[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 25, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29985-29998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-10120]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 101

[WT Docket No. 02-146; FCC 05-45]


Allocations and Service Rules for the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, and 
92-95 GHz Bands

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission grants in part and otherwise 
denies a petition for reconsideration of the final rules concerning 
licensed use of the millimeter wave spectrum in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 
GHz bands. This action is intended to promote the private sector 
development and use of these bands.

DATES: Effective on June 24, 2005, except for the revision to 47 CFR 
101.1523(b) which contains information collection requirements that 
have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 
The revision to 47 CFR 101.1523(b) will be effective upon OMB approval. 
The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register 
announcing the date of OMB approval.

ADDRESSES: In addition to filing comments with the Office of the 
Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act 
information collection requirements

[[Page 29986]]

contained herein should be submitted to Judith B. Herman, Federal 
Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Hu, Esq., at (202) 418-2487.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, released on March 3, 2005, FCC 05-45. The 
full text of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20554. The complete text may also be purchased from the Commission's 
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., (BCPI), Portals 
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 
488-5300 or (800) 387-3160, e-mail at [email protected]. The complete 
item is also available on the Commission's Web site at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachment/FCC-05-45A1.doc. To request 
this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, 
audio recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call 
the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-
0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Summary of Memorandum Opinion and Order

I. Introduction

    1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we address the Petition 
for Reconsideration filed by the Wireless Communications Association 
International, Inc. (WCA) on February 23, 2004. WCA seeks 
reconsideration of the Federal Communications Commission's Report and 
Order, adopted on October 16, 2003, and released on November 4, 2003, 
69 FR 3257, January 23, 2004, which adopted service rules to promote 
the private sector development and use of the spectrum in the 71-76 
GHz, 81-86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz bands. The Petition and the instant 
Memorandum Opinion and Order focus exclusively on the licensed use of 
the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands.
    For the reasons provided herein, we grant in part and deny in part 
the Petition as follows:
     We require interference analyses prior to registering all 
(new or modified) links in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands.
     We eliminate the band segmentation and loading 
requirements and adopt an efficiency requirement of 0.125 bits per 
second (bps)/Hertz (Hz).
     We modify the interference protection criteria by deleting 
the minimum 36 dB carrier signal to interference signal (C/I) ratio, 
and by adopting for receivers employing analog modulation a 1.0 dB 
degradation limit for the baseband signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio required 
to produce an acceptable signal in the receiver. Also, we reaffirm that 
the 1.0 dB receiver threshold-to-interference (T/I) ratio degradation 
limit for digital systems that we adopted in the Report and Order still 
applies. (The threshold-to-interference (T/I) ratio is defined as the 
ratio of desired to undesired signal power that degrades the digital 
receiver static and dynamic (outage) thresholds.) We also decline 
Petitioner's request to adopt 36 dB as the maximum required C/I.
     We adopt a power spectral density limit of 150 milliwatts 
(mW)/100 Megahertz (MHz).
     We modify the technical parameters to accommodate smaller, 
less expensive antennas with a minimum antenna gain of 43 dBi and a 1.2 
degree half-power beamwidth.
     We decline Petitioner's requests: to shorten the 
construction period from 12 months to 180 days; to provide conditional 
authorization during the pendency of an application for a nationwide, 
non-exclusive license; and to require Automatic Transmitter Power 
Control (ATPC) for links with Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) 
greater than 23 dBW. (ATPC automatically increases or decreases the 
output power of a transmitter based on the received signal level. EIRP 
represents the level of the transmitted signal.)

II. Background

    2. On October 16, 2003, the Commission adopted a Report and Order 
establishing service rules to promote non-Federal development and use 
of the ``millimeter wave'' spectrum in the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, and 
92-95 GHz bands, which are allocated to non-Federal Government and 
Federal Government users on a co-primary basis. Based on the 
determination that the highly directional, ``pencil-beam'' signal 
characteristics permit systems in these bands to be engineered so that 
many operations can co-exist in the same vicinity without causing 
interference to one another, the Commission adopted a flexible and 
innovative regulatory framework for the bands. Specifically, the Report 
and Order permits the issuance of an unlimited number of non-exclusive, 
nationwide licenses to non-Federal Government entities for all 12.9 GHz 
of spectrum. Under this licensing scheme, a license serves as a 
prerequisite for registering individual point-to-point links; licensees 
may operate a link only after the link is both registered with a third-
party database and coordinated with the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA). This flexible and streamlined 
regulatory framework was designed to encourage innovative uses of the 
``millimeter wave'' spectrum, facilitate future development in 
technology and equipment, promote competition in the communications 
services, equipment, and related markets, and advance potential sharing 
between non-Federal Government and Federal Government systems.
    3. Initially, coordination of non-Federal Government links with 
Federal Government operations was accomplished under the existing 
coordination process; that is, requested non-Federal Government links 
were recorded in the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS) 
database and coordinated with NTIA through the Interdepartment Radio 
Advisory Committee (IRAC) Frequency Assignment Subcommittee. Starting 
on February 8, 2005, this interim link registration process was 
replaced by a permanent process where third-party database managers are 
responsible for recording each proposed non-Federal link in the third-
party database link system and coordinating with NTIA's automated 
``green light/yellow light'' mechanism to determine the potential for 
harmful interference with Federal operations. A ``green light'' 
response indicates that the link is coordinated with the Federal 
Government; a ``yellow light'' response indicates a potential for 
interference to Federal Government or certain other operations. In the 
case of a ``yellow light,'' the licensee must file an application for 
the requested link with the Commission, which in turn will submit the 
application to the IRAC for individual coordination. This automated 
process is designed to streamline the administrative process for non-
Federal users in the bands. We note that the classified nature of some 
Federal Government operations precludes the use of a public database 
containing both Federal Government and non-Federal Government links. 
Database managers will not be responsible for assigning frequencies but 
will be responsible for establishing and maintaining the database. 
However, they are not precluded from offering additional services, such 
as frequency

[[Page 29987]]

coordination, which will assist a licensee in designing a link.
    4. The Commission divided the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands into 
four unpaired 1.25 GHz segments each (eight total), without mandating 
specific channels within the ``soft'' segments. The Commission also 
determined that these segments may be aggregated without limit, as 
needed, although first-in-time interference protection rights would be 
diminished if the licensee did not load the spectrum at the rate of one 
bit per second per Hertz (1 bps/Hz).
    5. On February 23, 2004, the Wireless Communications Association 
International, Inc. (WCA) filed a Petition seeking reconsideration 
(``the Petition'') of the Report and Order. We received no oppositions 
or replies in response to the Petition but WCA, as well as individual 
members of WCA, clarified or refined the Petition in ex parte meetings 
with Commission staff. As discussed in further detail below, we 
considered all of the comments and ex parte presentations in the record 
in reaching our decisions.

III. Discussion

    6. In its Petition, WCA claims that the Report and Order overlooked 
a number of detailed technical issues relating to the 71-76 GHz and 81-
86 GHz bands (``70/80 GHz bands''). WCA suggests that the Commission 
take a course of remedial action as follows: (1) Require each new user 
of the 70/80 GHz bands to verify in advance that it will not cause 
harmful interference to any existing link; (2) reconsider its 
segmentation and channel loading requirements, preferably eliminating 
them but at the very least reducing the minimum throughput at which a 
designated assignment remains eligible for first-in-time interference 
protection; (3) adopt the interference protection criteria proffered by 
WCA, (4) shorten the construction period from 12 months to 180 days; 
(5) reconsider a trio of issues related to antenna and power 
requirements, including the Commission's rejection, in the Report and 
Order, of the industry's proposed power/gain tradeoff and requirement 
for certain radios to use ATPC, and its decision not to adopt a power 
spectral density limit; and (6) grant conditional operating authority 
to first-time 70/80 GHz applicants who have successfully coordinated 
and registered their proposed link but are awaiting their non-exclusive 
nationwide license. Following a discussion of the scope of this 
reconsideration and the effective date of our determinations, we 
address each of the issues raised by WCA in turn below.

A. Scope of Reconsideration

    7. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules and 
policies for non-Federal Government use of certain of the bands on an 
unlicensed (part 15) and licensed (part 101) basis. The Petition, and 
thus the instant Memorandum Opinion and Order, addresses only the rules 
and policies for non-Federal Government, licensed use of the 71-76 and 
81-86 GHz bands.

B. Mandatory Interference Analyses Requirement for Non-Federal Users

1. Background
    8. In the Report and Order, the Commission stated that due to the 
unique characteristics of the transmissions in these ``millimeter 
wave'' bands, no ``prior coordination'' among non-Federal Government 
licensees is required in advance of operation. In reaching this 
decision, the Commission focused only on traditional microwave prior 
coordination as set forth in part 101 of the Commission's rules and did 
not consider prior interference analyses. Specifically, the Commission 
stated that the antenna systems proposed for these bands would 
``concentrate energy in a very narrow path and have considerable 
attenuation at much shorter distances than occurs in the lower 
microwave bands'' and that those characteristics would allow systems to 
be engineered to operate in close proximity to other systems so that 
many operations can co-exist in the same vicinity without causing 
interference to each other. Because the ``pencil beam'' characteristics 
of the bands diminish the risk of interference, the Commission reasoned 
that the first-in-time standard will protect the first-in-time 
registered or incumbent links, thus alleviating the need for 
traditional microwave prior coordination, which involves extensive 
interference analysis and ``notice and response'' to all licensees and 
applicants in the area that could be affected by the proposed 
operation. As a result, the Report and Order required that parties work 
out any interference that might occur after operations commence and 
interference is actually detected. Parties that are unable to reach an 
agreeable resolution are free to submit a complaint to the Commission 
after 30 days.
2. Petition
    9. The Petitioner asserts that each registrant of a new link should 
be required to verify in advance, during the registration process, that 
its proposed link will not cause or receive harmful interference to or 
from any existing link previously registered in either the government 
or non-government databases. Notably, WCA suggests that with current 
technology permitting real-time, electronic interference analysis, the 
cost of prevention is negligible, while the consequences of harmful 
interference discovered after the fact can be ``catastrophic'' in terms 
of the severe impact a prolonged network outage has on the demand for 
70/80 GHz radios. WCA states that for any application that requires 
gigabits-per-second speeds, ``a network outage of thirty minutes is 
catastrophic, let alone thirty days.'' WCA objects to the interference 
protection procedures as outlined in the Report and Order because they 
are initiated only after a third-party database manager is notified of 
harmful interference. WCA is concerned that a ``post hoc'' approach 
would not adequately protect investment in equipment and would be both 
expensive and less likely to result in expeditious resolution. WCA 
argues that the Commission's approach requires the user to first 
ascertain that the system outage is due to RF interference (and not 
equipment malfunction) and then to notify the database manager so as to 
help identify the source of the interference. Even after the source is 
identified, if parties cannot resolve the issue informally, they must 
then file a complaint with the Commission 30 days after the matter is 
first reported to a database manager. With no guarantee on how long it 
will take for the Commission to rule, WCA asserts that customers are 
not willing to risk an outage of 30 days or longer ``at some 
unspecified time in the indefinite future.'' Furthermore, WCA contends 
that a ``post hoc'' regime for commercial links makes little sense 
given the inescapable need to coordinate with Federal Government users 
in these bands. In sum, WCA argues that the ``post hoc'' approach 
adopted in the Report and Order imposes a one-time burden of 
coordinating with government users plus placing on licensees the 
continued burden of monitoring new registrations indefinitely.
    10. In subsequent Ex Parte meetings, WCA further refined its 
position by stating that in a registration-only regime there may be a 
long delay between link registration and interference detection, making 
it harder to identify and correct the problem after the fact. WCA also 
asserts that interference analysis should be mandated because 
interference is often asymmetrical, with later registrants causing 
interference to first registrants without experiencing any interference 
in return, and thus later

[[Page 29988]]

registrants would have no incentive to protect incumbent registrants.
3. Discussion
    11. We grant the Petitioner's request that we require interference 
analyses for non-Federal Government licensees. We still believe that 
interference is unlikely due to the ``pencil-beam'' nature of the 
transmissions in this service. However, a change from our original 
decision is justified after weighing the ``unique pencil beam'' 
characteristics of the 70/80 GHz band transmissions against new 
evidence in the record that the current regulatory scheme will delay, 
and perhaps hinder, industry efforts to use the 70/80 GHz band as 
anticipated (e.g., for wireless broadband). WCA asserts that the 
consequence of harmful interference discovered only after the fact can 
be ``bad enough to disqualify this technology as a viable option for 
much of the target market.'' We agree with WCA that the uncertainty and 
delay caused by an after-the-fact approach toward interference 
protection, and the severe impact of a network outage during the 
pendency of the interference resolution process, requires us to 
consider alternatives to the current registration process. We conclude 
that it would be easy, and far less costly in the long run, for non-
government users to finish all interference analyses prior to equipment 
installation, particularly because non-government users already have to 
produce an interference profile to satisfy government coordination 
requirements. Although the risk of interference between users in these 
``pencil beam'' bands should be low, we are persuaded by WCA's 
assertion that it is not low enough to risk the costs associated with 
an outage of 30 days or longer while a complaint is pending before the 
Commission. An examination of costs and benefits reveals that the costs 
of performing interference analyses would be small, particularly when 
compared to the benefits of preventing harmful interference to existing 
operations. In particular, we consider WCA's point that current 
technology permits real-time electronic interference analysis, thus 
rendering the cost of prevention minimal when compared to the cost of a 
network outage (the link data currently submitted by licensees at link 
registration will facilitate and expedite the process of obtaining 
interference analyses by providing the necessary site, antenna, and 
equipment data). We also note that the record contains no opposition to 
WCA's claims.
    12. It is important to facilitate entry and development of this 
industry by lowering the risk of interference and thereby ensuring 
continued investment. Accordingly, we find that the additional 
assurance of no harmful interference provided by interference analyses 
in these bands would better serve the public interest. Therefore, we 
are revising the rules to require licensees, as part of the link 
registration process, to submit to the database manager an analysis 
under the interference protection criteria for the 70/80 GHz bands that 
demonstrates that the proposed link will neither cause nor receive 
harmful interference relative to previously registered non-government 
links. See 47 CFR 101.105(a)(5), App. B, infra. This requirement will 
apply to link registrations (new or modified) that are first submitted 
to a database manager on or after the effective date of this new 
requirement. (The requirement to submit an interference analysis to a 
database manager is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 
will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
review. See paragraph 43, infra. The effective date of this new or 
modified information collection and/or third-party disclosure 
requirement will be no earlier than (1) thirty days after publication 
in the Federal Register and (2) the date that OMB approves it.)
    13. In the unlikely event there is interference after operations 
commence, despite the prior interference analysis(es), the interference 
protection procedures set forth in the Report and Order govern: the 
first-in-time registered link is entitled to interference protection 
and the database manager will so inform the later-registered link 
operator that the link must be discontinued or modified to resolve the 
problem. If the complaining first-in-time licensee is not satisfied 
that the interference has been resolved, then 30 days after the matter 
is first reported to a database manager, a complaint may be filed with 
the Commission. Although not raised in the Petition, we take this 
opportunity to clarify that the 30-day period starts to run as soon as 
the database manager is notified in keeping with the overall premise 
that legitimate interference concerns must be addressed quickly.
    14. The database managers will accept all interference analyses 
submitted during the link registration process and retain them 
electronically for subsequent review by the public. It is important for 
the ``first-in-time'' determination, and for adjudicating complaints 
filed with the Commission, that the interference analysis captures the 
exact snapshot in time (i.e., conditions at the time-of-link-
registration) that will be dispositive in a dispute. Without the 
benefit of an interference analysis on file, it would be much more 
difficult for registrants to recreate conditions accurately after the 
fact. In addition to being responsible for establishing and maintaining 
the database, the database managers are not precluded from offering 
additional services, such as frequency coordination, which will assist 
a licensee in designing a link, or their own interference analyses. (We 
note that the licensee is under no obligation to use the third-party 
database manager's services. Licensees are free to conduct their own 
interference analyses or to procure the interference analyses from a 
third party source or the database managers, provided the analyses meet 
generally accepted good engineering practice and the interference 
protection standards of Sec.  101.105 of our rules.)

C. Segmentation and Channel Loading Requirement

1. Background
    15. The introduction of competition plays a major role in how the 
market reacts to new and expanded telecommunications services. Ensuring 
a competitive environment was at the forefront of the Commission's 
original decision to segment the spectrum into units smaller than 5 
GHz. Stating that such a plan will encourage efficiency, the Commission 
provided four unpaired 1.25 GHz segments in each band, for a total of 
eight segments intended to facilitate adequate guard bands and the 
maximum number of users at a given location. The Commission did not 
subject the spectrum to any aggregation limit, so each licensee can 
operate on up to all 12.9 GHz of co-primary spectrum and use as many 
segments as it needs on a 1.25 GHz increment. The Commission stated 
that the flexible or ``soft'' segmentation, coupled with a loading 
requirement, are appropriate safeguards that provide new entrants with 
reasonable access to spectrum by ensuring that spectrum is used rather 
than hoarded. (Segments are ``soft'' because there is no limit on 
aggregating segments, no pairing requirement (pairing is permitted but 
not required), and no channelization requirement within the segments. 
``Soft'' segmentation provides a factor of scalability to the amount of 
spectrum that is authorized to a given user.)
    16. The Commission also determined that commercial 70/80 GHz 
licensees will have to meet the 1 bps/Hz loading requirement of Sec.  
101.141 of the Commission's rules. Thus, when a licensee has not met 
that requirement, the registration database would be modified to limit 
coordination rights to

[[Page 29989]]

the spectrum that meets the Sec.  101.141 requirement and the licensee 
loses protection rights on spectrum that has not.
2. Petition
    17. The Petitioner asks the Commission to reconsider its ``soft'' 
segmentation of the 70/80 GHz bands and to reduce or eliminate the 
channel loading requirement. WCA asserts that there is no public 
interest benefit to be gained by regulating the width of the channels, 
the number of channels used, or the data rate transmitted. WCA also 
states that the record supports the 70/80 GHz bands not being 
channelized and that licensees should be permitted to use bandwidths of 
up to 5 GHz in each direction, in order to maximize flexibility in link 
design and to facilitate a smooth ``upgrade path'' as a user's data 
needs expand. According to the Petition, the segmentation scheme may 
force manufacturers to produce radios in conformance with the 1.25 GHz 
increments and, because some modulation schemes do not fit neatly into 
1.25 GHz increments, this complicates equipment design and raises the 
cost of equipment.
    18. WCA asserts that no loading requirement is currently necessary 
and that the Commission should allow the marketplace to dictate the 
appropriate balance between spectral efficiency, equipment cost, and 
bandwidth. WCA also states that depending on how the loading 
requirements are applied, the joint operation of the segmentation and 
loading rules might discourage or prevent flexible and low-cost 
frequency plans within a given ``spatial pipe.'' (``Spatial pipe'' is a 
term used by WCA to describe ``a radio link between two points within 
which users would be permitted to use some or all of the spectrum for a 
single pair or multiple pairs of radios, using any modulation scheme 
the licensee desired.'') WCA argues that the Commission can impose a 
channel loading requirement later if applicants find themselves 
precluded from deployment due to inefficient spectrum utilization. WCA 
notes that because the spectrum must be occupied one narrow pipe (or 
pencil beam) at a time, it would be impossible to warehouse the 
spectrum and otherwise gain market power. Petitioner states that the 
build-out requirement makes this impossible because the expensive 
radios in these frequencies make it less likely for competitors to be 
able to finance a plan to gain market dominance. Further, a 1 bps/Hz 
loading requirement would prohibit the use of existing, inexpensive 
binary signaling modulation schemes (e.g., on-off keying (OOK) and 
binary phase shift keying (BPSK)), when it is in the public interest to 
facilitate the use of the simplest possible modulation schemes in these 
bands, and may force manufacturers to use other higher-order modulation 
schemes that may be more costly and experimental, and hence more time-
consuming to develop, thereby delaying introduction of the millimeter 
wave equipment. Alternatively, WCA argues that if the Commission 
decides to retain a loading requirement, it should reduce the current 1 
bps/Hz requirement to a 0.125 bps/Hz standard, measured over the 
bandwidth specified in the emission designator of the equipment 
employed.
3. Discussion
    19. We grant WCA's proposal to eliminate segmentation and grant in 
part WCA's request to modify the 1 bps/Hz loading requirement in the 
70/80 GHz bands. Our initial concerns about spectrum warehousing or 
monopolistic behavior by first registrants will be addressed by the 12-
month construction requirement and the existing requirement to provide 
equipment and site-related data at link registration, including the 
type of emission designator and corresponding bandwidth. Together, 
these requirements limit a licensee to registering only for what it 
intends to build within 12 months, thus limiting opportunities for 
spectrum ``hoarding.'' Moreover, we do not find segmentation to be 
necessary to avoid warehousing or monopolistic behavior because the 
``pencil beam'' characteristic of transmissions in these bands ensures 
that even if a licensee registers for all 5 GHz in either the 71-76 GHz 
or 81-86 GHz bands, such transmissions will still be limited to narrow 
``pencil beams'' and thus will not generally preclude other link 
registrants from locating nearby. (In a letter, dated January 31, 2005, 
WCA asserted that the only scenario in which the industry's proposal to 
allow both 50 dBi and 43 dBi antennas would lead to fewer link 
deployments than under the existing rules would be in the case of a 
very-high density, hub-and-spoke configuration that one might find on 
the roof of a skyscraper in an urban core.) Such high link densities 
will be further facilitated by our decision to require prior 
interference analyses together with the ``pencil beam'' and ``spatial 
pipe'' concepts envisioned for these bands. We are convinced that 
elimination of the segmentation scheme will provide manufacturers the 
freedom to produce radios utilizing a variety of modulation schemes, 
rather than only those that fit within a 1.25 GHz increment, thus 
lowering the cost of equipment for new entrants and spurring 
technological development and rollout. Furthermore, we find that 
allowing users the maximum flexibility in link design and the freedom 
to upgrade as their needs evolve will facilitate new entry in this 
nascent service.
    20. Similarly, we find that it would be more prudent to adopt WCA's 
proposed 0.125 bps/Hz efficiency requirement to promote technical 
flexibility. In the Report and Order, we adopted a loading standard to 
promote efficient use of the spectrum and we established 1 bps/Hz as 
the efficiency requirement for these bands given that it is the least 
burdensome bit rate specified under part 101. However, while 1 bps/Hz 
is a reasonable and readily achievable efficiency requirement for 
microwave operations, we conclude that retaining the requirement for 
these bands would unnecessarily risk inhibiting the nascent industry's 
flexibility to offer products or services that meet their customers' 
needs. In this connection, we consider WCA's point that the requirement 
precludes the use of certain inexpensive modulation schemes (that are 
not precluded by a 0.125 bps/Hz efficiency requirement) together with 
the bands' unique pencil-beam characteristic and nonexclusive licensing 
regime (which ensure that any given link is very unlikely to preclude 
another licensee from operating a link in the same area). Put 
differently, although 1 bps/Hz is a reasonable efficiency rate, 
retaining it for these bands could unnecessarily preclude product 
offerings or increase equipment costs for customers such as plants, 
universities, or farms, that could otherwise use pencil-beam links 
(perhaps within their property), to transfer minimal amounts of data 
using devices that need not achieve 1 bps/Hz to meet the user's need, 
e.g., remote control or telemetry. Moreover, as WCA observes, the 
Commission retains discretion to consider in the future whether a 
higher efficiency standard is necessary, e.g., after the industry 
better develops equipment and usage. (Because the primary basis for 
adopting a lower channel loading requirement is to spur deployment by 
lowering equipment costs, there is no advantage to selecting a channel 
loading requirement between 0.125 bps/Hz and 1 bps/Hz. Any channel 
loading requirement greater than 0.125 bps/Hz will affect equipment 
development by limiting a manufacturer's choice of modulation schemes.) 
We also realize that we cannot impose a practical analog standard at 
this time until we determine that licensees are actually

[[Page 29990]]

utilizing analog equipment and have enough data and history to 
determine how much traffic is warranted over certain bandwidths. We 
acknowledge that problems may arise under a 0.125 bps/Hz limit when the 
bands become more congested, but we find the risk of traffic congestion 
to be lower due to the ``pencil beam'' transmission characteristics of 
this service. As stated above, our decisions to employ interference 
analyses and to retain the existing power/gain tradeoff standard 
associated with the narrow ``pencil beam'' transmissions envisioned in 
these bands will facilitate higher link densities. Furthermore, as this 
industry matures, it is inevitable that more efficient systems will 
force those using the lower 0.125 bps/Hz limit to upgrade to equipment 
with higher bit rates in order to stay competitive. We also find that 
lower-cost equipment will provide opportunities to develop the service, 
particularly in underserved rural areas where build-out costs are often 
the largest barrier to entry into those markets.

D. Interference Protection Criteria

1. Background
    21. In the Report and Order, the Commission stated that the record 
supports the use of Part 101 in these bands to curtail possible harmful 
interference. Accordingly, the Commission adopted 36 dB as the minimum 
desired-to-undesired (D/U) ratio for protection of existing digital and 
analog facilities and a 1 dB degradation limit to the static threshold 
of the protected receiver for existing digital systems. (For purposes 
of our discussion, we will use the desired-to-undesired (D/U) ratio 
interchangeably with the carrier-to-interference (C/I) ratio.)
2. Petition
    22. Because WCA expects the vast majority of early and mature 
deployments in the 70/80 GHz bands to employ digital modulation, 
particularly in densely populated areas, WCA believes maintaining a 
carrier-to-interference signal (C/I) ratio of 36 dB as the minimum 
would substantially overprotect many links, possibly giving those first 
in operation unneeded and unwarranted preemption rights over later 
entrants. Consequently, WCA asks the Commission to remove the 36 dB 
minimum limit from Sec.  101.147(z) of the Commission's rules and to 
adopt WCA's proposal to amend Sec.  101.105 of the Commission's rules 
so as to set the C/I ratio to protect each link as needed but in no 
event more than 36 dB. In addition, WCA proposes adoption of 
interference protection criteria based on no more than 1.0 dB of 
degradation to the static threshold of a protected receiver using 
digital modulation, and no more than 1.0 dB of degradation to the 
signal-to-noise (S/N) requirement of the receiver that will result in 
acceptable signal quality for continuous operation of a protected 
receiver using analog modulation.
3. Discussion
    23. We grant the Petition in part by deleting the 36 dB C/I ratio 
altogether because we find that a 1 dB receiver degradation standard 
provides adequate protection for both digital and analog systems and 
addresses WCA's concern that the current rule ``over protects'' 
existing links. (Although we anticipate, as does WCA, that the majority 
of entrants will be utilizing digital equipment, we will, consistent 
with our shift away from a command-and-control regime toward a flexible 
scheme, not preclude the option for new entrants to employ analog 
equipment in this still-undeveloped industry. Our decision also focuses 
on reception which is consistent with the policy goals set forth in the 
Commission's Spectrum Policy Task Force Report. That report also 
emphasizes adopting more flexible and market-oriented regulatory models 
to increase opportunities for technologically innovative and 
economically efficient spectrum use and recommends that regulatory 
models clearly define the interference protection rights and 
responsibilities of licensees.) We find that deleting the 36 dB C/I 
interference protection requirement, when combined with a requirement 
to employ best engineering practices to design systems, will best serve 
the public interest. By relying on the ability to determine a 
``reasonable'' C/I requirement based on the characteristics of the 
equipment deployed on a specific link in a specific location, we 
provide greater flexibility to new entrants, will not overprotect 
certain incumbent stations, and will not be subject to abuse by 
entrants unreasonably claiming a need to be protected to a high C/I 
ratio. Eliminating the 36 dB C/I ratio provides new entrants the 
flexibility to select and develop equipment best suited for their 
business models and relieves them of the burden of providing more 
interference protection than necessary. WCA proposes doing away with 
the 36 dB C/I minimum, and requests setting a 36 dB C/I as a maximum 
instead, with the presumption that the majority of entrants will deploy 
digital equipment, but offers no technical basis for choosing 36 dB as 
the maximum threshold. Setting a maximum C/I ratio unnecessarily 
constrains the design of deployments and may not allow for adequate 
protection to all systems, in particular analog systems. We also note 
that the Commission's service rules have traditionally not established 
a maximum C/I, but rather specify a minimum C/I ratio to protect 
incumbents. Moreover, it is not possible to select specific C/I ratios 
that would adequately protect both digital and analog systems without 
possibly overprotecting some systems and under protecting others. 
Rather than setting a C/I limit based on a presumption of a digital-
only environment, and given the early stage of equipment development in 
this nascent service, it would be more prudent to eliminate the 
existing standard to maximize flexibility and afford licensees the 
freedom to develop and deploy equipment, analog or digital, to fit 
their specific needs. Setting an arbitrary limit could preclude classes 
of equipment which may need higher C/I ratios than would be required in 
the Commission's rules.
    24. We find that adopting, in part, the changes sought by WCA will 
provide a specified level of protection for both analog and digital 
systems without unnecessarily constraining system design. We also find 
that our aforementioned decision to require interference analyses will 
enable licensees to determine their needed C/I and the C/I requirements 
of incumbent link registrants from equipment specifications contained 
in the third party link registration database. This will give licensees 
the opportunity to determine a ``reasonable'' C/I requirement based on 
the characteristics of the equipment utilized on a specific link.
    25. Accordingly, we delete the minimum 36 dB C/I interference 
protection requirement and adopt a 1.0 dB degradation limit of the 
baseband signal-to-noise ratio required to produce an acceptable signal 
in the receiver for analog modulation. Also, we reaffirm our 
requirement adopted in the Report and Order that previously registered 
links be protected to a T/I level of 1.0 dB of degradation to the 
static threshold of the protected receiver for digital modulation. 
Because the 1.0 dB limit for degradation of the T/I ratio was adopted 
in the Report and Order, we need not address WCA's request to impose 
this requirement.

[[Page 29991]]

E. Construction Period

1. Background
    26. Persuaded by the aggressive construction requirements set forth 
in the record, in the Report and Order the Commission shortened the 
traditional 18-month construction requirement of Sec.  101.63 of the 
Commission's rules to 12 months. The Commission clarified that each 
construction period will commence on the date that the third-party 
database manager registers each link and that it will not require users 
to file a notification requirement as mandated by Sec.  1.946(d) of the 
Commission's rules. Instead, licensees will provide notice to a 
database manager to withdraw unconstructed links from the third-party 
link registration database.
2. Petition
    27. The Petition proposes to shorten the build out period from 12 
months to 180 days. In submitting modifications to Sec.  101.63(b) of 
the Commission's rules, WCA proposes that construction of each link 
occur within 180 days, commencing on the date of the registration for 
that particular link. WCA provides no justification for its proposal to 
change the construction period.
3. Discussion
    28. We do not want to prematurely foreclose new entrants who may 
not have readily available capital to build out within a short 
timeframe. Mandating a 180-day build-out period on a nascent service 
with little or no equipment available may result in a flood of waiver 
requests and impose unnecessary costs or burdens on new entrants. It is 
our understanding that equipment production is underway, so we are 
hesitant to compress build-out where the timing of equipment rollout is 
not certain. We also do not want to set regulatory standards so high 
that it is more likely to impede build-out than encourage development 
of the service. The Commission reserved the discretion to revisit the 
issue if experience indicates that additional measures are necessary 
and we continue to find that to be the prudent approach in this 
developing service. Thus, we deny Petitioner's request to shorten the 
build-out period.

F. Antenna and Power Requirements

1. Minimum Antenna Gain and Maximum Power
a. Background
    29. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted a minimum 50 
dBi and 0.6 degree half-power beamwidth which was supported by most 
commenters. The Commission agreed with the WCA proposal for technical 
parameters specifying a minimum 50 dBi gain in order to maximize the 
efficiency and use of the spectrum but decided not to adopt parameters 
for antennas with a gain of less than 50 dBi. The Commission stated 
that it could foresee legacy antennas with undesirable radiation 
patterns that could pose serious obstacles to the growth of microwave 
links in these bands in highly populated urban areas in the future.
b. Petition
    30. WCA asks the Commission to adopt the ``power/gain tradeoff'' 
proposal developed by the industry, i.e., 43 dBi minimum antenna gain 
and a 1.2 degree half-power beamwidth, rather than the adopted 50 dBi 
minimum antenna gain and 0.6 degree half-power beamwidth. WCA argues 
that the adopted 50 dBi minimum gain requirement necessitates the use 
of antennas that are a minimum of 0.61 meter (2 feet) in diameter, 
thereby adding to the cost of infrastructure, and thus potentially 
precluding greater deployment. Specifically, WCA states that these 
antennas are less marketable, more costly, and more sensitive to tower 
siting issues than smaller antennas. Petitioner asserts that the use of 
larger antennas limits available tower structures because of loading 
limitations and that the sway and twist of many towers are too great to 
be compatible with antennas with 0.6 degree or less beamwidth. 
According to WCA, less restrictive beamwidth rules coupled with a 
corresponding power reduction would maximize the use of existing 
antenna structures and promote the deployment in the 70/80 GHz bands 
without increasing the potential for interference. WCA argues adopting 
that the industry's proposal would provide more flexibility and lower 
the overall interference environment, provided that for antennas with 
gains of less than 50 dBi, the maximum EIRP is decreased by 2 dB for 
every 1 dB decrease in the antenna gain. Petitioner claims that a more 
flexible specification with a corresponding reduction in power would 
make it possible to use lower-cost, lower-power products, thus lowering 
barriers to entry without increasing the potential for interference. 
(In doing so, WCA acknowledges that the use of smaller antennas will 
result in wider transmitted beamwidths, but asserts that the 
interference analysis proposed by WCA will ensure that the use of 
smaller antennas will not unduly reduce frequency re-use 
opportunities.) In this connection, WCA claims that computer 
simulations show the power/gain tradeoff is even more important where 
Automatic Transmitter Power Control (ATPC) is not used although WCA 
emphasizes that it is important to disentangle the power/gain tradeoff 
from the separate question of whether to require ATPC.
    31. In late January 2005, WCA further explained that, apart from 
the earlier engineering claims, the consensus estimate of its 
membership is that adopting the proposal would expand the market for 
70/80 GHz radios from perhaps 20 to 25 percent of business locations to 
perhaps 75 to 80 percent of business locations. WCA notes that there 
are approximately 750,000 business locations of 20 or more employees 
(which typically indicates a need for high bandwidth) within one mile 
of a fiber point-of-presence (POP) but that most of these buildings do 
not have fiber connections. In this connection, WCA explains that the 
existing Commission's requirement for 50 dBi gain antennas would allow 
industry to serve only business locations with large concentrations of 
users, whereas 43 dBi gain antennas would allow the industry to serve 
locations with lower density business locations, such as campuses or 
office park settings. WCA also acknowledges that its power/gain 
tradeoff proposal may result in a potential reduction in deployment 
density on relatively few large buildings, but avers that this 
reduction pales in comparison to the much larger benefit of making the 
service attractive in lower-density business locations. WCA asserts 
that the spectral cost of the industry's proposed rule is therefore low 
because the theoretical reduction in the maximum density of hub-and-
spoke links on a single rooftop will be limited to a very small subset 
of potential deployments. For example, WCA states that Gigabeam, a WCA 
member focusing on using 50 dBi gain antennas to serve the higher-
density end of the market, performed a technical analysis that shows 
that it is possible to place 200 simultaneous two-way gigabit-class 
links on a large skyscraper rooftop using 43 dBi gain antennas. In this 
regard, WCA explains that while requiring at least a 50 dBi gain 
antenna might allow double that density to 400 links, there are simply 
not many rooftops where that level of deployment would occur. Moreover, 
WCA points out that adopting the industry proposal ``would not prevent 
the use of 50 dBi gain antennas; it would only provide the additional

[[Page 29992]]

flexibility for lower-gain, lower-power applications on other 
rooftops.'' WCA also emphasizes that allowing flexibility to deploy 
lower-gain antennas at lower powers would allow the industry to address 
significantly more business locations because smaller antennas are 
cheaper to manufacture and cheaper and easier to mount because they 
require less expensive and thinner materials (plastic or metal), and a 
smaller surface area. WCA states that all antennas, large or small, 
must be manufactured with low surface tolerances in order to meet the 
Commission's sidelobe requirements but that it is ``far more expensive 
and difficult to produce such low surface tolerances for larger 
antennas than for small ones for the simple reason that there is a 
larger surface area.'' WCA provides price ratios between the smaller 
and larger antennas that showed that the larger antennas could, 
depending on the vendor, cost from 3 to 8 times as much as the smaller 
antennas included in its proposal. WCA adds that the current ``one-
size-fits all approach'' means that the antenna cost at the lower end 
of the market will become a significant portion of the retail price of 
the link, causing prices to be higher than they need to be, and demand 
to be suppressed. WCA asserts that while some market segments, such as 
those in higher-density areas, are relatively price insensitive, they 
do not represent the entire market. Rather, WCA states that the ``other 
half (or more)'' of the market resides in lower-density locations, 
businesses in campus or office park settings, with buildings of just 
two or three stories, that will initially deploy 1 Gigabit (Gb)/s 
Ethernet links and are price sensitive, i.e., will not invest if the 
price is too high. Therefore, WCA states that its consensus estimate is 
that adoption of its proposal would dramatically expand the market for 
70/80 GHz radios from perhaps 20 to 25 percent of business locations to 
perhaps 75 to 80 percent of business locations.
c. Discussion
    32. We grant WCA's request to modify our technical requirements to 
allow for a minimum antenna gain of 43 dBi and 1.2 degree half-power 
beamwidth on policy grounds. We find that allowing smaller, wider 
beamwidth antennas is in the public interest because it will promote 
increased usage of the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands in areas where 
those frequencies might otherwise be underutilized. Although the 
smaller antennas will produce a wider beam, we find that they will 
produce beam patterns that will retain the ``unique pencil beam'' 
characteristics envisioned in these bands. We also find that providing 
licensees the flexibility to select a wider range of equipment that 
best suits their particular business plans, whether the target market 
is high-density, high-rise locations in urban core areas or lower-
density, office park settings with buildings of just two or three 
stories, will facilitate development and growth in this service. We 
also consider the cost information and market data that WCA provided to 
be illustrative of the significant economic impact that allowing 
smaller, less expensive antennas will have on the deployment of 
services in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands from 20-25 percent to 75 
to 80 percent of business locations.
    33. For the record, in reaching this decision, we are not persuaded 
by WCA's claim that allowing the 43 dBi antenna to operate under the 
``power/gain tradeoff'' would result in less interference than the 50 
dBi antenna. WCA's analysis wrongly assumes that all links will operate 
at the maximum allowed power. (A review of our licensing records for 
point-to-point stations below 24 GHz reflects that less than one 
percent of these frequencies are authorized for the maximum EIRP 
allowed under part 101.) We find it unlikely that all 70/80 GHz links 
will operate with the full power allowed under the rules, given that 
point-to-point links are deployed to transmit data, etc., between two 
or more locations defined by the users' needs and sound engineering, 
rather than the maximum distance achievable using the maximum allowable 
power levels. See 47 CFR 101.113 (Transmitter power limitations) (``On 
any authorized frequency, the average power delivered to an antenna in 
this service must be the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out 
the communications desired.'') Although WCA's October 8, 2004 Ex Parte 
asserts that Cisco Systems' simulation results demonstrate that random 
deployment would not suffer increased link failures as a result of the 
proposed power/gain tradeoff, Cisco noted earlier that, for equal path 
lengths (not for equal transmitter power) ``the percentage of link 
failures decreases as the half power beamwidth (HPBW) decreases'' and 
that ``[w]ith equal maximum path length, devices with narrower beam, 
higher gain antennas require less transmit power, resulting in lower 
interference levels in the system.'' In other words, at any appropriate 
EIRP needed to make a link work reliably, a 0.6 degree beamwidth will 
always have less potential to block other licensees from operating 
links between the same most desirable points (e.g., the rooftops of the 
two tallest buildings in an urban area) than a 1.2 degree beamwidth 
operating with the same EIRP. In sum, there is less side lobe 
interference potential with the 50 dBi gain antennas, as well as less 
overall interference potential because the transmitter power needed is 
reduced with the higher gain, narrower beam, antennas.
    34. Nonetheless, as discussed above, we are persuaded as a policy 
matter that relaxing the technical parameters to allow for lower-gain, 
wider beamwidth antennas best serves the public interest by promoting 
increased development of the nascent 70/80 GHz industry and thereby 
increase access to the 70/80 GHz bands that might otherwise remain 
underutilized. We adopt Petitioner's proposed modifications to Sec.  
101.115 of the Commission's rules including new technical parameters 
for radiation suppression for cross polarization discrimination and for 
co-polar discrimination between 1.2 and 5 degrees. The benefits of 
smaller antennas in terms of aesthetics and structure loading are 
undeniable, as a general matter, and the record before us reflects a 
potential for significant cost savings associated with deployment of 
the smaller antennas, with the larger antennas costing from three to 
eight times as much as the smaller antennas. We also consider the 
concern that a ``one-size-fits all approach'' to antenna equipment may 
fail to address the needs of over half of the potential market. In sum, 
we find that revising the rules to allow antenna gain less than 50 dBi 
(but greater than or equal to 43 dBi) with a proportional reduction in 
maximum authorized EIRP in a ratio of 2 dB of power per 1 dB of gain 
will best serve the public interest by expanding the potential for 
services from the 20 to 25 percent of business locations in high-
density urban areas to 75 to 80 percent of business locations, 
particularly in lower-density locations. We further find that these 
benefits outweigh the relatively minor overall increase in interference 
potential resulting from these rule changes. In this connection, we 
consider that the new interference analysis requirement adopted herein 
will also provide great benefit by reducing the potential for harmful 
interference. Because our decision will necessitate modifications to 
one or more databases used to register links, we advise licensees that 
it will not be possible to submit registrations for links with antennas 
that meet the revised rule, i.e., antenna gain less than 50 dBi (but 
greater than or equal to 43 dBi) until all necessary software

[[Page 29993]]

modifications are completed. Licensees interested in filing such links 
should first consult with a database manager as to the status of the 
system updates.
2. Automatic Transmitter Power Control (ATPC)
a. Background
    35. In the Report and Order, the Commission decided against 
requiring ATPC on the basis that the industry is in the early stages of 
development of equipment for these bands, and the Commission believed 
that manufacturers would benefit more from relaxation of the 
transmitter equipment specifications than from relaxation in the 
antenna requirements. Thus, the Commission determined that users need 
not bear the additional cost of ATPC. In fact, the Commission saw more 
benefits from allowing more flexibility in the manufacturing of the 
transceivers, which contain more expensive hardware, than in the 
manufacturing of the antennas.
b. Petition
    36. WCA asks the Commission to require ATPC for links with EIRP 
greater than 23 dBW. (ATPC automatically increases or decreases the 
output power of a transmitter based on the received signal level.) The 
Petition states that industry simulations conducted confirm that use of 
ATPC for links that have EIRP greater than 23 dBW will have a 
significant, positive contribution toward managing interference in the 
70/80 GHz bands and will facilitate high-density deployment of 70/80 
GHz radios.
c. Discussion
    37. We deny WCA's proposal to require ATPC for links with EIRP 
greater than 23 dBW. To require ATPC as one of several useful tools to 
help control interference would run counter to the flexible approach we 
have adopted to encourage development in the 70/80 GHz bands, 
particularly where the record does not show that requiring such tools 
is either necessary or sufficient to resolve adverse operating 
conditions. Moreover, we continue to believe that the more prudent 
course during the early stages of technology development in these 
millimeter wave bands is to allow manufacturers and licensees maximum 
flexibility and freedom to design a wide range of equipment necessary 
to provide services in these bands. Furthermore, although ATPC 
technology has been available to licensees in other frequency bands and 
is allowed under part 101, the Commission has not mandated its use in 
the past for any part 101 microwave service in order to give licensees 
the discretion to identify their own equipment needs. Various technical 
and economic factors may provide incentives to licensees to use the 
technology but there are circumstances when its use may not be 
necessary or desirable. The Commission is therefore reluctant to 
mandate the use of a specific technology which may not be necessary in 
all cases and may be a more expensive means to increase reliability or 
control interference than others that could achieve the same end 
result. Because the Commission is now requiring interference analyses 
to be completed before operations, we find that the interference 
potential is more confined than under our previous rules, and make ATPC 
a less desirable option where other mitigating factors can be used, 
such as shielding or spatial diversification. There are also techniques 
other than ATPC to increase reliability, such as the use of free space 
optical technology for diversity. We find that licensees should be free 
to use ATPC or other technologies, coupled with the interference 
protections otherwise provided for this service, to preserve quality of 
services, and should have the flexibility to design and deploy systems 
to meet their needs without increasing the potential for interference 
to other systems.
3. Power Spectral Density Limit
a. Petition
    38. WCA asks the Commission to adopt a limit on power spectral 
density to no more than 150 mW/100 MHz. If there are no power spectral 
density limits, WCA believes it would be possible for a device to 
transmit an EIRP of 55 dBW in an arbitrarily small bandwidth (e.g., 1 
megahertz). According to WCA, such a device would have significantly 
different spectral and spatial properties from the ``virtual fiber'' 
radios for which the 70/80 GHz band is uniquely well suited since 
narrowband devices would have much longer ranges and much larger 
exclusion zones, significantly reducing potential deployment densities. 
Stating that there are already many bands at lower frequencies in which 
narrower bandwidths can be used, WCA seeks adoption of the limit in 
order to preserve the 70/80 GHz bands for high bandwidth radios as a 
wireless alternative for fiber-equivalent services.
b. Discussion
    39. We grant WCA's proposal to adopt a power spectral density limit 
of no more than 150 mW/100 MHz in order to preserve the 70/80 GHz bands 
for high bandwidth transmissions. Although narrow bandwidth emissions 
are not the intended use of these frequency bands, and we did not 
believe that a licensee would ``waste'' large amounts of power to do 
this, given the nature of the investment necessary, we agree with WCA 
that it could be possible for someone to use the flexibility in our 
present rules to use a narrow bandwidth with a high power density, 
especially if they were to use analog signals. Thus, we find that a 
minor rule change can easily eliminate this potential problem and 
retain our goal for wide bandwidth use of the 70-80-90 GHz bands. We 
conclude that the 150 mW/100 MHz power spectral density limit will 
facilitate deployment of the high data-rate transmissions envisioned in 
these bands, for so-called ``fiber-equivalent'' wireless services.

G. Conditional Operating Authority

1. Petition
    40. WCA seeks to have the Commission amend Sec.  101.31(b) to add 
the 70/80 GHz frequencies to the list of frequencies for which 
conditional operation is available, so that nationwide license 
applicants may get links up and running as soon as Federal Government 
coordination by NTIA and link registration have been completed. The 
Petition asserts that conditional operating authority is an important 
element of licensing under part 101 and therefore should also be 
available to 70/80 GHz licensees.
2. Discussion
    41. We acknowledge that certain microwave services under part 101 
are permitted to operate while awaiting a license, but we are concerned 
that introducing conditional operating authority here could risk 
confusion as to the interference protection date for purposes of 
determining the first-in-time registered link. Furthermore, while the 
application for a nationwide license is a one-time burden for common 
carriers, we note that private and non-common carriers are not subject 
to the statutory 30-day Public Notice period and our licensing records 
reflect that their applications are routinely granted on virtually an 
overnight basis. Finally, we note that both NTIA and the FCC's ULS 
databases are configured so that link data submissions are reviewable 
and subject to approval after verification that the applicant has a 
valid call sign (i.e., a license for the 71-76, 81-86, and 92-95 GHz 
service).
    42. In ex parte discussions with the Bureau on July 22, 2004, WCA 
conceded that pre-license operating authority is less important if 
nationwide licensing

[[Page 29994]]

occurs quickly, which has been the case to date. Given that grant of 
the nationwide license carries with it a reconsideration period--which 
would allow the licensee to build-out notwithstanding a challenge--and 
link registrations are subject to challenge only after operations 
commence, there appears little need for conditional operating 
authority. We note that even under our conditional operating rules, 
parties must discontinue operations should a site be subject to a 
challenge. On our own motion, however, we are revising Sec.  101.1513 
of the rules, 47 CFR 101.1513, to make clear that the ten-year license 
term runs from the initial grant date of the license.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Paperwork Reduction Analysis

    43. This document contains new or modified information collection 
or third party disclosure requirements 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(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies 
are invited to comment on the new or modified information collection 
requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific 
comment on how the Commission might ``further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.''
    44. The Commission will include a copy of this Memorandum Opinion 
and Order on Reconsideration in a report to be sent to Congress and the 
General Accounting Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. See 
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

B. Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    45. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 02-
146 (NPRM). The Commission sought written public comment on the 
proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. In addition, a 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was incorporated in the 
Report and Order in WT Docket No. 02-146 (Report and Order). This 
present Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(Supplemental FRFA) for the Memorandum Opinion and Order conforms to 
the RFA.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, Adopted Rules
    46. The Memorandum Opinion and Order responds to the Petition for 
Reconsideration submitted by the Wireless Communications Association 
International, Inc. on February 23, 2004. The need for and objectives 
of the rules adopted in this Memorandum Opinion and Order are the same 
as those discussed in the FRFA for the Report and Order. In the Report 
and Order, the Commission adopted rules for the licensing and operation 
of the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz and 92-95 GHz (70-80-90 GHz) spectrum 
bands. Licensees may use the 70 GHz, 80 GHz, and 90 GHz bands for any 
point-to-point, non-broadcast service on a non-common carrier and/or on 
a common carrier basis. See 47 CFR 101.1507, 101.1511. At the time of 
adoption, there were no rules in place for these bands. The rules 
implemented non-exclusive, nationwide licensing with site-by-site 
registration for these bands. The Memorandum Opinion and Order does not 
change the rules for unlicensed operation adopted in the Report and 
Order. The Commission concluded that this approach will also stimulate 
investment in new technologies, provide a critical means of achieving 
greater spectrum efficiency, and promote research and development.
    47. Consistent with these policy goals, The Memorandum Opinion and 
Order adopts an interference analysis requirement and power spectral 
density limit and relaxes some of the existing technical standards for 
the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands to stimulate development of a nascent 
industry. Specifically, The Memorandum Opinion and Order amends the 
existing technical rules by (1) eliminating the band segmentation and 
loading requirement and adopting an efficiency requirement of 0.125 
bps/Hz, (2) modifying the interference protection criteria by deleting 
the minimum 36 dB C/I ratio, adopting for analog systems a 1.0 dB 
degradation limit for the baseband S/N ratio, and reaffirming the 
existing 1.0 dB receiver T/I ratio degradation limit for digital 
systems; and (3) modifying the technical parameters to accommodate 
smaller, less expensive antennas with a minimum antenna gain of 43 dBi 
and 1.2 degrees half-power beamwidth. The Commission declined 
Petitioner's requests: to adopt 36 dB as the maximum required C/I 
ratio; to shorten the construction period from 12 months to 180 days; 
to provide conditional authorization during the pendency of an 
application for a nationwide, non-exclusive license; and to require 
ATPC for links with EIRP greater than 23 dBW.
2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the FRFA
    48. We received no comments directly in response to the FRFA in 
this proceeding. In addition, no comments were submitted concerning 
small business issues. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small 
Entities to Which the Adopted Rules Will Apply
    49. 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 rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under section 3 of the 
Small Business Act. Under the Small Business Act, a ``small business 
concern'' is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is 
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any 
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration 
(SBA).
    50. In this section, we further describe and estimate the number of 
small entity licensees and regulatees that may be affected by rules 
adopted pursuant to this Memorandum Opinion and Order. At this point in 
time, the Commission's Universal Licensing Systems (ULS) only lists 
three licensees, two registered links, and little or no equipment in 
the 70-80-90 GHz service. We further note that there are three third-
party database managers. Each link must be registered prior to 
operation by licensees in the 70-80-90 GHz service. The Report and 
Order adopted rules to permit an unlimited number of non-exclusive, 
nationwide licenses for all 12.9 GHz of spectrum. Given that the 
service is still in the early stages of development, it is difficult to 
determine the exact number of small business entities that will be 
affected.
    51. In the FRFA, the Commission stated that the SBA has developed a 
small business size standard for Cellular and Other Wireless 
telecommunication, which consists of all such firms having 1,500 or 
fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, in this 
category there was a total of 977 firms that operated for the entire 
year. Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer 
employees, and an additional twelve firms had employment of 1,000

[[Page 29995]]

employees or more. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of 
firms can be considered small. Although the service is still 
developing, we apply this standard to the wireless telecommunication 
firms in the 70-80-90 GHz service that will utilize the ``pencil beam'' 
technology to provide wireless broadband services and high-speed, 
point-to-point wireless local area networks.
    52. The applicable definition of small entity is the definition 
under the SBA rules applicable to manufacturers of ``Radio and 
Television Broadcasting and Communications Equipment.'' According to 
the SBA's regulation, an RF manufacturer must have 750 or fewer 
employees in order to qualify as a small business. Census Bureau data 
indicates that there are 858 companies in the United States that 
manufacture radio and television broadcasting and communications 
equipment, and that 778 of these firms have fewer than 750 employees 
and would be classified as small entities. Therefore, we reiterate our 
belief that no more than 778 of the companies that manufacture RF 
equipment qualify as small entities. We note again that it is difficult 
to determine the exact number of small business entities that will be 
affected in this nascent industry but we apply this standard to the 
``pencil beam'' antenna equipment manufacturers in the 70-80-90 GHz 
service.
3. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities
    53. In this section of the Supplemental FRFA, we analyze the 
projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements 
that may apply to small entities as a result of this Memorandum Opinion 
and Order. In the Memorandum Opinion and Order, we adopt an 
interference analysis requirement which will require all licensees to 
obtain an interference analysis and electronically submit a copy to the 
third party database manager as part of the link registration. 
Correspondingly, as part of their duties, the third-party database 
managers will retain these submissions electronically and make them 
available, online to the public. The other decisions in the Memorandum 
Opinion and Order impose compliance requirements rather than reporting 
or recordkeeping requirements: We adopt a power spectral density limit 
and amend existing technical requirements by (1) eliminating the band 
segmentation and loading requirement and adopting an efficiency 
requirement of 0.125 bps/Hz; (2) modifying the interference protection 
criteria by deleting the minimum 36 dB C/I ratio, adopting for analog 
systems a 1.0 dB degradation limit for the baseband S/N ratio, and 
reaffirming the existing 1.0 dB receiver T/I ratio degradation limit 
for digital systems; and (3) modifying the technical parameters to 
accommodate smaller, less expensive antennas with a minimum antenna 
gain of 43 dBi and 1.2 degrees half-power beamwidth.
4. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    54. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its adopted 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.
    55. In choosing among the various alternatives in the Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, we sought to minimize the adverse economic impact on 
licensees, including those that are small entities. For instance, we 
decided that the purpose of the interference-analysis requirement would 
not be met by having licensees certify compliance, rather than 
submitting the analysis to the third-party database manager. In 
adopting the interference-analysis requirements, we considered the 
costs and benefits of imposing an interference analysis requirement, 
particularly for small entities, and concluded that the costs of 
performing such analyses would be relatively small, particularly when 
compared to the benefits of preventing harmful interference to existing 
operations for all licensees. We also find it important to facilitate 
entry and development of this industry by lowering the risk of 
interference and thereby ensuring continued investment. Finally, we 
find that the additional assurance of no harmful interference provided 
by interference analyses in these bands will better serve the public 
interest.
    56. Our decision to eliminate the band segmentation and loading 
requirements will provide licensees, including small entities, the 
freedom to produce radios utilizing a variety of modulation schemes, 
rather than only those that fit within a 1.25 GHz segment, thus 
lowering the cost of equipment for new entrants and spurring 
technological development and rollout. Moreover, it also allows users 
the maximum flexibility in link design and the freedom to upgrade as 
their needs evolve thus facilitating new entry in this nascent service. 
Our related decision to eliminate the 1 bps/Hz loading requirement in 
favor of a lower efficiency requirement of 0.125 bps/Hz for equipment 
certification will allow the use of certain inexpensive modulation 
schemes, thus decreasing equipment costs and allow for more product 
offerings. We also find that lower cost equipment will provide 
opportunities to develop the service, particularly in underserved rural 
areas where build-out costs are often the largest barrier to entry into 
those markets, and assist small entities interested in entering this 
service.
    57. Our decision to modify our interference protection criteria by 
deleting the minimum 36 dB C/I ratio, adopting for analog systems a 1.0 
dB degradation limit for the baseband S/N ratio, reaffirming the 
existing 1.0 dB receiver T/I ratio degradation limit for digital 
systems, and rejecting Petitioner's proposal to adopt 36 dB as the 
maximum required C/I, will provide new entrants the flexibility to 
select and develop equipment best suited for their business models and 
relieves them of the burden of providing more interference protection 
than necessary. We believe that the emphasis on maximizing flexibility 
in equipment design and the freedom to utilize a variety of radio 
technologies, including lower cost equipment, reflected in the 
decisions of the Memorandum Opinion and Order will benefit small 
entities looking to enter this new developing service. Finally, we 
adopt a power spectral density limit in order to facilitate deployment 
in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands of the high data-rate 
transmissions envisioned in these bands, for so-called ``fiber-
equivalent'' wireless services.
    58. Our decision to grant WCA's request to modify our technical 
requirements to allow for a 43 dBi minimum antenna gain and 1.2 degree 
half-power beamwidth will provide new entrants the flexibility to 
select smaller, less expensive antennas and spur deployment of the 
service. We find that allowing smaller, wider beamwidth antennas is in 
the public interest because it will promote increased usage of the 71-
76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands in areas where those frequencies would 
otherwise be underutilized. By providing licensees the flexibility to 
select a wider range of equipment that

[[Page 29996]]

best suits their particular business plans, our decision will 
facilitate entry by small business entities in this service and expand 
deployment of services in lower-density business locations, such as 
campuses or office park settings.
    59. We reject the Petitioner's proposal that we shorten the 
construction period from 12 months to 180 days because we do not want 
to prematurely foreclose new entrants, particularly small entities, who 
may not have readily available capital to build out within a short 
timeframe. Mandating a 180-day build-out period on a nascent service 
with little or no equipment available may result in a flood of waiver 
requests and impose unnecessary costs or burdens on new entrants. We 
noted that it is our understanding that equipment production is 
underway, so we are hesitant to compress build-out where the timing of 
equipment rollout is not certain. We also do not want to set regulatory 
standards so high that it is more likely to impede build-out than 
encourage development of the service. In the Report and Order, the 
Commission reserved the discretion to revisit the issue if experience 
indicates that additional measures are necessary and in the Memorandum 
Opinion and Order we continue to find that to be the prudent approach 
in this developing service.
    60. We also reject Petitioner's proposal that we provide 
conditional authorization during the pendency of an application for a 
nationwide, non-exclusive license. We are concerned that introducing 
conditional operating authority could risk confusion as to the 
interference protection date for purposes of determining the first-in-
time registered link for link registrants, including small entities. 
Further, our licensing records reflect that applications are routinely 
granted on virtually an overnight basis and Petitioner has conceded 
that conditional operating authority is less important if nationwide 
licensing occurs quickly.
    61. Finally, we reject the Petitioner's proposal that we require 
ATPC for links with EIRP greater than 23 dBW, because we continue to 
believe that the more prudent course during the early stages of 
technology development in these millimeter wave bands is to allow 
manufacturers and licensees, including many small entities, maximum 
flexibility and freedom to design a wide range of equipment necessary 
to provide services in these bands. The Commission is reluctant to 
mandate the use of a specific technology which may not be necessary in 
all cases and may be a more expensive means to increase reliability or 
control interference than others that could achieve the same end 
result. Notably, although ATPC technology has been available to 
licensees in other frequency bands and is allowed under part 101, the 
Commission has not mandated its use in the past for any part 101 
microwave service in order to give licensees the discretion to identify 
their own equipment needs. Various technical and economic factors may 
provide incentives to licensees to use the technology but there are 
circumstances when its use may not be necessary or desirable. We find 
that licensees should be free to use ATPC or other technologies, 
coupled with the interference protections otherwise provided for this 
service, such as the interference analysis requirement at link 
registration, to preserve quality of services, and should have the 
flexibility to design and deploy systems to meet their needs without 
increasing the potential for interference to other systems.
5. Federal Rules That Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict With These 
Proposed Rules
    62. None.
6. Report to Congress
    63. The Commission will send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, including this Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

C. Congressional Review Act

    64. The Commission will send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, including the Supplemental FRFA, in a report to be sent to 
Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

V. Ordering Clauses

    65. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 
303(f) and (r), 309, 316, 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303(f) and (r), 309, 316, and 332, this 
Memorandum Opinion and Order and the rules specified in Appendix B are 
hereby adopted.
    66. It is further ordered that the rules set forth in Appendix B 
will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal 
Register, except that new or modified information collection or third-
party disclosure requirements discussed in paragraph 43 will not become 
effective prior to OMB approval.
    67. It is further ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 405 and Sec.  
1.106(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.106(a)(1), the Petition 
for Reconsideration filed by Wireless Communications Association 
International, Inc., on February 23, 2004 in WT Docket 02-146 is 
granted in part to the extent discussed herein, and otherwise is 
denied.
    68. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the Supplemental 
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.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications 
Commission hereby 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 and 303.


0
2. Section 101.105 is amended by redesignating paragraph (a)(5) as 
(a)(7), adding paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6), and by revising paragraphs 
(c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  101.105  Interference protection criteria.

    (a) * * *
    (5) 71,000-76,000 MHz; 81,000-86,000 MHz. In these bands the 
following interference criteria shall apply:
    (i) For receivers employing digital modulation: based upon 
manufacturer data and following TSB 10-F or other generally acceptable 
good engineering practice, for each potential case of interference a 
threshold-to-interference ratio (T/I) shall be determined that would 
cause 1.0 dB of degradation to the static threshold of the protected 
receiver. For the range of carrier power levels (C) between the clear-
air (unfaded) value and the fully-faded static threshold value, in no 
case shall interference cause C/I to be less than the T/I so determined 
unless it can be shown that the

[[Page 29997]]

availability of the affected receiver would still be acceptable despite 
the interference.
    (ii) For receivers employing analog modulation: manufacturer data 
or industry criteria will specify a baseband signal-to-noise 
requirement (S/N) of the receiver that will result in acceptable signal 
quality for continuous operation. Following TSB 10-F or other generally 
acceptable good engineering practice, for each potential case of 
interference a C/I objective shall be calculated to ensure that this S/
N will not be degraded by more than 1.0 dB. For the range of carrier 
power levels (C) between the clear-air (unfaded) value and the fully-
faded threshold value, in no case shall interference cause the C/I to 
be less than the objective so determined unless it can be shown that 
the signal quality and availability of the affected receiver would 
still be acceptable despite the interference.
    (6) 92,000-94,000 MHz; 94,100-95,000 MHz. In these bands prior 
links shall be protected to a threshold-to-interference ratio (T/I) 
level of 1.0 dB of degradation to the static threshold of the protected 
receiver. Any new link shall not decrease a previous link's desired-to-
undesired (D/U) signal ratio below a minimum of 36 dB, unless the 
earlier link's licensee agrees to accept a lower D/U.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Co-Channel Interference. Both side band and carrier-beat, 
applicable to all bands; the existing or previously authorized system 
must be afforded a carrier to interfering signal protection ratio of at 
least 90 dB, except in the 952-960 MHz band where it must be 75dB, and 
in the 71,000-76,000 MHz and 81,000-86,000 MHz bands where the criteria 
in paragraph (a)(5) of this section applies, and in the 92,000-94,000 
MHz and 94,100-95,000 MHz bands, where the criteria in paragraph (a)(6) 
of this section applies; or
    (ii) Adjacent Channel Interference. Applicable to all bands; the 
existing or previously authorized system must be afforded a carrier to 
interfering signal protection ratio of at least 56 dB, except in the 
71,000-76,000 MHz and 81,000-86,000 MHz bands where the criteria in 
paragraph (a)(5) of this section applies, and in the 92,000-94,000 MHz 
and 94,100-95,000 MHz bands, where the criteria in paragraph (a)(6) of 
this section applies.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 101.109 is amended by revising two entries in the table of 
paragraph (c), and footnote 3 to read as follows:


Sec.  101.109  Bandwidth.

    (c) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Frequency band (MHz)            Maximum  authorized bandwidth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
71,000 to 76,000.........................  5000 MHz
81,000 to 86,000.........................  5000 MHz
 
                               * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
\3\ To be specified in authorization. For the band 92 to 95 GHz, maximum
  bandwidth is licensed in one segment of 2 GHz from 92-94 GHz and one
  0.9 GHz segment from 94.1 to 95 GHz, or the total of the loaded band
  if smaller than the assigned bandwidth.

* * * * *

0
4. Section 101.113 is amended by adding footnote 13 to two entries in 
the table of paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  101.113  Transmitter power limitations.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Maximum allowable EIRP
                                                            1 2
              Frequency band (MHz)               -----------------------
                                                   Fixed 1 2    Mobile
                                                     (dBW)       (dBW)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
71,000-76,000 \13\..............................        +55         +55
81,000-86,000 \13\..............................        +55         +55
 
                               * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
\13\ The maximum transmitter power is limited to 3 watts (5 dBW) unless
  a proportional reduction in maximum authorized EIRP is required under
  Sec.   101.115. The maximum transmitter power spectral density is
  limited to 150 mW per 100 MHz.

* * * * *

0
5. Section 101.115 is amended by removing the entries of ``71,000 to 
76,000'' and ``81,000 to 86,000'' in the table of paragraph (b)(2), and 
by adding four new entries in numerical order and footnote 15 to read 
as follows:


Sec.  101.115  Directional Antennas.

    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Maximum               Minimum radiation suppression to angle in degrees from centerline of
                                                            beam width                                      main beam in decibels
                                                              to 3 dB     Minimum  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                Frequency (MHz)                  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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
71,000 to 76,000 (co-polar) \15\..............         N/A         1.2          43        35        40        45        50        50        55    55
71,000 to 76,000 (cross-polar) \15\...........         N/A         1.2          43        45        50        50        55        55        55    55
81,000 to 86,000 (co-polar) \15\..............         N/A         1.2          43        35        40        45        50        50        55    55
81,000 to 86,000 (cross-polar) \15\...........         N/A         1.2          43        45        50        50        55        55        55    55
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
\15\ Antenna gain less than 50 dBi (but greater than or equal to 43 dBi) is permitted only with a proportional reduction in maximum authorized EIRP in a
  ratio of 2 dB of power per 1 dB of gain, so that the maximum allowable EIRP (in dBW) for antennas of less than 50 dBi gain becomes +55-2(50-G), where
  G is the antenna gain in dBi. In addition, antennas in these bands must meet two additional standards for minimum radiation suppression: At angles
  between 1.2 and 5 degrees from the centerline of the main beam, co-polar discrimination must be G-28, where G is the antenna gain in dBi; and at
  angles of less than 5 degrees from the centerline of main beam, cross-polar discrimination must be at least 25 dB.


[[Page 29998]]

* * * * *

0
6. Section 101.139 is amended by adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  101.139  Authorization of transmitters.

* * * * *
    (h) 71,000-76,000 MHz; 81,000-86,000 MHz. For equipment employing 
digital modulation techniques, the minimum bit rate requirement is 
0.125 bit per second per Hz.
    (i) 92,000-94,000 MHz; 94,100-95,000 MHz. For equipment employing 
digital modulation techniques, the minimum bit rate requirement is 1.0 
bit per second per Hz.

0
7. Section 101.147 is amended by revising paragraph (z) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  101.147  Frequency Assignments.

* * * * *
    (z) 71,000-76,000 MHz; 81,000-86,000 MHz; 92,000-94,000 MHz; 
94,100-95,000 MHz. (1) Those applicants who are approved in accordance 
with FCC Form 601 will each be granted a single, non-exclusive 
nationwide license. Site-by-site registration is on a first-come, 
first-served basis. Registration will be in the Universal Licensing 
System until the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau announces by public 
notice, the implementation of a third-party database. See 47 CFR 
101.1523. Links may not operate until NTIA approval is received. 
Licensees may use these bands for any point-to-point non-broadcast 
service.
    (2) Prior links shall be protected using the interference 
protection criteria set forth in section 101.105. For transmitters 
employing digital modulation techniques and operating in the 71,000-
76,000 MHz or 81,000-86,000 MHz bands, the licensee must construct a 
system that meets a minimum bit rate of 0.125 bits per second per Hertz 
of bandwidth. For transmitters that operate in the 92,000-94,000 MHz or 
94,100-95,000 MHz bands, licensees must construct a system that meets a 
minimum bit rate of 1.0 bit per second per Hertz of bandwidth. If it is 
determined that a licensee has not met these loading requirements, then 
the database will be modified to limit coordination rights to the 
spectrum that is loaded and the licensee will lose protection rights on 
spectrum that has not been loaded.

0
8. Section 101.1505 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  101.1505  Segmentation plan.

    (a) An entity may request any portion of the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 
GHz bands, up to 5 gigahertz in each segment for a total of 10 
gigahertz. Licensees are also permitted to register smaller segments.
    (b) The 92-95 GHz band is divided into three segments: 92.0-94.0 
GHz and 94.1-95.0 GHz for non-government and government users, and 
94.0-94.1 GHz for Federal Government use. Pairing is allowed and 
segments may be aggregated without limit. The bands in paragraph (a) of 
this section can be included for a possible 12.9 gigahertz maximum 
aggregation. Licensees are also permitted to register smaller segments 
than provided here.

0
9. Section 101.1513 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  101.1513  License term and renewal expectancy.

    The license term is ten years, beginning on the date of the initial 
authorization (nationwide license) grant. Registering links will not 
change the overall renewal period of the license.

0
10. Section 101.1523 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  101.1523  Sharing and coordination among non-government licensees 
and between non-government and government services.

* * * * *
    (b) The licensee or applicant shall:
    (1) Complete coordination with Federal Government links according 
to the coordination standards and procedures adopted in Report and 
Order, FCC 03-248, and as further detailed in subsequent implementation 
public notices issued consistent with that order;
    (2) Provide an electronic copy of an interference analysis to the 
third-party database manager which demonstrates that the potential for 
harmful interference to or from all previously registered non-
government links has been analyzed according to the standards of 
section 101.105 and generally accepted good engineering practice, and 
that the proposed non-government link will neither cause harmful 
interference to, nor receive harmful interference from, any previously 
registered non-government link; and
    (3) Provide upon request any information related to the 
interference analysis and the corresponding link. The third-party 
database managers shall receive and retain the interference analyses 
electronically and make them available to the public. Protection of 
individual links against harmful interference from other links shall be 
granted to first-in-time registered links. Successful completion of 
coordination via the NTIA automated mechanism shall constitute 
successful non-Federal Government to Federal Government coordination 
for that individual link.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-10120 Filed 5-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U