[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