[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54421-54434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21335]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 101

[WT Docket No. 10-153; RM-11602; FCC 12-87]


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

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission takes further steps to remove 
regulatory barriers and lowering costs for the wireless microwave 
backhaul facilities that are an important component of many mobile 
wireless networks. The steps we take will remove regulatory barriers 
that today limit the use of spectrum for wireless backhaul and other 
point-to-point and point-to-multipoint communications. This will also 
facilitate better use of Fixed Service (FS) spectrum and provide 
additional flexibility to enable FS licensees to reduce operational 
costs and facilitate the use of wireless backhaul in rural areas. By 
enabling more flexible and cost-effective microwave services, the 
Commission can help foster deployment of broadband infrastructure 
across America. In addition, a number of parties sought reconsideration 
of the Backhaul Report and Order, and we address those requests and 
deny reconsideration, for the most part.

DATES: Effective October 5, 2012.
    The effective date for the Rural Microwave Flexibility Policy, 
which contains new or modified information collection requirements has 
not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The 
Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing 
the effective date of that policy.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. A copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction 
Act information collection requirements contained herein should be 
submitted to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 
1-B441, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet 
at Judith B. [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schauble, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-0797 or by 
email to [email protected]. For additional information concerning 
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained 
in this document, contact Judith B. Herman at (202) 418-0214, or via 
the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
document, FCC 12-87, adopted and released on August 3, 2012. The full 
text of this document is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-
A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of 
the Backhaul Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and 
Memorandum Opinion and Order (Backhaul 2nd R&O, OOR, and MO&O) and 
related Commission documents may be purchased from the

[[Page 54422]]

Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. 
(BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 
20554, (202) 488-5300 or (800) 387-3160, contact BCPI at its Web site: 
http://www.bcpiweb.com. When ordering documents from BCPI, please 
provide the appropriate FCC document number, for example, FCC 12-87. 
The complete text of the Backhaul 2nd R&O, OOR, and MO&O is also 
available on the Commission's Web site at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-87A1.doc. Alternative formats 
(computer diskette, large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are 
available by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-
7365, or via email to [email protected].

I. Introduction

    1. In the Backhaul 2nd R&O, OOR, and MO&O, we take further steps to 
remove regulatory barriers and lower costs for the wireless microwave 
backhaul facilities that are an important component of many mobile 
wireless networks. Broadband is indispensable to our digital economy, 
and wireless technology is an increasingly important source of 
broadband connectivity. Microwave backhaul facilities are often used to 
transmit data between cell sites, or between cell sites and network 
backbones. Service providers' use of microwave links as an alternative 
to traditional copper circuits and fiber optic links has been 
increasing. Microwave is a particularly important high-capacity 
backhaul solution in certain rural and remote locations.
    2. In this Backhaul 2nd R&O, OOR, and MO&O, we continue our efforts 
to increase flexibility in the use of microwave services licensed under 
our part 101 rules. The steps we take will remove regulatory barriers 
that today limit the use of spectrum for wireless backhaul and other 
point-to-point and point-to-multipoint communications. We also take 
actions that will reduce costs of deploying wireless backhaul in rural 
areas. By enabling more flexible and cost-effective microwave services, 
the Commission can help foster deployment of broadband infrastructure 
across America.

II. Background

    3. On August 9, 2011, the Commission made additional spectrum 
available for Fixed Service (FS) use and provided additional 
flexibility to enable FS licensees to reduce operational costs, 
facilitating the use of wireless backhaul in rural areas. Specifically, 
in the R&O, the Commission allowed FS to share the 6875-7125 MHz and 
12700-13150 MHz bands currently used by the Broadcast Auxiliary Service 
(BAS) and the Cable Television Relay Service (CARS). In addition, the 
Commission eliminated the ``final link'' rule that prohibits 
broadcasters from using FS stations as the final radiofrequency (RF) 
link in the chain of distribution of program material to broadcast 
stations. The Commission also modified the part 101 minimum payload 
capacity rule to allow temporary operations below the minimum capacity 
under certain circumstances, enabling FS links--in particular long 
links in rural areas--to maintain critical communications during 
periods of fading.
    4. In the companion FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on 
additional proposals to remove regulatory barriers and facilitate 
backhaul deployment. Specifically, the Commission sought comment on (1) 
Allowing smaller antennas in the 6, 18, and 23 GHz bands without 
materially increasing interference; (2) exempting licensees in non-
congested areas from the efficiency standards and allowing other 
licensees to seek relief from these standards; (3) allowing microwave 
operators to create higher capacity links by licensing 60 and 80 
megahertz channels in the 6 and 11 GHz microwave bands, respectively; 
(4) revising our rule that requires microwave stations that point near 
the geostationary arc to obtain a waiver to conform our rule to 
International Telecommunications Union (ITU) regulations; and (5) 
modifying the definition of payload capacity in our part 101 rules to 
account for Internet protocol radio systems.
    5. Additionally, four parties filed petitions for reconsideration 
of the R&O and/or MO&O: Engineers for the Integrity of Broadcast 
Auxiliary Services Spectrum (EIBASS), the Fixed Wireless Communications 
Coalition (FWCC), Motorola Solutions, Inc./Cambium Networks (Cambium), 
and Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. (WCAI).

III. Second Report and Order

A. Smaller Antennas in the 6, 18, and 23 GHz Bands

    6. We adopt, with minor variations, the FNPRM's proposal to allow 
smaller antennas in the 6, 18, and 23 GHz bands. The record 
demonstrates that smaller antennas can be accommodated without 
materially increasing the interference risk to other licensees. 
Clearwire cites ``technology advancements and more sophisticated band 
sharing techniques'' as developments that would allow us to loosen the 
Category B antenna standards without an increased risk of interference. 
Furthermore, a variety of operators who use microwave support the 
proposed standards. Under our rules, if smaller antennas would cause an 
interference conflict with another applicant or licensee, the applicant 
proposing the smaller antenna must upgrade its antenna. Allowing 
smaller antennas will facilitate wireless backhaul deployments in two 
ways. As discussed in greater detail below, smaller antennas allow 
significant cost savings because they are cheaper to manufacture, 
install, and maintain. Smaller antennas also allow existing towers to 
accommodate more antennas and allow installations at sites that would 
not otherwise be able to accommodate larger antennas. Indeed, there 
could be instances where allowing the use of smaller antennas may be 
critical in allowing the use of wireless backhaul by broadband 
operators.
    7. We adopt Comsearch's proposal to implement the proposed 
standards as Category B2 and keep the existing standards as Category 
B1, allowing applicants to choose between those standards. That 
approach will maximize flexibility for applicants and allow existing 
licensees to keep their antennas. We also adopt FWCC's and Comsearch's 
proposal to slightly loosen the proposed antenna standards for the 18 
GHz band. No party argued that the revised standards would raise any 
interference concerns in any of the relevant bands.
    8. We do not adopt Comsearch's proposal to adopt a power limit on 
licensees using smaller antennas. Adopting a power limit may 
artificially limit path length because path length is directly related 
to the EIRP. A particular path will require operation at the same EIRP 
whether the operator uses a Category A antenna or a Category B antenna. 
When EIRP is equivalent, a Category B antenna will radiate more energy 
in the side lobes than a Category A antenna. In areas where another 
operator is not in proximity, for example, rural and other uncongested 
areas, the extra side lobe radiation will not cause any additional 
interference. In those areas, a licensee can use a smaller and cheaper 
antenna without harming other FS operators. If we were to restrict 
power across the board, there may be instances where operators may not 
be able to realize the full benefits of smaller antennas. We find that 
our existing rules are sufficient to protect against the potential for 
increased side lobe radiation. If interference occurs, the rules 
require the licensee to upgrade its

[[Page 54423]]

antenna if the upgrade would mitigate the interference.
    9. We find that permitting smaller antennas in the 6, 18 and 23 GHz 
bands will benefit operators and consumers alike and that these 
benefits outweigh any potential costs. Our actions today will enable 
these spectrum bands to be used more intensively for wireless backhaul, 
public safety, and other critical uses. Even for a single link, which 
consists of two transmitters and two antennas, the cost savings from 
allowing smaller antennas can be substantial. Savings in installation 
costs for the link would likely be over $2,000 for two antennas. 
MetroPCS estimates that if a smaller antenna eliminates the need for 
wind loading studies or structural changes to a tower, the cost savings 
could run ``into the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, 
of dollars.'' There would also be savings in operational costs. For 
example, if an operator using a 6 GHz link is able to use 3-foot 
antennas instead of 6-foot antennas, its site rental costs could 
decrease by $7,200 each year. There are also additional cost savings 
noted by FiberTower and others. When those cost savings are multiplied 
by the thousands of links that are authorized in the 6 GHz band each 
year, even if a relatively small percentage of authorized links could 
use smaller antennas, there could be many instances where operators 
could recognize cost savings. While the cost savings in the 18 and 23 
GHz bands would be smaller, since there is less difference in the size 
of antennas, there would still be cost savings. On the other hand, 
there is some risk that a carrier taking advantage of these new rules 
may have to upgrade to a Category A antenna later. We believe that in 
many cases, this potential cost will be discovered and avoided in the 
coordination process. We also note that licensees are not required to 
use smaller antennas.

B. Updating Efficiency Standards

    10. To promote efficient frequency use for various channel sizes in 
certain part 101 frequency bands, Sec.  101.141(a)(3) of the 
Commission's rules requires FS operators to establish minimum payload 
capacities (in terms of megabits per second) and minimum traffic 
loading payloads (as a percentage of payload capacity). That rule lists 
a ``minimum payload capacity'' for various nominal channel bandwidths. 
The term ``payload capacity'' is not defined. The same rule also 
defines ``typical utilization'' of the required payload capacity for 
each channel bandwidth as multiples of the number of voice circuits a 
channel can accommodate.
    11. The FNPRM sought comment on changes to modernize the payload 
capacity rule, particularly on a proposal made by Comsearch to de-
emphasize the legacy voice-based data rates and instead emphasize a 
consistent efficiency requirement in terms of bits-per-second-per-Hertz 
(``bps/Hz''). Comsearch also asked the Commission to define ``payload 
capacity'' as ``the bit rate available for transmission of data over a 
radiocommunication system, excluding overhead data generated by the 
system.'' Comsearch argued that, while the examples based on voice-
based data rates were typical when the rule was written, they are 
becoming outdated as systems support other interfaces such as the 
Internet Protocol. Comsearch also argued that the rule should be 
changed because the bandwidth efficiency requirements vary (from 2.46 
to 4.47 bps/Hz) based on channel bandwidth, rather than having a 
uniform requirement for all channel bandwidths. Comsearch asked the 
Commission to obtain input from equipment manufacturers and other 
interested parties to develop an appropriate efficiency rate in terms 
of bits-per-second-per-Hertz.
    12. The FNPRM asked whether the Commission should adopt Comsearch's 
definition of payload capacity, adopt an alternative definition or 
leave the term undefined. The FNPRM asked commenters to identify 
advantages and disadvantages to defining the efficiency requirement in 
terms of bits-per-second-per-Hertz or in terms of some other metric. It 
sought input on an appropriate benchmark value to use in the event the 
agency decided to define the efficiency requirement in terms of bits-
per-second-per-Hertz. The Commission further inquired whether the value 
should be the same across all frequency bands and across urban as well 
as rural areas. It also asked for comments on whether there is any need 
to consider how the definition should be applied to legacy systems, 
i.e., whether there would be a need to grandfather equipment that is 
currently installed or equipment that is currently on the market.
    13. FWCC had originally recommended adoption of the efficiency 
requirements using bits/second/Hertz values adopted by Industry Canada, 
with appropriate adjustments for bands where Canada does not have FS 
services. Comsearch supported those standards. FWCC subsequently 
proposed an adjustment that would continue to express the standards 
based on bits/second/Hertz but tighten the standards for certain 
channel bandwidths in the 11 GHz and 13 GHz bands.
    14. First, we convert the current voice-circuit based efficiency 
standards to bit/second/Hertz standards using standards recently 
proposed by FWCC. Commenters generally support the idea of replacing 
our existing payload capacity requirements with efficiency requirement 
expressed in terms of bits-per-second-per-Hertz. We have reviewed the 
most recent standards proposed by FWCC, and find that they closely 
approximate what our current rules require and are otherwise 
appropriate. This action will allow our payload capacity requirements 
to reflect modern technologies. Furthermore, if we allow new channel 
bandwidths in microwave bands, a bit/second/Hertz standard will 
automatically accommodate new channel bandwidths.
    15. FWCC and Comsearch support the proposed definition of payload 
capacity as consistent with industry practice. We adopt the proposed 
definition because it is useful to define that term in our rules and 
the proposed definition is appropriate.
    16. A second and related issue is the definition of ``throughput'' 
for purposes of the efficiency standards. The definition is important 
because FS operators use a variety of network configurations, and using 
an unnecessarily restrictive definition of throughput can prevent 
operators from using some of those network configurations. We consider 
two proposals offered by commenters and adopt an approach that meets 
both of their objectives.
    17. Clearwire supports the idea of adjusting the minimum payload 
requirements to account for the increased capacity that would be 
available with wider bandwidth channels. It expresses concern, however, 
that simply establishing a bits/second/Hertz standard may not be 
appropriate for modern network topologies. Clearwire uses an Ethernet-
based microwave mesh that relies on a ring topology to provide 99.999 
percent network availability by providing redundant link diversity from 
every cell site location. Normally, a ring is split in half with 
traffic travelling clockwise on one half and counterclockwise on the 
other half. If a radio fails on a link, the traffic is aggregated and 
re-routed around the failed/downed link. Because each link must be 
designed to carry enough data to accommodate failures elsewhere in the 
system, the links must be designed to be less than fully loaded during 
normal operation. Clearwire proposes that the Commission require

[[Page 54424]]

applicants to designate each of its links with respect to its generic 
network topology. For example, a link would be certified as either a 
ring, mesh, or other resilient network path (links), or as a linear 
(nonresilient) network topology path. If the link were part of a ring, 
mesh, or other resilient network topology, the applicant would have to 
identify the link as either a ``traffic bearing link'' or a 
``management/resiliency link.'' Under Clearwire's proposal, 
``management/resiliency links'' would be exempt from the efficiency 
standards, while other links would have to comply with the applicable 
standards.
    18. FWCC recommends a different approach. FWCC asks that we drop 
the voice circuit designations in Sec.  101.141(a)(6) and (7) of the 
Commission's rules, which define ``loading'' for purposes of existing 
rules, and replace them with a new Sec.  101.141(a)(6) to read as 
follows: ``Digital systems using bandwidths of 10 megahertz or larger 
will be considered 50% loaded when at least 50% of their total payload 
capacity is being used.''
    19. We believe the objectives behind the Clearwire and FWCC 
proposals can be met through a simpler approach. Therefore, we update 
our existing traffic loading requirements, which are not expressed in 
terms of actual data throughput but in terms of the capacities of 
multiplexers attached to the transmitters. The definition we adopt 
today will ensure the efficient use of spectrum while allowing 
operators to use network configurations with redundant links in order 
to maintain continuity of service if a link fails. While we update our 
definition to take into account current technologies, the definition we 
adopt uses an approach that is consistent with our current rule.
    20. To harmonize the proposals and respond to concerns expressed by 
Comsearch, FWCC, Clearwire and other commenters, we replace Sec.  
101.141(a)(6) and (7) with the following new Sec.  101.141(a)(6) to 
read as follows: ``Digital systems using bandwidths of 10 MHz or larger 
will be considered 50 percent loaded when at least 50 percent of their 
total capacity is being used. For purposes of this subsection, a Fixed 
Service channel is being used if it is attached to a communications 
system that is capable of providing data to it at a rate that is 
sufficient to occupy at least 50 percent of the payload capacity of the 
Fixed Service channel, after header compression is applied.''
    21. This definition should ensure that FS systems will be designed 
to carry the amount of data that is likely to be transmitted over them 
after IP radio systems remove extraneous header data, to the extent 
licensees use transmission systems that remove such data. It should 
also accommodate the needs of operators that deploy FS links in ring 
topologies, where excess capacity is needed to ensure network 
reliability.

C. Rural Microwave Flexibility Policy

    22. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on exempting 
licensees from complying with the efficiency standards if the 
environment was sufficiently noncongested to allow the use of antennas 
meeting performance Standard B. The Commission noted that Sprint Nextel 
Corporation, Cielo Networks, and Aviat Networks contended that 
providing relief from efficiency standards in rural areas could reduce 
the costs of deployments and allow for more microwave backhaul in rural 
areas. The Commission suggested that relaxing efficiency standards 
might substantially increase possible path lengths and thereby 
dramatically improve the business case for deploying microwave backhaul 
facilities in certain rural areas. The Commission noted that general 
relief may not be appropriate in congested areas because lowering 
efficiency standards could result in inefficient use of spectrum. In 
congested areas requiring use of antennas meeting performance Standard 
A, the Commission sought comment on allowing applicants to obtain 
relief from the efficiency standards if they show that: (1) The 
efficiency standards prevent the deployment of the requested link for 
economic or technical reasons; (2) the applicant does not have any 
reasonable alternatives (e.g., use of different frequency bands, use of 
fiber); and (3) relaxing the efficiency standards would result in 
tangible and specific public interest benefits.
    23. We adopt a new policy, the Rural Microwave Flexibility Policy, 
designed to provide operators relief, through our waiver process, from 
the efficiency standards that may not be necessary in noncongested 
rural areas. Granting licensees in noncongested areas relief from these 
efficiency standards can facilitate the use of microwave backhaul in 
rural areas by allowing substantial cost savings in deployment. Indeed, 
granting relief from the efficiency standards could allow the use of 
microwave in areas where such use would not be economically feasible 
under the current rules. In adopting this policy, we take into 
consideration concerns raised by commenters and institute a series of 
criteria to ensure that relief is appropriately tailored. If experience 
with this Policy suggests that a rule change is warranted in the 
future, we will reconsider that possibility at the appropriate time.
    24. Exempting licensees from the efficiency standards in 
noncongested areas can reduce the cost of deploying microwave backhaul 
facilities and substantially increase possible path lengths, thereby 
spurring deployment of broadband in rural areas. The benefits of 
relaxing efficiency standards in rural areas could be considerable. For 
example, in 2010, Sprint, FiberTower, and the Rural Telecommunications 
Group estimated the cost of deploying and operating a 6 GHz link 
covering 100 miles and requiring four different relay towers would be 
over $3 million. Additionally, FWCC has demonstrated that allowing a 6 
GHz licensee to vary its modulation between 256 Quadrature Amplitude 
Modulation (a throughput of 208 Mbps) and Quadrature Phase Shift Keying 
(a throughput of 45 Mbps, about one-fifth of the throughput of 256 QAM) 
could extend the usable length of a link from 24.56 kilometers to 66.45 
kilometers, because the lower throughput allows the operator to 
maintain reliability over a longer distance.
    25. An increase in usable path length would allow some operators to 
replace multiple paths with single paths. For each intermediate relay 
station that could be eliminated, the operator would save the cost of a 
transmitter, antenna, and site rental for that relay site. If one uses 
the $3 million cost estimate provided by Sprint, FiberTower, and the 
Rural Telecommunications Group, and assumes that each station 
contributes equally to the overall cost of the link (two end stations 
and four intermediate relay stations), the cost of each intermediate 
relay station would be approximately $500,000. A review of our 
licensing data shows that there are over 22,000 stations in the 6 GHz 
and 11 GHz bands that currently use Category B antennas that would 
potentially be eligible for such relief. Moreover, there may be many 
more sites where microwave service is not yet deployed because of the 
prohibitive cost of multiple hops. In these cases, a more flexible 
policy could spur increased broadband ``middle mile'' deployment.
    26. Even if an intermediate relay station cannot be eliminated, 
providing relief from the minimum payload capacity rule can result in 
cost savings. Allowing use of lower data rates could allow licensees to 
use less expensive transmitters and lower power, both of which would 
result in cost savings. Under the revised minimum capacity requirements 
that we are adopting in this order, for example, a transmitter 
operating with a bandwidth of five

[[Page 54425]]

megahertz in congested areas must have a minimum capacity of 22 
megabits per second (Mbits/s). By looking to publicly available sources 
of equipment pricing, it appears that an operator could realize 
significant cost savings.
    27. Several commenters express concerns about the proposal in the 
FNPRM for an exemption from the efficiency standards. Comsearch 
believes that the Commission's actions in allowing use of adaptive 
modulation and allowing the use of smaller antennas in microwave bands 
provide sufficient cost savings such that relief from the efficiency 
standards would be unnecessary. FWCC believes that granting relief from 
the efficiency standards could ``lock in'' inefficient usage if an area 
subsequently becomes congested. Comsearch and FWCC believe that basing 
relief from the efficiency standards on the use of a Category B antenna 
could provide operators with incentives to use less efficient Category 
B antennas and lower capacity radio equipment and may punish applicants 
who have other reasons for using Category A antennas. As an 
alternative, Comsearch and FWCC propose granting relief from the 
traffic loading requirements in noncongested areas. FiberTower and US 
Cellular also support granting relief from the traffic loading 
requirements. FWCC also proposes a set of conditions for areas eligible 
for relaxed rural efficiency rules. These conditions are designed to 
ensure that such deployments do not occur in areas that may become 
congested, thereby protecting against the ``lock in'' problem.
    28. We recognize commenters' concerns about the impact of providing 
relief from efficiency standards in rural areas, but we find there is a 
better approach than the alternatives presented. FWCC and Comsearch are 
concerned that providing relief from the minimum payload capacity 
requirements will provide incentives for licensees to use Category B 
antennas, which can increase interference. We do not agree with FWCC 
and Comsearch that allowing adaptive modulation and smaller antennas 
can be a substitute for relief from efficiency standards, because 
granting appropriate relief from the efficiency standards can result in 
much greater cost savings in rural areas. We disagree with those 
commenters who suggest that granting relief from the traffic loading 
standards would be an adequate substitute for granting relief from the 
minimum payload capacity requirements. If we merely provided relief 
from the traffic loading requirements, FS operators would have to build 
links that were fully capable of meeting the minimum payload capacity 
requirements. Denying permission to reduce payload capacities in such 
areas would all but eliminate any cost savings that would otherwise be 
made possible by reducing loading percentages alone, because most of 
the savings associated with granting relief from the efficiency 
standards would result from reduced up front equipment costs, as 
opposed to operating costs.
    29. Given the concerns presented in the record, we opt to implement 
our proposal as a policy, listing specific criteria under which we will 
favorably consider waivers of the efficiency standards, as opposed to a 
blanket rule exempting licensees from those criteria. This approach 
responds to the concerns raised by Comsearch and FWCC. More 
specifically, the policy will not ``lock in'' inefficient usage because 
licensees will be required to upgrade facilities to use Category A 
antennas and comply with the efficiency standards if needed to 
accommodate new FS applicants (or to avoid interference). Furthermore, 
the criteria we establish will ensure that relief is limited to areas 
where the use of lower capacity radio equipment will be appropriate. 
This policy will provide a meaningful opportunity for relief for rural 
operators. Adopting relief as waiver policy will allow us to consider 
individual circumstances and to gain more information on when relief 
from the efficiency standards would be appropriate. As we gain more 
experience with such waiver filings, we may consider refining the 
criteria or codifying the policy as a Commission rule.
    30. Specifically, we adopt a Rural Microwave Flexibility Policy and 
direct the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (``Bureau'') to favorably 
consider waivers of the payload capacity requirements if the applicants 
demonstrate compliance with the following criteria:
     The interference environment would allow the applicant to 
use a less stringent Category B antenna (although the applicant could 
choose to use a higher performance Category A antenna);
     The applicant specifically acknowledges its duty to 
upgrade to a Category A antenna and come into compliance with the 
applicable efficiency standard if necessary to resolve an interference 
conflict with a current or future microwave link pursuant to Sec.  
101.115(c);
     The applicant uses equipment that is capable of readily 
being upgraded to comply with the applicable payload capacity 
requirement, and provide a certification in its application that its 
equipment complies with this requirement;
     Each end of the link is located in a rural area (county or 
equivalent having population density of 100 persons per square mile or 
less);
     Each end of the link is in a county with a low density of 
links in the 4, 6, 11, 18, and 23 GHz bands;
     Neither end of the link is contained within a recognized 
antenna farm; and
     The applicant describes its proposed service and explains 
how relief from the efficiency standards will facilitate providing that 
service (e.g., by eliminating the need for an intermediate hop) as well 
as the steps needed to come into compliance should an interference 
conflict emerge.
    31. By establishing our Rural Microwave Flexibility Policy, we do 
not intend to restrict licensees' ability to obtain such relief under 
Sec. Sec.  1.925 and 1.3 of our rules. We direct the Bureau to 
carefully consider requests for waiver of the efficiency standards 
filed under the general waiver standard, consistent with the 
Commission's duty to take a ``hard look'' at applications for waiver 
and consider all relevant factors when determining if a grant of relief 
is warranted. The Bureau should not reject a waiver showing under the 
general waiver standard merely because the applicant has not shown all 
of the factors listed above. We would anticipate that as an applicant 
demonstrated compliance with more of the factors listed above, that an 
applicant would be more likely to have made the requisite showing in 
support of a waiver. We also direct the Bureau to consider other 
factors in support of a waiver request, if appropriate.
    32. We agree with Comsearch and FWCC that licensees who could use 
Category B antennas but choose to use Category A antennas should not be 
foreclosed from seeking waiver relief under the waiver policy we 
establish today because of their voluntary decision to use a higher 
performance antenna. Accordingly, we clarify that licensees who could 
use Category B antennas are eligible for relief from the minimum 
payload capacity requirements, even if they choose to use a Category A 
antenna, so long as they meet all of the criteria specified in the 
Rural Microwave Flexibility Policy we adopt today.
    33. Our action today will provide major benefits to FS operators in 
rural areas. Providing relief from the efficiency standards may allow 
longer path links, which can eliminate the need for intermediate relay 
stations. As noted above, the cost of operating an intermediate relay 
station can be up to

[[Page 54426]]

$500,000. Furthermore, providing relief from efficiency standards can 
also allow the use of less expensive transmitters and lower power. In 
theory, there are two types of costs that could result from today's 
action. First, a licensee who took advantage of the relief today could 
later be required to upgrade and comply with the efficiency standards. 
Second, the presence of a lower efficiency system using a Category B 
antenna could make it more difficult for other operators to share the 
spectrum in the same area. Under our rules, however, the decision to 
use a Category B antenna is voluntary, and existing operators must 
upgrade their antennas to Category A antennas if necessary to resolve 
interference conflicts. Accordingly, we anticipate that any costs will 
be outweighed by the benefits of our action.

D. Allowing Wider Channels in 6 GHz and 11 GHz Bands

    34. The FNPRM invited comments on FWCC's request that the 
Commission allow FS operators to combine adjacent channels in the 5925-
6425 MHz (Lower 6 GHz band) and 10700-11700 GHz band (11 GHz band), 
respectively, to form 60 and 80 megahertz wide channels, where the 
maximum authorized channel bandwidths at present are 30 and 40 
megahertz, respectively. The FNPRM acknowledged that the proposal had 
the potential to allow backhaul operators to handle more capacity and 
offer faster data rates but noted that the record on this issue was 
otherwise quite limited.
    35. Commenters generally support FWCC's proposal, primarily on the 
ground that smart phones and other mobile devices are generating 
increased data demands for cellular backhaul. Comsearch and US Cellular 
advise proceeding cautiously because the conventional approach to 
assigning channels of 30 megahertz bandwidth in the 6 GHz band and of 
30 or 40 megahertz in the 11 GHz band has been to follow an adjacent-
channel alternating-polarization (``ACAP'') plan. Comsearch states that 
this kind of cross-polarization is worth up to a 35 dB reduction in 
interference when compared with the amount of interference that a 
signal on the same polarization would cause. If we allow 60 or 80 
megahertz channels to be assigned on a single license, it becomes 
harder to maintain the ACAP licensing plan, particularly when the wider 
channels are overlaid on existing 30 or 40 megahertz channels. 
Ultimately, however, in light of the potential cost savings, Comsearch 
supports allowing wider channels in the 6 and 11 GHz bands ``subject to 
appropriate safeguards.''
    36. In response to FWCC's petition for rulemaking, NSMA suggested 
that the Commission should consider: (1) ``Requiring a showing of 
necessity and availability for applications planning use of more than 
one or two 60/80 MHz wide channels on any one path''; (2) designating 
certain slots as ``preferred'' slots for wider bandwidth channels 
(e.g., starting at one of the band edges, so all licensees would first 
attempt use of these channels on the same frequencies); (3) adjusting 
the minimum payload requirements to account for the higher capacity 
capabilities of the wider bandwidth channels; and (4) adopting methods 
to better assure high utilization with more tightly drawn regulations. 
The FNPRM sought comment on NSMA's suggestion.
    37. We find that allowing 60 megahertz and 80 megahertz channels in 
the 6 GHz and 11 GHz bands, respectively, would serve the public 
interest by allowing backhaul operators to handle more capacity and 
offer faster data rates. In light of the explosive growth in demand for 
broadband services, we believe it is important to provide operators 
with the capability to offer faster services wherever possible. 
Allowing wider channels can also result in more efficient spectrum 
utilization.
    38. The only concern, which was raised by Comsearch and US 
Cellular, was whether wider channels would be consistent with assigning 
channels using ACAP. Neither of those parties opposes allowing wider 
channels, however, so long as appropriate safeguards are instituted 
against warehousing and inefficient use of spectrum. Commenting parties 
support the conditions suggested by NSMA. After reviewing the 
conditions, we will adopt NSMA's suggestion that wideband channels be 
assigned by preference to the highest available channels in the 
relevant bands, except where such a choice would impede the efficiency 
of local frequency coordination efforts. We also adopt today a broader 
revision of our payload efficiency rules to apply uniform bits-per-
second-per-Hertz requirements across multiple bands and bandwidths. 
Together, we believe those actions will ensure that the 6 and 11 GHz 
bands are used efficiently while allowing licensees to benefit from 
wider channels.

E. Geostationary Orbital Intersections

    39. To protect receivers on geostationary satellites from the 
potential for interference from FS transmitters, Sec.  101.145 of the 
Commission's rules requires a waiver filing for: (1) FS transmitters in 
the 2655-2690 MHz and 5925-7075 MHz bands with an antenna aimed within 
2[deg] of the geostationary arc; and (2) FS transmitters in the 12700-
13250 MHz range with an antenna aimed within 1.5[deg] of the 
geostationary arc. To be approved, a waiver request must show, among 
other factors, that the transmitter EIRP is below listed limits. In 
contrast, Article 21 of the ITU Radio Regulations places the 2[deg] 
restriction on the pointing azimuth of antennas of FS transmitters in 
the 1-10 GHz band only if the EIRP is greater than 35 dBW, and the 
1.5[deg] restriction on the azimuth of antennas in the 10-15 GHz band 
only if the EIRP is greater than 45 dBW.
    40. The FNPRM sought comment on a Comsearch proposal to amend Sec.  
101.145 of the Commission's rules to require a waiver filing for FS 
facilities pointing near the geostationary arc only if the EIRP is 
greater than the values listed in the ITU Radio Regulations. Comsearch 
contends that the existing, more restrictive requirement in Sec.  
101.145 primarily protects satellites located over Europe, Africa, or 
the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. Comsearch further believes that, 
because the ITU has determined that FS transmitters with EIRPs below 
the values listed in Article 21 are unlikely to cause interference to 
geostationary satellites, amending the Commission's rules would improve 
the administrative efficiency of licensing FS links for backhaul 
without any corresponding harm.
    41. We adopt the proposal to require that a waiver filing be 
necessary for FS facilities pointing near the geostationary arc only if 
the FS station's EIRP is greater than the values listed in the ITU 
Radio Regulations. As noted in the FNPRM, this action can facilitate 
microwave deployments by allowing affected licensees to deploy more 
quickly, explaining that the Commission's rules provide many applicants 
with conditional authority to begin service immediately, without 
waiting for final approval from the Commission, once they complete 
frequency coordination, with the stipulation that they must take their 
stations down if the Commission later rejects their applications. The 
change will harmonize the Commission's regulations with international 
regulations, and as explained further below, can apparently do so 
without creating any increased risk of interference to satellite 
services. That rule change will limit the circumstances in which 
applicants will have go through the burden and expense of

[[Page 54427]]

filing waiver requests and the associated waiver fee.
    42. We do not change the requirement that FS facilities protect 
previously authorized satellite facilities. Nor do we limit the right 
of satellite licensees to file petitions to deny or informal objections 
against FS facilities that they believe would cause interference to 
their facilities. The only change from the viewpoint of satellite 
providers is that FS operators proposing power below the limits 
contained in ITU regulations will now be able to operate pursuant to 
conditional authority.
    43. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. (Sirius XM) is the only commenter to 
oppose the proposed change. Sirius XM operates feeder links in the 
7025-7075 MHz band to uplink its digital radio transmissions to its 
satellites. It also has telemetry, tracking and control links in that 
band. Sirius XM expresses concern that, even if no single FS 
transmitter were to interfere with one of its satellites under the 
proposed rule change, several FS transmitters together might do so. On 
that basis, Sirius XM urges the Commission to establish a numeric limit 
on the aggregate amount of interference that FS transmitters impinge 
upon the geostationary satellite arc. In reply, Comsearch provides a 
detailed technical analysis demonstrating that it would be extremely 
rare for terrestrial microwave antennas in this country to be directed 
towards either of Sirius XM's satellite positions.
    44. Comsearch's showing that there are currently only three 
microwave antennas in this country pointed toward one of Sirius XM's 
satellites demonstrates that the aggregate incremental effect of such 
multiple exposures is likely to be quite low. While the Commission is 
prepared to consider showings based on aggregate interference in 
appropriate circumstances, we decline to adopt Sirius XM's proposal at 
this time.
    45. We find that reducing the circumstances under which FS 
operators must seek waivers when pointing towards the geostationary arc 
will produce substantial benefits. Each private FS applicant must pay 
an application fee of $180 when seeking a waiver. In 2011, we granted 
275 applications requesting a waiver of Sec.  101.145 of the 
Commission's rules where the EIRP was below the limits contained in the 
ITU Radio Regulations and the applicant had to pay a waiver fee. The 
total application costs associated with those waivers would be $49,500. 
Furthermore, each applicant must prepare a waiver exhibit at additional 
expense. Furthermore, every time a waiver is requested, the applicant 
cannot commence service until the waiver and applications are granted. 
While the cost of such delays cannot be quantified based on this 
record, it is apparent that such delays may be costly to FS providers 
and their customers. On the other hand, we find that the potential for 
increased interference or other costs would be minimal from this 
action. Accordingly, we find that the benefits of the Commission's 
actions outweigh the costs.

IV. Order on Reconsideration

A. Making 6875-7125 MHz and 12700-13150 MHz Available for Part 101 FS 
Operations

1. Allowing FS Operations in Areas Where BAS Operates on Adjacent 
Channels
    46. In the R&O, the Commission authorized FS use of the 6875-7125 
MHz and 12700-13150 MHz bands in areas where television pickup licenses 
are not authorized in those bands. The Commission prohibited FS paths 
from crossing the service areas of TV pickup authorizations in order to 
avoid interference. FWCC asks the Commission to limit the exclusion of 
FS from vacant 13 GHz channels in areas served by BAS and CARS to co-
channel operations. In other words, under FWCC's proposal, FS could be 
licensed in areas where BAS and CARS have operations so long as the FS 
operations are not on the same channels as any licensed BAS or CARS 
stations.
    47. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the Society 
of Broadcast Engineers, Inc. (SBE) contend that the ``introduction of 
new wireless backhaul operations would be incompatible with effective, 
unpredictable itinerant newsgathering and news reporting, and it would 
disserve the public if ENG services at the scene of breaking news were 
undermined by interference concerns caused by the presence of nearby 
wireless backhaul operations.'' NAB and SBE are also concerned that it 
would not be feasible to mix the formal coordination process used by FS 
applicants with the more informal coordination process used by 
broadcasters, because FS applicants do not have the same incentives as 
broadcasters to accommodate the needs of TV pick-up operations.
    48. We decline to adopt FWCC's proposal to permit FS operations in 
channels adjacent to BAS/CARS operations at this time, for three 
reasons. First, as a technical matter, microwave signals that are being 
transmitted on adjacent channels can interfere with each other under 
some circumstances and, for that reason, require frequency 
coordination. Second, as discussed in the R&O, BAS operators are 
motivated to coordinate spectrum with each other rapidly and 
cooperatively because they engage in similar activities, such as 
covering breaking news events, and share a common motivation to ensure 
that spectrum continues to be made available for such activities on 
short notice. Allowing FS applicants into areas where BAS is authorized 
would necessitate a more formal coordination process, which we do not 
believe is compatible with the dynamic and rapidly changing nature of 
electronic newsgathering (ENG) operations. Finally, Sec.  74.24 of the 
Commission's rules allows BAS licensees to engage in short-term 
operations on unlicensed BAS channels for as many as 720 hours annually 
per frequency. Therefore, in some locations, BAS operators could be 
making extensive short-term use of unlicensed BAS channels in the 
geographic areas where they have BAS licenses for other channels. 
Allowing FS operations to use these frequencies could result in 
interference and disruption to these operations.
2. Protection Criteria for BAS Stations
    49. In comments filed during an earlier phase of this proceeding, 
EIBASS asked the Commission to prohibit newcomer Private Operational 
Fixed Service (POFS) stations in the 7 and 13 GHz bands from degrading 
the noise threshold of any existing electronic newsgathering-receive 
only (ENG-RO) site by more than 0.5 dB, citing as precedent the 
Commission's decision to apply that standard to Department of Defense 
uplinks when determining whether or not they are providing adequate 
protection to ENG-RO sites in the 2 GHz band. The R&O acknowledged that 
EIBASS's proposal might be an appropriate standard for evaluating a 
proposed FS facility but declined to adopt it as a rule, explaining 
that, in lieu of mandating specific interference criteria in our rules, 
we expect applicants and licensees to work out interference issues in 
the frequency coordination process. In a petition for partial 
reconsideration of the R&O, EIBASS now reiterates its request, arguing 
that a vague frequency coordination benchmark does neither the 
incumbent nor the newcomer any favor, because of the uncertainty it 
generates.
    50. EIBASS's proposal is unnecessary because we are upholding the 
Commission's prior decision to prohibit the paths of FS stations 
operating in the 7 and 13 GHz bands from crossing the

[[Page 54428]]

service areas of TV pickup authorizations. The transmission paths of 
part 101 FS stations are fixed. That makes it possible for FS 
applicants to provide licensees and other applicants with detailed 
notifications that include proposed transmission azimuths, among other 
technical parameters, and to allow the other affected parties 30 days 
to respond. Although our rules provide for the Commission to resolve 
any differences that the parties are unable to resolve by reasoned 
discussions with each other, it is hardly ever necessary for the 
Commission to intervene in the frequency coordination process among 
parties that are subject to our part 101 coordination procedures. The 
chances that the affected parties would reach an impasse seem 
particularly remote under these circumstances, where FS paths are 
barred from crossing any of the geographic areas where ENG-RO stations 
are licensed. Further, there is no evidence in the record that EIBASS's 
proposal would reduce the costs associated with the coordination 
process. For those reasons, we remain confident that the existing 
frequency coordination procedures will ensure that part 101 FS 
operators will not interfere with ENG-RO operations in the 6875-7125 
MHz and 12700-13150 MHz bands. We therefore decline to adopt EIBASS's 
proposal.
3. Efficiency Standards for 13 GHz Band
    51. FWCC notes that the R&O did not specify a minimum throughput 
for the 13 GHz frequencies newly authorized for Fixed Service use. FWCC 
recommends that we set the same throughput requirements for 13 GHz as 
apply to the 11 GHz band, and that we augment those requirements to 
include capacity and loading requirements for transmitters using 
channel bandwidths of 12.5 megahertz.
    52. Section 101.141(a)(3) of our rules applies minimum payload 
capacities to digital microwave transmitters operating in the 11 GHz 
band, depending upon their bandwidths. We agree with FWCC that the same 
standards should be applied to the 13 GHz band. Our decision above 
adopting the proposal in the FNPRM to apply uniform bits-per-second-
per-Hertz requirements to all frequencies between 10,550 MHz and 13,150 
MHz includes the frequencies in FWCC's request, and thus renders the 
request moot.
4. Allowing 50 Megahertz Channels in the 7 GHz Band
    53. The R&O retained the 25 megahertz bandwidth limit that 
presently applies to the 7 GHz band because of the limited amount of 
spectrum available in that band, but it raised the maximum permissible 
bandwidth in the 13 GHz band to 50 megahertz. Cambium Networks 
(Cambium) urges that we also allow the 7 GHz band to accommodate 50 
megahertz bandwidths. The NAB and SBE oppose this proposal on the 
ground that it would reduce the number of available channels for new 
ENG use. Cambium counters the broadcasters' concern by citing the R&O's 
observation that BAS and CARS operations have not been expanding 
geographically in recent years, with only one new BAS TV pickup license 
granted in the 7 GHz and 13 GHz bands in the past two years.
    54. We deny the Cambium Petition because the benefits of allowing 
50 megahertz channels in the 7 GHz band appear to be quite limited and 
because operators needing wider channels have alternatives. If we 
allowed 50 megahertz channels in the 7 GHz band, there would only be 
two channel pairs available in the 7 GHz band. Allowing 50 megahertz 
channels could limit the availability of FS spectrum for other 
operators who need narrower channels. Furthermore, operators who need 
50 megahertz or wider channels have alternative options available. 
Today, we are allowing 60 megahertz channels in the 6 GHz band and 80 
megahertz channels in the 11 GHz band. For shorter paths, 50 megahertz 
channels are available in the 18 GHz and 23 GHz bands. Under those 
circumstances, we believe the better use of the 7 GHz band would be to 
accommodate narrower band operations. We therefore deny the Cambium 
Petition.

B. Elimination of the Final Link Rule

    55. The ``final link rule'' prohibited broadcasters from using part 
101 stations as the final radiofrequency (RF) link in the chain of 
distribution of program material to broadcast stations. Concurrent with 
the Commission's decision to allow FS to share in the 7 and 13 GHz BAS 
and CARS bands, the R&O eliminated the final link rule. In doing so, 
the Commission noted that FS licensees were not objecting to 
elimination of the rule so long as FS were granted access to BAS and 
CARS spectrum in the 7 and 13 GHz bands.
    56. In a petition for reconsideration, FWCC argues that the final 
link rule should only be eliminated in areas where the Fixed Service 
can use the 7 or 13 GHz bands. FWCC argues that a key rationale for the 
change was ``sharing of spectrum the other way''--i.e., a quid pro quo 
for opening the 7 and 13 GHz BAS/CARS bands for use by part 101 FS 
operators--but that excluding FS operators from geographic areas where 
BAS and CARS operations are licensed leaves FS with very limited access 
to those bands. The NAB and SBE oppose FWCC's petition, arguing that 
the convergence of digital video with digital data transmission has 
eliminated any technological reasons for broadcasters to maintain 
facilities to carry program material to transmitter sites that are 
separate from microwave transmission systems that handle other kinds of 
data. Reinstating the final link rule would therefore result in a 
duplication of facilities that would otherwise be unnecessary, they 
contend.
    57. In the R&O, the Commission found that there would be 
significant benefits and no costs to eliminating the final link rule. 
It noted that no commenter had identified any cognizable harm that 
would result from eliminating the rule and concluded that, with 
increasing adoption of digital technologies, the final link rule had 
become an outdated regulation that imposed unnecessary, duplicative 
costs on broadcasters. That conclusion is consistent with one of the 
fundamental purposes of this proceeding: removing regulatory barriers 
that limit the use of spectrum for wireless backhaul and other point-
to-point and point-to-multipoint communications.
    58. The Commission's action maximized the ability of both FS 
operators and broadcasters to use the 7 and 13 GHz bands. While it is 
true that the Commission did not make those bands available for FS use 
everywhere, that decision was based on the fact that fixed links and 
ENG operations are different and difficult to coordinate with each 
other. In contrast, there is no technical reason why broadcasters, 
cable operators and part 101 FS operators cannot share the same 
spectrum when transmitting microwave signals between fixed locations.
    59. The Commission's actions maximized the amount of spectrum 
available to both FS licensees and broadcasters. Furthermore, FWCC does 
not allege any harm from eliminating the final link rule; and 
therefore, the Commission's conclusion that there would be significant 
benefits and no costs to eliminate the final link rule remains 
unchanged. We therefore deny FWCC's Petition on this issue.

C. Upper Microwave Substantial Service Policies

    60. In reply comments to the NOI, NSMA argued that in determining 
whether 24 GHz, 39 GHz, and Local Multipoint Distribution Service 
(LMDS) licensees have offered substantial service, the Commission fails 
to positively consider ``basic and

[[Page 54429]]

important steps that lead to successful band utilization.'' It gives 
the following examples of such activity: (1) Spending significant 
resources producing Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to develop equipment 
in its band; (2) utilizing the Secondary Markets rules to offer 
spectrum leases throughout the license area; (3) submitting proposals 
to carrier, government, or enterprise customers that rely on utilizing 
the wide-area license; and/or (4) building several links, but not yet 
meeting the safe harbor criterion (typically four links per million of 
population). NSMA asked the Commission to ``track and credit'' such 
activities.
    61. The Commission rejected NSMA's request in the MO&O. The 
Commission concluded that NSMA's arguments ignored one of the 
Commission's overriding purposes of buildout requirements: providing 
``a clear and expeditious accounting of spectrum use by licensees to 
ensure that service is indeed being provided to the public.'' It 
approved the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau rejection of 
substantial service showings based on preparatory activities of the 
type described by NSMA where there is no actual service being provided 
to the public. It noted that safe harbors are merely one means of 
demonstrating substantial service, and that given an appropriate 
showing, a level of service that does not meet a safe harbor may still 
constitute substantial service. It also emphasized that all substantial 
service showings that do not meet an established safe harbor would be 
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
    62. In a petition for reconsideration of the MO&O, the Wireless 
Communications Association International, Inc. (WCAI) challenges the 
Commission's decision to address that issue in this proceeding. WCAI 
argues that the Commission's consideration of this issue violates the 
Administrative Procedure Act because the issue was not raised in the 
NPRM. WCAI believes substantial service rules and policies relating to 
wireless backhaul should be addressed in the broader proceeding seeking 
to harmonize renewal standards for wireless radio services (WT Docket 
No. 10-112) that is currently pending.
    63. WCAI argues that standards currently applicable to fixed point-
to-point services, which require a certain number of links based on 
population, do not in fact promote service to the public because it 
requires operators to either build uneconomic links in the absence of 
demand for backhaul services or lose their licenses. According to WCAI, 
the standards create ``substantial investor uncertainty about the 
amount of capital required to preserve a license in the millimeter wave 
bands.'' WCAI asks the Commission to adopt an ``offer-based'' standard 
that would ``require only that an area-wide millimeter wave band 
licensee offer FP2P service or spectrum leases on commercially 
reasonable terms and conditions to commercial or government fixed or 
mobile telephony/broadband service providers or to the licensee's 
internal network planners.'' FWCC and Mary J. Kuiken support WCAI's 
Petition.
    64. WCAI has filed its substantial service proposal for wireless 
backhaul in WT Docket No. 10-112 and we will consider it in that 
proceeding, consistent with WCAI's request. The Memorandum Opinion and 
Order merely explained the Commission's decision not to initiate a 
rulemaking to address NSMA's substantial service proposal that NSMA 
presented in reply comments filed in response to the NOI, and thus did 
not violate the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA, which are 
applicable to rulemaking proceedings, or prejudice our consideration of 
substantial service issues in WT Docket No. 10-112. The Commission's 
decision to dispose of NSMA's request also was appropriate because many 
LMDS and 39 GHz licensees were facing a June 1, 2012 deadline for 
providing substantial service. The Commission's response to NSMA's 
petition thus restated the applicable rules and policies in advance of 
that deadline and allowed licensees to plan accordingly. In explaining 
its decision, we note that the MO&O accurately stated the Commission's 
current policy, and we direct the Bureau to apply that policy to the 
June 1, 2012 substantial service filings made by LMDS and 39 GHz 
licensees. We also agree with the observation in the MO&O that any 
substantial service standard must provide ``a clear and expeditious 
accounting of spectrum use by licensees to ensure that service is 
indeed being provided to the public.'' Our action today is without 
prejudice to subsequent consideration of these issues in WT Docket No. 
10-112.

V. Memorandum Opinion and Order

    65. In this MO&O, we address various other proposals and issues 
that we believe are best considered in other contexts or do not require 
Commission consideration and therefore will not be considered in this 
proceeding at this time.
    66. FWCC asks that the Commission authorize smaller antennas in the 
71-76 and 81-86 GHz bands. We decline to initiate a rulemaking because 
we do not believe that FWCC has provided sufficient information to 
justify further action at this time in the context of this proceeding. 
The current antenna specifications for those bands were adopted after a 
detailed discussion of the tradeoffs involved. FWCC has not provided 
sufficient information to demonstrate that smaller antennas could be 
allowed without increasing interference. Our action today is without 
prejudice to consideration of a more detailed submission on this issue.
    67. EIBASS, which supports the R&O's requirement that BAS licensees 
in the 7 and 13 GHz bands register their fixed receive sites, asks 
various questions about the effective date and other aspects of the 
requirement. Staff from the Bureau has met with broadcasters to discuss 
implementation of that requirement. We do not see the need for 
Commission intervention at this time, but we direct the Bureau to 
continue working with broadcasters on implementing the registration 
requirement.
    68. Comsearch and FWCC ask the Commission to streamline application 
processing when applicants intend to use adaptive modulation by 
allowing adaptive modulation frequencies to be filed as a single row, 
as opposed to requiring each combination of modulation, capacity, 
bandwidth, and transmitter power to be licensed individually. No rule 
change is required to implement this change, and Bureau staff has 
started the process of modifying the Universal Licensing System to 
allow this change.
    69. Comsearch and FWCC ask that the Commission eliminate the 
provision in the rules that allows operation of low power, limited 
coverage systems in the 23 GHz band because the rules are allegedly 
unnecessary and allow the use of inefficient antennas. According to 
Comsearch, that provision was used in the past for low cost analog 
video systems for purposes such as surveillance. Comsearch describes 
such systems as ``outmoded'' and claims to be unaware of any current 
usage of such systems. The frequencies in question are particularly 
important and most used in the 23 GHz band because they are available 
for conditional authority under Sec.  101.31(b) of the Commission's 
rules. Clearwire also asks the Commission to allow licensees to 
aggregate channels in the 18 GHz and 23 GHz bands to allow 80 
megahertz, 100 megahertz, 120 megahertz, or 150 megahertz channels.
    70. We believe these requests should be considered together with 
other filings relating to the 23 GHz band and therefore defer 
consideration of them.

[[Page 54430]]

FWCC has filed a petition for reconsideration of the Commission's order 
authorizing conditional authority for additional channels in the 23 GHz 
band which raises the issue of authorizing low power systems on those 
additional channels. FWCC has also filed a petition for rulemaking 
asking that conditional authority be authorized throughout the 23 GHz 
band and seeking changes to the mechanism for coordinating operation 
with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
(NTIA). In light of the common issues raised by each of those 
pleadings, we believe those requests should be considered together, in 
consultation with NTIA. We therefore defer consideration of these 
requests.
    71. We recognize that there are other pending matters and 
proceedings relating to wireless backhaul that are not addressed in 
this item. Those matters and proceedings include: (1) A petition for 
rulemaking asking that the 7125-8500 MHz band be allocated for non-
federal use and allotted for FS use, (2) a request made in this 
proceeding to revise the Commission's policy of allowing a satellite 
earth station to coordinate for the full 360-degree azimuth range of 
the earth station even when it is communicating with only one satellite 
in a limited segment of the band, and (3) a petition for rulemaking 
asking that the Commission establish service rules for FS use in the 
42-42.5 GHz band. We defer consideration of these issues and will 
address them separately or in future orders in this proceeding.

VI. Procedural Matters

Paperwork Reduction Analysis:

    72. This document contains an information collection requirement 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-
13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review under section 3507 of the PRA. Prior to submission to OMB, 
the Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking 
public comment on the modified information collection requirement. In 
addition, that notice will also seek comment on how the Commission 
might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees'' pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). The information collection contained in this order 
will not go into effect until OMB approves the collection. We will 
publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the effective date 
of the information collection.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the Report and Order

    73. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), we incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed 
in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). No comments were filed 
addressing the IRFA. Because we amend the rules in this Second Report 
and Order, we have included this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(FRFA). This present FRFA conforms to the RFA.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    74. In this Second Report and Order, we make four changes to our 
rules involving microwave stations. These changes are described in 
further detail below. First, we allow the use of smaller antennas in 
the 5925-6875 MHz band (6 GHz band), 17700-18300 MHz and 19300-19700 
MHz bands (18 GHz band), and 21200-23600 MHz band (23 GHz band) fixed 
service (FS) bands. Second, we add a definition of ``payload capacity'' 
to our rules, and update our capacity and loading requirements to bits/
second/Hertz standards reflect the increasing use of interfaces such as 
Internet Protocol. Third, we widen the permissible maximum channel size 
in the 5925-6425 GHz Band (Lower 6 GHz Band) (to allow 60 megahertz 
channels) and in the 10700-11700 MHz band (11 GHz Band) (to allow 80 
megahertz channels) to allow faster data rates. Finally, we propose to 
revise the criteria under which microwave stations that are pointing in 
the direction of geostationary satellites must seek a waiver prior to 
operating to expedite service.
    75. With respect to the first proposal, Sec.  101.115(b) of the 
Commission's rules establishes directional antenna standards designed 
to maximize the use of microwave spectrum while avoiding interference 
between operators. The rule on its face does not mandate a specific 
size of antenna. Rather, it specifies certain technical parameters--
maximum beamwidth, minimum antenna gain, and minimum radiation 
suppression--that, depending on the state of technology at any point in 
time, directly affect the size of a compliant antenna. Smaller antennas 
have several advantages. They cost less to manufacture and distribute, 
are less expensive to install because they weigh less and need less 
structural support, and cost less to maintain because they are less 
subject to wind load and other destructive forces. In addition, the 
modest weight of small antennas makes them practical for installation 
at sites incapable of supporting large dishes, including many rooftops, 
electrical transmission towers, water towers, monopoles and other radio 
towers. Smaller antennas raise fewer aesthetic objections, thereby 
permitting easier compliance with local zoning and homeowner 
association rules and generating fewer objections. On the other hand, 
smaller antennas have increased potential to cause interference because 
smaller antennas result in more radiofrequency energy being transmitted 
in directions away from the actual point-to-point link. We conclude 
that we can allow smaller antennas in the 6, 18 and 23 GHz bands 
without producing harmful interference.
    76. Second, we add a definition of ``payload capacity'' to our 
rules, and update our capacity and loading standards to take into 
account the increasing use of interfaces such as Internet Protocol. 
Currently, Sec.  101.141(a)(3) of the Commission's rules lists a 
``minimum payload capacity'' for various nominal channel bandwidths. 
The same rule also defines ``typical utilization'' of the required 
payload capacity for each channel bandwidth as multiples of the number 
of voice circuits a channel can accommodate. These definitions are 
becoming outdated as systems support interfaces such as Internet 
Protocol. Accordingly, we update our rules to add a definition of 
payload capacity. We also revise our efficiency requirements to define 
those requirements in terms of bits-per-second-per-Hertz (``bps/Hz'') 
across all bands. Such changes could make our rules clearer and would 
be consistent with modern digital technologies.
    77. Third, we allow the use of wider channels in the Lower 6 GHz 
Band and 11 GHz Band. Specifically, we allow 60 megahertz channels in 
the Lower 6 GHz Band and 80 megahertz channels in the 11 GHz Band. That 
action will allow backhaul operators to handle more capacity and offer 
faster data rates.
    78. Finally, we amend Sec.  101.145 of the Commission's rules to 
limit the circumstances under which fixed service transmitters must 
obtain a waiver in order to point near the geostationary arc. 
Specifically, we propose to require a waiver only if the EIRP is 
greater than 35 dBW for the 5925-7075 MHz band and is greater than 45 
dBW in the 12700-13250 MHz

[[Page 54431]]

band. Limiting the circumstances where a waiver is necessary will be 
beneficial. Once the frequency coordination process is completed, the 
Commission's rules provide many applicants with conditional authority 
to begin service immediately, without waiting for final approval from 
the Commission, and with the stipulation that they must take their 
stations down if the Commission later rejects their applications. 
Conditional authority is not available, however, to applicants that 
must request waivers of existing rules. Accordingly, limiting the 
circumstances under which a waiver is needed will allow more applicants 
to rapidly commence service. Furthermore, we conclude that such a 
change would be consistent with international regulations and can be 
made without any increased risk of interference to satellite services.

B. Legal Basis

    79. The actions are authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 
201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, and 333 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 
157, 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, and 333, 
and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 1302.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    80. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
SBA.
    81. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at 
the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards. 
First, nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.5 million 
small businesses, according to the SBA. In addition, a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 small 
organizations. Finally, the term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is 
defined generally as ``governments of cities, towns, townships, 
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of 
less than fifty thousand.'' Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate that 
there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United 
States. We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,506 entities may 
qualify as ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate that 
most governmental jurisdictions are small.
    82. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 
2007, which now supersede data from the 2002 Census, show that there 
were 3,188 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of 
this total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 44 firms had 
employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the 
associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that 
the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) 
are small entities that may be affected by our proposed action.
    83. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common 
carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio 
services. At present, there are approximately 31,549 common carrier 
fixed licensees and 89,633 private and public safety operational-fixed 
licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave 
services. Microwave services include common carrier, private-
operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services. They also 
include the Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), the Digital 
Electronic Message Service (DEMS), and the 24 GHz Service, where 
licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier 
status. The Commission has not yet defined a small business with 
respect to microwave services. For purposes of the IRFA, the Commission 
will use the SBA's definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers (except satellite)--i.e., an entity with no more than 1,500 
persons is considered small. For the category of Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), Census data for 2007, 
which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were 
1,383 firms that operated that year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer 
than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
the majority of firms can be considered small. The Commission notes 
that the number of firms does not necessarily track the number of 
licensees. The Commission estimates that virtually all of the Fixed 
Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would 
qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    84. This Report and Order adopts no new reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    85. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) 
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.
    86. The actions taken in the Report and Order would provide 
additional options to all licensees, including small entity licensees. 
Such actions will serve the public interest by allowing use of smaller 
antennas, allow the use of wider channels in the Lower 6 and 11 GHz 
bands, eliminate the need for unnecessary waivers, and update our 
minimum payload capacity rules to reflect current technology. The rules 
will therefore open up beneficial economic opportunities to a variety 
of spectrum users, including small businesses. Because the actions in 
the Report and Order will improve beneficial economic opportunities for 
all businesses, including small businesses, a detailed discussion of 
alternatives is not required.
    87. With respect to the proposal to allow smaller antennas in the 6 
GHz band, an alternative approach would be

[[Page 54432]]

to establish technical criteria that would allow the use of 4-foot 
antennas, as opposed to the 3-foot antennas proposed. Such an approach 
would reduce the cost savings FS licensees could realize. We conclude 
that limiting relief to 4-foot antennas is unnecessary to reduce the 
potential for interference.

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    88. None.

VII. Ordering Clauses

    89. It is further ordered that the rules adopted herein will become 
effective October 5, 2012. It is further ordered that the Rural 
Microwave Flexibility Policy, which contains new information collection 
requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), will become 
effective after the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal 
Register announcing such approval and the relevant effective date.
    90. It is further ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 201, 
301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, and 333 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 
157, 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, and 333, 
and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 1302, that this Memorandum Opinion and Order is hereby adopted.
    91. It is further ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 201, 
301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, 333, and 405 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 
157, 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, 333, and 
405, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 1302, that this Order on Reconsideration is hereby adopted.
    92. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of 
this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability 
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A).
    93. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 101

    Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Federal Communications Commission.
Sheryl Todd,
Deputy Secretary.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 101 as follows:

PART 101--FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Amend Sec.  101.3 by adding the definition ``Payload Capacity'' to 
read as follows:


Sec.  101.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Payload Capacity. The bit rate available for transmission of data 
over a radiocommunication system, excluding overhead data generated by 
the system.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  101.109(c), in the table by revising the entries ``5,925 
to 6,425'' and ``10,700 to 11,700'' to read as follows:


Sec.  101.109  Bandwidth.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
                                                              authorized
                    Frequency band (MHz)                      bandwidth
                                                                (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
5,925 to 6,425.............................................       \1\ 60
 
                                * * * * *
10,700 to 11,700...........................................       \1\ 80
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The maximum bandwidth that will be authorized for each particular
  frequency in this band is detailed in the appropriate frequency table
  in Sec.   101.147. If contiguous channels are aggregated in the 928-
  928.85/952-952.85/956.25-956.45 MHz, the 928.85-929/959.85-960 MHz, or
  the 932-932.5/941-941.5 MHz bands, then the bandwidth may exceed that
  which is listed in the table.

* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  101.115 by revising paragraph (b) introductory text and 
the entries ``5,925 to 6,425'', ``6,525 to 6,875'', ``6,875 to 7,075'', 
``17,700 to 18,820'', ``18,920 to 19,700'', and ``21,200 to 23,600'' in 
the table in paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  101.115  Directional antennas.

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum                      Minimum radiation suppression to angle in degrees from
                                                               beam-width                              centerline of main beam in decibels
                                                                to 3 dB      Minimum   -----------------------------------------------------------------
               Frequency                      Category         points\1\     antenna
                                                               (included    gain (dBi)   5[deg]  10[deg]  15[deg]  20[deg]   30[deg]  100[deg]  140[deg]
                                                                angle in                   to       to       to       to       to        to        to
                                                                degrees)                10[deg]  15[deg]  20[deg]  30[deg]  100[deg]  140[deg]  180[deg]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
5,925 to 6,425 \5\....................  A...................          2.2           38       25       29       33       36        42        55        55
                                        B1..................          2.2           38       21       25       29       32        35        39        45
                                        B2..................          4.1           32       15       20       23       28        29        60        60

[[Page 54433]]

 
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
6,525 to 6,875 \5\....................  A...................          2.2           38       25       29       33       36        42        55        55
                                        B1..................          2.2           38       21       25       29       32        35        39        45
                                        B2..................          4.1           32       15       20       23       28        29        60        60
6,875 to 7,075........................  A...................          2.2           38       25       29       33       36        42        55        55
                                        B1..................          2.2           38       21       25       29       32        35        39        45
                                        B2..................          4.1           32       15       20       23       28        29        60        60
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
17,700 to 18,820......................  A...................          2.2           38       25       29       33       36        42        55        55
                                        B1..................          2.2           38       20       24       28       32        35        36        36
                                        B2..................          3.3         33.5       18       22       29       31        35        55        55
18,920 to 19,700 \10\.................  A...................          2.2           38       25       29       33       36        42        55        55
                                        B1..................          2.2           38       20       24       28       32        35        36        36
                                        B2..................          3.3         33.5       18       22       29       31        35        55        55
21,200 to 23,600 7, 11................  A...................          3.3         33.5       18       26       26       33        33        55        55
                                        B1..................          3.3         33.5       17       24       24       29        29        40        50
                                        B2..................          4.5         30.5       14       19       22       24        29        52        52
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
\5\ These antenna standards apply to all point-to-point stations authorized after June 1, 1997. Existing licensees and pending applicants on that date
  are grandfathered and need not comply with these standards.
* * * * *
\7\ Except for antennas between 140[deg] and 180[deg] authorized or pending on January 1, 1989, in the band 10,550 to 10,565 MHz for which minimum
  radiation suppression to angle (in degrees) from centerline of main beam is 36 decibels.
* * * * *
\10\ DEMS User Station antennas in this band must meet performance Standard B and have a minimum antenna gain of 34 dBi. The maximum beamwidth
  requirement does not apply to DEMS User Stations. DEMS Nodal Stations need not comply with these standards. Stations authorized to operate in the
  24,250-25,250 MHz band do not have to meet these standards, however, the Commission may require the use of higher performance antennas where
  interference problems can be resolved by the use of such antennas.
\11\ Except as provided in Sec.   101.147(s).
* * * * *


0
5. Amend Sec.  101.141 by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(6), and 
(a)(7) to read as follows:


Sec.  101.141  Microwave modulation.

    (a) * * *
    (3)(i) Except as noted in paragraph (a)(7) of this section, the 
payload capacity of equipment shall meet the following minimum 
efficiency standards:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Emission bandwidth <=5   Emission bandwidth >5    Emission bandwidth >20
              Frequency                          MHz                MHz and <=20 MHz               MHz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3,700-10,550 MHz.....................  2.4 bits/second/Hertz..  4.4 bits/second/Hertz..  4.4 bits/second/Hertz.
10,550-13,250 MHz....................  2.4 bits/second/Hertz..  4.4 bits/second/Hertz..  3.0 bits/second/Hertz.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (ii) Traffic loading payload shall exceed 50 percent of payload 
capacity within 30 months of licensing. During anomalous signal fading, 
licensees subject to the capacity and loading requirements may adjust 
to a modulation specified in their authorization if such modulation is 
necessary to allow licensees to maintain communications, even if the 
modulation will not comply with the capacity and loading requirements 
specified in this paragraph. Links that must comply with the capacity 
and loading requirements that use equipment capable of adjusting 
modulation must be designed using generally accepted multipath fading 
and rain fading models to meet the specified capacity and loading 
requirements at least 99.95% of the time, in the aggregate of both 
directions in a two-way link.
* * * * *
    (6) Digital systems using bandwidths of 10 MHz or larger will be 
considered 50 percent loaded when at least 50 percent of their total 
capacity is being used. For purposes of this subsection, a Fixed 
Service channel is being used if it is attached to a communications 
system that is capable of providing data to it at a rate that is 
sufficient to occupy at least 50 percent of the payload capacity of the 
Fixed Service channel, after header compression is applied.
    (7) Equipment placed in service after June 1, 1997 and prior to 
October 5, 2012 may comply with the provisions of Sec.  101.141(a)(3) 
in effect as of the date the equipment was placed in service.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  101.145 by revising paragraph (b) introductory text and 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  101.145  Interference to geo-stationary-satellites.

* * * * *
    (b) 2655 to 2690 MHz and 5925 to 7075 MHz. No directional 
transmitting antenna utilized by a fixed station operating in these 
bands with EIRP greater than 35 dBW may be aimed

[[Page 54434]]

within 2 degrees of the geostationary-satellite orbit, taking into 
account atmospheric refraction. However, exception may be made in 
unusual circumstances upon a showing that there is no reasonable 
alternative to the transmission path proposed. If there is no evidence 
that such exception would cause possible harmful interference to an 
authorized satellite system, said transmission path may be authorized 
on waiver basis where the maximum value of the equivalent isotropically 
radiated power (EIRP) does not exceed:
* * * * *
    (c) 12.7 to 13.25 GHz. No directional transmitting antenna utilized 
by a fixed station operating in this band with EIRP greater than 45 dBW 
may be aimed within 1.5 degrees of the geostationary-satellite orbit, 
taking into account atmospheric refraction.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  101.147 by revising paragraph (i) introductory text, 
adding paragraph (i)(9), revising paragraph (o) introductory text, and 
adding paragraph (o)(8) to read as follows:


Sec.  101.147  Frequency assignments.

* * * * *
    (i) 5,925 to 6,425 MHz. 60 MHz authorized bandwidth.
* * * * *
    (9) 60 MHz bandwidth channels: \1\

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Receive
                  Transmit (receive) (MHz)                    (transmit)
                                                                (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5964.97....................................................      6217.01
6024.27....................................................      6276.31
6083.57....................................................      6335.61
6142.87....................................................      6394.91
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The highest available channel should be selected, except where such
  a choice would impede the efficiency of local frequency coordination
  efforts.

* * * * *
    (o) 10,700 to 11,700 MHz. 80 MHz authorized bandwidth.
* * * * *
    (8) 80 MHz bandwidth channels: \1\

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Receive
                  Transmit (receive) (MHz)                    (transmit)
                                                                (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10745......................................................        11235
10825......................................................        11315
10905......................................................        11395
10985......................................................        11475
11065......................................................        11555
11145......................................................        11635
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The highest available channel should normally be selected, except
  where such a choice would impede the efficiency of local frequency
  coordination efforts.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-21335 Filed 9-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P