Facilitating the Use of Microwave for Wireless Backhaul and Other Uses and Providing Additional Flexibility To Broadcast Auxiliary Service and Operational Fixed Microwave Licensees, 54421-54434 [2012-21335]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
25. FIFRA Science Advisory Panel. (April
15, 2005). Final report on N-Methyl
Carbamate Cumulative Risk Assessment:
Pilot Cumulative Analysis. Final Report from
the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting
of February 2005. Available from: https://
www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2005/
february/minutes.pdf.
26. FIFRA Science Advisory Panel.
(October 13, 2005). Final report on
Preliminary N-Methyl Carbamate Cumulative
Risk Assessment. Final Report from the
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting of
July 29–30, 2005. Available from: https://
www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2005/
august/minutes.pdf.
27. Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. EPA.
(2000). The Use of Data on Cholinesterase
Inhibition for Risk Assessments of
Organophosphorous and Carbamate
Pesticides. Available from: https://www.epa.
gov/oppfead1/trac/science/cholin.pdf.
28. Natural Resources Defense Council.
(July 30, 2010). Petitioner’s Brief, NRDC v.
U.S. EPA, No. 08–3771–ag (2d Cir.).
29. U.S. EPA, Respondent’s Brief.
(November 18, 2010). NRDC v. U.S. EPA, No.
08–3771–ag (2d Cir.).
30. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention, U.S. EPA. (August 8, 2012).
Memorandum from Ray Kent to Melanie
Biscoe, ‘‘Lists of chemicals for which human
studies were either: Approved by the Human
Studies Review Board, or the basis for RfDs
or RfCs in IRIS.’’
31. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA. (June 15, 2006).
Report of the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment and Risk
Management Decision (TRED) for Ethephon.
Available from: https://www.epa.gov/
oppsrrd1/REDs/ethephon_tred.pdf.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.
32. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances. (June 19, 2007). U.S. EPA,
Memorandum from Feleica Fort to Tom
Myers, ‘‘Methomyl. Acute, Probabilistic
Aggregate Dietary (Food and Drinking Water)
Exposure and Risk Assessments for the
Reregistration Eligibility Decision.’’
33. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA. (June 25, 2008).
Memorandum from Elissa Reaves and Anna
Lowit to Karen Santora, ‘‘Mode of Action,
Eye Irritation, and the Intra-Species Factor:
Comparison of Chloropicrin and MITC.’’
34. Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. EPA.
(March 24, 1998). ‘‘Data Evaluation Report:
Dichlorvos: A Single Blind, Placebo
Controlled, Randomized Study to Investigate
the Effects of Multiple Oral Dosing on
Erythrocyte Cholinesterase Inhibition in
Healthy Male Volunteers.’’
35. Gledhill, A.J. (1997). Dichlorvos: A
Single Blind, Placebo controlled,
Randomised Study to Investigate the Effects
of Multiple Oral Dosing on Erythrocyte
Cholinesterase Inhibition in Healthy Male
Volunteers.
36. EPA Human Studies Review Board.
(May 15, 2006). Minutes of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) April
4–6, 2006 Public Meeting.
37. Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. EPA.
(June 2002). Revised Cumulative Risk
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Sep 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
Assessment of the Organophosphorus
Pesticides. Available from: https://www.epa.
gov/pesticides/cumulative/rra-op/.
38. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U. S. EPA. (November 16,
2007). Memorandum from Ray Kent to Robert
McNally, Dichlorvos (PC 084001). Additional
characterization of inhalation risk posed by
use of dichlorvos-containing resin strips.
DP332823.
39. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention, U.S. EPA. (August 9, 2010).
Memorandum from Bayasid Sarkar to Ray
Kent, Precision analysis of Gledhill study for
litigation of DDVP.
40. Kent, R., Office of Pesticide Programs,
U.S. EPA. (April 5, 2006). Dichlorvos: WOE
Comparison of Human and Animal Studies
for Single Chemical Assessment and OP
Cumulative Assessment.
41. Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. EPA.
(June 20, 1994). Memorandum from Brigid
Lowery to Jocelyn E. Steward, Dichlorvos
(DDVP). Review of Subchronic Neurotoxicity
Study in Sprague-Dawley Rats.
42. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA. (June 9, 2006).
Memorandum from Anna Lowit to Ray Kent,
Benchmark Dose analysis of cholinesterase
inhibition in neonatal and adult rats (MRID
no. 46688914) following exposure to DDVP.
43. National Research Council, Reference
Manual on Scientific Evidence 249–252 (3rd
ed. 2011).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 29, 2012.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012–21844 Filed 9–4–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 101
[WT Docket No. 10–153; RM–11602; FCC
12–87]
Facilitating the Use of Microwave for
Wireless Backhaul and Other Uses and
Providing Additional Flexibility To
Broadcast Auxiliary Service and
Operational Fixed Microwave
Licensees
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission takes further steps to
remove regulatory barriers and lowering
costs for the wireless microwave
backhaul facilities that are an important
component of many mobile wireless
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54421
networks. The steps we take will
remove regulatory barriers that today
limit the use of spectrum for wireless
backhaul and other point-to-point and
point-to-multipoint communications.
This will also facilitate better use of
Fixed Service (FS) spectrum and
provide additional flexibility to enable
FS licensees to reduce operational costs
and facilitate the use of wireless
backhaul in rural areas. By enabling
more flexible and cost-effective
microwave services, the Commission
can help foster deployment of
broadband infrastructure across
America. In addition, a number of
parties sought reconsideration of the
Backhaul Report and Order, and we
address those requests and deny
reconsideration, for the most part.
DATES: Effective October 5, 2012.
The effective date for the Rural
Microwave Flexibility Policy, which
contains new or modified information
collection requirements has not been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). The Commission
will publish a document in the Federal
Register announcing the effective date
of that policy.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. A copy of any
comments on the Paperwork Reduction
Act information collection requirements
contained herein should be submitted to
Judith B. Herman, Federal
Communications Commission, Room 1–
B441, 445 12th Street SW., Washington,
DC 20554 or via the Internet at Judith B.
Herman@fcc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Schauble, Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202–
418–0797 or by email to
John.Schauble@fcc.gov. For additional
information concerning Paperwork
Reduction Act information collection
requirements contained in this
document, contact Judith B. Herman at
(202) 418–0214, or via the Internet at
PRA@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s
document, FCC 12–87, adopted and
released on August 3, 2012. 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 of the
Backhaul Second Report and Order,
Order on Reconsideration, and
Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Backhaul 2nd R&O, OOR, and MO&O)
and related Commission documents
may be purchased from the
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
54422
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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 or (800) 387–3160, contact
BCPI at its Web site: https://
www.bcpiweb.com. When ordering
documents from BCPI, please provide
the appropriate FCC document number,
for example, FCC 12–87. The complete
text of the Backhaul 2nd R&O, OOR,
and MO&O is also available on the
Commission’s Web site at https://
hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/
attachmatch/FCC-12-87A1.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 email to bmillin@fcc.gov.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. Introduction
1. In the Backhaul 2nd R&O, OOR,
and MO&O, we take further steps to
remove regulatory barriers and lower
costs for the wireless microwave
backhaul facilities that are an important
component of many mobile wireless
networks. Broadband is indispensable to
our digital economy, and wireless
technology is an increasingly important
source of broadband connectivity.
Microwave backhaul facilities are often
used to transmit data between cell sites,
or between cell sites and network
backbones. Service providers’ use of
microwave links as an alternative to
traditional copper circuits and fiber
optic links has been increasing.
Microwave is a particularly important
high-capacity backhaul solution in
certain rural and remote locations.
2. In this Backhaul 2nd R&O, OOR,
and MO&O, we continue our efforts to
increase flexibility in the use of
microwave services licensed under our
part 101 rules. The steps we take will
remove regulatory barriers that today
limit the use of spectrum for wireless
backhaul and other point-to-point and
point-to-multipoint communications.
We also take actions that will reduce
costs of deploying wireless backhaul in
rural areas. By enabling more flexible
and cost-effective microwave services,
the Commission can help foster
deployment of broadband infrastructure
across America.
II. Background
3. On August 9, 2011, the Commission
made additional spectrum available for
Fixed Service (FS) use and provided
additional flexibility to enable FS
licensees to reduce operational costs,
facilitating the use of wireless backhaul
in rural areas. Specifically, in the R&O,
the Commission allowed FS to share the
6875–7125 MHz and 12700–13150 MHz
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Sep 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
bands currently used by the Broadcast
Auxiliary Service (BAS) and the Cable
Television Relay Service (CARS). In
addition, the Commission eliminated
the ‘‘final link’’ rule that prohibits
broadcasters from using FS stations as
the final radiofrequency (RF) link in the
chain of distribution of program
material to broadcast stations. The
Commission also modified the part 101
minimum payload capacity rule to
allow temporary operations below the
minimum capacity under certain
circumstances, enabling FS links—in
particular long links in rural areas—to
maintain critical communications
during periods of fading.
4. In the companion FNPRM, the
Commission sought comment on
additional proposals to remove
regulatory barriers and facilitate
backhaul deployment. Specifically, the
Commission sought comment on (1)
Allowing smaller antennas in the 6, 18,
and 23 GHz bands without materially
increasing interference; (2) exempting
licensees in non-congested areas from
the efficiency standards and allowing
other licensees to seek relief from these
standards; (3) allowing microwave
operators to create higher capacity links
by licensing 60 and 80 megahertz
channels in the 6 and 11 GHz
microwave bands, respectively; (4)
revising our rule that requires
microwave stations that point near the
geostationary arc to obtain a waiver to
conform our rule to International
Telecommunications Union (ITU)
regulations; and (5) modifying the
definition of payload capacity in our
part 101 rules to account for Internet
protocol radio systems.
5. Additionally, four parties filed
petitions for reconsideration of the R&O
and/or MO&O: Engineers for the
Integrity of Broadcast Auxiliary Services
Spectrum (EIBASS), the Fixed Wireless
Communications Coalition (FWCC),
Motorola Solutions, Inc./Cambium
Networks (Cambium), and Wireless
Communications Association
International, Inc. (WCAI).
III. Second Report and Order
A. Smaller Antennas in the 6, 18, and
23 GHz Bands
6. We adopt, with minor variations,
the FNPRM’s proposal to allow smaller
antennas in the 6, 18, and 23 GHz
bands. The record demonstrates that
smaller antennas can be accommodated
without materially increasing the
interference risk to other licensees.
Clearwire cites ‘‘technology
advancements and more sophisticated
band sharing techniques’’ as
developments that would allow us to
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
loosen the Category B antenna standards
without an increased risk of
interference. Furthermore, a variety of
operators who use microwave support
the proposed standards. Under our
rules, if smaller antennas would cause
an interference conflict with another
applicant or licensee, the applicant
proposing the smaller antenna must
upgrade its antenna. Allowing smaller
antennas will facilitate wireless
backhaul deployments in two ways. As
discussed in greater detail below,
smaller antennas allow significant cost
savings because they are cheaper to
manufacture, install, and maintain.
Smaller antennas also allow existing
towers to accommodate more antennas
and allow installations at sites that
would not otherwise be able to
accommodate larger antennas. Indeed,
there could be instances where allowing
the use of smaller antennas may be
critical in allowing the use of wireless
backhaul by broadband operators.
7. We adopt Comsearch’s proposal to
implement the proposed standards as
Category B2 and keep the existing
standards as Category B1, allowing
applicants to choose between those
standards. That approach will maximize
flexibility for applicants and allow
existing licensees to keep their
antennas. We also adopt FWCC’s and
Comsearch’s proposal to slightly loosen
the proposed antenna standards for the
18 GHz band. No party argued that the
revised standards would raise any
interference concerns in any of the
relevant bands.
8. We do not adopt Comsearch’s
proposal to adopt a power limit on
licensees using smaller antennas.
Adopting a power limit may artificially
limit path length because path length is
directly related to the EIRP. A particular
path will require operation at the same
EIRP whether the operator uses a
Category A antenna or a Category B
antenna. When EIRP is equivalent, a
Category B antenna will radiate more
energy in the side lobes than a Category
A antenna. In areas where another
operator is not in proximity, for
example, rural and other uncongested
areas, the extra side lobe radiation will
not cause any additional interference. In
those areas, a licensee can use a smaller
and cheaper antenna without harming
other FS operators. If we were to restrict
power across the board, there may be
instances where operators may not be
able to realize the full benefits of
smaller antennas. We find that our
existing rules are sufficient to protect
against the potential for increased side
lobe radiation. If interference occurs, the
rules require the licensee to upgrade its
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
antenna if the upgrade would mitigate
the interference.
9. We find that permitting smaller
antennas in the 6, 18 and 23 GHz bands
will benefit operators and consumers
alike and that these benefits outweigh
any potential costs. Our actions today
will enable these spectrum bands to be
used more intensively for wireless
backhaul, public safety, and other
critical uses. Even for a single link,
which consists of two transmitters and
two antennas, the cost savings from
allowing smaller antennas can be
substantial. Savings in installation costs
for the link would likely be over $2,000
for two antennas. MetroPCS estimates
that if a smaller antenna eliminates the
need for wind loading studies or
structural changes to a tower, the cost
savings could run ‘‘into the tens of
thousands, if not hundreds of
thousands, of dollars.’’ There would
also be savings in operational costs. For
example, if an operator using a 6 GHz
link is able to use 3-foot antennas
instead of 6-foot antennas, its site rental
costs could decrease by $7,200 each
year. There are also additional cost
savings noted by FiberTower and others.
When those cost savings are multiplied
by the thousands of links that are
authorized in the 6 GHz band each year,
even if a relatively small percentage of
authorized links could use smaller
antennas, there could be many instances
where operators could recognize cost
savings. While the cost savings in the 18
and 23 GHz bands would be smaller,
since there is less difference in the size
of antennas, there would still be cost
savings. On the other hand, there is
some risk that a carrier taking advantage
of these new rules may have to upgrade
to a Category A antenna later. We
believe that in many cases, this
potential cost will be discovered and
avoided in the coordination process. We
also note that licensees are not required
to use smaller antennas.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. Updating Efficiency Standards
10. To promote efficient frequency
use for various channel sizes in certain
part 101 frequency bands,
§ 101.141(a)(3) of the Commission’s
rules requires FS operators to establish
minimum payload capacities (in terms
of megabits per second) and minimum
traffic loading payloads (as a percentage
of payload capacity). That rule lists a
‘‘minimum payload capacity’’ for
various nominal channel bandwidths.
The term ‘‘payload capacity’’ is not
defined. The same rule also defines
‘‘typical utilization’’ of the required
payload capacity for each channel
bandwidth as multiples of the number
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Sep 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
of voice circuits a channel can
accommodate.
11. The FNPRM sought comment on
changes to modernize the payload
capacity rule, particularly on a proposal
made by Comsearch to de-emphasize
the legacy voice-based data rates and
instead emphasize a consistent
efficiency requirement in terms of bitsper-second-per-Hertz (‘‘bps/Hz’’).
Comsearch also asked 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.’’ Comsearch argued that,
while the examples based on voicebased data rates were typical when the
rule was written, they are becoming
outdated as systems support other
interfaces such as the Internet Protocol.
Comsearch also argued 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 asked 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.
12. The FNPRM asked whether the
Commission should adopt Comsearch’s
definition of payload capacity, adopt an
alternative definition or leave the term
undefined. The FNPRM asked
commenters to identify advantages and
disadvantages to defining the efficiency
requirement in terms of bits-per-secondper-Hertz or in terms of some other
metric. It sought input on an
appropriate benchmark value to use in
the event the agency decided to define
the efficiency requirement in terms of
bits-per-second-per-Hertz. The
Commission further inquired whether
the value should be the same across all
frequency bands and across urban as
well as rural areas. It also asked for
comments on whether there is any need
to consider how the definition should
be applied to legacy systems, i.e.,
whether there would be a need to
grandfather equipment that is currently
installed or equipment that is currently
on the market.
13. FWCC had originally
recommended adoption of the efficiency
requirements using bits/second/Hertz
values adopted by Industry Canada,
with appropriate adjustments for bands
where Canada does not have FS
services. Comsearch supported those
standards. FWCC subsequently
proposed an adjustment that would
continue to express the standards based
on bits/second/Hertz but tighten the
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54423
standards for certain channel
bandwidths in the 11 GHz and 13 GHz
bands.
14. First, we convert the current
voice-circuit based efficiency standards
to bit/second/Hertz standards using
standards recently proposed by FWCC.
Commenters generally support the idea
of replacing our existing payload
capacity requirements with efficiency
requirement expressed in terms of bitsper-second-per-Hertz. We have
reviewed the most recent standards
proposed by FWCC, and find that they
closely approximate what our current
rules require and are otherwise
appropriate. This action will allow our
payload capacity requirements to reflect
modern technologies. Furthermore, if
we allow new channel bandwidths in
microwave bands, a bit/second/Hertz
standard will automatically
accommodate new channel bandwidths.
15. FWCC and Comsearch support the
proposed definition of payload capacity
as consistent with industry practice. We
adopt the proposed definition because it
is useful to define that term in our rules
and the proposed definition is
appropriate.
16. A second and related issue is the
definition of ‘‘throughput’’ for purposes
of the efficiency standards. The
definition is important because FS
operators use a variety of network
configurations, and using an
unnecessarily restrictive definition of
throughput can prevent operators from
using some of those network
configurations. We consider two
proposals offered by commenters and
adopt an approach that meets both of
their objectives.
17. Clearwire supports the idea of
adjusting the minimum payload
requirements to account for the
increased capacity that would be
available with wider bandwidth
channels. It expresses concern,
however, that simply establishing a bits/
second/Hertz standard may not be
appropriate for modern network
topologies. Clearwire uses an Ethernetbased microwave mesh that relies on a
ring topology to provide 99.999 percent
network availability by providing
redundant link diversity from every cell
site location. Normally, a ring is split in
half with traffic travelling clockwise on
one half and counterclockwise on the
other half. If a radio fails on a link, the
traffic is aggregated and re-routed
around the failed/downed link. Because
each link must be designed to carry
enough data to accommodate failures
elsewhere in the system, the links must
be designed to be less than fully loaded
during normal operation. Clearwire
proposes that the Commission require
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
54424
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
applicants to designate each of its links
with respect to its generic network
topology. For example, a link would be
certified as either a ring, mesh, or other
resilient network path (links), or as a
linear (nonresilient) network topology
path. If the link were part of a ring,
mesh, or other resilient network
topology, the applicant would have to
identify the link as either a ‘‘traffic
bearing link’’ or a ‘‘management/
resiliency link.’’ Under Clearwire’s
proposal, ‘‘management/resiliency
links’’ would be exempt from the
efficiency standards, while other links
would have to comply with the
applicable standards.
18. FWCC recommends a different
approach. FWCC asks that we drop the
voice circuit designations in
§ 101.141(a)(6) and (7) of the
Commission’s rules, which define
‘‘loading’’ for purposes of existing rules,
and replace them with a new
§ 101.141(a)(6) to read as follows:
‘‘Digital systems using bandwidths of 10
megahertz or larger will be considered
50% loaded when at least 50% of their
total payload capacity is being used.’’
19. We believe the objectives behind
the Clearwire and FWCC proposals can
be met through a simpler approach.
Therefore, we update our existing traffic
loading requirements, which are not
expressed in terms of actual data
throughput but in terms of the
capacities of multiplexers attached to
the transmitters. The definition we
adopt today will ensure the efficient use
of spectrum while allowing operators to
use network configurations with
redundant links in order to maintain
continuity of service if a link fails.
While we update our definition to take
into account current technologies, the
definition we adopt uses an approach
that is consistent with our current rule.
20. To harmonize the proposals and
respond to concerns expressed by
Comsearch, FWCC, Clearwire and other
commenters, we replace § 101.141(a)(6)
and (7) with the following new
§ 101.141(a)(6) to read as follows:
‘‘Digital systems using bandwidths of 10
MHz or larger will be considered 50
percent loaded when at least 50 percent
of their total capacity is being used. For
purposes of this subsection, a Fixed
Service channel is being used if it is
attached to a communications system
that is capable of providing data to it at
a rate that is sufficient to occupy at least
50 percent of the payload capacity of the
Fixed Service channel, after header
compression is applied.’’
21. This definition should ensure that
FS systems will be designed to carry the
amount of data that is likely to be
transmitted over them after IP radio
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Sep 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
systems remove extraneous header data,
to the extent licensees use transmission
systems that remove such data. It should
also accommodate the needs of
operators that deploy FS links in ring
topologies, where excess capacity is
needed to ensure network reliability.
C. Rural Microwave Flexibility Policy
22. In the FNPRM, the Commission
sought comment on exempting licensees
from complying with the efficiency
standards if the environment was
sufficiently noncongested to allow the
use of antennas meeting performance
Standard B. The Commission noted that
Sprint Nextel Corporation, Cielo
Networks, and Aviat Networks
contended that providing relief from
efficiency standards in rural areas could
reduce the costs of deployments and
allow for more microwave backhaul in
rural areas. The Commission suggested
that relaxing efficiency standards might
substantially increase possible path
lengths and thereby dramatically
improve the business case for deploying
microwave backhaul facilities in certain
rural areas. The Commission noted that
general relief may not be appropriate in
congested areas because lowering
efficiency standards could result in
inefficient use of spectrum. In congested
areas requiring use of antennas meeting
performance Standard A, the
Commission sought comment on
allowing applicants to obtain relief from
the efficiency standards if they show
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.
23. We adopt a new policy, the Rural
Microwave Flexibility Policy, designed
to provide operators relief, through our
waiver process, from the efficiency
standards that may not be necessary in
noncongested rural areas. Granting
licensees in noncongested areas relief
from these efficiency standards can
facilitate the use of microwave backhaul
in rural areas by allowing substantial
cost savings in deployment. Indeed,
granting relief from the efficiency
standards could allow the use of
microwave in areas where such use
would not be economically feasible
under the current rules. In adopting this
policy, we take into consideration
concerns raised by commenters and
institute a series of criteria to ensure
that relief is appropriately tailored. If
experience with this Policy suggests that
a rule change is warranted in the future,
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
we will reconsider that possibility at the
appropriate time.
24. Exempting licensees from the
efficiency standards in noncongested
areas can reduce the cost of deploying
microwave backhaul facilities and
substantially increase possible path
lengths, thereby spurring deployment of
broadband in rural areas. The benefits of
relaxing efficiency standards in rural
areas could be considerable. For
example, in 2010, Sprint, FiberTower,
and the Rural Telecommunications
Group estimated the cost of deploying
and operating a 6 GHz link covering 100
miles and requiring four different relay
towers would be over $3 million.
Additionally, FWCC has demonstrated
that allowing a 6 GHz licensee to vary
its modulation between 256 Quadrature
Amplitude Modulation (a throughput of
208 Mbps) and Quadrature Phase Shift
Keying (a throughput of 45 Mbps, about
one-fifth of the throughput of 256 QAM)
could extend the usable length of a link
from 24.56 kilometers to 66.45
kilometers, because the lower
throughput allows the operator to
maintain reliability over a longer
distance.
25. An increase in usable path length
would allow some operators to replace
multiple paths with single paths. For
each intermediate relay station that
could be eliminated, the operator would
save the cost of a transmitter, antenna,
and site rental for that relay site. If one
uses the $3 million cost estimate
provided by Sprint, FiberTower, and the
Rural Telecommunications Group, and
assumes that each station contributes
equally to the overall cost of the link
(two end stations and four intermediate
relay stations), the cost of each
intermediate relay station would be
approximately $500,000. A review of
our licensing data shows that there are
over 22,000 stations in the 6 GHz and
11 GHz bands that currently use
Category B antennas that would
potentially be eligible for such relief.
Moreover, there may be many more sites
where microwave service is not yet
deployed because of the prohibitive cost
of multiple hops. In these cases, a more
flexible policy could spur increased
broadband ‘‘middle mile’’ deployment.
26. Even if an intermediate relay
station cannot be eliminated, providing
relief from the minimum payload
capacity rule can result in cost savings.
Allowing use of lower data rates could
allow licensees to use less expensive
transmitters and lower power, both of
which would result in cost savings.
Under the revised minimum capacity
requirements that we are adopting in
this order, for example, a transmitter
operating with a bandwidth of five
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
megahertz in congested areas must have
a minimum capacity of 22 megabits per
second (Mbits/s). By looking to publicly
available sources of equipment pricing,
it appears that an operator could realize
significant cost savings.
27. Several commenters express
concerns about the proposal in the
FNPRM for an exemption from the
efficiency standards. Comsearch
believes that the Commission’s actions
in allowing use of adaptive modulation
and allowing the use of smaller
antennas in microwave bands provide
sufficient cost savings such that relief
from the efficiency standards would be
unnecessary. FWCC believes that
granting relief from the efficiency
standards could ‘‘lock in’’ inefficient
usage if an area subsequently becomes
congested. Comsearch and FWCC
believe that basing relief from the
efficiency standards on the use of a
Category B antenna could provide
operators with incentives to use less
efficient Category B antennas and lower
capacity radio equipment and may
punish applicants who have other
reasons for using Category A antennas.
As an alternative, Comsearch and FWCC
propose granting relief from the traffic
loading requirements in noncongested
areas. FiberTower and US Cellular also
support granting relief from the traffic
loading requirements. FWCC also
proposes a set of conditions for areas
eligible for relaxed rural efficiency
rules. These conditions are designed to
ensure that such deployments do not
occur in areas that may become
congested, thereby protecting against
the ‘‘lock in’’ problem.
28. We recognize commenters’
concerns about the impact of providing
relief from efficiency standards in rural
areas, but we find there is a better
approach than the alternatives
presented. FWCC and Comsearch are
concerned that providing relief from the
minimum payload capacity
requirements will provide incentives for
licensees to use Category B antennas,
which can increase interference. We do
not agree with FWCC and Comsearch
that allowing adaptive modulation and
smaller antennas can be a substitute for
relief from efficiency standards, because
granting appropriate relief from the
efficiency standards can result in much
greater cost savings in rural areas. We
disagree with those commenters who
suggest that granting relief from the
traffic loading standards would be an
adequate substitute for granting relief
from the minimum payload capacity
requirements. If we merely provided
relief from the traffic loading
requirements, FS operators would have
to build links that were fully capable of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Sep 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
meeting the minimum payload capacity
requirements. Denying permission to
reduce payload capacities in such areas
would all but eliminate any cost savings
that would otherwise be made possible
by reducing loading percentages alone,
because most of the savings associated
with granting relief from the efficiency
standards would result from reduced up
front equipment costs, as opposed to
operating costs.
29. Given the concerns presented in
the record, we opt to implement our
proposal as a policy, listing specific
criteria under which we will favorably
consider waivers of the efficiency
standards, as opposed to a blanket rule
exempting licensees from those criteria.
This approach responds to the concerns
raised by Comsearch and FWCC. More
specifically, the policy will not ‘‘lock
in’’ inefficient usage because licensees
will be required to upgrade facilities to
use Category A antennas and comply
with the efficiency standards if needed
to accommodate new FS applicants (or
to avoid interference). Furthermore, the
criteria we establish will ensure that
relief is limited to areas where the use
of lower capacity radio equipment will
be appropriate. This policy will provide
a meaningful opportunity for relief for
rural operators. Adopting relief as
waiver policy will allow us to consider
individual circumstances and to gain
more information on when relief from
the efficiency standards would be
appropriate. As we gain more
experience with such waiver filings, we
may consider refining the criteria or
codifying the policy as a Commission
rule.
30. Specifically, we adopt a Rural
Microwave Flexibility Policy and direct
the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau (‘‘Bureau’’) to favorably consider
waivers of the payload capacity
requirements if the applicants
demonstrate compliance with the
following criteria:
• The interference environment
would allow the applicant to use a less
stringent Category B antenna (although
the applicant could choose to use a
higher performance Category A
antenna);
• The applicant specifically
acknowledges its duty to upgrade to a
Category A antenna and come into
compliance with the applicable
efficiency standard if necessary to
resolve an interference conflict with a
current or future microwave link
pursuant to § 101.115(c);
• The applicant uses equipment that
is capable of readily being upgraded to
comply with the applicable payload
capacity requirement, and provide a
certification in its application that its
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54425
equipment complies with this
requirement;
• Each end of the link is located in a
rural area (county or equivalent having
population density of 100 persons per
square mile or less);
• Each end of the link is in a county
with a low density of links in the 4, 6,
11, 18, and 23 GHz bands;
• Neither end of the link is contained
within a recognized antenna farm; and
• The applicant describes its
proposed service and explains how
relief from the efficiency standards will
facilitate providing that service (e.g., by
eliminating the need for an intermediate
hop) as well as the steps needed to come
into compliance should an interference
conflict emerge.
31. By establishing our Rural
Microwave Flexibility Policy, we do not
intend to restrict licensees’ ability to
obtain such relief under §§ 1.925 and
1.3 of our rules. We direct the Bureau
to carefully consider requests for waiver
of the efficiency standards filed under
the general waiver standard, consistent
with the Commission’s duty to take a
‘‘hard look’’ at applications for waiver
and consider all relevant factors when
determining if a grant of relief is
warranted. The Bureau should not reject
a waiver showing under the general
waiver standard merely because the
applicant has not shown all of the
factors listed above. We would
anticipate that as an applicant
demonstrated compliance with more of
the factors listed above, that an
applicant would be more likely to have
made the requisite showing in support
of a waiver. We also direct the Bureau
to consider other factors in support of a
waiver request, if appropriate.
32. We agree with Comsearch and
FWCC that licensees who could use
Category B antennas but choose to use
Category A antennas should not be
foreclosed from seeking waiver relief
under the waiver policy we establish
today because of their voluntary
decision to use a higher performance
antenna. Accordingly, we clarify that
licensees who could use Category B
antennas are eligible for relief from the
minimum payload capacity
requirements, even if they choose to use
a Category A antenna, so long as they
meet all of the criteria specified in the
Rural Microwave Flexibility Policy we
adopt today.
33. Our action today will provide
major benefits to FS operators in rural
areas. Providing relief from the
efficiency standards may allow longer
path links, which can eliminate the
need for intermediate relay stations. As
noted above, the cost of operating an
intermediate relay station can be up to
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
54426
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
$500,000. Furthermore, providing relief
from efficiency standards can also allow
the use of less expensive transmitters
and lower power. In theory, there are
two types of costs that could result from
today’s action. First, a licensee who took
advantage of the relief today could later
be required to upgrade and comply with
the efficiency standards. Second, the
presence of a lower efficiency system
using a Category B antenna could make
it more difficult for other operators to
share the spectrum in the same area.
Under our rules, however, the decision
to use a Category B antenna is
voluntary, and existing operators must
upgrade their antennas to Category A
antennas if necessary to resolve
interference conflicts. Accordingly, we
anticipate that any costs will be
outweighed by the benefits of our
action.
D. Allowing Wider Channels in 6 GHz
and 11 GHz Bands
34. The FNPRM invited comments on
FWCC’s request that the Commission
allow FS operators to combine adjacent
channels in the 5925–6425 MHz (Lower
6 GHz band) and 10700–11700 GHz
band (11 GHz band), respectively, to
form 60 and 80 megahertz wide
channels, where the maximum
authorized channel bandwidths at
present are 30 and 40 megahertz,
respectively. The FNPRM acknowledged
that the proposal had the potential to
allow backhaul operators to handle
more capacity and offer faster data rates
but noted that the record on this issue
was otherwise quite limited.
35. Commenters generally support
FWCC’s proposal, primarily on the
ground that smart phones and other
mobile devices are generating increased
data demands for cellular backhaul.
Comsearch and US Cellular advise
proceeding cautiously because the
conventional approach to assigning
channels of 30 megahertz bandwidth in
the 6 GHz band and of 30 or 40
megahertz in the 11 GHz band has been
to follow an adjacent-channel
alternating-polarization (‘‘ACAP’’) plan.
Comsearch states that this kind of crosspolarization is worth up to a 35 dB
reduction in interference when
compared with the amount of
interference that a signal on the same
polarization would cause. If we allow 60
or 80 megahertz channels to be assigned
on a single license, it becomes harder to
maintain the ACAP licensing plan,
particularly when the wider channels
are overlaid on existing 30 or 40
megahertz channels. Ultimately,
however, in light of the potential cost
savings, Comsearch supports allowing
wider channels in the 6 and 11 GHz
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Sep 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
bands ‘‘subject to appropriate
safeguards.’’
36. In response to FWCC’s petition for
rulemaking, NSMA suggested 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.
The FNPRM sought comment on
NSMA’s suggestion.
37. We find that allowing 60
megahertz and 80 megahertz channels
in the 6 GHz and 11 GHz bands,
respectively, would serve the public
interest by allowing backhaul operators
to handle more capacity and offer faster
data rates. In light of the explosive
growth in demand for broadband
services, we believe it is important to
provide operators with the capability to
offer faster services wherever possible.
Allowing wider channels can also result
in more efficient spectrum utilization.
38. The only concern, which was
raised by Comsearch and US Cellular,
was whether wider channels would be
consistent with assigning channels
using ACAP. Neither of those parties
opposes allowing wider channels,
however, so long as appropriate
safeguards are instituted against
warehousing and inefficient use of
spectrum. Commenting parties support
the conditions suggested by NSMA.
After reviewing the conditions, we will
adopt NSMA’s suggestion that
wideband channels be assigned by
preference to the highest available
channels in the relevant bands, except
where such a choice would impede the
efficiency of local frequency
coordination efforts. We also adopt
today a broader revision of our payload
efficiency rules to apply uniform bitsper-second-per-Hertz requirements
across multiple bands and bandwidths.
Together, we believe those actions will
ensure that the 6 and 11 GHz bands are
used efficiently while allowing
licensees to benefit from wider
channels.
E. Geostationary Orbital Intersections
39. To protect receivers on
geostationary satellites from the
potential for interference from FS
transmitters, § 101.145 of the
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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°
of the geostationary arc; and (2) FS
transmitters in the 12700–13250 MHz
range with an antenna aimed within
1.5° of the geostationary arc. To be
approved, a waiver request must show,
among other factors, that the transmitter
EIRP is below listed limits. In contrast,
Article 21 of the ITU Radio Regulations
places the 2° 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°
restriction on the azimuth of antennas
in the 10–15 GHz band only if the EIRP
is greater than 45 dBW.
40. The FNPRM sought comment on
a Comsearch proposal to amend
§ 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 existing,
more restrictive requirement in
§ 101.145 primarily protects satellites
located over Europe, Africa, or the
Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. Comsearch
further 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.
41. We adopt the proposal to require
that a waiver filing be necessary for FS
facilities pointing near the geostationary
arc only if the FS station’s EIRP is
greater than the values listed in the ITU
Radio Regulations. As noted in the
FNPRM, this action can facilitate
microwave deployments by allowing
affected licensees to deploy more
quickly, explaining that 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. The change
will harmonize the Commission’s
regulations with international
regulations, and as explained further
below, can apparently do so without
creating any increased risk of
interference to satellite services. That
rule change will limit the circumstances
in which applicants will have go
through the burden and expense of
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
filing waiver requests and the associated
waiver fee.
42. We do not change the requirement
that FS facilities protect previously
authorized satellite facilities. Nor do we
limit the right of satellite licensees to
file petitions to deny or informal
objections against FS facilities that they
believe would cause interference to
their facilities. The only change from
the viewpoint of satellite providers is
that FS operators proposing power
below the limits contained in ITU
regulations will now be able to operate
pursuant to conditional authority.
43. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. (Sirius XM)
is the only commenter to oppose the
proposed change. Sirius XM operates
feeder links in the 7025–7075 MHz band
to uplink its digital radio transmissions
to its satellites. It also has telemetry,
tracking and control links in that band.
Sirius XM expresses concern that, even
if no single FS transmitter were to
interfere with one of its satellites under
the proposed rule change, several FS
transmitters together might do so. On
that basis, Sirius XM urges the
Commission to establish a numeric limit
on the aggregate amount of interference
that FS transmitters impinge upon the
geostationary satellite arc. In reply,
Comsearch provides a detailed technical
analysis demonstrating that it would be
extremely rare for terrestrial microwave
antennas in this country to be directed
towards either of Sirius XM’s satellite
positions.
44. Comsearch’s showing that there
are currently only three microwave
antennas in this country pointed toward
one of Sirius XM’s satellites
demonstrates that the aggregate
incremental effect of such multiple
exposures is likely to be quite low.
While the Commission is prepared to
consider showings based on aggregate
interference in appropriate
circumstances, we decline to adopt
Sirius XM’s proposal at this time.
45. We find that reducing the
circumstances under which FS
operators must seek waivers when
pointing towards the geostationary arc
will produce substantial benefits. Each
private FS applicant must pay an
application fee of $180 when seeking a
waiver. In 2011, we granted 275
applications requesting a waiver of
§ 101.145 of the Commission’s rules
where the EIRP was below the limits
contained in the ITU Radio Regulations
and the applicant had to pay a waiver
fee. The total application costs
associated with those waivers would be
$49,500. Furthermore, each applicant
must prepare a waiver exhibit at
additional expense. Furthermore, every
time a waiver is requested, the applicant
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Sep 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
cannot commence service until the
waiver and applications are granted.
While the cost of such delays cannot be
quantified based on this record, it is
apparent that such delays may be costly
to FS providers and their customers. On
the other hand, we find that the
potential for increased interference or
other costs would be minimal from this
action. Accordingly, we find that the
benefits of the Commission’s actions
outweigh the costs.
IV. Order on Reconsideration
A. Making 6875–7125 MHz and 12700–
13150 MHz Available for Part 101 FS
Operations
1. Allowing FS Operations in Areas
Where BAS Operates on Adjacent
Channels
46. In the R&O, the Commission
authorized FS use of the 6875–7125
MHz and 12700–13150 MHz bands in
areas where television pickup licenses
are not authorized in those bands. The
Commission prohibited FS paths from
crossing the service areas of TV pickup
authorizations in order to avoid
interference. FWCC asks the
Commission to limit the exclusion of FS
from vacant 13 GHz channels in areas
served by BAS and CARS to co-channel
operations. In other words, under
FWCC’s proposal, FS could be licensed
in areas where BAS and CARS have
operations so long as the FS operations
are not on the same channels as any
licensed BAS or CARS stations.
47. The National Association of
Broadcasters (NAB) and the Society of
Broadcast Engineers, Inc. (SBE) contend
that the ‘‘introduction of new wireless
backhaul operations would be
incompatible with effective,
unpredictable itinerant newsgathering
and news reporting, and it would
disserve the public if ENG services at
the scene of breaking news were
undermined by interference concerns
caused by the presence of nearby
wireless backhaul operations.’’ NAB and
SBE are also concerned that it would
not be feasible to mix the formal
coordination process used by FS
applicants with the more informal
coordination process used by
broadcasters, because FS applicants do
not have the same incentives as
broadcasters to accommodate the needs
of TV pick-up operations.
48. We decline to adopt FWCC’s
proposal to permit FS operations in
channels adjacent to BAS/CARS
operations at this time, for three
reasons. First, as a technical matter,
microwave signals that are being
transmitted on adjacent channels can
interfere with each other under some
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54427
circumstances and, for that reason,
require frequency coordination. Second,
as discussed in the R&O, BAS operators
are motivated to coordinate spectrum
with each other rapidly and
cooperatively because they engage in
similar activities, such as covering
breaking news events, and share a
common motivation to ensure that
spectrum continues to be made
available for such activities on short
notice. Allowing FS applicants into
areas where BAS is authorized would
necessitate a more formal coordination
process, which we do not believe is
compatible with the dynamic and
rapidly changing nature of electronic
newsgathering (ENG) operations.
Finally, § 74.24 of the Commission’s
rules allows BAS licensees to engage in
short-term operations on unlicensed
BAS channels for as many as 720 hours
annually per frequency. Therefore, in
some locations, BAS operators could be
making extensive short-term use of
unlicensed BAS channels in the
geographic areas where they have BAS
licenses for other channels. Allowing FS
operations to use these frequencies
could result in interference and
disruption to these operations.
2. Protection Criteria for BAS Stations
49. In comments filed during an
earlier phase of this proceeding, EIBASS
asked the Commission to prohibit
newcomer Private Operational Fixed
Service (POFS) stations in the 7 and 13
GHz bands from degrading the noise
threshold of any existing electronic
newsgathering-receive only (ENG–RO)
site by more than 0.5 dB, citing as
precedent the Commission’s decision to
apply that standard to Department of
Defense uplinks when determining
whether or not they are providing
adequate protection to ENG–RO sites in
the 2 GHz band. The R&O
acknowledged that EIBASS’s proposal
might be an appropriate standard for
evaluating a proposed FS facility but
declined to adopt it as a rule, explaining
that, in lieu of mandating specific
interference criteria in our rules, we
expect applicants and licensees to work
out interference issues in the frequency
coordination process. In a petition for
partial reconsideration of the R&O,
EIBASS now reiterates its request,
arguing that a vague frequency
coordination benchmark does neither
the incumbent nor the newcomer any
favor, because of the uncertainty it
generates.
50. EIBASS’s proposal is unnecessary
because we are upholding the
Commission’s prior decision to prohibit
the paths of FS stations operating in the
7 and 13 GHz bands from crossing the
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
54428
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
service areas of TV pickup
authorizations. The transmission paths
of part 101 FS stations are fixed. That
makes it possible for FS applicants to
provide licensees and other applicants
with detailed notifications that include
proposed transmission azimuths, among
other technical parameters, and to allow
the other affected parties 30 days to
respond. Although our rules provide for
the Commission to resolve any
differences that the parties are unable to
resolve by reasoned discussions with
each other, it is hardly ever necessary
for the Commission to intervene in the
frequency coordination process among
parties that are subject to our part 101
coordination procedures. The chances
that the affected parties would reach an
impasse seem particularly remote under
these circumstances, where FS paths are
barred from crossing any of the
geographic areas where ENG–RO
stations are licensed. Further, there is
no evidence in the record that EIBASS’s
proposal would reduce the costs
associated with the coordination
process. For those reasons, we remain
confident that the existing frequency
coordination procedures will ensure
that part 101 FS operators will not
interfere with ENG–RO operations in
the 6875–7125 MHz and 12700–13150
MHz bands. We therefore decline to
adopt EIBASS’s proposal.
3. Efficiency Standards for 13 GHz Band
51. FWCC notes that the R&O did not
specify a minimum throughput for the
13 GHz frequencies newly authorized
for Fixed Service use. FWCC
recommends that we set the same
throughput requirements for 13 GHz as
apply to the 11 GHz band, and that we
augment those requirements to include
capacity and loading requirements for
transmitters using channel bandwidths
of 12.5 megahertz.
52. Section 101.141(a)(3) of our rules
applies minimum payload capacities to
digital microwave transmitters operating
in the 11 GHz band, depending upon
their bandwidths. We agree with FWCC
that the same standards should be
applied to the 13 GHz band. Our
decision above adopting the proposal in
the FNPRM to apply uniform bits-persecond-per-Hertz requirements to all
frequencies between 10,550 MHz and
13,150 MHz includes the frequencies in
FWCC’s request, and thus renders the
request moot.
4. Allowing 50 Megahertz Channels in
the 7 GHz Band
53. The R&O retained the 25
megahertz bandwidth limit that
presently applies to the 7 GHz band
because of the limited amount of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Sep 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
spectrum available in that band, but it
raised the maximum permissible
bandwidth in the 13 GHz band to 50
megahertz. Cambium Networks
(Cambium) urges that we also allow the
7 GHz band to accommodate 50
megahertz bandwidths. The NAB and
SBE oppose this proposal on the ground
that it would reduce the number of
available channels for new ENG use.
Cambium counters the broadcasters’
concern by citing the R&O’s observation
that BAS and CARS operations have not
been expanding geographically in recent
years, with only one new BAS TV
pickup license granted in the 7 GHz and
13 GHz bands in the past two years.
54. We deny the Cambium Petition
because the benefits of allowing 50
megahertz channels in the 7 GHz band
appear to be quite limited and because
operators needing wider channels have
alternatives. If we allowed 50 megahertz
channels in the 7 GHz band, there
would only be two channel pairs
available in the 7 GHz band. Allowing
50 megahertz channels could limit the
availability of FS spectrum for other
operators who need narrower channels.
Furthermore, operators who need 50
megahertz or wider channels have
alternative options available. Today, we
are allowing 60 megahertz channels in
the 6 GHz band and 80 megahertz
channels in the 11 GHz band. For
shorter paths, 50 megahertz channels
are available in the 18 GHz and 23 GHz
bands. Under those circumstances, we
believe the better use of the 7 GHz band
would be to accommodate narrower
band operations. We therefore deny the
Cambium Petition.
B. Elimination of the Final Link Rule
55. The ‘‘final link rule’’ prohibited
broadcasters from using part 101
stations as the final radiofrequency (RF)
link in the chain of distribution of
program material to broadcast stations.
Concurrent with the Commission’s
decision to allow FS to share in the 7
and 13 GHz BAS and CARS bands, the
R&O eliminated the final link rule. In
doing so, the Commission noted that FS
licensees were not objecting to
elimination of the rule so long as FS
were granted access to BAS and CARS
spectrum in the 7 and 13 GHz bands.
56. In a petition for reconsideration,
FWCC argues that the final link rule
should only be eliminated in areas
where the Fixed Service can use the 7
or 13 GHz bands. FWCC argues that a
key rationale for the change was
‘‘sharing of spectrum the other way’’—
i.e., a quid pro quo for opening the 7
and 13 GHz BAS/CARS bands for use by
part 101 FS operators—but that
excluding FS operators from geographic
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
areas where BAS and CARS operations
are licensed leaves FS with very limited
access to those bands. The NAB and
SBE oppose FWCC’s petition, arguing
that the convergence of digital video
with digital data transmission has
eliminated any technological reasons for
broadcasters to maintain facilities to
carry program material to transmitter
sites that are separate from microwave
transmission systems that handle other
kinds of data. Reinstating the final link
rule would therefore result in a
duplication of facilities that would
otherwise be unnecessary, they contend.
57. In the R&O, the Commission
found that there would be significant
benefits and no costs to eliminating the
final link rule. It noted that no
commenter had identified any
cognizable harm that would result from
eliminating the rule and concluded that,
with increasing adoption of digital
technologies, the final link rule had
become an outdated regulation that
imposed unnecessary, duplicative costs
on broadcasters. That conclusion is
consistent with one of the fundamental
purposes of this proceeding: removing
regulatory barriers that limit the use of
spectrum for wireless backhaul and
other point-to-point and point-tomultipoint communications.
58. The Commission’s action
maximized the ability of both FS
operators and broadcasters to use the 7
and 13 GHz bands. While it is true that
the Commission did not make those
bands available for FS use everywhere,
that decision was based on the fact that
fixed links and ENG operations are
different and difficult to coordinate with
each other. In contrast, there is no
technical reason why broadcasters,
cable operators and part 101 FS
operators cannot share the same
spectrum when transmitting microwave
signals between fixed locations.
59. The Commission’s actions
maximized the amount of spectrum
available to both FS licensees and
broadcasters. Furthermore, FWCC does
not allege any harm from eliminating
the final link rule; and therefore, the
Commission’s conclusion that there
would be significant benefits and no
costs to eliminate the final link rule
remains unchanged. We therefore deny
FWCC’s Petition on this issue.
C. Upper Microwave Substantial Service
Policies
60. In reply comments to the NOI,
NSMA argued that in determining
whether 24 GHz, 39 GHz, and Local
Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS)
licensees have offered substantial
service, the Commission fails to
positively consider ‘‘basic and
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
important steps that lead to successful
band utilization.’’ It gives the following
examples of such activity: (1) Spending
significant resources producing
Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to
develop equipment in its band; (2)
utilizing the Secondary Markets rules to
offer spectrum leases throughout the
license area; (3) submitting proposals to
carrier, government, or enterprise
customers that rely on utilizing the
wide-area license; and/or (4) building
several links, but not yet meeting the
safe harbor criterion (typically four links
per million of population). NSMA asked
the Commission to ‘‘track and credit’’
such activities.
61. The Commission rejected NSMA’s
request in the MO&O. The Commission
concluded that NSMA’s arguments
ignored one of the Commission’s
overriding purposes of buildout
requirements: providing ‘‘a clear and
expeditious accounting of spectrum use
by licensees to ensure that service is
indeed being provided to the public.’’ It
approved the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau rejection of
substantial service showings based on
preparatory activities of the type
described by NSMA where there is no
actual service being provided to the
public. It noted that safe harbors are
merely one means of demonstrating
substantial service, and that given an
appropriate showing, a level of service
that does not meet a safe harbor may
still constitute substantial service. It
also emphasized that all substantial
service showings that do not meet an
established safe harbor would be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
62. In a petition for reconsideration of
the MO&O, the Wireless
Communications Association
International, Inc. (WCAI) challenges
the Commission’s decision to address
that issue in this proceeding. WCAI
argues that the Commission’s
consideration of this issue violates the
Administrative Procedure Act because
the issue was not raised in the NPRM.
WCAI believes substantial service rules
and policies relating to wireless
backhaul should be addressed in the
broader proceeding seeking to
harmonize renewal standards for
wireless radio services (WT Docket No.
10–112) that is currently pending.
63. WCAI argues that standards
currently applicable to fixed point-topoint services, which require a certain
number of links based on population, do
not in fact promote service to the public
because it requires operators to either
build uneconomic links in the absence
of demand for backhaul services or lose
their licenses. According to WCAI, the
standards create ‘‘substantial investor
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Sep 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
uncertainty about the amount of capital
required to preserve a license in the
millimeter wave bands.’’ WCAI asks the
Commission to adopt an ‘‘offer-based’’
standard that would ‘‘require only that
an area-wide millimeter wave band
licensee offer FP2P service or spectrum
leases on commercially reasonable
terms and conditions to commercial or
government fixed or mobile telephony/
broadband service providers or to the
licensee’s internal network planners.’’
FWCC and Mary J. Kuiken support
WCAI’s Petition.
64. WCAI has filed its substantial
service proposal for wireless backhaul
in WT Docket No. 10–112 and we will
consider it in that proceeding,
consistent with WCAI’s request. The
Memorandum Opinion and Order
merely explained the Commission’s
decision not to initiate a rulemaking to
address NSMA’s substantial service
proposal that NSMA presented in reply
comments filed in response to the NOI,
and thus did not violate the notice-andcomment requirements of the APA,
which are applicable to rulemaking
proceedings, or prejudice our
consideration of substantial service
issues in WT Docket No. 10–112. The
Commission’s decision to dispose of
NSMA’s request also was appropriate
because many LMDS and 39 GHz
licensees were facing a June 1, 2012
deadline for providing substantial
service. The Commission’s response to
NSMA’s petition thus restated the
applicable rules and policies in advance
of that deadline and allowed licensees
to plan accordingly. In explaining its
decision, we note that the MO&O
accurately stated the Commission’s
current policy, and we direct the Bureau
to apply that policy to the June 1, 2012
substantial service filings made by
LMDS and 39 GHz licensees. We also
agree with the observation in the MO&O
that any substantial service standard
must provide ‘‘a clear and expeditious
accounting of spectrum use by licensees
to ensure that service is indeed being
provided to the public.’’ Our action
today is without prejudice to
subsequent consideration of these issues
in WT Docket No. 10–112.
V. Memorandum Opinion and Order
65. In this MO&O, we address various
other proposals and issues that we
believe are best considered in other
contexts or do not require Commission
consideration and therefore will not be
considered in this proceeding at this
time.
66. FWCC asks that the Commission
authorize smaller antennas in the 71–76
and 81–86 GHz bands. We decline to
initiate a rulemaking because we do not
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54429
believe that FWCC has provided
sufficient information to justify further
action at this time in the context of this
proceeding. The current antenna
specifications for those bands were
adopted after a detailed discussion of
the tradeoffs involved. FWCC has not
provided sufficient information to
demonstrate that smaller antennas could
be allowed without increasing
interference. Our action today is
without prejudice to consideration of a
more detailed submission on this issue.
67. EIBASS, which supports the
R&O’s requirement that BAS licensees
in the 7 and 13 GHz bands register their
fixed receive sites, asks various
questions about the effective date and
other aspects of the requirement. Staff
from the Bureau has met with
broadcasters to discuss implementation
of that requirement. We do not see the
need for Commission intervention at
this time, but we direct the Bureau to
continue working with broadcasters on
implementing the registration
requirement.
68. Comsearch and FWCC ask the
Commission to streamline application
processing when applicants intend to
use adaptive modulation by allowing
adaptive modulation frequencies to be
filed as a single row, as opposed to
requiring each combination of
modulation, capacity, bandwidth, and
transmitter power to be licensed
individually. No rule change is required
to implement this change, and Bureau
staff has started the process of
modifying the Universal Licensing
System to allow this change.
69. Comsearch and FWCC ask that the
Commission eliminate the provision in
the rules that allows operation of low
power, limited coverage systems in the
23 GHz band because the rules are
allegedly unnecessary and allow the use
of inefficient antennas. According to
Comsearch, that provision was used in
the past for low cost analog video
systems for purposes such as
surveillance. Comsearch describes such
systems as ‘‘outmoded’’ and claims to be
unaware of any current usage of such
systems. The frequencies in question are
particularly important and most used in
the 23 GHz band because they are
available for conditional authority
under § 101.31(b) of the Commission’s
rules. Clearwire also asks the
Commission to allow licensees to
aggregate channels in the 18 GHz and 23
GHz bands to allow 80 megahertz, 100
megahertz, 120 megahertz, or 150
megahertz channels.
70. We believe these requests should
be considered together with other filings
relating to the 23 GHz band and
therefore defer consideration of them.
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
54430
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
FWCC has filed a petition for
reconsideration of the Commission’s
order authorizing conditional authority
for additional channels in the 23 GHz
band which raises the issue of
authorizing low power systems on those
additional channels. FWCC has also
filed a petition for rulemaking asking
that conditional authority be authorized
throughout the 23 GHz band and
seeking changes to the mechanism for
coordinating operation with the
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA). In
light of the common issues raised by
each of those pleadings, we believe
those requests should be considered
together, in consultation with NTIA. We
therefore defer consideration of these
requests.
71. We recognize that there are other
pending matters and proceedings
relating to wireless backhaul that are not
addressed in this item. Those matters
and proceedings include: (1) A petition
for rulemaking asking that the 7125–
8500 MHz band be allocated for nonfederal use and allotted for FS use, (2)
a request made in this proceeding to
revise the Commission’s policy of
allowing a satellite earth station to
coordinate for the full 360-degree
azimuth range of the earth station even
when it is communicating with only one
satellite in a limited segment of the
band, and (3) a petition for rulemaking
asking that the Commission establish
service rules for FS use in the 42–42.5
GHz band. We defer consideration of
these issues and will address them
separately or in future orders in this
proceeding.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
VI. Procedural Matters
Paperwork Reduction Analysis:
72. This document contains an
information collection requirement
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. It
will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under section 3507 of the PRA.
Prior to submission to OMB, the
Commission will publish a notice in the
Federal Register seeking public
comment on the modified information
collection requirement. In addition, that
notice will also seek comment on how
the Commission might ‘‘further reduce
the 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). The information collection
contained in this order will not go into
effect until OMB approves the
collection. We will publish a notice in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Sep 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
the Federal Register announcing the
effective date of the information
collection.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of
the Report and Order
73. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), we incorporated an 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 the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM). No comments
were filed addressing the IRFA. Because
we amend the rules in this Second
Report and Order, we have included
this Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA). This present FRFA
conforms to the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
74. In this Second Report and Order,
we make four changes to our rules
involving microwave stations. These
changes are described in further detail
below. First, we allow the use of smaller
antennas in the 5925–6875 MHz band (6
GHz band), 17700–18300 MHz and
19300–19700 MHz bands (18 GHz
band), and 21200–23600 MHz band (23
GHz band) fixed service (FS) bands.
Second, we add a definition of ‘‘payload
capacity’’ to our rules, and update our
capacity and loading requirements to
bits/second/Hertz standards reflect the
increasing use of interfaces such as
Internet Protocol. Third, we 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.
Finally, 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.
75. With respect to the first proposal,
§ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 conclude that
we can allow smaller antennas in the 6,
18 and 23 GHz bands without producing
harmful interference.
76. Second, we add a definition of
‘‘payload capacity’’ to our rules, and
update our capacity and loading
standards to take into account the
increasing use of interfaces such as
Internet Protocol. Currently,
§ 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 update our rules to add
a definition of payload capacity. We
also revise 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.
77. Third, we allow the use of wider
channels in the Lower 6 GHz Band and
11 GHz Band. Specifically, we allow 60
megahertz channels in the Lower 6 GHz
Band and 80 megahertz channels in the
11 GHz Band. That action will allow
backhaul operators to handle more
capacity and offer faster data rates.
78. Finally, we amend § 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
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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 conclude that such a
change would be consistent with
international regulations and can be
made without any increased risk of
interference to satellite services.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. Legal Basis
79. The actions are 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
80. 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.
81. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Sep 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
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.
82. 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.
83. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54431
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.
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
84. This Report and Order adopts no
new reporting or recordkeeping
requirements.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
85. 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.
86. The actions taken in the Report
and Order would provide additional
options to all licensees, including small
entity licensees. Such actions will serve
the public interest by allowing use of
smaller antennas, allow the use of wider
channels in the Lower 6 and 11 GHz
bands, eliminate the need for
unnecessary waivers, and update our
minimum payload capacity rules to
reflect current technology. The rules
will therefore open up beneficial
economic opportunities to a variety of
spectrum users, including small
businesses. Because the actions in the
Report and Order will improve
beneficial economic opportunities for
all businesses, including small
businesses, a detailed discussion of
alternatives is not required.
87. With respect to the proposal to
allow smaller antennas in the 6 GHz
band, an alternative approach would be
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
54432
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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. We conclude that limiting
relief to 4-foot antennas is unnecessary
to reduce the potential for interference.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
88. None.
VII. Ordering Clauses
89. It is further ordered that the rules
adopted herein will become effective
October 5, 2012. It is further ordered
that the Rural Microwave Flexibility
Policy, which contains new information
collection requirements that require
approval by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), will become
effective after the Commission publishes
a notice in the Federal Register
announcing such approval and the
relevant effective date.
90. It is further ordered, 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, that
this Memorandum Opinion and Order is
hereby adopted.
91. It is further ordered, pursuant to
sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 201, 301, 302, 303,
307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, 333,
and 405 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, 333, and 405,
and section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302, that this
Order on Reconsideration is hereby
adopted.
92. It is further ordered that the
Commission shall send a copy of this
Report and Order to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Frequency
*
*
5,925 to 6,425 5 .........................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Sep 04, 2012
Category
93. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Second Report and Order, Order on
Reconsideration, and Memorandum
Opinion and Order, including the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
*
*
*
*
10,700 to 11,700 ......................
*
*
*
*
1 80
*
*
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 101
Communications equipment, Radio,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
1 The maximum bandwidth that will be authorized for each particular frequency in this
band is detailed in the appropriate frequency
table in § 101.147. If contiguous channels are
aggregated in the 928–928.85/952–952.85/
956.25–956.45 MHz, the 928.85–929/959.85–
960 MHz, or the 932–932.5/941–941.5 MHz
bands, then the bandwidth may exceed that
which is listed in the table.
Federal Communications Commission.
Sheryl Todd,
Deputy Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR part 101 as
follows:
*
*
*
*
*
4. Amend § 101.115 by revising
paragraph (b) introductory text and the
entries ‘‘5,925 to 6,425’’, ‘‘6,525 to
6,875’’, ‘‘6,875 to 7,075’’, ‘‘17,700 to
18,820’’, ‘‘18,920 to 19,700’’, and
‘‘21,200 to 23,600’’ in the table in
paragraph (b)(2) to read 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 § 101.3 by adding the
definition ‘‘Payload Capacity’’ to read as
follows:
■
§ 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 § 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:
§ 101.109
*
Bandwidth.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
Maximum
authorized
bandwidth
(MHz)
Frequency band (MHz)
*
*
*
*
5,925 to 6,425 ..........................
Maximum
beam-width
to 3 dB
points1
(included
angle in
degrees)
Minimum
antenna
gain (dBi)
2.2
2.2
4.1
PO 00000
*
1 60
§ 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, in order
to comply with Standard B an antenna
must fully meet either Standard B1 or
Standard B2. Licensees shall comply
with the antenna standards table shown
in this paragraph in the following
manner:
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
Minimum radiation suppression to angle in degrees from centerline
of main beam in decibels
*
A ..........
B1 ........
B2 ........
Jkt 226001
Maximum
authorized
bandwidth
(MHz)
Frequency band (MHz)
Frm 00080
*
38
38
32
Fmt 4700
5° to
10°
10° to
15°
15° to
20°
20° to
30°
*
25
21
15
Sfmt 4700
29
25
20
30° to
100°
100° to
140°
*
33
29
23
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
36
32
28
05SER1
140° to
180°
*
42
35
29
55
39
60
55
45
60
54433
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Category
Frequency
*
*
6,525 to 6,875 5 .........................
6,875 to 7,075 ...........................
*
*
17,700 to 18,820 .......................
18,920 to 19,700 10 ...................
21,200 to 23,600 7, 11 .................
*
Maximum
beam-width
to 3 dB
points1
(included
angle in
degrees)
Minimum radiation suppression to angle in degrees from centerline
of main beam in decibels
Minimum
antenna
gain (dBi)
*
5° to
10°
10° to
15°
2.2
2.2
4.1
2.2
2.2
4.1
*
38
38
32
38
38
32
25
21
15
25
21
15
29
25
20
29
25
20
2.2
2.2
3.3
2.2
2.2
3.3
3.3
3.3
4.5
A ..........
B1 ........
B2 ........
A ..........
B1 ........
B2 ........
*
38
38
33.5
38
38
33.5
33.5
33.5
30.5
25
20
18
25
20
18
18
17
14
29
24
22
29
24
22
26
24
19
*
A ..........
B1 ........
B2 ........
A ..........
B1 ........
B2 ........
A ..........
B1 ........
B2 ........
*
15° to
20°
*
20° to
30°
*
100° to
140°
*
33
29
23
33
29
23
36
32
28
36
32
28
33
28
29
33
28
29
26
24
22
36
32
31
36
32
31
33
29
24
*
*
30° to
100°
*
42
35
29
42
35
29
55
39
60
55
39
60
42
35
35
42
35
35
33
29
29
55
36
55
55
36
55
55
40
52
*
*
140° to
180°
55
45
60
55
45
60
*
*
55
36
55
55
36
55
55
50
52
*
*****
5 These antenna standards apply to all point-to-point stations authorized after June 1, 1997. Existing licensees and pending applicants on that
date are grandfathered and need not comply with these standards.
*****
7 Except for antennas between 140° and 180° authorized or pending on January 1, 1989, in the band 10,550 to 10,565 MHz for which minimum radiation suppression to angle (in degrees) from centerline of main beam is 36 decibels.
*****
10 DEMS User Station antennas in this band must meet performance Standard B and have a minimum antenna gain of 34 dBi. The maximum
beamwidth requirement does not apply to DEMS User Stations. DEMS Nodal Stations need not comply with these standards. Stations authorized
to operate in the 24,250–25,250 MHz band do not have to meet these standards, however, the Commission may require the use of higher performance antennas where interference problems can be resolved by the use of such antennas.
11 Except as provided in § 101.147(s).
*****
§ 101.141
5. Amend § 101.141 by revising
paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(6), and (a)(7) to
read as follows:
■
Microwave modulation.
(a) * * *
(3)(i) Except as noted in paragraph
(a)(7) of this section, the payload
capacity of equipment shall meet the
following minimum efficiency
standards:
Emission bandwidth ≤5 MHz
Emission bandwidth >5 MHz and
≤20 MHz
3,700–10,550 MHz ........................
10,550–13,250 MHz ......................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Frequency
2.4 bits/second/Hertz ....................
2.4 bits/second/Hertz ....................
4.4 bits/second/Hertz ....................
4.4 bits/second/Hertz ....................
(ii) Traffic loading payload shall
exceed 50 percent of payload capacity
within 30 months of licensing. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Sep 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
capacity and loading requirements at
least 99.95% of the time, in the
aggregate of both directions in a twoway link.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) Digital systems using bandwidths
of 10 MHz or larger will be considered
50 percent loaded when at least 50
percent of their total capacity is being
used. For purposes of this subsection, a
Fixed Service channel is being used if
it is attached to a communications
system that is capable of providing data
to it at a rate that is sufficient to occupy
at least 50 percent of the payload
capacity of the Fixed Service channel,
after header compression is applied.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Emission bandwidth >20 MHz
4.4 bits/second/Hertz.
3.0 bits/second/Hertz.
(7) Equipment placed in service after
June 1, 1997 and prior to October 5,
2012 may comply with the provisions of
§ 101.141(a)(3) in effect as of the date
the equipment was placed in service.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Amend § 101.145 by revising
paragraph (b) introductory text and
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 101.145 Interference to geo-stationarysatellites.
*
*
*
*
*
(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
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
54434
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
within 2 degrees of the geostationarysatellite 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
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 geostationarysatellite orbit, taking into account
atmospheric refraction.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. Amend § 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:
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2012–21335 Filed 9–4–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2010–0049;
4500030113]
RIN 1018–AX89
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Status for Arctostaphylos
franciscana (Franciscan manzanita)
Throughout Its Range
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), determine
that Arctostaphylos franciscana
(Franciscan manzanita) meets the
definition of an endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act of
§ 101.147 Frequency assignments.
1973, as amended (Act). This final rule
*
*
*
*
*
implements the Federal protections
(i) 5,925 to 6,425 MHz. 60 MHz
provided by the Act for this species. We
authorized bandwidth.
are simultaneously publishing a
*
*
*
*
*
proposed rule to designate critical
1
(9) 60 MHz bandwidth channels:
habitat for Arctostaphylos franciscana
in a separate Federal Register notice.
Receive
DATES: This rule becomes effective
Transmit (receive) (MHz)
(transmit)
(MHz)
October 5, 2012.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available
5964.97 .....................................
6217.01
6024.27 .....................................
6276.31 on the Internet at https://
6083.57 .....................................
6335.61 www.regulations.gov and at the
6142.87 .....................................
6394.91 Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.
Comments and materials received, as
1 The highest available channel should be
well as supporting documentation used
selected, except where such a choice would
impede the efficiency of local frequency co- in the preparation of this rule, will be
available for public inspection, by
ordination efforts.
appointment, during normal business
*
*
*
*
*
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
(o) 10,700 to 11,700 MHz. 80 MHz
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office,
authorized bandwidth.
2800 Cottage, Room W–2605,
*
*
*
*
*
Sacramento, CA 95825; 916–414–6600
1
(8) 80 MHz bandwidth channels:
(telephone); 916–414–6712 (facsimile).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Moore, Field Supervisor,
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
Receive
Transmit (receive) (MHz)
(transmit)
(see ADDRESSES section). If you use a
(MHz)
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), call the Federal Information
10745 ........................................
11235
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
10825 ........................................
11315
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
10905 ........................................
11395
10985 ........................................
11065 ........................................
11145 ........................................
SUMMARY:
11475
11555
11635
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. This
is a final rule to list Arctostaphylos
1 The highest available channel should normally be selected, except where such a choice franciscana as an endangered species
would impede the efficiency of local frequency under the Endangered Species Act.
coordination efforts.
Under the Act, if a species is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Sep 04, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species we are required to
promptly publish in the Federal
Register and make a determination on
our proposal within one year. We were
petitioned in 2010 to list A. franciscana
as an endangered or threatened species.
We determined in our 12-month finding
that listing was warranted, and we
proposed to list the species as an
endangered species in September 2001.
This final rule constitutes our final
determination for this species as
required by the Act.
The basis for our action. Under the
Endangered Species Act, we are
required to determine whether a species
is endangered or threatened because of
any of the following factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. We
reviewed all available scientific and
commercial information pertaining to
these factors in our status review of the
species and determined that the species
was limited to one plant remaining in
the wild. We proposed that the species
was endangered due to threats in the
five factors, as follows. The primary
threat to Arctostaphylos franciscana is
from the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species’ habitat or
range. All original occupied habitat of
the species has been lost, and its current
range has been reduced to a single
location that supports a single A.
franciscana plant. Furthermore, limited
suitable habitat remains available to
support a viable population of the
species. The remaining plant is
vulnerable to overcollection or damage
if visitors harvest cuttings or seeds.
Sudden oak death, which is caused by
the pathogen Phytophthora cinnamomi,
and infections caused by other
Phytophthora species are serious threats
to Arctostaphylos franciscana because
only one plant occurs in the wild and
the diseases are easily spread. Predation
is an ongoing but lesser threat.
Additional threats include climate
change, altered fire regime, soil
compaction from visitor use, vandalism,
loss of genetic diversity, loss of
pollinators, stochastic events, effects of
small population size, and
hybridization. In the proposed rule, we
considered these threats to be
significant and ongoing, but we did not
find that we had sufficient information
E:\FR\FM\05SER1.SGM
05SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54421-54434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21335]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 101
[WT Docket No. 10-153; RM-11602; FCC 12-87]
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission takes further steps to remove
regulatory barriers and lowering costs for the wireless microwave
backhaul facilities that are an important component of many mobile
wireless networks. The steps we take will remove regulatory barriers
that today limit the use of spectrum for wireless backhaul and other
point-to-point and point-to-multipoint communications. This will also
facilitate better use of Fixed Service (FS) spectrum and provide
additional flexibility to enable FS licensees to reduce operational
costs and facilitate the use of wireless backhaul in rural areas. By
enabling more flexible and cost-effective microwave services, the
Commission can help foster deployment of broadband infrastructure
across America. In addition, a number of parties sought reconsideration
of the Backhaul Report and Order, and we address those requests and
deny reconsideration, for the most part.
DATES: Effective October 5, 2012.
The effective date for the Rural Microwave Flexibility Policy,
which contains new or modified information collection requirements has
not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The
Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing
the effective date of that policy.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. A copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction
Act information collection requirements contained herein should be
submitted to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room
1-B441, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet
at Judith B. Herman@fcc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schauble, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-0797 or by
email to John.Schauble@fcc.gov. For additional information concerning
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained
in this document, contact Judith B. Herman at (202) 418-0214, or via
the Internet at PRA@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
document, FCC 12-87, adopted and released on August 3, 2012. 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 of
the Backhaul Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and
Memorandum Opinion and Order (Backhaul 2nd R&O, OOR, and MO&O) and
related Commission documents may be purchased from the
[[Page 54422]]
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 or (800) 387-3160, contact BCPI at its Web site:
https://www.bcpiweb.com. When ordering documents from BCPI, please
provide the appropriate FCC document number, for example, FCC 12-87.
The complete text of the Backhaul 2nd R&O, OOR, and MO&O is also
available on the Commission's Web site at https://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-87A1.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 email to bmillin@fcc.gov.
I. Introduction
1. In the Backhaul 2nd R&O, OOR, and MO&O, we take further steps to
remove regulatory barriers and lower costs for the wireless microwave
backhaul facilities that are an important component of many mobile
wireless networks. Broadband is indispensable to our digital economy,
and wireless technology is an increasingly important source of
broadband connectivity. Microwave backhaul facilities are often used to
transmit data between cell sites, or between cell sites and network
backbones. Service providers' use of microwave links as an alternative
to traditional copper circuits and fiber optic links has been
increasing. Microwave is a particularly important high-capacity
backhaul solution in certain rural and remote locations.
2. In this Backhaul 2nd R&O, OOR, and MO&O, we continue our efforts
to increase flexibility in the use of microwave services licensed under
our part 101 rules. The steps we take will remove regulatory barriers
that today limit the use of spectrum for wireless backhaul and other
point-to-point and point-to-multipoint communications. We also take
actions that will reduce costs of deploying wireless backhaul in rural
areas. By enabling more flexible and cost-effective microwave services,
the Commission can help foster deployment of broadband infrastructure
across America.
II. Background
3. On August 9, 2011, the Commission made additional spectrum
available for Fixed Service (FS) use and provided additional
flexibility to enable FS licensees to reduce operational costs,
facilitating the use of wireless backhaul in rural areas. Specifically,
in the R&O, the Commission allowed FS to share the 6875-7125 MHz and
12700-13150 MHz bands currently used by the Broadcast Auxiliary Service
(BAS) and the Cable Television Relay Service (CARS). In addition, the
Commission eliminated the ``final link'' rule that prohibits
broadcasters from using FS stations as the final radiofrequency (RF)
link in the chain of distribution of program material to broadcast
stations. The Commission also modified the part 101 minimum payload
capacity rule to allow temporary operations below the minimum capacity
under certain circumstances, enabling FS links--in particular long
links in rural areas--to maintain critical communications during
periods of fading.
4. In the companion FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on
additional proposals to remove regulatory barriers and facilitate
backhaul deployment. Specifically, the Commission sought comment on (1)
Allowing smaller antennas in the 6, 18, and 23 GHz bands without
materially increasing interference; (2) exempting licensees in non-
congested areas from the efficiency standards and allowing other
licensees to seek relief from these standards; (3) allowing microwave
operators to create higher capacity links by licensing 60 and 80
megahertz channels in the 6 and 11 GHz microwave bands, respectively;
(4) revising our rule that requires microwave stations that point near
the geostationary arc to obtain a waiver to conform our rule to
International Telecommunications Union (ITU) regulations; and (5)
modifying the definition of payload capacity in our part 101 rules to
account for Internet protocol radio systems.
5. Additionally, four parties filed petitions for reconsideration
of the R&O and/or MO&O: Engineers for the Integrity of Broadcast
Auxiliary Services Spectrum (EIBASS), the Fixed Wireless Communications
Coalition (FWCC), Motorola Solutions, Inc./Cambium Networks (Cambium),
and Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. (WCAI).
III. Second Report and Order
A. Smaller Antennas in the 6, 18, and 23 GHz Bands
6. We adopt, with minor variations, the FNPRM's proposal to allow
smaller antennas in the 6, 18, and 23 GHz bands. The record
demonstrates that smaller antennas can be accommodated without
materially increasing the interference risk to other licensees.
Clearwire cites ``technology advancements and more sophisticated band
sharing techniques'' as developments that would allow us to loosen the
Category B antenna standards without an increased risk of interference.
Furthermore, a variety of operators who use microwave support the
proposed standards. Under our rules, if smaller antennas would cause an
interference conflict with another applicant or licensee, the applicant
proposing the smaller antenna must upgrade its antenna. Allowing
smaller antennas will facilitate wireless backhaul deployments in two
ways. As discussed in greater detail below, smaller antennas allow
significant cost savings because they are cheaper to manufacture,
install, and maintain. Smaller antennas also allow existing towers to
accommodate more antennas and allow installations at sites that would
not otherwise be able to accommodate larger antennas. Indeed, there
could be instances where allowing the use of smaller antennas may be
critical in allowing the use of wireless backhaul by broadband
operators.
7. We adopt Comsearch's proposal to implement the proposed
standards as Category B2 and keep the existing standards as Category
B1, allowing applicants to choose between those standards. That
approach will maximize flexibility for applicants and allow existing
licensees to keep their antennas. We also adopt FWCC's and Comsearch's
proposal to slightly loosen the proposed antenna standards for the 18
GHz band. No party argued that the revised standards would raise any
interference concerns in any of the relevant bands.
8. We do not adopt Comsearch's proposal to adopt a power limit on
licensees using smaller antennas. Adopting a power limit may
artificially limit path length because path length is directly related
to the EIRP. A particular path will require operation at the same EIRP
whether the operator uses a Category A antenna or a Category B antenna.
When EIRP is equivalent, a Category B antenna will radiate more energy
in the side lobes than a Category A antenna. In areas where another
operator is not in proximity, for example, rural and other uncongested
areas, the extra side lobe radiation will not cause any additional
interference. In those areas, a licensee can use a smaller and cheaper
antenna without harming other FS operators. If we were to restrict
power across the board, there may be instances where operators may not
be able to realize the full benefits of smaller antennas. We find that
our existing rules are sufficient to protect against the potential for
increased side lobe radiation. If interference occurs, the rules
require the licensee to upgrade its
[[Page 54423]]
antenna if the upgrade would mitigate the interference.
9. We find that permitting smaller antennas in the 6, 18 and 23 GHz
bands will benefit operators and consumers alike and that these
benefits outweigh any potential costs. Our actions today will enable
these spectrum bands to be used more intensively for wireless backhaul,
public safety, and other critical uses. Even for a single link, which
consists of two transmitters and two antennas, the cost savings from
allowing smaller antennas can be substantial. Savings in installation
costs for the link would likely be over $2,000 for two antennas.
MetroPCS estimates that if a smaller antenna eliminates the need for
wind loading studies or structural changes to a tower, the cost savings
could run ``into the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands,
of dollars.'' There would also be savings in operational costs. For
example, if an operator using a 6 GHz link is able to use 3-foot
antennas instead of 6-foot antennas, its site rental costs could
decrease by $7,200 each year. There are also additional cost savings
noted by FiberTower and others. When those cost savings are multiplied
by the thousands of links that are authorized in the 6 GHz band each
year, even if a relatively small percentage of authorized links could
use smaller antennas, there could be many instances where operators
could recognize cost savings. While the cost savings in the 18 and 23
GHz bands would be smaller, since there is less difference in the size
of antennas, there would still be cost savings. On the other hand,
there is some risk that a carrier taking advantage of these new rules
may have to upgrade to a Category A antenna later. We believe that in
many cases, this potential cost will be discovered and avoided in the
coordination process. We also note that licensees are not required to
use smaller antennas.
B. Updating Efficiency Standards
10. To promote efficient frequency use for various channel sizes in
certain part 101 frequency bands, Sec. 101.141(a)(3) of the
Commission's rules requires FS operators to establish minimum payload
capacities (in terms of megabits per second) and minimum traffic
loading payloads (as a percentage of payload capacity). That rule lists
a ``minimum payload capacity'' for various nominal channel bandwidths.
The term ``payload capacity'' is not defined. 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.
11. The FNPRM sought comment on changes to modernize the payload
capacity rule, particularly on a proposal made by Comsearch to de-
emphasize the legacy voice-based data rates and instead emphasize a
consistent efficiency requirement in terms of bits-per-second-per-Hertz
(``bps/Hz''). Comsearch also asked 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.'' Comsearch argued that, while the examples based on voice-
based data rates were typical when the rule was written, they are
becoming outdated as systems support other interfaces such as the
Internet Protocol. Comsearch also argued 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 asked 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.
12. The FNPRM asked whether the Commission should adopt Comsearch's
definition of payload capacity, adopt an alternative definition or
leave the term undefined. The FNPRM asked 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. It
sought input on an appropriate benchmark value to use in the event the
agency decided to define the efficiency requirement in terms of bits-
per-second-per-Hertz. The Commission further inquired whether the value
should be the same across all frequency bands and across urban as well
as rural areas. It also asked for comments on whether there is any need
to consider how the definition should be applied to legacy systems,
i.e., whether there would be a need to grandfather equipment that is
currently installed or equipment that is currently on the market.
13. FWCC had originally recommended adoption of the efficiency
requirements using bits/second/Hertz values adopted by Industry Canada,
with appropriate adjustments for bands where Canada does not have FS
services. Comsearch supported those standards. FWCC subsequently
proposed an adjustment that would continue to express the standards
based on bits/second/Hertz but tighten the standards for certain
channel bandwidths in the 11 GHz and 13 GHz bands.
14. First, we convert the current voice-circuit based efficiency
standards to bit/second/Hertz standards using standards recently
proposed by FWCC. Commenters generally support the idea of replacing
our existing payload capacity requirements with efficiency requirement
expressed in terms of bits-per-second-per-Hertz. We have reviewed the
most recent standards proposed by FWCC, and find that they closely
approximate what our current rules require and are otherwise
appropriate. This action will allow our payload capacity requirements
to reflect modern technologies. Furthermore, if we allow new channel
bandwidths in microwave bands, a bit/second/Hertz standard will
automatically accommodate new channel bandwidths.
15. FWCC and Comsearch support the proposed definition of payload
capacity as consistent with industry practice. We adopt the proposed
definition because it is useful to define that term in our rules and
the proposed definition is appropriate.
16. A second and related issue is the definition of ``throughput''
for purposes of the efficiency standards. The definition is important
because FS operators use a variety of network configurations, and using
an unnecessarily restrictive definition of throughput can prevent
operators from using some of those network configurations. We consider
two proposals offered by commenters and adopt an approach that meets
both of their objectives.
17. Clearwire supports the idea of adjusting the minimum payload
requirements to account for the increased capacity that would be
available with wider bandwidth channels. It expresses concern, however,
that simply establishing a bits/second/Hertz standard may not be
appropriate for modern network topologies. Clearwire uses an Ethernet-
based microwave mesh that relies on a ring topology to provide 99.999
percent network availability by providing redundant link diversity from
every cell site location. Normally, a ring is split in half with
traffic travelling clockwise on one half and counterclockwise on the
other half. If a radio fails on a link, the traffic is aggregated and
re-routed around the failed/downed link. Because each link must be
designed to carry enough data to accommodate failures elsewhere in the
system, the links must be designed to be less than fully loaded during
normal operation. Clearwire proposes that the Commission require
[[Page 54424]]
applicants to designate each of its links with respect to its generic
network topology. For example, a link would be certified as either a
ring, mesh, or other resilient network path (links), or as a linear
(nonresilient) network topology path. If the link were part of a ring,
mesh, or other resilient network topology, the applicant would have to
identify the link as either a ``traffic bearing link'' or a
``management/resiliency link.'' Under Clearwire's proposal,
``management/resiliency links'' would be exempt from the efficiency
standards, while other links would have to comply with the applicable
standards.
18. FWCC recommends a different approach. FWCC asks that we drop
the voice circuit designations in Sec. 101.141(a)(6) and (7) of the
Commission's rules, which define ``loading'' for purposes of existing
rules, and replace them with a new Sec. 101.141(a)(6) to read as
follows: ``Digital systems using bandwidths of 10 megahertz or larger
will be considered 50% loaded when at least 50% of their total payload
capacity is being used.''
19. We believe the objectives behind the Clearwire and FWCC
proposals can be met through a simpler approach. Therefore, we update
our existing traffic loading requirements, which are not expressed in
terms of actual data throughput but in terms of the capacities of
multiplexers attached to the transmitters. The definition we adopt
today will ensure the efficient use of spectrum while allowing
operators to use network configurations with redundant links in order
to maintain continuity of service if a link fails. While we update our
definition to take into account current technologies, the definition we
adopt uses an approach that is consistent with our current rule.
20. To harmonize the proposals and respond to concerns expressed by
Comsearch, FWCC, Clearwire and other commenters, we replace Sec.
101.141(a)(6) and (7) with the following new Sec. 101.141(a)(6) to
read as follows: ``Digital systems using bandwidths of 10 MHz or larger
will be considered 50 percent loaded when at least 50 percent of their
total capacity is being used. For purposes of this subsection, a Fixed
Service channel is being used if it is attached to a communications
system that is capable of providing data to it at a rate that is
sufficient to occupy at least 50 percent of the payload capacity of the
Fixed Service channel, after header compression is applied.''
21. This definition should ensure that FS systems will be designed
to carry the amount of data that is likely to be transmitted over them
after IP radio systems remove extraneous header data, to the extent
licensees use transmission systems that remove such data. It should
also accommodate the needs of operators that deploy FS links in ring
topologies, where excess capacity is needed to ensure network
reliability.
C. Rural Microwave Flexibility Policy
22. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on exempting
licensees from complying with the efficiency standards if the
environment was sufficiently noncongested to allow the use of antennas
meeting performance Standard B. The Commission noted that Sprint Nextel
Corporation, Cielo Networks, and Aviat Networks contended that
providing relief from efficiency standards in rural areas could reduce
the costs of deployments and allow for more microwave backhaul in rural
areas. The Commission suggested that relaxing efficiency standards
might substantially increase possible path lengths and thereby
dramatically improve the business case for deploying microwave backhaul
facilities in certain rural areas. The Commission noted that general
relief may not be appropriate in congested areas because lowering
efficiency standards could result in inefficient use of spectrum. In
congested areas requiring use of antennas meeting performance Standard
A, the Commission sought comment on allowing applicants to obtain
relief from the efficiency standards if they show 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.
23. We adopt a new policy, the Rural Microwave Flexibility Policy,
designed to provide operators relief, through our waiver process, from
the efficiency standards that may not be necessary in noncongested
rural areas. Granting licensees in noncongested areas relief from these
efficiency standards can facilitate the use of microwave backhaul in
rural areas by allowing substantial cost savings in deployment. Indeed,
granting relief from the efficiency standards could allow the use of
microwave in areas where such use would not be economically feasible
under the current rules. In adopting this policy, we take into
consideration concerns raised by commenters and institute a series of
criteria to ensure that relief is appropriately tailored. If experience
with this Policy suggests that a rule change is warranted in the
future, we will reconsider that possibility at the appropriate time.
24. Exempting licensees from the efficiency standards in
noncongested areas can reduce the cost of deploying microwave backhaul
facilities and substantially increase possible path lengths, thereby
spurring deployment of broadband in rural areas. The benefits of
relaxing efficiency standards in rural areas could be considerable. For
example, in 2010, Sprint, FiberTower, and the Rural Telecommunications
Group estimated the cost of deploying and operating a 6 GHz link
covering 100 miles and requiring four different relay towers would be
over $3 million. Additionally, FWCC has demonstrated that allowing a 6
GHz licensee to vary its modulation between 256 Quadrature Amplitude
Modulation (a throughput of 208 Mbps) and Quadrature Phase Shift Keying
(a throughput of 45 Mbps, about one-fifth of the throughput of 256 QAM)
could extend the usable length of a link from 24.56 kilometers to 66.45
kilometers, because the lower throughput allows the operator to
maintain reliability over a longer distance.
25. An increase in usable path length would allow some operators to
replace multiple paths with single paths. For each intermediate relay
station that could be eliminated, the operator would save the cost of a
transmitter, antenna, and site rental for that relay site. If one uses
the $3 million cost estimate provided by Sprint, FiberTower, and the
Rural Telecommunications Group, and assumes that each station
contributes equally to the overall cost of the link (two end stations
and four intermediate relay stations), the cost of each intermediate
relay station would be approximately $500,000. A review of our
licensing data shows that there are over 22,000 stations in the 6 GHz
and 11 GHz bands that currently use Category B antennas that would
potentially be eligible for such relief. Moreover, there may be many
more sites where microwave service is not yet deployed because of the
prohibitive cost of multiple hops. In these cases, a more flexible
policy could spur increased broadband ``middle mile'' deployment.
26. Even if an intermediate relay station cannot be eliminated,
providing relief from the minimum payload capacity rule can result in
cost savings. Allowing use of lower data rates could allow licensees to
use less expensive transmitters and lower power, both of which would
result in cost savings. Under the revised minimum capacity requirements
that we are adopting in this order, for example, a transmitter
operating with a bandwidth of five
[[Page 54425]]
megahertz in congested areas must have a minimum capacity of 22
megabits per second (Mbits/s). By looking to publicly available sources
of equipment pricing, it appears that an operator could realize
significant cost savings.
27. Several commenters express concerns about the proposal in the
FNPRM for an exemption from the efficiency standards. Comsearch
believes that the Commission's actions in allowing use of adaptive
modulation and allowing the use of smaller antennas in microwave bands
provide sufficient cost savings such that relief from the efficiency
standards would be unnecessary. FWCC believes that granting relief from
the efficiency standards could ``lock in'' inefficient usage if an area
subsequently becomes congested. Comsearch and FWCC believe that basing
relief from the efficiency standards on the use of a Category B antenna
could provide operators with incentives to use less efficient Category
B antennas and lower capacity radio equipment and may punish applicants
who have other reasons for using Category A antennas. As an
alternative, Comsearch and FWCC propose granting relief from the
traffic loading requirements in noncongested areas. FiberTower and US
Cellular also support granting relief from the traffic loading
requirements. FWCC also proposes a set of conditions for areas eligible
for relaxed rural efficiency rules. These conditions are designed to
ensure that such deployments do not occur in areas that may become
congested, thereby protecting against the ``lock in'' problem.
28. We recognize commenters' concerns about the impact of providing
relief from efficiency standards in rural areas, but we find there is a
better approach than the alternatives presented. FWCC and Comsearch are
concerned that providing relief from the minimum payload capacity
requirements will provide incentives for licensees to use Category B
antennas, which can increase interference. We do not agree with FWCC
and Comsearch that allowing adaptive modulation and smaller antennas
can be a substitute for relief from efficiency standards, because
granting appropriate relief from the efficiency standards can result in
much greater cost savings in rural areas. We disagree with those
commenters who suggest that granting relief from the traffic loading
standards would be an adequate substitute for granting relief from the
minimum payload capacity requirements. If we merely provided relief
from the traffic loading requirements, FS operators would have to build
links that were fully capable of meeting the minimum payload capacity
requirements. Denying permission to reduce payload capacities in such
areas would all but eliminate any cost savings that would otherwise be
made possible by reducing loading percentages alone, because most of
the savings associated with granting relief from the efficiency
standards would result from reduced up front equipment costs, as
opposed to operating costs.
29. Given the concerns presented in the record, we opt to implement
our proposal as a policy, listing specific criteria under which we will
favorably consider waivers of the efficiency standards, as opposed to a
blanket rule exempting licensees from those criteria. This approach
responds to the concerns raised by Comsearch and FWCC. More
specifically, the policy will not ``lock in'' inefficient usage because
licensees will be required to upgrade facilities to use Category A
antennas and comply with the efficiency standards if needed to
accommodate new FS applicants (or to avoid interference). Furthermore,
the criteria we establish will ensure that relief is limited to areas
where the use of lower capacity radio equipment will be appropriate.
This policy will provide a meaningful opportunity for relief for rural
operators. Adopting relief as waiver policy will allow us to consider
individual circumstances and to gain more information on when relief
from the efficiency standards would be appropriate. As we gain more
experience with such waiver filings, we may consider refining the
criteria or codifying the policy as a Commission rule.
30. Specifically, we adopt a Rural Microwave Flexibility Policy and
direct the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (``Bureau'') to favorably
consider waivers of the payload capacity requirements if the applicants
demonstrate compliance with the following criteria:
The interference environment would allow the applicant to
use a less stringent Category B antenna (although the applicant could
choose to use a higher performance Category A antenna);
The applicant specifically acknowledges its duty to
upgrade to a Category A antenna and come into compliance with the
applicable efficiency standard if necessary to resolve an interference
conflict with a current or future microwave link pursuant to Sec.
101.115(c);
The applicant uses equipment that is capable of readily
being upgraded to comply with the applicable payload capacity
requirement, and provide a certification in its application that its
equipment complies with this requirement;
Each end of the link is located in a rural area (county or
equivalent having population density of 100 persons per square mile or
less);
Each end of the link is in a county with a low density of
links in the 4, 6, 11, 18, and 23 GHz bands;
Neither end of the link is contained within a recognized
antenna farm; and
The applicant describes its proposed service and explains
how relief from the efficiency standards will facilitate providing that
service (e.g., by eliminating the need for an intermediate hop) as well
as the steps needed to come into compliance should an interference
conflict emerge.
31. By establishing our Rural Microwave Flexibility Policy, we do
not intend to restrict licensees' ability to obtain such relief under
Sec. Sec. 1.925 and 1.3 of our rules. We direct the Bureau to
carefully consider requests for waiver of the efficiency standards
filed under the general waiver standard, consistent with the
Commission's duty to take a ``hard look'' at applications for waiver
and consider all relevant factors when determining if a grant of relief
is warranted. The Bureau should not reject a waiver showing under the
general waiver standard merely because the applicant has not shown all
of the factors listed above. We would anticipate that as an applicant
demonstrated compliance with more of the factors listed above, that an
applicant would be more likely to have made the requisite showing in
support of a waiver. We also direct the Bureau to consider other
factors in support of a waiver request, if appropriate.
32. We agree with Comsearch and FWCC that licensees who could use
Category B antennas but choose to use Category A antennas should not be
foreclosed from seeking waiver relief under the waiver policy we
establish today because of their voluntary decision to use a higher
performance antenna. Accordingly, we clarify that licensees who could
use Category B antennas are eligible for relief from the minimum
payload capacity requirements, even if they choose to use a Category A
antenna, so long as they meet all of the criteria specified in the
Rural Microwave Flexibility Policy we adopt today.
33. Our action today will provide major benefits to FS operators in
rural areas. Providing relief from the efficiency standards may allow
longer path links, which can eliminate the need for intermediate relay
stations. As noted above, the cost of operating an intermediate relay
station can be up to
[[Page 54426]]
$500,000. Furthermore, providing relief from efficiency standards can
also allow the use of less expensive transmitters and lower power. In
theory, there are two types of costs that could result from today's
action. First, a licensee who took advantage of the relief today could
later be required to upgrade and comply with the efficiency standards.
Second, the presence of a lower efficiency system using a Category B
antenna could make it more difficult for other operators to share the
spectrum in the same area. Under our rules, however, the decision to
use a Category B antenna is voluntary, and existing operators must
upgrade their antennas to Category A antennas if necessary to resolve
interference conflicts. Accordingly, we anticipate that any costs will
be outweighed by the benefits of our action.
D. Allowing Wider Channels in 6 GHz and 11 GHz Bands
34. The FNPRM invited comments on FWCC's request that the
Commission allow FS operators to combine adjacent channels in the 5925-
6425 MHz (Lower 6 GHz band) and 10700-11700 GHz band (11 GHz band),
respectively, to form 60 and 80 megahertz wide channels, where the
maximum authorized channel bandwidths at present are 30 and 40
megahertz, respectively. The FNPRM acknowledged that the proposal had
the potential to allow backhaul operators to handle more capacity and
offer faster data rates but noted that the record on this issue was
otherwise quite limited.
35. Commenters generally support FWCC's proposal, primarily on the
ground that smart phones and other mobile devices are generating
increased data demands for cellular backhaul. Comsearch and US Cellular
advise proceeding cautiously because the conventional approach to
assigning channels of 30 megahertz bandwidth in the 6 GHz band and of
30 or 40 megahertz in the 11 GHz band has been to follow an adjacent-
channel alternating-polarization (``ACAP'') plan. Comsearch states that
this kind of cross-polarization is worth up to a 35 dB reduction in
interference when compared with the amount of interference that a
signal on the same polarization would cause. If we allow 60 or 80
megahertz channels to be assigned on a single license, it becomes
harder to maintain the ACAP licensing plan, particularly when the wider
channels are overlaid on existing 30 or 40 megahertz channels.
Ultimately, however, in light of the potential cost savings, Comsearch
supports allowing wider channels in the 6 and 11 GHz bands ``subject to
appropriate safeguards.''
36. In response to FWCC's petition for rulemaking, NSMA suggested
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.
The FNPRM sought comment on NSMA's suggestion.
37. We find that allowing 60 megahertz and 80 megahertz channels in
the 6 GHz and 11 GHz bands, respectively, would serve the public
interest by allowing backhaul operators to handle more capacity and
offer faster data rates. In light of the explosive growth in demand for
broadband services, we believe it is important to provide operators
with the capability to offer faster services wherever possible.
Allowing wider channels can also result in more efficient spectrum
utilization.
38. The only concern, which was raised by Comsearch and US
Cellular, was whether wider channels would be consistent with assigning
channels using ACAP. Neither of those parties opposes allowing wider
channels, however, so long as appropriate safeguards are instituted
against warehousing and inefficient use of spectrum. Commenting parties
support the conditions suggested by NSMA. After reviewing the
conditions, we will adopt NSMA's suggestion that wideband channels be
assigned by preference to the highest available channels in the
relevant bands, except where such a choice would impede the efficiency
of local frequency coordination efforts. We also adopt today a broader
revision of our payload efficiency rules to apply uniform bits-per-
second-per-Hertz requirements across multiple bands and bandwidths.
Together, we believe those actions will ensure that the 6 and 11 GHz
bands are used efficiently while allowing licensees to benefit from
wider channels.
E. Geostationary Orbital Intersections
39. 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 factors, 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.
40. The FNPRM sought comment on a Comsearch proposal to 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 existing, more restrictive requirement in Sec.
101.145 primarily protects satellites located over Europe, Africa, or
the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. Comsearch further 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.
41. We adopt the proposal to require that a waiver filing be
necessary for FS facilities pointing near the geostationary arc only if
the FS station's EIRP is greater than the values listed in the ITU
Radio Regulations. As noted in the FNPRM, this action can facilitate
microwave deployments by allowing affected licensees to deploy more
quickly, explaining that 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. The
change will harmonize the Commission's regulations with international
regulations, and as explained further below, can apparently do so
without creating any increased risk of interference to satellite
services. That rule change will limit the circumstances in which
applicants will have go through the burden and expense of
[[Page 54427]]
filing waiver requests and the associated waiver fee.
42. We do not change the requirement that FS facilities protect
previously authorized satellite facilities. Nor do we limit the right
of satellite licensees to file petitions to deny or informal objections
against FS facilities that they believe would cause interference to
their facilities. The only change from the viewpoint of satellite
providers is that FS operators proposing power below the limits
contained in ITU regulations will now be able to operate pursuant to
conditional authority.
43. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. (Sirius XM) is the only commenter to
oppose the proposed change. Sirius XM operates feeder links in the
7025-7075 MHz band to uplink its digital radio transmissions to its
satellites. It also has telemetry, tracking and control links in that
band. Sirius XM expresses concern that, even if no single FS
transmitter were to interfere with one of its satellites under the
proposed rule change, several FS transmitters together might do so. On
that basis, Sirius XM urges the Commission to establish a numeric limit
on the aggregate amount of interference that FS transmitters impinge
upon the geostationary satellite arc. In reply, Comsearch provides a
detailed technical analysis demonstrating that it would be extremely
rare for terrestrial microwave antennas in this country to be directed
towards either of Sirius XM's satellite positions.
44. Comsearch's showing that there are currently only three
microwave antennas in this country pointed toward one of Sirius XM's
satellites demonstrates that the aggregate incremental effect of such
multiple exposures is likely to be quite low. While the Commission is
prepared to consider showings based on aggregate interference in
appropriate circumstances, we decline to adopt Sirius XM's proposal at
this time.
45. We find that reducing the circumstances under which FS
operators must seek waivers when pointing towards the geostationary arc
will produce substantial benefits. Each private FS applicant must pay
an application fee of $180 when seeking a waiver. In 2011, we granted
275 applications requesting a waiver of Sec. 101.145 of the
Commission's rules where the EIRP was below the limits contained in the
ITU Radio Regulations and the applicant had to pay a waiver fee. The
total application costs associated with those waivers would be $49,500.
Furthermore, each applicant must prepare a waiver exhibit at additional
expense. Furthermore, every time a waiver is requested, the applicant
cannot commence service until the waiver and applications are granted.
While the cost of such delays cannot be quantified based on this
record, it is apparent that such delays may be costly to FS providers
and their customers. On the other hand, we find that the potential for
increased interference or other costs would be minimal from this
action. Accordingly, we find that the benefits of the Commission's
actions outweigh the costs.
IV. Order on Reconsideration
A. Making 6875-7125 MHz and 12700-13150 MHz Available for Part 101 FS
Operations
1. Allowing FS Operations in Areas Where BAS Operates on Adjacent
Channels
46. In the R&O, the Commission authorized FS use of the 6875-7125
MHz and 12700-13150 MHz bands in areas where television pickup licenses
are not authorized in those bands. The Commission prohibited FS paths
from crossing the service areas of TV pickup authorizations in order to
avoid interference. FWCC asks the Commission to limit the exclusion of
FS from vacant 13 GHz channels in areas served by BAS and CARS to co-
channel operations. In other words, under FWCC's proposal, FS could be
licensed in areas where BAS and CARS have operations so long as the FS
operations are not on the same channels as any licensed BAS or CARS
stations.
47. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the Society
of Broadcast Engineers, Inc. (SBE) contend that the ``introduction of
new wireless backhaul operations would be incompatible with effective,
unpredictable itinerant newsgathering and news reporting, and it would
disserve the public if ENG services at the scene of breaking news were
undermined by interference concerns caused by the presence of nearby
wireless backhaul operations.'' NAB and SBE are also concerned that it
would not be feasible to mix the formal coordination process used by FS
applicants with the more informal coordination process used by
broadcasters, because FS applicants do not have the same incentives as
broadcasters to accommodate the needs of TV pick-up operations.
48. We decline to adopt FWCC's proposal to permit FS operations in
channels adjacent to BAS/CARS operations at this time, for three
reasons. First, as a technical matter, microwave signals that are being
transmitted on adjacent channels can interfere with each other under
some circumstances and, for that reason, require frequency
coordination. Second, as discussed in the R&O, BAS operators are
motivated to coordinate spectrum with each other rapidly and
cooperatively because they engage in similar activities, such as
covering breaking news events, and share a common motivation to ensure
that spectrum continues to be made available for such activities on
short notice. Allowing FS applicants into areas where BAS is authorized
would necessitate a more formal coordination process, which we do not
believe is compatible with the dynamic and rapidly changing nature of
electronic newsgathering (ENG) operations. Finally, Sec. 74.24 of the
Commission's rules allows BAS licensees to engage in short-term
operations on unlicensed BAS channels for as many as 720 hours annually
per frequency. Therefore, in some locations, BAS operators could be
making extensive short-term use of unlicensed BAS channels in the
geographic areas where they have BAS licenses for other channels.
Allowing FS operations to use these frequencies could result in
interference and disruption to these operations.
2. Protection Criteria for BAS Stations
49. In comments filed during an earlier phase of this proceeding,
EIBASS asked the Commission to prohibit newcomer Private Operational
Fixed Service (POFS) stations in the 7 and 13 GHz bands from degrading
the noise threshold of any existing electronic newsgathering-receive
only (ENG-RO) site by more than 0.5 dB, citing as precedent the
Commission's decision to apply that standard to Department of Defense
uplinks when determining whether or not they are providing adequate
protection to ENG-RO sites in the 2 GHz band. The R&O acknowledged that
EIBASS's proposal might be an appropriate standard for evaluating a
proposed FS facility but declined to adopt it as a rule, explaining
that, in lieu of mandating specific interference criteria in our rules,
we expect applicants and licensees to work out interference issues in
the frequency coordination process. In a petition for partial
reconsideration of the R&O, EIBASS now reiterates its request, arguing
that a vague frequency coordination benchmark does neither the
incumbent nor the newcomer any favor, because of the uncertainty it
generates.
50. EIBASS's proposal is unnecessary because we are upholding the
Commission's prior decision to prohibit the paths of FS stations
operating in the 7 and 13 GHz bands from crossing the
[[Page 54428]]
service areas of TV pickup authorizations. The transmission paths of
part 101 FS stations are fixed. That makes it possible for FS
applicants to provide licensees and other applicants with detailed
notifications that include proposed transmission azimuths, among other
technical parameters, and to allow the other affected parties 30 days
to respond. Although our rules provide for the Commission to resolve
any differences that the parties are unable to resolve by reasoned
discussions with each other, it is hardly ever necessary for the
Commission to intervene in the frequency coordination process among
parties that are subject to our part 101 coordination procedures. The
chances that the affected parties would reach an impasse seem
particularly remote under these circumstances, where FS paths are
barred from crossing any of the geographic areas where ENG-RO stations
are licensed. Further, there is no evidence in the record that EIBASS's
proposal would reduce the costs associated with the coordination
process. For those reasons, we remain confident that the existing
frequency coordination procedures will ensure that part 101 FS
operators will not interfere with ENG-RO operations in the 6875-7125
MHz and 12700-13150 MHz bands. We therefore decline to adopt EIBASS's
proposal.
3. Efficiency Standards for 13 GHz Band
51. FWCC notes that the R&O did not specify a minimum throughput
for the 13 GHz frequencies newly authorized for Fixed Service use. FWCC
recommends that we set the same throughput requirements for 13 GHz as
apply to the 11 GHz band, and that we augment those requirements to
include capacity and loading requirements for transmitters using
channel bandwidths of 12.5 megahertz.
52. Section 101.141(a)(3) of our rules applies minimum payload
capacities to digital microwave transmitters operating in the 11 GHz
band, depending upon their bandwidths. We agree with FWCC that the same
standards should be applied to the 13 GHz band. Our decision above
adopting the proposal in the FNPRM to apply uniform bits-per-second-
per-Hertz requirements to all frequencies between 10,550 MHz and 13,150
MHz includes the frequencies in FWCC's request, and thus renders the
request moot.
4. Allowing 50 Megahertz Channels in the 7 GHz Band
53. The R&O retained the 25 megahertz bandwidth limit that
presently applies to the 7 GHz band because of the limited amount of
spectrum available in that band, but it raised the maximum permissible
bandwidth in the 13 GHz band to 50 megahertz. Cambium Networks
(Cambium) urges that we also allow the 7 GHz band to accommodate 50
megahertz bandwidths. The NAB and SBE oppose this proposal on the
ground that it would reduce the number of available channels for new
ENG use. Cambium counters the broadcasters' concern by citing the R&O's
observation that BAS and CARS operations have not been expanding
geographically in recent years, with only one new BAS TV pickup license
granted in the 7 GHz and 13 GHz bands in the past two years.
54. We deny the Cambium Petition because the benefits of allowing
50 megahertz channels in the 7 GHz band appear to be quite limited and
because operators needing wider channels have alternatives. If we
allowed 50 megahertz channels in the 7 GHz band, there would only be
two channel pairs available in the 7 GHz band. Allowing 50 megahertz
channels could limit the availability of FS spectrum for other
operators who need narrower channels. Furthermore, operators who need
50 megahertz or wider channels have alternative options available.
Today, we are allowing 60 megahertz channels in the 6 GHz band and 80
megahertz channels in the 11 GHz band. For shorter paths, 50 megahertz
channels are available in the 18 GHz and 23 GHz bands. Under those
circumstances, we believe the better use of the 7 GHz band would be to
accommodate narrower band operations. We therefore deny the Cambium
Petition.
B. Elimination of the Final Link Rule
55. The ``final link rule'' prohibited broadcasters from using part
101 stations as the final radiofrequency (RF) link in the chain of
distribution of program material to broadcast stations. Concurrent with
the Commission's decision to allow FS to share in the 7 and 13 GHz BAS
and CARS bands, the R&O eliminated the final link rule. In doing so,
the Commission noted that FS licensees were not objecting to
elimination of the rule so long as FS were granted access to BAS and
CARS spectrum in the 7 and 13 GHz bands.
56. In a petition for reconsideration, FWCC argues that the final
link rule should only be eliminated in areas where the Fixed Service
can use the 7 or 13 GHz bands. FWCC argues that a key rationale for the
change was ``sharing of spectrum the other way''--i.e., a quid pro quo
for opening the 7 and 13 GHz BAS/CARS bands for use by part 101 FS
operators--but that excluding FS operators from geographic areas where
BAS and CARS operations are licensed leaves FS with very limited access
to those bands. The NAB and SBE oppose FWCC's petition, arguing that
the convergence of digital video with digital data transmission has
eliminated any technological reasons for broadcasters to maintain
facilities to carry program material to transmitter sites that are
separate from microwave transmission systems that handle other kinds of
data. Reinstating the final link rule would therefore result in a
duplication of facilities that would otherwise be unnecessary, they
contend.
57. In the R&O, the Commission found that there would be
significant benefits and no costs to eliminating the final link rule.
It noted that no commenter had identified any cognizable harm that
would result from eliminating the rule and concluded that, with
increasing adoption of digital technologies, the final link rule had
become an outdated regulation that imposed unnecessary, duplicative
costs on broadcasters. That conclusion is consistent with one of the
fundamental purposes of this proceeding: removing regulatory barriers
that limit the use of spectrum for wireless backhaul and other point-
to-point and point-to-multipoint communications.
58. The Commission's action maximized the ability of both FS
operators and broadcasters to use the 7 and 13 GHz bands. While it is
true that the Commission did not make those bands available for FS use
everywhere, that decision was based on the fact that fixed links and
ENG operations are different and difficult to coordinate with each
other. In contrast, there is no technical reason why broadcasters,
cable operators and part 101 FS operators cannot share the same
spectrum when transmitting microwave signals between fixed locations.
59. The Commission's actions maximized the amount of spectrum
available to both FS licensees and broadcasters. Furthermore, FWCC does
not allege any harm from eliminating the final link rule; and
therefore, the Commission's conclusion that there would be significant
benefits and no costs to eliminate the final link rule remains
unchanged. We therefore deny FWCC's Petition on this issue.
C. Upper Microwave Substantial Service Policies
60. In reply comments to the NOI, NSMA argued that in determining
whether 24 GHz, 39 GHz, and Local Multipoint Distribution Service
(LMDS) licensees have offered substantial service, the Commission fails
to positively consider ``basic and
[[Page 54429]]
important steps that lead to successful band utilization.'' It gives
the following examples of such activity: (1) Spending significant
resources producing Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to develop equipment
in its band; (2) utilizing the Secondary Markets rules to offer
spectrum leases throughout the license area; (3) submitting proposals
to carrier, government, or enterprise customers that rely on utilizing
the wide-area license; and/or (4) building several links, but not yet
meeting the safe harbor criterion (typically four links per million of
population). NSMA asked the Commission to ``track and credit'' such
activities.
61. The Commission rejected NSMA's request in the MO&O. The
Commission concluded that NSMA's arguments ignored one of the
Commission's overriding purposes of buildout requirements: providing
``a clear and expeditious accounting of spectrum use by licensees to
ensure that service is indeed being provided to the public.'' It
approved the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau rejection of
substantial service showings based on preparatory activities of the
type described by NSMA where there is no actual service being provided
to the public. It noted that safe harbors are merely one means of
demonstrating substantial service, and that given an appropriate
showing, a level of service that does not meet a safe harbor may still
constitute substantial service. It also emphasized that all substantial
service showings that do not meet an established safe harbor would be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
62. In a petition for reconsideration of the MO&O, the Wireless
Communications Association International, Inc. (WCAI) challenges the
Commission's decision to address that issue in this proceeding. WCAI
argues that the Commission's consideration of this issue violates the
Administrative Procedure Act because the issue was not raised in the
NPRM. WCAI believes substantial service rules and policies relating to
wireless backhaul should be addressed in the broader proceeding seeking
to harmonize renewal standards for wireless radio services (WT Docket
No. 10-112) that is currently pending.
63. WCAI argues that standards currently applicable to fixed point-
to-point services, which require a certain number of links based on
population, do not in fact promote service to the public because it
requires operators to either build uneconomic links in the absence of
demand for backhaul services or lose their licenses. According to WCAI,
the standards create ``substantial investor uncertainty about the
amount of capital required to preserve a license in the millimeter wave
bands.'' WCAI asks the Commission to adopt an ``offer-based'' standard
that would ``require only that an area-wide millimeter wave band
licensee offer FP2P service or spectrum leases on commercially
reasonable terms and conditions to commercial or government fixed or
mobile telephony/broadband service providers or to the licensee's
internal network planners.'' FWCC and Mary J. Kuiken support WCAI's
Petition.
64. WCAI has filed its substantial service proposal for wireless
backhaul in WT Docket No. 10-112 and we will consider it in that
proceeding, consistent with WCAI's request. The Memorandum Opinion and
Order merely explained the Commission's decision not to initiate a
rulemaking to address NSMA's substantial service proposal that NSMA
presented in reply comments filed in response to the NOI, and thus did
not violate the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA, which are
applicable to rulemaking proceedings, or prejudice our consideration of
substantial service issues in WT Docket No. 10-112. The Commission's
decision to dispose of NSMA's request also was appropriate because many
LMDS and 39 GHz licensees were facing a June 1, 2012 deadline for
providing substantial service. The Commission's response to NSMA's
petition thus restated the applicable rules and policies in advance of
that deadline and allowed licensees to plan accordingly. In explaining
its decision, we note that the MO&O accurately stated the Commission's
current policy, and we direct the Bureau to apply that policy to the
June 1, 2012 substantial service filings made by LMDS and 39 GHz
licensees. We also agree with the observation in the MO&O that any
substantial service standard must provide ``a clear and expeditious
accounting of spectrum use by licensees to ensure that service is
indeed being provided to the public.'' Our action today is without
prejudice to subsequent consideration of these issues in WT Docket No.
10-112.
V. Memorandum Opinion and Order
65. In this MO&O, we address various other proposals and issues
that we believe are best considered in other contexts or do not require
Commission consideration and therefore will not be considered in this
proceeding at this time.
66. FWCC asks that the Commission authorize smaller antennas in the
71-76 and 81-86 GHz bands. We decline to initiate a rulemaking because
we do not believe that FWCC has provided sufficient information to
justify further action at this time in the context of this proceeding.
The current antenna specifications for those bands were adopted after a
detailed discussion of the tradeoffs involved. FWCC has not provided
sufficient information to demonstrate that smaller antennas could be
allowed without increasing interference. Our action today is without
prejudice to consideration of a more detailed submission on this issue.
67. EIBASS, which supports the R&O's requirement that BAS licensees
in the 7 and 13 GHz bands register their fixed receive sites, asks
various questions about the effective date and other aspects of the
requirement. Staff from the Bureau has met with broadcasters to discuss
implementation of that requirement. We do not see the need for
Commission intervention at this time, but we direct the Bureau to
continue working with broadcasters on implementing the registration
requirement.
68. Comsearch and FWCC ask the Commission to streamline application
processing when applicants intend to use adaptive modulation by
allowing adaptive modulation frequencies to be filed as a single row,
as opposed to requiring each combination of modulation, capacity,
bandwidth, and transmitter power to be licensed individually. No rule
change is required to implement this change, and Bureau staff has
started the process of modifying the Universal Licensing System to
allow this change.
69. Comsearch and FWCC ask that the Commission eliminate the
provision in the rules that allows operation of low power, limited
coverage systems in the 23 GHz band because the rules are allegedly
unnecessary and allow the use of inefficient antennas. According to
Comsearch, that provision was used in the past for low cost analog
video systems for purposes such as surveillance. Comsearch describes
such systems as ``outmoded'' and claims to be unaware of any current
usage of such systems. The frequencies in question are particularly
important and most used in the 23 GHz band because they are available
for conditional authority under Sec. 101.31(b) of the Commission's
rules. Clearwire also asks the Commission to allow licensees to
aggregate channels in the 18 GHz and 23 GHz bands to allow 80
megahertz, 100 megahertz, 120 megahertz, or 150 megahertz channels.
70. We believe these requests should be considered together with
other filings relating to the 23 GHz band and therefore defer
consideration of them.
[[Page 54430]]
FWCC has filed a petition for reconsideration of the Commission's order
authorizing conditional authority for additional channels in the 23 GHz
band which raises the issue of authorizing low power systems on those
additional channels. FWCC has also filed a petition for rulemaking
asking that conditional authority be authorized throughout the 23 GHz
band and seeking changes to the mechanism for coordinating operation
with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA). In light of the common issues raised by each of those
pleadings, we believe those requests should be considered together, in
consultation with NTIA. We therefore defer consideration of these
requests.
71. We recognize that there are other pending matters and
proceedings relating to wireless backhaul that are not addressed in
this item. Those matters and proceedings include: (1) A petition for
rulemaking asking that the 7125-8500 MHz band be allocated for non-
federal use and allotted for FS use, (2) a request made in this
proceeding to revise the Commission's policy of allowing a satellite
earth station to coordinate for the full 360-degree azimuth range of
the earth station even when it is communicating with only one satellite
in a limited segment of the band, and (3) a petition for rulemaking
asking that the Commission establish service rules for FS use in the
42-42.5 GHz band. We defer consideration of these issues and will
address them separately or in future orders in this proceeding.
VI. Procedural Matters
Paperwork Reduction Analysis:
72. This document contains an information collection requirement
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-
13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review under section 3507 of the PRA. Prior to submission to OMB,
the Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking
public comment on the modified information collection requirement. In
addition, that notice will also seek comment on how the Commission
might ``further reduce the 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). The information collection contained in this order
will not go into effect until OMB approves the collection. We will
publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the effective date
of the information collection.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the Report and Order
73. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), we incorporated an 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 the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). No comments were filed
addressing the IRFA. Because we amend the rules in this Second Report
and Order, we have included this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA). This present FRFA conforms to the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
74. In this Second Report and Order, we make four changes to our
rules involving microwave stations. These changes are described in
further detail below. First, we allow the use of smaller antennas in
the 5925-6875 MHz band (6 GHz band), 17700-18300 MHz and 19300-19700
MHz bands (18 GHz band), and 21200-23600 MHz band (23 GHz band) fixed
service (FS) bands. Second, we add a definition of ``payload capacity''
to our rules, and update our capacity and loading requirements to bits/
second/Hertz standards reflect the increasing use of interfaces such as
Internet Protocol. Third, we 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. Finally, 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.
75. 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 conclude
that we can allow smaller antennas in the 6, 18 and 23 GHz bands
without producing harmful interference.
76. Second, we add a definition of ``payload capacity'' to our
rules, and update 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 update our rules to add a definition of
payload capacity. We also revise 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.
77. Third, we allow the use of wider channels in the Lower 6 GHz
Band and 11 GHz Band. Specifically, we allow 60 megahertz channels in
the Lower 6 GHz Band and 80 megahertz channels in the 11 GHz Band. That
action will allow backhaul operators to handle more capacity and offer
faster data rates.
78. Finally, we amend 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
[[Page 54431]]
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 conclude that such a
change would be consistent with international regulations and can be
made without any increased risk of interference to satellite services.
B. Legal Basis
79. The actions are 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
80. 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.
81. 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.
82. 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.
83. 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.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
84. This Report and Order adopts no new reporting or recordkeeping
requirements.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
85. 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.
86. The actions taken in the Report and Order would provide
additional options to all licensees, including small entity licensees.
Such actions will serve the public interest by allowing use of smaller
antennas, allow the use of wider channels in the Lower 6 and 11 GHz
bands, eliminate the need for unnecessary waivers, and update our
minimum payload capacity rules to reflect current technology. The rules
will therefore open up beneficial economic opportunities to a variety
of spectrum users, including small businesses. Because the actions in
the Report and Order will improve beneficial economic opportunities for
all businesses, including small businesses, a detailed discussion of
alternatives is not required.
87. With respect to the proposal to allow smaller antennas in the 6
GHz band, an alternative approach would be
[[Page 54432]]
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. We conclude
that limiting relief to 4-foot antennas is unnecessary to reduce the
potential for interference.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
88. None.
VII. Ordering Clauses
89. It is further ordered that the rules adopted herein will become
effective October 5, 2012. It is further ordered that the Rural
Microwave Flexibility Policy, which contains new information collection
requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), will become
effective after the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal
Register announcing such approval and the relevant effective date.
90. It is further ordered, 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, that this Memorandum Opinion and Order is hereby adopted.
91. It is further ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 201,
301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, 333, and 405 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, 333, and
405, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 1302, that this Order on Reconsideration is hereby adopted.
92. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of
this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A).
93. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and
Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the Final 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.
Sheryl Todd,
Deputy Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 101 as follows:
PART 101--FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.
0
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.
* * * * *
0
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) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
authorized
Frequency band (MHz) bandwidth
(MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
5,925 to 6,425............................................. \1\ 60
* * * * *
10,700 to 11,700........................................... \1\ 80
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The maximum bandwidth that will be authorized for each particular
frequency in this band is detailed in the appropriate frequency table
in Sec. 101.147. If contiguous channels are aggregated in the 928-
928.85/952-952.85/956.25-956.45 MHz, the 928.85-929/959.85-960 MHz, or
the 932-932.5/941-941.5 MHz bands, then the bandwidth may exceed that
which is listed in the table.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 101.115 by revising paragraph (b) introductory text and
the entries ``5,925 to 6,425'', ``6,525 to 6,875'', ``6,875 to 7,075'',
``17,700 to 18,820'', ``18,920 to 19,700'', and ``21,200 to 23,600'' 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, in order to comply with Standard B an antenna must fully
meet either Standard B1 or Standard B2. 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
[[Page 54433]]
* * * * * * *
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 55 55
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 55 55
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\ These antenna standards apply to all point-to-point stations authorized after June 1, 1997. Existing licensees and pending applicants on that date
are grandfathered and need not comply with these standards.
* * * * *
\7\ Except for antennas between 140[deg] and 180[deg] authorized or pending on January 1, 1989, in the band 10,550 to 10,565 MHz for which minimum
radiation suppression to angle (in degrees) from centerline of main beam is 36 decibels.
* * * * *
\10\ DEMS User Station antennas in this band must meet performance Standard B and have a minimum antenna gain of 34 dBi. The maximum beamwidth
requirement does not apply to DEMS User Stations. DEMS Nodal Stations need not comply with these standards. Stations authorized to operate in the
24,250-25,250 MHz band do not have to meet these standards, however, the Commission may require the use of higher performance antennas where
interference problems can be resolved by the use of such antennas.
\11\ Except as provided in Sec. 101.147(s).
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 101.141 by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(6), and
(a)(7) to read as follows:
Sec. 101.141 Microwave modulation.
(a) * * *
(3)(i) Except as noted in paragraph (a)(7) of this section, the
payload capacity of equipment shall meet the following minimum
efficiency standards:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission bandwidth <=5 Emission bandwidth >5 Emission bandwidth >20
Frequency MHz MHz and <=20 MHz MHz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3,700-10,550 MHz..................... 2.4 bits/second/Hertz.. 4.4 bits/second/Hertz.. 4.4 bits/second/Hertz.
10,550-13,250 MHz.................... 2.4 bits/second/Hertz.. 4.4 bits/second/Hertz.. 3.0 bits/second/Hertz.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Traffic loading payload shall exceed 50 percent of payload
capacity within 30 months of licensing. 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) Digital systems using bandwidths of 10 MHz or larger will be
considered 50 percent loaded when at least 50 percent of their total
capacity is being used. For purposes of this subsection, a Fixed
Service channel is being used if it is attached to a communications
system that is capable of providing data to it at a rate that is
sufficient to occupy at least 50 percent of the payload capacity of the
Fixed Service channel, after header compression is applied.
(7) Equipment placed in service after June 1, 1997 and prior to
October 5, 2012 may comply with the provisions of Sec. 101.141(a)(3)
in effect as of the date the equipment was placed in service.
* * * * *
0
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
[[Page 54434]]
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 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.
* * * * *
0
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: \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receive
Transmit (receive) (MHz) (transmit)
(MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5964.97.................................................... 6217.01
6024.27.................................................... 6276.31
6083.57.................................................... 6335.61
6142.87.................................................... 6394.91
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The highest available channel should be selected, except where such
a choice would impede the efficiency of local frequency coordination
efforts.
* * * * *
(o) 10,700 to 11,700 MHz. 80 MHz authorized bandwidth.
* * * * *
(8) 80 MHz bandwidth channels: \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receive
Transmit (receive) (MHz) (transmit)
(MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10745...................................................... 11235
10825...................................................... 11315
10905...................................................... 11395
10985...................................................... 11475
11065...................................................... 11555
11145...................................................... 11635
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The highest available channel should normally be selected, except
where such a choice would impede the efficiency of local frequency
coordination efforts.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-21335 Filed 9-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P