
handle more capacity and offer faster data rates. The record on this 
issue is quite limited, however, and we therefore seek additional 
information on this proposal.
    20. Initially, we invite commenters to provide data on the 
anticipated demand for wider channels in these bands in different 
geographies. As the Commission has recently recognized, the Lower 6 GHz 
band is increasingly congested, and in some locations, it can be 
impossible to coordinate even a 30 megahertz link in that band. We seek 
comment on whether there are some areas, such as pockets of rural 
communities, where it is possible to use wider channels in the 6 and 11 
GHz bands. Given the increasing use of these bands, to what extent can 
wider channels be accommodated? Would the primary benefit be in rural 
areas, or is there sufficient capacity to support use of wider channels 
in more urbanized areas?
    21. In support of its proposal, FWCC claims that allowing wider 
channels would result in a number of benefits, including lower costs, 
improved reliability, elimination of intermodulation issues, and 
increased spectrum utilization? We ask supporters of the proposal to 
provide specific data corroborating and quantifying the cost savings 
and other benefits claimed by FWCC. We also seek comment on any 
conditions that should limit the ability to seek such wider channels, 
including the conditions proposed by NSMA. To what extent would NSMA's 
suggestions alleviate the concerns raised by Conterra? Would combining 
adjacent channels simplify emerging backhaul operations, and if so, by 
how much? We also seek comment on concerns that combining adjacent 
links would unnecessarily deplete the spectrum and possibly encourage 
speculative licensing by applicants seeking more spectrum than they 
need for their own operational purposes.
    22. In addition, we seek comment on how the Commission should 
adjust the minimum payload requirements to account for the increased 
capacity that is available with wider bandwidth channels, should the 
Commission permit wider bandwidth channels. Given that the licensee 
will be utilizing twice as much spectrum, should the minimum payload 
requirements be doubled? Or should the Commission require an even 
greater increase in the payload requirements because combining the two 
channels would allow productive use of the frequency space in the 
middle of the now larger channel where the signal would otherwise have 
had to be attenuated if it were divided into two channels? Or should 
the Commission adopt an alternative approach? What are the potential 
advantages and disadvantages of adjusting the minimum payload 
requirements?

Geostationary Orbital Intersections

    23. To protect receivers on geostationary satellites from the 
potential for interference from FS transmitters, Sec.  101.145 of the 
Commission's rules requires a waiver filing for: (1) FS transmitters in 
the 2655-2690 MHz and 5925-7075 MHz bands with an antenna aimed within 
2[deg] of the geostationary arc; and (2) FS transmitters in the 12700-
13250 MHz range with an antenna aimed within 1.5[deg] of the 
geostationary arc. To be approved, a waiver request must show, among 
other things, that the transmitter EIRP is below listed limits. In 
contrast, Article 21 of the ITU Radio Regulations places the 2[deg] 
restriction on the pointing azimuth of antennas of FS transmitters in 
the 1-10 GHz band only if the EIRP is greater than 35 dBW, and the 
1.5[deg] restriction on the azimuth of antennas in the 10-15 GHz band 
only if the EIRP is greater than 45 dBW.
    24. Comsearch asks that the Commission amend Sec.  101.145 of the 
Commission's rules to require a waiver filing for FS facilities 
pointing near the geostationary arc only if the EIRP is greater than 
the values listed in the ITU Radio Regulations. Comsearch contends that 
the requirement primarily protects satellites located over Europe, 
Africa, or the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans.

[[Page 59618]]

Comsearch believes that because the ITU has determined that FS 
transmitters with EIRPs below the values listed in Article 21 are 
unlikely to cause interference to geostationary satellites, amending 
the Commission's rules would improve the administrative efficiency of 
licensing FS links for backhaul without any corresponding harm.
    25. We seek comment on amending Sec.  101.145 of the Commission's 
rules to limit the circumstances under which FS transmitters must 
obtain a waiver in order to point near the geostationary arc. This 
action could facilitate microwave deployments by allowing affected 
licensees to deploy more quickly. The Commission's rules provide many 
applicants with conditional authority to begin service immediately, 
without waiting for final approval from the Commission, once they 
complete frequency coordination, with the stipulation that they must 
take their stations down if the Commission later rejects their 
applications. Conditional authority is not available, however, to 
applicants that must request waivers of existing rules. To the extent 
we can reduce the number of applicants that seek waivers, we can 
expedite deployment. Furthermore, the proposed change would harmonize 
our regulations with international regulations. It also appears that we 
can make a change without any increased risk of interference to 
satellite services. Under our proposal, we would require a waiver only 
if the EIRP is greater than 35 dBW for the 5925-7075 MHz band and is 
greater than 45 dBW in the 12700-13250 MHz band. Should the Commission 
adopt this or an alternative proposal? What are the potential 
advantages and disadvantages of adopting this or an alternative 
proposal?

Revising Definitions for Efficiency Standards

    26. Currently, Sec.  101.141(a)(3) of the Commission's rules lists 
a ``minimum payload capacity'' for various nominal channel bandwidths. 
The term ``payload capacity'' is not defined. According to Comsearch, 
data that is transmitted over a radio link includes both capacity that 
is available to carry traffic, as well as overhead generated by the 
radios such as coding and forward error correction information. 
Comsearch also states that IP radio systems use header compression 
techniques that result in repetitive overhead bits of data that are not 
transmitted over the radio link. As a result, the data rate at the 
Ethernet interfaces is higher than the rate at which data traverses the 
over-the-air radio path. In light of this difference, Comsearch argues 
that the payload capacity required by the rule should include the over-
the-air capacity available for user traffic but exclude all overhead 
data. Accordingly, Comsearch asks the Commission to define ``payload 
capacity'' as ``the bit rate available for transmission of data over a 
radiocommunication system, excluding overhead data generated by the 
system.''
    27. The same rule also defines ``typical utilization'' of the 
required payload capacity for each channel bandwidth as multiples of 
the number of voice circuits a channel can accommodate. Comsearch 
recommends revising Sec.  101.141(a)(3) to de-emphasize these legacy 
voice-based TDM data rates and instead emphasize a consistent 
efficiency requirement in terms of bits-per-second-per-Hertz (``bps/
Hz''). Comsearch argues that while these examples were typical when the 
rule was written, they are becoming outdated as systems support other 
interfaces such as Internet Protocol. In addition, Comsearch believes 
that the rule should be changed because the bandwidth efficiency 
requirements vary (from 2.46 to 4.47 bps/Hz) based on channel bandwidth 
rather than having a uniform requirement for all channel bandwidths. 
Comsearch asks the Commission to obtain input from equipment 
manufacturers and other interested parties to develop an appropriate 
efficiency rate in terms of bits-per-second-per-Hertz.
    28. We seek comment on Comsearch's proposals. Is the suggested 
definition of payload capacity appropriate, or should we adopt an 
alternative definition or leave the term undefined? Are there 
alternative ways of resolving the problems Comsearch identifies? What 
are the advantages and disadvantages of defining payload capacity as 
Comsearch requests? We ask commenters to identify advantages and 
disadvantages to defining the efficiency requirement in terms of bits-
per-second-per-hertz or in terms of some other metric. We seek input on 
an appropriate benchmark value for defining the efficiency requirement 
in terms of bits-per-second-per-hertz if we decide to define the 
efficiency requirement in terms of bits-per-second-per-hertz. Should 
the value be the same across all frequency bands? Related to our 
inquiry on efficiency standards in rural areas, should there be a 
different benchmark value in rural areas? We also seek comment on 
whether there is any need to consider how the definition should be 
applied to legacy systems. Is there a need for any grandfathering 
provisions for equipment that is currently installed or equipment that 
is currently on the market?

Procedural Matters

Ex Parte Rules--Permit-but-Disclose Proceeding

    29. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons 
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written 
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within 
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline 
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex 
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule Sec.  1.1206(b). In proceedings governed 
by rule Sec.  1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a 
method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and 
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments 
thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system 
available for that proceeding and must be filed in their native format 
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this 
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte 
rules.

Comment Period and Procedures

    30. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission'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 Commission's 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's 
eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic 
Filing of

[[Page 59619]]

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the 
Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. or the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Filers should 
follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting 
comments.
    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. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. 
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the 
Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th St., SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 
8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber 
bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes 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

    31. 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

    32. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of 
the policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking. We request written public comment on the analysis. Comments 
must be filed in accordance with the same deadlines as comments filed 
in response to the FNRPM and must have a separate and distinct heading 
designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer 
and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will 
send a copy of this Backhaul FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
    In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we propose five 
additional changes to our rules involving microwave stations. These 
changes are described in further detail below. First, we propose to 
allow the use of smaller antennas in the 5925-6875 MHz band (6 GHz 
band), 17700-18300 and 19300-19700 MHz bands (18 GHz band), and 21200-
23600 MHz band (23 GHz band) fixed service (FS) bands. Second, we 
propose to exempt microwave stations in non-congested areas from our 
capacity and loading requirements in order to facilitate the provision 
of service to rural areas. Third, we propose to widen the permissible 
maximum channel size in the 5925-6425 GHz Band (Lower 6 GHz Band) (to 
allow 60 megahertz channels) and in the 10700-11700 MHz band (11 GHz 
Band) (to allow 80 megahertz channels) to allow faster data rates. 
Fourth, we propose to revise the criteria under which microwave 
stations that are pointing in the direction of geostationary satellites 
must seek a waiver prior to operating to expedite service. Finally, we 
propose to add a definition of ``payload capacity'' to our rules, and 
seek comment on updating our capacity and loading requirements to 
reflect the increasing use of interfaces such as Internet Protocol.
    With respect to the first proposal, Sec.  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. 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. Smaller antennas 
have several advantages. They 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, 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. Smaller antennas raise fewer aesthetic objections, thereby 
permitting easier compliance with local zoning and homeowner 
association rules and generating fewer objections. 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. We seek comment 
on whether we can allow smaller antennas in the 6, 18 and 23 GHz bands 
without producing harmful interference.
    Second, pursuant to Sec.  101.141(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, 
Fixed Service operators must comply with minimum payload capacities (in 
terms of megabits per second) and minimum traffic loading payload (as a 
percentage of payload capacity) to promote efficient frequency use for 
various channel sizes in certain part 101 bands. Under the current 
rules, the requirements apply equally to stations in urban areas and to 
stations in rural areas. We seek comment on whether exempting stations 
in less congested areas from complying with the minimum payload 
capacity rule could allow licensees to establish longer links, 
resulting in cost savings and facilitating the use of wireless 
broadband and other critical services.
    Third, we propose to allow the use of wider channels in the Lower 6 
GHz

[[Page 59620]]

Band and 11 GHz Band. Specifically, we seek comment on allowing 60 
megahertz channels in the Lower 6 GHz Band and 80 megahertz channels in 
the 11 GHz Band. The proposal has the potential to allow backhaul 
operators to handle more capacity and offer faster data rates.
    Fourth, we seek comment on amending Sec.  101.145 of the 
Commission's rules to limit the circumstances under which fixed service 
transmitters must obtain a waiver in order to point near the 
geostationary arc. Specifically, we propose to require a waiver only if 
the EIRP is greater than 35 dBW for the 5925-7075 MHz band and is 
greater than 45 dBW in the 12700-13250 MHz band. Limiting the 
circumstances where a waiver is necessary will be beneficial. Once the 
frequency coordination process is completed, the Commission's rules 
provide many applicants with conditional authority to begin service 
immediately, without waiting for final approval from the Commission, 
and with the stipulation that they must take their stations down if the 
Commission later rejects their applications. Conditional authority is 
not available, however, to applicants that must request waivers of 
existing rules. Accordingly, limiting the circumstances under which a 
waiver is needed will allow more applicants to rapidly commence 
service. Furthermore, we tentatively conclude that such a change would 
be consistent with international regulations and can be made without 
any increased risk of interference to satellite services.
    Finally, we propose to add a definition of ``payload capacity'' to 
our rules, and seek comment on updating our capacity and loading 
standards to take into account the increasing use of interfaces such as 
Internet Protocol. Currently, Sec.  101.141(a)(3) of the Commission's 
rules lists a ``minimum payload capacity'' for various nominal channel 
bandwidths. The same rule also defines ``typical utilization'' of the 
required payload capacity for each channel bandwidth as multiples of 
the number of voice circuits a channel can accommodate. These 
definitions are becoming outdated as systems support interfaces such as 
Internet Protocol. Accordingly, we propose to update our rules to add a 
definition of payload capacity. We also seek comment on revising our 
efficiency requirements to define those requirements in terms of bits-
per-second-per-Hertz (``bps/Hz'') across all bands. Such changes could 
make our rules clearer and would be consistent with modern digital 
technologies.
B. Legal Basis
    The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 
7, 201, 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, 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, and 333 and 
section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 1302.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
    The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small 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.
    Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our action 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 27.5 million 
small businesses, according to the SBA. In addition, a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 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 2011 indicate that 
there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United 
States. We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88, 506 entities 
may qualify as ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate 
that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
    Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 
2007, which now supersede data from the 2002 Census, show that there 
were 3,188 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of 
this total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 44 firms had 
employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the 
associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that 
the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers(except satellite) 
are small entities that may be affected by our proposed action.
    Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common 
carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio 
services. At present, there are approximately 31,549 common carrier 
fixed licensees and 89,633 private and public safety operational-fixed 
licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave 
services. Microwave services include common carrier, private-
operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services. They also 
include the Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), the Digital 
Electronic Message Service (DEMS), and the 24 GHz Service, where 
licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier 
status. The Commission has not yet defined a small business with 
respect to microwave services. For purposes of the IRFA, the Commission 
will use the SBA's definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers (except satellite)--i.e., an entity with no more than 1,500 
persons is considered small. For the category of Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), Census data for 2007, 
which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were 
1,383 firms that operated that year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer 
than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
the majority of firms can be considered small. The Commission notes 
that the number of firms does not necessarily track the number of 
licensees. The Commission estimates that virtually all of the Fixed 
Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would 
qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
    Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications. Two 
economic census categories address the satellite industry. The first 
category has a small business size standard of $15 million or less in 
average annual

[[Page 59621]]

receipts, under SBA rules. The second has a size standard of $25 
million or less in annual receipts.
    The category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in providing telecommunications 
services to other establishments in the telecommunications and 
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications 
signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite 
telecommunications.'' Census Bureau data for 2007 show that 512 
Satellite Telecommunications firms operated for that entire year. Of 
this total, 464 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 18 
firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications 
firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.
    The second category, i.e. ``All Other Telecommunications'' 
comprises ``establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. 
Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet 
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications 
connections are also included in this industry.'' For this category, 
Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 2,383 firms 
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,347 firms had 
annual receipts of under $25 million and 12 firms had annual receipts 
of $25 million to $49, 999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates 
that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are small 
entities that might be affected by our action.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements
    This FNPRM proposes no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives 
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may 
include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.
    The actions proposed in the FNPRM would provide additional options 
to all licensees, including small entity licensees. Such actions will 
serve the public interest by making additional spectrum available for 
fixed service users; will provide additional flexibility for 
broadcasters to use microwave spectrum; and will allow communications 
to be maintained during adverse propagation conditions. The rules will 
therefore open up beneficial economic opportunities to a variety of 
spectrum users, including small businesses. Because the actions 
proposed in the FNPRM will improve beneficial economic opportunities 
for all businesses, including small businesses, a detailed discussion 
of alternatives is not required.
    Generally, the alternative approach would be to maintain the 
existing rules. With respect to the proposal to allow smaller antennas 
in the 6 GHz band, an alternative approach would be to establish 
technical criteria that would allow the use of 4-foot antennas, as 
opposed to the 3-foot antennas proposed. Such an approach would reduce 
the cost savings FS licensees could realize, including small licensees, 
but may reduce the potential for interference.
    With respect to the proposal to relax efficiency standards in rural 
areas, an alternative would be to modify the requirement in non-
congested areas as opposed to exempting non-congested areas from 
compliance. It is unclear whether such an approach would provide 
sufficient relief to FS licensees, including small businesses.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules
    None.

Ordering Clauses

    33. It is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 201, 301, 
302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, 333, and 706 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 
157, 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, and 333, 
and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 1302, that this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby 
adopted.
    34. It is further ordered that notice is hereby given of the 
proposed regulatory changes described in this Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, and that comment is sought on these proposals.
    35. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 101

    Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.
Bulah P. Wheeler,
Deputy Manager.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 101 as follows:

PART 101--FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES

    1. The authority citation for Part 101 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303.

    2. Amend Sec.  101.3 by adding the definition ``Payload Capacity'' 
to read as follows:


Sec.  101.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Payload Capacity. The bit rate available for transmission of data 
over a radiocommunication system, excluding overhead data generated by 
the system.
* * * * *
    3. Amend Sec.  101.109(c), in the table by revising the entries 
``5,925 to 6,425'' and ``10,700 to 11,700'' to read as follows:


Sec.  101.109  Bandwidth.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Frequency Band (MHz)             Maximum authorized bandwidth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
5,925 to 6,425...........................  60 MHz.\1\
 
                                * * * * *
10,700 to 11,700.........................  80 MHz.\1\
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 59622]]

* * * * *
    4. Amend Sec.  101.115 by revising paragraph (b) introductory text 
and the entries ``5,925 to 6,425 \5\, ``6,525 to 6,875 \5\, ``6,875 to 
7,075'''', ``17,700 to 18,820'', ``18,920 to 19,700 \10\, and ``21,200 
to 23,600 \7, 11\ in the table in paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  101.115  Directional antennas.

* * * * *
    (b) Fixed stations (other than temporary fixed stations and DEMS 
nodal stations) operating at 932.5 MHz or higher must employ 
transmitting and receiving antennas (excluding second receiving 
antennas for operations such as space diversity) meeting the 
appropriate performance Standard A indicated below, except that in 
areas not subject to frequency congestion, antennas meeting performance 
Standard B may be used, subject to the requirements set forth in 
paragraph (d) of this section. For frequencies with a Standard B1 and a 
Standard B2, Standard B1 shall apply to stations authorized prior to 
[insert effective date of rule], and Standard B2 shall apply to 
stations authorized after [insert effective date of rule]. Licensees 
shall comply with the antenna standards table shown in this paragraph 
in the following manner:
* * * * *
    (2) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum                      Minimum radiation suppression to angle in degrees from
                                                               beam-width                              centerline of main beam in decibels
                                                                to 3 dB      Minimum   -----------------------------------------------------------------
                   Frequency                       Category    points \1\    antenna
                                                               (included    gain (dBi)   5[deg]  10[deg]  15[deg]  20[deg]   30[deg]  100[deg]  140[deg]
                                                                angle in                   to       to       to       to       to        to        to
                                                                degrees)                10[deg]  15[deg]  20[deg]  30[deg]  100[deg]  140[deg]  180[deg]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
5,925 to 6,425 \5\.............................            A          2.2           38       25       29       33       36       42        55        55
                                                          B1          2.2           38       21       25       29       32       35        39        45
                                                          B2          4.1           32       15       20       23       28       29        60        60
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
6,525 to 6,875 \5\.............................            A          2.2           38       25       29       33       36       42        55        55
                                                          B1          2.2           38       21       25       29       32       35        39        45
                                                          B2          4.1           32       15       20       23       28       29        60        60
6,875 to 7,075.................................            A          2.2           38       25       29       33       36       42        55        55
                                                          B1          2.2           38       21       25       29       32       35        39        45
                                                          B2          4.1           32       15       20       23       28       29        60        60
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
17,700 to 18,820...............................            A          2.2           38       25       29       33       36       42        55        55
                                                          B1          2.2           38       20       24       28       32       35        36        36
                                                          B2          3.3         33.5       18       22       29       31       35        57        59
18,920 to 19,700 \10\..........................            A          2.2           38       25       29       33       36       42        55        55
                                                          B1          2.2           38       20       24       28       32       35        36        36
                                                          B2          3.3         33.5       18       22       29       31       35        57        59
21,200 to 23,600 \7, 11\.......................            A          3.3         33.5       18       26       26       33       33        55        55
                                                          B1          3.3         33.5       17       24       24       29       29        40        50
                                                          B2          4.5         30.5       14       19       22       24       29        52        52
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Amend Sec.  101.141 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  101.141  Microwave modulation.

    (a) * * *
    (3) When use of an antenna meeting performance Standard A (see 
Sec.  101.115) is required, the following capacity and loading 
requirements must be met for equipment applied for, authorized, and 
placed in service after June 1, 1997 in 3700-4200 MHz (4 GHz), 5925-
6425, 6525-6875 MHz, and 6875-7125 MHz (6 GHz), 10,550-10,680 MHz (10 
GHz), and 10,700-11700 MHz (11 GHz) bands, except during anomalous 
signal fading, unless a showing is made in the application that the 
capacity and loading requirements prevent the deployment of the 
requested link for economic or technical reasons; the applicant does 
not have any reasonable alternative; and not applying the capacity and 
loading requirements would result in tangible and specific public 
interest benefits. During anomalous signal fading, licensees subject to 
the capacity and loading requirements may adjust to a modulation 
specified in their authorization if such modulation is necessary to 
allow licensees to maintain communications, even if the modulation will 
not comply with the capacity and loading requirements specified in this 
paragraph. Links that must comply with the capacity and loading 
requirements that use equipment capable of adjusting modulation must be 
designed using generally accepted multipath fading and rain fading 
models to meet the specified capacity and loading requirements at least 
99.95% of the time, in the aggregate of both directions in a two-way 
link.
* * * * *
    6. Amend Sec.  101.145 by revising paragraph (b) introductory text 
and paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  101.145  Interference to geo-stationary-satellites.

* * * * *
    (b) 2655 to 2690 MHz and 5925 to 7075 MHz. No directional 
transmitting antenna utilized by a fixed station operating in these 
bands with EIRP greater than 35 dBW may be aimed within 2 degrees of 
the geostationary-satellite orbit, taking into account atmospheric 
refraction. However, exception may be made in unusual circumstances 
upon a showing that there is no reasonable alternative to the 
transmission path proposed. If there is

[[Page 59623]]

no evidence that such exception would cause possible harmful 
interference to an authorized satellite system, said transmission path 
may be authorized on waiver basis where the maximum value of the 
equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) does not exceed:
* * * * *
    (c) 12.7 to 13.25 GHz. No directional transmitting antenna utilized 
by a fixed station operating in this band with EIRP greater than 45 dBW 
may be aimed within 1.5 degrees of the geostationary-satellite orbit, 
taking into account atmospheric refraction.
* * * * *
    7. Amend Sec.  101.147 by revising paragraph (i) introductory text, 
adding paragraph (i)(9), revising paragraph (o) introductory text, and 
adding paragraph (o)(8) to read as follows:


Sec.  101.147  Frequency assignments.

* * * * *
    (i) 5,925 to 6,425 MHz. 60 MHz authorized bandwidth.
* * * * *
    (9) 60 MHz bandwidth channels:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Transmit  (receive)  (MHz)